|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Accelerated Radioactive Decay | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Cresswell Inactive Member |
OK, there's a thread I've been following on the Dates and Dating forum on accelerated decay of 40K (it's her). Now, this is an idea I've not really come across before, and I'm interested in trying to understand what initially, to me, seems a fairly bizarre concept. And, I've been told quite clearly that to discuss things beyond the limited case of 40K would be "shifting the goalposts", though I can't see any way to logically discuss one isotope without simultaneously discussing all of them. So, here's a thread with nice wide (and I'm happy to have them moveable within reason) goalposts which might help me (and maybe even other people) get my head around this idea.
Let me start by outlining what I think the basic position is: 1) Rocks are observed to have isotopic compositions that include radioactive isotopes and known decay daughters of these. 2) Radio-isotope dating use these isotopic compositions to determine the ages of these rocks. 3) These ages consistently come out as very much older than YEC would predict. 4) It's suggested that at some point in the past the rate of decay of these radio-isotopes was very much faster than that currently observed, making young rocks look old if the current observed decay rate is used. Now, the problems associated with this position seem to all relate to the physical effects of the accelerated decay. Some numbers were given in the other thread for 40K which showed that even if spread over approximately 2000y the accelerated decay of 40K in sea water would introduce an extra heat input to the oceans equivalent to approximately 20% of the solar energy input. There would be even more heat input to rocks which typically contain mor K than sea water. The accelerated decay of U and Th isotopes would increase this heat input even further. Additionally, the accelerated decay process would significantly increase the radiation dose rate to humans and other life. The internal radiation dose to the human body is currently about 0.2mSv per year, with external doses due to geology ranging from about 0.2mSv to 0.6mSv per year. So, modern internal and geological dose rates are about 0.5mSv per year, or 1.4μSv per day. For the correct isotopic composition of rocks dated at 1 billion years to be formed in 2000y would require an acceleration of the decay by a factor of 500000. This would increase the dose rate to 0.7Sv per day which would result in certain disability after about 3d exposure, and death within a week. These calculations assume the same acceleration for all radioisotopes. I don't see any logical reason why there would be significantly different levels of acceleration for different radioisotopes, which is why I don't think introducing different isotopes to the original thread would have been "moving the goalposts". Personally I've no objection to this post being added to the existing thread, as I don't think the goalposts are any different, if the Admins here feel that's more appropriate than starting a new thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13023 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.0 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Dr Cresswell writes: I'm interested in trying to understand what initially, to me, seems a fairly bizarre concept. Your perception is accurate. Creationists generally do not argue from knowledge, but from ignorance. Little do they know that accelerated decay entails an extra output of heat in the same amount of time. And they do not need to know this, because they don't care about the mechanisms or logical consequences of what they propose. They are using an ad hoc argument in order to fit reality into their warped world view. If Scripture and reality are not in agreement on something, then it's reality that's wrong. But, not to worry, that's easily fixed: just propose some solution - any solution - that'll make 'reality' (i.e. the fantasy that it becomes) concur with Scripture and all is well. Consistency is not an issue. And if pressed about problems like that of the extra heat, they can quite easily fix that too: if an alteration like acceleration is a possibility, then why not propose that the decay mechanism must have been different in the past in yet another way, so as not to produce the extra heat? After all, we do not see the effects of the extra heat, do we? The oceans are still here, aren't they? So, accelerated decay cannot have produced extra heat in the same span of time. Therefore it didn't. End of discussion. You see? Scriptural Physics is quite simple. "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and [...] know nothing but the word of God." - Martin Luther
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Ah, we see now!
So conservation of energy goes by the board. Sounds lot like the classical definition of a miracle doesn't it? Is this still supposed to be creation "science" or have we jumped into miracles and magic from the unknowable mind of God now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I think that you are right to assume that elements must be speeded up by the same proportion, but for the wrong reason.
As I understand it scientifically it is quite implausible that any simple mechanism that could theoretically change decay would produce this result. However given that the dates produced are consistent, regardless of which element the technique is based on the decay rates must be assumed to change proportionately simply to explain the results. Elements not used to date rocks, like C14 could in principle decay at a slower rate - but even C14 decay needs to be accelerated to explain the data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Is this still supposed to be creation "science" or have we jumped into miracles and magic from the unknowable mind of God now? The answer to both is YES! From the point of view of someone who fully supports the idea of a created universe that is totally under the active control of a GOD or GODs, science is nothing more than the recitation of miracles. Everything is the direct hand of god. If you get the same result twice, that's because GOD wanted you to get that result. Your car works because God wants it to work this time. Tomorrow, he may well want it to not work and if that is the case, there are only two possibilities, that's what God wanted to happen or it's a British car with Lucas Electrics (but even that is the hand of god since as we all know, Joseph Lucas is the Prince of Darkness). The world view of true believer Creationist IS consistent. We see it here time after time. The issue with accelerated decay is not a problem because GOD doesn't want it to be a problem. Someone capable of controlling the rate of decay is also capable of controlling the effects of that decay. The decay does not even have to happen, GOD can simply set initial ratios, daughter elements, resulting products as desired. It's not correct to challenge such beliefs on a scientific basis. For example, to say that you cannot get from some initial state to a later state only by speeding up the process as we know it is just wrong. GOD can, with ease, do it anyway he wants. If you asked me as a believer if I honestly thought that GOD could create the world as we see it today, and to have done so only 6000 years ago, I would tell you as a believer, "Yes!" Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Cresswell Inactive Member |
quote:Which is the explanation for isotopic compositions I've come across before. And, certainly "God created rocks to look old" is a scientifically irrefutable position (I'd say that in terms of what it says about such a God it does raise serious questions, but that discussion isn't appropriate on this forum). I'm more interested in the more novel (to me) position outlined in my opening post. Does anyone know if that position is actually proposed by Creation Scientists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Yes, it is proposed by creationists.
When I joined the group TrueCreation was proposing it as the mechanism to power the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics he was arguing for. AiG offer a particularly bizarre scenario here:Billion-Fold Acceleration of Radioactivity Shown in Laboratory | Answers in Genesis (Apparently to create igneous rocks, God started with plasma, zapped it around the solar system and then miraculously converted it into artificially aged rock. Why God would do such a thing is left completely unexplained)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'm more interested in the more novel (to me) position outlined in my opening post. Does anyone know if that position is actually proposed by Creation Scientists? Sure, and it is equally defensible. It's actually easier to support because all that is required is for GOD to use his Master Mechanic/Creator Tool kit during the initial construction phase. Once the product is released from pre-production into the distribution channel it's shipped with only user servicable modules. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Is this still supposed to be creation "science" Oh, yes indeedy-doo. It's one of the main focuses of the RATE group, and the Humphreys study of helium in zircons (on which Syslas is somewhat of an expert, and on which Kevin Henke has written a rebuttal paper that I think is as-yet unpublished) supposedly supports it. From RATE GROUP CONFIRMS FAST DIFFUSION OF HELIUM IN ROCKS:
quote: That was in 2001, and we haven't heard much more except about helium diffusion, which is discussed in Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay and from a mainstream viewpoint at Claim CD015. This message has been edited by JonF, 03-16-2005 01:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I dug up an announcement about RATE at Answers in Genesis:
quote:In HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY (PDF document), Humphreys et al write on page 3: quote:Kevin Henke's reaction to this is at "RATE" Leaders Abandon Geologic Fantasies and Admit that Extensive Radioactive Decay has Occurred. His paper has now been posted at Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates": Misconceptions Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data. {Changed URL of Henke paper and simmediat4ely previous text} This message has been edited by JonF, 03-18-2005 08:00 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5702 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
It is also now out on the web. Henke pretty much destroys the entire argument.
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 757 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I'm away from home and largely away from a computer, so I don't have access to exactly where I posted this - somewhere in this forum in the last year, maybe... But I did a calculation that complements Meert's on the heat that the uranium in the Earth's crust gave off in decaying to lead. If it was in a year or so, it would have melted the crust. And we have decent evidence that there is plenty of radiogenic lead in the crust - zircon won't incorporate lead when it crystallizes, but has lead now. And it does allow uranium in its lattice to provide a source for that lead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
It is also now out on the web. Where? I see it in .doc format, but mine appears to be the only one in PDF. I don't download .doc files. I got mine from Dr. Henke when he put it out for review. ABE: Never mind, I see it now, at Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates": Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data. This message has been edited by JonF, 03-18-2005 07:57 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 190 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And we have decent evidence that there is plenty of radiogenic lead in the crust - zircon won't incorporate lead when it crystallizes, but has lead now. And it does allow uranium in its lattice to provide a source for that lead. Yup, and Humphreys et al explicitly recognized that; see the end of Message 11. Of course 99% of creationists won't hear of it from creationist sources, or accept it when it's pointed out.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024