Have atheists redefined science to get rid of God?

That isn't a "great dodge" at all. Nice try on your part though. Simply claiming that is how they do it doesn't make it true. Rock layers are not dated by fossils and fossils by rock layers. Science doesn't work in that circular manner. Here is a simple explanation of isotope dating of rocks. http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/parks/gtime/radiom.html


We know it because we didn't rely on JUST sedimentation. The testing with isotopes would have pretty quickly pointed out that error. By the way. A mud slide would NOT be layered like sedimentation. It would be easy to tell from the layers above it. You don't rely on the DEPTH. You count layers. Sedimentation changes over a year as the seasons change. No responsible scientist would rely on depth to date anything.
Don't you mean there is a growing body of crackpots that are being very vociferous. No science has been done to back up this claim. Isotopes degrade at a known rate. There is no science to say otherwise.

Yeah. I do get the idea. You trot out a lot of flawed arguments to support your flawed conclusions then assume that others do just what you are doing. Science is able to be duplicated. That is why it works. Anyone that doesn't agree with it can do the tests and prove SCIENTIFICALLY where they were wrong. Simple claims of "they are wrong" that don't even address the actual science used aren't going to cut it.

Actually, Parados, there is evidence that radio-isotope deposition in plant tissues does not occur at a constant rate, which the religionists have pounced upon. Gospelmancan's claim here is just indicative of the kind of propagandistic perversions which are foisted upon the credulous by those who wish to exploit them (don't forget to send in your faith offerings, children).

However, the discovery that, for example the carbon 14 isotope deposits at varying levels has been demonstrated in bristle-cone pine trees on the California coast, which live for thousands of years. Those same tree rings allow an adjustment in measurements to be made based on the evidence they provide of the rate at which the isotopes were deposited in any given year. The effect has been to show that items dated in the thousands of years by carbon 14 are actually older than previously believed.

Thanks Setanta,
I didn't know that about radioisotopes in plants but I guess it makes some sense since plants grow differently depending on given weather for each year.
I do recall seeing a core from a tree (Joshua tree?) in National Geographic when I was a kid that went back well over a thousand years which I thought was fascinating. It may have gone back 4000 since it was in the 70s that I saw it.

It may have been the bristle-cone pines of California. Living examples are more than two thousand years old. Clinging as they do to the face of cliffs, they are sufficiently tenacious that the dead ones are still there. It is possible to correlate the rings of living trees to those of dead trees, and thereby use their rings for evidence on atmosphere and environment for more than 7,000 years.

How exactly do scientists know how the curve goes in isotopes, if we have only been on the Earth for such a limited time, seriously, if the Earth is billions of years old, how can we be sure that the elements used for dating, don't lose or gain exponentially?[/quote]

We don't know for certain thunder, however we have no evidence of any isotope not degrading. If an isotope did gain then we would see it in the dating we have done on rock strata. The fact that the lower the strata the less it has of a given isotope would be evidence that it does and always has degraded.

There are two parts to your question here.

One is we have rocks that we do know the dates they were created. Most of them are igneous rocks created from known volcanic activity. We can easily test those rocks for isotope levels and compare that data to the known dates of eruptions. We have many sites with multiple eruptions over time so we can test all of those as well. This gives us a starting point. The more data you have the more you can confirm if the testing actually works. There are several things that can affect the data. Different areas of the earth might have different levels of isotopes so you check that as well. The goal is to reduce and eliminate any questions that might affect the data.

Two is the degradation rates of isotopes. There are many different isotopes. We can measure the curve of those that degrade quickly. We can interpolate that curve to others that do so slower based on the observed fact that all fall within a certain curve rate.

The thing you have to remember about science Thunder is that it is peer reviewed. For every claim made there are 1000 people ready to jump on it and try to poke holes in it. That is why it requires tests that can be duplicated by others who are skeptical of your results. When those skeptics repeat the tests and come to different results or conduct different tests that show something completely different then it can negate the claim or in most cases lead to more research that is better refined based on the previous test.

It is an interesting hypothesis that isotopes could reverse themselves. How do you propose to test it? Keep in mind that like Setanta pointed out with plants, if you do prove that isotopes can gain then it would mean that the earth is much older than previously thought.

My problem is that we cannot know what these isotopes do over such astronomical periods of time. Is it possible that these are stable for the short time we see them, but they change exponentially given longer amounts of time.

Trying to find information on that tree from National Geographic I found this site
http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm

I found this interesting about a tree over 2000 years old that we have historical record of when it was planted.

I guess I am not clear how you think this happens? Are you saying they all did this in a time period? Or are you saying that a sample gets to a certain age then speeds up? What evidence do you have to back this up?

Arguments along this line are dependent on the idea that physical constants in physics change over time. It's the same argument as the "speed of light was different in the past".

A corrolary to this argument is that time itself has been compressed or stretched over time, such that a "Thousand years" back then, was shorter than a "Thousand years" now. Of course, this argument assumes that there is something "outside of time" (like God), which can be used as a standard.

It's also interesting that creationists can accept that there may be changes in isotopes in trees, but can't accept that evolution occurs.

Another interesting aspect of change in the earth's atmosphere is the trapped gas/air in Antarctica in ice pockets. The scientists must approach cautiously to measure them, because once encroached, they are gone forever. That the scientists are aware of them is exciting.

I don't have any evidence, I'm just questioning the accuracy of judging a timeline, based on seeing so little of it.

The elements used for dating do decrease exponentially. That's the entire point of a half-life.

The ice cores drilled from... (I can't remember, which is it, Arctic or Antartica?) Well, ice cores taken from those places, can give us a relative idea of temperature and carbon dioxide during certain periods of time in history (because there have been no earthquakes so the cores are representative of time more so than the sedimentation layers, which may be disturbed by earthquakes).

That aspect helps us figure out how much carbon-14 the plant should have absorbed.

Also, don't forget that scientific methodology does not consist of just finding out the answer to a question. It also insists that you justify your answer and show through a different method that your answer isn't a freak coincidence.

Antarctica, Wolf, and from what i've read, they're just skimming the surface. Some scientists believe that if the logistical problems can be solved (something scientists don't usually do), data covering tens of thousands of years can be had. They've already studied core samples that provide data for several thousand years ago.

If this is the case, where is the scientific basis for the theory of evolution as the origin of man?
I don't see a first proof let alone a second one.

Yes, it would be difficult to see what one refuses to look at . . .

It is somewhat ironic that you would say something like that.
So how about some proof?

You know, you jokers come here full of contempt for everyone here, before anyone has posted a single response. You're "blessed" with "revealed truth," and you don't come here to debate, to learn or to teach--you come here to confirm the propaganda which has been fed you about "evolutionists." You can't see that religion and science are apples and oranges, and not at all comparable.

Well, my mama raised no fools, and i don't have "sucker" tatooed on my forehead. You've been given one explanation after the other, by people who are sufficiently knowledgable that they are paid for their scientific expertise. But you don't intend to listen, you just want to argue, and try out the cool new (and truly goofy) argument you got from your church or a religious web site.

So, no, i'm not a fool, i'm not a sucker, and i won't play your game.

heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .


okbye

wolf has gotten the "nucleus" of the argument . If we assume that unstable isotopes were first formed in roughlt equal amounts (and there is no reason to assume otherwise) then the preasent ratio of say, U238/U235 is about 1:140. With the decay constant and a cross check from numerous samples, we have a half life and decay constant that states that the two were first formed (in cratonic igneous deposits) about 5 Billion years ago (+/-) for govt work. No other way to explain the present abundances, no way.
Another way is to look at the abundance of lead isotopes. 204 through 208. 204 is not radiogenically derived , so it oughta be in its original crustal abundance, and more importantly, we have stony meteorites with measurable lead ratios in the radiogenic and non radiogenic. Since radiogenic Pb is the end member of Uranium and Thorium decay. We have independent (many) meteorite data that cluster around a date of 4.5 Billion years.(AINT SCIENCE AMAZIN SOMETIMES> WE just sit around trying to seceretly make up data and have our machinery crank out random numbers so we can pull wool over the canny religionists).
When we do C14 analyses, it really machs nichts whether the plants take it up at variable rates because we standardize the samples within themselves and often, because a plant like a pine, may be exposed to fresh C14 at an extremely high value if its being exposed to , say forest fires or increased Nitrogen 13 zapping by severe weather in warming periods. The thing is we sample and compare the standard by a decay equation that looks at the production of the end member Nitrogen 14. C14 forms from N 14 and , by beta decay, oes back to N14. We can peek at decay curves for many substances like tritium (half life about 12 years) and C14(half life about 5700 years) and we can cross date and compare standards and develope good decay curves and rates. The methods for the longer lived isotopes takes an understanding that would take a course to be proficient in the techniques and analyses. But, leave it to say that the long lived isotopes K40, U234,34,38, Th232,Rb87, (and a bunch of others) we have to look at relative abundances in the earth and in meteorites. For example Np237 andPu239 are all gone as defined by their end members and half lives.(We can create Pu in a breeder reactor but, its half life decay rate is 3 orders of magnitude faster than U235)

Decay curves are NOT linear, the equations are simple enough and can be thought of as a function that,with the rate constant unique for each element, its like walking halfthe distance to a wall with each step, soon you get asymptotic to the wall as your half steps get smaller and smaller .

The interesting thing is that, if the logic of radioactive decay isnt a testable phenom, then Tim Horton couldnt make donuts. And , by rad decay being testable, we can come up with a series of numbers that conveniently cluster around the age of the Planet and the solar system.

By the way, the Greenland Ice cores are , at present, the record holders for the farthest back in Plesitocene time we can measure seasonal ice pack. Its about 800000 years. In these cores we can pull out pollen and look at stable isotope ratios (oxygen 16/Oxygen 18) and determine what the temperatures were in those time periods. We can also compare oriented sections with magnetic data to look at pole reversals.
I hate being accused of being in a cabal of like minded evil practitioners of the black arts who are secretly conspiring to bury all Christianity with faked data. When the opposite is the fact. There are many of the "Evangelical Scientists" whose only attempt at their 15 minutes is to desparately try to get their flocks to accept their BS and they hope that their flocks arent too bright.
What did Mark Twain say about politics and religion being accepted with minimal information?