Will you ignore the fact that radiometric dating frequently produces different answers for one set of samples, and that the "correct" date is then selected?
Experimental error happens. Indeed, creationists go to great lengths to find examples of such:
The data is taken from a creationist publication that mined the literature for examples of bad dates - yet they STILL average out to being correct!
Will you ignore the fact that the most widely accepted model of continental drift now in favor is one put forward by a creationist, as his computer model explains things that nothing else does?
You do realise that this model implies that the entire ocean floor was created in a year? Given that the oceanic crust is 6km thick and covers 53% of the planet, this implies that the entire ocean was boiled off. This model is not 'widely accepted', it is wrong.
You have, of course, still failed to answer with regard to the thermal gradients and cooling in the oceans, why all the different radiometric techniques give the same age, and why the ages agree with those given by continental drift extrapolation. Hell, I even have to post your arguments or you!
The question is not my open-mindedness - I'm fully prepared to take creationist arguments on their merits. You are the one dismissing science without even learning about it first. THAT is closed mindedness and you know it.
a) That several different radiometric dates 'just happen' to agree.
b) That this value *also* agrees with thermal conduction/contraction models, and
c) That this value *also* agrees with ages derived from spreading rates, and
That this is all a coincidence.
Could you perhaps explain to me a model that has a different age *and* accounts for all of this? Remember that if you start changing the laws of physics for one, it'll rebound for the others.
Every dating done on a known-age volcanic rock has resulted in wildly inaccurate data. Example: Mt. St. Helens rocks were dated at (varies by sample, that alone should raise red flags about the radiometric dating concept) values ranging from 350,000 to 2,800,000 years.
This was the dating of phenocrysts and xenoliths - rocks that soldified before the eruption. Strange you failed to mention this. Of course, if you are talking about a 500 million year old rock, a systematic error of 2 million years isn't that important.
There are many others but that makes the point - radiometric dating is badly flawed, from K-Ar to C14 to isochrons to Ru-Sr and the rest.
I'd like to see how you think isochrons are flawed. Radiometric dating does have independant testing - different methods can be used on the same rock, and importantly, relative dating techniques can be applied (superposition, timing of fault movement, etc.). There is no way of other physical processes systematicaly changing the dates - a neutron flux would, for instance, make some dates look much younger and others much older. Changing basic physical constants has the same effect.
One independant technique that has been used successfully is that of sea floor dating. Since we know where - and at what temperature - sea floor crust is formed, we can calculate how old it is according to the depth using heat flow calculations. These calculated dates agree with the radiometric dates, AND dates calculated from sea floor spreading rates. So three independant methods all agree.
And the giant superintellegent Jovian gasbags who get whacked on the head by it will suddenly notice those insignificant 'big asteroids' closer to the sun and declare war on them..
Actually there haven't been many major oil discoveries since the 1960's, contrary to popular perception. Hasn't been a really big field since Mexico's Cantarell in 1977.
Well, this prediction was made in 1971. At the time it was entirely accurate. As I'm sure you are aware, in 1973 OPEC decided to make a deviation from the free-market exploitation model, which is why oil production didn't peak in 1992.
Note use of the word 'peak' there; if you expect oil production to carry on at the same rate until some point about 50 years in the future, then suddenly run completely dry, then I sugest you learn some basic petroleum geology.
But anyway; the peak production of conventional, cheap oil has been postponed till 2000-2005 (that's not a typo; 2000 is currently the highest year for global oil production).
It is by no means certain that mass unemployment would result from anti-global warming measures on a large scale.
The first thing you should notice is the connection between oil prices and economic performance (oil price spike=recession). How much exactly does this cost? In our post-fossil-fuel economy, at least in theory such price spikes would be a thing of the past, and most countries should have energy independance. The price of energy will be determined by ever-improving technology and not politics (last 30 years) or resource depletion.
All those car makers stand to benefit hugely; re-equipping the world with fuel cell cars means making a lot of cars. Ditto for the steelworkers!. And building the wind turbines, nuclear power plants, new infrastructure, etc.. that will take people. Indeed - if we are headed into a depression like the 1930s, then a 'war on global warming/energy dependance' might make a similar boost in economic terms as WWII did, without the mass slaughter.
I would like to see every person on earth have a better standard of living than the average American has now. That cannot be done with fossil fuels; there is not enough in the ground.
Well, as far as total biological productivity goes, the late cretaceous super greenhouse was probably higher than today.
It is not the *absolute* climate that matters; it is the *rate of change* that causes the harm. Although modern agriculture works best with cold winters which kill off most of the pests.
Look at it this way: In 100 years time, we (humanity) will either have the technology to overcome virtually any resource limitation/ environmental problem, or we'll have regressed into near pre-industrial conditions with a huge dieoff. Rapid climate change simply makes the second option more likely.
Remember that for depths greated then 50-200km, depending where you are, the mantle is in vigorous convection (well, over decent timescales). Conduction is only a factor in the crust and lithosphere.
The Nuclear reactor hypothesis also explains the excess heat production of Jupiter and Saturn.
The mantle, and especially the crust, contain virtually all of the radioactive heat generating Isotopes (K-40, Thorium, Uranium + other minor ones). Hence the problem - how is heat generated in the core itself? Without a heat generation source, there would be no outer core convection and hence no magnetic field.
Current theory is core crystallisation; it does have problems. If mantle convection is single layer (a matter of heavy debate in the earth sciences), then the earth, and especially the core, should be frozen solid by now. Additionally, the presence of Helium-3 in the mantle is confusing, as it should outgas pretty quickly.
A core nuclear reactor solves both the heat and helium 3 problems.
Be careful - you end up consuming most of your fuels simply to make the fuel. Net yields come in at around 1000 liters per hectare, which would imply converting around half the agricultural land on the planet in order to replace oil.
No, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas. IIRC, so is CO, but it's contribution is very minor because it has a very short residence time in the atmosphere.
Well, the earth's thermal regieme is adiabatic below 50-200km, due to mantle convection - otherwise the whole mantle would be molten.
Basicall, any planet with suficient radioactive isotopes will melt, because thermal conduction is such a bad method of getting heat out of planets. Of course, solid ice might convect fast enough at depth to get the heat out.
As far as radioactive heating goes, I see no reason why it wouldn't keep things liquid under a hundred or so kilomets of ice. Remember that in the case of the earth, the temperature reaches 100 degrees celsius between 3 and 10 kilometers down even outside of volcanic zones - and that is purely due to internal heating.
Amid the greenhouse debate, no one seems to be noticing the fact that nature is going to implement Kyoto for us. Good for the environment, bad for those of us who like cars and electricity.
Well, I was talking about grains and potatoes (basically, dawn-of-agriculture stuff). The start of agriculture coincides with a decrease in average height and an increase in deficiiency diseases...
Of course, sugars, white flours, refined starches, trans-fatty acids and soft drinks are only a hundred or so years old in dietry terms.
Funny thing is, I've never seen a good, accurate, well referenced anti-atkins article.
Every attack I've seen seems makes some set of these assumptions:
1) Cholesterol *intake* is an independant risk factor for heart disease. This has not been demonstrated by any study.
2) Saturated fat intake is a strong independant risk factor for heart disease. The evidence is not clear cut; only a small number of saturated fats have much influence at all.
3) Grains, sugar, potatoes and modern fruit varieties are an integral part of the human diet. This is false; bulk-carbohydrate foods were only introduced between 8000 years ago and present day, which is an evolutanary blink of the eye. Animal fats have been a major dietary component for > 2 million years. Modern fruit varieties have been bred for a much higher sugar content than the wild originals.
4) The Atkins diet is presented as if you were going to be on induction for the rest of your life. Thus allowing people to claim that it's heavily unbalanced.
Please explain to me - what are all these things that the body need from bulk-carbohydrate foods - you know, the ones that humans didn't even eat until 8000 or so years ago?
Slashdot Mirror
Will you ignore the fact that radiometric dating frequently produces different answers for one set of samples, and that the "correct" date is then selected?
Experimental error happens. Indeed, creationists go to great lengths to find examples of such:
Bad datesThe data is taken from a creationist publication that mined the literature for examples of bad dates - yet they STILL average out to being correct!
Will you ignore the fact that the most widely accepted model of continental drift now in favor is one put forward by a creationist, as his computer model explains things that nothing else does?
What, this one?
Flood/catastrophic plate tectonics modelYou do realise that this model implies that the entire ocean floor was created in a year? Given that the oceanic crust is 6km thick and covers 53% of the planet, this implies that the entire ocean was boiled off. This model is not 'widely accepted', it is wrong.
Problems with floods..You have, of course, still failed to answer with regard to the thermal gradients and cooling in the oceans, why all the different radiometric techniques give the same age, and why the ages agree with those given by continental drift extrapolation. Hell, I even have to post your arguments or you!
The question is not my open-mindedness - I'm fully prepared to take creationist arguments on their merits. You are the one dismissing science without even learning about it first. THAT is closed mindedness and you know it.
So you are claiming...
a) That several different radiometric dates 'just happen' to agree.
b) That this value *also* agrees with thermal conduction/contraction models, and
c) That this value *also* agrees with ages derived from spreading rates, and
That this is all a coincidence.
Could you perhaps explain to me a model that has a different age *and* accounts for all of this? Remember that if you start changing the laws of physics for one, it'll rebound for the others.
Or will you just run away?
Every dating done on a known-age volcanic rock has resulted in wildly inaccurate data. Example: Mt. St. Helens rocks were dated at (varies by sample, that alone should raise red flags about the radiometric dating concept) values ranging from 350,000 to 2,800,000 years.
This was the dating of phenocrysts and xenoliths - rocks that soldified before the eruption. Strange you failed to mention this. Of course, if you are talking about a 500 million year old rock, a systematic error of 2 million years isn't that important.
There are many others but that makes the point - radiometric dating is badly flawed, from K-Ar to C14 to isochrons to Ru-Sr and the rest.
I'd like to see how you think isochrons are flawed. Radiometric dating does have independant testing - different methods can be used on the same rock, and importantly, relative dating techniques can be applied (superposition, timing of fault movement, etc.). There is no way of other physical processes systematicaly changing the dates - a neutron flux would, for instance, make some dates look much younger and others much older. Changing basic physical constants has the same effect.
One independant technique that has been used successfully is that of sea floor dating. Since we know where - and at what temperature - sea floor crust is formed, we can calculate how old it is according to the depth using heat flow calculations. These calculated dates agree with the radiometric dates, AND dates calculated from sea floor spreading rates. So three independant methods all agree.
And the giant superintellegent Jovian gasbags who get whacked on the head by it will suddenly notice those insignificant 'big asteroids' closer to the sun and declare war on them..
Actually there haven't been many major oil discoveries since the 1960's, contrary to popular perception. Hasn't been a really big field since Mexico's Cantarell in 1977.
Disccovery fell behind consumption in 1980.
All the oil : about 1900-2300 billion barrels depending on how you estimate it. About 900 billion barrels used.
Well, this prediction was made in 1971. At the time it was entirely accurate. As I'm sure you are aware, in 1973 OPEC decided to make a deviation from the free-market exploitation model, which is why oil production didn't peak in 1992.
Note use of the word 'peak' there; if you expect oil production to carry on at the same rate until some point about 50 years in the future, then suddenly run completely dry, then I sugest you learn some basic petroleum geology.
But anyway; the peak production of conventional, cheap oil has been postponed till 2000-2005 (that's not a typo; 2000 is currently the highest year for global oil production).
Have a look at
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
For a bit more info.
Do you have some actual stats on Mt. St Helens carbon dioxide release?
No, you don't. You are a liar.
Do you have any evidence that the earth's magnetic field affects the climate?
No, you don't. You are a liar.
It is by no means certain that mass unemployment would result from anti-global warming measures on a large scale.
The first thing you should notice is the connection between oil prices and economic performance (oil price spike=recession). How much exactly does this cost? In our post-fossil-fuel economy, at least in theory such price spikes would be a thing of the past, and most countries should have energy independance. The price of energy will be determined by ever-improving technology and not politics (last 30 years) or resource depletion.
All those car makers stand to benefit hugely; re-equipping the world with fuel cell cars means making a lot of cars. Ditto for the steelworkers!. And building the wind turbines, nuclear power plants, new infrastructure, etc.. that will take people. Indeed - if we are headed into a depression like the 1930s, then a 'war on global warming/energy dependance' might make a similar boost in economic terms as WWII did, without the mass slaughter.
I would like to see every person on earth have a better standard of living than the average American has now. That cannot be done with fossil fuels; there is not enough in the ground.
Whoo hoo! Economists can rewrite the laws of thermodynamics!
Just as soon as they explain why oil production in the US has fallen every year since 1970 regardless of the market price, I'll believe them.
Oil depletion in the real world
Well, as far as total biological productivity goes, the late cretaceous super greenhouse was probably higher than today.
It is not the *absolute* climate that matters; it is the *rate of change* that causes the harm. Although modern agriculture works best with cold winters which kill off most of the pests.
Look at it this way: In 100 years time, we (humanity) will either have the technology to overcome virtually any resource limitation/ environmental problem, or we'll have regressed into near pre-industrial conditions with a huge dieoff. Rapid climate change simply makes the second option more likely.
Remember that for depths greated then 50-200km, depending where you are, the mantle is in vigorous convection (well, over decent timescales). Conduction is only a factor in the crust and lithosphere.
The Nuclear reactor hypothesis also explains the excess heat production of Jupiter and Saturn.
Not rock solid (sorry for the pun..)
The mantle, and especially the crust, contain virtually all of the radioactive heat generating Isotopes (K-40, Thorium, Uranium + other minor ones). Hence the problem - how is heat generated in the core itself? Without a heat generation source, there would be no outer core convection and hence no magnetic field.
Current theory is core crystallisation; it does have problems. If mantle convection is single layer (a matter of heavy debate in the earth sciences), then the earth, and especially the core, should be frozen solid by now. Additionally, the presence of Helium-3 in the mantle is confusing, as it should outgas pretty quickly.
A core nuclear reactor solves both the heat and helium 3 problems.
Be careful - you end up consuming most of your fuels simply to make the fuel. Net yields come in at around 1000 liters per hectare, which would imply converting around half the agricultural land on the planet in order to replace oil.
No, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas. IIRC, so is CO, but it's contribution is very minor because it has a very short residence time in the atmosphere.
And post-ROTJ, very uninhabitable...
Endor Holocaust
Well, the earth's thermal regieme is adiabatic below 50-200km, due to mantle convection - otherwise the whole mantle would be molten.
Basicall, any planet with suficient radioactive isotopes will melt, because thermal conduction is such a bad method of getting heat out of planets. Of course, solid ice might convect fast enough at depth to get the heat out.
As far as radioactive heating goes, I see no reason why it wouldn't keep things liquid under a hundred or so kilomets of ice. Remember that in the case of the earth, the temperature reaches 100 degrees celsius between 3 and 10 kilometers down even outside of volcanic zones - and that is purely due to internal heating.
Demand would go up. Sadly, supply won't...
Future Gas production
Amid the greenhouse debate, no one seems to be noticing the fact that nature is going to implement Kyoto for us. Good for the environment, bad for those of us who like cars and electricity.
Apply that statement to quantum physics....
There is no royal road to learning.
A very good site on paleonutrition..
http://www.beyondveg.com/index.shtml
Well, I was talking about grains and potatoes (basically, dawn-of-agriculture stuff). The start of agriculture coincides with a decrease in average height and an increase in deficiiency diseases...
Of course, sugars, white flours, refined starches, trans-fatty acids and soft drinks are only a hundred or so years old in dietry terms.
Word for word from the ICR: (written by Duane T. Gish)
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm
Of course, what business a Biochemist has writing about cosmology is a good question.
Funny thing is, I've never seen a good, accurate, well referenced anti-atkins article.
Every attack I've seen seems makes some set of these assumptions:
1) Cholesterol *intake* is an independant risk factor for heart disease. This has not been demonstrated by any study.
2) Saturated fat intake is a strong independant risk factor for heart disease. The evidence is not clear cut; only a small number of saturated fats have much influence at all.
3) Grains, sugar, potatoes and modern fruit varieties are an integral part of the human diet. This is false; bulk-carbohydrate foods were only introduced between 8000 years ago and present day, which is an evolutanary blink of the eye. Animal fats have been a major dietary component for > 2 million years. Modern fruit varieties have been bred for a much higher sugar content than the wild originals.
4) The Atkins diet is presented as if you were going to be on induction for the rest of your life. Thus allowing people to claim that it's heavily unbalanced.
Please explain to me - what are all these things that the body need from bulk-carbohydrate foods - you know, the ones that humans didn't even eat until 8000 or so years ago?