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.

 

Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

page: 44
96
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I don't read tis 43 Pages, and I don't know if someone has already posted it:


Fly Birdy, fly!




posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Double..
edit on 6-4-2011 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by vasaga
 


So you don't have a source that describes the effects of supernovae on terrestrial radioisotope decay rates?
No I don't and that was not the point. The point still is, the rate of decay changes in a cycle of 33 days and it was linked to the sun. You said it would normalize out, and I said that's assuming the sun remained the same for all those billions of years. Until any of you can prove that article wrong, you can not use the argument that the rate of decay is a constant. Maybe you can use it to date stuff for 100.000 years, maybe a million, since it might've been constant for that period but billions is stretching it because there's no reference point to say it has always been this way, especially if the sun has an influence.

Not to mention there's stuff like leakage when rocks come in contact with liquids blah blah but that's another story.

But, in any case, even if I don't have anything to provide regarding supernovae, is it really that preposterous to think that if a sun can influence decay rates, that a supernova also can? Well if it's billions of light years away, maybe not. And also, I never said it had an influence on terrestrial decay rates right now. We don't know what happened in the past. For all we know decay rates were a lot faster or a lot slower in the past. That would throw the whole age of everything in a loop.

And oh btw, the only real calibration we have, at least for carbon-14, is tree rings. So it's reliable to a certain extent.
For other stuff, they use rocks with no radioactive elements as a reference. Either from space or here on earth. Space rocks are also a stretch. We don't know the decay rate outside of our solar system. I'm not even sure if they even tested the decay rates on other planets to determine if they're the same.

If I'm talking complete nonsense, let me know WHY please. Thank you.


Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Fine.

reply to post by MrXYZ
 


My god you really are blind. Never mind. Stay inside your biased bubble.


In other words, you can't refute the info I gave...and therefore ignore that information because it goes against yoru irrational belief
Again, you can't see the irony. You're nothing more than a repeater. The last link you posted, was from wikipedia, and the source was basically old data, compared to the article I posted, which is not even a year old. So your sentence applies more to you than me. The rate of decay can no longer be considered a constant. Live with it.

You see, there's a difference between you guys and me. You're all so afraid of being wrong that you will resort to appeal to ridicule, strawmanning, red-herring and whatnot, to appear to be right. I'm not afraid of being wrong. If someone proves me wrong, then I'm wrong. I don't care. But you're all so sure you're right, that when someone challenges that, you resort to these repeating patterns of what's already been said until the other person shuts up and then you declare yourself the winner. That's not the way truth works. But if you want to be happy with it that way, be my guest..



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 
These are interesting questions, and not knowing the answers since my knowledge in the field is elementary, I inquired wikipedia on the issue.

Changing Decay Rates


A number of experiments have found that decay rates of other modes of artificial and naturally-occurring radioisotopes are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions such as temperature, pressure, the chemical environment, and electric, magnetic, or gravitational fields. Comparison of laboratory experiments over the last century, studies of the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (which exemplified the effects of thermal neutrons on nuclear decay), and astrophysical observations of the luminosity decays of distant supernovae (which occurred far away so the light has taken a great deal of time to reach us), for example, strongly indicate that decay rates have been constant (at least to within the limitations of small experimental errors) as a function of time as well.

On the other hand, some recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence (0.5% or less) on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%), proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the sun. However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper has found no evidence for such correlations in a half-dozen isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects. However, research at Purdue University indicates that the rate of radioactive decay may not be truly constant, but slightly influenced by solar flares due to variations in solar neutrino flux.


(emphasis mine]

I hardly think that the minimal impact of solar events invalidates measurements of time using radioactive decay. The good thing is, there are more than enough scientists out there that will always be doing research on possible methods of ensuring further precision in this area. I can't envision any scenario 200 years down the road where improvements in this area are made that the current consensus shifts from Earth being 4.5 billion years old to only a few million.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 
Imagine I have a bag containing 20 apples. At length, I began a marathon of apple eating, and the rate at which the apples was consumed was exponential relative to the number of apples eaten. For example, I eat 1 apples in 1 minute, 2 apples in 4 minutes, 3 in 9......20 in 20^20. After 20 apples, the bag is empty, but lets assume if I were to eat more, the rate would be constant, exponential relative to n, number of apples. Thus I am extrapolating how long it would take me to eat 100 apples given the parameters of the first 20.

Radiometric dating has been calibrated to things that currently exist (tree rings and other stratigraphic methods, and even the mutation rate of nucleotides) and the rate appears to be constant, this with an apparently sufficient sample size, and a rigorous assessment of the probability. Thus, lets say f1, f2, and f3 are formulas that support the variables t, s, and d, respectively, that are calibrated to Radiometric methods, call it R.

R = f1(t)
R = f2(s)
R = f3(d)

We can do extrapolations using radiometric dating to date the age of the Earth and of the universe. There has yet to be a mechanism found that could step in and drastically change the rates of decay, until there is, the rate is assumed to be predictable.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


No offense, but the links I posted are backed up by science and come from universities and research institutes, written by people who STUDIED the subject...they CLEARLY state the rate of decay is NOT influenced by outside influences. Your link comes from Terry Hurlbut (a self proclaimed creationist) who has ZERO scientific background, and never bothers to properly source what he writes...on a website that allows almost everyone to start a "blog".

I rather get my information from unbiased scientific sources

edit on 6-4-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
No I don't and that was not the point.

Yes, that absolutely is the point. If you can’t show positive evidence for the phenomenon, it’s just unsupported speculation. Don’t get me wrong, it’s an interesting notion but, until you can show some evidence, it’s just that – an interesting notion.


The point still is, the rate of decay changes in a cycle of 33 days and it was linked to the sun. You said it would normalize out, and I said that's assuming the sun remained the same for all those billions of years. Until any of you can prove that article wrong, you can not use the argument that the rate of decay is a constant. Maybe you can use it to date stuff for 100.000 years, maybe a million, since it might've been constant for that period but billions is stretching it because there's no reference point to say it has always been this way, especially if the sun has an influence.

Again, you’re reading more significance into the results of the research than any of the researchers did – no where is it claimed in the original work that the long term decay rates weren’t constant, just that the decay rates shift slightly over a 33 day cycle. In fact, one of the researchers explicitly stated that this would have no significant impact on archaeological data.

I can absolutely use the argument that decay rates are constant over a timeframe significantly longer than 33 days because it’s not an assumption or speculation, it’s supported by the evidence. Decay rates haven’t been observed to change within the limits of experimental accuracy since we’ve started measuring them. (Citation) Granted, this has been for a relatively short time. If we look at gamma ray frequencies and fading rates from multiple supernovae that we’ve observed at distances ranging from the hundreds of thousands of light-years to billions of light-years, they are accurately predicted by our current terrestrial decay rates. (Citation 1, Citation 2, Citation 3) You can accurately predict half-lives from quantum mechanics, where any variation would have to arise through changes in fundamental constants. Interestingly, according to those calculations, a change in a fundamental constant would change the decay rates for different radioisotopes disproportionally relative to each other. Yet different radiometric methods give consistent dates. But we also know that the fundamental constants that regulate these mechanisms haven’t changed more than 0.000005% in the last two billion years. (Citation 1, Citation 2)


Not to mention there's stuff like leakage when rocks come in contact with liquids blah blah but that's another story.

See my first paragraph again. If you can’t show evidence that it happened, it’s just idle speculation.


But, in any case, even if I don't have anything to provide regarding supernovae, is it really that preposterous to think that if a sun can influence decay rates, that a supernova also can? Well if it's billions of light years away, maybe not. And also, I never said it had an influence on terrestrial decay rates right now. We don't know what happened in the past. For all we know decay rates were a lot faster or a lot slower in the past. That would throw the whole age of everything in a loop.

See my first paragraph again. If you can’t show evidence that it happened, it’s just idle speculation. See my third paragraph again. We have evidence that the fundamental constants essentially haven't changed over half the lifetime of the Earth.


And oh btw, the only real calibration we have, at least for carbon-14, is tree rings. So it's reliable to a certain extent.
For other stuff, they use rocks with no radioactive elements as a reference. Either from space or here on earth. Space rocks are also a stretch. We don't know the decay rate outside of our solar system. I'm not even sure if they even tested the decay rates on other planets to determine if they're the same.

See my third paragraph again. We have observed decay rates outside of our terrestrial environment and found them to be consistent with ours. We know, based on quantum mechanical calculations using fundamental constants, what the decay rates should be and they are consistent with what we observe. We have measured the fundamental constants that regulate decay going back two billion years and they remain essentially unchanged in that time.


If I'm talking complete nonsense, let me know WHY please. Thank you.

No problem. It was fun to read up on some of this stuff again. I just hope that you're not going to look at this and just blindly dismiss it by saying, "Sorry, not good enough for me."



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Some people don't care about facts when they contradict their belief


He knew all that before because it was mentioned in the links I posted, yet he chose to believe a creationist who hasn't any scientific qualifications, and who posts on a blog website without ever sourcing his information. Those people don't care about objective evidence


This sums it up





posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Creationist? Appealing to ridicule and strawmanning again.. This is where you lose all my respect.

@ uva3021: Thanks. At least you can give good responses.

@iterationzero: Thanks to you too.
edit on 6-4-2011 by vasaga because: Small addition



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


It's not a strawman, it's a valid observation. He's clearly biased, and furthermore, has no qualifications to support his claims...oh, and of course he's wrong as I and others have demonstrated



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You didn't do jack. The other two provided useful info. All you did was repeat your outdated info and then declare yourself the victor. But, I can't expect anything else from a simple mind like you... But fine... Believe whatever you want to. I'm clearly a creationist and always wrong and completely biased and ask only stupid questions, and you're very smart, always say right things, and have the best thinking methods ever.
edit on 9-4-2011 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You didn't do jack. The other two provided useful info. All you did was repeat your outdated info and then declare yourself the victor. But, I can't expect anything else from a simple mind like you... But fine... Believe whatever you want to. I'm clearly a creationist and always wrong and completely biased and ask only stupid questions, and you're very smart, always say right things, and have the best thinking methods ever.
edit on 9-4-2011 by vasaga because: (no reason given)


I'm not accusing you of being stupid...I'm accusing you of being ignorant. Look, you asked a question regarding radiometric dating...and then blatantly ignore the links and info that answers those questions. Even worse, you then post a link to a pseudo-scientific article that has ZERO credible sources, simply because it matches your world view.

Not knowing isn't bad, I don't know lots of stuff...but blatantly ignoring objective information as soon as it goes against your world view is wrong. And that's exactly what you're doing.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
You did not really read my article "A human leg bone of 300 million years old" displayed at
wretchfossil.blogspot.com...

In that article there is a link (see Note 5-1 below) showing the radiometric age of the youngest rocks in Pennsylvania is 185 million years old.

Note 5-1: Quote from Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resource: “Absolute isotopic ages of rocks exposed in Pennsylvania range from a little over one billion years to about 185 million years.” See its source at: www.dcnr.state.pa.us...



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by edsinger
 





Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.


This is absolutely false. Many species (including mammals) are polymorphic for chromosome count, that is, have individuals within the population that differ by chromosome count and can mate freely with individuals with differing counts. English Shrews are one example. Whether a change in chromosome number will be detrimental depends on lots of factors, including how the change occurred (fusions/fissions/translocations), how the chromosomes align during meioisis, recombination frequency, etc. Your source of information for this "scientific fact" is badly flawed.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   


Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
reply to post by edsinger
 


This is absolutely incorrect. To begin with, it makes no sense. If it were true, then no mutations could ever happen. But we observe them all of the time. DNA repair mechanisms involve physical breakage and other kinds of changes to the DNA structure, NOT THE SEQUENCE. If a change occurs in the replication of the DNA sequence, there is no way for DNA repair mechanisms to recognize it.Your source for this false statement is badly flawed.

I suggest you take a class in basic molecular biology, or read a good textbook on the subject (The Molecular Biology of the Cell, by Alberts et al, is an excellent one), before making such foolish statements. .



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


All evolutionists believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. In fact, the Earth is forty million billion years old as mentioned in “God’s story” wretchfossil.blogspot.com...

God said there has never been a new star in the universe. That means our sun and Earth is as old as all the other stars. At present, scientists are unable to test rocks for ages over 500 billion years old.

All human civilizations proceeded in a circular rather than linear way. All civilizations went in small cycles of 12,000 years. Many such small cycles form a large cycle of about 50 million years. At the end of each large cycle there was a mass extinction event. The latest small cycle began 6000 years ago for much area on Earth. That’s possibly why some Creationists mistook the present 6000-year-old civilization for a 6000-year-old Earth.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by linliangtai
 


Except that we have seen new stars in the universe....also, nothing in the link provided is sourced...so, you're making an assertion without evidence to contest a claim that is made with evidence.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by linliangtai
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


All evolutionists believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. In fact, the Earth is forty million billion years old as mentioned in “God’s story” wretchfossil.blogspot.com...

God said there has never been a new star in the universe. That means our sun and Earth is as old as all the other stars. At present, scientists are unable to test rocks for ages over 500 billion years old.

All human civilizations proceeded in a circular rather than linear way. All civilizations went in small cycles of 12,000 years. Many such small cycles form a large cycle of about 50 million years. At the end of each large cycle there was a mass extinction event. The latest small cycle began 6000 years ago for much area on Earth. That’s possibly why some Creationists mistook the present 6000-year-old civilization for a 6000-year-old Earth.


And your blog is a good example of why not everything on the Internet is the truth...it's complete and utter nonsense.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

Mud slinger.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by linliangtai
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

Mud slinger.


That's a new one, haven't heard that one before...thx for making me laugh


Sorry if facts hurt your feelings



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join