From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pete Miles Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:57 AM To:Message 1 of 7 , Mar 18, 2011View SourceFrom: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Pete Miles
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Measuring/Calculating Isotope Decay Rates
> It is my understanding that a mass spectrometer provides moreWhile it is essentially true that a mass spectrometer measures mass to
> of a relative abundance of mass to charge ratios of a sample,
> not an exact measurement of the sample's mass.
charge ratios the charge value is known allowing the isotopic masses to be
calculated. Also it dose measure absolute abundance not relative abundance.
> Since it is a destructive test, the same original sample can't beThe samples tested are not independent, but are taken from the same larger
> tested again. Since numerous independant samples have to be
> wouldn't another assumption be that the different samplesThe larger sample is usually ground up and each test sample gets a portion
> were identical, and that the isotope ratios were solely due
> to the decay within the sample (i.e. no original daughter
> product and daughter products don't come from other
of the mixed ground up sample so as to average out any isotopic variation
that was in the larger sample.
------ Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/> Mission
Online <http://store.gscim.com/> Store
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
... Eugene: It is a tactic to derail your argument without actually dealing with the argument. The tactic is designed to frustrate you and I run into it allMessage 1 of 7 , May 11, 2011View Source--- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
>Eugene: It is a tactic to derail your argument without actually dealing with the argument. The tactic is designed to frustrate you and I run into it all the time since I spend a lot of time in informal debate groups. I started to post some of my discussion in such groups on my blog as examples that might help those who get frustrated with such discussions.
> I have encountered a way in which Creation Science gets censored on
> discussion web sites.
> I have for some time been involved with a discussion web site on space
> flight. Now normally the topic of origins does not come up but every once in
> a while; like when a so called Earth like planet Is discovered or the latest
> claim of a meteor with an alleged fossilized bacteria on it; the subject
> comes up. Now I have learned that questioning a purely naturalistic origin
> of life produces a borough of attracts. While I have always been able to
> single handedly defend my position on purely scientific grounds but any such
> reference no mater how much on topic, results in the discussion be dragged
> so far off topic that the entire thread or at least that portion of it gets
> deleted, in affect censoring my views.
> I'm not sure how deliberate it is on the part those making the attracts, or
> if it's just a natural result of changeling their world view but I know that
> when ever I post on topics that touch on the origin of life its going result
> in the thread exploding into an off topic decision that will eventually be
> removed. It's frustrating because on several occasions I have felted like I
> was being censored not so much by sites administrators but by those who
> force their actions.
> ------ Charles Creager Jr.
> Genesis Science Mission <http://gscim.com/>
> Online Store <http://store.gscim.com/>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]