The Co-existence of Science and Theology

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/16/2007 03:45:46 PM · #351

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:
Evolution does not fit my world view. Evolution is merely the best scientific explanation in existence for the abundance and variety of life on earth, and therefore I accept it.

If you accept that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the abundance and variety of life on earth, then evolution fits your worldview.

Worldview:
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

It appears, at least to me, that evolution is one of the beliefs about life that is in your collection, and influences the perspective from which you see and interpret the world. You just said as much.

If another theory came along that differed in every way from evolution, held up under the rigours of scientific method, was supported by empirical data, did not have a previously drawn conclusion, and was accepted by thousands of scientists of all stripes, opinions, religions, and beliefs from across the globe, I would accept that theory and dispose of evolutionary theory quite handily. I would venture a guess, and say that there are no circumstances under which you would dispose of creationism, regardless of any evidence in existence now or in the future.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/16/2007 03:55:24 PM · #352

Originally posted by RonB:

No, it won't. An analysis of the DNA of Darwin's Finches will not SHOW that they derived from a common ancestor. Such an analysis will only point some into hypothesizing such a derivation. A corroborated geneological chart, if one existed, would SHOW the direct line of descent from a common ancestor. Without that chart, it is conjecture.

True, Finches don't keep detailed records listing all their begats ... of course you'll have to stretch the definition of "corroborated" quite a bit to make it apply to any version of the Bible as we know it.

11/16/2007 04:06:14 PM · #353

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
do have doubts about radiometric dating in general. It is, after all, based on the assumptions.... sedimentary rocks do not make good subjects for radiometric dating - and are therefore estimated based on their position relative to an igneous outpouring.

Again, you demonstrate utter ignorance of the techniques you question. Radiometric dating is based upon physics and mathematical theorems. It has been repeatedly tested and corroborated a staggering number of times.

Your utter ignorance of probability surely equals my ignorance of radiometric dating. Any statistician will tell you that just because you flipped a coin and it came up heads 17,777 times in a row, that the odds of the NEXT flip coming up heads is STILL just 50/50. The number of times a given outcome is reached is NOT sufficient to determine that a given outcome is a certainty.
As to your statement that radiometric dating is based upon physics and mathematical theorems: All assumptions, though granted they are based on a limited ( though large ) number of actual measurements. If you maintain that it is pure physics and pure mathematics, then I would charge that physicists should never have to actually MEASURE half-lives, except to prove that their predictions are true. They should, using physics and mathematics only, be able to PREDICT the half-life of ANY (unstable) isotope, and then experimentally DEMONSTRATE that their prediction was 100% accurate. Isn't that what the scientific method requires?

Originally posted by scalvert:

In the case of isotopes with short half-lives, even historical accounts of known dates has provided very accurate corroboration. To claim that what we can model and predict with stunning accuracy within all of recorded history didn't also work the same way in the distant past, without a shred of evidence to that effect, is a HUGE assumption that, even if true, would require a sudden and massive difference in the rate of isotopic decay to make the earth any less than millions of years old.

How about that.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Fossils are typically dated with uranium-lead dating, which offers the advantage of a built-in crosscheck of two separate isotopes. The article you quoted was about the accuracy of dating lava flows with strontium-rubidium. It had nothing to do with fossils, and the presence or absence of igneous rock is completely irrelevant when dating those- all you need are multiple samples within the same strata of sediment.

Are you claiming that fossils can be dated independently, apart from the strata in which they are found? If so, by what method?
Or are you claiming that sedimentary strata can be dated apart from adjacent igneous outpourings? Again, if so, by what method?
I'm curious - I'd like to read more about how that can be done.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
if they did not MAKE assumptions, they wouldn't find themselves constantly in need of updating their positions ( like the perching toe on Archeopteryx, for example ).

You're describing individual facts, not theories. Watch the Nova documentary that was linked a few posts back.

If the IRS determines that I made just ONE false claim on my Income Taxes, they don't just audit that one part - they audit the entire return, because falsification in one area, whether intentional or not, raises concern as to whether there are other falsifications, as well.
For me, scientific theories are like income tax returns. If the theory is based on false assumptions ( whether intentional or not ), the entire theory is questionable.

Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

11/16/2007 04:16:54 PM · #354

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
No, it won't. An analysis of the DNA of Darwin's Finches will not SHOW that they derived from a common ancestor. Such an analysis will only point some into hypothesizing such a derivation. A corroborated geneological chart, if one existed, would SHOW the direct line of descent from a common ancestor. Without that chart, it is conjecture.

True, Finches don't keep detailed records listing all their begats ... of course you'll have to stretch the definition of "corroborated" quite a bit to make it apply to any version of the Bible as we know it.

The Bible is a large, expansive volume. But it requires no stretching to obtain corroboration. Every science has contributed to the corroboration of it's contents in one way or another. From physics ( dark matter ( that which is seen was made from that which was not seen )) to archeology ( discovery of Jericho ) to physics ( the strong force ( in Him are all things held together )) etc., etc. Science corroborates the Bible, and the Bible corroborates (real) science - but it doesn't corroborate macroevolution.

JBHale

Canon EOS-20D

11/16/2007 04:19:27 PM · #355

Ron, since you are taking so much time to disprove science and evolution, give us some of the creationist views and how they are proven by fact.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

11/16/2007 04:27:04 PM · #356

Originally posted by RonB:

The bible is a scientific treatise?! Probably the weirdest thing I've heard yet. Anyway, it is trivial to make any text in existence corroborate observable phenomena if you bend the meaning in just the right way and add the required amount of faith.

Message edited by author 2007-11-16 16:27:24.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

11/16/2007 04:28:07 PM · #357

Originally posted by scalvert:

I was taken aback at interviewed members of the Dover school board repeating the misnomer that "it's just a theory." For someone on a school board to be that ignorant of basic scientific principles is simply appalling. :-(

Welcome to rural Pennsylvania.

Hence my remark about the surprise I had about a landmark case arising there.

I'm in Amish and Mennonite territory, too.

These are people who go out of their way to resist progress and modern advances on almost all levels.

Their children die on a regular basis because they refuse to take them to hospitals.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/16/2007 04:50:12 PM · #358

Originally posted by RonB:

Are you suggesting that the odds are 50/50 that half-lives don't work the same way now that they did 60 million years ago? If not, what probability are you referring to? There are several reasons we know the decay rate hasn't varied. It's not just a guess.

Originally posted by RonB:

As to your statement that radiometric dating is based upon physics and mathematical theorems: All assumptions...

Originally posted by RonB:

Mathematics have proofs.

Pick one and stick to it.

Originally posted by RonB:

They should, using physics and mathematics only, be able to PREDICT the half-life of ANY (unstable) isotope, and then experimentally DEMONSTRATE that their prediction was 100% accurate. Isn't that what the scientific method requires?

Yep, and that's been done many times.

Originally posted by RonB:

are you claiming that sedimentary strata can be dated apart from adjacent igneous outpourings?

Correct. For the purpose of dating fossils, isotopes are measured directly from multiple samples of the same layer of sedimentary rock the fossil was embedded in. Dating a rock in which the fossil does not occur (igneous) would only prove the age of that rock.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
You're describing individual facts, not theories.

If the IRS determines that I made just ONE false claim on my Income Taxes, they don't just audit that one part - they audit the entire return, because falsification in one area, whether intentional or not, raises concern as to whether there are other falsifications, as well.

Yeah, they review that incident. They DON'T assume everybody else's returns are faulty, too. Again, you're describing individual facts, not theories.

Message edited by author 2007-11-16 17:03:10.

11/16/2007 05:16:22 PM · #359

Originally posted by JBHale:

Ron, since you are taking so much time to disprove science and evolution, give us some of the creationist views and how they are proven by fact.

I'd be glad to give you some creationist views, but not with the caveat that they must be proven by fact, because:

1) I have never claimed that creationist views can be proven by fact.
2) To the best of my knowledge, they cannot
3) I have never challenged the position of others that creationist views could not be proven - on the contrary, I have agreed with them.

And I have taken NO time at all to disprove science per se. Why would I? I value and esteem science. Nor, in fact, have I spent any time trying to disprove the existence of fossils ( one of the few (real) facts in the evolutionists evidence bag ). I just happen to strongly disagree with a small subset of the scientific community - those who propagate the theory of evolution. The evolutionists are a vocal minority, and the only members of the scientific community, as far as I know, that give two hoots and a hoorah about what theists think. As a result, they are the only subset that goes to great lengths to discredit creationists.

11/16/2007 05:31:27 PM · #360

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
Your utter ignorance of probability surely equals my ignorance of radiometric dating. Any statistician will tell you that just because you flipped a coin and it came up heads 17,777 times in a row, that the odds of the NEXT flip coming up heads is STILL just 50/50. The number of times a given outcome is reached is NOT sufficient to determine that a given outcome is a certainty.

Are you suggesting that the odds are 50/50 that half-lives don't work the same way now that they did 60 million years ago?

No. I have no idea what the odds are. But if you know of someone who measured them and recorded the results 60 million years ago, I'll have to grant that, for all intents and purposes, they can be considered constant.

Originally posted by scalvert:

If not, what probability are you referring to? There are several reasons we know the decay rate hasn't varied. It's not just a guess.

I couldn't find anywhere in that article that evidence is given to prove that the decay rate hasn't varied.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
As to your statement that radiometric dating is based upon physics and mathematical theorems: All assumptions...

Originally posted by RonB:
Mathematics have proofs.

Pick one and stick to it.

You're begging the question. Can scientists predict, using physics and mathematics alone, the half life of an unstable isotope? Yes or No? If so, produce evidence that it was done.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
They should, using physics and mathematics only, be able to PREDICT the half-life of ANY (unstable) isotope, and then experimentally DEMONSTRATE that their prediction was 100% accurate. Isn't that what the scientific method requires?

Yep, and that's been done many times.

I repeat, produce the evidence.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
are you claiming that sedimentary strata can be dated apart from adjacent igneous outpourings?

Correct. For the purpose of dating fossils, isotopes are measured directly from multiple samples of the same layer of sedimentary rock the fossil was embedded in. Dating a rock in which the fossil does not occur (igneous) would only prove the age of that rock.

Isotopes in sedimentary rock are subject to all manner of external influences ( leaching, for one ). Such influences can significantly alter the parent/child relationship - thereby yielding erroneous dating results.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
You're describing individual facts, not theories.

If the IRS determines that I made just ONE false claim on my Income Taxes, they don't just audit that one part - they audit the entire return, because falsification in one area, whether intentional or not, raises concern as to whether there are other falsifications, as well.

Yeah, they review that incident. They DON'T assume everybody else's returns are faulty, too. Again, you're describing individual facts, not theories.

Nor do I assume that all other scientists theories are faulty. Just the evolutionists and anthropogenic-global-warming theorists.

(edited to correct quote blocks)

Message edited by author 2007-11-16 18:17:50.

smartypants

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

11/16/2007 05:53:41 PM · #361

This seems fitting.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

11/16/2007 06:13:25 PM · #362

Originally posted by rox_rox:

Here are my contributions to this discussion for today:

An Exeptionally Simple Theory of Everything by Garrett Lisi
"The theory proposed in this paper represents a comprehensive unification program, describing all fields of the standard model and gravity as parts of a uniquely beautiful mathematical structure. The principal bundle connection and its curvature describe how the E8 manifold twists and turns over spacetime, reproducing all known fields and dynamics through pure geometry. Some aspects of this theory are not yet completely understood, and until they are it should be treated with appropriate skepticism. However, the current match to the standard model and gravity is very good. Future work will either strengthen the correlation to known physics and produce successful predictions for the LHC, or the theory will encounter a fatal contradiction with nature. The lack of extraneous structures and free parameters ensures testable predictions, so it will either succeed or fail spectacularly. If E8 theory is fully successful as a theory of everything, our universe is an exceptionally beautiful shape."

It's interesting how the fractals in his theory form the Star of David.

Wow! I never knew you had such influence on the media. Here we were, talking about this just the other day, and now, today, the story makes headlines. By all means read The Articleand take a look at The Video it references. AMAZING!!!

Oh, as a creationist, I couldn't help but mention what Mr. Lisi says in his conclusions:

"There are a remarkable number of "coincidences" that work exactly right to allow all known fields to be unified as parts of one connection"

What Lisi calls "a remarkable number of "coincidences"", I prefer to call "God's perfect, well-thought-out, and executed design" - the perfect blend of science and theology.

Apple iPhone 5

11/16/2007 06:18:23 PM · #363

Originally posted by RonB:

That guy seriously needs to fly to Cambridge for a chat with Professor Hawking.

rox_rox

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

11/16/2007 06:45:04 PM · #364

Originally posted by RonB:

Wow! I never knew you had such influence on the media.

Well...[kicks the ground, sheepishly] I do what I can.

Originally posted by RonB:

Here we were, talking about this just the other day, and now, today, the story makes headlines. By all means read The Articleand take a look at The Video it references. AMAZING!!!

Oh, as a creationist, I couldn't help but mention what Mr. Lisi says in his conclusions:

"There are a remarkable number of "coincidences" that work exactly right to allow all known fields to be unified as parts of one connection"

What Lisi calls "a remarkable number of "coincidences"", I prefer to call "God's perfect, well-thought-out, and executed design" - the perfect blend of science and theology.

Well Ron, even though we see things from different angles; and both again at different angles from the atheists, I still contend that there is a common binding thread that we have yet to comprehend.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/16/2007 08:31:35 PM · #365

Originally posted by RonB:

The evolutionists are a vocal minority...

Wrong again.

Also note that 93% of scientists qualified to teach at the university level in Ohio were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution", and 90% felt there was no scientific evidence at all for "intelligent design". The survey results.

Lastly, see how desperately creationists have been lying for more than 178 when they claim that scientists are abandoning the theory of evolution.

Message edited by author 2007-11-16 20:32:01.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

11/16/2007 09:17:18 PM · #366

Originally posted by RonB:

But if you know of someone who measured them and recorded the results 60 million years ago, I'll have to grant that, for all intents and purposes, they can be considered constant.

Direct observations of stars well in excess of 60 million light years' distance (which corresponds to a real-time views of nuclear events that happened more than 60 million years ago) confirms the physics.

Originally posted by RonB:

I couldn't find anywhere in that article that evidence is given to prove that the decay rate hasn't varied.

You certainly didn't look too hard. About a quarter of the article is devoted to the subject. :-/

"We can be confident that radioactive-decay rates have not varied over geological time for several reasons:
There is no known physical reason that would cause them to vary noticeably. The two main types of radioactive decay used for radiometric dating are alpha and beta decay, which are both well-understood physical phenomena, and which have rates that can be calculated from the decay energies and various fundamental physical constants. In particular, alpha decay takes place by quantum-mechanical tunneling; the emitted helium-4 nucleus spreads through its "forbidden" region near the nucleus to where it can escape. And beta decay takes place by the weak elementary interaction, which can convert neutrons and protons and emit or absorb electrons.
The electrons in decaying atoms do have an influence on their decay rates, but all but the outermost ones are essentially unaffected by different states of chemical combination and different pressures in the Earth. In particular, it is mostly the innermost electrons that are captured in electron-capture decay, and these are relatively unaffected by the outside world. The main exception, beryllium-7 (which is not used for radiometric dating, hence any anomalies in its decay are irrelevant to the question of whether or not radiometric dating techniques are valid), is easily accounted for by noting that its outermost and innermost electrons are right next to each other (beryllium has only 4 electrons in 2 shells with 2 each).
If such variations happened, then it would be very unlikely that they would happen in exact sync, which is what would be necessary to produce the observed concordances. In fact, if such discrepancies existed, it would be possible to produce plots of U-Pb age vs. K-Ar age. However, searching for such discrepancies has resulted in some sensitive upper limits, as described in The fundamental constants and their variation: observational status and theoretical motivations
The physics of stars (and other objects) which we can observe is independent of how far they are away from earth. Observing stars which are very far away means also looking very far back in time. The physics of stars is strongly dependend on nuclear reactions and thus also connected to decay rates. Therefore a change in decay rates which would affect the accuracy of radiometric dating can be clearly ruled out.
Studies on the isotopes left behind by the Oklo reactor, a natural occuring nuclear reactor about two billion years ago, are giving an upper limit of the change of constants and excludes changes in constants which are big enough to affect the accuracy of radiometric dating."

(Side note- the Oklo reactor itself is a fascinating example of scientific research in action.)

Originally posted by RonB:

Can scientists predict, using physics and mathematics alone, the half life of an unstable isotope? Yes or No? If so, produce evidence that it was done.

Yes. Here's one. And another. And another. And another. I could probably find hundreds, but then so could you if you had bothered to look instead of simply claiming it had never been done.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
They should, using physics and mathematics only, be able to PREDICT the half-life of ANY (unstable) isotope, and then experimentally DEMONSTRATE that their prediction was 100% accurate. Isn't that what the scientific method requires?

Yep, and that's been done many times.

I repeat, produce the evidence.

See above links. If you need more, they're readily available through Google.

Originally posted by RonB:

Isochron methods eliminate those errors. Multiple samples are measured using a method that doesn't require knowing the initial isotope concentrations, and any subsequent contamination becomes readily apparent in the results. The link explains the process in great detail if you care to wade through it.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
you're describing individual facts, not theories.

Nor do I assume that all other scientists theories are faulty. Just the evolutionists and anthropogenic-global-warming theorists.

You clearly still haven't watched the evidence presented in the Nova documentary. Your posts demonstrate complete ignorance of the readily available proof you continue to claim doesn't exist.

Message edited by author 2007-11-16 22:05:59.

Prof_Fate

11/16/2007 11:32:54 PM · #367

Originally posted by scalvert:

Simple solution...God created evolution. End of controversy. LOL

In reality the earth is a large scale DNA experiment by Aliens. Explains a lot IMO.
The pyramids, Nazca lines in S America, aliens, abductions, evolution, same stories in antiquity in every culture (adam and eve, Noah/flood, etc), multiple gods that come from the sky, etc. Pretty much the world over it's all a one-god system now (evolution of religion!). Sudden appearance of new diseases (legionaires, SARS, AIDS, etc) - brought by or created by the aliens (in who's likeness we were created - so it appears from the descriptions of aliens at any sightings).

Now who created the aliens...that is the question we should be asking!

Message edited by author 2007-11-16 23:33:41.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

11/17/2007 12:57:37 AM · #368

Just noticed that the Flying Spagetti Monster was in the news today and it made me think of this thread.

Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/17/2007 01:12:21 AM · #369

Originally posted by yanko:

Just noticed that the Flying Spagetti Monster was in the news today and it made me think of this thread.

Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

The article saved the best for last, perhaps providing conclusive evidence for the truth in the old soldierly saying that "there are no atheists in foxholes":

Originally posted by cited article:

Lucas Johnston, the third Florida student, argues the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism exhibits at least some of the traits of a traditional religion -- including, perhaps, that deep human need to feel like there's something bigger than oneself out there.

He recognized the point when his neighbor, a militant atheist who sports a pro-Darwin bumper sticker on her car, tried recently to start her car on a dying battery.

As she turned the key, she murmured under her breath: "Come on Spaghetti Monster!"

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/17/2007 10:49:25 AM · #370

Wow, Monsterism makes the mainstream. This is from the FSM website, but it's pretty funny:

I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world: one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

11/17/2007 12:49:24 PM · #371

Sweet Pasta!

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

11/17/2007 11:43:51 PM · #372

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
But if you know of someone who measured them and recorded the results 60 million years ago, I'll have to grant that, for all intents and purposes, they can be considered constant.

Direct observations of stars well in excess of 60 million light years' distance (which corresponds to a real-time views of nuclear events that happened more than 60 million years ago) confirms the physics.

WikiPedia describes the effects of Time dilationlike this:

"Time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast moving vehicle to travel further into the future while aging very little, in that their great speed retards the rate of passage of onboard time. That is, the ship's clock (and according to relativity, any human travelling with it) shows less elapsed time than stationary clocks. For sufficiently high speeds the effect is dramatic. For example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years at home. Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel as far as light has been able to since the big bang (some 13.7 billion light years) in one human lifetime."

So an earthly observer who believes that the universe expands at at CONSTANT rate may ASSUME that a star is 60 million light years away based on that belief. BUT, how is one to guess a star's distance if he/she believes that the expansion of the universe is ACCELERATING? First, he/she would have to KNOW with certainty what the rate of acceleration is - and at present, to the best of my knowledge, no one knows.

FWIW, the currently accepted theory leans toward an ACCELERATING Universe.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
I couldn't find anywhere in that article that evidence is given to prove that the decay rate hasn't varied.

You certainly didn't look too hard. About a quarter of the article is devoted to the subject. :-/

"We can be confident that radioactive-decay rates have not varied over geological time for several reasons:
There is no known physical reason that would cause them to vary noticeably.

Perhaps it is just not known YET, and remains to be found.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
Can scientists predict, using physics and mathematics alone, the half life of an unstable isotope? Yes or No? If so, produce evidence that it was done.

Yes. Here's one.

No. There is no indication that the half-life was PREDICTED before it was measured

Originally posted by scalvert:

And another.

Nope. Although that link says that the measured half-life was COMPARED to the theoretically predicted half-life, it does NOT say that that any predictions were based on physics and mathematics alone. For all I know, they were predicted based on similar isotopes. Nor does the extract say that the predictions were a 100% match - only that they were compared.
I can truthfullly state that I compared an apple to an orange, but that does not logically mean that they were found to be the same.

Originally posted by scalvert:

And another.

Nope. No mention of prediction.

Originally posted by scalvert:

And another.

Nope. No mention of prediction.

Originally posted by scalvert:

I could probably find hundreds, but then so could you if you had bothered to look instead of simply claiming it had never been done.

Yep. You could, and I STILL don't think that you'd find any that accurately predicted an isotopic half-life using physics and math alone.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
They should, using physics and mathematics only, be able to PREDICT the half-life of ANY (unstable) isotope, and then experimentally DEMONSTRATE that their prediction was 100% accurate. Isn't that what the scientific method requires?

Yep, and that's been done many times.

I repeat, produce the evidence.
[

See above links. If you need more, they're readily available through Google.

I've seen your links above, and still haven't found any evidence. And there's no reason why I should do your research for you.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
Isotopes in sedimentary rock are subject to all manner of external influences ( leaching, for one ). Such influences can significantly alter the parent/child relationship - thereby yielding erroneous dating results.

Isochron methods eliminate those errors. Multiple samples are measured using a method that doesn't require knowing the initial isotope concentrations, and any subsequent contamination becomes readily apparent in the results. The link explains the process in great detail if you care to wade through it.

Actually, isochron dating just makes OTHER assumptions when used with Sedimentary rock. Isochron dating maintains that there is no need to estimate the amount of a daughter element that may have contaminated the sample, because if any strontium or rubidium has been removed or added from the original rock, it will produce a point that lies outside the isochron line, thus indicating that the sample has been contaminated. In any sample which produces ratios lying on a straight isochron line, it is a certainty that the sample is uncontaminated, and the calculated half-life age will be correct.

The problem is that that last statement makes an ASSUMPTION ( of all things ). It fails to take into account the possibility that ALL of the samples have been contaminated to the same degree - which could very well be the case for sedimentary rock. In fact, it would be quite unlikely if external influences ( leaching, for example ) in one part of a given sedimentary strata in a given locale did NOT affect nearby parts of that same strata in that same locale to the same degree. You'd end up with a straight line, but it would be a false dating.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/17/2007 11:56:26 PM · #373

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
See above links. If you need more, they're readily available through Google.

I've seen your links above, and still haven't found any evidence. And there's no reason why I should do your research for you.

I have read this, and other thread dealing with the subject and to date have found one thing that has remained constant... that being that you consistently demand that other provide proof to support their views, whereas you have the advantage of simply saying: "I have faith... I need no proof"

You truly are a great debater, as you have an uncanny ability to cloud the issues and resort to circular arguments.

My hat is off to you.

Ray

Message edited by author 2007-11-18 00:15:03.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/18/2007 01:15:24 AM · #374

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
But if you know of someone who measured them and recorded the results 60 million years ago, I'll have to grant that, for all intents and purposes, they can be considered constant.

Direct observations of stars well in excess of 60 million light years' distance (which corresponds to a real-time views of nuclear events that happened more than 60 million years ago) confirms the physics.

WikiPedia describes the effects of Time dilation like this...

Time dilation? You're really grasping at straws here (and missing). Though we can measure star distances through a variety of standard candles, redshifts and even parallax (for nearby stars), the point is moot. Whether a star we think is 60 million light years away is actually 6 million or 600 million, the fact remains that the nuclear physics involved are observed to be unchanged at all distances (ie. constant). Furthermore, you don't have to wait for half the isotope's life to determine what its half-life is. Atomic decay is exponential, and you'd only have to measure over a comparatively tiny period of time to accurately plot the curve of even a very long half-life. With the sensitivity of current technology, a few days would suffice.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
I couldn't find anywhere in that article that evidence is given to prove that the decay rate hasn't varied.

You certainly didn't look too hard. About a quarter of the article is devoted to the subject. :-/

"We can be confident that radioactive-decay rates have not varied over geological time for several reasons:
There is no known physical reason that would cause them to vary noticeably.

Perhaps it is just not known YET, and remains to be found.

Now how did I know you would pick up on that one part of one of the reasons and just ignore the rest? I must be psychic!

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Can scientists predict, using physics and mathematics alone, the half life of an unstable isotope? Yes or No? If so, produce evidence that it was done.

Yes....

No. There is no indication that the half-life was PREDICTED before it was measured... Nor does the extract say that the predictions were a 100% match - only that they were compared.

Those links were abstracts (not concentrated flavorings) describing the general content of the reports. I should have known you wouldn't look any farther than the headline- you want it spelled out clearly without actually having to dig. Fine. Another 8 second search: HERE ya go. "The half-life was calculated to be (1.9 +/- 0.2 ) x 1019 years, which is in good agreement with the theoretical prediction of 4.6 x 1019 years." Now personally, I consider a difference of less than 3 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 to be good agreement, but your mileage may vary.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Isotopes in sedimentary rock are subject to all manner of external influences ( leaching, for one ). Such influences can significantly alter the parent/child relationship - thereby yielding erroneous dating results.

Isochron methods eliminate those errors. Multiple samples are measured using a method that doesn't require knowing the initial isotope concentrations, and any subsequent contamination becomes readily apparent in the results. The link explains the process in great detail if you care to wade through it.

Actually, isochron dating ... fails to take into account the possibility that ALL of the samples have been contaminated to the same degree - which could very well be the case for sedimentary rock. In fact, it would be quite unlikely if external influences ( leaching, for example ) in one part of a given sedimentary strata in a given locale did NOT affect nearby parts of that same strata in that same locale to the same degree. You'd end up with a straight line, but it would be a false dating.

In order for your suggestion to be true of the observed data, EVERY sample would have to be contaminated by leaching after lithification at exactly the same rate and at every point, with the same uniform concentrations of contaminants, everywhere in the world that the same types of fossils are found in rock of similar age... and you claim THEY make assumptions? :-O