Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New helium retention work suggests young earth and accelerated decay
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 107 (21232)
11-01-2002 1:08 AM


In all the kafuffle and misunderstandings between our Joe Meert and ICR's Russell Humphreys et al we have not been able to celebrate an important creationist result!
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
On the face of it, it appears that the radioactively generated helium present in zircons suggests that the helium was generated only in the last 4,000 to 14,000 years rather than gradually over the last 1.5 billion years. There is simply too much of it (up to 58% compared to the long-age expected 0.0002%) still in the rocks. The diffusion rates are experimentally measured and, on the face of it, rule out the ancient ages.
So, yes, the decay has occurred, but if this work holds up the millions of years worth of decay occurred quickly (under 14,000 years ago) obviously due to some acceleration of decay. Creationists suggest this occurred during creation, the fall and the flood, possibly even to instigate the flood via tectonic radio-heating.
Here we can discuss how this finding fits into the creation model.
Critical discussion should probably occur in the other thread ( http://EvC Forum: A funny mistake by ICR and example of poor scholarship -->EvC Forum: A funny mistake by ICR and example of poor scholarship ) although its title appears to be due to a misunderstanding (see later posts by Joe). Other relevant debate links are:
More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation Research
News | The Institute for Creation Research
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-01-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by wj, posted 11-01-2002 1:54 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 4 by edge, posted 11-01-2002 10:33 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 5 by edge, posted 11-01-2002 11:00 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 11-01-2002 12:57 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 37 by wehappyfew, posted 11-07-2002 10:39 PM Tranquility Base has replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 107 (21238)
11-01-2002 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
11-01-2002 1:08 AM


"Important creationist result!"
Rubbish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-01-2002 1:08 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 11-01-2002 7:16 AM wj has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 3 of 107 (21247)
11-01-2002 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by wj
11-01-2002 1:54 AM


wj writes:
Rubbish.
Can we assume a more substantive response is in the works?
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by wj, posted 11-01-2002 1:54 AM wj has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 107 (21259)
11-01-2002 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
11-01-2002 1:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
In all the kafuffle and misunderstandings between our Joe Meert and ICR's Russell Humphreys et al we have not been able to celebrate an important creationist result!
I rather think that there is no misunderstanding between Joe and Humphreys, but by Humphreys. He has invented a 'closure interval' for zircons simply to put up a smoke screen to the fact that he has no data to support his assertions. It is interesting that you have started a new thread to avoid the questions that have arisen regarding Humphreys' work and simply dismissed them.
quote:
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
On the face of it, it appears that the radioactively generated helium present in zircons suggests that the helium was generated only in the last 4,000 to 14,000 years rather than gradually over the last 1.5 billion years. There is simply too much of it (up to 58% compared to the long-age expected 0.0002%) still in the rocks. The diffusion rates are experimentally measured and, on the face of it, rule out the ancient ages.
Yes, ... on the face of Humphreys article, but nothing else. You will notice that Humphreys gives exactly no actual data regarding the He content of zircons, only vague references that there 'should be less' according to evolutionists. But then, his only reference on this is a creationist paper!
Humphreys actually gives us no logical explanation of why He content of zircons is an effective clock. You will notice that in his [He] vs time graph, the line goes flat after the end of his fanciful 'closure interval'. Therefore, at that He content, the zircon could be of ANY age! Why would a short 'closure interval' have anything to do with the age of a zircon crystal? You will also notice that Humphreys places no data on his graph, he just arbitrarily says the it was a short interval therefor a short age... Where is his data that shows the He content at a given age? It simply does not exist.
quote:
So, yes, the decay has occurred, but if this work holds up the millions of years worth of decay occurred quickly (under 14,000 years ago) obviously due to some acceleration of decay. Creationists suggest this occurred during creation, the fall and the flood, possibly even to instigate the flood via tectonic radio-heating.
And you will notice that he has NO mechanism for such an acceleration. None. Why did it not occur at the formation of the earth? Why did it wait until Noah? And then, why did it stop, not to be observed in any process since? Don't you get the least hint that you are being duped, TB?
quote:
Here we can discuss how this finding fits into the creation model.
I think this is where wj's 'utter rubbish' statement is appropriate. There is nothing to discuss! No data, no mechanism, no logical explanation of the relationship of [He] to age; just a bunch of the usual unsupported assertions and imaginary graphs by Humphreys.
quote:
Critical discussion should probably occur in the other thread ( http://EvC Forum: A funny mistake by ICR and example of poor scholarship -->EvC Forum: A funny mistake by ICR and example of poor scholarship )
Yes, let's avoid discussion of any data here.
quote:
...although its title appears to be due to a misunderstanding (see later posts by Joe).
The only misunderstanding is the invention of 'closure intervals' and application of them to radiometric clocks. This was a red herring designed to divert attention from the fact that Humphreys has got no real argument, just as Humphreys makes the ludicrous statement that Joe does not understand what closure is.
If you think so, then show me a point on his graph and tell me what age corresponds to that He content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-01-2002 1:08 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 11-01-2002 11:42 AM edge has not replied
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-01-2002 5:25 PM edge has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 5 of 107 (21263)
11-01-2002 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
11-01-2002 1:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
In all the kafuffle and misunderstandings between our Joe Meert and ICR's Russell Humphreys ...
I think your confusion here is that perhaps the switching of signs (from -196C to +190C) did not occur as we originally thought, thanks to Humphreys' little two-step. I mean, this would be an understandable conclusion after witnessing Humphreys' fiasco over the magnetic reversal business. However, the work still exhibits poor scholarship, as numerous postings have shown. Even if this article were mainstream, it would rightly be rejected by most reviewers. There is no actual substance, just cheerleading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-01-2002 1:08 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-01-2002 5:31 PM edge has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 6 of 107 (21265)
11-01-2002 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by edge
11-01-2002 10:33 AM


edge writes:
And you will notice that he has NO mechanism for such an acceleration. None. Why did it not occur at the formation of the earth? Why did it wait until Noah? And then, why did it stop, not to be observed in any process since? Don't you get the least hint that you are being duped, TB?
If I could add questions to this list, I've always wondered about some additional things:
  • Why was the amount of acceleration greatest in layers deposited first by the flood, gradually declining with each additional layer?
  • Why isn't there a clear discontinuity in radiometric age between the lowest layers of the flood and the preexisting layers upon which flood deposits were laid?
  • Why was the effect local to the earth and not detectable in any astronomical evidence from electromagnetic radiation emitting objects 5,000 to 10,000 light years away?
  • How did life survive the neutron bombardment from billions of years of radiometric decay occurring in a single year?
  • How did the earth avoid melting from the billions of years of radiometric decay occurring in a single year?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 11-01-2002 10:33 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-01-2002 5:45 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 11-01-2002 10:43 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 18 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-02-2002 4:45 AM Percy has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 7 of 107 (21271)
11-01-2002 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
11-01-2002 1:08 AM


I am beginning to concieve what CONSEQUENCES can come OUT of the RATE project. Now, avoiding legitamate language discussions, TB<, (that must occurr before the following speculation can be actively engaged in the back variable/coefficient etc for *any* parameterization of the problem...) it will be a consideration in response to Newton's OPTICKS queries (Maxwell corpus if not corpse of a jellyfish in the offning) of "Coloumb barrier"( [Disintegration of Uranium by Neutrons. by Meitner L. and Frish O.Or. collected by Leicester SOURCE BOOK IN CHEMISTRY Harvard 1900-150]), baraminoloigcal contribution to biodiversity informatics WITHOUT support for accelerated drug discovery, Coulumb's law vs any/ever statistical mechancial development "in this way, remembering that Coulomb's law puts the forces inversely, proportional to the square of the distance, a closer correspondence is brought forward between the exponent 2 in this law and the exponenet 1/2 of the concentration in the activity law" [Debye in Leicester abovep191-2], Wolfram's notion of Fundamental Physics, Interionic Attraction THEORY, 2nd calculation OTher than Helmholtzs'?; in this list physico-chemically for any biochange that may in the alternative be metrically not counterindicated either for any psychology in answer to the inductor theory of e-fish.
I am celebrating no mere inclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-01-2002 1:08 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-02-2002 4:51 AM Brad McFall has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 107 (21288)
11-01-2002 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by edge
11-01-2002 10:33 AM


Edge
No mechanism on accelerated decay?
1. Chaffin in the RATE book gives his preliminary suggestions that involve evolution of fundamental constants.
2. We already know that the fine-structre constant (related to c,h,e) has changed so we all already need a mechanism.
I did feel the need for a thread with a descriptive title of the finding so that we could also discuss what it means for creationism, not just potential ways to tear it down.
But, OK, if Joe doesn't mind this can be a thread to discuss this result in general and Joe's thread can concentrate on his debates with Humphrey's in particular??
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 11-01-2002 10:33 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by edge, posted 11-02-2002 12:24 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 107 (21291)
11-01-2002 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by edge
11-01-2002 11:00 AM


Edge
There was no two-step with the sign of the temperature. This is beyond doubt - they were simply conincidentally similar numbers with opposite sign that had nothing to do with each other. The 'cryogenic' -190 temp is simply what would be needed assuming the measured diffusion rates to keep helium locked away for 1.5 billion years. It never had anything to do with the +190!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by edge, posted 11-01-2002 11:00 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by edge, posted 11-02-2002 12:32 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 107 (21293)
11-01-2002 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
11-01-2002 11:42 AM


Percy
Your question are very good ones:
1. Layer trend? If accelerated decay occurred during the flood year/surrounding period then the first flows to solidify would demonstrate the most decay because the yet to solidify flows would still be in a 'reset' state by the same explanations that the mainstream system works. Of course in detail the models would produce some different effects but these are difficult to model and it is early days to try and distinguish on this basis. Obviously helium retention is one point of differentiation. So the layers measure time during the period of accelerated decay.
2. Discontinuity? The first flows of the flood would experience the least reseting and so would have similar 'ages' to the pre-flood flows.
3. Astronomy? We don't yet know exactly what constants may have evolved to cause accelerated decay although there are hypotheses. Some of these may not affect gross astronomical observations. In addition, for us, this also may work parallel with the dregs of the time dialation effects of the creationist cosmological model.
4. Neutron bombardment? We believe life was affected by neutron bombardment casuing life expectancy to drop from 1000y to about 120y. But the water is a potential shield and a quantitative study of the effects on organic and trace nuclei in organisms would need to be done to fully answer this question.
5. Earth melting? The RATE book offers some suggestions on disipation of heat. eg plumes of superheated water ejecting from the earth. Maybe these created comets? Who knows, these are just wild speculations.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 11-01-2002 11:42 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Randy, posted 11-01-2002 9:40 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 11 of 107 (21307)
11-01-2002 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
11-01-2002 5:45 PM


quote:
. Layer trend? If accelerated decay occurred during the flood year/surrounding period then the first flows to solidify would demonstrate the most decay because the yet to solidify flows would still be in a 'reset' state by the same explanations that the mainstream system works. Of course in detail the models would produce some different effects but these are difficult to model and it is early days to try and distinguish on this basis. Obviously helium retention is one point of differentiation. So the layers measure time during the period of accelerated decay.
Does this make sense to anyone besides TB? Why would accelerated decay occur during the flood? What do you mean by resetting? Is resetting occurring during the mystical surges that carry billions of tons of sediment and preserve delicate animal tracks?
quote:
2. Discontinuity? The first flows of the flood would experience the least reseting and so would have similar 'ages' to the pre-flood flows.
What is the mechanism of this resetting?
quote:
3. Astronomy? We don't yet know exactly what constants may have evolved to cause accelerated decay although there are hypotheses. Some of these may not affect gross astronomical observations. In addition, for us, this also may work parallel with the dregs of the time dialation effects of the creationist cosmological model.
TB have you been taking incomprehensibility lessons from Brad?
quote:
4. Neutron bombardment? We believe life was affected by neutron bombardment casuing life expectancy to drop from 1000y to about 120y. But the water is a potential shield and a quantitative study of the effects on organic and trace nuclei in organisms would need to be done to fully answer this question.
What to do mean by we? Do you mean there really are others who have this goofy idea? People never lived 1000y. Did those people who lived 1000y kept growing new teeth or did they just eat gruel after their original ones wore away to nothing. Maybe you think people continuously replaced their teeth before neutron bombardment. What happened to their skin and tendons after their fibroblasts could longer reproduce because of telomere shortening? Do you think the neutron bombardment caused the presence of telomeres or maybe inactivated telomerase? You can’t put enough water in the atmosphere to be a potential shield, if that is what you mean without pressures of hundreds of atmospheres and temperatures of a few hundred degrees C and even then I don’t think you will get a potential shield. Or do you mean that things that were drowned in the flood were shielded from the neutrons? Or were the neutrons coming up out of the ground? Was Noah shielded by the boiling flood water? Just what are you talking about?
quote:
5. Earth melting? The RATE book offers some suggestions on disipation of heat. eg plumes of superheated water ejecting from the earth. Maybe these created comets? Who knows, these are just wild speculations.
Wild speculation is right. Plumes of superheated water ejected from the earth. Get real! This sounds a lot like Baumgardner’s steamed ark soup model of the flood. I think that one was pretty thoroughly trashed on the Baumgardner thread.
There are multiple lines of evidence that falsify the worldwide flood and all you can come up with is wild speculation that amounts to complete nonsense to try to defend it.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-01-2002 5:45 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-02-2002 4:30 AM Randy has replied
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 11-02-2002 1:06 PM Randy has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 107 (21311)
11-01-2002 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
11-01-2002 11:42 AM


--Thought your questions seemed very interesting so:
"Why was the amount of acceleration greatest in layers deposited first by the flood, gradually declining with each additional layer?"
--In this thread, me and tranquility had a brief discussion & one question was very similar so it may be best just to quote:
- http://EvC Forum: Creationist only flood topic? / Young Earth vs. Old Earth id's? -->EvC Forum: Creationist only flood topic? / Young Earth vs. Old Earth id's?
quote:
"Tell me a little about 'chemical fractination' of the bedrock. What do you mean by 'This geochemical process also plays a roll in the veracity of radioisotopic dating'. I find it an intgeresting idea that the isotopes distibutions were/are not random and were designed to enable the insitigation of the creation day 3 event and the flood."
--Yes the geochemical processes in the mantle may play an increasingly large role in the distribution of radioisotopes in the crust. Catastrophic plate tectonics predicts at least that the Cambrian+ sediments were produced during a short period of time as well as that today's orogenic developments and the topography generated by the activity was produced by it. We obviously see a relatively linear flow in the loss of parent isotopes as you increase in depth in the earth. We also see the same linear observation in sea-floor crust spreading outward from sea-floor spreading regions. There was some mechanism which as mantle materials were extruded out from inside the earth that lessening amounts of isotopes are found in older materials than newer ones.
--Of course the majority of chemical fractionation of continental plates were formed in pre-Cambrian rocks which we attribute to the first few creation days or spans of time so we would expect essentially higher magnitudes of anomalies in isotopic compositions than more recent materials/Cambrian+ rock.
--While the initial distribution of isotopes are particularly vague the further you back into the formation of the earth and mantle, we know that it has undergone this process of sorting of isotopes according to their tendency of concentration whether it be the atmosphere, the silicate earth, or the earths core etc.
"Why isn't there a clear discontinuity in radiometric age between the lowest layers of the flood and the preexisting layers upon which flood deposits were laid?"
--The above quote also may explain this, deposited sediments lower in the geologic column would have had a longer time to produce higher quantities of daughter isotopes. Of course there will be discontinuities, which are found quite often as anomalies. They are contaminations from various mechanisms such as fluid lavas flowing underground over a long period of time may separate concentrations of Parent isotopes from daughter concentrations before it cools into basalt. Even mainstream studies have more than enough examples of similar events of contamination, we cope with it expectantly.
"Why was the effect local to the earth and not detectable in any astronomical evidence from electromagnetic radiation emitting objects 5,000 to 10,000 light years away?"
--I'd have to do more research on this question than I could a lot for myself at this time as I don't really hold a sufficient understanding of the mechanics of radioisotopic emission of radiation in a cosmological sense. Though I would suspect that if such an observation should be observed, that we may have detected it & perceived it as something else.
"How did life survive the neutron bombardment from billions of years of radiometric decay occurring in a single year?"
--I don't think I can agree with TB's notion that it played a roll in causing decreased life-spans, I would argue that it is very much genetic, but that's another discussion there. I would however note, that as is explained a bit in my quote above, as well as my post #10 here:
http://EvC Forum: Creationist only flood topic? / Young Earth vs. Old Earth id's? -->EvC Forum: Creationist only flood topic? / Young Earth vs. Old Earth id's?
--..that as I accept the model, the supposed flood acceleration had much less decay than billions of years. If memory serves me right, the RATE group suggests .5 Ga & it seems very reasonable considering the radioisotopic data through the GC (Ages for eras, periods, epochs, etc.).
"How did the earth avoid melting from the billions of years of radiometric decay occurring in a single year?"
--See above, & we also may very well require the period of accelerated decay as the initial reason there was a geologic catastrophe. So we may not have had enough to turn the earth into a molten ball as did happened during creation, though I do believe there was enough to increase tectonic activity to produce what we observe throughout the geologic record.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 11-01-2002 11:42 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by edge, posted 11-02-2002 1:04 AM TrueCreation has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 13 of 107 (21318)
11-02-2002 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tranquility Base
11-01-2002 5:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
No mechanism on accelerated decay?
1. Chaffin in the RATE book gives his preliminary suggestions that involve evolution of fundamental constants.
Good. Then you can discuss them here. Explain why the decay rates have changed and under what conditions this might have happened.
quote:
2. We already know that the fine-structre constant (related to c,h,e) has changed so we all already need a mechanism.
Excellent. Now please explain how it happened. Show us that these constants have changed at the appropriate time.
quote:
I did feel the need for a thread with a descriptive title of the finding so that we could also discuss what it means for creationism, not just potential ways to tear it down.
You mean ignore the fatal flaws? Surrrrre. Sounds like a bunch of creationists sitting around agreeing on everything....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-01-2002 5:25 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 107 (21319)
11-02-2002 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tranquility Base
11-01-2002 5:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
There was no two-step with the sign of the temperature. This is beyond doubt - they were simply conincidentally similar numbers with opposite sign that had nothing to do with each other. The 'cryogenic' -190 temp is simply what would be needed assuming the measured diffusion rates to keep helium locked away for 1.5 billion years. It never had anything to do with the +190!]
That whooshing sound is my point flying right over your head. Humphreys has invented the meaningless term 'closure interval' to deflect arguments against him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-01-2002 5:31 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 107 (21322)
11-02-2002 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by TrueCreation
11-01-2002 10:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Why isn't there a clear discontinuity in radiometric age between the lowest layers of the flood and the preexisting layers upon which flood deposits were laid?"
--The above quote also may explain this, deposited sediments lower in the geologic column would have had a longer time to produce higher quantities of daughter isotopes.
Actually, Percy is right. If the first layer suddenly radiodecays at rates millions(?) of times faster than the the previous layers, then it should have a starkly different age than the Precambrian rocks. Contamination or no. Face it, any process accelerated to the degree that you are talking is going to leave tracks a mile wide.
quote:
Of course there will be discontinuities, which are found quite often as anomalies. They are contaminations from various mechanisms such as fluid lavas flowing underground over a long period of time may separate concentrations of Parent isotopes from daughter concentrations before it cools into basalt. Even mainstream studies have more than enough examples of similar events of contamination, we cope with it expectantly.
So, you say that it is okay for you to have contamination, but for us it's not?
quote:
"How did life survive the neutron bombardment from billions of years of radiometric decay occurring in a single year?"
--I don't think I can agree with TB's notion that it played a roll in causing decreased life-spans, ...
Sorry, but there should be no life to even have a span...
quote:
...I would argue that it is very much genetic, but that's another discussion there. I would however note, that as is explained a bit in my quote above, as well as my post #10 here:
http://EvC Forum: Creationist only flood topic? / Young Earth vs. Old Earth id's? -->EvC Forum: Creationist only flood topic? / Young Earth vs. Old Earth id's?
--..that as I accept the model, the supposed flood acceleration had much less decay than billions of years. If memory serves me right, the RATE group suggests .5 Ga & it seems very reasonable considering the radioisotopic data through the GC (Ages for eras, periods, epochs, etc.).
But you have to account for billions of years of error. Why would there be less material to decay under your scenario?
quote:
"How did the earth avoid melting from the billions of years of radiometric decay occurring in a single year?"
--See above, & we also may very well require the period of accelerated decay as the initial reason there was a geologic catastrophe.
Man, I hope that I never hear the argument from you that evolution is based on assumptions!
quote:
So we may not have had enough to turn the earth into a molten ball as did happened during creation, though I do believe there was enough to increase tectonic activity to produce what we observe throughout the geologic record.
Well then show us some kind of calculations that indicate this. You are way off the speculation meter, TC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 11-01-2002 10:43 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-02-2002 1:18 AM edge has not replied
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 11-02-2002 1:15 PM edge has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024