4
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 148:
Line 148: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Radiometric dating (view source)
Revision as of 19:56, January 16, 2011
, 19:56, January 16, 2011no edit summary
:::[[Atheists]] use the court system to [[censorship|censor]] the teaching of [[Intelligent Design]] as well as censoring criticism of Old Earth theories. Those cases involve expert testimony. Nothing "strawmanesque" about this issue at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:10, 23 June 2010 (EDT)
:::[[Atheists]] use the court system to [[censorship|censor]] the teaching of [[Intelligent Design]] as well as censoring criticism of Old Earth theories. Those cases involve expert testimony. Nothing "strawmanesque" about this issue at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:10, 23 June 2010 (EDT)
Rate of decay
In the Rate of Decay section, it is stated that "The process of decay is as follows. Atoms consist of a heavy central core called the nucleus surrounded by clouds of lightweight particles (electrons), called electron shells. The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot be released easily. The phenomenon we know as heat is simply the jiggling around of atoms and their components, so in principle a high enough temperature could cause the components of the core to break out. However, the temperature required to do this is in in the millions of degrees, so this cannot be achieved by any natural process that we know about."
This is just plain wrong. Nuclear decay is not due to external temprature, but due to instabilities in the actual nucleus of the atom.
Also "The second way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself." is very misleading, as an atom can be changed through a strike from a neutron, or via an electron/positron strike, causing the element to change.
"and it was almost certainly not constant near the creation or beginning of the universe." We have no idea at all if it was constant or not at the very beginning of the universe, but we do know that energies were large enough that cause fusion and fission easily, but these are very different from normal nuclear decay.
Also, there are very few citations where oppositions to commonly held scientific views are concerned. Some examples are:
"Scientists have also attempted to extend the calibration range by comparing results to timber which has its age calculated by dendrochronology, but this has also been questioned because carbon dating is used to assist with working out dendrochronological ages."
Dendrochronology is callibrated by interpolation of overlapping ages of wood, and hasn't used radiocarbon dating.
Saying that radioactive decay is not constant over time. Isotopes having the same half life's has been held without any contradicting evidence purely because if the rates changed they did it in such a improbable way that made them look unchanged. Also, there has never been any evidence in the slightest to suggest that physical constants have changed, and there have been attempts to find out. You cannot just assume they have to fit you're own agenda without any evidence or reason to think so.
Can I also make a note that a single case of someone saying that they observed a change of half life in the lab is by no means conclusive, and would have been rechecked by other experts in the field. If a true change was observed, then it would be major news in any peer reviewed publication.