https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=PastafarianConservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-09-30T19:12:08ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Redshift&diff=212802Redshift2007-06-29T19:47:31Z<p>Pastafarian: /* Support For the Big Bang Theory */</p>
<hr />
<div>The redshift of a given object is a measure of the amount that the wavelength of its emitted or reflected electromagnetic radiation has increased. This increase in wavelength is due to the relative motion of a source with respect to an observer; a light emitting source moving away from an observer will have its spectrum shifted toward longer (in optical light, redder) wavelengths. In practice this is analogous to the Doppler shifting of sound waves emitted from a moving source. Light emitted from a source moving towards an observer will experience a blueshift.<br />
<br />
== Support For the Big Bang Theory ==<br />
The redshift in atomic spectra of distance cosmic objects is a source of evidence for the [[Big Bang Theory]].<ref>Edwin Hubble (1929). [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/15/3/168/ "A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae"]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15: 168–173.</ref> The redshift, the expanded wavelength of light due to the Doppler Effect of faraway objects, suggests that these objects are moving away from earth. This is a phenomenon predicted by the Big Bang Theory.<br />
<br />
== Notes and References ==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Redshift&diff=212800Redshift2007-06-29T19:47:07Z<p>Pastafarian: /* Support For the Big Bang Theory */</p>
<hr />
<div>The redshift of a given object is a measure of the amount that the wavelength of its emitted or reflected electromagnetic radiation has increased. This increase in wavelength is due to the relative motion of a source with respect to an observer; a light emitting source moving away from an observer will have its spectrum shifted toward longer (in optical light, redder) wavelengths. In practice this is analogous to the Doppler shifting of sound waves emitted from a moving source. Light emitted from a source moving towards an observer will experience a blueshift.<br />
<br />
== Support For the Big Bang Theory ==<br />
The redshift in atomic spectra of distance cosmic objects is a source of evidence for the [Big Bang Theory].<ref>Edwin Hubble (1929). [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/15/3/168/ "A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae"]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15: 168–173.</ref> The redshift, the expanded wavelength of light due to the Doppler Effect of faraway objects, suggests that these objects are moving away from earth. This is a phenomenon predicted by the Big Bang Theory.<br />
<br />
== Notes and References ==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Redshift&diff=212798Redshift2007-06-29T19:46:39Z<p>Pastafarian: /* Support For the Big Bang Theory */</p>
<hr />
<div>The redshift of a given object is a measure of the amount that the wavelength of its emitted or reflected electromagnetic radiation has increased. This increase in wavelength is due to the relative motion of a source with respect to an observer; a light emitting source moving away from an observer will have its spectrum shifted toward longer (in optical light, redder) wavelengths. In practice this is analogous to the Doppler shifting of sound waves emitted from a moving source. Light emitted from a source moving towards an observer will experience a blueshift.<br />
<br />
== Support For the Big Bang Theory ==<br />
The redshift in atomic spectra of distance cosmic objects is a source of evidence for the big bang theory.<ref>Edwin Hubble (1929). [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/15/3/168/ "A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae"]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15: 168–173.</ref> The redshift, the expanded wavelength of light due to the Doppler Effect of faraway objects, suggests that these objects are moving away from earth. This is a phenomenon predicted by the Big Bang Theory.<br />
<br />
== Notes and References ==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Redshift&diff=212725Redshift2007-06-29T18:42:51Z<p>Pastafarian: /* Support For the Big Bang Theory */</p>
<hr />
<div>The redshift of a given object is a measure of the amount that the wavelength of its emitted or reflected electromagnetic radiation has increased. This increase in wavelength is due to the relative motion of a source with respect to an observer; a light emitting source moving away from an observer will have its spectrum shifted toward longer (in optical light, redder) wavelengths. In practice this is analogous to the Doppler shifting of sound waves emitted from a moving source. Light emitted from a source moving towards an observer will experience a blueshift.<br />
<br />
== Support For the Big Bang Theory ==<br />
The red shift in atomic spectra of distance cosmic objects is a source of evidence for the big bang theory.<ref>Edwin Hubble (1929). [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/15/3/168/ "A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae"]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15: 168–173.</ref> The red shift, the expanded wavelength of light due to the Doppler Effect of faraway objects, suggests that these objects are moving away from earth. This is a phenomenon predicted by the Big Bang Theory.<br />
<br />
== Notes and References ==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Redshift&diff=212720Redshift2007-06-29T18:41:29Z<p>Pastafarian: /* Support For the Big Bang Theory */</p>
<hr />
<div>The redshift of a given object is a measure of the amount that the wavelength of its emitted or reflected electromagnetic radiation has increased. This increase in wavelength is due to the relative motion of a source with respect to an observer; a light emitting source moving away from an observer will have its spectrum shifted toward longer (in optical light, redder) wavelengths. In practice this is analogous to the Doppler shifting of sound waves emitted from a moving source. Light emitted from a source moving towards an observer will experience a blueshift.<br />
<br />
== Support For the Big Bang Theory ==<br />
The red shift in atomic spectra of distance cosmic objects is a source of evidence for the big bang theory.<ref>Edwin Hubble (1929). <a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/15/3/168">"A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae"</a>. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15: 168–173.</ref> The red shift, the expanded wavelength of light due to the Doppler Effect of faraway objects, suggests that these objects are moving away from earth. This is a phenomenon predicted by the Big Bang Theory.<br />
<br />
== Notes and References ==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Redshift&diff=212719Redshift2007-06-29T18:39:25Z<p>Pastafarian: /* Notes and References */</p>
<hr />
<div>The redshift of a given object is a measure of the amount that the wavelength of its emitted or reflected electromagnetic radiation has increased. This increase in wavelength is due to the relative motion of a source with respect to an observer; a light emitting source moving away from an observer will have its spectrum shifted toward longer (in optical light, redder) wavelengths. In practice this is analogous to the Doppler shifting of sound waves emitted from a moving source. Light emitted from a source moving towards an observer will experience a blueshift.<br />
<br />
== Support For the Big Bang Theory ==<br />
The red shift in atomic spectra of distance cosmic objects is a source of evidence for the big bang theory.<ref name="hubble" /> The red shift, the expanded wavelength of light due to the Doppler Effect of faraway objects, suggests that these objects are moving away from earth. This is a phenomenon predicted by the Big Bang Theory.<br />
<br />
== Notes and References ==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Redshift&diff=212716Redshift2007-06-29T18:36:50Z<p>Pastafarian: </p>
<hr />
<div>The redshift of a given object is a measure of the amount that the wavelength of its emitted or reflected electromagnetic radiation has increased. This increase in wavelength is due to the relative motion of a source with respect to an observer; a light emitting source moving away from an observer will have its spectrum shifted toward longer (in optical light, redder) wavelengths. In practice this is analogous to the Doppler shifting of sound waves emitted from a moving source. Light emitted from a source moving towards an observer will experience a blueshift.<br />
<br />
== Support For the Big Bang Theory ==<br />
The red shift in atomic spectra of distance cosmic objects is a source of evidence for the big bang theory.<ref name="hubble" /> The red shift, the expanded wavelength of light due to the Doppler Effect of faraway objects, suggests that these objects are moving away from earth. This is a phenomenon predicted by the Big Bang Theory.<br />
<br />
== Notes and References ==<br />
<br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Redshift&diff=212714Redshift2007-06-29T18:36:06Z<p>Pastafarian: /* Support For the Big Bang Theory */</p>
<hr />
<div>The redshift of a given object is a measure of the amount that the wavelength of its emitted or reflected electromagnetic radiation has increased. This increase in wavelength is due to the relative motion of a source with respect to an observer; a light emitting source moving away from an observer will have its spectrum shifted toward longer (in optical light, redder) wavelengths. In practice this is analogous to the Doppler shifting of sound waves emitted from a moving source. Light emitted from a source moving towards an observer will experience a blueshift.<br />
<br />
== Support For the Big Bang Theory ==<br />
The red shift in atomic spectra of distance cosmic objects is a source of evidence for the big bang theory.<ref name="hubble" /> The red shift, the expanded wavelength of light due to the Doppler Effect of faraway objects, suggests that these objects are moving away from earth. This is a phenomenon predicted by the Big Bang Theory.<br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Redshift&diff=212710Talk:Redshift2007-06-29T18:35:14Z<p>Pastafarian: New page: == My Edits == I edited for grammar and added the "Support for Big Bang" section, a stub. It should be added to immensely, as my knowledge of physics only goes into a basic understanding o...</p>
<hr />
<div>== My Edits ==<br />
I edited for grammar and added the "Support for Big Bang" section, a stub. It should be added to immensely, as my knowledge of physics only goes into a basic understanding of electromagnetism and relativity. --[[User:Pastafarian|Pastafarian]]</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Redshift&diff=212708Redshift2007-06-29T18:33:26Z<p>Pastafarian: </p>
<hr />
<div>The redshift of a given object is a measure of the amount that the wavelength of its emitted or reflected electromagnetic radiation has increased. This increase in wavelength is due to the relative motion of a source with respect to an observer; a light emitting source moving away from an observer will have its spectrum shifted toward longer (in optical light, redder) wavelengths. In practice this is analogous to the Doppler shifting of sound waves emitted from a moving source. Light emitted from a source moving towards an observer will experience a blueshift.<br />
<br />
== Support For the Big Bang Theory ==<br />
The red shift in atomic spectra of distance cosmic objects is a source of evidence for the big bang theory. The red shift, the expanded wavelength of light due to the Doppler Effect of faraway objects, suggests that these objects are moving away from earth. This is a phenomenon predicted by the Big Bang Theory.<br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Big_Bang_theory&diff=212700Big Bang theory2007-06-29T18:20:11Z<p>Pastafarian: /* Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]] <br />
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the 3 possible geometry of the universe depends on value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]<br />
The '''Big Bang Theory''' is the current dominant scientific hypothesis explaining the acceleration of matter throughout the Universe. Big bang theories are actually a ''class'' of scientific models that describe the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 13.7 billion years ago. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation (or CMBR). This radiation was subsequently discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725K body). Pensiaz and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1978 for their work.<br />
<br />
The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. Big Bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.<br />
<br />
Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.<br />
<br />
== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==<br />
The Big Bang Theory has had many dissenters including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> It was Hoyle who coined the term, although he used it disparagingly.<br />
<br />
In 2004, a ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the big bang theory was signed by 33 scientists and has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref> Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Bing Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.<br />
<br />
==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==<br />
Most [[Atheist|atheists]] believe in the Big Bang theory. There is active research and speculation into what caused the Big Bang, but atheists agree it was not a deity. <br />
<br />
However, early resistance to the big bang model came from atheistic Soviet Russia -- as the big bang implies a beginning to the universe, this did not fit into the traditional atheistic belief that the universe had always existed, therefore not requiring a deity to create it. It was originally held as proof for theists that the universe was created by a deity -- as the big bang model implies a beginning to time and space. Theistic resistance to the big bang model came later with a rise in literalism in biblical criticism.<br />
<br />
Many scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory are [[Evolutionist]]s, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang.<br />
<br />
Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound <br />
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref><br />
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>, though few creationist criticisms are found in peer-reviewed scientific journals.<br />
<br />
Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref> Some Christian apologists who believe in an old earth, such as [[William Craig]] use the Big Bang as an apologetic, arguing that it proves that the universe had a beginning. <ref>Strobel, Lee. ''The Case for a Creator''. Zondervan, 2004. </ref><br />
<br />
== Common Misconceptions ==<br />
<br />
It is a commonly held misconception that the 'Big Bang' theory discusses how, why, or what started the universe. The theory states nothing more than that all matter is expanding outwards and that the starting point of this expansion can be traced to a specific moment in time bursting forth from a singularity. Possible origins of the universe are currently under debate under the controversial 'M-Theory'.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Astronomy]]</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&diff=212697Radiometric dating2007-06-29T18:16:45Z<p>Pastafarian: /* Rate of decay */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Radiometric dating''' is a method of determining the age of an artifact by measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred.<ref>[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html Radiometric Time Scale] USGS</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks, though a particular form of radiometric dating - called [[Radiocarbon dating]] - can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material. It relies on the well-established function for exponential decay <math>F</math><sub><math>t</math></sub><math>=e</math><sup><math>-kt</math></sup>.<br />
<br />
== Principles ==<br />
<br />
The basic principle in any dating method is to find a process that is occurring at measurable rate and which is causing a change, measure the rate of that process, work out what state the artifact was in at the beginning of the process, observe what state it is in now, and to calculate how long the process at the measured rate would need to occur to effect that change.<br />
<br />
For example, to work out how long a candle has been burning, the following steps would be needed:<br />
# Measure how long it takes the candle to burn down a given amount.<br />
# Find out how long the candle was when it started burning.<br />
# Measure how long the candle is now.<br />
# Calculate the difference between the two lengths.<br />
# Calculate how long it would need to burn in order to burn that length.<br />
<br />
For most radiometric dating methods, one radioactive element changes by a process of nuclear decay into another element (often through a number of intermediate steps. For example, uranium will eventually decay into lead. So to measure how old a specimen containing some uranium and some lead is, the following steps are required:<br />
# Measure the decay rate of uranium.<br />
# Find out how much uranium was in the specimen to start with (this might be done by assuming that all the lead was originally uranium).<br />
# Find out how much uranium is in the specimen now.<br />
# Calculate how much uranium has turned into lead.<br />
# Calculate how long it would take that much uranium to turn into lead, given the measured rate.<br />
<br />
== Key assumptions ==<br />
<br />
There are a number of assumptions involved in radiometric dating.<br />
They are assumptions because they are unable to be proved one way or the other.<br />
<br />
=== Initial quantities ===<br />
<br />
One key assumption is that the initial quantity of the parent element can be determined. With uranium-lead dating, for example, you must be able to determine how much uranium was in the sample to start with. One assumption that can be made is that all the lead in the sample was once uranium, but if there was lead there to start with, this assumption is not valid, and any date based on that assumption will be incorrect (too old).<br />
<br />
In the case of carbon dating, it is not the initial quantity that is important, but the initial ratio of C<sup>14</sup> to C<sup>12</sup>, but the same principle otherwise applies.<br />
<br />
=== Rate of decay ===<br />
<br />
As far as is known, the rate of decay of a radioactive material is largely constant.<ref>At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments. See ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1608/ Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment]''.</ref> This is based upon knowledge of [[quantum mechanics]] and the structure of the atom.<ref>''Principles of Quantum Mechanics'' page 89</ref><!-- I cannot find any YEC articles that suggest otherwise with any supporting evidence beyond conjecture. If any change is to be made, please refute with www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R2 -- Furthermore, remember there is more than C14 out there.--> Atoms consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by clouds of lightweight particles (electrons), called [[electron shell]]s. The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot be released easily. The phenomenon we know as heat is simply the jiggling around of atoms and their components, so in principle a high enough temperature could cause the components of the core to break out. However, the temperature required to do this is in in the millions of degrees, so this cannot be achieved by any natural process that we know about. The second way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself. Non-charged particles such as neutrons can penetrate to the nucleus and disrupt it (this is how a nuclear bomb works) but such a process will either cause more neutrons to emerge at a rapidly escalating rate&mdash;which would be very obvious to say the least&mdash;or it will fizzle out in a tiny fraction of a second. It thus seems very unlikely that radioactive decay rates can be altered without this being obvious.<br />
<br />
=== Outside influences ===<br />
<br />
It is important that the sample not have had any outside influences. One example of this can be found in metamorphic rocks.<ref>[http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm Radiometric Dating] Course notes for EENS 211 at Tulane University</ref> This does not mean that all rock samples are unreliable, but it is possible to account for a process which throws off the data for metamorphic rocks.<br />
<br />
For example, with [[Uranium-lead dating]] with the crystallization of magma, this remains a closed system until the uranium decays. As it decays, it disrupts the crystal and allows the lead atom to move. Likewise, heating the rock such as [[granite]] forms [[gneiss]] or [[basalt]] forms [[schist]]. This can also disrupt the ratios of lead and uranium in the sample.<br />
<br />
== Calibration ==<br />
In order to calibrate radiometric dating methods, the methods need to be checked for accuracy against items with independently-known dates.<br />
<br />
This is a problem because most of the dates of artifacts are only known from radiometric dating methods.<br />
<br />
Carbon dating, with it's much lower maximum theoretical range, is often used for dating items only hundreds and thousands of years old, so can be calibrated in its lower ranges by comparing results with artifacts who's ages are known from historical records.<br />
<br />
Scientists have also attempted to extend the calibration range by comparing results to timber which has its age calculated by [[dendrochronology]], but this has also been questioned because carbon dating is used to assist with working out dendrochronological ages.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, calibration consists of comparing results with ages determined by other radiometric dating methods.<br />
<br />
However, tests of radiometric dating methods have often shown that they do ''not'' agree with known ages of rocks that have been seen to form from volcanic eruptions in recent and historic times, and there are also examples of radiometric dating methods not agreeing with each other.<br />
<br />
Young-Earth creationists therefore claim that radiometric dating methods are not reliable and can therefore not be used to disprove Biblical chronology.<br />
<br />
==Some major methods of radiometric dating==<br />
<br />
There are several major types of radiometric dating in use:<ref>Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref>,<ref>Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref><br />
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating<br />
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]<br />
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]<br />
#[[Uranium-thorium]]<br />
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Earth science]]</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&diff=212696Radiometric dating2007-06-29T18:16:07Z<p>Pastafarian: /* Rate of decay */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Radiometric dating''' is a method of determining the age of an artifact by measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred.<ref>[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html Radiometric Time Scale] USGS</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks, though a particular form of radiometric dating - called [[Radiocarbon dating]] - can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material. It relies on the well-established function for exponential decay <math>F</math><sub><math>t</math></sub><math>=e</math><sup><math>-kt</math></sup>.<br />
<br />
== Principles ==<br />
<br />
The basic principle in any dating method is to find a process that is occurring at measurable rate and which is causing a change, measure the rate of that process, work out what state the artifact was in at the beginning of the process, observe what state it is in now, and to calculate how long the process at the measured rate would need to occur to effect that change.<br />
<br />
For example, to work out how long a candle has been burning, the following steps would be needed:<br />
# Measure how long it takes the candle to burn down a given amount.<br />
# Find out how long the candle was when it started burning.<br />
# Measure how long the candle is now.<br />
# Calculate the difference between the two lengths.<br />
# Calculate how long it would need to burn in order to burn that length.<br />
<br />
For most radiometric dating methods, one radioactive element changes by a process of nuclear decay into another element (often through a number of intermediate steps. For example, uranium will eventually decay into lead. So to measure how old a specimen containing some uranium and some lead is, the following steps are required:<br />
# Measure the decay rate of uranium.<br />
# Find out how much uranium was in the specimen to start with (this might be done by assuming that all the lead was originally uranium).<br />
# Find out how much uranium is in the specimen now.<br />
# Calculate how much uranium has turned into lead.<br />
# Calculate how long it would take that much uranium to turn into lead, given the measured rate.<br />
<br />
== Key assumptions ==<br />
<br />
There are a number of assumptions involved in radiometric dating.<br />
They are assumptions because they are unable to be proved one way or the other.<br />
<br />
=== Initial quantities ===<br />
<br />
One key assumption is that the initial quantity of the parent element can be determined. With uranium-lead dating, for example, you must be able to determine how much uranium was in the sample to start with. One assumption that can be made is that all the lead in the sample was once uranium, but if there was lead there to start with, this assumption is not valid, and any date based on that assumption will be incorrect (too old).<br />
<br />
In the case of carbon dating, it is not the initial quantity that is important, but the initial ratio of C<sup>14</sup> to C<sup>12</sup>, but the same principle otherwise applies.<br />
<br />
=== Rate of decay ===<br />
<br />
As far as is known, the rate of decay of a radioactive material is largely constant.<ref>At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments. See ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1608/ Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment]''.</ref> This is based upon knowledge of [[quantum mechanics]] and the structure of the atom.<ref>''Principles of Quantum Mechanics'' page 89</ref><!-- I cannot find any YEC articles that suggest otherwise with any supporting evidence beyond conjecture. If any change is to be made, please refute with www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R2 -- Furthermore, remember there is more than C14 out there.--> Atoms consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by clouds of lightweight particles (electrons), called [[electron shell]]s. The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot easily be released. The phenomenon we know as heat is simply the jiggling around of atoms and their components, so in principle a high enough temperature could cause the components of the core to break out. However, the temperature required to do this is in in the millions of degrees, so this cannot be achieved by any natural process that we know about. The second way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself. Non-charged particles such as neutrons can penetrate to the nucleus and disrupt it (this is how a nuclear bomb works) but such a process will either cause more neutrons to emerge at a rapidly escalating rate&mdash;which would be very obvious to say the least&mdash;or it will fizzle out in a tiny fraction of a second. It thus seems very unlikely that radioactive decay rates can be altered without this being obvious.<br />
<br />
=== Outside influences ===<br />
<br />
It is important that the sample not have had any outside influences. One example of this can be found in metamorphic rocks.<ref>[http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm Radiometric Dating] Course notes for EENS 211 at Tulane University</ref> This does not mean that all rock samples are unreliable, but it is possible to account for a process which throws off the data for metamorphic rocks.<br />
<br />
For example, with [[Uranium-lead dating]] with the crystallization of magma, this remains a closed system until the uranium decays. As it decays, it disrupts the crystal and allows the lead atom to move. Likewise, heating the rock such as [[granite]] forms [[gneiss]] or [[basalt]] forms [[schist]]. This can also disrupt the ratios of lead and uranium in the sample.<br />
<br />
== Calibration ==<br />
In order to calibrate radiometric dating methods, the methods need to be checked for accuracy against items with independently-known dates.<br />
<br />
This is a problem because most of the dates of artifacts are only known from radiometric dating methods.<br />
<br />
Carbon dating, with it's much lower maximum theoretical range, is often used for dating items only hundreds and thousands of years old, so can be calibrated in its lower ranges by comparing results with artifacts who's ages are known from historical records.<br />
<br />
Scientists have also attempted to extend the calibration range by comparing results to timber which has its age calculated by [[dendrochronology]], but this has also been questioned because carbon dating is used to assist with working out dendrochronological ages.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, calibration consists of comparing results with ages determined by other radiometric dating methods.<br />
<br />
However, tests of radiometric dating methods have often shown that they do ''not'' agree with known ages of rocks that have been seen to form from volcanic eruptions in recent and historic times, and there are also examples of radiometric dating methods not agreeing with each other.<br />
<br />
Young-Earth creationists therefore claim that radiometric dating methods are not reliable and can therefore not be used to disprove Biblical chronology.<br />
<br />
==Some major methods of radiometric dating==<br />
<br />
There are several major types of radiometric dating in use:<ref>Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref>,<ref>Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref><br />
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating<br />
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]<br />
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]<br />
#[[Uranium-thorium]]<br />
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Earth science]]</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Radiometric_dating&diff=212690Talk:Radiometric dating2007-06-29T18:13:29Z<p>Pastafarian: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Principles ==<br />
<br />
The whole bit about the candles and what not seems a bit pedestrian. I say remove it entirely. Readers understand how to measure time, they don't need to be spoon fed a quasi-example such as this one --[[User:Pastafarian|Pastafarian]]<br />
<br />
== On my rewrite ==<br />
<br />
Major diffs include<br />
* change of ref to printed text "Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000" to http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html<br />
* removal of section on accelerated decay - pure conjecture without citation. Reference was link to another wiki.<br />
* expanded assumptions<br />
* Added C14 creation rate at flood and creation (probably still needs a reasonable citation that is more than conjecture)<br />
* expanded outside influences, show where metamorphic rock is incorrect and RATE using this infomration to improperly date Grand Canyon. Included refutation of RATE data at answers in creation<br />
<br />
If there are any questions, I spent some time back in college writing software for a radiocarbon laboratory and have more than passing knowledge of the material that is written about. Feel free to ask any questions here. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Philip's edits==<br />
<br />
Philip, I have to point this out to everyone. You are a rare person who has placed productive information in an article that you obviously disagree with and also removed information that would have supported you position on the topic, but you removed it anyway because you had identified it as a bigoted reference. I can not express the level of gratitude towards you for doing this. Thank you.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:01, 30 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Err, thanks. Maybe. The bit I removed claimed that the (YEC) RATE project got it wrong. There were two references, one to an ICR article about the RATE project, and the other to an anti-YEC site claiming that the RATE project got it wrong. It was this second reference that I was referring to as bigoted, because it's first criticism was that creationist peer-review is by other creationists. As evolutionist peer-review is by other evolutionists, the only rationale here must be that creationary ''scientists'' are invalidated as peer-reviewers simply because they are creationists.<br />
:I've probably just destroyed your reason for thinking that I've done good, but like you presumed, I do want the truth, and the truth is not what I think you were thinking.<br />
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 30 April 2007 (EDT)</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&diff=212684Radiometric dating2007-06-29T18:10:24Z<p>Pastafarian: /* Principles */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Radiometric dating''' is a method of determining the age of an artifact by measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred.<ref>[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html Radiometric Time Scale] USGS</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks, though a particular form of radiometric dating - called [[Radiocarbon dating]] - can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material. It relies on the well-established function for exponential decay <math>F</math><sub><math>t</math></sub><math>=e</math><sup><math>-kt</math></sup>.<br />
<br />
== Principles ==<br />
<br />
The basic principle in any dating method is to find a process that is occurring at measurable rate and which is causing a change, measure the rate of that process, work out what state the artifact was in at the beginning of the process, observe what state it is in now, and to calculate how long the process at the measured rate would need to occur to effect that change.<br />
<br />
For example, to work out how long a candle has been burning, the following steps would be needed:<br />
# Measure how long it takes the candle to burn down a given amount.<br />
# Find out how long the candle was when it started burning.<br />
# Measure how long the candle is now.<br />
# Calculate the difference between the two lengths.<br />
# Calculate how long it would need to burn in order to burn that length.<br />
<br />
For most radiometric dating methods, one radioactive element changes by a process of nuclear decay into another element (often through a number of intermediate steps. For example, uranium will eventually decay into lead. So to measure how old a specimen containing some uranium and some lead is, the following steps are required:<br />
# Measure the decay rate of uranium.<br />
# Find out how much uranium was in the specimen to start with (this might be done by assuming that all the lead was originally uranium).<br />
# Find out how much uranium is in the specimen now.<br />
# Calculate how much uranium has turned into lead.<br />
# Calculate how long it would take that much uranium to turn into lead, given the measured rate.<br />
<br />
== Key assumptions ==<br />
<br />
There are a number of assumptions involved in radiometric dating.<br />
They are assumptions because they are unable to be proved one way or the other.<br />
<br />
=== Initial quantities ===<br />
<br />
One key assumption is that the initial quantity of the parent element can be determined. With uranium-lead dating, for example, you must be able to determine how much uranium was in the sample to start with. One assumption that can be made is that all the lead in the sample was once uranium, but if there was lead there to start with, this assumption is not valid, and any date based on that assumption will be incorrect (too old).<br />
<br />
In the case of carbon dating, it is not the initial quantity that is important, but the initial ratio of C<sup>14</sup> to C<sup>12</sup>, but the same principle otherwise applies.<br />
<br />
=== Rate of decay ===<br />
<br />
As far as is known, the rate of decay of a radioactive material is largely constant.<ref>At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments. See ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1608/ Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment]''.</ref> This is based upon knowledge of [[quantum mechanics]] and the structure of the atom.<ref>''Principles of Quantum Mechanics'' page 89</ref><!-- I cannot find any YEC articles that suggest otherwise with any supporting evidence beyond conjecture. If any change is to be made, please refute with www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R2 -- Furthermore, remember there is more than C14 out there.--> Atoms consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by clouds of lightweight particles (electrons), called [[electron shell]]s. The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but fortunately it cannot easily be released. The phenomenon we know as heat is simply the jiggling around of atoms and their components, so in principle a high enough temperature could cause the components of the core to break out. However, the temperature required to do this is in in the millions of degrees, so this cannot be achieved by any natural process that we know about. The second way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself. Non-charged particles such as neutrons can penetrate to the nucleus and disrupt it (this is how a nuclear bomb works) but such a process will either cause more neutrons to emerge at a rapidly escalating rate&mdash;which would be very obvious to say the least&mdash;or it will fizzle out in a tiny fraction of a second. It thus seems very unlikely that radioactive decay rates can be altered without this being obvious.<br />
<br />
=== Outside influences ===<br />
<br />
It is important that the sample not have had any outside influences. One example of this can be found in metamorphic rocks.<ref>[http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm Radiometric Dating] Course notes for EENS 211 at Tulane University</ref> This does not mean that all rock samples are unreliable, but it is possible to account for a process which throws off the data for metamorphic rocks.<br />
<br />
For example, with [[Uranium-lead dating]] with the crystallization of magma, this remains a closed system until the uranium decays. As it decays, it disrupts the crystal and allows the lead atom to move. Likewise, heating the rock such as [[granite]] forms [[gneiss]] or [[basalt]] forms [[schist]]. This can also disrupt the ratios of lead and uranium in the sample.<br />
<br />
== Calibration ==<br />
In order to calibrate radiometric dating methods, the methods need to be checked for accuracy against items with independently-known dates.<br />
<br />
This is a problem because most of the dates of artifacts are only known from radiometric dating methods.<br />
<br />
Carbon dating, with it's much lower maximum theoretical range, is often used for dating items only hundreds and thousands of years old, so can be calibrated in its lower ranges by comparing results with artifacts who's ages are known from historical records.<br />
<br />
Scientists have also attempted to extend the calibration range by comparing results to timber which has its age calculated by [[dendrochronology]], but this has also been questioned because carbon dating is used to assist with working out dendrochronological ages.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, calibration consists of comparing results with ages determined by other radiometric dating methods.<br />
<br />
However, tests of radiometric dating methods have often shown that they do ''not'' agree with known ages of rocks that have been seen to form from volcanic eruptions in recent and historic times, and there are also examples of radiometric dating methods not agreeing with each other.<br />
<br />
Young-Earth creationists therefore claim that radiometric dating methods are not reliable and can therefore not be used to disprove Biblical chronology.<br />
<br />
==Some major methods of radiometric dating==<br />
<br />
There are several major types of radiometric dating in use:<ref>Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref>,<ref>Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref><br />
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating<br />
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]<br />
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]<br />
#[[Uranium-thorium]]<br />
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Earth science]]</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&diff=212683Radiometric dating2007-06-29T18:09:52Z<p>Pastafarian: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Radiometric dating''' is a method of determining the age of an artifact by measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred.<ref>[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html Radiometric Time Scale] USGS</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks, though a particular form of radiometric dating - called [[Radiocarbon dating]] - can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material. It relies on the well-established function for exponential decay <math>F</math><sub><math>t</math></sub><math>=e</math><sup><math>-kt</math></sup>.<br />
<br />
== Principles ==<br />
<br />
No method exists for ''measuring'' time, except by measuring it as it is passing.<br />
Therefore, the age of an artifact must be ''calculated''.<br />
<br />
The basic principle in any dating method is to find a process that is occurring at measurable rate and which is causing a change, measure the rate of that process, work out what state the artifact was in at the beginning of the process, observe what state it is in now, and to calculate how long the process at the measured rate would need to occur to effect that change.<br />
<br />
For example, to work out how long a candle has been burning, the following steps would be needed:<br />
# Measure how long it takes the candle to burn down a given amount.<br />
# Find out how long the candle was when it started burning.<br />
# Measure how long the candle is now.<br />
# Calculate the difference between the two lengths.<br />
# Calculate how long it would need to burn in order to burn that length.<br />
<br />
For most radiometric dating methods, one radioactive element changes by a process of nuclear decay into another element (often through a number of intermediate steps. For example, uranium will eventually decay into lead. So to measure how old a specimen containing some uranium and some lead is, the following steps are required:<br />
# Measure the decay rate of uranium.<br />
# Find out how much uranium was in the specimen to start with (this might be done by assuming that all the lead was originally uranium).<br />
# Find out how much uranium is in the specimen now.<br />
# Calculate how much uranium has turned into lead.<br />
# Calculate how long it would take that much uranium to turn into lead, given the measured rate.<br />
<br />
== Key assumptions ==<br />
<br />
There are a number of assumptions involved in radiometric dating.<br />
They are assumptions because they are unable to be proved one way or the other.<br />
<br />
=== Initial quantities ===<br />
<br />
One key assumption is that the initial quantity of the parent element can be determined. With uranium-lead dating, for example, you must be able to determine how much uranium was in the sample to start with. One assumption that can be made is that all the lead in the sample was once uranium, but if there was lead there to start with, this assumption is not valid, and any date based on that assumption will be incorrect (too old).<br />
<br />
In the case of carbon dating, it is not the initial quantity that is important, but the initial ratio of C<sup>14</sup> to C<sup>12</sup>, but the same principle otherwise applies.<br />
<br />
=== Rate of decay ===<br />
<br />
As far as is known, the rate of decay of a radioactive material is largely constant.<ref>At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments. See ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1608/ Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment]''.</ref> This is based upon knowledge of [[quantum mechanics]] and the structure of the atom.<ref>''Principles of Quantum Mechanics'' page 89</ref><!-- I cannot find any YEC articles that suggest otherwise with any supporting evidence beyond conjecture. If any change is to be made, please refute with www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R2 -- Furthermore, remember there is more than C14 out there.--> Atoms consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by clouds of lightweight particles (electrons), called [[electron shell]]s. The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but fortunately it cannot easily be released. The phenomenon we know as heat is simply the jiggling around of atoms and their components, so in principle a high enough temperature could cause the components of the core to break out. However, the temperature required to do this is in in the millions of degrees, so this cannot be achieved by any natural process that we know about. The second way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself. Non-charged particles such as neutrons can penetrate to the nucleus and disrupt it (this is how a nuclear bomb works) but such a process will either cause more neutrons to emerge at a rapidly escalating rate&mdash;which would be very obvious to say the least&mdash;or it will fizzle out in a tiny fraction of a second. It thus seems very unlikely that radioactive decay rates can be altered without this being obvious.<br />
<br />
=== Outside influences ===<br />
<br />
It is important that the sample not have had any outside influences. One example of this can be found in metamorphic rocks.<ref>[http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm Radiometric Dating] Course notes for EENS 211 at Tulane University</ref> This does not mean that all rock samples are unreliable, but it is possible to account for a process which throws off the data for metamorphic rocks.<br />
<br />
For example, with [[Uranium-lead dating]] with the crystallization of magma, this remains a closed system until the uranium decays. As it decays, it disrupts the crystal and allows the lead atom to move. Likewise, heating the rock such as [[granite]] forms [[gneiss]] or [[basalt]] forms [[schist]]. This can also disrupt the ratios of lead and uranium in the sample.<br />
<br />
== Calibration ==<br />
In order to calibrate radiometric dating methods, the methods need to be checked for accuracy against items with independently-known dates.<br />
<br />
This is a problem because most of the dates of artifacts are only known from radiometric dating methods.<br />
<br />
Carbon dating, with it's much lower maximum theoretical range, is often used for dating items only hundreds and thousands of years old, so can be calibrated in its lower ranges by comparing results with artifacts who's ages are known from historical records.<br />
<br />
Scientists have also attempted to extend the calibration range by comparing results to timber which has its age calculated by [[dendrochronology]], but this has also been questioned because carbon dating is used to assist with working out dendrochronological ages.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, calibration consists of comparing results with ages determined by other radiometric dating methods.<br />
<br />
However, tests of radiometric dating methods have often shown that they do ''not'' agree with known ages of rocks that have been seen to form from volcanic eruptions in recent and historic times, and there are also examples of radiometric dating methods not agreeing with each other.<br />
<br />
Young-Earth creationists therefore claim that radiometric dating methods are not reliable and can therefore not be used to disprove Biblical chronology.<br />
<br />
==Some major methods of radiometric dating==<br />
<br />
There are several major types of radiometric dating in use:<ref>Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref>,<ref>Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref><br />
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating<br />
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]<br />
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]<br />
#[[Uranium-thorium]]<br />
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Earth science]]</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&diff=212679Radiometric dating2007-06-29T18:07:59Z<p>Pastafarian: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Radiometric dating''' is a method of determining the age of an artifact by measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred.<ref>[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html Radiometric Time Scale] USGS</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks (though in the case of [[Radiocarbon dating]] can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material), and relies on the well-established function for exponential decay <math>F</math><sub><math>t</math></sub><math>=e</math><sup><math>-kt</math></sup>.<br />
<br />
== Principles ==<br />
<br />
No method exists for ''measuring'' time, except by measuring it as it is passing.<br />
Therefore, the age of an artifact must be ''calculated''.<br />
<br />
The basic principle in any dating method is to find a process that is occurring at measurable rate and which is causing a change, measure the rate of that process, work out what state the artifact was in at the beginning of the process, observe what state it is in now, and to calculate how long the process at the measured rate would need to occur to effect that change.<br />
<br />
For example, to work out how long a candle has been burning, the following steps would be needed:<br />
# Measure how long it takes the candle to burn down a given amount.<br />
# Find out how long the candle was when it started burning.<br />
# Measure how long the candle is now.<br />
# Calculate the difference between the two lengths.<br />
# Calculate how long it would need to burn in order to burn that length.<br />
<br />
For most radiometric dating methods, one radioactive element changes by a process of nuclear decay into another element (often through a number of intermediate steps. For example, uranium will eventually decay into lead. So to measure how old a specimen containing some uranium and some lead is, the following steps are required:<br />
# Measure the decay rate of uranium.<br />
# Find out how much uranium was in the specimen to start with (this might be done by assuming that all the lead was originally uranium).<br />
# Find out how much uranium is in the specimen now.<br />
# Calculate how much uranium has turned into lead.<br />
# Calculate how long it would take that much uranium to turn into lead, given the measured rate.<br />
<br />
== Key assumptions ==<br />
<br />
There are a number of assumptions involved in radiometric dating.<br />
They are assumptions because they are unable to be proved one way or the other.<br />
<br />
=== Initial quantities ===<br />
<br />
One key assumption is that the initial quantity of the parent element can be determined. With uranium-lead dating, for example, you must be able to determine how much uranium was in the sample to start with. One assumption that can be made is that all the lead in the sample was once uranium, but if there was lead there to start with, this assumption is not valid, and any date based on that assumption will be incorrect (too old).<br />
<br />
In the case of carbon dating, it is not the initial quantity that is important, but the initial ratio of C<sup>14</sup> to C<sup>12</sup>, but the same principle otherwise applies.<br />
<br />
=== Rate of decay ===<br />
<br />
As far as is known, the rate of decay of a radioactive material is largely constant.<ref>At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments. See ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1608/ Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment]''.</ref> This is based upon knowledge of [[quantum mechanics]] and the structure of the atom.<ref>''Principles of Quantum Mechanics'' page 89</ref><!-- I cannot find any YEC articles that suggest otherwise with any supporting evidence beyond conjecture. If any change is to be made, please refute with www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R2 -- Furthermore, remember there is more than C14 out there.--> Atoms consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by clouds of lightweight particles (electrons), called [[electron shell]]s. The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but fortunately it cannot easily be released. The phenomenon we know as heat is simply the jiggling around of atoms and their components, so in principle a high enough temperature could cause the components of the core to break out. However, the temperature required to do this is in in the millions of degrees, so this cannot be achieved by any natural process that we know about. The second way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself. Non-charged particles such as neutrons can penetrate to the nucleus and disrupt it (this is how a nuclear bomb works) but such a process will either cause more neutrons to emerge at a rapidly escalating rate&mdash;which would be very obvious to say the least&mdash;or it will fizzle out in a tiny fraction of a second. It thus seems very unlikely that radioactive decay rates can be altered without this being obvious.<br />
<br />
=== Outside influences ===<br />
<br />
It is important that the sample not have had any outside influences. One example of this can be found in metamorphic rocks.<ref>[http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm Radiometric Dating] Course notes for EENS 211 at Tulane University</ref> This does not mean that all rock samples are unreliable, but it is possible to account for a process which throws off the data for metamorphic rocks.<br />
<br />
For example, with [[Uranium-lead dating]] with the crystallization of magma, this remains a closed system until the uranium decays. As it decays, it disrupts the crystal and allows the lead atom to move. Likewise, heating the rock such as [[granite]] forms [[gneiss]] or [[basalt]] forms [[schist]]. This can also disrupt the ratios of lead and uranium in the sample.<br />
<br />
== Calibration ==<br />
In order to calibrate radiometric dating methods, the methods need to be checked for accuracy against items with independently-known dates.<br />
<br />
This is a problem because most of the dates of artifacts are only known from radiometric dating methods.<br />
<br />
Carbon dating, with it's much lower maximum theoretical range, is often used for dating items only hundreds and thousands of years old, so can be calibrated in its lower ranges by comparing results with artifacts who's ages are known from historical records.<br />
<br />
Scientists have also attempted to extend the calibration range by comparing results to timber which has its age calculated by [[dendrochronology]], but this has also been questioned because carbon dating is used to assist with working out dendrochronological ages.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, calibration consists of comparing results with ages determined by other radiometric dating methods.<br />
<br />
However, tests of radiometric dating methods have often shown that they do ''not'' agree with known ages of rocks that have been seen to form from volcanic eruptions in recent and historic times, and there are also examples of radiometric dating methods not agreeing with each other.<br />
<br />
Young-Earth creationists therefore claim that radiometric dating methods are not reliable and can therefore not be used to disprove Biblical chronology.<br />
<br />
==Some major methods of radiometric dating==<br />
<br />
There are several major types of radiometric dating in use:<ref>Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref>,<ref>Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref><br />
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating<br />
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]<br />
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]<br />
#[[Uranium-thorium]]<br />
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Earth science]]</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Pastafarian&diff=212676User:Pastafarian2007-06-29T18:05:37Z<p>Pastafarian: New page: A Libertarian trying to help this wiki remain FACTUAL, and without any bias - from the left or the right.</p>
<hr />
<div>A Libertarian trying to help this wiki remain FACTUAL, and without any bias - from the left or the right.</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Pat_Robertson&diff=212673Talk:Pat Robertson2007-06-29T18:04:34Z<p>Pastafarian: /* Liberal smear job */</p>
<hr />
<div>This edit,<br />
: ''ignoring the facts that the Nazis killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews and that Satanim emerged with Anton Szandor LaVey''<br />
(a) assuming the claim that 10% of the general population is gay (Kinsey), given the premise "killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews " would amount to roughly slighly more than 1/3 of 10% of the population of Nazi occupied territories, including Germany proper; (b) Satanism did not begin with Anton LeVey. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I know that statistic. Its sort of right, or at least was at the time. Kinsy didn't use the gay-bi-straight classification, but a continuous scale. When he said "10% of the population is gay" he actually meant "10% have some homosexual tendencies." That includes recuring fantasies, or past experiences. It includes bisexuals, too.<br />
<br />
The Nazis really didn't like homosexuals, just the same - anyone caught in a homosexual act would end up in prison at the very least, and quite possibly shipped off to the same concentration camps as the jews. The first figure I found was an estimate of 5,000-15,000 homosexuals imprisoned in those camps, an estimate by by Joan Ringelheim of the US Holocaust museum. Their crime was indicated in the camp with a pink triangle, counterpart to the star-of-david worn by jews.<br />
<br />
"A male who indulges in criminally indecent behavior with another male, or who allows himself to participate in such activity, will be punished with imprisonment. " - Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code. The full nazi policy was spread over many laws, but required imprisonment for all homosexuals. The concentration camps were the specified punishment for 'chronic' homosexuals, who were considered to be a minor threat to Germany as they did not contribute to the propagation of the master race. - Suricou. (Appologies for the lack of signing - I had signed, but mistakenly placed the signature on the previous paragraph.)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Disproportionate?==<br />
<br />
Is it just me, or is the fact that 95% of this article consists of a long list of controversial quotes probably not right? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
He said them all, so they should be on here, but the biography could be made more detailed. I suggest someone fill it out. - Suricou<br />
<br />
I have to question the use of extensive quotes. Robertson is flamboyant and speaks for hours a day over a period of decades. Under those circumstances anyone could have a list of quotes. I would rather see quotes for areas that he was asked about later and re-iterated. And filling out the biography would certainly be helpful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:09, 18 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Liberal smear job ==<br />
<br />
This article is nothing more than a liberal smear job. I suggest getting rid of the gossip and quotes taken out of context and instead providing some actual biographical information.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:There should be more biographical information. But I don't see how these quotes, even in context, could be any better. Never letting women learn from men? What are we, in the 14th century? --[[User:Pastafarian|Pastafarian]]<br />
<br />
Robertson is really a laughing stock among liberals, but those quotes... some of them, I just dont see any possible context you could put them in that would make them acceptable. And he did say all of them, to the best of my knowledge. Personally, I think conservatives should stop following people as crazy as Robertson and find some new and more credible idols. - Suricou<br />
<br />
I rather enjoy: [http://www.cbn.com/special/supremecourt/prayerpledge.asp Pray that additional vacancies occur within the Supreme Court.] --[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]<br />
<br />
==Robertson is a nutjob==<br />
Robertson is a first class nut, he's almost as crazy as [[Fred Phelps]]. He says he's against oppressive dictators but if he were in power, America would become a Christian theocracy.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Fact Removal==<br />
<br />
"He has called for the execution of the democratically elected President of Venezuela."<br />
<br />
If I'm not mistaken(which I admit I could be), he did in fact call for the execution of the President of Venezuela. I just thought I'd point that out.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 03:08, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Quote vs. Quotation ==<br />
<br />
I'm a picky grammarian--but I would like to point out that if you want this encyclopedia taken seriously, then perhaps you should properly use language: quote is a verb, quotation is a noun. When you say quote in this article, for the most part it's a noun, and you should be using quotation.<br />
<br />
I'll refrain from commenting further on the fact that everything on this site sounds like it was written by fourth graders. {{unsigned|Academichick}}<br />
<br />
We would like it to be student friendly and want the student to understand about what he/she is reading. Thanks --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]]</sup> 10:30, 22 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Clear, concise, and skilled prose can exist at a higher academic level. And if we want students to ever reach a higher academic level, perhaps we should demonstrate that higher level of writing rather than assuming that unskilled, simple, childish writing is the norm. (See Strunk and White's ''The Elements of Style'' for some pointers). --[[User:Academichick|Academichick]] 17:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Pat_Robertson&diff=212672Talk:Pat Robertson2007-06-29T18:03:58Z<p>Pastafarian: /* Liberal smear job */</p>
<hr />
<div>This edit,<br />
: ''ignoring the facts that the Nazis killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews and that Satanim emerged with Anton Szandor LaVey''<br />
(a) assuming the claim that 10% of the general population is gay (Kinsey), given the premise "killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews " would amount to roughly slighly more than 1/3 of 10% of the population of Nazi occupied territories, including Germany proper; (b) Satanism did not begin with Anton LeVey. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I know that statistic. Its sort of right, or at least was at the time. Kinsy didn't use the gay-bi-straight classification, but a continuous scale. When he said "10% of the population is gay" he actually meant "10% have some homosexual tendencies." That includes recuring fantasies, or past experiences. It includes bisexuals, too.<br />
<br />
The Nazis really didn't like homosexuals, just the same - anyone caught in a homosexual act would end up in prison at the very least, and quite possibly shipped off to the same concentration camps as the jews. The first figure I found was an estimate of 5,000-15,000 homosexuals imprisoned in those camps, an estimate by by Joan Ringelheim of the US Holocaust museum. Their crime was indicated in the camp with a pink triangle, counterpart to the star-of-david worn by jews.<br />
<br />
"A male who indulges in criminally indecent behavior with another male, or who allows himself to participate in such activity, will be punished with imprisonment. " - Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code. The full nazi policy was spread over many laws, but required imprisonment for all homosexuals. The concentration camps were the specified punishment for 'chronic' homosexuals, who were considered to be a minor threat to Germany as they did not contribute to the propagation of the master race. - Suricou. (Appologies for the lack of signing - I had signed, but mistakenly placed the signature on the previous paragraph.)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Disproportionate?==<br />
<br />
Is it just me, or is the fact that 95% of this article consists of a long list of controversial quotes probably not right? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
He said them all, so they should be on here, but the biography could be made more detailed. I suggest someone fill it out. - Suricou<br />
<br />
I have to question the use of extensive quotes. Robertson is flamboyant and speaks for hours a day over a period of decades. Under those circumstances anyone could have a list of quotes. I would rather see quotes for areas that he was asked about later and re-iterated. And filling out the biography would certainly be helpful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:09, 18 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Liberal smear job ==<br />
<br />
This article is nothing more than a liberal smear job. I suggest getting rid of the gossip and quotes taken out of context and instead providing some actual biographical information.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:There should be more biographical information. But I don't see how these quotes, even in context, could be any better. Never letting women learn from men? What are we, in the 14th century?<br />
<br />
Robertson is really a laughing stock among liberals, but those quotes... some of them, I just dont see any possible context you could put them in that would make them acceptable. And he did say all of them, to the best of my knowledge. Personally, I think conservatives should stop following people as crazy as Robertson and find some new and more credible idols. - Suricou<br />
<br />
I rather enjoy: [http://www.cbn.com/special/supremecourt/prayerpledge.asp Pray that additional vacancies occur within the Supreme Court.] --[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]<br />
<br />
==Robertson is a nutjob==<br />
Robertson is a first class nut, he's almost as crazy as [[Fred Phelps]]. He says he's against oppressive dictators but if he were in power, America would become a Christian theocracy.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Fact Removal==<br />
<br />
"He has called for the execution of the democratically elected President of Venezuela."<br />
<br />
If I'm not mistaken(which I admit I could be), he did in fact call for the execution of the President of Venezuela. I just thought I'd point that out.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 03:08, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Quote vs. Quotation ==<br />
<br />
I'm a picky grammarian--but I would like to point out that if you want this encyclopedia taken seriously, then perhaps you should properly use language: quote is a verb, quotation is a noun. When you say quote in this article, for the most part it's a noun, and you should be using quotation.<br />
<br />
I'll refrain from commenting further on the fact that everything on this site sounds like it was written by fourth graders. {{unsigned|Academichick}}<br />
<br />
We would like it to be student friendly and want the student to understand about what he/she is reading. Thanks --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]]</sup> 10:30, 22 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Clear, concise, and skilled prose can exist at a higher academic level. And if we want students to ever reach a higher academic level, perhaps we should demonstrate that higher level of writing rather than assuming that unskilled, simple, childish writing is the norm. (See Strunk and White's ''The Elements of Style'' for some pointers). --[[User:Academichick|Academichick]] 17:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)</div>Pastafarianhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Environmentalist&diff=209649Talk:Environmentalist2007-06-26T05:24:40Z<p>Pastafarian: </p>
<hr />
<div>Why does the first section of this article reference Sheryl Crow's proposal to limit toilet paper use? It seems to me that that is an obvious attack on the environmentalist mindset. I can assure you that most environmentalists do not share Crow's mindset and have more reasonable solutions to environmental problems. Perhaps a history of environmentalism would be better suited for the beginning of this article. I'd make the changes but my account's on probation.<br />
<br />
Give a pat on the back to whoever changed this article from hateful Environmentalist bashing to something that's certainly more pleasant. Good job.<br />
<br />
Give some justification as to why claim is appropriate. Alot of people that call themselves environmentalists do seek to protect the environment. Claim gives the impression of people saying one theing and doing something else. <br />
-Gasmonkey<br />
<br />
:''from the'' [http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tov_namerica.php ATTAC REPORT]:<br />
<br />
[[Greenpeace]] Founding/Supervisory Organizations: <br />
*Red China <br />
*Soviet intelligence apparatus ([[KGB]]/FSB) <br />
*[[World Peace Council]] (WPC) <br />
Supporting Organizations: <br />
*[[Red Army Fraction]] (RAF) <br />
*[[Earth First]]! (EF!) <br />
*[[Institute for Policy Studies]] (IPS) <br />
<br />
Greenpeace <br />
<br />
Type of Organization: Semi-violent/protest-organizing <br />
<br />
Location: United States, Canada, various European nations, Soviet Russia, Red China, & others <br />
<br />
Ideological cover: Environmentalist <br />
<br />
Activities: Political & legal activism; provocation & incitement to violence; political & logistical support for [[terrorism]] <br />
<br />
Target countries: United States, Canada, Western European nations, & others <br />
<br />
Status: Confirmed active <br />
<br />
Assisted Organizations: <br />
*Earth First! (EF!) <br />
*[[Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy]] (SANE) <br />
*[[Sea Shepherd Conservation Society]] (SSCS) <br />
<br />
Derivative/Controlled Organizations: <br />
*[[Earth Liberation Front]] (ELF) <br />
*Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS)<br />
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'm an environmentalist and I don't belong to Greenpeace. Great job at generalizing there cheif. Just because ONE group of a FEW environmentaly minded people at some times go too far and commit crimes you generalize that to all environmetalists? Seriously, congrats on that. Are you a Christian? Well, then you are proably an Aryan skinhead too by your logic. After all, they claim to be Christians too.<br />
:I'm a corncerned environmentalist about the environment, too. That's why I thought my lagunage was pretty good.. What we are discussing here is organizations claiming to be environmentalist, which may have other agendas. I'm sure we can get some gound language rounded out. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The ATTAC guys also claim that the PLO is behind 9/11 [http://www.attacreport.com/index.htm]. I'd be wary of giving them any credence. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 23:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Be wary of them? that's not anti-Semitic comment, is it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
if you claim to be an environmentalist and do something else then u aren't really an environmentalist.<br />
if I claimed to be a republican but voted for and believed in democratic veiws would I still be a republican?--[[User:Benburned|Benburned]] 00:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:A person can be 40% environmentalist with 60% dedicated to another agenda. Likewise it's not uncommon at all for crossover votes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:43, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==The religuion of nature==<br />
American, you were on to something, and it's even poetic, but it gets a little sarcastic at the end. I'll try and save what I can. This part, <br />
<br />
:'' There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution ''<br />
<br />
can be backed up with scripture, Genesis "because thou hast sinned, cursed is the ground for thy sake". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 28 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Worship of Gaia?==<br />
Where is the sourced information for this section? The only source in it is a link to some speech Michael Crichton made. How is he an expert on any of this? Please clarify, or let's get rid of it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No kidding, it's almost incoherent. [[User:Pendayho|Pendayho]] 16:11, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Tis hilarious. Especially the Al Gore picture. I'm going to find me some other 'hilarious' pictures to plaster all over the site. Should be some good George Bush ones. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]</sup><br />
<br />
:: And let us not forget about how mockery is a tool exclusive to the liberal repetoire. Oh and it's good to see how it all got put back with no attempt at an explination. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:06, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Mockery? It is all very well cited, and only encapuslated. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:11, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Well cited? I like ATTAC: (I quote directly) which describes itself as 'A Hasidic Analysis of World War III'. The link up, which draws lines from Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club, to 'revolutionary communist terror cells', has had me laugh quite a bit. It's almost as good as [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory this]. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]</sup><br />
<br />
::: My mockery comment was more directed at the purposeful choice of pictures of liberals that make them look either 1) goofy or 2) sinister. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT<br />
:::: Shall I replace it with [[Image:Al_gore.jpg]] this? I'm not sure having a picture of Al Gore serves any purpose beyond that which I would be loath to accuse RobS of. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]</sup><br />
::::: To be honest, I have no idea why this article even needs a picture of Gore other than that he's a noted environmentalist. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: And furthermore, can you explain what any of that has to do with environmentalists? It seems to me if you want to write about Gaia worshipers that should be moved to a different topic. You seem to be looking for the most ridiculous information you can find and trying to stereotype all environmentalists as nut jobs. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Gaia+environmentalist brings up 115,000 Google hits. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=environmentalist%2BGaia&btnG=Google+Search] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::pie+enviromentalist brings up 174,000 Google hits. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=environmentalist+pie&btnG=Google+Search]Perhaps we should include a section on how enviromentalists like pie?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 19:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::: Mattee brings up a good point, I'm not sure how Google hits validates an argument. If you want to have an article about Gaia worshipers, I don't have any problem with that. But as it appears in this article, you are mischaracterizing all environmentalists as being part of some new age religion. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 19:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Environmentalist + Jesus brings up 317,000 Google hits more that 2 times as many as Gaia+environmentalist.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:12, 12 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Environmentalist + Conservative - 654,000 hits, therefore all environmentalists are conservative. Wuh? RobS, you're going to need some better proof. Anyway, 67900 of your sample above are about Lovelock, so it's not exactly compelling. All I can say is - search engines do nothing to prove/disprove hypotheses. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]</sup><br />
<br />
RobS, why was that edit reverted? You were given ample time to respond here, but you didn't. In 24 hours, I'm going to revert if you haven't explained why here. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]</sup> 14:48, 14 May 2007 (EDT) Note the timestamp.<br />
:It's all on the discussion page, right here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Yes. Read the people questioning whether we need a picture of Gore at all. I'd rather not attribute you with the motives I think you're trying to push with that picture. Oh, and do you want me to write that section about the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=environmentalist+conservative&btnG=Search conservative] environmentalists who like [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=environmentalist+pie&btnG=Google+Search pie]? --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]</sup><br />
:So what. Quayle misspelled potato, but never ran as his parties nominee for President. On the otherhand, Gore is a larger historic figure, and we have sourcing defining exactly what he stands for, represents, and believes in. This is much more relevent than a simple common mistake someone who served in the same office, yet his opponents are intent upon never forgetting (read the Conservapedia article on [[Dan Quayle]], it was created precisely for this reason. No mention whatsoever of any accomplishments that lead him to that office). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:59, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: What does that have to do with whether Gore needs a picture? There are (three) pictures on [[Al Gore]], not one of them very flattering, though that doesn't matter. You haven't really answered my question. Here some issues - <br />
<br />
*The Google thing means absolutely nothing - but since that seems to be let go, I'll do the same.<br />
*An environmentalist ''is'' someone who is concerned about the environment. It's boolean logic. If you aren't concerned about it, then you're not an environmentalist.<br />
*Why the picture? Are you trying to suggest with it that Gore's praying to some environmentalist god? If not, then what's wrong with any other picture?<br />
<br />
<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]</sup><br />
:Go fix the Quayle article and we'll talk about fixing an article that is not in the [[Al Gore]] mainspace. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:: What do you want me to do? Anyway, we're discussing '''this''' article, here, and how we should improve it - so answer the question. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]</sup><br />
:::Ok, I suppose we can articulate more about Gaia, neo-paganism, and eco-feminists, and how they have infiltrated the environmental movement. But all that still needs to be kept separate from the various environmental organizations with links to foreign intelligence sources and terrorism. And the environmental organizations on the [[domestic terrorism]] watchlist might have to be separate from that (maybe not). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:06, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Can we also distinguish between conservation (as in, let's not use it up but make it last) and "environmentalism"? A case in point is ivory. I heard many years ago that hunters were driving elephants to extinction to get their ivory tusks, and that bans ivory export were only driving up the price and tempting poachers to take greater risks. But then I heard of some country which decided to manage herds of elephants to "farm" them for their tusks as a business. (Kind of like raising minks or chinchillas for their fur.) <br />
<br />
::::It's something like the way Weyerhauser manages forests so they can cut down trees to make paper. Their total cubic feet of "living wood" is constantly increasing. Their profit motive keeps them from cutting all the trees down. They are thinking decades ahead.<br />
<br />
::::Many so-called environmentalists aren't concerned with forest destruction or animal extinction. They want NO USE of trees or animals. Nature is not for human exploitation (see [[animal rights]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:19, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Good point. You may recall about three years ago Los Alamos had a terrible fire that swept accross the Labs and burnt down 400 homes. The cause of the fire was environmentalist opposing even the removal of dead wood from fallen trees to be commercially expoited as fire wood (commercial logging had long ago been banned). The forest was a tinder box ready to go up in flames. And of course when the Forestry Dept attempted a controlled burn to avoid disaster, they picked a day when the wind was blowing about 40 miles an hour. Classic study of government & environmentalist teaming together to prevent private, greedy, capitalist rape of the environment. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Pop stars opinions==<br />
<br />
Why are pop stars' opinions removed when they make good points and included when they make dumb points (like here)? [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 12:16, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
Because this is essentially a blog for people with an axe to grind. Why else? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 16:30, 20 May 2007 (EDT)</div>Pastafarian