Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
... radioisotope dating of the solar system ...

i wasn't aware that we had performed radioisotope dating of the entire solar system

could you point me to the data generated from the radioisotope dating of Saturn, for example?

and perhaps address NASA's concerns stated here?

]
... some surfaces, such as those of the icy satellites of Jupiter and Saturn, may not yield rocks that are datable by current isotopic techniques.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-467/ch3.htm

 

Stuu

New member
i wasn't aware that we had performed radioisotope dating of the entire solar system
You might remember that my wording was a little different. It's not a dating of all the different objects in the entire solar system, just 'radioisotope dating of the solar system' as a whole, since the solar system formed pretty much at the same time (right?). By dating the rocky bits of it that have not been molten 'recently' that we can get our hands on, we can know the age. So meteorites, generally.

Stuart
 

Right Divider

Body part
You might remember that my wording was a little different. It's not a dating of all the different objects in the entire solar system, just 'radioisotope dating of the solar system' as a whole, since the solar system formed pretty much at the same time (right?). By dating the rocky bits of it that have not been molten 'recently' that we can get our hands on, we can know the age. So meteorites, generally.

Stuart
The origin of meteorites is the earth. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html#wp16721728

 

Stuu

New member

Did you have a specific point about dating the solar system you wanted to make regarding this video? I must have missed the relevant reference, if there was one.

I thought the mention of Widmanstatten patterns was particularly brave, because those crystals only grow to that size in something that has cooled from a molten state extremely slowly, over the course of millions of years, ie a meteorite that had billions of years to cool slowly from a molten state after accretion, before striking earth. What point were they trying to make? Was it that cooling rates varied? Well they shot themselves in the foot with that one.

Stuart
 

Right Divider

Body part
Did you have a specific point about dating the solar system you wanted to make regarding this video? I must have missed the relevant reference, if there was one.
One of my points is that dating meteorites is dating earth rocks. Neither are valid dates. Radiometric dating is a myth that you and others love regardless of the fundamental assumptions that are invalid.

I thought the mention of Widmanstatten patterns was particularly brave, because those crystals only grow to that size in something that has cooled from a molten state extremely slowly, over the course of millions of years, ie a meteorite that had billions of years to cool slowly from a molten state after accretion, before striking earth. What point were they trying to make? Was it that cooling rates varied? Well they shot themselves in the foot with that one.
Your question begging to duly note. You continue to push your ASSUMED millions of years.
 
Last edited:

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
... radioisotope dating of the solar system ...
... i wasn't aware that we had performed radioisotope dating of the entire solar system ...


You might remember that my wording was a little different. It's not a dating of all the different objects in the entire solar system, just 'radioisotope dating of the solar system' as a whole ....

"as a whole"?

no

what has been done is that an extremely small sample has been "dated" (by a method that makes unprovable assumptions) and then extrapolated to represent all of the solar system with no idea of how to construct the error bars, as evidenced by the NASA quote I gave earlier
 

Stuu

New member
One of my points is that dating meteorites is dating earth rocks. Neither are valid dates. Radiometric dating is a myth that you and others love regardless of the fundamental assumptions that are invalid.
Was that the point of the video? Did they discuss radioisotope dating in detail? I don't remember that.

Your guess begging to duly note. You continue to push your ASSUMED millions of years.
No kind of guess, I'm afraid. Widmanstatten crystals like these cannot be made in the laboratory. They do, literally take millions of years to form, only in circumstances of cooling at a rate of between 10,000 and 100oC per 1000,000 years, taking no more than about 10 million years, and they are a characteristic of meteorites. They are not found on earth anywhere except inside meteorites, and according to their chemical composition they were not formed from the material of the earth. You can read the abstract of the paper here, which also relates the formation of these patterns to protoplanetary accretion mechanisms.

Stuart
 

Right Divider

Body part
Was that the point of the video? Did they discuss radioisotope dating in detail? I don't remember that.
You really cannot understand the "point of the video"?

No kind of guess, I'm afraid. Widmanstatten crystals like these cannot be made in the laboratory. They do, literally take millions of years to form, only in circumstances of cooling at a rate of between 10,000 and 100oC per 1000,000 years, taking no more than about 10 million years, and they are a characteristic of meteorites. They are not found on earth anywhere except inside meteorites, and according to their chemical composition they were not formed from the material of the earth. You can read the abstract of the paper here, which also relates the formation of these patterns to protoplanetary accretion mechanisms.
:french:
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
one thing that always bothers me is the assumption that what we see in the lab over an extremely limited period of time can be extrapolated out, reliably, to billions and billions of years

while disregarding any sort of error analysis - applies to radiometric dating, evolutionary change, etc


slightly different topic, but same concept:


Peterson discusses the fallacy of ignoring error starting at 1:30
 

Right Divider

Body part
one thing that always bothers me is the assumption that what we see in the lab over an extremely limited period of time can be extrapolated out, reliably, to billions and billions of years

while disregarding any sort of error analysis - applies to radiometric dating, evolutionary change, etc
Indeed! The "theory of evolution" is all about wildly unsupportable extrapolation. They show one supposed beneficial mutation and SEE that's all that's needed to turn a mythological single-celled creature into everything!

It's nuts, but what else can they think when they reject God.
 

Stuu

New member
You really cannot understand the "point of the video"?
Well, although I did mean to ask what was the point of you posting it in response to a question that it doesn't appear to address, now you mention it: what is the point of the video at all?

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
one thing that always bothers me is the assumption that what we see in the lab over an extremely limited period of time can be extrapolated out, reliably, to billions and billions of years
Can you give a specific relevant example?

Don't forget this cuts both ways. If the error bars are getting bigger, the actual value could be at the far end of what you would rather not believe to be true. Maybe, if you think things are really uncertain, the age of the earth is actually twice as much, say, 10 billion years. Are you happy to accept that outcome of claiming large amounts of uncertainty?

while disregarding any sort of error analysis - applies to radiometric dating, evolutionary change, etc
The calculated error in the radioisotope measurement of the age of the solar system is +/- 1%.

What aspect of evolutionary change, or what specific experiment would you like an error analysis for?

slightly different topic, but same concept: Peterson discusses the fallacy of ignoring error starting at 1:30
It's a bit of a confused rant, isn't it. But he is right about taking a trend with a relatively wide margin of error and extrapolating. It's exactly the same problem with the attempts creationists have made to extrapolate backwards what they believe are changes in the rate of beta decay. They applied an exponential curve to an experimentally dodgy set of old data, and magically came up with an age of the earth of a few thousands of years. You could choose a different mathematical model and come up with hundreds of millions of years, and still be wrong. Exponential curves will get you just about any answer you desire.

Part of the problem with climate change is that we have apparently induced, through the emission of carbon dioxide, something that is starting to look like a run-away event, perhaps something exponential. So, isn't it prudent to do something about that now, or ten years ago, in case the effect is at the upper end of the error bars rather than the lower end? Shouldn't Jordan Peterson be saying that, because the curve itself is alarming even at the lower end, every attempt based in science at fixing things should be tried, even if some fail? I think he should apply his own analysis to his idea of raising everyone out of poverty so they care. Could be THE answer, or could be a waste of valuable time. We have little choice but to act for the sake of ourselves and the future of humanity. We could also talk the Roman church out of its pathological obsession with contraception. Condoms would help things, too.

But as you rightly say, different topic.

Stuart
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Great minds think alike.

Stuart

God-despising fools think alike, too. For instance:

Yeah, some creation eh, if over 99.9% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct.
Originally posted by Lilstu >>
Scientists have calculated that 95% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. If God made all the animals one has to wonder why he allowed so many creatures of his creation to go extinct? It makes no sense.

It would be amusing to observe the God-despising fool, Stuu, and the God-despising fool, Lilstu, conferring together on TOL over how each might try to save face for himself and account for his percentage discrepancy--that between 99.9%+ on the one hand, and 95% on the other hand. Which is it, LilStuu?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Kind as actually used in the Bible IS species.

So, is this what you imagine the Bible is really saying:

And God made the beast of the earth after his [group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding]?
 
Top