Name just one....

[TasManOfGod]

Why don't you try this: put some wet mud in a box to make a base layer. Then add a 2-inch thick sand layer onto the mud and see what happen.

Now, think if the sand is 20-feet thick ...

Right So are you saying that after a peiod of time when everything dries thre wont be any idication of two different materials (stratas) Are you saying that all the sand will mix with all the mud. Wont the mud eventually get so thick that no more sand will mix with it

 

[TasManOfGod]

First of all, it's not "my" theory. It's the accepted theory of how rivers cut their canyons. I'm not sure I can give you a clear reference for it though, because it's essentially common sense.

Second, the Colorado River is hardly a "narrow stream". Perhaps in relation to the Mississippi, but it's still 175-700 ft wide and 9-130 ft deep within the canyon. That's a lot of river. Also keep in mind that it's restricted by Glen Canyon Dam, so it isn't receiving its full flow anymore.

So now to explain how river downcutting works. As the river cuts down through the rock, it behaves differently when it reaches different layers. A hard, resistant layer (like the Kaibab Limestone or Coconino Sandstone near the rim of the canyon) will be cut in more-or-less sheer cliffs, much like the base of the canyon is now. However, whenever a softer layer (Hermit Shale or Supai Formation, for example) is reached, the river is able to erode much more quickly, and also broaden. It undercuts the more resistant layers, which collapse into the river and are eventually swept downstream. In the course of this, it loses some energy (this can also be caused by raising sea level and/or subsiding the drainage area of the river, lowering its gradient), so it may have trouble cutting into the next resistant layer it encounters. The river then will change into a meandering course and continue to widen its floodplain, undercutting more and more (which explains the big shelves in the canyon). Then, base level (sea level) drops or the drainage area is uplifted and the gradient of the river increases, which increases its energy, allowing it to downcut again.

Hope that explained things.

Not really. But it did give me insight as to how incredible stories are made up by seemingly intelligent people simply to refute a big flood

 

[juvenissun]

Right So are you saying that after a peiod of time when everything dries thre wont be any idication of two different materials (stratas) Are you saying that all the sand will mix with all the mud. Wont the mud eventually get so thick that no more sand will mix with it

I said that the layers won't be able to keep their layered structure such as one we see in GC.

 

[TasManOfGod]

I said that the layers won't be able to keep their layered structure such as one we see in GC.

You gave one example of two sand and mud. How do you establish the make up of all the stratas in GC from that and even if there was somewhere there would not the two blend and then be separate as you would see in the column

 

[RocksInMyHead]

1. Radiometric dating is a physical feature of unknown origin (or mechanism).
2. The nature of time is not answered or explained by radioactive decay. It is not even a concern in the technique.
3. Geologists never truly use radiometric dating to refer to the true time. The dates only provide time reference to geological processes. Only non-geologists who misunderstand the meaning of radiometric dates.

For example, the 4.5 b.y. is only taken as a "beginning" of all geological processes. It does not really matter if it is really 4.5 b.y. in true time. However, non-geologists seriously think this number is the true age of the earth.

Another example: the 1 b.y. Rodinia and the 0.3 b.y. old Pangaea only mean the earth took ±0.5 b.y. to disperse one and to reassemble another supercontinent. We derive the rate of various geological processes based on these dates. Geologists don't really care if the Pangaea is truly 300 m.y. old as long as the rates of various geological processes are found consistent. The focus is on the understanding of a process, not on the meaning of time.

So, radiometric dating gives a reference to time. But the date does not mean true time. I am not trying to discredit the radiometric dates by religious argument. I am trying to discredit it by comparing it with time duration derived from process which is independent of the mysterious radioactive decay.

Just because you don't understand the mechanics behind radioactive decay does not mean that no one does. Tell me what you're having difficulty with and I'll see if i can explain it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Not really. But it did give me insight as to how incredible stories are made up by seemingly intelligent people simply to refute a big flood

And you must have a really big ego to think that it's all about refuting a flood. Sure, people use the data to refute the idea of a global flood, but that's only after the data has been collected and published for other purposes. I challenge you to find one mainstream paper using original data that has a stated purpose of disproving Noah's flood.

 

[TasManOfGod]

And you must have a really big ego to think that it's all about refuting a flood. Sure, people use the data to refute the idea of a global flood, but that's only after the data has been collected and published for other purposes. I challenge you to find one mainstream paper using original data that has a stated purpose of disproving Noah's flood.

My ego has nothing to do with agreeing with Jesus Christ about the incidence of the Flood of Noah and the recognition of signs in the earth's geology that it actually happened. As for finding scientific papers (about origins)that actually have any resemblence of truth in them let alone giving truthful insight into the thought processes involved -well only God will ever know that

 

[Assyrian]

My ego has nothing to do with agreeing with Jesus Christ about the incidence of the Flood of Noah

Did Jesus say the flood was global?

 

[juvenissun]

Just because you don't understand the mechanics behind radioactive decay does not mean that no one does. Tell me what you're having difficulty with and I'll see if i can explain it.

I want to see an equation which describes the nuclear reaction of radioactive decay. And all the parameters in the equation do not depend on repeated lab measurement. This equation should describe the decay of all radioactive elements by simply plug the relevant data of each element into the equation.

If we have such an equation, then I like to see the plot of the theoretical value versus the measured value.

 

[juvenissun]

Did Jesus say the flood was global?

He must have said it somewhere at sometime during His life on the earth.

 

[Assyrian]

He must have said it somewhere at sometime during His life on the earth.

He must?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I want to see an equation which describes the nuclear reaction of radioactive decay. And all the parameters in the equation do not depend on repeated lab measurement. This equation should describe the decay of all radioactive elements by simply plug the relevant data of each element into the equation.

If we have such an equation, then I like to see the plot of the theoretical value versus the measured value.

What relevant data? You mean the atomic mass? Because that's also the product of laboratory measurements. Or maybe you meant the valence electron state? Oh wait, that's also - you guessed it - the product of lab measurements. Maybe the density? Nope, can't use that. How about the melting point and freezing point? They don't meet your requirements either. Oh, I know, we can use the element name! That's not the product of lab measurements...

Seriously, did you think this through at all? There is just as much work behind decay rates and initial ratios as there is behind any of the properties I listed above.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Did Jesus say the flood was global?

Yes - The temple sermon

 

[Assyrian]

Yes - The temple sermon

John 7:37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and proclaimed, "If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink.
38 He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, 'Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.'"
The flood as an allegory of Pentecost? I love it

 

[juvenissun]

What relevant data? You mean the atomic mass? Because that's also the product of laboratory measurements. Or maybe you meant the valence electron state? Oh wait, that's also - you guessed it - the product of lab measurements. Maybe the density? Nope, can't use that. How about the melting point and freezing point? They don't meet your requirements either. Oh, I know, we can use the element name! That's not the product of lab measurements...

Seriously, did you think this through at all? There is just as much work behind decay rates and initial ratios as there is behind any of the properties I listed above.

I know. May be what I should say is no "direct" measurement involved when the decay constant is to be calculated. Every needed data are basic and on the shelf, simply plug them into the equation. Since the decay constant is a constant. So parameters in the equation should also be constants.

 

[juvenissun]

He must?

May be 99.9% of chance, from a human estimation.

 

[Assyrian]

May be 99.9% of chance, from a human estimation.

Sounds like a great way to support a pet doctrine, just claim there a 99.9% change Jesus said it too, so it must be right.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I know. May be what I should say is no "direct" measurement involved when the decay constant is to be calculated. Every needed data are basic and on the shelf, simply plug them into the equation. Since the decay constant is a constant. So parameters in the equation should also be constants.

There's no point in using an equation where all of the parameters are constants. It's the equivalent of saying 1+3=x. The answer will always be 4. There has to be a variable. I can't think of any equation that doesn't have at one variable (not including the solution). Typically, nearly all of the equation is made up of variables, with only one or two constants.

Now, it's true that many times, some or all of the variables are filled in by so-called constant values specific to the conditions that the equation is operating under (i.e. the atomic mass of a specific element), but these are just measured values. The decay constant for each isotope is one of these measured values. It isn't calculated. You can verify it with the decay equation using a sample of known age (determined using another dating method), but the real purpose of the equation is to determine the age of a sample.

There are 3 constants in radioactive decay: half-life, τ, and λ. Half-life is the amount of time that it takes for half of any quantity of the radionuclide to decay into it's daughter product(s). τ (tau; mean lifetime) is the average amount of time it takes for a single atom of the radionuclide to decay, and λ(lambda; decay constant) is the inverse of τ. All of these are observable quantities (well, not always directly in the case of some half-lives, but you can use quarter-lives, third-lives, or any fraction less than one and achieve the same result). You can also calculate the half-life using τ. half-life = τ(ln2). All of these constant values are determined by observation and measurement, the same as atomic mass.

 

[juvenissun]

There's no point in using an equation where all of the parameters are constants. It's the equivalent of saying 1+3=x. The answer will always be 4. There has to be a variable. I can't think of any equation that doesn't have at one variable (not including the solution). Typically, nearly all of the equation is made up of variables, with only one or two constants.

Now, it's true that many times, some or all of the variables are filled in by so-called constant values specific to the conditions that the equation is operating under (i.e. the atomic mass of a specific element), but these are just measured values. The decay constant for each isotope is one of these measured values. It isn't calculated. You can verify it with the decay equation using a sample of known age (determined using another dating method), but the real purpose of the equation is to determine the age of a sample.

There are 3 constants in radioactive decay: half-life, τ, and λ. Half-life is the amount of time that it takes for half of any quantity of the radionuclide to decay into it's daughter product(s). τ (tau; mean lifetime) is the average amount of time it takes for a single atom of the radionuclide to decay, and λ(lambda; decay constant) is the inverse of τ. All of these are observable quantities (well, not always directly in the case of some half-lives, but you can use quarter-lives, third-lives, or any fraction less than one and achieve the same result). You can also calculate the half-life using τ. half-life = τ(ln2). All of these constant values are determined by observation and measurement, the same as atomic mass.

I hope to see an equation like f(x)g(y) = decay constant of Z

Where x and y are atomic or nuclear property of element Z, but are not directly related to the decaying.

So, if you plug x and y of a stable element into the equation, the result would be zero. In other words, this equation could provide a theoretical test to the degree of stability of an atom on its natural state.

If such an equation existed, then I would consider that we do understand what is the nature of radioactive decay.

 

[juvenissun]

Sounds like a great way to support a pet doctrine, just claim there a 99.9% change Jesus said it too, so it must be right.

However, not just a claim. There should be a way for the estimation.
What is that for my estimation? Well, we do have a clue on how to start it, don't we? It would be a small research project. But it could be done.

Such as:

Significant issues in Judaism ...
Themes of messages preached by Jesus ...
Chance of the topic be included in His message.

I am sure you can figure out other better algorithms.