| Off Topic > Off Topic |
| Missing Link Found |
| << < (30/64) > >> |
| General Omega:
--- Quote from: Swholli on May 21, 2009, 07:55:08 PM ---Ha ha ha, LHC. Duh. If it works, in your face, if it doesn't, then in mine. --- End quote --- The ability for a machine to work does not prove anything. But the results from it do. The problem is, is that people will say it is just another fancy particle. They will not believe it caused the big bang until they see inflation happening in their atomized face. |
| Swholli:
--- Quote from: General Omega on May 21, 2009, 07:56:42 PM ---The ability for a machine to work does not prove anything. But the results from it do. The problem is, is that people will say it is just another fancy particle. They will not believe it caused the big bang until they see inflation happening in their atomized face. --- End quote --- That's... what I meant? |
| General Omega:
The latter part is what I am trying to point out here. |
| Randomguy:
--- Quote from: Thorax on May 21, 2009, 07:20:21 PM ---The whole process of Carbon Dating (Also know as C-14 dating) is a correct one, but there is one flaw in the starting assumptions on which it was created. Dr. Willard Libby (The man who came up with the method) ignored a simple, yet important fact. Assuming you know how the process works, if the input of Carbon into the atmosphere is equal to the decay of it, it's said to be in equilibrium. If it's not, it becomes extremely hard to calculate. Now in Dr. Libby's original work, he believed that the earth is billions of years old, but it wasn't in equilibrium. This offset him because he believed that the earth was old enough to reach it. His calculations showed that it would have take 30,000 years to reach that point. Dr. Libby chose to continue on with his work, but he was misinterpreting the data. If the atmosphere wasn't in equilibrium, then the earth could be a lot younger, meaning that all those billions of years could be reduced to mere thousands. --- End quote --- You act as though C-14 dating is the only kind there is. There are numerous others, including: Potassium-Argon dating Argon-Argon dating Rubidium-Strontium dating Samarium-Neodymium dating Lutetium-Hafnium dating Rhenium-Osmium dating And all of the aforementioned methods, as well as C-14 dating, seem to agree. --- Quote from: Thorax on May 21, 2009, 07:20:21 PM ---The mathematical challenges of this theory almost make it difficult to believe. The average number of mutations in an organism is 1 in 10 billion (107). To get 2 related mutations is 1 in 100 trillion (1014). To get 3 related mutations is 1 in 1 billion-trillion (1021). To get just 4 related mutations is 1 in 1028. And just 4 mutations aren't enough to make any real, progressive structural changes. Not to mention you'd have to multiply the chances by 2 so that there would be 2 organisms with the same mutations. I'm not even going into detail on the chances of survival and the odds of the two mutated organisms meeting and having off-spring that would survive to carry on those traits and mate. Although it is possible, it's not probable. --- End quote --- Using numbers does not disprove mutations. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCgt3qb-Kb0&feature=channel_page http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s&feature=channel_page http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26dwfZIqfco&feature=channel_page --- Quote from: Thorax on May 21, 2009, 07:20:21 PM ---I have yet to see the "Big Bang" reproduced in an experiment. --- End quote --- "I have yet to see God." |
| Muffinmix:
--- Quote from: Thorax on May 21, 2009, 07:20:21 PM ---The whole process of Carbon Dating (Also know as C-14 dating) is a correct one, but there is one flaw in the starting assumptions on which it was created. Dr. Willard Libby (The man who came up with the method) ignored a simple, yet important fact. Assuming you know how the process works, if the input of Carbon into the atmosphere is equal to the decay of it, it's said to be in equilibrium. If it's not, it becomes extremely hard to calculate. Now in Dr. Libby's original work, he believed that the earth is billions of years old, but it wasn't in equilibrium. This offset him because he believed that the earth was old enough to reach it. His calculations showed that it would have take 30,000 years to reach that point. Dr. Libby chose to continue on with his work, but he was misinterpreting the data. If the atmosphere wasn't in equilibrium, then the earth could be a lot younger, meaning that all those billions of years could be reduced to mere thousands. --- End quote --- How do you explain the fact that the relative standard error of every carbon dating measurement to date followed a specific trend of precision that makes his theory extremely likely? If the earth was a few thousand years old and the equilibrium in radioactive carbon was not set, you would get readings that could be all over the place, sure, but because everything would not be homogeneous either we would be getting error scales of all sorts of sizes (10 year scales to even 500 year scales and beyond). If you plot that statistically after processing the information you woud get major discrepancies all over the place. This is not the case however. Furthermore, if all carbon samples were not at equilibrium in any condition then every calibration run on a cyclotron with several carbon calibration samples would yield largely differing results every time, leading to very poor precision which you could immediately see (unrealistically large discrepency between each different sample). Now I will admit they do not calibrate their instruments only once, they do it before each major run-time to bump out the minor changes in the instrument between runs. This is done to set up a new, more accurate baseline which is ultimately caused by a factor of things (handler's skill, instrument changes, etc.) as well as a precision measurement, the baseline usually doesn't change all that much unless the operator is incompetent, I doubt that strongly. With non-equilibrated carbon samples each calibration would yield largely differing precision ranges, since none of the samples would be the same as they're supposed to be. The fact that the error range in calibration using refined carbon samples from the very ground you stand on is so low is enough statistically to take carbon-dating's accuracy as very very likely. --- Quote from: Randomguy on May 21, 2009, 08:05:24 PM ---You act as though C-14 dating is the only kind there is. There are numerous others, including: Potassium-Argon dating Argon-Argon dating Rubidium-Strontium dating Samarium-Neodymium dating Lutetium-Hafnium dating Rhenium-Osmium dating --- End quote --- Carbon is still very relevant to the whole shebang because it questions the age of the earth by itself. All those other methods go even deeper back in time, but use largely the same principles. Statistics baby! |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |