Jump to content


Diamond Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ARGOSY last won the day on February 23 2016

ARGOSY had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,499 Excellent

1 Follower


  • Rank
    Diamond Member
  • Birthday 04/11/1968

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Beach, bodysurfing, creationism, tennis, eschatology, history, hiking, football, rugby, cricket

Recent Profile Visitors

2,165 profile views
  1. I believe there is evidence for a large scale flood. Geologically speaking this can be seen in the PT boundary, late Permian and early Triassic. The accepted timeframes have many flaws, but geologists do see a large scale transgressive event there (oceans flooding into continental interiors), and a large scale regressive event (massive erosion when sea level suddenly drop). This PT boundary is known as the "great death", the largest known extinction event ever recorded. This event was triggered by an event known as the Siberian Traps, the greatest ever volcanic event, when the fountains of the great deep burst forth covering much of Siberia with volcanic rock. This triggered melting of the glaciers and ice caps which re-flooded continents which has earlier arisen when the ice sheets formed.
  2. Let's agree to disagree. If you think a lack of studies in a needed area dispels my evidence, feel free to think that.
  3. There currently exists tangible evidence that the extent of solar particle penetration directly affects decay. Fact. The strength of the magnetic field, and air pressure directly affect solar particle penetration. Fact. Science is based on evidence-based based theories. Mine is a direct evidence-based theory that the strength of the magnetic field and atmospheric pressure directly affect solar particle penetration, fluctuations which are proven to affect decay. Put your head in the sand, my theory is evidence based, and science is based on evidence-based theories.
  4. You obviously never understood my logic concerning small effect is currently showing small changes, the logical projection is that a large effect could cause large changes to decay rates. You don't see the logic, oh well.
  5. Emphatic denial is how you deal with the possibilities of the magnetic field? One.op that's not evidence
  6. If that makes you feel confident in radiometric dating methods, I am happy to agree to disagree. I laid out my logic, not expecting you to discard your precious time frames over something as small as logical possibilities.
  7. The effect is minimal on the shorter half-lives. And not measured on the ones relevant to radiometric dating. You are welcome to do your own research, you have been asking me to do your research.
  8. I'm just using the English language. For example 300 000 years is a lot shorter than 700 million years. So relatively 300 000 is a short half-life in comparison. There have been quite a few studies, radium-226 is mentioned in this one: https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2012/Q3/new-system-could-predict-solar-flares,-give-advance-warning.html
  9. The effect is on many levels, there is the 33 day effect, based on the sun's core rotation, there is the solar flare effect, there is the seasonal effect, the midnight effect. All these variations in solar penetration have a direct effect on decay rates, minimal but detectable on the shorter half-life isotopes. Increase solar penetration slightly we get a slight slowdown in decay, what if we DECREASE solar penetration DRAMATICALLY though a stronger magnetic field combined with high air pressures? Could it be possible we get a dramatic increase in decay? Slight change = slight effect, dramatic change = ? The possibilities exist.
  10. The isotopes are silicon-32 (half life 710 years) and radium-226 (half-life 1600 years) Now that we have discovered decay is not constant we need studies on variation of long half-life isotopes for example: uranium-235 (700 million years) lead-206 (4.5 billion years) Without studying the Purdue effect on those isotopes actually used in radiometric dating, we can never be confident of radiometric dating again. And this is not just an exaggerated hypothesis, the more the solar energy, the LESS the decay. For an isotope losing energy really fast (decay of half-life 710 years) the re-energising does have an effect, but minor. It is not an unrealistic possibility that for an isotope losing energy really slowly, the re-energising could have a massive effect on the rate of decay.
  11. You are correct, I should have said Citrates, not Nitrates. My apology if the spelling error caused some confusion.
  12. My reason is.... the Purdue effect. Since radiometric decay is known to be inconsistent, the extent of this inconsistency has not been measured accurately with long-life isotopes under all conditions. We shall have to agree to disagree here. And in the absence of reliable scientific data, yes I will go with the biblical timeframes, at least it is an ancient dependable book, unlike the constancy of decay rates which are no longer dependable.
  13. Let us agree to disagree, the Purdue effect was minor on short-life isotopes, we don't know it's effect on long-life isotopes, so the Purdue effect puts great doubt on the dependability of long-life isotopes until the effect is measured. And magnetic fields have to be taken into account, because the Purdue effect is based on changes to the penetration of solar radiation, and magnetic fields have a strong influence on the penetration of solar radiation.
  14. I don't have to prove time-periods, because radiometric dating is in doubt.
  15. You are not facing the fact that the measured changes were for short-life isotopes. What is the Purdue effect on long life isotopes? You should be curious about this, because it can put the entire concept of radiometric dating into jeopardy. You refer to date consensus, I agree in some cases there is consensus and therefore radiometric dating is a reasonable measurement of RELATIVE timescales. But no-one actually knows how the Purdue effect, affects long-life istotopes so the actual dates are completely in doubt. In addition if a sudden slight increase of solar radiation can SLOW decay, what effect will a permanent blockage of much solar radiation have during times of increased magnetic field strength? May I suggest a sure-fire method on how to face these questions? Insist you are correct with no evidence to support your position, and put your head-in-the-sand. It's working for you so far In the meantime radiometric dating is completely in doubt. Uncertain territory.
  • Create New...