-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Young Earth Creationist dynamics.
- Thread starter Zaius137
- Start date
Mr. RickG
Now, let's look at some of the other facts you conveniently ignore.
Your quote
Different radiometric dating methods agree with one another.
In part I will disagree because there has been found very discrepant dates from different methods. But I dont think that consistent radiometric dates are a good case for an old universe. The RATE group has produced a good case for rapid radiometric decay which could explain the old earth old universe appearance.
Non radiometric dating methods agree with dates given by radiometric methods and vice versa.
I disagree because there are more non radiometric instances pointing to a young earth.
If the physics had hanged it would be observable.
Changes spotted in fundamental constant
Changes spotted in fundamental constant - physicsworld.com
Experiments have been performed to change decay rates which include extreme pressure, vacuum, heat, cold, trauma, etc. No decay rates were changed. (Emery 1972).
I just showed research to the contrary.
Decay rates have been predicted through quantum mechanics. Direct measurements verify those predictions/calculations in all cases.
- [FONT=&](Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998; Knödlseder 2000; Prantzos 1999; Perlmutter et al. 1998).[/FONT]
About your other articles you mention. The ones I could open and read didnt provide any useful arguments. There are in fact some problems that recent observations of nucleosynthesis in supernova actually could be responsible for the distribution of elements.
Upvote
0
Quite the contrary my friend, I have looked in depth into RATE and other young earth ideas and have found flawed accusations and things just plain made up.
Those so called discrepant dates are from basically two sources.
(1) Deliberately contaminated or misrepresented samples sent to labs for the purpose of obtaining flawed dates. Lava and basalt are good examples of that.
(2) The misrepresentation of legitimate scientific literature through quote mining.
The methods can be misused and fooled. When done properly by experts who know how to collect and prepare samples, this rarely happens.
Rubbish! To the contrary.
Dendochronology, Varve Chronology, Sclerochronologies, Lichenometry, Speleothems, Annual rings (corals), Cation-ratio, Obsidian hydration, Obaidian diffusion, Fluorine profiles, Amino Acid Geochronology, Tephrochronology, Paleomagnetism, Palaeosols, Marine Oxygen Isotopes (MOI), Thermoluminescense, Fission tracking (SAR & IRSL), and Ice core Chronologies of which there are many independent methods which include, annual layer counting by way of visual, electroconductivity, pH, dust, d18, d H2, pollen, and/or trace chemicals (Na & Ca).
That is not a change in physics. It is not only another example of an unsupported paper, but one that has nothing to do with this discussion. Nevertheless, there are subsequent papers addressing said paper showing the flaws and errors.
http://www.rxiv.org/pdf/1202.0043v1.pdf
No you didn't. The article you cited has not only been rebutted by subsequent peer review papers, it has nothing to do with radionuclide decay rates.
I am not at all ashamed. It is a good source for getting an over view of what the creationist community is saying. I then go to the actual legitimate sources they list and read for my self. The only fair and honest way is to look at both sides of the argument and then source the original science being discussed or questioned. Which article did you look at, there were several as well as other sources, in particular the published research I listed which you ignore.
Furthermore, you are ignoring the supernova decay rate information I provided. I know what I cited there was prior to your article, that is why what I presented was other isotope variation that you were not even unaware of. The whole point was to demonstrate that what you are gloating over has been known for quite a while and it is insignificant and does not support any of your accusations.
That's complete rubbish. The articles I cited support exactly what I was saying, I call that very useful. Your nucleosynthesis in supernova assertion, has absolutely nothing to do with decay rates changing. There are thousands of published research articles on the subject and it is impossible to source them all, however, I did review the first four I could gain access and found nothing questioning radionuclide decay rates.
Nevertheless, citation please! I'll be glad to read and review the entire article(s).
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Please give an example of such an occurrence.
------------------
Just wanted to add that most garbage studies that get published are in fringe journals that accept articles outside their expertise. Those few that do get by in prestigious journals are generally followed with a plethora of rebuttals.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
My friend Rick….
Rick… Quite the contrary my friend, I have looked in depth into RATE and other young earth ideas and have found flawed accusations and things just plain made up.
I have read that same literature and find nothing made up and I find the results comprehensive.
Those so called discrepant dates are from basically two sources.
(1) Deliberately contaminated or misrepresented samples sent to labs for the purpose of obtaining flawed dates. Lava and basalt are good examples of that.
(2) The misrepresentation of legitimate scientific literature through quote mining.
The methods can be misused and fooled. When done properly by experts who know how to collect and prepare samples, this rarely happens.
You really need to prove 1 and 2….
It is only rare because the young discordant dates are discarded by the old earth paradigm.
Dendochronology, Varve Chronology, Sclerochronologies, Lichenometry, Speleothems, Annual rings (corals), Cation-ratio, Obsidian hydration, Obaidian diffusion, Fluorine profiles, Amino Acid Geochronology, Tephrochronology, Paleomagnetism, Palaeosols, Marine Oxygen Isotopes (MOI), Thermoluminescense, Fission tracking (SAR & IRSL), and Ice core Chronologies of which there are many independent methods which include, annual layer counting by way of visual, electroconductivity, pH, dust, d18, d H2, pollen, and/or trace chemicals (Na & Ca).
One at time and in order…
Dendochronology (tree ring dating) sometimes used to calibrate carbon 14 dating. This can be circular in reasoning.
Varve Chronology (sediment layers) no absolute dates here.
Sclerochronologies (basically a climate tool) skeletal growth records of molluscs don’t know why you mention it here.
Lichenometry (lichen growth to determine the age) no absolute ages.
Speleothems commonly known as a cave formation, No absolute dates.
Annual rings (corals), No absolute dates.
Cation-ratio dating is used to date rock surfaces such as stone artifacts and cliff and ground drawings. Confirms Biblical time frames.
Obsidian hydration dating (OHD) is a geochemical method of determining age in either absolute or relative terms of an artifact made of obsidian.
Obaidian diffusion (not sure what this is).
Fluorine Depth Profiles as a Relative Dating Method of Chipped Flints. Just funny.
Amino acid geochronology is best suited as a relative-dating tool. Open to interpretation.
Tephrochronology (strictly circular dating of layers) Had to be previously determined by K-40 or Carbon 14.
Paleomagnetism (magnetic reversals can be used in YEC also)
palaeosols, duricrusts, calcrete, silcrete, gypcrete Palaeosols are soils preserved in the geological succession that were formed in the past on ancient landscapes. Interpreted by the prevailing paradigm. No absolute time frames.
Fission tracking (SAR & IRSL) Could fit YEC by the RATE research.
Ice core Chronologies… You save the best for last. I asked you before why ice ages don’t fit the accepted 15 million year old paradigm for Antarctica?
You copped out by closing the thread you created and now you bring this up again? You date ice cores to 800k years that should be between 6 and 15 million years old. This is a complete break down of your so called supportive dating methods.
Rick: Experiments have been performed to change decay rates which include extreme pressure, vacuum, heat, cold, trauma, etc. No decay rates were changed. (Emery 1972).
Zaius: I just showed research to the contrary.
No you didn't. The article you cited has not only been rebutted by subsequent peer review papers, it has nothing to do with radionuclide decay rates.
Like your other statements this one is typical of your continued denial. Here is a quote on the topic of the findings.
“The Sun is changing the supposedly constant rates of decay of radioactive elements, and we have absolutely no idea why.”
The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
the science will eventually change to misconception….
Here is the quote…
Evidence for a Young World
Rick… Quite the contrary my friend, I have looked in depth into RATE and other young earth ideas and have found flawed accusations and things just plain made up.
I have read that same literature and find nothing made up and I find the results comprehensive.
Those so called discrepant dates are from basically two sources.
(1) Deliberately contaminated or misrepresented samples sent to labs for the purpose of obtaining flawed dates. Lava and basalt are good examples of that.
(2) The misrepresentation of legitimate scientific literature through quote mining.
The methods can be misused and fooled. When done properly by experts who know how to collect and prepare samples, this rarely happens.
You really need to prove 1 and 2….
It is only rare because the young discordant dates are discarded by the old earth paradigm.
Dendochronology, Varve Chronology, Sclerochronologies, Lichenometry, Speleothems, Annual rings (corals), Cation-ratio, Obsidian hydration, Obaidian diffusion, Fluorine profiles, Amino Acid Geochronology, Tephrochronology, Paleomagnetism, Palaeosols, Marine Oxygen Isotopes (MOI), Thermoluminescense, Fission tracking (SAR & IRSL), and Ice core Chronologies of which there are many independent methods which include, annual layer counting by way of visual, electroconductivity, pH, dust, d18, d H2, pollen, and/or trace chemicals (Na & Ca).
One at time and in order…
Dendochronology (tree ring dating) sometimes used to calibrate carbon 14 dating. This can be circular in reasoning.
Varve Chronology (sediment layers) no absolute dates here.
Sclerochronologies (basically a climate tool) skeletal growth records of molluscs don’t know why you mention it here.
Lichenometry (lichen growth to determine the age) no absolute ages.
Speleothems commonly known as a cave formation, No absolute dates.
Annual rings (corals), No absolute dates.
Cation-ratio dating is used to date rock surfaces such as stone artifacts and cliff and ground drawings. Confirms Biblical time frames.
Obsidian hydration dating (OHD) is a geochemical method of determining age in either absolute or relative terms of an artifact made of obsidian.
Obaidian diffusion (not sure what this is).
Fluorine Depth Profiles as a Relative Dating Method of Chipped Flints. Just funny.
Amino acid geochronology is best suited as a relative-dating tool. Open to interpretation.
Tephrochronology (strictly circular dating of layers) Had to be previously determined by K-40 or Carbon 14.
Paleomagnetism (magnetic reversals can be used in YEC also)
palaeosols, duricrusts, calcrete, silcrete, gypcrete Palaeosols are soils preserved in the geological succession that were formed in the past on ancient landscapes. Interpreted by the prevailing paradigm. No absolute time frames.
Fission tracking (SAR & IRSL) Could fit YEC by the RATE research.
Ice core Chronologies… You save the best for last. I asked you before why ice ages don’t fit the accepted 15 million year old paradigm for Antarctica?
You copped out by closing the thread you created and now you bring this up again? You date ice cores to 800k years that should be between 6 and 15 million years old. This is a complete break down of your so called supportive dating methods.
Rick: Experiments have been performed to change decay rates which include extreme pressure, vacuum, heat, cold, trauma, etc. No decay rates were changed. (Emery 1972).
Zaius: I just showed research to the contrary.
No you didn't. The article you cited has not only been rebutted by subsequent peer review papers, it has nothing to do with radionuclide decay rates.
Like your other statements this one is typical of your continued denial. Here is a quote on the topic of the findings.
“The Sun is changing the supposedly constant rates of decay of radioactive elements, and we have absolutely no idea why.”
The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
the science will eventually change to misconception….
Here is the quote…
Evidence for a Young World
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Oh yes I forgot…
That is not a change in physics. It is not only another example of an unsupported paper, but one that has nothing to do with this discussion. Nevertheless, there are subsequent papers addressing said paper showing the flaws and errors.
http://www.rxiv.org/pdf/1202.0043v1.pdf
No actually your citation is unsupported. The discordance in observed changes in the Fine Structure Constant were explained erroneously by “electric charge, e, can occur under specific conditions, consequently producing variations in the value of α” by a well understood process. But since the observed changes were from corona radiation and not interior electrons to the star this assertion could not be correct. Also there is a discordance in the implied homology of the explanation; in other words this explanation does not fit for all observations particularly of none discordant measurements.
The fine Structure Constant is not physics but just a relationship of underlying physical constants.
Also part of my name sake…
That is not a change in physics. It is not only another example of an unsupported paper, but one that has nothing to do with this discussion. Nevertheless, there are subsequent papers addressing said paper showing the flaws and errors.
http://www.rxiv.org/pdf/1202.0043v1.pdf
No actually your citation is unsupported. The discordance in observed changes in the Fine Structure Constant were explained erroneously by “electric charge, e, can occur under specific conditions, consequently producing variations in the value of α” by a well understood process. But since the observed changes were from corona radiation and not interior electrons to the star this assertion could not be correct. Also there is a discordance in the implied homology of the explanation; in other words this explanation does not fit for all observations particularly of none discordant measurements.
The fine Structure Constant is not physics but just a relationship of underlying physical constants.
Also part of my name sake…
Upvote
0
Tell you what Zaius, If you wish to discuss each and every dating method I named I am prepared to do that. However, I suggest that we narrow this down and focus on one thing at time. I would like to start with one particular paleochronology and show how it ties into most of the others.
But, I have 4 points I would like to make before beginning discussion.
1. Physics has not changed. We know this because the make up (chemistry and physics) of all the elements, including the radionuclides have not changed through chronological profiles. As an example, the chemical and physical make up K-40 and Ar-40 is exactly the same throughout chronological profiles. In other words, the chemistry and physics of those two isotopes is exactly the same regardless of the time they were formed out of magma. If it had changed, a 60 million year old basalt sample would be different from a 60 year old basalt sample. Indeed it is not. The only difference is the ratio of parent to daughter (K-40 to Ar-40) which radiometric dating methods are based upon.
2. As I pointed out earlier with citations, radionuclide decay rates in numerous isotopes have been observed in supernova millions of light years distant, measured and found to be exactly the same as those now, here on Earth.
3. Also pointed out earlier with more citations, radionuclides used in radiometric testing have been subjected to extreme environments and conditions that exceed natural process for the purpose of trying to change decay rates. In all cases, those decay rates remained the same.
4. In your citation of a changing decay rate you claimed proof of changing decay rates. I went on to point out that that change is due to one of two causes; (1) neutrions which are known to slightly affect beta decay and (2) known instrument variation due to seasonal changes. Furthermore, what you cited was a "variation", or perhaps better described, an oscillation of an almost undetectable amount. I also went on to describe some others you were unaware of that exhibit the same thing. In "all" cases those variations are extremely low and well with statistical reliability, never mind that none of them are used in radiometric dating anyway.
Now, on to the meat and potatoes. What chronological dating method makes itself available to numerous independent techniques and verifiable methods, "Ice Core Chronology".
Continuous ice core chronologies go up to 100,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in the Vostok ice cores in Antarctica. This is done by counting annual layers through a number of different and very precise means.
Visual is probably the best known method but few ice cores these days rely only any one single method. As it happens, differences in temperature between seasons makes a significance difference in atmospheric particulates including specific stable isotopes. Therefore, it is the ratio difference between seasons that marks the boundary's. This not only allows determination of annual layers, but seasons within each of those layers as well. These ratio differences are: H-1/H2; O-16/O18; acidity (pH); electrical conductivity; pollen and dust. Additionally, volcanic ash can be radiometrically dated, as well as any organic matter. When this is done those radiometric dates agree with the age of the annual layers. Also, concentrations of cosmogenic neuclides like Be-10 can be correlated to specific events. Some of these same ratios and events are also seen in other sediments and markers in marine cores, speleothems, and tree rings.
Upvote
0
Like I said, I found a paper that rebutted yours. There were a few others I did not list, not to mention the article you linked had numerous comments suspicious of the paper's conclusions.
Again I will state. What was discussed in that paper had absolutely nothing to do with decay rates of radionuclides. Nothing!
Upvote
0
Rick…Again I will state. What was discussed in that paper had absolutely nothing to do with decay rates of radionuclides. Nothing!
Something I am missing here? Should we discussing how thick is a brick? Direct quote from cited article… you see the highlighted words (decay rates)… Are silicone 32 (beta decay) and Radium 226 radionuclides?
All isotopes of radium are highly radioactive, with the most stable isotope being radium-226, which has a half-life of 1601 years and decays into radon gas.
Radium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radio active decay rate fluctuations…
“Abstract… Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of ^32 Si and ^226 Ra have been reported by groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory (^32 Si), and at the Physikalisch–Technische–Bundesanstalt in Germany (^226 Ra). We show from an analysis of the raw data in these experiments that the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the time of year.”
Evidence of correlations between nuclear decay rates and EarthâSun distance 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2009.05.004 : Astroparticle Physics | ScienceDirect.com
Something I am missing here? Should we discussing how thick is a brick? Direct quote from cited article… you see the highlighted words (decay rates)… Are silicone 32 (beta decay) and Radium 226 radionuclides?
All isotopes of radium are highly radioactive, with the most stable isotope being radium-226, which has a half-life of 1601 years and decays into radon gas.
Radium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radio active decay rate fluctuations…
“Abstract… Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of ^32 Si and ^226 Ra have been reported by groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory (^32 Si), and at the Physikalisch–Technische–Bundesanstalt in Germany (^226 Ra). We show from an analysis of the raw data in these experiments that the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the time of year.”
Evidence of correlations between nuclear decay rates and EarthâSun distance 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2009.05.004 : Astroparticle Physics | ScienceDirect.com
Upvote
0
Rick…Again I will state. What was discussed in that paper had absolutely nothing to do with decay rates of radionuclides. Nothing!
Something I am missing here? Should we be discussing how thick is a brick? Direct quote from cited article… you see the highlighted words (decay rates)… Are silicone 32 (beta decay) and Radium 226 radionuclides?
All isotopes of radium are highly radioactive, with the most stable isotope being radium-226, which has a half-life of 1601 years and decays into radon gas.
Radium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radio active decay rate fluctuations…
“Abstract… Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of ^32 Si and ^226 Ra have been reported by groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory (^32 Si), and at the Physikalisch–Technische–Bundesanstalt in Germany (^226 Ra). We show from an analysis of the raw data in these experiments that the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the time of year.”
Evidence of correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2009.05.004 : Astroparticle Physics | ScienceDirect.com
Something I am missing here? Should we be discussing how thick is a brick? Direct quote from cited article… you see the highlighted words (decay rates)… Are silicone 32 (beta decay) and Radium 226 radionuclides?
All isotopes of radium are highly radioactive, with the most stable isotope being radium-226, which has a half-life of 1601 years and decays into radon gas.
Radium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radio active decay rate fluctuations…
“Abstract… Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of ^32 Si and ^226 Ra have been reported by groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory (^32 Si), and at the Physikalisch–Technische–Bundesanstalt in Germany (^226 Ra). We show from an analysis of the raw data in these experiments that the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the time of year.”
Evidence of correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2009.05.004 : Astroparticle Physics | ScienceDirect.com
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I believe he said time changed. And if we take Einsteins explanations, then we would be unable to determine such changes from our point of view.
Upvote
0
First I have four points I need to reply to.
1. Physics has not changed. We know this because the make up (chemistry and physics) of all the elements, including the radionuclides have not changed through chronological profiles. As an example, the chemical and physical make up K-40 and Ar-40 is exactly the same throughout chronological profiles. In other words, the chemistry and physics of those two isotopes is exactly the same regardless of the time they were formed out of magma. If it had changed, a 60 million year old basalt sample would be different from a 60 year old basalt sample. Indeed it is not. The only difference is the ratio of parent to daughter (K-40 to Ar-40) which radiometric dating methods are based upon.
No Gods Physical laws did not change. That is not to say that some of the physical constants can change (even proposed in your citation). Now about the basalt point; there are instances of inconsistent dating of young formations to an older date(they truly exist).
2. As I pointed out earlier with citations, radionuclide decay rates in numerous isotopes have been observed in supernova millions of light years distant, measured and found to be exactly the same as those now, here on Earth.
Now about the supernova observations you cited. Abundances of isotopes are verified to be similar to observations today. I say that is not a good thing for your argument and in fact if they are the same as observed there is something very wrong. To correlate abundances from supernovas to our present sun and earth you will have to consider the formation time of the proto-star and its accretion disk and factor this into the observed abundances. After the supernova forges the elements they must accrete into our system before the nucleotides decay to nothing. There are major problems with the supposed process.
The physics of accretion disks encounters some problems.[14] The most important one is how the material, which is accreted by the protostar, loses its angular momentum. The momentum is probably transported to the outer parts of the disk, but the precise mechanism of this transport is not well understood. The process or processes responsible for the disappearance of the disks are also poorly known.[15][16]
The formation of planetesimals is the biggest unsolved problem in the Nebular Disk Model. How 1 cm sized particles coalesce into 1 km planetesimals is a mystery. This mechanism appears to be the key to the question as to why some stars have planets, while others have nothing around them, even dust belts.[17]
The formation of giant planets is another unsolved problem. Current theories are unable to explain how their cores can form fast enough to accumulate significant amounts of gas from the quickly disappearing protoplanetary disk.[12][18] The mean lifetime of the disks, which are less than 107 years, appears to be shorter than the time necessary for the core formation.[9]
Another problem of giant planet formation is their migration. Some calculations show that interaction with the disk can cause rapid inward migration, which, if not stopped, results in the planet reaching the "central regions still as a sub-Jovian object."[19]
Nebular hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The problem is a bit more serious than the article would lead you to believe. Some studies show that the sun must have coalesced from more than one supernova; with the time frames for travel there is way too much decay that would have happened.
3. Also pointed out earlier with more citations, radionuclides used in radiometric testing have been subjected to extreme environments and conditions that exceed natural process for the purpose of trying to change decay rates. In all cases, those decay rates remained the same.
Besides the inverse square relationship between the distance of sun and earth there is .
For over 50 years some theoreticians had suggested that nuclear decay could be altered in the case of a nucleus bereft of its electrons (as occurs in a plasma state).
RADIOACTIVE DECAY RATES CHANGE
4. In your citation of a changing decay rate you claimed proof of changing decay rates. I went on to point out that that change is due to one of two causes; (1) neutrions which are known to slightly affect beta decay and (2) known instrument variation due to seasonal changes. Furthermore, what you cited was a "variation", or perhaps better described, an oscillation of an almost undetectable amount. I also went on to describe some others you were unaware of that exhibit the same thing. In "all" cases those variations are extremely low and well with statistical reliability, never mind that none of them are used in radiometric dating anyway.
So they change?
Now, on to the meat and potatoes. What chronological dating method makes itself available to numerous independent techniques and verifiable methods, "Ice Core Chronology".
Continuous ice core chronologies go up to 100,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in the Vostok ice cores in Antarctica. This is done by counting annual layers through a number of different and very precise means.
Again what speculation is right? The current icy period of Antarctica's history began about 25 million yearsago in the Miocene epoch. The oldest and deepest parts of the ice arebelieved to be 15 million years old.
Antarctic Ice
Drilling to a 14 million year old lake
Russian Drill Nears 14-Million-Year-Old Antarctic Lake | Wired Science | Wired.com
Why isnt your Antarctic ice dated to at least 6 million years?
Will the deep ice date to 15 million years? If it does will drilling about half way down yield a date of at least 7.5 million years? Wait a moment that was dated to 800k years. You see your assumptions can be wrong; those yearly layers could be changes in temperature between snow storms (nothing more).
Speculations worst enemy is science Do it right and God is there.
1. Physics has not changed. We know this because the make up (chemistry and physics) of all the elements, including the radionuclides have not changed through chronological profiles. As an example, the chemical and physical make up K-40 and Ar-40 is exactly the same throughout chronological profiles. In other words, the chemistry and physics of those two isotopes is exactly the same regardless of the time they were formed out of magma. If it had changed, a 60 million year old basalt sample would be different from a 60 year old basalt sample. Indeed it is not. The only difference is the ratio of parent to daughter (K-40 to Ar-40) which radiometric dating methods are based upon.
No Gods Physical laws did not change. That is not to say that some of the physical constants can change (even proposed in your citation). Now about the basalt point; there are instances of inconsistent dating of young formations to an older date(they truly exist).
2. As I pointed out earlier with citations, radionuclide decay rates in numerous isotopes have been observed in supernova millions of light years distant, measured and found to be exactly the same as those now, here on Earth.
Now about the supernova observations you cited. Abundances of isotopes are verified to be similar to observations today. I say that is not a good thing for your argument and in fact if they are the same as observed there is something very wrong. To correlate abundances from supernovas to our present sun and earth you will have to consider the formation time of the proto-star and its accretion disk and factor this into the observed abundances. After the supernova forges the elements they must accrete into our system before the nucleotides decay to nothing. There are major problems with the supposed process.
The physics of accretion disks encounters some problems.[14] The most important one is how the material, which is accreted by the protostar, loses its angular momentum. The momentum is probably transported to the outer parts of the disk, but the precise mechanism of this transport is not well understood. The process or processes responsible for the disappearance of the disks are also poorly known.[15][16]
The formation of planetesimals is the biggest unsolved problem in the Nebular Disk Model. How 1 cm sized particles coalesce into 1 km planetesimals is a mystery. This mechanism appears to be the key to the question as to why some stars have planets, while others have nothing around them, even dust belts.[17]
The formation of giant planets is another unsolved problem. Current theories are unable to explain how their cores can form fast enough to accumulate significant amounts of gas from the quickly disappearing protoplanetary disk.[12][18] The mean lifetime of the disks, which are less than 107 years, appears to be shorter than the time necessary for the core formation.[9]
Another problem of giant planet formation is their migration. Some calculations show that interaction with the disk can cause rapid inward migration, which, if not stopped, results in the planet reaching the "central regions still as a sub-Jovian object."[19]
Nebular hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The problem is a bit more serious than the article would lead you to believe. Some studies show that the sun must have coalesced from more than one supernova; with the time frames for travel there is way too much decay that would have happened.
3. Also pointed out earlier with more citations, radionuclides used in radiometric testing have been subjected to extreme environments and conditions that exceed natural process for the purpose of trying to change decay rates. In all cases, those decay rates remained the same.
Besides the inverse square relationship between the distance of sun and earth there is .
For over 50 years some theoreticians had suggested that nuclear decay could be altered in the case of a nucleus bereft of its electrons (as occurs in a plasma state).
RADIOACTIVE DECAY RATES CHANGE
4. In your citation of a changing decay rate you claimed proof of changing decay rates. I went on to point out that that change is due to one of two causes; (1) neutrions which are known to slightly affect beta decay and (2) known instrument variation due to seasonal changes. Furthermore, what you cited was a "variation", or perhaps better described, an oscillation of an almost undetectable amount. I also went on to describe some others you were unaware of that exhibit the same thing. In "all" cases those variations are extremely low and well with statistical reliability, never mind that none of them are used in radiometric dating anyway.
So they change?
Now, on to the meat and potatoes. What chronological dating method makes itself available to numerous independent techniques and verifiable methods, "Ice Core Chronology".
Continuous ice core chronologies go up to 100,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in the Vostok ice cores in Antarctica. This is done by counting annual layers through a number of different and very precise means.
Again what speculation is right? The current icy period of Antarctica's history began about 25 million yearsago in the Miocene epoch. The oldest and deepest parts of the ice arebelieved to be 15 million years old.
Antarctic Ice
Drilling to a 14 million year old lake
Russian Drill Nears 14-Million-Year-Old Antarctic Lake | Wired Science | Wired.com
Why isnt your Antarctic ice dated to at least 6 million years?
Will the deep ice date to 15 million years? If it does will drilling about half way down yield a date of at least 7.5 million years? Wait a moment that was dated to 800k years. You see your assumptions can be wrong; those yearly layers could be changes in temperature between snow storms (nothing more).
Speculations worst enemy is science Do it right and God is there.
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
I just read about this in Science.
1. There is first of all a difference between drilling ice cores and then counting the rings and analyzing the cores in detail and drilling down into an underground lake as quickly as possible just to reach it.
2. There are technical problems in reading rings older than 800,000 years :
"The length of the record depends on the depth of the ice core and varies from a few years up to 800 kyr (800,000 years) for the EPICA core. The time resolution (i.e. the shortest time period which can be accurately distinguished) depends on the amount of annual snowfall, and reduces with depth as the ice compacts under the weight of layers accumulating on top of it. Upper layers of ice in a core correspond to a single year or sometimes a single season. Deeper into the ice the layers thin and annual layers become indistinguishable."
Ice core - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The fact remains that if the earth is only 6,100 years old, there should not be so many rings in these ice cores. The only reason you reject the data is because you don't like it. That's not how you do science.
Upvote
0
The entire counting and dating of layers is complete nonsense. If I was an advocate of an old earth paradigm I would stay away from ice cores.
Upvote
0
May I point out your direct quote, "periodic fluctuations in decay rates". A fluctuation is not a decay rate change. As I have already pointed out, radionuclides that exhibit alpha or beta decay can fluctuate slightly. In most cases less than one percent and some alpha or beta decay nuclides have never exhibitied any fluctuation. However, that is not the article I was talking about that you cited that did not discuss decay rates. Actually it was two of your other citations. Sorry I wasn't more clear about which articles.
[FONT="]2. [/FONT][FONT="]Nomoto, K. et al., 1997a. Nucleosynthesis in type 1A supernovae. [/FONT][FONT="]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706025[/FONT]
[FONT="]3. [/FONT][FONT="]Nomoto, K. et al., 1997b. Nucleosynthesis in type II supernovae. [/FONT][FONT="]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706024[/FONT]
A third describes what I have already described and have been trying to get across, Perturbations.
[FONT="]1. [/FONT][FONT="]Emery, G. T., 1972. Perturbation of nuclear decay rates. Annual Review Nuclear Science 22: 165-202. [/FONT]
The who young earth concept about decay rate change is that you and others claim decay rates were faster in the past, therefore, giving the impression that rocks were older than actually are. The fact remains that they have not changed and that fact is verifiable. Conversely, no one has any supporting evidence that they have. A perturbation or variation is not a rate change, it is a well know characteristic of alpha and beta decay types of which the actual variation is extremely small.
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
Yes, do tell, Dr. Zaius... do tell. I think the real reason you advice us to "stay away" is that you cannot escape from the fact that 100s of thousands of years are represented by these layers... and those 100s of thousands of years cannot exist, or else your precious YEC paradigm crumbles into dust. Remember... "Real science and faith are compatible." If ice core dating is "real science" (and you have yet to show otherwise) then what does that say about your Faith?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
