|
Author
|
Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Gradualism
Essentially, per my other reply here (point 9), the dating methodologies revolve around the assumptions of Uniformitarianism, Gradualism, that everything went at one rate - even though this assumption contradicts Microevolutionary Rates today and the evidence of stasis and lack of transitional forms that led to the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Even supposing that that was true, which it isn't, what could that conceivably have to do with the constancy of decay rates, which are, y'know, something else? It's like saying: "People think that mice are small. But this is contradicted by observing that elephants are big". The evidence for constant decay rates, and the evidence for the size of mice, depends on the study of decay rates and mice respectively.
Radiometric dating depends on Uniformitarianism as invented by Lyell. Don't be silly.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 6:42 AM | | Jzyehoshua has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Gradualism
No. Belief in the constancy of decay rates is built on the evidence that decay rates are constant. You make a lot of stuff up, don't you? Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you recite stuff that other people have made up.
There were no transitions indicative of Macroevolution, and if you start hypothesizing that evolution suddenly sped up per Punctuated Equilibrium, then you have to explain why you assume isotope decay rates couldn't have also sped up. "If you start hypothesizing that elephants are big, you have to explain why you assume that mice are small".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:27 AM | | Jzyehoshua has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Gradualism
One I've never heard considered before is whether the electron shield that insulates isotope nuclei from decay could itself have grown in strength. Perhaps as a first step you could find out what that would actually entail. Would it involve electrons increasing in mass? In charge? What changes would have to take place to make the "electron shield" stronger?
I suppose they won't consider the possibility, however, unless we somehow come across strong proof that this occurs. Well yes. Random daydreams free of actual content and unsupported by evidence are of no significance.
There really hasn't been much understanding of the principles of radiometric dating ... Speak for yourself.
... and a lot of this stuff is just now being delved into and presented to the public. You should really stop making stuff up.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:33 AM | | Jzyehoshua has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Gradualism
What evidence do you think there is that decay rates are constant? That they don't change. And scientists from the Curies on have tried to get them to change --- they tried heating them, pressurizing them, combining them in different molecules and so forth; they didn't just assume that the rates were constant, they did everything they could think of to make 'em change. And short of throwing radioisotopes into a nuclear reactor or something, the decay rates do seem to be very stable.
A better quote would be, "If you start hypothesizing that elephants are big, you have to explain why you assume that SUVs are not big. Well that would be equally silly. Unless there is some causal connection between the size of A and the size of B, the size of A is perfectly irrelevant to the size of B, which has to be found out by looking at the size of B. If someone really thought that SUVs aren't big, then it would be a fatuous waste of time to point out that elephants are big. He'd ask you what in the world that has to do with anything, and you'd be in the embarrassing position of looking like a greater fool than someone who thinks SUVs are tiny.
You Evolutionists are assuming Evolutionary Rates could speed up under Punctuated Equilibrium, but don't want to accept that isotope decay rates could have sped up. On the one hand you say the present is the key to the past and assume isotope decay rates were the same as today's. But on the other hand when today's rates are too fast to allow an ancient earth (which Microevolution rates are per here) you assume today's have sped up for some reason. And when the fossil record shows stasis and lack of transitions rather than gradual transitions, you assume evolution suddenly sped up in the past and didn't show up in the fossil record, per Punctuated Equilibrium. You don't seem to have grasped punctuated equilibrium, but I'll let that slide for now. This thread is for geology. There's no evidence of decay rates speeding up. Also, no mechanism. Also, don't you guys need them to have slowed down? Your problem with reality (in this particular case) is that there is evidence of more decay than can be fit into your chronological fantasies. This means that in order to daydream that you're right in spite of all the evidence, you have to imagine that there was more decay in the past, not less.
You want to say one had to remain constant and say the other situations were variable, just whatever will make Evolutionary Theory work, in other words. To me it looks inconsistent. "You want to say that mice are small and elephants are big, just whatever is supported by all the evidence. To me it looks inconsistent." Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Gradualism: not the topic
Well, you can always fantasize without evidence that trees grew differently in the past. Creationists are good at unevidenced fantasies, knock yourself out. But then you have to explain the correlations. You have to suppose that everything that gives us clues to chronology worked differently in the past, and in such a way that all these very different methods of discovering chronology somehow conspired together to paint us a consistent picture. Now, why should that be? Is it not more parsimonious to conclude that the reason the picture is consistent is that it's true, rather than that dozens of different physical processes somehow just happen to agree on something that's false?
Look, this has always struck me as a pretty esoteric, arcane attempt at fringe 'science' for which there's been a dearth of reliable information. And yet it strikes scientists completely differently. Maybe they know something you don't, such as science. --- I shall pass over your absurd and grotesque mistakes about hominid fossils, since this is not on topic. But I would once more suggest that you stop making things up. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 109 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 8:43 AM | | Jzyehoshua has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Gradualism: not the topic
(1) The tropics still have seasons --- the Amazon rainforest, for example, has a wet season and a dry season. (2) The trees used for dendrochronology do in fact exhibit growth rings. (3) The trees used in dendrochronology are temperate-zone trees such as pines and oaks.
This assumption the present is the key to the past, that we can simply assume the way it is is the way it always was, seems to me a very dangerous fallacy. And the name of this "fallacy" is "the scientific method". We must "assume" that a rule which appears to be generally true is in fact generally true unless and until some evidence of a counterexample is found. You "assume" that this is the case every day and in every act you take. Not only science, but the everyday actions of your normal life, would be impossible without this "assumption". Without hypocrisy, you cannot drop it just because it disfavors your religious beliefs. --- But this is by-the-by, you're still not addressing the main point of the thread. You may, as you wish, fantasize that any particular method of chronology is wrong. But how do you suppose that they all went wrong in ways which are consistent with one another? That's the question. Suppose dendrochronology is wrong, why does it agree with radiocarbon dating? If that's wrong, why does it agree with varves? With ice cores? Why do all these very disparate physical processes all give us, not just the wrong dates, but the same wrong dates? Is the natural world involved in some immense conspiracy to deceive us? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 115 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 5:46 PM | | Jzyehoshua has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Decay constants
That's the complete opposite of what Randy Isaac said the report concluded. To me that looks pretty dishonest to misinterpret the report like that. You really should double-check these assertions from now on because that's a pretty good example of dishonest misinterpretation of a paper right there. You are misinterpreting Isaacs, whether out of dishonesty or mere carelessness I shall not attempt to guess. Isaacs quotes them, perfectly accurately, as saying that there is evidence for "more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay". Now if you will look up just above that, to the numbered points, you will see that he writes:
The key points of the book can be summarized as follows: [...] radioactive decay must have been accelerated by approximately a factor of one billion during the first three days of creation and during the Flood. So he does say, quite clearly, that the creationists nurture an unproven fantasy that "500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay" does not actually indicate that the rocks are 500 million years old. There is nothing misleading there. He is perfectly upfront about their wish to entertain unproven conjectures in a desperate attempt to ignore their own data. But he also notes that they do at least admit the quantity of decay which has taken place --- which they do. "500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay" is word for word what they wrote. Now, would you like to address the topic? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 5:58 PM | | Jzyehoshua has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Gradualism
Of course they change. So, under certain circumstances, one isotope of beryllium can change its decay rate by as much as 1.5%. I don't think that's gonna be enough to save you. Especially as 7Be has a half-life of 53 days and is therefore not used in radiometric dating. Now, if you could find a way to speed up uranium decay a millionfold, you might be on to something.
Dalrymple acknowledged they can change, just argued such changes are rare and minute. He appears to be right. --- The creationist sources you cite do not claim that volcanism can change decay rates, so I am at a loss to know why you think it does, or why you referenced them. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 114 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 5:43 PM | | Jzyehoshua has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Gradualism: not the topic
So far as I'm concerned, Macroevolution never happened. It's a myth that was always pure speculation interpreted by the minds of some philosophers who labeled it science and instituted it in law before it was ever proven. They've been trying to persuade everyone their pet theory is science ever since then. Despite their best attempts 40-50% of Americans remain unconvinced over a century later. Whereas scientists, by contrast, are overwhelmingly convinced.
Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. --- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU). So, why do scientists have a different opinion about science then non-scientists who have been systematically lied to by religious zealots? I have a conjecture that may just explain this ... it's because scientists know about science.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 128 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:35 PM | | Jzyehoshua has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Second analysis
Well, so much for wondering if the last paper was a fluke. It seems the more I look into this the sketchier the research looks. So, you read a paper containing words like: "remarkably precise", "rigorous check" and "convincing evidence" and you conclude that what they're talking about is "sketchy"?
Right away the article acknowledges freshwater throws off carbon dating by influencing thorium/uranium levels and repeats that "there remains a need for additional age validation in the most demanding applications such as the 14C calibration", meaning their dates won't work without revising conventional 14C half-life values - again. That is not in fact what it means.
In reading the 1st paragraph, I note that atmospheric levels of Carbon 14 are easily altered by changes in the solar magnetic field and geomagnetic field intensity, and therefore calibrations must be made to account for such decay alterations. It seems this confidence that isotope decay rates remain generally constant doesn't get as much mention when scientists are conversing among themselves in formal papers. Hello ... earth to Jzyehoshua ... the atmospheric fluctuations in 14C have nothing at all to do with its decay rate. It appears that whenever you read something you don't understand, you just imagine that it must say whatever you want it to mean, and continue arguing on that basis. As a consequence, scientific illiteracy, and indeed just good old illiteracy, are among the most important techniques in your armamentarium. But this restricts the use of your nonsense. To equally ignorant and illiterate creationists, it will doubtless bring some comfort, as people like being told what they already believe. But as they do already believe it, it will make you no converts. If, on the other hand, you address it it the knowledgeable and literate, it will also make you no converts. I really wonder if it's worth talking to you at all. Either you are not trying to be right, or you simply lack the mental capacity to do so.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 153 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-27-2012 1:48 AM | | Jzyehoshua has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: decay rate change and correlations
It appears there are multiple potential issues with Dendrochronology that may explain why it isn't more publicly accepted (Googling the term gets just 441,000 results - by comparison a Google of 'Jzyehoshua gets 34,900 results). And only 2830 results for "giraffes are mammals". Those biologists clearly have a long way to go to persuade people that they aren't some kind of fish. However, I get a whole order of magnitude more results --- 21,200 --- for the phrase "creationism is bullshit", showing that the idea that creationism is bullshit has earned ~7.5 times as much public acceptance as the idea that giraffes are mammals. Either that, or you've discovered a whole new kind of worthless argument. --- With reference to your link to the creationwiki, I should point out that the moderators disapprove of argument by link. This rule is an especially good one when it comes to the creationwiki, which was written by liars and fools. If there is anything in their disgusting stew of nonsense that you think is actually true, please put it in your own words and support it by reference to the scientific literature rather than the blunders and deceits of mendacious halfwits.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 146 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 10:55 PM | | Jzyehoshua has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Second analysis
This is what I was talking about in my thread about changing constants and physical laws. As steve shows, changing one constant, requires changing them all. He waves his hand and said people have considered the argument carefull and say it just doesn't work. Oh really? Does steve understand the underlying reality behind all the constants? Does he really understand what mass or energy is? Does he understand what time or space is? Is space merely a mathematical construct or does it have physical properties? If it is the latter, does steve understand what those properties are? But do we have to be able to answer these downright metaphysical questions to think about what things would be like if various weights and times and speeds and so forth were different? Without "really understanding what mass is", you can say what would happen if you weighed 500lb. Without "understanding what time and space is" you can say how long it would take you to drive to Los Angeles if Los Angeles was only ten miles away from you. You don't need to know if space is "merely a mathematical construct" to figure this out. Why would you? And, after all, physicists have done quite well at doing physics without doing any metaphysics. You ask them to put a man on the moon, they don't sit around scratching their heads and saying .... well, we can't do that, we haven't figured out what space really is. So why should this question be any different, except that creationists don't like the answer? Is this not just a bit of special pleading?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 178 by foreveryoung, posted 05-27-2012 8:55 PM | | Dr Adequate has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 229 of 1498 (688365)
01-22-2013 6:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 225 by mindspawn
01-22-2013 5:43 AM
|
|
Re: Another bump for mindspawn
Due to there being many many places in which varve-like patterns are formed, just according to the sheer number, its easy to find one "varve pattern" that has a vaguely correlating pattern to other dating methods. And due to us living in the real world, it is easy to find lots and lots and lots of them, not just one.
Its pretty obvious that any beach washes up shells according to moon cycle, spring tide every 28 days is where the most shells are left stranded to be covered by soft windblown beach sand for the next 27 days. If you choose spring tide "varves" (true varves are annual, not monthly) you will be out by a factor of 12, and you will achieve an automatic close match with carbon dating ... No, you will get an automatic discordance with carbon dating. How could you even write such nonsense?
Carbon dating is only known to be accurate over about 2500 years, and the dates are established according to current carbon atmospheric content. No.
It only makes sense that a flood would have wiped out all vegetation, dropping atmospheric strength, thereby artificially increasing the proportion of carbon in the atmosphere for the first centuries after the flood. That does not make sense. Indeed, it appears to have been written by drawing words at random out of a hat. Do you have any idea how radiocarbon dating works?
Thus fossils and artifacts are found with more carbon than expected, and dates can be vastly overestimated due to being based on current atmospheric pressures ... OK, now I'm just going to laugh at you. "Current atmospheric pressures"? Oh my word. Did it not occur to you that you should try to find out what you're talking about before you started talking about it?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 225 by mindspawn, posted 01-22-2013 5:43 AM | | mindspawn has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 233 by mindspawn, posted 01-22-2013 7:45 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied | | | Message 253 by JonF, posted 01-22-2013 11:56 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 231 of 1498 (688368)
01-22-2013 6:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 230 by mindspawn
01-22-2013 6:36 AM
|
|
Re: Another bump for mindspawn
Only under evolutionary assumptions can you see these patterns. That is circular reasoning. ie it is often assumed that the differences between the human and for example the ape genome are evolved. Under that assumption some genes are seen as duplicates that have added a new function. The alternative, that the human was designed with two similar genes in that position as opposed to the ape designed with one in that position is never considered due to the fact that evolution is assumed to be the superior theory than creation. Could I once more recommend that you stop talking about stuff that you obviously know nothing about. Especially if it's completely off-topic.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 230 by mindspawn, posted 01-22-2013 6:36 AM | | mindspawn has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 236 by mindspawn, posted 01-22-2013 8:14 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 232 of 1498 (688370)
01-22-2013 7:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 226 by mindspawn
01-22-2013 6:04 AM
|
|
Re: Another bump for mindspawn
I don't remember when we have discussed this topic that you can automatically assume my lack of knowledge compared to yours. On what facts do you base this assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about? The conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about is based on your posts, which reveal that you don't know what you're talking about. You're a typical creationist: you are completely ignorant of the facts that need explaining, of the explanations that have been provided for them, and of the reasoning that underlies the explanations. Now, the last two I could forgive. But the first I find unforgivable. You hope, you believe, you assert, that creationist magical thinking can account for the observable facts, when you do not know what the observable facts are and have clearly never taken the slightest interest in them. You're like a policeman who's decided to fit up some guy for a crime, with no interest in actually solving it. "This murder was obviously committed by John Smith!" "Uh, Sarge, it's a mugging. The victim is still alive." "Don't bother me with details, his fingerprints are clearly all over this gun." "Sarge ... that's a knife."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 226 by mindspawn, posted 01-22-2013 6:04 AM | | mindspawn has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 234 by mindspawn, posted 01-22-2013 7:48 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2