C14 dating.

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:37 pm

Why Dating Methods Are Compromised
* All or most radioactive decay dating methods are compromised because electrical forces were very likely much stronger during catastrophic events in ancient times. And electrical forces can greatly reduce the half-life of radioactive elements. Here are some search results from the online hydroplate book that should be relevant to the uranium topic.

1. 29. Proteins - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation ...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes28.html
u “In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time ...
2. References and Notes - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for ...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity8.html
u “Uranium, thorium and potassium are the main elements contributing to natural terrestrial ... 90% of uranium and thorium are concentrated in the continents.
3. The Origin of Earth's Radioactivity - In the Beginning: Compelling ...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html
For example, a hydrogen atom has one proton; helium, two; lithium, three; carbon, six; oxygen, eight; iron, 26; gold, 79; and uranium, 92. Today, earth has 94 ...
4. Evidence Requiring an Explanation - In the Beginning: Compelling ...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity5.html
The equality of the continental and oceanic heat flows is puzzling in view of the great disparity in the total amounts of the radioactive elements uranium, thorium, ...
5. Index Letter U - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation ...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningIX23.html
uranium 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Uranus 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. heat 1. moons 1. Urey, Harold (1893–1981) 1, 2. Utah 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Uzbekistan 1, 2 ...
6. 77. Dissolved Metals - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for ...
http://www.creationscience.com › ... › Astronomical and Physical Sciences
Rivers carry dissolved elements such as copper, gold, lead, mercury, nickel, silicon, sodium, tin, and uranium into oceans at very rapid rates when compared ...
7. 71. Helium - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation ...
http://www.creationscience.com › ... › Astronomical and Physical Sciences
Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere's helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be ...
8. The following items pertain primarily to one theory. - In the ...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity6.html
Also, Baffin Island rocks have been dated by uranium-to-lead and other evolutionary dating techniques that give ages as old as the earth itself! If they had been ...
9. Theories for the Origin of Earth's Radioactivity - In the Beginning ...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity3.html
Therefore, staggering amounts of energy (heat) were absorbed in producing heavy elements such as uranium. The more heat produced, the more heavy ...
10. Two Perspectives - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for ...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ111.html
... that time, was so compressed and temperatures were so hot that most nuclei would have merged to form heavier nuclei such as carbon, iron, and uranium.
• Evaluation of Evidence vs. Theories - In the Beginning: Compelling ...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity4.html
Uranium-235 ( 235U). Image of Green Circle. 27. Image of Red Circle. 28. Ratio of 235U to 238U. Image of Green Circle. 29. Image of Red Circle. 30. Carbon-14 ...
• What Questions Could I Ask Evolutionists? - In the Beginning ...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ44.html
How were the heavy elements from iron to uranium made? Physicists recognize that fusion in stars—even exploding stars—cannot produce these heavy ...
• References and Notes - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for ...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview9.html
Where the heaviest elements, such as uranium and lead, came from still remains something of a mystery. Ibid., p. 41. 30. See "Meteorites Return Home" on page ...
• 1 - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview4.html
For example, how did radioactive uranium, the 92nd heaviest element form? This is a problem. Those who recognize the problem might say that heavy elements ...
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4319
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby webolife » Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:22 pm

The R.A.T.E. project I think did a superb job of analysing radiometric dating data and methods... lots of links with the keyword "RATE", incl a rebuttal by OEM that I felt was spurious and inflamatory without offering any insight whatsoever.

"...suggest years of deposition" is a key phrase in understanding the ice core dating dilemma. There is actually no inherent time frame in the bacteriological or other morphologies except that which is suggested; or I would say overlaid upon the research by those who are inclined one way or the other, one to gradualism/uniformitarianism, the other to catastrophism. Choose your presuppositions, but presuppositions are unavoidable. The presence of bacteria in ice cores has surprised some researchers no doubt, but this presence can be as much an indicator of relatively recent deposition and/or infiltration, as of more gradual culture... given the prevalence and mutability of procaryotes, I think the former is more plausible. As for pollen, it blows in the wind and is carried upon the water... why should there be an inherent timeframe for this?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:54 pm

RATE Research
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/11/07/rate-research-results
Helium Loss from Zircon & C14 in Coal and Diamonds
RATE physicist Dr. Russ Humphreys reported on the measurements of helium diffusing (leaking) out of zircon crystals. The helium is produced by radioactive decay, but over time it can leak out of the crystals. If the zircons were billions of years, there should be very little helium left since it would have had plenty of time to diffuse away, yet there is still a tremendous amount of helium in the zircons-consistent with an age of about 6,000 years. The current amount of helium in the zircons, and the measured rate of helium diffusion show (1) that a lot of radioactive decay has happened (to produce so much helium) and (2) that it must have happened quickly in the recent past (otherwise the helium would have had time to escape).

RATE geophysicist Dr. John Baumgardner reported on the detection of C14 in coal and in diamonds. Since C14 is a short-lived radioisotope, it cannot survive for millions of years. This is compelling evidence that these diamonds and coal deposits are thousands of years old at most. In particular, the hard lattice structure of a diamond makes any sort of contamination extremely unlikely. Dr. Baumgardner also stated that C14 is found in essentially all fossil organic material throughout the geologic column.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4319
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby knomegnome » Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:02 pm

webolife wrote:The R.A.T.E. project I think did a superb job of analysing radiometric dating data and methods... lots of links with the keyword "RATE", incl a rebuttal by OEM that I felt was spurious and inflamatory without offering any insight whatsoever.

"...suggest years of deposition" is a key phrase in understanding the ice core dating dilemma. There is actually no inherent time frame in the bacteriological or other morphologies except that which is suggested; or I would say overlaid upon the research by those who are inclined one way or the other, one to gradualism/uniformitarianism, the other to catastrophism. Choose your presuppositions, but presuppositions are unavoidable. The presence of bacteria in ice cores has surprised some researchers no doubt, but this presence can be as much an indicator of relatively recent deposition and/or infiltration, as of more gradual culture... given the prevalence and mutability of procaryotes, I think the former is more plausible. As for pollen, it blows in the wind and is carried upon the water... why should there be an inherent timeframe for this?


The bacterium were looked at genetically and microscopically, and some were found to be currently extinct, which led to more looking and a few were found to most likely be from a very long time ago. The same is true for the pollen. And from layer to layer, they differ.. enough to suggest years of change. Sometimes there is a jump, and something in the ice layer to show a catastrophe. Sometimes it is gradual. I currently subscribe to punctuated equlibrium as the model for gene mutation on our planet, and the ice cores bear that out pretty well.
knomegnome
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:24 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby knomegnome » Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:16 pm

Lloyd wrote:RATE Research
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/11/07/rate-research-results
Helium Loss from Zircon & C14 in Coal and Diamonds
RATE physicist Dr. Russ Humphreys reported on the measurements of helium diffusing (leaking) out of zircon crystals. The helium is produced by radioactive decay, but over time it can leak out of the crystals. If the zircons were billions of years, there should be very little helium left since it would have had plenty of time to diffuse away, yet there is still a tremendous amount of helium in the zircons-consistent with an age of about 6,000 years. The current amount of helium in the zircons, and the measured rate of helium diffusion show (1) that a lot of radioactive decay has happened (to produce so much helium) and (2) that it must have happened quickly in the recent past (otherwise the helium would have had time to escape).


Humphreys is a hack, and is known for expounding erroneous assumptions. He "showed" the facts above by cheating the system, and lying to everyone. He tested the crystals in Standard Temperature and Pressure.

Well of COURSE they would be leaking a lot of Helium! They are no longer under the pressures and temps that they had laid in for millions of years! This is a piker error, if it WAS an error.. I have my doubts.

And that's only one silly assertion he's made. He has been expounding fiction as fact for some time.

RATE geophysicist Dr. John Baumgardner reported on the detection of C14 in coal and in diamonds. Since C14 is a short-lived radioisotope, it cannot survive for millions of years. This is compelling evidence that these diamonds and coal deposits are thousands of years old at most. In particular, the hard lattice structure of a diamond makes any sort of contamination extremely unlikely. Dr. Baumgardner also stated that C14 is found in essentially all fossil organic material throughout the geologic column.


Baumgardner is another one who misrepresents fiction as fact.

Just to start with.. fossils don't HAVE carbon in them because they are so old...

As to coal and diamonds:

The RATE team's results were analyzed, and found almost certainly to have been contaminated before they were tested. This happens easily, and the fact that RATE didn't allow for it, or even know they had to test for it, is disturbing, and casts doubt on any of their scientific claims.

In any event, although this is plenty to dismiss any of their claims, the fact that Baumgardner says:

"When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible."

Sorry. As far as I am concerned that means you are hopelessly biased and have nothing to contribute of value.
knomegnome
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:24 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby 601L1n9FR09 » Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:34 am

Ok... can you please explain to me, in some detail (or through a reference), the process you are supposing produced the ice's physical, bacteriological, pollen and other morphologies that suggest years of deposition?

And carbon load wouldn't affect fission-track dating, or uranium-thorium dating.. etc. I'd like to hear why you think they are also compromised. Thanks!

Well start here ► http://www.damninteresting.com/exhuming ... cier-girl/

You will find plenty of objections to radiometric dating in posts all over this forum but blatant assumption is what it comes down to. You just want to type a bunch of stuff so people can see how over educated you are. I am not feeling too spunky tonight. There are catastrophists here that are way better and generally spunkier than I am anyway.

Cheers
601L1n9FR09
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby 601L1n9FR09 » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:14 pm

Never mind
601L1n9FR09
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby nick c » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:05 am

knomegnome,
Perhaps you should read some material that can answer your questions or give you an alternative view for your consideration.


first a summary of the EU position:
Wal Thornhill wrote:Myth No. 4. Radioactive dating can give reliable estimates of the ages of rocks. The solar system is 3.7 billion years old.

Radioactive dating relies on a planet being essentially a closed system since shortly after its formation. However, powerful plasma discharges are a copious source of neutrons, which can introduce radioactive species to planetary surfaces. Matter is also irradiated and transferred between planets by cosmic discharges. Radioactive ‘clocks’ cannot be relied upon under such circumstances. This also explains isotope anomalies in some meteorites, for example, in the Allende meteorite (and others of its type) where short-lived radioactive decay products like Mg26 are found to excess. It suggests conventionally that there was more than the expected amount of Al26 in the early nebula when the meteor was formed. This, in turn, has led to speculation that there was a nearby supernova at or near the same time. No such implausible explanation is required in an Electric Universe. The meteor is a remnant of debris removed from a planetary surface by a plasma arc, which has the power to generate radioactive species in situ in the meteorite.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/astronomi ... e=e511t4z2
and:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... fossil.htm


some links for Radiometric Dating:
http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=1159
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156
http://www.blog.thecastsite.com/?p=95
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984PhRvC..29.1825R
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1755932/cc-2
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/augu ... 82310.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2 ... after-all/
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2413
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby webolife » Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:48 pm

Once again, Knomegnome overlays his own set of assumptions to the interpretation of ice core bacterial variation.
Similar linear progressions of variation can be seen in species of organisms ranging along eg. a coastline. From one end to the other [sub]species may not be able to interbreed, but from one population to the next adjacent population some interbreeding is observed. Herein are seen variations among present day living organisms, not separated by long time frames or bound by evolutionary prescriptions, but simply by varying degrees of isolation. In addition, on whose authority have these bacteria been deemed "extinct"? Is this not a circular presupposition of evolution trying to prove itself? Back to the C14 discussion, however, it is clear that Knomegnome has serious trouble with scientists who don't conform to his own belief system. An honest scientist [precious few there are in some fields] admits his or her biases, presuppositions, premises, presumptions, assumptions... in short the "faith base" from which all interpretations are made [and conclusions drawn] from the observations, irrespective of the logic [claimed to be] used... C14 is a variable which has likely undergone several rate-shifting atmospheric catastrophes throughout the past. Only by denying this likelihood can radiocarbon dating stand up to the test of time beyond about 1 C14 halflife.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby knomegnome » Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:53 pm

I apologize if I came off as overly erudite... I'll try to watch out for that in future.

- Glacier girl: Those planes landed on active glaciers, in Greenland. The ice cores taken from Antarctica were not from active glaciers, but form areas of snow pack that tracked as non glacial, and thus not subject to the phenomenon you describe. Also, Antarctica is much drier than Greenland, and so ice deposition is much less, year to year. In fact Antarctica is the driest place on earth.

- I do not agree with everything Wal thornhill says, because there have not been any experiments to back all of them up. This is one problem I have with him in particular.. he states things as fact when he doesn't actually have evidence to back it up fairly often. Once we have the experimental evidence in hand, and it's proven true, I'll change my position. As of right now, although I agree that radiometric dating is not reliable in general, it would be completely specious to state that we KNOW that any particular dating attempt was wrong because of these factors. We simply don't have a handle on how these processes work.. only some hypotheses which could be falsified once tested. And given how many different methods, which work by completely different mechanisms, state that things are very old, I have to go with the evidence. I mean folks, we have no idea how much the phenomenon is influenced by electrical activity at all.. if it is 50%, that still leaves us with millions of years. For rates to be influenced so much as to give even more millions/billions of years wrong, consistently... I need to see evidence.

If there is evidence to show this is all wrong, I'll go that way. Why do you think I'm here? I'm here because of Alfven and Birkeland, and others who have done experimental work proving some aspects of all of this to be true. I don't care who is right.. I care what is true, and the only way I believe that can be determined is through experiment and observation.

- I don't have a belief system with regards to Science. I am interested in what can be proven. I don't agree that Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and so on can possibly be real, since there simply is no evidence for them, and they are built upon assumptions that, at their core, seem to be being attacked from all sides. And as I have said before, I don't like C14 dating because it is the MOST unreliable method of dating anything in any cosmology. Fission track and other methods are more reliable, and would conceivably be less affected by possible plasma discharges, electric activity, and so on, and so, at the moment, are what I am going with.

- I said 'extinct' because such bacterium have been found in the fossil record but not in the ecosystem, as of yet. Diatoms are actually much more reliable since they leave behind a hard shell that identifies them very well, and are much larger than bacterium so we have a better handle on the current and projected past species profile.

Look guys, I am looking at all possible avenues of information, and going with what seems the most reasonable and well proven. Big Bang? Nada. EU? Yes. But to get more specific.. like talking about young earth theory? It's a huge stretch, even WITH electric universe theory, and moreover I am particularly cautious about it since most young earthers are creationists, only interested in young earth theory because it backs up the bible. Such people are no different than the Big Bangers we insist are predicating their ideas on an assumption of truth that has no provability.

If someone does come up with convincing evidence for the Earth being that young, then I'll pay attention! So far, it seems to have been hearsay and assumptions, with plenty of alternate explanations that are just as viable. There is simply no evidence I have found convincing that would cause me to think we did NOT evolve over millions of years. I asked about electric fossilization, for example.. no one seems to be doing work on it, to reproduce it in a lab.. why not??? This would seem to be an amazing discovery, to prove that fossils could be formed that way. All I have seen is permineralization fossilization, a process that has been known for a very long time, and doesn't repudiate natural fossil formation over long time spans (in fact, scientists got the idea from fossil deposits) Etc.

What about radiometric dating? How hard would it be to induce fast radioactive decay, and thus produce erroneous fission track dates?

Lets follow the evidence!
knomegnome
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:24 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby nick c » Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:56 am

Glacier girl: Those planes landed on active glaciers, in Greenland. The ice cores taken from Antarctica were not from active glaciers, but form areas of snow pack that tracked as non glacial, and thus not subject to the phenomenon you describe. Also, Antarctica is much drier than Greenland, and so ice deposition is much less, year to year. In fact Antarctica is the driest place on earth.
Previously, I wrote that one cannot use models based upon uniformitarian assumptions to disprove catastrophic scenarios. That is precisely what is taking place in the above quote. The inland stability of the Greenland glaciers is a presently observed condition, this would not be the case under just about any of the proposed catastrophic scenarios. It is a strawman. The fact is that chronology derived from ice cores is based upon the a priori assumption that the deposition upon the glaciers has been stable for thousands of years. The Glacier Girl case demonstrates how, if we discard that uniformitarian assumption (as is required given the conditions that would accompany a history of global catastrophes) then the ice cores are not an accurate record of annual deposition.
Have you read this?
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophi ... s/ice.html
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2413
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby nick c » Sun Oct 28, 2012 8:38 am

knomegnome wrote:But to get more specific.. like talking about young earth theory? It's a huge stretch, even WITH electric universe theory, and moreover I am particularly cautious about it since most young earthers are creationists, only interested in young earth theory because it backs up the bible. Such people are no different than the Big Bangers we insist are predicating their ideas on an assumption of truth that has no provability.
There is no connection between the Young Earthers and the Electric Universe, other than they have the same "enemy" and therefore use some of the same evidence/arguments. The EU position is that the Earth's age is unknown...it is not "young" in the sense that you are implying, but rather the Earth has been recently resurfaced by enormous electrical discharges on a planetary scale with accompanying tectonic movements, floods, winds, etc. Events of this sort are part of the Earth's history, the last series took place within the collective memory of the human race. The Electric Universe model comes under the category of secular catastrophism, there is no religious base or underpinning of any sort.

If someone does come up with convincing evidence for the Earth being that young, then I'll pay attention! So far, it seems to have been hearsay and assumptions, with plenty of alternate explanations that are just as viable. There is simply no evidence I have found convincing that would cause me to think we did NOT evolve over millions of years.
Again, the Electric Universe makes no claim of any creation or of a young Earth. The EU does dispute the fairy tale (which is often stated as fact by mainstreamers such as yourself) that the Earth was formed 4 1/2 billion years ago when a molecular gas (nebula) cloud gravitationally collapsed forming the Sun and the solar system. And the planets have basically remained in the same orbits with little or no history since. The EU position is that the present solar system is the now stable remnant of a dynamic system in which planets electrically interacted with each other.
You seem to be implying that there is a connection between the EU and creationists, thereby establishing a guilt by association. You are either ignorant of the EU positions on this account or are simply using a standard mainstream ploy of trying to discredit the EU by making a bogus equation with some sort of religious agenda.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2413
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby knomegnome » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:44 pm

I think people should really read my responses...we'd save a lot of this.

I DO NOT believe that the EU proves any such thing as young earth theory. In fact, it easily could show that the universe is infinitely old. What I am saying above is that young earthers are OFTEN creationists, and there are a significant number of them attaching themselves to EU theory for many reasons. From the work of Chuck Missler, I would have to say that it has to do with simply having an axe to grind against scientific establishment, given how many inaccuracies he has stated in so many things. In other words, I am cautious of people who are clearly not interested in proof, but promote ideas based on heresay and belief, and a political or social agenda.

I DO understand the metrics of catastrophism, how they are being discussed amongst folks like Talbott and etc. My view is that the jury is still out on exact time frames, conditions, and events. We have a long way to go before we can claim to understand this stuff. If I have a bone to pick with those folks, it is that they are way too "certain". I want to see the EVIDENCE guys.

I AM NOT putting up a strawman when I mention Greenland. Greenland is a significantly different place than Antarctica, planet wide catastrophe or not. And as I have said above, I am waiting for the PROOF of how such events took place before I buy in to the overall idea. Until then, I posited the most reasonable idea, given current proven theories. Even with proof that we experienced such a planet leveling event, that still doesn't invalidate anything unless we know just what conditions took place, then apply those conditions in the lab to determine what effects they may have had on things like nuclear decay, gas and particulate deposition, and so on. This stuff is VERY complex, interlocked and deep.

I am completely open to being PROVEN wrong. But hypotheses without experimental evidence are meaningless when you are talking about taking real steps towards change, except AS YOU PURSUE PROVING them.

I am open to any new idea, folks. But it had better have PROOF before it is stated that it is TRUE. You simply cannot start saying "everything science says is wrong" unless you have real and persuasive evidence. Comets, for example.. from what I have seen in the data, predictions, and so on, the EU model of Comets is a strong one, and I believe it to be true.. it's strong enough to get an experiment going. So lets promote that idea amongst the players!
knomegnome
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:24 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby nick c » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:50 pm

I think people should really read my responses...we'd save a lot of this.

I did read your response, and I see conclusions based upon uniformitarian assumptions being used to disprove catastrophic scenarios. Did you read the ice core link?
What I am saying above is that young earthers are OFTEN creationists, and there are a significant number of them attaching themselves to EU theory for many reasons. From the work of Chuck Missler, I would have to say that it has to do with simply having an axe to grind against scientific establishment, given how many inaccuracies he has stated in so many things. In other words, I am cautious of people who are clearly not interested in proof, but promote ideas based on heresay and belief, and a political or social agenda.
My statement about the connection between the EU position and creationism stands. It needed clarification. Anyway, discussion of creationism is not a suitable topic for the Planetary Science board as there is no EU literature on the topic, afaik.
I am completely open to being PROVEN wrong. But hypotheses without experimental evidence are meaningless when you are talking about taking real steps towards change, except AS YOU PURSUE PROVING them.
In a general sense, I agree.
But given the context within which your statement is made I cannot help but read it as saying that neo catastrophism is a "hypothesis without experimental evidence" and is therefore "meaningless." If that is the case then obviously you have not read the relevant material.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2413
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby knomegnome » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:48 pm

Yes, I read the ice core link. My statement still stands. I am not convinced. EDIT: More detail.. I understand that you (and others) are saying that the entire planet was scoured by electrical and other events in the past, and so any notion of consistency in the geologic, and certainly the ice core, record would be subject to doubt. But we simply do not know HOW that took place.. was it huge? Did the scouring even affect Antarctica? Did our magnetic poles shift? Did the continents move? If they did, what then about our assumptions of what was affected or not affected? See what I mean? For the moment, it looks like the ice on or near the south pole has been undisturbed for a long time, and that has been looked at and tested for some time now. Now as far as dinosaurs, I could be convinced that the iridium in the KT boundary layer was put there by a surface fusion event of the Earth's core bursting outwards, coupled with some massive electrical discharge... the earth then getting bigger, and its gravity increasing.. because that makes the evidence make more sense!

I am only discussing creationism in context with the bias evident in some postings on this board. If someone is pursuing something with a clear bias in this way, and we are striving to be scientific about EU theory, its important to understand. When someone says "I won't believe XXX" and it is clear it is coming from a non scientific viewpoint, I feel that is important to talk about.

I don't think that catastrophism is meaningless. I think it is a very young idea that needs work before anyone understands what processes are or were involved. When I say that something is a hypothesis without evidence, I am talking about the fact that no one has discovered the mechanism that governs nuclear decay as it relates to electrical fields, for example. People state they are influenced by them, and with that I agree (clearly.. that much is backed up by evidence), but just how it works, and under what conditions? No, we don't yet know. So we can't make statements about how this idea or that idea is rubbish because "obviously" nuclear decay rates are completely bollocks. Nor can we do so about other ideas or theories.

Comet theory is not one of these.. it is very clear that comets are electrical in nature, based upon very real evidence and predictions.

Solar theory is another that is very convincingly electrical, in some form.

Weather on earth seems also to be in this category.

Ice Cores in Antarctica are not, as far as I can tell. There are some ideas that are challenging standard models, but I am not convinced.

Genetic Science is not one of these either. We have no theory or method that has been tested to show anything other than millions of years of evolution, but catastrophism definitely slots in nicely with punctuated equilibrium models of species transitions.

There is a big difference between "influenced by" and "invalidated by". We're not there yet.
knomegnome
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron