Posted on 05/01/2006 8:29:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Hmmmm....
Scientists cherry-picking and misrepresenting the scientific research of others? A shocking development...
I've already dealt with this. Entropy causes isotopes to be evenly distributed. We need specific fractionation processes to differentially concentrate isotopes and reverse entropic effects. Fractionation effects are known to be very weak for heavy atoms, and known to be very weak for spherical divalent cations like Sr2+. You can dance and wave and misrepresent these as assumptions, but they are not.
Strontium isotope ratios have been extensively measured for many parts of the planet, and except for the small correction due to the age of bedrock, they are well-mixed.
And yes, the 34 billion year examples do not 'form an isochron' because they are thrown out. The reason that they are thrown out is because they do not form an isochron (a linear distribution).
They are highly scattered. We know of processes that will cause them to scatter: leaching of rubidium is one. We know that in the absence of such processes (and a few minor effects discussed by Zheng) they will give an isochron. And we know other samples from the Pahrump formation give a consistent age of 1.2 billion years.
Maybe you have the right to spam (?) here, but no one is required to read it or take it seriously.
Take that, Schrödinger!
And I'm tickled pink you are deep into the observer problem! Fascinating subject, I've been meditating about it also.
We can know they weren't there, or to what degree they were there, via isochron analysis. Plus, there are many dating methods which *don't* depend upon the initial concentration of isotopes. Oops! You're too grossly ignorant of this subject to know any of that, right?
It supposedly happened millions of years ago, how can you measure it? You can't.
Actually, we measure it with instruments. Just how ignorant *are* you?
And you can't apply current measures beyond the period over which they were measured (well 'scientists' do, but they shouldn't).
What are you babbling about here? Attempt to remain coherent.
You *assume* and you *norm* and you *throw out* that which does not agree with your *assumptions*.
Wrong again -- why are you spewing gross falsehoods? Oh, right, because you don't know a damned thing about the subject, so you're just parroting the lies the creationist propagandists have told you.
Then you 'conclude' and claim that it is all so 'scientific'.
It is, but you're not. I regret to inform you that you have no clue what in the hell you're talking about. You're like a child attempting to "disprove" quantum mechanics -- it's highly amusing, but also rather pathetic and disturbingly arrogant.
Dishonest from the beginning.
Thanks for labeling your post accurately.
Here, perhaps you'd care to *learn* something about the subject before you start spouting off about it again: Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective . Or like most science-hating anti-evolutionists, perhaps you'll consciously choose to remain grossly ignorant -- no point polluting your lovely propaganda with actual facts, eh?
Hey, Einstein: Let's hear your answer to this puzzle... If dating methods are all horse manure, as you foolishly assert, why do independent dating methods, based on *entirely* different methods and physical processs, give the SAME ANSWERS? Coincidence? Sorry if I made your head explode.
LOLOL! Thank you for the chuckle!
Jesus might make a fine Savior, but I'm certainly not going to use him as my science teacher...
Yes, yes -- "pay no attention to all the scientific evidence..."
Why clutter your beliefs with actual facts, eh?
Take that, Schrödinger!
Someone certainly has a remarkably stunted notion of what is "possible"... That doesn't seem very wise.
Amen.
No room for any repetitions of bogus arguments against it.
There... fixed it for you
Provide examples, please. Hey, you made the claim, now back it up.
[to the Lurkers: Watcha wanna bet we never hear from this guy again on this subject?]
In other words, you believe a mysterious intervening force placed amounts of these daughter decay products in the rocks just to make it look like these rocks are older than they really are? He also took great care to remove all the parent decay sources with half lives of only a few thousand or million years from all these old rock samples too, just to make the illusion of age complete. Convenient.
You *assume* and you *norm* and you *throw out* that which does not agree with your *assumptions*. Then you 'conclude' and claim that it is all so 'scientific'.
Wrong again. You make a statistical distribution and look for a reasonable standard deviation. That is how basically all science is done. If you can't get a small error bar after adding together your different data samples measuring the same quantity, you don't have good data, plain and simple. What you will not find is the radiometric dating of ancient rock samples ever converging to the ages the young-earth creationists wish they would converge to.
Dishonest from the beginning.
Calling the science dishonest just because you haven't taken the time to understand how the error bars are combined (and why), or to properly understand what assumptions are made in radiometry (and why) is one option; another would be to actually learn how this fascinating interaction of geology and physics really works.
ok, GourmetDan, so tell us:
Exactly what part of evolutionary theory do you believe would have anything to say about what happens to meat after an organism dies? this ought to be amnusing.
I tried making that point earlier; the usual creationist response is to cite a spurious result outside the 3*sigma range (usually from a specific case where the threshold of the particular dating method range was on the fringe or the sample was contaminated) and citing that as a 'typically discarded result'.
peat mummies came to my mind, as well.
also, this tissue is all bone-marrow, isn't it? I'd be interested to see a study of the porosity of the bone/fossilized-bone envelope: I'm willing to bet that its pores were too small to admit decomp organisms.
why would a "hat" fossilize?
exactly.
I have four words to jog the intellects of the YECers: Pasteur's goose-neck vials.
It's only a "jumbled mess" those who make the mistake of focusing on superficial semantics instead of meaning, and/or who disingenuously try to discredit something based on the fallacy of equivocation, by pretending that the word "purpose" is actually being used in the same sense in both cases, when it's not.
Hint: In the first case, "purposes" is used in the non-teleological sense of "function", in the second it's used in the teleological sense. One has to wonder if the poster is just truly confused over something so straightforward as the same word being used in different manners, or if the poster is engaging in conscious sophistry in the hopes that no one will catch them at it.
The same question arises with regard to many of the poster's other comments which misrepresent the arguments and statements of the poster's perceived opponents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.