Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...

[Mikeenders]

All radiometric dating relies on the same basic principles, yet each method is independent. Radiocarbon relies on the instability of the C-14 isotope, which is a function of its nuclear structure. K-Ar relies on the instability of the K-40 isotope, which is a function of its nuclear structure.

we all know this. Even many YECs know this

(The other possible way to change decay rates would be to change some very fundamental physical constants. But this would have very far-reaching effects beyond radioactive decay. These constants are so finely tuned that changing them very much would break the universe.)

Unfortunately we do not know this as a fact. A few years ago I would have agreed the rate of radioactive decay could not be changed in the least by anything but the pendulum has swung back and forth on this

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/resea...enkinsDec.html

So I became willing to consider the possibility that there are some things we might not know. Now most recent studies have indicated that it may be a calibration/measurement problem possible but between that study and today there have been several back and forth so we will see. added to that is that a great deal of Quantum mechanics is not fully understood and QM relates to radioactive decay. As for the claim that if a constant rate is changed the whole universe fizzles thats wrong. Light can be slowed down through some mediums and the universe does not fall apart

Still it needs repeating that the only difference between you and me on radioactive dating is that I am not willing to put my head on the block and claim it can never ever be questioned. Functionally as I have said about four times not it is presently and until proven otherwise still a huge issue YECs have not addressed. That and my meaning of the word consilient lines of evidence involves several fields not using radiometric dating as evidence for itself.

[Mikeenders]

Mikeenders,
[indent]If you're genuinely interested and have questions concerning radiometric or isotropic dating techniques I can not recommend highly enough Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Roger C. Wiens,

Thanks I hope it was good reading for you but I did my reading about radiometric decay some time ago. i don't have any questions about it. IF you are assuming that because I am open to being wrong when I think its reliable so I don't understand it then you are wrong.

[Kbertsche]

we all know this. Even many YECs know this



Unfortunately we do not know this as a fact. A few years ago I would have agreed the rate of radioactive decay could not be changed in the least by anything but the pendulum has swung back and forth on this

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/resea...enkinsDec.html

So I became willing to consider the possibility that there are some things we might not know. Now most recent studies have indicated that it may be a calibration/measurement possible but between that study and today there have been several back and forth so we will see. as for the claim that if a constant rate is changed the whole universe fizzles thats wrong.

Both Fischbach and Sturrock have made past claims which have turned out to be false, and their recent claims have been contradicted by other researchers. I have already posted detailed comments on this. Please start reading the thread "How Old Is This Thing?" at this message.

Light can be slowed down through some mediums and the universe does not fall apart

Irrelevant. What is constant is c, the speed of (a plane wave of) light in a vacuum. Forcing light to slow by sending it through a medium does not change c. Forming light into a convergent non-planar beam (as Padgett et al) to slow it slightly does not change c.

(Note: the Padgett experiment is interesting, and I'm not sure exactly what is going on. I suspect that either there is some interaction with a waveguide which is slowing the wave, or there is some sort of confusion or exchange between phase and group velocity of this non-planar wave.)

[37818]

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/resea...enkinsDec.html

I have seen two articles that was refuted. Here is one of them:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/2...falsification/

[HMS_Beagle]

of course - to borrow your vernacular - you nitwit. because they are NOT THE SAME ELEMENTS.

And the decay rates are not all the same, they're independent and produce independent measurements just as I had to explain to you.

A) to think that YECs propose different changes in each method just shows your vast ignorance of what the position is.

You just admitted the rates are independent and would need to change by different amounts to still agree on a young Earth date. How dumb are you anyway?

B) to list radioactive dating as consilient lines of evidence for radioactive decay shows you don't even know what the word consilient is and need go educate yourself.

It's consilient evidence for the dating of very old igneous rocks, which is exactly what I had to explain to you too.

It's very dishonest of you to keep inventing things I never said. It's flat out lying.

[Mikeenders]

Both Fischbach and Sturrock have made past claims which have turned out to be false, and their recent claims have been contradicted by other researchers.

this was not one study and regardless of whether it hold s or not. If it can be genuinely considered and published then the issue was open

I have already posted detailed comments on this. Please start reading the thread "How Old Is This Thing?" at this message.

Sorry but based on your weak post there just brushing it off with no substance in that post you have not inspired me to go read another whole thread on your say so. As I stated the latest reading have indicated that there might be measurement issue. You did not inform me of that. I said so straight up front. However the fact that it could be published in peer review proves one thing conclusively. Not all scientist some of who reviewed those published research paper think the issue is so closed no one can question it.

And while we are it not all anomolies in radiometric dating can be brushed off as creationists myth either. I don't think it reaches to YEC's claims but that they are all just lies by the evil creationists hasn't proven out either in my research.

[Mikeenders]

I have seen two articles that was refuted. Here is one of them:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/2...falsification/

Of course you have because the issue has gone back and forth for years precisely as I stated

heres another

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babba...d-solar-storms

[Mikeenders]

Irrelevant. What is constant is c, the speed of (a plane wave of) light in a vacuum. Forcing light to slow by sending it through a medium does not change c. Forming light into a convergent non-planar beam (as Padgett et al) to slow it slightly does not change c.

I don't really care what you want to bluster about as irrelevant. it show the possibility that light can move at different speeds in certain situations. its not just one study either. There are multiple lines of query into light operating at the same speed in all situations

http://www.natureworldnews.com/artic...t-variable.htm

theres been enough of this research to indicate its not a certainty anymore. I m0sut say I do wonder if one of the reason YECs question where some christian OECs come from and even the quality of their faith is that some - like you people here - consider everything that comes out of a scientist textbook to be less unquestionable that what comes from the Bible. Even though I am not a YEC just because I defend one point a YEC makes you launch with the same arrogant conceit informing me as if I know nothing but now I have to turn around and inform you of the most recent science.

[oxmixmudd]

I think neither as a concluded matter which is why I advocate research before I conclude. Whereas you conclude before you even research the rate of decay for organic material. In fact I admit freely that radiometric dating has been tested more. however facts in reality are not a matter of which ones we have tested more theya re what they are regardless of what we know or think we know.

SO the whole premise behind your questions is off. I have concluded nothing as reliable or unreliable

For someone with no conclusions, you certainly are hostile to those how think there is sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion! If you truly had no conclusion, the fact others think as I do would not annoy you, you would just be curious why they think there is sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

Secondarily - your lack of commitment as it relates to radiometric dating is not shared by the majority of those that do science. And given the fact you can't seem to come up with any evidence to back up your recalcitrance to reach a conclusion, it appears you are not actually motivated by real study of the problem, but rather something else. What I will not even attempt to guess.

Reality itself may or may not be accurately reflected by the current best effort from science. But that is a very poor excuse for solipsism. Science itself, especially physics, chemistry and the like has a very, very good track record in terms of being able to accurately describe the behavior of the universe. Keeping in mind that an accurate description is not itself a guarantee of correctness, the evidence itself strongly supports the accuracy of radiometric dating. If you think otherwise, you need to provide some actual evidence to support that alternative conclusion.


Jim

[Kbertsche]

Sorry but based on your weak post there just brushing it off with no substance in that post you have not inspired me to go read another whole thread on your say so. As I stated the latest reading have indicated that there might be measurement issue. You did not inform me of that.

If you will not even take the time to read this thread, how do you know what I did or did not say there? You do not seem to be very open-minded or very willing to look at contrary evidence!

P.S. Take a look at message #45, some excerpts of which are below:

... the main guy involved in these claims is Ephraim Fischbach. He has been involved in some crazy claims in the past, so anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. Sturrock joined forces with him later. Sturrock is regarded as somewhat of a kook by his colleagues. Here is a popular-level discussion of problems with Fischbach and his claims: https://www.analogsf.com/0905/altview_05.shtml
(This author suspects that Fischbach's error comes from timing variations, but I think it's more likely that his error comes from slight temperature, pressure, and humidity dependencies of the TLDs that were used to measure the radiation. I posted a number of links and my own thoughts on these claims on the old pre-crash TWeb, but these are no longer available.)

In order to find rebuttals to the claims of Fischbach and Sturrock, simply do a search on their names along with words such as "rebuttal", "contradict", etc. ...

Here is the first paper that I found:
Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth-Sun distance by Eric B. Norman, Edgardo Browne, Howard A. Shugart, Tenzing H. Joshi, Richard B. Firestone

Source: Norman et al

We have reexamined our previously published data to search for evidence of correlations between the rates for the alpha, beta-minus, beta-plus, and electron-capture decays of 22Na, 44Ti, 108Agm, 121Snm, 133Ba, and 241Am and the Earth-Sun distance. We find no evidence for such correlations and set limits on the possible amplitudes of such correlations substantially smaller than those observed in previous experiments.

© Copyright Original Source

And here is a later paper by Norman which points out that Fischbach's own claims are self-contradictory:
Additional experimental evidence against a solar influence on nuclear decay rates by Eric B. Norman

Source: Norman

Conflicting results from two experiments studying the decay of Cl-36 point to instrumental artifacts rather than a solar influence being responsible for variations in measured counting rates.

© Copyright Original Source

I've also found papers by Belotti et al, Hardy et al, Kossert & Naehler, and Meier & Weiler, all rebutting the claims of Fischbach & Sturrock. These guys have not admitted defeat; they have themselves tried to rebut the rebuttals.

Also see message #47 in the same thread:

Take a look at one of the papers by Belotti et al. ... Their focus was on Fischbach's claim of approximately annual variations, but they also ruled out all variations in the range of 6 hours to about 400 days.

Search for the time dependence of the 137Cs decay constant, by E. Bellotti, C. Broggini, G. Di Carlo, M. Laubenstein, R. Menegazzo, Physics Letters B, Volume 710, Issue 1, p. 114-117. 03/2012

[oxmixmudd]

I don't really care what you want to bluster about as irrelevant. it show the possibility that light can move at different speeds in certain situations. its not just one study either. There are multiple lines of query into light operating at the same speed in all situations

http://www.natureworldnews.com/artic...t-variable.htm

theres been enough of this research to indicate its not a certainty anymore. I m0sut say I do wonder if one of the reason YECs question where some christian OECs come from and even the quality of their faith is that some - like you people here - consider everything that comes out of a scientist textbook to be less unquestionable that what comes from the Bible. Even though I am not a YEC just because I defend one point a YEC makes you launch with the same arrogant conceit informing me as if I know nothing but now I have to turn around and inform you of the most recent science.

Really - you are seriously going to suggest that we should think radiometric dating might be flawed because of the possibility that the speed of light in a vacuum might be variable on the order of .05 femtosecond per meter? You do realize that such a variation would influence the derived dates by less than 1 second - right?

Jim

[Mikeenders]

For someone with no conclusions, you certainly are hostile to those how think there is sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion! If you truly had no conclusion, the fact others think as I do would not annoy you, you would just be curious why they think there is sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

Oh I am hostile to the responses I got just because I said that YEcs might have one point. I am also no slouch in answering arrogance. You can continue to bank on that including naming your arrogance that you can tell me what I truly conclude or don't exactly as what it is - arrogance and lying by mind reading. No I am not curious at arrogance. I understand it and have s distaste for it. As you can see good or bad I have no problems answering it sternly either. I've expressed my true sentiment and you are out of line claiming to know otherwise

Secondarily - your lack of commitment as it relates to radiometric dating is not shared by the majority of those that do science. And given the fact you can't seem to come up with any evidence to back up your recalcitrance to reach a conclusion, it appears you are not actually motivated by real study of the problem, but rather something else. What I will not even attempt to guess.

Your the second person claiming to be a christian that has no hesitance in disobeying God's word in your war of hate against YECs so i am not surprised that you actually think you can judge (in violation of NT commands) my commitment, honesty an d motivation based on whole slew of "appears" "guess" and "seems" (your own words). I don't need to have any commitment to radiometric dating. I will go wherever the facts lead and explore any avenue that appears. for now it solid because thats where the evidence is but its not beyond question because nothing but my saviour is - if thats different for you. then fine. Talk to your God about it and I will pray for you.

Reality itself may or may not be accurately reflected by the current best effort from science. But that is a very poor excuse for solipsism

whats even even worse as a poor excuse is not knowing the meaning of words you use or how they don't apply to the person you are accusing

Science itself, especially physics, chemistry and the like has a very, very good track record in terms of being able to accurately describe the behavior of the universe. Keeping in mind that an accurate description is not itself a guarantee of correctness, the evidence itself strongly supports the accuracy of radiometric dating. If you think otherwise, you need to provide some actual evidence to support that alternative conclusion.

I am for studying all things and researching without believing anything is beyond falsification. Since that is at the heart of science I don't need to provide anything else and definitely not to you. You haven't earned the respect to either tell what I should or need to do and have me care. Not when you ar maintaining the right to judge.

All of this nonsense because I say YECs have a point and the subject needs research rather than an automatic brush off.

[HMS_Beagle]

Really - you are seriously going to suggest that we should think radiometric dating might be flawed because of the possibility that the speed of light in a vacuum might be variable on the order of .05 femtosecond per meter? You do realize that such a variation would influence the derived dates by less than 1 second - right?

Jim

This was already pointed out to Mike the non-YEC. It went straight in one ear and out the other without encountering a single firing neuron.

[HMS_Beagle]

All of this nonsense because I say YECs have a point and the subject needs research rather than an automatic brush off.

You are demonstrably wrong. YECs don't have a point and neither do you. There is no circular reasoning being used by the scientific community in this case. Radiometric dating does not need to be re-verified. The preservation of trace organic materials is already being actively studied.

Now that's taken care of are there any other scientific topics you wish to demonstrate your ignorance and misunderstandings of?

[Kbertsche]

Irrelevant. What is constant is c, the speed of (a plane wave of) light in a vacuum. Forcing light to slow by sending it through a medium does not change c. Forming light into a convergent non-planar beam (as Padgett et al) to slow it slightly does not change c.

I don't really care what you want to bluster about as irrelevant. it show the possibility that light can move at different speeds in certain situations. its not just one study either. There are multiple lines of query into light operating at the same speed in all situations

http://www.natureworldnews.com/artic...t-variable.htm

Of course light can move at different speeds in different situations. We exploit this fact constantly to focus and bend light. This is not at issue; it is irrelevant to the constant c.

Your link seems to be to a repeat of the experiments of Padgett et al, which I've already addressed. This does not affect the speed of a plane wave of light in a vacuum, which is constant at c.