My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_Franktalk
_Emeritus
Posts: 2689
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:28 am

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _Franktalk »

Spotlight,

It is pretty common in science for someone to come up with a theory and someone else verifying the theory. Einstein published his theory of relativity and it was another scientist that verified the theory by photographing a stars light during an eclipse.

It was Arthur Eddington who verified Einstein's theory. His work is available for anyone to look at. His experiment has been repeated many times with the same result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington

It seems that Arthur made quite a name for himself verifying Einstein's theory. I am sure another scientist could make quite a name for them self if they would use principles of geology to verify radiometric dating. It seems like hard work but hard work does not seem to be a limiting factor in science.

Does it strike you as odd that you were unable to find a famous geologist that verified radiometric dating? It seems that you are all about verification when it suits you and you run for cover when verification would bring down your paradigm. Sad, really sad Spotlight.
_Franktalk
_Emeritus
Posts: 2689
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:28 am

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _Franktalk »

Themis wrote:You may feel there is a problem, but do you have any specifics on problems scientists are not aware of or are ignoring? There are many dating methods and any good scientist will want independent dating methods to help get as accurate a dating as they can. For example, if one is dating a dead tree from thousands of years ago with tree ring data they can also use radio carbon dating to see of they both agree. On sea floors you can use radioactive elements to get their age and you can also compare that to sea floor spread speed with distance to get anther date and see if they agree. You can also use magnetic reversals.

There are many dating methods and it is the scientists who are the most critical of them when use or evaluating them. That is because they are the ones who have the knowledge necessary to evaluate them. You can as well, but you will need to do a lot more then you have in understanding how they work.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Dating_Techniques.aspx


You make a good point but when we look at a tree that is a few thousand years old it does not equate to billions of years. When we look at radioactive decay we assume that rates have not changed. I would think science would enjoy the challenge to remove that assumption and actually show a verification of that assumption. Why is it that I am asking for verification and science has not done it already? Does this bother you?
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _spotlight »

I am sure another scientist could make quite a name for them self if they would use principles of geology to verify radiometric dating.


You use a stopwatch to measure the time it takes for an athlete to run the quarter mile. You do not use the athlete's guess as to how long he thinks it took to verify the stopwatch. I hope that explanation is clear since the former obviously didn't take.

Does it strike you as odd that you were unable to find a famous geologist that verified radiometric dating?

You mean by using erosion rates? Do you find it odd that I didn't bother to look?

Hmm, nope, no use of erosion rates to measure the passage of time. It's a conspiracy!
http://faculty.washington.edu/stn/ess_4 ... tion.shtml

It seems that you are all about verification when it suits you and you run for cover when verification would bring down your paradigm.


Ummm, no. Radiometric dating is verified Frank. If it wasn't, scientists wanting a name for themselves would be the first to point that out. Nothing gets accepted without verification in the world of science.

Sad, really sad Spotlight.

That stopwatches aren't calibrated using a runner's best guess as to how long it took him to do the quarter mile Frank? I think it'd be sad if humans were that lacking in intelligence.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _spotlight »

When we look at radioactive decay we assume that rates have not changed.

It would be quite the universe if the nature and behavior of matter changed willy nilly Frank. You have heard of particle physics? The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, gravitation? Yes? Conservation laws depend upon symmetry Frank. Heard of Noether's theorem maybe? Symmetry with respect to time leads to energy conservation. Hmmm energy conservation has proven quite useful Frank. I wonder what that implies about consistency with regards to time? QM dictates the behavior of matter on the small scale Frank. You've heard of it maybe? What imaginative world do you live in where atoms are free agents that decide for themselves how to behave and what they will do from one moment to the next! Do they have tiny brains Frank?
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _spotlight »

Accelerating the rate of radioactive decay is presented as though its just like turning a dial. It is not. The rate of radioactive decay is tied into the laws of nature as intimately as time, the speed of light or relativity. Unless the rate of decay was only accelerated on Earth (again, how?), the Sun would have gone Supernova and Jupiter would have ignited (I am not going to explain why here; it requires a more than basic understanding of physics and this is not a textbook). I stress, changing the decay rate requires changing the laws of physics. Even if the Earth was isolated the consequences would be far-reaching. For example, the heaviest elements would become so unstable that they would have decayed rapidly - yet they exist here on Earth. Other elements, considered more or less stable, would have lost that stability. The water around the ark and the air they were breathing would have become radioactive, almost certainly killing everyone long before the flood subsided.

In short, this idea of a temporary acceleration in the rate of radioactive decay is utter nonsense.

http://www.fimustauri.eu.pn/Rational/YE ... ophic.html
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _spotlight »

2. We cannot be certain that decay rates have been constant

This is a favourite argument of YECs (and is a variation on the "You weren't there!" fallacy), because, on the face of it, there seems to be no way of refuting it. However, this, it turns out, is not the case.

The most obvious argument against this is that, for decay rates to have changed by even a fraction of the amount required, the laws of physics would have to be radically altered. Such alterations would have made life (of any known sort) utterly impossible, so all of the changes required (to bring the decay rates to viable levels) must have occurred before God created any living things, but after God created the Earth. This requires shoe-horning "changing the laws of physics" into the second day of Creation between Genesis 1:10 and 1:11. This not only seems ridiculous on the face of it, but also presents a philosophical issue: having created the Earth, God declared it to be "good"; however, it seems, it was not quite "good" enough, because He then immediately sets about changing the laws of physics so that grass can survive.

There is another way of proving that decay rates have not (significantly) changed over time. We can examine the spectra (the composition of the light) from distant stars. Because of their great distance, the further away a star is, the further back in time we are looking (see The Andromeda Question). The light from a star can be split into component colours (as happens when light passes through a prism, or in the formation of a rainbow); this is known as its spectrum. The spectrum shows "dark" lines that correspond to the component atoms in the star's outer layers. These can be examined to show the decay rates of various isotopes. Going back to over 13 billion years ago the spectra of stars demonstrates a stable decay rate.

http://www.fimustauri.eu.pn/Rational/YE ... atios.html
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _spotlight »

Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).

The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).

The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).

Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records (e.g., Renne et al. 1997).

Changing speed of light Frank? Already posted by Gunnar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y (speed of light)
Also E=mc^2 so a faster speed of light and the earth is toast.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _SteelHead »

What is also true, due to the laws of thermodynamics and the machinations of entropy, is that there was more available energy in the past.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _subgenius »

spotlight wrote:Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants.

Like how nuclear weapon explosions can completely deviate the calculation made by someone a few millennium in the future?

spotlight wrote:According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives...

This accuracy has no validation...science has no artifact that is "known" to be 25k years old or even 1m years old....
what science has, with regards to long term chronologies, are assumptions based on short-term chronologies.
Show me something that was known to be 10k years old that this form of "science" has then confirmed by isotope measurement.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _spotlight »

Like how nuclear weapon explosions can completely deviate the calculation made by someone a few millennium in the future?

Would somebody who is familiar with the idiosyncrasies of Subbie's thinking please translate this for me?

This accuracy has no validation...science has no artifact that is "known" to be 25k years old...

You don't need it. If you understood the math involved you'd see that it is sufficient to measure the decay rate to caculate the half life.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hunter Biden ... lfli2.html

Show me something that was known to be 10k years old that this form of "science" has then confirmed by isotope measurement.

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=6288
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
Post Reply