Can science prove how old the earth was?

[Trippy]

how leaching occurs isn't the question.
the question is "did it happen?"
the only exception would be a sample that was immediately isolated when formed.

The question 'did it happen' is generally pretty trivially answerable. Leaching tends to leave dirty great thumbprints over everything when it happens.

That's one of the reasons we like using Zircons though, because the are mechanically and chemically quite robust, and resistant to weatehring.

 

[leopold]

They did the experiment using a detector isolated by lead bricks, and that detector has a window (I forget what kind just off the top of my head) that detects specific kinds of radiation and quantifies their energies.

What I am proposing is that a more robust methodology would have been to run two experiments at the same time. You run, on the one hand, the isolated detector with the lead bricks, and the sample of Manganese 54 that you want to measure the activity of. And on the other hand, at the same time, you run an identical detector (for most purposes, a detector of the same model and year will suffice, but the closer to being identical, the better), with the same kind of window, and isolate it as well, also using lead bricks (again, the closer to being identical, the better), and run it for the same duration, and at the same time, but without the sample of manganese 54 - effectively, you're measuring the background rate. Ideally, you can do a blank run with both detectors before beginning the experiment, and prove a correlation, then subtract the background signal from the experimental signal, and see what you have left.

Finally, a smart experimentalist would also have used multiple radionuclides, and perhaps a variety of decay paths to give a truely robust result.

i have some material from NASA on my hard drive, some from the "pioneer" missions.
i was perusing one of those PDFs and ran across something interesting regarding this.
could this fluctuation in decay rates be cause by "magnetic scattering effects"?
from the pioneer PDF i mentioned it showed that sunspots emit both a "fast" stream and a "slow" stream. where these two streams intersect there is a magnetic scattering region.
i will get back with the name of the publication.

edit:
"pioneer odyssey"
NASA sp-349
page 96 is a graphic that explains what i'm talking about.
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=pioneer odyssey AND mediatype:texts

 

[leopold]

The big bang theory, like evolution and radioactive dating, is very well established science. Are you now adding the big bang to your science-denial list? Oh wait, don't tell me. You weren't there to witness it personally, so there's no way to know if it happened or not. Right?

go away james, you bore me.

 

[James R]

could this fluctuation in decay rates be cause by "magnetic scattering effects"?

What fluctuation in decay rates?

 

[SciWriter]

"i have found NO scientific reason i should believe evolution"

That's simply an argument from ignorance. Evolution has not only been observed, understanding it is a requirement for some medical treatments. It has also been reproduced in the lab. Russian scientists have used the principles of natural selection to create tame foxes, tame rats, and highly aggressive rats. So we know that natural selection can change the very nature of a species, it can change their color, size, and form. Evolution is also observed in the fossil record.

And in DNA, and in embryo development. Quadruple confirmation.

 

[billvon]

the retrograde orbits of the moons of jupiter and saturn could not have come from the same "cloud" as the planets themselves.

Of course they could. In chaotic systems rotational momentum is conserved only at the macro level, not at the micro level. Examples from the natural world abound. (tornadoes, hurricanes, whirlpools etc.)

[/QUOTE]

 

[Ophiolite]

"significant risk" are YOUR words ophiolite.

Those are my words setting down with clarity the words that you clearly imply with your own words. To remind you, this is what you said:
"the theory itself seems valid, but you must admit that it is an indirect method.
you will also have to admit that scientists are not immune to fraud."

The use of the word "also" solidly links your reservations about the method to the practice of fraud by scientists. It clearly implies a strong belief that fraud may well have been involved in the determination of geological dates.

If you did not intend to imply that, then there was absolutely no reason to write the sentence "you will also have to admit that scientists are not immune to fraud." You might as well have written "Beach sand comes in a variety of sizes, I think you will agree."

But your sentence is clearly linked to the method of dating and the implication is clear cut: scientists have fraudulently calculated false dates for the age of the Earth.

So, Leopold, what exactly is going on here?
a) You wrote an irrelevant sentence because you are incapable of coherent thought.
b) You wrote an irrelevant sentence beacuse you are thick.
c) You wrote a relevant sentence to attempt to undermine a casual reader's confidence in the dating methods.
d) You wrote a relevant sentence because you think scientists are fraudulently calculating dates

Which of these is it Leopold? Or if there is another explanation please be so good to give it now - directly, without innuendo or obfuscation, which are your normal tools.

 

[leopold]

Those are my words setting down with clarity the words that you clearly imply with your own words. To remind you, this is what you said:
"the theory itself seems valid, but you must admit that it is an indirect method.
you will also have to admit that scientists are not immune to fraud."

The use of the word "also" solidly links your reservations about the method to the practice of fraud by scientists. It clearly implies a strong belief that fraud may well have been involved in the determination of geological dates.

If you did not intend to imply that, then there was absolutely no reason to write the sentence "you will also have to admit that scientists are not immune to fraud." You might as well have written "Beach sand comes in a variety of sizes, I think you will agree."

But your sentence is clearly linked to the method of dating and the implication is clear cut: scientists have fraudulently calculated false dates for the age of the Earth.

So, Leopold, what exactly is going on here?
a) You wrote an irrelevant sentence because you are incapable of coherent thought.
b) You wrote an irrelevant sentence beacuse you are thick.
c) You wrote a relevant sentence to attempt to undermine a casual reader's confidence in the dating methods.
d) You wrote a relevant sentence because you think scientists are fraudulently calculating dates

Which of these is it Leopold? Or if there is another explanation please be so good to give it now - directly, without innuendo or obfuscation, which are your normal tools.

you left the question i asked you out of the quoted post.
answer mine, i'll answer yours.
simple as that.

 

[Ophiolite]

And you couldn't go to the bother of repeating the question? I took time to locate and duplicate what I thought to be the important parts of your message, but you couldn't be bothered to take the time to repeat the quesiton to which you wish to have an answer?

I'm not sure whether that is rude or dumb, or perhaps both.

Here is the post you are refering to:

So you don't trust the science of dating? Why not?

the theory itself seems valid, but you must admit that it is an indirect method.
you will also have to admit that scientists are not immune to fraud.

Do you swallow what education tells you or not?

honestly?
you know james, instead of sitting there all smug you should really take an objective look around you and not accept things "because someone said so".

You seem good at swallowing what your favorite Creationist websites tell you.

what is it with you james?
evidence for your statement?

Please identify for me what question of yours it is that I am not answering?

 

[Ophiolite]

To clarify - you did not ask me a question in the quoted post. My question remains:
what exactly is going on here?
a) You wrote an irrelevant sentence because you are incapable of coherent thought.
b) You wrote an irrelevant sentence beacuse you are thick.
c) You wrote a relevant sentence to attempt to undermine a casual reader's confidence in the dating methods.
d) You wrote a relevant sentence because you think scientists are fraudulently calculating dates

Which of these is it Leopold? Or if there is another explanation please be so good to give it now - directly, without innuendo or obfuscation, which are your normal tools.

Once again you have avoided answering a direct question. This is intellectually dishonest. That is what you have been accused of. That is a charge you are refusing to answer and in so doing are simply providing further evidence of your dishonesty.

Edited addition:
And perhaps you can, at the same time, explain what happened to this post of yours:

“ Originally Posted by Ophiolite
I'm not sure whether that is rude or dumb, or perhaps both. ”

in your case it's probably because you don't want to be caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

 

[leopold]

in post 127 you quoted a post of mine.
you answered what you wanted to and edited out the question i asked you.

 

[Ophiolite]

Again, what question of yours to me did I leave out. I have now quoted the entire post from which I took the extract. Please point me to the question you want answered, but also note that -as is clear from the entire quote - you asked no question of me.

 

[leopold]

To clarify - you did not ask me a question in the quoted post.

to clarify - i did ask you a question in that post.

My question remains:

see my earlier response to this.

 

[Ophiolite]

Listen - you are being deliberately obtuse and indirect. That is, put very simply, pure intellectual dishonesty. All you had to do was to repeat the question, or to direct me to the post you were referring to. Instead you mount this three ring circus of obfuscation. I now see you were talking about a more recent post on the matter, not my original quotation of your words from your response to JamesR.

I mean really fellow, get a grip. would it have been so difficult to make your intent clear form the outset. Apparently it was.

The quesiton you asked was something to the effect, did I think scientists were never guilty of fraud. Obviously scientists can be, have been and will be guilty of fraud. That is not what is implicit in your posts. The concrete tying of your reservations about the dating process with an observation about scientific fraud are absolutely suggesting that thousands of scientists are conspiring to fraudulently misrepresent the age of the Earth.

I have now answered your question. You answer mine:
what exactly is going on here?
a) You wrote an irrelevant sentence because you are incapable of coherent thought.
b) You wrote an irrelevant sentence beacuse you are thick.
c) You wrote a relevant sentence to attempt to undermine a casual reader's confidence in the dating methods.
d) You wrote a relevant sentence because you think scientists are fraudulently calculating dates

Which of these is it Leopold? Or if there is another explanation please be so good to give it now - directly, without innuendo or obfuscation, which are your normal tools.

PS - a personal message detailing exactly what I think of your snide behaviour in this thread will be on its way to you shortly. Feel free to share it with your solicitor.

 

[Ophiolite]

to clarify - i did ask you a question in that post.

Send me your address. I'll send you a dictionary. You can look up the meaning of "to clarify".

 

[leopold]

The quesiton you asked was something to the effect, did I think scientists were never guilty of fraud. Obviously scientists can be, have been and will be guilty of fraud.

you ain't nothing but an anti science, creationist, religious bigot for EVER implying scientists are fraudulant.
your anti science views are bullshit.
why, i never in my life EVER heard of such nonsense as fraud in science.
fucking anti science bigot.

That is not what is implicit in your posts. The concrete tying of your reservations about the dating process with an observation about scientific fraud are absolutely suggesting that thousands of scientists are conspiring to fraudulently misrepresent the age of the Earth.

you just stated above that fraud is not unheard of in science.
is there ANY reason it should magically disappear in this area?

what exactly is going on here?
c) You wrote a relevant sentence to attempt to undermine a casual reader's confidence in the dating methods.

see your statement about fraud in science above

PS - a personal message detailing exactly what I think of your snide behaviour in this thread will be on its way to you shortly. Feel free to share it with your solicitor.

okay

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you understand that I have agreed to the following: there have been instances of fraud on the part of a handful of scientists. You will note that this fraud has been uncovered by other scientists. There is a message there. I'll spell it out for you:-

A very small number of scientists commit fraud, but the scientific method leads to its exposure.

You are proposing that all scientists engaged directly or indirectly in the dating process are practicing fraud. This is either dumb or dishonest. I am still waiting for a direct answer from you. Which are you, dumb or dishonest? Or both?

Edit:

you ain't nothing but an anti science, creationist, religious bigot for EVER implying scientists are fraudulant.

Your reading comprehension needs work. I did not imply that scientists are fraudulent, I agreed by direct statement that some scientists are fraudulent.

 

[origin]

you ain't nothing but an anti science, creationist, religious bigot for EVER implying scientists are fraudulant.
your anti science views are bullshit.
why, i never in my life EVER heard of such nonsense as fraud in science.
fucking anti science bigot.

you just stated above that fraud is not unheard of in science.
is there ANY reason it should magically disappear in this area?

see your statement about fraud in science above

okay

This is complete and utter intellectual dishonesty. The above trite crap is the refuge of someone who clearly knows that they do not have a leg to stand on. You are wrong, you know you are wrong, so you obfuscate to avoid having to admit that you are wrong - how embarrassing for you.

 

[Trippy]

Moderator note:

The only thing I have asked is that a certain degree of civil discourse be maintained throughout this discussion, not cussing out your interlocutor being one such requirement, but also, addressing a direct question is another.

I warned that if certain trends continued, I would take what action I deemed neccessary, and so, I have.

As it seems that some members are getting hot under the collar, those members have been given a short break to regain some perspective. It is my hope that when they return, a 'semblence of civil discourse might be resumed.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

this isn't necessarily true.
the retrograde orbits of the moons of jupiter and saturn could not have come from the same "cloud" as the planets themselves.
but i will have to admit earths orbit follows the progression of planetary orbits in general.

The retrograde moons will have been picked up from the asteroid belt. Depending on whether they were in an initial solar orbit outside or inside the relevant gas giant they will have clockwise or anti-clockwise orbits.