disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[ARGOSY]

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

There is no evidence indicating it is in doubt. If you choose to disagree with the evidence, it is a matter of faith, not science. It is unreasonable to scientifically disagree without a reason to do so. It is important to recognize that a belief in Young Earth Creation is due to your faith, not due to contradictory scientific evidence.

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.

Edited April 11, 2019 by ARGOSY

[one.opinion]

Just now, ARGOSY said:

the Purdue effect was minor on short-life isotopes

This was one study, on two isotopes. What isotopes were used? What was the half-life of the two isotopes? Is there a scientific definition of short-life and long-life isotopes, or is this something you have made up specifically for what you call the "Purdue effect"? Has this study been repeated? Were these isotopes used for radiometric dating? How much was decay rate affected?

[ARGOSY]

56 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

This was one study, on two isotopes. What isotopes were used? What was the half-life of the two isotopes? Is there a scientific definition of short-life and long-life isotopes, or is this something you have made up specifically for what you call the "Purdue effect"? Has this study been repeated? Were these isotopes used for radiometric dating? How much was decay rate affected?

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.  

[ARGOSY]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

This was one study, on two isotopes. What isotopes were used? What was the half-life of the two isotopes? Is there a scientific definition of short-life and long-life isotopes, or is this something you have made up specifically for what you call the "Purdue effect"? Has this study been repeated? Were these isotopes used for radiometric dating? How much was decay rate affected?

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. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by ARGOSY

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

The isotopes are  silicon-32 (half life 710 years)  and radium-226 (half-life 1600 years)

In the abstract I am looking at, there is no mention of radium-226. Chlorine-36 is mentioned and this isotope has a half-life of roughly 300,000 years. Does three hundred thousand years qualify as "short half-life" in your estimation instead of "long half-life"? Again, are these terms you made up yourself, or is there a definition assigned by scientists that are qualified to do so?

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

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. 

You have ignored 3 of my questions, and haven't really addressed a fourth here. I asked how much the decay rate was affected, not what kind of effects there were.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

Slight change = slight effect,   dramatic change = ?    The possibilities exist. 

The possibilities exist...  but there is virtually no evidence to support those possibilities.

[ARGOSY]

5 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

In the abstract I am looking at, there is no mention of radium-226. Chlorine-36 is mentioned and this isotope has a half-life of roughly 300,000 years. Does three hundred thousand years qualify as "short half-life" in your estimation instead of "long half-life"? Again, are these terms you made up yourself, or is there a definition assigned by scientists that are qualified to do so?

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

[ARGOSY]

8 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You have ignored 3 of my questions, and haven't really addressed a fourth here. I asked how much the decay rate was affected, not what kind of effects there were.

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. 

[ARGOSY]

9 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

The possibilities exist...  but there is virtually no evidence to support those possibilities.

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.