Accelerated Radioactive Decay

Hi Dr. Cresswell,The thread that you were watching, I started and it was inspired by a thread that JonF started in the Coffee House (or whatever that general non-evolution forum is). It got shut down (for good reasons--albeit technical ones), but it made me curious about what JonF was trying to say.After my thread got started, it was obvious to me that the k40 restriction was too much, but AdminNosy likes to stick closely to the original topic...and I can understand his wanting to do that.I was going to try to start a more general thread, but I'm even gladder you did. I did find the k40 very restrictive and I felt that you, JonF, PaulK, NosyNed and few others were offering me some excellent and thoughtful input on this subject of decay in general--and that there was more to discuss. To which I must say, "Thanks."Unfortunately, I am currently trying to play catch-up after my little vacation...so I won't be able to offer any thoughtful input (not that I will have much thoughtful input anyways--maybe some good questions, though) until next week sometime. I'm enjoying the discussion, at any rate.--TheLit

Parasomnium, But isn't the current, measurable isotopic ratio the only "reality"? How that ratio came to be is just guessing, isn't it? Are these conclusions based on ANY assumptions? I was not aware that it was utterly undeniable truth that any rock was as old as its radiometric date.If the world were created by God, then the creation event cannot be examined with known physical laws and all the conclusions based on the assumption that it can would likely be wrong.--TheLitThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 03-26-2005 04:39 AM

JonF,Are you saying that zircon cannot possess lead as an inclusion? Or are you specifically separating lead inclusions from radiogenic lead? If so, how? Or, is lead NEVER an inclusion in zircon crystals? (Inclusions arise when a pure substance crystalizes AROUND a foreign substance, right?)Edited due to typo.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 03-26-2005 04:41 AM

Jar,Let me rephrase the statement: I believe that is a very reasonable statement. Since this is an event (creation of planets, life and the universe) we have never observed, I don't see how it could be other than beyond the grasp of science as we know it. "How old is the earth?" That is a question thought to be answered (more or less) through radiometric dating techniques. So, yes, I would say, that to some extent, we humans are attempting to study the creation event--or, if you prefer, the origin of the earth. We have examined the creation extensively and learned much about HOW IT OPERATES, but we can ONLY SPECULATE about HOW IT CAME TO BE.--TheLitThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 03-26-2005 11:11 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 03-26-2005 11:12 AM

Jar, Okay. That's a good point. OTOH, they are looking at what a certain rock sample's parent/daughter elemental ratios ARE, and then acting like they also know HOW those ratios CAME TO BE. Such things cannot be known.The main complaint against supernaturally accelerated decay rates is that it would destroy life or boil off the oceans. But what if (and it is pure speculation on my part) the energy had been used to make the earth's center molten? What if all the water was frozen "in the beginning"? The sun wasn't created until day 4, yet plants were created on day 3 and every other kind of creature was created on days 5 & 6...surely the sun could not have heated much up (enough for living things to exist bountifully) in one or two days...if the earth had had NO heat already. What if some of the energy was used, indeed, to boil off some of the oceans to make the atmosphere?I personally still don't have a problem with the ratios, even if it involves lead in zircon, being created in situ (if I have used that term properly). We have never seen a creation event. We don't know how that works or what's involved. So, I don't believe we can know that the ratios represent "age" either.

Dr. Cresswell,I am not saying that the accelerated-decay-rate theory is true, but I am questioning the objections raised against it.One objection is that the radiation would destroy all life. I counter that by pointing out that for the first two creation days--and part of the third--there was no life.Another objection is that the heat would boil off the oceans. I counter that by pointing out that creation of an atmosphere was accomplished on day 2 (before there was life). Such might have been done through accelerated decay rates.On day three dry land was made to appear (same day as but prior to creation of plants). Perhaps the source of energy to do this was accelerated decay.According to Genesis, life (plants) were made on day three before the sun had been made. Given that days 5 and 6 saw the creation of all the creatures that rely on plants directly or indirectly for nourishment--it can be safely assumed that these were mature plants, which needed some source of warmth. They could go a day with no sun IF the earth already had its own liveable temperature and would the next day also be recieving energy from the sun. Finally, the sun could not have heated the earth's surface up sufficiently for life in one or two days IF the earth didn't already have it's own rather warm temperature.My point is that perhaps the "too much heat" objection is starting with the assumption that the earth already had a molten core and a warm temperature. This cannot be known. What if the earth was starting from near 0 degress Kelvin (through and through, I mean), and what if the earth would not be recieving any energy from the sun for four days but would become populated with plants in three days? How much energy would be required to make the earth go from near 0 degrees Kelvin to having a liveable surface temperature and a molten core? How much heat would be needed to take SOME water of the oceans and move it into the atmosphere?So, right now, I fail to see how the "too much heat" objection is valid. However, I reiterate that I do not have a problem with the earth and universe being created with an "appearance of age" either. Just like I don't have a problem with God creating mature plants on day 3.I'm not sure if this post makes my point any clearer, I hope it does.AbE: But the first two days...and part of the third...do not involve life of any kind. I see no reason to make sure that the radiation amounts are confined to any particular levels on those days.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 04-03-2005 05:56 AM

Jar, It is the only objection to accelerated decay rates I have seen discussed. Perhaps there are others, but I don't know them. However, it is the objection being discussed in this thread. But I am trying to counter the "too much heat" objection, which is an objection to the literal interpretation of Genesis. I am criticizing the starting assumptions of that objection within the framework of a literal interpretion of Genesis. I see no reason to consider "other explanations" for a molten center, which have nothing to do with the literal interpretation of Genesis. But what if the majority of the heat was used to make the center of the earth molten...and a little to boil off a bit of the water to make the atmosphere? That was the whole point of my post. You mention coalescing material for the earth...where did that material come from? Where did that source of material come from? etc. etc. etc. The reason you consider yourself a creationist, I assume (perhaps incorrectly), is because you conclude GOD is needed to explain the presence of something. We just have different starting points. The God I believe in can create the earth out of nothing and can create the sun afterward and can easily prevent the earth from going into the sun.
---------------------------------
AbE:
Also, coalescing material is part of traditional cosmology and not part of the literal interpretation of Genesis, right?
--------------------------------- And part my post explained that the energy source could have been accelerated decay rates. I may be misunderstanding you somehow, but this appears to be a mixing of the literal interpretation of the Genesis account and traditional cosmology. The objections about accelerated decay rates concern the literal interpretation of Genesis not traditional cosmology. The literal interpretation of Genesis does not include a protosun. It involves a fully-mature sun (and all stars) being created on day 4, AFTER the earth, an atmosphere, dry land & oceans, and fully mature plants had been created. But there was no sun (abe: or protosun, which is a completely non-biblical idea) and, probably, no other planets. Besides, I see no reason why God couldn't increase decay rates in one rock and not another...or in one planet and not another...or in the earth and not in the sun. Or a little in the earth's crust and a lot in the center of the earth. The God of the Bible is omnipotent--has limitless power. Why must I assume He can create the universe and can accelerate decay rates but then must also assume He cannot control where decay rates get accelerated?I reiterate to you, as I have to Dr. Cresswell, that I am not saying that God did accelerate decay rates, for I consider that unknowable; I am saying only that I do not currently see how the objections to the idea are valid.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 04-03-2005 05:58 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 04-03-2005 06:12 AM

Parasomnium,I did not disagree with your charge of Ad Hoc reasoning, did I? Rather, I asked if your reality is based on any assumptions or not about the meaning of isotopic ratios. I did assert that the isotopic ratios are the only reality; inferences about how those ratios came to be are not the same thing as reality, are they?At any rate, consider that the objection of "too much heat" goes like this, more or less:1. Billions of years worth of decay have occurred.
2. If God supernaturally accelerated the decay rates so that all that decay occurred in 6000 years, it would have killed everybody and boiled off the oceans.There are certain assumptions that are implicit in this reasoning:1. The God of the Bible exists
2. He can accelerate decay rates
3. He can't control where he accelerates the decay rates
4. He spread the acceleration over thousands of years
5. The earth already had a molten core and a liveable surface temperature**Possibly number five is not implicit, but I think it is.I agree with numbers 1 and 2. However, I see no reason to assume He can't control where He accelerates decay rates. I see no reason to assume He spread the decay over thousands of years. I see no reason to assume the earth started off with a molten core or liveable surface temperature. I asked "what if" He concentrated ALL the acceleration in the first two creation days (before there was life or a sun) to create the earth's atmosphere, to create the molten center of the earth and to give the earth a liveable surface temperature.The "too much heat" objection, while it mocks Him, does recognize the existence of the God of the Bible and His supernatural abilities...so it actually leaves the arena of pure science. It makes assumptions about Him, His abilities and the Genesis account. Is the situation such that those who wish to mock Him are allowed to make assumptions about His abilities while those who wish to believe in Him are not?Perhaps I have misunderstood you entirely and went off on a tangent, which I am prone to do. I reiterate, again, that I do not assert that decay rates WERE accelerated: only that, so far, I don't believe the "too much heat" objection to that idea is a valid one. It actually dawned on myself, rather slowly, that not all creationists are YECs (but all YECs are creationists).

Para,I am saying that you are probably right...I probably AM using Ad Hoc reasoning in this case. But I fail to see how it matters here.Also, I said, at least once, that I am NOT asserting that God DID accelerate the decay rates. I wish to make that clear only because I do not pretend to definitely KNOW what God did during creation or the Flood.You say:

quote:

---

and then, when real scientific objections to it [the idea of accelerated decay rates?] are raised,

---

One of my points is that these are not real scientific objections. They start off, "If God accelerated decay rates, then..." These are mere mocking-comments that some atheists like to plague Christians with.Because the objections start off with the words "If God...", they cannot be scientific objections. They bring God into the picture and "graciously" give to Him the ability to acelerate decay rates. Once that has been done, the realm of pure science has been left. Then, for some unknown reason, the objections restrict how, where, and when God can do the accelerating.Am I making any sense?