Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Radioactive Potassium Demands Ancient Earth?
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 53 (190734)
03-09-2005 6:45 AM


Okay...I'm too curious. JonF threw this up in the Coffee House and it got closed, but it is bugging me because I don't even know what it implies or why it would imply it.
JonF gave this link the text of which is written by a person for whom English is not the primary language (in case any one cant get past the broken English).
Part of the link says:
There is also so much potassium in sea (380 ppm) that I calculated that
energy of decay of 40K alone would have heated seawater not just
steaming hot but also boiled most of it, if not all seas.
Most of 40K has decayd since origin of earth so that potassium was 11x more radioactive 4.5 billion yrs ago than it is nowadays.
The fellow seems to be implying that:
  1. X amount of 40K has decayed since the origin of the earth
  2. If the earth is only 6000 years old then the energy released from X amount of 40K decaying would vaporize the oceans, etc.
  3. Therefore the earth is 4.5 billion years old
Did I correctly ascertain the fellow's reasoning and conclusion?
If not, what IS his reasoning and conclusion?
If I did, doesn't his reasoning hinge on knowing the initial amount of 40K at the time of the earth's origin? Has that initial amount of 40K been established? How were we able to determine the initial amount of 40K so that we may confidently assert that "most of the 40K has decayd [sic] since the origin of the earth?" Were any assumptions used to determine the original amount of 40K? What were those assumptions?
Thanks,
--TheLit
This message has been edited by Admin, 03-09-2005 08:49 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Jazzns, posted 03-09-2005 9:57 AM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 03-10-2005 5:24 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

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


Message 2 of 53 (190746)
03-09-2005 8:47 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by JonF, posted 03-09-2005 9:51 AM Admin has not replied
 Message 7 by TheLiteralist, posted 03-10-2005 1:32 AM Admin has replied

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


Message 3 of 53 (190750)
03-09-2005 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
03-09-2005 8:47 AM


You are missing a few steps in the reasoning.
The evidence of radioisotope dating clearly, unambiguously, and undeniably shows that the contents of the rocks are consistent with only a few explanations. The cross-correlations between different methods and stratigraphy and other evidence over tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of tests cannot be denied (although, as many YECs have proven, they can be ignored). The very very few inconsistent results trumpeted by YECs are easily explained by improper sample selection (often explicitly stated - see Claim CD014.1) and/or improper sample treatment (e.g. see Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals) and/or improper selection of a method. Note that almost all creationist criticisms of dating are directed at the K-Ar method, which is simple and has some potential for error, rather than the much more often used and more robust Ar-Ar, isochron, and concordia-discordia methods. If you are interested in learning about radioisotope dating see Message 1.
Another interesting piece of evidence (I think RAZD did a topic on this some time ago) is that no radioactive isotope with a half life less than 80 million years is found on Earth unless it is also being produced by a known natural process! See Young-earth "proof" #6: The Moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both of which are shortlived isotopes that would have expired long ago if the Moon were 4.5 billion years old. That's pretty powerful evidence that several times 80 million years have passed since the formation of the Earth, and that much radioactive decay has taken place.
Anyhow, the upshot is that we have a pretty darned good idea of how much radioactive material has decayed since the Earth formed, and there are only four scientific or semi-scientific explanations that people have come up with so far:
  1. The Earth is 4.55 billion years old and formed naturally from the same source as the meteorites that strike the Earth occasionally.
  2. The Earth is significantly less than 4.55 billion years old, was created by some supernatural Being, and this supernatural being took great pains to lie to us in every piece of the gigantic pile of evidence that we see (with the exception of a few religious sects' holy writings which themselves are sufficiently ambiguous that only some readers think that they indicate a young Earth).
  3. The Earth is significantly less than 4.55 billion years old, was created by some supernatural Being, and by unknown mechanisms and for unknown reasons there was an episode or episodes in which radioactive decay occured at a much higher rate, usually postulated as billions of years worth in a year or less.
  4. The Earth is significantly less than 4.55 billion years old, was created by some supernatural Being, and I'm not paying any attention to any of your stinkin' evidence; I'm sticking my fingers in my ears and singing real loud so I can't hear you.
Of course YECs reject #1 out-of-hand. #4, while being one of the most commonly encountered "explanations", is rejected by many of the more cerebral YECs as intellectually unsatisfying. That same group of YECs (and most Christians) don't like the "liar God" explanation, #2. That leaves them with #3.
Alas, the consequences of #3 aren't too promising. Radioactive decay releases heat; a few billion years worth of radioactive decay realeases, to use a technical term, a s**tload of heat. Easily enought to fry every living thing; for example Were Adam and Eve Toast?.
The message I posted was pointing out another problem with scenario #3; the seas would boil, and Adam would have fried from the inside, just from the decay of 40K.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 03-09-2005 8:47 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 03-09-2005 7:50 PM JonF has replied
 Message 12 by TheLiteralist, posted 03-11-2005 4:54 AM JonF has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 4 of 53 (190751)
03-09-2005 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheLiteralist
03-09-2005 6:45 AM


I am not sure but I think you can ID the parent by the daughter. Someone else might be able to confirm but that would be my best layman's guess.
Arguing from an initial amount of 40K might not be the strongest way to date the earth even if you could get a solid number. Luckily we have more accurate ways of dating the earth simply by dating the oldest parts of it that we can find and by dating parts of the rest of our solar system.

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheLiteralist, posted 03-09-2005 6:45 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 03-10-2005 4:23 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 5 of 53 (190830)
03-09-2005 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by JonF
03-09-2005 9:51 AM


Run the numbers on potassium
I think that TLiteralist is asking to see the complete derivation of the ocean's temperature from potassium decay.
Can you supply the details?
I'm kinda "nosy" myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by JonF, posted 03-09-2005 9:51 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by JonF, posted 03-09-2005 8:28 PM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 6 of 53 (190839)
03-09-2005 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by NosyNed
03-09-2005 7:50 PM


Re: Run the numbers on potassium
complete derivation of the ocean's temperature from potassium decay.
Don't got it. I'll see if I can dig it up or derive it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 03-09-2005 7:50 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 53 (190871)
03-10-2005 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
03-09-2005 8:47 AM


Chemistry Notation?
Percy,
Did you fix my K-40s into 40Ks? I don't remember doing that...looks much nicer though.
Thanks,
--TheLit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 03-09-2005 8:47 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Admin, posted 03-10-2005 10:08 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 8 of 53 (190888)
03-10-2005 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheLiteralist
03-09-2005 6:45 AM


A more accurate explanation
The argument actually comes out like this:
1) The elements in rocks have undergone large amounts of radioactive decay. At current rates it would require a huge amount of time - in some cases billions of years.
2) Some creationists try to explain these results by assuming that radioactive decay was greatly accelerated during the Flood.
3) The degree of acceleration required, when applied to the potassium in the human body would produce fatal doses of radiation.
4) This eliminates accelerated radioactive decay as a viable scientific explanation (since we need to invoke miracles to explain human survival).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheLiteralist, posted 03-09-2005 6:45 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Harlequin, posted 04-03-2005 11:11 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 9 of 53 (190916)
03-10-2005 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by TheLiteralist
03-10-2005 1:32 AM


Re: Chemistry Notation?
I deleted the part at the end recommending a forum, and I deleted the comments that the post had been edited. I made the modification of K-40s into 40Ks at the same time.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by TheLiteralist, posted 03-10-2005 1:32 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 53 (190972)
03-10-2005 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jazzns
03-09-2005 9:57 AM


quote:
I am not sure but I think you can ID the parent by the daughter. Someone else might be able to confirm but that would be my best layman's guess.
**Keep in mind, this is all from memory so don't take it as fact.**
Argon/Argon dating does just that. If argon contamination is suspected, then this method can detect it. This is especially useful for young samples, such as the dating of the Mt. Vesuvius eruption that destroyed Pompeii.
Argon contamination and radiogenic argon are found in different places within the rock. Argon contamination from the air tends to be collected in between the crystals in the rock. Radiogenic argon is found within the crystals. Therefore, if you slowly heat a rock the argon found inbetween the crystals will come out first followed by the argon in the crystals. This is correlated by artifically creating a different isotope of argon (Ar39 compared to Ar40 which is from K40 decay) within crystals through irradiation. When the Ar39 starts leaking out you know that the Ar40 from radioactive decay is leaking out at that same temperature. Therefore, contamination can be detected and accounted for.
ABE: Ignore the fact that the numbers are on the wrong side of the abbreviated element name. Comes from using Pee-32 when talking about radioactive phosphorous. Too much work to change all of them
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-10-2005 16:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jazzns, posted 03-09-2005 9:57 AM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by JonF, posted 03-10-2005 7:45 PM Loudmouth has not replied

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


Message 11 of 53 (190988)
03-10-2005 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Loudmouth
03-10-2005 4:23 PM


Pretty good summary of Ar-Ar dating. It essentially always detects when initial daughter was present or if the system has been open, and often gives a reliable date in spite of those isssue.
Another method that often gives a good date if the system has been open, and in which it is essentially impossible to have significant initial daughter is concordia-discordia. You date several co-genetic samples by both 238U-206Pb and 235U-207Pb. Plot 206Pb/238U versus 207Pb/235U; if the samples have remained closed the points will all be the same and will lie on a predetermined "concordia curve" at a point indicating the age. If the system has been open, the points will lie off the curve. If they lie on a straight line then that line intersects the concordia curve in two places. The upper intercept indicates the age (or, occasionally, a lower bound on the age), and the lower intercept may or may not mean anything. If the points do not lie on a line, the method fails and there's no age determination. Concordia-discordia dating is the most widely used method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 03-10-2005 4:23 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 53 (191028)
03-11-2005 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by JonF
03-09-2005 9:51 AM


Only 4 Options?
Maybe there are more...
A 5th option:
If the universe were created by a Creator, then, very likely, the creation event does not follow the same laws that maintain the creation. These creation laws are likely no longer in operation, since creation is finished. People, who use the creation's maintenance laws (what we call the physical laws of the universe) to make conclusions about the creation event, will make wrong conclusions about the creation event.
Or a 6th option:
The ratios of radioactive isotopes to their "daughter" elements serves some purpose currently known to the Creator only. These ratios were not intended, by the Creator, to be used to date anything with. If you choose to do so, you will make erroneous conclusions.
Or a 7th option:
The current ratios occurred due to current physical laws, but, since no one actually observed the forming events of any rock, or the intervening events of most rocks, then no one actually knows the beginning ratios of "parent/daughter" elements or what the ending ratios should be--they only know what the ending ratios are. But this doesn't prevent folks from making assumptions (guesses) about it. The assumptions are wrong. The conclusions are wrong.
Or an 8th option:
According to the Bible the earth started off as mostly water with no atmosphere and no dry land (as opposed to the molten earth model, which I do not believe). Perhaps (I emphasize PERHAPS, because He doesn't say and I don't know), the Creator acclerated the decay rates of radioactive isotopes on day two--the day he made the atmosphere. Perhaps the energy was used to boil off some the water into the atmoshpere--and there once was a bit more atmosphere, too, according to the Bible (it went back to the oceans as 40 days/nights of rain). Since that event (day 2 of creation) the decay rates have been constant or fairly constant. Geologists et al. have misinterpretted the ratios they find, because they are reading more into simple ratios than can actually be known. Their confidence in their conclusions about how the ratios came to be is unwarranted.
(Please don't hold these "options" against the more cerebral YECs...these "options" are all my invention...with the exception of option 5, which I invented some months ago during a debate about light years or something, I just now thought these up.)
--TheLit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by JonF, posted 03-09-2005 9:51 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Cresswell, posted 03-11-2005 5:27 AM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 17 by Admin, posted 03-11-2005 8:07 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 53 (191030)
03-11-2005 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by TheLiteralist
03-11-2005 4:54 AM


Re: Only 4 Options?
quote:
Or a 6th option:
The ratios of radioactive isotopes to their "daughter" elements serves some purpose currently known to the Creator only. These ratios were not intended, by the Creator, to be used to date anything with. If you choose to do so, you will make erroneous conclusions.
You'd still need to explain why, upon determining "dates" from radioisotopes, the numbers produced tend to form coherent patterns with layers in rocks having different "ages" with the lower layers older (unless there's been some obvious folding of layers). With this option you not only have a coincidence that radioactive daughter elements actually produce sensible "dates", but that the "dates" for different rocks form a coherent pattern. Either you conclude the dates are real resulting from known physical processes, or that the "dates" look real to every examination but are really coincidental to some unknown purpose.
quote:
Or an 8th option:
According to the Bible the earth started off as mostly water with no atmosphere and no dry land (as opposed to the molten earth model, which I do not believe). Perhaps (I emphasize PERHAPS, because He doesn't say and I don't know), the Creator acclerated the decay rates of radioactive isotopes on day two--the day he made the atmosphere. Perhaps the energy was used to boil off some the water into the atmoshpere--and there once was a bit more atmosphere, too, according to the Bible (it went back to the oceans as 40 days/nights of rain). Since that event (day 2 of creation) the decay rates have been constant or fairly constant. Geologists et al. have misinterpretted the ratios they find, because they are reading more into simple ratios than can actually be known. Their confidence in their conclusions about how the ratios came to be is unwarranted.
This still needs to explain the coherent pattern of "dates" associated with rock layers. If, as seems to be the standard Creationist position, most geological formations are produced in the Flood then how come the layers have different radioisotope signatures in such a coherent pattern? The proportion of radioisotopes (parent and daughter) in minerals is so small as to make the differences between different "age" minerals insignificant in terms of physical properties, and so will not affect sorting processes within the Flood waters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by TheLiteralist, posted 03-11-2005 4:54 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by TheLiteralist, posted 03-11-2005 7:00 AM Dr Cresswell has not replied
 Message 15 by TheLiteralist, posted 03-11-2005 7:16 AM Dr Cresswell has not replied
 Message 16 by TheLiteralist, posted 03-11-2005 7:23 AM Dr Cresswell has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 53 (191037)
03-11-2005 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Cresswell
03-11-2005 5:27 AM


Inappropriate Measuring Devices?
Hi Dr. Cresswell,
I wonder, when dealing with isotopes that supposedly have half-lives of hundreds of thousands or millions of years, what that would mean error-wise if most of the layers of rocks were indeed laid down in the year of the Flood and no rock could be older than 6000-10,000 years old. Kinda like what errors you might wind up with if you tried to measure different kinds of pollen grains with a few different measuring devices: a tape measure, a yard stick and a 12-inch ruler.
I'm not sure if this addresses any of the points you raise or not, though.
--TheLit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Cresswell, posted 03-11-2005 5:27 AM Dr Cresswell has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 03-11-2005 9:50 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 53 (191038)
03-11-2005 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Cresswell
03-11-2005 5:27 AM


Re: Only 4 Options?
Either you conclude the dates are real resulting from known physical processes, or that the "dates" look real to every examination but are really coincidental to some unknown purpose.
Yes, that's what I said, I think. I don't think we can know enough to rule recent creation out (and no one is seeing any of the events that happen to the rock prior to dating it, in general).
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 03-11-2005 07:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Cresswell, posted 03-11-2005 5:27 AM Dr Cresswell has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by JonF, posted 03-11-2005 9:31 AM TheLiteralist 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