Saturday, October 11, 2014

Radiometric dating - The assumptions of Radiometric dating

http://genesismission.4t.com/Radiodating/methods.html

Some of the basic Dating Methods are as follows:
  • Samarium - Neodymium. (Sm-Nd)
  • Rhenium - Osmium (Re-Os)
  • Uranium / Thorium - Lead. ( U/Th-Pb)
  • Ribidium - Strontium (Rb-Sr)
  • Potassium - Argon (K-Ar)
  • Argon - Argon (Ar-Ar)
  • Lutetium - Hafnium (Lu-Hf)
All these methods rely on the changing ratio of  parent or daughter isotopes in a closed system. Now such a closed system does not really exists, but open system affects can't be determined easily, so it is hoped that they about balance out. These methods all have the same basic assumptions.
  1. Constant decay rate.
  2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope.
  3. Known amounts of daughter isotope at start.
Realizing the difficulty of dealing with assumptions #2 and #3 above Isochron Dating was developed in an attempt to solve this problem. According to theory the sample starts out with daughter isotopes ratio with other isotopes of the same element at a constant value, but with the parent isotope is arbitrary. As a result is forms a strait horizontal line on a graph. As parent decays to daughter, the ratios change and the straight line remains but becomes angled. The slope of the line equals the number of half-lives of the parent isotope has passed sense solidification.

A shift  from contamination can take place in all of the data points, but such contamination does not affect all data points equally, so it can cause the data points to shift off the true Isochron completely. Given this when one looks at an Isochron plot how can one really tell where the true Isochron line should be. Sufficient contamination can produce any Isochron pattern regardless of the true Isochron. It is even possible to get a negative slope, this would be equivalent to a negative or future date.

When you look at actual isochron plots such as the ones at above link, there seems to be room for subjectivity. Some are better than others but there is often room for multiple plot lines. Even uniformitarian geologists recognize the existence of false isochron. So how do they distinguish good data from bad? The answer is where the sample fits in the Geologic Column.

The unique key assumption of Isochron dating is that the affect of contamination does on the Isochron can be determined. However the quality of an Isochron is still judged by where the sample fits in the Geologic Column. Also like all forms of radiometric dating it assumes that nuclear decay rates are constant, an assumption which will later be shown false.




This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Radiometric dating - The theory behind Radiometric dating.


The theory behind radiometric dating is actually quite simple.  Every Atom of a given element has the same number of protons, but there are varieties in the number if neutrons. These varieties are called isotopes. Some of these isotopes decay (parent isotope) into other isotopes of other elements (daughter isotope). The time is takes for half of a sample of a given isotope to decay is called its half life. The half life of a given isotope can be as small a fractions of a second to billions of years. Some as far as we know are stable and do not decay.

Measurements of the half lives show that in general they are constant though there have been some reports of small variations. It is these half lives that form the theoretical bases of
radiometric dating. The basic idea is that if you have x amount of the parent isotope and y amount of the daughter isotope that given a constant half life you can calculate how much time parent isotope would have to decay to produce the measured amount of the daughter isotope.

Next the assumptions of Radiometric dating


Monday, September 8, 2014

Evidence Claimed of a Forming Planet

Astrophysicists have claim that they found evidence of of planet forming around a star with the unimaginative name of HD100546. It is located 335 light years from Earth and has a diameter 2.5 times larger than that of the sun.  HD100546 is also  30 times brighter than the Sun. As is often the case with such claims the facts do not live up to the claim being made.  Now no actual observation of a planetary body of any kind has actually been made let alone one that can objectively be considered to forming. what has actually be been observed is a excess carbon monoxide emission  source who's velocity and position seems vary in a manner that indicates that it orbiting around the star.

The claim of a forming planet is nothing  more than the hypothesis that the emission is a result of a circumplanetary disk of gas orbiting a gas giant about three time the size of Jupiter. A similar claim had been made before form around this star in the form of a faint blob of gas at about the distance of Pluto from the sun. Even with this large star are according to planet formation theory, a planet should not be forming that far out however this could simply be a Jupiter size planet with some gas and dust around it.  


The star have a disk of dust and gas orbiting it, but the logic behind the claim of forming planets is the assumption that planets and stat actually form from dust and gas in space. The theory generally referred to as the Nebula Hypothesis is a purely atheistic theory of the origin of stars and planets, that was specifically designed to explain the existence of stars and planets apart from God. The theory that has problems requiring repeated patching to protect it from reality. The reasoning behind this claim is that planets form discs of dust and gas around star, so finding evidence for planets inside a disc of dust and gas around a star gets interpreted as forming planets.

Saturday, September 6, 2014

 
 
 
The longer version contain the math used to calculate the results, to watch it click on the following link. 
Lunar recession and the Age of the Earth
 

Measurements of the distance to moon made using retro-reflectors left on the moon by Apollo astronauts has shown the moon is receding from the Earth at 3.82 cm per year. Measurements using atomic clocks have shown that an day is Earth are getting longer at a rate of 1.7 milliseconds per day per century.  
 
Now it turn out that these two phenomenons are related to each other by way of the tidal forces between the Earth and the Moon. It has been know for decades that when these figures are plugged into the laws of physics that they show that the Earth moon system can not be more than about1.25 billion years old.
 

Such calculations are largely dismissed by those claiming that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. They also point to paleontological data as evidence that the moon is receding and it is receding at a rate compatible with 4.5 billion years. These claims not only ignore alternative interpretations of the fossils and rocks in question but they usually use only one or two data points when multiple data point are used the scattering in the data is not what would be expected if it were really a result of the slowing of the Earth rotation.
It also turns out that when any model using a 4.5 billion year old earth-moon system is plugged into the same laws of physic they never produce the current Earth-Moon system with out significant tweaking and then the always come in below the paleontological data. This includes the currently accepted “Giant Collision Hypothesis of the Origin of the Moon.”
Furthermore when the same paleontological data is plugged into the same laws of physics it produces a maximum age for the Earth-moon system of about 2.067 billion years. Tweaking this model to make it reach 4.5 billion years requires putting an impossibly small delay time in high tide of less than 24 seconds.
There is simply no way of reconciling a 4.5 billion year old Earth-moon system with the laws of physics and the paleontological data claimed as evidence for the same. They simply do not and can not be made to match up. All of this makes a very strong case that earth-moon system can not be 4.5 billion years old.
 


Asteroid 2014 RC

At 2:18 p.m. on September 7 Asteroid 2014 RC will pass 25,000 miles from Earth  or about 10% of the distancebetwen the Earth and the Moon. Asteroid 2014 RC is just 60 feet across ans will not be visible to the unaided eye. It is no danger of an impact with the Earth but in Astronomy terms it is a near miss, Even  it did impact the explosion would only  be at about 90 kilotons of TNT or 4 times the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki Japan.  

The Nebula Hypothesis claims that asteroids a remnant from formation of the solar system but the theory has problems with an inbalences of angular momentum. Further more thereare real planets both in the solar system and exoplanets that are not in orbits predicted by the Nebula Hypothesis. Alternative theories include an exploded or shattered planet between Mars and Jupiter. They could have originated from outside the solar system which from a creationist perspective could have been created on day four of the creation week with the rest of the universe. There is  also the idea that they formed from material ejected from Earth during the Genesis Flood.
 

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Old Earth evidence - Radiometric dating

At first glance radiometric dating seems like a quite convincing method for obtaining absolute ages of rocks, however looking further shows that there is actually evidence against its accuracy. In turn I will be dealing with the following topics on Radiometric dating.
 
The theory behind Radiometric dating.
 
The assumptions of Radiometric dating
 
Erroneous Radiometric dates.
 
Possed Young Earth Solutions.
 
R.A.T.E
 
Conclions on Radiometric dating
 
 



This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.


Wednesday, August 27, 2014

History of Astronomy

 
 
 
 
I have posted some introductoru material on the History of Astronomy. Astronomy is the one area that creationist have made some real progress in rececnt years. Humphreys' model of planetary magnetic feilds has has been quite sucessful in predicting the magnetic field stregnths if planets and moons.While the above links do not mention Humphreys' model being introductory it does bust the anti Chrtistian myth surounding Galileo and his trouble with the Catholic Church.
 
 



This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.