Jump to content


Photo

Scientific Dating Methods For A Young Earth


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#41 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

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

Posted 22 July 2015 - 01:29 PM

It seems what we have here is a misunderstanding of what a scientific method is.  

 

Mitochondrial DNA is not a scientific dating method.

 

Helium in zircons is not a scientific dating method.

 

Soft tissues in dinosaurs is not a scientific dating method.

 

Coal is not a scientific dating method.

 

Diamonds are not a scientific dating method.

 

Now I am given warnings for simply stating my opinion of a couple of "creation scientists" who claim to be members of an organization that publicly states what they are doing is WRONG.  
 

The following is an excerpt from a statement published by the Geological Society of America, an organization which Dr. Andrew Snelling and Dr. Steven Austin claim to belong to as listed in their biographies on creationist websites.

 

"From before the time of Darwin, some people have objected to and challenged those findings of science that were considered to conflict with certain traditional religious beliefs about creation. Creationism, creation “science,” hydroplate theory, and intelligent design have emerged from religious thought, and because they invoke supernatural phenomena, they cannot frame questions that can be tested scientifically. Therefore, by definition, the notions of creationism and its more recent forms are not science. The immensity of geologic time and the evolutionary origin of species are concepts that pervade modern geology, biology, and other sciences that support human life. These concepts must therefore be treated as central themes in science courses. Without an adequate knowledge of geologic time and the evolutionary origin of species, students will not understand the processes that shape the natural environment in which they live. As a result, they will lack the understanding that is essential for making wise decisions regarding the environment upon which our survival depends. Without an understanding of and appreciation for rigorous scientific methods, students will not be prepared for higher education in the sciences or to work in the many fields of science upon which our society depends for resources and technological innovation."  http://www.geosociet...s/position1.htm

 

Why are Snelling and Austin members of an organization that publicly disagrees with everything they stand for and the statement of faith they signed when going to work for AiG and ICR?  I'm checking into having their membership status revoked.  I will speak my mind about Snelling and Austin any time I please and I can back up all my statements.  If you have a problem with it you need to explain why I am wrong.  Invite them here to discuss it if you want.  



#42 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 July 2015 - 02:00 PM

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?

The identities of the RATE group are not an issue... nor have I been able to find a full list of the membership.

 

The issue is that Fred was dismissive about the heat issue while multiple members of the investigative team have openly stated it is a problem.  

 

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,"

Seriously?

 

Did you see the comment by YEC Vardiman?  (BTW, it is likely I misunderstood his relationship to RATE... he may not be a member of the research group.)  Here it is again:

"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/

 

Notice, the statement was published by ICR .... the organization that, so far as I know funded the RATE project.   Also note that Vardiman comments about a decay rate only "a million times faster than normal."  If I understand it correctly, RATE proposes that a billion and a half years of radioactive decay took place during the flood year.... that's 1500x more decay than Vardiman based his comments on.

 

All of that being said.... it's a really safe bet that life on Earth will be extinguished a long time before the heat of the radioactive decay suggested by RATE would "melt the crust." 

 

As a science teacher, do you really need a Biblical reference showing life would not survive in the presence of enough heat to boil off the oceans and melt the crust?



#43 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 - 03:59 PM

Ludlow:


 

 

Why are Snelling and Austin members of an organization that publicly disagrees with everything they stand for and the statement of faith they signed when going to work for AiG and ICR?  I'm checking into having their membership status revoked.  I will speak my mind about Snelling and Austin any time I please and I can back up all my statements.  If you have a problem with it you need to explain why I am wrong.  Invite them here to discuss it if you want.  

 

 

 

 

Have you personally approached them and asked them why?  If not then I personally won't consider your statements about the matter again.



#44 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 - 04:28 PM

piasan:

 

The identities of the RATE group are not an issue... nor have I been able to find a full list of the membership.

 

 

 

Are YOU serious? From page 18 of Thousands Not Billions: (the seven members): Steven Austin, Andrew Snelling, John Baumgardner, Eugene Chaggin, Don DeYoung, Ruseel Humphrey's, Larry Vardiman. How in the world did you miss that? Do you mean to say that you've never even read Thousands Not Billions? How could you ever launch attacks upon them and their conclusions without having read their work?


The issue is that Fred was dismissive about the heat issue while multiple members of the investigative team have openly stated it is a problem.  

 

Seriously? 

 

Did you see the comment by YEC Vardiman?  (BTW, it is likely I misunderstood his relationship to RATE... he may not be a member of the research group.)  Here it is again: "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/

 

Your link does not work. Although I think Dr. Vardiman was a very fine man (I spoke with him personally several years ago) I would ask him the same thing I am asking you: How could you possibly know about such a heat problem without empirical investigation? Remember he was a meteorologist not a geologist. Has anyone observed helium decay in zircons over millions of years? Yes/no? Who? Secondly, I would like to know what else he said IN CONTEXT because I have no trust in you nor your conclusions about much of anything.

 

Notice, the statement was published by ICR .... the organization that, so far as I know funded the RATE project.   Also note that Vardiman comments about a decay rate only "a million times faster than normal."  If I understand it correctly, RATE proposes that a billion and a half years of radioactive decay took place during the flood year.... that's 1500x more decay than Vardiman based his comments on.

 

 

 

The bare facts revealed that the helium decay was much faster than U radiation decay. Are we supposed to ignore that fact in light of the fact that independent corroboration was sought and given be several (non-creationist) labs?

 

All of that being said.... it's a really safe bet that life on Earth will be extinguished a long time before the heat of the radioactive decay suggested by RATE would "melt the crust." 

 

As a science teacher, do you really need a Biblical reference showing life would not survive in the presence of enough heat to boil off the oceans and melt the crust?

 

 

YOU SAID, "Biblical passages hinting at it, disposal of excess heat, preserving life on earth, and effects on stars,"... So where is it found? Where does the Bible hint at such a problem? 

 

Furthermore, you can't get it in your head (deliberately I think) that the flood of Noah was a supernatural act in which God interrupted the natural forces and laws of nature to destroy the world. But naturally you can't grasp what you don't believe in the first place no matter that both scripture and historical records from over 250 ancient cultures corroborate the world wide flood as mentioned in Genesis. But without empirical investigation evidence that there would have been a 'heat' problem then I don't see why I should accept that it was indeed a problem.



#45 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

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

Posted 22 July 2015 - 05:36 PM

piasan:

 

 

 

Are YOU serious? From page 18 of Thousands Not Billions: (the seven members): Steven Austin, Andrew Snelling, John Baumgardner, Eugene Chaggin, Don DeYoung, Ruseel Humphrey's, Larry Vardiman. How in the world did you miss that? Do you mean to say that you've never even read Thousands Not Billions? How could you ever launch attacks upon them and their conclusions without having read their work?


 

 

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

 

Your link does not work. Although I think Dr. Vardiman was a very fine man (I spoke with him personally several years ago) I would ask him the same thing I am asking you: How could you possibly know about such a heat problem without empirical investigation? Remember he was a meteorologist not a geologist. Has anyone observed helium decay in zircons over millions of years? Yes/no? Who? Secondly, I would like to know what else he said IN CONTEXT because I have no trust in you nor your conclusions about much of anything.

 

 

The bare facts revealed that the helium decay was much faster than U radiation decay. Are we supposed to ignore that fact in light of the fact that independent corroboration was sought and given be several (non-creationist) labs?

 

 

YOU SAID, "Biblical passages hinting at it, disposal of excess heat, preserving life on earth, and effects on stars,"... So where is it found? Where does the Bible hint at such a problem? 

 

Furthermore, you can't get it in your head (deliberately I think) that the flood of Noah was a supernatural act in which God interrupted the natural forces and laws of nature to destroy the world. But naturally you can't grasp what you don't believe in the first place no matter that both scripture and historical records from over 250 ancient cultures corroborate the world wide flood as mentioned in Genesis. But without empirical investigation evidence that there would have been a 'heat' problem then I don't see why I should accept that it was indeed a problem.

 

It is a common creationist misconception that flood myths from around the world support the flood mentioned in Genesis.  This claim can be dismissed without merit unless you can demonstrate that any of the hundreds of myths match the Hebrew myth.  



#46 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 - 06:34 PM



It is a common creationist misconception that flood myths from around the world support the flood mentioned in Genesis.  This claim can be dismissed without merit unless you can demonstrate that any of the hundreds of myths match the Hebrew myth.  

 

No, you are wrong. What Genesis tells us is inspired by God and the Creator told us in writing (through certain men chosen to write it down) that the world was created in six days. It also tells us of the great Noahic flood and there is abundant evidence that it occurred on this planet about the time the chronologies of Genesis tell us:

 

100_2417.jpg

 

Thousands of organisms all smashed together and died at the same moment at what is now Agate Springs, Nebraska. I've been there and seen it myself. Slow and gradual evolution does not answer this phenomena which can be seen in many other places in the world, including the vast amount of fossils found in similar fashion in the Green River Formation west of Agate Springs. Only a great cataclysm bringing on the conditions described in the Bible would force animals to flee to higher ground to escape the swelling waters of the flood. 

 

fossilgraveyar2.jpg

 

aspiration188.jpg

 

I have about a half dozen similar photos of fish either (1) swallowing their last meal before sudden death, or (2) giving birth at the moment of destruction, or (3) birds crushed instantly while attempting to fly away from danger. Evolutionary processes cannot answer the multitude nor the magnitude of this phenomena.

 

Aug09262.jpg

 

The Alps are upside down completely reverse from evolutionary predictions. But this is just one of the many non-conformities that are found in your so-called 'geologic column' which I personally find as quite a joke. Are you aware that there are 247 million years of missing strata in the Grand Canyon alone? How do you explain that?



#47 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

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

Posted 22 July 2015 - 06:51 PM

Pick your favorite and start a new topic and lets discuss it, Calypsis4.  I particularly enjoy the Green River Formation fish image since I collect them and the millions of annual varves completely disprove any notion the Earth is 6,000 years old, but any one of your examples will do.  I would like to keep this topic focused on the (lack of) scientific dating methods that show the Earth is 6,000 years old. 

 

No, you are wrong. What Genesis tells us is inspired by God and the Creator told us in writing (through certain men chosen to write it down) that the world was created in six days. It also tells us of the great Noahic flood and there is abundant evidence that it occurred on this planet about the time the chronologies of Genesis tell us:

 

 

 

Using the Bible to justify your belief in the Bible and you guys think I use circular reasoning? 



#48 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 - 10:20 PM

It seems what we have here is a misunderstanding of what a scientific method is.  

 

There is only one scientific method.....

Create a hypothesis
Design an experiment
Conduct experiment
Measure results
Write and share conclusions



#49 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

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

Posted 22 July 2015 - 11:00 PM

Both absolute and relative dating methods are scientific. 



#50 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 - 11:18 PM

Both absolute and relative dating methods are scientific. 

 

I was correcting your claim of "a" scientific method, thus implying multiple scientific methods.

One would ask how said dating methods are falsifiable, since science is ultimately founded on falsification.



#51 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

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

Posted 22 July 2015 - 11:29 PM

One would ask how said dating methods are falsifiable, since science is ultimately founded on falsification

 

 

I suppose you could demonstrate how the natural laws of physics are wrong by showing inconsistencies in the rate of radiometric decay for each method. Since falsifiability means that a hypothesis is only true as long as no evidence has been found to disprove it you would be a creationist hero.



#52 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 - 11:55 PM

I suppose you could demonstrate how the natural laws of physics are wrong by showing inconsistencies in the rate of radiometric decay for each method.

 

So you are now equating your methodology to natural law?.... You do understand that there is a different between the two?..

 

Since falsifiability means that a hypothesis is only true as long as no evidence has been found to disprove it you would be a creationist hero.

 

Wrong... This is an argument from ignorance... Things aren't true because of a lack of evidence against it... Lest I claim that Pluto has a core of green cheese since there is no evidence to disprove such yet.

 

Argument from Ignorance

Ad Ignorantium

 

(also known as: appeal to ignorance, absence of evidence, argument from personal astonishment, argument from Incredulity)

Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

 

Logical Form:

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.

X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

 

http://www.logically...-from-ignorance

 

Seriously this is the third logical fallacy I've caught you using... First arguments to the future, then arguments from authority and now arguments from ignorance...
 

 

Here is a link that should help you understand.

"Principle of Falsification:

Being unrestricted, scientific theories cannot be verified by any possible accumulation of observational evidence. The formation of hypothesis is a creative process of the imagination and is not a passive reaction to observed regularities. A scientific test consists in a persevering search for negative, falsifying instances. If a hypothesis survives continuing and serious attempts to falsify it, then it has ``proved its mettle'' and can be provisionally accepted, but it can never be established conclusively. Later corroboration generates a series of hypothesis into a scientific theory.

 

Thus, the core element of a scientific hypothesis is that it must be capability of being proven false. For example, the hypothesis that ``atoms move because they are pushed by small, invisible, immaterial demons'' is pseudo-science since the existence of the demons cannot be proven false (i.e. cannot be tested at all)."

http://abyss.uoregon...sification.html

 

How are these methods found to be falsifiable?



#53 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

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

Posted 23 July 2015 - 12:08 AM

If a hypothesis survives continuing and serious attempts to falsify it, then it has ``proved its mettle'' and can be provisionally accepted, but it can never be established conclusively. Later corroboration generates a series of hypothesis into a scientific theory.

 

 

Exactly.

"Falsifiability means that a hypothesis is only true as long as no evidence has been found to disprove it. A proper scientific hypothesis must be capable of being disproved.  
This means that scientific theories are never absolutely proven, but the more evidence we have to support them, the more sure we are they are true.  Hypotheses are often reviewed, and may be discarded, when new evidence is found. Of course, the process involves debate and counter argument as new struggles against old. Few experiments can be as clear-cut as we would like, and it takes time to build up conclusive evidence."  http://www.nhm.ac.uk...ntific-process/


You keep accusing me of fallacies when I don't believe you understand what those fallacies are.  Nothing I have said is an argument from ignorance at all. 



#54 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

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

Posted 23 July 2015 - 12:16 AM

Absolute dating methods could be falsified if you could show the rate of decay is not constant.  Relative dating methods could be falsified by disproving the Law of Superposition. 

 

Now about those scientific methods that have established an age of 6,000 years for the Earth.  Got any? 



#55 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 23 July 2015 - 12:39 AM

Exactly.

"Falsifiability means that a hypothesis is only true as long as no evidence has been found to disprove it. A proper scientific hypothesis must be capable of being disproved.  
This means that scientific theories are never absolutely proven, but the more evidence we have to support them, the more sure we are they are true.  Hypotheses are often reviewed, and may be discarded, when new evidence is found. Of course, the process involves debate and counter argument as new struggles against old. Few experiments can be as clear-cut as we would like, and it takes time to build up conclusive evidence."  http://www.nhm.ac.uk...ntific-process/


You keep accusing me of fallacies when I don't believe you understand what those fallacies are.  Nothing I have said is an argument from ignorance at all. 

 

When you claim that evidence will be found in the future, then that is an argument to the future fallacy.

When you make arguments relating to X person and how great X person is then that is an argument from authority

Now, you claimed the following...
 

 

Since falsifiability means that a hypothesis is only true as long as no evidence has been found to disprove it you would be a creationist hero.

 

In science it is standard practice to not claim something as true, (for the same reasons why you don't use proof as I mentioned to you earlier).

To claim something is true is to assume that there can be no new evidence which will change that position, hence to do so destroys the plasticity of science to incorporate new data. In fact it sets a paradigm whereby future evidence will only be viewed under the assumption that X is true...

Now when you claim that a hypothesis is true unless found to be false this is not true, a hypothesis is SUPPORTED, but not only that it is SUPPORTED after being TESTED by experimentation.. Experimentation that seeks to falsify the hypothesis. Hence your clumsy wording did amount to an argument from ignorance.

Had you said the following, (or something similar)

'a hypothesis is only supported as long as it is tested by experimentation and is not falsified by said test'

Then I'd have no problems with your claim...

 

 

Absolute dating methods could be falsified if you could show the rate of decay is not constant. 

 

 

Then those methods are falsified :)

 

 

After poring over the data, engineers and physicists noted a recurring pattern 33 days long that affected the decay rates of the various radioactive substances.  That’s a pattern that corresponds to the rotation of the Sun’s core.  Which got the physicists to thinking that maybe the sun was involved.  But the only explanation that makes sense would be solar neutrinos — which leads to a result that means, as one of the researchers observed, “What we’re suggesting is that something that doesn’t really interact with anything is changing something that can’t be changed.”

http://www.forbes.co...tant-after-all/

 

 

But that assumption was challenged in an unexpected way by a group of researchers from Purdue University who at the time were more interested in random numbers than nuclear decay. (Scientists use long strings of random numbers for a variety of calculations, but they are difficult to produce, since the process used to produce the numbers has an influence on the outcome.)

Ephraim Fischbach, a physics professor at Purdue, was looking into the rate of radioactive decay of several isotopes as a possible source of random numbers generated without any human input. (A lump of radioactive cesium-137, for example, may decay at a steady rate overall, but individual atoms within the lump will decay in an unpredictable, random pattern. Thus the timing of the random ticks of a Geiger counter placed near the cesium might be used to generate random numbers.)

As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates – odd for supposed physical constants.

 

Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.

Was this fluctuation real, or was it merely a glitch in the equipment used to measure the decay, induced by the change of seasons, with the accompanying changes in temperature and humidity?

"Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant," Sturrock said.

 

The sun speaks

On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.

If this apparent relationship between flares and decay rates proves true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares prior to their occurrence, which could help prevent damage to satellites and electric grids, as well as save the lives of astronauts in space.

The decay-rate aberrations that Jenkins noticed occurred during the middle of the night in Indiana – meaning that something produced by the sun had traveled all the way through the Earth to reach Jenkins' detectors. What could the flare send forth that could have such an effect?

 

Jenkins and Fischbach guessed that the culprits in this bit of decay-rate mischief were probably solar neutrinos, the almost weightless particles famous for flying at almost the speed of light through the physical world – humans, rocks, oceans or planets – with virtually no interaction with anything.

 

Then, in a series of papers published in Astroparticle Physics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research and Space Science Reviews, Jenkins, Fischbach and their colleagues showed that the observed variations in decay rates were highly unlikely to have come from environmental influences on the detection systems.

 

Reason for suspicion

Their findings strengthened the argument that the strange swings in decay rates were caused by neutrinos from the sun. The swings seemed to be in synch with the Earth's elliptical orbit, with the decay rates oscillating as the Earth came closer to the sun (where it would be exposed to more neutrinos) and then moving away.

So there was good reason to suspect the sun, but could it be proved?

Enter Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics and an expert on the inner workings of the sun. While on a visit to the National Solar Observatory in Arizona, Sturrock was handed copies of the scientific journal articles written by the Purdue researchers.

 

Sturrock knew from long experience that the intensity of the barrage of neutrinos the sun continuously sends racing toward Earth varies on a regular basis as the sun itself revolves and shows a different face, like a slower version of the revolving light on a police car. His advice to Purdue: Look for evidence that the changes in radioactive decay on Earth vary with the rotation of the sun. "That's what I suggested. And that's what we have done."

 

A surprise 

Going back to take another look at the decay data from the Brookhaven lab, the researchers found a recurring pattern of 33 days. It was a bit of a surprise, given that most solar observations show a pattern of about 28 days – the rotation rate of the surface of the sun.

 

The explanation? The core of the sun – where nuclear reactions produce neutrinos – apparently spins more slowly than the surface we see. "It may seem counter-intuitive, but it looks as if the core rotates more slowly than the rest of the sun," Sturrock said.

All of the evidence points toward a conclusion that the sun is "communicating" with radioactive isotopes on Earth, said Fischbach.

But there's one rather large question left unanswered. No one knows how neutrinos could interact with radioactive materials to change their rate of decay.

 

"It doesn't make sense according to conventional ideas," Fischbach said. Jenkins whimsically added, "What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."

"It's an effect that no one yet understands," agreed Sturrock. "Theorists are starting to say, 'What's going on?' But that's what the evidence points to. It's a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too."

If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, "It would have to be something we don't know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable," Sturrock said.

http://news.stanford...sun-082310.html



#56 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 23 July 2015 - 06:38 AM

Pick your favorite and start a new topic and lets discuss it, Calypsis4.  I particularly enjoy the Green River Formation fish image since I collect them and the millions of annual varves completely disprove any notion the Earth is 6,000 years old, but any one of your examples will do.  I would like to keep this topic focused on the (lack of) scientific dating methods that show the Earth is 6,000 years old. 

 

 

 

Using the Bible to justify your belief in the Bible and you guys think I use circular reasoning? 

 

For starters answer just the four examples I illustrated in post #46. 



#57 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 23 July 2015 - 06:39 AM

Absolute dating methods could be falsified if you could show the rate of decay is not constant.  Relative dating methods could be falsified by disproving the Law of Superposition. 

 

Now about those scientific methods that have established an age of 6,000 years for the Earth.  Got any? 

 

We told you but you just brushed them aside.



#58 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 23 July 2015 - 09:34 AM

We told you but you just brushed them aside.

 

 

Yeah, he just wants to showboat...no real interest in a discussion.  What difference does it make if some method of dating gets 6000 or 25,000 years?  It still blows apart the evolutionary/atheistic worldview he has.  He brushed aside the FACT that if you find a bone buried inside a sedimentary layer and then get a C14 date of 25,000 or 40,000 years for the carbon in that bone, then that means that layer of earth was laid down at the time the animal died...or near that time.  He doesn't want to discuss that, so he pretends that no one has addressed his question. 



#59 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 23 July 2015 - 10:49 AM

BL: >>Absolute dating methods could be falsified if you could show the rate of decay is not constant.>>

 

 

I guess you just choose to ignore the fact that the rate of decay of C14 is constant...and gives a very young date for many objects your view says MUST be very very old.  If for instance coal inside a formation which has limestone above and below it is dated at 40,000 years, then that implies a very young date for all the limestone and everything else that is above it.  That pretty much blows apart your view.  But I guess you choose to not grapple with that and just keep harping away with your claim that no dating method gives a 6000 year date for the Earth.  Have you falsified the C14 dating method?



#60 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 23 July 2015 - 11:38 AM

The identities of the RATE group are not an issue... nor have I been able to find a full list of the membership.

 

Are YOU serious? From page 18 of Thousands Not Billions: (the seven members): Steven Austin, Andrew Snelling, John Baumgardner, Eugene Chaggin, Don DeYoung, Ruseel Humphrey's, Larry Vardiman.

Thank you.   Further research shows Vardiman was the director of the R.A.T.E. project (Source: http://creationscien...larry-vardiman/ )

 

So, we have five team members, including the director of the project have said heat is a problem.  The director said it is such a problem, it could boil off the oceans and melt the crust of the planet.

 

 How in the world did you miss that?

 

I seem to have misplaced my copy.   OK, actually, I don't have the book.

 

 

How could you ever launch attacks upon them and their conclusions without having read their work?

Where did I launch an attack on any member of the R.A.T.E. group for their work on that project?  (In other comments, I have attacked Austin for his (inappropriate)  handling of Mt. St. Helens samples.)

 

As for the conclusions of R.A.T.E. ..... it is those conclusions on which I base my position.  I realize there are some among you who think this is "unreasonable" of me, but so far as I'm concerned, any scientific proposal or explanation that sterilizes the planet is Dead On Arrival.  The mere fact we are here discussing it is sufficient to discard the findings.

 

That said, you sound like Dr. Brown and Indy..... "How can you possibly criticize this without having read all of it?"  It's like the joke about the coroner and an attorney:

Attorney:  Did you check to see if Mr. Smith was breathing?

Coroner:  No.

Attorney:  Did you check Mr. Smith for any signs of a pulse?

Coroner:  No.

Attorney:  Did you check to see if his pupils were dilated?

Coroner:  No.

Attorney:  Well, if you didn't check for signs of life, how did you know Mr. Smith was dead?

Coroner:  His brain was in a jar on my desk.

 

Did you see the comment by YEC Vardiman?  (BTW, it is likely I misunderstood his relationship to RATE... he may not be a member of the research group.)  Here it is again:

"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/

Your link does not work. Although I think Dr. Vardiman was a very fine man

That's interesting.  I posted the link in #27 and 42 .... both of them worked for me just a few minutes ago.  You posted it in #44 and that one worked too.  However, if the link doesn't work for you, here's an alternative way to get to the article:

1)  Go to the icr.org page.

2)  Click on search.

3)  Enter: "Vardiman AND RATE"

4)  Search.

The article, "RATE in review:  Unsolved problems"  should be the first one listed.

 

BTW, I think Vardiman still is a very fine man.

 

How could you possibly know about such a heat problem without empirical investigation?

Well, I'm not the one who said it.  This was from five of the seven members of the RATE project.... including the Director who was very specific about the potential consequences.

 

If you have the numbers, it's a fairly simple "back of the envelope" calculation.  But again, I'm not the one making the claim.... the members of the RATE project are.

 

 Remember he was a meteorologist not a geologist.

Walt Brown is a mechanical engineer, not a geologist, paleontologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or nuclear physicist ..... but YEC have no problem at all citing him as a more knowledgeable in all of those fields than the experts who have dedicated their entire professional career to them.

 

Besides, Vardiman was appointed by ICR as the DIRECTOR of the RATE group.  If you want to challenge their findings on that basis, fine.  (Oh yeah.... Vardiman IS a meteorologist.

 

 Has anyone observed helium decay in zircons over millions of years? Yes/no? Who?

 

No.  Helium doesn't decay.

 

 Secondly, I would like to know what else he said IN CONTEXT because I have no trust in you nor your conclusions about much of anything.

 

Well, you how have an alternate means to reach the page.  Go for it.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users