Radio Active Decay not constant

[FutureTwitBlog]

It's not the "parameter search" I object to. It's the data interpretation. If the data isn't interpreted according to party line then great effort is made to get you to change or to marginalize you. That's my objection. That and the party line is expressed as immutable fact when, as we have seen, it reaqlly isn't. It is but one interpretation of the data. The battle for preeminence in the marketplace of ideas is just as viscious as the battles in the marketplace of goods and services.

But, this is exactly the point that I'm making here. If the data is interpreted wrong, how then should it be interpreted? I really am open to new mathematical models, new interpretations of data, etc. If the model is broken, how then do we fix it?

I really have to emphasize that I don't see any "conspiracy" to hide errors in the data by "science". I am a part of that whole community ( PhD in Physics) and I love nothing better than to see the results of a new experiment come out and lead to exciting new discoveries. However, I am asking for some ideas and a hypothesis from the creationists on the board here so that their ideas can be evaluated scientifically. If C14 dating is wrong because of X, Y or Z, how does that change the dates that have been accumulated as a result of this error, and in which part of the results (the error bars or the median date or both)? How would we change the C14 dating model to compensate for those errors? What experiments could be performed to show that the new model is more accurate than the old model?

This is how the scientific method works: 1) Identify a problem in the current model/understanding of a given system (in this case C14) 2) Come up with a new/revised hypothesis to change the current model of the system 3) Obtain new data or reinterpret old data in terms of the new model to show that the data fits better under the new model.

[Zakuska]

The current method seems to be the calibration curves... but with what we have seen with the tree ring data and how it was cobbled together. I have my doubts.

[ERayR]

But, this is exactly the point that I'm making here. If the data is interpreted wrong, how then should it be interpreted? I really am open to new mathematical models, new interpretations of data, etc. If the model is broken, how then do we fix it?

I really have to emphasize that I don't see any "conspiracy" to hide errors in the data by "science". I am a part of that whole community ( PhD in Physics) and I love nothing better than to see the results of a new experiment come out and lead to exciting new discoveries. However, I am asking for some ideas and a hypothesis from the creationists on the board here so that their ideas can be evaluated scientifically. If C14 dating is wrong because of X, Y or Z, how does that change the dates that have been accumulated as a result of this error, and in which part of the results (the error bars or the median date or both)? How would we change the C14 dating model to compensate for those errors? What experiments could be performed to show that the new model is more accurate than the old model?

This is how the scientific method works: 1) Identify a problem in the current model/understanding of a given system (in this case C14) 2) Come up with a new/revised hypothesis to change the current model of the system 3) Obtain new data or reinterpret old data in terms of the new model to show that the data fits better under the new model.

I don't see it as a conspiracy as much as a stubborn refusal to entertain any new thinking on the subject involved. I don't see any one hypothesis as having all the answers. It is going to take someone willing to consider all they ideas and take bits and pieces and blend them. Do I support a young earth? No. Do I think that the offspring of "God slowly climbed from the primevel ooze? No. Do I believe the Garden of Eden story? Yes but only as an outline of what happened and definatly not that far back. Do I believe that the offspring of God (man) started their sojourne on this planet as cave men? No, I think that there has been a very high level of civilization and technological development in the past. There is just too much evidence that points that way. Until there is an hypothesis that covers all this then I think there will be errors in what is accepted.

[FutureTwitBlog]

I don't see it as a conspiracy as much as a stubborn refusal to entertain any new thinking on the subject involved. I don't see any one hypothesis as having all the answers. It is going to take someone willing to consider all they ideas and take bits and pieces and blend them. Do I support a young earth? No. Do I think that the offspring of "God slowly climbed from the primevel ooze? No. Do I believe the Garden of Eden story? Yes but only as an outline of what happened and definatly not that far back. Do I believe that the offspring of God (man) started their sojourne on this planet as cave men? No, I think that there has been a very high level of civilization and technological development in the past. There is just too much evidence that points that way. Until there is an hypothesis that covers all this then I think there will be errors in what is accepted.

I have my own beliefs as well as to how life started, how man/God fit into this picture, etc., but this isn't science. Science is built off the subject of experiments and falsifiability. As I can think of no experiment as to whether God exist, Adam and Eve existed, etc., to me, these subjects lie somewhere outside of science in the realm of faith.

Going back to the subject of C14, I think that if a concrete mathematical model was postulated and shown to better explain the shortcomings of the current C14 dating models, this new model would be accepted, after enough due scrutiny of course. What I am asking for as well is something concrete that we can all discuss on the forums. Certain posters have said that the C14 dating method has problems. How does that change the conclusions of artifacts that have been dated so far? How do we change the mathematical models to fix these shortcomings? What experiments can be performed to verify that our new understanding of C14 dating is correct?

[ERayR]

I have my own beliefs as well as to how life started, how man/God fit into this picture, etc., but this isn't science. Science is built off the subject of experiments and falsifiability. As I can think of no experiment as to whether God exist, Adam and Eve existed, etc., to me, these subjects lie somewhere outside of science in the realm of faith.

Going back to the subject of C14, I think that if a concrete mathematical model was postulated and shown to better explain the shortcomings of the current C14 dating models, this new model would be accepted, after enough due scrutiny of course. What I am asking for as well is something concrete that we can all discuss on the forums. Certain posters have said that the C14 dating method has problems. How does that change the conclusions of artifacts that have been dated so far? How do we change the mathematical models to fix these shortcomings? What experiments can be performed to verify that our new understanding of C14 dating is correct?

I am not into trying to empiracally prove that God exists. That is for each to find out for himself. That said if the scientific community had not gone down the rabit hole of uniformitarianism and become so invested in that then they wouldn't have to reject these other things out of hand. Someone with scientific background and credentials would be examining these evidences. They wouldn't be trying to make C14 dting fit into a preconcieve scenario regardless of the uncertainties.

[FutureTwitBlog]

I am not into trying to empiracally prove that God exists. That is for each to find out for himself. That said if the scientific community had not gone down the rabit hole of uniformitarianism and become so invested in that then they wouldn't have to reject these other things out of hand. Someone with scientific background and credentials would be examining these evidences. They wouldn't be trying to make C14 dting fit into a preconcieve scenario regardless of the uncertainties.

Like I said, if you think the scientific community is wrong, publish your own paper on the subject.

[FutureTwitBlog]

I

Like I said, if you think the scientific community is wrong, publish your own paper on the subject.

I'll even help you submit it to the journal of your choice

[semlogo]

I am not into trying to empiracally prove that God exists. That is for each to find out for himself. That said if the scientific community had not gone down the rabit hole of uniformitarianism and become so invested in that then they wouldn't have to reject these other things out of hand. Someone with scientific background and credentials would be examining these evidences. They wouldn't be trying to make C14 dting fit into a preconcieve scenario regardless of the uncertainties.

CFR on all these claims, please.

[Zakuska]

So lets look at some more "Half-Life" beta decay modifications that Scientists have done since the 1950s.

Changing decay rates

The radioactive decay modes of electron capture and internal conversion are known to be slightly sensitive to chemical and environmental effects which change the electronic structure of the atom, which in turn affects the presence of 1s and 2s electrons which participate in the decay process. A small number of mostly light nuclides are affected. For example, chemical bonds can affect the rate of electron capture to a small degree (generally less than 1%) depending on the proximity of electrons to the nucleus in beryllium. In ⁷Be, a difference of 0.9% has been observed between half-lives in metallic and insulating environments.^[4] This relatively large effect is because beryllium is a small atom whose valence electrons are in 2s atomic orbitals which have a large degree of penetration very close to the nucleus, and thus are subject to electron capture.

Rhenium-187 is a more spectacular example. ¹⁸⁷Re normally beta decays to ¹⁸⁷Os with a half life of 41.6

[ERayR]

I

I'll even help you submit it to the journal of your choice

I already publish once, some years back, on an entirely different topic. It was a hassel and I don't see time for it in the near future. Perhaps some time later. I do have a start on it though.

[Tarski]

I already publish once, some years back, on an entirely different topic.

Let us hope it was an entirely different subject!

[rodheadlee]

Ok, for the layman, What is the error range for carbon dating? I'm reading a novel and the main character said some papyrus dated to 614 BC. I can't believe they can pin it to the exact date so is it + or - 500 years or what?

[Tarski]

So lets look at some more "Half-Life" beta decay modifications that Scientists have done since the 1950s.

http://en.wikipedia....dioactive_decay

Radioactivity Deactivation at High Temperature in an Applied DC Voltage Field Demonstrated in 1964

I think Ive proven my point of this thread... that the half-life of certian radio-active ions... under normal natural conditions CAN be dramatically effected. Perhaps more experiments on C14 decay is warranted. Maybe trying methods that effect other atoms such as Cavitation. I wonder how cooking bones might effect this?

Not at all. You keep avoiding words like "may be", "might", "slight", "slightly", etc which are associated with most of the effects alleged. Follow up studies replicating effects have not typcially been provided.

I also do not see justification for using the phrase "normal conditions".

At best what we have is the following:

Some isolated studies (suspiciously always discovered by reading creationist websites) suggest that some forms of radioactivity such as reverse beta-decay have decay rates that can be changed slightly by imposing special or extreme conditions--conditions unlikely to affect radiometric dating in ways not already accounted for.

No such evidence is adduced for C14 decay rates at all and nothing has been put forward that suggests effects that radiometric dating experts are unaware of.

No analysis has been put forward that shows how errors could have any significance to apprent conflict between science and religion and certainly nothing to give comfort to creationists or Biblical literalists.

Finally, what we see specifically about Zakuska and others is the following.

Anything put forward that explicitly or implicitly implies conflict with cherished religious beliefs--from C14 dating to genetic studies about native Americans is criticized as bad science while, hypocritically, any obscure paper or article that seems to lend support to religion or seems to oppose the science religionists dislike is immediately hailed as trustworthy and of great significance (and almost always the real significance is misperceived).

Zak wants it both ways. He wants us to accept his isolated and often unreplicated scientific finds and interpret them in ways he directs us, while mainstream science with its time tested large body of replicated and crosschecked results is to be treated with suspicion.

Should we trust science and scientists or not? If not, then we should trust even less the one off type of papers that Zak usually presents us with (with the help of creationist websites created by the likes of con artists Kent Hovind and Henry Morris).

[Zakuska]

Not at all. You keep avoiding words like "may be", "might", "slight", "slightly", etc which are associated with most of the effects alleged. Follow up studies replicating effects have not typcially been provided.

I also do not see justification for using the phrase "normal conditions".

WOW! It's amazing how much poo starts to fly out the cage when some one tries to steady the ark of the slideruler-monkey clan.

Notice how Tarski's eyes immediatley focus in on words that seem to help his cause... "may be", "might", "slight", "slightly".

And he's completely blind to words such as these "relatively large effect".

He totally misses the "more spectacular example" of a half life of 41,600,000,000 years reducing down to a mere 33y!

Are these really "may be" or "might" or perhaps "slight" or "slightly"?!

<snip>

(suspiciously always discovered by reading creationist websites)

Tarski seems to forget that even his fellow evolutionists agreed with me, but in all fairness they also pulled a Tarski and claimed there are methods to counteract the errors.

Finally, what we see specifically about Zakuska and others is the following.

Anything put forward that explicitly or implicitly implies conflict with cherished religious beliefs--from C14 dating to genetic studies about native Americans is criticized as bad science while, hypocritically, any obscure paper or article that seems to lend support to religion or seems to oppose the science religionists dislike is immediately hailed as trustworthy and of great significance (and almost always the real significance is misperceived).

Zak wants it both ways. He wants us to accept his isolated and often unreplicated scientific finds and interpret them in ways he directs us, while mainstream science with its time tested large body of replicated and crosschecked results is to be treated with suspicion.

Yet another oversight by Tarski... Was this intenitonal?

I provided links to Thorium experiments done both in 1958 AND replicated again in 2009. Which decreased the the half life by a factor of 10,000. Tarski Ignored it.

Link I provided... Click Here .

So Tarski whats so isolated about "Science Direct"? And whats so "isolate" about the Univertity in Tre Rome? I supose they are into publishing "junk science"?

The "more spectacular example" from above (ie a half life of 41,600,000,000 years reduced down to a mere 33y !) is referenced as...

1 ^ Smoliar, M.I.; Walker, R.J.; Morgan, J.W. (1996). "Re-Os ages of group IIA, IIIA, IVA, and IVB iron meteorites". Science 271: 1099-1102.

2 ^ Bosch, F.; Faestermann, T.; Friese, J.; Heine, F.; Kienle, P.; Wefers, E.; Zeitelhack, K.; Beckert, K. et al. (1996). "Observation of bound-state ?

[Tarski]

WOW! It's amazing how much poo starts to fly out the cage when some one tries to steady the ark of the slideruler-monkey clan.

Slideruler monkey clan? I should have quit responding to you a long time ago as soon as I realized you were an arrogant junk science collector suffering from Dunning

[Tarski]

dup

[ERayR]

Let us hope it was an entirely different subject!

Thanks for the gratuitous ad hominem. Right back to you. It is too bad that not everybody can be as bright as you.

[ERayR]

Slideruler monkey clan? I should have quit responding to you a long time ago as soon as I realized you were an arrogant junk science collector suffering from Dunning

[Zakuska]

Piezonuclear reactions

[Tarski]

Not so fast Tarski, the Scientists responded to that critique.

And there is a response to that and back and forth we go.

You are pinning your hopes on something not yet understood that may not even exist. No it is worse, you are presenting it as if it were already a proven fact!

If these Piezonuclear reactions don't really exist, then there certianly are a lot of people being duped!

It wouldn't be the first time.

cough--cold fusion anyone?

The funny thing is, even if this effect turned out to be real, it doesn't mean radiometric dating collapses. You are still far from saying anything about horses in the Americas and light years from a young earth or falsification of evolution (about which we already know the facts).

As it stands you have the irrelevent and minor effects with 7Be (not related to dating) and the fringe and questionable results about thorium that probably wouldn't affect anything about dating either even if it were true.

[Zakuska]

You know for something thats supposed to be scoffed at like "cough--cold fusion anyone?"

These Piezonuclear reactions are sure being picked up heavily by the scientific community!

PIEZONUCLEAR REACTIONS IN INERT SOLIDS: NEUTRON EMISSIONS FROM BRITTLE FRACTURE

NEUTRONS FROM PIEZONUCLEAR REACTIONS

[Tarski]

You know for something thats supposed to be scoffed at like "cough--cold fusion anyone?"

This is dishonest again. Why do you do this? I didn't scoff at a thing. First I pointed out that the results you link us to are not still tentative and have been heavily criticized--which is true. (You want us to accept such things without question while you want us to reject more establish science). Then when you offer the fact that the paper got attention, I merely point out that it wouldn't be the first time something got plenty of attention from the media and government agencies and then turned out to be chimerical. This is also true. Does the truth bother you?

On behalf of everyone who has suffered through all of you posts, I call on you to come to the point.

We already know radiometric dating has margins of error none of which are big enough to have relevance to fundamentalist fantasies.

We already know that there are so many papers out there that all sorts of strange purported results exist and that only time will tell which ones pass the test of time.

We already know that no scientific statement can be absolute (and yet is reasonable to say that things like the earth being an oblate spheroid and infectious disease being spread by germs are facts. This is the case for our confidence that the earth is billions of years old also.)

We already know that you want us to accept as definitive any papers that assert things that seem to give hope to fundamentalists or call into question well established science while at the same time you want us to doubt all science that does not suit your apologetic needs no matter how well established it is. You want it both ways.

You only have one criterion for deciding which science you will accept and it isn't anything but an all purpose religious criterion.

You contribute no new actual scientific analysis at all. That you aren't capable of it is quite clear.

So what is the point of all this? Isn't it about time to make a point relevent to Mormonism or religion in general????

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

I'm not so knowledgeable as I know everything there is to know about either subject. Maybe it's just me, but I'm fine with a little ambiguity in my science and my religion. Well make that a very little ambiguity.