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

quote:

---

My second answer with this objection, is as follows:
2) This argument needs one more piece of information to be valid: All the long half-life elements should "date" to the same age (+/- a few Myr).

​

The inherent premise of this objection is that long half-life elements, which presumably were deposited on earth's crust during the formation of the planet, still exist, while the shorter half-life elements have all "decayed away".

​

So, if we accept this premise, the only logical conclusion is: All of the long half-life elements on this list (not naturally renewed), should have the exact same "age" - they should all date to the formation of the sun/earth.

​

Do they? Do they all always show up in the exact same parent/daughter ratios? That information is not supplied - anyone have a reference? If they do all date to the same age, it doesn't invalidate YEC (see 1 above), but if they don't, then it completely removes this phenomena as an evidence for an old earth.

---

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking for, but there is an old, simple, back-of-the-envelope estimation for the age of the earth based on abundances of uranium isotopes that may be of interest. This may be a partial answer to your question.238U has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, while 235U has a half-life of 0.71 billion years. Let's start by assuming that the initial processes that generated 235U and 238U did so in approximately equal abundances. If so, how long would it take for them to decay to their present abundances (99.3% 238U and 0.7% 235U)? Answer--between 4 and 5 billion years. This provides a rough estimate for the age of the earth, and is consistent with more exact measurements.Now, someone may complain about the assumption that 235U and 238U were originally created in equal abundance. So let's examine the sensitivity of our estimate to that assumption. Suppose we are off by a factor of 2, and the initial abundance of 235U was only half of the 238U. How does this affect our age estimate? This is simple; it affects the estimate only by the half-life of 235U (0.7 billion years). The age estimate comes down to just under 4 billion years, not too much different.

quote:

---

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

---

As others have already explained, this is false. 14C is nearly, but not exactly, in equilibrium. But this does NOT invalidate 14C dating! It would affect dates to some extent (but no more than about 15%) if there were no calibrations from tree rings or varves. But with calibration methods, we would get accurate dates even if the 14C were far from equilibrium.

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.

---

I can't tell whether you are referring to the recession of the moon or the origin of the moon?The recession of the moon (and the lengthening of the day) depends on tidal friction. Continental drift predicts that this is not constant. In the past, when there was a much smaller area of shallow oceans near the equator, the moon's recession was much slower. There is no "catastrophism" here.As presently understood, the origin of the moon was due to "catastrophism" (collision of a Mars-sized object with the early earth). This is the theory which best fits the data.The above reveals a common YEC misunderstanding of "uniformitarianism." We have evidence that scientific laws are universal and time-independent; otherwise we would not call them "laws." We often assume that scientific processes (as opposed to "laws") proceed at a constant rate, unless and until the evidence indicates differently, at which point we try to work out the time dependence of the process. In neither case do we simply "assume catastrophism or uniformitarianism" to fit a "model."Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I'd love the see a chart of various "age of earth calculations" that aren't based on radioactive isotopes, and see if any of them would lead an unbiased scientist to a 4.5Byr figure.

---

You might like to take a look at the books and papers by Daniel Wonderly, a geologist and evangelical Christian. His "God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments: Evidences of Long Time Spans in Earth's History" details numerous non-radiometric evidences for an old earth. His "Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared with Young-Earth Creationist Writings" is a more pointed critique of YEC claims, and can be found posted on the internet. You can find links to it here: http://www.asa3.org/asa/education/ORIGINS/wonderly.htmEdited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

How do the present isotopic ratios "provide the perfect environment for life and Man?" Why did God have to do any speed-up at all to the rate of decay? The isotopes that are typically used for dating (e.g. 14C, 40K) have very long half-lives; a much higher abundance would not cause an appreciably higher danger to man due to radiation. There is no appreciable chemical difference between, eg, 14C, 13C, and 12C. Thus, I can see no functional reason that the various isotopes need to have their present abundances. I see no argument that the present isotopic ratios "provide the perfect environment for life and Man." Can you provide such an argument?Life would function just fine with no 14C (or 13C). So why did God create any 14C (or 13C)? And life would function fine with orders of magnitude more 14C. Why did He create the ratios that He did? I think there are two logical conclusions: 1) God did this to fool us, or 2) God did this to reveal to us the true (old) age of the earth.