News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

From http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=39389#Post39389

Ikester makes good points. The issue of evolutionist dating techniques really seems to deserve its own thread.

It seems to me that a little creationism is present even in the most atheistic versions of evolutionism. If rocks are created at certain various dates, what else can it mean? We see the creation of rocks acknowledged, but yet credit is never given to anyone for the event.

I find this state of affairs somewhat amusing. Of course I don't want to prematurely.

I already answered this in that thread but I'll re-post here.

I would suggest that anyone wishing to discuss dating methods, first learn a little about that which you are discussing. Wiki is a good starting point. It would make for a better discussion if all parties knew something about how scientists date rocks and fossils.

Post as follows:

Hi Ikester,



Radiometric dating of igenous rock dates the time at which is cooled and crystallised. Cosmogenic dating dates the amount of exposure to cosmic rays that rock or ice has undergone, in effect dating the amount of time the surface has been exposed. Those are two I know off the top of my head. The uranium dating in the Grand Canyon discussions is also a way of doing this.



Current theory is that a planet-sized object smashed into the earth very early in its history, during what we call the era of heavy bombardment. The fragments of the moon came together to form the moon billions of years ago. So it is more or less the same age of the earth, as radiometric dating of moon rocks tells us.



The radiometric dating methods of rocks are not used on fossils. If we are doubtful about the age of a fossil, and whether or not it has been found in situ (as opposed to having been washed there from elsewhere, for example), there are various methods that can be employed. It can be compared with index fossils present in the same rock. A fluorine analysis can also be done:



Again, these are just the ones I know off the top of my head. I am not a scientist and I'm sure there are others. If you have a specific example here that you would like to discuss, please let me know.

Must've been posting at the same time. Thanks for cooperating.

Well, right out of the gate this one's a loser. I see two assumptions that cannot be verified: both specimens exposed to same amount of bacteria & same exposure to groundwater.

The assumption of uniform groundwater exposure runs contrary to observations you can make in your own yard (or any nearby park if you lack a yard). Plants grow faster or slower based almost entirely on the amount of water they receive. Grass, trees, flowers, all plants are observed to grow at non-uniform rates due to one getting more water than its neighbor.

This fact also throws a monkey wrench into tree ring dating, but that's not a high priority for me these days.

First I'd like to draw attention here to Post 39418, which gives more information about radiometric dating. The problem is that since you started this thread with a post that already existed in another thread, we have parallel discussions happening.



If you had looked at the site I linked to, it says:



The original question was:



If a fossil appears not to be in situ, then fluorine dating can help determine that. Archaeologists can also look at other fossils existing in the same stratum of rock, which could possibly extend for miles. Taking samples from different parts of that stratum can help determine whether some of those fossils have younger ages. And as I said, we know the evolutionary history of some fossils so well (such as foraminifera) that they can be used as index fossils to help date other fossils found with them.

Actually I'm not quite sure what your specific question is here . . . ?

LL: Wiki is a good starting point.

Jeanie: Our schools don't let kids use Wiki as a source due to its unreliability.

Which is why it's a good starting point, not the only source. Google is good too. There's no excuse for not learning about a subject which a person is debating.

I could say that back to you on....

oops...concerning other sides of the issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not debating for evolution....I'm vouching for creation. Practice what you preach

Don't give me lip today, Linda. I don't feel good and I'm not in the mood

I wasn't making that comment as a personal attack, especially since you're not engaged in the active debate here. I meant it for anyone who posts comments about things like dating methods without reading up on what they actually are, how scientists use them, and what results they produce. I think it's a reasonable enough request to ask them to do that.

Linda - I think everyone on here (of faith) has established that nothing WE say will be seen as evidence.... So I'm approaching from a different point of view..... One that I know. I have a tape on the differences of the dating methods. I have no interest in researching it in depth, but when I find that I'll give it a look to try and post on that.

Your arrogance yesterday offended me Linda. You are my dear, a cranky person. And right now so am I.

Bite me

All right - I'm off. Fight amongst yourselves. That is all you are really doing.

Sorry for the display of anger above. I have a fever and am so miserable I have no level of tolerance for any sarcasm or inuendo at this point. I am not full out sick very often (although never feel well) and am not very patient when I am.

I'm sorry Linda....

They're talking about the mineral content of the water. I'm talking about the water itself. Water isn't distributed evenly underground. Even an inch or two can make a huge difference.

Yep. And water exposure is assumed to be the same when anyone can look at practically any patch of grass and see this is a false assumption.

But not all are privy to revelations from the evogods, and those who aren't face a choice: reason in circles, or decline to reason in circles. You absolutely must assume evolutionism is truth before you can imagine the existence of an "index fossil".

For purposes of verification, it's obvious neither flourine evodates or index fossil evodates are remotely close to sufficient.

The logical fallacy first, CTD:

This is the logical fallacy of equivocation, where "creation" is used to mean formation, and then it is taken to have meant specieal biblical creation.

We see rocks made today with no need to acknowledge any special handling of material. You can actually do it in a lab. Ever made crystals? Ever seen a "commercial diamond"?

We also see new rocks formed from lava at every volcano.

These are not bits of special creation, as far as I know.

The Devil's Hole and Radiometric Age

To discuss radioactive decay and dating systems that are based on this concept we need a system that can be correlated over substantial time to validate the system.

http://water.usgs.gov/nrp/devilshole.html

We have correlations between age, climate and temperatures, so how is this data evaluated?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr97-792/



They measured the age with a radiometric decay system and also measured d18O and d13C as measures of climate. There is a table with the 284 samples by age with d18O and d13C values. For a correlation of that data to the age and climate information from another source we can compare the isotope ratios to those found in the antarctic ice cores:

http://water.usgs.gov/nrp/devils.html



The correlations with actual age from the ice layers in Greenland and Antarctica can be covered later, for now we just note that the isotope ratios are "highly correlated" with those layers for the same ages derived by these radiometric methods.

So what exactly do we have here? Water dripping down a cave wall, depositing calcite and various other minerals and impurities, elements that are soluble in water, including trace levels of radioactive isotopes of uranium. Material that gets deposited as the water evaporates, forming layer after layer of similar deposits, each one trapping the material in their respective layers. The calcite forms a matrix that holds the impurities, minerals and trace elements in a position related to the time the calcite was deposited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcite



Radioactive elements decay into other elements, and some of these are not soluble, and thus the presence of these insoluble daughter elements is evidence of decay of the soluble parent elements. These daughter elements are still trapped in the layers of calcite that the parent elements were depositied in, so their position also relates to the age of the daughter elements in the calcite layers. We are interested in four isotopes of these matrix constrained elements, two radoactive - thorium-230 and protactinium-231 - and two not radioactive - oxygen-18 and carbon-13 - and what they can tell us about climate and age.

Thorium-230

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html



At the Devil's Hole we are essentially dealing with one very large stalactite. The calcite was deposited after being dissolved in water, the Th-230 in the calcite could only come from the decay of the parent U-234, giving an accurate measurement of the age of the layers of calcite.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium(7). Thorium-230 has a half-life of 75,380 years.

Protactinium-231

http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/protactinium.pdf



The U-235 to Pa-231 decay is from a different series than the U-234 to Th-230 decay, so the two are independent of each other. Again, as the Devil's Hole calcite was deposited after being dissolved in water, the Pa-231 in the calcite could only come from the decay of the parent U-235, giving an accurate measurement of the age of the layers of calcite.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protactinium(6). Protactinium-231 has a half-life of 32,760 years.

Radioactive Decay

The radiation decay curve is exponential, with different results for different decay constants - the half-lives of the radioactive isotopes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_decay



Using the half-lives of thorium-230 (75,380 years) and protactinium-231 (32,760 years), we can now draw the exponential curves for these isotopes (with % on the y-axis and time in k-yrs on the x axis, thorium in blue and protactinium in red):



This means we have a series of data with three different pieces of information: calcite layer (relative) age, Thorium-230 content and Protactinium-231 content. We also note that Thorium-230 has a half-life of 75,380 years, while Protactinium-231 has a half-life of 32,760 years - less than half the half-life of Thorium-230. This means that layer by layer the ratio of Thorium-230 to Protactinium-231 is different:


So for these dates to be invalid there would have to be a mechanism that can layer by layer preferentially change the ratio of these two {elements\isotopes} within the solid calcite vein, and if you change the rate of decay then you need to change the rate of deposition of the calcite exponentially to match thickness for apparent age.

Conclusions

Based on this information alone we can conclude:

• The theoretical basis for radiometric dating is accurate and valid.
• The two different radiometric methods are equally valid - at least as far back as 567,700 yr BP.
• That there was no change in the behavior of radioactive materials in the last 567,700 years, and
• The world is older than 567,000 years and no global flood has occurred in that time.

Enjoy.

Still batting for the home team, CTD.

We can discuss the correlations of the different methods of dating and at the same time answer some of ikester's questions,

A Further Discussion of Radiometric Correlations

There are correlations between radiometric dating methods, all showing broad consistency in results when properly applied:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html



Let's look at some of those numbers:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/confirm.html

Layer by layer the stratigraphic measures older by radiometric dating, entirely consistent with the long term deposition of sedimentary layers. None of the K-Ar Dates overlap into the wrong sedimentary layers. This is similar to the layer by layer correlation between Thorium-230 content and Protactinium-231 with the calcite layers in Devil's Hole.There is also one layer that is not measured - the Orellian - and here is dated by the "sandwich" method (layers above and below) to 25.6 to 31.6 million years ago (this essentially makes a prediction that dating will fill this gap within this range). This demonstrates how this type of dating of objects works.

www.ncseweb.org/.../vol20/RadiometericDatingDoesWork...

(Note image used is originally from this website and was only copied to a mirror site to reduce bandwidth traffic on the original source).

That's 187 results between minimum 63.1 million years ago and maximum 66.5 million years ago, from a number of different sources and techniques.

Here's another correlation:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/crater_chain.html

All of those ages overlap within the margins of error for each method - an actual age of 214x10^6 years BP is consistent with each one.

www.ncseweb.org/.../vol20/RadiometericDatingDoesWork...

(Note image used is originally from this website and was only copied to a mirror site to reduce bandwidth traffic on the original source).

Excluding the Sm-Nd isochron (4 points) dating of St. Severin meteor - which runs from 4.22 billion years ago to 4.88 billion years ago - that's 16 results between 4.34 billion years ago and 4.61 billion years ago (and also within the envelope of the St. Severin meteor

Notice that these correlated dates all imply an age for the earth of ~4.5 billion years. This is one piece of evidence of the extreme old age of the earth.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html



Matching data on the earth, on the moon and from meteors.

The essential element of measuring the age of the earth is NOT finding evidence that the earth is young - that is easy on an old earth - but in finding the oldest available evidence - evidence of age that just cannot be made compatible with any young earth creation model no matter how hard the creationists try.

Note: The age of the earth ~4.5 billion years based on this data.

Bottom line: to say that the methods are "inaccurate" is true - there are margins of error in every measurement system known to man (nothing is "accurate"), but to imply that they are unreliable is false, the amount of error is not enough to make the earth young.

For comments related to common creationist arguments against radioactive dating techniques see Chris Stassen's comments at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jan99.html

Enjoy.

ps - thanks for starting a thread where we can deal with the issues of the age of the earth, radiometric, tree ring, lake suigetsu varves, there is so much information out there that shows the earth is in fact old.

No. I said nothing about biblical creation.

If I did make crystals, would I get credit?

If they were, it wouldn't be very biblical. Ongoing acts of creation just don't match what is written. These Concepts are an artifact of earlier atheism & earlier compromise.

It's common knowledge that when dates come out "wrong" (as if they know) this is often attributed to the rock having "older" contents. Now all rocks, when they form, are formed from matter that was already around. So saying a rock was "formed from older matter" would be self-evident and redundant. The excuse implies a creation event of some sort. It implies that some things are not formed from older matter.

It may have escaped your notice, but 'substantial' is the opposite of 'imaginary'.

Correlation, far from validating evodates, merely helps one maintain that they don't invalidate themselves. How much correlation should exist and how universal it should or shouldn't be are largely subjective matters - unless one wants to get strictly scientific about it. A single exception is all that's required to invalidate an hypothesis, under strict science.

Misleading. They measure physical qualities, apply assumptions, and conclude age.

'Highly correlated' isn't the same as 'perfectly correlated'. Are there discrepancies? How many discrepancies are required to disqualify an hypothesis?



Oh I should like to challenge that statement. I've looked into similar claims in the past & found them false. Please name your best candidate for an element which isn't soluble. I don't intend to play spam games, so if you provide a list, I will choose one myself.

I see your source doesn't tell a straight story.

I guess they could mean 'relatively insoluble' rather than 'absolutely insoluble'...


Yes, the curve is exponential, and it's not hard to play tricks with the math. One could calculate 1/4 lives, 1/3 lives, or 1/277 lives for decaying elements. All will result in different exponential curves.

All are abstractions based upon the (calculated) chance of a given atom decaying in a given timeframe. One could directly calculate the number of atoms involved and directly apply probabilities to the result without ever employing the 1/2 life abstraction.

I haven't dug into the history of this convention, but I have little confidence in it.

The wikisource glosses over this, claiming the halflife method is "more intuitive". Just compare the formulas to see which is simple & intuitive and which adds complexity.

Come now, I think we all know the basis of your conclusions.

Post is long & time is short. I intend to get around to more. LindaLou's first in line, so I'll be taking that into consideration.

I don't understand what you are saying. Buried bones take up fluorine from surrounding soils. The amount of fluorine taken up is proportional to the amount in the surrounding deposit and the length of time the bone has been buried. Varying concentrations of fluorine in different deposits preclude the method from being considered absolute, but it can be used to measure the relative ages of bones found in the same deposit.

Are you saying that geologists don't know how to measure fluorine amounts in the surrounding soil? Or what, exactly?



Yet strangely, you have given no evidence for why you do not "believe in" index fossils, nor is there any inidcation that you looked at the link I provided which gives evidence for millions of years of foraminifera evolution, unbroken throughout the fossil record. These kinds of fossils are found so reliably in specific layers around the world that they can give information about the age of other fossils found with them. Regardless of water or fluorine.

By now you will of course be aware that personal refusal to accept evidence has no bearing on the evidence itself.

Dodge again CTD.

So then who would need to get credit?

Do you need to? It's just chemical reactions.

So no one needs to give anyone credit when new rocks are formed. Thanks for clearing that up.

No, it's common creationist assertion and some documented misuse of dating methods. Any method can be misused, so when the results of such misuse are used to disprove the method all it shows is (a) that the person doing it intentionally misused the method, and (b) pretends that it isn't misused to (c) delude gullible people that don't know better.

True, and if you read the actual literature about the physical and chemical processes you will see that what they are dating is the time of formation of the new rock from old matter by the physical and chemical changes that occur.

Congratulations, btw, as you just showed that the material that the earth is made up from is older than any of the radiometric dates for any object of evidence that has been dated.

Which says nothing about the substantial time that is covered by the evidence.

And if they are not invalidated then they are ... (what's the opposite of invalidated?)? The other thing that these correlations do is they invalidate the concept that the methods are wildly inaccurate, what they show is the range of errors in the systems, the tolerance of the measurements. Even with inaccuracies of 10% there is still plenty of evidence that the world is billions of years old.

They apply physics and chemistry as we know it today and they end up with consistently correlated dates at every layer, they correlate for depth in the calcite, the amount of thorium present and the amount of protactinium, and it just all happens to end up with the same age. Consistant, layer by layer by layer by layer.

"Highly correlated" is a relative term based on correlation factors.

http://torque.oncloud8.com/archives/000579.html
You can probably find other sources on statistics, and then we can talk about what the "r" value is and how it is calculated ... we don't know whether they are talking 0.80 or 0.99 ...

and it really is just another added correlation to the correlations between layers of calcite, levels of thorium and levels of protactinium, from an entirely different source, but still showing substantially the same results.

If we assume it is 0.80 then -- as a worst case -- the age of the Devil's hole calcite is 567,700 +/-20% -- or from 454,160 to 681,240 years old -- still way older than any YEC model I am aware of.

Do you think there is anything that is absolutely insoluble in water? Certainly what they can do is measure the relative solubility of different elements etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insoluble
What we have here is an isotope that is very soluble decaying into one that is substantially less (a lot less) soluble, and thus you have deposition of the new isotope atoms on the substrate, where they get locked in place by the calcite.

Sadly for you this is a totally false statement. Very simply, the "1/4 life" would be the time it takes for a sample to decay to the point where only 1/4 of the original amount is left. This would take the same time, and end up at the same concentration, as waiting for 2 half-lives of any isotope.

If you want, I can go through the math and prove it (this is math now).

Correct, and curiously you would still end up with the same time span for the ages of the calcite layers by thorium and identical ages for the calcite layers by protactinium.

And, curiously, the entire universe is unperturbed by your lack of confidence. No radioactive atoms sit up waiting for you to approve their decay.

Which is still irrelevant to the issue of calcite deposits and actual quantities of thorium and protactinium that all agree on the age vs depth correlation. You can use any of the formulas they give and you end up with the same results: 567,700 years.

Logical conclusions based on evidence.

That's fine, just don't forget that there is a lot here left unanswered.

Enjoy.

I may scroll up and review what I have written for clarity. I don't recall facing a challenge while expressing myself earlier, so don't count on it.

I do not assume evolutionism is truth. I think there's quite a bit of evidence close at hand which supports this statement.

If it did, you'd have poofed quite a lot of matter out of existence by now. I'm sure I should see no evidence of Polonium Radiohalos, for example. The discussion
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=34908#Post34908
was brief, lasting only a few posts.

As you have kindly provided an example of your 'logic' in the very same post, let us all have a look. shall we?
So any story which manages not to invalidate itself must be considered validated?

The Theory of Skunk Funk looks to be unstoppable!

Ever notice that self-validation = circular reasoning, RAZD? If you have ever noticed this, please remind yourself.

I haven't ruled out the possibility entirely, but past claims of such materials have failed more than once. I don't think there is any such thing. Should I?

And should I omit (as some do) to make this clear to others, who might mistake the term to be literal rather than relative? What purpose would that serve?

This is pretty simple math. After the first 1/4 life, 3/4 remain. After the next 1/4 life, 9/16 remain. 9/16 ain't 1/2.

1/4 x 1 = 1/4 First ql
1/4 x 3/4 = 3/16 Second ql
1/4 + 3/16 = 7/16 Total
-7/16 + 1 = 9/16 Result

So 2 quarterlives do not give the same result as one halflife. Other fractions will do this too. Care to see four 1/8 lives?

Do you not think that samples would be taken throughout the area in question, and measured? Do you think that if your comment above was a serious problem, that this dating method would be used at all? It is also one tool at a scientist's disposal, not the sole test that a scientist would rely on, as it gives relative dates rather than absolute. Biostratigraphy (i.e. comparing with other fossils, often index fossils, all of which are found in faunal succession) is a preferred method, as is the radiometric dating of surrounding rock.

I still don't understand what your point is about the "water itself" as opposed to the mineral content, which is the important factor here. Excuse my grievous ignorance and enlighten me please.



Yet strangely all you are still doing is saying "I don't believe," without referring to the evidence presented (the article on foraminifera evolution). Like those decaying atoms, the foraminifera are not sitting up waiting for your approval either.

Polonium radiohalos (not a new subject, I've seen it discussed in other places) . . . how much do you understand about them? I understand very little, and I will be honest about that because this sort of detailed knowledge of chemistry and radioactive decay is difficult for me to grasp and I have no background knowledge of it to help me. Please address your question about this to RAZD, when you are finished discussing the other points about radioactive decay.

No it's not. From a dictionary


Therefore, a quarter life is the time it takes for 1/4 of the material to decay away.


That only works on linear functions. Since this is an exponential decay, a quarter-life is not equal to half of a half-life. Quarter-life and half-life are measures of the time it takes for a certain amount of the substance to decay away (1/4 of the material in the first case and 1/2 of the material in the second case). Those radioactive decays have been observed to occur following this function:

N(t) = N(0)e^-?t

Where N(t) = The amount of material at a particular time
N(0) = The initial amount of material.
t = The time expended
? = the decay rate, which is differs between materials

So, for a 1/2 life: N(t)/N(0) = 1/2 = e^-?t(half)

You then solve for t(half) and get: t(half) = (-ln(1/2))/? = .693/?

for a 1/4 life: N(t)/N(0) = 3/4 = e^-?t(quarter)

You then solve for t and get:
t(quarter) = (-ln(3/4))/? = .288/?

So t(quarter)/t(half) = (.288/?)/(.693/?)

Solve for t(quarter):

t(quarter)= ((.288/?)/(.693/?))* t(half) =(.288/.693)*t(half)

t(quarter) = .415 * t(half)

.415 is less than .5 so two quarter-lives is less time than one half-life. Therefore two quarter-lives can leave 9/16 of the material while one half-life can only leave 1/2 of the material.

I hope this helps

Please don't think I was slighting you earlier by telling CTD to ask RAZD about polonium halos; you obviously know about the chemistry and maths as well. I'm sure you can't wait to refute the halos claim for the upteenth time LOL.

I did calculus at university. I couldn't find the function of any (x) to save my life now. If you don't use it you lose it.

Still trying CTD,

That would fit with the definition of valid as used in science. The logical conclusion drawn from the physical properties of radioactive elements is actually found in the evidence of actual radioactive decay. Thus the concept has been tested, and the results validate the conclusion.

Just as unstoppable as the "theory" of invisible little pink unicorns, because they are not testable. Anyone can make up stuff, the difference between fantasy and science is testing and testing and testing the concepts for validity.

Except we are not talking about self validation, we are talking about validating an intellectual concept with real physical objective evidence (the part where your "skunk funk" fails). It is evidence that validates (or invalidates) theoretical concepts.

The difference is that one can recognize that we are talking orders of magnitude of difference in solubility, measured as the maximum density of the solute in the solution. 1 atom in a gallon is not what I would call soluble. When Wiens says "but essentially no thorium (because of its much lower concentrations in the water)" that would be because it is very insoluble. Meanwhile you may have floating particles with some thorium, caused by the same process, but those would not be consider dissolved in the water, while they would be available for marine organisms to ingest. You should be happy to see that scientists don't assume there is no thorium based on it being insoluble, but consider that there could be initial levels present.

This still does not address the issue that uranium is many times more soluble in water than thorium is, and that when uranium decays into thorium many of those atoms will then come out of solution and be deposited.

LinearAQ has already provided some information about why you are wrong here, and yes, it has to do with your using a linear interpolation rather than one based on the mathematical curve involved.

You can also compare this by simply to using two half lives as the original time frame: after the double half life you have 0.5x0.5 = 0.25% remaining.

Using your approach we now calculate the amount at half that time as (1+0.25)/2 = 0.625 = 62.5% ... but we know that at a single half life we have 50%, so you obviously have an error in your assumption, in this case of a linear correlation as opposed to an exponential one.

You can actually calculate your 1/4, 1/3 1/whatever lives (properly - see LinearAQ's post) and then plot the results and you will end up with exactly the same curve as you get with half-life.

Enjoy.

Hey LindaLou,

This argument (Pratt Claim CF201) assumes there is no source of modern Polonium.

The problem for Creationists that use this example, though is to explain the existence of Uranium Halos:

From Dr Wiens:
(bold mine for emPHAsis)

And this again comes back to the basic problem for all Young Earth scenarios: it is easy to find evidence of young things in an old earth, but how do you explain the evidence of old things in a young earth?

Enjoy.

RAZD: And this again comes back to the basic problem for all Young Earth scenarios: it is easy to find evidence of young things in an old earth, but how do you explain the evidence of old things in a young earth?

Jeanie: Because for even those who think the earth is young it was still created from already existing matter!

Thank you for correcting your fellow evolutionist. I suppose it's only fair to allow him time to spot & correct some of the mistakes in your post.

The funny thing, CTD,

is that you also can find this definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halflife
And from this you would extrapolate a quarter-life to be the interval required for the quantity to decay to 1/4 of it's initial value. Perhaps the reason that half-life is used is that it works both ways with the same numbers, so you don't end up with confusion of which 1/4 you are talking about.

Curiously, it doesn't matter whether you define it as 1/4 or 3/4, as:

(1) you are still most emphatically, absolutely wrong, and

(2) you still end up with the same decay curve.

λ is a constant, not dependent on time.

Many things in nature follow this pattern.

Enjoy.

Hey Jeanie,

So you are saying that YE scenarios are entirely compatible with a 13.7 billion year old universe existing long before the formation of the earth from the debris of exploding stars?

I just want to be clear on your point.

Enjoy.

I didn't detect that assumption in the talkdeceptions piece. I wouldn't put it past them, but I read it twice and the assumption just isn't there.

You might claim you refer to creationist arguments, but I know for certain they contain no assumption of the kind.

In either case, your "problem" seems to exist in your own imagination.

Maybe I'll discuss that some other time. For now, score this attempt at diversion as a failure.

This is even less plausible than the one Linear parroted for us. Where is the evidence that decay stops when atoms are part of a solution? There are many types of chemical change, but I don't know of any that will suffice for this bluff.

Apparently Dr. Wiens & his evopartners can't think of any known chemical process either, which would do the trick. This part suggests an imaginary 'chemical change', not yet observed, or even speculated about in any detail. But "plausible" all the same, according to evopushers.

Suggest? The diameters of the halos are just the right size to be diagnostic of polonium, but that's "just a coincidence", eh?

While these lies are insulting and arrogant, it is amusing to see how low their quality is, and how low some will sink in order to obscure the truth.

You don't seem to be paying attention very well. The existence of these radiohalos isn't evidence that the Earth is any age. It is evidence that is only consistent with virtually instantaneous creation to the best of our knowledge. There is no known means of creating them by natural or artificial means. In spite of all the evidence & theory that says they shouldn't, they exist!

Want another laugh? If there were any possible way to manufacture the radiohalos, Dr. Gentry would have been accused of fraud. But everybody knows there's no way to make them. Absence of actions by parties with strong motives and a history of consistently performing said actions can also speak eloquently.

RAZD: So you are saying that YE scenarios are entirely compatible with a 13.7 billion year old universe existing long before the formation of the earth from the debris of exploding stars?

I'm not sure what YE people think exactly, but I believe in the creation as you know. I know my scenario is compatible with that. God and the universe are eternal.

Looks like I will have to wait for him since you won't address the parts of my post that corrected you.

It makes one think that you cannot refute the fact that I smashed your implication that radioactive decay curves are mathematically manipulated to match what evolutionists want. Of course that's not really fair on my part since I took advantage of your lack of knowledge concerning mathematics.

That was the cause of your mistake, right? I mean, your lack of skill in setting up a proper mathematic model of the real life situation even though you were already given the formula that modeled the behavior, right?

That has to be it, because otherwise that would mean you were purposely misrepresenting the mathematics model of radioactive decay in order to score points with those who don't know better.

I'm sure you would not violate your faith's high standards just to look like a winner on a web forum.

Correct that to say "no natural source of the Polonium" since YEC's claim that the Polonium was instantaneously created by God when He formed the Earth 6000 years ago. I guess that would be the "assumption".

Why do you consider it a diversion? The isotopes of Polonium in question are direct descendants in the chain of decay daughters from Uranium. You can't just dismiss it.

It is plausible if you realize that the Polonium is a daughter product of a chain of decay daughters that started with Uranium.

Check out this reference on page 2 for the U-238 decay chain.

You mean like the solubility of the Radon and Radium (Uranium decay daughters)in alkali water and the lesser solubility of Polonium (Radon decay daughter) in the same water? For those who don't know, solubility is a chemical characteristic. Going into solution (dissolving) and coming out of solution (precipitating) are "chemical changes".


Implied statement: "Anything that disagrees with YEC doctrine is a lie and evolutionists are all just low down liars."

Yet they exist in granites that have obviously formed after the Earth was made because those granites lie on top of sedimentary rock. Did God create the granites later after the earth was in place or did He create the sedimentary rock in the beginning and just made it to look like it had settled there?

Why would geologists accuse Gentry of fraud if they can go out and find samples of the radio-halos themselves? Everyone can note that you are accusing geologists of an ongoing pattern of deception and false accusation.

Well guess again, because nobody has made this assumption either.

Acknowledging (as everyone who's looked into the issue has) that Polonium can be a result of decay does not alter anything. The halos in question are not produced by uranium - they're produced by polonium. Were there uranium present, it would also have left a telltale halo of its own when it decayed.

The evidence isn't consistent with uranium being present in the center of the halos. It is consistent with polonium.

Both of these false assertions of assumptions where none exist are arrogant insults to the intelligence of the readership. Perhaps you might pray to your evogod(s) that they really are too stupid to notice.

Ah CTD, the old dodge dodge.

So you agree that Polonium occurs naturally, and thus can find it's way - as pointed out by several people - into the rocks where the halo's are formed.

Therefore Polonium halos in question are evidence of recent Polonium, but not of a young earth.

Which doesn't address the issue of halos where uranium IS at the center, and which have taken several hundred million years to form (due to the decay rate of Uranium vs Polonium).

Or are you going to argue a special pleading that this phenomena apply to Polonium halos but not to Uranium halos?

Enjoy.

There are lots of things that occur naturally. Spring showers haven't been observed finding their way to the center of the sun.

Indeed, had polonium a motive, it still couldn't create the halos by the processes evolutionists describe. The problem with all migration scenarios is that the polonium must decay en route, unless there exists a means to prevent decay. If you know of such a means, I'd be interested to hear about it.

More likely, you mean to claim it suspended decay & accuse me of "arguing from incredulity" if I don't buy your story.

But folks, please consider carefully what these evolutionists are advocating! They imagine decay can be halted. If it can be halted for polonium, why not all other radioactive elements?

These same people openly assume decay rates are always constant, any time this assumption will help them produce evodates. Someone's story invalidates itself.

They also assume polonium has some desire to "find its way" to certain places and decay there. Sort of like the legend of the Elephants' Graveyard.

Some geologists must be fond of this concept, for wiki saysNote that even this is hypothetical.
That's twice you've shown that you're not paying attention. I recall that there is a good "young earth" argument associated with radiohalos, but we haven't been discussing it.

So? I never suggested it did. Why should I address this now? It's pretty trivial business to find the error. Those who desire to divert their attention to this bunk, well, that's their own business.

You haven't yet given a lick of evidence to support the assumption you claimed creationists were making, either. It was just more empty, hollow bunk. Spam away & let us see how many morons fall victim to your trickery. What's next? Apoloniogenesis?

That's because, just like the Grand Canyon thread, you want to play "Where's Waldo" with your hypothesis about how the Polonium got to where it was before it decayed to lead. Since you claim this particular isotope of Polonium did not come from Uranium, then the only other option is that it was created instantaneously in place. Did I overstep my bounds by including God in the assumption?


No one here is saying that the Uranium from which the Polonium is a decay daughter was originally located at the site where the Polonium decayed. Why would you make such an obvious error in your assumption of what we are saying? Are you hoping that the readership here is too stupid to notice your little hide-the-pea shuffle? Maybe you should go to your prayer closet and ask Jesus to support your deceptions...I doubt He will.

And here it is, just as predicted. Be quick with the eyes. Now you see the pea....now you don't. Despite the fact that Uranium 238 DOES NOT decay directly to Polonium 218, Polonium 214 or Polonium 210, your sleight of hand man, CTD, will claim that the evolutionists said it does. This is also in complete contradiction to the reference that I supplied to him here

Since the Uranium decays to Thorium, then Radium, then Radon and all of those have 1/2 lives significantly longer than the Polonium isotopes it is entirely possible for the atoms to have migrated to the final resting place before becoming Polonium. So the Polonium did not have to "halt" its decay because the atoms were not Polonium when they were en route.


Another misrepresentation and distraction. CTD claims that geologists not only are unaware of mechanisms for mineral deposition (water, gas diffusion...etc) but also believe that elements are sentient. Of course he expects the audience to be stupid enough to lap up that foul swill and smile while doing so.


This is the important part of the hide-the-pea formula. Tell a joke or jabber nonsensically to distract the mark. By the way my dear readership, he has chosen you as the mark. Now...where's the pea?

Utterly false. Whether or not I have repeated the hypotheses available in the links is a separate issue altogether. You even nested your own quote, but managed to forget its contents in the time it took you to compose your post.

There is no YEC claim that polonium cannot form naturally. It does not exist. It is not assumed or implied anywhere. The claim is pretty simple, and a kindergartener can understand the fallacy you attempt to convince people they should accept.

The implication of the evidence is clear, and there are creationists who won't hesitate to say "God made the polonium that produced the halos". But this is different from saying "God used separate acts of creation to continue making polonium." God has put laws in place which govern nature, and cause the other elements He created to decay. Sin may be involved too, but God is the ultimate creator of all that exists.

You attempt to confuse the polonium which is responsible for the halos with all polonium. Before you draw inspiration from RAZD, you might look at the quality of his own deceptions, especially the most recent attempts.

As I said, a kindergartener can understand that 'some' isn't 'all'. You might ask yourself why we have separate words for 'some' and 'all', and maybe do a little research if you intend to maintain 'some' actually is 'all'.

Elsewhere you accuse me of claiming uranium directly decays into polonium. Your hastily-composed false accusations invalidate themselves.

What makes you think I did? You again attempt to sow confusion. I was not talking at all about your evostory in that context. I was talking about the potential for you & RAZD's imaginary "creationist assumptions" to have any substance behind them. Will you now claim these are both the same thing? From experience I know better than to assume you won't.

I have hidden nothing here, to the best of my knowledge and capacity to communicate efficiently.

Really? When will this happen, oh false prophet? The day you obtain my password & log in as me, you may have a shot of making it appear thus. But you'd probably forget, or bungle the attempt in some unpredictably funny manner.

Then please explain which of the elements you are claiming can halt its decay at will, or at your convenience.

Of course, had, oh let's choose thorium... had thorium migrated to designated elephant graveyards, it would still have to decay before you'd have your polonium. The decay would produce halos, thorium halos. But Dr. Gentry found polonium halos. Your stories start out stupid, and go downhill.


If by "pea", you refer to hypotheses or evidence, they are supplied by the links given in the other thread.

I would further urge folks who haven't done so to view the halo pics I posted in that thread. Fractures are visible in some, but they're not consistent with the migration fantasies. Talk about grasping at straws! An what's the purpose? Why do they risk their reputations by pushing such an obviously false fantasy? To maintain their myth that God wasn't involved with creation. Shows just how "compatible" evolutionism is with truth.

It's simple, CTD

What I note is that it has nothing to do with either the issue of Polonium halos or with Uranium Halos, it's just distraction.

Not really: Radon is a gas and is capable of traveling within rock along the smallest paths known. When Radon decays into Polonium it is no longer a gas, and the rest of the decay pattern would be the same as for Polonium.

In addition, the decay from Radon to Polonium has almost exactly the same energy as one of the Polonium decay stages, and many times would produce a ring hard to distinquish from the later decay.

Here is an interesting paper by an amateur scientist that has looked at this issue: Evolution's Tiny Violences: The Po-...ientist Examines Pegmatitic Biotite Mica

So once a path is developed, it would be followed by other radon gas atoms, and over time would create the halo.

He even talks about how to test this explanation - by seeing if you can find the double rings.

Interestingly this pattern is discussed in another paper, Concentric rings of radioactive hal...a: a possible result of 238U chain decay, by Dipak C. Pal, Department of Geological Sciences, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700 032, India:

He starts with a generic discussion of halos and then moves on to the evidence for uranium halos, and concludes:

So we establish that uranium halos do occur, with rings characteristic of uranium decay.

Again, this is a serious problem for anyone arguing for a young earth, as it takes hundreds of millions of years for them to form, due to the decay rate of uranium. You cannot say that Polonium halos are evidence but that Uranium halos are not: both need to be explained (if you are going to explain all the data).

Yes, evidence that the earth is old must be ignored, must be called "bunk," must be discredited without actually looking at the evidence: that is the hall-marks of cognitive dissonance in operation.

Why should you address it: because it contradicts and invalidates your argument, and to ignore it is to ignore reality and the objective evidence of reality.

There's more. This article, POLONIUM HALOS AND MYRMEKITE IN PEGMATITE AND GRANITE, by Lorence G. Collins, where he talks about some "Odd Circumstantial Facts":

In other words, there is more to this story than just the existence of Polonium halos. He goes on to explain how normal physical and chemical processes can cause


That would be your argument from incredulity, strange how you predict your own behavior eh?

And meanwhile, the basic problem with the creationist argument is that if you have naturally forming modern Polonium, a modern source of Polonium, in such crystals, that then there is no argument that they represent a young earth, only recent (new) Polonium. Whether stated implicitly or not, the argument only works if you exclude naturally forming modern Polonium from making the halos.

The evidence shows that there is an explanation for recent (new) polonium added to these rocks by natural processes.

The evidence also shows that uranium halos exist and are numerous -- evidence of the fact that the earth is older than Polonium halos by hundreds of millions of years.

And if the decay rates did change, then the energy of the decay would change and the halos would be different: the uranium halos would be blurred over measurable distances instead of still found in the rings dictated by the energy of the decay in modern times.

Meanwhile, have you figured out where you were proven wrong (by mathematics) on half-life and your quarter life calculations?

Enjoy.

Here RAZD clearly identifies his target audience. He's out to fool those who don't follow links & examine the evidence for themselves. Look at how many sources he cites in order to create the impression that he's done his homework before trying to sneak this false claim in under the radar.

Changing the decay rate would result in more decay - not more energetic decay. In alpha decay, for example, more alpha particles would be produced in a given amount of time, but the energy of each alpha particle would remain exactly the same. The exact same halo would result, only faster. The energy contained by decay particles is a function of their source atom. It has nothing at all to do with how many atoms are decaying in a given timeframe.

Now, how many will call his bluff? That's the question. I expect at least a couple have already followed some links and come to understand the process of halo formation. They're immunized. Might be interesting to see the results if we could accurately poll the readership.

Funny that such a huge inconsistency in evolutionist fabrications should be written off as a distraction. The story trotted out to explain away polonium radiohalos is in direct conflict with one of the cornerstone assumptions used to produce evodates. Anyone who welcomes the suggestion to write this off as "just distraction" wants very dearly to be deceived.

I submit, RAZD, that you are most likely wasting your time. Such as want so desperately to deceive themselves can usually manage to achieve the goal.

RAZD, your double talk is getting old. You remind me of these guys I use to work with in a petroleum lab. They were what I called "intellectual snobs." I dated a chemical engineer, too. He was nuts. I ended up marrying a musician. Sweet, spiritual, passionate, real. And actually a lot more intelligent...

Helium can follow smaller paths. And Radon is not known to suspend its own decay on whims.

It's not hard to understand that migrating radon will leave a tube-shaped trail as it decays. A further problem is that gases obey the same laws, so a gas will not migrate to a designated point and stop. It will fill whatever space is available, and maintain roughly equal pressure & density within the space.

To posit that any gas follows a path to a pinpoint, and compresses itself into a tiny space when other space is readily available is contrary to everything science knows about gases. Linear tried to make it look as if I am the one positing sentience among radioactive atoms...

This wouldn't result in spherical halos. Rather, a halo would be generated in the shape surrounding the entire space available to the radon gas.

A more direct test would be to pump radon gas through small paths in granitic rocks.

Dr. Gentry long ago challenged anyone to reproduce polonium radiohalos. As I said before, if they thought it could be done they'd accuse him of fraud. If this method would work, they would've produced their own halos artificially and accused him of faking the evidence.

I found it a bit interesting. Again you submit evidence that I am correct. I only need bold one word in the entire text.
Thank you kindly for supplying confirmation, and insulting the intellectual capacity of the readership by assuming they'd get it exactly backwards.

This scientist understands that migration must leave trails.


A point not disputed. You & Linear will continue attempting to cause confusion between uranium halos & polonium halos. I will be clarifying & we'll see how this plays out. It is not a loss for me if those intending to be fooled are successful, and your continued attempts to obfuscate will make it obvious to the rest that you don't want them to know the truth.

Point for folks to remember: polonium halos will form right along with the rest of the halos of the decay series when uranium is involved. This is easily understood. All the radioactive materials sit in one place, and they all decay together, so all the halos form.

The problem for anticreationists is that polonium halos exist without "parent" halos. They are spherical, so they are post-kinematic.

The anticreation argument needs a means of transport that won't result in a traceable path. They need decay to be suspended, and only occur at the source & destination. They might as well posit Scotty beaming polonium into the granite. At least it'd fit the evidence.

I have not advocated dismissing any actual evidence. I don't call uranium radiohalos 'bunk', either. And I have considered them. I have evaluated the reasoning behind the "old earth" argument, and found it so obviously flawed that most folks should be able to find the flaw for themselves.

I'm not interested in playing your argument-from-spam game, so live with it.

The evidence does not contradict or invalidate anything Dr. Gentry or I have said about polonium radiohalos.

That's not an argument from incredulity. You claim there's an assumption and it doesn't exist. Pointing this out is not arguing from incredulity.

I did accurately predict you'd make this false accusation. Evolutionology is thus confirmed as a scientific field of study.

Okay Bugs, folks are really dumb enough to forget who pointed out that the argument over polonium halos is primarily about creation. I have not argued that they indicate an age.

The evidence excludes "daughter" polonium from making the halos, to the best of everyone's knowledge. The polonium halo evidence alone does not exclude earlier dates for the creation event. It does not exclude Scotty from manufacturing them with a transporter beam. It is the rest of reality which excludes these things.

Evidence does not show explanations. How dearly you love to confuse this term!

More confusion. I've seen no claim that the earth isn't older than polonium halos.

Such utter
Evosickness, or spam? I can't always distinguish which is which. And it could be this question is a case of false dichotomy.

And if the decay rates did change, then the energy of the decay would change and the halos would be different: the uranium halos would be blurred over measurable distances instead of still found in the rings dictated by the energy of the decay in modern times.


Looks like I may have to Your argument-from-spam has overwhelmed me. I am unable to respond to everything and debunk all bunk. All the :kookoo2: pathetic, moronic readers will become captive to your lies. They'll before linear :smiliewhipit: and razd. Soon the mush in their heads will be molded and they'll join the evosquad as :cheerleaderponytails:

The rest of us will be wondering how things could've gone so wrong. Eventually, you'll mobilize your :platoon: of , , and take over the world.

Of course you might want to consider how long this will take at the present rate. Will you be or ? Will your army be anything more than ?

Yes, the double talk gets old CTD.

You of course can prove this (the way you "proved" that 1/4 life resulted in a different rate of decay from a 1/2 life?). We can calculate the amount of energy for decay of atoms by e=mc^2 and the energy left over from the masses involved (M1 > M2 + mp, where M1 decays to M2 with mp being the particle) -- today -- however the energy to release the particle in the first place is tied to the decay rate:

Alpha Decay, Alpha detectors and id...Vance, chapters 1.3.4, 2.1, 6.2 and 8.4)

(bold for empHAsis). Change the decay rate and you change the decay energy.

Another problem is that the very concept of a changing decay rate is a PRATT (CF210) with consequences:

You would need a fundamental change to physics in order to change the decay rates.

And of course this doesn't answer the question of HOW the decay rate is changed, and how it miraculously does not affect all the evidence that there has been no change in decay rates for billions of years (it can be observed in the old light from stars billions of light-years away).

Some minor changes can be effected, How to Change Nuclear Decay Rates, but not of much significance:

Now I don't call less than 1% significant, especially when the measured rate of decay can be off by that amount based on empirical evidence.

So are you going to provide a mechanism and a mathematical model for changing the decay rate? Or are you just going to hide behind double talk and assertion.

When you change the physics to increase the decay rate you change the physics for the decay energy (to say nothing of bonding energy holding everything together). You also fry because you have multiplied the heat generated by decay by several factors.

Another ad hominem, argument from incredulity, and now the logical fallacy of the appeal to popularity. Logical fallacies don't prove anything.

It used to be quite popular to think the earth was the center of the universe, and it used to be quite popular to think that gravity was according to Newton's formula (after he did away with a formerly popular notion). Popularity has nothing to do with reality.

Enjoy.

LOL,, CTD, you have lost it : ) (As have I...)

Thanks again to RAZD for the science lesson. I'm in awe of the power of something most people don't think of every day: radioactive decay. All that energy inside the earth, billions of years after it formed. It's like that article I found which mentions an angular unconformity in the mountains of Scotland. These mountains themselves have been severely eroded over many millions of years. Yet within them is evidence of dramatic uplift in the even more distant past -- mountains which formed, eroded to the point where they were flat, sank, and received horizontal sedimentary layers on top. Within existing mountains which themselves are old.

Rocks. Simple, common things. They can teach us so much.

RAZD, I've been feeling kind of bad for being mean to you....

Sorry.... Saying that a lot lately...

Jeanie,

Thanks, I understand that emotions are necessarily involved when dealing with beliefs, especially when confronting different beliefs. The key (I find) is to forgive anyone that makes ad hominems when they get frustrated by your arguments, and move on to talk about the issues.

Enjoy.

Thanks RAZD.....That's mighty big of you : ) I DID enjoy it : )

Thanks LindaLou,

Sorry that I can only brush the surface of what science says about radioactivity, as to delve much further requires some pretty intricate maths, the kind that makes eyes glaze over.

This article will give you an idea (unfortunately they use variables from previous definitions that are not defined, so it is hard to follow the formulas):

http://www.physics.queensu.ca/~phys490/Lecture/NucPart08_L15.pdf

Perhaps LinearAQ can help with the maths. This picture may help:


The red line represents the energy level of the alpha particle, and the difference between inside and outside is the decay energy, Qα, while the decay shown is for the isotope in question. Long half life = little decay through the Coulomb Barrier = little difference in energy, so Qα is small, like 3 MeV for Bismuth 209 with a half-life of 10^19 years.

And because the decay while tunneling through the Coulomb Barrier is exponential, small variations in Qα are related to large variations in half-lives. Polonium 214 has a Qα of 7.69 MeV and a half-life of 0.000164 seconds.

So the fact remains that alpha decay energy and half-life are inter-related and you cannot change one without affecting the other.

So far, everything I have read shows that Polonium halos only exist in rocks that are infected with uranium inclusions and saturated in Radon, that they have been found in rocks of many different ages, that all such rocks also show Uranium halos, and that halos frequently overlap and follow visible fissures and cracks.

There is also this article
http://www.grisda.org/origins/15032.htm
Greater decay rate, shorter half-life, larger diameter halo. Change the decay rate, change the diameter.

Enjoy.

Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.

My eyes are not glazed - they are dry, but yes - my brain hurts : ) Math does that to me. So RAZD - do you reject the possibility of God based on evidences that cannot be proven either way? (Regarding the flood). What about all the other evidences of that do testify of him? Does science just outweight that for you? Can't you see the "other realm" aspect of things?? Do you just think its over when we die??

Wearing evogoggles has a known propensity for barring the divine from one's eyesight. This is exactly what makes evolution the practice of heretics - and I'm not saying this out of cruelty or condescension, just plain truth. I didn't invent the definition of the word heretic either. So I'm sorry if the truth hurts.

As Princess Irulan once said:

Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic.

Pseudo-evoscience has this obsessive compulsive need to answer every question, many of which only God has access to. This is why they will fail every time, blinded by their mythogical evo-pantheon. But their prayers to false gods fall on deaf ears - because they are imaginary. The bible is real.

Thanks Jeanie,

Yes, it's been a while since I had to do that kind of stuff, and had to go over it a couple of times to make sense of it.

No. Being a Deist is not a rejection of any possibility of God.

Rather, as reality IS what was created, science just adds to understanding.

Enjoy.

Would you care to expound on that at all as far as what you mean by the statement: Rather, as reality IS what was created, science just adds to understanding.

How do you, then, relate God with our world? (If you're sure...if not, what do you think could be the case with what you know about how to put it together? Jury still out would you say?

Where are you from AA

The problem with proposing added energy is pretty obvious: one runs up against Conservation of energy. The energy of an alpha particle can't increase just because it is released ahead of a schedule set by men.

I hope folks will follow the link to the pdf, so they'll see that the context is different. If the author intended to assert some sort of universal law claiming higher decay rate always results in higher energy, he really should have omitted the chart that immediately follows the quote.

On said chart, directly below the number 96, I see a dot. There are dots surrounding this dot in all directions. Some have slower decay & lower energy. Some have slower decay & higher energy. Some have faster decay & lower energy. Some have faster decay & higher energy. All combinations of higher/lower energy and slower/faster decay are charted. So I conclude the author didn't intend to imply a universal law.

Such a law would naturally require a little more than say-so, before it could be considered scientific. And most such laws have names, if you think about it. I didn't see a name, so I think my interpretation is fairly safe.

By now most of us are aware that talkdeceptions is fond of "predicting" anything and everything that's already been observed.

I'm confident something being classified as a "PRATT" is only a concern to talkdeceptions' flock.

Why don't you explain how come some atoms hold together while other identical atoms right next to them fall apart.

I could be behind the times. If they discovered why this takes place they didn't have to notify me.

Lost our way, have we? It is you who need to decide whether you want constant decay rates & polonium radiohalos stand, or whether you want variable decay rates and evodates fall.

Your attempts to explain away the radiohalos require suspension of decay during migration.

Change what physics? Nobody knows why decay occurs at any apparent rate.

None of the logical fallacies you list are present in my post. I do not claim or imply that your argument is wrong because you are the source. I claimed it is wrong and implied you know it is wrong.

I didn't appeal to popularity to establish that I'm right about the issue. I didn't appeal to it at all, in fact. I should like to appeal to popularity for the purpose of discovering how successful you've been - nothing further. Don't know that'd I'd be keen on sharing the results with you either, if I had them.

As a matter of policy, I don't employ incredulity as an argument. On rare occasions I make special exceptions when I judge them to be warranted for purposes of humour and/or mockery.

Well, CTD, you still miss the point(s)

Yes, and if you read the article you will see that this is discussed, this is called the Coulomb barrier or the Coulomb wall. The problem for you is that if there is no way to surmount the barrier/wall, that then there is no radiation. Because we do have radiation, we know this assertion is false.

The way the alpha particles get around the barrier/wall is by quantum tunneling, and you can calculate the probability of an alpha particle tunneling through the barrier with standard field equations. Curiously this is what tells you the decay rate of the isotope.

Indeed I hope they do follow the link, as then they can see that all the dots on the line labeled 96 are in line, as are each of the dots on the other lines labeled with different numbers of protons (that's what the "96" represents). The lines are roughly parallel, and thus they show similar changes in alpha particle energy with the different numbers of protons in different isotopes (which is also predicted by the energy calculations). This kind of multi-line graph is commonly used to show the effects of three variables on the interactions, particularly when one variable, proton number, is an integer.

These lines clearly show that for any isotope (any set number of protons) there is a line showing a direct relationship of alpha particle energy to half life, and that if you change the decay rate (half life), you then change the alpha particle energy by an inverse logarithmic relationship.

Seeing as your initial premises, based on misunderstanding of the physics and the graphs, are invalid, this means that any further conclusions you have are irrelevant, and so I don't need to reply to them.

What uranium halos show is that the energy of alpha particles from uranium decay have not changed during the course of the formation of the uranium halos.

Because the alpha particle energy is inversely related to the log of the decay rate half-life, and you cannot change the decay rate without changing the alpha particle energy, this means that the decay rate for uranium has not changed during the formation of the uranium halos.

Because the uranium halos take several hundred million years to form with this decay rate, the earth is at least several hundred million years old -- since the rocks cooled to form the crystals.

Enjoy.

That's not the same thing. First of all, there may or may not be a mechanism which controls the timing of decay. Nobody has yet discovered one. You want to claim "quantum tunneling" is the means of decay? This is an ineffective dodge. You still need to answer the timing issue. What allows one particle to tunnel, while preventing another? Do the atoms poll their neighbors? How do they know when to decay? Who sets their schedule?

The problem for you is pretty clear. This isn't what I argued. I never said there is no decay. I noted that your migration stories require decay to cease, but I never advocated the position for one instant. If this is a problem for anyone, it's a problem for talkdeceptions, Linear, and yourself.

Nothing curious at all about it, except that anyone would try to pass it off as a "prediction". That, and the idea that anyone would bother with such a roundabout method of calculating.
Yes, and the chart's been jimmied quite a bit to obtain straight looking lines. Note the numbers on the horizontal and vertical scales, and their spacing. Presenting this chart to an educated audience who understand that the lines are actually curves is one thing. Trying to pass them off as actually straight is another.

Neither the article nor the chart discuss changing decay rates. They discuss some examples of observed decay rates. RAZD extrapolates and asserts a new, unnamed, unrecognized law. I do not imply that he's the first, so the "law", if it ever is recognized, may well bear someone else's name.

Seeing that you decline to answer whether or not decay must always be the same, or if it can be suspended to allow for migration fantasies; I shall consider your dilemma unresolvable.

What polonium halos show is a phenomenon which can only be plausibly explained by confessing "God did it."

Thanks again, CTD for demonstrating the depth of your knowledge.

Your lack of knowledge of a mechanism does not mean there isn't one, nor that the process is not well understood by physicists -- the ones measuring the data and making those graphs that show the relationship, and that the experimental results match the calculated decay rates and alpha energies.

Quantum tunneling is based on quantum mechanics, which is calculated with field equations. These are based on probabilities due to the uncertainty principle, the principle that says we can't know which two protons and two neutrons will come together and tunnel out of an atom or even which atom it will tunnel out of ... however, like calculating the probability of flipping coin can predict the overall results while being totally incapable of predicting a single toss, probability calculations can predict the overall effects:

Decay will happen when the appropriate combinations make an isotope radioactive, and energy of the alpha particle will be related to the decay rate.

It doesn't matter what you fail to discuss, or how you try to move the goalposts around, as the fact is that without quantum tunneling decay would not exist. When proton and neutron, alpha particles and the nuclei of larger atoms combine they give up energy, and they can't undo that combination without adding that energy back.

We know that decay does occur. Nobody said that you said that it didn't, the point is that quantum tunneling explains how decay does occur. It also explains the energy of the alpha particle and how it is related to the decay rate.

Not at all, as this is your argument, your straw man, and it is obviously false as well.

The rocks that show polonium halos are infected with uranium inclusions and uranium halos, and they are saturated in radium, a gas that readily dissolves in water as well. These rocks also show fissures, cracks and minute pockets where the radon gas or radon carrying water can easily reach, and along those fissures -- because of the radon being saturated through the rock -- we should see your "migrating tunnel" if your assertion were true, and we don't. Not one. Anywhere. Therefore your claim that a "migration tunnel" would have to form is falsified by the evidence. Simply put, you are wrong (again).

What do we see? We do see tracks with halos like beads along the fissures and cracks, often overlapping, but alway centered on concentrations of deposited polonium.

It is not a conclusion of scientists that this would occur, it is another of the observed pieces of evidence that shows that radon does cause polonium halos along fissures and cracks.

Curious that you contradict your own earlier statement: "You want to claim "quantum tunneling" is the means of decay? This is an ineffective dodge. " ... or is your argument just based on denial of whatever is said? You were the one that said that when your argued was based on falsehoods that you would end up with contradictions, weren't you?



Yes you can see how "jimmied" the lines are. The horizontal scale, by the way, is logarithmic, so that exponential (curved) functions show up as straight lines, standard practice in science.

Sadly, for CTD, it looks like he is wrong again.

Enjoy.

Your words are numerous, but they don't contain answers to my questions. Where is the timing mechanism? I don't think my questions were the least bit unclear.
Failing to make a stupid argument is something I try to do often. It hardly constitutes "moving goalposts".

More doubletalk, eh?As I pointed out, this isn't my problem at all. It isn't in conflict with anything I've said.

Straw man? Your own source said that spherical halos indicate post-kinematic formation. Let me spell that out: decaying elements which are moving don't make spheres.

So you contradict your own source, and common sense & invoke magic migration? Fine. I'm willing to leave it at that.

The pics show where the fissures are in relation to the halos. If there were so much all-fired "saturation", there would be halos surrounding these fissures. But hey - have your silly magic.

To make it doubly clear. Migration leaves telltale signs. RAZD says this is false because there are no telltale signs. Science (both creationists and RAZD's source) says no telltale signs = no migration. But RAZD insists there must have been migration, and it somehow left no evidence.

The pictures show what paths are available for migration, and they don't meet the requirements.

Even magic migration wouldn't solve his problem; that's what's even funnier. Unless it's polonium doing the magic migrating. Anything else, any of the "parent" elements, would have to decay at the destination, and guess what! This decay would leave evidence. It would make its own halo. So, just to be fair, I should ask: is it polonium migrating magically?

(Is anyone counting how many ways the migration fantasy is wrong? I don't know if records are kept, but this is pretty impressive.)
I prefer to see with my own eyes. I have no confidence in yours.

This appears to be your own conclusion, and you do well to exclude "scientists" from the group sharing it.

Actually my argument remains clear and valid. Your attempt to snip a piece out of context has failed here, in case you didn't notice. There's no contradiction. Try not to bungle your next out-of-context quote. It wouldn't be as funny the second time around.

Thanks. It's much better if people understand the nature of what they're looking at. False perceptions promote errors. The vertical scale appears to go up by powers of 10, I notice, and the highest mark on the scale is 1,000,000,000,000,000.

It's really simple, CTD, you don't understand some of the concepts involved.

Strangely that is not what is meant by "postkinematic" in geology.

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/10/925
You will notice that they are not talking at all about elements moving along cracks, but about the geological processes of rock formation, how it is deformed and remelted by kinematic processes, and that there are stages in that development that include late-kinematic and post-kinematic formation of the rocks.

When the scientist says that the intrusions that form polonium halos are post-kinematic, he means they came after the rock was formed. After the rocks were created.

Sorry, CTD, I thought you understood that this too is a logarithmic scale, a more obvious one than the other, because it has a 1 instead of a zero point. I grew up using a slide rule, so I know what logarithmic scales look like. It's just math, not science. Exponential functions plotted on log-log graphs will be straight lines.

Enjoy.

It isn't unusual for jargon to develop, but that's not the case here.

Geologists mean the same thing as everyone else when they employ the term kinematic.

Actually, they were very much talking about elements moving along cracks, only on a different scale. But even if they weren't, it wouldn't matter. If you want to build a linguistic argument based upon a single sample... Shoot! That might be a fun game to play after all. Anyone up for starting a thread on it?

For those playing along at home, you will recall that radiohalos cannot even form until there's solid rock.

'Post-kinematic' can refer to "after the rocks were created" or it can refer to other things.

How impressive! Thanks for condescending to disclose the logarithmic nature of the graph. I wish that all facts could be pried loose in so few posts. But at any rate, I shan't have to demonstrate this one in the face of unrelenting obfuscation.

Stand by to laugh or cry, depending on your position & disposition.

I think it's time to conclude my participation in the radiohalo discussion - for now at least. I've been researching a little more, and I've found out that I was mistaken to focus on the formation of tubes around the migration paths.

To be sure, they'd form. There's no way around it. But I looked into alpha-recoil tracks and found that they're much more devastating. When alpha decay occurs, the nucleus of the decaying atom recoils in the opposite direction. If it occurs in rocks, this creates clear tracks even if the atom was part of a solution.

But that's not the good part. That's not or material. Well, yes it is. But it gets better. Once again, let's look at one of RAZD's sources.




Note that all migration scenarios presented thus far feature radon or one of its parents. Note that in the decay sequence, Po 218 is an "ancestor" of Po 214. Ready?

It turns out that some of the radiohalos are Po 214 radiohalos all by their lonesome! Orphans with no evolutionary tree behind them.

Now we've seen that migration is bogus at least 3 ways (I honestly quit counting & don't care to spend my time reviewing over it). But even if Scotty shows up to radon from point to point, this mode of migration still won't result in orphan Po 214 halos. (Mr. Scott must beam Po 214 - parents won't do.)


I done told y'all I can play that game. It'd be nice if folks'd learn not to tempt me so often.

Anyhow, I think it's time to turn my attention back to the regularly-scheduled topic. For those who haven't been around long, this translates to "Spam Alert!"

I am on the edge of my seat.....And he's down! You could at least bow out graciously. You have, though, given it a great stab! I couldn't have taken it as far as you did scientifically. RAZD really gets to you doesn't he?

Part of understanding evomyth is looking closely at the data they spout. You cannot disprove it until you analyze it carefully. And it is only then that we see a very intricately laid web of lies and deceit suspended before our very eyes. But at the end of the day, they're the real losers (the evorabble, clad in their evogoggles). They can wish the bones tell us something they do not but that doesn't make it a reality.

As Gurney Halleck once said: If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets.

What these so called "scientists" conveniently ignore time and time again is that the fossils date the rocks and the rock date the fossils. Thus, there's no igneous rock to give a radiometric date for strata above or below a fossil. Paradox alert, folks! If I can't trust the geological column, how can I accept stratigraphic comparisons? The only dates we can get from fossils are relative.

It's also convenient that the scientists of Satan (and here I mean evolutionists - I don't say this to be cruel, simply factual) ignore findings like that of the nephilim while they piece together random human and monkey fossils and give it a name like neanderthal!

Rubbish! I've said it before and I'm saying it now. Evolution equals religion. The holy bible equals reality.

Is your religion real when it costs you nothing and carries no risk? Is your religion real when you fatten upon it? Is your religion real when you commit atrocities in its name? Whence comes your downward degeneration from the original revelation?
Paul Muad'Dib

That all makes sense. I believe what I do (am an old earth creationist with a twist, I guess you could say.... I only believe human history goes back the 6000 years as stated with Adam and Eve) but that the earth could be much older...) and haven't gotten into the actual scientific issues much. (Haven't felt the need to). But this is intriguing. I have to say, though, Alia, I did not think that was very sensitive to post someone should die.... That really creeped me out.... (The reference to witches).

This is good, though! We need more stuff like this! Can you explain the rock, fossil issue? And the nephilim? I've brought up the giant issue with no response other than some on a religious basis I don't quite get or see.

Still at it I see, CTD.

Equivocating now? Yes, they were talking on the scale of the rocks moving as a whole and as they moved, cracking and carrying the cracks with them. In either case they referred to post-kinematic as the period after the rocks had stopped moving. Curiously the people in the sciences get to determine how to use the terminology used in the science.

And then at any time after the rock has solidified. Of interest here is that the rocks have not only solidified, but that they have cooled, cracked, moved and cracked some more, and that after this has occurred the rocks are free to be inundated with radon gas and radon carrying water, along with minerals that then can refill the cracks. See Post 39962 again:

In other words, Polonium halos only occurred when the rocks in question were infected with uranium, saturated with radon and had mineral replacement happening along cracks, crevises and fissures, mineral replacement that is not restricted from carrying radon along with it.

In other words, the Polonium halos only occur in rocks where this infusion of radon gas can occur.

There would be decay along the paths, but you have some logical issues with this decay forming tunnels. Consider when a particle decays: it fires off an alpha particle at a random angle in 3D space, and NOT perpendicular to the fissure. The probability of the particle being fired on a perpendicular path is very small, most will be fired ahead or behind and the distance from the crack will be random. Result: no (visible) tunnel.

Conversely any small void or slightly larger space would contain more of the radon carrying water, and thus have increased probability of decay occurring from the same relative position, thus resulting in halos along the fissures, cracks, and crevices -- as observed.

And this is another red herring.

Sorry CTD, but I can't anticipate what it is that you don't know. You comment as if you know what you are talking about, CTD, yet you demonstrate time and again, not just here on the graph and your "tunnel" formation and in your "quarter"-life calculations, but several other places, that there are things that you just do not understand. We don't know what they are until you make these bogus comments rather than ask for explanation.

That you do not have the math or the science background to enable you to understand these things is not your fault, and lack of understand thus is not "bad", but what I find disturbing is that you seem to prefer pretending not only to understand but that you have some knowledge and authority to comment instead of asking for clarification.

The fact remains: change the decay rate, and you change the alpha particle energy, and this changes the radius of the halo. Uranium halos show no variation in ring size, therefore there was no change in alpha particle energy while they were formed, and as they took several hundred millions of years to form, the earth is old.

Thanks CTD.

Enjoy.