tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post929747825526970040..comments2023-10-29T06:41:23.910-07:00Comments on Halfway There: At this RATEZenohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09058127284297728552noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-23708790631028356962007-12-18T16:05:00.000-08:002007-12-18T16:05:00.000-08:00The ICR thinks many feet of water shields their co...The ICR thinks many feet of water shields their comic story from reality? They conveniently do not mention the radioactive gasses we breath every day. We each receive on average 200 millirem of ionizing radiation from Radon gas each year. Radon is in the decay chain of Uranium-238. The faster Uranium decays, the faster Radon would be produced. Multiply that by the enormous decay rates the ICR proposes and you’ve got a serious acute dose of radiation. GASP! Noah and family just fried their lungs with alpha particles. They went blind since the eye is highly susceptible to alpha radiation. I really don’t expect much from folks who think the Flintstones is a documentary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-51654372390746173542007-12-18T02:01:00.000-08:002007-12-18T02:01:00.000-08:00Well, look on the bright side.If ICR is trying to ...Well, look on the bright side.<BR/><BR/>If ICR is trying to find evidence of accelerated radioactive decay, that means they admit that the radiometric evidence isn't prima face flawed. They've admitted that it appears to show what it appears to show, that the logic and observations are good, and that to be wrong,some hitherto unsuspected (and highly anomalous) event must have happened.<BR/><BR/>Thus, when you get anyone complaining that radiometric dating is 'unreliable', you can say that it's reliable enough for ICR to take seriously. <BR/><BR/>As for the hunt for evidence - well, good luck with that. It's not as if you can turn up the wick on radioactive decay without leaving a mark. And we know what those marks look like: be interesting to hear the ICR take on the Oklo reactor. <BR/><BR/>They've admitted that basic physics is good, and set themselves an impossible task. Could we ask for more?Rupert Goodwinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16823454543504061815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-81768317375478704262007-12-17T21:45:00.000-08:002007-12-17T21:45:00.000-08:00Radiometric dating is unreliable? I don't think s...Radiometric dating is unreliable? I don't think so--not only do independent radiometric techniques give consistent results, the results agree with several nonradiometric methods.<BR/><BR/>As for the representation of the ICR here, I have to say that it isn't faithful at all; it's <I>evidence based</I> ;)J Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02239837727739373280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-19623665564627366932007-12-17T21:42:00.000-08:002007-12-17T21:42:00.000-08:00That is the same Humphreys that, when positing the...That is the same Humphreys that, when positing the formative earth as a giant sphere of water, and realizing that it would not, on its own, have the magnetic dipole that would be needed for further processes, actually added a constant indicating the dipole that God added.<BR/><BR/>Radioactive dating merely has to be used carefully around volcanoes, but it is still good at establishing <I>minimum</I> ages. The counter is reset to zero in radioactive dating when daughter products are separated out from parent products, which happens in K-Ar dating when the argon bubbles away as the rock is still in liquid form.<BR/><BR/>I've seen some dishonest smears of radioactive dating techniques by those doing or misrepresenting things like whole-rock analysis when there are xenoliths (e.g. solid rock scraped off by the erupting magma, which will give the <I>whole</I> sample a larger age) or dating rocks where no lava was involved, as in rocks that were flung off from the Mount St. Helens explosion, or using dating in spots with water ingress and not taking that into account.Ritchie Annandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095044509186974971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-49491865174036676312007-12-17T17:29:00.000-08:002007-12-17T17:29:00.000-08:00Go see for yourself. ICR is completely devoted to ...Go see for yourself. ICR is completely devoted to hardcore young-earth creationism.Zenohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09058127284297728552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-58487840779135841092007-12-17T17:24:00.000-08:002007-12-17T17:24:00.000-08:00If your representation of ICR is faithful, then th...If your representation of ICR is faithful, then they are trying a little too hard to cling to the "Young Earth" theory. However, a serious Biblical scholar would certainly allow room for the "Old Earth" theory which doesn't require any periods of modified physical laws.<BR/><BR/>That said, you may not want to use radioactive decay as a method for dating, as it has been shown to be extremely inaccurate. This is particularly true in presence of volcanic activity (of which there has been a fair amount throughout the millenia.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15868947.post-26295656640354169062007-12-17T07:27:00.000-08:002007-12-17T07:27:00.000-08:00I thought of Stephen Colbert while reading your po...I thought of Stephen Colbert while reading your post and the word scienciness occurred to me. I Googled, and it turns out that others were similarly inspired before me. Okay, it's not original, but it's fitting.<BR/><BR/>tyro52Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com