Scientific American Gives Up

To me, Neologist, it seems that the Cosmos is a unity (or at least "not two") in which all components arise and fall in responses to other components. Everything is conditional and in a state of interdependence. Now to say that God is not caused, but does have effects seems to conceive of a partially transcendent God (He's not caused, but he affects non-God stuff). If I were to use the term, God (as I do Brahman and Cosmos) I would be more comfortable with Pantheism. God IS everything. In this quasi-anthropomorphic model, His "anatomy" is the structure of the Cosmos and his "physiology" is all the processes of interdependence.

0 Replies

and then would "pathology" be the counter to "physiology"?

0 Replies

No, Dys. In this "model" a pathological process or relationship would be a "normal" expression of the physiology of God because, in the model, God (or Reality from a buddhist perpsecitve, as I see it) is beyond such dichotomies as good/bad, health/pathology, beautiful/ugly, etc. etc. By "beyond" I do not suggest an essentially "transcendent" God. Reality is beyond our constructions about the world, not beyond the world itself, God's processes are simply what they are, not how we define, rank, categorize or evaluate them.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
the political correctness exhibited in the UN, Kyoto, the appalling ignorance on overpopulation as the primary source of world pollution, (and yes I DO have satellite backup on that one), IS the problem.

I for one am curious as to what satellite data provides evidence of population being the primary cause of pollution and not the industrial processes used by that population.

Maybe Scientific American will have the science for this in their April issue.

Had forgotten about that thread and only looked in to see whether this poster thought to satisfy his professed curiosity by the foolproof method of entering 3 keywords into google, to wit
"satellite human pollution"
and getting no fewer than 875,000 hits; here's the first of those 875,000 items:
____________________________________________________________

NASA Scientists Use Satellites to Distinguish Human Pollution from Other Atmospheric Particles

Driven by precise new satellite measurements and sophisticated new computer models, a team of NASA researchers is now routinely producing the first global maps of fine aerosols that distinguish plumes of human-produced particulate pollution from natural aerosols.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/Aerosols/
_____________________________________________________________

I hope the poster will be manage to click on the above link at least, but have little optimism in that regard <G>

0 Replies

clarification
I have no doubt that population "excess" is a major cause of human difficulties. Populations outgrow the "carrying capacity" of their land, and in some cases probably results in political "overorganization" (viz. totalitarianism). But it is equally certain that industrial pollution is what will eventually threaten the well-being of the species at catastrophic levels. And this form of pollution is caused mainly by first-world industrialized nations with smaller populations. Imagine what will be the case when the demographically largest countries, India and China, enter the category of industrial first world nations.

0 Replies

when rap started this, I think it was in a spirit that celebrated the irony of SciAms editorial. Lets not forget that.

The "mountains of evidence" cannot be avoided, they must be confronted and dealt with.

0 Replies

Scientific American wrote:

Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Sorry, but after reading this snotty display of ignorance and arrogance I had to reply.

First of all let's just say that C-14 proves the Earth is young and other methods of radiometric dating that say it is billions of years old are wrong.

EVERY TIME a piece of non-fossilized organic matter, be it a dinosaur bone, wood, oil or coal, is retrieved from a stratum that is believed to be several millions or hundred of millions of years old, it shows traceable amounts of Carbon-14. Often this non-fossilized organic matter tests at 30,000 years old, even if it is found in a layer of stratum guessed to be hundreds of millions of years old.

C-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years, so after 60,000 years or ten half-lives, there should be NO traceable amounts of C-14 left. And yet it is still found in materials whose lifespans are long enough to have allowed for thousands of half-lives to occur. This alone proves the Earth is young and not millions of years old.

Now before you cry foul and say "CONTAMINATION!" You have to consider that if specimen whose tests reveal positive is due to contamination, then you have to concede that all dates could be a result of contamination. for instance if C-14 dating reveals that a giant beaver is 10,000 years old, the evolutionist would have no problem, but when a non-fossilized dinosaur bone tests at 9,000 the evolutionists say "contamination." Well how do they know that? They don't it is just an assumption.

Keep in mind that diamonds have tested in the tens of thousands of years for C-14. Now how does contamination seep into something with as many tight lattices as a diamond?

Potassium-Argon dating, one of the methods used to derive the age of the earth, has tested 200 year Hawaiian lava flows at 3 BYO. Now if the scientists who came to the 3 BYO conclusion hadn't known that the flow happened only 200 years ago, they would have never realized their error and the false date would have stuck.

How many other unwitnessed lava flows have been falsely dated?

Anyways, I realize that these scientific facts I have posted will be met with criticism and ridicule. I just hope that a few enlightened might read this come to the logical conclusion that the atheistic-Darwinian mindset has perverted science and turned it into a religion that seeks to hide from the truth rather than find it.

0 Replies

C-14 (Carbon-14) has a half-life of 5700 years. It can be used for radiocarbon dating of wood, archaeological sites, specimens of at most 5,000 years old - and maybe for tombstones too (few are believed to be older than that) but not for anything older!

0 Replies

And when C-14 dating was discovered it was it was recognized that it could not be effective for dating any former living thing that died after the start of the industrial revolution.

You see that was when the coal burning really got started. Since the source of C-14 is nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, and coal has no C-14 (it decayed long ago), when coal burning really got going it threw off the C-14 equilibrium concentration in the atmosphere, so any respiration after the industrial revolution had a much lower C-14 concentration.

And the burning of gas and oil has only made C-14 dating, after the industrial revolution, impossible.

Think of it this way, the C-14 concentration in the air your breathing is much less than the C-14 concentration 300 years ago---I think they are depleting my precious bodily fluids.

Rap

0 Replies

Quote:

EVERY TIME a piece of non-fossilized organic matter, be it a dinosaur bone, wood, oil or coal, is retrieved from a stratum that is believed to be several millions or hundred of millions of years old, it shows traceable amounts of Carbon-14

PS welcome to A2K. , but, having said that,As a geologist who employs geochronological labs alot any fool that would use C14 in deep time measurements or anything older than about 50K years would be wasting precious resources (enter "BUCKS"). We know better than that.If I were the contractor and some yahoo came up with a dino bone and wanted to do C14, he,or she would be redoing their resume but quick.

THERE ARE SOME GOOD R/ISOTOPE TECHNIQUES FOR DEEP TIME
K/A is a long lived isotope series that can be used in deep time. However, sampling of remobilized mantle material for K/A means that one has faith that the A hasnt been volatilized in the mineral content. Argon is a GAS and elutes real easily.We would not use K/A in active volcanic belts, or very recent metamorphic events (like the Rockies)

So for real deep time we use a bunch of other isotope tricks. Neodymium /Samarium (Nd/Sm),Lutetium/Hafnium(Lu/Hf), Rhenium /Osmium (Re/Os) and several variations of Uranium/Thorium/lead 210 (U238/235,/Th208/Pb210/207/208) {Theres about 4 variations in there}.
We know that, from crustal abundance and meteoritic elements that elemental abundances for anything higher Atomic No than Zirconium (40) is about the same. So the differences we see are due to isotopic decayand final ratios. These are calibrated against meteoritic standards (CHUR;BABI)

If we were doing deep time fossil and sed/petrology determinations , wed be looking at heavy minerals and their contents of the above radioisotopes. Wed be looking for, primarily ZIRCON CRYSTALS.
Now, we get mistakes in all these because the ratios can change in metamorphic events that release several isotopes. But this is good because we can compare age differences of when tectonic plates started moving about by the metamorphism and lost isotopes in the smooshed minerals and the zircons.
So, yes we get different dates , but they surround geologic events, after all the planet wasnt laid out in 7 days , it cooled and an engine started the plates moving about. Radioisotope dating has been clustreing about a statistical norm age for many events (eg Grenville orogeny, Taconic, Antler etc). The answers that you mostly made up are probably gotten from some Creationist site where they dont wanna delve too deeply lest they be embarrased with what is found.
Please dont believe all of Duane Gish's minions crap. There are a few good geochemists in the ICS whove just turned to the "dark side" and gone Creationist , so theyve dropped their science and become hucksters for Jesus. There are many scientists who, while not diddling with the data and being scientifically honest, are still deeply religious.A few are actually clergy

0 Replies

Amen, farmerman.

0 Replies

"...turned to the dark side..."? How appropriate, Farmer. Smile

I'm thinking of both the fictional movie series and the historical dark ages.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
EVERY TIME a piece of non-fossilized organic matter, be it a dinosaur bone, wood, oil or coal, is retrieved from a stratum that is believed to be several millions or hundred of millions of years old, it shows traceable amounts of Carbon-14

PS welcome to A2K. , but, having said that,As a geologist who employs geochronological labs alot any fool that would use C14 in deep time measurements or anything older than about 50K years would be wasting precious resources (enter "BUCKS"). We know better than that.If I were the contractor and some yahoo came up with a dino bone and wanted to do C14, he,or she would be redoing their resume but quick.

THERE ARE SOME GOOD R/ISOTOPE TECHNIQUES FOR DEEP TIME
K/A is a long lived isotope series that can be used in deep time. However, sampling of remobilized mantle material for K/A means that one has faith that the A hasnt been volatilized in the mineral content. Argon is a GAS and elutes real easily.We would not use K/A in active volcanic belts, or very recent metamorphic events (like the Rockies)

So for real deep time we use a bunch of other isotope tricks. Neodymium /Samarium (Nd/Sm),Lutetium/Hafnium(Lu/Hf), Rhenium /Osmium (Re/Os) and several variations of Uranium/Thorium/lead 210 (U238/235,/Th208/Pb210/207/208) {Theres about 4 variations in there}.
We know that, from crustal abundance and meteoritic elements that elemental abundances for anything higher Atomic No than Zirconium (40) is about the same. So the differences we see are due to isotopic decayand final ratios. These are calibrated against meteoritic standards (CHUR;BABI)

If we were doing deep time fossil and sed/petrology determinations , wed be looking at heavy minerals and their contents of the above radioisotopes. Wed be looking for, primarily ZIRCON CRYSTALS.
Now, we get mistakes in all these because the ratios can change in metamorphic events that release several isotopes. But this is good because we can compare age differences of when tectonic plates started moving about by the metamorphism and lost isotopes in the smooshed minerals and the zircons.
So, yes we get different dates , but they surround geologic events, after all the planet wasnt laid out in 7 days , it cooled and an engine started the plates moving about. Radioisotope dating has been clustreing about a statistical norm age for many events (eg Grenville orogeny, Taconic, Antler etc). The answers that you mostly made up are probably gotten from some Creationist site where they dont wanna delve too deeply lest they be embarrased with what is found.Please dont believe all of Duane Gish's minions crap. There are a few good geochemists in the ICS whove just turned to the "dark side" and gone Creationist , so theyve dropped their science and become hucksters for Jesus. There are many scientists who, while not diddling with the data and being scientifically honest, are still deeply religious.A few are actually clergy

I didn't make them up. And yes I found them on creationist websites. I hope that you won't automatically disqualify them for that. It is a bit late right now, but I will try and find links later.

i do have a question though.

Suppose someone found a non-fossilized dinosaur bone, broke a small portion of it off (most labs wouldn't test it if they knew it came form a dinosaur) and submitted it to a lab for C-14 dating. Let's say that it came back as being 30,000 years old. Now the lab has accounted for contamination and claim that 30,000 is the approximate age of th specimen. That could happen; it has happened. now if some old beaver tested at 30,000, no scientist would have a problem with that date. So why would they then with a Dinosaur bone; the same method was used for each age determination.

Robert V Gentry has done some awesome work on polonium halos and helium difuion rates that proves the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

0 Replies

Senator....Just knowing that they are creationists automatically disqualifies them. They are morally obliged to ignore the reality in question for the sake of their ideology.

0 Replies

And they are ethically inclined to willfully falsify the evidence to support the "moral" position they have already staked out.

0 Replies

Polonium halos in granite are explained by secular decay of uranium and thorium

Granite is known to contain Uranium and Thorium. Interestingly large buildings built of granite expose inhabitants to measurable amounts of radioactive exposure. I've heard it opined that tellers in many banks have annual radiation exposures in excess of the OSHA limits for non-radiation workers (100mR/yr) . But exposure of non-Rad workers is off the topic of Robert V Gentry and a resolution of polonium halos.

Uranium primarily consists of two long lived radioactive isotopes U238 (99.3 wt %) and U235 (0.7 wt%) , Thorium (aside from intermediates of other radioactive decay chains) exists as the long lived radioactive isotope Th232.

U238 (uranium) decay to stable Pb208 (U238 has a half life of 4.47E9 years
U238->Th234->Pa234->U234->Th230->Ra226->Rn222->Po218->Pb214->Bi214->Po214->Pb210->Bi210->Po210->Pb206

U235 (actinium) decay to stable Pb207 (U235 has a half life of 7.04E8 years
U235->Th231->Pa231->Ac227->Th227->Ra223->Rn219->Po215->Pb211->Bi211->Tl207->Pb207

Th232 (thorium) to stable Pb208 (Th232 has a half life of 1.4E10 years)
Th232->Ra228->Ac228->Th228->Ra224->Ra220->Po216->Pb216->Pb212->Bi212->Po212(64%)&Th212(35%)->Pb208

These are well developed decay chains, and given enough time (like eons and eons) all of the unstable isotopes in the decay chain would exist in what is called secular equilibrium, meaning that the activity of each isotope is equal (N*lambda where N is the number of isotopic atoms and lambda is the Ln2/half life). In each of these decay chains the shortlived isotopes of polonium is produced as decay daughters (Po218, Po210 in the uranium chain, Po215 in the Actinium chain, and Po216 and Po212 in the Thorium chain). So the production of polonium halos in mica in granite is a function of uranium and thorium concentration instead of the concentration of polonium isotopes picked out of the strata as Gentry has done.

Interestingly with porous media (unlike granite), these isotopic decay chains and secular equilibrium is the source of Radon gas (Rn222 from U238) in basements all over America. If I used Gentry's polonium decay model I'd only have to worry about Radon Gas once and then it would decay away. Instead, the Rn222 is constantly being refreshed by the decay of the long lived parent isotope (U238).

So if you make the assumption that isotopic half lives are constant (and all evidence supports that assumption) the polonium halos in granite are explainable, expected and mundane as part of secular equilibrium of the uranium, actinium, and thorium in granite.

I will assume that the helium diffusion rates are in reference to radon diffusion (both are inert gasses) in granite. This would support Gentry's polonium claims if the decay daughter radon escaped before decaying to polonium.

However, on a physical scale helium is a very small molecule (bb) when compared to radon (basketball). I would expect the diffusion of bb's to be greater than basketballs under the same conditions.

Rap

0 Replies

Looking at the bright side here, if Gentry (whoever he is, and whatever his professional qualifications - does anybody know these, btw?) persists on his ideas on "helium diffusion" he's going to get exactly nowhere in designing a thermonuclear weapon Smile

0 Replies

The polonium methodology was the first work of S Austen, a petrologist who surmised that due to the short half lives of polonium it s existence in (Biotite and muscovite sheets) in granites were a function of a young "melt" So his theory was that Po proved that all Adirondack and NEngland granites are less than a few thousand years.
If we look at Polonium "halos" (These are really an imprinted change in refractive indices called "birefringence", we can see that as Po decays from its original Ucontent, it adds more and more birefringence rings and these are read as single events by the creationists. They dont even measure the Po, they read the "rings" , as rap has shown, the decay chain of U234-8 can have at least 4 different decay chains and the inclusion of Polonium is an indicator of the U mother. The fact that Austen and Gentry have used Thin section analyses only shows that they were looking at qualitative occurences and then applying radiochemistry conclusions.
Senator Tombstone-Your comment about C14 in a dino bone is confusing.
We wouldnt use a method whose technique is limited to 1/1000 the age of a dino because the half life would be shorter than the object and the C14 would be all gone. Now , environmental testing using C14 to date and show that ground water has interacted with the specimen is often a valuable test for dating the movement of water in a basin. However we must calibrate C14 for pre versus post atomic bomb atmospheric testing. (We also use H3 , since these 2 isotopes have been enriched to a worldwide "new" standard in post 1952 time due to nukes)
Rap stated this earlier that N14 (stable) reacts with neutrons in the upper atmosphere and C14 is formed along with 1 stable H.
C14 is readily oxidized and introduced into water and plants and soil. The values of C14 are reported in units relating the C14/12 ratio in a standard oxalic acid. The C14 is reported as (pmc) percent modern carbon. Your whatif scenario is asking someone to blow their study budget ona texchnique that wouldnt be of any use unless it were a ground water tracing exercise or age dating of C14 in pre versus post bomb testing. There are tables from all over the world that show C14 values in plants from pre to post 1960's and one can see the huge jump that is now retreating.
Your comment was a bout a "non-fossilized" dino bone. Outside of that K fossil that was recently found wherein a mass of rubbery vessels and some tissue were found inside a dino long bone, I dont know of any non fossilized bones.Even that specimen was , IMHO a series of post mort fossil substances called adiposere or keragen. Im still waiting for reported information of the analyses of these materials.

0 Replies

I wrote that previous post while still half asleep so pardon thegrammatics and spelling. The ponderings are all the fault of the author.

0 Replies

The issue here is too technically specialized for me, so I'm going to leave the thread. But I maintain my general position that there is no point in arguing any scientific issue with creationists. With time and the inevitable accumulation of knowledge, the creationists will find themselves more and more overwhelmed, unable to rationalize themselves out from under the weight of scientifically discovered reality.

0 Replies

Scientific American Gives Up

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know