Natural Selection

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]We know the rates at which atoms of one radioactive isotope decay into another; this is observed in hundreds of labs every day. There is no "assumption" of the length of the half-lives, there is the fact of the length of the half-lives for different isotopes.

Seeing you are soooo qualified to in the scientific field, would you care to explain how ...[text shortened]... o swallow everything hook, line and sinker that is apparently "Science" I will not stop you.[/b]

Go back and READ the article. Don't post anything else until you've done that. Once you've got a little education, come back.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Are you saying that the half-lives of isotpes can be exactly measured exactly without a benefit of a doubt?

Btw: I skimmed the article, and I'm still waiting for your peer-reviewed schoarly journal...

If you'd READ THE ARTICLE you'd know that whilst the half life of something may be a few million or billion years, it's still pouring out energy all the time - thus is the wonder of E=mc^2. This means that we can keep something for a period of time, months or years measuring the radioactive output, and use E=mc^2 to work out the mass loss, and from that, the half life. The fact that the radioactive decay doesn't change over time is worked out by comparing isotopes of different ages. Since the planet was formed at a (relatively) discrete time, isotopes with varying decay constants would be emitting different, unpredictable, amounts of radiation. This is not the case, thus the isotopic decay constants CANNOT be variant.

So you're either saying that all the radioactive elements were formed at different times, or E=mc^2 is wrong. Which is it to be???

Originally posted by scottishinnz
If you'd READ THE ARTICLE you'd know that whilst the half life of something may be a few million or billion years, it's still pouring out energy all the time - thus is the wonder of E=mc^2. This means that we can keep something for a period of time, months or years measuring the radioactive output, and use E=mc^2 to work out the mass loss, and from tha ...[text shortened]... ioactive elements were formed at different times, or E=mc^2 is wrong. Which is it to be???

dj is right. There are too many assumptions in the dating game:


*Carbon-14 dates are determined from the measured ratio of radioactive carbon-14 to normal carbon-12 (14C/12C). Used on samples which were once alive, such as wood or bone, the measured 14C/12C ratio is compared with the ratio in living things today. The date is calculated by assuming the change of 14C in the sample is due entirely to radioactive decay. It is also assumed that carbon has been in equilibrium on the earth for hundreds of thousands of years.

Wrong dates are usually caused by assuming a wrong initial 14C/12C ratio, contamination or leaching. Samples from before the Flood, or from the early post-Flood period, give ages that are too old by tens of thousands of years. This is because the Flood buried lots of 12C-rich plants and animals. This would result in a lower 14C/12C ratio, which is wrongly interpreted as great age.

*Thermoluminescence (TL) dates are obtained from individual grains of common minerals such as quartz. When such grains are heated, they emit light, and this is related to the radiation ‘stored’ in the crystal structure. It is assumed that the radiation was slowly absorbed from the environment, building up from zero at a certain time in the past (perhaps when the grain was last exposed to sunlight). A date is calculated by measuring the light emitted from the mineral grain when it is heated, and measuring the radiation in the environment where the grain was found.

Unfortunately, there are many unknowns and many assumptions need to be made, including the amount of radiation ‘stored’ in the mineral at a certain time in the past, that the change in radiation has only been affected by the radiation in the environment, that the radiation in the environment has remained constant, and that the sensitivity of the crystal to radiation has not changed. All these factors can be affected by water, heat, sunlight, the accumulation or leaching of minerals in the environment, and many other causes.


*Optically-stimulated luminescence (OSL) dates are based on exactly the same principle as TL. But instead of heating the grain, it is exposed to light to make it emit its ‘stored’ radiation. The calculated date is based on the same assumptions, and affected by the same uncertainties, as for TL.

*Electron-spin resonance (ESR) dates are based on the same principles as TL and OSL. However, the ‘stored’ radiation in the sample is measured by exposing it to gamma radiation and measuring the radiation emitted. The measuring technique does not destroy the ‘stored’ radiation (as does TL and OSL), so the measurement can be repeated on the same sample. The calculated date is based on the same assumptions, and affected by the same uncertainties, as for TL and OSL.

*Thorium-uranium (Th/U) dates are based on measuring the isotopes of uranium and thorium in a sample. It is known that uranium-238 decays radioactively to form thorium-230 (through a number of steps, including through uranium-234). The dating calculation assumes that the thorium and uranium in the sample are related to each other by radioactive decay. Furthermore, before a date can be calculated, the initial ratios of 230Th/238U and 234U/238U need to be assumed, and it is also assumed that there has been no gain or loss of uranium or thorium to/from the environment—i.e., that the system is ‘closed’. However, the bone and soil must have been ‘open’ to allow these elements to enter and accumulate.


*Protactinium-uranium (Pa/U) dates are based on similar principles as Th/U dating, but use uranium-235 and protactinium-231 instead. The isotope 235U decays radioactively to form 231Pa. Again, it is assumed that the isotopes in the sample are related to each other by radioactive decay. Also, the initial ratio of 231Pa/235U has to be assumed, and it is assumed that there has been no gain or loss of uranium or protactinium to/from the environment—i.e., that the system is ‘closed’. Again, any bone sample containing uranium must have been ‘open’ to allow it to accumulate in the first place.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/game.asp

Originally posted by Spexe
dj is right. There are too many assumptions in the dating game:


*Carbon-14 dates are determined from the measured ratio of radioactive carbon-14 to normal carbon-12 (14C/12C). Used on samples which were once alive, such as wood or bone, the measured 14C/12C ratio is compared with the ratio in living things today. The date is calculated by assuming the cha ...[text shortened]... it to accumulate in the first place.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/game.asp

Oh look a copy paste from Answers in Genesis, the well-known and loved bastion of misinformation and bad science.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Go back and READ the article. Don't post anything else until you've done that. Once you've got a little education, come back.

Maybe you could get yourself an education as well:

http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Oh look a copy paste from Answers in Genesis, the well-known and loved bastion of misinformation and bad science.

Anything that contradicts your views is bad Science.

Get used to it.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Maybe you could get yourself an education as well:

http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp

I have plenty. My PhD and job as a research scientist does just fine. Thanks though. When I want to get crooked information based on pseudoscience and lies, I'll come back to you.

Originally posted by Spexe
dj is right. There are too many assumptions in the dating game:


*Carbon-14 dates are determined from the measured ratio of radioactive carbon-14 to normal carbon-12 (14C/12C). Used on samples which were once alive, such as wood or bone, the measured 14C/12C ratio is compared with the ratio in living things today. The date is calculated by assuming the cha ...[text shortened]... it to accumulate in the first place.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/game.asp

What Flood? There is no evidence for any cataclysmic flood. Oh dear.

As for Thermoluminesence, this pseudoscience is pathetic. The light is emitted by the convertion of heat energy to light. Kinda like the way iron glows when heated. The heat causes the atoms to emit electrons. The opposite of photosynthesis.

The Uranium dating "problems" have been dealt with. Read the article that the link was posted to earlier. Essentially, it's the concentration of the elements in the rock that makes it radioactive. You find a non-radioactive piece of rock in the same strata, measure it's isotopic composition and voila the parent / daughter original isotope ratio. Contamination still wouldn't account for the similar results given for, for example, the age of the earth (see the quoted journal article).

You know, there are these wonderful things called books; try reading one, you'll love it.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I have plenty. My PhD and job as a research scientist does just fine. Thanks though. When I want to get crooked information based on pseudoscience and lies, I'll come back to you.

Anything that contradicts your esteemed opinion gets put down as "crooked information based on pseudoscience and lies..".

Ah... Now that I have a glimps of your state of mind, I shall not waste more time on you.

Keep searching buddy, one day you'll find the truth.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What Flood? There is no evidence for any cataclysmic flood. Oh dear.

As for Thermoluminesence, this pseudoscience is pathetic. The light is emitted by the convertion of heat energy to light. Kinda like the way iron glows when heated. The heat causes the atoms to emit electrons. The opposite of photosynthesis.

You know, there are these wonderful things called books; try reading one, you'll love it.

You know, there are these wonderful things called books; try reading one, you'll love it.

Let me know when you are finnished with the "Hardy Boys" series.

😵

Originally posted by dj2becker
Anything that contradicts your esteemed opinion gets put down as "crooked information based on pseudoscience and lies..".

Ah... Now that I have a glimps of your state of mind, I shall not waste more time on you.

Keep searching buddy, one day you'll find the truth.

I hope I never find your version of the truth.

btw, glimpse has an 'e' at the end.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]You know, there are these wonderful things called books; try reading one, you'll love it.

Let me know when you are finnished with the "Hardy Boys" series.

😵[/b]

Let ME know when you're ready to start.


Actually, I feel sorry for you dj. You're clearly unable to actually find any real facts on which to base your assertions. Of course, the reason for that it that it's hard to find reliable facts for lies, but there you go. Feel free to insult away if that's the limit of your ability.

Originally posted by Spexe
dj is right. There are too many assumptions in the dating game:


*Carbon-14 dates are determined from the measured ratio of radioactive carbon-14 to normal carbon-12 (14C/12C). Used on samples which were once alive, such as wood or bone, the measured 14C/12C ratio is compared with the ratio in living things today. The date is calculated by assuming the cha ...[text shortened]... it to accumulate in the first place.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/game.asp

See the response in talkorigins.org. Repeat this step as needed.

Edit: See how useful that was to the discussion? Why think on your own, when you can just cut and paste, right?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Let ME know when you're ready to start.


Actually, I feel sorry for you dj. You're clearly unable to actually find any real facts on which to base your assertions. Of course, the reason for that it that it's hard to find reliable facts for lies, but there you go. Feel free to insult away if that's the limit of your ability.

Did you even look at the web page I gave you?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What Flood? There is no evidence for any cataclysmic flood. Oh dear.

As for Thermoluminesence, this pseudoscience is pathetic. The light is emitted by the convertion of heat energy to light. Kinda like the way iron glows when heated. The heat causes the atoms to emit electrons. The opposite of photosynthesis.

The Uranium dating "problems" ha
You know, there are these wonderful things called books; try reading one, you'll love it.

What Flood? There is no evidence for any cataclysmic flood. Oh dear.

Dude... Are you a scientist? Have you ever heard of the fossil record?

Does the Grand Canyon ring a bell?

Speaking about educating ourselves...

Check:

http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk/sections/sect-10/sec10-5.htm