Jump to content


Photo

Requesting Help From Old Universe Believers


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
52 replies to this topic

#21 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 19 March 2012 - 06:58 PM

The half-life exponential rate is based on pure randomness. Absolutely no patterns in the decay. Any sign of outside influences would mess with this exponential rate being used. You stated that patterns discovered in decay rates are negligible, but to what extent do these small changes in the decay rates effect the principle of randomness on which the exponential rate is based? I am not referring to slight changes in the measured decay rates themselves, I'm referring to the half-life that you have explained so well which is 100% based on randomness.

You are right in the fact that the decay of each individual atom is entirely random. However, it is the same thing when you play with dice. For each individual roll, there is an equal and random chance of rolling any number. However, start rolling more and more often, and you'll find a definite average is coming out, despite the randomness of each individual roll. It's much the same with nuclear decay and half-lives.
Also, outside signs can mess with radiometric decay, but so far, these influences have not been proven to be anything more than a slight nudge in one direction or the other. As a result, we can say that results, instead of being within a 1% error margin, could now be within a 3% error margin. The effect of these influences on the half-life is not significantly greater simply because of the exponential nature of the decay.

#22 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 20 March 2012 - 01:22 AM

I'm not entirely sure I follow your argument here about the age of the earth, but we don't really need the moon at all to show that the earth is more than 6,000 years old.
Also, I do believe miles has resumed the point about the moon being spherical very well. Only small (well, relatively) astronomical objects have a non-spherical shape.


The thing is that C14 is being continually produced in the earth's upper atmosphere. Gama rays from the sun send neutrons flying towards us, and when one of those neutrons hit an everyday regular nitrogen atom, it undergoes many nuclear changes to become an atom of carbon 14, with one less proton that nitrogen and two neutrons extra. Thus, C14 is being continually replenished. There are however no processes occurring on earth nor in the sun creating new samarium 146 though. Thus, all samarium must have come from the original soup of elements which created our planet, and since there is indeed all the other isotopes of samarium present but not samarium 146, it can give us an indication of the age of the planet.
Correction though, there are isotopes of samarium with longer and shorter half-lives than samarium 146, but they either give an age younger than Sm146, or an age older than the age of the earth (ie there are still some left), and in that case the assumption problem about initial quantities versus daughter isotope do apply. Samarium 146 simply provides a nice, clean, easy to understand example.


Dude did you read what I said about the moon?

I was commenting on your claim that the secular stance is that it is a fragment... Which is absolutely stupid since a fragment from a collision would not be spherical... (Go crash 100 cars and see if you get a spherical one from the collision... I'm serious... this is what is being asserted here).

I then added that due to its absolute stupidity it is most likely asserted only because it allows more time to be tacked on to the age of the Earth.



Ah so if C14 is continually being produced then

i) how can we use C14 dating at all?
ii) don't other elemental isotopes get regenerated as well? How do you know that they do not? In the case of Samarium, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... You cannot boldly claim that it cannot happen since there has been no testing as such. Otherwise there can be no inferences to the unknown. There may be gold on Pluto even though we have no current evidence that there is..
iii) Hence the radioactive dating is entirely held up on an argument of ignorance.... Plus all the other assumptions I have stated elsewhere.


Ok so lets assume that Samarium 146 cannot be regenerated... and lets assume that the decay rate is constant... and lets assume that the decay rate is the same as it is for all time.... Now how does knowing the half life of the isotope do anything without the INITIAL concentration of the isotope. The only way to measure this would be to build a time machine and go back to the creation of Earth itself...

Who knows perhaps the 1kg sample we have used to be 100 tonnes before... Or perhaps it was only 1.1kg??

Not knowing the initial amount of the isotopes means that we have no idea where to draw the line. SO the fact that it lasts so long with its half-life is irrelevant when there could only be a 0.0000001mg difference from now and the start of Earth...

#23 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 20 March 2012 - 04:00 AM

Also, outside signs can mess with radiometric decay, but so far, these influences have not been proven to be anything more than a slight nudge in one direction or the other. As a result, we can say that results, instead of being within a 1% error margin, could now be within a 3% error margin. The effect of these influences on the half-life is not significantly greater simply because of the exponential nature of the decay.


You are wrong, in a plasma state decay rates are accelerated drastically due to ionization of molecules within. Guess where plasma exists? Stars. Creationists also suppose that the earth may have been created as a plasmoid (which would have taken 14.7 hours to cool from 10 million degrees to 300 degrees), and/or heat from the flood may have been hot enough to cause some presence of plasma, but this is merely speculation. Sorry my link was broken: Accelerated Decay It only mentions beta decay but citation 2 mentions alpha decay as well.

The foregoing discussion assumes that electrons surround the nucleus, which of course is nearly always the case. For over 50 years, however, some theoreticians had suggested that negatron decay could be altered in the case of a nucleus bereft of its electrons (as occurs in a plasma state). Perhaps the β particle attempting to leave a bare nucleus would have to overcome a much lower threshold of kinetic energy than if the electrons were present. The fleeing β particle could take refuge in a vacant electron orbital around the nucleus instead of attempting to escape all the way into the continuum. This process is called bound-state β decay (or βb decay). Subsequently, theoretical analyses<a href="http://creation.com/...laboratory#r3">3 suggested that a significant perturbation of radioactive decay rates could occur in the nuclides of 25 different elements as a consequence of βb decay.


This is the standard Gamow theory, and is often referred to as quantum mechanical tunnelling. In α-decay, the electrons are largely irrelevant. Humphreys suggests, based on an application of the standard theory, that a small diminishing of the nuclear potential, however, has allowed α-decay to be accelerated a billion-fold or more.



Here's a video of a presentation by Dr Edward Boudreaux detailing the mathematics of accelerated decay in an ionized state.

#24 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 20 March 2012 - 04:18 AM

Dude did you read what I said about the moon?

I was commenting on your claim that the secular stance is that it is a fragment... Which is absolutely stupid since a fragment from a collision would not be spherical... (Go crash 100 cars and see if you get a spherical one from the collision... I'm serious... this is what is being asserted here).


You aren't seriously proposing that 100 cars having a collision can be compared to two planets colliding, are you?
  • Alex likes this

#25 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 20 March 2012 - 04:22 AM


i) how can we use C14 dating at all?


Living things like animals and plants absorb that C14 untill they have the same ratio of the athmosphere in their organism (carbon based life forms, you know ;-) ). If they die, they stop absorbing C14 and the decay will start to mess up the ratio and hence we can make an estimate of their death.

#26 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 20 March 2012 - 12:36 PM

You are wrong, in a plasma state decay rates are accelerated drastically due to ionization of molecules within. Guess where plasma exists? Stars.

How would this explanation be possible in a young universe? According to a literal genesis reading the stars were created on day 4, while the earth was formed on day 1 so you can't start earth with material from stars. Due to distances involved you also can't simply have material ejected from the stars traveling at sub-light speed to earth, arrive and be incorporated into every bit of the planet and throughout the solar system in only a few thousand years. Instead you'd end up with a sprinkling of "older" star stuff on a base of "young" uncontaminated material. Even if you want to say the flood completely altered the earth, asteroids and moon rocks show no such pattern of "young" material in their centers.

Creationists also suppose that the earth may have been created as a plasmoid (which would have taken 14.7 hours to cool from 10 million degrees to 300 degrees),

Where did you get that cooling time?
The mechanism for a planet cooling is radiative cooling and it occurs very slowly. The time needed to cool earth from a high temp to about 300 Kelvin (present day temp) is a minimum of around 30,000 years. http://hyperphysics....ootime2.html#c1

Your link also admits that the mechanism it's proposing can't account for enough radioactive decay without needing additional temporary alterations of the physical universe (a.k.a. God did it).

This process, though, is insufficient by itself to generate billions of years’ worth of excess 187Os.7

7. Note that bound-state βb decay accelerates the Re-Os ‘clock’ by 9 orders of magnitude. However, in order to compress 4.5 Ga worth of ‘normal’ radioactive decay into the several hours of the First Day of Creation Week, the Re-Os ‘clock’ would need to be accelerated by another 5 orders of magnitude.

#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 20 March 2012 - 03:18 PM

Living things like animals and plants absorb that C14 untill they have the same ratio of the athmosphere in their organism (carbon based life forms, you know ;-) ). If they die, they stop absorbing C14 and the decay will start to mess up the ratio and hence we can make an estimate of their death.


Now that adds in more assumptions...

i) that the concentration of C14 is uniform in the air, water and biosphere
ii) that the rate of C14 regeneration is uniform

"The assumptions (Faure, Gunter, Principles of Isotope Geology, 1977, p. 307) on which the dating is made are: 1. It is independent of time for 70,000 years. 2. The value is independent of geologic location. 3. The percent of C14 is not species dependent. 4. The generation activity of C14 is a known constant. 5. There is no C14 contamination with modern C14. 6. There is no loss of C14 except by radioactive decay.

Radiocarbon is generated in the upper atmosphere primarily by cosmic ray bombardment of nitrogen (N14), converting it to C14. The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology states that the concentration of C14 in the Earth’s atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere is “relatively” uniform. It then goes on to explain how the relatively uniform condition is really a variable. A key factor in the C14 generation rate is the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. According to the technical monograph, Origin and destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field (Barnes, Thomas G., “Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field,” Technical Monograph number 4, Second Ed., 1983, p. 17), the magnetic field is decaying as a first order exponential with a half life of 1,400 years, a number much less than the 5,700 year half life of C14."

http://hope-of-israel.org/c14.html


You aren't seriously proposing that 100 cars having a collision can be compared to two planets colliding, are you?


The sizes are different as well as with the mass, but the principle is the same. However I assume from this statement that you do not get my point....

Tell me where in the world is a fragment of a collision a near perfect sphere... This doesn't happen, hence why the "secular stance" is absolutely idiotic. Furthermore a collision of such magnitude would also leave evidence... Crater impact and left over debris since the moon is merely a "fragment" such evidence has not been found as such the secular stance is merely an unsupported story...

Are unsupported stories scientific?

Why would the secular stance be an unscientific story, (unless they had an agenda to keep)?




It is interesting that no-one has commented on the bulk of my post and rather pick out pedantic nit-picking queries...

#28 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 20 March 2012 - 04:09 PM

How would this explanation be possible in a young universe? According to a literal genesis reading the stars were created on day 4, while the earth was formed on day 1 so you can't start earth with material from stars. Due to distances involved you also can't simply have material ejected from the stars traveling at sub-light speed to earth, arrive and be incorporated into every bit of the planet and throughout the solar system in only a few thousand years. Instead you'd end up with a sprinkling of "older" star stuff on a base of "young" uncontaminated material. Even if you want to say the flood completely altered the earth, asteroids and moon rocks show no such pattern of "young" material in their centers.


Where did you get that cooling time?
The mechanism for a planet cooling is radiative cooling and it occurs very slowly. The time needed to cool earth from a high temp to about 300 Kelvin (present day temp) is a minimum of around 30,000 years. http://hyperphysics....ootime2.html#c1

Your link also admits that the mechanism it's proposing can't account for enough radioactive decay without needing additional temporary alterations of the physical universe (a.k.a. God did it).

This process, though, is insufficient by itself to generate billions of years’ worth of excess 187Os.7

7. Note that bound-state βb decay accelerates the Re-Os ‘clock’ by 9 orders of magnitude. However, in order to compress 4.5 Ga worth of ‘normal’ radioactive decay into the several hours of the First Day of Creation Week, the Re-Os ‘clock’ would need to be accelerated by another 5 orders of magnitude.


Well I didn't say where the material came from. You said it was from the stars and are not projecting your assumptions on me.

I have no problem accepting miracles into the mix, since the Bible records that they happened throughout history, and it even says that it doesn't record all of them (Jesus performed many more works that were not recorded in the gospels for example), but the problem is that I can't know when miracles occurred, and how they affected natural processes. No doubt that creation of the earth had a few miracles though. The best we can do is study the aftermath of the creation of the earth to figure it out.

The key to figuring out the composition of asteroids and moon rocks is...to figure out where they came from. So tell me...where did they come from? Well we really have no clue do we, only the clues left after the fact.

I'm curious, where did all of this samarium aftermath come from on the earth's surface in the first place according to old earther standards? Why did it suddenly stop? Nature did it?

I got the cooling rate from the video I posted.

#29 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 21 March 2012 - 05:50 AM

You are right in the fact that the decay of each individual atom is entirely random. However, it is the same thing when you play with dice. For each individual roll, there is an equal and random chance of rolling any number. However, start rolling more and more often, and you'll find a definite average is coming out, despite the randomness of each individual roll. It's much the same with nuclear decay and half-lives.
Also, outside signs can mess with radiometric decay, but so far, these influences have not been proven to be anything more than a slight nudge in one direction or the other. As a result, we can say that results, instead of being within a 1% error margin, could now be within a 3% error margin. The effect of these influences on the half-life is not significantly greater simply because of the exponential nature of the decay.


I'm not a mathematician, but my logic says that the 3% error margin is completely exacerbated when applied to the exponential rate. So I am happy to diagree here, I think there would be an exponential effect on the 3%, that would have a dramatic effect on the actual half-life.

Toss a coin 1000 times in a day, it will land about 500 times on heads (half life of those 1000 coins is 1 day) . Remove 15 heads (3 % of the decayed value) , so its sitting on 485 heads
The next day toss those 485 coins again, it should land about 243 times on heads. Remove the 3% (7 coins) and you have now got 234 coins.
Third day, toss 234 coins, you have 117 left. Remove 3% (3) you have 114 coins left.

So by the 3rd day you have 114 coins, yet using the unadjusted half-life rate you would have had 125 coins. The difference is now 11 coins, which is nearly TEN PERCENT error margin and only on the third day.

Now apply this error margin to a measurement made over a short period in a laboratoy where they do not even reach the first so-called half-life. ie in the laboratory they do not wait until half the parent isotope has decayed to half its volume and extrapolate their figures from that, they just measure the first few moments of decay and use mathematical formulas to come to the half life. This would swing the measurements by a much higher precentage than the percent error that I showed above. The half-life rate is wrong because it requires and relies on randomness, they are using the completely incorrect exponential rate.

Another point, is it possible that an atom would deteriate in an accelerated manner through old-age, like a human. Through the continuous bombardment of pressures, neutrinos, electrical currents etc etc, it reaches a heightened state and therefore can lose an electron at slightly higher rates than in its infancy. Do we know enough about decay to be sure that there is no acceleration when the amounts of the parent isotope become very negligible in the rock?

#30 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 21 March 2012 - 07:59 AM

Now that adds in more assumptions...

i) that the concentration of C14 is uniform in the air, water and biosphere
ii) that the rate of C14 regeneration is uniform


While the methodology is a good one in theory, those two are indeed valid concerns in practise.

I think that i) has been established that it is in fact uniform in the air, water etc.

ii) on the other hand, has been proven to be wrong and that at the poles, the c-dating cannot be trusted for this reason (but I can be mistaken, radioactive decay isn't my forte). You need to take into account the location and time.


"The assumptions (Faure, Gunter, Principles of Isotope Geology, 1977, p. 307) on which the dating is made are: 1. It is independent of time for 70,000 years. 2. The value is independent of geologic location. 3. The percent of C14 is not species dependent. 4. The generation activity of C14 is a known constant. 5. There is no C14 contamination with modern C14. 6. There is no loss of C14 except by radioactive decay.


1. I think that they were able to draw a graph of the ratios thanks to archeology (based on the concentration in layers of rock or something like that?) but I have problems finding a link. When I do, I'll post it here. It is defenately dependant of time though (that has been proven).

2. Once again: has been proven to be not the case.

3. Is correct afaik.

4. Don't really know what they mean by this.

5. Contamination is always a possibility but can be checked.

6. Loss of C14 except for decay? How would that happen?

That source is 30 years old. Not really up to date of recent and even less recent discoveries.


Radiocarbon is generated in the upper atmosphere primarily by cosmic ray bombardment of nitrogen (N14), converting it to C14. The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology states that the concentration of C14 in the Earth’s atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere is “relatively” uniform. It then goes on to explain how the relatively uniform condition is really a variable. A key factor in the C14 generation rate is the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. According to the technical monograph, Origin and destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field (Barnes, Thomas G., “Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field,” Technical Monograph number 4, Second Ed., 1983, p. 17), the magnetic field is decaying as a first order exponential with a half life of 1,400 years, a number much less than the 5,700 year half life of C14."

http://hope-of-israel.org/c14.html


The magnetic field is decaying with a half life of 1.400 years? That's a bold statement. I'd love to see the science behind that. Knowing that even today, we don't know all that much about our magnetic field, and that the book is 30 years old, I'm having a lot of trouble believing it tbh.

Has there been any progress on that variable the last 30 years? Any idea how much that variable varies? I've read that there are variations of 3% (but without sources) which would mean that C-14 dating is wrong by 3%. That is acceptable imo.

The sizes are different as well as with the mass, but the principle is the same. However I assume from this statement that you do not get my point....


The sizes, the temperature, the mass, the behaviour on impact, the number of bodies affected, the forces applied to the bodies, ... In fact, almost nothing is the same so claiming that the principle is the same is simply worng.

Tell me where in the world is a fragment of a collision a near perfect sphere... This doesn't happen, hence why the "secular stance" is absolutely idiotic. Furthermore a collision of such magnitude would also leave evidence... Crater impact and left over debris since the moon is merely a "fragment" such evidence has not been found as such the secular stance is merely an unsupported story...


The sphere is ofcourse not the effect of the collision but a combination of the temperature of the colliding bodies (hot enough to melt metal and stones) and the moon spnning around its axis.

There wouldn't be craters on the earth due to plate tectonics if it would leave any craters at all on a molten piece of planet.

What do you mean with left over debris?

Are unsupported stories scientific?

Why would the secular stance be an unscientific story, (unless they had an agenda to keep)?

It is interesting that no-one has commented on the bulk of my post and rather pick out pedantic nit-picking queries...


I haven't read everything in this topic yet but tbh if you are going to give me links to fragments of books that are 30 years old, if you are going to compare two things that aren't the same in any way imaginable, and on top imply a complot, then I can honestly get why people wouldn't react.

#31 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 21 March 2012 - 08:05 AM

Well I didn't say where the material came from. You said it was from the stars and are not projecting your assumptions on me.

You said that plasma occurs in stars and that plasma accelerates decays. I assumed you intended those statements to be related, meaning you would have been suggesting that decay was accelerated in stars and the material then made it's way to earth. This doesn't work very well in a young universe.

I have no problem accepting miracles into the mix, since the Bible records that they happened throughout history, and it even says that it doesn't record all of them (Jesus performed many more works that were not recorded in the gospels for example), but the problem is that I can't know when miracles occurred, and how they affected natural processes. No doubt that creation of the earth had a few miracles though. The best we can do is study the aftermath of the creation of the earth to figure it out.

If you accept miracles then there's no possibility of figuring anything out because there's no way to eliminate any explanations.

How could anyone show that God didn't make earth from super hot plasma or a super cold iceball or a ball of cheese if the argument, "well a miracle was involved" is allowed.

The key to figuring out the composition of asteroids and moon rocks is...to figure out where they came from. So tell me...where did they come from? Well we really have no clue do we, only the clues left after the fact.

The key to figuring out composition (aka makeup or structure) is to simply get a sample and look at what it's made of. Did you mean something other than "composition"? Asteroid and moon rocks come from the same places as all other stuff in the solar system, past stellar novas, but even if we had no idea where they came from we could still tell what they are made up of.

I'm curious, where did all of this samarium aftermath come from on the earth's surface in the first place according to old earther standards? Why did it suddenly stop? Nature did it?

According to the standard explanation, samarium and all the other extinct isotopes were formed in various past novas and eventually they and their decay products became part of the nebula that eventually became our solar system. Depending on the distances involved it's possible that there was little to no samarium in our nebula and only the decay products made it here. There's no samarium currently because there haven't been any recent nova close enough to seed our solar system with it in measurable quantities before it decays.

I got the cooling rate from the video I posted.

I skimmed through and found a 14.7 hour time but that appeared to relate to the universe expanding at the speed of light and cooling (the radius's involved in the equation are much larger than the current size of the earth), not the earth cooling. If you expand the universe it woudn't necessarily cool earth. If you put a white hot steel ball inside a room that is a vaccuum, then increase the size of the room/vaccuum, the ball doesn't cool off any faster because the cooling rate is solely determined by the size and surface area of the ball which hasn't changed.

I'm not a mathematician, but my logic says that the 3% error margin is completely exacerbated when applied to the exponential rate. So I am happy to diagree here, I think there would be an exponential effect on the 3%, that would have a dramatic effect on the actual half-life.

Toss a coin 1000 times in a day, it will land about 500 times on heads (half life of those 1000 coins is 1 day) . Remove 15 heads (3 % of the decayed value) , so its sitting on 485 heads
The next day toss those 485 coins again, it should land about 243 times on heads. Remove the 3% (7 coins) and you have now got 234 coins.
Third day, toss 234 coins, you have 117 left. Remove 3% (3) you have 114 coins left.

So by the 3rd day you have 114 coins, yet using the unadjusted half-life rate you would have had 125 coins. The difference is now 11 coins, which is nearly TEN PERCENT error margin and only on the third day.

The error doesn't compound that way. You can prove it by using the standard half life equation. http://en.wikipedia....ponential_decay

The 1000->500 case has a half life of 1 day
The 1000->485 case has a half life of .9579 days (about a 4% error)

A measurement of 125 out of 1000 with a half life of 1 day would give a date of 3 days.
A measurement of 114 out of 1000 with half life of 1 day would give a date of 3.13 days (about a 4% error)
A measurement of 125 out of 1000 with a half life of .9579 would give a date of 2.87 days (about a 4% error)
A measurement of 114 out of 1000 with a half life of .9579 would give a date of 3 days

Notice how the error % is the same as the error% of the half life and isn't compounded.

Another point, is it possible that an atom would deteriate in an accelerated manner through old-age, like a human. Through the continuous bombardment of pressures, neutrinos, electrical currents etc etc, it reaches a heightened state and therefore can lose an electron at slightly higher rates than in its infancy. Do we know enough about decay to be sure that there is no acceleration when the amounts of the parent isotope become very negligible in the rock?

Not according to any of the phsyics we know of. Atoms don't get tired and there have been many tests watching isotopes decay from high concentrations to low concentrations without changes in decay rate.

#32 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 21 March 2012 - 09:36 AM

While the methodology is a good one in theory, those two are indeed valid concerns in practise.

I think that i) has been established that it is in fact uniform in the air, water etc.

ii) on the other hand, has been proven to be wrong and that at the poles, the c-dating cannot be trusted for this reason (but I can be mistaken, radioactive decay isn't my forte). You need to take into account the location and time.



1. I think that they were able to draw a graph of the ratios thanks to archeology (based on the concentration in layers of rock or something like that?) but I have problems finding a link. When I do, I'll post it here. It is defenately dependant of time though (that has been proven).

2. Once again: has been proven to be not the case.

[font=Arial][size=4]3. Is correct afaik.


[font=Arial][size=4]4. Don't really know what they mean by this.

[font=Arial][size=4]5. Contamination is always a possibility but can be checked.

[font=Arial][size=4]6. Loss of C14 except for decay? How would that happen?

[font=Arial][size=4]That source is 30 years old. Not really up to date of recent and even less recent discoveries.

[font=Arial][size=4]

The magnetic field is decaying with a half life of 1.400 years? That's a bold statement. I'd love to see the science behind that. Knowing that even today, we don't know all that much about our magnetic field, and that the book is 30 years old, I'm having a lot of trouble believing it tbh.

Has there been any progress on that variable the last 30 years? Any idea how much that variable varies? I've read that there are variations of 3% (but without sources) which would mean that C-14 dating is wrong by 3%. That is acceptable imo.



The sizes, the temperature, the mass, the behaviour on impact, the number of bodies affected, the forces applied to the bodies, ... In fact, almost nothing is the same so claiming that the principle is the same is simply worng.



The sphere is ofcourse not the effect of the collision but a combination of the temperature of the colliding bodies (hot enough to melt metal and stones) and the moon spnning around its axis.

There wouldn't be craters on the earth due to plate tectonics if it would leave any craters at all on a molten piece of planet.

What do you mean with left over debris?



I haven't read everything in this topic yet but tbh if you are going to give me links to fragments of books that are 30 years old, if you are going to compare two things that aren't the same in any way imaginable, and on top imply a complot, then I can honestly get why people wouldn't react.


It is claimed to be "relatively" uniform meaning there are discrepancies... You "missed" that bit in the quotation, and it was quoted from a text book no less..

This is all an aside from my main point of not knowing the initial concentration, which is a critical flaw, however having all these assumptions should make one pause and wonder if the process is more based on luck than actual science.

Carbon loss occurs all the time in the form of dead cells, hair growth, nail growth, as well as via waste excrement.



However I really don't mind if carbon dating is correct because its max age is about 15,000 years... My main focus was initially about the other radiometric dating that somehow gives "millions" of years. Not knowing the inital amount means the process is 100% based on an assumption, there is no way you can deny this unless you figure a way to work out how much of the isotope was present at its initial creation.... (There is one way but that gives an age of 6000 years)





The basic principle is that there are two objects colliding... this IS the same. Yes there are variances with size mass temp etc I never said these are the same. However your replies (excuses) to the problems I have cited show a complete lack of evidence... (thus unscientific, unsupported stories)


So you claim that

a) the moon was a molten mass when it hit and since it was molten when it was in space was able to form a sphere- Firstly the impact caused by a molten mass would be vastly different and the "fragment" coming off would be more like a spray, as such it wouldn't conglomerate rather it would spray in all directions.

B) So you assume that the Earth was molten when it supposedly occurred... Where is the evidence for this?

c) its VERY simple logic that if the moon is a "fragment" then there must be the bulk of the debris somewhere on Earth... Go find that first before proposing wild "theories" that have no evidence...


Science is about the evidence not how well a scientist can sell a story. You're only displaying your own faith in evolutionist dogma when you propose answers that have no evidence.

#33 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 21 March 2012 - 11:52 AM

1. It is claimed to be "relatively" uniform meaning there are discrepancies... You "missed" that bit in the quotation, and it was quoted from a text book no less..

2. This is all an aside from my main point of not knowing the initial concentration, which is a critical flaw, however having all these assumptions should make one pause and wonder if the process is more based on luck than actual science.

3. Carbon loss occurs all the time in the form of dead cells, hair growth, nail growth, as well as via waste excrement.



4. However I really don't mind if carbon dating is correct because its max age is about 15,000 years... My main focus was initially about the other radiometric dating that somehow gives "millions" of years. Not knowing the inital amount means the process is 100% based on an assumption, there is no way you can deny this unless you figure a way to work out how much of the isotope was present at its initial creation.... (There is one way but that gives an age of 6000 years)





The basic principle is that there are two objects colliding... this IS the same. Yes there are variances with size mass temp etc I never said these are the same. However your replies (excuses) to the problems I have cited show a complete lack of evidence... (thus unscientific, unsupported stories)


So you claim that

a) the moon was a molten mass when it hit and since it was molten when it was in space was able to form a sphere- Firstly the impact caused by a molten mass would be vastly different and the "fragment" coming off would be more like a spray, as such it wouldn't conglomerate rather it would spray in all directions.

B) So you assume that the Earth was molten when it supposedly occurred... Where is the evidence for this?

c) its VERY simple logic that if the moon is a "fragment" then there must be the bulk of the debris somewhere on Earth... Go find that first before proposing wild "theories" that have no evidence...


Science is about the evidence not how well a scientist can sell a story. You're only displaying your own faith in evolutionist dogma when you propose answers that have no evidence.


1. I don't expect them to be 100% uniform but relatively uniform. Would you expect to live in a perfect world? How much are those discrepancies?

2. They are aware of those problems and assumptions and are correcting them. Meanwhile you stick your head in the sand and still quote textbooks from 30 years ago and think nothing has changed. Is that scientific?

3. How does any of that influence C dating? We're talking about ratios. You'd need to lose MORE C14 then C12 or C13.

4. I'm sure the one that specifies 6000 years is the only 'good' and 'scientific' one. There are also dating techniques that do not rely on initial amount but on the fact that it isn't present anymore on earth. How about that?

A. No I didn't because the moon didn't exist when the bodies collided.

B. I need to prove to you that the earth was molten, after it got hit by another planet? You joking? Besides the earth is molten beneath its crust, unless you are going to say that's a wild assumption as well in which case I'll encourage you to look up volcanoes.

C. Maybe in your world where cars colliding and planets colliding is the same thing.

"The prevailing hypothesis today is that the Earth–Moon system formed as a result of a giant impact: a Mars-sized body hitting the newly formed proto-Earth, blasting material into orbit around it, which accreted to form the Moon.[17] Giant impacts are thought to have been common in the early Solar System. Computer simulations modelling a giant impact are consistent with measurements of the angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system and the small size of the lunar core; they also show that most of the Moon came from the impactor, not from the proto-Earth.[18] More recent tests suggest more of the Moon coalesced from the Earth and not the impactor.[19][20][21]. Meteorites show that other inner Solar System bodies such as Mars and Vesta have very different oxygen and tungsten isotopic compositions to the Earth, while the Earth and Moon have near-identical isotopic compositions. Post-impact mixing of the vaporized material between the forming Earth and Moon could have equalized their isotopic compositions,[22] although this is debated.[23]
The large amount of energy released in the giant impact event and the subsequent reaccretion of material in Earth orbit would have melted the outer shell of the Earth, forming a magma ocean.[24][25] The newly formed Moon would also have had its own lunar magma ocean; estimates for its depth range from about 500 km to the entire radius of the Moon.[24]"

#34 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 21 March 2012 - 01:25 PM

1. I don't expect them to be 100% uniform but relatively uniform. Would you expect to live in a perfect world? How much are those discrepancies?

2. They are aware of those problems and assumptions and are correcting them. Meanwhile you stick your head in the sand and still quote textbooks from 30 years ago and think nothing has changed. Is that scientific?

3. How does any of that influence C dating? We're talking about ratios. You'd need to lose MORE C14 then C12 or C13.

4. I'm sure the one that specifies 6000 years is the only 'good' and 'scientific' one. There are also dating techniques that do not rely on initial amount but on the fact that it isn't present anymore on earth. How about that?

A. No I didn't because the moon didn't exist when the bodies collided.

B. I need to prove to you that the earth was molten, after it got hit by another planet? You joking? Besides the earth is molten beneath its crust, unless you are going to say that's a wild assumption as well in which case I'll encourage you to look up volcanoes.

C. Maybe in your world where cars colliding and planets colliding is the same thing.

"The prevailing hypothesis today is that the Earth–Moon system formed as a result of a giant impact: a Mars-sized body hitting the newly formed proto-Earth, blasting material into orbit around it, which accreted to form the Moon.[17] Giant impacts are thought to have been common in the early Solar System. Computer simulations modelling a giant impact are consistent with measurements of the angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system and the small size of the lunar core; they also show that most of the Moon came from the impactor, not from the proto-Earth.[18] More recent tests suggest more of the Moon coalesced from the Earth and not the impactor.[19][20][21]. Meteorites show that other inner Solar System bodies such as Mars and Vesta have very different oxygen and tungsten isotopic compositions to the Earth, while the Earth and Moon have near-identical isotopic compositions. Post-impact mixing of the vaporized material between the forming Earth and Moon could have equalized their isotopic compositions,[22] although this is debated.[23]
The large amount of energy released in the giant impact event and the subsequent reaccretion of material in Earth orbit would have melted the outer shell of the Earth, forming a magma ocean.[24][25] The newly formed Moon would also have had its own lunar magma ocean; estimates for its depth range from about 500 km to the entire radius of the Moon.[24]"

1. I don't expect them to be 100% uniform but relatively uniform. Would you expect to live in a perfect world? How much are those discrepancies?

2. They are aware of those problems and assumptions and are correcting them. Meanwhile you stick your head in the sand and still quote textbooks from 30 years ago and think nothing has changed. Is that scientific?

3. How does any of that influence C dating? We're talking about ratios. You'd need to lose MORE C14 then C12 or C13.

4. I'm sure the one that specifies 6000 years is the only 'good' and 'scientific' one. There are also dating techniques that do not rely on initial amount but on the fact that it isn't present anymore on earth. How about that?

A. No I didn't because the moon didn't exist when the bodies collided.

B. I need to prove to you that the earth was molten, after it got hit by another planet? You joking? Besides the earth is molten beneath its crust, unless you are going to say that's a wild assumption as well in which case I'll encourage you to look up volcanoes.

C. Maybe in your world where cars colliding and planets colliding is the same thing.

"The prevailing hypothesis today is that the Earth–Moon system formed as a result of a giant impact: a Mars-sized body hitting the newly formed proto-Earth, blasting material into orbit around it, which accreted to form the Moon.[17] Giant impacts are thought to have been common in the early Solar System. Computer simulations modelling a giant impact are consistent with measurements of the angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system and the small size of the lunar core; they also show that most of the Moon came from the impactor, not from the proto-Earth.[18] More recent tests suggest more of the Moon coalesced from the Earth and not the impactor.[19][20][21]. Meteorites show that other inner Solar System bodies such as Mars and Vesta have very different oxygen and tungsten isotopic compositions to the Earth, while the Earth and Moon have near-identical isotopic compositions. Post-impact mixing of the vaporized material between the forming Earth and Moon could have equalized their isotopic compositions,[22] although this is debated.[23]
The large amount of energy released in the giant impact event and the subsequent reaccretion of material in Earth orbit would have melted the outer shell of the Earth, forming a magma ocean.[24][25] The newly formed Moon would also have had its own lunar magma ocean; estimates for its depth range from about 500 km to the entire radius of the Moon.[24]"



I wasn't the one who switched this conversation to carbon dating... Carbon dating cannot be used for the old world hypothesis since it can only be used for ages of about 15,000 years.

As I have said before for uranium etc radiometric dating you need an initial amount, this is given approx by the levels of C14 in the environment.... (whilst there are discrepancies).. and only if the C14 content at that time is of a known value... I am sure no-one tested it back in Ancient times.....

Yet for claiming millions of years, of which uranium dating is used the initial amount is a total unknown hence the problem still stands and is one that undermines the entire system for "millions" of years.



a ) You know what I mean, stop acting dumb. If you are going to niggle about one word then you're showing how you'd prefer to debate semantics and not the issue.... I should have written the entity that is claimed to have collided with the Earth.. Happy now?

SO you claim this to be molten?
If not then the explosive force to create such heat... To melt the amount of material you are proposing is astronomical... How then would the mass that is to become the moon stop where it is? There is no friction in space if it flew off into space then it would keep going... (So what you propose defies conventional laws of physics as well as logic)

b ) I already know what magma is... Consider the fact that the Earth has a cooled crust that is not molten. Otherwise you'd have melted by now... But that still doesn't verify your claim.

You said that there would be no craters since the Earth was molten... How can you verify this claim?... Or is it as I said, an unsupported story.

c) Great story, now all you need is the evidence. Also you have dodged providing where the rest of the entity that caused the moon is, if the moon is a fragment then there should be the main mass from where the fragment came from... (Unless you assume it just appeared out of no where.... Not surprising since BB and abiogenesis also claim as such)


I'll reiterate another problem is how the moon came to where it is, there is no friction in space and considering if the impact caused the heat you claim then the explosive force would have been huge... Hence once the "fragment" is set off into space there is no reason why it would stop where it has, it should continue to move since that is how physics work in space.

#35 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 21 March 2012 - 03:16 PM


1. As I have said before for uranium etc radiometric dating you need an initial amount, this is given approx by the levels of C14 in the environment.... (whilst there are discrepancies).. and only if the C14 content at that time is of a known value... I am sure no-one tested it back in Ancient times.....

Yet for claiming millions of years, of which uranium dating is used the initial amount is a total unknown hence the problem still stands and is one that undermines the entire system for "millions" of years.



a ) You know what I mean, stop acting dumb. If you are going to niggle about one word then you're showing how you'd prefer to debate semantics and not the issue.... I should have written the entity that is claimed to have collided with the Earth.. Happy now?

SO you claim this to be molten?
If not then the explosive force to create such heat... To melt the amount of material you are proposing is astronomical... How then would the mass that is to become the moon stop where it is? There is no friction in space if it flew off into space then it would keep going... (So what you propose defies conventional laws of physics as well as logic)

b ) I already know what magma is... Consider the fact that the Earth has a cooled crust that is not molten. Otherwise you'd have melted by now... But that still doesn't verify your claim.

You said that there would be no craters since the Earth was molten... How can you verify this claim?... Or is it as I said, an unsupported story.

c) Great story, now all you need is the evidence. Also you have dodged providing where the rest of the entity that caused the moon is, if the moon is a fragment then there should be the main mass from where the fragment came from... (Unless you assume it just appeared out of no where.... Not surprising since BB and abiogenesis also claim as such)


d) I'll reiterate another problem is how the moon came to where it is, there is no friction in space and considering if the impact caused the heat you claim then the explosive force would have been huge... Hence once the "fragment" is set off into space there is no reason why it would stop where it has, it should continue to move since that is how physics work in space.


1. You do not need to know the initial amount to U date a zircon for instance (U-Pb dating). Crystal structures aren't random. Can you give me an example where they actually have to know the initial amount of Uranium because I couldn't find it on the web. If you have a specific example, that would be great to research.

a) I'm not acting dumb. I was talking about the moon being shaped by spinning around its gravity and influenced by the heat of the previously collided bodies. The planet hit earth (unmolten). That obviously converted a lot of energy (kinetic) into heat. The collision caused the planet to be ripped apart in some degree, as well as the earth (but less as the earth was bigger). You are correct that some mass flew out of the well of earth's gravity (probably towards another planet or the sun. The debris circling the earth accumulated to form the moon. I'm sure this is the simple version because I've skimmed through some other articles mentioning a heat cloud and evaporation.

I know that melting that much material would require a lot of energy. But you know what? An imaginable amount of energy is created when a simple meteorite would hit earth. What do you think would happen if our moon would collide with earth at high speed? Btw I'm not proposing that the entire earth would melt, nor that the entire other planet would melt. I said "if it would leave any craters at all on a molten piece of planet" by which I actually meant on a piece of our planet, that was molten by the impact (at the location of the impact).

b. Consider that that crust isn't as thick as you think it is when a planet collides with that crust.

Once again: piece of a planet ! And if you look at my reference from wiki that I bolded for you: the subsequent reaccretion of material in Earth orbit would have melted the outer shell of the Earth, forming a magma ocean.[24][25] The newly formed Moon would also have had its own lunar magma ocean

c. I never claimed that the moon is a fragment. I just corrected your car example initially. The moon is actually a whole bunch of reaccreting fragments circling the earth and caused by the collision of both planets.

Neither the Big Bang nor abiogenesis make that claim. In fact the latter isn't even a scientific hypothesis yet so how could it make that claim in the first place?

d. You are not taking into account the direction the earth is moving, the direction the original planet was moving in (or the angle of collision), the loss in kinetic energy to create the heat and the tendency of explosions to make things smaller. So part did in fact got thrown into deep space, and another part went into circling the earth. Even two colliding stars don't continue their path or 'explode away' from each other but their mass is captured by gravity.

#36 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 21 March 2012 - 04:10 PM

1. You do not need to know the initial amount to U date a zircon for instance (U-Pb dating). Crystal structures aren't random. Can you give me an example where they actually have to know the initial amount of Uranium because I couldn't find it on the web. If you have a specific example, that would be great to research.

a) I'm not acting dumb. I was talking about the moon being shaped by spinning around its gravity and influenced by the heat of the previously collided bodies. The planet hit earth (unmolten). That obviously converted a lot of energy (kinetic) into heat. The collision caused the planet to be ripped apart in some degree, as well as the earth (but less as the earth was bigger). You are correct that some mass flew out of the well of earth's gravity (probably towards another planet or the sun. The debris circling the earth accumulated to form the moon. I'm sure this is the simple version because I've skimmed through some other articles mentioning a heat cloud and evaporation.

I know that melting that much material would require a lot of energy. But you know what? An imaginable amount of energy is created when a simple meteorite would hit earth. What do you think would happen if our moon would collide with earth at high speed? Btw I'm not proposing that the entire earth would melt, nor that the entire other planet would melt. I said "if it would leave any craters at all on a molten piece of planet" by which I actually meant on a piece of our planet, that was molten by the impact (at the location of the impact).

b. Consider that that crust isn't as thick as you think it is when a planet collides with that crust.

Once again: piece of a planet ! And if you look at my reference from wiki that I bolded for you: the subsequent reaccretion of material in Earth orbit would have melted the outer shell of the Earth, forming a magma ocean.[24][25] The newly formed Moon would also have had its own lunar magma ocean

c. I never claimed that the moon is a fragment. I just corrected your car example initially. The moon is actually a whole bunch of reaccreting fragments circling the earth and caused by the collision of both planets.

Neither the Big Bang nor abiogenesis make that claim. In fact the latter isn't even a scientific hypothesis yet so how could it make that claim in the first place?

d. You are not taking into account the direction the earth is moving, the direction the original planet was moving in (or the angle of collision), the loss in kinetic energy to create the heat and the tendency of explosions to make things smaller. So part did in fact got thrown into deep space, and another part went into circling the earth. Even two colliding stars don't continue their path or 'explode away' from each other but their mass is captured by gravity.



1. Scientists can work out the current amount of an isotope, they can also work out the rate of decay... This is then extrapolated to give an age.... only when you know where do stop with the extrapolation, hence the initial amount. Pray tell how you do not need an initial amount, I know of the RATE team who dated zircon crystals based on hydrogen diffusion and they got a date of about 6000 years.

a) Your response was since all you did was pick out one word... Ok so as you said it caused the planet to be "ripped apart"... This is what I was saying about there being evidence of such a collision... Now where is the evidence of this? (I keep asking for evidence and you fail to produce any, words are not evidence no matter how many you write)

a2) now you'd need to show how debris can accumulate to form a solid mass and how this becomes a near perfect circle.. The moon isn't made of play-dough.


B) Again I asked for evidence! Where is it?

c) Really so your claim about the debris coming together wasn't about fragments..... Debris are fragments.. You are contradicting yourself here.

d) I do not need to consider those points, the evidence is already here, (If you use logic)..

How far out is the moon? Consider how far out of Earth's gravity that is and how weak the force is, (ie- the Moon will not be getting pulled back in).. Now in order for it to get there in needs velocity... Yet with this velocity how would it stop or even slow down? In order to escape Earths gravity the moon would require a large amount of velocity after escaping it, (so that the moon cannot be pulled back in).. This velocity will be conserved and thus the fragments.. oops sorry.. debris will fly out and not stop where the moon is.

#37 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 22 March 2012 - 06:19 AM

1. Scientists can work out the current amount of an isotope, they can also work out the rate of decay... This is then extrapolated to give an age.... only when you know where do stop with the extrapolation, hence the initial amount. Pray tell how you do not need an initial amount, I know of the RATE team who dated zircon crystals based on hydrogen diffusion and they got a date of about 6000 years.


When the zircon is first created, there is no Pb. So the initial amount is the amount of U + amount of Pb (all Pb was U at t=0).

a) Your response was since all you did was pick out one word... Ok so as you said it caused the planet to be "ripped apart"... This is what I was saying about there being evidence of such a collision... Now where is the evidence of this? (I keep asking for evidence and you fail to produce any, words are not evidence no matter how many you write)


What about the isotopes? What about the momentum?

"Another piece of evidence, from the lunar samples, is that the Moon's composition of certain isotopes exactly matches that of Earth, but it doesn't match those of bodies from elsewhere in the solar system. Still another positive feature of the collision theory is that it explains the Moon's lack of water and lightweight volatile compounds: The impact heated the debris to high temperatures, and all volatiles turned to gas and escaped into space."


a2) now you'd need to show how debris can accumulate to form a solid mass and how this becomes a near perfect circle.. The moon isn't made of play-dough.


Aren't you familiar with gravity and the laws of motion? Ever wondered why planets are sperhical? Same goes for the moon.

B) Again I asked for evidence! Where is it?


The crust is 35 km in thickness. I would assume, even if the earth isn't deformed by the collision, that such a crust will be penetrated by the force of both planets colliding. Are you saying this isn't the case? That you think this is illogical?

c) Really so your claim about the debris coming together wasn't about fragments..... Debris are fragments.. You are contradicting yourself here.


I just wanted to make clear that the moon is not a fragment of the colliding planet but a collection of fragments resulting from the collision of both planets (fragments of both planets formed the moon).

d) I do not need to consider those points, the evidence is already here, (If you use logic)..

How far out is the moon? Consider how far out of Earth's gravity that is and how weak the force is, (ie- the Moon will not be getting pulled back in).. Now in order for it to get there in needs velocity... Yet with this velocity how would it stop or even slow down? In order to escape Earths gravity the moon would require a large amount of velocity after escaping it, (so that the moon cannot be pulled back in).. This velocity will be conserved and thus the fragments.. oops sorry.. debris will fly out and not stop where the moon is.


The moon is circling the earth so I would think the effect of earth's gravity on the moon is quite strong. The moon moving away from us is a bit more complex then you are trying to pull of. Nevertheless I'm sure you know a whole lot more thanks to your logic than I do.

As far as I'm concerned this topic closed.

#38 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 22 March 2012 - 03:57 PM

You said that plasma occurs in stars and that plasma accelerates decays. I assumed you intended those statements to be related, meaning you would have been suggesting that decay was accelerated in stars and the material then made it's way to earth. This doesn't work very well in a young universe.


The reason I said that was to suggest an obvious natural occurrence that could lead to flawed dating through the example given. Now I am not saying that is what I believe, I am just suggesting that if you believe in an old universe, then these things must be factored into understanding radiometrics. Furthermore, since we don't know what caused the fluctuations of decay rates based on the sun, we also don't know how they may have been altered in the past.

If you accept miracles then there's no possibility of figuring anything out because there's no way to eliminate any explanations.

How could anyone show that God didn't make earth from super hot plasma or a super cold iceball or a ball of cheese if the argument, "well a miracle was involved" is allowed.


Do you think we can know everything about the history of the earth because of the data that we currently observe? Inevitably, we can only guess what happened in the past based on evidence that we dig up or figure out. That doesn't mean the history we come up with is correct, even by naturalistic standards. Now yes it would be difficult to tell when miracles happened, but since the Bible is historically substantiated and verified, then we have indicators of when miracles may have happened throughout the history of the earth. Since no historical revelation or evidence points to the world being made from cheese or ice, it is a conclusion that I would not gravitate toward (cheesy pun alert (groan, there goes another one)).

The key to figuring out composition (aka makeup or structure) is to simply get a sample and look at what it's made of. Did you mean something other than "composition"? Asteroid and moon rocks come from the same places as all other stuff in the solar system, past stellar novas, but even if we had no idea where they came from we could still tell what they are made up of.


My mistake, I meant the only way to know the true reason that something is composed the way it is would be to directly observe the history of it's formation. Making inferences after the fact can only give us plausible answers.

According to the standard explanation, samarium and all the other extinct isotopes were formed in various past novas and eventually they and their decay products became part of the nebula that eventually became our solar system. Depending on the distances involved it's possible that there was little to no samarium in our nebula and only the decay products made it here. There's no samarium currently because there haven't been any recent nova close enough to seed our solar system with it in measurable quantities before it decays.


Ok.

I skimmed through and found a 14.7 hour time but that appeared to relate to the universe expanding at the speed of light and cooling (the radius's involved in the equation are much larger than the current size of the earth), not the earth cooling. If you expand the universe it woudn't necessarily cool earth. If you put a white hot steel ball inside a room that is a vaccuum, then increase the size of the room/vaccuum, the ball doesn't cool off any faster because the cooling rate is solely determined by the size and surface area of the ball which hasn't changed.


I am no physics expert but this hot steel ball in an expanding vacuum analogy seems inadequate due to gross oversimplification. A hot steel ball does not equate to a plasmoid. From what I understand, rapid expansion of the vaccuum would cause the plasmoid to decompress, thus increasing its surface area, but again, I am no cosmologist. I am attempting to get a better explanation from Dr Boudreaux himself.

#39 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 22 March 2012 - 09:44 PM

The reason I said that was to suggest an obvious natural occurrence that could lead to flawed dating through the example given. Now I am not saying that is what I believe, I am just suggesting that if you believe in an old universe, then these things must be factored into understanding radiometrics. Furthermore, since we don't know what caused the fluctuations of decay rates based on the sun, we also don't know how they may have been altered in the past.

The problem is that accelerated decay via plasma in stars of material on earth would only be possible in a old universe which is what the idea of acclerated decay is attempting to counter. If the universe were young you couldn't use the idea of stars causing accelerated decay so you're stuck either way.

The solar rate change is almost certainly an artifact of comparing 30 year old data from multiple studies that used different equipment. More recent attempts to see if neutrinos (pretty much the only way the sun could change decay rates) had any effect showed no change. Recent attempts to test a correlation between the sun and radioactive decay have also shown no measurable effect. http://donuts.berkel...rs/EarthSun.pdf



Do you think we can know everything about the history of the earth because of the data that we currently observe? Inevitably, we can only guess what happened in the past based on evidence that we dig up or figure out. That doesn't mean the history we come up with is correct, even by naturalistic standards. Now yes it would be difficult to tell when miracles happened, but since the Bible is historically substantiated and verified, then we have indicators of when miracles may have happened throughout the history of the earth. Since no historical revelation or evidence points to the world being made from cheese or ice, it is a conclusion that I would not gravitate toward (cheesy pun alert (groan, there goes another one)).

We don't need to know everything to know something. Don't you think we can have a reasonable degree of certainty without perfect knowledge? Do you think there's any historical revelation or evidence that points to the earth staring out as a micro-ball of superdense superhot plasma?

My mistake, I meant the only way to know the true reason that something is composed the way it is would be to directly observe the history of it's formation. Making inferences after the fact can only give us plausible answers.

What's wrong with plausible answers?


I am no physics expert but this hot steel ball in an expanding vacuum analogy seems inadequate due to gross oversimplification. A hot steel ball does not equate to a plasmoid. From what I understand, rapid expansion of the vaccuum would cause the plasmoid to decompress, thus increasing its surface area, but again, I am no cosmologist. I am attempting to get a better explanation from Dr Boudreaux himself.

I was treating the earth as starting out solid, which I felt was more realistic than the idea of it starting out as a ball of plasma. A plasma earth is questionable from both a scientific and biblical standpoint.
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters

Plasma is generally not recognizeable as anything even remotely like water.

However, miracles make it impossible to disprove any idea including this plasmoid concept. If you want to treat the earth as a ball of super hot gas that simply cooled according to PV=nRT then the proposed 300 million -> 300 tempearture change would involve starting the earth out compressed to only a few feet across. There's several other problems with the idea but if you permit divine intervention here's no way to show that it doesn't work since all the problems with it could simply be handwaved away with "God took care of that problem". I'll bow out if you want to say that God acted to make the idea possible, since there's no way to rebut that.

#40 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 23 March 2012 - 06:25 AM

There are a myriad of problems with Alex's claims:

For the moon, the secular consensus is that the moon was formed by the collision of a huge asteroid with the primitive earth.


:smashfreak: What the public educators failed to tell Alex is that the physics doesn't work. It caused one renowned astrophysicist to quip:

"Looking at all the anomaly's and unanswered questions regarding the Moon, the best explanation for the Moon is observational error, it doesn't exist" - Irwin I.Shapiro, who works at the Harvard Smithsonian Centre for astrophysics.


We also know by looking at stars and planets in the universe that samarium 146 is produced by stars, and that our planet did have samarium in it when it started to form


Uh, how do you know that our planet had samarium when it started to form? Don't worry, I already know you assume the Nebula hypothesis, but like so many ideas born out of naturalism, they never fit observed facts. Perhaps you missed this report from 6 months ago:
http://newsroom.ucla...tly-209340.aspx

Sm146, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 103,000,000 years = 2,060,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 2,060,000,000 years old for all the Sm146 to have disappeare


There you go assuming again. Did you know that Z-pinch plasma experiments have proved that such forces can speed up the nuclear decay rate? In fact, there is a promising technology in the US (Sandia labs) and Ukraine (Electrodynamics Laboratory) that we should eventually be able to dispose of radioactive waste! That is, reduce it to its stable form. If there was a giant upheaval of the earth's crust in the past on a global scale (see Genesis 7) it could easily produce the voltage necessary to produce radioactive decay. We have tons of evidence the earth's crust can produce these voltages because of all the conductive material therein. DId you know that scientists have come to realize the amount of voltage that can be generated during earthquakes? Why is it we commonly see electrical phenomena with earthquakes? Real science keeps passing you guys by. For more details, listen to our show just this last week on the topic.

Fred




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users