Radio Active Decay not constant

[Tarski]

Tarski, chill a bit, and rather than say he doesn't have 'this and this', instead explain why what he says is incorrect.

I have explained it. So have others. He is impervious to such explanations.

For example, I have pointed out that the decay rate of C14 is measured to be constant and calculated to be constant certainly at least for purposes of radiometric dating and his 7Be reverse beta decay is irrelevant. I have pointed out how it comes about that creationists misinterpret the significance of fossils that span strata. I have pointed out that scientists are aware of and take into account reservoir effects and other effect and have done so for a long time. I have pointed out that those who are actually trained to understand the details of radiometric dating do not doubt an ancient earth or the dating of the fossil record.

Also, ....

what am I doing? Go read all my posts then come tell me I didn't explain!

It isn't really my job to teach science here in depth or to explain why we say that the half-life of C14 is said to be a constant even in the face of the possibity that some extreme circumstance could effect it minutely (and I am not talking about something as mundane as chemically induced variations in electron density near the nucleus). Go read some books.

You know, you say you want me to chill out. Well, I think I am pretty chilled considering that I am of the opinion that those that pedal creationist confusion and anti-scientific sentiments to our children and the public in general are barely better than drug dealers. It hurts our nation.

[TAO]

You know, you say you want me to chill out. Well, I think I am pretty chilled considering that I am of the opinion that those that pedal creationist confusion and anti-scientific sentiments to our children and the public in general are barely better than drug dealers. It hurts our nation.

Na, I'm just saying the tone of your writing brings upon frustration and tensity, not relaxed calmness.

Mmmm... I don't think Zakusta will be convinced by appeal to authority though... but that's just what I think.

[Zakuska]

In all of this, no one has yet set forth the simple facts.

C14 dating is good for carbonaceous materials back to about 60,000 years with well understood margins of error and well understood effects that may cause increased error. But, other kinds of radiometric dating go back much much further to hundreds of millions of years with an understood percent error.

The various types of dating cross check each other and aid in calibration. The various methods agree with each other when multiple methods are available. Also, physical theoretical considerations outside of the realm of dating proper show that geological processes require a time period consistant with radiodating. A good deal of perfectly fine indepently arrived at geophysics would stop making sense if the earth were much younger than the estimate of 4-5 billion years. It is completely impossible for the earth to be a mere few thoudsand years old.

"In general, the half-life of a nuclide depends solely on its nuclear properties; it is not affected by external factors such as temperature, pressure, chemical environment, or presence of a magnetic or electric field.[3][4][5] (For some nuclides which decay by the process of electron capture, such as Beryllium-7, Strontium-85, and Zirconium-89, the decay rate may be slightly affected by local electron density, therefore these isotopes may not be as suitable for radiometric dating.) But in general, the half-life of any nuclide is essentially a constant. Therefore, in any material containing a radioactive nuclide, the proportion of the original nuclide to its decay product(s) changes in a predictable way as the original nuclide decays over time. This predictability allows the relative abundances of related nuclides to be used as a clock to measure the time from the incorporation of the original nuclide(s) into a material to the present."--wiki

C14 half-life is not subject to external effects to any significant degree (in contrast even to the small effects one sees for reverse beta decay) and is properly treated as a constant. It is known to be constant to within margins of error that preclude there being any serious worries about dating error resulting from taking the half-life to be constant. It is constant by measurement and is numerically calculated to be constant by quantum field theory (the same constant that we measure!!!!).

Many types of radiometric dating for very ancient dates have error factors of several million years but this is a small relative percent error and as paleontologist Niles Eldredge notes

"A few million years sounds like a huge error, but a couple of million years one way or the other is a small error compared with the huge age calculated. Saying '380 million years plus or minus two million' is like thinking back to April from December and saying you can't remember whether something happened on the 19th, 20th, or 21st. "

No serious scientist doubts that the fossil record extends back millions of years and no serious scientist doubts that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years rather than millions (and thousands is laughably out of the question).

TAO,

Notice the softening of Tarski's arguments in the bolded part.

At 1st there was no variation what so ever ( a constant is a constant after all ).

Then we started talking about how half life decay was not effected at all by external forces ( Of course we have seen with Thorium and possibly some others this is false )

So now that we have exposed a bunch of exceptions to the scientific tablets of stone, we are treated to the idea that error margins "preclude there being any serious worries".

However, heres where the trouble begins.

Radio active C(14)O2 is made in the upper atmosphere, at which point, it immediatly begins its C14 decay clock. But how long does it then take this C(14)O2 molecule to fall through the atmosphere, push all the other older C(14)O2 molecules and any other gases in the air out of the way, and get photosynthesized into a plant? Then how long does that plant grow before some Ipthodipthasuarus eats it and incorporates that molecule that was made in the upper atmosphere x days/months/years ago into its carbon matrix? And at what ratio does that C14 even get incorporated into his molecular matrix. Some days it could be one rate while other days it could be another. Maybe his system didn't need as much carbon one day but rather obsorbed more potassium. In other words the rate of C14 incorpration into an animal is variable AND unkown.

Here are a bunch of unkowns that scientists have NO way of knowing. Yet Tarski thinks that the error margin and math formulas take care of all of this.

But it gets worse than that, the current system assumes that a carbon life form incorprates C14 molecules that were all created on the same day (its intrinsic in the math by the very virtue of calculating it as a ratio of how many normal C3/12 carbon atoms to how many radio active C14 atoms, yes I suppose a margin of error of how long a creature lives on average could be built in) but any living organism could be made up of C(14)O2 molecules that were made in the atmosphere 100 years ago as well as C14 molecules that were made in the atmosphere 10 days ago. Thats Ilustrated by our Ipthodipthsuarus who's favorite food hapens to be tree trunks. He could be eating a rainbow of C14 from a tree who has incorprated C(14)O2 from over a 1000 year period. But hey then our plant eating dino eats up all the trees in his area so then he has to migrate to a redwood grove... 1000 miles away he's running out of food and the redwoods are a little to big but he finds one that is a little hollowed out that he can get his head in from the hollow portion of the tree and so he incorporates C14 into him that is already been ticking on the C14 half life clock for a 1000 years or more. So now when he dies and we C14 date him, hes going to have a C14 make up from a rainbow of different C14 reserviors. All of these tiny little unkowns are going to add up and effect our calculations.

Obviously Ive exaggurated a bit to get my points across, but thats why seals killed 100 years ago show up to be 2000 years old, because of all the little unknowns adding up. And these are best case scenarios, not taking into account that bone deposits are usually transported by Water which could contain radio active reagents which could react with the C14 in a similar unknown and unmeasurable way that the Thorium molecules "cavitated" in water and increased their decay rates. In other words the decay rates would remain relatively constant if these bones were deposited in a vaccum. But since they are out in nature... being tossed around in the rivers and mud being exposed to who knows what...

Perhaps the next experiment shoud be to take some C14 and see how Cavitation effects it? Or perhaps exposing it to various natural/unnatural conditions and scenarios to see the effect? Im sure theres a Scientist some where who's already thought of this. Perhaps the ones in Rome?

[TAO]

TAO,

Notice the softening of Tarski's arguments in the bolded part.

At 1st there was no variation what so ever ( a constant is a constant after all ).

Then we started talking about how half life decay was not effected at all by external forces ( Of course we have seen with Thorium and possibly some others this is false )

So now that we have exposed a bunch of exceptions to the scientific tablets of stone, we are treated to the idea that error margins "preclude there being any serious worries".

Don't bother him about this though. We all make mistakes. Instead, talk about his current point directly and concisely, and pretend his past mistakes didn't happen.

I think it will make him 'slightly' more open. And you need that, if you want him to change his opinion at all if ya' know what I mean.

[Tarski]

TAO,

Notice the softening of Tarski's arguments in the bolded part.

At 1st there was no variation what so ever ( a constant is a constant after all ).

Then we started talking about how half life decay was not effected at all by external forces ( Of course we have seen with Thorium and possibly some others this is false )

So now that we have exposed a bunch of exceptions to the scientific tablets of stone, we are treated to the idea that error margins "preclude there being any serious worries".

However, heres where the trouble begins.

Radio active C(14)O2 is made in the upper atmosphere, at which point, it immediatly begins its C14 decay clock. But how long does it then take this C(14)O2 molecule to fall through the atmosphere, push all the other older C(14)O2 molecules and any other gases in the air out of the way, and get photosynthesized into a plant? Then how long does that plant grow before some Ipthodipthasuarus eats it and incorporates that molecule that was made in the upper atmosphere x days/months/years ago into its carbon matrix?

Here are 2 unkowns that scientists have NO way of knowing. Yet Tarski thinks that the error margin and math formulas take care of all of this.

But it gets worse than that, the current system assumes that a carbon life form incorprates C14 molecules that were all created on the same day (its intrinsic in the math by the very virtue of calculating it as a ratio of how many normal C3/12 carbon atoms to how many radio active C14 atoms, yes I suppose a margin of error of how long a creature lives on average could be built in) but any living organism could be made up of C(14)O2 molecules that were made in the atmosphere 100 years ago as well as C14 molecules that were made in the atmosphere 10 days ago. Thats Ilustrated by our Ipthodipthsuarus who's favorite food hapens to be tree trunks. He could be eating a rainbow of C14 from a tree who has incorprated C(14)O2 from over a 1000 year period. But hey then our plant eating dino eats up all the trees in his area so then he has to migrate to a redwood grove... 1000 miles away he's running out of food and the redwoods are a little to big but he finds one that is a little hollowed out that he can get his head in from the hoolow portion of the tree and incorporated C14 into him that is already been ticking on the C14 half life clock for 1000 years. So now when he dies and we C14 date him, hes going to have a C14 make up from a rainbow of different C14 reserviors. All of these tiny little unkowns are going to add up and effect our calculations.

Obviously Ive exsajurated[sic] a bit to get my points across, but thats why seals killed 100 years ago show up to be 2000 years old, because of all the little unknowns adding up. And these are best case scenarios. Not taking into account that bone deposits are usually transported by Water which could contain radio active reagents which could react with the C14 in a similar unknown and unmeasurable way that the Thorium molecules cavitated and increased their decay rates.

Pure BS. Do you feel good about just making stuff up now?

Zak will have to explain why it is that despite all of his worries about "falling through the atmosphere and so on", which is presumably still a problem according to him, the ratio of C14 in the lower atmosphere and in living things is essentially stable right now!

Here is what I would like to hear from Zak. What is the point? That C14 dating has uncertainties is well known and age estimates are qualified by this fact. This is not news. The decay rate of C14 is properly treated as a constant and this is not the source of uncertainty.

Now when multiple methods of dating are available, uncertainty can be reduced. Add that to the rest of our science which tells us something about how long processes should take. Information from independent sources combine to tell us quite well about the chronology.

Now what kind of uncertainty is there? We know it is there but how big is it? When we say that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion plus or minus X, what is the X?

Will it make the earth 6000 years old instead of 5 billion? Is it possible that dinosaur bones are only a few thousand years old? Is there reason to adjust the dates of any specific samples in a way that has significance for the BoM or the Bible?

If not, then what is the point other than creationist tomfoolery? Given that we--scientists--have always known about uncertainties (which is why we use statistical analysis), please tell us; What is the point of your posts?

[Tarski]

Don't bother him about this though. We all make mistakes. Instead, talk about his current point directly and concisely, and pretend his past mistakes didn't happen.

I think it will make him 'slightly' more open. And you need that, if you want him to change his opinion at all if ya' know what I mean.

Boy you are easily convinced.

I did not make any significant mistakes and since I am on the side of solid mainstream science, I am unlikely to change my mind and become a creationist buffoon. I am not open to anti-science BS. I already know better.

I will get my science from actual scientists --which Zak is not.

The earth is billions of years old.

Evolution is a fact.

Dating methods are about as accurate or inaccurate as scientists claim and there is not sufficient doubt to provide hope to creationists.

The decay rate of carbon 14 is correctly taken to be constant for purposes of dating and also for every other purpose I am aware of and this has not been contradicted by a single thing Zak has come up with. Not one.

[Zakuska]

... one moment

[Zakuska]

Pure BS. Do you feel good about just making stuff up now?

Zak will have to explain why it is that despite all of his worries about "falling through the atmosphere and so on", which is presumably still a problem according to him, the ratio of C14 in the lower atmosphere and in living things is essentially stable right now!

Please define stable?

According to your evolutionist budies... using tree ring and magnetic flield data... its proven that C14 production over the past 9000 years has fluctuated to quite a noticable extent.

Tree-ring dating (see Topic 27) gives us a wonderful check on the radiocarbon dating method for the last 8000 years. That is, we can use carbon-14 dating on a given tree-ring (the 8000-year sequence having been assembled from the overlapping tree-ring patterns of living and dead trees) and compare the resulting age with the tree-ring date. A study of the deviations from the accurate tree-ring dating sequence shows that the earth's magnetic field has an important effect on carbon-14 production. When the dipole moment is strong, carbon-14 production is suppressed below normal; when it is weak, carbon-14 production is boosted above normal. What the magnetic field does is to partially shield the earth from cosmic rays which produce carbon-14 high in the atmosphere.

Contrary to creationist Barnes' totally discredited claims, which I've covered in Topic 11, the earth's magnetic field (dipole moment) has, indeed, increased and decreased over time. Strahler presents a graph of the earth's dipole moment going back 9000 years.

Figure 19.5, curve C, shows the dipole field strength calculated from measurements of magnetism of lava flows and of artifacts such as pottery and bricks, whose age can be determined. The curve is roughly fitted to mean values determined about every 500 to 1,000 years... The curve is roughly 180 degrees out of phase with the C-14 curve.

(Strahler, 1987, p.156)

The idea [that the fluctuating magnetic field affects influx of cosmic rays, which in turn affects C-14 formation rates] has been taken up by the Czech geophysicist, V. Bucha, who has been able to determine, using samples of baked clay from archeological sites, what the intensity of the earth's magnetic field was at the time in question. Even before the tree-ring calibration data were available to them, he and the archeologist, Evzen Neustupny, were able to suggest how much this would affect the radiocarbon dates. (Renfrew, p.76)

(Weber, 1982, p.27)

Thus, at least within the last 9000 years, the earth's magnetic field has fluctuated and those fluctuations have induced fluctuations in the production of carbon-14 to a noticeable extent. Therefore, as already noted, Dr. Hovind's [the creationist] claim that carbon-14 has been slowly building up towards a 30,000 year equilibrium is worthless. You now have the technical reason for the failure of Morris' model.

http://www.talkorigi...owgood-c14.html

Hey this was pretty intresting...

Yes, the atmospheric content of carbon-14 can vary somewhat. The dipole moment of the earth's magnetic field, sunspot activity, the Suess effect, possible nearby supernova explosions, and even ocean absorption can have some effect on the carbon-14 concentration. However, these factors don't affect the radiocarbon dates by more than about 10-15 percent, judging from the above studies. Of course, when we reach the upper limit of the method, around 40,000 years for the standard techniques, we should allow for much greater uncertainty as the small amounts of C-14 remaining are much harder to measure.

Your evolutionist budies just proved my point while disproving a Creationists argument!

If C14 concentrations can be effected by all that?! Good luck claiming its stable!

[FutureTwitBlog]

Please define stable?

According to your evolutionist budies... using tree ring and magnetic flield data... its proven that C14 production over the past 9000 years has fluctuated to quite a noticable extent.

http://www.talkorigi...owgood-c14.html

Hey this was pretty intresting...

Your evolutionist budies just proved my point while disproving a Creationists argument!

If C14 concentrations can be effected by all that?! Good luck claiming its stable!

I think that you might be missing something here, if I am reading the original references to the paper right. The effect on radioactive decay rates is thought to be small compared to the overall decay rate, which means that any error introduced into decay "constant" would also be small too. Additionally, if the variations are indeed seasonal and fluctuate up and down, then one would expect them to average out to zero over time.

I personally find articles like this highly interesting too. Any time there is the prospect of new (to humanity) physics in the universe, I get excited. However, studies like this one are much more likely to modify the "standard" understanding of the universe, rather than completely overturn it. For example, consider the a couple of the greatest physics breakthroughs of the 20th century: special relativity and quantum mechanics. In the first case, special relativity is a modification of the laws of physics in a frame of reference that is traveling (relative to its surrounding or "laboratory" frame of reference) "close" to the speed of light. In the limit of the object frame of reference slowing down and approaching the velocity of the laboratory reference frame, the laws of special relativity converge to the laws of classical (or Galilean) relativity. Second, quantum mechanics is a great mathematical framework for explaining the behavior of objects with a very low energy ~ usually (but not always) on the order of h_bar (i.e. Planck's constant divided by 2 pi). In the limit of increasing energies, through the correspondence principle, the results of quantum mechanics converge to those of classical mechanics. Thus, both special relativity and quantum mechanics end up not being "new" theories in the sense that they disprove the conventional theories of physics, but they end up expanding those frameworks to include cases where the original assumptions of the "classical" system (i.e. speeds much less than light and energies much greater than h_bar) break down.

Similarly, I think this finding, if correct, will expand the current model of radioactive decay, rather than "disproving" it.

[TAO]

Boy you are easily convinced.

No actually, I haven't made a decision either way. My involvement in this thread wasn't to pick out who was correct.

I did not make any significant mistakes and since I am on the side of solid mainstream science, I am unlikely to change my mind and become a creationist buffoon.

This is the sorta thing that will get you nowhere. The side of solid mainstream science isn't by default correct. Look how much our view of science has changed over time. Instead of saying 'I am by default correct', point out flaws in his points, wait for him to respond, and the respond to that, etc. You don't get any points by calling him a buffoon.

I am not open to anti-science BS. I already know better.

I will get my science from actual scientists --which Zak is not.

This reminds me of those traditional cattle-rangers in the movie 'Temple Grandin' who would not accept new ideas simply because they were created by someone who was mentally different and also because the ideas were unorthodox. It is not a good enough reason though. You have to be stronger than that Tarski.

The earth is billions of years old.

Evolution is a fact.

500 years ago, neither of these were facts for science. Thus, you should be more open to other possibilities, as science is open to change. You need to be too.

Dating methods are about as accurate or inaccurate as scientists claim and there is not sufficient doubt to provide hope to creationists.

Well Zak begs to differ. So now explain why these do not provide sufficient doubt, without using an 'appeal to authority'.

The decay rate of carbon 14 is correctly taken to be constant for purposes of dating and also for every other purpose I am aware of and this has not been contradicted by a single thing Zak has come up with. Not one.

Yet, because it is not a constant, it is important for you to identify the areas in which it is effected, and how much of a margin of error there is. If you identify those, then we can determine the reliability of the datings. Otherwise, the dating information is completely useless. Without the reliability ratings (due to possible external effects), the measurement could be so far off that we could be making a mistake by trusting it. Zak is doing you a favor by providing realistic scenarios where the dating would be skewed, so spend some time making a list as to what things can put off the data, by how much, and in what locations they would do so.

[ERayR]

I think that you might be missing something here, if I am reading the original references to the paper right. The effect on radioactive decay rates is thought to be small compared to the overall decay rate, which means that any error introduced into decay "constant" would also be small too. Additionally, if the variations are indeed seasonal and fluctuate up and down, then one would expect them to average out to zero over time.

Similarly, I think this finding, if correct, will expand the current model of radioactive decay, rather than "disproving" it.

The key phrases are in bold. "thought to be" and "would expect" neither of which gives one any assurance of certainty.

[Tarski]

Yet, because it is not a constant,

C14??

So where is the reference for the notion that the decay rate of C14 bound in atmospheric CO2 or CO or in organic material is not constant?

C14 does not decay by reverse beta decay and has been tested to be unaffected to any significant degree by terrestrial influences, whether they be temperature, pressure, radiation, gravity etc.

it is important for you to identify the areas in which it is effected, and how much of a margin of error there is

This has been done quite well. The dating methods have been cross checked and margins of error and uncertainty studied thoroughly. What more do you want?

What makes you guys think that scientists need to be schooled by scientifically untrained Bible thumpers and faith-heads?

[TAO]

C14??

So where is the reference for the notion that the decay rate of C14 bound in atmospheric CO2 or CO or in organic material is not constant?

C14 does not decay by reverse beta decay and has been tested to be unaffected to any significant degree by terrestrial influences, whether they be temperature, pressure, radiation, gravity etc.

Hate to tell you Tarski, nothing can be measured to be a constant no matter what. Rule of quantum mechanics. Thus determine the margin of error.

This has been done quite well. The dating methods have been cross checked and margins of error and uncertainty studied thoroughly. What more do you want?

What makes you guys think that scientists need to be schooled by scientifically untrained Bible thumpers and faith-heads?

Because it doesn't matter if they are Bible thumpers and faith-heads - they still have good points that a proper scientist will recognize and explore. A proper scientist doesn't close his eyes simply because it comes from someone he dislikes.

[Zakuska]

The earth is billions of years old.

Evolution is a fact.

Dating methods are about as accurate or inaccurate as scientists claim and there is not sufficient doubt to provide hope to creationists.

The decay rate of carbon 14 is correctly taken to be constant for purposes of dating and also for every other purpose I am aware of and this has not been contradicted by a single thing Zak has come up with. Not one.

I say these things, in the name of Charles Darwin. Aaa-Chew!

[Zakuska]

Lets switch gears for a bit. Does everone realize what this potentially means?

If we can change the half-life of Thorium by a factor of 10,000. What about other materials like Plutonium?

This could potentially help solve the Nuclear waste problem.

Some one call Energy Solutions Immediatley!

Radioactive waste

[FutureTwitBlog]

The key phrases are in bold. "thought to be" and "would expect" neither of which gives one any assurance of certainty.

If you want certainty, talk to a lawyer Scientists are very reluctant to use words like "always" and "never" because that's considered poor form in the scientific community.

For example, it IS mathematically possible for you to win the lottery 10 times in a row, or for all of the gas on the earth to suddenly compress into Africa, or for you to stand on one side of a wall and appear on the other side. Will things like this probably happen? No, but they are possible. Similarly, is it possible that the radiocarbon dating methods used thus far are wrong enough to throw the field into serious question? It's possible but, like the lottery example, unlikely.

[Zakuska]

Similarly, I think this finding, if correct, will expand the current model of radioactive decay, rather than "disproving" it.

Oh Im not trying to "disprove" radioactive decay. Im just tryin to show that our current understandings of how things work is too simplitic and that when we look at a Carbon date given in a Paper about... oh lets say Horses and Mammoths... we need to look at the dates a little more dicerningly. From what Ive been reading we can't look at these dates as absolute death dates.... Because they really don't tell us anything about when something died. Only that the Carbon that an animal consisted of, formed in earths atmosphere at around that time. The Animal could have lived and died any time from that date up to present and could be eating carbon derived from carbon dioxide thats 1000 or more years older than the animal.

[Zakuska]

Can anyone else spot the problems here...

See Page 1 slides 6,7, & 8?

http://ocw.mit.edu/c.../lecture_17.pdf

[FutureTwitBlog]

Oh Im not trying to "disprove" radioactive decay. Im just tryin to show that our current understandings of how things work is too simplitic and that when we look at a Carbon date given in a Paper about... oh lets say Horses and Mammoths... we need to look at the dates a little more dicerningly. From what Ive been reading we can't look at these dates as absolute death dates.... Because they really don't tell us anything about when something died. Only that the Carbon that an animal consisted of, formed in earths atmosphere at around that time. The Animal could have lived and died any time from that date up to present and could be eating carbon derived from carbon dioxide thats 1000 or more years older than the animal.

If you're talking about an increase in the uncertainty in carbon dating on the order of a few thousand years, I can see your point. I was worried, from the initial tone of your post, that you were trying to prove that the earth was 6,000 years, or something like that.

Yes, I agree that it's possible that the uncertainty in radiocarbon dating might be larger than previously thought, based on the results of the studies mentioned.

[ERayR]

If you want certainty, talk to a lawyer Scientists are very reluctant to use words like "always" and "never" because that's considered poor form in the scientific community.

For example, it IS mathematically possible for you to win the lottery 10 times in a row, or for all of the gas on the earth to suddenly compress into Africa, or for you to stand on one side of a wall and appear on the other side. Will things like this probably happen? No, but they are possible. Similarly, is it possible that the radiocarbon dating methods used thus far are wrong enough to throw the field into serious question? It's possible but, like the lottery example, unlikely.

Scientist are not reluctant to use expressions of certainty when writing textbooks for children. The terms of uncertainty came from your post. I would like a little more honesty and have an admission that things may or may not be as imagined. It is all imbedded in a great deal of imagination you know.

Edited to add: I am not trying to assert a 6,000 year earth either.

[Tarski]

Oh Im not trying to "disprove" radioactive decay. Im just tryin to show that our current understandings of how things work is too simplitic

Let me get this straight. A century of highly trained PhDs, many of whom are geniuses, employ high level probability and statistics, error analysis, quantum physics and empirical experimentation. They hunt for effects that could throw off the results and, when they do find such, they analyze how likely they are and make adjustments. They cross check results with data from independent sources. The theorists show that the mathematics of the underlying physical theory leads to consistent results. They compete with each other to get the most accurate results and criticize each other's work subjecting most of it to piercing scrutiny. They amass decades of empirical evidence any single bit of which could have falsified their best theories. These actual scientists with posts at the best universities do all this and then.....

(drum role)

Zakuska -an non-scientist--religious apologist with fundamentalistic leanings tells us

"Im just tryin to show that our current understandings of how things work is too simplitic [sic]"

Really? But you're not "simplitic" unlike those egghead scientists. Isn't amazing how sophisticated and complex one's mind can become by reading creationist websites!!

[shalamabobbi]

I agree... however it speaks to the truth that radio active decay is effected by outside forces...

All forces are "outside". The distinction is whether they are nuclear (as in do they have an effect upon the nucleus) or chemical/physical (as in do they have an effect upon the electron cloud) like temperature involved in the rate at which they encounter each other or pressure (same) etc..

If we can change the half-life of Thorium by a factor of 10,000. What about other materials like Plutonium?

This could potentially help solve the Nuclear waste problem.

Yes.. and let's not forget the additional problem this posses to the stability of operating a nuclear power plant or submarine, all of which would have detonated by now given this level of inconsistancy..

[FutureTwitBlog]

Scientist are not reluctant to use expressions of certainty when writing textbooks for children. The terms of uncertainty came from your post. I would like a little more honesty and have an admission that things may or may not be as imagined. It is all imbedded in a great deal of imagination you know.

Edited to add: I am not trying to assert a 6,000 year earth either.

If you've been reading textbooks written for children where a "scientist" is stating something as an absolute fact, that's poor form. Nothing in science can be taken that way, because the universe might throw a curve ball (so to speak). However, having said that, it's highly, highly unlikely that the vast body of scientific literature is going to be overturned on a subject as well established as radioactive decay rates. People who don't work in the industry don't realize this, but there are literally rows upon rows of scientific journals filled with papers that have been published on the subject (not to mention the electronic journals currently being published over the last 15 years or so). It's truly astounding -- much more information than could be absorbed by a single person in a lifetime.

So, to say that science doesn't know "everything" is not to say that they don't know anything.

[Tarski]

Can anyone else spot the problems here...

See Page 1 slides 6,7, & 8?

http://ocw.mit.edu/c.../lecture_17.pdf

Well? Don't keep us in suspense. What are the problems? If not for me then for everyone else. What are the problems?

(I have sneaking suspicion this is going to be funny and telling.)

[ERayR]

If you've been reading textbooks written for children where a "scientist" is stating something as an absolute fact, that's poor form. Nothing in science can be taken that way, because the universe might throw a curve ball (so to speak). However, having said that, it's highly, highly unlikely that the vast body of scientific literature is going to be overturned on a subject as well established as radioactive decay rates. People who don't work in the industry don't realize this, but there are literally rows upon rows of scientific journals filled with papers that have been published on the subject (not to mention the electronic journals currently being published over the last 15 years or so). It's truly astounding -- much more information than could be absorbed by a single person in a lifetime.

So, to say that science doesn't know "everything" is not to say that they don't know anything.

The children don't know and are indoctrinated into the faith by such.

I am not saying it is right or wrong, OK. Now it doesn't matter how much is published or written if your on the wrong road it doesn't matter if your only 1 mile or an 100 miles your still on the wrong road. Granted it may be easier to backtrack 1 mile than an 100.