Are you a global Noahic flood advocate too?
Something that young earth people of whatever variety tend to overlook is this:
2 Likes
flaws in radiometric dating… hmmm…
could this be…
- That all the different methods of radiometric dating agree. (Uranium-lead ratio, Samarium-neodynium ratio, Potasium-Argon ratio, Rubidium-strontium, Uranium-Thorium, Carbon Isotope ratios, density of fission track measures, Chlorine 36 densities, Argon isotope ratios, Iodine-Xenon, Lanthanum-Barium, Lead isotope ratios, Lutetium-Halfnium, Potasium-Calcium, Rhenium-Osmium, Uranium isotope ratios, Krypton isotopes, Beryllium isotopes)
- Is it that the results agree with all the other means of dating such as luminescence methods, amino acid dating, genetic mutation measures.
- Perhaps it is the fact there are so many labs in so many different countries all checking each others work, far more than there are countries putting spacecraft and satellites into orbit so they can see for themselves that the Earth is round.
- Maybe it is the shear overwhelming quantity of evidence substantiating and verifying the results of radiometric dating which is the flaw.
- Or maybe it is simply that the results disagree with what some people have for the most dubious reasons decided to be the case.
2 Likes
Yes, all those flaws. They disagree with a three thousand year old creation myth which is a hundred thousand times more scientifically accurate than science.
Oooh, by the way, does this actually have anything to do with incarnationality?
You ask if I understand science. I don’t understand all spheres of science, but I understand a little of it.
As for the “smoking gun evidence”, it is based on matching radiometric dates to tectonic movements based on the assumption of constancy of decay rates in history. This is an assumption that is now threatened by unknown factors which do actually influence the constancy of decay rates.
You say there is a single study, which has subsequently been disproved. That is incorrect. There is an unknown factor affecting radiometric decay proven in multiple studies. From this established fact, has come 3 additional theories as follows:
- the effect relates to earth-sun distance. This has been disproved
- the effect relates to neutrinos. this has been disproved
- the effect is seasonal . This is still under debate, the evidence seems to favor a seasonal effect.
Do not confuse the disproving of one of the additional theories as confirming the original premise of constancy of decay. That premise of constancy is now false and proven to be false. An unknown factor is messing with the constancy of decay rates.
You ask if I believe in global floods, yes the bible talks of one, and geologically there have been what is called “major marine transgressions”. The extent of these is worldwide, the elevation I’m curious about, maybe you can fill me in the the elevation of these historical major marine transgressions. I am particularly interested in the marine transgression and regression of the Permian-Triassic boundary and the elevation of the mountain ranges at that time during the marine transgression. Any further information would be appreciated.
“4. Conclusions A significant global event occurred at about the Sakmarian^Artinksian boundary that triggered a vigorous pattern of thermohaline circulation along the northwest margin of Pangea. This event followed the thawing of Gondwana ice sheets in
the southern hemisphere and coincides with maximum flooding on global scale”
"A major event occurred during latest Permian time which led to the collapse of thermohaline circulation. Presumably rapid global warming and equally rapid thawing of northern sea ice destroyed a palaeoceanographic setting that had promoted the growth and preservation of biogenic siliceous sediments "
You say: “No it’s not. We have astronomical observations that show they’re exactly the same”
Surely due to the relativity of time, and decay being decay over time , there would be differences when measuring decay in both locations according to earth time? ie time in space is slower, therefore decay is slower there relative to earth-time.
Sure the various methods do agree, but the unknown effect measured at Purdue extends to both alpha and beta decay. Are these proportionate deviations from the assumed constancy? Would historical conditions exacerbate the effect? Until these questions are answered , we cannot trust radiometric dates, because an unknown factor is affecting decay rates.
Regarding genetic mutation rates, that is mere circular reasoning based on the assumption of evolution, and is neither here nor there in this discussion. If you assume evolution, then you look at the differences in two genomes and establish a rate over time, but that rate is meaningless without the assumption.
As for amino acid dating, that is calibrated against radiometric dating, so once again it is circular reasoning and has no value as a double check of radiometric dates.
Wikipedia: Amino acid dating: "These effects restrict amino acid chronologies to materials with known environmental histories and/or relative intercomparisons with other dating methods."
See, even God is bound by them.
The scientific rebuttal to bad journalism.
Do you have a scientific rebuttal to that Mindspawn. By scientists?
Let’s take a step back here and try to focus on three things:
- What kinds of conditions alter radiometric decay rates and by how much?
- Which decay chains/processes are affected? Eg alpha decay, gamma decay, etc.
- Which decay processes are used to measure the ages of things and how might (1), if applicable affect the error bars?
“Do you have a scientific rebuttal to that Mindspawn. By scientists?”
I have no reason for a rebuttal, because they argue against neutrinos being the cause. I agree with them, neutrinos are not the cause of the fluctuations in decay rate.
Here are some quotes from that study:
“Claims were made about a new interaction – the fifth force – by which **neutrinos** could affect decay constants, thus predicting changes in decay rates in correlation with the variations of the solar neutrino flux.”
“The hypothesis of neutrino-induced decay is highly speculative and has been contradicted by experiment for α, β-, β+ and EC decaying nuclides alike. There is no indication that neutrinos from the Sun influence beta decay”
I completely agree with them. The detected fluctuations in decay rates are not caused by neutrinos.
No. It is not “based on the assumption of” constancy of decay rates in history. It is a test of the constancy of decay rates in history. If decay rates had not been constant, the measurements would not line up the way they do.
Tests of assumptions are not themselves assumptions.
What multiple studies? You’ll need to cite your sources, because otherwise you could just be making things up for all I know.
In any case, even if you are right and there is an unknown factor, it is nowhere near large enough to reduce the age of the evidence from billions to thousands.
Yes there would be differences, but the differences would vary from one method to the next in ways that would allow us to characterise the nature of those differences.
We already have phenomena such as red shift, general relativity, gravitational lensing and so on. These have been characterised in this way and accounted for. And they do not alter the conclusion that nuclear decay rates are the same everywhere in the universe.
2 Likes
There are no detected fluctuations. Apart from those of the detectors.
Good questions
-
the cause is unknown, if it was known we wouldn’t be having this chat. There has been a fixation with neutrinos as the cause, which should have been disregarded years ago. It is certainly not neutrinos. the reason for that theory was much deviation from the constant decay rate was detected at midnight, so it was thought to be a particle that can penetrate through earth. I can think of at least two other reasons for midnight spikes, more satisfactory than neutrinos.
-
The changes to decay rates appear to affect all 3 processes , alpha, beta, gamma, whether proportionately, I do not know.
-
Alpha and beta decay are used in the measure of dates, I am not sure of gamma decay, maybe you could tell me.
-
How might this affect the error bars? We are dealing with an unknown factor, and it is therefore unknown if it can be exponentially exacerbated under historical conditions.
The cause is metrology. The flaws are in the radiometric dating equipment, the technology. Not the science.
“The amplitudes of fitted cycles to decay curves remained below three times their uncertainties, which varied between 0.00023 and 0.023 percent”
When the Italians claimed the speed of light was varying a few years ago, as always, it was the equipment.
And not by a factor of one hundred thousand. Even they didn’t need to twist science to fit a two and a half thousand year old creation myth.
“The exponential-decay law remains the solid foundation of the common measurement of radioactivity and requires no amendment for its application.”
So your answer to number 1 is we don’t know what conditions change radiometric decay rates nor by how much on average? I didn’t look at your OP but experiments that report varying decay rates give specific numbers of what they measured. Such variation can be included in date calculations. One thing that one doesn’t get to do is point to precision nuclear physics experiments on varying decay rate and then pretend in calls into question the entire field and hundreds of thousands of measurements.
One thing you can do is measure average decay rates over time and find that such effects are contained within well defined error bars. It’s not a matter of “well since it varies by a little bit it could just vary by factors of hundreds of millions spontaneously without leaving any other evidence.”
What conditions? This means specific temperatures, pressures, etc. There needs to be specifics here beyond “it can vary a little bit and therefore it can be exponentially higher.” For example, one can measure the fine structure constant in the past in Cosmology and constrain the amount it could have varied over time in different parts of the universe with different conditions.
2 Likes
Regarding tectonics, the fact that actual observation showed a 50m tectonic shift in the Japan tsunami, means that all the assumptions of the steadiness of tectonic movement can be discarded in the face of actual observation. And if during a catastrophic time in history , there were large tectonic movements at the same time as rapid decay, this would explain some of the alleged correlations.
Are you seriously claiming that an unknown factor cannot have a large enough effect under all conditions. The factor is unknown, therefore it’s affect under all historical conditions remains unknown.
Multiple studies such as the following:
The decay of Radon showed variations at time of day, and time of year:
These guys detect the correlation, but incorrectly surmise it’s neutrinos. I don’t understand the fixation with neutrinos:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302894040_Comparative_analyses_of_90Sr90Y90_decay_measurements_at_the_Physikalisch-Technische_Bundesanstalt_and_222Rn_decay_measurements_at_the_Geological_Survey_of_Israel_Evidence_of_a_solar_influence
I agree with you that we need specific data. The variation is at different percentages for different isotopes with different half lives. The variation is affected by solar flares, seasonal fluctuations, 11 year cycles etc. I believe there is enough data to start developing a big picture., and a cause and effect.
In the meantime other studies are disputing the neutrino theory as instrument error, I agree with them that neutrinos are not the mystery culprit. Other studies do not focus on neutrinos, but actual decay variations. The study of the constancy of decay is in it’s infancy.
Here is some specific data. With specific error:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969804317303822
So let me put this in perspective with the types of percentages and variation were talking about. The paper I cited for example constrains the error to be less than a fraction of a percent.
It’s not exactly a new question for physicists to ask whether or not the laws of nature are constant. There’s been lots of measurements for decades and lots of ways that geologists have gotten into this story. so we’re talking about really hundreds of thousands of measurements that are all pointing to the constancy of the laws of nature. Some process certainly can fluctuate, but those tend to average out such that we can get specific measurements with well-defined are bars.
Here’s a nice, but technical review paper on the subject:
2 Likes