21 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by flyUnityEven if there was a worldwide water body the poles would still be cooler than the tropics. This is for two simple reasons, 1) the solar angle is smaller at the tropics than the poles, thus a greater photon flux density (light intensity), 2) the amount of atmosphere that the photons have to travel through it greater at the poles than the equator (because the light is travelling diagonally through the atmosphere at the poles, but straight throught the atmsphere at the equator) even given that the atmosphere is thicker at the equator (because of the centrifugal effects of the earths rotation). Basically, your "teachers" lied to you.
Without any apparent reason? I think the world was created so much better, (if not perfect). I took a ID course once when I was younger, and for example, they showed evidence (petrified wood without any rings comes to my mind at the moment) of how there used to be a body of water surrounding the earth, which would make the earth a constant temperature even ...[text shortened]... etter then it is now. Sin came, Satan took over this world, and the flood, changed it immensely.
[edit; btw, you get ringless trees in the tropics anyway. It;s perfectly natural. Trees have rings because they grow slower in the winter than the spring and summer time. Since in the tropics the summer and winter are very similar you do not differential tree growth.]
[edit 2; what I didn't make clear initially was that heat is generated when the energy from the photons it transferred to something, releasing IR radiation (i.e. heat). It doesn't matter whether this is an air molecule or the soil. However, you won't feel any heat at earth level if the photons are being absorbed by the air at higher altitudes.]
21 Jun 06
Originally posted by Big MacA pleasure. This is the topic of my research so I know alot about it. I hope I explained it in a easy to understand manner. If there is anythign you don't undeerstand, feel free to ask questions.
forgive for not replying earlier. i'm more of a philosopher (lover of knowledge, not necessarily owner of knowledge) than a scientist. i still have no rebuttal yet. i may not have one. i understand the terms you used, but i am rusty in my, is it atp cycle?, i don't remember. i will respond when able. thanks for your understanding and explanation of this. i have always loved science. i've just never gotten high marks in it.
21 Jun 06
Originally posted by Big MacOkay, radiodating comes up a surprising amount, I posted on it the other day. I'll copy and paste that explanation here, then deal with the specific question after that.
may i ask question now about a scientific problem i've heard of?
i have no available source for this, so please forgive me, but i've heard or read that the dating processes for artifacts and fossils are terribly inaccurate. a biology major friend of mine from university told of an experiment they did in a lab. they all carbon dated different things. he ca ...[text shortened]... actor of 5000.
could you provide explanation or contradiction to this? thanks in advance.
"All atoms come in various forms called isotopes. Isotopes are atoms with a change in the number of neutrons; it is the number of protons which determines which element an atom is. Protons and neutrons are held together in the nucleus by the strong nuclear force. Protons are positively charged and, as we all know, positive charges repulse each other. Thus the strong nuclear force must indeed be strong to hold the nucleus that is constantly trying to split apart together. However, the strong force only has a limited range, meaning that large atoms are very much more likely to split apart than small ones, which tend to be very stable.
Now I'll deal with the decay of 14C, which is involved in radiocarbon dating. As Googlefudge said 14C is found in the atmosphere, where it is created in the troposphere when a nitrogen atom gets a proton displaced by a neutron (this changing the number of protons from 7 to 6, and thus from nitrogen to carbon). The new 14C atom has 6 protons and 8 neutrons. 14C spontaneously emits a beta particle, changing the "extra" neutron into a proton. Whilst this emittion is spontaneous, it is not instantaneous. The probability of any given atom decaying at a certain time can be given by an exponential decay curve. Likewise, a large population of atoms has a decay following exponential rules. In other words, when there are alot of atoms there, many atoms will decay, when there are less atoms, then less will decay. The decay rate is linearly related to the amount of 14C in the sample.
Plants take C up during photosynthesis, including 14C. Since the 14C concentration in the atmosphere is about constant, we can measure the 14C concentration of any given sample and, if we know the decay constant (the relationship between 14C concentration in the sample and its decay rate) we can interpolate its age.
This, of course, throws up new questions, (1) how do we know that isotopes follow exponential decays and, (2) how do we know the decay constants of different isotopes.
There are a couple of simple ways to measure this. First we can use a short lived isotope and measure the decay in the lab. Something like Sodium 24, with a half life of 15 hours, or Iodine 131 at 8.07 days. This provides direct evidence that radioactive decay follows exponential rules. Okay, but what about something longer lived, like Uranium 238 with a half life of 4.5 billion years? This is simpler than it looks. First, purify some Uranium 238 up to different purities. That is to say different concentrations within the parent material. If exponential decay is correct then these should emit radiation at different rates, which can be predicted. It's not possible to sit there and wait for the amount of Uranium 238 to half in the sample, but we can infer mass differences. This is less dodgy than it sounds. All you have to do is measure the energy output from the sample, and since E=mc^2 you can dervive the mass change, and from that, the decay rate. From multiple samples at different enrichments. This gives an exponential decay.
Now for the heavy isotopes. These follow much the same rules, but radioactive emmission is as a result of the mass convertion to energy when a large, wobbly nucleus splits apart. Unlike 14C which is produced in the atmosphere and is relatively constant, radioactive rocks are produced from radioactove decay within the planets core. This means that they can turn up in rocks at all different concentrations. We need to know the initial parent-daughter isotope ratio before we can work out the amount of mass loss, and therefore the time since that rock became solid. This is easily worked out though. We just take a non-radioactive sample from the same rock strata since this must be the same age. We can then derive the initial amount of the parent isotope in the rock and work out the amount lost over time.
It is elements such as Uranium 238 which allow us to date very old things, like the earth and moon. Both have been dated. In fact, no matter which dating system you use (there are over 40 for differing time scales) you get roughly the same answer for the age of the planet. This age is around 4.53 billion years. The moon is of similar age."
For the specific example, the pencil, I'd say he was probably using an inappropriate test. It's often cited by creationists that 25 year old magna can be dated to 10's of thousands of years old using potassium-argon dating. This is true. What these guys don't tell you is that K-Ar dating is not designed to measure anything as short as 25 years. Effectively they are trying to measure a nanometre with a yard stick! I rather suspect that your friends experience is exactly the same. Of course the other possibilty is that they tested the age of the lead in the pencil, and found it to be 10,000 years old. That was when the lead was formed, not when it was turned into a pencil. I would suspect that if they C-dated the wood, they'd find it was 40 or 50 years old.
The truth about radiodating methods is that they are commonly very accurate in their age determinations, with multiple methods (with different assumptions) giving similar ages. A recent paper I'm fond of citing is by a guy called Zhang, who shows that when the earth is dated using 7 different measures, they get the same result to within 2%.
21 Jun 06
Originally posted by Big MacI cannot debate against old earth scientists, I already tried to with Scotty boy, but its been years since I read up on my stuff, so I in reality know nothing. I do however believe in young earth, and part of that is in faith, so I cannot debate you.
as fellow creationist and xian, i want to agree with you, but you provided no real evidence or warrant. please describe more of your learnings that ringless wood and the elimination of the need of rain. i hate to chastise you as a brother, but if we are to debate factually, and not spiritually for the time being, we must take each piece of evidence and look ...[text shortened]... ave to say. i should think anyone is who is open to new possibilities of the way things occured.
21 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt does show however, the impossiblity of arguing with young earthers.
And we all know about assumptions, don't we?
At least Unity admits his is based on faith so until that faith is shaken, he will not change his view by any scientific argument. He does so knowing full well he does not understand any of the science involved. The problem comes from those young earthers who proclaim to have scientific evidence and try to tear holes in scientifically proven theories. They try to show they have faith in the young earth and to obfusicate the issue to the best of their abilities. IMHO this puts these people on a lower level than FlyUnity. They have an active ax to grind and care nothing of science, only using those arguments they can dig up to try to tear holes in already proven cases with no interest in actually advancing said science. Suppose for a minute they succeed at their venture (something impossible to achieve IMHO) but suppose for the sake of argument they come across some Godelian argument so convincing the science community is in complete shambles. That would end their involvement with the issue and then they would go on to just try to form the theocracy they so desparately want and drop the scientific pretense like a hot rock.
21 Jun 06
Originally posted by sonhouseIndeed. These are precisely the people we must keep out of the science classroom at all costs. In my less than humble opinion, I feel we should keep them out of education entirely.
It does show however, the impossiblity of arguing with young earthers.
At least Unity admits his is based on faith so until that faith is shaken, he will not change his view by any scientific argument. He does so knowing full well he does not understand any of the science involved. The problem comes from those young earthers who proclaim to have scientific ...[text shortened]... to form the theocracy they so desparately want and drop the scientific pretense like a hot rock.
21 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzMaybe we can find them a REAL 10,000 year old planet to live on! See if they like it.
Indeed. These are precisely the people we must keep out of the science classroom at all costs. In my less than humble opinion, I feel we should keep them out of education entirely.
BTW, would you take a look at my 'ontological argument' thread? See what you think, if I have huge holes in my logic. Don.
Also, thanks for clearing up one problem with C14 dating, the origin of that C14, didn't know it is generated in the atmosphere like that. That makes the whole thing a lot clearer.
21 Jun 06
Originally posted by sonhouseokay doke. will do that tomorrow.
Maybe we can find them a REAL 10,000 year old planet to live on! See if they like it.
BTW, would you take a look at my 'ontological argument' thread? See what you think, if I have huge holes in my logic. Don.
Also, thanks for clearing up one problem with C14 dating, the origin of that C14, didn't know it is generated in the atmosphere like that. That makes the whole thing a lot clearer.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
22 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnz'We need to know the initial parent-daughter isotope ratio before we can work out the amount of mass loss, and therefore the time since that rock became solid. This is easily worked out though. We just take a non-radioactive sample from the same rock strata since this must be the same age. We can then derive the initial amount of the parent isotope in the rock and work out the amount lost over time.'
Okay, radiodating comes up a surprising amount, I posted on it the other day. I'll copy and paste that explanation here, then deal with the specific question after that.
"All atoms come in various forms called isotopes. Isotopes are atoms with a change in the number of neutrons; it is the number of protons which determines which element an atom is. ...[text shortened]... e earth is dated using 7 different measures, they get the same result to within 2%.
I got confused reading this part of what you wrote, isn't the parent isotope radioactive in order for it to break down? I don't understand how you can take a sample from a non-radioactive sample of rock and infer the initial amount of the parent isotope in the radioactive rock.
I don't understand this, would you mind explaining?
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzwhile i work my way through this post and the chlorophyl post, please allow me to post my rationale 4.
Okay, radiodating comes up a surprising amount, I posted on it the other day. I'll copy and paste that explanation here, then deal with the specific question after that.
"All atoms come in various forms called isotopes. Isotopes are atoms with a change in the number of neutrons; it is the number of protons which determines which element an atom is. ...[text shortened]... e earth is dated using 7 different measures, they get the same result to within 2%.
i'm sure this has been debated before, but here it goes...
rationale 4:
prolific use of language.
almost every major religion and most minor religions have a creation myth, many of which are quite similar. until very recently, creation was not even questioned in western thought. to my understanding, darwin certainly didn't question it. even non-xians had no problems with a creator. thomas jefferson comes to mind. he was a deist. god created, set up the laws and then let go to watch.
is newer better?
does science truly disprove god?
does science really do what it is meant to do, which is inform us about the universe in which we live?
is science OPEN to the possibility of a "primary mover?"
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by Bad wolfit's simple really, you take two samples from the same rock. One from a bit which is emitting radiation and a second, non-radioactive bit from the same rock. You use the non-radioactive bit to tell you the isotopic abundance of the two isotopes in the conditions when the rock was formed.
'We need to know the initial parent-daughter isotope ratio before we can work out the amount of mass loss, and therefore the time since that rock became solid. This is easily worked out though. We just take a non-radioactive sample from the same rock strata since this must be the same age. We can then derive the initial amount of the parent isotope in the r ...[text shortened]... rent isotope in the radioactive rock.
I don't understand this, would you mind explaining?
There is a way to check this, by looking at the isotope decay of the daughter isotopes although, not being a geologist specialising in radiodating, I don't fully understand it.
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by Big MacI don't know if newer is necessarily "better", quite whatever you mean by that. It's commonly held around these parts that it is impossible to "test" for god. He doesn't fit in a test tube.
while i work my way through this post and the chlorophyl post, please allow me to post my rationale 4.
i'm sure this has been debated before, but here it goes...
rationale 4:
prolific use of language.
almost every major religion and most minor religions have a creation myth, many of which are quite similar. until very recently, creation was not eve ...[text shortened]... out the universe in which we live?
is science OPEN to the possibility of a "primary mover?"
Science does though always go with parsimony. Simplest explanation that fits all the data is the most likely to be true. Whilst evolution seems to be a complex explanation, it does not require the existance of the supernatural (i.e. something untestable), and therefore only relies on that which can be empirically verified. Once you introduce god into the equation, anything could happen, and logical inferrence goes out the window, because any given phenomena might just have been god playing silly buggers. Science doesn't preclude the existance of god, since it cannot prove one way or the other, but it does preclude his involvement in the day to day management of the planet. If that were the case, there would be logical inconsistancies within things like the geological record, etc.
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by JesusFreak2562000God is real to those who can 'see', not with worldly eyes, but heavenly eyes. These can see God in others, in actions and outcomes.
atheist beware god is real prove me wrong
No one can 'prove you wrong'.
"Absence of proof is not proof of absence" - Einstein
"Before God we are all equally wise, and equally foolish" - Einstein