Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say

[Whyzdom]

That site the -Truth- linked me to says that Radiation bombardment can increase the speed of decay.. how does that factor in then?

 

[Euryale]

That site the -Truth- linked me to says that Radiation bombardment can increase the speed of decay.. how does that factor in then?

You misread it. It says no such thing.

 

[Whyzdom]

You misread it. It says no such thing.

For a Doctor, you should have read what -Truth- posted instead of refuting my question outright. It did state that and if you want me to believe you, then you have to make an effort to at least look into what I asked. My field of expertise is in electricity, electronics and fibre optics. My reason for stating that was to put eloquently that I am not an idiot. Here is a direct quote from that site...

"Radioactive or "radiometric" dating works by determining the relative concentrations of the "parent" and "daughter" isotopes in a decay process. Radiometric dating schemes are regarded as accurate because radioactive decay is not influenced by any normal physical process. It is neither slowed nor accelerated by heat, pressure, or magnetic and electric fields. It can be accelerated by radioactive bombardment, but such bombardment tends to leave evidence of its occurrence."

Once again I ask, how does that affect it?

 

[Euryale]

The piece is really confusing two issues. Or perhaps I should say it is poorly worded.

The decay constant itself is not affected. However, it is true that bombardment can also change the C14 ratio, similarly to my earlier example of carbon in coal being hanged by background radiation.

The production rate of C14 is affected by such irradiation but the equilibrium in the atmosphere is relatively insensitive. In fact you don't really need a strict equilibrium anyway for the technique to work.

The reason is that C-dating is calibrated externally by tree ring analysis and lake varve deposits.

Another fact Creationists gloss over is that the effects they espouse as making C-dating false would give younger ages not the older ones or random ones they try to claim.

 

[Whyzdom]

Ok.. I understand that... one more question then.. how can we be sure that the atmosphere hasn't changed much? Has our atmosphere always been what it currently is now? Ok.. maybe one more question..lol..sorry.. just picking your brain...and by the way, I appreciate your help... my 2nd question... how would the decay in our ozone layer, basically the filter... how would the fact that our Ozone Layer is being depleted, therefore allowing more sun (radiation) in, how would that affect it, if at all?

 

[Randall McNally]

It can be accelerated by radioactive bombardment, but such bombardment tends to leave evidence of its occurrence."

Once again I ask, how does that affect it?

I'm not sure. But it doesn't seem to be much of a concern: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

 

[Whyzdom]

Another fact Creationists gloss over is that the effects they espouse as making C-dating false would give younger ages not the older ones or random ones they try to claim.

I mulled this over for a few minutes... let me ask a question based on this answer.

If irradiation is a theory used to refute carbon dating, which we both know it is according to that site I was looking at, plus the site that -the truth- linked for me.. If irradiation can change the properties of the decay rate.. essentially speeding it up, wouldn't it then in effect give it an older date? The faster the decay, the more that has decayed and if you base the decay rate off of a "known and uncorrupted" constant.. yet the material is/was corrupted by irradiation.. which sped it up. making your sample appear older, as more has decayed than normal... am I missing something here?

Once again Doc I appreciate all of your help on this. I am just trying to understand for myself.

God Bless.

 

[Whyzdom]

I'm not sure. But it doesn't seem to be much of a concern: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Awesome.. thanks for the link...I am acting like a kid in a candy store and I apologize... I like to read though..so thanks.

 

[Randall McNally]

Ok.. I understand that... one more question then.. how can we be sure that the atmosphere hasn't changed much? Has our atmosphere always been what it currently is now?

Almost certainly not. Large-scale oxygenation of the atmosphere did not occur until the emergence of photosynthetic cyanobacteria: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12004117&dopt=Abstract

Ok.. maybe one more question..lol..sorry.. just picking your brain...and by the way, I appreciate your help... my 2nd question... how would the decay in our ozone layer, basically the filter... how would the fact that our Ozone Layer is being depleted, therefore allowing more sun (radiation) in, how would that affect it, if at all?

How would it affect radiometric dating? Probably not at all - the ozone layer only provides protection against certain UV wavelengths.

 

[Whyzdom]

Almost certainly not. Large-scale oxygenation of the atmosphere did not occur until the emergence of photosynthetic cyanobacteria: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12004117&dopt=Abstract

How would it affect radiometric dating? Probably not at all - the ozone layer only provides protection against certain UV wavelengths.

Cool.. are any of those UV Wavelengths considered radioactive? If so, with the Ozone depletion could that affect it.. Thanks Randall.. I do appreciate your input.

 

[Randall McNally]

Cool.. are any of those UV Wavelengths considered radioactive? If so, with the Ozone depletion could that affect it.. Thanks Randall.. I do appreciate your input.

The UV wavelengths are radiation - in the sense that they impart energy - but they are not radioactive. They're not made of matter so they don't behave like atoms.

 

[Whyzdom]

Then how can the sun cause skin cancer? If they aren't matter how do they affect skin in the way that it does? Limited knowledge of mine.. excuse me if the question is ignorant.

 

[Randall McNally]

Basically, the high-energy photons in UV rays bombard cellular DNA, breaking the bonds between molecules and creating mutations when DNA repair mechanisms fail. Tumors occur when a mutation causes the cells to divide uncontrollably.

 

[USincognito]

Considering he didn't bring forth Grass until Gen 1:20 would mean that those Dinosaurs.. would have had nothing to eat.

Dinosaurs didn't eat grass. Grass didn't evolve until after the Cretaceous.

 

[Whyzdom]

My virtual office door is always open. I'm only a high school science teacher, though, so there will be some stuff that's beyond me.

Much appreciated.. you saw my previous post before I edited it..lol.. thanks for the help though. Likewise, if you ever need electricity, electronics, or fibre optics help.. drop me a line..

 

[Whyzdom]

Dinosaurs didn't eat grass. Grass didn't evolve until after the Cretaceous.

I think you are wrong. Some dinosaurs were perceived as being Herbivores..

 

[USincognito]

I do and that is one reason why I am heavily leaning towards Theistic Evolution now. I still need to do some study before I know for sure what I believe but I am having a very hard time beliving Young Earth Creationism anymore like I did in the past. Now I just need to figure out how to reconcile those beliefs with the Bible.

Perhaps this is too simplistic, but however we got it, man has a sinful nature and the need for the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus.

 

[USincognito]

I think you are wrong. Some dinosaurs were perceived as being Herbivores..

I am correct, as is your second sentence, they ate ferns. Flowering plants and grains didn't evolve until after the dinosaurs were gone.

 

[Outspoken]

Are you implying that god originally created man with infancy, childhood, and adolecent phases that he just skipped for Adam?

Yup.

 

[Outspoken]

You don't find that deceitful? He planted false evidence? What does that say about the actual existence of dinosaurs? Did they ever really exists in the flesh, or are fossils all they ever were?

No I don't find that decideful at all. I find it pragmatic.