What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes?

Not a very good answer1) Ignores important points - it ignores the fact that we don't see a constant background of stars - we see events happening. Supernovas are a good example. If light was created "in transit" those events are all illusions. But the most important point it misses is motive. There may well have been good reasons for creating Adam an adult, full-grown trees and even visible patterns of stars. But there is no need to create stars as distant objects or to create light from illusory stars that Adam could not even see nor to deceive us by showing images of events that never happened.2) There are several other radiometric dating methods. Some of them use the so-called isochron method which not only does not rely on assuming the initial creation of the daughter product, it actually measures it. There are no known ways of altering radioactive decay rates that could have applied to any of the methods in use - let alone onwe that would affect all of them proportionately. We have reliable carbon dating calibrations back 11,000 years and measurements that confirm that carbon dating works for dates of 40,000 years and more.
As for the final paragraph it is just a typical baseless attempt to insinuate fraud. While there have been "wrong" results obttained from recent volcanoic eruptions they are due to known factors.I will be away for a week and so any reply to responses to this post will be delayed.

I am afraid that your answer clearly demonstrates that you do not even understand the issues involved.If we see a supernova happening, say, 180,000 light years away then the actual event happened 180,000 years ago. If the universe is no more than 10,000 years old then clearly nothing we see more than 10,000 light years away is real at all. Every event we see beyond that limit is an illusion. But why would God create such an illusion ?But to get back to the specific subject why specifically would God make the Earth such that it appeared to be older than it really was in this particular way ? There is no real reason why God would have to exclude the shorter-lived isotopes.

quote:

---

If you take the uniformitarian axiom used when calculating radioactive ages (i.e. rate of decay is and always has been constant), and apply it to other measures of the age of the earth (rate at which moon is receding, rate at which salt is entering the ocean, rate of change of C14 in the atmosphere, etc.) you get completely different ages for the earth. You can only square the circle by discarding the concept of uniform processes.

---

There's another way. You can look at our understanding of the processes involved - and the evidence - to work out which processes can be expected to be constant and which cannot. Radioactive decay rates should be constant, atmospheric C14 levels and the rate of the moon's recession are known to vary. The salt argument has another flaw in that the net input simply isn't known.And don't forget that the readiometric methods use several different isotopes decaying in different ways. Aside from the evidence against significant changes in decay rate there is no plausible way to get all the decay rates to change to the same degree, as required to explain away the dating results.

quote:

---

Answer the following:

​

1) If God created the world, He created it
a) with flowering plants, breathable atmosphere, temperate climate, drinkable water, and available shelter.
b) a radioactive boiling mass of molten lava.

​

2) Assuming you answered a), it follows that the earth would appear to have "age". Is this because:
a) God is a prankster.
b) God wanted Adam to survive.

---

The evidence is against 1 a). For instance the banded iron formations indicate that oxygen levels prior to their deposition were way too low to be breathable by humans. If you choose 1 a) anyway then - since the evidence is not explainable by God wanting Adam to survive - 2 b) should still be rejected.

quote:

---

1) C14 is assumed to be in equilibrium, otherwise C14 dating is invalid. Measurements contradict this assumption, yet it is used anyway.

---

This is false. In fact scientists KNOW that C14 cannot be in equilibrium (because the production rate is not constant) and have gone to considerable effort to calibrate C14 against other dating methods to eliminate the problem.

quote:

---

2) Moon's motion is controlled by precise mathematical equation involving mass and gravity - you have to assume catastrophism, not uniformitarianism, to explain how the moon's path was once different. My point being that you assume catastrophism or uniformitarianism when your model requires it, you don't adapt your model to match either assumption.

---

No. The interaction with the tides is important - and affected by the positions of the continents. Thus the rate varies over time.

quote:

---

3) Accelerated nuclear decay would affect all isotopes uniformly, "to the same degree" as you put it. I was not proposing an ad hoc acceleration of various isotopes.

---

In fact your assumption that all decay rates would have affected equally is one of the things that shows that he whole idea IS ad hoc. There is NO plausible physical mechanism that would do that. It's needed for you to explain away the evidence but there's no other justification for it.

quote:

---

4) Iron banded formations only indicate oxygen levels prior to deposition were way too low to be breathable if you accept a uniformitarian (i.e. long-time-period) process for their formation (I don't). If the levels are the result of catastrophic occurrences (e.g. the entire layer was laid down during a short period under anoxic(sp?) conditions), it doesn't say anything about global atmospheric conditions.

---

Wrong. The layers are the result of INCREASING oxygen levels. And since the oxides are so insoluble conditions from the beginning up until that point must have included very little free oxygen.

quote:

---

5) As I said, if you start with the premise that God would not have created the world as a habitable environment, then to play your game with your rules would have the instruction set of:
"Rule #1: PaulK wins"
"Rule #2: See Rule #1"

---

Except that I DIDN'T start with that assumption. There is considerable evidence that the early stages of the Earth's existence were NOT inhabitable. Like a child who can't accept losing you're just falsely accusing me of cheating. Which is typical creationist behaviour.