Nuclear Decay over the past 10,000 years

[Jet Black]

Radiometric dating methods aside, Dave, could you tell us what you think has happened in terms of nuclear decay rates over the past 10,000 years or so (since the beginning of the universe in your view), but on earth and elsewhere

thanks.

[Mike PSS]

Can he also tell us what occurred with the electromagnetic spectrum during that time too?
I mean, point a radiotelescope or some other detector up to space and get a signal. Pretty basic stuff. Gamma rays, x-rays, light, infrared, microwaves, radio waves, and on down to ultrasound and ELF.

http://son.nasa.gov/tass/images/cont_emspec2.jpg

[Codec]

I'm surprised you have to ask really... it is so obvious.

Nuclear decay rates sped up enormously during the flood, thus giving us a distorted picture of the past. Its simple, you just take the conventional geological record datings, equate those to the 6000 year history, and there you have the mapping.

Now to compensate for this obviously we couldn't have the nuclear decay giving off the sort of energies that we see today, so they must have also changed, either by the flood or the fall, your choice.

But doesn't that mean that the sun wouldn't shine and stuff like that. Yes of course it would, but you're thinking conventionally and not assuming that the fall took divine matter which worked under different physical rules and converted it to fallen matter we see today that undergoes fusion in todays environment. Neutrinos before the fall could be easily seen, they've just become shy since. Gravitons roamed the oceans and Higgs Bosons played in the garden of Eden - uncovered by energy fields (yes I know its shocking), and even quarks could go around on their own. Magnetic monopoles were actually the original forbidden fruit BTW. In those days particles were giant, and had particularly long lifetimes too.

Don't even get me started on how the speed of light has been affected. It used to go at many times the speed we currently see, until it was cast out and forced to interact with other particles and become a common or garden force carrier. Why back in those days it even had its own aether to wave in.

Sheeesh...

[Ray Moscow]

It really does come down to either the universe is as it appears to be (billions of years old), or else "God" or whoever made it look that way.

The question I have is: if the universe, the earth, the evolution of life, etc. is not as it appears to be -- that is, is not what the evidence indicates -- then just why does/did "God" make it appear so?

Answer: to test our faith, of course -- or to weed out those who don't really have faith! (I've been told that a few times.) :)

[Mechanical Bliss]

The interesting thing about creationist objections to absolute dating is that they flip flop between two explanations: accelerated decay and deliberate fraud on a massive scale by scientists (in more detail below). They never have any evidence that demonstrates their claim and they usually aren't consistent (i.e. it's fraud when it's harder to explain, when it's a more simplistic scenario they hand-wave with accelerated decay as a catch-all "explanation"). It just shows how vacuous YECism is and that it is a purely emotional position.

1. If a feature is assigned an absolute age via radiometric dating, the creationist replies that radiometric dating doesn't work anyway due to accelerated decay at some point in the past (something for which they have zero evidence).

Strangely enough, when results acquired from different methods, they correlate remarkably. That is despite different methods involving different nuclide systems, different types of measurement, different rates of decay, and different modes of decay, they match anyway. If an event of accelerated decay happened, it would have to affect the parent nuclides to different degrees such that they would still match each other, and of course that sounds absurd. If accelerated decay occurred, dates would be all a jumble and different methods would not match.

Furthermore, on that same note on dates being a jumble, somehow these absolute ages also agree with principles used in assigning relative ages (superposition, cross-cutting relationships, etc.). If radiometric dating didn't work, this agreement would not exist.

2. If a series of features (e.g., sequences of varves, the Hawaiian Island Chain/Emperor Seamount Chain) are assigned absolute ages that correlate with non-radiometric ages (e.g., varve counting, plate motions over a stable hot spot over time), then the explanation turns into fraud. Of course the creationist usually dances around the claim of fraud without outright stating it, it's quite evident what the implication is.

The Hawaiian Island chain example is something many, if not most, Geology 101 students do as a simple exercise dealing with plate tectonics. They can predict the ages of the islands by using the GPS measured rate of motion of the Pacific Plate and the distance between the islands. Interestingly enough, these calculations, completely independent of radiometric dating, actually predict the same ages we get when we get ages for the island using radiometric dating.

Usually this is met with silence from the creationist, and the only other thing I've seen, like with varves matching radiometric dates, is an accusation of massive fraud on the part of the scientific community (again a claim with zero evidence whatsoever). It's just an example so blatantly clear that radiometric dates match up with other principles of geology that they can't explain it, and certainly not with accelerated decay.

[RAFH]

The interesting thing about creationist objections to absolute dating is that they flip flop between two explanations: accelerated decay and deliberate fraud on a massive scale by scientists (in more detail below). They never have any evidence that demonstrates their claim and they usually aren't consistent (i.e. it's fraud when it's harder to explain, when it's a more simplistic scenario they hand-wave with accelerated decay as a catch-all "explanation"). It just shows how vacuous YECism is and that it is a purely emotional position.

1. If a feature is assigned an absolute age via radiometric dating, the creationist replies that radiometric dating doesn't work anyway due to accelerated decay at some point in the past (something for which they have zero evidence).

Strangely enough, when results acquired from different methods, they correlate remarkably. That is despite different methods involving different nuclide systems, different types of measurement, different rates of decay, and different modes of decay, they match anyway. If an event of accelerated decay happened, it would have to affect the parent nuclides to different degrees such that they would still match each other, and of course that sounds absurd. If accelerated decay occurred, dates would be all a jumble and different methods would not match.

Furthermore, on that same note on dates being a jumble, somehow these absolute ages also agree with principles used in assigning relative ages (superposition, cross-cutting relationships, etc.). If radiometric dating didn't work, this agreement would not exist.

2. If a series of features (e.g., sequences of varves, the Hawaiian Island Chain/Emperor Seamount Chain) are assigned absolute ages that correlate with non-radiometric ages (e.g., varve counting, plate motions over a stable hot spot over time), then the explanation turns into fraud. Of course the creationist usually dances around the claim of fraud without outright stating it, it's quite evident what the implication is.

The Hawaiian Island chain example is something many, if not most, Geology 101 students do as a simple exercise dealing with plate tectonics. They can predict the ages of the islands by using the GPS measured rate of motion of the Pacific Plate and the distance between the islands. Interestingly enough, these calculations, completely independent of radiometric dating, actually predict the same ages we get when we get ages for the island using radiometric dating.

Usually this is met with silence from the creationist, and the only other thing I've seen, like with varves matching radiometric dates, is an accusation of massive fraud on the part of the scientific community (again a claim with zero evidence whatsoever). It's just an example so blatantly clear that radiometric dates match up with other principles of geology that they can't explain it, and certainly not with accelerated decay.

With the fraud deal, their supposed evidence amounts to "Well, there's a possibility there could be some mistake or bias." which is true, anytime there are humans involved there can be deceit, it's just human nature. What they fail to take into account is that there are protocols in place, there are testing series that are carried out regularly. They also fail to take into account the competitive nature of the entire science industry where there are dozens of people out there who'd love nothing better than to find some flaw with your data. That's the whole purpose of peer review. And even if the peer reviewers give you a bye, the editor of the publication has it's reputation, not to mention his own, to consider. The only case I know of where a sloppy ass paper was published by a reputable journal was that of Sternberg and he did it because he already had one foot out the door, and, of course, he's a creaIDIot, doing exactly what the creaIDiots are charging mainstream science with doing. Even if the paper gets published, there is then the rest of the community that are going to be reading through it and if they spot some sort of bullshit, they'll bloody well jump on it.

There is also the fact that the instances of fraud in the scientific world, which do happen, are extremely rare and usually destroy the careers of the perpetrators, even if they are national heroes, ala Hwang Woo-suk, whose every bit of work, past and present, is now subject to extraordinary scrutiny, even that of all the workers under him. They will likely never live it down. The creaIDiots big poster boy, Protsche (?), is a rarity who ran his own dating lab for his own samples, which right off was irregular and was the only reason he got away with it for so long. But he did get caught, and not by creaIDiots but by the science community. Can the religious sects that are creaIDiocy claim equal policing of their own? I don't think so. At least the regular lurid headlines don't suggest such. Everything from sex scandals to financial malfeasance, all trust issues, which may well be why they project such low ethics onto their adversaries.

[Jet Black]

dave?

[Dave Hawkins]

I already answered this in the thread where you asked me originally. Click HERE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=29514#post29514).

[Febble]

I already answered this in the thread where you asked me originally. Click HERE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=29514#post29514).

I clicked, and found:

I am skeptical of ICR's A.N.D. Hypothesis but I remain open-minded. What I know for sure from my own study (which, unlike you, includes creationist research papers) is that the pattern of discordance of radiometric dates, the evidence of selective publication of radiometric dates (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4870779#post4870779) (JonF, do you have that issue of CRSQ parsed up yet?), the abandonment of old radiometric dating methods (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5007060#post5007060) because of some fatal flaw and the continual 'improvement' in methods (which later are themselves abandoned because of some fatal flaw) and the many evidences for a young earth (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842), all combine to force me to search for some alternative explanation for the large quantity of daughter products we find. It is clear to me that massive radioactive decay has occurred, but it is even more clear to me that radiometric 'dating' is completely unreliable for calculating the absolute age of rocks. Interestingly, Walt Brown thinks he has the answer and if I can ever find enough time, I want to resume dialog with him and hear about this. He also owes me some orbital calculations on asteroids.

(my bold)

You appear to be saying that, because some radiometric dates are discordant, some discordant dates are unpublished (unsupported allegation), and some techniques are no longer used, you conclude that something other than ________ is required to account for the products of radioactive decay.

So what goes in the blank?

Not "radioactive decay" because you then say that you are clear that "massive radioactive decay has occurred".

So - what is it? What do you think does NOT account for the presence of the products of radioactive decay in rocks? What is it that we need to find an alternative TO?

[Obd]

I already answered this in the thread where you asked me originally. Click HERE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=29514#post29514).

I clicked, and found:

I am skeptical of ICR's A.N.D. Hypothesis but I remain open-minded. What I know for sure from my own study (which, unlike you, includes creationist research papers) is that the pattern of discordance of radiometric dates, the evidence of selective publication of radiometric dates (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4870779#post4870779) (JonF, do you have that issue of CRSQ parsed up yet?), the abandonment of old radiometric dating methods (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5007060#post5007060) because of some fatal flaw and the continual 'improvement' in methods (which later are themselves abandoned because of some fatal flaw) and the many evidences for a young earth (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842), all combine to force me to search for some alternative explanation for the large quantity of daughter products we find. It is clear to me that massive radioactive decay has occurred, but it is even more clear to me that radiometric 'dating' is completely unreliable for calculating the absolute age of rocks. Interestingly, Walt Brown thinks he has the answer and if I can ever find enough time, I want to resume dialog with him and hear about this. He also owes me some orbital calculations on asteroids.

(my bold)

You appear to be saying that, because some radiometric dates are discordant, some discordant dates are unpublished (unsupported allegation), and some techniques are no longer used, you conclude that something other than ________ is required to account for the products of radioactive decay.

So what goes in the blank?

Not "radioactive decay" because you then say that you are clear that "massive radioactive decay has occurred".

So - what is it? What do you think does NOT account for the presence of the products of radioactive decay in rocks? What is it that we need to find an alternative TO?

Furthermore Dave seems to think technological advancements completely overthrow the old results and this is somehow evidence that we should move from an age of the universe in the order of 1011 to an age in the order of 104.

[Jet Black]

I already answered this in the thread where you asked me originally. Click HERE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=29514#post29514).

yes but I am starting a discussion on it you see. From the link, your entire response to this thread would have been:

I am skeptical of ICR's A.N.D. Hypothesis but I remain open-minded.

is that it?

[Calilasseia]

Oh dear, not this chestnut again ...

First of all, if the ludicrous notion of "accelerated nuclear decay" had ever been even remotely akin to reality, the laws of quantum mechanics would have needed to change in order for this to happen to such an extent that the very existence of any stable atoms would be in doubt full stop. In other words, there wouldn't have been an Earth for Dave's purported god to flood because the whole planet would have exploded in a shower of subatomic particles as formerly stable atomic nuclei decoupled en masse and the entire planet was smeared liberally all over the Solar System (along with all the other planets that likewise would cease to exist as large scale bodies with structure). For that matter, the Sun would probably undergo fatal disruption too because if stable atoms couldn't exist at all, then nuclear fusion would cease to occur. Moreover, as every formerly nucleus-bound neutron in the universe broke free, those neutrons too would decay because free neutrons (as opposed to neutrons bound in atomic nuclei) have a half-life of about 10 minutes. Here you go, courtesy of my old friend Kaye & Laby (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_6/4_6_1_part00_000_009.html) ... the half-life of a neutron is 10.4 minutes.

In fact, it would only take a small change in the operation of the laws of quantum mechanics to result in this massive change in the stability of atomic nuclei. Another reason why physicists have confidence in the invariance of physical laws over 13.7 billion years, because once again, they've performed the requisite investigations and worked out the consequences of any changes to the current laws of physics. I'm tempted at this juncture to note how creationists are fond of using "fine tuning" as supposed "proof" of their purported god one minute ("Look how the universe was made just for us! Therefore God!!11111eleventyone") and then, in order to prop up wholly unsupportable parts of their masturbation-fantasy mythology, invoke in the next breath massive wholesale changes to those "fine-tuned" physical laws without once becoming aware of the utterly gigantic self-contradiction involved. But that is another story.

What I would like to do here is reprise something I've already posted elsewhere, as I think it will be illuminating. However, since there is a 20,000 character upper limit on posts, and what follows exceeds that, I shalll split this into two posts, and the majority of the content shall now follow in a separate post.

[Calilasseia]

And now, part 2.

Welcome to Radiometric Dating 101 for those who haven't encountered the basic physics before. :)

Radiometric Dating 101

Radionuclide decay is a phenomenon that obeys a precise mathematical law, namely the following law:

dN/dt = -kN

This is a differential equation, and states that the amount of material undergoing decay is a linear function of the amount of material present (and furthermore, the minus sign indicates that the process results in a reduction of material remaining). Rearranging this differential equation, we have:

dN/N = -k dt

Integrating this, we have:

∫dN/N = - ∫ k dt

Our limits of integration are, for the left hand integral, the initial amount at t=0, which we call N0, and the amount remaining after time t, which we call Nt. Our limits of integration for the right hand integral are t=0 and t=tp, the present time.

Thus, we end up with:

logeN -logeN0 = -ktp

By an elementary theorem of logarithms, this becomes:

loge(N/N0) = -ktp

Therefore, exponentiating both sides, we have:

N/N0 = e-kt

or, the final form:

N = N0e-kt

The constant k is usually represented in the literature by the Greek letter lambda, but since the board I originally posted this on does not support Greek letters currently, I shall stick to using k.

The half-life of a radionuclide is defined as the amount of time required for half the initial amount of material to decay, and is called T½. Therefore, feeding this into the equation for the decay law,

½N0 = N0e-kt

Cancelling N0 on both sides, we have:

½ = e-kt

loge½ = -kt

By an elementary theorem of logarithms, we have:

loge2 = kt

Therefore T½ = loge2/k

Alternatively, if the half-life is known, but the decay constant k is unknown, then k can be computed by rearranging the above to give:

k = loge2/T½

Which allows us to move seamlessly from one system of constants (half-lives) to another (decay constants) and back again.

If the initial amount of substance N0 is known (e.g., we have a fresh sample of radionuclide prepared from a nuclear reactor), and we observe the decay over a time period t, then measure the amount of substance remaining, we can determine the decay constant empirically as follows:

N = N0e-kt

N/N0 = e-kt

loge(N/N0) = -kt

Therefore:

(1/t) loge(N0/N) = k

On the left hand side, the initial amount N0, the remaining amount N and the elapsed time t are all known, therefore k can be computed using the empirically observed data.

Empirical data for a vast range of radionuclides now exists. Kaye & Laby's Tables of Physical & Chemical Constants (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/toc/), devised and maintained by the National Physical Laboratory in the UK, contains among the voluminous sets of data produced by the precise laboratory work of various scientists a complete table of the nuclides (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_6/4_6_1.html), which due to its huge size, is split into sections to make it more manageable, in which data such as half-life, major emissions, emission energies and other useful data are included. The sections are:

[1] Hydrogen to Flourine (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_6/4_6_1_part00_000_009.html) (H1 to F24)

[2] Neon to Potassium (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_6/4_6_1_part01_010_019.html) (Ne17 to K54)

[3] Calcium to Copper (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_6/4_6_1_part02_020_029.html) (Ca35 to Cu75)

[4] Zinc to Yttrium (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_6/4_6_1_part03_030_039.html) (Zn57 to Y101)

[5] Zirconium to Indium (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_6/4_6_1_part04_040_049.html) (Zr81 to In133)

[6] Tin to Praesodymium (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_6/4_6_1_part05_050_059.html) (Sn103 to Pr154)

[7] Neodymium to Thulium (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_6/4_6_1_part06_060_069.html) (Nd129 to Tm177)

[8] Ytterbium to gold (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_6/4_6_1_part07_070_079.html) (Yb151 to Au204)

[9] Mercury to Actinium (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_6/4_6_1_part08_080_089.html) (Hg175 to Ac233)

[10] Thorium to Einsteinium (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_6/4_6_1_part09_090_099.html) (Th212 to Es256)

[11] Fermium to Roentgenium (name not yet officially recognised by IUPAC) (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_6/4_6_1_part10_100_111.html) (Fm242 to Rg272)

Now, given all of this exhaustively compiled data, plus the data on the major decay series (http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_6/4_6_2.html), which arises from the observation of which radionuclides decay into which other radionuclides (or in the case of certain radionuclides, which stable elements are formed after decay), which all follow specific rules according to whether alpha or beta decay (or one of the other possible decay modes for certain interesting radionuclides) takes place (again, data supplied in the above tables), it becomes possible to trace the decay of suitably long-lived elements in geological strata, locate specific isotopes, determine by precise quantitative analysis the amounts present in a given sample, and compare these with calculations for known decay observations in the laboratory, whence the time taken for the observed isotope composition of the sample can be determined. Given that several isotopes have extremely long half-lives, for example, U238 has a half-life of 4,500,000,000 years, and Th232 has a half-life of 14,050,000,000 years, and several of the daughter isotopes also have usefully long half-lives, one can determine the age of a rock sample, where multiple isotopes are present, by relating them to the correct decay series and utilising the observed empirically determined half-lives of laboratory samples to determine the age of a particular rock sample, cross correlating using multiple isotopes where these are present and enable such cross correlation to be performed. Thus, errors can be eliminated in age determinations by the use of multiple decay series and the presence of multiple long-lived isotopes - any errors arising in one series will yield a figure different from that in another series, and the calculations can thus be cross-checked to ensure that they are consilient.

Referring to the data tables above, I have selected a number of isotopes of interest. These are isotopes whose half-lives have been determined to lie within a specific range, and which moreover are not known to be produced in the Earth's crust by any major synthesis processes (except for the various Technetium isotopes, which can arise if Molybdenum isotopes are coincident with Uranium isotopes in certain rocks, but this exception is rare and well documented). The isotopes in question, in increasing atomic mass order, are:

Al26 : 740,000 years
Cl36 : 301,000 years
Ca41 : 103,000 years
Mn53 : 3,740,000 years
Fe60 : 1,500,000 years
Kr81 : 213,000 years
Zr93 : 1,530,000 years
Nb92 : 34,700,000 years
Tc97 : 2,600,000 years
Tc98 : 4,200,000 years
Tc99 : 211,000 years
Pd107 : 6,500,000 years
Sn126 : 100,000 years
I129 : 15,700,000 years
Cs135 : 2,300,000 years
Sm146 : 103,000,000 years
Gd150 : 1,790,000 years
Dy154 : 3,000,000 years
Hf182: 9,000,000 years
Re186m : 200,000 years
Pb205 : 15,200,000 years
Bi208 : 368,000 years
Bi210m : 3,040,000 years
Np236 : 154,000 years
Np237 : 2,140,000 years
Pu242 : 373,300 years
Pu244 : 81,700,000 years
Cm247 : 15,600,000 years
Cm248 : 340,000 years

Now, the feature that all of these isotopes have in common is this: if the Earth were only 6,000 years old, then measurable amounts of ALL of these isotopes should be present in Earth rocks, because their half-lives are all a good deal longer than 6,000 years. So, what do we find when we search for these isotopes in Earth rocks?

NONE of them are present in measurable quantities.

Now, one can safely assume that at the end of 20 half-lives, any measurable amount of a particular radionuclide has effectively vanished - the amount left is ½20, or just 0.000095367% of the original mass that was present originally. So even for isotopes of common elements, this fraction represents a vanishingly small amount of material that would test even the world's best mass spectrometer labs to detect in a sample. So, what does the observation of no measurable quantity of the above isotopes mean? It means that at least 20 half-lives of the requisite isotopes must have elapsed for those isotopes to disappear. Taking each isotope in turn, this means that:

[1] Sn126, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 100,000 years = 2,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 2,000,000 years old for all the Sn126 to have disappeared.

[2] Ca41, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 103,000 years = 2,060,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 2,060,000 years old for all the Ca41 to have disappeared.

[3] Np236, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 154,000 years = 3,080,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 3,080,000 years old for all the Np236 to have disappeared.

[4] Re186m, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 200,000 years = 4,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 4,000,000 years old for all the Re186m to have disappeared.

[5] Tc99, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 211,000 years = 4,220,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 4,220,000 years old for all the Tc99 to have disappeared.

[6] Kr81, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 213,000 years = 4,260,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 4,260,000 years old for all the Kr81 to have disappeared.

[7] Cl36, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 301,000 years = 6,020,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 6,020,000 years old for all the Cl36 to have disappeared.

[8] Cm248, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 340,000 years = 6,800,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 6,800,000 years old for all the Cm248 to have disappeared.

[9] Bi208, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 368,000 years = 7,360,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 7,360,000 years old for all the Bi208 to have disappeared.

[10] Pu242, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 373,000 years = 7,460,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 7,460,000 years old for all the Pu242 to have disappeared.

[11] Al26, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 740,000 years = 14,800,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 14,800,000 years old for all the Al26 to have disappeared.

[12] Fe60, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 1,500,000 years = 30,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 30,000,000 years old for all the Fe60 to have disappeared.

[13] Zr93, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 1,530,000 years = 30,600,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 30,600,000 years old for all the Zr93 to have disappeared.

[14] Gd150, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 1,790,000 years = 35,800,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 35,800,000 years old for all the Gd150 to have disappeared.

[15] Np237, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 2,140,000 years = 42,400,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 42,400,000 years old for all the Np237 to have disappeared.

[16] Cs135, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 2,300,000 years = 46,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 46,000,000 years old for all the Cs135 to have disappeared.

[17] Tc97, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 2,600,000 years = 52,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 52,000,000 years old for all the Tc97 to have disappeared.

[18] Dy154, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 3,000,000 years = 60,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 60,000,000 years old for all the Dy154 to have disappeared.

[19] Bi210m, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 3,040,000 years = 60,800,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 60,800,000 years old for all the Bi210m to have disappeared.

[20] Mn53, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 3,740,000 years = 74,800,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 74,800,000 years old for all the Mn53 to have disappeared.

[21] Tc98, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 4,200,000 years = 84,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 84,000,000 years old for all the Tc98 to have disappeared.

[22] Pd107, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 6,500,000 years = 130,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 130,000,000 years old for all the Pd107 to have disappeared.

[23] Hf182, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 9,000,000 years = 180,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 180,000,000 years old for all the Hf182 to have disappeared.

[24] Pb205, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 15,200,000 years = 304,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 304,000,000 years old for all the Pb205 to have disappeared.

[25] Cm247, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 15,600,000 years = 312,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 312,000,000 years old for all the Cm247 to have disappeared.

[26] I129, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 15,700,000 years = 314,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 314,000,000 years old for all the I129 to have disappeared.

[27] Nb92, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 34,700,000 years = 694,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 694,000,000 years old for all the Nb92 to have disappeared.

[28] Pu244, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 81,700,000 years = 1,634,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 1,634,000,000 years old for all the Pu244 to have disappeared.

[29] Sm146, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 103,000,000 years = 2,060,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 2,060,000,000 years old for all the Sm146 to have disappeared.

This is an inescapable conclusion from observational reality, given that these isotopes are not found in measurable quantities in the Earth and would be found in measurable quantities if the Earth was only 6,000 years old, indeed, hardly any of the Sm146 would have disappeared in just 6,000 years, and it would form a significant measurable percentage of the naturally occurring Samarium that is present in crustal rocks. The fact that NO Sm146 is found places a minimum limit on the age of the earth of 2,060,000,000 years - over two billion years - and of course, dating using other isotopes with longer half lives that can be measured precisely has established that the age of the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years. Now since the decay of these isotopes obeys a precise mathematical law as derived above, and this law has been established through decades of observation of material of known starting composition originating from nuclear reactors specifically for the purpose of determining precise half-lives, which is one of the tasks that the UK National Physical Laboratory (whose data I cited above) performs on a continuous basis in order to maintain scientific databases, the provenance of all of this is beyond question. The tables I have linked to above are the result of something like half a century of continuous work establishing half-lives for hundreds upon hundreds of radionuclides, and not ONE of them has EVER been observed to violate that precise mathematical law which I opened this post with under the kind of conditions in which those materials would exist on Earth if they were present. The majority of those isotopes are nowadays ONLY obtained by synthesis within nuclear reactors, and observation of known samples of these materials confirms again and again that not only does the precise mathematical law governing radionuclide decay apply universally to all of these isotopes, but that the half-lives obtained are valid as a consequence.

As I stated earlier in this exposition, the laws of nuclear physics would have to be rewritten wholesale for any other scenario to be even remotely valid, and that rewriting of the laws of nuclear physics would impact upon the very existence of stable isotopes including stable isotopes of the elements that make up each and every one of us, none of which would exist if the various wacky scenarios vomited forth on creationist websites to try and escape this were ever a reality.

I therefore contend that the assorted creationist eructations on this topic are, once again, flatly contradicted by observational reality and nothing more than a theological masturbation fantasy.

[Mike PSS]

Bravo Cali (again).

One additional point. The daughter products of known decay sequences would also have a different constituent mix on the earth if it's only 6,000 years old. You can find all the daughter products of, say, the U-Pb sequence in exact quantities today but IIRC if this decay sequence was only going on for 6,000 years then the amount of products found would be different.

[Codec]

Radiometric Dating 101
...


Excellent post:notworthy:, but being one who likes picking nits when they see them...

Now, the feature that all of these isotopes have in common is this: if the Earth were only 6,000 years old, then measurable amounts of ALL of these isotopes should be present in Earth rocks, because their half-lives are all a good deal longer than 6,000 years. So, what do we find when we search for these isotopes in Earth rocks?


There is an assumption here, that a planets crust would contain each of these isotopes to start off with. Its way beyond the 101 series, but in the interests of fairness I'm not sure that is a valid assumption. Planetary bodies tend to get made up of junk and by products produced by stars, and there is a definite trend to produce lower mass elements in preference, and certain isotopes are also going to be more prevalent.

If the earth were created 6000 years ago by some divine body, then you could equally argue that they could pick and choose the isotopes they made it out of (lets see 2nd day, and I have a penchant for 56Fe - it goes so well with the 13C...)

However all that said, if we base things on the physics we know, certainly the constant decay rates and the mixture of isotopes in rocks is a clear indication of unvarying principles which lead naturally to unchanging rates and an ancient earth. It is the simplest explanation that meets the facts.

[ninewands]

I'd like to add to this discussion that emissions from the decay of several very short half life radioisotopes were detected in the spectra taken from the explosion of SN1987A (e.g., 56Co) and it seems there is no difference in the half-lives measured from these emissions and the half-lives that have been measured for them on earth ... the difference being that the atoms responsible for the spectral lines from SN1987A decayed 168,000 years ago.

What I'd like some creationist to explain to me is why we cannot seem to detect ANY evidence of, or mechanism for causing, their "accelerated nuclear decay" in any radioisotopes OTHER THAN those, like 7Be, that decay by electron capture. I would think that if ANY environment would be sufficiently severe to accelerate the decay of radioisotopes it would be a core-collapse supernova, but no such effect has been observed.

Conclusions:
The universe came into being AT LEAST 168,000 years before February 23, 1987;
The measured half-lives of short-lived radionuclides formed in the explosion of SN1987A agree with the values measured on earth; and
"Accelerated nuclear decay" as a defense for creationism is about as effective as silk against machine-gun fire.

Science 4 teh WIN!!!1111ONE11!

[Calilasseia]

Radiometric Dating 101
...


Excellent post:notworthy:, but being one who likes picking nits when they see them...

Now, the feature that all of these isotopes have in common is this: if the Earth were only 6,000 years old, then measurable amounts of ALL of these isotopes should be present in Earth rocks, because their half-lives are all a good deal longer than 6,000 years. So, what do we find when we search for these isotopes in Earth rocks?


There is an assumption here, that a planets crust would contain each of these isotopes to start off with. Its way beyond the 101 series, but in the interests of fairness I'm not sure that is a valid assumption. Planetary bodies tend to get made up of junk and by products produced by stars, and there is a definite trend to produce lower mass elements in preference, and certain isotopes are also going to be more prevalent.

If the earth were created 6000 years ago by some divine body, then you could equally argue that they could pick and choose the isotopes they made it out of (lets see 2nd day, and I have a penchant for 56Fe - it goes so well with the 13C...)

However all that said, if we base things on the physics we know, certainly the constant decay rates and the mixture of isotopes in rocks is a clear indication of unvarying principles which lead naturally to unchanging rates and an ancient earth. It is the simplest explanation that meets the facts.

This is true, but then you have to ask yourself why certain isotopes would be preferred over others. After all, when a supernova detonates, the amount of energy liberated is enormous - of the ordder of 1044 J or more - and consequently there's more than enough energy present to fuel the formation of a vast range of isotopes. Which, of course, was what took place in order to form the heavier element that eventually found their way into the Earth's crust.

Now at the moment we're not in a position to determine remotely the isotopic mix of a particular element whose spectrum appears in a spectroscopic analysis of the light from a detonating supernova (unless someone can point me to a recent development in the peer reviewed literature whereby someone has found a means of doing so - that would be seriously impressive!) but given that there's enough material in the average supernova to provide the feedstock for the synthesis of a lot of heavier isotopes, along with more than enough energy to fuel their production, I would need to see, for example, some energy-based calculations as to why specific isotopes would be preferred over others. The problem that anyone has, in simply asserting that their purported invisible magic man in the sky picked and chose isotopes, in order to create a grand deception in order to sort out which bunch of carbon based life forms that turned up later in the game would fall for it, is that such an assertion answers nothing - it provides no mechanism for this, it provides no reason whatsoever other than the whims and caprices of an entity whose very existence still remains evidentially unsupported.

Plus, arguing that ALL of the isotopes on my list were missing from the primordial Earth simply in order to prop up a doctrine that is already flatly contradicted by observational reality in numerous important ways is about as tenable a position to hold as the notion that Scarlett Johanssen is going to knock on my front door tomorrow morning wanting me to father her first child. Actually, it's even less tenable, because at least we know Scarlett Johanssen exists, is female and of child bearing age - we don't even have that basic level of evidential support for Mr Invisible Magic Man.

[Calilasseia]

Oh, and to add to Ninewands' contribution above, if one positions very sensitive space telescopes far enough apart in space, one can perform a parallax verification of the distance to SN1987A. The fact that it's logistically difficult isn't the point - it's possible, and if Warren Buffett threw $5 billion at NASA to do it, they'd probably launch the telescopes in question within the next 10 years. Now since parallax measurements depend upon nothing more than simple trigonometry, all we would need is some means of parking the requisite telescopes in space, finding some way of allowing them to operate at great distances from the earth (so that, say, we had a 100 AU baseline to work with) and then point them at SN1987A. Let them then send their measurements of the apparent position back to Earth, perform the triangulation, and bingo.

Somewhere on my hard drive I have the requisite post from elsewhere on parallax determination, and I could feed the figures into it and see what kind of angular accuracy determination we'd need with a 100 AU baseline. If we could launch space telescopes with the ability to determine angular displacements to the order of milli-arcseconds, I'd suggest at this early stage in the game, before doing the calculations, that this would be sufficient, unless any astronomers can establish otherwise.

[Dave Hawkins]

I already answered this in the thread where you asked me originally. Click HERE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=29514#post29514).

yes but I am starting a discussion on it you see. From the link, your entire response to this thread would have been:

I am skeptical of ICR's A.N.D. Hypothesis but I remain open-minded.

is that it?Pretty much, yes. Hard to believe though it is, there are some subject areas I have not studied much. :p

[ninewands]

Oh, and to add to Ninewands' contribution above, if one positions very sensitive space telescopes far enough apart in space, one can perform a parallax verification of the distance to SN1987A. The fact that it's logistically difficult isn't the point - it's possible, and if Warren Buffett threw $5 billion at NASA to do it, they'd probably launch the telescopes in question within the next 10 years. Now since parallax measurements depend upon nothing more than simple trigonometry, all we would need is some means of parking the requisite telescopes in space, finding some way of allowing them to operate at great distances from the earth (so that, say, we had a 100 AU baseline to work with) and then point them at SN1987A. Let them then send their measurements of the apparent position back to Earth, perform the triangulation, and bingo.

Somewhere on my hard drive I have the requisite post from elsewhere on parallax determination, and I could feed the figures into it and see what kind of angular accuracy determination we'd need with a 100 AU baseline. If we could launch space telescopes with the ability to determine angular displacements to the order of milli-arcseconds, I'd suggest at this early stage in the game, before doing the calculations, that this would be sufficient, unless any astronomers can establish otherwise.
You read my mind about where I was going when I brought up SN1987A. See this new thread I just opened (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1328).

[Fathermithras]

Dave, be fair, you haven't studied any field except engineering. you've admitted before you refuse to crack an intro text even.

[ninewands]

Oh, and to add to Ninewands' contribution above, if one positions very sensitive space telescopes far enough apart in space, one can perform a parallax verification of the distance to SN1987A. The fact that it's logistically difficult isn't the point - it's possible, and if Warren Buffett threw $5 billion at NASA to do it, they'd probably launch the telescopes in question within the next 10 years. Now since parallax measurements depend upon nothing more than simple trigonometry, all we would need is some means of parking the requisite telescopes in space, finding some way of allowing them to operate at great distances from the earth (so that, say, we had a 100 AU baseline to work with) and then point them at SN1987A. Let them then send their measurements of the apparent position back to Earth, perform the triangulation, and bingo.

Somewhere on my hard drive I have the requisite post from elsewhere on parallax determination, and I could feed the figures into it and see what kind of angular accuracy determination we'd need with a 100 AU baseline. If we could launch space telescopes with the ability to determine angular displacements to the order of milli-arcseconds, I'd suggest at this early stage in the game, before doing the calculations, that this would be sufficient, unless any astronomers can establish otherwise.
And to add to Cali's comment ...

It's not even necessary to launch space telescopes to do this. Enough is known about the proper motion of various relatively nearby stars that this is fairly simple to do with one earthbound 'scope. You take a location measurement of a star on a particular date then take another exactly 182.625 days later. Crank in the appropriate corrections for the proper motion of the earth and the target star (something that's been done since at least the days of the great Arab astronomers of the Middle Ages) and BINGO ... instant rangefinder with a whopping 186,000,000 mile baseline.

[Dave Hawkins]

Dave, be fair, you haven't studied any field except engineering. you've admitted before you refuse to crack an intro text even.Not true. In the last two years, I have studied biology and geology in quite some depth, with much of this info coming directly from science papers. I read something like 5 papers on the Lake Suigetsu topic alone. I read something like 8 different papers back when I was discussing John Sanford and Deteriorating Genomes. Many of you equate 'book larnin' with superior knowledge, but this is not necessarily so, especially in the last 10 years. Welcome to the 21st Century!

[Asha'man]

It's not even necessary to launch space telescopes to do this. Enough is known about the proper motion of various relatively nearby stars that this is fairly simple to do with one earthbound 'scope. You take a location measurement of a star on a particular date then take another exactly 182.625 days later. Crank in the appropriate corrections for the proper motion of the earth and the target star (something that's been done since at least the days of the great Arab astronomers of the Middle Ages) and BINGO ... instant rangefinder with a whopping 186,000,000 mile baseline.

Parallax measurements using the Earth's orbit (1AU) as a baseline are limited to a few hundred light-years. Earth-orbiting telescopes give us a bit more range, mostly because they can make more accurate measurements without an atmosphere in the way (I think this brings us up to 500ly or so). Since SN1987a is in the 150,000ly range, a direct parallax measurement would require a much longer baseline, which is what Calilasseia was referring to.

[Febble]

Dave, be fair, you haven't studied any field except engineering. you've admitted before you refuse to crack an intro text even.Not true. In the last two years, I have studied biology and geology in quite some depth, with much of this info coming directly from science papers. I read something like 5 papers on the Lake Suigetsu topic alone. I read something like 8 different papers back when I was discussing John Sanford and Deteriorating Genomes. Many of you equate 'book larnin' with superior knowledge, but this is not necessarily so, especially in the last 10 years. Welcome to the 21st Century!

What you haven't learned, though Dave, and it's perfectly possible to learn it informally, rather than formally, is any methodology. That's the problem. Not that you haven't acquainted yourself with a large amount of information - but that you apparently haven't understood the fundamental principles of hypothesis testing.

[VoxRat]

Dave, be fair, you haven't studied any field except engineering. you've admitted before you refuse to crack an intro text even.Not true. In the last two years, I have studied biology and geology in quite some depth, with much of this info coming directly from science papers. Dave, you have no idea what studying these things "in depth" even means. You claim to have studied these fields "in depth" - but have yet to read so much as a single introductory book on either subject. I read something like 5 papers on the Lake Suigetsu topic alone. I read something like 8 different papers back when I was discussing John Sanford and Deteriorating Genomes. Many of you equate 'book larnin' with superior knowledge, but this is not necessarily so, especially in the last 10 years. Welcome to the 21st Century!No, Dave. Net surfing has not replaced books. Sorry about that. And "reading" consists of more than running your eyes over written words, scanning for minable quotes.

Somehow, whenever I read this kind of self-delusion, where you appear to be trying to convince yourself that you do too know more about geology than the geologists, more about biology than the biologists, etc. this little ditty pops into my head:

(to the tune of "Bear Necessities"):

Look for the Fundementia
The simple Fundementia
Forget about your science; what a pain!
I mean the Fundementia
A fundie’s mental enema
Relieves you of the burden of a brain!

[Febble]

Depth certainly isn't the right word. A fair degree of breadth, I'll grant.

[RAFH]

I already answered this in the thread where you asked me originally. Click HERE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=29514#post29514).

I clicked, and found:

I am skeptical of ICR's A.N.D. Hypothesis but I remain open-minded. What I know for sure from my own study (which, unlike you, includes creationist research papers) is that the pattern of discordance of radiometric dates, the evidence of selective publication of radiometric dates (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4870779#post4870779) (JonF, do you have that issue of CRSQ parsed up yet?), the abandonment of old radiometric dating methods (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5007060#post5007060) because of some fatal flaw and the continual 'improvement' in methods (which later are themselves abandoned because of some fatal flaw) and the many evidences for a young earth (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842), all combine to force me to search for some alternative explanation for the large quantity of daughter products we find. It is clear to me that massive radioactive decay has occurred, but it is even more clear to me that radiometric 'dating' is completely unreliable for calculating the absolute age of rocks. Interestingly, Walt Brown thinks he has the answer and if I can ever find enough time, I want to resume dialog with him and hear about this. He also owes me some orbital calculations on asteroids.

(my bold)

You appear to be saying that, because some radiometric dates are discordant, some discordant dates are unpublished (unsupported allegation), and some techniques are no longer used, you conclude that something other than ________ is required to account for the products of radioactive decay.

So what goes in the blank?

Not "radioactive decay" because you then say that you are clear that "massive radioactive decay has occurred".

So - what is it? What do you think does NOT account for the presence of the products of radioactive decay in rocks? What is it that we need to find an alternative TO?

Furthermore Dave seems to think technological advancements completely overthrow the old results and this is somehow evidence that we should move from an age of the universe in the order of 1011 to an age in the order of 104.

Sorry OBD, but shouldn't that be 1010, as I believe the general notion the beginning of this current expansion was about 14x109 or billion years ago. Your point still stands, there is a massive difference in orders of magnitude.

[JonF]

I already answered this in the thread where you asked me originally. Click HERE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=29514#post29514).

I clicked, and found:

I am skeptical of ICR's A.N.D. Hypothesis but I remain open-minded. What I know for sure from my own study (which, unlike you, includes creationist research papers) is that the pattern of discordance of radiometric dates, the evidence of selective publication of radiometric dates (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4870779#post4870779) (JonF, do you have that issue of CRSQ parsed up yet?), the abandonment of old radiometric dating methods (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5007060#post5007060) because of some fatal flaw and the continual 'improvement' in methods (which later are themselves abandoned because of some fatal flaw) and the many evidences for a young earth (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842), all combine to force me to search for some alternative explanation for the large quantity of daughter products we find. It is clear to me that massive radioactive decay has occurred, but it is even more clear to me that radiometric 'dating' is completely unreliable for calculating the absolute age of rocks. Interestingly, Walt Brown thinks he has the answer and if I can ever find enough time, I want to resume dialog with him and hear about this. He also owes me some orbital calculations on asteroids.

(my bold)

You appear to be saying that, because some radiometric dates are discordant, some discordant dates are unpublished (unsupported allegation), and some techniques are no longer used, you conclude that something other than ________ is required to account for the products of radioactive decay.
"Some techniques are no longer used" is another Davie-fantasy. Geochron Labs is a fairly well-known dating lab, at least partially because they have much more of a web presence than most. The guy who ran the K-Ar division left. They shut down the K-Ar division. From that Davie "deduces" that K-Ar dating has been abandoned.

Back at AtBC, Davie used to love Google Scholar searches as evidence. Google Scholar returns 1,270 results for "k-ar dating" (without the quotes) from 2007 to 2008.

K-Ar dating isn't all that widely used anymore, for many reasons, but it's well-understood, low-cost, and accurate when applied to suitable materials (which suitable materials are easily identified before testing).

IOW, all Davie's got is personal incredulity.

[Obd]

I clicked, and found:



(my bold)

You appear to be saying that, because some radiometric dates are discordant, some discordant dates are unpublished (unsupported allegation), and some techniques are no longer used, you conclude that something other than ________ is required to account for the products of radioactive decay.

So what goes in the blank?

Not "radioactive decay" because you then say that you are clear that "massive radioactive decay has occurred".

So - what is it? What do you think does NOT account for the presence of the products of radioactive decay in rocks? What is it that we need to find an alternative TO?

Furthermore Dave seems to think technological advancements completely overthrow the old results and this is somehow evidence that we should move from an age of the universe in the order of 1011 to an age in the order of 104.

Sorry OBD, but shouldn't that be 1010, as I believe the general notion the beginning of this current expansion was about 14x109 or billion years ago. Your point still stands, there is a massive difference in orders of magnitude.

Yep, mistake on my part.

[RAFH]

Dave, be fair, you haven't studied any field except engineering. you've admitted before you refuse to crack an intro text even.Not true. In the last two years, I have studied biology and geology in quite some depth, with much of this info coming directly from science papers. I read something like 5 papers on the Lake Suigetsu topic alone. I read something like 8 different papers back when I was discussing John Sanford and Deteriorating Genomes. Many of you equate 'book larnin' with superior knowledge, but this is not necessarily so, especially in the last 10 years. Welcome to the 21st Century!

What you haven't learned, though Dave, and it's perfectly possible to learn it informally, rather than formally, is any methodology. That's the problem. Not that you haven't acquainted yourself with a large amount of information - but that you apparently haven't understood the fundamental principles of hypothesis testing.

I'd also say that simply reading a bunch of scientific papers, even a very large bunch, perhaps 5 a day (which I would imagine would be a tough nut to crack if you were to seriously read and check all the footnotes and references, the best you are going to do is some 1800 a year, assuming a dedication of 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year,) isn't going to be of much use, the old parable of the blind men and the elephant being appropriate. All you will have is a lot of data, similar to having dozens of blind men. Science isn't just about a mass of details davey, it's about the overarching model those details suggest. Yes, you need the data, it is essential. But simply having data without having an background view is virtually useless. It would be like getting a set of elevation data from a surveyor but no positions for each elevation point. Yes, you may know hundreds of facts, but unless those facts are organized into a coherent model, they are next to meaningless.

Why do you think courses of study are not based on reading hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers, of which hundreds of thousands are published annually (over 90,000 just in physics in North American journals alone), but on the framework within which those papers fit. One couldn't read even 1% of the papers published just on physics alone so one would be constantly falling behind. That's why you don't know anything davey. You read perhaps a few dozen papers a year, maybe even 100 but that's a piffling amount, it means nothing. It's like scanning a book by reading every 200th word. Yes, you may pick up the sort of general tone and subject of the book, maybe, but you would never be able to relate what the book is actually about. That's why you don't know anything, why you keep sticking your feet in your mouth.

It's why we love you so davey, you are the best poster boy for anti-FUNDAMENTALISM there is. You show just exactly what's why someone should avoid contracting the disease.

[Febble]

Not true. In the last two years, I have studied biology and geology in quite some depth, with much of this info coming directly from science papers. I read something like 5 papers on the Lake Suigetsu topic alone. I read something like 8 different papers back when I was discussing John Sanford and Deteriorating Genomes. Many of you equate 'book larnin' with superior knowledge, but this is not necessarily so, especially in the last 10 years. Welcome to the 21st Century!

What you haven't learned, though Dave, and it's perfectly possible to learn it informally, rather than formally, is any methodology. That's the problem. Not that you haven't acquainted yourself with a large amount of information - but that you apparently haven't understood the fundamental principles of hypothesis testing.

I'd also say that simply reading a bunch of scientific papers, even a very large bunch, perhaps 5 a day (which I would imagine would be a tough nut to crack if you were to seriously read and check all the footnotes and references, the best you are going to do is some 1800 a year, assuming a dedication of 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year,) isn't going to be of much use, the old parable of the blind men and the elephant being appropriate. All you will have is a lot of data, similar to having dozens of blind men. Science isn't just about a mass of details davey, it's about the overarching model those details suggest. Yes, you need the data, it is essential. But simply having data without having an background view is virtually useless. It would be like getting a set of elevation data from a surveyor but no positions for each elevation point. Yes, you may know hundreds of facts, but unless those facts are organized into a coherent model, they are next to meaningless.

Why do you think courses of study are not based on reading hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers, of which hundreds of thousands are published annually (over 90,000 just in physics in North American journals alone), but on the framework within which those papers fit. One couldn't read even 1% of the papers published just on physics alone so one would be constantly falling behind. That's why you don't know anything davey. You read perhaps a few dozen papers a year, maybe even 100 but that's a piffling amount, it means nothing. It's like scanning a book by reading every 200th word. Yes, you may pick up the sort of general tone and subject of the book, maybe, but you would never be able to relate what the book is actually about. That's why you don't know anything, why you keep sticking your feet in your mouth.

It's why we love you so davey, you are the best poster boy for anti-FUNDAMENTALISM there is. You show just exactly what's why someone should avoid contracting the disease.

Actually, RAFH, I think I disagree. REALLY reading scientific papers is a great way to get a sense of the framework on which they all fit, because it isn't just amassing facts, it would be understanding why conclusions follow from findings, what hypotheses are being tested, what is being built on, where the consensus is heading.

The problem is that reading scientific papers itself takes training, although it is certainly not something that requires formal training. But there is a reason why science programs tend to start with endless methodology courses, and why (in my experience) it doesn't actually matter what domain the instructor comes from. I've learned methodology from economists, educationalists, psychologists, biologists, nutrionists, kinaesthesiologists, physicists, geographers, mathematicians, and political scientists.

That's the bit Dave needs to learn.

[Constant Mews]

What I find amusing about this thread is that Dave ignores Callie completely, despite the fact that Callie's contribution demonstrates quite clearly that simple observation of isotope quantities alone destroys a YEC world. In other words, Dave - who constantly harps back to the OP of threads whenever challenged by fact - has ignored data which is directly relevant to the thread and instead argues by link which he has expressly condemned elsewhere; and tries to justify his lack of education in the topics he's discussing by being proud of having read five whole papers on Suigetsu.

Amazing. Five whole papers.

[Calilasseia]

It's not even necessary to launch space telescopes to do this. Enough is known about the proper motion of various relatively nearby stars that this is fairly simple to do with one earthbound 'scope. You take a location measurement of a star on a particular date then take another exactly 182.625 days later. Crank in the appropriate corrections for the proper motion of the earth and the target star (something that's been done since at least the days of the great Arab astronomers of the Middle Ages) and BINGO ... instant rangefinder with a whopping 186,000,000 mile baseline.

Parallax measurements using the Earth's orbit (1AU) as a baseline are limited to a few hundred light-years. Earth-orbiting telescopes give us a bit more range, mostly because they can make more accurate measurements without an atmosphere in the way (I think this brings us up to 500ly or so). Since SN1987a is in the 150,000ly range, a direct parallax measurement would require a much longer baseline, which is what Calilasseia was referring to.

Actually, I took a look at Ninewands' other thread, and someone linked to a page in that thread dealing with SN1987A. Apparently, that linked page has another link on it to ... a paper that covers trigonometric parallax measurement of SN1987A via Hubble.

The paper in question is:

Properties of the SN1987A Circumstellar Ring And The Distance To The Large Magellanic Cloud by N. Panagia, R. Gilmozzi, F. Macchetto, H-M. Adorf and R.P. Kirschner, The Astrophysical Journal, 380: L23-L26 (10 October 1991). The complete article is accessible, but in a slightly inconvenient format for reading at leisure, so I fired up Acrobat and repaginated the individual pages into a single document. If Putfile haven't trashed my account, I can store it there and make it available if anyone wants it.

To make life even more interesting, the workers on that paper determined the absolute size of the ring of glowing material around SN1987A, then determined the angular size of the ring as seen through Hubble, compared the two, and courtesy of some interesting trigonometry, yielded a value of 51.2 Kpc. The total error for the determination was ±3.1 Kpc. Now 1 Kpc is 3,262 light years, so 51.2 Kpc is equal to 167,022 ly. Pretty much bang on the money I'd say.

So, the astronomers were able to determine the absolute size of the ring of matter, compare it with the angular size in the Hubble image, then perform the requisite trigonometry and arrive at the above figure. However, since the absolute size of the ring of matter was determined using UV measurements (taking into account relativistic Doppler effects etc., because the material is moving at speeds that make it necessary to do this for precise work), this in turn has the effect of rendering null and void any notion that c, the speed of light in vacuo, underwent any significant changes during its 167,000 year trip to Earth. Apart from anything else, if it had, the energy measurements from decaying Co56 would have diverged wildly from those made of decaying Co56 manufactured on Earth in nuclear reactors, which would have been an immediate sign to the scientists that something was afoot. E=mc2 comes to the rescue here. Any such variation in c would in turn have had serious knock-on effects for the amount of energy liberated in nuclear fusion reactions, and consequently knock-on effects for the integrity even of stable stars such as our very own Sun. Decrease the amount of energy and gravitation overwhelms smaller stars than with the standard value, which means that smaller stars move about all over the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram as they ignite Helium fusion and enter the CNO cycle, while increasing amounts of energy liberated from fusion means that bigger stars are able to resist gravitational collapse for longer and increases the Chandrashekhar Limit, which is currently defined as:

[ω03 √(3π)/2] × (hbarc/G)3/2 × (1/(μemH)2)

Increase c and this limit increases, which in turn pushes the minimum mass required for supernova formation higher than the minimum of around 8-9 solar masses. Since SN1987A was unusual in being a blue star prior to going supernova, it has been estimated to be a 15-20 solar mass blue supergiant that entered the unstable silicon fusion régime before moving across the H-R diagram into the red end of the spectrum, whereupon it blew itself apart in classic Type II supernova fashion. However, muck about with the speed of light and one increases the minimum limit for star masses required to go supernova - and to increase c sufficient to allow light to cross 167,000 light years in just 6,000 years in order to prop up the diseased ramblings of a bunch of Bronze Age goat herders would almost certainly result in that minimum mass exceeding the mass of the original star at the heart of the SN1987A supernova. Therefore, it wouldn't have gone supernova in the first place, but would have settled down to become a carbon-rich white dwarf after shell shedding with no massive increase in luminosity such as that observed in 1987.

So, whichever way you look at it, YEC doctrine is fucked. :)

[Jet Black]

so what's walt brown's excuse for the large amount of radioactive decay that obviously could not have happened in the past 6000 years then?

[RAFH]

What you haven't learned, though Dave, and it's perfectly possible to learn it informally, rather than formally, is any methodology. That's the problem. Not that you haven't acquainted yourself with a large amount of information - but that you apparently haven't understood the fundamental principles of hypothesis testing.

I'd also say that simply reading a bunch of scientific papers, even a very large bunch, perhaps 5 a day (which I would imagine would be a tough nut to crack if you were to seriously read and check all the footnotes and references, the best you are going to do is some 1800 a year, assuming a dedication of 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year,) isn't going to be of much use, the old parable of the blind men and the elephant being appropriate. All you will have is a lot of data, similar to having dozens of blind men. Science isn't just about a mass of details davey, it's about the overarching model those details suggest. Yes, you need the data, it is essential. But simply having data without having an background view is virtually useless. It would be like getting a set of elevation data from a surveyor but no positions for each elevation point. Yes, you may know hundreds of facts, but unless those facts are organized into a coherent model, they are next to meaningless.

Why do you think courses of study are not based on reading hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers, of which hundreds of thousands are published annually (over 90,000 just in physics in North American journals alone), but on the framework within which those papers fit. One couldn't read even 1% of the papers published just on physics alone so one would be constantly falling behind. That's why you don't know anything davey. You read perhaps a few dozen papers a year, maybe even 100 but that's a piffling amount, it means nothing. It's like scanning a book by reading every 200th word. Yes, you may pick up the sort of general tone and subject of the book, maybe, but you would never be able to relate what the book is actually about. That's why you don't know anything, why you keep sticking your feet in your mouth.

It's why we love you so davey, you are the best poster boy for anti-FUNDAMENTALISM there is. You show just exactly what's why someone should avoid contracting the disease.

Actually, RAFH, I think I disagree. REALLY reading scientific papers is a great way to get a sense of the framework on which they all fit, because it isn't just amassing facts, it would be understanding why conclusions follow from findings, what hypotheses are being tested, what is being built on, where the consensus is heading.

The problem is that reading scientific papers itself takes training, although it is certainly not something that requires formal training. But there is a reason why science programs tend to start with endless methodology courses, and why (in my experience) it doesn't actually matter what domain the instructor comes from. I've learned methodology from economists, educationalists, psychologists, biologists, nutrionists, kinaesthesiologists, physicists, geographers, mathematicians, and political scientists.

That's the bit Dave needs to learn.

Well, yes, if davey was reading for comprehension and looking at the papers to see how they are similar and how they are different. But davey doesn't do that, he combs them for select statements he can use. He's not looking for the system that is inherent in the papers. And going through lots of papers is really the long way around, why not just study the methodology and then look into the framework of knowledge that methodology has produced and then read the papers with a good chance of actually understanding what they mean rather than just finding some statements that look like something you could use.

I mean, yes, I could learn architecture by spending each and every day in a different architecturally designed building. Going through them all over the world. And yeah, there's a good chance I might well figure out what architecture is all about, or maybe I'd just pick up a cool style I like and learn to mimic it. Or maybe just always look for a building that is considered successful and copy it with each project I do. Yeah, that'd work great. After all, the design worked the first time, it should work again, shouldn't it?

Or one could learn about architecture and why humans build architecture and what architecture is all about and then develop the sense to understand what all those architects were trying to do with their buildings. How those architects were giving the users of those buildings both a lesson on how to live their lives (in that in those buildings) and the buildings in which to learn and carry them out those lessons. And how hopefully, in that process, they will learn something about living their lives in general. Something that makes living them worthwhile.

[Jet Black]

Well, yes, if davey was reading for comprehension and looking at the papers to see how they are similar and how they are different.



yeah, we had this last time with Lillooet.


DH: when we compare Lillooet and Suigetsu, we see that they're both wet, they're both lakes and have water flowing in and out and have layered sedment, therefore the sedimentation rates in Suigetsu must be several centimetres per year, not the ~1mm as the researchers say:

JB: but look again, Lillooet has a drainage basin hundreds of times larger with a glacier and a fucking volcano in the middle of it. they're totally different.

DH..... (shuffles off)

(note that dave's comparison was when his knowledge of suigetsu is basically the same as it is now)

then also, after having studied suigetsu papers, he claims that the big floods could have been a source of sediment.... but the floods were downhill of suigetsu. when this was pointed out to him he barely acknowledged it. All this supposed reading and knowledge that he has and he still makes trivial brain numbing balls-ups like these.

[Pappy Jack]

Well, yes, if davey was reading for comprehension and looking at the papers to see how they are similar and how they are different.

.....having studied suigetsu papers, he claims that the big floods could have been a source of sediment.... but the floods were downhill of suigetsu. when this was pointed out to him he barely acknowledged it. All this supposed reading and knowledge that he has and he still makes trivial brain numbing balls-ups like these.
It must be obvious to the disinterested observer that, as RAFH points out above and many have pointed out before, Dave appears to be unable to read for comprehension, but only for snippets of information and quotemines (second-hand or otherwise) that he believes support his particular viewpoint. This seems to be true in almost every field I have come across Dave's posts in. It is the principle reason why Dave will return to the same arguments over and over: he either truly believes, or else so desperately needs to believe that they are true, that he is unable to assimilate arguments and evidence that demonstrate that they most likely are not. Nowhere is this more clear than in the field of RM dating and the lengths to which he will go to invalidate the methodology and deny the results, to the extent that he is willing to allege widespread (unconscious - haha) malpractice, deceit, fraud, data-manipulation and incompetence to support his position. And all this without a shred of evidence except that because Dave so too knows that RM dating is just plain dumb WRONG, what other explanation could there be?

[Febble]

So, Dave? Are you going to respond to Callilasseia's posts?

[Asha'man]

Actually, I took a look at Ninewands' other thread, and someone linked to a page in that thread dealing with SN1987A. Apparently, that linked page has another link on it to ... a paper that covers trigonometric parallax measurement of SN1987A via Hubble.

I think we have a very minor terminology issue here. Trigonometric measurements of distance is not the same thing as parallax. Parallax requires an apparent shift of the observed position of a target generated by motion of the observer. That apparent shift allows you to invoke trigonometry to measure distance. Astronomers can use parallax to measure the distance of stars because the Earth's orbit provides movement, but SN1987a is simply to far away for that particular method to work.

However, there are other methods that still use trigonometry, especially if you can figure out the actual size of the observed object. These methods are equally strong, but parallax isn't the correct term for them.

[Fathermithras]

Dave, be fair, you haven't studied any field except engineering. you've admitted before you refuse to crack an intro text even.Not true. In the last two years, I have studied biology and geology in quite some depth, with much of this info coming directly from science papers. I read something like 5 papers on the Lake Suigetsu topic alone. I read something like 8 different papers back when I was discussing John Sanford and Deteriorating Genomes. Many of you equate 'book larnin' with superior knowledge, but this is not necessarily so, especially in the last 10 years. Welcome to the 21st Century!

Dave, that's not how it works. And I take online courses as part of my college curriculum and had to read over 30 psychological papers from peer reviewed journals THIS SEMESTER, so I think I'm well into the 21st century.

But reading the papers is not even CLOSE to studying a subject and you'll NEVER understand how a field works by doing so. You won't even come close. Why? Because you need a background knowledge of the subject before the papers can be accurately read and understood. I'm not saying you've made zero progress here. What I'm saying is the understandings you've come to are few and far between. You know tiny "units" of knowledge from the topics at hand, none of which are profound. Most of them are so isolated that you've been unable to integrate them into a whole. This isn't anything to be ashamed of Dave. That's just how it works. These papers aren't made so someone can explain them to you and you'll suddenly understand the thousands of pages you'd need to read to have a grasp on the subject. In order to understand them, you need to build from a foundation. You're trying to put the roof on a building with no foundation. That's why people are constantly belittling you and saying you have no idea what you're talking about. You're a smart guy I think. But you're letting your ego tell you that you're capable of something unrealistic (I think). Dave, I'm trying to reach out and be a nice guy now. No more pot shots at you. I just want to ask you a few real questions and you can just answer them via PM if you want. If so, please just be straightforward (if you post on the thread then post however you'd like of course).

1. Don't you find it odd professionals think you don't know the subjects you say you've studied?
2. Don't you think its reasonable to conclude from 1. that maybe you really misunderstand the subjects, or just don't have the knowledge necessary to understand and correct the science they speak about?
3. Do you think I could teach myself Electrical Engineering well enough from publications to go and correct the leading electrical engineers in the field, and accomplish this in two or three years?

I'm begging you to answer these Dave. Please do. I think deep down you aren't as bad as everyone says. I just want some answers to see if I'm right.

[Fathermithras]

Bump