Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
October 14, 2010 at 8:10 pm (This post was last modified: October 14, 2010 at 8:18 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(October 14, 2010 at 7:46 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:
(October 14, 2010 at 7:32 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Hahahaha. I am seriously starting to worry about you. My whole point of the "Earth's Circumfrence" argument was to point out how small of an observable area you would have compared to the whole Earth's Circumfrence when compared to 100 years to 4.5 billion years. This shows how it would be impossible to conclude how far around the Earth is if you were only able to observe a tiny section of the Earth, (remember observing the sun is violating my initial premise since it is outside of your observable area). Then you go off on some crazy tangent about how you can actually measure the Earth's circumfrence using a yardstick. However, this was completely dishonest because the experiment actually uses the sun, not just a yardstick. It also uses loads of previous tested knowledge about the Earth's shape and it's relationship to the sun. This knowledge could not have been gathered by observing your tiny allowed area, so it can then in turn not be used in the experiment. So this experiment has nothing to do with my original point. You are given a linear image of 3.5 inches of the Earth's surface. Can you use this image, and only this image to tell me how big the Earth is? No of course you can't. To think, you get on me for deviating from the discussion at hand, pullease.
As I recall, the 'moving the goalpost' fallacy involves just what you are doing here because this is the first mention that the Sun is off-limits to measuring the circumferance of the earth given that the Sun is visible everywhere on the planet - including the observable area restriction you have given me.
Further, even if the sun is out of the observable area, the light it generates and the angle of that light is not.
As such, the experiment is still valid, but even without it, I can still easily calculate the circumferance of the planet by getting a bigger pole, measuring the distance to the horizon (best done on the ocean, and using that math to calculate the curvature of the planet and thus its circumferance using geometry... again.
Granted that's a larger area than the arbitrary limitation you've given me... but again... moving the goalposts. Plus, the original statement you made regarding why it was impossible didn't involve a mere 3.5 inches anyway - you merely stated that it was impossible without a large view of the planet, which I have proven with two easy experiments.
Ok, I will never use the Circumfrence of the Earth analogy again, since it is obvious you guys do not get it and want to run down rabbit holes that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. The original issue before we got off on that rabbit trail was- can you conclude that radio-metric decay has always been constant by observing to be constant for 100 years? Ok, so this 100 year observation is 2.2X10^-6 percent of the total time. This would be like observing 0.14 Inches of a 100 Mile road and concluding that the entire road is straight because those .14 inches are straight. There, that is a pretty good illustration. Now if we start off on some rabbit trails about paving techniques and speed limits on that road I am going to scream :-)
(October 14, 2010 at 7:52 pm)Zen Badger Wrote:
(October 14, 2010 at 7:42 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(October 14, 2010 at 7:21 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: No more on anisotropic light speed?
Shame that, you have yet to show how it supports a young universe.
I did both, it was just in a different thread. It's under my introduction. Instead of just giving me a warm welcome everyone got excited and tried debating over there. Feel free to check it out.
I did, it doesn't.
Haha, so you think you can use the Calculated Time Definition to argue against the Observed Time Definition? Lol, well then I don't know what to tell you. "It's not 1 meter it is 100 cms!!" lol.
(October 14, 2010 at 8:08 pm)Existentialist Wrote:
(October 13, 2010 at 7:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I think a literal view of Scripture should be taken for many reasons but here are four. . .
1. If you don't take the book of Genesis literally then why take any of the rest of the Bible literally? Maybe Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead. Maybe he was not actually born of a Virgin? If you start compromising on all of these cornerstones of the Faith then you start believing in something that is not Christianity at all.
2. Why compromise on it to begin with? It will not help anyone come to the Faith. "Well I just can't except a Young Earth because Science does not back it, but I will accept Virgins giving birth." You see my point?
3. Jesus seemed to take the Genesis account literally, so if the Son of God did, then so too must His followers.
4. People will believe when God wants them to believe. So it is my job to present and support what scripture says, not water it down to make it more appealing. One Creationist said it very well, "It's God's job to open their hearts, it's our job to shut their mouths." :-)
Science requires interpretation, it can all be interpreted to support the Biblical view of creation. So I really do not see any reason to abandon that view.
Thanks for being civil in your response!
I haven't quite followed what the explanations are for fossils appearing in the right rock layers according to multi-million year timescales, how plate tectonics is explainable in a 6,000 year timeframe, how ice cores seem to show a record of nearly a million years rather than 6,000 years, why there was a 2-second delay in radio communications with the moon explorers if electromagnetic radiation is supposed to be instantaneous, and how evolution itself was supposed to happen in 6,000 years (maybe it isn't, maybe that's the point).
I fully accept that no evidence speaks for itself. At some point, atheists like me need to make a leap of faith as part of the interpretation process. But there are a couple of questions I still need answering. Forgive me if you have already done so, this is a hot thread and I may have missed a lot.
First, I don't see why god would bother, when he made all the stars appear an Day 4, to make it look to us as if they had all been created as part of a multi-billion year timeframe. The timelines for stellar development over billions of years seem consistent with observation, they don't need to be the same star. If you were presented with examples of 80 human males each in a different year of life, you could easily model the typical development of one human male. Same with stars, surely.
But why would god bother with fooling us into believing there is a 10 billion year plus process going on. There appears to be no reason for it. It would be like taking something that we know is instantaneous, like turning a tap to obtain water, and suddenly introducing a 2-hour delay. Other than wasting a lot of time, it would be absolutely pointless.
But more importantly if, as we both agree, interpreting any evidence involves an act of faith, because however many spreadsheets we create, we still have to interpret what is there and make our own minds up and trust our judgement; if that is the case then why does the Bible need to be read literally at all - you could conclude that everything in it is intended to be metaphorical, still beautiful stories but not literally true, even the virgin birth, because you can still interpret the metaphor and everything else you see in front of you as being evidence of God's existence. Why the need to have much concrete evidence to support the young earth theory? A tiny amount of evidence could be interpreted correctly, a large amount of evidence could be interpreted incorrectly - so why the need to keep pointing to a mass of evidence and attacking the evidence of rationalistic atheists?
This is the best post I have seen on here. I am serious too, no sarcasm this time. There is a lot of information required to answr this post. How would it be best for me to answer it? On here or in a private message? Let me know. Thanks.
October 14, 2010 at 8:22 pm (This post was last modified: October 14, 2010 at 8:22 pm by Existentialist.)
Quote:
This is the best post I have seen on here. I am serious too, no sarcasm this time. There is a lot of information required to answr this post. How would it be best for me to answer it? On here or in a private message? Let me know. Thanks.
Thanks, here is fine, though I'm away till Monday, so feel free to take your time and I will filter out any noise to read your response on my return.
(October 14, 2010 at 8:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: can you conclude that radio-metric decay has always been constant by observing to be constant for 100 years?
The earth circumferance analogy was certainly perfect for the point I was attempting to make.
In any case, sure, we can certainly move back to radiometric dating.
Yes, it can, in fact, be proven to be consistent and for a number of reasons:
First of all, we would have seen it given all of the radiometric dating among all of the samples taken among all of the radioactive elements used for this purpose, to which we have derieved samples from all over the world and a number from outside of Earth's atmosphere, including the Moon, Mars, and various extraterrestrial rocks that have crashed into the planet over the years.
The thing is - they all date accurately in contrast to one another and not one of them has shown a margin of error that would make dating techniques unviable and not one of them has a different decay rate between materials of the same radioactive element anywhere.
As such, despite variables that allow us to view samples from wildly different places all around the solar system, radiometric dating has never proven to be inconsistent and because of this, it is highly unlikely that it has been inconsistent at another point in time.
This is analagous to how we can tell that boys and girls grow up at different rates at different times to a different average height without necessarily following a sample over the course of their entire lifetimes. The same is true for radiometric dating samples.
Second of all, different radiometric isotopes decay at different rates. There are no known methods of changing all of them simultaneously under the same process.
Third of all, a variable decay rate would violate numerous proven fundemental aspects of quantum mechanics (I believe the strong force was mentioned by another person you dismissed earlier in this or the other thread).
As such, for these reasons and more, radiometric dating is highly precise and consistent, despite attempts by the Curies and others to prove otherwise.
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
October 14, 2010 at 10:10 pm (This post was last modified: October 14, 2010 at 10:30 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(October 14, 2010 at 2:44 am)Loki_999 Wrote: I know the flood comes into the answer for this one, Noah took 2 of every animal as ordered by God but for some reason he didn't take the Dinosaurs .... typical human, can't follow Gods instructions to the letter even when it comes to genocide. Still, would have been difficult to get those Tyrannosaurs and Brontosauruses on the Ark. And while you are at it, you can also tell us how there was a land bridge between Asia and Australia so all the Kangaroos and Koalas could migrate to Australia after the flood. And why did most marsupials decide they all wanted to live in Australia? Why don't we find Kangaroos and other Australian animals scattered between the middle east and Australia?
LOL, would have been harder than you think to get Brontosaurus on the Ark considering Brontosaurus never existed. It's pretty common knowledge that the Brontosaurus was a hybridization of fossils from other dinosaurs, having an apatosaurus body with a camarasaurus head. I thought you guys were supposed to be the Dinosaur experts? lol.
(October 14, 2010 at 8:49 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:
(October 14, 2010 at 8:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: can you conclude that radio-metric decay has always been constant by observing to be constant for 100 years?
The earth circumferance analogy was certainly perfect for the point I was attempting to make.
In any case, sure, we can certainly move back to radiometric dating.
Yes, it can, in fact, be proven to be consistent and for a number of reasons:
First of all, we would have seen it given all of the radiometric dating among all of the samples taken among all of the radioactive elements used for this purpose, to which we have derieved samples from all over the world and a number from outside of Earth's atmosphere, including the Moon, Mars, and various extraterrestrial rocks that have crashed into the planet over the years.
The thing is - they all date accurately in contrast to one another and not one of them has shown a margin of error that would make dating techniques unviable and not one of them has a different decay rate between materials of the same radioactive element anywhere.
As such, despite variables that allow us to view samples from wildly different places all around the solar system, radiometric dating has never proven to be inconsistent and because of this, it is highly unlikely that it has been inconsistent at another point in time.
This is analagous to how we can tell that boys and girls grow up at different rates at different times to a different average height without necessarily following a sample over the course of their entire lifetimes. The same is true for radiometric dating samples.
Second of all, different radiometric isotopes decay at different rates. There are no known methods of changing all of them simultaneously under the same process.
Third of all, a variable decay rate would violate numerous proven fundemental aspects of quantum mechanics (I believe the strong force was mentioned by another person you dismissed earlier in this or the other thread).
As such, for these reasons and more, radiometric dating is highly precise and consistent, despite attempts by the Curies and others to prove otherwise.
I disagree. There are numerous lines of evidence that show the Earth has experienced at lesat one period of accelerated radiometric decay- one such example is examining helium diffusion out of zircons from the Precambrian granite in Fenton Hills, New Mexico. Of course periods of accelerlated radiometric decay would lead to greatly inflated age estimates. Most people do not realize that it would take a very small altering of the nuclear or strong forces in order to cause an increase in the amount of alpha decay by a magnitude of up to 8.
October 14, 2010 at 11:01 pm (This post was last modified: October 14, 2010 at 11:03 pm by TheDarkestOfAngels.)
(October 14, 2010 at 10:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I disagree. There are numerous lines of evidence that show the Earth has experienced at lesat one period of accelerated radiometric decay- one such example is examining helium diffusion out of zircons from the Precambrian granite in Fenton Hills, New Mexico. Of course periods of accelerlated radiometric decay would lead to greatly inflated age estimates. Most people do not realize that it would take a very small altering of the nuclear or strong forces in order to cause an increase in the amount of alpha decay by a magnitude of up to 8.
I am fully aware that radioactive elements can be chemically altered. I am also fully aware that everyone who uses radiometric decay in this method is aware of this also and compensates accordingly.
I am also aware that there is yet to be anything observed or recorded that can alter the decay rates of every radioactive element in the inner solar system at the same time, otherwise, it would have been found in some manner somehow.
Further, nothing can alter a fundemental force of quantum mechanics everywhere simultaneously and even if anything could, 8 times the normal radioactive rate wouldn't allow a miscalculation of the magntitude of the difference in old-earth and young-earth age.
If something made radioactive materials radiate 4.5 billion years' worth of radiation in a few millenia, the entire planet would melt.
Your evidence, if it even exists, doesn't disprove the accuracy of radiometric dating as a useful tool nor does it promote your creationist worldview in any way that coincides with reality.
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
October 15, 2010 at 1:09 am (This post was last modified: October 15, 2010 at 1:36 am by orogenicman.)
Quote:Hahahaha. I am seriously starting to worry about you. My whole point of the "Earth's Circumfrence" argument was to point out how small of an observable area you would have compared to the whole Earth's Circumfrence when compared to 100 years to 4.5 billion years. This shows how it would be impossible to conclude how far around the Earth is if you were only able to observe a tiny section of the Earth, (remember observing the sun is violating my initial premise since it is outside of your observable area). Then you go off on some crazy tangent about how you can actually measure the Earth's circumfrence using a yardstick. However, this was completely dishonest because the experiment actually uses the sun, not just a yardstick. It also uses loads of previous tested knowledge about the Earth's shape and it's relationship to the sun. This knowledge could not have been gathered by observing your tiny allowed area, so it can then in turn not be used in the experiment. So this experiment has nothing to do with my original point. You are given a linear image of 3.5 inches of the Earth's surface. Can you use this image, and only this image to tell me how big the Earth is? No of course you can't. To think, you get on me for deviating from the discussion at hand, pullease.
I can tell from your argument that your grasp of Earth science leaves a lot to be desired. And this is disconcerting considering that you claim to work for the government as an environmental scientist. The yardstick is the tool used to make the calculation. The sun is needed to get the angle to make the calculation. It isn't a tool. It is a natural phenomenon from which measurements are made. This calculation has been done for at least a couple of thousand of years. You're splitting hairs. Secondly, as an environmental scienctist, I am sure you are familiar with the phrase 'representative sample'. The fact is that you don't need a 27,000 mile long yardstick to measure the Earth's circumference. I would think that any teacher of mathematics would understand this basic trigonomic concept. Obviously that is not true in your case.
(October 14, 2010 at 7:36 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(October 14, 2010 at 7:05 pm)orogenicman Wrote:
Quote:Not really what I am saying. Decay rates have changed, we know this because different isochronic methods of dating yield different dates for the same rock. If decay rates were always constant each isochron should yield the same age, they don't. The biggest factor that would skew radiometric dating would be the presence of daughter elements at the time of Creation. This is why radiometric dating cannot be used to "disprove" a young Earth, it assumes something that would not be true if the Earth was young. Try and date a person (using their height and weight) using the same assumptions radio-metric dating uses and I guarantee your conclusion will be way off. Thanks for being civil though, makes thing way more fun I think.
No, decay rates have not changed. There is no evidence whatsoever that they have. Thousands of laboratories the world over use radioactive dating of material samples, and have done so for decades with huge success. If you have proof that they are wasting their time and money, you should publish your peer reviewed paper pronto, so these labs won't wate their money on bogus science. Good luck with that.
I noticed you just made an assertion and didn't address my argument. Typical. If decay rates are constant then why do different isocrons yield different ages on the same rock? Is that rock really three different ages at the same time? Geologists are well aware of this problem, they just throw out the younger ages and keep the oldest one becuase it fits their pre-conceived ideas. Why do you think you have to identify which layer of strata a sample was collected from when you send it to the lab? So they can throw out the dates that don't match! Simple stuff.
(October 14, 2010 at 7:07 pm)theVOID Wrote:
(October 14, 2010 at 6:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not really what I am saying. Decay rates have changed, we know this because different isochronic methods of dating yield different dates for the same rock.
Archilies heel fallacy, you claim knowledge of examples that are contrary to the expected outcome but provide no examples. What have you got in your bag of tricks here, a silly example about a snail dating to 25,000 years or other examples of creationist mucking of the actual results?
Decay rates have not changed, and the vast majority of experiments have confirmed this. Can you explain why the vast majority of results should be ignored?
Different isochrons yielding different ages for the same rock is a common occurance. The final age is determined by which layer of Strata the sample was found in. This is basic basic stuff here. Decay rates have changed, everyone knows that.
(October 14, 2010 at 7:51 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(October 14, 2010 at 7:24 pm)orogenicman Wrote:
Quote:I know what I am doing.
We know what you are doing as well, and it is dishonest, to say the least. You claim to be a scientist, and yet fail to recognize one of the most fundamental aspects of the scientific method - the burden of proof. Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionary biologists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts, whereas all creationists have to offer in rebuttal is one poorly provenienced bronze age book. Sorry, but the Bible is not a science book, and so anyone trying to use it as such should consider therapy to cure them of their delusions. Finally, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.
Whew! Well it's a good thing this is not the Scientfic Community (obviously) huh? lol. If I were writing a research paper on the topic you are right, however I am not. I am asking for your guys' reasons for believing in an Old-Earth. I was very clear in this thread. If you cannot handle that, then I suggest you not post in this thread, since that is the topic at hand. One major problem with your post though, Science does not deal with majority, it is not a majority rules community and anyone who tells you otherwise is perverting the discipline. I think your post is more relevant in a formal debate than it is in Science or this Discussion Board. Good read though.
Yes it is a very good thing this is not the scientific community, because if it were, you'd have been laughed out of the room. You are asking us to prove to you what is accepted science the world over, and my suggestion to you is to go back to school, or at least ask for a refund on your tuition because, damn, you got ripped off. My post is relevant in any debate on matters of science. You don't get to set the theory of gravity aside because it suits your argument to do so, and you don't get to make shit up because accepted science doesn't fit your narrow world view. Peer review is a vital part of conducting scientific research. If your peers don't accept your findings, you are but a lone wolf howling in the night whether or not your findings are correct.
(October 14, 2010 at 10:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(October 14, 2010 at 2:44 am)Loki_999 Wrote: I know the flood comes into the answer for this one, Noah took 2 of every animal as ordered by God but for some reason he didn't take the Dinosaurs .... typical human, can't follow Gods instructions to the letter even when it comes to genocide. Still, would have been difficult to get those Tyrannosaurs and Brontosauruses on the Ark. And while you are at it, you can also tell us how there was a land bridge between Asia and Australia so all the Kangaroos and Koalas could migrate to Australia after the flood. And why did most marsupials decide they all wanted to live in Australia? Why don't we find Kangaroos and other Australian animals scattered between the middle east and Australia?
LOL, would have been harder than you think to get Brontosaurus on the Ark considering Brontosaurus never existed. It's pretty common knowledge that the Brontosaurus was a hybridization of fossils from other dinosaurs, having an apatosaurus body with a camarasaurus head. I thought you guys were supposed to be the Dinosaur experts? lol.
(October 14, 2010 at 8:49 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:
(October 14, 2010 at 8:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: can you conclude that radio-metric decay has always been constant by observing to be constant for 100 years?
The earth circumferance analogy was certainly perfect for the point I was attempting to make.
In any case, sure, we can certainly move back to radiometric dating.
Yes, it can, in fact, be proven to be consistent and for a number of reasons:
First of all, we would have seen it given all of the radiometric dating among all of the samples taken among all of the radioactive elements used for this purpose, to which we have derieved samples from all over the world and a number from outside of Earth's atmosphere, including the Moon, Mars, and various extraterrestrial rocks that have crashed into the planet over the years.
The thing is - they all date accurately in contrast to one another and not one of them has shown a margin of error that would make dating techniques unviable and not one of them has a different decay rate between materials of the same radioactive element anywhere.
As such, despite variables that allow us to view samples from wildly different places all around the solar system, radiometric dating has never proven to be inconsistent and because of this, it is highly unlikely that it has been inconsistent at another point in time.
This is analagous to how we can tell that boys and girls grow up at different rates at different times to a different average height without necessarily following a sample over the course of their entire lifetimes. The same is true for radiometric dating samples.
Second of all, different radiometric isotopes decay at different rates. There are no known methods of changing all of them simultaneously under the same process.
Third of all, a variable decay rate would violate numerous proven fundemental aspects of quantum mechanics (I believe the strong force was mentioned by another person you dismissed earlier in this or the other thread).
As such, for these reasons and more, radiometric dating is highly precise and consistent, despite attempts by the Curies and others to prove otherwise.
I disagree. There are numerous lines of evidence that show the Earth has experienced at lesat one period of accelerated radiometric decay- one such example is examining helium diffusion out of zircons from the Precambrian granite in Fenton Hills, New Mexico. Of course periods of accelerlated radiometric decay would lead to greatly inflated age estimates. Most people do not realize that it would take a very small altering of the nuclear or strong forces in order to cause an increase in the amount of alpha decay by a magnitude of up to 8.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
(October 14, 2010 at 7:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Haha you act as if my mistake changes the argument, it does not. 100/4,500,000,000 total time is still far too small of a observation to make any kind of stastical conclusion. My argument still stands un-refuted.
You are obviously not a scientist.
I proved that we can conduct an experiment to measure the decay rates of various isotopes even though their decay rates are much longer than the length we observe them for by measuring them in large quantities. What i showed you was an example of the principle, i WAS NOT saying that they have only done it to that extent only, it was a proof of concept, the principle can be extended for any required sample size in order to get more precise weights and that is precisely what has been done.
Knowing the mass of the isotope you can simply weigh out however many trillion you need to conduct the experiment.
And the experiments have been conducted so many fucking times in various independent labs all around the globe now with such a high degree of accuracy that your arguments just look like the ramblings of intellectual cowards hiding vehemently behind their supposed 'inherent' bible.
October 15, 2010 at 3:31 am (This post was last modified: October 15, 2010 at 4:52 am by Anomalocaris.)
(October 14, 2010 at 11:01 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: I am fully aware that radioactive elements can be chemically altered. I am also fully aware that everyone who uses radiometric decay in this method is aware of this also and compensates accordingly.
No, radioactive elements can not be altered chemically. Elemental identity is determined by the configuration of the nucleus, and can only be changed by overcoming strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together. Chemistry is an effect of electromagnetic forces involving the electron cloud, and does not significantly effect the nucleus.
If strength of strong nuclear interaction weaken by just 2 magnitudes, atomic nucleus will break apart and all matter as we know them will completely disintegrate. If strong nuclear interaction would strengthen but a little nuclear fusion will become so powerful that the sun will bloat and the earth cook. Any variation in nuclear strong force to substantially effect radioactive decay would also immediately effect the brightness and intensity of stars.
He is full of shit and doesn't know how to stop. Don't let him bullshit you.
(October 14, 2010 at 10:10 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: LOL, would have been harder than you think to get Brontosaurus on the Ark considering Brontosaurus never existed. It's pretty common knowledge that the Brontosaurus was a hybridization of fossils from other dinosaurs, having an apatosaurus body with a camarasaurus head. I thought you guys were supposed to be the Dinosaur experts? lol.
Ok, do you believe this of all dinosaurs? Was this also the case with the Tyrannosaur? Triceratops? etc. In which case what the hell are all those bones from?
At least give an answer... tell us all about the Dinosaurs.
A finite number of monkeys with a finite number of typewriters and a finite amount of time could eventually reproduce 4chan.
