Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,910 Year: 4,167/9,624 Month: 1,038/974 Week: 365/286 Day: 8/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes?
Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 128 (111040)
05-28-2004 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rei
12-15-2003 8:23 PM


Wasssup????????
God is a prankster
I don't think so. Just because we self proclaimed geniuses can't comprehend how and why God made things the way HE did, doesn't mean HE didn't create the earth to look old. Besides, who are we to say what "old" is. To GOD your million years is only equivelent to about 1 second. Our Lord loves to watch His children honor Him. In different ways, but mainly by having faith. It gives Him glory. What better way to give our Lord glory then by having an old looking earth that seems to not add up to what He says or what we believe Him to say about it but then to believe Him anyway.
Other "tricks" the good old Lord has played (according to Old Earthers) would be:
1. Light Years - We know that light travels with the speed of 299792.45 km/sec = 186282.39 mi/sec. This means that light will travel as much as 5.88 x 1012 miles per year. Light years defines a DISTANCE not a TIME. Some scientist would try to lead us to believe that it would have taken bilions of years for the light from a star so far away to finally make it here for us to see. But, GOD created ADAM as a fully grown man. The trees were already grown when He created them. Adam wasn't a baby growing up in the dark wilderness awaiting the light to get there. It was created that way. No waiting.
2. C-14 and K-40 dating - (not really a trick just a little tricky)The C-14 method has a half life of 5730 years and a second one of 1.3 billion years. The problem is that the system of equations for the radioactive decay is not mathematically definite. That is, scientists have to make certain assumptions, e.g. by defining certain constants. Example: Imagine a barrel that takes 100 gallons to be filled. You see the barrel just filled to the top and see a leeking faucet over it. You will measure the leakage amount of water to one gallon per hour. So, how long was the faucet leaking? Normally you would determine the time to be 100 hours, but I'm telling you that the time was only five hours--much younger. You would ask "why?" Well, it is because you don't know what the true and originall circumstances were. First you don't know that somebody put in some extra water; second you don't know that 50 gallons were already in
the barrel when the faucet started leaking; and third, you don't know that the faucet was dripping more rappidly in the beginning.
Those are the problems the scientists have to deal with using the method of radiometric dating. 1st They need a closed system (no other daughter elements from anywhere else) 2nd the mixture of elements of the beginnign process is definitely known (no daughter elements were already there for other reasons - all were produced by radioactive decay) 3rd the speed of the process was constant. And only by stating these assumptions will you have a solution of the equations.
By using these methods of radiometric dating, different laboratories determine the age of stones that were formed during volcanic eruptions 200 years ago to range from 160 million - 3 billion years old. With such great uncertainties in the results, scientists can arrive at exaclty the age they want - every time. Interesting?
#'s 1 and 2 were taken from an article written by Fritz Hagemann. He is here from Germany for NATO AWACS as a NATO Liason Officer. He used to teach the "Big Bang Theory" and is in Aeronautics and Space Engineering. It was written in "Ha Shofar" a newsletter from the Kehilat ROSH PINAH congregation.
I'm sure this will pick things up a bit in here.......Rock on. -Z
This message has been edited by Zachariah, 05-28-2004 01:05 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rei, posted 12-15-2003 8:23 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2004 4:02 AM Zachariah has replied
 Message 83 by JonF, posted 05-28-2004 11:56 AM Zachariah has not replied

  
Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 128 (111080)
05-28-2004 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by PaulK
05-28-2004 4:02 AM


Re: Wasssup????????
Are you saying that the stars GOD created in the beginning are the only ones we will ever have? Your statement
there are no need to create stars as distant objects...
Don't you scientist talk all the time about new stars coming into existence? Your reply to #1 doesn't work. Sorry. -Z

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2004 4:02 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2004 11:49 AM Zachariah has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024