Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

[james bond]

I told you twice already. Here is the third time. Anyone with a little science should be able to figure it out. U 238 has a half life of 4.468 billion years. An end product of the decay is lead. If the earth were only 10,000 years old the Uranium would have negligible decay in such a short time. There would be no lead.

Any other long lived isotope would also have negligible daughter products if the earth were only 10,000 years old.

Let's not quibble. As I mentioned before, you describe the method, but not the actual material it has been used on and what was done. You do not provide a link to what has been tested. What you are stating is disingenuous. Moreover, the process has been to provide whatever has been tested and given to RATE. That way, they can verify your findings, check for contamination, and also check for radiocarbon dating. Let's not forget, it's young Earth vs. old Earth since you did not believe in using meteorites.

OTOH, I provided the links for Clair Patterson, long time, Darwin, uniformitarianism, et al. You haven't provided any hard evidence.

You referenced a lot of scientists in the early 1800's or before that were creationists. Everyone was! That is no surprise because the earth age of billions years wasn't known until the early 1900's.

I am talking about modern creationists of the last few decades. They are not scientists. They want to dismiss current science because they are young earthers, but the science that they speculate about violates well proven properties of the speed of light or fiddling with a nonlinear time. They have no theory that passes muster; just naive speculation.

The modern creationists you referenced don't understand the limit of AMS for carbon14 dating. Their error is like trying to measure the weight of a marshmellow with a bathroom scale. They will get zero and think it's weightless because they don't understand it's limitation.

In the rest of your post you are back to personal attacks.

So the story so far is that AMS can't be used to date diamonds.
Rhenium inclusions in diamonds lead to billions of years age of diamonds.
Patterson clearly showed primordial earth is 4.5 billion years.
Distant galaxies show the universe is around 13.7 billion years. Any attempt by creationists that try to deny that end up denying well established basic physics and lead themselves into self contradiction.

Getting science from creationist sites will only lead you astray.
.

No, Earth age became important because of ToE was explained. Nobody on the creationist side wants to dismiss atheist science. In fact, we have to learn the atheist science or what they have found and are stating, such as the recent birds are dinosaurs, thesis. That way, we can agree or not agree with the findings. Usually, the atheist or evolution side contradicts what was written in the Bible and the fun begins.

You are wrong again. Today, creationists are scientists, as well. This is a weakness in your part because I don't think you have any college degree. You would know that they all have credentials. I can post the new creation scientists credentials if you want. OTOH, you have nothing to support your background, but claiming to some work related to AMS.

Furthermore, we still have RATE which can do the AMS testing and see if what the evolution side claims as millions or billions of years old can be tested with radiocarbon dating. You yourself claim that one can't do this after 60,000 years.

The rest of you ad hominem claims by me are ridiculous. I'm starting to doubt you know much about what we have been discussing. It's not just me who thinks you're wrong or disingenuous.

 

[luchitociencia]

I told you twice already. Here is the third time. Anyone with a little science should be able to figure it out. U 238 has a half life of 4.468 billion years. An end product of the decay is lead. If the earth were only 10,000 years old the Uranium would have negligible decay in such a short time. There would be no lead.

Any other long lived isotope would also have negligible daughter products if the earth were only 10,000 years old.
.

Luchito: You don't know physics.

Scientist: No, you are the ignorant. I told four times the earth is not 10,000 years old because the measurement made with half life of U 238 as 4.468 billion years, and having at the same time U 235 half life as a secondary "clock" to check the measurement is correct.

Luchito: How do you know that age?

Scientist: Because the application of the radiometric system.

Luchito: How the radiometric system gave you such amount of 4.468 billion years? Did the U 238 showed you that age? How?

Scientist: After computer calculations.

Luchito: After computer calculations of what?

Scientist: After computer calculations of their decay.

Luchito: Did the computer actually measured until such amount of billions of years or this is about calculations made in base of an observed rate of decay?

Scientist: The computer has been programmed in accord to an observed rate of decay.

Luchito: Up to how old in age it has been observed such a rate of decay without calculations?

Scientist: Tests with U 238 and its decay in lab showed different but approximated results in different tests.

Luchito: But you use it in a lab test which lasted how long?

Scientist: That depends of the method used.

Luchito: Then, you tested an element for a period of time, like, lets say a year. And you measure the decay of it in such a lapse

Scientist: Yes, that is mostly how is done.

Luchito: I have for example Nitrogen, you say will decay -0.693 a year.

Scientist: Well, yes.

Luchito: Then. you have observed a rate of decay of U 238 in a year and from here you have made your calculations.

Scientist: Exactly.

Luchito: Is the decay of U 238 standard or can be manipulated to decay faster or slower?

Scientist: It can be manipulated. For example, low frequency magnetic fields can do the job.

Luchito: So, you just observe the physical decay of U 238 in a lapse of a year, and from here the rest is just calculations made in a programed computer.

Scientist: Yes, we use the best technology.

Luchito: Then, physically you have never measured those 4.468 billion years.

Scientist: No.

Luchito: However, you think that such an age is acceptable and reliable after making such a calculation of yours.

Scientist: Yes indeed.

Luchito: And even when you know that such decay can have a different rate of decay when you observe it in outer space, you still insisting that your calculations are correct.

Scientist: If any difference, such will be minimum

Luchito: But will be different, and giving a greater difference when you consider going into "billions of years". You know, in mathematics you miss a unit at the very beginning and the complete result is false.

Scientist: I stand with what we have unless you come with a better method of measure for the age of the universe.

Luchito: I don't think such is necessary, because our lives won't change at all by knowing the exact age of the universe. Such fanaticism comes from your part.

Scientist: It's in the name of science

Luchito: In the name of science you are using an invalidated method.

Scientist: Is what we have and we stick with it.

Luchito: Even knowing that the rate of decay of U 238 you are using applies solely if earth has an environment same of the whole universe?

Scientist: We can't lean on results of samples sent to outer space because they can be exposed to extreme changes just by difference of gravity as one example.

Luchito: That is the point. You lean on results made on earth only, but your rate of decay can't apply for decay of U 238 somewhere else in the universe.

Scientist: I can't answer that.

Luchito: Of course you can't

Scientist: And who are you anyway? You think you know more than a scientist in this matter?

Luchito: I just proved I know more than you.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

People think there are multiple dimensions, but we've yet to prove the existence of the fourth dimension.

*facepalm*

Should we tell him, or let him wallow in stupidity?

You still need to learn how to read and comprehend, Stormy Daniels .

Just as soon as you learn basic high school physics.

 

[Wuwei]

Let's not quibble. As I mentioned before, you describe the method, but not the actual material it has been used on and what was done. You do not provide a link to what has been tested. What you are stating is disingenuous. Moreover, the process has been to provide whatever has been tested and given to RATE. That way, they can verify your findings, check for contamination, and also check for radiocarbon dating.

I stated a general principle that isotopes with a half life of many millions to billions of years have immeasurably few daughter products in only 6000 years. Why is that disingenuous? Where do you disagree?

No, Earth age became important because of ToE was explained. Nobody on the creationist side wants to dismiss atheist science. In fact, we have to learn the atheist science or what they have found and are stating, such as the recent birds are dinosaurs, thesis. That way, we can agree or not agree with the findings. Usually, the atheist or evolution side contradicts what was written in the Bible and the fun begins.

Dr. Jason Lisle dismissed current accepted science in a big way when he tried to rationalize a young universe. I already gave a list of his grave misunderstandings involving the physical constants. He should really know better than that. Being an astrophysicist, he no doubt had courses in relativity and quantum mechanics.

You are wrong again. Today, creationists are scientists, as well. This is a weakness in your part because I don't think you have any college degree. You would know that they all have credentials. I can post the new creation scientists credentials if you want. OTOH, you have nothing to support your background, but claiming to some work related to AMS.

Yes, some have an advanced science education and are scientists, but when they promote a brand of creation science that dismisses the findings of modern science, like Lisle, they are not acting in the name of science. In that sense, “creation science” is a misnomer and is not science, in the same way that the sect Christian Science is not science. I don't care or judge anyone by their educational background. That should be obvious by now. I judge people on their ability to think rationally and navigate physical concepts correctly. I haven't seen a young earth creationist here or anywhere that can do that.

Furthermore, we still have RATE which can do the AMS testing and see if what the evolution side claims as millions or billions of years old can be tested with radiocarbon dating. You yourself claim that one can't do this after 60,000 years.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. RATE scientists already did their own testing with diamonds and coal and got a meaningless result. They still called it valid.

Radiocarbon is not a viable method for objects older than 60,000 years. But still that is an order of magnitude older than 6000 years. However many other much longer lived isotopes are viable for dating older samples. Some RATE scientists have dug up samples and had labs test them (Not using C14). The labs found the samples were many orders of magnitude older than 6000 years.

So far I have not seen you or any site give any scientifically valid reason the earth is 6000 years old.



.

 

[Wuwei]

Luchito: Then, you tested an element for a period of time, like, lets say a year. And you measure the decay of it in such a lapse
Scientist: Yes, that is mostly how is done.

Luchito: Is the decay of U 238 standard or can be manipulated to decay faster or slower?
Scientist: It can be manipulated. For example, low frequency magnetic fields can do the job.

Luchito: And even when you know that such decay can have a different rate of decay when you observe it in outer space, you still insisting that your calculations are correct.

Scientist: We can't lean on results of samples sent to outer space because they can be exposed to extreme changes just by difference of gravity as one example.

I am answering you just this once because you have seemed to put some time into this. All the questions and responses you post here are particularly false. Absolutely no scientist would make those replies.

.

 

[james bond]

People think there are multiple dimensions, but we've yet to prove the existence of the fourth dimension.

*facepalm*

Should we tell him, or let him wallow in stupidity?

You still need to learn how to read and comprehend, Stormy Daniels .

Just as soon as you learn basic high school physics.

How did high school physics prove the existence of the fourth dimension?

 

[james bond]

I stated a general principle that isotopes with a half life of many millions to billions of years have immeasurably few daughter products in only 6000 years. Why is that disingenuous? Where do you disagree?

Because it has nothing to do with measuring the age of the Earth. We are discussing young Earth vs. old Earth. What you are doing is trying to explain away my complaint. If you do not know what the daughter products are, then you cannot do your radiometric dating. Where is what you measured? Since you want to just discuss methodology and nothing concrete, you have not provided

1. The initial conditions of the rock sample or material to be dated are accurately known.
2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock or material was formed.

I provided both measurements instead of stating how RATE used radiocarbon dating to show coal and diamonds were thousands of years old. Here is the radiocarbon dating of other materials by RATE:

"Dr. Steven Austin of ICR led off the conference with a paper entitled, "Continuing Research on Isochron Dating Methods Applied to Grand Canyon Rocks." He presented plots of the ratios of various radionuclides usually interpreted as "isochron ages" from over 40 rock samples collected from Grand Canyon Pleistocene and Precambrian layers. These samples were analyzed using Pb-Pb, Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr, and K-Ar methods. Attention was focused on daughter products of lead, neodymium, strontium, and argon for whole-rock and mineral concentrates. The various linear array plots could be interpreted as "isochrons" from the different dating methods. However, discordant "ages" resulted, even for mineral concentrates from the same rock. Although the discordant isochron "ages" are the normal pattern, the discordance seems to differ in a predictable fashion. Alpha daughter products give older apparent "ages" than beta daughter products. More measurements and analyses, especially mineral isochrons, may help identify the cause of the observed trends.

Dr. Andrew Snelling of AIG continued the geological emphasis with a paper entitled, "Solving the Long-Age Isotope Dating Problem: Geology and Geochemistry." He reported on the K-Ar analyses of recent (less than 50 years old) lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, which produced model ages as high as 3.5 million years. The large age is due to excessive concentrations of primordial argon in the samples which renders problematic the use of K-Ar and Ar-Ar as methods for dating rocks. It is not possible to distinguish the primordial argon incorporated as a rock formed from that produced later by nuclear decay. Dr. Snelling demonstrated that argon is infiltrating the crust of the earth from reservoirs in the mantle over various space and time scales. Additionally, the Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr, and U-Th-Pb dating methods also rely on assumptions about the initial starting conditions in the earth's mantle. Various hypothetical models for different compositional domains in the mantle are utilized by geochemists to explain the measured isotope ratios in crustal rocks, in some instances without resorting to age interpretations. Dr. Snelling intends to pursue this explanation as an alternative to accelerated decay."

Thus, your explanations of methods of radiometric dating being used for a young Earth has little to do with what we are discussing. It only addresses part of the problems that need to be overcome in the measuring of various materials.

This is at least the third time you have failed .

Why don't we just use radiocarbon dating if the Earth is young?

You're also disingenuous because you use your own theories instead of evolution and provide no credentials. I've already asked for this at least three times. Three strikes and you're out. Did you graduate from high school? Where was it from?

Dr. Jason Lisle dismissed current accepted science in a big way when he tried to rationalize a young universe. I already gave a list of his grave misunderstandings involving the physical constants. He should really know better than that. Being an astrophysicist, he no doubt had courses in relativity and quantum mechanics.

Of course not. He used hard science and we have more evidence besides dating to back up a young Earth. We have established all you have is dating. Does that mean evolution just has radiometric dating?

I don't understand what you are trying to say. RATE scientists already did their own testing with diamonds and coal and got a meaningless result. They still called it valid.

Radiocarbon is not a viable method for objects older than 60,000 years. But still that is an order of magnitude older than 6000 years. However many other much longer lived isotopes are viable for dating older samples. Some RATE scientists have dug up samples and had labs test them (Not using C14). The labs found the samples were many orders of magnitude older than 6000 years.

So far I have not seen you or any site give any scientifically valid reason the earth is 6000 years old.

Again, radiocarbon dating is invalid if there is no C14 left. However, we haven't hit 60,000 years yet, so it remains. Radiocarbon dating is perfectly valid. There is no need to use radiometric dating. You just do not get it.

 

[james bond]

I am answering you just this once because you have seemed to put some time into this. All the questions and responses you post here are particularly false. Absolutely no scientist would make those replies.

How do you know that? Why should we believe someone who just graduated from high school?

 

[james bond]

Here is something else that was discovered by creation scientists about radiometric dating, but has been ignored. Diffusion. Just like Wuwei has ignored much of my complaints to him about his explanations and assumptions for radiometric dating. He has completely ignored Gale and his findings in 1972, as well.

"Here’s where Dr. Hayes’s paper comes in. He says that there is one process that has been overlooked in all these isochron analyses: diffusion. Atoms and molecules naturally move around, and they do so in such as way as to even out their concentrations. A helium balloon, for example, will deflate over time, because the helium atoms diffuse through the balloon and into the surrounding air. Well, diffusion depends on the mass of the thing that is diffusing. Sr-86 diffuses more quickly than Sr-87, and that has never been taken into account when isochrons are analyzed.

No problem. Now that Dr. Hayes has brought it up, we can take it into account, right? Perhaps, but it’s rather tricky, because the rate of diffusion depends on the specific chemical and physical environment of each individual rock. If the effects of diffusion can be taken into account, it will require an elaborate model that will most certainly require elaborate assumptions. Dr. Hayes suggests a couple of other approaches that might work, but its not clear how well.

So what does this mean? If you believe the earth is very old, then most likely, all of the radioactive dates based on isochrons are probably overestimates. How bad are the overestimates? I have no idea, and I don’t think anyone else does, either. Dr. Hayes’s model indicates it could add as much as 29 billion years to ages determined with rubidium and strontium, although his model is rather simplistic. Most likely, the effect will be dependent on the age. I would think that the older the sample, the larger the overestimate. However, it’s important to note that some radioactive dates (like those that come from carbon-14) don’t use the isochron method, so they aren’t affected by this particular flaw."

Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating – Proslogion

So, we can discuss just the methodology instead of providing actual cases and show that radiometric dating is done incorrectly and makes wrong assumptions.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

How did high school physics prove the existence of the fourth dimension?

For example, did you take high school physics, or are you taking it now?

 

[james bond]

How did high school physics prove the existence of the fourth dimension?

For example, did you take high school physics, or are you taking it now?

You're too dumb to figure it out. I don't think you graduated high school. Failed in reading comprehension. You can't even answer how the 4th dimension was proven since that is your claim.

CERN is trying to do it now with showing how a gravitron could escape into the 4th dimension. That would demonstrate there is a 4th dimension. It's one of the thesis of how gravity works.

Here's a more interesting question for others here. It's been asked before, but what is time? It's a concept that we use as measurement such as length, width, and height. We have shown 3D exists, but does spacetime physically exist? We can show it exists in theory because we can show how an 3D object exists in 4D via computer simulation. Some people think the universe is a computer simulation and this lends some credence to that theory. Stuff like dark matter and dark energy lends credence to it, too. What about the universe being a hologram?

 

[Wuwei]

1. The initial conditions of the rock sample or material to be dated are accurately known.
2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock or material was formed.

Your third point never happens unless you want to change all the laws of physics.

The second two of your points don't happen in many cases, like with very rare daughter isotopes. For example, osmium daughter isotopes would very rarely be contaminated by preexisting osmium or infiltrating osmium. More on this further down.

"Dr. Steven Austin of ICR led off the conference with a paper entitled, "Continuing Research on Isochron Dating Methods Applied to Grand Canyon Rocks." He presented plots of the ratios of various radionuclides usually interpreted as "isochron ages" from over 40 rock samples collected from Grand Canyon Pleistocene and Precambrian layers. These samples were analyzed using Pb-Pb, Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr, and K-Ar methods. Attention was focused on daughter products of lead, neodymium, strontium, and argon for whole-rock and mineral concentrates. The various linear array plots could be interpreted as "isochrons" from the different dating methods. However, discordant "ages" resulted, even for mineral concentrates from the same rock. Although the discordant isochron "ages" are the normal pattern, the discordance seems to differ in a predictable fashion. Alpha daughter products give older apparent "ages" than beta daughter products. More measurements and analyses, especially mineral isochrons, may help identify the cause of the observed trends.

Dr. Andrew Snelling of AIG continued the geological emphasis with a paper entitled, "Solving the Long-Age Isotope Dating Problem: Geology and Geochemistry." He reported on the K-Ar analyses of recent (less than 50 years old) lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, which produced model ages as high as 3.5 million years. The large age is due to excessive concentrations of primordial argon in the samples which renders problematic the use of K-Ar and Ar-Ar as methods for dating rocks. It is not possible to distinguish the primordial argon incorporated as a rock formed from that produced later by nuclear decay. Dr. Snelling demonstrated that argon is infiltrating the crust of the earth from reservoirs in the mantle over various space and time scales. Additionally, the Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr, and U-Th-Pb dating methods also rely on assumptions about the initial starting conditions in the earth's mantle. Various hypothetical models for different compositional domains in the mantle are utilized by geochemists to explain the measured isotope ratios in crustal rocks, in some instances without resorting to age interpretations. Dr. Snelling intends to pursue this explanation as an alternative to accelerated decay."

Thus, your explanations of methods of radiometric dating being used for a young Earth has little to do with what we are discussing. It only addresses part of the problems that need to be overcome in the measuring of various materials.

Argon contamination in K40-Ar40 dating can be found and compensated by looking at other isotopes of Ar. If there is contamination by air, the isotopes Ar36 and Ar38 ratios are known and used to determine the contamination of Ar40 and subtracted out.

Another way to insure contamination is not a problem is to use three different radioactive elements with three different daughter isotopes for dating the sample. If they agree on the age, the probability that all three are contaminated identically is significantly reduced.

Here is the bottom line. Even if all the different daughter isotopes of several different decaying elements were rather contaminated in the same sample and erroneously gave an age of a billion years, the resulting assay could be, say three half lives off. That would reduce the age from a billion to 100 million years. That still pokes holes in a 6000 year old universe although dating for archaeological purposes is quite compromised.

This is at least the third time you have failed

.
Why don't we just use radiocarbon dating if the Earth is young?

You're also disingenuous because you use your own theories instead of evolution and provide no credentials. I've already asked for this at least three times. Three strikes and you're out. Did you graduate from high school? Where was it from?

Now you are being juvenile.

I don't use my own theories. I use verified physics. You won't see any of that if you keep copying and pasting only from creationist sites.

Of course not. He used hard science and we have more evidence besides dating to back up a young Earth. We have established all you have is dating. Does that mean evolution just has radiometric dating?

Not in the site you referenced. Dr. Lisle used "perhaps" and "maybe" too many times and he changed the laws of verified physics on every one of his points.

Again, radiocarbon dating is invalid if there is no C14 left. However, we haven't hit 60,000 years yet, so it remains. Radiocarbon dating is perfectly valid. There is no need to use radiometric dating. You just do not get it.

Really, you don't get it. If the carbon sample has only 1 amole of C14, then there is no valid age. Period. Remember a marshmellow on a bathroom scale gives no valid weight. It is a fundamental instrument limitation. I showed you the complete arithmetic on the limitation of AMS, and I gave references, where do you disagree with it?

.

 

[Wuwei]

I am answering you just this once because you have seemed to put some time into this. All the questions and responses you post here are particularly false. Absolutely no scientist would make those replies.

How do you know that? Why should we believe someone who just graduated from high school?

You don't have to believe me! Just try thinking for a change and not depend on creationist sites for all your science. You have no understanding of nuclear physics. You are quite ignorant of the most basic aspects of the subject.. But OMG you have no analytical skills either. Some of this is really just logic with a minimal amount of physics.

Here is a recap and a bit of explanation that you should really already know. If you had any physics in college..

Luchito: Then, you tested an element for a period of time, like, lets say a year. And you measure the decay of it in such a lapse
Scientist: Yes, that is mostly how is done.

You should know it can't be done that way. The decay rate for an isotope with a million year half life would not have changed in any perceptible way in only one year. Long half lifes have to be measured by first quantifying the number of atoms in a sample, and then measuring the decay rate. The quantification or purification takes the longest time. Measurement of the decay rate can be done in minutes, not years.

Luchito: Is the decay of U 238 standard or can be manipulated to decay faster or slower?
Scientist:It can be manipulated. For example, low frequency magnetic fields can do the job.

NO NO! If you had an entry level course in nuclear physics you would know that is not true at all. Are you confusing that with the Zeeman effect?

Luchito: And even when you know that such decay can have a different rate of decay when you observe it in outer space, you still insisting that your calculations are correct.
Scientist: We can't lean on results of samples sent to outer space because they can be exposed to extreme changes just by difference of gravity as one example.

For gods sake! The gravitational time dilation deviation is around 10⁻¹⁰ different from earth to outer space!! That would change a four billion year half life by just a few hours.

You can use just guessing if you want to snow creationists on a forum, but that will not work on me. The creation sites you use don't tell you the whole truth. They do a lot of guessing too.

.

 

[james bond]

Your third point never happens unless you want to change all the laws of physics.

The second two of your points don't happen in many cases, like with very rare daughter isotopes. For example, osmium daughter isotopes would very rarely be contaminated by preexisting osmium or infiltrating osmium. More on this further down.

More taking what I said out of context to avoid the hard questions.

Because it has nothing to do with measuring the age of the Earth. We are discussing young Earth vs. old Earth. What you are doing is trying to explain away my complaint. If you do not know what the daughter products are, then you cannot do your radiometric dating. Where is what you measured? Since you want to just discuss methodology and nothing concrete, you have not provided

1. The initial conditions of the rock sample or material to be dated are accurately known.
2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock or material was formed.

It goes to show why you just want to discuss methodology. It's your methodology for an old Earth. How can one apply it when the Earth is young? One uses C14 dating instead. There you go.

Furthermore, you do not understand what the creation scientists are saying. In the past, the gravity was less and the radioactive decay rate has varied. It should have been in the links I provided. As for the amount of parent or daughter elements, we had what Gael reported in 1972. It goes to show the assumptions of atheist scientists have been worse than they thought.

I'll have to continue when I get more time.

 

[Wuwei]

Here is something else that was discovered by creation scientists about radiometric dating, but has been ignored. Diffusion. Et cetera.

Diffusion in air and fluids. Yes and yes. Diffusion in solids: Not so much.

Contaminating molecules would have a hard time diffusing in crystals. Hydrogen or helium can slowly diffuse over the millennia. But they aren't a contaminant that would upset dating. Elements and daughter products are much larger.

If diffusion is a problem, an area in the center of a large rock or mass will be in a diffusive equilibrium. Diffusion of daughter isotopes into the area is the same as diffusion out of the area. The ratios will not change even though the molecules might. A very small sample with an exposed perimeter may have a bigger problem because diffusion out would be greater than diffusion in. Large molecules in a solid will not diffuse especially if the outer shell valences are different than the predominant mass. (I took two classes in solid state physics.)

On the whole it doesn't look like the creationists analysed the problem in detail.

.

 

[Wuwei]

More taking what I said out of context to avoid the hard questions.

Because it has nothing to do with measuring the age of the Earth. We are discussing young Earth vs. old Earth. What you are doing is trying to explain away my complaint. If you do not know what the daughter products are, then you cannot do your radiometric dating. Where is what you measured? Since you want to just discuss methodology and nothing concrete, you have not provided

I was talking about a general principle. When you focus on a specific example, you certainly do know what the daughter products are.

There is a definite miscommunication. You aren't reading my words the way I meant them and I don't seem to be reading your words the way you mean them because your responses just don't make sense to me.

It goes to show why you just want to discuss methodology. It's your methodology for an old Earth. How can one apply it when the Earth is young? One uses C14 dating instead. There you go.

Of course my methodology is for an old earth. It's billions of years old. You must use long half-life isotopes and they show very old ages.

Carbon 14 is just fine when you think the event is less than 50,000 years, like a middle age relic. But you can't use it on old rocks or diamonds. It simply gives you no information at all.

Furthermore, you do not understand what the creation scientists are saying. In the past, the gravity was less and the radioactive decay rate has varied. It should have been in the links I provided. As for the amount of parent or daughter elements, we had what Gael reported in 1972. It goes to show the assumptions of atheist scientists have been worse than they thought.

No, gravity didn't change and radioactive decay has been constant.

If they want to say that then they are denying the laws of physics and have no replacement. Do you want to abandon quantum mechanics and relativity too??

.

 

[james bond]

Diffusion in air and fluids. Yes and yes. Diffusion in solids: Not so much.

You have no credibility anymore as you provide no science links to back up your statements. Moreover, it does not appear you have a degree. Not only that you have made wrong assumptions and have been shown to be wrong. You were wrong about contamination and RATE and AMS testing. You were wrong about creationists not using science when they invented science. Today's creation scientists make mincemeat out of the secular science theories of long time. You were wrong about creation scientists not using science to address what they think is wrong with secular science. You do not recognize what has been demonstrated to be true of a global flood and catastrophe. We have 3/4 of Earth's surface covered by water. We have marine fossils as being the most plentiful fossils in the fossil record. They were found on the peaks of the highest mountains. We even have an entire whale fossil in the Himalayas. Not only that, it has been demonstrated that Noah's Ark can be build and float in the water. We have the Ark Adventure and Creation Museum now.

Why don't you write your criticisms of Dr. Jason Lisle and we can send it to him? Why don't you give him your credentials? You can use a pseudonym since you have no credentials and credibility.

OTOH, we have the RATE scientists:
"The RATE Group Findings
In 1997 an eight-year research project was started to investigate the age of the earth. The group was called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The team of scientists included:

• Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
• Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
• Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
• John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
• Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
• Steven Austin, PhD Geology
• Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
• Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies"

Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?

It really is silly to continue when radiocarbon dating was able to be completed and it showed a young Earth. There was no need to do radiometric dating as that would give false results as test have showed this.

 

[Hollie]

Diffusion in air and fluids. Yes and yes. Diffusion in solids: Not so much.

You have no credibility anymore as you provide no science links to back up your statements. Moreover, it does not appear you have a degree. Not only that you have made wrong assumptions and have been shown to be wrong. You were wrong about contamination and RATE and AMS testing. You were wrong about creationists not using science when they invented science. Today's creation scientists make mincemeat out of the secular science theories of long time. You were wrong about creation scientists not using science to address what they think is wrong with secular science. You do not recognize what has been demonstrated to be true of a global flood and catastrophe. We have 3/4 of Earth's surface covered by water. We have marine fossils as being the most plentiful fossils in the fossil record. They were found on the peaks of the highest mountains. We even have an entire whale fossil in the Himalayas. Not only that, it has been demonstrated that Noah's Ark can be build and float in the water. We have the Ark Adventure and Creation Museum now.

Why don't you write your criticisms of Dr. Jason Lisle and we can send it to him? Why don't you give him your credentials? You can use a pseudonym since you have no credentials and credibility.

OTOH, we have the RATE scientists:
"The RATE Group Findings
In 1997 an eight-year research project was started to investigate the age of the earth. The group was called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The team of scientists included:

• Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
• Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
• Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
• John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
• Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
• Steven Austin, PhD Geology
• Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
• Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies"

Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?

It really is silly to continue when radiocarbon dating was able to be completed and it showed a young Earth. There was no need to do radiometric dating as that would give false results as test have showed this.

Linking to Flat Earth clowns really dismisses your attempt at argument

https://www.icr.org/rate/

 

[luchitociencia]

CERN is trying to do it now with showing how a gravitron could escape into the 4th dimension. That would demonstrate there is a 4th dimension. It's one of the thesis of how gravity works.

There is not any graviton.

The CERN is trying hard to keep the current good for nothing theories of sciences as valid. They were looking for the "particle of God", they finally say they discovered a new particle, but every attempt to make such a new particle start "gluing" the other particles to form mass, they failed. They still trying to glue other particles using the discovered one, but such is not how the universe was formed, not with "a the miracle particle". They are nuts. (Higgs Boson particle)

Here's a more interesting question for others here. It's been asked before, but what is time? It's a concept that we use as measurement such as length, width, and height. We have shown 3D exists, but does spacetime physically exist?

Time is just a concept, never a dimension or a physical entity which can be flexible and affected by the behavior of bodies. Those ideas are pure imaginations.

We can show it exists in theory because we can show how an 3D object exists in 4D via computer simulation.

No, you don't show time exists theoretically, you just use computer simulation to make scenarios similar as making video games. Because in video games a crocodile can talk and use a sword and can fly, you won't take seriously such images. What pushes you to take seriously those computers simulations in 3D or 4D?

Some people think the universe is a computer simulation and this lends some credence to that theory. Stuff like dark matter and dark energy lends credence to it, too. What about the universe being a hologram?

The idea of the universe being a hologram is the way relativists want to deviate the attention of people saying "nothing is real", and doing so they avoid responding the question about the existence of time.

If the universe is a hologram, then God must have used a gigantic set of laser beans to make it, because hologram is made solely with laser rays.

Come on, all those ideas are just fantasies.

 

[Wuwei]

You have no credibility anymore as you provide no science links to back up your statements. Moreover, it does not appear you have a degree.

I gave you lots of links but you don't believe the science. All the links you gave me are biased creationist sites. My degrees in physics can run rings around your degree, I simply don't want to publicize it here. I don't understand your obsession with my background.

Not only that you have made wrong assumptions and have been shown to be wrong. You were wrong about contamination and RATE and AMS testing. You were wrong about creationists not using science when they invented science. Today's creation scientists make mincemeat out of the secular science theories of long time. You were wrong about creation scientists not using science to address what they think is wrong with secular science. You do not recognize what has been demonstrated to be true of a global flood and catastrophe. We have 3/4 of Earth's surface covered by water. We have marine fossils as being the most plentiful fossils in the fossil record. They were found on the peaks of the highest mountains. We even have an entire whale fossil in the Himalayas. Not only that, it has been demonstrated that Noah's Ark can be build and float in the water. We have the Ark Adventure and Creation Museum now.

As usual you are using the bible to try to prove the bible. You were wrong about AMS limitations. Many science sites refer to the limits but you and your creationist friends totally ignore it because it doesn't agree with their preordained creationism. You didn't understand my point about in situ contamination. I know there can be in situ contamination. I was trying to explain what the ramifications are but you didn't understand it and got bent out of shape.

You had no rational reason to believe contamination when Dr. Schweitzer's three different assays all agree to 65 million years ± 4%, or that Dr. Shirey's diamond inclusions could possibly have Osmium contamination. Yes, some sites are contaminated but most published ones are not; especially the two I cited. Apparently creationists think they all are contaminated.

The real hypocrisy of creationists is that they vigorously claim contamination in long decay isotopes, but vigorously claim no contamination in C14. Bias, yes?

Much of your “science” is focused on Noah's flood. That did not happen, certainly within the last 6000 years. There are lots of on-line criticisms about how phony the flood is. I don't want to cover it because it is not science. It's religion. Today's scientists make mincemeat out of all the creationists who think the earth age is only thousands of years.

Why don't you write your criticisms of Dr. Jason Lisle and we can send it to him? Why don't you give him your credentials? You can use a pseudonym since you have no credentials and credibility.

I already wrote my criticisms a few pages back. Be sure and tell him it's shameful the way he posits ideas that violate current physics without any theoretical support. The universe is billions of years old and nobody has any substantial new physics model of a 6000 yr universe.

"The RATE Group Findings
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?
et cetera.

The first half of your link is textbook physics that any physics student knows. The second half of the link gets down to what the creationists think of C14 and has some surprising statements that are quite amusing.

“Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.“​

They want us to hold Libby to what he said 70 years ago?! Now, 70 years later we know exactly how it is not constant, Here is a curve. It's almost linear, but the variation is known and is small, and is a calibration! Why do your disingenuous creationist scientists ignore that??? Don't they keep up with modern science? Here is one calibration graph:

Notice the dotted line at the bottom of the graph is “approximate limit of C-14 detection.”

And that's at 50,000 years. The detection limit for better machines is higher, but still limited. The authors at your link completely ignore that. It is unconscionable for a scientist to do that. Remember my example of a marshmallow on a bathroom scale. They are as stupid as that.

“What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.”​

They were assuming a young earth to prove that the earth is young! Circular! If they assume the earth is billions of years old, that 30,000 years for equilibrium is meaningless.

“The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, but lower levels of 14C. “​

What they should say is “...but lower levels of AMS background.” There are many sites that say this is balderdash because it's at the detectable limit of AMS. I said the same. Most sites are in blogs and forums. You will not find a formal journal article calling it balderdash because the science community already knows it is.

It really is silly to continue when radiocarbon dating was able to be completed and it showed a young Earth. There was no need to do radiometric dating as that would give false results as test have showed this.

If that isn't science bias, I don't know what is. A real scientist would look at all possible observations before coming to any conclusions. Creationists decided an AMS machine limitation did not exist and decided to ignore every other dating concept! That is not science.

Also, the universe is billions of years old with billions of galaxies that are billions of light years away. Creation “science” hasn't come close to proving otherwise. Creationists have no choice but weak rationalizations of maybe this or maybe that. They assume the bible is true then base their suppositions on that. That is not science.

The earth was in turmoil throughout the millennia. Low areas were elevated. High areas were eroded. It's no surprise to find a whale bone on the Himalayas. Noah's flood is biblical. That is not science

This exercise has certainly been interesting so far. I always wondered how creationists could justify a 6000 year old earth using science. The answer is that they don't. They stick to the bible and they corrupt well verified science, and refuse to understand scientific instruments. Like the marshmallow on a bathroom scale proves the weight is zero.

.