9/10/2013 12:06 PM
I made an argument and even repeated it for you. I backed it up with facts, which are listed and explained on a website.
9/10/2013 12:12 PM
What facts are you backing it up with?
9/10/2013 12:15 PM
The ones on the website you claim you won't go to, which as I said is your problem not mine.

I'm done with  your game playing. It's the same thing every time for you.  Someone proves you wrong and you find creative ways to deny it. Way to deny being wrong #351: Refuse to read the evidence.

9/10/2013 12:53 PM
badluck will do anything to keep this topic going. bis you know he do anything for attention so please stop responding to him and let this thing die.
9/10/2013 5:11 PM

Here, BL, just so you can't say I didn't provide facts, I'll give you an example of how radiocarbon dating is not correct because it is based upon assumptions which aren't always true.

Here you go:

A very common rock that contains U-238 is granite. If we look at some of the very small zircon crystals in granite, we can accurately measure how much U-238 and Pb-206 the crystal contains. In order to calculate the age of the rock, we need three other pieces of information.

First, we need to know how fast the U-238 turns into Pb-206. The half-life gives us this value, provided the half-life has never altered during the lifetime of the zircon crystal.

Second, we need to know how much Pb-206 there was in the original rock. This is clearly impossible. It is usually assumed, without justification, that the original quantity of Pb-206 in the rock was zero

Third, we need to be sure that no lead compounds have been added to or taken away from the rock. Given that lead compounds are fairly soluble in water, this is something that we cannot be very sure of.

Using the above assumptions, it is calculated that the zircon crystals have an age of about 1.5 billion years.

The radioactive decay process above can be seen to produce 8 alpha-particles for each one atom of U-238. Each alpha-particle could gain new electrons and become an atom of helium. The rate of diffusion of helium from a zircon crustal can be measured. It turns out that this rate of diffusion of helium is compatible with the crystals being about 5,000 years old, not 1.5 billion years old. Although assumptions 2 and 3 are not provable, they actually seem very likely in this particular example. Therefore, it seems that the first assumption must be wrong. Remember these experimenters are highly skilled. It is therefore unlikely that the laboratory technicians have made a mistake in their measurements of U-238 or Pb-206. The only possible conclusion, therefore, is that the half-life of U-238 has not been constant throughout the lifetime of the granite and its zircon crystals.

9/10/2013 5:59 PM
Posted by bistiza on 9/10/2013 5:11:00 PM (view original):

Here, BL, just so you can't say I didn't provide facts, I'll give you an example of how radiocarbon dating is not correct because it is based upon assumptions which aren't always true.

Here you go:

A very common rock that contains U-238 is granite. If we look at some of the very small zircon crystals in granite, we can accurately measure how much U-238 and Pb-206 the crystal contains. In order to calculate the age of the rock, we need three other pieces of information.

First, we need to know how fast the U-238 turns into Pb-206. The half-life gives us this value, provided the half-life has never altered during the lifetime of the zircon crystal.

Second, we need to know how much Pb-206 there was in the original rock. This is clearly impossible. It is usually assumed, without justification, that the original quantity of Pb-206 in the rock was zero

Third, we need to be sure that no lead compounds have been added to or taken away from the rock. Given that lead compounds are fairly soluble in water, this is something that we cannot be very sure of.

Using the above assumptions, it is calculated that the zircon crystals have an age of about 1.5 billion years.

The radioactive decay process above can be seen to produce 8 alpha-particles for each one atom of U-238. Each alpha-particle could gain new electrons and become an atom of helium. The rate of diffusion of helium from a zircon crustal can be measured. It turns out that this rate of diffusion of helium is compatible with the crystals being about 5,000 years old, not 1.5 billion years old. Although assumptions 2 and 3 are not provable, they actually seem very likely in this particular example. Therefore, it seems that the first assumption must be wrong. Remember these experimenters are highly skilled. It is therefore unlikely that the laboratory technicians have made a mistake in their measurements of U-238 or Pb-206. The only possible conclusion, therefore, is that the half-life of U-238 has not been constant throughout the lifetime of the granite and its zircon crystals.

Helium diffusion rates? One study, full of errors, done on one group of rocks from one test well in New Mexico doesn't disprove nuclear decay rates.

The experimenters did make mistakes. Lots of them.

The biggest mistake they made was assuming a constant temperature when the actual temperature varied significantly.

Others:

In reviewing the two main RATE reports (Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay and Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay), I discovered an error in the data analysis. The RATE team used a prior estimate by Robert Gentry for the total amount of helium produced from nuclear decay. However, Gentry’s own calculation was off by a factor of over three. Once this error was corrected, the fraction of helium remaining in the zircon samples dropped considerably

The RATE argument is based upon the claim that 
there is still a lot of helium in these zircons. However, according to the corrected calculations these zircons actually contain far less helium than the RATE researchers originally thought, which weakens their case.

and:

Next, I corrected errors in the geometry and boundary conditions of their diffusion model. The RATE team used an effective radius that was too large (30 µm versus 20 µm). Furthermore, their model included a second mineral called biotite, surrounding a zircon core. Although zircons are often embedded in larger flakes of biotite, they treated this second mineral as if it had the same material properties as zircon despite the fact that their own data showed that the diffusivity of helium in biotite was orders of magnitude higher. With such a high diffusivity, a biotite envelope would offer little resistance to a migrating helium atom once it left the zircon crystal. 


Neither of those errors is as significant as the error in the temperature calculation or as significant as the kinetic error:

Second, the RATE researchers used a simple kinetic model in their diffusion study. This type of model ignores the possibility that helium atoms behave differently depending upon their location in the crystal, with atoms in the vicinity of defects moving more readily than those that are in the bulk crystal. Instead, I incorporated amulti-domain diffusion model which takes this effect into account. This type of model has been used by several leading scientists in the noble gas thermochronology field (see for example: Reiners and Farley, 1999, pp. 3850-53Reiners et al., 2004, pp. 1872-74Shuster, et al., 2003, pp. 28-29Shuster, et al., 2005, pp. 669-70).


And the conclusion:

The old-earth model matches the revised measurements better than the young-earth model. The RATE team claimed that essentially no helium would be left in these zircons if they were more than a few thousand years old. However, by direct computation, I have demonstrated otherwise. The helium content and the 1.5 billion year radiometric age of these zircons are in agreement. Since no anomaly exists, there is no scientific need to postulate the existence of exotic physics, like accelerated nuclear decay, to explain the phenomenon.

Not only does this result deprive the accelerated nuclear decay hypothesis of its best case, it actually counts as evidence against accelerated nuclear decay. Two independent clocks (nuclear decay and helium diffusion) are now in agreement on the billion-year-age of these rocks. Consequently, the notion of accelerating natural processes becomes an untenable scientific position, and one must read nature’s clocks at face value. Obviously RTB and young-earth creationism remain at odds. However, the RATE group posited a model and subjected it to scientific testing. And for that they are to be commended.


Your "facts" aren't facts. Nice try though.





9/10/2013 8:40 PM
seems to me these young Earth "facts" has about as much veracity as the climate change deniers.  Full of holes both of em they is.
9/11/2013 8:57 AM
Are you that foolish, BL? Wait, don't answer that. I already know you are.

I produce findings from someone who says common radiocarbon dating methods may be incorrect and you produce someone who says those people are incorrect. Great. I never said everyone agreed on the facts - in fact, my point is that everyone doesn't agree, because there isn't enough evidence to make a conclusion either way. The evidence for BOTH sides can (and is) said to be incorrect by those who believe the other side.

Do you get why I'm neutral on the issue, or you will you continue on in your ridiculous quest to prove that only your opinions are correct?
9/11/2013 9:33 AM
I showed where your guys are wrong. Their study actually backed up a 1.5 billion year age when the mistakes were corrected.
9/11/2013 9:39 AM
ok im gonna settle this.

bis you dont know the age of the earth and thats great for you. you aren't gonna convince anyone who thinks they know the age to reconsider, so just stop. not everyone agrees, we all get it.

badluck you think the earth is very old and thats great for you. you aren't gonna convince anyone to agree wtih you unless they already do. clearly not everyone agrees, on that much bis is right, so just stop and let it go.

9/11/2013 9:58 AM
Well done SF. Nice job. Way to break it down. Hopefully that will end this nonsense.
9/11/2013 10:27 AM
I can let this go as long as BL stops insisting he's proven anything. All he's done is show that I'm right and people don't agree on the topic. That's the OPPOSITE of proving me wrong. Even SF and taint agree on that, BL, so give up the ghost.
9/11/2013 11:10 AM
Posted by bistiza on 9/11/2013 10:27:00 AM (view original):
I can let this go as long as BL stops insisting he's proven anything. All he's done is show that I'm right and people don't agree on the topic. That's the OPPOSITE of proving me wrong. Even SF and taint agree on that, BL, so give up the ghost.
Oh how gracious of you. There are two groups of people: those that understand that the earth is billions of years old and idiots. The fact that there are lots of idiots doesn't make the idiots credible.
9/11/2013 1:47 PM
That sounds like a BL argument to me: Anyone who doesn't agree with BL's opinion is an idiot because BL says so.

I'll apply the same logical reasoning: There are two groups of people: Those who understand when there are two points of view, and sheep who blindly follow whatever they're told. The fact that there are lots of sheep doesn't make the point of view the sheep follow any more credible than the other point of view.

Or how about this one: There are two groups of people: Those who understand how to make an effective argument, and those who would rather just use name calling and hurl insults. The fact that there are lots of the latter doesn't make them credible.

Pick one or heck have them both, BL, because you are BOTH a sheep and someone who can't argue effectively.

9/11/2013 2:08 PM
you know what sounds like a bis or badluck argument to me? I'm right bc I say so and I won't ever give up until everyone else wants to rip their eyeballs out for having read it all.

I appealed to bis to end this. I don't think it will work but I will now appeal to badluck - just tell bis his opinion is valid so he'll STFU, and then you can STFU too, k? good.

of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.