It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

page: 17
31
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually radioactive decay is not constant

With the knowledge of this the question arises

If one thibg can affect decay why cant something else.something yet undiscovered?

So radioactive decay needs to be reassessed in order to be honest in your post

What say ats on the changes of decay rates?




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Double doh!
edit on pm720143104America/ChicagoFri, 25 Jul 2014 16:55:05 -0500_7u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually radioactive decay is not constant

With the knowledge of this the question arises

If one thibg can affect decay why cant something else.something yet undiscovered?

So radioactive decay needs to be reassessed in order to be honest in your post

What say ats on the changes of decay rates?


Howdy,

I mean no offense, but you are asserting a very bold claim against the constancy of observable phenomena... Forgive me, for I am skeptical that anything would affect the rate of decay, but I am open to new data...

Could you please point me in the direction of a reliable source of information, perhaps reviewed by others with similar understandings of the topic in question (not just the hypothesis of one person or small group), that claims to demonstrate the non-constancy of radioactive decay rates? I would greatly appreciate your help.


Regards,
Hydeman



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to: hydeman11

I cant link at the moment . Just google

Radioactive decay not constant

First link is to forbes article. And there is a thread about it here



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

From your link. Key word "may". Also note that it doesn't mean that radiometric dating is invalid:


Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All

In the meantime, it remains to be seen how these findings will affect the use of radioactive decay in technological applications. For example, if radioactive decay isn’t constant, then adjustments will have to be made for its use in dating materials, especially in the case of Carbon-14 dating. And doctors may need to look into adjusting radiation doses for cancer therapies, as they are, in part, based on radioactive decay rates.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I see u didnt read the article where they say it is not maybe it is

They just dont know what is causing it . Read again

a reply to: GetHyped


Eta I appologize the correct wording is

"As it turns out, they probably arnt"

Still u are trying to ignore the science because it doesnt fit with the antireligious

"Look its been radioactivly dated"

try being a little intellectually honest

Eeta no it not invalid . It is inaccurate




edit on am720143109America/ChicagoSat, 26 Jul 2014 09:24:21 -0500_7u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

edit on am720143109America/ChicagoSat, 26 Jul 2014 09:28:56 -0500_7000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

MAYBE is the operative word here. You said "Actually radioactive decay is not constant". This is definitely up for debate and does not in any way invalidate dating techniques, as much as you may try to spin it that way.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

No if anything. " probably" is the oprarive word

But u can argue semantics all u want

Doesnt change the fact something is going on and two scientific teams working on it right now

But im guessing u know better?



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
But u can argue semantics all u want


The semantics is pretty important in this instance as you are making an assertion that is not supported by your source.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
It would be more ET's behind the scenes, genetic labs, and would be seen most likely in offspring. ie which came first the chicken or the egg? The Egg! A changed DNA. A new species could be introduced too.

Now, aside from ET, and/or some form of Higher Up coding change, or even adding to, or creation. Then the other element that can happen pertains to nature and mother earth itself where I believe some of the energies and creation, alchemies that take place, are very magical, spontaneously faster than we think, and our understanding of this has holes in it due to missing the formula or mechanism by which this takes place in stars and planets.

I think its likely a combination of the 2.

ie. we believe we have a nuclear sun not electric. But the pistol shrimp and cavitation is the micro of the macro, and the sun's corona is equivalent to the energy in the bubble the shrimp releases and then taps into with the hz. This is what the sun does, in a kind of alchemy, creating all the chemicals and elements the solar system/child needs. Earth receives but also within creates as well. And I believe this also pertains to carbon lifeforms.

I see a combination taking place within a game similar to Spore, that then becomes a testing ground for Spirit.
edit on 26-7-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
I see u didnt read the article where they say it is not maybe it is

They just dont know what is causing it . Read again

a reply to: GetHyped


Eta I appologize the correct wording is

"As it turns out, they probably arnt"

Still u are trying to ignore the science because it doesnt fit with the antireligious

"Look its been radioactivly dated"

try being a little intellectually honest

Eeta no it not invalid . It is inaccurate





First I will guess this is the Article you are talking about from forbes.

Here is the original artcle it soures. (Should state not the actual journal articles but rather the Forbes article is a quick summary of this news article from Stanford)

The findings don't invalidate radiometric dating. In fact the article suggests that it can be fine tuned to be even more specific and predicatble, with understanding seasonal fluctuations. The small variations will have little impact on the relative age of the earth and the radiometric dates from rocks.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

Lets stick to the point

That point being if there can be one source of corruption in the system


Can there be others?

And they know its happening they just dont know why

If neutrinos cant interact but are ir if the is some unknown energy being put off by the sun

But I see you are all just trying to discount the findings

Just saying if theres one there may be more

And if I had told u ten years ago that the sun was changing decay rates I would have been flamed harder than I am. But the findings are in .



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Cypress

Lets stick to the point

That point being if there can be one source of corruption in the system

Can there be others?

And they know its happening they just dont know why

If neutrinos cant interact but are ir if the is some unknown energy being put off by the sun

But I see you are all just trying to discount the findings

Just saying if theres one there may be more

And if I had told u ten years ago that the sun was changing decay rates I would have been flamed harder than I am. But the findings are in .


I don't discount the article; however, I disagree with the interpretation that radiometric dating techniques are made invalid by the findings (As I stated, this is based purely on the Stanford news article. I have not read the original Journal articles.)

The article suggests that the waxing and waning of decay rates is predictable; therefore, we should be able to alter our models to make them more accurate. The average per year will be able to be calculated.

There is nothing in the news article that suggests the waxing and waning decay rates, especially on the much longer half-lives used in radiometric dating, has a great enough affect on the age of the earth to alter it significantly enough from what we know now. Even shorter half-lives, such as C-14, will have minimal impact.

Where the benefit will come into play is in high-precision medical treatment ( and perhaps futuristically, nuclear clean up. Imagine being able to neutralize nuclear waste cores with concentrated bursts of some futuristic particle...). If it is evidence for a new particle, all the more reason to get excited.

At the moment there was apparently a consistent enough data to tie in between the sun and decay rates, which suggests a relationship. Does that mean there are not other influencing factors? No; however, if there are we just don't have the data supporting that hypothesis yet.

Lastly, if you just came out and said radiometric dating is flawed 10 years ago and you have no evidence to support this, I would have discounted because there is no evidence. What I am giving you now is my interpretation of the evidence presented in the news article. Not flat out disregarding the findings.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Cypress

I have never said invalid

This is the second time

Inaccurate not invalid

How inaccurate?

I dont know nor do u

Are there other things affecting it we dont know about,?

Who knows

but the dates we get from our current understanding are

Wrong
edit on pm720143105America/ChicagoSat, 26 Jul 2014 17:40:36 -0500_7u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22
I never claimed it was scientific. Never claimed it was a field of science. I never even claimed my position on the subject other than to offer up the idea that people who are deeply involved in science, exploration, astrophysics and other fields are believers.


What exactly are you suggesting then, by saying that many scientists believe in god? I'm curious as to what point you were making.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Cypress

I have never said invalid

This is the second time

Inaccurate not invalid

How inaccurate?

I dont know nor do u

Are there other things affecting it we dont know about,?

Who knows

but the dates we get from our current understanding are

Wrong


Absurd. Nowhere in the article does it suggest anything like that. You still haven't backed up anything you've typed yet only told others to google it. Surely you can copy and paste a link and show the actual evidence and quotes that shows the decay rates are not constant that it indicates the dates are wrong. This isn't true.
edit on 26-7-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Bilk22
I never claimed it was scientific. Never claimed it was a field of science. I never even claimed my position on the subject other than to offer up the idea that people who are deeply involved in science, exploration, astrophysics and other fields are believers.


What exactly are you suggesting then, by saying that many scientists believe in god? I'm curious as to what point you were making.
The point I was making is, people with considered high intellect can and do believe in a higher being and/or higher order and similarly believe that this, our world and out universe, wasn't just the product of a "big bang" and it somehow fell into place. That there was a grand design and something we cannot comprehend, was and is responsible for it. Their intellect cannot accept there was "happenstance" and randomness to the magnificence they are witness to.

If that was difficult to gain from my posts then I don't know what else to say.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Howdy,

Thanks for the education. It is strange to think that environmental factors have a small effect on the decay rate of certain isotopes.
I love to learn, and it's good to see science moving forward.

I do hope you realize, however, that this does not invalidate radioactive decay measurements or their use in determining absolute geologic time. Here's an article demonstrating isotopes unaffected in the same manner, meaning they are unaffected in the same way those mentioned in the Forbes article were...

donuts.berkeley.edu...

In fact, the article suggests that such affects may perhaps be much smaller than one might think, although they certainly seem to be real.
Knowing this, more accurate dates will be given. Yay science.

Regards,
Hydeman



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   
You forget the point that creationists also believe that fossils were never animals, but some bones and tissues left there to test our faith.

Funny how religion and ideology always work around the same parameters.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22
The point I was making is, people with considered high intellect can and do believe in a higher being and/or higher order and similarly believe that this, our world and out universe, wasn't just the product of a "big bang" and it somehow fell into place. That there was a grand design and something we cannot comprehend, was and is responsible for it. Their intellect cannot accept there was "happenstance" and randomness to the magnificence they are witness to.

If that was difficult to gain from my posts then I don't know what else to say.


That is an appeal to authority and completely irrelevant, not to mention you are attempting to generalize all of their beliefs about the universe and big bang and what they mean by god. They have faith in something that is completely independent from science. It has nothing to do with their intellect not accepting happenstance or randomness. It is personal faith.

Here are the numbers when you look at the majority of scientists:

www.pewforum.org...

Believe in god:

General public: 83%
Scientists: 33%

Are atheists or agnostics:

General public: 4%
Scientists: 28%

Sorry, but if anything, the more intelligent individuals are incredibly more likely to not believe in god. Now don't get me wrong, that doesn't prove that intelligent folks cannot believe in god. Many do, but that is their faith, which is independent from the science. Isolating astronauts doesn't prove your point.


edit on 26-7-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join