Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

He's been posting in this thread--FM stands for his screen name, Farmerman.

Oh ok...i remember him. I guess i'll just wait then if I get no reply i'll just ask my bio prof.

This is an area that I have some knowledge so maybe I can handle your "Preassumption" statement. Technically you(or wikipedia) is sort of correct. Some of a radioisotope mineral may leave the system. However, in all reality, this amount isabout 1 in a trillion atoms resulting from abrasion or something else physical.

This is an immeasurable amount compared to the method (We use a specific Mass Spec technique). The "closed system " argument seems to have made its way to wikipedia(I didnt read it yet so maybe its not being Creationist about it).
We dont date "rocks", we date mineral components of the rocks, Minerals like zircon or microlite . These are "calendar type minerals that collect the radionuclides in their LATTICES as they cool" We dont sample sedimentary rocks for radionuclides because the mineral grains are always carried from somewhere else and deposited within that rock.
There are about 45 different radionuclide based dating techniques and [probably the same number of books written on the calibration of specifc techniques for specific rad nuclide tests. Some minerals like Polonium do migrate and give weird results, and these results always show much younger ages than are real. We therefore do intermediate (equilibrium testing of such nuclides to calibrate the measurements)
Only these radionuclides have variable half lives and they dont affect age measurements

1Beryllium 7 can vary its half life by about 1%, its involved in electron capture and is responsible for the only natural occurence of plutonium (Be abuts Uand forms Pu by electron capture) WE DONT USE Be for dating

2Bound state beta decay causes Dysprosium 163 or Rhenium 187 to vary their rates. Thee conditions are so unique as to occur only in meteors and we dont look at using these nuclides for dating weither
3. Weins talks about the "Atomic clock" special case where, if an atomic clock is moving in an orbit the nuclide decay rate will slow down. FORTUNATELY, we dont do any dating using atomic clocks.

HAlf lives and decay rates and decay constants are measured and recalibrated a lot. The fact that the length of years has changed also is immaterial to the method which ses "Annums" which are a compilation of
Thats not so because we only need to establish equilibrium. By the way, we sample entire crystals that we gather the entire crystal as a sample., whats the harm in an assumption that adds no more than a few hundretdth of a percent error for a method that is available for a fixed range of applications?(For really old rocks and meteorites we use an isochron and concordia tack technique where we compare against fixed and known rates of short decay branches.)
Most mqhinery used today includes Thermal ionization microprobes andSecondary ion Mass Spectrometry where an ion beam is shot accross the polished surface of the mineral crystal and reads the ratios of parent to daughter.
As I said there are over 40 different radioisotopic techniques and they overlap accurately. The errors involved in the method are maximum at about 2% and that translated to a small amount of time (We always report age numbers as+/- based upon the potential error bar)

First off, I would not accept any sample without some source description, Quality control, and sample custody. Its like any other chemistry analysis.

Not so. We do take multiple samples but of the same rock unit containing the key rock structure that has a lattice that contains the mineral we want We dont sample all over, in fact we sample very close to the zone of interest

QWe dont do any radionuclide dating from fossils with the exception of younger ones where we can do C14 or CO3 shell (younger than 40K years) and U/Th for coral depositions at reefs younger than a million years.

Fossils are best looked at by fission track, cosmogenic exposure of He3 C14,Cl36,Be10, and Al26,O16/18,C12/13 ratio migration),thermoluminescence, optical luminescence, electron spin resonance, latent heat thermometry, and relict magnetics. RAdionuclide analyses is a technique that is always suported by several other non radiogenic techniques which are all part of te site reports.
Its not as if someone just drops in and decides to do radionuclide analyses because its cool. The analyses cost several K dollars and research budgets need to keep every buck accounted for and WHY they were spent.(We dont cotton to some researcher trying to force a radiological technique when we know its out of range. Steve Austen, the foremost denier of radiological methods, is always playing games with K/Ar techniques by "dating" recent volcanic ashes. It turns out that nbatuiral argon degassing from fresh vulcanism contaminates the samples of ash and gives results that are phony. Yet he still tries to make a point .He is actually counting on everybody in his audience being ignorant of the limitations of each method.

But none of that is an excuse for going all liberal on masturbation, pre-marital sex of no consequence, adultery, artificial birth control, divorce, women priests, homosexuality, abortion and advanced eugenics.

If it proves that the earth is older than 6000 years it says nothing about the Christian cultural underpinnings to which you owe so much.

masturbation

I picked that word out of your long list of no-no and have to laugh that the most universal behavior of human beings other then breathing you have a problem with.

Hell they even have ultrasounds of fetuses doing the evil deed in the womb.

You mean like the Victorian culture of England.

Science concurs with your conclusion, just not with your logic in arriving at it.

Thanks for the post. I appreciate it

I don't have a problem with it Bill. You've read me through Bill-tinted glasses I'm afraid. It isn't the useful way to read.

It is whether or not it is a problem. Nothing to do with me. And neither does you thinking it has no consequences. There are many more universal behaviours that society has problems with.

You comments below seem to indicate that evolution or no evolution we owe a debt to good old fashion Christianity in your opinion, with it stands against the following including masturbation.

A culture that had cause far more harm then good over the last two thousands years in many ways one of which is turning normal sexual behaviors into sins.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
But none of that is an excuse for going all liberal on masturbation, pre-marital sex of no consequence, adultery, artificial birth control, divorce, women priests, homosexuality, abortion and advanced eugenics.

If it proves that the earth is older than 6000 years it says nothing about the Christian cultural underpinnings to which you owe so much.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a bit of a hermit myself, although I must maintain a certain connection to survive with a level of comfort. Even so, man has long sought the means to discover, at least, his position between light and darkness. The position of the astral bodies has been man's clock for a long time.
I see no reason to deny creation. I do, however, take issue with those who claim to know the nature of the infinite. We know very little, and only in the most general terms.
An open mind and a sense of wonder are indespensable.

I am a bit of a hermit myself, although I must maintain a certain connection to survive with a level of comfort. Even so, man has long sought the means to discover, at least, his position between light and darkness. The position of the astral bodies has been man's clock for a long time.
I see no reason to deny creation. I do, however, take issue with those who claim to know the nature of the infinite. We know very little, and only in the most general terms.
An open mind and a sense of wonder are indespensable. I happen to agree with Solomon, that no man can tell you that he knows, because he doesn't.

What exactly is "normal sexual behaviour" Bill?

I don't mind the evolution version, the Christian version or your own, which it is reasonable to expect will define your sexual behaviour as normal.

I think that might be as easily stretched, as a fat lady's corset often is, to include most of us.

I try to keep an open mind wayne and my sense of wonderment knows no bounds. I have no expectation that what gobsmacks me now will be the end of it.

Sexual research since the 1950s had shown that masturbation is one of the most common sexual behaviors for both women and men.

So normal is define in that the vast bulk of mankind does it...........

As I am fairly sure you was aware of that fact what games are you now going to try to play?

If it's so normal why is it so secretive?

Is it normal in evolution? Is it normal in all societies?

Why all the sniggering? Diogenes did it in the market square they say. Stood on a stall. Should we demonstrate techniques in biology lessons?

Bullshit you are game playing for sure and it is not all that secret among adults and second the anti-sex Christian faith and it teachings that label such NORMAL behaviors as a sin might also have something to do with at least the religion people not talking about it.

Now as infants in their cribs are known to do such behaviors I do not think that culture have a lot to do with it either.

In any case I am not in the mood to play with you over your silliness so I can only suggest you go "play" with yourself instead.

I don't think infants in their cribs are doing it Bill. Not what is meant by it at least. I also think it is pretty secretive among adults. Furtive even.

The Christian teaching is not anti-sex. It is anti promiscuous sex.

And sin is not sin per se. It is sin because it is seen as disruptive of social order.

How NORMAL do you mean?

Your last remark is evidence of floundering. It means nothing to me. It's an all-purpose door slam. What does your mood have to do with anybody else?

What do you call Catholics who practiced the "rhythm method " of birth control?


















PARENTS