Age of the Earth (was - Re: Religion in the US)
benjamin franz
: In article <2f7g6h$m...@netnews.upenn.edu> far...@dolphin.upenn.edu (Alexander E Farrell) writes:
: >
: >I wasn't aware that the incident radiaiton changed enough to affect C-14
: >dating. Is there somewhere (not on the INTERNET) to confirm this.
: There aren't recorded measurements of incident radiation over any
: significant period of history (let alone pre-history), so no. But my
: point was that C-14 dating ASSUMES a constant incident radiation in
: the upper atmosphere (where normal CO2 becomes radioactive) over time
: since the Earth was formed (by whatever process). If truly it WERE
: over billions of years, that's an incredible assumption. If the
: assumption just covers the 35,000 years that C-14 dating would be
: useful, then it's still a pretty large assumption, though orders of
: magnitude smaller than the billions of years.
: >
: >Even if I agree that this is an assumption, why is it a poor assumption?
: >Can we think of reasons _why_ the incident radiation would change enough
: >to allow for the observed ratios in carbon isotopes in once-living
: >things?
: The sun is responsible for a portion of the incident radiation, and
: its radiation output is variable (most notably during magnetic storms
: on its surface. These days the flares average around once every 11
: years, but who knows what the output of the sun was 35,000 years ago?
: We can make certain assumptions based on the recorded existence of
: civilization, but let's suppose that at one time, the radioactive
: particle output was MUCH less than it is now. This would result in
: much LESS (a smaller ratio of) C-14 in our ecosphere, and would skew
: our present-day measurements in the positive direction (i.e. things
: would appear older than they were by the smaller C-14/C-12 ratios
: present in the sample).
Except that dendrochronology (tree rings) allow the C-14 time scale to be
calibrated back about 40,000 years if I remember (it could be further). Not
assumption - measurements. So that particular objection is not valid.
I have added talk.origins to the news groups line because this has
definitely veered into their area of expertise.
: I won't even get into the ramifications of some of the new,
: controversial theories regarding the inconstancy of the speed of light
: over time, nor the correlation of atomic vibration to c. These would
: both seriously skew the age estimate of a given rock sample dated by
: various radioactivity dating techniques.
Halt! If you are referring to Setterfields suggestion that the speed of
light varied radically over time you have left the field of science
altogether. He obtained his "results" by massive statistical fraud and
abuse of error bars.
From the C-Decay FAQ:
"If you propose that the universe and all in it is the product of an act
of creation only 6-7000 years ago, many people ask - "How is it that
objects millions of light years away can be seen? Surely such light would
take millions of years to reach us." [B. Setterfield, "The Velocity of Light
and the Age of the Universe, Part 1," Ex Nihilo, vol. 4, no. 1, 1981]
The above quote is, to my knowledge, the first salvo by Australian
creationist Barry Setterfield regarding his hypothesis of "c-decay," the
notion of the decreasing speed of light that has been used for years as
evidence for a young universe. Setterfield's hypothesis, while initially
embraced by the majority of the creationist community, received heavy
criticism from the scientific establishment for several years since its
introduction in 1981, and was finally rejected by the creationists
themselves after it became such a major embarrassment that even the San
Diego-based Institute for Creation Research rejected it ( Acts and Facts ,
June 1988, G. Aardsma).
----End Excerpt from the talk.origins FAQ on C-Decay---
: BTW, I wasn't saying that a variable amount of incident radiation
: would be responsible for the ratios measured, I merely meant to point
: out that it would skew the results.
As I pointed out above, that particular effect has already been accounted
for and does not pose a problem for carbon dating.
: >
: >>> When a living creature dies, the carbon in it's body contains
: >>>the same ratio,
: >>
: >>Approximately, given the assumption that everything it ate had that
: >>same ratio. This isn't as big an assumption as the previous...
: >>
: >
: >Similar question, we can could check out now-living things to see if the
: >ratio is the same. Ever been done? Why wouldn't it be?
: I'm sure it's been done (that's how they would have validated the
: technique), but the ratio present in living things today is dependent
: on the rate of formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, which in turn is
: dependent on the incident radiation striking the Earth's upper
: atmosphere, all of which is measurable and is pretty much constant
: day-to-day.
: But I didn't mean to infer that the above was a major assumption, it's
: not. My point was that, if C-14 formation increased due to a rapid
: (however temporary, dozens/hundreds/thousands of years), the plants
: which breathe the radioactive CO2 would have increasing ratios FIRST,
: then on up the food chain. It is possible that an animal could have
: died before being affected by such an increase, and that would skew
: the results as well. The entire validity of C-14 dating depends upon
: everything being equal since the beginning. Throw one thing off, and
: the effect propagates, skewing the measurements.
: There isn't any way to know that C-14 formation has been constant
: since the Earth formed.
Doesn't have to be. We have *measured* levels from objects (trees) of
absolutely known age.
: >
: >>>One can tell a similar story, but much further back, using other
: >>>radionuclides.
: >>
: >>But not with (once-) living matter. Other radiometric techniques are
: >>used on rocks
: >
: >Right, but what's the bottom line? Do you feel that radionuclide dating
: >presents a serious challenge to Biblical chronology ?
[deleted discussion of how bible chronology contains errors]
: Finally, I don't believe enough has been discovered with respect to
: quantum physics and our knowledge of time to know for certain that our
: radio-dating techniques are even valid. They have a lot going for
: them, and GIVEN the assumptions, are valid that far. It's the
: assumptions I'm not comfortable with, especially in light of some of
: the new theories cropping up on the horizon.
Speaking of anther FAQ: Checkout the Isochron-Dating FAQ in the
talk.origins archive. You can find it by ftping to ics.uci.edu. I believe
the directory is /pub/bvickers - but you may have to look around a bit.
When you find the bvickers directory you are headed in the right direction.
: I enjoy reading the new theories that come along in physics, quite a
: broad range of possibilities to spark the imagination, especially
: those which deal with time. Perhaps as more is learned, the theories
: will gain or lose their credibility. In the mean time...
In the mean time you need to do some reading. Your objections are long
since refuted. The confidence in radio-metric dating techniques is very
very high.
If you have too much trouble getting the relevant FAQs from the
talk.origins archive - drop me some email and I will email them to you.
Stephen F. Schaffner
|> Finally, I don't believe enough has been discovered with respect to
|> quantum physics and our knowledge of time to know for certain that our
|> radio-dating techniques are even valid. They have a lot going for
|> them, and GIVEN the assumptions, are valid that far. It's the
|> assumptions I'm not comfortable with, especially in light of some of
|> the new theories cropping up on the horizon.
Could you be more specific? What new theories are likely to invalidate
radio-dating?
--
Steve Schaffner ssc...@slac.stanford.edu
The opinions expressed may be mine, || How matter presses on me!
and may not be those of SLAC, Stanford || What stubborn things facts are.
University, or the DOE. || William Hazlitt
Allen J. Newton
point to that group...
In article <2fb1rn$b...@u.cc.utah.edu> bf6...@u.cc.utah.edu (benjamin franz) writes:
>Allen J. Newton (ane...@bbx.basis.com) wrote:
> [ ... ]
>: our present-day measurements in the positive direction (i.e. things
>: would appear older than they were by the smaller C-14/C-12 ratios
>: present in the sample).
>
>Except that dendrochronology (tree rings) allow the C-14 time scale to be
>calibrated back about 40,000 years if I remember (it could be further). Not
>assumption - measurements. So that particular objection is not valid.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>: BTW, I wasn't saying that a variable amount of incident radiation
>: would be responsible for the ratios measured, I merely meant to point
>: out that it would skew the results.
>
>As I pointed out above, that particular effect has already been accounted
>for and does not pose a problem for carbon dating.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>: There isn't any way to know that C-14 formation has been constant
>: since the Earth formed.
>
>Doesn't have to be. We have *measured* levels from objects (trees) of
>absolutely known age.
I don't address your other points because they seem reasonable, but I have
to challenge this. Are you saying we have trees that are 40,000 years old
(and still living)? I'm sure you're not. But if we did, then we COULD
know the absolute age.
But, are you saying we know their age because of the tree rings AND the
C-14 ratios? That would be circular reasoning. I'm not accusing you of
this, either, but if you are doing it, you need to re-think it.
OTOH, if there's some OTHER means by which we know the absolute ages of
those trees by, and can THEN use that tree as a C-14/C-12 ratio sample to
validate radiocarbon dating, you didn't specify that.
HOW do we absolutely know the age of those trees?
Thanks...
>--
>benjami...@m.cc.utah.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us)
Henling, Lawrence M.
>>Except that dendrochronology (tree rings) allow the C-14 time scale to be
>>calibrated back about 40,000 years if I remember (it could be further). Not
>to challenge this. Are you saying we have trees that are 40,000 years old
>(and still living)? I'm sure you're not. But if we did, then we COULD
>know the absolute age.
This may not be the best reference (I just happened on it):
'Detailed records of atmospheric 14C/12C have been obtained for the
last 11,000 years from measurements of carbon in wood, where annual
tree rings provide an independent chronology for the establishment
of variations in the atmospheric 14C/12C ratio (2-4)'
This means the rings of living trees are overlapped with those of
dead trees to give the full range - this is possible due to
variations in the amount of yearly growth - a study in itself.
'By application of TIMS [thermal ionization mass spectrometric]
methods to fossil corals, Edwards and colleagues (7) obtained
230Th ages that were more precise than 14C ages. This breakthrough
made it possible to calibrate the 14C chronometer with combined
230Th age determinations and 14C/12C analysis.'
A Large Drop in Atmospheric 14C/12C and Reduced Melting in the
Younger Dryas, Documented with 230Th Ages of Corals
R L Edwards, J W Beck, G S Burr, D J Donahue, J M A Chappell,
A L Bloom, E R M Druffel, F W Taylor
SCIENCE Vol 260 14 May 1993
larry henling
l...@shakes.caltech.edu
(talk.origins)
benjamin franz
: point to that group...
Overlapping age ranges. We have trees living today that reach back X many
hundred or even thousand years. If you examine the widths of rings in
different trees you discover something very interesting. The pattern of
wide and narrow rings is the same in different trees. This is because the
widths depend on how good a growing season that year was. One ring per year
(as long as you are careful to choose species of trees for which that is
known to be true).
If you then look at dead trees you discover that the patterns match for
certain ages. Ie. The rings in a dead log you didn't know how old was matches
the pattern of a living tree for some period of time - the time when they were
*both* alive.
By doing this repeatedly you can bootstrap yourself backwards in time to
times long before any tree now living existed.
And it can be accurate to within a year or so.
This process is known as dendrochronology and is utterly independant of
C-14 dating.
But it gives you an important piece of information: the age of a formerly
living piece of wood. By measuring the C-14/C-12 ratio in that piece of
wood now, you know the precise level of C-14 that was present when the tree
it was once a part of grew.
So you now no longer need speculate about the precise level of C-14 in
objects that year. It has been measured.
Allen J. Newton
>Allen J. Newton (ane...@bbx.basis.com) wrote:
>: HOW do we absolutely know the age of those trees?
>
>Overlapping age ranges. We have trees living today that reach back X many
>hundred or even thousand years. If you examine the widths of rings in
>different trees you discover something very interesting. The pattern of
>wide and narrow rings is the same in different trees. This is because the
>widths depend on how good a growing season that year was. One ring per year
>(as long as you are careful to choose species of trees for which that is
>known to be true).
>
>If you then look at dead trees you discover that the patterns match for
>certain ages. Ie. The rings in a dead log you didn't know how old was matches
>the pattern of a living tree for some period of time - the time when they were
>*both* alive.
The assumption I was looking for, and it seems reasonable enough.
However, the use of that would require many samples of the SAME
species from the SAME general area or the results would be speculative
at best.
Do we have such specimens? I'd heard about the use of this technique,
it'd be pretty cool if we had enough samples to validate it.
>
>By doing this repeatedly you can bootstrap yourself backwards in time to
>times long before any tree now living existed.
>
>And it can be accurate to within a year or so.
By definition, it'd better be 100% accurate (given the assumption of 1
ring per year).
>
>This process is known as dendrochronology and is utterly independant of
>C-14 dating.
>
>But it gives you an important piece of information: the age of a formerly
>living piece of wood. By measuring the C-14/C-12 ratio in that piece of
>wood now, you know the precise level of C-14 that was present when the tree
>it was once a part of grew.
>
>So you now no longer need speculate about the precise level of C-14 in
>objects that year. It has been measured.
I agree with this, and if you find something with the same ratio, you
can reason (with adequate assumptions) that it is the same age as that
tree. But it's making larger assumptions to guess the age of
something based on a ratio different than that tree (that the C14/C12
ratio has always been constant).
One more assumption I just noticed about your next-to-last paragraph,
or perhaps I just need clarification. Are they measuring the C14
ratio in each ring (are the techniques THAT sensitive?) to determine
the ratio present during the year that ring was formed, or just the
C14 ratio of the entire sample, which would give the AVERAGE ratio
during the tree's lifetime ("hundreds or even thousands of years" in
some cases, as you assert?
Karl Kluge
From: ane...@bbx.basis.com (Allen J. Newton)
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 17:00:41 GMT
Do we have such specimens? I'd heard about the use of this technique,
it'd be pretty cool if we had enough samples to validate it.
Off the top of my head... There are at least two rings series that have been
put together, one using bristle-cone pines from somewhere in N. America, the
other using Irish? Oaks. The calibration curves agree well, despite the series
coming from different continents.
Karl
Chris Nedin
(Allen J. Newton) wrote:
Deleted
> The assumption I was looking for, and it seems reasonable enough.
>
> However, the use of that would require many samples of the SAME
> species from the SAME general area or the results would be speculative
> at best.
>
> Do we have such specimens? I'd heard about the use of this technique,
> it'd be pretty cool if we had enough samples to validate it.
There are overlapping chronologies built up using oak from Ireland and
Germany (_Quercus robar_ and _Quercus petraea_) and pine from America and
Central Europe (_Pinus aristata_, _Pinus longaeva_ and _Pinus sylvestris_).
Each area built up its own chronology using many specimens and then cross
matched them at the 12th Radiocarbon Conference in Trodheim in 1985.
Deleted
> One more assumption I just noticed about your next-to-last paragraph,
> or perhaps I just need clarification. Are they measuring the C14
> ratio in each ring (are the techniques THAT sensitive?) to determine
> the ratio present during the year that ring was formed, or just the
> C14 ratio of the entire sample, which would give the AVERAGE ratio
> during the tree's lifetime ("hundreds or even thousands of years" in
> some cases, as you assert?
Modern Accelerator Mass Spectrometry can analyse a sample containing 0.25
milligrams of C14 in seven minutes, thus most samples are taken from one or
two rings only.
Chris
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| cne...@geology.adelaide.edu.au | "How can Nedin be trusted" |
| Dept. of Geology & Geophysics | C Wieland Director, |
| University of Adelaide | Creation Research Foundation, |
| South Australia 5005 | Queensland Australia |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
benjamin franz
: >Allen J. Newton (ane...@bbx.basis.com) wrote:
: >: HOW do we absolutely know the age of those trees?
[deleted semi-long explanation of how tree rings can be used to establish
dates]
: The assumption I was looking for, and it seems reasonable enough.
: However, the use of that would require many samples of the SAME
: species from the SAME general area or the results would be speculative
: at best.
: Do we have such specimens? I'd heard about the use of this technique,
: it'd be pretty cool if we had enough samples to validate it.
Yep. Success with the technique has been obtained using yellow pine,
douglas firs, sagebrush (seriously), and bristle-cone pines.
[deletia]
: One more assumption I just noticed about your next-to-last paragraph,
: or perhaps I just need clarification. Are they measuring the C14
: ratio in each ring (are the techniques THAT sensitive?) to determine
: the ratio present during the year that ring was formed, or just the
: C14 ratio of the entire sample, which would give the AVERAGE ratio
: during the tree's lifetime ("hundreds or even thousands of years" in
: some cases, as you assert?
Using modern techniques you should be able to carbon date individual
rings. But it is not strictly necessary to do so. As much as a decade or
so combined should be within the inherent error limits of carbon dating.
Remember that C-14 is dynamically maintained in the environment. Even if
zero C-14 was formed in a particular year for some unimaginable reason, it
would not alter the overall C-14/C-12 ratio very much. That is because the
C-14 in the environment is like a large pool of water with a small hose
going in and a small drain at the bottom. The hose going in is the supply
of new C-14 being formed from N-14. The hole at the bottom is the radioactive
decay of C-14.
The two processes are in approximate equilibrium: just about as much C-14
forms as decays each year.
If you were to turn off the "hose" it would take thousands of years for
the already present C-14 to decay: half every 5,730 years or 0.012% a year.
Because we already know that C-14 creation and decay are approximately
equal, we know that only about 0.012% of the carbon-14 in the environment
formed in one year as well.
So a few years variation will make little difference. The variation
would have to be very large and last for several decades before the overall
ratio could change much.
For a really good article on dating methods check out the Encylopedia
Britannica article on "Dating, Relative and Absolute".
If you don't have a set at home - your local library probably does.
James E Martz (OMNI)
CA. Some of them have been around a l o o o n g time! Go look at them.
It is interesting.
Jim Martz
James Meritt
}In article <2foeg9$4...@u.cc.utah.edu> bf6...@u.cc.utah.edu (benjamin franz) writes:
}>Allen J. Newton (ane...@bbx.basis.com) wrote:
}>: HOW do we absolutely know the age of those trees?
}>
}>Overlapping age ranges. We have trees living today that reach back X many
}>hundred or even thousand years. If you examine the widths of rings in
}>different trees you discover something very interesting. The pattern of
}>wide and narrow rings is the same in different trees. This is because the
}>widths depend on how good a growing season that year was. One ring per year
}>(as long as you are careful to choose species of trees for which that is
}>known to be true).
}>
}>If you then look at dead trees you discover that the patterns match for
}>certain ages. Ie. The rings in a dead log you didn't know how old was matches
}>the pattern of a living tree for some period of time - the time when they were
}>*both* alive.
}
}The assumption I was looking for, and it seems reasonable enough.
}
}However, the use of that would require many samples of the SAME
}species from the SAME general area or the results would be speculative
}at best.
}
}Do we have such specimens? I'd heard about the use of this technique,
}it'd be pretty cool if we had enough samples to validate it.
Yup. And for examples, check the wooden buildings in europe for samples.
Did just fine.
Dave Knapp
>
>Modern Accelerator Mass Spectrometry can analyse a sample containing 0.25
>milligrams of C14 in seven minutes, thus most samples are taken from one or
>two rings only.
>
--
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
* David Knapp d...@imager.llnl.gov (510) 422-1023 *
* 98.7% of all statistics are made up. *
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Chris Nedin
In article <2fsu4p$l...@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, dk@imager (Dave Knapp) wrote:
>
> In article <cnedin-29...@mac035.geology.adelaide.edu.au> cne...@geology.adelaide.edu.au (Chris Nedin) writes:
> >
> >Modern Accelerator Mass Spectrometry can analyse a sample containing 0.25
> >milligrams of C14 in seven minutes, thus most samples are taken from one or
> >two rings only.
> >
> I presume you mean 0.25 mg of C, not C14; that'd be a LOT of C14! -- Dave
Oops, what a mistake! Yes, you are correct Dave, it should read "a 0.25 mg
sample containing C14 can be analysed in 7 minutes."
Sorry about that.
Allen J. Newton
>
>For a really good article on dating methods check out the Encylopedia
>Britannica article on "Dating, Relative and Absolute".
But it's absolutely not moral to date relatives! ;-) ;-)
Seriously, thanks for the reference and information!
Alexander E Farrell
l...@celia.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes:
>In article <1993Dec28.0...@bbx.basis.com>, ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us writes...
The issue of the age of the earth was recently discussed in this newsgroup
over the last little while, mostly because of my question, I guess. I
think it had something to do with current events, as so:
It seems that the little "science versus the Bible" discussion was a
little one-sided. Does anybody still beleive in the literal truth of
the Bible? Seems that many people still do (although they may never see
this or the preceeding comments), and they use literal arguments from the
Bible as foundations for thinking about many complex issues - like
abortion, like the death penalty, for instance.
That the Bible (and the Koran, and the many other holy books that exist)
are crucial pieces of social commentary and moral instruction is without
question. But as a basis for understanding the world around us and for
making many important decisions, it leaves a lot to be desired.
On a deeper level, this little discussion also brings into question the
interpretation of every part of the Bible, even the strictly moral
teachings. Some people say, the Bible is the word of God and thus
everything said in there must be true and must be adhered to. If that's
the case, how can the word of God be so inconsistent with our ability to
observe and understand the world around us (RE: Age of the Earth) ? And
if it is admitted that some parts of the Bible are literal truth as
revealed by God and others are not, but rather the writings of mere men
and women, then who is to say which is which ?
Therefore, I'd like to suggest that positions about current events (or
other stuff) that rely ultimately on the Bible, or other holy book, are
recognized as equally as relative as any other position. To beleive that
there is a higher justification implies a disbeleif in science, or at
least the inconvenient parts of it. Scientists, engineers, and educators
who hold such fundamentalist beleifs should be honest about it and admit
that their belief systems are in conflict and relative, just like the rest of
us.
Thanks for your patience.
A.
--
Alex Farrell
Center for Energy and the Environment
University of Pennsylvania
210 S. 34th St. G-29
Allen J. Newton
>In many articles <27DEC199...@celia.caltech.edu>
>l...@celia.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes:
>>In article <1993Dec28.0...@bbx.basis.com>, ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us writes...
>
>The issue of the age of the earth was recently discussed in this newsgroup
>over the last little while, mostly because of my question, I guess. I
>think it had something to do with current events, as so:
>
>It seems that the little "science versus the Bible" discussion was a
>little one-sided. Does anybody still beleive in the literal truth of
>the Bible? Seems that many people still do (although they may never see
>this or the preceeding comments), and they use literal arguments from the
>Bible as foundations for thinking about many complex issues - like
>abortion, like the death penalty, for instance.
The Bible is pro-death penalty and anti-abortion. Strange how so many
people hold exactly the opposite of BOTH positions. But I digress...
>
>That the Bible (and the Koran, and the many other holy books that exist)
>are crucial pieces of social commentary and moral instruction is without
>question. But as a basis for understanding the world around us and for
>making many important decisions, it leaves a lot to be desired.
>
>On a deeper level, this little discussion also brings into question the
>interpretation of every part of the Bible, even the strictly moral
>teachings. Some people say, the Bible is the word of God and thus
>everything said in there must be true and must be adhered to. If that's
>the case, how can the word of God be so inconsistent with our ability to
>observe and understand the world around us (RE: Age of the Earth) ? And
>if it is admitted that some parts of the Bible are literal truth as
>revealed by God and others are not, but rather the writings of mere men
>and women, then who is to say which is which ?
A point of trivia here -- the age of the Earth is not asserted in the
Bible. Some theologians inferred a 4500-6000 year age by counting up
the ages of the characters in Genesis with their genealogies (assuming
that no generations were skipped). However, Bible scholars recognize
that the Hebrew term "was the father of" (or simply "begat" in KJV)
could just as easily mean "was the ancestor of", and that any number
of generations could have been skipped in the genealogies.
A young Earth is neither central nor necessary to the teaching of the
Bible.
_MY_ contention is that, given the evidence that exists, the
explanations postulating how that evidence reflects the history of the
Earth, and the assumptions being made (as well as alternative theories
which also fit the observations, but don't support the strong atheist
position), I don't believe the Earth is 5 billion years old, or needs
to be for us to be seeing what we do in the (especially geological)
sciences. But I'm not asserting in that same breath that the Earth
HAS to be <6K years old, either.
>
>Therefore, I'd like to suggest that positions about current events (or
>other stuff) that rely ultimately on the Bible, or other holy book, are
>recognized as equally as relative as any other position. To beleive that
>there is a higher justification implies a disbeleif in science, or at
>least the inconvenient parts of it. Scientists, engineers, and educators
>who hold such fundamentalist beleifs should be honest about it and admit
>that their belief systems are in conflict and relative, just like the rest of
>us.
To digress again briefly, I'd also like to suggest that, quite apart
from my belief or yours, there either is or is not a God who created
the Heavens and the Earth. My belief doesn't make Him so, and the
atheist's belief to the contrary does not make Him cease to exist.
Now, IF there is a God, the question becomes "Is He silent?". I don't
believe He is, nor that He would want to be. I believe He spoke
through His Nebaiim (the Prophets), and those were recorded in the
books of the Prophets (part of the OT). But again, this based on
further evidences I have seen.
>
>Thanks for your patience.
Likewise!
>
>A.
>
>--
>Alex Farrell
>Center for Energy and the Environment
>University of Pennsylvania
>210 S. 34th St. G-29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us)
Andrew MacRae
ane...@bbx.basis.com (Allen J. Newton) wrote:
>A young Earth is neither central nor necessary to the teaching of the
>Bible.
Agreed. Although there are many "creationists" who do dispute
that, and this explains much of the controversy about age of the Earth in
talk.origins.
>_MY_ contention is that, given the evidence that exists, the
>explanations postulating how that evidence reflects the history of the
>Earth, and the assumptions being made
>(as well as alternative theories
>which also fit the observations, but don't support the strong atheist
>position),
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1.) Which theories are these, 2.) which assumptions
are being made that you consider invalid, and 3.) how does the
conventional interpretation support the "strong atheist position" if
a "young Earth is neither central nor necessary to the teaching of
the Bible"?
>I don't believe the Earth is 5 billion years old, or needs
>to be for us to be seeing what we do in the (especially geological)
>sciences.
Given that the Earth is hypothesized to be 4.5 billion years
old based on radiometric dating, and that all other geologic features
indicate an age of at least hundreds of millions or billions of years
(proposed even before radioactivity was known), I disagree. How do you
explain the deep sedimentary basins and extensive tectonic structures of
the world that require a complexly intertwined sequence of relatively slow
events? These structures cannot form simultaneously, nor can they form
quickly. I do not see an alternative explanation. Can you explain
yours, and be more specific about the age you propose?
>But I'm not asserting in that same breath that the Earth
>HAS to be <6K years old, either.
Fine. But can you be more specific about why it does not HAVE to
be >4 billion years old in light of the evidence?
-Andrew
mac...@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
or: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
Stanley Friesen
>>And it can be accurate to within a year or so.
>
>By definition, it'd better be 100% accurate (given the assumption of 1
>ring per year).
That assumption is not always strictly true, thus the slight
possiblity of being off a year or two.
>I agree with this, and if you find something with the same ratio, you
>can reason (with adequate assumptions) that it is the same age as that
>tree. But it's making larger assumptions to guess the age of
>something based on a ratio different than that tree (that the C14/C12
>ratio has always been constant).
Since nobody else has yet addressed this last issue, I will do so.
The atmospheric C14/C12 ratio *does* change over time - it is
*not* constant. This is why the C14 dates needed calibration.
The tissue of a living organism is in aproximate equilibrium
with the atmosphere, and partakes of the atmospheric ratio
of the two isotopes. A dead tree, being inert, retains its
carbon, and thus the radioactive decay of the C14 allows it
to be dated. With dendrochronology, it also allows the actual
atmospheric ration to be determined for a given date.
--
NAMES: sar...@netcom.com s...@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
May the peace of God be with you.
Jack Parker
: The Bible is pro-death penalty and anti-abortion. Strange how so many
: people hold exactly the opposite of BOTH positions. But I digress...
I am curious to know a) where in the bible it comes out as anti-abortion.
b) did the ancients even KNOW about abortion? c) which part is the pro-death
penalty part "Eye for an eye"? or perhaps "Justice is mine...", or maybe
even "Thou shalt not kill".
(Mind you Allen we all know that a bible fell on my head as a child and I
learned all I've ever know about that book from the incident.)
cheers
j.
Jack Parker |
Hewlett Packard, BSMC Boise, Idaho, USA| "Discover America,
jpa...@hpbs2561.boi.hp.com | Get lost on a rally."
(208) 396-5388 (W) (208) 384-1623 (H) |
_____________________________________________________________________________
Any opinions expressed herein are my own and not those of my employers.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Peter Lamb
>_MY_ contention is that, given the evidence that exists, the
>explanations postulating how that evidence reflects the history of the
>Earth, and the assumptions being made (as well as alternative theories
>which also fit the observations, but don't support the strong atheist
>position), I don't believe the Earth is 5 billion years old, or needs
>to be for us to be seeing what we do in the (especially geological)
>sciences. But I'm not asserting in that same breath that the Earth
>HAS to be <6K years old, either.
OK, could you tell us:
1. What the most reasonable maximum age of the earth is
which fits "the observations": do any of the "alternative theories"
tell us? What are these "alternative theories"? Can you give
us a reference to two or more of them?
2. Tell us why you don't think the earth is 5 billion years old.
(4.5-4.6 billion is probably a better expression of modern
opinion, but I assume that you are thinking of a rather
larger difference than that).
3. Tell us why you think that a 4.5 billion-year-old earth is
a "strong atheist position" There are quite a number of Christians
who post to talk.origins who will strongly dispute that this is an
atheist position at all.
--
Peter Lamb (p...@csis.dit.csiro.au)
Jack Parker
: --
: Peter Lamb (p...@csis.dit.csiro.au)
4.5 billion is just the age of the oldest rocks found (Greenland I believe).
Earth could conceivably be much older - just haven't found any proof of it.
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
William H. Jefferys
Jack Parker <jpa...@mail.boi.hp.com> wrote:
#
#4.5 billion is just the age of the oldest rocks found (Greenland I believe).
#Earth could conceivably be much older - just haven't found any proof of it.
Possible, but unlikely, as the meteorites also date
to about this age (4.65 BY). Also, there is indirect
evidence that a supernova explosion went off shortly
before the solar system was formed, and the age of
that event is only a few tens of millions of years
prior to the solidification of the meteorites.
Bill
David Wright
[alt.current-events.usa dropped from Newsgroups line because 4.5
billion years ago is not recent even in cosmological terms]
Cool! But could you be wheedled into discussing said evidence? This
is interesting, but I'd never heard a thing about it (though I had
heard the part about the heavier elements being residues from
supernovae).
-- David Wright, Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc. Waltham, MA
wri...@hi.com :: These are my opinions, not necessarily Hitachi's,
but you're free to disagree, you poor deluded creature
William H. Jefferys
#
#[alt.current-events.usa dropped from Newsgroups line because 4.5
#billion years ago is not recent even in cosmological terms]
#
#In article <2gkf9o$f...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> bi...@clyde.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) writes:
#>In article <CJ9wv...@boi.hp.com>,#>#4.5 billion is just the age of the oldest rocks found (Greenland I believe).
#>#Earth could conceivably be much older - just haven't found any proof of it.
#
#>Possible, but unlikely, as the meteorites also date to about this age
#>(4.65 BY). Also, there is indirect evidence that a supernova explosion
#>went off shortly before the solar system was formed, and the age of
#>that event is only a few tens of millions of years prior to the
#>solidification of the meteorites.
#
#Cool! But could you be wheedled into discussing said evidence? This
#is interesting, but I'd never heard a thing about it (though I had
#heard the part about the heavier elements being residues from
#supernovae).
Well, I can be wheedled into providing a reference :-)
David Schramm and Robert Clayton, "Did a supernova trigger
the formation of the solar system?" _Scientific American_
v. 98, p. 124 (October 1978).
Bill
Allen J. Newton
It's absolute unqualified statements such as this that I object to in
a discussion of this type. You cannot conclusively prove that.
Perhaps you should have said "According to current theory based on..."
I usually quit reading any periodicals which use phrases such as "30
million years ago, this [creature] lived and did [so-and-do]", as if
the author witnessed this himself.
>Earth could conceivably be much older - just haven't found any proof of it.
>
>--
>_____________________________________________________________________________
>Jack Parker |
>Hewlett Packard, BSMC Boise, Idaho, USA| "Discover America,
>jpa...@hpbs2561.boi.hp.com | Get lost on a rally."
>(208) 396-5388 (W) (208) 384-1623 (H) |
>_____________________________________________________________________________
> Any opinions expressed herein are my own and not those of my employers.
>_____________________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us)
Jack Parker
: In article <CJ9wv...@boi.hp.com>,
: Bill
Ok. I gather I'm also off by 700-800 mill years in the age of said rocks.
oh well.
cheers
j.
James J. Lippard
>In article <CJ9wv...@boi.hp.com> jpa...@mail.boi.hp.com (Jack Parker) writes:
>>4.5 billion is just the age of the oldest rocks found (Greenland I believe).
> ^^ ^^^ ^^^
>It's absolute unqualified statements such as this that I object to in
>a discussion of this type. You cannot conclusively prove that.
Yeah, and you can't conclusively prove that the world didn't pop
into existence five minutes ago, including your "memories" of times
earlier than that, either. The statement you object to can, however,
be supported with overwhelming evidence.
>Perhaps you should have said "According to current theory based on..."
The "current theory" is *extremely* well-confirmed. If you are going
to require that kind of qualifier on such an age statement, then you
should, to be consistent, use similar qualifiers for most of what you
say.
>I usually quit reading any periodicals which use phrases such as "30
>million years ago, this [creature] lived and did [so-and-do]", as if
>the author witnessed this himself.
Much eyewitness testimony is *less* reliable than radiometric dating.
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Brett J. Vickers
>4.5 billion is just the age of the oldest rocks found (Greenland I believe).
>Earth could conceivably be much older - just haven't found any proof of it.
According to G. Brent Dalrymple's _The Age of the Earth_, the oldest
rocks found on Earth are 3.8 to 3.9 billion years old. The 4.5
billion figure comes from dates given to meteorites and moon rocks.
--
Brett J. Vickers
bvic...@ics.uci.edu
Seth J. Bradley
>Much eyewitness testimony is *less* reliable than radiometric dating.
Yes, in fact, eyewitness testimony is generally considered very unreliable
in a court of law, especially when there is only a single witness. This
is due to the known unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Forensic
evidence is generally given greater weight. If you don't believe me, ask
any lawyer with criminal trial experience.
--
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SSD-CT
Internet: sbra...@scic.intel.com UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one. The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare. On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!" -Michael O'Brien
Stanley Friesen
>
>I am curious to know a) where in the bible it comes out as anti-abortion.
I am not entirely sure, though many of the Church Fathers did
come ourt with statements against abortion, which they justified
on Biblical ground.
>b) did the ancients even KNOW about abortion?
Absolutely. There are even extant texts on the subject from
classical Greek, and maybe even New Babylonian sources.
> c) which part is the pro-death
>penalty part "Eye for an eye"? or perhaps "Justice is mine...", or maybe
>even "Thou shalt not kill".
The last is not relevent, since it refers to murder, not
execution, or even warfare.
Read the rest of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, especially the full
text of the various law codes. These laws *frequently*
prescribe the death penalty, for offences ranging from
adultery to blasphemy. I think this is ample evidence that
the Bible is pro-death penalty. (Or do you think the writers
didn't really mean it?)
Brendan Dunn
Allen J. Newton <ane...@bbx.basis.com> wrote:
>In article <CJ9wv...@boi.hp.com> jpa...@mail.boi.hp.com (Jack Parker) writes:
>>4.5 billion is just the age of the oldest rocks found (Greenland I believe).
^^ ^^^ ^^^
>It's absolute unqualified statements such as this that I object to in
>a discussion of this type. You cannot conclusively prove that.
>Perhaps you should have said "According to current theory based on..."
>I usually quit reading any periodicals which use phrases such as "30
>million years ago, this [creature] lived and did [so-and-do]", as if
>the author witnessed this himself.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us)
Aw, cripes. Do I have to drag out my American Revolution stuff again
already?
--Brendan
Allen J. Newton
>>million years ago, this [creature] lived and did [so-and-do]", as if
>>the author witnessed this himself.
>
>Much eyewitness testimony is *less* reliable than radiometric dating.
Which ignores the point I was making, but oh well...
>
>Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us)
James J. Lippard
>In article <7JAN1994...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>In article <1994Jan7.2...@bbx.basis.com>, ane...@bbx.basis.com (Allen J. Newton) writes...
>>>I usually quit reading any periodicals which use phrases such as "30
>>>million years ago, this [creature] lived and did [so-and-do]", as if
>>>the author witnessed this himself.
>>
>>Much eyewitness testimony is *less* reliable than radiometric dating.
>
>Which ignores the point I was making, but oh well...
I didn't ignore the point you were making; I addressed it in the rest of
my followup, which you conveniently deleted from your reply. Specifically,
I pointed out that radiometric dating is so well established that if one
is going to require the use of qualifiers as you suggested, for consistency
one would have to stick similar qualifiers on virtually everything one says.
(For instance, what you say above would be rephrased as "So far as I can
tell, based on my past experience, what you just said seems to ignore the
point which I seem to have remembered making ...")
Richard A. Schumacher
>>4.5 billion is just the age of the oldest rocks found (Greenland I believe).
> ^^ ^^^ ^^^
>It's absolute unqualified statements such as this that I object to in
>a discussion of this type. You cannot conclusively prove that.
>Perhaps you should have said "According to current theory based on..."
>I usually quit reading any periodicals which use phrases such as "30
>million years ago, this [creature] lived and did [so-and-do]", as if
>the author witnessed this himself.
Don't be silly. Using this reasoning you'd also question the existence
of George Washington. The same physics that lets us build transistors
and hydrogen bombs lets us say with complete confidence that Earth
formed about 4.5 billion years ago, give or take a few hundred million.
Allen J. Newton
Which physics is that? Astrophysics? Particle physics? Quantum
physics? Oh, you meant chemical physics! ;-)
Physics has many subdivisions, some more theoretical than others.
Astrophysics being one of the MOST theoretical and embodying the least
amount of verifiable evidence.
I'm not stating categorically that the Earth ISN'T 4.5 billion years
old, nor am I trying to be ridiculous about the qualifications. You
missed which qualifiers were REALLY left off. While I suggested
"According to current theory based on..." as a palatable (to me) way
of saying it, it would more accurately be stated as "According to an
ingrained acceptance as fact of current theories..."
People take the 4.5 billion year-old Earth as a given, and mostly
because, as far as I can tell, because that's what they've always been
taught. The evidence isn't as rock-solid as some would have you
believe...
James J. Lippard
>People take the 4.5 billion year-old Earth as a given, and mostly
>because, as far as I can tell, because that's what they've always been
>taught. The evidence isn't as rock-solid as some would have you
>believe...
Yes, it is. Take a look at G. Brent Dalrymple's _The Age of the Earth_,
1991, Stanford Univ. Press.
Or, alternatively, why don't you tell us what weaknesses there are in
radiometric dating. You obviously think that there are some weighty
criticisms. What are they? (You might want to take a look at the
isochron dating FAQ before you answer.)
Chris Nedin
wrote:
> 4.5 billion is just the age of the oldest rocks found (Greenland I believe).
> Earth could conceivably be much older - just haven't found any proof of it.
Actually the oldest rock dated so far are approx. 3.9 Billion years old.
The 4.5 By (actually around 4.7 By) figure is for planet formation based on
dates gained from meteorites and other data.
Brendan Dunn
Allen J. Newton <ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us> wrote:
>In article <schumach....@convex.com> schu...@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>In <1994Jan7.2...@bbx.basis.com> ane...@bbx.basis.com (Allen J. Newton) writes:
>>>>4.5 billion is just the age of the oldest rocks found (Greenland I believe).
>>> ^^ ^^^ ^^^
>>>It's absolute unqualified statements such as this that I object to in
>>>a discussion of this type. You cannot conclusively prove that.
>>>Perhaps you should have said "According to current theory based on..."
>>>I usually quit reading any periodicals which use phrases such as "30
>>>million years ago, this [creature] lived and did [so-and-do]", as if
>>>the author witnessed this himself.
>>Don't be silly. Using this reasoning you'd also question the existence
>>of George Washington. The same physics that lets us build transistors
>>and hydrogen bombs lets us say with complete confidence that Earth
>>formed about 4.5 billion years ago, give or take a few hundred million.
>Which physics is that? Astrophysics? Particle physics? Quantum
>physics? Oh, you meant chemical physics! ;-)
>Physics has many subdivisions, some more theoretical than others.
>Astrophysics being one of the MOST theoretical and embodying the least
>amount of verifiable evidence.
Astrophysics is not the only science that we can use to make estimates
of the Earth's age.
>I'm not stating categorically that the Earth ISN'T 4.5 billion years
>old, nor am I trying to be ridiculous about the qualifications. You
>missed which qualifiers were REALLY left off. While I suggested
>"According to current theory based on..." as a palatable (to me) way
>of saying it, it would more accurately be stated as "According to an
>ingrained acceptance as fact of current theories..."
Well, it gets really long-winded because, if you are going to do that,
you have to put that little disclaimer at the beginning of almost
any statement.
e.g.:
According to an ingrained acceptance as fact of current theories of
gravitation, inelastic collisions, and human physiology, you will
die if you jump off the Empire State Building.
According to an ingrained acceptance as fact of current theories of
aerodynamics, geography, thermodynamics, and organic chemistry
your flight will arrive in Boston at 6:30 tonight.
>People take the 4.5 billion year-old Earth as a given, and mostly
>because, as far as I can tell, because that's what they've always been
>taught. The evidence isn't as rock-solid as some would have you
>believe...
You're right in that people should have reasons for beleiving that something
is true. However, there is a lot of evidence for an age of 4.5 billion
years. A whole FAQ full, I believe. If you have evidence to the contrary,
feel free to present it. But until this evidence is presented, there
is really no plausible reason to believe that the evidence for a 4.5-billion
year-old Earth is wrong.
--Brendan
benjamin franz
: >In <1994Jan7.2...@bbx.basis.com> ane...@bbx.basis.com (Allen J. Newton) writes:
: >
: >>>4.5 billion is just the age of the oldest rocks found (Greenland I believe).
: >> ^^ ^^^ ^^^
: >>It's absolute unqualified statements such as this that I object to in
: >>a discussion of this type. You cannot conclusively prove that.
: >>Perhaps you should have said "According to current theory based on..."
: >>I usually quit reading any periodicals which use phrases such as "30
: >>million years ago, this [creature] lived and did [so-and-do]", as if
: >>the author witnessed this himself.
: >
: >Don't be silly. Using this reasoning you'd also question the existence
: >of George Washington. The same physics that lets us build transistors
: >and hydrogen bombs lets us say with complete confidence that Earth
: >formed about 4.5 billion years ago, give or take a few hundred million.
: Which physics is that? Astrophysics? Particle physics? Quantum
: physics? Oh, you meant chemical physics! ;-)
Nuclear physics.
: Physics has many subdivisions, some more theoretical than others.
: Astrophysics being one of the MOST theoretical and embodying the least
: amount of verifiable evidence.
Hmm..."I don't think so". You don't have to be able to hold something in
your hand for it to be verifiable. Much more abstract verifications are
possible. For example: the theory of how supernovas happen makes the
prediction that an absolutely phenomenal number of neutrinos should be
produced in a matter of seconds during a supernova. Guess what? When supernova
1987A exploded (the closest one we know of in about 300 years) we detected a
powerful neutrino pulse lasting a matter of seconds. Which has given birth
to a whole new field in astronomy: neutrino astronomy. Verifiability does
not depend on physical proximity but on the ability to make predictions
that can be checked. Astrophysics does very well on those criteria. (Gee
guys - guess what field I am intending to specialize in?).
: I'm not stating categorically that the Earth ISN'T 4.5 billion years
: old, nor am I trying to be ridiculous about the qualifications. You
: missed which qualifiers were REALLY left off. While I suggested
: "According to current theory based on..." as a palatable (to me) way
: of saying it, it would more accurately be stated as "According to an
: ingrained acceptance as fact of current theories..."
: People take the 4.5 billion year-old Earth as a given, and mostly
: because, as far as I can tell, because that's what they've always been
: taught. The evidence isn't as rock-solid as some would have you
: believe...
: >
Was that pun deliberate? People take the 4.5 billion +- a few hundred million
years as a given because several independant measurements cluster at that age
for the oldest rocks we can find. A perfect example of a cross check is,
strangely enough, meteorites. The ages of meteorites cluster around the same
age range as the very oldest rocks on Earth. This would tend to suggest
that they both formed at the same time (which is reasonable when you
consider the current theories of solar system formation). It would be very
difficult to construct a scenario where the meteorites "just happened" to
have the same age as the oldest rocks on Earth without assuming the Earth
formed at the same time. And it would be even more difficult to come up
with a source of systematic error that would make meteorites AND rocks on
Earth both date so very wrong as to invalidate the 4.5 billion year age.
It is not enough to show that an individual piece might have contamination
or underwent extremely unusual circumstances that might alter its apparent
age. You have to explain how *independent* samples could all suffer
from this identical problem which altered their apparent age to the same
value of about 4.5 billion years when measured by several different methods.
We went around on C-14 dating and tree rings a few weeks ago, didn't we?
Well - anyway, here is the Isocron dating FAQ for you to consider. I also
recommend you check out the Encyclopedia Brittanica article on dating
methods: "Dating, Relative and Absolute". You should be able to find it at
a local library.
========================================================================
Author: Chris Stassen
Subject: FAQ: Isochron Dating
Updated: 02/27/92
========================================================================
Outline:
1. Generic Radiometric Dating
2. What's wrong with non-isochron dating methods?
3. Generic Isochron Dating
4. What's NOT wrong with isochron dating methods?
5. For further information (some things to read)
(1) Generic Radiometric Dating
Generally, radiometric dating is done by performing a simple
calculation on a sample, involving three measurements:
a) The first "measurement" is actually a "known quantity" -- the
half-life of the radioactive element used by the method. This
value can be experimentally measured in a lab -- but since many
experiments have failed to effect a noticeable change in the
rates relevant to radiometric dating, it is usually taken from a
table.
b) The second measurement is the amount of "parent" element (the
radioactive element used by the method).
c) The third measurement is the amount of "daughter" element (the
element that the radioactive one decays into).
Since each atom of the parent element decays into one atom of the
daughter element, we calculate that the original quantity of the
parent element is the sum of the current amounts of parent and
daughter elements. We then apply the following (frosh physics)
equation (the infamous "radioactive decay" equation):
P = P0 / (2 ^ (T / H) )
or P = (P + D) / (2 ^ (T / H) )
Where:
P is the current amount of parent element
P0 is the original amount of parent element (= P + D)
T is time that has passed ("age" of the sample)
H is the half-life of the element
Solving for T, we calculate the sample's age as:
T = H * log2 ( (P + D) / P)
(2) What's wrong with non-isochron dating methods?
Obviously, there are a few assumptions above which have been
made for the sake of a simple expanation, but which will not
always work in the real world. These include:
a) The amount of daughter element at the time of formation of the
sample is zero. Possible ways to avoid this problem include:
work on a mineral that can't incorporate any of the daughter
compound when it forms; somehow calculate the amount of initial
daughter product and subtract it out.
b) No parent element or daughter element has entered or left the
sample since its time of formation. Possible ways to avoid this
problem include: only date samples whose geological history does
not appear to include events which might cause this problem; date
several different parts of the same sample and only accept the
result if they all agree because contamination is not likely to
affect all parts of a large sample in the same way.
The invention of isochron methods solves both of these problems
at once! Read on...
(3) Generic Isochron Dating
Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which
is the amount of a _different_ isotope of the daughter element.
In addition, it requires that the second through fourth
measurements be taken from several different objects which all
formed from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include
several different minerals are perfect for this.)
When any rock forms, minerals "choose" atoms for inclusion by
their _chemical_ properties. Since the two isotopes of the daughter
element have identical chemical properties, they will be mixed
evenly when the sample forms.
However, the parent element, with different properties,
will not be mixed evenly relative to the daughter elements. So,
at formation time, a sample would contain measurements like the
following:
Mineral No. Parent Daughter Isotope
--------- -------- -------- --------
1 4 gm 1 gm 2 gm
2 2 gm 4 gm 8 gm
3 6 gm 2 gm 4 gm
Note that (for this example) there is always twice as much of the
"isotope" as there is of the "daughter" in every mineral. Also
note that the ratio of "parent" element to either one of the
others varies (as the parent element has different chemical
properties). After one half-life's worth of time has passed, the
values will have changed (as half of the parent atoms in each
mineral will have decayed into daughter compounds):
Mineral No. Parent Daughter Isotope
--------- -------- -------- --------
1 2 gm 3 gm 2 gm
2 1 gm 5 gm 8 gm
3 3 gm 5 gm 4 gm
Note that half of the amount in the Parent column has been
taken away and added to the Daughter column for each mineral.
Also note that the Isotope column, since it doesn't decay and
isn't a decay product, doesn't change at all.
I can do some math here, but it's easier to see it on a graph.
The isochron graph is drawn by graphing D/I vs. P/I. The
first set of measurements results in:
D/I 1 -
|
|
|
- (2)................................(3)...........(1)
|
|
|
+-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
P/I
Note that all of the samples lie on a straight, flat line. This
is what we expect: they all have the same D/I ratio, and hence
the same Y-value.
Note that, if the sample were homogeneously distributed
with respect to parent and daughter, then all of the data points
fall on the same point and no line can be derived.
The graph for the second set of measurements is:
2 -
|
|
|
- .(1)
| ..
| ..(3)
| ...
D/I 1 - ...
| ..
| ..
| (2)
-
|
|
|
+-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
P/I
Once again, all the points lie on a straight line. And the slope
of the line is 1. (I know it doesn't look like it on the screen,
but that's because I used different units for X and Y -- you can
calculate it for yourself from the table above.)
We can make a simple table of slope of line versus age:
Slope Age
-------- -------------------
0 0
1 1 half-life
3 2 half-lives
7 3 half-lives
... ...
N log2( N + 1 ) half-lives
(4) What's NOT wrong with isochron dating methods?
Now that the mechanics of plotting an isochron have been
described, we will return to address the problems that were
mentioned before and describe why isochron methods don't fall
prey to them.
a) Initial daughter compound.
Any amount of initial daughter compound is compensated by the
isochron method. If one of the minerals happened to have none
of the parent element (the Y-intercept of the line), then its
amount of daughter compound wouldn't change over time -- because
it has no parent atoms to produce daughter atoms.
Regardless of whether there's a data point there or not,
the Y-intercept of the line doesn't change as the slope of the
line does. (You can verify this for yourself; the Y-intercept
of both lines above is 0.5.) The Y-intercept of the isochron
line actually gives the ratio of daughter to the other isotope
at the time of formation.
For each mineral, we can then measure the amount of the
other isotope and calculate the amount of daughter product that
was present when the sample formed. If we then subtract it out,
we could derive a "traditional" age for each mineral by the
equations described in the first section. Each such age would
match the result given by the isochron.
b) Random contamination (parent or daughter entering or leaving the
system)
For the sake of brevity, our example only included three data
points. While isochrons are performed with that few data points,
their value is not treated as seriously as those which have tens
of points.
Any non-systematic contamination is _extremely_ unlikely
to leave all of the data points on the line. Even in our little
example, any contamination of one of the minerals would require
a specific contamination of one of the other two in order to keep
all three points on the same line.
When we get to an isochron with tens of data points, the suggestion
that contamination "just happened to place the points on a (fake)
isochron line" can be discarded out of hand. It's too unlikely.
[Now, there is a form of isochron contamination, known as "mixing,"
which basically amounts to a _partial_ resetting of the isochron
clock. However, there are tests to detect it.]
c) General dating assumptions
All radiometric dating methods must assume certain initial
conditions and lack of contamination over time. The wonderful
property of isochron methods is that *if one of these assumptions
is violated*, it is nearly *certain* that the data will show that
by the points not plotting on a line.
(5) For further information, see:
G. Faure, _Principles of Isotope Geology_ (a textbook/handbook;
very technical, but very good.)
G. B. Dalrymple, _Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, and the Age of
the Earth_ (Email Chris Stassen if you want a copy.)
A. N. Strahler, _Science and Earth History_, pp. 130-135
========================================================================
--
benjami...@m.cc.utah.edu
Member of the highly-suspect, atheistic, university cults.
Seth J. Bradley
>People take the 4.5 billion year-old Earth as a given, and mostly
>because, as far as I can tell, because that's what they've always been
>taught. The evidence isn't as rock-solid as some would have you
>believe...
Or its because that is where the evidence lies. If you have solid
evidence demonstrating a different age, or if you have specific
claims as to inaccuracies in the dating methods employed, please
by all means post them. You will need to explain away independent
isochron dating methods (which all just happen to give the same,
in your opionion, wrong date) for starters.
Andrew MacRae
jpa...@mail.boi.hp.com (Jack Parker) wrote:
>4.5 billion is just the age of the oldest rocks found (Greenland I believe).
>Earth could conceivably be much older - just haven't found any proof of it.
No. The oldest rocks on Earth are in the 3.8 Ga range. "Parts"
of rocks (i.e. individual mineral grains derived from even older rocks) have
been found that are even a bit older (almost 4 Ga, I think). It is
very unlikely, given the expected early history of the Earth (heavy
meteorite bombardment, and later mountain-building activity that resets
radiometric dates) that rocks would be preserved from the actual "origin"
of the Earth. The oldest recorded age is, however, being slowly pushed back.
I believe the current "record holder" is somewhere on the Canadian Shield,
although recent "old" dates have also been found in Greenland and
Australia. Many lunar rocks also get into this time range.
The 4.5-4.6 Ga age usually quoted is from the age of the oldest
meteorites, which are thought to preserve dates from the origin of the
solar system, and therefore reflect the time when the Earth accumulated.
Basically, nothing has been found in the solar system that is older
than 4.5-4.6 Ga, so that must be saying something about the maximum age
of the planets, including Earth.
-Andrew
mac...@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
or: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
Andrew MacRae
>>4.5 billion is just the age of the oldest rocks found (Greenland I believe).
^^ ^^^ ^^^
>It's absolute unqualified statements such as this that I object to in
>a discussion of this type. You cannot conclusively prove that.
I can not prove you conclusively exist, and science does
not deal with absolute proofs anyway. Is there a problem?
If you want the details of that "unqualified statement" then I suggest
you examine some of the voluminous literature upon which that statement is
based. [See the FAQs, or I can provide some references too.]
If you can find _specific_ problems with the methodology or assumptions,
it would be worthwhile to state them here, rather than evading the
reasonable questions that Peter Lamb (p...@csis.dit.csiro.au) posed.
>Perhaps you should have said "According to current theory based on..."
Of course. That is _always_ implied in scientific
literature.
>I usually quit reading any periodicals which use phrases such as "30
>million years ago, this [creature] lived and did [so-and-do]", as if
>the author witnessed this himself.
This is a shorthand for an "According to current
theory based on..." preamble that is always implied. If your objection
is only to the phraseology that is used, then perhaps you should consider
what an editor of such a periodical would say if a paper was increased
in size by 20% purely for the sake of semantics. There is no way
it would be published in that state, because such information would
be superfluous and understood by most readers. There is always
an implied "... but if you can demonstrate there is a problem with
these assumptions, then the result must be reconsidered", at the end
of every conclusion.
So, can you provide some information about specific problems
with the basis for the 4.5 billion year age commonly quoted for the
age of the Earth? Do you know what assumptions are being made, how
they have been tested, and what limitations the methodology has?
There _are_ assumptions in the conventional interpretation of the
age of the Earth, but they are clearly explained, and have been
tested many times - demonstrate them to be wrong. "Show me, don't
tell me" [1].
You made "unqualified statements" too - back them up! You said
there were "alternative theories", so what are they? We can't examine
your proposals at all if you evade expressing them.
See Peter Lamb's original post for more details (enclosed below).
-Andrew
mac...@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
or: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
[1] Rush (not Limbaugh :-), "Presto" album.
[rest of original article:]
>: >ane...@bbx.basis.com (Allen J. Newton) wrote:
Bruce Salem
Isn't it funny that this guy's last name was Newton. This Newton
doesn't know the first thing about science, how scientific statements
are falsifiable, and what is more this poor guy can't even get facts
he attributes to science correct.
First, tests for the ages of things are constructed so that the
resulting age doesn't have to be the one determined in advance. Second,
the age methods are based on the decay of radioactive isotopes whose
decay rates are not affected by conditions on earth. And finally, the
4.5 Billion years BP is based on primordial material that rains down
on earth from the solar system, meteorites, and the lunar rocks sampled
by Apollo missions. No rock on earth is older than about a Billion
years after that.
Bruce Salem
--
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!
Andrew MacRae
ane...@bbx.basis.com (Allen J. Newton) writes:
>Which physics is that? Astrophysics? Particle physics? Quantum
>physics? Oh, you meant chemical physics! ;-)
Maybe I am confused about the terminology, but I would have
thought nuclear physics was the most pertinent subject.
>I'm not stating categorically that the Earth ISN'T 4.5 billion years
>old, nor am I trying to be ridiculous about the qualifications. You
>missed which qualifiers were REALLY left off. While I suggested
>"According to current theory based on..." as a palatable (to me) way
>of saying it, it would more accurately be stated as "According to an
>ingrained acceptance as fact of current theories..."
...which are based on a large body of evidence which has been
tested for decades, and for which you have not stated any specific
problems.
>People take the 4.5 billion year-old Earth as a given, and mostly
>because, as far as I can tell, because that's what they've always been
>taught.
Some people may, but not everyone.
>The evidence isn't as rock-solid as some would have you
>believe...
So, are you ever going to tell us what, specifically,
is wrong with the evidence, and what your interpretation is, or are you
going to keep evading the question?
-Andrew
mac...@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
or: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
Peter Lamb
OK, the earth is approx. 4.5 billion years based on the evidence
given by multiple radioactive datings on the oldest rocks on earth,
the radioactive datings of lunar and meteor material, and by modelling
the radiogenic isotopes of lead on earth and in meteorites.
As this is fairly long and cumbersome to write, it is usually omitted
from many pronouncements of the age of the earth, though you will find
it spelt out in some detail in any of the scientific (rather than lay)
literature on dating methods.
>I usually quit reading any periodicals which use phrases such as "30
>million years ago, this [creature] lived and did [so-and-do]", as if
>the author witnessed this himself.
You typically don't find this done in the scientific literature which
the lay literature is presenting. A good example of how this sort
of information is presented is in the description of the oldest fossils
discovered to date:
"[The] maximum age for the Apex chert [containing the fossils] of
~3470Ma is constrained bu U-Pb zircon ages (3465+-3Ma and 3471+-5Ma)
from the stratigraphically underlying Duffer formation. A minimum age
for the fossiliferous rocks of ~3460Ma is provided by a U-Pb zircon
date of 3458+-1.9Ma for the immediately overlying Panorama Formation.
Thus the fossiliferous Apex chert is evidently about 3465Ma. [refs to
dating sources and table omitted]" [1].
There you are; no such bald claims, just presentation of how the
fossils were dated (found between datable deposits just before and just
after the deposition of the fossiliferous material), the errors on the
dates, and references to the original work which derived the dates
(omitted from my abstract, but present in the paper).
If you want a good reference to radioactive dating methods, the I can
suggest Faure[2]. If you'd like to see an explicit defense of
geological dating methods against creationist claims, I suggest
Dalrymple[3].
Now will you please present us with references to the "theories" that
you say claim that the earth is much younger than the normally accepted
4.5 billion years, and supply us with references to the evidence that
convinces you that the earth is much younger than 5 billion years?
[1] Schopf, J. W, "Microfossils of the early Archaen Apex chert: New evidence
of the antiquity of life", Science, 260:640-646, 30 Apr 1993.
[2] Faure, G., 1986, _Principles of Isotope Geology_ Second Edition, John
Wiley & Sons.
[3] Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986, "USGS Open-File Report 86-110: Radiometric
Dating, Geologic Time, and the Age of the Earth: A Reply to
``Scientific Creationism''", U.S. Geological Survey, 76 pp.
--
Peter Lamb (p...@csis.dit.csiro.au)
Allen J. Newton
> [ Good points, I'll address later...]
> >I usually quit reading any periodicals which use phrases such as "30
> >million years ago, this [creature] lived and did [so-and-do]", as if
> >the author witnessed this himself.
>
> This is a shorthand for an "According to current
> theory based on..." preamble that is always implied.
In scientific literature, as you say. And I DON'T have a problem with that,
as most of the people reading such literature understand those assumptions
going in.
What I was referring to was periodicals for the masses, such as Time magazine,
which put forth theories as fact WITHOUT in any way referring to the
assumptions (by stating them or making references to them, OR to the
limitations). So, your average Joe who reads that magazine will have a
different perspective on that theory than those who are involved with that
field of science. And that's my objection.
> If your objection
> is only to the phraseology that is used, then perhaps you should consider
> what an editor of such a periodical would say if a paper was increased
> in size by 20% purely for the sake of semantics. There is no way
> it would be published in that state, because such information would
> be superfluous and understood by most readers. There is always
> an implied "... but if you can demonstrate there is a problem with
> these assumptions, then the result must be reconsidered", at the end
> of every conclusion.
References for further reading will do. Of course, there's still the problem
that the average Joe accepts as Gospel Truth (tm) anything that's in written
form, but I guess it's not realistic to expect to be able to do anything about
that...
>
> So, can you provide some information about specific problems
> with the basis for the 4.5 billion year age commonly quoted for the
> age of the Earth? Do you know what assumptions are being made, how
> they have been tested, and what limitations the methodology has?
> There _are_ assumptions in the conventional interpretation of the
> age of the Earth, but they are clearly explained, and have been
> tested many times - demonstrate them to be wrong. "Show me, don't
> tell me" [1].
>
> You made "unqualified statements" too - back them up! You said
> there were "alternative theories", so what are they? We can't examine
> your proposals at all if you evade expressing them.
Not evading, just ridiculously busy right now. I am preparing a post which
will explore in-depth some of the problems with Isochronology. Obviously, I
want to research it a little more in-depth to ensure that what I have isn't
outdated, so I'll ask for your patience in that matter. It is forthcoming...
>
> See Peter Lamb's original post for more details (enclosed below).
>
> -Andrew
> mac...@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
> or: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen J. Newton | Never bite off
ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us | more than you can chew...
Allen J. Newton
> In article <schumach....@convex.com> schu...@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
> >In <1994Jan7.2...@bbx.basis.com> ane...@bbx.basis.com (Allen J. Newton) writes:
> >
> >>>4.5 billion is just the age of the oldest rocks found (Greenland I believe).
> >> ^^ ^^^ ^^^
> >>It's absolute unqualified statements such as this that I object to in
> >>a discussion of this type. You cannot conclusively prove that.
> >>Perhaps you should have said "According to current theory based on..."
> >>I usually quit reading any periodicals which use phrases such as "30
> >>million years ago, this [creature] lived and did [so-and-do]", as if
> >>the author witnessed this himself.
> >
> >Don't be silly. Using this reasoning you'd also question the existence
> >of George Washington. The same physics that lets us build transistors
> >and hydrogen bombs lets us say with complete confidence that Earth
> >formed about 4.5 billion years ago, give or take a few hundred million.
>
> Isn't it funny that this guy's last name was Newton. This Newton
> doesn't know the first thing about science, how scientific statements
> are falsifiable, and what is more this poor guy can't even get facts
> he attributes to science correct.
Nice flame bait! If you weren't so ignorant yourself, I MIGHT have actually
been offended...
>
> First, tests for the ages of things are constructed so that the
> resulting age doesn't have to be the one determined in advance.
Not in the case of dendrochronology! Oftentimes a sample is radiocarbon-dated
FIRST, then a ring-count "match" is found for it. But be that as it may...
> Second,
> the age methods are based on the decay of radioactive isotopes whose
> decay rates are not affected by conditions on earth.
Never said they were. But last I heard, there wasn't a satisfactory
explanation on WHICH subatomic forces were responsible for radioactive decay.
I may be behind the time with that last statement, if anyone knows anything to
the contrary, please fill me in...
> And finally, the
> 4.5 Billion years BP is based on primordial material that rains down
> on earth from the solar system, meteorites, and the lunar rocks sampled
> by Apollo missions.
Say what? Just what "primordial" material are you referring to? This
statement gave me a nice wake-up laugh this morning!!!
> No rock on earth is older than about a Billion
> years after that.
Unqualifiably WRONG! I'll let others handle this claim of yours, they'll be
much more thorough than I have time to be.
>
> Bruce Salem
You weren't skipped over in that last witch hunt, were you? ;-)
>
> --
> !! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Watson
>tested many times - demonstrate them to be wrong. "Show me, don't
>tell me" [1].
Oh, I think I've got an older reference than that:
"Don't talk at all - Show me!" - Eliza Doolittle,
as quoted in Lerner & Loew (date forgotten, sometime in the 1950's perhaps?).
;-) ;-)
--
| wat...@sce.carleton.ca (Steve Watson) | These opinions are All My Own Work |
"Like the nine billion names of God
Don't bring you any closer
To anyone you can simply set eyes on" - Bruce Cockburn
L. Drew Davis
>In article <Jan9.225...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, Andrew MacRae writes:
>> [ Good points, I'll address later...]
>> >I usually quit reading any periodicals which use phrases such as "30
>> >million years ago, this [creature] lived and did [so-and-do]", as if
>> >the author witnessed this himself.
>>
>> This is a shorthand for an "According to current
>> theory based on..." preamble that is always implied.
>In scientific literature, as you say. And I DON'T have a problem with that,
>as most of the people reading such literature understand those assumptions
>going in.
>What I was referring to was periodicals for the masses, such as Time magazine,
>which put forth theories as fact WITHOUT in any way referring to the
>assumptions (by stating them or making references to them, OR to the
>limitations). So, your average Joe who reads that magazine will have a
>different perspective on that theory than those who are involved with that
>field of science. And that's my objection.
Hm. _My_ objection is that "your average Joe", as creationists would
apparently have it, would be too uneducated and scientifically illiterate
without having everything spelled out for them. Andrew's point isn't
something confined to the abstruse ivory towers of science; it's part
of the core notion of what's going on. The most basic grade school
education should make that clear. If not, you need better science
instruction in classrooms, not watering down of topics and ringing
about of discussions with distracting verbosity.
--------------
L. Drew Davis Internet: dr...@cc.gatech.edu
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt5645c
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Dave Knapp
>
>Not evading, just ridiculously busy right now. I am preparing a post which
>will explore in-depth some of the problems with Isochronology. Obviously, I
>want to research it a little more in-depth to ensure that what I have isn't
>outdated, so I'll ask for your patience in that matter. It is forthcoming...
This is like deja vu all over again! Sorry, but this line has repeatedly
been used by people on, er, your side of the fence, without ever having come
to fruition. In other words, many have promised to do "a little more in-depth
research", but NONE (and I mean NONE) have ever actually presented evidence
resulting from said research.
Generally, in the sciences, it is a good idea to have one's facts in line
BEFORE making broad sweeping statements about "problems" in some field of
study. If you can't support your claims with evidence, you are being
intellectually dishonest.
In other words, put up or shut up. If you have evidence that geological
dating techniques are in error, post it. If you don't, then quit lying and
saying you do, and shut up.
-- Dave
--
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
* David Knapp d...@imager.llnl.gov (510) 422-1023 *
* 98.7% of all statistics are made up. *
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Jack Parker
: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae) writes:
: >tested many times - demonstrate them to be wrong. "Show me, don't
: >tell me" [1].
: >[1] Rush (not Limbaugh :-), "Presto" album.
: Oh, I think I've got an older reference than that:
: "Don't talk at all - Show me!" - Eliza Doolittle,
Should be: "Don't say a word - Show me!"
"I never want to hear another word,
there isn't one I haven't heard"
Great tunes in that piece!
: as quoted in Lerner & Loew (date forgotten, sometime in the 1950's perhaps?).
Dave Knapp
>
>Never said they were. But last I heard, there wasn't a satisfactory
>explanation on WHICH subatomic forces were responsible for radioactive decay.
>I may be behind the time with that last statement, if anyone knows anything to
>the contrary, please fill me in...
"Behind the time?" ROFL! About 50 years behind, apparently. Fermi had
formulated the theory of beta decay by 1930, and it was well-developed a
decade later. In the 1960's, the electromagnetic and weak forces were
unified in a theory known as quantum electrodynamics, which has proven
remarkably successful. In short, your statement is entirely incorrect.
Paul Farrar
>Not evading, just ridiculously busy right now. I am preparing a post which
>will explore in-depth some of the problems with Isochronology. Obviously, I
>want to research it a little more in-depth to ensure that what I have isn't
>outdated, so I'll ask for your patience in that matter. It is forthcoming...
I can imagine how busy you are: Learning decades of scholarship by thousands
of workers on the subject. Since you are requesting references, let me
throw in a few. I believe someone has already reccomended Gunter Faure's
_Principles of Isotope Geology_. For specific application to the age of the
earth try Dalrymple, _The Age of the Earth_. The chapter on the earth's
oldest rocks is a bit difficult for non-geologists (assumes a lot of
technical knowledge). Since you are interested in how isochrone methods
work in difficult situations, look into York and Farquhar, _The Earth's Age
and Geochronology_, especially the chapter on working with disturbed
materials. This book has a lot of technical detail on the methods, but is
too old to cover many current methods such as ion microprobes. A good paper
on the disturbed samples is S.R.Hart's paper on dating problems near an
intrusion. Sorry I don't have the reference with me, but you can find the
ref in Y&F. For really recent stuff, try the journals Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Journal of Geophysical
Research and Geology, especially the first two. Also follow up the references
in Faure and Dalrymple.
Another resource you could consider is t.o itself. There are a good number
of earth and planetary science people (geology, geophysics, geochemistry,
oceanography, astronomy, paleontology, planetary science, etc.), at the
graduate student and beyond levels. I'm sure they would be glad to set
you straight on any tough problems you might have.
Message-ID: <6hb9u*C...@alturia.abq.nm.us>
>Never said they were. But last I heard, there wasn't a satisfactory
>explanation on WHICH subatomic forces were responsible for radioactive decay.
>I may be behind the time with that last statement, if anyone knows anything to
>the contrary, please fill me in...
I think you are a few decades behind. Might try a post to sci.physics.
The simple answer is "weak".
Paul Farrar
not an official spokesman
James J. Lippard
:In article <Jan9.225...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, Andrew MacRae writes:
:
:> [ Good points, I'll address later...]
:
:> >I usually quit reading any periodicals which use phrases such as "30
:> >million years ago, this [creature] lived and did [so-and-do]", as if
:> >the author witnessed this himself.
:>
:> This is a shorthand for an "According to current
:> theory based on..." preamble that is always implied.
:
:In scientific literature, as you say. And I DON'T have a problem with that,
:as most of the people reading such literature understand those assumptions
:going in.
:
:What I was referring to was periodicals for the masses, such as Time magazine,
:which put forth theories as fact WITHOUT in any way referring to the
:assumptions (by stating them or making references to them, OR to the
:limitations). So, your average Joe who reads that magazine will have a
:different perspective on that theory than those who are involved with that
:field of science. And that's my objection.
If that's your objection, what do you think of *religious* pronouncements
(in print and in the pulpits of churches) which omit reference to assumptions,
theories, and contrary evidence? Have you ever complained about that?
(Considering that _Time_ is generally in accordance with the best scientific
evidence, while preachers and popular religious writers are typically at odds
with biblical scholarship, it seems to me that complaints are far better
warranted in the religious case.)
Herb Huston
Stephen Watson <wat...@sce.carleton.ca> wrote:
}mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca (Andrew MacRae) writes:
}>tested many times - demonstrate them to be wrong. "Show me, don't
}>tell me" [1].
}>[1] Rush (not Limbaugh :-), "Presto" album.
}
}Oh, I think I've got an older reference than that:
}"Don't talk at all - Show me!" - Eliza Doolittle,
}as quoted in Lerner & Loew (date forgotten, sometime in the 1950's perhaps?).
The words were written by Alan J. Lerner; Frederick Loewe wrote the music.
_My Fair Lady_ opened on March 15, 1956, at the Mark Hellinger Theater on
Broadway and ran for 2717 performances.
It's clear that Eliza Doolittle was a cockney from Missouri.
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@access.digex.net
Chris Nedin
In article <6hb9u*C...@alturia.abq.nm.us>, ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen
J. Newton) wrote:
>
> In article <2gqkl3$6...@morrow.stanford.edu>, Bruce Salem writes:
>
Deleted
> > First, tests for the ages of things are constructed so that the
> > resulting age doesn't have to be the one determined in advance.
>
> Not in the case of dendrochronology! Oftentimes a sample is radiocarbon-dated
> FIRST, then a ring-count "match" is found for it. But be that as it may...
Actually no. A sample is radiocarbon dated first, then that date is matched
to a calabration curve. The curve is produced by measuring the remnent C14
in artifacts of *known* age (tree rings, human artifacts etc) to compensate
for the slight, natural variation in global C14 through time.
The raw radiocarbon date is thus compensated against C14 variation and a
calabrated date is produced.
> > And finally, the
> > 4.5 Billion years BP is based on primordial material that rains down
> > on earth from the solar system, meteorites, and the lunar rocks sampled
> > by Apollo missions.
>
> Say what? Just what "primordial" material are you referring to?
Bruce said what material, Meteorites and other material left over from the
formation of the planets. Material which condenced into small rocks and
boulders which were too small to attract other particles and which didn't
get caught in the gravity well of the newly forming planetesimals. This
material gives consistent dates, using current radiometric techniques,
which all cluster around 4.5-4.7 billion years ago.
> This statement gave me a nice wake-up laugh this morning!!!
You probably hadn't had your coffee yet.
> > No rock on earth is older than about a Billion
> > years after that.
>
> Unqualifiably WRONG! I'll let others handle this claim of yours, they'll be
> much more thorough than I have time to be.
The statement is not "unqualifiably WRONG" The heat produced by impacting
planitesimals and meteorites and the heat produced in the compression of
the early Earth under the effect of gravity, plus heat produced by
radioactive decay, would have been enough - over time - to raise the
temperature at depths of 400-800km to the melting point of iron. This time
scale has been calculated to be between a few hundred million years to one
billion years, depending on the accretion rate - hence Bruce's date above.
The gravitational enegry released by the pooling of the heavy molten iron
towards the centre of the Earth would have eventually been released as
heat, much like the gravitational energy of a waterfall can be used to turn
turbines and generate electricity. The amount of energy so released has
been calculated as being enough to raise the average temperature of the
Earth by 2000 degrees centigrade. This would cause a large portion of the
Earth to melt - including any pre-existing rocks (an early version of the
Holden resurfacing fairy<tm>). Thus the oldest rocks present on the Earth
would have to *postdate* this event. This is in fact what we find. The
oldest rocks found, so far, are approx 3.8-3.9 billion years old, thus this
differentiation event occurred something like 600 million years after the
formation of the planet - indicating a somewhat faster accretion rate that
that used to calculate the 1 billion figure Bruce quotes.
Note: Whilst some minerals such as zircon could well have survived this
event, *rocks* could not, so the detrital or inherited zircon crystals can
give dates >4.0 billion years, but the rocks that contain them are younger.
Note: These ideas on the early development of the Earth are based on a
current understanding on theories on astrophysics, geology and radiometric
dating and should be viewed as speclative since no-one was there to witness
it at the time - or if there were, they are keeping very quiet.
Ref:
Press, F. & Siever, R. (1986) Earth. 4th ed. Freeman & Co. New York. pp
656
Bruce Salem
>
>Not in the case of dendrochronology! Oftentimes a sample is radiocarbon-dated
>FIRST, then a ring-count "match" is found for it. But be that as it may...
And suppose that they agree? It applying multiple tests and trying
to see if the results from each are consistant. What is the problem?
>But last I heard, there wasn't a satisfactory
>explanation on WHICH subatomic forces were responsible for radioactive decay.
That is not the question under consideration. The question is whether
the rate of decay of radio-isotopes is invarient under terrestrial conditions.
The answer is YES. It doesn't change enough to introduce error greater than
the significance in the results. The order of magnitude of results is
correct, not way off like Creationists claim.
>> And finally, the
>> 4.5 Billion years BP is based on primordial material that rains down
>> on earth from the solar system, meteorites, and the lunar rocks sampled
>> by Apollo missions.
>
>Say what? Just what "primordial" material are you referring to? This
>statement gave me a nice wake-up laugh this morning!!!
I am referring to meteorites, and lunar rocks, which were formed
shortly after the solar nebula cooled. I am also referring to the model
age of the sun on the main sequence. That should be equal to or greater
than the isotope ages of the material that was around when it formed.
>> No rock on earth is older than about a Billion
>> years after that.
>
>Unqualifiably WRONG! I'll let others handle this claim of yours, they'll be
>much more thorough than I have time to be.
Sorry, but it is my turn to correct your ignorance. The earth can
still be older than the oldest rock we can find on it today. That is, the
oldest DATABLE rock can be younger than the earth as a whole. The earth
existed for a time when all the physical systems that could accept
radioactive isotopes were still open, they were melts or too
hot for material not to move in and out of the crystal lattices. Once
the crust cools below a critical temperature the clocks can start for
long lived isotopes of U and Th. Even after that time, rocks of the
crust can be recycled and their clocks reset by heating, melting and
metamorphism. So we have the oldest rocks at 3.6 Billion years, I think
that is the oldest date, someone can correct me if I am wrong, and older
dates may be possible, and the earth could have formed at 4.6 Billion
years. The ages of the material left floating in space, meteors and
such should max out at that latter number. I have seen citations in
this group that confirm them. I think that the peper by Brent Dalyremple
at USGS does make this claim. Go read it.
>You weren't skipped over in that last witch hunt, were you? ;-)
And Leo the lion didn't get you!
Tero Sand
In article <Cab9u*z...@alturia.abq.nm.us>,
Allen J. Newton <ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us> wrote:
>Not evading, just ridiculously busy right now. I am preparing a post which
>will explore in-depth some of the problems with Isochronology. Obviously, I
>want to research it a little more in-depth to ensure that what I have isn't
>outdated, so I'll ask for your patience in that matter. It is forthcoming...
Oh for Christ's sake, why can't "you people" just cut the crap. If you
have evidence, post it, if not, don't even start talking. Really, this
strategy is thoroughly irritating.
>Allen J. Newton | Never bite off
--
Tero Sand, 2 kyu ! Science is a process of enlarging one's
! ignorance to dizzying heights.
EMail: cus...@cc.helsinki.fi ! - D.C.Lindsay in talk.origins
cus...@cc.helsinki.fi !
Henling, Lawrence M.
>will explore in-depth some of the problems with Isochronology. Obviously, I
>want to research it a little more in-depth to ensure that what I have isn't
>outdated, so I'll ask for your patience in that matter. It is forthcoming...
>Allen J. Newton | Never bite off
>ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us | more than you can chew...
--------------------- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We'll be waiting.
larry henling
l...@shakes.caltech.edu
Allen J. Newton
>ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Allen J. Newton) writes:
>
>>In scientific literature, as you say. And I DON'T have a problem with that,
>>as most of the people reading such literature understand those assumptions
>>going in.
>
>>What I was referring to was periodicals for the masses, such as Time magazine,
>>which put forth theories as fact WITHOUT in any way referring to the
>>assumptions (by stating them or making references to them, OR to the
>>limitations). So, your average Joe who reads that magazine will have a
>>different perspective on that theory than those who are involved with that
>>field of science. And that's my objection.
>
> Hm. _My_ objection is that "your average Joe", as creationists would
>apparently have it, would be too uneducated and scientifically illiterate
>without having everything spelled out for them. Andrew's point isn't
>something confined to the abstruse ivory towers of science; it's part
>of the core notion of what's going on. The most basic grade school
>education should make that clear. If not, you need better science
>instruction in classrooms, not watering down of topics and ringing
>about of discussions with distracting verbosity.
I must say, I agree with your statement about better science
education. Actually, I propose better education, period. But most
adults with no college education I talk to have NO IDEA why, how or if
"evolution is true", they just know what little they remember learning
in primary and secondary school.
And to post something a little more on-topic (for a.c-e.u), how about
that OBE (Outcome-based Education)? I think we should snuff THAT
movement out before it spreads any further. How about you all?
>
>
>--------------
>L. Drew Davis Internet: dr...@cc.gatech.edu
>uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt5645c
>You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us)
Allen J. Newton
>In article <6hb9u*C...@alturia.abq.nm.us> ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us writes:
>>
>>Never said they were. But last I heard, there wasn't a satisfactory
>>explanation on WHICH subatomic forces were responsible for radioactive decay.
>>I may be behind the time with that last statement, if anyone knows anything to
>>the contrary, please fill me in...
>
> "Behind the time?" ROFL! About 50 years behind, apparently. Fermi had
>formulated the theory of beta decay by 1930, and it was well-developed a
>decade later. In the 1960's, the electromagnetic and weak forces were
>unified in a theory known as quantum electrodynamics, which has proven
>remarkably successful. In short, your statement is entirely incorrect.
Great, but you still haven't demonstrated it. I wasn't talking about
beta decay, I was talking about neutron decay. What causes it? What
property is responsible for half-lives? What force or property
determines when a given atom will "decay"? (I've always wondered
about the appropriateness of that term, anyway, but then there's
always "Big Bang").
>
> -- Dave
>--
> *-------------------------------------------------------------*
> * David Knapp d...@imager.llnl.gov (510) 422-1023 *
> * 98.7% of all statistics are made up. *
> *-------------------------------------------------------------*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us)
Allen J. Newton
>In article <Cab9u*z...@alturia.abq.nm.us>, ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us writes...
>:
>:as most of the people reading such literature understand those assumptions
>:going in.
>:
>:What I was referring to was periodicals for the masses, such as Time magazine,
>:which put forth theories as fact WITHOUT in any way referring to the
>:assumptions (by stating them or making references to them, OR to the
>:limitations). So, your average Joe who reads that magazine will have a
>:different perspective on that theory than those who are involved with that
>:field of science. And that's my objection.
>
>If that's your objection, what do you think of *religious* pronouncements
>(in print and in the pulpits of churches) which omit reference to assumptions,
>theories, and contrary evidence? Have you ever complained about that?
>(Considering that _Time_ is generally in accordance with the best scientific
>evidence, while preachers and popular religious writers are typically at odds
>with biblical scholarship, it seems to me that complaints are far better
>warranted in the religious case.)
Oh, no doubt. The "Faith Movement" is the worst about that. I speak
out against that as well.
>
>Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us)
Allen J. Newton
>In article <6hb9u*C...@alturia.abq.nm.us> ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us writes:
>>In article <2gqkl3$6...@morrow.stanford.edu>, Bruce Salem writes:
>>
>>Not in the case of dendrochronology! Oftentimes a sample is radiocarbon-dated
>>FIRST, then a ring-count "match" is found for it. But be that as it may...
>
> And suppose that they agree? It applying multiple tests and trying
>to see if the results from each are consistant. What is the problem?
The problem is that it's human judgement that determines whether a
given ring sequence "matches" or not. Extra and missing rings are
often discarded as anomalies. I've heard that there are statistical
computer models available which would lend greater credence to asserted
matches, and with greater accuracy, but dendrochronologists won't use
them.
I've also heard that the founder of dendrochronology (I forget his
name offhand) refused to release his data and tree ring samples, even
to his peers because he "didn't want the Creationists to get ahold of
them".
>
>>But last I heard, there wasn't a satisfactory
>>explanation on WHICH subatomic forces were responsible for radioactive decay.
>
> That is not the question under consideration. The question is whether
>the rate of decay of radio-isotopes is invarient under terrestrial conditions.
>The answer is YES. It doesn't change enough to introduce error greater than
>the significance in the results. The order of magnitude of results is
>correct, not way off like Creationists claim.
Over what period of time? A statistically insignificant proportion of
the asserted age of the Earth, I can't see you arguing against that!
>
>>> And finally, the
>>> 4.5 Billion years BP is based on primordial material that rains down
>>> on earth from the solar system, meteorites, and the lunar rocks sampled
>>> by Apollo missions.
>>
>>Say what? Just what "primordial" material are you referring to? This
>>statement gave me a nice wake-up laugh this morning!!!
>
> I am referring to meteorites, and lunar rocks, which were formed
>shortly after the solar nebula cooled.
Assuming current models of solar system formation are correct, yes.
However, it neglects the case of meteors formed by collisions of
(sub)planetary bodies. These would have a different makeup.
>I am also referring to the model
>age of the sun on the main sequence.
Now, this is REALLY reaching! There is no conclusive evidence that
stars evolve on the main sequence. In fact, the Main Sequence is
really nothing more than a statistical dispersion of the majority of
observed stars. The Main Sequence does not, in itself, imply any
evolutionary paths...
>That should be equal to or greater
>than the isotope ages of the material that was around when it formed.
Theories supporting theories...
>
>>> No rock on earth is older than about a Billion
>>> years after that.
>>
>>Unqualifiably WRONG! I'll let others handle this claim of yours, they'll be
>>much more thorough than I have time to be.
>
> Sorry, but it is my turn to correct your ignorance.
Before you go on, let me say that I misunderstood your previous
statement to mean "one billion years OLDER [than moon rocks]". My
mistake...
>The earth can
>still be older than the oldest rock we can find on it today.
If you accept current models of planetary formation, then that's a
given.
>That is, the
>oldest DATABLE rock can be younger than the earth as a whole. The earth
>existed for a time when all the physical systems that could accept
>radioactive isotopes were still open, they were melts or too
>hot for material not to move in and out of the crystal lattices. Once
>the crust cools below a critical temperature the clocks can start for
>long lived isotopes of U and Th.
This all assumes a known initial amount isotopes in the rocks. I
don't believe that can be accurately known. Planetary formation (by
whatever means) is much more complex than models in a laboratory.
>[ ... The ages of the material left floating in space, meteors and
>such should max out at that latter number.
Assuming that it all (or whatever sample you take) formed out of the
same stuff, yes. That's too large an assumption for me. An unknown
proportion of that stuff could have entered the solar system from
outside. It is not known how much of that material is outside the
solar system, or its mean or average density in our part of the
galaxy. But for now I'll accept that you mean the meteoritic material
which DID form at the same time...
>I have seen citations in
>this group that confirm them. I think that the peper by Brent Dalyremple
>at USGS does make this claim. Go read it.
>
>>You weren't skipped over in that last witch hunt, were you? ;-)
>
>And Leo the lion didn't get you!
Nah, and the only sign I was born under was "Hospital"... ;-)
>
>
>--
>!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us)
Stanley Friesen
>>
>>Never said they were. But last I heard, there wasn't a satisfactory
>>explanation on WHICH subatomic forces were responsible for radioactive decay.
>
> "Behind the time?" ROFL! About 50 years behind, apparently. Fermi had
>formulated the theory of beta decay by 1930, and it was well-developed a
>decade later. In the 1960's, the electromagnetic and weak forces were
>unified in a theory known as quantum electrodynamics, which has proven
>remarkably successful. In short, your statement is entirely incorrect.
>
modes of decay are fully explained by the electro-weak and 'color'
forces. The current models are remarkably complete (although I do
not think I have ever seen a full explication of alpha decay).
--
NAMES: sar...@netcom.com s...@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
May the peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
>
>Great, but you still haven't demonstrated it. I wasn't talking about
>beta decay, I was talking about neutron decay. What causes it?
What do you mean by 'neutron' decay? If you mena the decay of
a neutron into proton an electron and a neutrino, that *is*
beta decay! It is mediated by the W- particle, the emmision of
which turns a down quark into an up quark, and thus the containing
neutron becomes a proton. The W- then splits into an electron-
neutrino pair.
> What
>property is responsible for half-lives?
The Heisenburg uncertainty relationship - mean lifetime is
conjugate with the enery of the emitted quantum. Thus,
the half-life is inversely proportional to the variation in
the energy of the emitted particle.
[In mathematical notation this is: delta(E)*tau = h].
delta(E) is, in turn, determined by the nature of the forces
impinging on, and internal to, the particle that is to decay.
[Since decay follows an exponential distribution, the half-
life is *also* the variance: that is tau ~ delta(t)].
> What force or property
>determines when a given atom will "decay"?
It is, according to Quantum Theory, totally random.
*Nothing* determines the particular time, all that is determined
is the *distribution* of times, but that is determined exactly.
[Actually, it gets a little more bizaree than that - but I do
not wish to confuse you with quantum measurement theory as it
applies in this case].
Dave Knapp
>>In article <6hb9u*C...@alturia.abq.nm.us> ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us writes:
>>>
>>>Never said they were. But last I heard, there wasn't a satisfactory
>>>explanation on WHICH subatomic forces were responsible for radioactive decay.
>>>I may be behind the time with that last statement, if anyone knows anything to
>>>the contrary, please fill me in...
>>
>> "Behind the time?" ROFL! About 50 years behind, apparently. Fermi had
>>formulated the theory of beta decay by 1930, and it was well-developed a
>>decade later. In the 1960's, the electromagnetic and weak forces were
>>unified in a theory known as quantum electrodynamics, which has proven
>>remarkably successful. In short, your statement is entirely incorrect.
>
>Great, but you still haven't demonstrated it. I wasn't talking about
>beta decay, I was talking about neutron decay. What causes it? What
>property is responsible for half-lives? What force or property
>determines when a given atom will "decay"? (I've always wondered
>about the appropriateness of that term, anyway, but then there's
>always "Big Bang").
Demonstrated what? Radioactive decay? That is comes from the weak force?
It has been demonstrated, my friend. By neutrino capture experiments, for
example. Sigh. I've never heard of "neutron decay," possibly because it
doesn't exist. You are probably referring to either alpha decay, in which
an alpha particle is emitted from a nucleus, or fission, in which the nucleus
splits in two (or more) fragments, often emitting neutrons at the same time.
Both these decay processes are mediated by the strong nuclear force, which
is also quite well understood, thank you.
As to what is responsible for half-lives, it is the constant decay
probability over time. Of course, one cannot predict exactly when each
nucleus will decay; that's quantum indeterminacy for you. But one can
quite easily predict the average number of decays in a given time period;
all that takes is firt-year calculus.
The term "decay" is a well-defined one in physics; it applies to the tran-
sition of a system from a state of higher energy to one of lower energy, with
the energy usually being turned into radiation or kinetic energy.
Judging from your level of knowledge about radioactive decay, I have a
funny feeling in my gut about the quality of your so-called evidence for
young-Earth creationism...
Tim Thompson
>
>I've never heard of "neutron decay," possibly because it
>doesn't exist.
>
I think that what is being referred to here is the fact that a free
neutron is unstable, and will decay into a proton, and electron, and a
(anti?) neutrino, with a half life of about 12 minutes. Neutrons bound
into a nucleus obviously don't do this, as the universe is presumed to
be much more than 12 minutes old (Last Tuesday-ism not withstanding).
Beta decay looks like this, whence a neutron becomes a proton and the
beta/electron is spit out, but the half lives are longer here, and this
is a Weak Force phenomenon.
---
------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Thompson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Secretary, Los Angeles Astronomical Society.
Vice President, Mount Wilson Observatory Association.
INTERnet/BITnet: t...@scn2.jpl.nasa.gov
NSI/DECnet: jplsc8::tim
SCREAMnet: YO!! TIM!!
GPSnet: 118:10:22.85 W by 34:11:58.27 N
Dave Knapp
>In article g...@lll-winken.llnl.gov, dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes:
>>
>>I've never heard of "neutron decay," possibly because it
>>doesn't exist.
>>
> I think that what is being referred to here is the fact that a free
>neutron is unstable, and will decay into a proton, and electron, and a
>(anti?) neutrino, with a half life of about 12 minutes.
In the messages to which I was responding, the poster quite explicitly
said that he was NOT referring to beta decay, but to "neutron decay."
What you have described is beta decay; as before, I don't know what he
meant by "neutron decay" if he didn't mean beta decay.
benjamin franz
: In article <2gsa0s$f...@lll-winken.llnl.gov> dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes:
: >In article <6hb9u*C...@alturia.abq.nm.us> ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us writes:
: >>
: >>Never said they were. But last I heard, there wasn't a satisfactory
: >>explanation on WHICH subatomic forces were responsible for radioactive decay.
: >>I may be behind the time with that last statement, if anyone knows anything to
: >>the contrary, please fill me in...
: >
: > "Behind the time?" ROFL! About 50 years behind, apparently. Fermi had
: >formulated the theory of beta decay by 1930, and it was well-developed a
: >decade later. In the 1960's, the electromagnetic and weak forces were
: >unified in a theory known as quantum electrodynamics, which has proven
: >remarkably successful. In short, your statement is entirely incorrect.
Pedant point: QED is not concerned with the weak nuclear force. That is
the domain of the electro-weak unification. But it is still standard physics
at this point.
: Great, but you still haven't demonstrated it. I wasn't talking about
: beta decay, I was talking about neutron decay.
ROTFLMAO!
Neutron decay *IS* beta decay!
_
n -> e-, p+, v
See the e-? Guess what "beta particles" are...
: What causes it? What
: property is responsible for half-lives? What force or property
: determines when a given atom will "decay"? (I've always wondered
: about the appropriateness of that term, anyway, but then there's
: always "Big Bang").
James G. Acker
: >That is, the
: >oldest DATABLE rock can be younger than the earth as a whole. The earth
: >existed for a time when all the physical systems that could accept
: >radioactive isotopes were still open, they were melts or too
: >hot for material not to move in and out of the crystal lattices. Once
: >the crust cools below a critical temperature the clocks can start for
: >long lived isotopes of U and Th.
:
: This all assumes a known initial amount isotopes in the rocks. I
: don't believe that can be accurately known. Planetary formation (by
: whatever means) is much more complex than models in a laboratory.
Waiting for Andrew Macrae to help me out here:
One of the ways that radioisotope dating works, Allen, is that
at the time of "closure" -- that is, when the melt cooled to a point
that daughter isotopes could be trapped -- the amount of
daughter isotope was zero. This can be easily measured with modern-
day experiments. The classic example is K/Ar dating -- Argon is
a gas, and will only be trapped in the crystal lattice when the
rock is below the closure temperature. What is then measured is
the _ratio_ -- not the absolute amount -- of K to Ar. Knowing
the _measurable_ decay rate of radioactive potassium, the amount
of 40Ar compared to the amount of 40K in the rock provides the
measure of age.
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Mark Rupright
>In article <2gvptv$k...@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> t...@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>>In article g...@lll-winken.llnl.gov, dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes:
>>>
>>>I've never heard of "neutron decay," possibly because it
>>>doesn't exist.
>>>
>> I think that what is being referred to here is the fact that a free
>>neutron is unstable, and will decay into a proton, and electron, and a
>>(anti?) neutrino, with a half life of about 12 minutes.
>
> In the messages to which I was responding, the poster quite explicitly
>said that he was NOT referring to beta decay, but to "neutron decay."
>What you have described is beta decay; as before, I don't know what he
>meant by "neutron decay" if he didn't mean beta decay.
I think that the original poster, who stated that he was NOT referring to
beta decay, does not know what he is talking about. I suspect that he thinks
the above process is "neutron decay" because it is the neutron which is
decaying. I suppose he thinks "beta decay" is the actual decay of a beta
particle.
My 2 cents.
______________________________________________________________________________
Mark Rupright | "Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it
UNC Physics | were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.
rupr...@physics.unc.edu | That's logic." Lewis Carroll
Paul Farrar
about, let's ask him.
Hello, Alan:
When you were asking about "neutron decay" did you mean:
1) Decay of neutrons in the nucleus, which I thought was
not beta decay, but now I have been told is.
2) The spontaneous decay of free neutrons because they are
unstable, producing the same products as a beta decay.
3) Neutron emission by a nucleus, such as the N17 decay
in which a neutron follows out after a beta-.
4) Some other decay.
5) I'm not sure what I meant. I must have confused something
with something else. Never mind.
swan...@comphy.physics.orst.edu
>
> Demonstrated what? Radioactive decay? That is comes from the weak force?
>It has been demonstrated, my friend. By neutrino capture experiments, for
>example. Sigh. I've never heard of "neutron decay," possibly because it
>doesn't exist.
While I'm sure the original poster was confused, there is a decay wherein a
neutron is emitted from a nucleus. It is usually seen in reactors, which
produce fission products that are neutron-rich. These products beta decay.
After some of these decays, (for nuclei that are far from stability) the
excited daughter will de-excite with the emission of a neutron. The fission
products for which this occurs are denoted on the Chart of the Nuclides with
the symbol "(n)". The neutrons produced are known as 'delayed neutrons' and
their existance is what makes control of nuclear reactors possible.
Tom Swanson
OSU Physics
><DARWIN>
L L
R. Day
Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us) wrote:
: In article <Jan9.225...@acs.ucalgary.ca>, Andrew MacRae writes:
: > [ Good points, I'll address later...]
: > >I usually quit reading any periodicals which use phrases such as "30
: > >million years ago, this [creature] lived and did [so-and-do]", as if
: > >the author witnessed this himself.
: >
: > This is a shorthand for an "According to current
: > theory based on..." preamble that is always implied.
: In scientific literature, as you say. And I DON'T have a problem with that,
: as most of the people reading such literature understand those assumptions
: going in.
: What I was referring to was periodicals for the masses, such as Time magazine,
: which put forth theories as fact WITHOUT in any way referring to the
: assumptions (by stating them or making references to them, OR to the
: limitations). So, your average Joe who reads that magazine will have a
: different perspective on that theory than those who are involved with that
: field of science. And that's my objection.
No, that *wasn't* your objection. Your objection was that the evidence
for the current estimate for the age of the earth wasn't all that
"rock solid", in your own words. Now you've backtracked in saying
that you're just offended by the way these statements are made
without all the qualifiers you'd like dumped on the front.
Does this mean that, if the qualifiers were there, you'd be a
happy puppy? Or what? You're being annoyingly weaselly here.
: > If your objection
: > is only to the phraseology that is used, then perhaps you should consider
: > what an editor of such a periodical would say if a paper was increased
: > in size by 20% purely for the sake of semantics. There is no way
: > it would be published in that state, because such information would
: > be superfluous and understood by most readers. There is always
: > an implied "... but if you can demonstrate there is a problem with
: > these assumptions, then the result must be reconsidered", at the end
: > of every conclusion.
: References for further reading will do. Of course, there's still the problem
: that the average Joe accepts as Gospel Truth (tm) anything that's in written
: form, but I guess it's not realistic to expect to be able to do anything about
: that...
What, then, is your problem? There's a major difference between objecting
to the way something is written, and the actual content of that something.
Your original posting objected to the current belief that the Earth
is billions of years old. Please explain what bothers you about this.
: Not evading, just ridiculously busy right now. I am preparing a post which
: will explore in-depth some of the problems with Isochronology. Obviously, I
: want to research it a little more in-depth to ensure that what I have isn't
: outdated, so I'll ask for your patience in that matter. It is forthcoming...
In other words, you publicly slammed dating techniques, with a
sweeping generalization, and now you admit that, before you post on
the subject, you might want to "research it a little more in-depth."
The first clever thing you've said since this whole thread started.
R. Day
Vice-chair, Alberta Skeptics
P.S. As part of this intensive research program, have you bothered
to read the appropriate t.o. FAQ? Or would that take time away from
poring over your collection of Gish, Barnes, Brown, etc? Sheesh.
Allen J. Newton
>In article <1994Jan11.1...@bbx.basis.com> ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us writes:
>>Great, but you still haven't demonstrated it. I wasn't talking about
>>beta decay, I was talking about neutron decay. What causes it? What
>>property is responsible for half-lives? What force or property
>>determines when a given atom will "decay"? (I've always wondered
>>about the appropriateness of that term, anyway, but then there's
>>always "Big Bang").
>
> Demonstrated what? Radioactive decay? That is comes from the weak force?
>It has been demonstrated, my friend. By neutrino capture experiments, for
>example. Sigh. I've never heard of "neutron decay," possibly because it
>doesn't exist. You are probably referring to either alpha decay, in which
>an alpha particle is emitted from a nucleus, or fission, in which the nucleus
>splits in two (or more) fragments, often emitting neutrons at the same time.
Sorry about the misuse of terminology. Yes, fission is what I was
referring to. I understand that the process is well understood. The
causes of that process is what I was referring to. So far, three
different posters have explained three different causes for it (strong
nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and quark color models. This
demonstrates exactly what I was talking about.
>Both these decay processes are mediated by the strong nuclear force, which
>is also quite well understood, thank you.
>
> As to what is responsible for half-lives, it is the constant decay
>probability over time. Of course, one cannot predict exactly when each
>nucleus will decay; that's quantum indeterminacy for you. But one can
Indeterminacy, uncertainty and random. Three more terms which of
course have precise mathematical definitions, but still indicate that
we truly do not understand what is going on at the quantum level. The
quark model appears to be the most complete, but even quantum
physicists know that it doesn't encapsulate everything. That's why
Unified Field Theory still exists.
>quite easily predict the average number of decays in a given time period;
>all that takes is firt-year calculus.
This I understand and agree with, it wasn't the point I was arguing.
>
> The term "decay" is a well-defined one in physics; it applies to the tran-
>sition of a system from a state of higher energy to one of lower energy, with
>the energy usually being turned into radiation or kinetic energy.
Understood as well.
>
> Judging from your level of knowledge about radioactive decay, I have a
>funny feeling in my gut about the quality of your so-called evidence for
>young-Earth creationism...
Um, don't equate Creationism with young-Earthism. They ain't
necessarily the same (though most Creationists do believe that the
Earth is <6K years old according to the recorded Biblical genealogies.
But Biblical scholars are aware of the custom of skipping generations
which nothing significant is recorded about. IOW, "X begat Y" could
mean literally "X became the father of Y", or it could with equal
validity mean "X was the ancestor of Y").
Be that as it may, I certainly wasn't arguing the young-Earth
scenario. I was disputing the validity of radioactive dating
techniques -- and yes, I'm still working on that article at this time,
I should be done by this weekend (I'm not making it a hack job, and am
genuinely interested in criticism on it when I get it finished).
>
> -- Dave
>--
> *-------------------------------------------------------------*
> * David Knapp d...@imager.llnl.gov (510) 422-1023 *
> * 98.7% of all statistics are made up. *
> *-------------------------------------------------------------*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us)
Allen J. Newton
>Allen J. Newton (ane...@bbx.basis.com) wrote:
>
>: Great, but you still haven't demonstrated it. I wasn't talking about
>: beta decay, I was talking about neutron decay.
>
>ROTFLMAO!
Better put it back on before someone starts chewing on it! ;-)
>
>Neutron decay *IS* beta decay!
I posted elsewhere: Sorry for the improper use of terms, I was
referring to fission, which isn't beta decay. Sorry for the
confusion...
> _
>n -> e-, p+, v
>
>See the e-? Guess what "beta particles" are...
Duh, yes, I know...
>
>: What causes it? What
>: property is responsible for half-lives? What force or property
>: determines when a given atom will "decay"? (I've always wondered
>: about the appropriateness of that term, anyway, but then there's
>: always "Big Bang").
Maybe you wanna add a fourth explanation for the above? I've gotten
three different ones so far...
>
>--
>benjami...@m.cc.utah.edu
Tim Thompson
[ ... ]
>
>Indeterminacy, uncertainty and random. Three more terms which of
>course have precise mathematical definitions, but still indicate that
>we truly do not understand what is going on at the quantum level. The
>quark model appears to be the most complete, but even quantum
>physicists know that it doesn't encapsulate everything. That's why
>Unified Field Theory still exists.
>
>
>Be that as it may, I certainly wasn't arguing the young-Earth
>scenario. I was disputing the validity of radioactive dating
>techniques -- and yes, I'm still working on that article at this time,
>I should be done by this weekend (I'm not making it a hack job, and am
>genuinely interested in criticism on it when I get it finished).
If I may make an observation. It is certainly true that there is a
great deal about Quantum Mechanics that is unknown. In particular, nobody
really knows what causes radioactive decay. I'm sure it's theory dependent,
but even then the details are less than clear.
However, I fail to see the connection between this and radioactive dating
techniques. All of these techniques, as far as I know, are strictly
empirical in nature. The defining equations for radioactive decay rates
and half-lives are all determined by direct observation. The constant
terms are observed to be constant. These observations are very much theory
independent, simply observations of what happens. These things can be
well understood without ever adressing the fundamentals of quantum theory.
Peter Lamb
>Great, but you still haven't demonstrated it. I wasn't talking about
>beta decay, I was talking about neutron decay. What causes it? What
>property is responsible for half-lives? What force or property
>determines when a given atom will "decay"?
Ummm. We don't know the ultimate cause of _anything_. Science doesn't
deliver ultimate causes. You could pretty much replace "decay" in the
above questions with "gravity" and get the same answers, as in
"...gravity. What causes it? What property is responsible for
gravitational attraction? What force or property underlies gravitation
(is gravitation quantised, for example)?" It doesn't mean, however that
when we use the theories of gravitation (Newton's, GR) appropriately
we can enjoy an enormous amount of confidence in their results.
Don't forget that you have promised "theories" which are consistent with
the earth being far younger than the usually accepted ~4.5 billion years.
A theory constitutes much more than merely claiming that current theories
are inadequate. Bonne chance!
--
Peter Lamb (p...@csis.dit.csiro.au)
Andrew MacRae
>> theory based on..." preamble that is always implied.
>In scientific literature, as you say. And I DON'T have a problem with that,
>as most of the people reading such literature understand those assumptions
>going in.
>What I was referring to was periodicals for the masses, such as Time magazine,
>which put forth theories as fact WITHOUT in any way referring to the
>assumptions (by stating them or making references to them, OR to the
>limitations). So, your average Joe who reads that magazine will have a
>different perspective on that theory than those who are involved with that
>field of science. And that's my objection.
And that is an objection that I _do_ aggree with. However, it
is mainly a problem with _journalism_ (i.e. the need for summarization) that
is a result of the demands of those same "masses" - specifically, that
most people do not want to read a 20 page scientific paper to justify
what is expressed rather conclusively in a single sentence in "Time".
Nor do most of such periodicals want to include citations to more
detailed information - because citations are possibly regarded as
"content-free" space that could be better used by another story.
I am sympathetic with your complaint, but you can hardly hold
scientists responsible for this (although I have always believed scientists
should be trying to get the public more involved). If you have a complaint on
this topic, I recommend that you take it to one of the journalism groups,
because that is where much of the problem occurs (i.e. the expression of
science to the public, not the nature of information obtained by science).
This may seem like a denial of responsibility on the part of scientists,
but the fact is that scientists have very little control on what actually
gets out into the popular press. If it is misleading, I seriously doubt is
intentional, either on the part of scientists or journalists - but it is
a problem that should be solved, especially since many other scientific
topics are critical to the affairs of all people. More interaction
between scientists and journalists would probably help.
[and regarding my complaint of Allen not responding to questions]
>Not evading, just ridiculously busy right now. I am preparing a post which
>will explore in-depth some of the problems with Isochronology. Obviously, I
>want to research it a little more in-depth to ensure that what I have isn't
>outdated, so I'll ask for your patience in that matter. It is forthcoming...
I understand, and I look forward to your research. I recommended
Faure to you in e-mail [see Peter Lamb's post for the citation]. Note that
there is one section in there that deals specifically with "false isochrons"
that you may want to look at. As I mentioned in e-mail, without an indication
that you were going to back up your initial claims, it seemed as if you
were ignoring the questions about some very specific assertions that you
made. Your indication that you will address them is good enough for me.
-Andrew
mac...@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
or: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
Matthew P Wiener
> If I may make an observation. It is certainly true that there is a
>great deal about Quantum Mechanics that is unknown. In particular, nobody
>really knows what causes radioactive decay. I'm sure it's theory dependent,
>but even then the details are less than clear.
Huh? A particle in a well is a basic first year quantum mechanical
calculation. What's difficult is the ultimate fine tuning.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Matthew P Wiener
>Sorry about the misuse of terminology. Yes, fission is what I was
>referring to.
Huh? Fission isn't used in dating. You're just babbling at random.
> I understand that the process is well understood. The
>causes of that process is what I was referring to. So far, three
>different posters have explained three different causes for it (strong
>nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and quark color models.
The strong force is holding the nucleus together as a whole, the weak
force is encouraging a slight change in nucleon structure, and the
underlying description is quantum chromodynamics. What's the big deal?
>This demonstrates exactly what I was talking about.
That you are massively ignorant? That you can't even comprehend simple
explanations?
>> As to what is responsible for half-lives, it is the constant decay
>>probability over time. Of course, one cannot predict exactly when each
>>nucleus will decay; that's quantum indeterminacy for you. But one can
>Indeterminacy, uncertainty and random. Three more terms which of
>course have precise mathematical definitions, but still indicate that
>we truly do not understand what is going on at the quantum level.
So? We certainly understand what is going on well enough vis-a-vis
radioactive decay and geological gigayear dating.
>Be that as it may, I certainly wasn't arguing the young-Earth
>scenario. I was disputing the validity of radioactive dating
>techniques -- and yes, I'm still working on that article at this time,
>I should be done by this weekend (I'm not making it a hack job, and am
>genuinely interested in criticism on it when I get it finished).
Hahahahahahahahaha. 100% hebephrenic.
Andrew MacRae
>>new...@alturia.abq.nm.us (Andrew Newton) wrote:
>>outdated, so I'll ask for your patience in that matter. It is forthcoming...
> This is like deja vu all over again! Sorry, but this line has repeatedly
>been used by people on, er, your side of the fence, without ever having come
>to fruition. In other words, many have promised to do "a little more in-depth
>research", but NONE (and I mean NONE) have ever actually presented evidence
>resulting from said research.
...
[It is dishonest to post conclusions _before_ being prepared to defend them]
...
>In other words, put up or shut up. If you have evidence that geological
>dating techniques are in error, post it.
...
While I too am somewhat skeptical, and rather irritated that
Andrew Newton initially posted rather explicit claims that there were
alternate explanations, but he isn't ready to post them yet, I think it is
only fair to give him some time to fufill his promise before committing
him to the pattern that has been seen in talk.origins many times. To do
so before allowing some time is simply prejudice.
I can't fault someone for trying to find out more about a subject
before posting. That is the last thing I would want to discourage.
Let us be patient, and see what happens.
-Andrew
mac...@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
or: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
JIMMY BUDDENBERG
I've deleted everything posted so far because this post would be huge
if I included it all. Anyhow, I don't have a clue about this dating stuff
and the ways to figure how old something is but my question is this: How
can you check your estimate? I can see checking something estimated to be
hundreds or even thousands of years old since humans were around that long but
to estimate something is millions or billions of years old seems impossible to
check.
Jimmy Buddenberg
Steve Carlip
[...]
>Indeterminacy, uncertainty and random. Three more terms which of
>course have precise mathematical definitions, but still indicate that
>we truly do not understand what is going on at the quantum level. The
>quark model appears to be the most complete, but even quantum
>physicists know that it doesn't encapsulate everything. That's why
>Unified Field Theory still exists.
As a quantum physicst, let me take issue with this. Three points:
1) There isn't a known unified field theory, although a number of
people are looking. (This may just be bad wording on your part.)
2) Virtually no one who is looking for a unified field theory expects
it to have anything to say about indeterminacy in quantum mechanics.
Looking for a unification of the fundamental interactions is completely
distinct from looking for a deterministic theory to "explain" quantum
mechanics.
3) There are a few people looking for deterministic "hidden variable
theories" that would "explain" the random processes in quantum
mechanics. But such models, if they are found, will almost certainly
be no less strange than quantum theory; for instance, they may
restore determinism only at the expense of causality (that is, only
by allowing effects to precede causes).
Our existing theories of elementary particle physics to not say that
we don't really know what makes a neutron decay at a given time; they
say that, within some very rigid constraints, the process is genuinely
random. You may not like this view of nature --- many people don't
--- but that's hardly enough to show that it's false.
Steve Carlip
car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu
Tim Thompson
>In article <2h2se9$r...@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, tjt@scn1 (Tim Thompson) writes:
>> If I may make an observation. It is certainly true that there is a
>>great deal about Quantum Mechanics that is unknown. In particular, nobody
>>really knows what causes radioactive decay. I'm sure it's theory dependent,
>>but even then the details are less than clear.
>
>Huh? A particle in a well is a basic first year quantum mechanical
>calculation. What's difficult is the ultimate fine tuning.
Yes, and I am familiar with it. It's just that I consider it more of
a description of the event, rather than an explication of its cause. My
real point was in the following lines; that, as far as I know, radiometric
dating techniques are all based on purely empirical results, that are
independent of the theory involved.
David Salvador Flores
Matthew P Wiener <wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994Jan12.1...@bbx.basis.com>, anewton@bbx (Allen J. Newton) writes:
>>Sorry about the misuse of terminology. Yes, fission is what I was
>>referring to.
>
>Huh? Fission isn't used in dating. You're just babbling at random.
>
>> I understand that the process is well understood. The
>>causes of that process is what I was referring to. So far, three
>>different posters have explained three different causes for it (strong
>>nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and quark color models.
>
>The strong force is holding the nucleus together as a whole, the weak
>force is encouraging a slight change in nucleon structure, and the
>underlying description is quantum chromodynamics. What's the big deal?
The big deal is that juggling all those difficult terms and making sense
of them is far too much to expect from someone who doesn't know the first
thing about Physics.
You don't really expect creationists to actually put the time
in to learn the fundamentals that which they attack, do you?
>--
>-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Big_Dave
Warren Vonroeschlaub
>In article <1994Jan12.1...@bbx.basis.com>, anewton@bbx (Allen J. Newton) writes:
>> I understand that the process is well understood. The
>>causes of that process is what I was referring to. So far, three
>>different posters have explained three different causes for it (strong
>>nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and quark color models.
>
>The strong force is holding the nucleus together as a whole, the weak
>force is encouraging a slight change in nucleon structure, and the
>underlying description is quantum chromodynamics. What's the big deal?
Yes, when I first read this I had a vision of our friend here as a Police
officer at the scene of a hit and run: "Three witnesses, but this one says the
car was blue, this one says it was a Honda, and this one says it was a
hatchback. The only explanation I can see is that none of them actually saw
the car, since none of their descriptions agree. My conclusion: the accident
never happened."
--
Tero Sand
I don't quite understand. If you date several samples from a specific
site/rock/layer and they all point to the same age, what's the problem?
Or are you talking about checking radioactive decay rates, or what?
--
Tero Sand, 2 kyu ! Science is a process of enlarging one's
! ignorance to dizzying heights.
EMail: cus...@cc.helsinki.fi ! - D.C.Lindsay in talk.origins
cus...@cc.helsinki.fi !
Tero Sand
In article <Jan12.225...@acs.ucalgary.ca>,
Andrew MacRae <mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> While I too am somewhat skeptical, and rather irritated that
>Andrew Newton initially posted rather explicit claims that there were
>alternate explanations, but he isn't ready to post them yet, I think it is
>only fair to give him some time to fufill his promise before committing
>him to the pattern that has been seen in talk.origins many times. To do
>so before allowing some time is simply prejudice.
OK, I'm prejudiced. It's based on past behavior of Creationists,
however, and it is a view that will change the instant somebody actuall
comes up with something.
>
> I can't fault someone for trying to find out more about a subject
>before posting. That is the last thing I would want to discourage.
But that is not what Mr. Newton did, is it, Andrew? He didn't come
asking for information, he came with the bald assertion that radiodating
is flawed.
>Let us be patient
With this type of behavior, no, I don't see any reason for it. I commend
those people who have the patience, of course, but I certainly won't
fault anybody who don't.
>
> -Andrew
Peter Lamb
>In article <Cab9u*z...@alturia.abq.nm.us> ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us writes:
>>
>>Not evading, just ridiculously busy right now. I am preparing a post which
>>will explore in-depth some of the problems with Isochronology. Obviously, I
>>want to research it a little more in-depth to ensure that what I have isn't
>>outdated, so I'll ask for your patience in that matter. It is forthcoming...
> This is like deja vu all over again! Sorry, but this line has repeatedly
>been used by people on, er, your side of the fence, without ever having come
>to fruition. In other words, many have promised to do "a little more in-depth
>research", but NONE (and I mean NONE) have ever actually presented evidence
>resulting from said research.
This isn't quite true. Bob Bales managed to find two papers which he
thought demonstrated problems with isochrons. It turned out he was wrong, of
course, but creationists don't always renege on offers to go and do at
least paper research, though many, if not most, of them do renege, and
often reappear later spouting the same nonsense. For the moment, I
think we should give Alan Newton the benefit of the doubt.
I first saw Alan Newton make claims about problems with dating methods on
alt.alien.visitors (<blush>). I don't think I've seen him repeat claims
which were refuted then in this t.o discussion, though in the earlier
discussion on a.a.v, he appeared to accept the constancy of the rate
of decay. Although he did, in passing, mention Setterfield's
decaying speed of light nonsense as perhaps throwing doubt on the
constancy of decay. I think I sent him copies of the FAQ's on Setterfield,
and pointed him at the t.o FAQ, with particular reference to the isochron
FAQ. I also suggested he have a look at Faure's "Principles of Isotope
Geology".
> Generally, in the sciences, it is a good idea to have one's facts in line
>BEFORE making broad sweeping statements about "problems" in some field of
>study. If you can't support your claims with evidence, you are being
>intellectually dishonest.
I agree, broadly with this.
> In other words, put up or shut up. If you have evidence that geological
>dating techniques are in error, post it. If you don't, then quit lying and
>saying you do, and shut up.
He says that he's preparing a post. Time will tell whether he's being truthful.
BTW: The two main papers that Bob Bales claimed detract from isochron dating
are:
Zartman et al., "Ancient Granite Gneiss in the Black Hills, South Dakota",
Science, 31 Jun 1964, pp 479-481,
Brooks, James, and Hart, "Ancient Lithosphere: Its Role in Young Continental
Volcanism," by (_Science, vol 193, Sept 17, 1976, pages 1086-1094)
If Alan is depending on these, he should know that there are any number of
good refutations of the claims made about them floating about the net.
For a bit of light relief, here's a small parody of creationist claims about
radioactive dating methods started by Andrew Macrae in a post on t.o,
and continued for a couple of rounds between us. I hope Andrew forgives
my breech of nettiquette in posting the lines which passed by email between us.
The name of the particular Creationist being parodied has been removed, since
it's a pretty general complaint of how they approach dating.
am> Creationist: This cheese has no mould, so it must be young.
am> MacRae: But you can tell someone cut the mold off, and if you
am> look at the package, it says the "best before date"
am> is last year.
am> Creationist: See, mould dating methods aren't accurate.
pl> (Creationist grubs around in his copious shopping basket)
pl> Creationist continues: Look at this then! This piece of cheese is
pl> *full* of mold. I bought it just this morning, and it's well
pl> within its use-by date.
pl> MacRae (exasperated): But it's *danish*blue*. Everyone knows
pl> that danish blue is unsuitable for dating by the
pl> mould method.
pl> (proceeds with an explanation of why :-)
pl> Creationist: See, mould dating methods aren't accurate.
am> MacRae:(thinks for a moment) But that mould is not the species
am> produced by normal exposure (i.e. radiogenic mould),
am> and how do you explain the coincidence of mould dates
am> from cheeses with different mould decay constants,
am> and their agreement with "best before dates" when
am> they have remained closed systems?
--
Peter Lamb (p...@csis.dit.csiro.au)
Allen J. Newton
A-hahahahaha. 100% asshole.
Obviously Matthew has nothing but character attacks to lean when
discussing an issue so close to his heart!
Matthew -- ever hear of a kill file? Welcome to it!
>--
>-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us)
Donald Lindsay
In article <1994Jan13...@vax.cns.muskingum.edu>,
JIMMY BUDDENBERG <cc...@vax.cns.muskingum.edu> wrote:
Fair question, with a bunch of answers.
For one thing, the obvious geological explanation for rock layers is
that newer ones were laid down on top. (In the case of folded layers,
and such, it gets trickier, but there are some nice simple rocks, so
a nice simple theory should be enough for them.)
This explanation leads to a prediction that radioactive dating
methods should find the top rocks younger than the bottom rocks.
This prediction has been confirmed many times, using many rock beds,
and several different dating methods.
It ain't proof. To be precise, it's a failure to disprove. However,
after a whole bunch of these, you start to have some confidence that
you must be doing something right.
--
Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
L. Drew Davis
>In article <2h3pdg$p...@netnews.upenn.edu> wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>
>Matthew -- ever hear of a kill file? Welcome to it!
>>--
>>-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
>Allen J. Newton (ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us)
Sorry, Matthew. I just checked, and there are no home game points
awarded for making it into a creationist kill file. Though I have to
admit this is the first time I've seen it. (I suppose it has to do
with the martyr complex.)
--------------
L. Drew Davis Internet: dr...@cc.gatech.edu
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt5645c
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Allen J. Newton
>In article <1994Jan12.1...@bbx.basis.com> ane...@bbx.basis.com (Allen J. Newton) writes:
>
>[...]
>>Indeterminacy, uncertainty and random. Three more terms which of
>>course have precise mathematical definitions, but still indicate that
>>we truly do not understand what is going on at the quantum level. The
>>quark model appears to be the most complete, but even quantum
>>physicists know that it doesn't encapsulate everything. That's why
>>Unified Field Theory still exists.
>
>As a quantum physicst, let me take issue with this. Three points:
Competent argument, I LIKE it! Thanks!
>
>1) There isn't a known unified field theory, although a number of
>people are looking. (This may just be bad wording on your part.)
It was. I should have said something more like "that's why the search
for a Unified Field Theory continues".
>
>2) Virtually no one who is looking for a unified field theory expects
>it to have anything to say about indeterminacy in quantum mechanics.
I didn't mean to imply that they did. Sorry to confuse the issue.
>Looking for a unification of the fundamental interactions is completely
>distinct from looking for a deterministic theory to "explain" quantum
>mechanics.
So noted, thanks.
>
>3) There are a few people looking for deterministic "hidden variable
>theories" that would "explain" the random processes in quantum
>mechanics. But such models, if they are found, will almost certainly
>be no less strange than quantum theory;
No doubt!
>for instance, they may
>restore determinism only at the expense of causality (that is, only
>by allowing effects to precede causes).
Wasn't that sort of what Fritjof Capra was trying to do? I agree with
your statement, though.
>
>Our existing theories of elementary particle physics to not say that
>we don't really know what makes a neutron decay at a given time; they
>say that, within some very rigid constraints, the process is genuinely
>random. You may not like this view of nature
Actually, as a Christian, I'm quite comfortable with it! (Not to say
that all Christians are or would be, just this one). ;-)
>--- many people don't
>--- but that's hardly enough to show that it's false.
Ah, very true. With the statements I made which you were addressing,
I wasn't asserting that the process was false, or even our models of
it. I was attempting to show that scientists/phsicists don't
know/understand everything about how all this works (otherwise,
research would be unnecessary). Far too many lay people think that
scientists DO know everything, unfortunately. This can especially
cause confusion when lay people accept as Gospel Truth (tm) what one
scientist on one side of a given debate says, and others similarly
accept what a scientist on the opposing side says, breeding many
senseless arguments (and threads on Usenet ;-). Kind of a "a
scientist said it, so it must be true" mentality.
That mentality is present in much of TV drama and sitcom writing in
the 50's-70's. I haven't seen it too much on TV or in movies lately,
which is good, but I think the attitude still prevails somewhat.
The same is true for doctors! However, I've read some articles
dealing with this subject, it's kind of interesting to see what
doctors think about this (I regularly read the Edell Health Letter,
mostly for entertainment value, though he does often publish some
useful information in there. I like the commentaries the most!)
Thanks for your POV, I really enjoyed it, and it's nice to hear
something accurately stated for a change!
>
>Steve Carlip
>car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu
R. Day
the newsgroups line? Our poster is convinced it's bogus.
And now, we return you to our regularly-scheduled idiocy...
Allen J. Newton (ane...@bbx.basis.com) wrote:
: The problem is that it's human judgement that determines whether a
: given ring sequence "matches" or not. Extra and missing rings are
: often discarded as anomalies. I've heard that there are statistical
: computer models available which would lend greater credence to asserted
: matches, and with greater accuracy, but dendrochronologists won't use
: them.
I see. You've "heard"? Is this new bit of trivia a result of
your in-depth research program? What about a straight answer
to a simple question, Mr. Newton? Where did you hear this?
And what inspires you with so much confidence in its accuracy
that you would post this sort of stupidity to the net without
supplying even the most miniscule of references?
: I've also heard that the founder of dendrochronology (I forget his
: name offhand) refused to release his data and tree ring samples, even
: to his peers because he "didn't want the Creationists to get ahold of
: them".
I see. I don't suppose it would tax your feeble intellect too much
to supply a reference to this bit of inanity, either, would it?
Mr. Newton, apparently you still haven't twigged on how the game
is played around here. If you're going to make asinine claims like
the above, we generally like to see a reference somewhere in the
vicinity so we can go check it out for ourselves, given that your
personal credibility is approaching zero by now. Do you think you
can manage that? I thought not.
: >The answer is YES. It doesn't change enough to introduce error greater than
: >the significance in the results. The order of magnitude of results is
: >correct, not way off like Creationists claim.
: Over what period of time? A statistically insignificant proportion of
: the asserted age of the Earth, I can't see you arguing against that!
Ah, the classic "How do we know that the universal constants have
always been constant?" Argument from sheer ignorance and intellectual
laziness. Mostly the latter. This is pathetic. Even Ted Holden
made a better effort than this.
: Assuming current models of solar system formation are correct, yes.
: However, it neglects the case of meteors formed by collisions of
: (sub)planetary bodies. These would have a different makeup.
Really? Do you think you could follow this train of thought just
a bit further and fill us in on what the logical consequences
would be? And how those consequences would affect the numerous
examples of meteorites whose ages match quite nicely with the
estimated age of the earth? Don't strain yourself.
: >I am also referring to the model
: >age of the sun on the main sequence.
: Now, this is REALLY reaching! There is no conclusive evidence that
: stars evolve on the main sequence. In fact, the Main Sequence is
: really nothing more than a statistical dispersion of the majority of
: observed stars. The Main Sequence does not, in itself, imply any
: evolutionary paths...
In other words, we have no evidence that science really works,
because Mr. Newton doesn't know any science. (Irony unintended.)
: >That should be equal to or greater
: >than the isotope ages of the material that was around when it formed.
: Theories supporting theories...
Stupidity compounded upon stupidity. Try again.
: >The earth can
: >still be older than the oldest rock we can find on it today.
: If you accept current models of planetary formation, then that's a
: given.
ARRRRRGH! How can it be otherwise, you buffoon? With the exception
of foreign material (meteorites, or the like), could you explain
how the earth can be younger than some of its constituents?
You seem to be getting so desperate to reject the rather obvious
statements being made here that you don't even realize what sort
of lunacy you're suggesting.
: >That is, the
: >oldest DATABLE rock can be younger than the earth as a whole. The earth
: >existed for a time when all the physical systems that could accept
: >radioactive isotopes were still open, they were melts or too
: >hot for material not to move in and out of the crystal lattices. Once
: >the crust cools below a critical temperature the clocks can start for
: >long lived isotopes of U and Th.
: This all assumes a known initial amount isotopes in the rocks. I
: don't believe that can be accurately known. Planetary formation (by
: whatever means) is much more complex than models in a laboratory.
Translated: "I don't have a clue about radiometric dating techniques,
so I'll fall back on -- oh yeah, well how do you know?" Where's that
net.loons file? Who's in charge of it?
Amazing, isn't it, how Mr. Newton can be mind-bendingly skeptical of
the very foundations of science, yet swallows such whoppers as
his stories about dendrochronologists without blinking. Talk
about selective.
Donald Lindsay
In article <1994Jan14.2...@bbx.basis.com>,
Allen J. Newton <ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us> wrote:
>In article <CJLB1...@ucdavis.edu> car...@dirac.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip) writes:
>>As a quantum physicst, let me take issue with this.
>Thanks for your POV, I really enjoyed it, and it's nice to hear
>something accurately stated for a change!
Ah, ahem. I have a physics degree, and I've been watching the little
war here, which brought up terms like beta decay and neutron decay.
A *lot* of the postings (yours excepted) seemed to contain clear
statements of accurate physics. If you'd paid attention, you would
have noticed that they were being posted from some pretty
prestigious-sounding places (accelerator labs and the like).
We also have biologists, geologists, and suchlike in this newsgroup.
It is fairly common to get pretty well authoritative statements,
complete with intelligent caveats, and references to recent issues of
archival journals. Once in while, two such posts are in disagreement,
and the resulting war just isn't like the one you have been in.
If you think that that POV was a change, then frankly, you're really
out of it. I recommend you do what I do when I'm out of my depth: I
phrase things as questions.
Jack Parker
: A *lot* of the postings (yours excepted) seemed to contain clear
: statements of accurate physics. If you'd paid attention, you would
: have noticed that they were being posted from some pretty
: prestigious-sounding places (accelerator labs and the like).
: We also have biologists, geologists, and suchlike in this newsgroup.
: It is fairly common to get pretty well authoritative statements,
: complete with intelligent caveats, and references to recent issues of
: archival journals. Once in while, two such posts are in disagreement,
: and the resulting war just isn't like the one you have been in.
: If you think that that POV was a change, then frankly, you're really
: out of it. I recommend you do what I do when I'm out of my depth: I
: phrase things as questions.
: --
: Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
It's why I dropped out as a contributor a long time back.....
cheers
j.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Jack Parker |
Hewlett Packard, BSMC Boise, Idaho, USA| "Discover America,
jpa...@hpbs2561.boi.hp.com | Get lost on a rally."
(208) 396-5388 (W) (208) 384-1623 (H) |
_____________________________________________________________________________
Any opinions expressed herein are my own and not those of my employers.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Richard Harter
>In article <1994Jan13...@vax.cns.muskingum.edu>,
>JIMMY BUDDENBERG <cc...@vax.cns.muskingum.edu> wrote:
>>I've deleted everything posted so far because this post would be huge
>>if I included it all. Anyhow, I don't have a clue about this dating stuff
>>and the ways to figure how old something is but my question is this: How
>>can you check your estimate? I can see checking something estimated to be
>>hundreds or even thousands of years old since humans were around that long but
>>to estimate something is millions or billions of years old seems impossible to
>>check.
>I don't quite understand. If you date several samples from a specific
>site/rock/layer and they all point to the same age, what's the problem?
>Or are you talking about checking radioactive decay rates, or what?
You're missing the point. There are really two different questions. The
basic question, which is not stated explicitly, is "How can you rely on
circumstantial evidence which is not reducible to testamentary evidence".
The derived question is, "How do you check estimates based on circumstantial
evidence". I will discuss the latter question first.
We check circumstantial evidence by cross checking. Consider, for example,
the use of radioactive decay rates for dating. How can we be certain, in
the absence of independent confirmation, that dates derived from decay rate
analysis are accurate. It does not suffice to say that the physics is well
understood because there might be invalidating effects that simply are not
yet recognized. And the answer is simple -- we cross check by using multiple
dating methods based on different independent assumptions.
For example, suppose that I determine from radio-dating that a particular
rock is one billion years old. What independent checks do I have? On the
high side I have astronomical limits. I know, for example, that it can't
be 50 billion years old because the observable universe isn't that old.
From calculations of hydrogen consumption rates I can date the Sun to being
3-10 billion years old. So I have a limit on the high side. On the low
side, I can determine limits from the stratigraphic column and the minimal
rates for the physical processes that produced it, e.g. sedimentation rates
and the time it takes for sediment to compact into rocks. Much work has been
done on this, and we can confidently place a lower limit on the age, of about
300 million years. So immediately, from independent lines of evidence, we
are confident that the radio-date is of the right order of magnitude. But
can we do better? Well, yes, we can. We can directly check radio-dating
against other physical processes that give absolute dating. Thus we can
check radio-dating against dendrochronology, against ice cores and varve
data, and against sea-floor spreading data, for direct validation of up to
about 200 million years. This tells us that there has been no signifigant
unknown source of error in radio-dating in the last 200 million years. Can
we do better? Yes we can. We can correlate stratigraphic estimates against
validated radio-data estimates to improve the stratigraphic dates. This
in turn lets us raise the lower limit on our independent stratigraphic
estimate to, say, 700 million years. Can we do better on the high side?
Yes we can. [You knew I was going to say that, didn't you.] We can take
into the account the early physical history of the Earth, e.g. the time
it took to form a surface, to say that this particular rock must have been
formed at least 2 billion years after the Earth formed. The upshot is,
having taken many lines of evidence into account, that the age is somewhere
between .8 and 1.2 billion years in age, i.e. our radio-date is approximately
right.
We have done more than that, however. We have confirmed, by multiple lines
of evidence, that there is no intrinsic signifigant error in radio-dating
of old rocks -- there is no detectable "mystery effect" to take into account.
And if we look at radio-dating in detail, we see that there is no single
radio-dating method, that there are a number of different methods, based
on differing assumptions. We can, in turn, do cross comparisons on the
results obtained by different radio-dating methods to validate and correct
them. The end result is that we are confident that our dating of ancient
materials is accurate within 5-10%.
So much for checking our estimates. I apologize to regular readers who are
familiar with all of this, many of whom are much better qualified to speak
on the details than I am. The main point is that we cross check the estimates
by using indepedent lines of evidence, that there are many such lines of
evidence, and that a great deal of effort has been spent on the analysis
of these lines of evidence.
I now turn to the basic question, how can we trust circumstantial evidence
that is not backed by testamentary evidence, i.e. evidence that is not
directly or indirectly the product of human testimony. Now it does not
suffice to point out that eye-witness evidence is generally less reliable
than forensic evidence in a court of law. While this is true, one must
remember that forensic evidence is testified to by expert human beings,
not subject to the time limits and emotional stress that an immediate
eye-witness is subject to. Eye-witness evidence is "I saw". Forensic
evidence is "I look at the physical evidence and, based on my expert
knowledge, I say". At every point forensic evidence depends, directly or
indirectly, on human witnesses, e.g. some person testifies that the piece
of cloth containing DNA from the culprit was extracted from under the
victims fingernails.
Since the dating of ancient objects is dealing with events that took place
long before there were any human beings, haven't we lost the last vestige
of certification by human testament? The answer is, no. When we accept
circumstantial, forensic evidence, we are really making the assumption
that the universe is consistent. We make this assumption all of the time,
both within science and in our ordinary life. We make the assumption that
the consequences of an event do not capriciously change after the fact.
I do not step in front of a bus because it might turn into a butterfly
and fly away. Forensic evidence is the analysis of an event after the
fact, based on an examination of the residuum of effects. The human role
lies is determining that the data was properly gathered, and in the expert
analysis of the probable cause of an effect. Whether there was a human
being present at the event, or even whether human beings existed at the
time of the event is immaterial to the process of analysis.
--
In my lifetime we've had a Polish Pope. | Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
In my lifetime Communism has collapsed. | Phone: 508-369-7398
In my lifetime Men have walked on the Moon. | SMDS Inc. PO Box 555
But will the Red Sox ever win a world series? | Concord MA 01742
Andrew MacRae
:>>In article <6hb9u*C...@alturia.abq.nm.us> ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us writes:
:>In article <2gqkl3$6...@morrow.stanford.edu>, Bruce Salem writes:
:In article <6hb9u*C...@alturia.abq.nm.us> ane...@alturia.abq.nm.us writes:
:>
:>>But last I heard, there wasn't a satisfactory
:>>explanation on WHICH subatomic forces were responsible for radioactive
:>>decay.
:>
:> That is not the question under consideration. The question is whether
:>the rate of decay of radio-isotopes is invarient under terrestrial
:>conditions.
:>The answer is YES. It doesn't change enough to introduce error greater than
:>the significance in the results. The order of magnitude of results is
:>correct, not way off like Creationists claim.
:Over what period of time? A statistically insignificant proportion of
:the asserted age of the Earth, I can't see you arguing against that!
True, decay rates have been studied experimentally for less
than 100 years (even if all of human history, it would still be
an insignificant proportion of the "asserted" age of the Earth :-))
This is a common complaint of people advocating a "young Earth".
However, you are grasping at straws, for several reasons:
1.) The variation of decay rates with physical conditions _has_
been studied, and there is no variation, with the exception of
one type of decay (electron capture), which is pertinent to only one
decay method commonly used for dating (K/Ar), and is _much_ less than
1% variation for pressure conditions that do not exist in any samples
ever studied (and probably never will be, because samples at such pressure
are deep in the mantle, and too hot to retain an age anyway). There
remains no theoretical way to vary decay rates in natural environments
that bears on the age of the Earth. "Young Earth" advocates are welcome
to study possible mechanisms that do vary decay rates significantly, but
nothing has been found yet.
2.) If decay rates varied in the past, then observed isotopic
ratios in materials on Earth, the Moon, and meteorites; and the observed
elemental ratios in stars would be different, and would not fit
theoretical calculations based on those constant decay rates.
3.) Empirically, radiometric dating is
consistent for different methods. Irregardless of the actual numbers, you
must explain this coincidence. For example, K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr yield
the same date, despite using different isotopes and decay mechanisms.
If, for example, you did vary the process that effects beta decay
for 40K, you must adjust other, independent decay mechanisms in a
different way in order that radiometric dates continue to balance out
to the same age.
Challenge for "young Earth" advocates: work out the math that
would allow all decay rates to vary, but still allow dates from different
methods to balance to the same age for all times.
4.) If decay rates were sped up in the past
so they yielded _apparent_ dates of 4.5 billion years for the age of
the Earth, but it was, oh, really only 10 million years old, it would
have a variety of serious, testable, implications:
A) Intermediate isotopes in decay chains (e.g., the various
U-Pb decay chains) would have abundances incompatible with
4.5 billion years for their accumulation _and_ later decay. Basically,
the "residue" of the "fast decay" period would still be obvious now.
B) Because nuclear forces are involved, you might expect
serious implications for fusion occurring in stars in the past.
This would change the nature of the Sun in the past considerably -
maybe fry us or freeze us? (Is there a physicist in the house?)
C) The Earth would be _very_ hot due to the increased radiometric
decay (the highest contribution to the Earth's heat flow is currently
due to radioactive decay). The Earth would probably be molten.
D) With distance away from the Earth, astronomical observations
should show evidence of this period of "fast" rates.
These problems become proportionally more serious the shorter the
time you have to squeeze in the dates.
5.) Radiometric dates are not the only information that indicates
an "old Earth". An age of several 100 million years was proposed back
in the 19th century on the basis of the many kilometres of sediments in
the world's sedimentary basins - BEFORE the discovery of radioactivity.
Since that time, the sequence of events on the Earth, including
folding, faulting, large-scale continent motion, mountain building,
erosion, deposition, and subsidence, have become better known and much
more complex than the 19th century models.
Now, many "young Earth" advocates propose that these deposits were
formed by "catastrophic" processes that allow rapid deposition, erosion,
mountain-building, etc. One problem is that you can not do
these things simultaneously, and there is a definite sequence of events,
based on superposition and cross-cutting relationships (i.e. independent
of radiometric age-dating). There are a _great_ number of continent-scale
events to occur in the proper order in a short time.
A more serious problem is that there are physical limits to how
fast you can push these processes before they look different.
I.e. if they _were_ that fast, they would not look anything like modern
processes. The movement of sediments in water or air, for example, produces
distinctive structures like wave ripples, current ripples, subaqueous
dunes, and aeolian dunes and aeolian ripples. The velocity and type of the
fluid and grainsize of the sediment produce very specific structures.
You cannot, for example, produce small current ripples in a raging
torrent of a river. You cannot produce aeolian ripples in water.
These are experimentally-determined physical limits, based larger
on fluid-dynamics.
Similarly, you can not erode mountain ranges from "Rocky-Mountain"
size down to "Appalachian" size in a few million years. The rivers
can not move that much sediment that quickly, and rocks cannot
chemically alter minerals from feldspars to clay that fast.
The coastal deposits would look completely different (coarser-grained,
for example).
There might be no real limits to the rates of some physical
processes - but as you push them higher, they look _completely_ different.
The implication is that the hypothesis of similar geological rates
in the past _is_ falsifiable.
Fact is, ancient depositional environments look a great deal like modern
ones.
Additionally, processes like subsidence _can_not_ occur at
significantly faster rates unless you change the rheological properties
of the crust and mantle. This would require changes in temperature,
density, and/or composition for which there is no evidence or theoretical
mechanism. You must also speed up the rates of crustal plate motion, so
that the timing of the "sped-up" deposition and subsidence still matches
the opening of the ocean basins, and the start of mountain building. You
must also explain why current (measured) plate motion rates are orders
of magnitude lower, but seem to be producing the same structures as in
the past.
:>That is, the
:>oldest DATABLE rock can be younger than the earth as a whole. The earth
:>existed for a time when all the physical systems that could accept
:>radioactive isotopes were still open, they were melts or too
:>hot for material not to move in and out of the crystal lattices. Once
:>the crust cools below a critical temperature the clocks can start for
:>long lived isotopes of U and Th.
:This all assumes a known initial amount isotopes in the rocks.
Yes.
:I don't believe that can be accurately known.
No. 1.) You can test initial isotopic amounts very simply. The
test is that if the initial isotopic amounts were some other value,
then radiometric dates by other isotopic methods will be inconsistent
with eachother. This test is performed all the time, and geologically
uncomplicated samples pass it regularly.
2.) Isochron methods allow you to determine initial isotopic
amounts based on multiple samples satisfying simple (and testable) geologic
parameters. The result of the isochron method can be further tested
by (1), even to the point of using isochron techniques for all the
dating methods.
3.) The minerals used for some methods, and the chemistry of
the daughter and parent isotopes, sometimes A) prevent the inclusion of
daughter isotope in the crystal lattice, or B) treat "stable" and
radiogenic daughter isotopes in the same manner (because they have
the same chemistry). A) allows zero, or near zero, radiogenic daughter
to be assumed. B) allows the presence of initial daughter to be corrected
for, based on its ratio with the "stable" isotope. In practice, it is
more complicated than this, but the assumptions can be tested
with (1) and (2).
To conclude, the "assumption" of either decay rates, initial
isotopic abundances, or rates of geological processes varying significantly
in the past can, and has been, tested. There is no evidence for
significant variation. (In other words - they are not "assumptions" at
all.)
If they varied by only 10x the current rates (far below
what is needed for your hypothesis), the evidence would still be
_blatently_ obvious.
-Andrew
mac...@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca
or: mac...@geo.ucalgary.ca
Dave Knapp
>:Over what period of time? A statistically insignificant proportion of
>:the asserted age of the Earth, I can't see you arguing against that!
> True, decay rates have been studied experimentally for less
>than 100 years (even if all of human history, it would still be
>an insignificant proportion of the "asserted" age of the Earth :-))
Actually, this statement is no longer completely true. The decay of the
light curve from SN1987A is dominated by the lifetime of Co-57 (? it _is_
an isotope of Co or Ni, but I don't have the reference here). At any rate,
the halflife observed via the decay of the light curve is identical to that
observed on Earth today. Since SN1987A is 170,000 ly away, we can infer that
decay rates have been constant over that period.
One good reason for the use of SN1987A in this example is that the
distance measurements to it are not affected by the "variable speed of
light" thing that Creationists are so fond of. Thus, I know of no way
(short of some massive violation of relativity or an Omphalos argument,
which essentially amounts to the same thing) for anyone to intelligently
argue that it took the light from SN1987A less than 170K years to get here.
[Excellent destruction of other arguments deleted]
Does anybody else find it annoying that the Creationist (or young-
Earth] "model" never includes any quantitative analysis to show that it
can be made compatible with more than one piece of evidence at once?