Proof of Noah's flood.

[Jzyehoshua]

 

your links are old (2008/2010). Yes I agree the effect does not relate to earth-sun distance, neither does it appear to relate to neutrinos. Instrument failure claims have been completely ruled out by subsequent studies , mainly involving the Geological Survey of Israel, many studies confirm the effect.

 

This is why I relate the observations to the extent of penetration of the solar wind/cosmic rays.  All the observed effects relate directly to penetration of the earth's surface. The stronger the penetration, the slower the decay.  So the effect has in no ways been ruled out , it has increasingly been confirmed.

Ok, so do they have concrete evidence that shows significant change in rate of decay? I mean I thought the dates they gave out were already within a margin of error. Another words if we find evidence that something affects the reading of some chemical, biological or atomic clock....but it only affects it slightly...I don't see why that's a big deal.

 

 

Here's an Encyclopaedia Britannica source addressing how carbon-14 ages can be altered.

 

"With correction for radioactive decay during the intervening years, such old samples hopefully would show the same starting carbon-14 level as exists today... It is now clear that carbon-14 is not homogeneously distributed among today’s plants and animals. The occasional exceptions all involve nonatmospheric contributions of carbon-14-depleted carbon dioxide to organic synthesis. Specifically, volcanic carbon dioxide is known to depress the carbon-14 level of nearby vegetation, and dissolved limestone carbonate occasionally has a similar effect on freshwater mollusks, as does upwelling of deep ocean water on marine mollusks. In every case, the living material affected gives the appearance of built-in age. In addition to spatial variations of the carbon-14 level, the question of temporal variation has received much study. A 2 to 3 percent depression of the atmospheric radioactive-carbon level since 1900 was noted soon after Libby’s pioneering work, almost certainly the result of the dumping of huge volumes of carbon-14-free carbon dioxide into the air through smokestacks. Of more recent date was the overcompensating effect of man-made carbon-14 injected into the atmosphere during nuclear bomb testing. The result was a rise in the atmospheric carbon-14 level by more than 50 percent. Fortunately, neither effect has been significant in the case of older samples submitted for carbon-14 dating. The ultimate cause of carbon-14 variations with time is generally attributed to temporal fluctuations in the cosmic rays that bombard the upper atmosphere and create terrestrial carbon-14."

 

-Edwin A. Olson, Encyclopædia Britannica

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/152243/dating/69778/Carbon-14-dating-and-other-cosmogenic-methods

[ARGOSY]

 

your links are old (2008/2010). Yes I agree the effect does not relate to earth-sun distance, neither does it appear to relate to neutrinos. Instrument failure claims have been completely ruled out by subsequent studies , mainly involving the Geological Survey of Israel, many studies confirm the effect.

 

This is why I relate the observations to the extent of penetration of the solar wind/cosmic rays.  All the observed effects relate directly to penetration of the earth's surface. The stronger the penetration, the slower the decay.  So the effect has in no ways been ruled out , it has increasingly been confirmed.

Ok, so do they have concrete evidence that shows significant change in rate of decay? I mean I thought the dates they gave out were already within a margin of error. Another words if we find evidence that something affects the reading of some chemical, biological or atomic clock....but it only affects it slightly...I don't see why that's a big deal.

 

 

The big deal is the relationship that has been established. They do refer to large solar flares, but even these just cause a small increase in background radiation. The midnight effect is also very slight, so is the seasonal effect on background radiation.   So we have a general rule here, small changes to the background radiation cause small changes to decay rates. Now what if there is a nearly complete blockout of background radiation through a magnetic field 50% stronger than the current strength?  

 

The logical assumption is that if a small increase in radiation causes a small effect, a radiation blockout would have a huge effect. Of course this is not conclusive, but it certainly is the more intuitive assumption than the head-in-the-sand approach of the scientific community that the effects are negligible.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

===========================================================================

 

"My Presupposition: "Secular" science is evil and is the hand of satan."

 

and then supported it with....

 

"What "Establishment"/Organization on the Planet Earth and on a MASSIVE SCALE attempts to Cast the Most DOUBT and then Outright Denial of the Existence of GOD, Bar None??? "Secular" Science."

 

I fail to see the issue here.

 

Admittedly, It was a "Generalized Sweeping Statement", something I usually steer clear of....However, I am prepared to discuss specific disciplines if queried.  

 

 

Easy to this on an internet messageboard, how well would you do with Hawking in person? Or the average physicist?

 

This is an Argument?  Probably pretty much the same way as I refuted a majority of it in Print; on this and other boards, which by the way, I have never received ONE counter-argument....just name calling.

 

 

It isn't baseless, I've shown above where you make bizarre claims that I think are fanatical.

 

Yes it is Baseless----(Lacking Support to Refute).  "I think" isn't a refutation.  "I Show" is better suited here.

 

How is it Bizarre?

 

 

Do you support DNA evidence in the court of law? Or to be used to determine parenthood?

 

Are you implying that "Paternity Tests" somehow justifies and validates the Extrapolation: Similarity of Bengal Tigers and Prokaryotes ??

 

As I said, Please show....

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

??

 

And..... we're quite a bit ahead of the Game Here, we need to establish this first (No sense in searching for steak until we establish the existence of the cow): 

 

DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously Polymerize Naturally outside an already existing Cell-----from amino and nucleotides, respectively.  That's just the Hardware!

 

Then you got What I consider an Insurmountable Summit:

 

DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!

 

To refute:

 

1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....

2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.

[ARGOSY]

 

 

your links are old (2008/2010). Yes I agree the effect does not relate to earth-sun distance, neither does it appear to relate to neutrinos. Instrument failure claims have been completely ruled out by subsequent studies , mainly involving the Geological Survey of Israel, many studies confirm the effect.

 

This is why I relate the observations to the extent of penetration of the solar wind/cosmic rays.  All the observed effects relate directly to penetration of the earth's surface. The stronger the penetration, the slower the decay.  So the effect has in no ways been ruled out , it has increasingly been confirmed.

Ok, so do they have concrete evidence that shows significant change in rate of decay? I mean I thought the dates they gave out were already within a margin of error. Another words if we find evidence that something affects the reading of some chemical, biological or atomic clock....but it only affects it slightly...I don't see why that's a big deal.

 

 

Here's an Encyclopaedia Britannica source addressing how carbon-14 ages can be altered.

 

"With correction for radioactive decay during the intervening years, such old samples hopefully would show the same starting carbon-14 level as exists today... It is now clear that carbon-14 is not homogeneously distributed among today’s plants and animals. The occasional exceptions all involve nonatmospheric contributions of carbon-14-depleted carbon dioxide to organic synthesis. Specifically, volcanic carbon dioxide is known to depress the carbon-14 level of nearby vegetation, and dissolved limestone carbonate occasionally has a similar effect on freshwater mollusks, as does upwelling of deep ocean water on marine mollusks. In every case, the living material affected gives the appearance of built-in age. In addition to spatial variations of the carbon-14 level, the question of temporal variation has received much study. A 2 to 3 percent depression of the atmospheric radioactive-carbon level since 1900 was noted soon after Libby’s pioneering work, almost certainly the result of the dumping of huge volumes of carbon-14-free carbon dioxide into the air through smokestacks. Of more recent date was the overcompensating effect of man-made carbon-14 injected into the atmosphere during nuclear bomb testing. The result was a rise in the atmospheric carbon-14 level by more than 50 percent. Fortunately, neither effect has been significant in the case of older samples submitted for carbon-14 dating. The ultimate cause of carbon-14 variations with time is generally attributed to temporal fluctuations in the cosmic rays that bombard the upper atmosphere and create terrestrial carbon-14."

 

-Edwin A. Olson, Encyclopædia Britannica

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/152243/dating/69778/Carbon-14-dating-and-other-cosmogenic-methods

 

 

Yes, this magnetic field effect is exacerbated when applied to carbon dating, because under strong magnetic fields there is the reduction of atmospheric carbon production, (less carbon meaning dates are over-estimated) and there is the additional effect of rapid decay of the carbon from the samples (less carbon meaning dates are over-estimated when based on current decay rates)

[Bonky]

The big deal is the relationship that has been established. They do refer to large solar flares, but even these just cause a small increase in background radiation. The midnight effect is also very slight, so is the seasonal effect on background radiation.   So we have a general rule here, small changes to the background radiation cause small changes to decay rates. Now what if there is a nearly complete blockout of background radiation through a magnetic field 50% stronger than the current strength?  

 

The logical assumption is that if a small increase in radiation causes a small effect, a radiation blockout would have a huge effect. Of course this is not conclusive, but it certainly is the more intuitive assumption than the head-in-the-sand approach of the scientific community that the effects are negligible.

Until we would have evidence that there was any "blackout" I think it's reasonable to assume that the readings we have a fairly accurate. I mean there is a pretty big difference between 4.5 billion years and 6000.

[Jzyehoshua]

 

 

 

your links are old (2008/2010). Yes I agree the effect does not relate to earth-sun distance, neither does it appear to relate to neutrinos. Instrument failure claims have been completely ruled out by subsequent studies , mainly involving the Geological Survey of Israel, many studies confirm the effect.

 

This is why I relate the observations to the extent of penetration of the solar wind/cosmic rays.  All the observed effects relate directly to penetration of the earth's surface. The stronger the penetration, the slower the decay.  So the effect has in no ways been ruled out , it has increasingly been confirmed.

Ok, so do they have concrete evidence that shows significant change in rate of decay? I mean I thought the dates they gave out were already within a margin of error. Another words if we find evidence that something affects the reading of some chemical, biological or atomic clock....but it only affects it slightly...I don't see why that's a big deal.

 

 

Here's an Encyclopaedia Britannica source addressing how carbon-14 ages can be altered.

 

"With correction for radioactive decay during the intervening years, such old samples hopefully would show the same starting carbon-14 level as exists today... It is now clear that carbon-14 is not homogeneously distributed among today’s plants and animals. The occasional exceptions all involve nonatmospheric contributions of carbon-14-depleted carbon dioxide to organic synthesis. Specifically, volcanic carbon dioxide is known to depress the carbon-14 level of nearby vegetation, and dissolved limestone carbonate occasionally has a similar effect on freshwater mollusks, as does upwelling of deep ocean water on marine mollusks. In every case, the living material affected gives the appearance of built-in age. In addition to spatial variations of the carbon-14 level, the question of temporal variation has received much study. A 2 to 3 percent depression of the atmospheric radioactive-carbon level since 1900 was noted soon after Libby’s pioneering work, almost certainly the result of the dumping of huge volumes of carbon-14-free carbon dioxide into the air through smokestacks. Of more recent date was the overcompensating effect of man-made carbon-14 injected into the atmosphere during nuclear bomb testing. The result was a rise in the atmospheric carbon-14 level by more than 50 percent. Fortunately, neither effect has been significant in the case of older samples submitted for carbon-14 dating. The ultimate cause of carbon-14 variations with time is generally attributed to temporal fluctuations in the cosmic rays that bombard the upper atmosphere and create terrestrial carbon-14."

 

-Edwin A. Olson, Encyclopædia Britannica

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/152243/dating/69778/Carbon-14-dating-and-other-cosmogenic-methods

 

 

Yes, this magnetic field effect is exacerbated when applied to carbon dating, because under strong magnetic fields there is the reduction of atmospheric carbon production, (less carbon meaning dates are over-estimated) and there is the additional effect of rapid decay of the carbon from the samples (less carbon meaning dates are over-estimated when based on current decay rates)

 

With any type of radiometric dating though it can be similarly altered. You're assuming the daughter isotope levels can be known and weren't influenced by other sources. You have to assume you know how much carbon was in the atmosphere millions of years ago, how much argon there was, etc. Furthermore that nothing added additional amounts. Otherwise you'd be incorrectly assuming how much of the isotope there was to begin decaying originally.

 

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions

 

Volcanism by the way has been shown to alter multiple types of radiometric dating, not just carbon-14 dating but argon dating as well.

 

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r01

[ARGOSY]

 

The big deal is the relationship that has been established. They do refer to large solar flares, but even these just cause a small increase in background radiation. The midnight effect is also very slight, so is the seasonal effect on background radiation.   So we have a general rule here, small changes to the background radiation cause small changes to decay rates. Now what if there is a nearly complete blockout of background radiation through a magnetic field 50% stronger than the current strength?  

 

The logical assumption is that if a small increase in radiation causes a small effect, a radiation blockout would have a huge effect. Of course this is not conclusive, but it certainly is the more intuitive assumption than the head-in-the-sand approach of the scientific community that the effects are negligible

Until we would have evidence that there was any "blackout" I think it's reasonable to assume that the readings we have a fairly accurate. I mean there is a pretty big difference between 4.5 billion years and 6000.

 

 

Well there was historically a 50% increase in magnetic field intensity for large periods of history.  Each particle reacts differently to a magnetic shield, some particles like protons would require just a slight increase to cause a near complete blockout, other particles like neutrinos would not be affected by a change in field strength.  This entire cause/effect on the radiation background and consequent  decay rate relationship needs to be analysed in detail. Who knows, its entirely possible it has the 100 000 fold discrepancy creationists are predicting.

[Jzyehoshua]

Basically you've got an element that decays into another element over a long period of time. But to figure out how long it was decaying you have to assume that you know how much of it there was to begin with based on understanding of how much of it came from the atmosphere, where it came from, etc. You also have to assume that nothing got added during the decay process.

 

If there were different levels of carbon-14 or other isotopes in the atmosphere in the past then scientists believe, then the dating methods will be off. If there were other sources of those isotopes than just atmosphere than scientists believe, those dating methods will be off. If the decay rate wasn't a closed system and got affected by processes such as volcanism, the dating methods will be off. If the element it decayed into could be introduced in another way than just decay over long periods of time, the methods will be off.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Jzyehoshua

[ARGOSY]

 

 

With any type of radiometric dating though it can be similarly altered. You're assuming the daughter isotope levels can be known and weren't influenced by other sources. You have to assume you know how much carbon was in the atmosphere millions of years ago, how much argon there was, etc. Furthermore that nothing added additional amounts. Otherwise you'd be incorrectly assuming how much of the isotope there was to begin decaying originally.

 

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions

 

Volcanism by the way has been shown to alter multiple types of radiometric dating, not just carbon-14 dating but argon dating as well.

 

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r01

 

 

 

So true. Yes often recently formed rocks can show enough daughter element to be dated to millions of years old.  Some scientists have argued that the methods only apply to older rocks, but that is laughable circular reasoning because do they expect the daughter element to somehow correct itself over time? Seep out the rock?   Their logic is sometimes lacking.   These rocks start off already over -dated by millions of years and the rock does not have the ability to correct its own daughter element quantities.  (as silly as that sounds, what are these guys thinking?)

[Bonky]

Here's an Encyclopaedia Britannica source addressing how carbon-14 ages can be altered.

 

 

 

 

"With correction for radioactive decay during the intervening years, such old samples hopefully would show the same starting carbon-14 level as exists today... It is now clear that carbon-14 is not homogeneously distributed among today’s plants and animals. The occasional exceptions all involve nonatmospheric contributions of carbon-14-depleted carbon dioxide to organic synthesis. Specifically, volcanic carbon dioxide is known to depress the carbon-14 level of nearby vegetation, and dissolved limestone carbonate occasionally has a similar effect on freshwater mollusks, as does upwelling of deep ocean water on marine mollusks. In every case, the living material affected gives the appearance of built-in age. In addition to spatial variations of the carbon-14 level, the question of temporal variation has received much study. A 2 to 3 percent depression of the atmospheric radioactive-carbon level since 1900 was noted soon after Libby’s pioneering work, almost certainly the result of the dumping of huge volumes of carbon-14-free carbon dioxide into the air through smokestacks. Of more recent date was the overcompensating effect of man-made carbon-14 injected into the atmosphere during nuclear bomb testing. The result was a rise in the atmospheric carbon-14 level by more than 50 percent. Fortunately, neither effect has been significant in the case of older samples submitted for carbon-14 dating. The ultimate cause of carbon-14 variations with time is generally attributed to temporal fluctuations in the cosmic rays that bombard the upper atmosphere and create terrestrial carbon-14."

 

-Edwin A. Olson, Encyclopædia Britannica

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/152243/dating/69778/Carbon-14-dating-and-other-cosmogenic-methods

 

Yes, this magnetic field effect is exacerbated when applied to carbon dating, because under strong magnetic fields there is the reduction of atmospheric carbon production, (less carbon meaning dates are over-estimated) and there is the additional effect of rapid decay of the carbon from the samples (less carbon meaning dates are over-estimated when based on current decay rates)

What you quoted from the encyclopedia is well understood. Carbon dating is only good for dating organic samples less than 60k years old. Potassium argon is able to go way beyond that. So I can understand acknowledging slight variances with the dates given, but trying to sell a 6000 year old earth is to me, not reasonable.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Bonky