Skip to comments.More Fluctuations Found in Isotopic Clocks
Posted on 08/17/2012 11:21:22 AM PDT by fishtank
click here to read article
[ BTW, I think evoking Occams razor at this stage is premature. ]
Depends on what you’re dividing...
dividing infinity (eternity) by anything gets a little silly.
Freedom of religion means that no one else can tell you what your religious beliefs must be. It also means you don’t get to tell anyone else what theirs must be.
So, you think comparative religion classes are a waste of time ?
What assumptions lead you to that conclusion?
If you are actually sincere about exploring these issues, having an open mind and understanding of history will allow you to break on through to another side.
You can start with either:
best of luck to you.
You appear to have made the assumption that someone else can only have different religious belifs than you out of ignorance. Is that an accurate assesment?
Freedom of religion means that no one else can tell you what your religious beliefs must be. It also means you dont get to tell anyone else what theirs must be.
It implies relativism.
That is the assumption that enforced my conclusion.
Some religious beliefs are completely illogical, and many others have no historical foundation.
Still, there are those that are still seeking.
Do you find that assesment to be inaccurate?
If it is accurate, then do you disagree with the idea that we should have it, because it allows people to have incorrect religious beliefs?
Has anyone dated Mick recently?
Freedom of Religion is more about freedom than Religion.
The practical effect was to establish a Country that was not “told” by their Gov’t what religion they must practice.
That is it.
Individuals are to be free to practice whatever religion they wish.
It made no statement about which region is correct, and yes, some folks will and do have “incorrect” religions.
I’m willing in a free society to explore, as I have, the merits associated with those positions.
It doesn’t in anyway mean that they are correct, just because they exist.
We are back to relativism.
Agreed. But I think religious beliefs that are logical leads people to make logical agruments in support of them. This article is a litany of logical fallacies, and gives me no reason to have faith in the theology behind it.
You may be correct about logical fallacies contained in the referenced article.
But that, in and of itself, doesn’t logically mean that the conclusions are incorrect.
In addition, try to set aside the “faith” behind any argument and simple consider the evidence as a skeptical scientist. Ask a lot of questions, and question ever assumption.
When I say set aside faith, I mean the faith in Darwinism as well.
There are so many problems that it has become unworkable.
Best of luck to you.
I do not accept that premise because I do not assume restrictions on the power of God. Because I do not start from that premise, I arrive at different conclusions.
Just so you know.
I did not grow up with a Biblical or Cristian belief. I was left to my own to decide. I spent the better part of the past 25 years searching.
Ironically, it was Joseph Campbell's work on mythology that started me on this path. It has been a rough and rocky road, however the burning questions about the core of belief kept me going. It was never about what I wanted or needed to feel better. It has been, and is, what foundations a certain system are based on.
And as I said before, if you are sincere, then keep asking questions. DO NOT accept anything on authority alone.
Thanks for the ping!
More gibberish from the science haters.
What was really reported was that the ratio of U238 to U235 differed by half a percentage point more than was commonly believed.
That means instead of a rock formation being a billion years old, it’s 995 million years old.
But that, in and of itself, doesnt logically mean that the conclusions are incorrect.
No, it does not. I have no problem with the proposition that the conclusions may be true. I do have a problem with the proposition that it must be true, and this proves it. It's implied that the decay rate of Uranium can be accelereated to 4 million times normal by heating it to magma temperatures. If that works you should be able to make an atom bomb with a chunk of Uranium and a blast furnace.
[ dividing infinity (eternity) by anything gets a little silly. ]
Why?.. its done all the time! (wry smile)..
Eternity is composed of many moments..
which are like strings... in the Quantum moment..
“Quantum Moment Theory”, <<-I may have just coined a phrase.. LoL
Infinity relates to distance.
eternity relates to time.
(doesn't it? )
I thought I had a "Quantum Moment" the other day, but when I looked, it was different.
[ Infinity relates to distance. eternity relates to time.? ]
Good question.. seems to be a speed question..
How far can you go in a specified Quantum Moment..
Humans may never know the answer to this question..
Ping for later. Thanks.
So . . . Why ask me? ( ^8 }
I find it interesting that you keep making sweeping generalized statements. I personally believe that one of the most wonderful gifts from God is the capability and capacity to evolve. This discovery of non-constant decay rates is quite remarkable. It seems analogous to the discovery of a non-static speed of light. You seem to prefer to attack people like me who believe in a Creator. Our ability to understand even 10% of the mysteries of life, love, and science are impeded by your irrational insistence on presuming that I am stupid, and made worse by liberals that think like you in government. Please think about abandoning your position of haughty arrogance and read the entire Bible; every word. If you remain convinced that you cannot both love and respect science and your Creator, then out of respect you might want to reconsider saying Creationism is akin to ignorance.
The actual, countable annual layers in ice cores can be counted back to 20,000 years after which the ice has compacted so much it becomes difficult to distinguish them. However the ice cores themselves are steeper still by miles. But just for the sake of proof, you already have 14,000 years of ice that existed before the people who misinterpret the Bible say the universe existed.
Are you joking tacticalogic?
When did Isaac Newton ever publicly disagree with radiometric dating? Indeed, how could he have done so, since nobody at the time had ever even heard of "radiation?"
It seems to me that, in Newton's time, knowledge of the atom and atomic behavior hadn't advanced all that much beyond the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus of Abdera (ca. 460 370 BC).
Excellent observation, MrB!!! Thank you!
What evolutionists seem not to wish to explain is how a purely "blind, random process" can generate consistency and rationality in nature.
Another way to put the question (as Plato did): If natural phenomena are solely the products of ceaseless change (i.e., "evolution"), then how can anything ever be anything at all?
tacticalogic, allmendream: Care to take a stab at that question?
It seems the fundamental duality of the Universe consists of that which does not change, and that which is capable of changing. Evolution entirely omits the former from its mindscape....
Which is why Darwin's theory appears to be so irrational to me. FWIW.
Sister BooP you nailed it ..... YET AGAIN...
You have a “habit” of doing that...
[ So . . . Why ask me? ( ^8 } ]
I suspect, because you’re not as dumb as you look... d;-)...
I thought he was being sarcastic, actually. But then I was having a Hebrew moment ... studying my Hebrew don’tchaknow.
Thank you for your kind words, dear brother ‘Pipe!
To the same degree they are joking by putting him on that list posted at 32.
Anything using DNA is incapable of staying the same. DNA cannot replicate without error.
Is a coyote not a coyote if it has 5% wolf ancestry? It can BE just fine without fitting nicely into one neat category.
Humans want things to be clearly defined. Nature is usually not so obliging.
I find you arrogant in thinking that I have not read every word of the Bible AND that doing so would change my acceptance of science.
The Pope is a renowned Biblical scholar and accepts evolution. Would you suggest he should read the Bible until his opinion changes?
I have no idea whether Newton was a Young Earth Creationist. But I have no doubt at all that he was a Creationist in the sense that he believed that God created the Universe, that God is "the Lord of Life [Who Is eternally] with His Creatures."
That latter characterization indicates that Newton believed that God not only created the Universe, but is constantly, eternally "in contact" with it.
And a further thought that touches on MrB's earlier observation: It was Newton's understanding that the intelligibility of the Universe owes exclusively to the "fact" that it is the product of the will and mind of the eternal God. It could have no order except as the manifestation of the Logos of divine creation. And if it had no such order, then scientific discovery would be impossible.
Like Einstein (who loved Newton), Newton's motivation as a scientist was to discover the laws that God built into the world.
So I think it's pretty clear that Newton would have rejected Darwin's theory, had he ever heard about it. Which, of course, he hadn't.
And yet in this matter, it appears you want Nature to "oblige" you, by conforming to your ideological commitments.
You a mindreader now? It has nothing to do with me that nature often doesn’t conform to fitting in well defined boxes. If you want to argue that nature always does or should I can oblige you. If you want to make the argument about me, as apparently you do, I am uninterested.
Indeed, I aver that the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences is like God's copyright notice on the cosmos.
God's Name is I AM.
That's probably true.
But I would think the relevant question would be whether he would have rejected radiometric dating, since that is the subject of the article. I don't think an assumption that because he would reject one means he would have to reject the other is valid.
Also keep in mind, “steady decay rate” is only ONE of many assumptions one must make in order to “date” rocks radiometrically. Three others are assumption of “initial” state, contamination of the sample, or leaching out of the elements/atoms in question.
For instance, although general relativity and the inflationary model are widely accepted by scientists we rarely see age of the universe measurements supplemented by the phrase "from our present space/time coordinates."
[ “Quantum moment” has a nice ring to it, dear hosepipe, especially when thinking about quantum entanglement. ]
Quantum “Balls of String(S)” better called “matter”...
Is an interesting subject.. agreed..
In my “vision” that I had, I saw it as (A)”Designated matter/energy” and (B)”UN-designated energy/matter”...
(A) being balls of strings...
(B) just strings.. whatever they are..
Whoever gave me the “vision” seems to know.. I choose to call “it” the Holy Spirit(giver of visions) but any name will do since the Holy Spirit has no name anyway..
Seems to me the money concept is, who designates and UN-designates “stuff”.. AND if stuff can be designated From un-designated what is the un-designated(stuff) <<- “Dark Matter???”..
Neither is that my assumption at all, dear tacticalogic!
The two are not at all directly comparable. One Darwin's theory is based on a speculation regarding the historical evolution of the biota which some people find "intuitive" and "emotionally satisfying."
Seems to me this has more to do with proving Nietzsche's dictum "God is dead" is correct than with showing how species actually evolve. Plus it goes without saying that historical events are precisely those which are not known and cannot be known by means of direct observation. But genuine science must stick to the latter.
To the extent that radiometric dating relies on direct observation, and can be validated by replicable experiments, Newton probably would have approved of it.
But bear in mind that Newton had no knowledge whatever of relativistic and quantum effects that bear on the behavior of material bodies. And it is also true as Alamo-Girl and MrB have already pointed out that a fundamental presupposition WRT radioactive decay rates is that they are "steady" and uniform over time. But if actual observations indicate that this may not be the case the thesis of the article at the top of this thread then on what principle does this presupposition rest?
Newton's sublime work describes the behavior of material bodies at all scales, which he expressed in terms of mechanical action. But he was the very first to say that any mechanistic system would generate and accumulate errors over time, which would tend to "derange" the systems so described. Implicit in Newton's work is the idea of Final Cause, otherwise known as purpose or goals operating in Nature: For Newton allowed that God himself would have to step in every now and then to set matters aright again, to restore the order of material systems over time.
Compare this with the Darwinist belief that biological systems evolve by chance + selection. Looking to the logic of Newton's reasoning, it would appear that he would say instead that living systems evolve according to their Limit (the Aristotelian Final Cause) and not ever by "pure, blind chance," as Jacques Monod put it.
Anyhoot, back to the problem of radiometric dating, and its expectation that decay rates are steady and therefore predictable. This may not be the case.
A similar problem for physics these days is that, even though the expectation is the expansion of the universe proceeds at a steady rate, recent observational data indicate that this expansion has actually accelerated in "recent" times. Which tends to show that the expectation of a steady expansion rate has no basis in observational fact. Likewise, recently observed anomalies in the behavior of material objects in the vicinity of the event horizon of black holes do not conform with expectations (scientific predictions).
It seems to me that physics itself has bumped up hard against its own self-imposed limitations, the most critical being the banishment of Final Cause from its field of study, which was arguably the entire point of Francis Bacon's scientific revolution.
Science retains the other three Aristotelian causes: Formal, material, efficient. But Final Cause again, which deals with purposes, goals, limits in Nature is totally gone from its permissible methods.
In my very humble opinion, science has to being back Final Cause if it expects to make any further progress. It seems to be at a dead end without it.
It seems to me that issues of relativistic and quantum behavior could be further illuminated by the reintroduction of Final Cause to science.
Thanks so much for writing, dear tacticalogic!
Just a note: radiometric dating assumes a large enough ‘gaggle’ of atoms such that the unpredictable decay of individual atoms is averaged out for the ‘gaggle’ as an average rate of decay. Of course ‘sampling’ can have an effect, as in where in the ‘gaggle’ the sample is taken and the localized effects on ‘neighborhoods’ in the gaggle.
Dear 'Pipe, my brother in Christ, I take the "vision" you had as further evidence in support of my own thesis about the fundamental duality implicit in the natural world, which consists of: (a) The "designated" component that which eternally does not change (e.g., Being, Truth, Logos); and (b) the "undesignated," or "free" component that which is capable of changing (all existent natural systems, which have no real Being "in their own right," but only as participants in divine Being, and thus, though "undesignated" in advance, still must behave according to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God").
Eric Voegelin commented about the "indefeasible integrity of the [human] soul." I think you're proving him right there, too.
Thank you, dear brother in Christ, for sharing your marvelous insights!