Professor Wankstain's science thread

[Otto von Jizzmark]

Just now, Nute said:

Just so I'm getting this straight, are you saying that the half life of a particular isotope is variable? 

Play the fucking game @Nute! You’re supposed to tow him into deeper water before torpedoing him… 

[Otto von Jizzmark]

8 minutes ago, Buckster said:

It’s irrelevant if they are coming up with ages like that.

I’ll be honest Buckster, I hadn't expected you to reveal the extent of your ignorance quite this quickly.

No scientist would use radiometric dating on specimens less than 100 years old, partly because no method is accurate on samples of such recent geologic record (it would be like trying to measure the thickness of paper with a yard stick) and partly because of the two events in 1945 that completely screwed up the levels of radioactive carbon in the environment.
 

[Buckster]

4 minutes ago, Otto von Jizzmark said:

I’ll be honest Buckster, I hadn't expected you to reveal the extent of your ignorance quite this quickly.

No scientist would use radiometric dating on specimens less than 100 years old, partly because no method is accurate on samples of such recent geologic record (it would be like trying to measure the thickness of paper with a yard stick) and partly because of the two events in 1945 that completely screwed up the levels of radioactive carbon in the environment.
 

Are you talking about Carbon 14?

[Otto von Jizzmark]

8 minutes ago, Buckster said:

Are you talking about Carbon 14?

Not exclusively, no.

[zzzak]

30 minutes ago, Buckster said:

Plus the oil wells refill themselves on an ongoing basis.

Oil Fields Are Refilling... Naturally - Sometimes Rapidly

Bucky, I'm amazed, you finally said something intelligent.

[zzzak]

Better get as much riding in as you can, if this goes though you can be sure that GB will follow, in a recent interview Boris Johnsons father said that cars will be banned, there will be no more red meat or dairy by 2050 and its all Buckys fault for falling for the climate hoax, but of course they are doing it to save the planet you know so how dare you say otherwise, maybe sell your bikes now while you can still get a good price for them, also you will get one holiday every three years with a maximum distance of 1500k return, better get to Spain while you can.

Germany Considers Banning Weekend Driving To Meet Climate Goals

Remember, blame Bucky.

[Buckster]

1 minute ago, zzzak said:

Better get as much riding in as you can, if this goes though you can be sure that GB will follow, in a recent interview Boris Johnsons father said that cars will be banned, there will be no more red meat or dairy by 2050 and its all Buckys fault for falling for the climate hoax, but of course they are doing it to save the planet you know so how dare you say otherwise, maybe sell your bikes now while you can still get a good price for them, also you will get one holiday every three years with a maximum distance of 1500k return, better get to Spain while you can.

Germany Considers Banning Weekend Driving To Meet Climate Goals

Remember, blame Bucky.

Don’t blame me, I only believe in climate change when it is convenient, I.e. when I want to wind you up. The climate is changing but it’s entirely natural, it is a testament to man’s hubris that he thinks he is the cause.

[Buckster]

20 minutes ago, Otto von Jizzmark said:

Not exclusively, no.

[Otto von Jizzmark]

Just now, Buckster said:

Care to share the joke?

[Buckster]

2 minutes ago, Otto von Jizzmark said:

Care to share the joke?

You just backed yourself into a corner and you can’t even see it, you should probably stick to microbiology.

[Otto von Jizzmark]

1 minute ago, Buckster said:

You just backed yourself into a corner and you can’t even see it, you should probably stick to microbiology.

How so?

[Buckster]

2 minutes ago, Otto von Jizzmark said:

How so?

Well we certainly found your limit very quickly. Maybe you should try some big words, they are always good for a laugh.

[zzzak]

Just now, Buckster said:

Well we certainly found your limit very quickly. Maybe you should try some big words, they are always good for a laugh.

Anthropogenic preceding climate change is a favorite of mine.

[Otto von Jizzmark]

1 minute ago, Buckster said:

Well we certainly found your limit very quickly. Maybe you should try some big words, they are always good for a laugh.

Come on Buckster - you're supposed to be a grown-up. Stop fiddling with your zipper and get your trousers off. Let's have your point.

[zzzak]

12 minutes ago, Buckster said:

You just backed yourself into a corner and you can’t even see it, you should probably stick to microbiology.

Its a dangerous business that micro stuff.

 

[Buckster]

1 minute ago, Otto von Jizzmark said:

Come on Buckster - you're supposed to be a grown-up. Stop fiddling with your zipper and get your trousers off. Let's have your point.

Radioactive carbon, also known as carbon-14 exclusively isn’t even used to age minerals, it is only suitable for organic matter, therefore the bomb effect is not part of this equation, the most likely method used to date minerals is the potassium/argon method, although uranium/lead is also used. The first element is the unstable one with the latter in each case being the “stable” daughter element actually used for the dating process.

[Otto von Jizzmark]

17 minutes ago, Buckster said:

Radioactive carbon, also known as carbon-14 exclusively isn’t even used to age minerals, it is only suitable for organic matter, therefore the bomb effect is not part of this equation, the most likely method used to date minerals is the potassium/argon method, although uranium/lead is also used. The first element is the unstable one with the latter in each case being the “stable” daughter element actually used for the dating process.

I'm very well aware of how C14 dating works Buckster. The point I was making is that of the main methods used to date samples of very recent geologic record (of which C14 is one but not the only one), fallout from nuclear tests and bomb detonations has caused significant problems.   

I'm not sure why you mention uranium-lead dating, which has an error margin of 2 million years in 2.5 billion years, so not much use for 100-year old material. Similarly, the youngest rocks I'm aware of that have been potassium-argon dated were 20,000 years old. Again, not much use for anything from the 20th Century.  

So I'll ask you again: what method was being used to date 100 year old rocks that gave the results that you believe disproves radiometric dating?

[Buckster]

1 minute ago, Otto von Jizzmark said:

I'm very well aware of how C14 dating works Buckster. The point I was making is that of the main methods used to date samples of very recent geologic record (of which C14 is one but not the only one), fallout from nuclear tests and bomb detonations has caused significant problems.   

I'm not sure why you mention uranium-lead dating, which has an error margin of 2 million years in 2.5 billion years, so not much use for your 100-year old rock. Similarly, the youngest rocks I'm aware of that have been potassium-argon dated were 20,000 years old. Again, not much use for anything from the 20th Century.  

So I'll ask you again: what method was being used to date 100 year old rocks that gave the results that you believe disproves radiometric dating?

Well that’s the whole point, rocks known to have been formed in 1986 have been dated as being 350,000 years old, if you can’t figure out why that would be a problem then I’m guessing you are suffering from the zzzak effect.

[Otto von Jizzmark]

8 minutes ago, Buckster said:

Well that’s the whole point, rocks known to have been formed in 1986 have been dated as being 350,000 years old, if you can’t figure out why that would be a problem then I’m guessing you are suffering from the zzzak effect.

No scientist would try to date rocks from 1986 using the methods you have described, precisely because they are known to produce wildly inaccurate results in samples of such recent geologic record. Also, can you understand why the release of certain radioactive isotopes in the 1940s might make a sample formed in 1986 date as being considerably older than it was?

[Buckster]

1 minute ago, Otto von Jizzmark said:

No scientist would try to date rocks from 1986 using the methods you have described, precisely because they are known to produce wildly inaccurate results in samples of such recent geologic record. Also, can you understand why the release of certain radioactive isotopes in the 1940s might make a sample formed in1986 date as being considerably older than it was?

The bomb effect doesn’t have any effect on Argon. Again you are missing the point of course, someone is handed a rock to date, they are not going to be told it was formed in 1986, so what happens? The try to date it making the usual assumptions and come up with 350,000 years. If you can’t see the problem with that then I can’t help you. If you are really stupid enough to state “precisely because they are known to produce wildly inaccurate results in samples of such recent geologic record” and still think that the dating of minerals is credible science then there is no hope for you. Time to toddle off to some web site or forum where like minded folk will soothe your bruised ego.

[Otto von Jizzmark]

15 minutes ago, Buckster said:

The bomb effect doesn’t have any effect on Argon. Again you are missing the point of course, someone is handed a rock to date, they are not going to be told it was formed in 1986, so what happens? The try to date it making the usual assumptions and come up with 350,000 years. If you can’t see the problem with that then I can’t help you. If you are really stupid enough to state “precisely because they are known to produce wildly inaccurate results in samples of such recent geologic record” and still think that the dating of minerals is credible science then there is no hope for you. Time to toddle off to some web site or forum where like minded folk will soothe your bruised ego.

At no point did I say that the bomb effect has any effect on argon. There are many types of radiometric dating, and more than just C14 has been affected by nuclear fallout. If you want to hold an intelligent discussion then you have got to learn to respond to what has been said, not to what you think has been said. 

If you hand a scientist a rock from 1986 and ask them to date it you will get a ridiculous result. If you hand a scientist a rock, tell them it's from 1986 and ask them to date it, they'll tell you it's pointless because you'll get a ridiculous result. That does not invalidate radiometric dating for the purpose of dating rocks that are millions of years old. Is a satellite good at measuring the distance between London and New York? Yes. Is it good at measuring the thickness of human hair? No. Does that mean that satellites are no good at measuring big distances? Clearly not. I'll admit that might not be the neatest metaphor, but you'll appreciate that I'm not accustomed to having to explain this stuff in such noddy terms - not even to my kids. 

 

[Otto von Jizzmark]

PS: Regarding your earlier statement that I had backed myself into a corner and couldn't see it, I think it's probably late enough now that if you wanted to delete that laughing gif no-one will notice. 

[Buckster]

6 minutes ago, Otto von Jizzmark said:

At no point did I say that the bomb effect has any effect on argon. There are many types of radiometric dating, and more than just C14 has been affected by nuclear fallout. If you want to hold an intelligent discussion then you have got to learn to respond to what has been said, not to what you think has been said. 

If you hand a scientist a rock from 1986 and ask them to date it you will get a ridiculous result. If you hand a scientist a rock, tell them it's from 1986 and ask them to date it, they'll tell you it's pointless because you'll get a ridiculous result. That does not invalidate radiometric dating for the purpose of dating rocks that are millions of years old. Is a satellite good at measuring the distance between London and New York? Yes. Is it good at measuring the thickness of human hair? No. Does that mean that satellites are no good at measuring big distances? Clearly not. I'll admit that might not be the neatest metaphor, but you'll appreciate that I'm not accustomed to having to explain this stuff in such noddy terms - not even to my kids. 

 

Well it’s clear that it is you that is showing wilful ignorance here. It is clear that your need to be “right” outweighs your ability to be objective. You stick to your pseudo science and obtuse statements, I’m sure some people will be fooled into thinking you are clever and that will have to suffice for you.

[Buckster]

9 minutes ago, Otto von Jizzmark said:

PS: Regarding your earlier statement that I had backed myself into a corner and couldn't see it, I think it's probably late enough now that if you wanted to delete that laughing gif no-one will notice. 

You are still in that corner.

[Otto von Jizzmark]

34 minutes ago, Buckster said:

Well it’s clear that it is you that is showing wilful ignorance here. It is clear that your need to be “right” outweighs your ability to be objective. You stick to your pseudo science and obtuse statements, I’m sure some people will be fooled into thinking you are clever and that will have to suffice for you.

Being 'objective' doesn't enter into it - it's a straightforward distinction between understanding the physics of radioactive decay and not understanding the physics of radioactive decay. 

Furthermore, I would argue that there is no comparison to be made between us when it comes to our objectivity. I couldn't care less whether radiometric dating 'works' or not, any more than I could care less whether evolution 'works' or not: I don't believe in them because I need to, but because the evidence for both is overwhelming. You, on the other hand, have a very strong vested interest in discrediting them because they fatally undermine Young Earth Creationism. Now whatever my personal views on wider religious belief may be, they pale into insignificance compared to the shear, thoroughgoing asininity of the corner of it that you have chosen to inhabit. For the low price of the complete surrender of your critical faculties you have elected to take refuge in a world of idiotic bliss, clinging to infantile views that other creationists regard as embarrassing fringe lunacy that is so easily debunked that it undermines the whole credibility of the Christian message.

I have said before that it is perfectly possible to have Christian faith without needing to resort to this sort of rank idiocy. Perhaps it is time you put away childish things.