Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Accelerated Radioactive Decay
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 38 (196359)
04-03-2005 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Parasomnium
04-01-2005 2:56 PM


Re: Scriptural Physics 101
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.
*I didn't say "YEC's" at the time, I said "creationists", but because I realised Jar considers himself a creationist and he does not make the mistakes I'm on about here, I owe it to him to make the distinction from now on.
It actually dawned on myself, rather slowly, that not all creationists are YECs (but all YECs are creationists).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Parasomnium, posted 04-01-2005 2:56 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Parasomnium, posted 04-04-2005 3:56 AM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 36 by futzman, posted 08-09-2005 12:43 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 32 of 38 (196402)
04-03-2005 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by TheLiteralist
04-03-2005 5:15 AM


A world of Madness and chance.
Throughout your post you have simply retreated to the Goddunit explanation. I will grant that is exactly the position of the classic YEC. The hell with reason, logic or evidence, insert miracle here.
In each case you have offered no explanation but only inserted a miracle where needed.
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.
True but you have only offered a miracle that GOD heated the place up when there is no indication in Genesis that he did so.
You are proposing a fact of science, that there was some accelerated radioactive decay. Sorry, that's not in Genesis. Bring in accelerated decay, literal Genesis is out!
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.
Again, you simply bring on the miracle with no explanation or understanding of what you are saying. If you boil off a little of the water to make the atmosphere, you don't get an atmosphere where anyone can breath or plants live. You get steam. Steam = H2O, not a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, helium, hydrogen, methane ... STEAM. Nothing else. Nothing lives. Everything dies.
But maybe a day or so later that steam condenses to something else. Okay, let's look at that, condense steam and you get water, and release a bunch of heat. Water and yet more heat to kill stuff off and back to no atmosphere.
You mention coalescing material for the earth...where did that material come from? Where did that source of material come from? etc. etc. etc.
Dying suns. Over several generations of suns. And again, the evidence is there to support that. You can, of course, simply insert another miracle here. GOD creates an OLD sun.
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.
Yup. Insert another miracle here.
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.
Yup. Insert miracle here.
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?
And there you complete the descent into a world of madness and whimsy, a world where nothing can ever be known or understood, where anything is possible, where it is as likely for rocks to fall up as it is for them to fall down.
Here you present a world where GOD is Loki, the Jester, where gravity works as GOD would like it to work at that particular moment, where the law of conservation of inertia becomes the law of whimsical chance.
You present a GOD, who totally breaks every law he created, simply to stick to the plot of a fable.
If what you say is true then we MUST throw out all of the scientific knowledge we have gained over time. We must rewrite every theorem and hyposthesis to add, "Unless GOD happens to want it to work differently this time".

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TheLiteralist, posted 04-03-2005 5:15 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 33 of 38 (196615)
04-04-2005 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by TheLiteralist
04-03-2005 6:35 AM


Re: Scriptural Physics 101
I don't think I can answer your post any more succinctly that Jar did. I only have this to add:
TheLiteralist writes:
I did not disagree with your charge of Ad Hoc reasoning, did I?
You may not have explicitly disagreed, but you practice ad hoc reasoning. To me, that constitutes implicit disagreement.
TheLiteralist writes:
I see no reason to assume He can't control where He accelerates decay rates.
.
.
.
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.
If God is what he is said to be, then I see no reason why he should have to use accelerated decay at all. Why can he not just flick his fingers and have the situation he desires in place, just like that?
The whole line of reasoning behind accelerated radioactive decay points to a twisted mind-set: on the one hand a pseudo-scientific idea is introduced to justify and "explain" the literal Genesis interpretation of a young earth, and then, when real scientific objections to it are raised, ad hoc arguments are invoked to counter those objections. And they're not just any ad hoc arguments, but ad hoc arguments of the worst kind: the God-can-do-anything kind.
Why bother bringing up or defending "scientific" arguments at all? God-can-do-anything basically dismisses science altogether.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by TheLiteralist, posted 04-03-2005 6:35 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 4:37 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 38 (226952)
07-28-2005 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Parasomnium
04-04-2005 3:56 AM


Re: Scriptural Physics 101
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Parasomnium, posted 04-04-2005 3:56 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Parasomnium, posted 07-28-2005 5:24 AM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 37 by Rahvin, posted 08-09-2005 1:18 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 35 of 38 (226956)
07-28-2005 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by TheLiteralist
07-28-2005 4:37 AM


Re: Scriptural Physics 101
TheLiteralist writes:
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.
Some mockery may indeed be intended by some opponents, but essentially saying "If God accelerated decay rates..." is nothing else than saying "If decay rates are accelerated..." Naming God explicitly is merely an acknowledgement of the way religious people formulate their arguments, and does not make an objection unscientific. Usually, the reasoning is that if something is the way religious people state it is, then some observations would be impossible. Yet these observations are made. So the conclusion is drawn that things are not the way religious people state it is.
And at that point, religious ad hoc reasoning usually kicks in.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 4:37 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
futzman
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 38 (231369)
08-09-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by TheLiteralist
04-03-2005 6:35 AM


Re: Scriptural Physics 101
quote:
It actually dawned on myself, rather slowly, that not all creationists are YECs (but all YECs are creationists).
  —"TheLiteralist"
I prefer to leave the "C" out of any discussion myself and just refer to "YEC" as "YE". The reason is that I want to force yeccies to present scientific evidence for a young earth rather than endlessly argue about "what if God did this?" or "what if God did that?" discussions. I've often challenged YEists to show how accelerated decay fits the physical evidence. Surely there must be SOME evidence -- mutant flora and fauna, lava flows where there shouldn't be, huge deposits of evaporates where there shouldn't be, etc, etc. I challenge YEC to become YE and provide the science that will make people like me listen. Otherwise, it's just the same old hocus-pocus I was taught when I was young and gullible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by TheLiteralist, posted 04-03-2005 6:35 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 37 of 38 (231387)
08-09-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by TheLiteralist
07-28-2005 4:37 AM


Re: Scriptural Physics 101
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.
Mocking or not, they are scientific.
The scientific method requires that hypotheses describe a mechanism which can be used to make prediciont that can be tested to falsify the hypothesis. In other words, YEC's have hypothesized that the rares of radioactive decay were increased to give the appearance of an old Earth. If this accelleration actually happened, there should be certain evidences we should see today, as results of the extreme heat.
This is the "If God" part. If accelerated radioactive decay happened, it would result in certain changes in the Earth. Some of these changes would be significant enough for usa to still detect today. This is how we test the hypothesis - if the predictions of the hypothesis do not hold true, then the hypothess is false.
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.
You're dodging. The "If God" staements would still be valid if they left God out, simply saying "If accellerated decay happened, these would be the results." God is inserted into the statements only because you are proposing that God did it - God is part of your hypothesis.
Sure you can say "God is capable of anything, and could have made it all this way, despite the evidence to the contrary." But then you could also say "God created the universe exactly as it is, with the appearance of age and memories pre-created, last Thrusday at 10:00 am."
If you want to propose scientific explanations as to the "how" of "Goddidit," you have to accept the scientific method and all it entails, including falsification. If you want to say "but He could've..." every time your point is refuted, stick to just saying "Goddidit" and leave it at that.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 4:37 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 38 of 38 (342180)
08-21-2006 10:46 PM


How physicists know ...
The well-known physicist Steve Carlip just posted and excellent summary of how we know that radioactive decay rates are and have been constant (or so close to constant as makes no differnce in the EvC controversy). Age Dating Question:
quote:
The overall result is that no one has found any evidence of changes in fundamental constants, to an accuracy of about a part in 10^11 per year. There are some recent, controversial claims of observational evidence for changes in certain constants (notably the "fine structure constant") in the early Universe, but these are *tiny*, and would have minimal effects on radioactive decay rates.
So the idea that decay rates could vary enough to make a significant difference to measurements of ages is ruled out experimentally.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024