Jump to content


Photo

Scientific Dating Methods For A Young Earth


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#21 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 20 July 2015 - 12:40 PM

Mitochondrial DNA is not a method used to date the Earth.  Genomes have been sequenced that show 400,000 year old mtDNA.  Helium in Zircons is not a dating method.  Carbon dating coal and diamonds is not a method, but carbon dating is.  Carbon dating is not used to date the age of the Earth. 

I think Fred just showed how they reach the ages for mtDNA. Helium in Zircons points to a younger age, when other methods point to an older. Of course carbon dating coal and diamonds is a method and it points to far younger ages of both implicating that surrounding rocks are younger as well. "Carbon dating is not used to date the age of the Earth." - old earthers dismiss any dating methods that doesn't fit with their paradigm.



#22 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 20 July 2015 - 02:07 PM

Carbon dating is a method.  Carbon dating of diamonds is not a method, it is an example of using a method.  A date of 55,700 years given by carbon dating diamonds is not evidence the Earth is 6,000 years old.  

 



#23 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 20 July 2015 - 04:02 PM

Carbon dating is a method.  Carbon dating of diamonds is not a method, it is an example of using a method.  A date of 55,700 years given by carbon dating diamonds is not evidence the Earth is 6,000 years old.  

 

 

But the R.A.T.E. date of helium diffusion in Zircons compared to the radiation decay in the same rocks does.

 

http://www.creationr...41_1/Helium.htm

 

So does mitochondria DNA.



#24 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 20 July 2015 - 04:29 PM

Carbon dating is a method.  Carbon dating of diamonds is not a method, it is an example of using a method.  A date of 55,700 years given by carbon dating diamonds is not evidence the Earth is 6,000 years old.  

And nobody claimed otherwise.

 

Carbon dating items believed to be old is a method demonstrating that there is something wrong with old earth claims. 



#25 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 20 July 2015 - 09:41 PM

Now apparently you think all YE's assert that the earth is exactly 6000 years old.  I don't. 

How old do you think the Earth is, Indy?   How about the universe?



#26 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 21 July 2015 - 08:58 AM

Unlike you, I do believe the Bible when it gives us information like a HISTORICAL global flood and genealogies and tells us about the creation of man...not apelike thingies.  So based on that, (given that there could be considerable gaps in the genealogies) I would say the Bible is not true if the age of the earth and universe is older than 100,000 years.  I can't see the gaps allowing for more age than that.  But I would think it is younger than that.  The Bible is not as you must believe...so mushy in meaning that you can make it agree with whatever a scientist (your real source of truth) tells you. 

 

Do you agree with me that if we date dinosaurs to be 25,000 years old (by a valid carbon 14 date) then that means the earth must be FAR younger than what we are told?  At least the SEDIMENTS where fossils are buried must be.  As for Ludlow's question, it seems ridiculous to quibble about the date of the rocks if you know dinosaurs are young.  That alone disproves evolution and therefore an atheist (if he is a real truth seeker) should be open the idea of God's existence and the Bible being true.  So he should try to order his life by its teachings.  Soft dino tissue SHOULD help you with your evangelism of atheists, Pi.  But you just toss that aside. 



#27 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 July 2015 - 12:00 PM

 How did they solve the Helium in zircons problem? They didn't, other than complain about a heat problem.  

Actually, there are a number of papers out there that directly address the "zircons problem."  Since I'm more familiar with the heat problem, I'll present it first.

 

This is from Dr. Larry Vardiman, a member of the R.A.T.E. team:

The Heat Problem

Of greater concern to both supporters and skeptics of the RATE project is the issue of how to dispose of the tremendous quantities of heat generated

by accelerated decay during the Genesis Flood. The amount of heat produced by a decay rate of a million times faster than normal during the year of the Flood could potentially vaporize the earth’s oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth.

Source: http://www.icr.org/a...olved-problems/

 

Now, I realize some may think this isn't a big deal, but most scientists will consider sufficient heat to "potentially vaporize the earth's oceans, melt the curst, and obliterate the surface of the earth" really is a significant problem.  You're not going to get a lot of traction saying something like: "We have found evidence of accelerated decay but it generates enough heat to sterilize the planet."   Issues of this type MUST be addressed before R.A.T.E. will gain any serious scientific consideration.



#28 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 July 2015 - 12:56 PM

But the R.A.T.E. date of helium diffusion in Zircons compared to the radiation decay in the same rocks does.

 

http://www.creationr...41_1/Helium.htm

From the conclusions of that paper:

Thus our new diffusion data support the main hypothesis of the RATE research initiative: that God drastically accelerated the decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the earth's recent past. For a feasibility study of this hypothesisincluding God's possible purposes for such acceleration, Biblical passages hinting at it, disposal of excess heat, preserving life on earth, and effects on stars, (emphasis Pi's) see Humphreys (2000, pp. 333-379). The last three problems are not yet fully solved, but we expect to see progress on them in future papers.

 

So, we now have two of the R.A.T.E. members commenting that the heat is a problem along with "preserving life on earth."



#29 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 21 July 2015 - 01:37 PM

Dr. Walter Brown has described a process by which fast radio decay happens w/o causing heat problems...as part of his Flood model.  The process is supported by experiments where high voltages produce new heavy elements without adding heat.  RATE would do well to consider his reasoning. 

 

 

http://creationscien...oactivity2.html

For example, a deuterium (hydrogen-2) nucleus contains a proton and a neutron. Its nucleus has a total binding energy of about 2.2 MeV, so the average binding energy per nucleon is about 1.1 MeV. If two deuterium nuclei merge to become helium, 2.2 MeV + 2.2 MeV of binding energy are replaced by helium-4’s average binding energy of 7.1 MeV per nucleon, or a total of 4 x 7.1 MeV.  The gain in binding energy becomes emitted heat. This merging of light nuclei is called fusion. The Sun derives most of its heat by the fusion of deuterium into helium.8 The peak of the binding energy curve (above) is around 60 AMU (near iron), so fusion normally9 merges into nuclei lighter than 60 AMU. The fusion of elements heavier than 60 AMU absorb energy.

 

(1/4 down the page...describing experimentation in Kiev, Ukraine, using high voltage) ...For an instant, temperatures in this “hot dot” (less than one ten-millionth of a millimeter in diameter) reached 3.5 × 108 K—an energy density greatly exceeding that of a supernova! The electrodes ruptured with a flash of light, including x-rays and gamma rays. [See Figure 193.] Also emitted were alpha and beta particles, plasma, and dozens of transmuted chemical elements. The total energy in this “hot dot” was about four orders of magnitude greater than the electrical energy input! However, as explained in Figure 190 on page 364, heat was absorbed by elements heavier than iron that were produced by fusion. Therefore, little heat was emitted from the entire experiment. The new elements resulted from a “cold repacking” of the nucleons of the target electrode.35



#30 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 July 2015 - 03:55 PM

How old do you think the Earth is, Indy?   How about the universe?

Unlike you, I do believe the Bible when it gives us information like a HISTORICAL global flood and genealogies and tells us about the creation of man...not apelike thingies.  So based on that, (given that there could be considerable gaps in the genealogies) I would say the Bible is not true if the age of the earth and universe is older than 100,000 years.  I can't see the gaps allowing for more age than that.  But I would think it is younger than that.  The Bible is not as you must believe...so mushy in meaning that you can make it agree with whatever a scientist (your real source of truth) tells you. 

OK.... just curious.  I'm sure there are some YEC here who would argue with you about gaps in the genealogies.  I'll leave it at because I don't want to hijack the thread.



#31 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 July 2015 - 09:06 PM

Do you agree with me that if we date dinosaurs to be 25,000 years old (by a valid carbon 14 date) then that means the earth must be FAR younger than what we are told? 

If the carbon date is valid, yes.  Of course, we disagree about the validity of the test.

 

At least the SEDIMENTS where fossils are buried must be. 

What if we have a volcanic flow below the fossils that date to 100 million years by 7 methods and a layer of ash above them that has been dated by 7  methods to 50 million years.   How can you get a 25,000 year old layer sandwiched between layers millions of years old?  Should I disregard the other 14 tests by a variety of methods?  

 

Remember what I keep saying about statistical validity?  What is the statistical approach to a data set of that type?

 

 As for Ludlow's question, it seems ridiculous to quibble about the date of the rocks if you know dinosaurs are young.

Why?  It's still entirely possible the rocks are older than the dinos. 

 

We have discussed over 100 tests on a dozen meteorites using something like 7 different methods that converge on 4.5 billion years.  The oldest dated rock on the planet is 4.3 billion years.  The oldest dinos are less than 0.25 billion years.  I would fully expect there are rocks much older than dinos.

 

 

That alone disproves evolution....

Didn't you just mention something about a "begging the question" fallacy?

 

Soft dino tissue SHOULD help you with your evangelism of atheists, Pi.  But you just toss that aside. 

Again, I have a much higher standard of evidence than you.  To the best of my knowledge, the state of biological decay is not a very useful scientific dating method.


  • Bill Ludlow likes this

#32 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 21 July 2015 - 10:29 PM

I've been gone fossil hunting for a couple days but I see no one has come up with a scientific dating method with results that show the Earth is 6,000 years old.  The amount of helium left in zircon crystals is not a method used to date the Earth.  Even it it were a dating method, the claims by the RATE group, made up of incompetent or dishonest "ceation scientists" like Austin and Snelling, have been challenged and dismissed by both Christian and secular scientists.  The RATE team's results mean absolutely nothing.

 

"In the interest of responsible science, the RATE team members should carefully consider why their results are so different from everyone else’s.  In particular they should have more carefully evaluated the possibility that helium from external sources got into their zircons and added to the radiogenic helium formed by uranium and thorium decay.  They should have also considered the very complex thermal and geologic history of a site so close to a volcano.  They should have examined whether their specimen preparation technique might have induced some unusual behavior in the zircon crystals that accelerated the diffusion rate measurementsFinally, they should have repeated their lower temperature (down to at least 100C)experiments with helium in the zircons from the Fenton Hill well to show that they had reproducible results. Real science needs to be duplicated to prove its validity.  RATE certainly has no grounds to declare the entire science of radiometric dating to be invalid based on a study that apparently involved only two published diffusion tests (only one of which actually showed the low temperature fast diffusion rates essential to their "theory").  In short, RATE needs to do a better job of explaining their results if they want to be taken seriously by mainstream scientists."   Dr. Timothy Christman  http://www.oldearth....e_he-zr.htm#[4]

 

"Humphreys, in his section on on "help for non-experts in deciding," made the comment that “another simple point is the number of critics and the long time they’ve been criticizing.  Each one was unsatisfied enough with the previous criticisms (most are familiar enough with the others to borrow their arguments occasionally) to take the time to attack the helium data on their own” (Humphreys, 2008).  I do not think that any of these critics could have said anything more damaging to the RATE case and the young-earth cause in general than this one statement by Humphreys, because it reveals the mindset of a propagandist and not a true scientist.

The very thing that Humphreys criticizes, multiple people who are unrelated and unknown to each other bringing their different and sometimes conflicting ideas to the table, debating and even disagreeing with one another, is how true science works!  Scientific consensus is not arrived at by decree, but through a process in which every idea, both good and bad, is tested and tried until the best possible explanation remains.  There is no scientific body to give an “official” response to the RATE claims.  Rather, it is concerned scientists, working alone without any supporting organization or budget, who are seeking together to find the truth.  It is only after ideas are shared and discussed, and sufficient information comes to light, that a true consensus can emerge.  This is an example of the scientific process.

The RATE study was not conducted according to these established scientific principles.  The group of RATE scientists, many of whom hold a controlling influence on the venues of publication within the young-earth community, collaborated together to propose their official solution to the “radiometric dating problem”.  Their consensus was not arrived at through public debate but in private agreement.  Dissenting opinions were discouraged, and serious challenges to their work were censured, as I can personally attest.  If the multitude of external critics is evidence to Humphreys that he is right, then the lack of serious open debate within the young-earth community persuades me to believe that he is wrong."  http://www.asa3.org/.../helium-gl4.htm



#33 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 July 2015 - 11:29 PM

But the R.A.T.E. date of helium diffusion in Zircons compared to the radiation decay in the same rocks does.
 
http://www.creationr...41_1/Helium.htm
 

From the conclusions of that paper
Thus our new diffusion data support the main hypothesis of the RATE research initiative: that God drastically accelerated the decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the earth's recent past. For a feasibility study of this hypothesisincluding God's possible purposes for such acceleration, Biblical passages hinting at it, disposal of excess heat, preserving life on earth, and effects on stars, (emphasis Pi's) see Humphreys (2000, pp. 333-379). The last three problems are not yet fully solved, but we expect to see progress on them in future papers.
 
So, we now have two of the R.A.T.E. members commenting that the heat is a problem along with "preserving life on earth."

Correction.....
Calypsis reference was authored by four members of the R.A.T.E. investigation (Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner, and Snelling).  That means five of them (including Vardiman) have made note of the heat problem.  How many others were part of R.A.T.E.?

 

Fred said all we have is the "heat problem."  Well, it looks like the R.A.T.E. group recognizes it.  Isn't enough heat, (according to Vardiman) to boil off the oceans enough of a problem to question the results?



#34 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 July 2015 - 12:43 AM

Dr. Walter Brown has described a process by which fast radio decay happens w/o causing heat problems...as part of his Flood model.  The process is supported by experiments where high voltages produce new heavy elements without adding heat.  RATE would do well to consider his reasoning. 

I'm certain RATE is well aware of Dr. Brown's Hydroplate claims.  Apparently they are not convinced.  Maybe he should submit his ideas to one of the creationist journals that has invited him to publish on their pages for years.

 

 

http://creationscien...oactivity2.html

.....

(1/4 down the page...describing experimentation in Kiev, Ukraine, using high voltage) ...

For an instant, temperatures in this “hot dot” (less than one ten-millionth of a millimeter in diameter) reached 3.5 × 108 K—an energy density greatly exceeding that of a supernova! The electrodes ruptured with a flash of light, including x-rays and gamma rays. [See Figure 193.] Also emitted were alpha and beta particles, plasma, and dozens of transmuted chemical elements. The total energy in this “hot dot” was about four orders of magnitude greater than the electrical energy input! However, as explained in Figure 190 on page 364, heat was absorbed by elements heavier than iron that were produced by fusion. Therefore, little heat was emitted from the entire experiment. The new elements resulted from a “cold repacking” of the nucleons of the target electrode.35

 Here's some more Brown says about those experiments .... right before the comments above:

. The resulting fusion produces superheavy chemical elements, (Pi notes: emphasis in the original) some twice as heavy as uranium and some that last for a few months.34 All eventually fission, producing a wide variety of new chemical elements and isotopes.

 

Here's what footnote 34 says:

“The number of formed superheavy nuclei increases when a target made of heavy atoms (e.g., Pb) is used. Most frequently superheavy nuclei with A=271, 272, 330, 341, 343, 394, 433 are found. The same superheavy nuclei were found in the same samples when repeated measurements were made at intervals of a few months.” Adamenko et al., “Full-Range Nucleosynthesis in the Laboratory,” Infinite Energy, Issue 54, 2004, p. 4."

 

Notice the paper is from 2004 .... eleven years ago.  The discovery of element 117, with A=294 was announced last year.

 

Here's how it was made.....

..., the researchers smashed calcium nuclei (with 20 protons apiece) into a target of berkelium (97 protons per atom). The experiment was so difficult in part because berkelium itself is tough to come by. “We had to team up with the only place on the planet where berkelium can be produced and isolated in significant quantities,” Düllmann says. That place is the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which has a nuclear reactor that can create the rare element with a half-life of 330 days. It took the facility about two years to build up a large enough stock of berkelium for the experiment; when about 13 milligrams had accumulated, Oak Ridge scientists shipped it off to Germany for the next stage of the project. At GSI, researchers accelerated calcium ions to 10 percent light-speed and sent them colliding into the berkelium. If a calcium and berkelium nucleus collided head-on, occasionally the two nuclei would stick together, fusing to form a new element with a combined total of 117 protons. “We get about one atom per week,” Düllmann says.

 

If z-pinch creates all these superheavy nuclei, why hasn't it produced a new element in the 11 years since the Kiev announcement?  It sure seems a lot easier (and cheaper) than the process used to create #117.



#35 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 22 July 2015 - 04:57 AM

I've been gone fossil hunting for a couple days but I see no one has come up with a scientific dating method with results that show the Earth is 6,000 years old.  The amount of helium left in zircon crystals is not a method used to date the Earth.  Even it it were a dating method, the claims by the RATE group, made up of incompetent or dishonest "ceation scientists" like Austin and Snelling, have been challenged and dismissed by both Christian and secular scientists.  The RATE team's results mean absolutely nothing.

 

"In the interest of responsible science, the RATE team members should carefully consider why their results are so different from everyone else’s.  In particular they should have more carefully evaluated the possibility that helium from external sources got into their zircons and added to the radiogenic helium formed by uranium and thorium decay.  They should have also considered the very complex thermal and geologic history of a site so close to a volcano.  They should have examined whether their specimen preparation technique might have induced some unusual behavior in the zircon crystals that accelerated the diffusion rate measurementsFinally, they should have repeated their lower temperature (down to at least 100C)experiments with helium in the zircons from the Fenton Hill well to show that they had reproducible results. Real science needs to be duplicated to prove its validity.  RATE certainly has no grounds to declare the entire science of radiometric dating to be invalid based on a study that apparently involved only two published diffusion tests (only one of which actually showed the low temperature fast diffusion rates essential to their "theory").  In short, RATE needs to do a better job of explaining their results if they want to be taken seriously by mainstream scientists."   Dr. Timothy Christman  http://www.oldearth....e_he-zr.htm#[4]

 

"Humphreys, in his section on on "help for non-experts in deciding," made the comment that “another simple point is the number of critics and the long time they’ve been criticizing.  Each one was unsatisfied enough with the previous criticisms (most are familiar enough with the others to borrow their arguments occasionally) to take the time to attack the helium data on their own” (Humphreys, 2008).  I do not think that any of these critics could have said anything more damaging to the RATE case and the young-earth cause in general than this one statement by Humphreys, because it reveals the mindset of a propagandist and not a true scientist.

The very thing that Humphreys criticizes, multiple people who are unrelated and unknown to each other bringing their different and sometimes conflicting ideas to the table, debating and even disagreeing with one another, is how true science works!  Scientific consensus is not arrived at by decree, but through a process in which every idea, both good and bad, is tested and tried until the best possible explanation remains.  There is no scientific body to give an “official” response to the RATE claims.  Rather, it is concerned scientists, working alone without any supporting organization or budget, who are seeking together to find the truth.  It is only after ideas are shared and discussed, and sufficient information comes to light, that a true consensus can emerge.  This is an example of the scientific process.

The RATE study was not conducted according to these established scientific principles.  The group of RATE scientists, many of whom hold a controlling influence on the venues of publication within the young-earth community, collaborated together to propose their official solution to the “radiometric dating problem”.  Their consensus was not arrived at through public debate but in private agreement.  Dissenting opinions were discouraged, and serious challenges to their work were censured, as I can personally attest.  If the multitude of external critics is evidence to Humphreys that he is right, then the lack of serious open debate within the young-earth community persuades me to believe that he is wrong."  http://www.asa3.org/.../helium-gl4.htm

 

And which peer reviewed journal are these critiques from? Oh, I see. Funny how easy it is to pontificate about the need for peer review on a web page. When Loechelt did actually submit his criticisms to peer review in 2010, not only did Humphreys demonstrate that Loechelt was straining at gnats and swallowing a camel, it led to a new line of evidence for the young age of the region, argon retention in feldspar. Funny how that isn't posted on ASA.

 

As far as your attempt to poison the well by labeling Austin and Snelling as dishonest and incompetent, and creationists as not scientists, this isn't Facebook. That kind of dishonest rhetoric is typical of the long string of evo-babbling trolls that come through here, has no place in honest debate, and is not tolerated for long here. You've been warned.



#36 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 22 July 2015 - 05:18 AM

old earthers dismiss any dating methods that doesn't fit with their paradigm.

 

I think that is what we are seeing here folks...

Evolutionist- Provide me with a method of dating
Creationist- (Provides several methods)
Evolutionist- No these aren't scientific
Creationist- How aren't they scientific?
Evolutionist- Because it doesn't fit within my beliefs. (I am the arbiter on what is science).

 

 

(I am a biologist so will stick to the Evolution area, however just wanted to weigh in my thoughts on my observations for this thread).



#37 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 22 July 2015 - 11:40 AM

Correction.....
Calypsis reference was authored by four members of the R.A.T.E. investigation (Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner, and Snelling).  That means five of them (including Vardiman) have made note of the heat problem.  How many others were part of R.A.T.E.?

 

Fred said all we have is the "heat problem."  Well, it looks like the R.A.T.E. group recognizes it.  Isn't enough heat, (according to Vardiman) to boil off the oceans enough of a problem to question the results?

 

I said nothing about WHO was on the R.A.T.E.investigative team nor of their differing opinions about details of the results. Not one word. Why is that an issue?

 

Secondly, give us the scripture that 'hints' at a necessary temperature to save all life on earth as per...."Biblical passages hinting at it, disposal of excess heat, preserving life on earth, and effects on stars,"



#38 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 22 July 2015 - 11:59 AM

To Fred:  Have you considered Brown's solution to the "heat problem"?  (i.e. creation of heavier elements by fusion...by high voltage...would absorb heat).  If you have, why would you say it is not a good one?  Pi has implied that RATE may have considered it but rejected it.  Do you know if they did?



#39 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 July 2015 - 01:11 PM

To Fred:  Have you considered Brown's solution to the "heat problem"?  (i.e. creation of heavier elements by fusion...by high voltage...would absorb heat).  If you have, why would you say it is not a good one?  Pi has implied that RATE may have considered it but rejected it.  Do you know if they did?

I apologize if I conveyed the message that RATE considered Brown's claims.  I have no access to that kind of information.  What I do know is that the RATE members publish in the same creationist journals that have, for years, been inviting Brown to present his model.  For that reason, I expect they are aware of the Hydroplate model.

 

It seems to me this would be an ideal opportunity for Brown to address an aspect of RATE and help them address a fatal problem for the RATE findings.  Brown is the one who should initiate the process..... not the RATE team.



#40 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 July 2015 - 01:19 PM

Here's what footnote 34 says:

“The number of formed superheavy nuclei increases when a target made of heavy atoms (e.g., Pb) is used. Most frequently superheavy nuclei with A=271, 272, 330, 341, 343, 394, 433 are found. The same superheavy nuclei were found in the same samples when repeated measurements were made at intervals of a few months.” Adamenko et al., “Full-Range Nucleosynthesis in the Laboratory,” Infinite Energy, Issue 54, 2004, p. 4."

 

Notice the paper is from 2004 .... eleven years ago.  The discovery of element 117, with A=294 was announced last year.

 

Here's how it was made.....

..., the researchers smashed calcium nuclei (with 20 protons apiece) into a target of berkelium (97 protons per atom). The experiment was so difficult in part because berkelium itself is tough to come by. “We had to team up with the only place on the planet where berkelium can be produced and isolated in significant quantities,” Düllmann says. That place is the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which has a nuclear reactor that can create the rare element with a half-life of 330 days. It took the facility about two years to build up a large enough stock of berkelium for the experiment; when about 13 milligrams had accumulated, Oak Ridge scientists shipped it off to Germany for the next stage of the project. At GSI, researchers accelerated calcium ions to 10 percent light-speed and sent them colliding into the berkelium. If a calcium and berkelium nucleus collided head-on, occasionally the two nuclei would stick together, fusing to form a new element with a combined total of 117 protons. “We get about one atom per week,” Düllmann says.

 

If z-pinch creates all these superheavy nuclei, why hasn't it produced a new element in the 11 years since the Kiev announcement?  It sure seems a lot easier (and cheaper) than the process used to create #117.

Sorry, I just noticed I didn't provide the source for how element #117 was made.  Here it is:

http://www.scientifi...d-of-stability/






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users