Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It has nothing to do with radioactivity.Ok correct me if I’m wrong but aren't they assuming that it began with zero radioactivity when it was originally created?
The first part of the paper says they can't know the original composition nor what happened during the particles existence... then the rest of the paper is saying what happened during the particles existence.What a load of absolute rubbish, no deals were made.
In addition to @Hans Blaster's post, your comprehension skills of the paper are either non-existent or you didn’t read the paper.
Here is a non-technical description of the paper for you to understand.
The pre solar grains are found in interstellar dust formed in the ejecta of supernovae or stars shedding their surface layers.
One particular solar grain of interest is SiC (silicon carbide) where cosmic rays largely composed of protons collide with the Si nucleus in a process known as spallation to form products such as ²¹Ne (neon) and ³He (helium), ⁷Li (lithium) and ⁶Li inside the grain.
These are stable isotopes that can hang around for billions of years without undergoing radioactive decay.
The solar grains eventually formed part of the molecular cloud from which the solar system formed and ultimately meteorites.
As stated in the report the age is based on ²¹Ne and ³He not on the ⁷Li /Li⁶ ratio which could involve terrestrial contamination.
The amount of terrestrial ²¹Ne and ³He on the other hand is only 0.27% and 0.0001% of the total isotope composition found on earth for each atom respectively.
The grains were separated from the meteorite and heated to release the ²¹Ne and ³He into a mass spectrometer which “counted” their numbers.
By knowing the number, the age of the grains can be calculated as their production rate is considered to be fairly constant.
Note this is a calculation, not an assumption as you naively suggested and there are uncertainties involved such as the rate at spallation and the probability ²¹Ne and ³He are formed if spallation does occur.
This is why there are error ranges in the calculations, but the killer is the error ranges do not include the possibility of a 6000 year old earth, nowhere near it in fact.
Well there’s no polite way to say that but I’m taking it that you disagree that rationality is subjective even tho is based purely on the opinions?Just a polite FYI... you're not worth having a conversation with.
Again this is based on theory and not taking into account the mysterious phenomenons that took place during the creation process and how they might have an effect on the decay rate of these molecules. You know it wasn’t long ago people were saying similar things about carbon dating and look where we are now. Since carbon dating was discovered we’ve come to realize that it wasn’t actually as accurate as we originally expected.It is not about how much radiation has accumulated but the initial number of parent nuclei that undergo radioactive decay into daughter nuclei.
Figures quoted for how long it takes a parent nucleus to decay into a daughter nucleus is usually expressed in terms of half life t(1/2) where knowledge of the initial amount of parent nuclei is not required as shown with a bit of high school maths.
Radioactive decay depends on the number of radioactive nuclei N at any time t , N=N(t) with decay constant k defined by the equation
dN/dt = -kN which can be solved.
View attachment 336101
N is the number of a nuclei at time t, Nₒ is the initial amount at t=0.
The half life t(1/2) is simply the mount of time required to half the number of parent nuclei into daughter nuclei.
View attachment 336102
As the maths shows the initial amount Nₒ is cancelled out.
A 6000 year old earth raises serious problems when it comes to radioactive decay.
Radioactive decay is a statistical process where the half life is an average value and actual decay times can vary like the statistical distribution of male and female heights.
A few years ago ¹²⁴Xe which has a half life of around 160 trillion years which is considerably older than the universe aged 14 billion years was found in a tank containing a ton of highly purified liquid xenon used as a dark matter detector.
It was found because of the enormous number of xenon atoms in the tank increased the chances of finding ¹²⁴Xe.
So called man made elements with atomic numbers exceeding 92 such as plutonium and neptunium only exist in trace amounts in uranium ores because their half lives are considerably shorter than the age of the earth so there has been enough time for these elements to largely disappear which would not be the case if the earth was only 6000 years old.
I noticed you didn’t respond to any of my posts, at least not addressing the topics. No offense but do you always run from a discussion when you can’t refute your opponent’s points?Just a polite FYI... you're not worth having a conversation with.
And yet you would no doubt argue that your belief in God is perfectly rational... so why is your "rational-ness" fine and my "rational-ness" isn't?
That’s why it’s called a theory. When carbon dating came out they were saying the same things until they finally learned all the problems with using it to date different organic materials because they began to notice that the levels of C14 was way to unpredictable to be considered accurate. Just in the last 70 years C14 levels in the atmosphere dropped dramatically then doubled causing date predictions to be all over the place without knowing exactly how much C14 was in the atmosphere while the material was still living. Another thing that throws their calibration off, is they aren’t expecting the earth to be 6000 years old. So 6000 years ago when plants were first created one would expect the C14 levels in the atmosphere to be zero. Scientists aren’t taking that into consideration and that’s why when they find lower C14 levels they believe the material to be older than it actually is because they expect that 6000 years ago there was an abundance of C14 in the atmosphere. These newer dating methods still rely on prediction just like carbon dating did so their date predictions are still inconclusive without any actual previous data of the material.The first part of the paper says they can't know the original composition nor what happened during the particles existence... then the rest of the paper is saying what happened during the particles existence.
The entire paper refutes itself... but does it in a way that "scientists " agree with.
Post 131Pointing out that your opponent has failed to present any evidence for their position is now denial?
Call it what you will but you haven't provided the science that you want me to debunk.
I don't know how to argue against something that isn't presented.
They say they don't know what happened during the particles life... then go on to describe the particles life.Post 131
@dwb001
Since you want to poke holes in an experiment here is one mentioned in post #76.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1904573117
I want you point out the experimental errors and false conclusions in the report which you boldly asserted to know even before reading it!!!
Then I want you to contact the authors and ask them if the experiment has been subject to repeatability and reproducibility analysis with other laboratories around the world which is a bedrock fundamental for experimental science.
I have participated in this form of analysis many times over the years.
Let's be realistic here, I'm talking a foreign language to you and best you can do is employ the argument of personal incredulity fallacy because it is beyond your comprehension as well being severely biased as you see science as a threat to your faith.
Is it evidence? Sure, is it proof, no. It seems that people are overlooking the words “theory” “estimate” and “prediction” and are trying to pass these theories as proof rather than evidence.They say they don't know what happened during the particles life... then go on to describe the particles life.
Sounds contradictory to me.
Apparently your expertise doesn't extend toIs it evidence? Sure, is it proof, no. It seems that people are overlooking the words “theory” “estimate” and “prediction” and are trying to pass these theories as proof rather than evidence.
Apparently your expertise doesn't extend to intro to remedial level basic science.
Else you'd know that proof is never a part of science AND not reveal your ignorance so quickly.
Again this is based on theory and not taking into account the mysterious phenomenons that took place during the creation process and how they might have an effect on the decay rate of these molecules. You know it wasn’t long ago people were saying similar things about carbon dating and look where we are now. Since carbon dating was discovered we’ve come to realize that it wasn’t actually as accurate as we originally expected.
So math is no longer part of science?Apparently your expertise doesn't extend to
intro to remedial level basic science.
Else you'd know that proof is never a part of science
AND not reveal your ignorance so quickly
There’s also the thickness of the brim to take into account and this passage doesn’t tell us which dimensions are the inner or outer dimensions. It also doesn’t tell us where the circumference was actually measured. Was it the inner or outer circumference of the brim or was it the inner or outer circumference below the brim? We don’t know because that information is not provided. Any mathematician would easily see that not enough information is provided to give an accurate calculation but those who simply seek to undermine the word of God will ignore this because they’re only goal is to try to find evidence disproving His word instead of applying any sort of actual analysis to the subject.Nor does your expertise extend to intro to remedial level basic draftsmanship.
Else you wouldn't harp on that "Bible says Pi=3.0" spiel.
You'd know that first blueprints are marked NTS, which means NOT TO SCALE.
1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
Let's put this in academic perspective:
1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, [NTS] ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about [/NTS].
So math is no longer part of science?
There’s also the thickness of the brim to take into account and this passage doesn’t tell us which dimensions are the inner or outer dimensions. It also doesn’t tell us where the circumference was actually measured. Was it the inner or outer circumference of the brim or was it the inner or outer circumference below the brim? We don’t know because that information is not provided. Any mathematician would easily see that not enough information is provided to give an accurate calculation but those who simply seek to undermine the word of God will ignore this because they’re only goal is to try to find evidence disproving His word instead of applying any sort of actual analysis to the subject.
When a creatiinist does not know what they1. The study covers nuclei, not molecules.
2. Carbon is not use for dating.
3. The isotopes in question are stable and it is not an age study, but an exposure study.
The study is measuring isotopes created when free-floating grains (formed in stars and expelled) in the interstellar medium were hit by high energy cosmic rays and trapped with in the grain. Such isotopes (in this case Helium-3 and Neon-21) are not normally part of the grain and build up during exposure. When the grain is incorporated into a "clump" the cosmic rays can no longer reach the grain (it is shielded) and the build up stops. The measurement is of how long the grains floated freely in space after being formed in a star and before incorporation into a rock in our Solar System. (Since that rock famously fell to Earth, or at least to Australia, 50 years ago.)
Math is a *tool* used in science, but science does not work on logical or mathematical proofs. Science works on assessments of the evidence in relation to the other available evidence and the models built to explain the evidence. It is continuous and often gradual.So math is no longer part of science?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?