Regarding teaching evolution / creation in the schools.

duordi · May 19, 2005

Loudmouth said:
Firstly, it is the RATIO of parent isotope to daughter product that is measured. You don't need to know the AMOUNT, only that there was not contamination by daughter product.

How do you know you started without daughter elements present?

Loudmouth said:
The systems that are used for dating assay chrystals that exclude the daughter product when they form, such as the exclusion of Ar in the Ar/Ar dating methodology.
Therefore, if one were to assume that the laws of CHEMISTRY have been the same since the formation of the earth, then the chrystals will not contain contamination at closure.

The assumption is that there is no Argon when the rocks were formed because it is a gas, and it escapes which sounds like a logical assumption but reciently dated rocks rock which was fromed during recorded history have dated old due to the precents of Argon.
Apparently the crusting of the surface prevents the Argon from escaping.

Loudmouth said:
And have been verified as being the same in the past by observations made in astronomy, such as Supernova 1987a.

Agreed the chemical reaction are the same.

Loudmouth said:
The amount of radiation, temperature, and pressure needed to change the half-lives of these elements only exists in stars. I think it is a safe assumption that the Earth has never been a star.

The temperature pressure and radiation bombardment from a meteor strike is quite sufficent.

Loudmouth said:
All detectable through by assaying the chemistry of the rock. Also, volcanic and meteor materials can not penetrate into a crystal without completely changing it.

Unless of course they were there during formation.

Loudmouth said:
Which, again, have been checked through astronomy and also the presence of natural nuclear reactors dating back as far as 1.5 billion years ago. It is not assumed that these rates have been the same, it is a well supported theory with strong evidence.

Interseting you would mention the natural nuclear reactor which of course which causes the trace elements to be modified.

Loudmouth said:
No you can't. You would have to fake the experimentally derived half lives, fake the data from distant stars that is available to anyone with the right equipment, and fake the actual isotopic content of the rock. This would take a world wide conspiracy that would be easy to expose by simply dating the same rocks from the same structures as found in the geologic journals. This would be a simple task, it makes me wonder why creationist organizations don't do this simple test.

I did not challenge the decay rate so this point is mute.

Duane

duordi · May 19, 2005

Valkhorn said:
Duane, I don't think you've researched much.
Please research why we know the speed of light is constant,

I have and it is.

Valkhorn said:
and how we know radioactive decay is constant.

I have and it is.

Valkhorn said:
Please also research why we know the Earth is indeed ancient.

I have and it is, only life is receint.

Valkhorn said:
You go on and on about why its bad to assume...

Assuming is a good thing as long as you don't forget what the result is based on.

Valkhorn said:
well stop assuming the Bible is a literal account of the beginning of the world.

Assuming is a good thing as long as you don't forget what the result is based on.

I think there is an echo in here.

Duane

Ishmael Borg · May 19, 2005

duordi said:
I propose that origins should be taught as catastrophic and non-catastrophic conditions.

Non catastrophic theory would assume slow consistent progressive change over long time spans of millions or billions of years causing all current geological and biological conditions.

Catastrophic theory would assume an event occurred which caused changes which have affected the current geological and biological conditions in shorter time spans of thousands of years or less.

The catastrophic theories would include meteor strikes, Earth magnetic pole reversals, floods, nova radiation bombardment, ancient nuclear wars, disease, an ice age or any other event which would be considered to cause a major ecological or biological reconfiguration.

In this way personal emotional preferences for or against a religious belief need not prevent the consideration of all possible historical configurations.

Would this be acceptable to both sides of the argument ?

If not what is your reasoning ?

Duane

Don't try to sneak past my demands to teach the creation myths of all of my peoples. I'm of very mixed blood. It could take many semesters just to properly present my peoples' beliefs within structured curricula.

Besides science class, what are you willing to cut out to make room for this? It could take at least one full semester from each of the twelve pre-college grades to superficially present all viewpoints. What do we cut for you?

Gracchus · May 19, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Your first statement is absurd. Asteroids and meteorites heat up only as they enter the earth's atmosphere. Heat a stone and drop it in a bucket of cold water. See how much the temperature will change. You will find that evaporation will speed the cooling process and the creation of steam leads to vapor. The vapor condenses into rain...

It is not just the compression of air in front of the meteor that releases heat. The impact releases energy also, directly proportional to the mass of the meteor and the square of its velocity, and one component of that released energy is heat. Which you would know had you ever passed a physics course.

Ishmael Borg · May 19, 2005

Ishmael Borg said:
Don't try to sneak past my demands to teach the creation myths of all of my peoples. I'm of very mixed blood. It could take many semesters just to properly present my peoples' beliefs within structured curricula.

Besides science class, what are you willing to cut out to make room for this? It could take at least one full semester from each of the twelve pre-college grades to superficially present all viewpoints. What do we cut for you?

Their bavado usually stops here. They would have to put up their mythology against mine. They can never tell us why their mythology is better fitted for the classroom than mine.

Loudmouth · May 19, 2005

duordi said:
How do you know you started without daughter elements present?

You do start with small amounts of daughter element. However, by using the intrinsic properties of crystalization you can negate their effect on the data.

The assumption is that there is no Argon when the rocks were formed because it is a gas, and it escapes which sounds like a logical assumption but reciently dated rocks rock which was fromed during recorded history have dated old due to the precents of Argon.
Apparently the crusting of the surface prevents the Argon from escaping.

And was there enough Argon to cause a new rock to date to 200 million years old? No. And that is with the less realiable K/Ar technique.

In the Ar/Ar methdology the assay can actually measure the amount of argon present when the rock formed. This is because the argon present at the time of formation gathers in the spaces between crystals. This argon leaks out at lower temperatures than the argon formed within the crystals. We know that the crystals do not contain argon at the beginning because the process of crystalization pushes the argon out into the interstitial spaces. This means that any argon found in crystals within the rock are due to radioactive decay, not contamination. Therefore, by measuring the argon that leaks out at low temperatures (contamination) and the argon that leaks out at higher temperatures (from radioactive decay within the rock) you are able to accurately measure the age of the rock EVEN IF ARGON IS PRESENT AT THE BEGINNING.

Agreed the chemical reaction are the same.

Then Ar/Ar dating should give accurate results.

The temperature pressure and radiation bombardment from a meteor strike is quite sufficent.

And detectable. A meteor impact also produces tektites which are made up of molten glass that is hurled into the atmosphere where it cools and hardens. These tektites can then be dated giving us the date of the impact.

Interseting you would mention the natural nuclear reactor which of course which causes the trace elements to be modified.

. . . in predictable amounts if the decay rates were the same 1.5 billion years ago.

I did not challenge the decay rate so this point is mute.

Just a pet peeve of mine, so don't take it personal. The correct word is moot, not mute. It makes me cringe every time someone misuses that word. I often see local newscasters make the same mistake so you aren't alone.

duordi · May 19, 2005

Ishmael Borg said:
Don't try to sneak past my demands to teach the creation myths of all of my peoples. I'm of very mixed blood. It could take many semesters just to properly present my peoples' beliefs within structured curricula.

Besides science class, what are you willing to cut out to make room for this? It could take at least one full semester from each of the twelve pre-college grades to superficially present all viewpoints. What do we cut for you?

Considering that you are only a precentage of the population...

That would mean you get about.. lets see... yes about 10 seconds.

So would you want your part to be in the castrophic or non catrostrophic section.

Isn't democracy wonderful.

Duane

Douglaangu v2.0 · May 19, 2005

Considering that you are only a precentage of the population...

That would mean you get about.. lets see... yes about 10 seconds.

So would you want your part to be in the castrophic or non catrostrophic section.

Isn't democracy wonderful.

Nonsense. What is taught in science classes should be decided by those who have an education in science. Not the layman.

Ishmael Borg · May 19, 2005

duordi said:
Considering that you are only a precentage of the population...

That would mean you get about.. lets see... yes about 10 seconds.

But I know my version is right, and I'm even more positive that your version is wrong. The words of my holy people assure me of this without a doubt. I have complete faith.

duordi said:
So would you want your part to be in the castrophic or non catrostrophic section.
Isn't democracy wonderful..

I want my part in the "non-scientific" section, since its unalterable truths are untouchable by science anyway!

(Don't you wish your myths were as good?)

Tomk80 · May 19, 2005

duordi said:
I did, I gave proof that castrophic events happened in Earths history.
The web referance in the first post.

If you are going to say that meteors don't exist or that they don't hit the planets surface, I am willing to listen but I think it is a debate you will not win.

The list of megatons released is determined by scientific research and holds much more credibility then your generalized posts.

Your last statement is so generalized that it could be talking about little green men and no one would be able to tell.

Duane

That's the whole point, there is no sane scientist that denies that, as was pointed out in post #5. That made the whole OP rediculous, as there is no non-catastrophism/catastrophism dichotomy. I would like to know whether you understand this now.

duordi · May 19, 2005

Loudmouth said:
You do start with small amounts of daughter element. However, by using the intrinsic properties of crystalization you can negate their effect on the data.

And was there enough Argon to cause a new rock to date to 200 million years old? No. And that is with the less realiable K/Ar technique.

This site clams to have had 11 samples dated from 50 year old rocks and had ages from professional labs return 250,000 to 3.5 million years.
When the process was repreated the ages came back different but about the same age range.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp

Loudmouth said:
In the Ar/Ar methdology the assay can actually measure the amount of argon present when the rock formed. This is because the argon present at the time of formation gathers in the spaces between crystals. This argon leaks out at lower temperatures than the argon formed within the crystals. We know that the crystals do not contain argon at the beginning because the process of crystalization pushes the argon out into the interstitial spaces. This means that any argon found in crystals within the rock are due to radioactive decay, not contamination. Therefore, by measuring the argon that leaks out at low temperatures (contamination) and the argon that leaks out at higher temperatures (from radioactive decay within the rock) you are able to accurately measure the age of the rock EVEN IF ARGON IS PRESENT AT THE BEGINNING.

Then how come the labs couldn't tell the sample wasn't 3.5 million years old.

Loudmouth said:
Then Ar/Ar dating should give accurate results.

Or there is an assumption which is wrong.
Without a benchmark its a gamble.

Loudmouth said:
And detectable. A meteor impact also produces tektites which are made up of molten glass that is hurled into the atmosphere where it cools and hardens. These tektites can then be dated giving us the date of the impact.

. . . in predictable amounts if the decay rates were the same 1.5 billion years ago.

I have never studied this.
the truth is that there is a lot of good science in dating but extrapolation is a dangerous business just because of the number of variables.

Loudmouth said:
Just a pet peeve of mine, so don't take it personal. The correct word is moot, not mute. It makes me cringe every time someone misuses that word. I often see local newscasters make the same mistake so you aren't alone.

It was intended as a pun.
You know mute as in not making much of a noise.
It was just eating a salad and it seemed funny at the thyme.

Duane

duordi · May 19, 2005

Ishmael Borg said:
But I know my version is right, and I'm even more positive that your version is wrong. The words of my holy people assure me of this without a doubt. I have complete faith.

I want my part in the "non-scientific" section, since its unalterable truths are untouchable by science anyway!

(Don't you wish your myths were as good?)

Good then we can put you in the history section or first thing in the morning.

Do you want to be after the section where the pilgrims had thanks giving to thank the Indians instead of God, or the during the pelage of allegiance recital that was canceled.

duordi · May 19, 2005

Douglaangu v2.0 said:
Nonsense. What is taught in science classes should be decided by those who have an education in science. Not the layman.

We just moved him to the history section one post up.

Duane

Cirbryn · May 19, 2005

duordi said:
Do you want to be after the section where the pilgrims had thanks giving to thank the Indians instead of God, or the during the pelage of allegiance recital that was canceled.

I'm glad it was cancelled. Who wants furry allegiances?

(Look up pelage sometime).

ImmortalTechnique · May 19, 2005

no need to cancel the pledge anyways... just take out the "under god" part that was only added in 1954 as a reactionary move against communism... McCarthyism is the great start for these people!!

Tomk80 · May 19, 2005

duordi said:
This site clams to have had 11 samples dated from 50 year old rocks and had ages from professional labs return 250,000 to 3.5 million years.
When the process was repreated the ages came back different but about the same age range.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp

Then how come the labs couldn't tell the sample wasn't 3.5 million years old.

It's called a confidence interval. When you date samples, you make repeat measurements. These measurements give you a couple of ages, between which the real age of the rock lies with a certain amount of certainty. If you get confidence intervals that wide, you know that you probably haven't taken a good sample, or that the method you're using isn't good for the testing of the sample. That way, you check your assumptions with the sample itself. But of course, that is something mr Snelling conveniently 'forgets (?)' to tell you in his story.

And that mr Snelling conveniently forgets to mention that in his article, should tell you enough about his integrity.

Valkhorn · May 19, 2005

Do you want to be after the section where the pilgrims had thanks giving to thank the Indians instead of God, or the during the pelage of allegiance recital that was canceled.

Isn't revisionist history wonderful?

Tomk80 · May 19, 2005

To add to that, of each date, one sample was already dated as being younger than .27 million years old, which is actually correct. For any serious researcher, this would be quite a serious tip off that the samples probably contained amounts of K/Ar that are too small to be dated accurately, either because the sample is too young (as in these cases), or because of some other reason. Of course, this is also not mentioned by Snelling.

Snelling jumps to a conclusion which no serious investigator would reach, because he magnifies the result of one sample, in stead of looking at the whole picture. There are further reasons to doubt his conclusions based on the way he took his samples. All of these have been done to death on these forums already.

Nathan Poe · May 19, 2005

ImmortalTechnique said:
no need to cancel the pledge anyways... just take out the "under god" part that was only added in 1954 as a reactionary move against communism... McCarthyism is the great start for these people!!

As is the War on Terror now.

Frumious Bandersnatch · May 19, 2005

This YEC argument is similar to saying, A human can't use a stopwatch to accurately measure the time it takes a flash bulb to reach its preak. I know they only takes milliseconds but humans with stop watches time it to be tenths of a second which is way off. The 1918 Kentucky Derby was timed by humans with stop watches so it might have only lasted a few seconds since we know humans with stopwatches are not accurate timers of events. Oh and by the way no other watches work either.

FB

Regarding teaching evolution / creation in the schools.

Senior Member

Senior Member

Ishmael Borg

Guest

Senior Veteran

Ishmael Borg

Guest

Contributor

Senior Member

Senior Member

Ishmael Borg

Guest

Titleless

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

He's just this guy, you know

Senior Veteran

Titleless

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

Titleless

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency