Diamonds Aren't Forever?

Posted 5 August 2008 by Wesley R. Elsberry

The Institute for Creation Research has a project called RATE, whose intent was to overturn radiometric absolute dating methods as evidence for an old age of the earth. One of the arguments that they made was that diamonds contain significant levels of the radioactive carbon 14 (14C) isotope, indicating that they cannot be older than about 50,000 years old, and thus point to a young age of the earth. This sort of technical wrangle is something beloved of young-earth creationists (YECs), and indeed one such person going by the handle "tripa" has commented here (n.b., on Austringer, where the original essay was posted) on another thread about the RATE diamond study. Physicist Kirk Bertsche has responded to the RATE diamond and coal studies with an essay hosted on the American Scientific Affiliation website. Dr. Bertsche notes a number of inconvenient facts that undercut the arguments made by ICR's advocates, including standard procedures within radiocarbon AMS work that were ignored or not followed properly, and indications from the RATE measurement results themselves whose obvious interpretation points to sample contamination. It is an elegant take-down of yet another antievolution argument whose pseudo-technical gloss is intended to impress rather than to inform. The ASA also hosts several other essays concerning the RATE project. (Original article at the Austringer)

65 Comments

Wheels · 5 August 2008

"Undercutting the diamond argument," you say?
Maybe they'll back away from it, and this will be like when Ray Comfort said his fruity banana argument was just to be facet-ious.

Joshua Zelinsky · 5 August 2008

One of the most interesting things in the essay is how when discussing the AMS samples, RATE just ignored the two graphite samples that undermined the claim being made there.

Gary Hurd · 5 August 2008

Kirk has submitted his paper to the TalkOrigins archive. We responded to a few resonable suggestions and ignored the rest. I was planning to put the final draft up tomorrow.

Ichthyic · 6 August 2008

Maybe they'll back away from it, and this will be like when Ray Comfort said his fruity banana argument was just to be facet-ious.

or like Dembski's "Street Theater"?

Felix · 6 August 2008

Do they ever not lie?

Frank J · 6 August 2008

Do they ever not lie?
— Felix

My impression of ICR and most YEC and OEC organizations that they are so affected by Morton's Demon that they actually convince themselves that the evidence supports their prior conclusion. The DI is another story altogether. They claim that ID is not "creationism," but avoid every opportunity to back it up with a technical refutation of YE arguments that they know are bogus. They don't even need to write their own refutation, but simply express agreement with those of mainstream science. Prior commitment to the "big tent," of course, precludes that - for now. If/when the public - and not just a minority of their critics (itself a small minority of the public) - starts demanding details of their differences with YEC and OEC, they will be forced to comply. But for now, it's a card they don't need to use.

Flint · 6 August 2008

For sincere YECs (and I think they exist), at least those who elect to be somewhat aware of the world around them, the clear contradiction between scientific knowledge and scriptural decree is a genuine problem.

The common solution to this problem involves the recognition that scripture is Defined As True, and the word of their god, and cannot possibly be wrong. Furthermore, scripture is so transparently clear that it can't possibly be misinterpreted by True Christians. So it becomes Absolute Truth, an immutable solid rock standing firm in a world of human frailty, error and confusion.

And accordingly, science falls haplessly into that human world. This is obvious: scientists keep changing their minds all the time; new evidence keeps undermining old theories, scientists disagree even among relevant experts. So it's easy to rationalize that where science and scripture disagree, this can only be where science hasn't got it right yet.

And so it's legitimate to cherry-pick only those facts congenial to scripture, and force-fit them into what creationist interpretation ("True Christianity") requires, while discarding nearly everything. After all, without Absolute Truth as a yardstick, how could we possibly know which scientific theories are correct, or which scientists are right?

John Kwok · 6 August 2008

Hi Wesley,

Great Post. Reminds me a lot of the abysmal geology being shown in the recently released "Journey to the Center of the Earth". As a former geologist, I counted at least a dozen mistakes geologically speaking, of which one of the most blatant ones featured diamonds (I'd recommend the film only to see some excellent acting by Icelandic native Anita Briem and some decent Mesozoic monster animation that's almost to "Jurassic Park" standards.).

Regards,

John

lee · 6 August 2008

"For sincere YECs (and I think they exist)...."

They do exist. I (voluntarily) have lunch with one every Wednesday (leaving for BBQ in 30 minutes).

I thought of a question concerning YECS that I cannnot seem to find the answer to.

Don't we have a contiguous historical record that dates back farther that 6000 years?

fusilier · 6 August 2008

lee asked:

Don’t we have a contiguous historical record that dates back farther that 6000 years?

The YEC answer is "No, we don't." For them, a historical record consists of written documents, specifically from Southwest Asia. Disagreements with the received chronology - such as Egyptian records - are explained by by truncating time frames ("Pharaoh N really ruled only two years, instead of the twenty recorded, because the Egyptians always inflated the importance of their rulers.") Records from China are obviously totally unreliable, since the word for "flood" is eight people on a boat and that proves Noah's ark. {insert image of head butting into wall, here.} fusilier James 2:24

Eric · 6 August 2008

Contamination? Bah! Poppycock! What are you smoking Wesley? Everyone knows that ubiquitous C14 is real, and is evidence the Designer was carpet-bombing the Earth with nuclear weapons 50,000 years ago. In remorse He cleaned up all the (other) contamination, but He left the C14 in rocks to represenet His promise to never nuke His people again.

Seriously, good article. The whole RATE study seems to be a typically myopic creo exercise. They ignore much simpler C14 experiments in favor of complicated ones and ignore the multiple, independent lines of evidence for the age of the earth.

Frank J · 6 August 2008

The common solution to this problem involves the recognition that scripture is Defined As True, and the word of their god, and cannot possibly be wrong. Furthermore, scripture is so transparently clear that it can’t possibly be misinterpreted by True Christians. So it becomes Absolute Truth, an immutable solid rock standing firm in a world of human frailty, error and confusion.
— Flint

Except that is interpreted in mutually contradictory ways, all of which are claimed to be literal by Biblical (classic) creationists.

Don’t we have a contiguous historical record that dates back farther that 6000 years?
— lee

Of course, and that may be in part why there are so many OECs, both old-life and young-life variants. The honest YECs and OECs at least debate their different interpretations. Although most in the last ~10 years have been running for shelter under the "don't ask, don't tell" big tent of ID.

stevaroni · 6 August 2008

Reminds me a lot of the abysmal geology being shown in the recently released “Journey to the Center of the Earth”.

A little off-topic, but does anyone have a rule-of thumb formula for air pressure at the bottom of a deep hole (like a mile-deep gold mine)? The topic came up during a discussion of "Journey" and how it relates to real things like deep mines. The formulas I found use sea level as a baseline and fall apart when height goes negative. I was curious because, air being compressible, you'd expect the function to get rapidly exponential as you go down in to a deep hole.

Mike Elzinga · 6 August 2008

stevaroni said:
Reminds me a lot of the abysmal geology being shown in the recently released “Journey to the Center of the Earth”.
A little off-topic, but does anyone have a rule-of thumb formula for air pressure at the bottom of a deep hole (like a mile-deep gold mine)? The topic came up during a discussion of "Journey" and how it relates to real things like deep mines. The formulas I found use sea level as a baseline and fall apart when height goes negative. I was curious because, air being compressible, you'd expect the function to get rapidly exponential as you go down in to a deep hole.

The gravitational force on a mass within a tunnel goes to zero linearly as one approaches the center of a solid sphere. Therefore, anything with mass will have no weight at the center if it lies within a hollow chamber at the center. On the other hand, a fluid that is connected through the tunnel all the way to the surface will transmit its surface pressure to the center. If the fluid were non-compressible, the force (weight) per unit length of the fluid within the tunnel drilled to the center would be constantly decreasing as it approaches the center. And since air is compressible, it wouldn’t follow the same exponentially decreasing pressure gradient that a compressible fluid does above the surface of the sphere. And this is even further complicated by the fact that the temperature within the Earth is increasing significantly with depth. We need to figure out whether or not this increase in temperature offsets the increase in pressure do determine if the air would liquefy or not. I think I know in principle how to do the calculations, but they are complicated and highly non-linear, and I would have to write a fairly extensive program to do the calculations on my computer. I doubt that a rule-of-thumb calculation would come out of it. None of these calculations addresses the issues of keeping such a tunnel and chamber open in extremely hot molten rock and iron. Nor does this address the issues of radioactivity from decaying heavy elements within the core. That movie “Journey to the Center of the Earth” was indeed abysmal. :-)

Flint · 6 August 2008

Frank J:

Except that is interpreted in mutually contradictory ways, all of which are claimed to be literal by Biblical (classic) creationists.

Yes, of course. I was trying to describe a thought process, not a real-world condition. In the real world, there are, what, 20,000+ Christian sects, all differing on their interpretation of the same texts, and without any useful means of reconciliation (there being no reality as final arbiter). In reality, scripture is the worst sort of quicksand science could never aspire to match. But hey, there must be SOME reason science differs from Absolute Truth (my version), and my being wrong about anything isn't on the table, sorry.

Shirley Knott · 6 August 2008

While I rarely spend time in such cess-pits*, there are some marvelous takedowns of RATE, and "Dr" Bertsch (who fled from the discussion) at TheologyWeb. Glenn Morton, recovered YEC and creator of the notion of 'Morton's Demon' contributed heavily, and was the primary cause of Bertsch's disgraceful flight from the scene.

Hugs,
Shirley Knott
*As theology sites go, TW is one of the best. But, as a theology site, well, it's still a cess-pit.

Kirk Bertsche · 6 August 2008

Shirley Knott said: While I rarely spend time in such cess-pits*, there are some marvelous takedowns of RATE, and "Dr" Bertsch (who fled from the discussion) at TheologyWeb. Glenn Morton, recovered YEC and creator of the notion of 'Morton's Demon' contributed heavily, and was the primary cause of Bertsch's disgraceful flight from the scene.

I believe you are confusing me with Dr. Baumgardner, the originator of the RATE radiocarbon claims?? Though we both have Swiss-German surnames, we have very different perspectives on the age of the earth and on the reliability of radiocarbon dates.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 6 August 2008

a “radiocarbon-of-the-gaps” theory

Marvelous!

stevaroni said: A little off-topic, but does anyone have a rule-of thumb formula for air pressure at the bottom of a deep hole (like a mile-deep gold mine)? The topic came up during a discussion of "Journey" and how it relates to real things like deep mines. The formulas I found use sea level as a baseline and fall apart when height goes negative.

Except, as a rule-of-thumb for such small depths, they don't. Just be careful with your exponential sign around your sea level reference. For example, for a 3 km (2 mile) hole I get that the pressure disregarding temperature change will increase 50 %, using the barometric scale height of 7.4 km. Wikipedia claims continental crust at 35-40 km and upper mantle temperature at 500 - 900 Celsius, say ~ 20 K/km and ~ 80 Celsius at 3 km depth, or ~ 30 % temp increase. Linearizing the hell out of this rule-of-thumb calculation, the total pressure will roughly be 1.5*1.3, or double sea level. Checking with reality, the pressure doubles and the temperature is ~ 80 Celsius for a 2 mile mine. Hmm. I'm always suspicious when it's too good.

raven · 6 August 2008

Don’t we have a contiguous historical record that dates back farther that 6000 years?

Not sure about written records, early written records are not my field. But we have ice core chronologies from Antarctica and Greenland that go back 100,000's of years. Very important for ancient climate studies. IIRC, one from Antarctica goes back 400 kyr. We also have tree ring chronologies that go back 1000's of years. There is in fact a clump of trees in N. Europe that are still alive after 8,000 years. Pretty amazing, trees growing 2 kyr before Adam and Eve.

Eric · 6 August 2008

A quick google search revealed that at 1300 feet below sea level - i.e. the dead sea - the barometric pressure is 800mm mercury. Sea level is 760 mm. Extrapolate at will :) eric

Mike Elzinga said:
stevaroni said:
Reminds me a lot of the abysmal geology being shown in the recently released “Journey to the Center of the Earth”.
A little off-topic, but does anyone have a rule-of thumb formula for air pressure at the bottom of a deep hole (like a mile-deep gold mine)? The topic came up during a discussion of "Journey" and how it relates to real things like deep mines. The formulas I found use sea level as a baseline and fall apart when height goes negative. I was curious because, air being compressible, you'd expect the function to get rapidly exponential as you go down in to a deep hole.
The gravitational force on a mass within a tunnel goes to zero linearly as one approaches the center of a solid sphere. Therefore, anything with mass will have no weight at the center if it lies within a hollow chamber at the center. On the other hand, a fluid that is connected through the tunnel all the way to the surface will transmit its surface pressure to the center. If the fluid were non-compressible, the force (weight) per unit length of the fluid within the tunnel drilled to the center would be constantly decreasing as it approaches the center. And since air is compressible, it wouldn’t follow the same exponentially decreasing pressure gradient that a compressible fluid does above the surface of the sphere. And this is even further complicated by the fact that the temperature within the Earth is increasing significantly with depth. We need to figure out whether or not this increase in temperature offsets the increase in pressure do determine if the air would liquefy or not. I think I know in principle how to do the calculations, but they are complicated and highly non-linear, and I would have to write a fairly extensive program to do the calculations on my computer. I doubt that a rule-of-thumb calculation would come out of it. None of these calculations addresses the issues of keeping such a tunnel and chamber open in extremely hot molten rock and iron. Nor does this address the issues of radioactivity from decaying heavy elements within the core. That movie “Journey to the Center of the Earth” was indeed abysmal. :-)

raven · 6 August 2008

Just skimmed the IRC bafflegab and why it is wrong essay.

Looks like all the IRC dates for diamond and coal are at or near background indicating ages of around somwhere between 50,000 years and infinity.

If their YEC theory is right, the oldest carbon on earth should be around 50% modern carbon 14. 6,000 year old earth and half life of C14 of 5,000 years.

Not seeing why they are bothering with their pseudoscience. It proves that the earth is no way 6 kyr old. They've narrowed it down to somewhere between 50 kyr and infinity. The proper isotope series for longer time spans isn't C14 as everyone here knows, there are quite a few others, argon argon, argon potassium, uranium lead and so on.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 6 August 2008

Btw, if the pressure doubles (or more, I google mines deeper than 5 km) I understand why deep mine workers would need pressure acclimatization.

But if you get the bends from popping too fast from water, what do you get from reeling too fast from rock? The yields?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 6 August 2008

Eric said: A quick google search revealed that at 1300 feet below sea level - i.e. the dead sea - the barometric pressure is 800mm mercury. Sea level is 760 mm. Extrapolate at will :)

Linearizing is a good idea on this part of the exponential. Your numbers of ~ 10 mm Hg for 100 m gives 300 mm Hg or ~ 40 % pressure increase instead of ~ 50 (at constant temp).

raven said: There is in fact a clump of trees in N. Europe that are still alive after 8,000 years. Pretty amazing, trees growing 2 kyr before Adam and Eve.

That's Sweden actually - so it would be Askr and Embla. And in the Prose Edda they were trees originally (ash respectively elm). Guess it is easier to be a viking YEC than a christian YEC. Unless you start to wonder which of the two different viking creation stories is correct ...

stevaroni · 6 August 2008

Not seeing why they are bothering with their pseudoscience. It proves that the earth is no way 6 kyr old. They’ve narrowed it down to somewhere between 50 kyr and infinity.

Wow! Do you know what this means? ID research has actually produced a correct answer! Now, I've seen everything.

raven · 6 August 2008

sciencedaily.com: World's Oldest Living Tree -- 9550 years old -- Discovered In Sweden ScienceDaily (Apr. 16, 2008) — The world's oldest recorded tree is a 9,550 year old spruce in the Dalarna province of Sweden. The spruce tree has shown to be a tenacious survivor that has endured by growing between erect trees and smaller bushes in pace with the dramatic climate changes over time.

Seems the oldest living thing is a tree of 9550 years old, a spruce tree in Sweden. The tree itself doesn't seem that old, but it is part of a clump that grew sequentially from root suckers. At any rate it predates the garden of eden by 3550 years. Back to the drawing board for the YECs.

Steve · 6 August 2008

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: But if you get the bends from popping too fast from water, what do you get from reeling too fast from rock? The yields?

Every 10 metres down in water increases the pressure by one atmosphere. By your numbers, every 5KM down in air, does the same. At 10 metres in water I believe you don't need to depressurise. Steve

John Kwok · 6 August 2008

Hi Steve and Torbjörn, These are good points:

Steve said:
Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: But if you get the bends from popping too fast from water, what do you get from reeling too fast from rock? The yields?
Every 10 metres down in water increases the pressure by one atmosphere. By your numbers, every 5KM down in air, does the same. At 10 metres in water I believe you don't need to depressurise. Steve

If the producers and the director of "Journey to the Center for the Earth" were interested in scientific accuracy, then they would have shown the characters portrayed respectively by Brendan Fraser, Anita Briem and Josh Hutcherson would have suffered from acute cases of the bends after their rapid descent and ascent from the center of the Earth. However, these are the least of some rather glaring scientific errors I noticed - and cringed - while watching it. However, I suppose Young Earth Creationists would find the science quite credible to say the least. Cheers, John

Gary Hurd · 6 August 2008

During the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge, the "bends" was called "caisson disease."

See Decompression sickness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompression_sickness#History

stevaroni · 6 August 2008

Steve writes... Every 10 metres down in water increases the pressure by one atmosphere. By your numbers, every 5KM down in air, does the same. At 10 metres in water I believe you don’t need to depressurise.

Actually, I thought that Torb's numbers indicated that a 2 mile ( 3km ) hole would be at 2 atmospheres at the base. The thing is, as Torb pointed out, it's going to be a weird function, since air is compressible, so the more pressure you have the greater the density of the air lower in the column, which is going to drive the pressure delta higher as you go deeper... OW. my head hurts. But you're right, I seem to remember from scuba diving in my younger days that above 60 feet (3atm) there was no decompression time necessary. Of course, there was a natural limit to how long you could stay down since you only had 25 cubic fee of air or so available. IIRC, that was about 40 or 50 minutes max, but it's been a while. If you could spend extreme lengths of time deep in a two mile hole, you might be able to build up enough stored nitrogen that things might be different.

Mike Elzinga · 6 August 2008

Actually, I thought that Torb’s numbers indicated that a 2 mile ( 3km ) hole would be at 2 atmospheres at the base. The thing is, as Torb pointed out, it’s going to be a weird function, since air is compressible, so the more pressure you have the greater the density of the air lower in the column, which is going to drive the pressure delta higher as you go deeper… OW. my head hurts.

I just finished a crude calculation in which I assumed the atmosphere is an ideal gas (density proportional to pressure) and that the gas in the tunnel would remain at the temperature of the surface of the Earth all the way to the center of the Earth. In this calculation, I allowed for the fact that the gravitational acceleration, g, increases linearly from zero at the center to 9.8 meters per second-squared at the surface. The pressure increases as we go toward the center as exp(const*depth²). When you plug in the numbers, you get that the air pressure at the center of the Earth would be approximately 10³²⁸ atmospheres. Now, technically an ideal gas does not liquefy, however, at these pressures, the density is so high it might as well be called a super dense liquid. Not only would you get the bends, you would be ascending from the size of a point to an exploding balloon. Obviously such a pressure would have already liquefied any atmospheric gases in spite of the increasing temperatures of the molten core. And keeping a tunnel open in the convection currents and pressures of molten rock and iron would not be easy. In addition, when you keep feeding gas from the atmosphere into the tunnel to compensate for its compression as you go deeper, you start taking significant amounts of it from the atmosphere.

Stuart Weinstein · 6 August 2008

stevaroni said:
Reminds me a lot of the abysmal geology being shown in the recently released “Journey to the Center of the Earth”.
A little off-topic, but does anyone have a rule-of thumb formula for air pressure at the bottom of a deep hole (like a mile-deep gold mine)? The topic came up during a discussion of "Journey" and how it relates to real things like deep mines. The formulas I found use sea level as a baseline and fall apart when height goes negative. I was curious because, air being compressible, you'd expect the function to get rapidly exponential as you go down in to a deep hole.

Google "scale height"

stevaroni · 6 August 2008

Google “scale height”

That's a much more elegant formula than I thought it was going to be.

Henry J · 6 August 2008

I wonder if the neglect of geology in "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is worse than the neglect of simple atomic thoery in "Honey I Shrunk the Kids"?

Henry

Henry J · 6 August 2008

Oh blast, I forgot to spell check that... "thoery" indeed... Make that "theory"...

Mike Elzinga · 6 August 2008

stevaroni said:
Google “scale height”
That's a much more elegant formula than I thought it was going to be.

The only thing you have to do with what is shown on Wikipedia is start from the center of the earth and make g a linear function of z. This is what gets you the z² in the exponential. This is assuming an ideal gas in which the density is proportional to pressure. Then make the atmospheric pressure come out to be 1 at the earth's surface and solve for the pressure at the center.

Mike Elzinga · 6 August 2008

Slight correction to my earlier post:

I see when I plugged the numbers into my calculation I forgot a division by 2 in the exponent. My answer should have come out approximately 10¹⁶⁴ atmospheres.

Arithmetic is harder than calculus.

Frank J · 7 August 2008

But hey, there must be SOME reason science differs from Absolute Truth (my version), and my being wrong about anything isn’t on the table, sorry.
— Flint

Science differs from apologetics, of course if that's what you mean. As you know, the latter starts with a conclusion and cherry picks only that evidence that fits it. Creationism, thus, is an "evolving apologetics." First, the "scientific" YEC and OEC half-heartedly tried to disguise that it was apologetics, and not science. But since even nonscientists often noticed the contradictions and the cherry picking, (not to mention the occasional admission that the Bible should be taken as evidence), at some point - even before the legal problems, another strategy was needed. Thus ID, and its immediate ancestor of "don't ask, don't tell" creationism, used what I guess could be called "negative apologetics." Just cherry pick evidence against "Darwinism" and let the audience infer whatever alternative they are comfortable with. Such an approach probably promotes YEC and OEC more effectively than the direct approach.

midwifetoad · 7 August 2008

How is carbon dating relevant to the age of the earth?

Paul Burnett · 7 August 2008

stevaroni said: A little off-topic, but does anyone have a rule-of thumb formula for air pressure at the bottom of a deep hole (like a mile-deep gold mine)?

I found an interesting article from South Africa, "Barometric hazards within the context of deep-level mining" at http://www.saimm.co.za/publications/downloads/v105n06p387.pdf "The total increase in barometric pressure while descending from surface to a mining depth of 5 000 m would be approximately 0.55 ATA (Atmosphere Absolute), i.e. a 66% increase in ambient pressure compared with surface. This is equivalent to a depth of 7 m in seawater, not enough to produce decompression sickness, narcosis or toxic effects among recreational divers. This indicates little risk of routine pressure-related effects during descent into an ultra-deep mine and even less risk during ascent, assuming good dental care, healthy sinuses, unobstructed external ear canals and normally functioning Eustachian tubes."

Frank J · 7 August 2008

How is carbon dating relevant to the age of the earth?
— midwifetoad

Simple. The part of the audience that desperately wants to believe that the Earth is only a few 1000 years old has mostly heard the term "carbon dating" but not other radiometric dating methods. I'll be the first to admit that anti-evolution activists are better than we are at tailoring the argument to the target audience.

raven · 7 August 2008

How is carbon dating relevant to the age of the earth?

That is simple. Since the earth is 6,000 years old and the half life of C14 is 5,000 years, the oldest C14 dates can only be 50% Modern Carbon-14. The fact that the creos get dates of 50,000 years to infinity means, well something weird. In reality, of course, it is useless. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. There are many other radioisotope dating methods using longer half life isotopes, argon-argon, argon-potassium, lead-uranium, rubidium-strontium and so on. The 6 kyr old earth is as well supported as the idea that the sun orbits the earth which is also flat. In times not so long ago, the creos would have solved the radioisotope dating problem like they solved the heliocentrism problem. All geochronologists would be tortured until they recanted or burned at the stake. Hey, a pile of firewood and a match is an all purpose tool that will solve lots of scientific problems.

PvM · 7 August 2008

And since C14 dating has been carefully reconciled with other sources of data, it is hard to argue against its accuracy. And yet... Oh the foolishness...

Frank J said:
How is carbon dating relevant to the age of the earth?
— midwifetoad
Simple. The part of the audience that desperately wants to believe that the Earth is only a few 1000 years old has mostly heard the term "carbon dating" but not other radiometric dating methods. I'll be the first to admit that anti-evolution activists are better than we are at tailoring the argument to the target audience.

John Kwok · 7 August 2008

Hi Gary, Thanks for this reminder:

Gary Hurd said: During the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge, the "bends" was called "caisson disease." See Decompression sickness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompression_sickness#History

Having enjoyed, back in May, some of the activities associated with the 125th birthday of the Brooklyn Bridge, I have become reacquainted with the excellent design and construction overseen by John Roebling and his son, Washington. Regrettably, both became casualties. John perished after a freak ferryboat accident, while Washington suffered from an acute case of the bends which left him bedridden for the rest of his life. Appreciatively yours, John

John Kwok · 7 August 2008

Hi Henry J,

Henry J said: I wonder if the neglect of geology in "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is worse than the neglect of simple atomic thoery in "Honey I Shrunk the Kids"? Henry

Thanks for asking this question. Judging from what I saw - though I must admit I was distracted happily by Anita Briem's excellent acting (except for one silly monster-about-to-eat human scene) - the film producers and its director would have flunked freshman geology. That's really a shame, since I think they did get right a scene of plesiosaurs feeding. Cheers, John

Mike Elzinga · 7 August 2008

Henry J said: I wonder if the neglect of geology in "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is worse than the neglect of simple atomic thoery in "Honey I Shrunk the Kids"? Henry

Yeah, it would really mess with everything. The molecules of the air they breathe would be much larger than the molecules in their bodies (how do they now metabolize?), and these molecules would also be banging on their ear drums. Their entire hearing response would be different? What would they smell? Their eyes would no longer be sensitive to the same part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The surface tension of water would be overwhelming. They couldn’t drink, they couldn’t eat. The entire physics of their bodies would be inconsistent with the physics of the rest of the universe. This is not as much off-topic as it seems. These little exercises with “The Physics of Journey to the Center of the Earth” or “The Physics of Star Trek”, or “The Physics of Super Heroes” are good warm-ups for “The Science of Young Earth Creationism”. In fact, a book on the physics of YEC would be hilarious (“The Physics of Honey I Shrunk the Age of the Universe”).

Henry J · 7 August 2008

Their entire hearing response would be different? What would they smell? Their eyes would no longer be sensitive to the same part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The surface tension of water would be overwhelming. They couldn’t drink, they couldn’t eat.

I hadn't even thought of those points. What had occurred to me was the normal sized O2 molecules probably wouldn't react the usual way with the shrunken C atoms; their lungs wouldn't hold more than a very tiny fraction of the number of O2 molecules needed; and I'm wondering if oversize O2 and N2 molecules would produce effective air pressure (i.e., would they decompress?), but I don't know enough physics to resolve that question. Henry

Frank J · 7 August 2008

And since C14 dating has been carefully reconciled with other sources of data, it is hard to argue against its accuracy. And yet… Oh the foolishness…
— PvM

Ah, but the target audience - and I mean the majority that prefers cool sound bites to science, not just the subset of hopeless Biblical literalists - tends to lose interest when one starts discussing the other sources. Plus it gives experienced scam artists more data to take out of context. Heaven help us if the numbers don't match exactly. I should add that, with any pseudoscience, the scam artists may be better at communicating to the masses, but they also have it much easier than we do. When they do have to use technical terms they can define them any way they want to suit the argument.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 7 August 2008

Steve said: Every 10 metres down in water increases the pressure by one atmosphere. By your numbers, every 5KM down in air, does the same. At 10 metres in water I believe you don't need to depressurise.

Well, that is the margin used in decompression theory. [Egads! I actually had to check that. It has been too long.] Going below that you would want to decompress after an 8 h work day, and IIRC that can happen to deep mine workers, I believe they have resting stations between elevators. Maybe someone can corroborate this. And there is certainly mines deeper than 3 km. Plus, there will always be some that will react differently anyway. I see one model allow for 3.5 % decompression sickness occurrence at 95 % confidence, and there are even outright probabilistic risk models.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 7 August 2008

Paul Burnett said: I found an interesting article from South Africa, "Barometric hazards within the context of deep-level mining" at http://www.saimm.co.za/publications/downloads/v105n06p387.pdf

Interesting indeed. They seem to use the constant temperature formula to underestimate pressure ("would be") instead of actually measuring some mines, possibly compare the "potential for daily oscillations in barometric pressure to induce adverse physiological effects" with mine descent/ascent, et cetera. In addition, note the sources of some of the references, and I believe I understand why such a paper may want to be "non-refereed". :-P But I also note that very small pressure differentials may indeed give embolism, if the title of the following reference is true: "BENTON, P.J., WOODFINE, J.D., and WESTWOOK, P.R. Arterial gas embolism following a 1-meter ascent during helicopter escape training. Aviat Space Environ Med, vol. 67, 1996. pp. 63–4." TANSTAASL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Safe Lunch).

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 7 August 2008

Mike Elzinga said: These little exercises with “The Physics of Journey to the Center of the Earth” or “The Physics of Star Trek”, or “The Physics of Super Heroes” are good warm-ups for “The Science of Young Earth Creationism”. In fact, a book on the physics of YEC would be hilarious (“The Physics of Honey I Shrunk the Age of the Universe”).

I wouldn't want to presume to speak for someone else's faith, but isn't this the reason why John Kwok argues for Klingon cosmology/religion over Dembskian IDiocy? On another note, in fiction you will want to suspend your disbelief. Asimov solved the miniaturization problem (modulo a dozen or so anomalies, I believe he stated in his foreword). For example, the HISTC series may have a miniaturization/de-miniaturization effect ("field") lingering around the miniaturized object, making interfacing easy. (Though I seem to remember voice power/frequency problems (?), so I guess they blew the constraints on that one.) Now, I would be the first one to admit that YEC is pure fiction. But as it is a belief that proposes to be valid outside its fiction, the reverse principle of "dispense with belief" holds.

John Kwok · 7 August 2008

Dear Torbjörn,

No I argue for the "reality" of Klingon Cosmology simply because there is more "proof" for its existence than you will ever see for "Dembskian IDiocy" (Incidentally, my "pal" Dembski accused me of being "childish" for "subscribing" to Klingon Cosmology.Hmmm.... I wonder. Who's really being "childish" here. Is it me. or is it Dembski?).

However, on the other hand, I may subscribe to "Vernian" geology after seeing a "successful" demonstration of it courtesy of Icelandic native Anita Briem in her recent film "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (Just kidding about my "subscription" to Jules Verne's science fiction.).

Cheers,

John

Gary Hurd · 7 August 2008

Bact to the original topic, there is a fun exchange between Kirk, myself, and others that took place last Fall on the TWeb, RATE and Radiocarbon.

Baumgardner eventually stormed off in classic YEC style- everyone who disagreed with him were going to hell.

That is when I began nudging Kirk to write an expanded version for TO.

Gary Hurd · 7 August 2008

I forgot to mention that Baumgardner did manage 20 posts in about 30 days before invoking Pascal, and waving "ByeBye."

Gary Hurd · 7 August 2008

Opps, Baumgardner nearly lasted a week, not a month.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 7 August 2008

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: But I also note that very small pressure differentials may indeed give embolism, if the title of the following reference is true: "BENTON, P.J., WOODFINE, J.D., and WESTWOOK, P.R. Arterial gas embolism following a 1-meter ascent during helicopter escape training. Aviat Space Environ Med, vol. 67, 1996. pp. 63–4." TANSTAASL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Safe Lunch).

It should be noted that the 1m of the report is 1m of water, not air. Back when I took SCUBA certification (~1973), my instructor warned the class against breath-holding on ascent, saying that going from full lungs to embolism was a matter of 4 feet. That's not much over the 1m mark of the cited paper, which indicates about a tenth of an atmosphere pressure change can make you go pop.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 7 August 2008

Hmmm... thinking about that, about a tenth of an atmosphere appears to be the minimum intranarial pressure difference associated with biosonar sound production in bottlenose dolphins, too.

Mike Elzinga · 8 August 2008

Wesley R. Elsberry said:
Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: But I also note that very small pressure differentials may indeed give embolism, if the title of the following reference is true: "BENTON, P.J., WOODFINE, J.D., and WESTWOOK, P.R. Arterial gas embolism following a 1-meter ascent during helicopter escape training. Aviat Space Environ Med, vol. 67, 1996. pp. 63–4." TANSTAASL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Safe Lunch).
It should be noted that the 1m of the report is 1m of water, not air. Back when I took SCUBA certification (~1973), my instructor warned the class against breath-holding on ascent, saying that going from full lungs to embolism was a matter of 4 feet. That's not much over the 1m mark of the cited paper, which indicates about a tenth of an atmosphere pressure change can make you go pop.

During the time I was on the diesel subs, all submariners went through periodic drills and training in what was then called the “blow-and-go” method of escape. You enter an escape trunk, close the inside hatch, fill it with water to form an air pocket just above the top of the outer hatch, equalize the air pressure to that of the outside sea water, at which time you can open the outer hatch. You then duck out of the air pocket, and step through the outer hatch into the water outside, exhale strongly, inflate your life vest, and then blow out continuously as your life vest carries you to the surface in a buoyant ascent. All qualifying training took place first at 12 feet followed by 50 feet, but you were encouraged to do an escape from 100 feet if scheduling permitted. Most training took place in tall water-filled tanks on the sub bases, and occasional training was done from the submarine in open sea waters. Successful escapes using this method have taken place from over 200 feet. The deeper the depth from which you escape, the less time you have to pressurize and get out without experiencing the bends as you ascend. It’s an interesting sensation; your lungs feel empty as you start your ascent, but as you blow, the air just keeps coming as it expands in your lungs. After you experience this effect, the temptation to hold your breath immediately goes away. Learning this technique also made learning SCUBA diving much easier. This technique replaced the Momsen lung, which itself was a great life-saver. It turned out that blow-and-go was much safer because the Momsen lungs occasionally had mechanical or chemical (soda lime) problems, especially after long storage or water damage, of if they got damaged in the crowded escape trunk. Blow-and-go was simpler; building on what was learned from using the Momsen lung. It required no equipment beyond the inflatable life jacket, which you also had with the Momsen lung (thus more men could get into the escape trunk at a time), and it was easier to learn in those tall training tanks that then existed on all submarine bases (I see they have been torn down). After the diesel subs were replaced by the nukes, this training was phased out because the nukes operated in such deep water that buoyant escapes were no longer feasible. I understand that this training is now being phased back in because of newer types of operations around the continental shelves.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 8 August 2008

Dear John,

John Kwok said: Dear Torbjörn, No I argue for the "reality" of Klingon Cosmology simply because there is more "proof" for its existence than you will ever see for "Dembskian IDiocy"

That was my perception of your idea, and that is how I perceived Mike's comment of "good warm-ups" presumably before tackling even more evidence-less IDiocy.

John Kwok said: Just kidding about my "subscription" to Jules Verne's science fiction.

For myself I willingly subscribe to JV's science fiction! His science OTOH ...

John Kwok · 8 August 2008

Hi TL,

No complaints from me here:

For myself I willingly subscribe to JV's science fiction! His science OTOH ...

I still admire a lot his tales of Captain Nemo.

Regards,

John

John Kwok · 8 August 2008

Hi TL,

No complaints from me here:

"For myself I willingly subscribe to JV's science fiction! His science OTOH ..."

I still admire a lot his tales of Captain Nemo.

Regards,

John

Stuart Weinstein · 8 August 2008

midwifetoad said: How is carbon dating relevant to the age of the earth?

Simple. By the transitive property of whatever, if you can show that C-14 dating has issues, then all radiometric dates must have issues. The fact that C-14 isn't used to date rocks, doesn't matter in the least.

HR Pufnstuf · 11 August 2008

Joshua Zelinsky said: One of the most interesting things in the essay is how when discussing the AMS samples, RATE just ignored the two graphite samples that undermined the claim being made there.

Well, they are just cherry picking the results they wanted, just like the evolutionists do. I bet if you took any two samples, exactly alike save that a dog peed on one, their ages would differ by ten orders of magnitude and the evolutionists would choose the older one. (I think I will try this experiment next.)

stevaroni · 11 August 2008

HR puffs... I bet if you took any two samples, exactly alike save that a dog peed on one, their ages would differ by ten orders of magnitude and the evolutionists would choose the older one.

Um, don't forget, HR, that in your world "the older one" can't possibly exist, seeing as the entire Earth was supposedly created on a sunny afternoon in 4004 BC.

Befuddled Theorist · 12 August 2008

From AvantNews

New creationism law flaws diamond markets

www dot avantnews dot com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=222

:-)

Peter Lounsbury · 20 May 2010

I read the American Scientific Affiliation article cited, and the conclusion was that contamination was probably the cause of the odd readings. Although an interesting answer, it does not actually use the scientific method to reach a reasonable conclusion. Offering up many possibilities to explain a difficulty makes fodder for use in the application of the scientific method, but is not in and of itself a conclusion that has put the objection to rest. Unless the answer is that all coal and diamond samples are contaminated, I think that the problem still exists and has not been satifactorily addressed.