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.

 

Proof that evolution is the only answer

page: 23
13
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Your question really goes to the instruments. The geological experiments themselves rely on the accuracy of the data spit out by the instruments for their samples. I posted a link to a tutorial below which goes through the steps involved in the ion-microprobe analysis. Remember that when these instruments are developed they go through a lot hoops to verify the accuracy of the data acquired.

But the old saying "crap in, crap out" applies - sampling protocols, sample preparation, expertise in the instruments used etc. are the responsibility of the scientists conducting the geological experiments. The Geochron Research Group has some descriptive material at their website: www.geochron.com.au...

U-Pb zircon geochronology

Introduction

This page provides a short tutorial leading through some steps that are required for obtaining U-Pb zircon ages using the UCLA ims1270 ion microprobe:

Oxygen flooding
Energy scan and offset
Centering the ion image in the field aperture
Mass calibration
Presputtering and data acquisition
Interelement calibration and precision

sims.ess.ucla.edu...

It's also important to understand how error detection/correction is done. This paper goes into some detail with regard to ion-microbe analysis. The paper was written in 2003 so I would speculate that more improvements have been made to the instrumentation since then.


Assessment of errors in SIMS zircon U–Pb geochronology using a natural zircon standard and NIST SRM 610 glass

Richard A Stern, a, , Yuri Amelinb

Abstract
Analytical errors calculated for individual spot 206Pb/238U measurements of zircon analyzed using high mass resolution secondary ion mass spectrometry (HR-SIMS, e.g., SHRIMP II) were assessed using natural zircon (z6266) and synthetic glass standards (NIST SRM 610). Evidence for U/Pb homogeneity of these materials includes new thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS) U–Pb analyses of 22 fragments of z6266 zircon from two laboratories, which are identical within error and yield a weighted mean 206Pb/238U age of 559.0±0.2 Ma. TIMS U–Pb analyses of the SRM 610 yielded homogeneous 206Pb/238U=0.2566.




www.sciencedirect.com...




posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I'm sorry, but unlike opinion, everything I've stated is simple logic, it does not require a statement of opinion because it's not. You can attempt to refute the premises, you can attempt to assail the validity of the logic, you CANNOT simply dismiss it as opinion because it is not.

Jaden



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423

What??? Because I have a life and don't come in here more than ever so often, I've disappeared into the Aether? A thing that you, being an adherent of the paradigms, obviously must not believe in to begin with??? LOL

I'm still here and still waiting for even a semblance of empirical evidence for something that by it's very nature cannot have any. Please, I'll ask you again, provide any evidence that any of the premises from my earlier logical statement are false.

Jaden


Once again a disappearing act? Link: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why don't you just admit you don't understand "empirical evidence" and get on with it.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Again, this is getting tired. I'm not the one who doesn't understand empirical evidence. Actually, rather, it's not that you don't understand empirical evidence. It just is apparent that you don't understand what empirical evidence can actually show.

Hence, why I asked what you thought could be logically concluded from the atomic clock experiments. I'm trying to figure out where your lack of logical reasoning in this regard is coming from.

Jaden



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Ah, the "I know you are but what am I?" defence.

Very compelling.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Haha, did you just jump in and read the last page? That is pretty much what this entire thread has been from both sides.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

One side has a mountain of empirical evidence.

The other has diddley squat.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423

Again, this is getting tired. I'm not the one who doesn't understand empirical evidence. Actually, rather, it's not that you don't understand empirical evidence. It just is apparent that you don't understand what empirical evidence can actually show.

Hence, why I asked what you thought could be logically concluded from the atomic clock experiments. I'm trying to figure out where your lack of logical reasoning in this regard is coming from.

Jaden


Hence, why don't you read the paper and make your "logical" comments???



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: TerryDon79

I'm sorry, but unlike opinion, everything I've stated is simple logic, it does not require a statement of opinion because it's not. You can attempt to refute the premises, you can attempt to assail the validity of the logic, you CANNOT simply dismiss it as opinion because it is not.


Sorry Jaden. You have not posted anything valid, nor have you backed up a single argument that you have made. If you want people to think it's more than opinion, then BACK IT UP. You can't just make arbitrary statements as if they are true without any citations or references. It's always the same with you. You absolutely know evolution is wrong, yet can never make a valid argument that addresses the evidence, you use creationist rhetoric and propaganda.

edit on 10 18 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

You are insane.... I didn't make any assertions that require any citations. Do you even understand the difference between logical assertions and evidential assertions? Yes, assertions that stem from evidence or testing require citation or repeatable tests.

Logical assertions are capable of standing alone on their own merit. You simply showcase your lack of understanding by making the assertion that I need to back up a LOGICAL assertion with evidence or reference.

I don't need to rely on other people for my thinking and logical evaluation. It seems that you do. You should be fully capable of logically evaluating the assertions that I've made without need for a reference. Most people shouldn't need others to do their thinking for them.

This is a common problem with people enamored with a given paradigm. They need to be told what to think about a given subject. It's alright, if you try really hard, you might be able to start thinking for yourself.

Jaden

p.s. still waiting to hear what you think can be ascertained from the atomic clock experiments. If you aren't familiar with them wiki is your friend.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I did read the paper and I pointed out the logical flaws in the conclusions that you appear to be drawing from them.

Jaden



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Empirical evidence of what per say? It sure as hell isn't empirical evidence of evolutionary theory...

Jaden



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423

I did read the paper and I pointed out the logical flaws in the conclusions that you appear to be drawing from them.

Jaden


You're very transparent. You can't argue the facts so you sneak around them like a troll.

Here's your post:




reply to: Phantom423 I just read that paper and while compelling, it suffers from the same problem as any number of other dating methods for great ages. It requires extrapolating short period measured results without direct knowledge of the specific time involved. It's kind of like when people say that the earth isn't round it's elliptical. Yes, technically it IS elliptical, but did you know that it is rounder and smoother than the average billiard ball? If you were to think the opposite, you would be erroneously extrapolating the apparent roundness and smoothness of a billiard ball to a degree that just doesn't exist in reality. Science does the same trying to apply the scientific method to non empirically measurable theories. For instance, let's say that Einstein's theories of relativity are correct. That means that in areas of denser space/time such as gravity wells, time slows down. This would also mean that if space/time stretches as the universe expands, that time dilates the further away from the center of the universe we go. This actually better explains some phenomena we have observed than the current paradigms do, and I have seen some physicists starting to gravitate towards this theory. It explains the apparent blue and red shift better than the doppler effect without requiring contrived immeasurable constructs like dark matter. It explains better the apparent FTL travel of objects in distant space, etc. What this also means is that since time is not constant, measuring vast distances of time by current measuring sticks just don't work. This leads to the problems with trying to apply scientific principles to things that aren't observable. They ALL by their very nature become non-empirical. They are not directly observable or testable because even slight changes in decay rates, etc due to unknown variables leads to vast differences in conclusions. As I've previously stated, this doesn't mean that we can't gain from the studies of these things; however, we would be much better served by looking at them for what they are, rather than what they aren't. They are nothing more than conjecture based theory and belief. We need to gain from them what we can while acknowledging what they aren't. What they most certainly are NOT, is fact or the only explanation. With so many unknown and unknowable variables, it is imperative that we acknowledge this fact if we want to minimize the negative impact that paradigms give us. After all, scientific paradigms put the earth at the center of the universe, the sun at the center of the universe and that our ancestors were minerals and lightning. Jaden


And here is my reply:




a reply to: Masterjaden That's an interesting analysis. But what exactly in the papers do you not agree with? How do the analytical techniques utilized show "what they are not"? The results are facts. They are not absolutes. Nothing in science is totally absolute. Please point out exactly how the methodology supports your opinion. Thanks


The paper is very clear and well written. The results speak for themselves. There is no conjecture or ambiguity.
You ignore the facts by constructing verbose diatribes which are meaningless and never address the issue at hand.

So once again, what exactly is wrong with that paper?



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

You'd think it would be a simple affair to highlight the methodological issues of the study if it was as blatant as MJ et al. claim. Yet instead we get grandiose statements that do everything BUT make specific arguments about the science in question.

Que some furious hand waving and off-topic screeds. Anything but address the evidence at hand.

Of course, this is all working on the assumption that the paper was even read in the first place...



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Phantom423

You'd think it would be a simple affair to highlight the methodological issues of the study if it was as blatant as MJ et al. claim. Yet instead we get grandiose statements that do everything BUT make specific arguments about the science in question.

Que some furious hand waving and off-topic screeds. Anything but address the evidence at hand.

Of course, this is all working on the assumption that the paper was even read in the first place...


Indeed. Never read the paper - no intention of reading any papers posted. It's the same old run around - which is fine - it simply proves the point that you can run but you can't hide. MJ understands nothing about science - can't even defend his/her own position. Sad to say the least.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Phantom423

You'd think it would be a simple affair to highlight the methodological issues of the study if it was as blatant as MJ et al. claim. Yet instead we get grandiose statements that do everything BUT make specific arguments about the science in question.

Que some furious hand waving and off-topic screeds. Anything but address the evidence at hand.

Of course, this is all working on the assumption that the paper was even read in the first place...


Indeed. Never read the paper - no intention of reading any papers posted. It's the same old run around - which is fine - it simply proves the point that you can run but you can't hide. MJ understands nothing about science - can't even defend his/her own position. Sad to say the least.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
Logical assertions are capable of standing alone on their own merit. You simply showcase your lack of understanding by making the assertion that I need to back up a LOGICAL assertion with evidence or reference.


WRONG. Logical assertions are only valid, if the premise can be verified and proved. And you call me insane? Statements don't just hold up because you said them and claimed they are logical.


I don't need to rely on other people for my thinking and logical evaluation. It seems that you do. You should be fully capable of logically evaluating the assertions that I've made without need for a reference. Most people shouldn't need others to do their thinking for them.


I agree with what experts on the subject say. Unfortunately that does not include you. Nothing you said makes the least bit of sense, it's the same creationist rhetoric we have been hearing for years. You keep making blanket statements that only show you do not understand what you are arguing with.


This is a common problem with people enamored with a given paradigm. They need to be told what to think about a given subject. It's alright, if you try really hard, you might be able to start thinking for yourself.


Yeah, and I'll totally believe that you didn't get your information straight from creationist propaganda sites that told you what to think LMAO! And a religious upbringing where they TOLD YOU what to beleive. Hypocrisy of this magnitude just cracks me up. Yeah, all the certified experts that have been studying the stuff for decades are wrong, but THIS guy, he knows everything! I know they don't teach critical thinking in religious education, but show some scrutiny.


still waiting to hear what you think can be ascertained from the atomic clock experiments. If you aren't familiar with them wiki is your friend.


Sure thing. As soon as you explain in detail how this has any effect on the validity of evolution.


edit on 10 18 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Since you seem to be having issues with Radiometric dating. Here is some reading for you

Dalrymple, G. B., (2004) Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age o the Earth and Its Cosmic Surroundings. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Marshak, S., (2008). Earth: Portrait of a Planet. Third Edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Hedman, M. (2007). The Age of Everything. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Isaak, M. (2004). CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates. Talk.Origins. www.talkorigins.org... Accessed 2011-08-12.

Isaak, M. (2004). CD001: Geochronometry and closed systems. www.talkorigins.org... Accessed 2011-08-12.

Isaak, M. (2004). Geochronology and initial conditions. www.talkorigins.org... Accessed 2011-08-12.

That "paper" you linked, was not a paper. The APPT is the American Association of Physics Teachers
q


I don't know why such a simple concept is so difficult to grasp but let me try one more time for you.

Pb 206 does not exist naturally. It only comes into existence as the end result of Uraniums decay process. Therefore, there is zero lead 206 until the uranium decays.

Therefore the starting ratio is going to consist of all Uranium, zero lead. It's not an assumption. It's chemistry.

I'm certainly open to reading a paper that has evidence that this is untrue. However, unless there is new information that I am unaware of, to the best of my knowledge, Pb 206 does not occur naturally and only exists AFTER the Uranium decays.

Please, show me a citation demonstrating that an unnaturally occurring isotope of Lead could have contaminated the uranium thereby skewing the initial ratio.

Until then, the only assumptions I am making are that you are parroting YEC sources/sites like AIG. Because if that's not the case, I would strongly encourage you to apply for a job with the ICR or AIG because your views on science are nearly word for word from their websites and they would love to have someone like you working under their wings.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423

I did read the paper and I pointed out the logical flaws in the conclusions that you appear to be drawing from them.

Jaden


I hate posting this song - but every once in a while it's absolutely necessary.




posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

Pb 206 does not exist naturally.


How is this known? Or is this an assumption?



It only comes into existence as the end result of Uraniums decay process. Therefore, there is zero lead 206 until the uraniu


So if Pb-206 actually does occur from means other than Uranium decay this would greatly sway the Uranium-lead dates due to scientists being under the assumption that there was an initial concentration of 0% Pb-206.



Therefore the starting ratio is going to consist of all Uranium, zero lead. It's not an assumption. It's chemistry.


No that's an assumption. How are you certain there is no Pb-206 in the initial concentration? This is an assumption not based on empirical observations, because surely we cannot travel back in time to observe these initial concentrations.



Please, show me a citation demonstrating that an unnaturally occurring isotope of Lead could have contaminated the uranium thereby skewing the initial ratio.


You made the claim that there is 0% lead in the initial concentration, it is your responsibility to back this up with observable evidence. How can you be certain the initial concentration isn't 1%, 5%, 10%, or the most likely case - variable?

edit on 19-10-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join