PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     HE diffusion rates
       Here's an analysis YET

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationists Claim a Breakthrough

The Institute for Creation Research has recently claimed to have
found solid evidence that the Earth is really truly 6,000 years old.  
Furthermore:

"the [Creationist] researchers were able to present their discoveries
to about ten thousand scientists at the American Geo-physical Union's
national convention [Dec 2003 in San Francisco]. This breakthrough
opportunity to present creationist research in a secular professional
setting was well received by nearly all of the scientists who
interacted with the creationists, and even yielded ideas for follow-up
on research."

-See Acts & Facts Feb. 2004 at

"Well received by 10,000 scientists," and in San Francisco, no less?
Actually no, the 3 creationists didn't give invited talks before an
audience of 10,000, in fact they didn't speak at all. What they had
were 3 posters, basically everyone who goes to a conference is allowed
to set up a poster.  It may well be that the people who walked by and
looked at the creationists' posters were polite and good natured, but
that doesn't mean they were impressed, or that the work holds water.

Are They Right?

No, even the creationists' own data undermines their claims.  The
paper, titled HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY
is by D. Russel Humphreys, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, and
Andrew A. Snelling  (1.12 MB *.pdf)  
All references in this post are to that paper.

The basic science involved is that fact that when a uranium atom
decays to lead, a lot of helium is produced, 8 helium atoms for every
atom of U-238 that decays to Pb-206 and 7 helium atoms for each atom
of U-235 decaying to Pb-207.     The creationist claim to have found
some zircons (tiny crystals of ZrSiO4 in rocks) which have TOO MUCH
helium.  The zircons were dated to 1.5 BY using the Pb-Pb method, but
according to the creationists, the helium produced by the decays
should have all leaked out of the zircons by now. The creationists
claim that the zircons could retain their helium for only about, you
guessed it, 6000 YEARS!

The zircons were found at various depths, and the deeper rocks were
hotter and had less helium, as you would expect since helium leaks out
faster at higher temperatures.  Here are their numbers taken from
their TABLE 1

Number Depth (m) Temp C Helium (%)

1   960 105 58 +- 17
2 2,170 151 27 +- 8
3 2,900 197 17 +- 5
4 3,502 239 1.2 +- 0.4
 5 3,930 277 ~0.1
6 4,310 313 ~0.1

The column "Helium %" gives the amount of helium found in the zircons
as a percentage of the amount of helium that would have been produced
in 1.5 BY of radioactive decay.    In samples 4, 5, and 6 the amount
of helium is so low as to be almost unmeasurable (the "~" sign means
"approximately"), but the first three samples, which are all below 200
C, still have a substantial fraction of the expected amount of helium.

The creationists have a logical problem.  If the zircons were only
6,000 years old, then the helium could not have been produced by 1.5
BY of radioactive decay, so we have no explanation for the presence of
the helium.  Worse, we would have no idea of how much helium "ought"
to be present, so we couldn't tell how much helium has leaked out.
The solution is, of course, a miracle.  The  "creation" model assumes
that 1.5 BY worth of radioactive decay actually occurred in the
zircon, but God, or perhaps Billy Graham, miraculously "accelerated"
the decays so they all happened in an interval much less than 6,000
years.

This "solution" leads to another logical problem. Suppose the
creation are right.  Then presumably these miraculously accelerated
decays would have occurred in all the world's rocks, not just in a few
zircons.  There are rocks with radioactive dates of all ages, from the
geologically recent up to 3.8 billion years,  so if the earth is
really only 6,000 years old, then different rocks must have been
"aged" by very different amounts.  And the amount of "aging" was
deliberately chosen so that rocks near the top of the geologic column
were given young ages, while deeper rocks were made to look older.  So
God first endowed the earth with many major features implying great
age (continental drift,  vast layers of sedimentary rocks, long
vanished mountain ranges, enormous "batholiths" of solidified magma)
and then added in many subtle indicators of age such as radioactive
decay, magnetic field reversals, Milankovich cycles, etc.  And ALL of
these feature are FAKES, the only sign of the true age of the earth is
given by the amounts of helium, which God apparently overlooked.  So
unless earth's history was controlled by a "fakey-flakey" Creator,
there is no way the creationists can be right!

Apparently the 4 devout Christians authors would rather believe in a
Supreme Being who plays silly God tricks with the universe, instead of
admitting that their ploddingly literal minded interpretation of a few
phrases in Genesis is wrong.  Hubris, anyone?

But enough about logic, let's get down to the "facts."  To proceed we
need two numbers.  The first is the diffusion coefficient D which
measures how fast helium diffuses through the zircons.  This can only
be obtained by measurement.  The second number comes from a
theoretical calculation which gives the relationship between D and the
actual age of the zircons.

The authors have made a real effort to make the paper look good.
There is a nice explanation of diffusion, and the theoretical
calculation is described  in loving detail.  They display the
equations used, give references to where they got the equations, and
say they used Mathematica to solve them.  (The fact that all they did
with Mathematica was to sum a series of positive numbers suggests they
didn't know how to write even an elementary computer program, but they
mean it to be impressive.)

As for the measurements of D, the creationists didn't do the
measurements themselves, they got an expert to do the measurements for
them.  The creationists contacted the expert through a front man who
didn't tell the expert who the measurements were for, or why they
wanted them.  All very wise, and confidence building, precautions.

But then a problem arises and is promptly swept under the rug. The
creationists prominently display the result of their theoretical
calculations i.e. they explicitly say what D should be if the zircons
are either 6,000 years old  (Table 2) or 1.5 BY old (Table 3).  The
problem comes in the comparison of theory and measurement.

What the creationists do is hide behind a technical difficulty.  The
diffusion coefficient D changes dramatically with temperature, and the
measurements of D were all done at temperatures of 300 - 500 C.  But
the good (or at least "better") zircons were below 200 C so one has to
extrapolate down to these lower temperatures.   (The measurement
procedure is to heat the zircons and see how much helium leaks out at
different temperatures.  The reason for the heating is that helium
leaks out too slowly at low temperatures.)

So if you extrapolate down to 197, 151, and 105 C, what do you get?
As the creationists say, D depends on T as:

D = D0exp( -E0 / (RT) ) (Eq 2 in the creationist paper)

where R is the universal gas constant 1.986 calories / mole-degree, T
is temperature in degrees Kelvin (Kelvin equals Centigrade + 273) and
D0 and E0 are constants that are found by "fitting" Eq. 2 to the
measurements.  Even though the creationists don't say what D is at the
relevant temperatures, they do give values of D0 and E0, so we can
calculate D for ourselves.

In fact there are TWO sets of values for D0 and E0, the first was
calculated using all the measurements and the second using only the
lower part of the temperature range (300 - 440 C). There are reasons
why the temperature curve may  "flatten out" at lower temperature,
i.e. D doesn't change as fast with temperature when the temperature is
lower, so a calculation using only the lower temperatures may be more
accurate. (I suppose that's the reason for the two different results).
The results are:

For ALL temperatures :
E0 = 34,400 D0/a^2 = 3548 + 3100 - 1700  (Eq. 5a)

For 440-300 C
E0 = 29,400 D0/a^2 = 64.9 (Eq. 5b)

"a" is the radius of the zircons, the zircons were assumed to be
spheres with 30 micron radius.  Since 30 microns is 0.003 cm,   1/a^2
= 111,111  = 1.1 x 10^5.  Note the large (factor of 2) error bar on
D/a^2 from 5a, and the ABSENCE of errors on the other 3 parameters.

Using the two different values of D0 and E0 in equation 2  we get:

Temp (C) D(6,000 years) D(all temp) D(440-300 C)
105 3.2 x 10^(-18) 4.1 x 10^(-22) 5.7 x 10^(-21)
151 1.3 x 10^(-17) 5.8 x 10^(-20) 4.0 x 10^(-19)
197 2.2 x 10^(-17) 1.0 x 10^(-18) 1.2 x 10^(-17)
239 1.8 x 10^(-16) 6.5 x 10^(-17) 1.6 x 10^(-16)
277 9.7 x 10^(-16) 6.7 x 10^(-16) 1.2 x 10^(-15)

(The creationists decided to drop the zircon measurement at 313 C,
that's why it doesn't appear here.)

If we compare the two columns of measured values, i.e D(all temp) and
D(440-300 C) we see that they disagree by a factor of 2 at 277 C and a
factor of 14 for the sample at 105 C!  We are not doing precision
science here.  The measured values agree roughly (within a factor of
2) with the theory at 277 C but are far smaller at 105 C.

Let's accept the Creationists' claim that their theoretical
calculations really do correspond to an age of 6,000 years and see
what ages are implied by the MEASURED values.  This is the table that
the Creationists SHOULD have put in their paper, but didn't.

Temp (C) Age (all temp) Age (440-300 C)
105 46,800,000 3,400,000
151 1,350,000 195,000
197 132,000 11,000
239 16,600 6,750
277 8,700 4,850

So what do the creationists show in their paper?  In their Table 4
they quote THREE of the 10 ages given above.  (They do a pointless
song and dance about a quantity "x" but what it boils down to is they
quote 3 of the ages.) Which three ages do they pick?  The lower 3 from
the right hand column, i.e.  4,850, 6,750, and 11,000.  (Their values
are 4,747, 6392, and 10,389, which are different from mine because
they were more fussy than I was about typing in all the decimal places
into the calculator. It doesn't matter since the error bars are about
a factor of two.)   So the creationists show the ages they like and
don't show the ones they don't like.  Yes, this is UNETHICAL.

If we choose to believe that the numbers in the paper are more honest
than the paper's authors, we can ask what these ages mean.  Let's
focus on two questions.  The first question is whether these data
actually provide any support for the claim that the earth is 6,000
years old.  The second question is whether these data are any sort of
embarrassment to the standard view about the age of the earth. Note
that the second question is NOT just a restatement of the first.  The
standard view is supported by vast amounts of high quality evidence of
many different sorts, none of this evidence is going to disappear just
because some zircons have too much helium.  But unless these zircons
really do support 6,000 years, the creations claim has NO basis in
fact.

Do the zircons provide any evidence for 6,000 years?  The high
temperature zircons give young ages, but their helium content is quite
low, which means the helium could easily be due to measurement error
or contamination.  After all, if a zircon has no helium, then the only
age determination possible is a lower limit: i.e. all you can say is
that the zircons have to be old enough so that all the helium could
have leaked out.  Lower limits on age don't do the creationists any
good.

The cold zircons have much more helium, so their helium measurements
are presumably more reliable, but they give ages that are much larger
than 6,000 years, and the colder, the older.  What does this mean?
The best the creationists can do is suggest that at lower temperatures
the diffusion constant D doesn't decrease as rapidly as at high
temperatures so extrapolating down from high temperatures
underestimates D and therefore overestimates the age.  That could be
true, but the creationists themselves admit they DON"T HAVE ANY DATA
below 300 C, so extrapolating down from high temperatures to low
temperatures is all they have to offer.

Faced with age estimates from their own data which differ by a factor
of 10,000 (4,850 to 46,800,000) the creationists need to get their
house in order before they can throw stones at anyone else's.  In the
present paper, the creationists position boils down to saying:
"Please, please believe in the small ages that we like, and not the
big ages that we don't like."

Could helium diffusion measurements be an embarrassment for the
conventional view of the age of the Earth?  Potentially, yes.  (That's
why the creationists are doing the measurements in the first place).
But to achieve their goal, the creationists need good (or at least
consistent) data, honestly analyzed.  Until then, they embarrass no
one but themselves.



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 03:17 AM on April 14, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Well received by 10,000 scientists," and in San Francisco, no less? Actually no, the 3 creationists didn't give invited talks before an audience of 10,000, in fact they didn't speak at all. What they had were 3 posters, basically everyone who goes to a conference is allowed to set up a poster


Well, you have to submit an abstract even for a poster, I suppose if everybody tried they would have to be selective, but nobody I know has ever been turned down.

Bottom line is that it isn't a huge deal.  If there is any science in it, it will show up in JGR.  More likely, they don't want to have to answer questions about calibration techniques and error bars, and the only place you'll ever hear of it again is in creationist literature.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:17 PM on April 14, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll post AiG's coverage and let people make up their own minds.  

Or, if you would rather - read it from the AiG site

RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs!
Cooperation (and quality control) brings results

by Carl Wieland, AiG–Australia

21 August 2003



A few years ago an initiative was undertaken to research thoroughly the whole area of Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth.  The RATE project began as a cooperative venture between the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the Creation Research Society (CRS) and Answers in Genesis (AiG).  (Our contribution was mostly providing the expertise of geologist Dr Andrew Snelling; however, when he commenced work with ICR, the project rightly reverted to a joint project of ICR/CRS.)  

With the release of several key peer-reviewed papers at the recent ICC (International Conference on Creationism), it is clear that RATE has made some fantastic progress, with real breakthroughs in this area.  

The main ones of these will be described and summarized in this paper, but first I want to give congratulations and credit to ICR.  Even though a substantial proportion of the scientists working on this project have not been actual ICR staff, ICR’s initiative and perseverance, and in particular the patient skilful coordination of their Dr Larry Vardiman had the major role in getting things to this point this quickly.  

Exciting news on ‘ancient’ granites
When physicist Dr Russell Humphreys was still at Sandia National Laboratories (he now works full-time for ICR), he and Dr John Baumgardner (still with Los Alamos National Laboratory) were both convinced that they knew the direction in which to look for the definitive answer to the radiometric dating puzzle.

Others had tried—and for some, the search went on for a while in the early RATE days—to find the answer in geological processes.  But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that there were too many independent lines of evidence (the variety of elements used in ‘standard’ radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos, fission track dating and more) that indicated that huge amounts of radioactive decay had actually taken place.  It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes could explain all these.  Rather, there was likely to be a single, unifying answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.  

Since, from the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place, it was clear that the assumption of a constant slow decay process was wrong.  There must have been speeded-up decay, perhaps in a huge burst associated with Creation Week and/or a separate burst at the time of the Flood.  

There is now powerful independent confirmatory evidence that at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay has indeed been the case, building on the work of Dr Robert Gentry on helium retention in zircons.  The landmark RATE paper1, though technical, can be summarized as follows:

When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas which readily escapes from rock.

Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead.

By measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed.  (This is consistent with the geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.)

There is a significant amount of helium from that ‘1.5 billion years of decay’ still inside the zircons.  This is at first glance surprising for long-agers, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure.  There should surely be hardly any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating.

Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons.  This is what one of the RATE papers reports on.  The samples were sent (without any hint that it was a creationist project) to a world-class expert to measure these rates.  The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures.  In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years.  In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay has taken place.   Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 (+/- 2000) years.

The paper looks at the various avenues a long-ager might take by which to wriggle out of these powerful implications, but there seems to be little hope for them unless they can show that the techniques used to obtain the results were seriously (and mysteriously, having been performed by a world-class non-creationist expert) flawed.  

More great news on radiocarbon
It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most2) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old.  For instance, AiG has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and TJ.  In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.

In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data.  The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels.3  This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.  (When one takes into account the likely much lower ratio of radioactive to ‘normal’ carbon pre-Flood4, it brings it right down to within the biblical ‘ballpark’.)  

Interestingly, specimens which appear to definitely be pre-Flood seem to have C-14 present, too, and importantly, these cluster around a lower relative amount of C-14.   This suggests that some C-14 was primordial, and not produced by cosmic rays—thus limiting the age of the entire earth to only a few thousand years.

This latter suggestion about primordial C-14 appears to have been somewhat spectacularly supported when Dr Baumgardner sent a diamond for C-14 dating.  It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive—i.e. the diamond, formed deep inside the earth in a ‘Precambrian’ layer, nevertheless contained radioactive carbon, even though it ‘shouldn’t have’.  

This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior.

The diamond’s carbon-dated ‘age’ of <58,000 years is thus an upper limit for the age of the whole earth.  And this age is brought down still further now that the helium diffusion results have so strongly affirmed dramatic past acceleration of radioactive decay.5

C-14 labs have no real answer to this problem, namely that all the ‘vast-age’ specimens they measure still have C-14.  Labelling this detectable C-14 with such words as ‘contamination’ and ‘background’ is completely unhelpful in explaining its source, as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown.  But it is no problem or mystery at all if the uniformitarian/long-age assumptions are laid to one side and the real history of the world, given in Scripture, is taken seriously. The C-14 is there, quite simply, because it hasn’t had time to decay yet.  The world just isn’t that old!  

The C-14 results are an independent but powerful confirmation of the stunning helium-diffusion results.  2003 looks like going down as a bad year for megachronophiles (lovers of long ages), but a good year for lovers of the Word of God.

Postscript: In addition to the book expected in 2005 reporting the final results of the RATE project, the project expects to publish a book for laymen summarizing the project shortly thereafter.  Dr Don DeYoung will be the author.  He has written several popular books on creation science and has been on the RATE since its inception.  His grasp of the details of the project and his excellent writing skills should combine to produce a highly readable book for creationist laymen.

References and notes
Humphreys, D. et al., Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay, www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf.
Even with the most sensitive AMS techniques used today, nary an atom of C-14 should be present after 250,000 years.
Baumgardner, J. et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model, www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf.
Factors which would lower the ratio: (1) More C-12 in the biosphere (more land area, higher CO2), (2) less C-14 production due to stronger magnetic field deflecting cosmic rays better, (3) C-14 starts building up at creation, so it would only have had 1,600 years to build up, nowhere near equilibrium.  
This burst of accelerated decay would be expected to have a greater effect, proportionately, the longer the half-life.  Compared to the effect on a uranium isotope with a half-life of billions of years, the effect of speeded-up decay on C-14, with its half-life of the order of 5,000 years, would be much less, which would explain why there is still some of this primordial C-14 left.  Other papers by RATE scientists at this ICC dealt with theoretical grounds for this (by Dr Eugene Chaffin, ref. 6) and also gave further supportive evidence from isochron dates for this varying effect (by Dr Steve Austin, Dr Andrew Snelling and Bill Hoesch, ref. 7).  (‘Good’ isochrons obtained for different decay chains within the same rock sample, which should have all registered the same ‘date’,  varied from one another in a manner consistent with this.)
Chaffin, E., Accelerated decay: theoretical models,  www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Chaffin.pdf.
Snelling, A., Hoesch, W. and Austin, S., Radioisotopes in the diabase sill (Upper Precambrian) at Bass Rapids, Grand Canyon, Arizona: an application and test of the isochron dating method, www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/ICCBassRapidsSill_2-%20AAS_SA_and_WH.pdf.


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:25 PM on April 14, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

With the release of several key peer-reviewed papers at the recent ICC (International Conference on Creationism),

That is not what is meant by peer review.  If I wrote a paper demonstrating evidences for a flat earth and presented it to the flat earth society, and they went wild over it, praising my "scientific investigations", would that mean that the earth really is flat?  After all, my paper was "peer reviewed", right?

Since, from the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place, it was clear that the assumption of a constant slow decay process was wrong.

And with this they have officially been disqualified from ever reffering to themselves as scientists.

The paper looks at the various avenues a long-ager might take by which to wriggle out of these powerful implications, but there seems to be little hope for them unless they can show that the techniques used to obtain the results were seriously (and mysteriously, having been performed by a world-class non-creationist expert) flawed.

The problem isn't who did the tests, it's under what conditions the samples were collected.  This is what usually skews the results of creationist dating attempts.  They submit a sample blindly to a lab, and provide no information abou the sample, so the lab can not correct for any abberations in the sample.

More garbage about C-14 dating, with no eferences attached, then this:
In addition to the book expected in 2005 reporting the final results of the RATE project, the project expects to publish a book for laymen summarizing the project shortly thereafter.  Dr Don DeYoung will be the author.  He has written several popular books on creation science and has been on the RATE since its inception.  His grasp of the details of the project and his excellent writing skills should combine to produce a highly readable book for creationist laymen.

Any special reason this is not being submitted for publicaton in a scientific journal?  Why the rush to print a popular book that appeals to "laymen"?



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 3:41 PM on April 14, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps you should take a look at this article:

More Second-Rate Science from the RATE Group
http://www.televar.com/~jnj/item14.htm

It addresses every single radiodating claim (carbon dating, diamonds, accelerated radiodecay, zircon samples and helium) made by the RATE group in the article you mention and debunks them all

It also addresses the fundamental problems with the way the RATE group operates including a thorough explaination as to why thier work wasn't peer-reviewed (as TQ commented on).

The best short point however has to be:  
Seems a Strange Place to Publish Significant Scientific "Breakthroughs"



 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 3:58 PM on April 14, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This latter suggestion about primordial C-14 appears to have been somewhat spectacularly supported when Dr Baumgardner sent a diamond for C-14 dating.  It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive—i.e. the diamond, formed deep inside the earth in a ‘Precambrian’ layer, nevertheless contained radioactive carbon, even though it ‘shouldn’t have’.


I've already responded to this on another thread, with deafning silence as a reply.  I'm not copying this from anywhere, I am making these criticisms based on my own training and experience.

1. Diamonds commonly contain nitrogen as a contaminant, the more nitrogen, the more yellow the diamond becomes, giving it a poorer color grade.

2. Nitrogen is converted to carbon 14 via neutron capture.   I have personally made radioisotopes via neutron capture in the lab, although not C14 (on purpose).

3. Uranium atoms distributed in rocks spontaneously decay via fission and produce neutron flux in crustal rocks.  Therefore it should be almost impossible to find a diamond that did not have some level of C14 in it.

4.  Looking a C14 content in oil deposits which would nominally have none due to age has gotten some work because the decay products produce background noise in sensors for other applications.  Nobody expects there to be none, for the reasons I've outlined.

In my opinion, this report is only meant to impress the gullible.  They won't impress anyone with any degree of understanding of the problem without answering the hard questions and publishing their results in a reputable journal.  

Try reading Jeremiah 14:14

 


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 4:07 PM on April 14, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks apoapsis.  I don't have a huge geological background (a few years of university, studying bilogical anthropology)  but  with the limited amount I knew those claims didn't sound right.  Imagine how it would sound to someone with no scientific background (like most creationist laymen)


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:25 PM on April 14, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Imagine how it would sound to someone with no scientific background (like most creationist laymen)

or me!!
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 9:16 PM on April 14, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

bump

YET has been around, but quiet lately.   I am interested in his response.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:51 AM on April 20, 2004 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.