BREAKING NEWS...radiometric dating

[Golden Star]

I suppose this is worth watching??

********************************************************************
ANSWERS IN GENESIS: BREAKING NEWS!
Coming August 21, 2003 on the web ...
********************************************************************

Don't miss it. A bombshell for anyone who believes in millions of
years!
Startling breakthroughs in radiometric dating--announced by the
five-year-old RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth) research
group--will put scientists who believe in 'millions of years' on the
run.
Make sure to tell your friends!

Read about this cutting-edge research that confirms biblical history
this
week at:
http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ohhhhh, I hate cliffhangers. :mad:

Also, AIG people who sign up for Infidels under the guise of a real atheist in order to advertise freely about their own website.

[RufusAtticus]

Wow, AiG must need some quick cash to finish their museum.

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Golden Star


Don't miss it. A bombshell for anyone who believes in millions of
years!

Oooh, I'm on the edge of my seat.

*yawn*

But I can always use something to poke fun at. :D

[Mageth]

Read about this cutting-edge research...

What we're talking about here is a paper cut from the first page of Genesis.

I personally think this qualifies as SPAMMING, as there's no content beyond advertisement.

[Jimmy Higgins]

'millions of years'...

What about that illion that starts with a B? Will that be covered as well?

And you see, if you just divide these numbers from the test data by God's holy 1000, all of a sudden these million year old rocks are thousands of years old. Praise JEBUS!

[Duvenoy]

(Duvenoy scrapes the fresh spam from his chops and begins making a sandwich.)

I'll probably see it on one of my visits to AiG, but it'll not have much of a priorty beyond comic relief.

doov (waiting to see scrambling scientists and listen to their wailing and gnashing of teeth.)

[Shpongle]

Startling breakthroughs in radiometric dating—announced by the five-year-old RATE research group—will put scientists who believe in ‘millions of years’ on the run. Make sure to tell your friends! Read about cutting-edge research that confirms biblical history!

Does anyone else get the mental image of a bunch of AIG wackos chasing down other scientists with sharp objects?

[Heathen Dawn]

Well, well, if it isn't (at least according to his website) Rebornempowered, who has argued that the sun is not a star! :D

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well after doing a little searching, we have this much.

RATE GROUP CONFIRMS FAST DIFFUSION OF HELIUM IN ROCKS (http://www.icr.org/newsletters/research/researchoct01.html)
10/01 The major advances reported by the group were the confirmation of high diffusion rates of helium in biotite, preliminary statistical results on the geological distribution of uranium, thorium, and polonium halos in granites, and some theoretical conditions for the occurrence of accelerated nuclear decay.

RATE Group Reports Major Advances (http://www.icr.org/newsletters/research/researchoct02.html)
These results have the potential for earth-shaking changes in geochronology. The group was enthusiastic about the results being found and encouraged that the Lord had allowed so much progress to be made since the project started in 1997.They said this in 10/02. So its probably going to be the same stuff. It seems like more of the old, and nothing new. Maybe just with a fancier webpage font.

[JaeIsGod]

Awww... Dissapointing post. I expected at least a few helltreats and one bible quote.

Cmon , you can do better!

[RufusAtticus]

Looks like Meert's FAQ will need to be updated.

RATE: More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation Research (http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm)

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
Well, well, if it isn't (at least according to his website) Rebornempowered, who has argued that the sun is not a star! :D

rofl. Perhaps he can jump onto some of Dayton's threads and take some of the heat off him?

[Arikay]

So, did that sound like a tabloid headline to anyone else?

"Breaking news Anna Nicole Smith to wed Yeti, more info inside."

:D

Hmm, so maybe they have found another young piece of rock that they will put through some sort of old dating method and pretend that because the dating method didnt work, its all wrong? :D

[Jayjay]

Considering that AiG's "science" is nothing but hot air, they sure know how to market it to the masses. :rolleyes:

[Joe Meert]

However, at least $100,000 in new donations will be needed to cover the anticipated laboratory and other expenses for RATE through June, 2003. Additional funds will also be needed over the remaining three years to complete all the planned research and publish the final book in 2005.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[BioBeing]

Originally posted by Golden Star
Read about this cutting-edge research that confirms biblical history this week at


I think I'll wait till it gets published in Science or Nature.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Originally posted by Joe Meert
However, at least $100,000 in new donations will be needed to cover the anticipated laboratory and other expenses for RATE through June, 2003. Additional funds will also be needed over the remaining three years to complete all the planned research and publish the final book in 2005.

Cheers

Joe Meert I don't know if Landover Baptist has done it yet, but I think it would be great to have a farce RATE group, that needs just $100,000 more to prove you can have a squared circle in 2-D. Of course, the article would have pictures of scientists in lab coats, hovering around a few desks that are covered with compasses, triangles, t-squares, etc...

To think, people are dying of cancer or starving elsewhere, and these smucks are living free lives on money that should be spent elsewhere? Low salary or not, these guys don't really have a job. What a scam!

[Coragyps]

this cutting-edge research
We did a lot of that at one of my previous jobs. We liked to say that we were peeling back the foreskin of science. :D

[Jayjay]

Originally posted by Coragyps
We did a lot of that at one of my previous jobs. We liked to say that we were peeling back the foreskin of science. :D
Repeatedly?

[markfiend]

I hereby grant permission for all members of IIDB to use the following image when replying to posts similar in content to the first on this thread:

http://www.markfiend.com/images/spam.gif

[Jack the Bodiless]

Let me guess:

They blew helium through pumice and discovered that it didn't take "millions of years" to go through.

[RufusAtticus]

Hmm, it's tomorrow and the message is still up. I wonder how many "tomorrows" we're going to go through before they say what stupid thing they're going to say.

[Division By Zero]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Hmm, it's tomorrow and the message is still up. I wonder how many "tomorrows" we're going to go through before they say what stupid thing they're going to say.
Well, they obviously just started their research yesterday. :D

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyone know how long that "Breaking News" thing has been up. I obviously found out about this huge "breakthrough" via the spam post by AIG here. But I'm wondering if that's be there for a week or more now.

[Joe Meert]

Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins
Anyone know how long that "Breaking News" thing has been up. I obviously found out about this huge "breakthrough" via the spam post by AIG here. But I'm wondering if that's be there for a week or more now.

JM: I received the e-mail yesterday, so I assume they're going to release this 'news' today. I suspect; however, that we've already seen this news posted on other creationist sites.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Mageth]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Hmm, it's tomorrow and the message is still up. I wonder how many "tomorrows" we're going to go through before they say what stupid thing they're going to say.

Remeber, to God a day is like a thousand years, or is it a thousand years is like a day? :p

[RufusAtticus]

I found this AiG propaganda from a few days ago, it mentions the RATE project.

'Creation scientists aren’t real scientists and don’t do real research.’ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0818icc_update.asp)

"At least one staunch evolutionist attended the conference. He was so impressed with the scientific excellence of the papers that he admitted to one of the presenters that he was going to have to do some hard thinking about what he heard. He also lamented the fact that more evolutionists were not there to hear the results of creationist research."

Sure, we've heard that one before.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
"He also lamented the fact that more evolutionists were not there to hear the results of creationist research."

Sure, we've heard that one before. Well you know, secular scientists are moving to creationism at an increasing rate. :p

[Jimmy Higgins]

ITs been released, and its really short (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp)

[Roland98]

he was going to have to do some hard thinking about what he heard.

...because his brain had shut down after listening to all that drivel.

He also lamented the fact that more evolutionists were not there to hear the results of creationist research."


...so he had someone else to laugh his ass off with.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, as usual, AIG is very mum on the details. I don't think I'll be running to the hills for this discovery. When will this paper be available?

MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL (http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf)



HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY (http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf)

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins
Well, as usual, AIG is very mum on the details. I don't think I'll be running to the hills for this discovery. When will this paper be available?

Isn't this (http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf) it? (reference 1)

Haven't looked at it yet--why didn't they publish it in a real journal, it it was verified by a "world-class expert?"

[RufusAtticus]

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.

"Peer-reviewed" by whom? Considering the derth of creationists trained as radiochemists or in radiometric dating, who the heck did they find to "peer-review" their work? Probably unqualified people like Sarfarti who just asked if it was a True Christian (TM). If AiG's TJ is any judge, creationist "peer-review" involves two questions.
Does it conform to our statement of faith?
Is it written in the style of modern english prose?

[Jimmy Higgins]

An astonishing discovery made over the past twenty years is that, almost without exception, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record show detectable amounts of 14C! 14C/C ratios from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological ‘age.’

This is from the C-Dating paper. From my understanding, these readings are margin of error, no? They seem to be making a big deal over something that I don't think is a real thing. And that is from the Abstract, which means if that is the basis of the paper, then who cares?

[NialScorva]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Is it written in the style of modern english prose?



Hey, evidence that "There must have been speeded-up decay".

Do they proofread?

[RufusAtticus]

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’.

How fuckin' stupid are these people? Radiocarbon dating is specific to terrestial biota. Diamonds are not terrestial biota and thus conclusions drawn assuming as such are invalid. Hint: C-14 can be produced in ways other than cosmicly.

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.

Talk about more lies. AiG is well aware that the answer exists, they just don't care about the facts.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
How fuckin' stupid are these people? Radiocarbon dating is specific to terrestial biota. Diamonds are not terrestial biota and thus conclusions drawn assuming as such are invalid. Hint: C-14 can be produced in ways other than cosmicly. I guess that's why he was the first to get it tested. :D

I bet the lab laughed when they sent him the bill.

[RufusAtticus]

I want to see Meert's reply.

[Jimmy Higgins]

About the diamond containing C-14. Just what would that prove. The diamond obviously couldn't have gotten the C-14 from the atmosphere during its creation. Therefore, there is no basis to compare any sort of C-12/C-14 ratio at all. That the diamond contained C-14 is hardly anything at all. What does AIG think they have here?

A good question is what possibly could be the source of the 14C in this material? We conclude that the possibility this 14C is primordial is a reasonable one.
Now we have primordial C-14? I thought C-14 production was virtually nil prior to the flood. Wouldn't that conclusion work against them?

[RufusAtticus]

I find it funny that AiG gets giddy about the conclusion that the upper age of the earth is 57,000 old. What I find lacking in that paper is any evidence that the world is ~6,000 years old? Did anybody else see it.

[RufusAtticus]

I have a question.

Does radiocarbon dating even predict that terrestial, atomosphere derived biological material should have undetectable levels of C-14 in it after X number of years?

Right now I'm thinking that RCD predicts that after X number of years, their devices can't distinguish between 0.00000001 and 0.0 percentage of C-14. (Or whatever it is.)

[BioBeing]

Is this kind of what you were looking for Rufus? From How Stuff Works (http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-142.htm)

Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old.
i.e after about 10 half-lifes, there isn't enough to detect. NOT quite the same as "Even with the most sensitive AMS techniques used today, nary an atom of C-14 should be present after 250,000 years."

[Joe Meert]

THUMP

That's my short comment.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Joe Meert]

I think this about says it all:

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.

What quality of science can follow using that logic?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[JonF]

Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins
This is from the C-Dating paper. From my understanding, these readings are margin of error, no?

Not totally. Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html).

Of course, the RATE gang aren't interested in the real science that's being done in this area. They just assert "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...".

[theyeti]

Originally posted by Arikay
So, did that sound like a tabloid headline to anyone else?

"Breaking news Anna Nicole Smith to wed Yeti, more info inside."

Don't believe the garbage you read in those papers. I'm marrying Pamela Anderson. ;)

theyeti

[Joe Meert]

I e-mailed Ken Farley regarding his unsuspecting involvement:

Ken,

I suspect you know about the attached article that mentions your name in conjunction with disproving the ancient age of the earth. If not, Answers in Genesis is touting your reputation in conjunction with this article. Anyway, in the grand scheme of things this is no big deal, but it s sure to find it s way into some school board meeting somewhere. Thought you might want to know about it.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Joe,
I'm not sure that "thanks" is the correct word, but I appreciate you sending me this. I ran some contract analyses for an alleged mining company, and, guess what? They were not a mining company at all. Does anybody really take this stuff seriously? Seems kinda stupid to me. Why would a true believer care what science says?

Ken

[Mageth]

Joe,
I'm not sure that "thanks" is the correct word, but I appreciate you sending me this. I ran some contract analyses for an alleged mining company, and, guess what? They were not a mining company at all. Does anybody really take this stuff seriously? Seems kinda stupid to me. Why would a true believer care what science says?

Ken

But then, why would a "true believer" use such deception? Isn't lying against the 10 Commandments?

[unregistered_user_1]

(When one takes into account the likely much lower ratio of radioactive to ?normal? carbon pre-Flood 4 , it brings it right down to within the biblical ?ballpark?.)

Yet, when I look at source #4, it says: 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.
It looks as though with assumption #3 ( I have no idea of the other 2, since I know nothing of this stuff) that they're inorporating their beliefs into one of the "factors" that's supposed to knock C-14 down into the "biblical ballbark" in the first place!? Did I misinterpret that, or is that some actual circular reasoning?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Originally posted by Mageth
But then, why would a "true believer" use such deception? Isn't lying against the 10 Commandments? Thou shalt not bear false witness of thy neighbor. Its even in the KJV version. :D

By the way, can this thread be retitled to Nothing New on Radiometric Dating?

[RufusAtticus]

While we're on the subject, can someone explain the physics behind the fact that under standard conditions half-lifes are constant. I understand how we get from Prob. of Decay to half-lifes. How then do when know that prob. of decay doesn't or hasn't flucuated?

[Worldtraveller]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
While we're on the subject, can someone explain the physics behind the fact that under standard conditions half-lifes are constant. I understand how we get from Prob. of Decay to half-lifes. How then do when know that prob. of decay doesn't or hasn't flucuated?

[disclaimer] I'm not an expert here, and Mr. Meert can probably answer this in much more detail, but I don't think radioactive decay is all that dependant on standard conditions.

What I understand of the process is that with C-14 as it decays to C-12 is beta radiation (http://www.thinkquest.org/library/lib/site_sum_outside.html?tname=3471&url=3471/radiation_types_body.html) :confused: Maybe. But if it's alpha, or beta type decay, it shouldn't matter, since I don't think the environmental conditions can have much of an impact on the nucleus of an atom.

This is all mostly from what I remember about it from my physics and astronomy classes in college, and from the website above.
So I may be completely wrong.

Cheers,
Lane

[theyeti]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
While we're on the subject, can someone explain the physics behind the fact that under standard conditions half-lifes are constant. I understand how we get from Prob. of Decay to half-lifes. How then do when know that prob. of decay doesn't or hasn't flucuated?

I'm no expert, but as I recall the question has been empirically address in two ways: The first is to subject radioisotopes to every known physical and chemical insult in order to try to change their rate of decay. Extremes of heat, pressure, magnetism, etc. are all unable to change their rates. The second is to measure certain processes in distant stars whose light is very ancient. If decay rates were slower or faster in the past, it would mean that physical constants were different, and we should therefore be able to detect those differences in the radiation being given off by nuclear reactions within those distant stars. Sorry I can't be more specific, but that's the jist of it. YECs, I'm sure, can invent any number of reasons to interpret those inconvenient facts differently.

From a theoretical standpoint, all I know is that nuclear decay is governed by the weak nuclear force, which is one of the four fundamental forces in physics, and has been unified with electromagnetism. Unless quantum electro-weak theory is seriously screwed up, decay rates are not supposed to have been able to fluctuate, except maybe in moments shortly after the Big Bang. (One of you physics people correct me if I'm wrong here.) Naturally, creationists would just claim that quantum mechanics -- one of the most sucessful scientific theories ever -- was all wrong. Which means that they've managed to denouce just about every last bit of modern science.

theyeti

[Dr.GH]

Here is a link to a set of very thorough lecture notes on isotope geochemistry. The first 2 or 3 lectures should answer your question re: half lives. The course used Dickin as a text, which is an excellent textbook.

http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo656/656notes.html


Dickin, Alan P.
1997 Radiogenic Isotope Geology Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Dickin has an online version of the 2nd edition:

http://www.radiogenic.com/

Dickin has apparently written a book about Genesis. From the outline and excerpts, my impression is that he has "gone off the rails."

http://www.onafarawayday.com/

Great geochemist though.

[RufusAtticus]

Thanx

[Dr.GH]

You're welcome.

I might also point out that the physics under nuclear decay (gamma beta alpha or EC) is the same for long half-life isotopes as for short half-life isotopes. We can observe (as I personally have many thousands of times) that short half-life isotopes fully satisfy the model predictions (ie Probability of disentegrations is inversely proportional to the amount of time that the isotope has been observed/created X an isotope specific constant. The constant is the half-life. Further, ( a nod to us experimentalists) this was an experimental result prior to becoming a theoretical understanding.

So, when I make 28^Al by thermal neutron bombardment, I find (like thousands of other experimenters) that the 1777.8 KeV gamma count declines with a half-life of 2.25 minutes.

All isotopes behave in the same way. We have watched millions of decays for over five thousands of isotopes.