|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes? | |||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Such would be the case with Dr. Humphreys' cosmology. Unfortunately for you Humphreys' "cosmology", while perhaps seeming reasonable to the uneducated and prejudiced audience he's aiming at, is incompatible with the observations and General Relativity. IOW, Humphreys is a psuedoscientific crank who knows not whereof he speaks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Jeez, I swear I submitted a reply, but it isn't here .. so here it is again.
Unfortunately for you Humphreys' "cosmology", while perhaps seeming reasonable to the uneducated and prejudiced audience he's aiming at, is incompatible with the observations and General Relativity.
Again with the assertions. Care toi give any specifics? Sure. Note that the forum guidleines specifically state that it's acceptable to wait until requested to provide support ... but your practice of ignoring requests for support is not acceptable. Hymphreys proposes that we once were inside a deep gravitational well, and that we are at the center of the Universe. There is absolutely no evidence for this claim. We obviously are not inside a deep gravitational well now, so how did the well go away? Magic. What caused it to form originally? Magic. Why don't we see the effect of that well on the light that was in transit while it existed? Magic. We do not observe any of the effects required for Humphreys' "cosmology" to be true (e.g. light blue-shifted to gamma rays). As for General Relativity, this is a horrible medium for discussing such (because of the difficulty of writing equations), and I suspect you don't have the background to discuss it. However, there's lots of information available (including some rather feeble hand-waving rebuttals from Humphreys) at http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp. I find it interesting that they omitted the obvious link to Page not found - Reasons to Believe.
IOW, Humphreys is a psuedoscientific crank who knows not whereof he speaks.
And who are you? I would love to see you debate Dr. Humphreys about his cosmology. Well, I have a BSME and MSME from MIT, which required me to take several courses in physics (including relativity and basic QM), at which I did rather well. We used the Red Books as textbooks in some courses (of course, you must be familiar with the Red Books). Debate? Most amusing. Science isn't done by debate. An exchange of written materials, preferably peer-reviewed, with plenty of time for research and reflection, is appropriate. Oh, wait, that's been done already. No need for me to spend the time doing it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
e creos MUST relent to an old earth/universe. The scientific evidence is irrefuteable. For YEC to maintain that God created it to look and be immensely old, but in fact it is not immensely old, is a position that does not deserve respect. This is a position of pure dogma. There are eons and eons of time between Gen.1:1 and 1:2 according to the best theological scholarship. This doesn't mean 4-6 billion years necessarily. I agree with you, God is guilty of fraud IF the YEC's are right - but they are not. Well said. I have gained some respect for you with that post. I don't agree with you about the exact distribution of the time as it relates to Genesis, but I'm not going to claim (or try to persuade you) that you are wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I don't agree that "There are eons and eons of time between Gen.1:1 and 1:2". I agree that there are eons and enos of time, but I do not believe that there is any correspondence between Genesis and the history of the Earth.
But I'm not going to make any attempt to persuade you; I don't proselytize religion, and I don't ahve any particularly persuasive arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
JonF. have you even read what Humphreys proposes? Yes.
The gravity well is gone due to the fact the white hole has emptied its contents. What Humphreys proposes is not a white hole. And the "emptying of its contents" is an ad-hoc hypothesis for which there is no evidence. Of course, the original "white hole: is not compatible with our observations, e.g. of light that was in transit wnhe the "white hole" existed.
And where did the imagined singularity of the big bang come from? Magic. Again your double standards are obvious. No. it's quite different. We admit that we don't know where the Big Bang came from ... but we have gobs of evidence that it happened, and we're working on where it came from. Humphreys has no evidence outside of his prejudices.
Humphreys has a PhD. in physics. It wasn't just a side course on his way to another degree. Appeal to authority fallacy. The fact that he has a PhD leads us to think that he might know what he's talking about, but then examination of his work shows us conclusively that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
As for reasons to believe Humphreys has answered them and they refuse to debate him, even via written correspondence. Really? Please explain how he has answered them, in your own words, and present evidence that RTB has refused to discuss the matter further. And debates or proposed debates don't count, science isn't done by debate.
Which would satisfy your criteria of peer review. Nope. You don't understand peer review.
BTW there was a recent peer reviewed paper that supports some of Humphreys premises. ROTFLMAO! You'll fall for anything, won't you! Of course, that paper (Shock-wave cosmology inside a black hole doesn't support Humphreys' lunacy at all. One of the authors was questioned about this and replied (as quoted at Re: Can anyone help me with this?, and with emphasis added by me):
quote: IOW, they wrote a purely theoretical paper proposing a model in which the universe is 14-ish billion years old, in which everything we see is identical to the standard model, but predicts that at some time in the future we might see something that differs from what the standard model predicts. So, why don't you explain to us exactly how this paper supports Humphreys? Still waiting for your reply in Distinguishing Pb from Pb???.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
We do not even know what causes atoms to be unstable and decay.
I'm not so sure about that. Nevertheless, we can measure the rate of decay and there is no known mechanism by which that rate can be changed so that you can turn a Ga date to a Ka date. In some sense we don't know what causes atoms to be unstable and decay, and in some sense it appears that we never will; every layer of the atomic onion that we peel has so far revealed another layer underneath. However, QM predicts radioactive decay, and is probably the most accurate and well-tested scientific theory ever. A change in radioactive decay rates would mean that QM is wildly wrong. To amplify on "no known mechanism" IMHO it's worthwhile pointing out that lots of mechanisms have been tested, singly and in combination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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 That argument, known as "Omphalos" or "appearance of age", has been soundly rejected by essentailly all theologians, including most YEC theologians. If indeed God created Adam, there were good reasons for creating him as a full-grown-man; but the only reason for creating light in transit (and all the other indications of old life, old Earth, and old Universe) is to deceive us. Nobody seems to want to worship God the deceiver.
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. For those two systems, yes. However, the premises (I don't like to call them assumptions because that implies that they haven't been checked) have been checked and cross-correlated with other methods. Those two methods might be wrong once in a while, but they are not wrong often. In addition, the vast majority of radiosotope dates are carried out by other methods, such as isochron methods and concordia-discordia methods. These are mathematically definite. I discuss this more here. If you are interested in finding out how radioisotope dating works, and exactly why Hagemann's claims are so silly, see Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective #'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. Well, he should not write about radioisotope dating; he obviously doesn't know much of anything about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Could everyone get back to the topic at hand. OK. There's an interesting new article at The Origin of Iodine-129: By Physics or Fantasies?. It reviews the arguments about the absence of short-lived isotopes and discusses an attempt by Woodmorappe/Peczkis to address the issue of one particular isotope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
OK by me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Start with Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth. SOme ages well under 4.5 By, a few over it, all reflecting the imprecision of the non-radiometric tools ... but all far greater than a YEC scenario.
Full references available in "The Age of the Earth", G. Brent Darlymple.
Anyway, to answer the original post question: What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes? My personal answer: At, during, or shortly after creation, before life was introduced to the world, the rate of radioactive decay was significantly higher than it currently is. This was not done to "fool" anyone, but to provide the perfect environment for life and Man. Just to reinforce what's already been siad: that's not compatible wwith the observed evidence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024