Focus on Politics

Talk Origins reports

Even in a small sample of a long-lived isotope, there will be a constant stream of decays. If the sample’s size can be measured accurately, and [if] the number of decays can be counted accurately, then the half-life can be computed accurately. That’s the basis for the “direct counting experiments” from which half-lives are calculated.

How long can it take?

Davis et al. (1977) measured the decay rate of 87Rb (48.9 ± 0.4 billion years) by counting the accumulation of 87Sr over a period of nineteen years.

One of the key assumptions of dating methods is that the half life is constant. I’m not sure how safe an assumption that is considering how environment affects pretty much everything.

Talk Origins has an article on the very topic I’ve been discussing.

Radiometric dating falsely assumes that the rocks being dated are closed systems. It inappropriately assumes that no parent or daughter isotopes were added or removed via other processes through the history of the sample.

That obvious statement was made in 1974.

The first rebuttal is as follows

Absolutely closed systems do not exist even under ideal laboratory conditions. Nevertheless, many rocks approximate closed systems so closely that multiple radiometric dating methods produce consistent results, within 1 percent of each other.

First off is admitting to the problem. Closed systems don’t exist. So there is always contamination. The obvious question is “how much?” because 1 billionth of a gram of Ar per gram of K will make a 5,000 year old rock be dated at a million years old.

What radio metric dating methods are available?

Wikipedia gives us some answers

* uranium-lead
* Potassium-argon
* Rubidium-strontium

So I’m not sure what “multiple” methods they’re talking about. Those methods are for different materials. I could call them liars right off the bat but I’ll just wait for a real world rock sample and all the numbers and methods used to date it. I think it’s hilarious that they just want everyone to take their word for it.

On to the next “rebuttal”

2. Some rocks may be open to outside contamination, but not all of them are. Most ages are determined from multiple mineral and rock samples, which give a consistent date within 1 and 3 percent. It is extremely unlikely that contamination would affect all samples by the same amount.

Didn’t they just get done saying that there is no such thing as a closed system? If it’s not closed then it’s open to contamination. Period. They couldn’t even make it to the second “rebuttal” without a contradiction.

Also, dating methods are not accurate to 1-3%. There is not that much certainty in the numbers to get that sort of accuracy.

It is extremely unlikely that contamination would affect all samples by the same amount

That sounds dandy until you realize that “same amount” is not a precise term here. And we’re talking about billionths of a gram.

So basically they want you to believe

a) that not all rocks are open to contamination (lie)
b) that they know which rocks were and were not contaminated (lie)
c) even if it was contaminated it wouldn’t be by the same amount (what’s the varience?)

The final “rebuttal” is

Isochron methods can detect contamination and, to some extent, correct for it.

Say element A has three isotopes and they are calculated to appear in nature in the following amounts: 1 - 90%, 2 - 9%, 3 - 1%

Now we find a sample that has 89% of 1 7% of 2 and 3% of 3. Well we just fix those numbers right up so they’re 90,9,1 again and assume any skew was contamination.

Talk Origins on the topic

All radiometric dating methods require, in order to produce accurate ages, certain initial conditions and lack of contamination over time. The wonderful property of isochron methods is: if one of these requirements is violated, it is nearly certain that the data will indicate the problem by failure to plot on a line. (This topic will be discussed in much more detail below.) Where the simple methods will produce an incorrect age, isochron methods will generally indicate the unsuitability of the object for dating.

So really all that isochron dating does is tell you if a sample was contaminated or not to some degree of certainty. And if it knows it is, then the sample is tossed out.

But we already know that closed systems don’t exist so it’s impossible to have a contamination free sample. And we now know that even a billionth of a gram turns young earth into old earth.

How much faith do you have in science?

I ran the numbers using an imaginary rock containing 1 gram of potassium. I wanted to see how much Ar is needed to generate a certain age of the rock.

The difference between 100,000 years and 5000 years is 0.000000000563 grams of Ar.

The difference between 1,000,000 years and 5000 years is 0.000000006219 grams of Ar.

This is why K-Ar dating requires a prestine sample. Meaning there are exactly 0 grams of Ar present when the rock first cools. Only in a vaccuum does that happen. So the issue is then to figure out the average amount of Ar in a rock immediately after it is created. But then again, we have only an average. And 6 billionths of a gram per gram of K will make the rock a million years old instread of 5,000.

This is why it’s virtually impossible to have an intelligent discussion about evolution. Evolutionists have a hard time being honest (or sometimes even knowing) what all the assumptions are and their significance. They just read “such and such a rock is 5 million years old” and don’t bother to question it. They just assume that the assumptions made are correct or the potential variations are insignificant. The math clearly shows they are hugely significant.

In the case of K-Ar dating, that “prestine” or “average” assumption can skew the result from young earth to old earth with just millionths of a gram.

It doesn’t matter if science could count atoms precisely now. The problem is proving where those atoms came from and when. And that’s an assumption. Assumptions are not proof nor can any proof be made that relies on assumptions.

There are two other issues that have come up while researching K-Ar dating. The first is Ar-Ar dating. The second is retro viruses.

Ar-Ar dating also relies on the “prestine” assumption. I will calculate again the gram difference between 1 million and 5,000 years old. The significance of retro viruses also relies on assumptions. Apparently all creatures have them. So therefore all creatures evolved from the same common ancestor. Ignoring the fact that scientists have no idea what all our DNA does or how, that’s like saying that all animals are related because we all have eyes.

Based on Potassium Argon Dating I have derived three equations.

Ar*1,000,000 / 11 + Kn = Ks

Where Kn is the amount of Potassium present now and Ks is the amount of Potassium present to start with. Ar is the amount of radioactive Ar 40. All are in atoms.

Now that we know how much Potassium we started with we can determine how much has decayed. Now we need to figure out how long it takes for that much Potassium to decay.

Ks*(1/(2^n)) = Kn

Kn / Ks = 1/(2^n)

Ks / Kn = 2^n

ln(Ks/Kn)/ln(2) = H

Where H is the number of half lives. And finally:

H * 1.250 * 10^9 = Years

Which gives us the age in years of the rock with a certain amount of Potassium and a certain amount of Ar.

And of course all of those equations can be combined into one equation so you can find the age of the rock simply by plugging in K and Ar(40).

In part 3 we’ll start playing with numbers and see how easy or difficult it is to skew the age of a rock.

This will be an N part series on dating methods. Nobody questions that things change. The issue is how long it really takes.

Potassium-Argon Dating is what is used to date rocks.

Potassium is always locked up in minerals whereas argon is not part of any minerals. Argon makes up 1 percent of the atmosphere. So assuming that no air gets into a mineral grain when it first forms, it has zero argon content. That is, a fresh mineral grain has its K-Ar “clock” set at zero.

A prestine rock when it is first formed has a potassium:argon ratio of 1:0.

The method relies on satisfying some important assumptions:

1. The potassium and argon must stay put in the mineral over geologic time.

2. We can measure everything accurately.

3. We know the precise natural mix of potassium and argon isotopes.

4. We can correct for any argon from the air that gets into the mineral.

1,3 and 4 are all related. 1 requires that the potassium and argon levels must not be affected by outside forces. What are the odds of that over the course of “millions of years?” 3 must be assumed to be constant. You have to look at a wide sample of new rock and see what the ratio of K:Ar is. Now we have an average that is assumed to be true for all time. 4 relates to air now. Air contains a certain percentage of each Ar isotope. By seeing how much of a certain isotope is in the sample they can subtract the proportial amounts of the other isotopes from the sample.

I’m curious about this because this is how science has determined that the earth is 4.3 billion years old. It’s also the foundation for how we determine how long various evolutionary processes took.

Obviously the assumtion that the natural ratio of K to Ar is based on an average with a certain known +/-

The assumption that outside forces didn’t interfer with the K to Ar ratio from the time the rock was created until now is obviously unprovable.

We also have to assume that the half life of K is accurate and constant for all time and that it cannot be affected by outside forces.

The ability to measure everything accurately is important but not for this exercise. We’ll assume everything is measured to the last atom. The question is how does the measured time change when we adjust the assumptions to be not right in various directions. How much difference does 1 or 2 atoms make.

If we’re going to buy into this dating method it’s necessary to know how easy it is to get the wrong answer and what the magnitude of potential errors are. There’s no shortage of assumptions that go into this method. It’s amazing how people just read these dates of “millions of years” and don’t bother to question it.

In the video you see him agree and say “right” when the reporter reminds him that he supports the gun ban in DC.

See, this isn’t a flip flop

The Chicago Tribune clip from Nov. 20, 2007, is an inaccurate representation of Obama’s views, according to Burton, because the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

He wasn’t asked in February if the gun ban went against the constitution. He just said he supports the ban. Apparently Obama has no concern about what the constitution says. He apparently supported the ban with no consideration for it. If Obama supports the ban but thinks it goes against the consistution then Obama would be a supporter of unconstitutional laws that he knows are unconstitutional.

So either he really doesn’t have a position on the second amendment and thereofre doesn’t care what the constitution says when supporting laws or not, he knows the ban is unconstitutional but supports the ban, or he thinks it’s consitutional and is in agreement with the minority position of the Supreme Court.

In which case, you can kiss your gun rights away if he becomes president and gets to choose a couple new justices who have no regard for the constitution just like the four that are there now who voted against the right to bear arms.

You can’t be the most liberal senator in the US and run your mouth for more than five minutes before becoming exposed as out of touch with the rest of the country.

And here he is dodging the question again

CNN Reports

Sen. Barack Obama is chastising Sen. John McCain for offering energy policies that amounted to “meaningless gimmicks designed to get politicians through the next election.”

Let’s review the “gimmicks”

As part of his plan, the Arizona Republican said he would “authorize and support new exploration and production of America’s own oil and gas reserves, because we can’t outsource the solution to America’s energy problem.”

McCain proposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling last week as part of his plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil and help combat rising gas prices. President Bush also has called for an end to the offshore drilling ban.

McCain also recommended looking at nuclear power, calling it a “long-neglected source of energy.”

He also has said the government should offer a $300 million prize for the development of a better battery to improve the performance of hybrid and electric vehicles.

In addition to new production and nuclear plants, McCain said that as president, he would perfect clean coal, improve the electricity grid and support new technologies that move the country away from fossil fuels.

McCain also has called for a federal “gas tax holiday” for motorists as the average price for gas has edged above $4 a gallon.

And now let’s look at Obama’s Genius in action

While blasting McCain’s plan, Obama touted his own energy proposals, which would raise the fuel standards and invest $150 billion into the development of alternative energy sources such as wind power, solar power and bio-fuels.

So let’s break this down:

McCain wants a gas tax holiday to drop prices instantly.

McCain proposes short term fixes such as drilling for more oil in our own country and off our own shores. This will lower prices within a year or few.

McCain wants to go with nuclear power which will greatly reduce our dependence on oil for generating electricity. France already uses nuclear power for most of it’s electricity. This will drop demand which will lower prices for oil in 5-10 years and cut costs for electricity.

McCain wants to award someone $300 million for coming up with a super battery. Battery technology is currently the only reason everyone is not driving an electric car yet.

Obama just wants to throw a pile of cash at alternate fuel sources which won’t be available for 5-10 years.

Talk about gimmicks. McCain has plans which progressively solve our problems starting now and into the future. Obama wants to just ignore the problem today and hope that $150 billion is enough to fix the problems later. Maybe America just won’t notice that we’re falling farther and farther behind in energy advancement during an Obama presidency because he’s too ignorant to consider short term solutions while long term solutions are developed.

“While I’m glad Sen. McCain is talking about energy on the campaign trail … what Sen. McCain has proposed so far is not a serious plan to solve the problem,” the presumptive Democratic nominee said Wednesday night.

Let’s see: McCain offers proven short term and proven long term solutions. Obama offers flakey long term ideas that may or may not work. He’ll be out of office before we see the results of “his” ideas. “His” ideas are not new. Wind, solar and bio fuels are a long way off from providing a real alternative.

Obama is deep in the pockets of Ethanol which has been proven to be a stupid and failed idea. The only reason Ethanol costs less than gas is because the government is subsidising it by about $1 per gallon. Even with subsidies you only get a 10% savings over standard gas but have to use much more to go the same distance.

Meanwhile food costs are going up because we’re wasting food on fuel. Brazil can turn sugar into fuel because you don’t need sugar to survive. Corn is a staple food that is depended on by millions to survive.

Sometimes I wonder if Obama listens to himself or if he just moves his mouth and hopes something intelligent comes out.

U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement regarding today’s United States Supreme Court ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller:

Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.

In late 2007 an unnamed Obama aid was quoted as saying

Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional

Of course Obama is now saying that was not a fair interpretation of his views.

ABC News reports that

The Chicago Tribune clip from Nov. 20, 2007, is an inaccurate representation of Obama’s views, according to Burton, because the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

In other words, Obama is too lame to form an opinion that might come back to bite him. And this guy thinks he can run a country? He can’t even figure out an opinion on our basic rights.

And now for something completely different

Yahoo reports that John McCain is proposing a $300 million prize for a battery that is far superior to current technology. He also proposes a $5000 tax credit for consumers who purchase zero-emissions vehicals.

An Obama supporter on Digg had this to say about it

I like the idea, while I don’t prefer McCain overall I do think he has a better plan for becoming energy independent. Obama is known for making good ideas his own, hopefully he’ll adopt this one.

In other words, Obama is a hack. You can listen to any unscripted speech given by Obama and tell he’s not a thinker. He can only recite answers that others give to him.

Obama has spent much of his campaign pointing out alledged problems while failing to come up with solutions. McCain and Hillary initially proposed a gas tax holiday as an easy bandaid for high gas prices. Obama just whined about it. Since everyone seemed to think it was a bad idea McCain has come up with some other options:

Offshore drilling
Nuclear Energy
Encourgaging New Battery Technology
Taxing the oil companies
Tax credits for zero emission vehicals
Gas tax holiday
Switching to sugar from Brazil for ethanol

And possibly some others that I’ve missed.

And here is the list of ideas that Obama has come up with:

…

The left wants to accuse McCain of flipping and flopping like a fish when in fact he is simply spending his time using his brain to come up with a variety of options. Some of them are terrible and others seem to be quite good.

The only thing Obama supports is corn based ethanol because rich people tell him to. He doesn’t care that this Food for Oil scam has caused food prices to go way up. And riots and violence around the world. Sugar is not a staple food. Most recipes don’t use much sugar. We can live without sugar. And in fact, sugar has been replaced by CORN syrup in most manufactured foods. However, corn is a staple food and required by millions of poor people so they don’t starve to death.

If Obama wasn’t such a tool he’d stop supporting corn ethanol which is doing little to nothing for gas prices and raising food prices significantly.