Young Earth Creationist dynamics.

[CabVet]

Reptiles to Man? That is just funny, would have loved to see the slide. That must fit right in with the chimp human divergence some 20 million years ago… Oppps that will make common descent unworkable.

He said reptiles to mammals, not man, and that is coming from the "qualified creation geologists" that you claim to exist.

 

[CabVet]

Zaius, I'm still eagerly waiting for your critique of the paper I cited showing a LARGE decay rate variation of 7Be. You also have seemed to have fallen silent with my assessment concerning your Antarctic glaciation citations. I had hoped our discussion could continue.

You will not see a critique. When he can no longer answer a question he changes the subject, classic deflection.

 

[Split Rock]

Zaius, I'm still eagerly waiting for your critique of the paper I cited showing a LARGE decay rate variation of 7Be. You also have seemed to have fallen silent with my assessment concerning your Antarctic glaciation citations. I had hoped our discussion could continue.

Sorry, but I fear that Dr. Zaius has only "Ha, ha, evolution is explained by Bozo the Clown" arguments left in his snake-oil satchel.

 

[juvenissun]

You offer evidence to support your theory that the bible is God's word by saying that the springs of the sea referred to can only mean the deep vents that weren't known about at the time. It is an interesting idea, and would fit in with your theory if we can be sure of 2 things: 1) the author specifically meant deep sea vents, and 2) the idea that the sea was supplied with water from beneath was not around at the time. The first point is uncertain, but I'll go with it. The second point is rather spoiled by dad from this very forum banging on about Noah's worldwide flood being supplied by water from underground and, if I'm not mistaken, quoting the Bible to prove it. So on the one hand you have a possible mention of deep sea vents, on the other indications that the author's grasp of hydrogeology was distictly shaky. On balance it is inconclusive.

But all this, interesting as it is, doesn't get round the problem of your theory of divine authorship being rather spoilt merely by opening the Bible and reading the nonsense in Genesis. As you know, evidence can't prove a theory, it can only support it, but evidence can disprove a theory. Your theory is gone before you've even started. But you did at least try, which was more than I expected, and provided a diverting few minutes.

I have said, it is not a strong evidence, or not even an evidence to you because you do not understand enough.

You do not understand the meaning on the "spring of the sea" enough. And you do not understand theology enough. And, I should sincerely say, you nearly do not have any understanding on the Genesis 1. You don't even understand the first three words of the first sentence: "In the beginning ...". I spent nearly half an hour on these three words in my Sunday School class. And just today, I used more than an hour to talk to one of my colleague about the significance of these three words. They are extremely meaningful. You do not understand it, so you missed one of the most significant evidence of God.

Yes, I say: the first three words in the first verse of the first chapter in the first Book of the Bible, illustrate an evidence of God. How could you start to appreciate it? At least, you need to know more about science.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I have said, it is not a strong evidence, or not even an evidence to you because you do not understand enough.

You do not understand the meaning on the "spring of the sea" enough. And you do not understand theology enough. And, I should sincerely say, you nearly do not have any understanding on the Genesis 1. You don't even understand the first three words of the first sentence: "In the beginning ...". I spent nearly half an hour on these three words in my Sunday School class. And just today, I used more than an hour to talk to one of my colleague about the significance of these three words. They are extremely meaningful. You do not understand it, so you missed one of the most significant evidence of God.

Yes, I say: the first three words in the first verse of the first chapter in the first Book of the Bible, illustrate an evidence of God. How could you start to appreciate it? At least, you need to know more about science.

Your colleague must be a very patient person.

 

[Zaius137]

Zaius, I'm still eagerly waiting for your critique of the paper I cited showing a LARGE decay rate variation of 7Be. You also have seemed to have fallen silent with my assessment concerning your Antarctic glaciation citations. I had hoped our discussion could continue.

What makes you think I am even qualified to discuss condensed matter physics and a translated Chinese paper no less?

Outside of a few layman comments I have.

It appears to me that the embedding of 7Be into Gold and Palladium was an attempt to alter the Quantum tunneling of the electron capture for 7Be. I am a little unsettled by the deviation of error for decay counts; I would hardly think they reached the 2 sigma.. I believe that there results could reflect a deviation of decay rates judging from figure #2 (the slopes indicate deviation).

I think you had my final comments on ice core dating unless you would really like to explain why the vast gulf of time exists between ice cores and accepted dates for Antarctica ice? 400k years verses 15 million years.

 

[SkyWriting]

As you know, evidence can't prove a theory, it can only support it, but evidence can disprove a theory. Your theory is gone before you've even started.

I used to think that too. I was wrong.

"CORRECTION: This misconception is based on the idea of falsification, philosopher Karl Popper's influential account of scientific justification, which suggests that all science can do is reject, or falsify, hypotheses — that science cannot find evidence that supports one idea over others. Falsification was a popular philosophical doctrine — especially with scientists — but it was soon recognized that falsification wasn't a very complete or accurate picture of how scientific knowledge is built. In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence

or perspectives."

Tips and strategies for teaching the nature and process of science

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I used to think that too. I was wrong.

"CORRECTION: This misconception is based on the idea of falsification, philosopher Karl Popper's influential account of scientific justification, which suggests that all science can do is reject, or falsify, hypotheses — that science cannot find evidence that supports one idea over others. Falsification was a popular philosophical doctrine — especially with scientists — but it was soon recognized that falsification wasn't a very complete or accurate picture of how scientific knowledge is built. In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence

or perspectives."

Tips and strategies for teaching the nature and process of science

OK, a theory can be rejected or refuted by evidence then. Personally I don't see the difference, whereas I can see the difference between supporting a theory and proving a theory, but I'm willing to concede the point.

 

[juvenissun]

Your colleague must be a very patient person.

No. But he is very wise. A theoretical mathematician. Not a very practical one though.

 

[RickG]

What makes you think I am even qualified to discuss condensed matter physics and a translated Chinese paper no less?

You are the one who presented the idea that decay rates of radionuclides change. What makes me think you are qualified to discuss the subject? Nothing, in fact what you have presented so far demonstrates that you don't even have a basic understanding of what the research you cited was suggesting. There is a huge difference between a varying rate and the change in the half-life of a radionuclide. Some specific radionuclides due to their type of decay do exhibit a variation (oscillation) in decay rate, that does not change or effect the half-life of the radionuclide. I have pointed this out several times and it is very small.

Outside of a few layman comments I have.

It appears to me that the embedding of 7Be into Gold and Palladium was an attempt to alter the Quantum tunneling of the electron capture for 7Be. I am a little unsettled by the deviation of error for decay counts; I would hardly think they reached the 2 sigma.. I believe that there results could reflect a deviation of decay rates judging from figure #2 (the slopes indicate deviation).

I'm afraid you are applying the wrong statistical method. What they are doing has nothing to do with 2 sigma (2 standard deviations). The analysis they are doing has two variables which calls for a "least squares" regression. The regression line on the graphs is showing the amount of variation based on two variables. What they don't show is is the "r" value which would address the reliability of their results. The goal for scientific data is to achieve a 95% confidence level or better. Nevertheless, I think the significant thing to take from the study in context as applied to decay rates is that they only came up with a variation of 0.8% and that is what they are calling a "large" variation. Also, It is important to grasp the reality that none of what they are doing occurs in the natural environment.

I think you had my final comments on ice core dating unless you would really like to explain why the vast gulf of time exists between ice cores and accepted dates for Antarctica ice? 400k years verses 15 million years.

I really don't understand why you keep coming back to the same misunderstanding. None of the sources you provided said anything about dating ice cores to 15 million years. The million year plus data is derived for marine sediment cores. Marine sediments taken from the Antarctic continental shelves reveal many unmistakable markers, some of which include, sea surface temperature, sea level, ice mass and extent. The "vast gulf" you keep aluding to does not exist.
[/quote]

 

[Zaius137]

From Rick…I'm afraid you are applying the wrong statistical method. What they are doing has nothing to do with 2 sigma (2 standard deviations). The analysis they are doing has two variables which calls for a "least squares" regression. The regression line on the graphs is showing the amount of variation based on two variables. What they don't show is is the "r" value which would address the reliability of their results. The goal for scientific data is to achieve a 95% confidence level or better. Nevertheless, I think the significant thing to take from the study in context as applied to decay rates is that they only came up with a variation of 0.8% and that is what they are calling a "large" variation. Also, It is important to grasp the reality that none of what they are doing occurs in the natural environment.


I think that you are mixing up confidence levels (basic data uncertainty) with the linear least of squares calculation once points have been resolved with an accompanying deviation. My comment was on the large uncertainty value(confidence level) of the basic data set. So a sigma level (confidence level) of say two would correspond to a confidence interval of 95.4%. Really not so good in current research of this type.

About the “none of what they are doing occurs in the natural environment” Comment. Actually the dating using a radio isotope in some type of substrate is not even considered these days. If say Uranium is affected by a .8% variation in decay rate it would be very significant.

 

[Zaius137]

I really don't understand why you keep coming back to the same misunderstanding. None of the sources you provided said anything about dating ice cores to 15 million years. The million year plus data is derived for marine sediment cores. Marine sediments taken from the Antarctic continental shelves reveal many unmistakable markers, some of which include, sea surface temperature, sea level, ice mass and extent. The "vast gulf" you keep aluding to does not exist.

[/quote]

So Rick why aren’t the ice cores dates hitting 15 million years?

“The current icy period of Antarctica's history began about 25 million years
ago in the Miocene epoch. The oldest and deepest parts of the ice are
believed to be 15 million years old. “

Antarctic Ice

Cores from Vostok are 400k years…

 

[RickG]

From Rick…I'm afraid you are applying the wrong statistical method. What they are doing has nothing to do with 2 sigma (2 standard deviations). The analysis they are doing has two variables which calls for a "least squares" regression. The regression line on the graphs is showing the amount of variation based on two variables. What they don't show is is the "r" value which would address the reliability of their results. The goal for scientific data is to achieve a 95% confidence level or better. Nevertheless, I think the significant thing to take from the study in context as applied to decay rates is that they only came up with a variation of 0.8% and that is what they are calling a "large" variation. Also, It is important to grasp the reality that none of what they are doing occurs in the natural environment.


I think that you are mixing up confidence levels (basic data uncertainty) with the linear least of squares calculation once points have been resolved with an accompanying deviation. My comment was on the large uncertainty value(confidence level) of the basic data set. So a sigma level (confidence level) of say two would correspond to a confidence interval of 95.4%. Really not so good in current research of this type.

Error bars may friend, error bars. You've got the right idea but the wrong application.

About the “none of what they are doing occurs in the natural environment” Comment. Actually the dating using a radio isotope in some type of substrate is not even considered these days.

Citation please.

If say Uranium is affected by a .8% variation in decay rate it would be very significant.

It doesn't, and even if it did it still puts the age of the Earth considerably older than 6,000 years.

 

[RickG]

So Rick why aren’t the ice cores dates hitting 15 million years?[/quote]

Because they are not looking for the oldest date they can find, they are looking for paleoclimate data.

“The current icy period of Antarctica's history began about 25 million years ago in the Miocene epoch.

Key phrase, "current icy period". It's not the first.

Graph of CO2(Green graph), temperature (Blue graph), and dust concentration (Red graph) measured from the Vostok, Antarctica ice core as reported by Petit et al., 1999. Data source: Petit J.R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D.,Barkov N.I.,Barnola J.M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., DavisJ., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V.M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V.,Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M. (1999). , Nature, 399: 429-436.

The oldest and deepest parts of the ice are believed to be 15 million years old. “

Key word, "believed". If they had dated it a date would be given. Evidence based on current understanding thus far points to that, but they will have to retreive a core sample yeilding such a date to use the word, "is". However, don't forget that glaciation there has already been verified there via marine sediment cores.

 

[Zaius137]

So Rick why aren’t the ice cores dates hitting 15 million years?

Because they are not looking for the oldest date they can find, they are looking for paleoclimate data.

Key phrase, "current icy period". It's not the first.

Graph of CO2(Green graph), temperature (Blue graph), and dust concentration (Red graph) measured from the Vostok, Antarctica ice core as reported by Petit et al., 1999. Data source: Petit J.R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D.,Barkov N.I.,Barnola J.M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., DavisJ., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V.M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V.,Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M. (1999). , Nature, 399: 429-436.


Key word, "believed". If they had dated it a date would be given. Evidence based on current understanding thus far points to that, but they will have to retreive a core sample yeilding such a date to use the word, "is". However, don't forget that glaciation there has already been verified there via marine sediment cores.[/quote]

There are a lot of human evolution assumptions resting on that 15 million year old date. So you favor the ice core dating over the long accepted dating upholding evolution dogma? You know you can make so much from basic assumptions that rest on vast speculation. I prefer a written record over speculation every time don’t you? I believe the dates are off by about (400k-4.3k) 395.7k by the way the secular estimate is off by a lot more… (15m-400k) 14.6m.

 

[CabVet]

So Rick why aren’t the ice cores dates hitting 15 million years?

“The current icy period of Antarctica's history began about 25 million years
ago in the Miocene epoch. The oldest and deepest parts of the ice are
believed to be 15 million years old. “

Because ice melts under the pressure of a 2.2 miles thick ice sheet. That's why that lake of liquid water is down there, look at your own figure.

 

[Zaius137]

Because ice melts under the pressure of a 2.2 miles thick ice sheet. That's why that lake of liquid water is down there, look at your own figure.

Let me point out that they have not reached water yet but still date the ice to 400k years.

The discontinuity from surface dates are still not tenable and even if you tried to extrapolate to the lower ice layers (the last 1000 meters) would have to date at least 14.6 million years… Let me suggest another possibility… The ice core dating assumptions are nonsense.



Heads that approach the thickness of Antarctica ice have trouble getting a clue.
Zaius137…

 

[Zaius137]

Just to humor you… I have a question.

How much pressure is the ice at that depth under? Is it 100,000 to 400,000 atmospheres?

For pressures between 100,000 and 400,000 atmospheres, the team, led by Eric Schwegler, found that ice melts as a molecular solid (similar to how ice melts in a cold drink).

https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2008/NR-08-09-04.html

"So the water at its pressure of 300 atmospheres will be sampled. But when we pull the probe up and the flasks hit the cold air in the borehole, the water will try to freeze; the pressure then increases to around 2,700 atmospheres, and that's greater than anything experienced in ocean engineering."

BBC News - Antarctic lake mission targets life and climate signs

 

[CabVet]

Just to humor you… I have a question.

How much pressure is the ice at that depth under? Is it 100,000 to 400,000 atmospheres?

For pressures between 100,000 and 400,000 atmospheres, the team, led by Eric Schwegler, found that ice melts as a molecular solid (similar to how ice melts in a cold drink).

https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2008/NR-08-09-04.html

"So the water at its pressure of 300 atmospheres will be sampled. But when we pull the probe up and the flasks hit the cold air in the borehole, the water will try to freeze; the pressure then increases to around 2,700 atmospheres, and that's greater than anything experienced in ocean engineering."

BBC News - Antarctic lake mission targets life and climate signs

Nice way to confuse the issue. The article you cite is about the solidification of water at extreme pressures in the center of a planet, those are not the conditions in Antarctica. If you are interested in actual science, check this:

Clausius-Clapeyron relation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll down to the bottom, there is an example in which the pressure needed to melt ice at 7 degrees C is calculated. That pressure is 1,000 kg/cm2 or 1,000 atmospheres. Ice at the bottom of the Antarctic icesheet is between 2 and 3 degrees C, so a much lower pressure is needed to melt it.

 

[RickG]

There are a lot of human evolution assumptions resting on that 15 million year old date. So you favor the ice core dating over the long accepted dating upholding evolution dogma? You know you can make so much from basic assumptions that rest on vast speculation. I prefer a written record over speculation every time don’t you? I believe the dates are off by about (400k-4.3k) 395.7k by the way the secular estimate is off by a lot more… (15m-400k) 14.6m.

Why do you keep drifting away from the discussion? Annual layers in ice cores date much further back in time than 6,000 years. That is an irrefutable fact. There is no science that contradicts that fact. The Earth is not young.