Christians Muslims Atheists. Who really is growing faster?

[flip]

For dating rocks, the earth and the solar system other methods are used for example uranium-lead and lead-lead. According to wikipedia a rock formation in greenland was dated with five different methods to 3'640 million years, with the results of the different methods within 30 million years.

I agree with this. I wonder what the difference in readings would be between being buried 100 feet in the earth and what happens the moment air hits it. Especially contaminated air.

[Top Gun]

TG most of the ones using the term EVOLUTIONIST are the ones who believe in evolution. Yes I said Believe because that what they believe in.

Yes, and those people are being idiotic by trying to engage "creationists" by using similar terms. Hell, Richard Dawkins is kind of an ★■◆● in general, so I don't put any stock in whatever language he might use to describe himself.

by definition, a scientific theory is no more than a collection of theories or uncertain beliefs.

Um, no. Your own quotes go against that. Oh, and by the way, do you know how ridiculously unproductive your drive-by dictionary entry spams are? The entry for something like "theory" isn't limited to the scientific usage of the word, but to its general definition. Stringing together definitions for different words that appear in other definitions doesn't accomplish anything, other than demonstrating how general explanations don't apply to specific situations.

Fibonnacci Numbers. Just one of many observations that point towards design.

http://christiannature.blogspot.com/200 ... rough.html

Fibonacci numbers don't point towards anything. They're a fun little mathematical sequence that happens to show up in a limited number of biological settings. Some of the popular conceptions of where they appear in nature, including many listed in that article, don't actually hold up when you take a closer look at them. The article you linked is fairly poorly-written if it's trying to prove that point.

And considering that the suffix -ist basically means "one who believes in or practices," I'd say there's a pretty strong correlation with belief systems.

You mean like “Scientist”?

Yes, "one who practices science." I think my brain kind of derped when I posted that particular counter-argument, but you can still extend it fairly well. Any legitimate biologist would be an "evolutionist" by definition, if one absolutely insisted on using that silly term. They'd also be a "bacterialist," a "reproductionist," and a "digestionist," though I don't see many people clamoring for those terms.

I agree with this. I wonder what the difference in readings would be between being buried 100 feet in the earth and what happens the moment air hits it. Especially contaminated air.

...what would air have to do with anything? The isotopes measured are contained within the material, not floating around in the air.

[flip]

I said exposed to air. Another assumption made in all radiometric dating is a closed system. One that has not been affected by outside influences.

[Top Gun]

Yes, that's true, but if you're talking about isotopes of lead or uranium, exposure to air won't do a thing. There aren't exactly a whole bunch of those atoms floating around the atmosphere.

[flip]

No, I'm talking about an atmosphere affected by nuclear testing. Nuclear Testing ruins 2 key concepts of radiometric-dating.
1). It depends on a constant, up until those tests cosmic ray bombardment produced Carbon-14 at a fairly steady rate. That was the assumption anyways.
2).It depends on a closed system. Nuclear testing and general pollution prevented that before the tests inception.

Biggest threat to this theory is there is no data from before the blasts. Since everything breaks down to atoms, and Einstein theorized that these things interact even at large distances, I can see these blasts affecting the magnetic field which in turn would have an affect on every atom, at least under the magnetic field. Without data before the blasts and no way to compare, you could never be sure of your measurements.

Because the chemical behavior of an atom is largely determined by its electronic structure, different isotopes exhibit nearly identical chemical behavior. The main exception to this is the kinetic isotope effect: due to their larger masses, heavier isotopes tend to react somewhat more slowly than lighter isotopes of the same element.

[Top Gun]

Flip...the other radiometric dating methods that Tebo mentioned don't use carbon-14. The two processes Tebo brought up are uranium-lead and uranium-uranium paths, neither of which has anything to do with the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. And even if we were talking about using carbon-14, we can take direct measurements from before nuclear testing started by doing something as simple as looking at older trees. There are literally billions of timber samples out there from before 1945, so all you have to do is take samples from the rings in the tree that grew before that year, and boom, you can measure pre-nuclear levels.

And that "spooky action" concept is something completely separate from what we're talking about here. Nuclear blasts wouldn't affect any "magnetic field" except in the near vicinity, and that in turn wouldn't affect natural radioactive decay in the least. Please, flip, don't start flinging random terms you don't understand at the wall like spaghetti strands to see what sticks. It makes it all the more difficult to continue this discussion.

[flip]

Lol, stop being so narrow-minded man. Nuclear testing ruined your closed loop. First off, something like a solar wind occured UNDER the atmosphere. Something that had never happened. That ruins your constant. Secondly, everything in the biosphere absorbed that dramatic increase of carbon-14. Who knows what other effects it had on the biosphere.

Because the chemical behavior of an atom is largely determined by its electronic structure

You believe in evolution, but you have a hard time thinking a nuclear blast could alter the electronic structure of some atom's. Your tree ring fails because the whole biosphere absorbed this increase of radioactivity, making for abnormal and elevated levels with no prior tests.

[flip]

TopGun, How else do you think the whole biosphere absorbed this increase of radioactivity if not on an atomic level?

[Jeff250]

by definition, a scientific theory is no more than a collection of theories or uncertain beliefs.

You don't need to go through such contortions to try to understand how scientists use the term "scientific theory." If you want to know, just ask some. You can see a good write up here.

http://christiannature.blogspot.com/200 ... rough.html

The reason why you see the Fibonacci recurrence in nature is because it's a very simple recurrence:

f(n) = f(n-1) + f(n-2).

It's hardly surprising. Most arguments for design are on the basis that there is an unexpected amount of complexity in nature.

[Top Gun]

*sigh*...I'm not doing this, flip. You are wrong on this point. Factually, demonstrably wrong. And it's pretty clear that you're either not reading or not comprehending my now-repeated explanations as to why you're wrong. I'm not going to keep wasting my time on this unless you make a good-faith effort to get yourself better informed.

The nuclear testing "closed loop" doesn't have anything to do with naturally-occurring uranium in matter. The sun doesn't produce or release any uranium, so anything that happens with the solar wind doesn't mean a thing to that particular radiometric method. No, the tree ring method is just fine, because trees incorporate atmospheric carbon into each year's growth; rings generated before tests began don't have the higher concentrations of carbon-14, because the atmosphere didn't contain it then. No, nuclear tests don't magically alter the "electronic structure" of every atom on the planet; I suspect you're not even familiar with what "electronic structure" refers to. And of course the biosphere absorbed the increased levels of carbon-14...that's exactly what we've been talking about for the last page or so.

I'd love to help you understand this stuff, flip. I really would. But I just can't if this is how things are going to go.

[flip]

A little leaven leavened the whole. No, I understand you fine TG, you fail to see that the whole earth under the atmosphere is a closed system, and that you have no comparative data.

An isolated system is one so completely sealed off from its environment that neither matter nor energy passes through its boundaries. This is a merely theoretical construct, however, because, in practice, some matter always flows between system and environment. For example, regardless of how tightly a vault or other interior chamber is sealed, there is always room for matter at the microscopic or atomic level to pass through the barrier; moreover, energy, which in many forms does not require any material medium for its transmission, will pass through as well.

[flip]

No, nuclear tests don't magically alter the "electronic structure" of every atom on the planet;

I said 'some' atom's. Try not to misquote me and Nuclear tests split atom's, not alter. What if a neutrino's characteristics were altered? Remember, were are talking about particulate bombardment here. A process that normally occurs outside the magnetic field, now happens inside. The process by which particles can hit hydrogen atom's and create elements;) In Carbon-14's case, it is said that the whole earth adjusted by absorbing the increase, but this absorption is not described as you would think of breathing, but more like permeation all the way down to the very being of everything made of carbon.
Now this is just concerning carbon-14 and how it has the ability to permeate matter. I could then apply this principle to other by-products of nuclear explosions and assume they would be absorbed in like manner, magically.

EDIT: Added Substantiating Source

In engineered nuclear devices, essentially all nuclear fission occurs as a "nuclear reaction" — a bombardment-driven process that results from the collision of two subatomic particles. In nuclear reactions, a subatomic particle collides with an atomic nucleus and causes changes to it. Nuclear reactions are thus driven by the mechanics of bombardment, not by the relatively constant exponential decay and half-life characteristic of spontaneous radioactive processes.

Nuclear fissions in fissile fuels are the result of the nuclear excitation energy produced when a fissile nucleus captures a neutron. This energy, resulting from the neutron capture, is a result of the attractive nuclear force acting between the neutron and nucleus. It is enough to deform the nucleus into a double-lobed "drop," to the point that nuclear fragments exceed the distances at which the nuclear force can hold two groups of charged nucleons together, and when this happens, the two fragments complete their separation and then are driven further apart by their mutually repulsive charges, in a process which becomes irreversible with greater and greater distance.

[SilverFJ]

Dang. Set off a fire without even trying.

[flip]

Dang. Set off a fire without even trying

Damnit man, you maybe right.

[flip]

Lol, in another story, who wants to be around when the magnetic poles switch.

[flip]

Or global warming?

Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its projected continuation. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.

[flip]

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.[a]

11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

So far, real science lines up with what is actually written. There is no more complex book than the bible and it also stays in complete agreement with a great sense of order.

[Top Gun]

Welp, I'm done. You don't get it, and apparently you don't want to. Fair enough.

[Tebo]

I'm sorry Flip, but you're trowing around with concepts you don't seem to fully grasp.
For example the definition for a closed system you give (which comes from thermodynamics and is sound) has nothing to do with what you seem to mean. It states no energy passes through the boundary of a closed system, which clearly isn't the case for earth (~120 Petawatt solar power absorbed and a similar amount radiated off).

The electronic structure of the atom doesn't enter into this discussion, as it has to do with chemistry not with nuclear physics. There's no doubt a nuclear blast alters it in atoms near it (ionizing air, burning stuff), but it's also totally irrelevant to radiometric dating, which concerns itself with the nucleus. The nucleus is much harder to influence, as the binding energies in it are on the order of million times stronger than those of the electrons.
While a nuclear blast can change the nucleus of atoms in the vicinity via gamma and neutron radiation, there's this fun fact that theses only penetrate a few feet of earth or water and not the whole planet (intensity goes down exponentially with shielding thickness).

Where did you get that weird idea that radioactive elements somehow permeat the whole planet? They are chemically almost identical to their non-radioactive counterpart (like your own quote says) and spread through the biosphere using the same mechanisms. By the way, if all radioactive elements somehow spread throught the whole earth, we'd still have matching samples from the moon. Also we wouldn't see the same U235 content in natural uranium around the whole planet (and in meteorites). It matches so exactly, that a sample with 0.717% instead of the usual 0.72% wasn't ignored, but lead to the discovery of natural reactors.

[flip]

No, by definition a closed system always allows some particles to pass, an isolated system does not and probably doesn't even exist anywhere in nature.

It is enough to deform the nucleus into a double-lobed "drop," to the point that nuclear fragments exceed the distances at which the nuclear force can hold two groups of charged nucleons together, and when this happens, the two fragments complete their separation and then are driven further apart by their mutually repulsive charges, in a process which becomes irreversible with greater and greater distance.

I'm working with this principle. Try to imagine a tsunami effect, but on an atomic scale.

I said that in the case of Carbon-14, everything carbon-based incorporated the increase caused by atmospheric nuclear testing. Not the whole of creation, just of it's own kind. I would also expect uranium to incorporate any excess created by testing. I wouldn't expect uranium to be absorbed by carbon or carbon to be absorbed by uranium, but based on the properties of Carbon-14 I would apply the same principle to uranium. Any abnormal increase would be absorbed by it's like-kind in an effort to keep balance.

[fliptw]

Closed systems allow energy to be exchanged with the environment, not matter. Particles are matter.

That quote(which lacks a bunch of context) describes the splitting of an atom - nuclear fission, which quickly leads to a nuclear explosion unless controlled. One could say that resembles a tsunami on an atomic scale.

But that happens on timescales billions of magnitudes faster than the radioactive decay of elements.

[Tebo]

Heh, my bad, I should have written isolated system, a closed system may exchange energy but not matter.

Your quote describes nuclear fission, you add a neutron to a fissile atom and it splits in two lighter atoms. What I don't get is what this has to do with how the radioactive products are supposed to spread.

EDIT: fliptw beat me to it

When you say

Not the whole of creation, just of it's own kind.

do you mean the newly produced C14 spreads to all the carbon in the world? If so, the point is the C14 spreads in the same way the other carbon does, via the atmosphere (and photosynthesis, the food chain etc.), so it only gets incorporated into things that are still exchanging carbon.

[Krom]

If Carbon-14 permeated in the manner you suggest flip, then it would be evenly distributed throughout everything on the entire planet. Since it is not evenly distributed, we know your assumption is false.

If your assumption were true, Carbon-14 would be useless for a dating mechanism because the dating works by measuring the differences in how much of it remains after radioactive decay in a given sample.

[flip]

When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere

My mistake, plants. Everything that grows by photosynthesis.

[flip]

do you mean the newly produced C14 spreads to all the carbon in the world? If so, the point is the C14 spreads in the same way the other carbon does, via the atmosphere (and photosynthesis, the food chain etc.), so it only gets incorporated into things that are still exchanging carbon.

Heh, yes. Tebo has some vision.

[flip]

Earth’s magnetosphere protects the ozone layer from the solar wind. The ozone layer protects the Earth (and life on it) from dangerous ultraviolet radiation.

Anyone want to debate possible causes of holes in the ozone? Or alternate causes of Global Warming? What happens if the nuclear reaction happens within the magnetosphere? The magnetosphere is what allows that energy to penetrate the atmosphere and at the same time protect the ozone layer. And what of this:

the two fragments complete their separation and then are driven further apart by their mutually repulsive charges, in a process which becomes irreversible with greater and greater distance.

Since the magnetosphere prevents the actual particles from cosmic bombardment from infiltrating the atmosphere, does that mean that the magnetosphere would also prevent broken sub-particles from escaping? Now if these particles start repelling from their counter-parts in a process that's irreversible, then this means a process has been begun under the magnetosphere that can never be stopped, and eventually will gain speed.

EDIT: Maybe neutrino's have never moved faster than light before .

[fliptw]

nuclear fission is not the same as radioactive decay.

[flip]

That's besides the point, but that decay rate could definitely be affected by any type of nuclear reaction made within the magnetosphere. It is still particle bombardment. Like I said , you have a contaminated system and no prior data. Everything we see since testing began could just be the results of ripping the basic building blocks of nature apart in an irreversible process. You can't tell me no, because you have nothing to compare it to.

[Krom]

Detonating a nuclear bomb in the magnetosphere momentarily distorts the magnetosphere, bending and or waving the magnetic fields in its vicinity. The long term effects of the magnetic field are completely insignificant. The short term effects are also insignificant to the biosphere, but it would cause major problems for society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

[flip]

Are holes in the ozone long term effects or insignificant? You have not backed your claim up yet. Can holes in the ozone, which blocks ultra-violet rays, contribute to global warming? It's particle bombardment that strips away the ozone layer.

[Krom]

Are holes in the ozone long term effects or insignificant? You have not backed your claim up yet.

The holes in the ozone are a chemical process that has nothing to do with nuclear testing.

[flip]

I will now label this theory as The Process by which Particle Bombardment started under the Magnetosphere.

EDIT:Too bad some guy around AD 60 beat me to it =/

EDIT:Damn, these guys too.

Physicists have long theorized that particle accelerators could destroy the earth. When electric fields are used to accelerate protons they could collide at speed fast enough to create black holes or bits of altered matter. These small black holes would slowly engulf our planet. The pieces of altered matter, called strangeletes, would destroy any ordinary matter they came in contact with, eventually annihilating the entire planet. Although most scientists assure that none of the particle accelerators being used at the present are strong enough to bring about these events they are unsure of the abilities of the newest accelerator being built. Currently, over two-thousand physicists from thirty-four countries, universities and laboratories are aiding in the construction of The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) located near Geneva, Switzerland. It is scheduled to begin experimentation in May 2008. It is hoped that if black holes are produced they will be small enough to evaporate, but only time will tell.

[flip]

The holes in the ozone are a chemical process that has nothing to do with nuclear testing.

Ok. Basics. If it were not for the magnetosphere, the ozone layer would be stripped away by particle bombardment. True?

[Krom]

flip, You are completely off the rails of whatever discussion you were attempting here; Your assumption that nuclear testing / global warming / particle bombardment / ninja wizards could somehow invalidate radiometric dating results is completely wrong (Actually wait, that last one is possible...). There are radiometric dating methods that extend in useful time ranges to periods billions of years prior to the earth having an ozone layer at all. Their accuracy is undisturbed regardless of the presence or absence of a magnetosphere, ozone layer, ninja wizards, or the atmosphere in its entirety. They remain accurate even for checking the age of material from asteroids that exist entirely outside any earthly influences, let alone man-made ones.

I doubt you are going to convince anyone but the ninja wizards with your haphazard hypothesis, and I am beginning to seriously doubt that you can understand or learn the concepts being discussed by either side in this debate. Do to either a lack of sufficient reading comprehension or communication skills on both sides; at this point I think we should just agree to disagree and stop because this is going nowhere.

[flip]

Physicists have long theorized that particle accelerators could destroy the earth. When electric fields are used to accelerate protons they could collide at speed fast enough to create black holes or bits of altered matter. These small black holes would slowly engulf our planet. The pieces of altered matter, called strangeletes, would destroy any ordinary matter they came in contact with, eventually annihilating the entire planet. Although most scientists assure that none of the particle accelerators being used at the present are strong enough to bring about these events they are unsure of the abilities of the newest accelerator being built. Currently, over two-thousand physicists from thirty-four countries, universities and laboratories are aiding in the construction of The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) located near Geneva, Switzerland. It is scheduled to begin experimentation in May 2008. It is hoped that if black holes are produced they will be small enough to evaporate, but only time will tell.

[flip]

All forms of radio-metric dating would be skewed if i'm correct . Your constant is gone, your closed system is contaminated, and you have no prior test for comparison. All those laws have been broken by nuclear testing, which in my feeling started particle bombardment on the inside of the atmosphere. Something that should have never have happened. From that point on radio-metric dating, all forms are unreliable. I know your more accustomed to true or false questions, so answer mine.

[Jeff250]

In science, we expect more evidence than just your "feeling." Marylin Monroe didn't always exist either, but her birth doesn't contaminate our assumptions about radiometric dating. You've failed to provide any realistic model for how nuclear testing could universally affect radiometric dating measurements.

[flip]

I've given you tons of supporting evidence. All you have given me is NAY. No, if the laws of nuclear science are at all correct, this theory makes perfect sense, and also means the bible called it long before anyone else did .

Does the magnetosphere keep the ozone layer from being stripped away from particle bombardment?
Yes or no?
True or False?

This should make it more familiar but I could find some pictures too maybe.

HINT:Earth's magnetic field is importaant to us because it controls many of the potentially destructive charged particles that come near Earth. Without the magnetosphere, our atmosphere, and probably our ground, would be bombarded with harmful particles that could endanger life. Some scientist believe that life would not even have formed if Earth had not had a magnetosphere.

[flip]

Here's question no one will ever be able to answer, but depends fully on if neutrinos are actually found to move faster than light. If so, it not only supports my theory but makes it likely. Now the question that could never be answered.

Have neutrinos ALWAYS moved faster than light or is their speed now increasing because of the process of particle bombardment being trapped within the magnetosphere? Just like radio-metric dating, we can never know now because there is no prior data.

[vision]

Never have I seen anyone so fervently use the product of science and technology to refute the value of science and technology. I guess it's convenient to accept scientific and technological tools like computers and the Internet when used for the purpose of reinforcing confirmation bias, but not when scientific and technological tools like particle accelerators and satellites uncover uncomfortable truths.