Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With your view of science, I would expect that you would never take a modern medicine or allow a surgeon to operate on you.
that's correct, unless it was emergency surgery and I was unconscious. There are HUGE risks to surgical procedures so unless it is absolutely necessary why do it?
So when you observe radioactive decay and plot out the decay rate your sample of time is VERY small, how do you know that curve is linear, exponential or some other curve, it may approach an asmatote. Measuring something for 20 years and then saying you can extrapolate back 5000 years is suspect.
I suppose if the radioactive material could be modeled at an atomic level its plausible but we have barely modeled the hydrogen atom let alone heavier elements.
As far as macro evolution no transition species have EVER been found, if evolution was real you would find them every where.
Its like when nobel gas suppliers tell me the gas is 99.999% pure vs 99.99% I know of no mass spec or NMR that is that accurate. At a certain point they are guessing and assigning a price premium to that guess.
I am not sure if you are joking with me or you just pulled out a textbook from a time capsule.
Radioactive decay involving a single particle (alpha, beta, gamma, positron) always follows first order kinetics. ln A = -kt +lnA0. Everything with a half-life from billions of years to billionths of a second =, like clockwork. That it why the half-life remains constant regardless of concentration. The only unknown variable that contributes significantly to the error in radiocarbon dating is in the atmospheric composition at the time when the CO2 was used for photosynthesis. Tree ring records have been used to correct for this deviation for samples younger than 15000-30000 years.
I am not sure what you are referring to about modelling atoms at the atomic level. Models have been developed that can predict the atomic spectral lines of every atom in the periodic table with 6 sig figs of precision, although this has nothing to with radioactive decay. Nuclear models have been developed that predict the rates and mechanism of radioactive decay for every element. While rate predictive models are exceptionally complicated and involve quantum vacuum fluctuations, mechanism predicting models can be very simple; I even teach about some of them in first year chemistry. Even an F student in my class can explain why C14 decays by a beta mechanism and not an alpha, positron emission, or electron capture.
I won't even address the evolution comment, as others have already pointed out that it is flat out wrong. I will say that I teach at a private university with a strong religious affiliation and not even the most conservative theologian in the college would have a problem with any aspect of evolution.
Your run of the mill research grade mass spectrometer can detect ppm level impurities (that is the difference between 99.9999 and 99.9998) without too much trouble. More 9's of purity can be verified using top end FT-ICR instruments or, more cost effectively, using a cold trap to condense and analyze impurities based on their boiling points. Gas phase NMR is very rare, and it would not be very useful for measuring most gases other than small hydrocarbons or hydrogen gas due to a lack of isotopic abundance of nuclei with a suitably high gyromagnetic ratio (magnetogyric if you are a physicist). I have never heard of NMR being used for gas purity measurements, possibly because there are an abundance of relatively inexpensive alternatives that don't require cryogenic temperatures or high dollar superconducting electromagnets. High purity gases are not just "guesses". They are prepared using very specific methods and assayed for purity. I rarely do anything that requires 6 9's of purity in gases, but then again I don't use many gases in my research. While I can't afford the ultra pure metal compounds that I use every day for my research, I have expertise in electrochemistry so I purify my own. With gases its just easier to let the supplier do it for you.
I won't even address the evolution comment, as others have already pointed out that it is flat out wrong. I will say that I teach at a private university with a strong religious affiliation and not even the most conservative theologian in the college would have a problem with any aspect of evolution.
...
A very good point. Every geology/paleontology professor I ever had was also a regular, faithful church-goer...and they all believed in evolution.
I am not sure if you are joking with me or you just pulled out a textbook from a time capsule.
Radioactive decay involving a single particle (alpha, beta, gamma, positron) always follows first order kinetics. ln A = -kt +lnA0. Everything with a half-life from billions of years to billionths of a second =, like clockwork. That it why the half-life remains constant regardless of concentration. The only unknown variable that contributes significantly to the error in radiocarbon dating is in the atmospheric composition at the time when the CO2 was used for photosynthesis. Tree ring records have been used to correct for this deviation for samples younger than 15000-30000 years.
I am not sure what you are referring to about modelling atoms at the atomic level. Models have been developed that can predict the atomic spectral lines of every atom in the periodic table with 6 sig figs of precision, although this has nothing to with radioactive decay. Nuclear models have been developed that predict the rates and mechanism of radioactive decay for every element. While rate predictive models are exceptionally complicated and involve quantum vacuum fluctuations, mechanism predicting models can be very simple; I even teach about some of them in first year chemistry. Even an F student in my class can explain why C14 decays by a beta mechanism and not an alpha, positron emission, or electron capture.
I won't even address the evolution comment, as others have already pointed out that it is flat out wrong. I will say that I teach at a private university with a strong religious affiliation and not even the most conservative theologian in the college would have a problem with any aspect of evolution.
Your run of the mill research grade mass spectrometer can detect ppm level impurities (that is the difference between 99.9999 and 99.9998) without too much trouble. More 9's of purity can be verified using top end FT-ICR instruments or, more cost effectively, using a cold trap to condense and analyze impurities based on their boiling points. Gas phase NMR is very rare, and it would not be very useful for measuring most gases other than small hydrocarbons or hydrogen gas due to a lack of isotopic abundance of nuclei with a suitably high gyromagnetic ratio (magnetogyric if you are a physicist). I have never heard of NMR being used for gas purity measurements, possibly because there are an abundance of relatively inexpensive alternatives that don't require cryogenic temperatures or high dollar superconducting electromagnets. High purity gases are not just "guesses". They are prepared using very specific methods and assayed for purity. I rarely do anything that requires 6 9's of purity in gases, but then again I don't use many gases in my research. While I can't afford the ultra pure metal compounds that I use every day for my research, I have expertise in electrochemistry so I purify my own. With gases its just easier to let the supplier do it for you.
Alot of this is not covered in chem 1. I knew about the radioactive decay equation but I had my doubts as to it acuracy since observation of decay has only been going on a short while.
Is there a text book on various methods testing purity. I have text books ranging from 1911 (the magnetic circuit) to present day. I think I have a book on instrumental analysis but we did not actually get into NMR or mass spec, we only did that in o-chem.
After o-chem and p-chem my education went into controls, electromagntics, fluids and now I am getting into really advanced math advanced PDE and back tracking to linear algebra and picked up a general relativity book at MIT a month ago. I would like to take a quantum class as well.
I wanted to do chemistry to synthesize energetic materials but after a few tours of plants and seeing how finicky the reactions are and if you screw it up you die I abandoned that endevor but still had a chemical engineering degree that I use in oil and gas but I have diverged into electrical engineering/math/physics and have not done chemistry in forever although it has started peaking my interest again with PEEK and how they were able to make a monomer that forms a compound that is almost as strong as steel in certian properties that in my mind is the infantcy of becoming the master chief and being able to single handidly dictate policy of a nation with like 5 guys, it would almost be like being a templar where you tell everyone else how its going to be and if they dont like it you can bring a smack down so epic it makes the military stand down but I digress. PEEK is just the start, master chiefs armor is not metal that is for sure. then you can litterally answer to no one but God just as the templar did. IF the king said something they could say naw we pass like achilies and aganemnon.
I have been going back and looking at derivations of fundamental equations and questioning if they make sense, drawing pictures and rationailizing it out in my mind. I am hoping that MIT extends their micro masters program. Going thorugh their book store was astounding, the classes they have would be awesome.
Quantum, general relativity, lasers, RSA encryption, finite elements (fluint), advanced materials, advanced electromagnetics, and definitly advanced thermodyanmics, computer numerical controls.
Have to have CNC to make super weapons. Oh and the creation of anti matter from electrical storms.
That that is above is not my point. The basic plumbing of males and females is the first lesson as far as public sex education in the schools for the very young should go. All the other theoretical modulation of human sexuality should not be taught to children before they have the basics down....To expose them to early to other forms of sex that is out of the breeding norm is sexual interference and borders on some sort of sexual indoctrination.
I have to wonder how any of this is related to "indoctrination" in schools.
Education should consist of things like math-science....history - geography and so on...all the other stuff is the business of the parents...it does not take a village to raise a child but good sensible parents with principles and ethics...Kids thought the state would like to think so are not the property of the state. If they are to be property then they are the property of the parents until they come of age.
I know that some of you will say that kids are not your property. If the child is the biological produce of the body of the man and woman...then certainly what comes out of your body is your property.
Pro abortionists say that the womans body is hers. So it makes sense that what comes out of the body you own you own also...If this is not so than the child upon leaving the womb becomes property of the state. That is like saying we are cattle in a field and the rancher owns you and what you produce.
Education should consist of things like math-science....history - geography and so on...all the other stuff is the business of the parents...it does not take a village to raise a child but good sensible parents with principles and ethics...Kids thought the state would like to think so are not the property of the state. If they are to be property then they are the property of the parents until they come of age.
I know that some of you will say that kids are not your property. If the child is the biological produce of the body of the man and woman...then certainly what comes out of your body is your property.
Pro abortionists say that the womans body is hers. So it makes sense that what comes out of the body you own you own also...If this is not so than the child upon leaving the womb becomes property of the state. That is like saying we are cattle in a field and the rancher owns you and what you produce.
The problem is that there are so many parents who are not good, sensible, or have ethics.
Education should consist of things like math-science....history - geography and so on...all the other stuff is the business of the parents...it does not take a village to raise a child but good sensible parents with principles and ethics.
I would suggest that the education of a child requires people who are themselves well-educated and both skilled at and interested in the long-term process of teaching. That is of course a far better description of public school teachers as a group than it is of parents as a group.
I would like to add a couple of points. First, if you don't currently have children in school, some of what is being said will seem outrageous. I can tell you from experience, the curriculum being taught has significantly changed from when I was in school. I will provide an example. My 6th grade son is learning about different cultures and forms of government. They recently learned about the Maya, and Inca. Reading his text books, you would have thought that the Maya and Inca were a bunch of hippies sitting around getting stoned, making hempen sandals and listing to alternative music. The ritual sacrifice, forced slavery of conquered tribes, genocide, were all removed. The Spaniards however, were described as maniacal religious zealots, blood thirsty conquerors who raped, pillaged, and destroyed everything they touched. This was so one-sided, that I had to have my son independently research this subject. I was taught in school that the Maya, Inca, and Spaniards were all a bunch of horrible people. We were taught about the atrocities on both sides. The same with the Civil War, again the Southern misdeeds were covered in detail, however the Union burning of southern cities in Virginia, etc, were not covered at all.
My problem is this, when you make one side to be the boogie man, you influence viewpoints. Both sides of the story need to be told, in all the gory details. Much of the true horror of the past is being left out. Our children can't learn from the mistakes of the past, if they are never taught them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
