Accelerated Radioactive Decay

OK, there's a thread I've been following on the Dates and Dating forum on accelerated decay of 40K (it's her). Now, this is an idea I've not really come across before, and I'm interested in trying to understand what initially, to me, seems a fairly bizarre concept. And, I've been told quite clearly that to discuss things beyond the limited case of 40K would be "shifting the goalposts", though I can't see any way to logically discuss one isotope without simultaneously discussing all of them. So, here's a thread with nice wide (and I'm happy to have them moveable within reason) goalposts which might help me (and maybe even other people) get my head around this idea.Let me start by outlining what I think the basic position is:1) Rocks are observed to have isotopic compositions that include radioactive isotopes and known decay daughters of these.2) Radio-isotope dating use these isotopic compositions to determine the ages of these rocks.3) These ages consistently come out as very much older than YEC would predict.4) It's suggested that at some point in the past the rate of decay of these radio-isotopes was very much faster than that currently observed, making young rocks look old if the current observed decay rate is used.Now, the problems associated with this position seem to all relate to the physical effects of the accelerated decay. Some numbers were given in the other thread for 40K which showed that even if spread over approximately 2000y the accelerated decay of 40K in sea water would introduce an extra heat input to the oceans equivalent to approximately 20% of the solar energy input. There would be even more heat input to rocks which typically contain mor K than sea water. The accelerated decay of U and Th isotopes would increase this heat input even further.Additionally, the accelerated decay process would significantly increase the radiation dose rate to humans and other life. The internal radiation dose to the human body is currently about 0.2mSv per year, with external doses due to geology ranging from about 0.2mSv to 0.6mSv per year. So, modern internal and geological dose rates are about 0.5mSv per year, or 1.4μSv per day. For the correct isotopic composition of rocks dated at 1 billion years to be formed in 2000y would require an acceleration of the decay by a factor of 500000. This would increase the dose rate to 0.7Sv per day which would result in certain disability after about 3d exposure, and death within a week.These calculations assume the same acceleration for all radioisotopes. I don't see any logical reason why there would be significantly different levels of acceleration for different radioisotopes, which is why I don't think introducing different isotopes to the original thread would have been "moving the goalposts". Personally I've no objection to this post being added to the existing thread, as I don't think the goalposts are any different, if the Admins here feel that's more appropriate than starting a new thread.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Your perception is accurate. Creationists generally do not argue from knowledge, but from ignorance.Little do they know that accelerated decay entails an extra output of heat in the same amount of time. And they do not need to know this, because they don't care about the mechanisms or logical consequences of what they propose.They are using an ad hoc argument in order to fit reality into their warped world view. If Scripture and reality are not in agreement on something, then it's reality that's wrong. But, not to worry, that's easily fixed: just propose some solution - any solution - that'll make 'reality' (i.e. the fantasy that it becomes) concur with Scripture and all is well. Consistency is not an issue.And if pressed about problems like that of the extra heat, they can quite easily fix that too: if an alteration like acceleration is a possibility, then why not propose that the decay mechanism must have been different in the past in yet another way, so as not to produce the extra heat? After all, we do not see the effects of the extra heat, do we? The oceans are still here, aren't they? So, accelerated decay cannot have produced extra heat in the same span of time. Therefore it didn't. End of discussion.You see? Scriptural Physics is quite simple."Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and [...] know nothing but the word of God." - Martin Luther

Ah, we see now!So conservation of energy goes by the board. Sounds lot like the classical definition of a miracle doesn't it?Is this still supposed to be creation "science" or have we jumped into miracles and magic from the unknowable mind of God now?

I think that you are right to assume that elements must be speeded up by the same proportion, but for the wrong reason.As I understand it scientifically it is quite implausible that any simple mechanism that could theoretically change decay would produce this result. However given that the dates produced are consistent, regardless of which element the technique is based on the decay rates must be assumed to change proportionately simply to explain the results. Elements not used to date rocks, like C14 could in principle decay at a slower rate - but even C14 decay needs to be accelerated to explain the data.

The answer to both is YES!From the point of view of someone who fully supports the idea of a created universe that is totally under the active control of a GOD or GODs, science is nothing more than the recitation of miracles. Everything is the direct hand of god. If you get the same result twice, that's because GOD wanted you to get that result.Your car works because God wants it to work this time. Tomorrow, he may well want it to not work and if that is the case, there are only two possibilities, that's what God wanted to happen or it's a British car with Lucas Electrics (but even that is the hand of god since as we all know, Joseph Lucas is the Prince of Darkness).The world view of true believer Creationist IS consistent. We see it here time after time. The issue with accelerated decay is not a problem because GOD doesn't want it to be a problem. Someone capable of controlling the rate of decay is also capable of controlling the effects of that decay. The decay does not even have to happen, GOD can simply set initial ratios, daughter elements, resulting products as desired.It's not correct to challenge such beliefs on a scientific basis. For example, to say that you cannot get from some initial state to a later state only by speeding up the process as we know it is just wrong. GOD can, with ease, do it anyway he wants.If you asked me as a believer if I honestly thought that GOD could create the world as we see it today, and to have done so only 6000 years ago, I would tell you as a believer, "Yes!"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

The decay does not even have to happen, GOD can simply set initial ratios, daughter elements, resulting products as desired.

---

Which is the explanation for isotopic compositions I've come across before. And, certainly "God created rocks to look old" is a scientifically irrefutable position (I'd say that in terms of what it says about such a God it does raise serious questions, but that discussion isn't appropriate on this forum). I'm more interested in the more novel (to me) position outlined in my opening post. Does anyone know if that position is actually proposed by Creation Scientists?

Yes, it is proposed by creationists.When I joined the group TrueCreation was proposing it as the mechanism to power the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics he was arguing for.AiG offer a particularly bizarre scenario here:
Billion-Fold Acceleration of Radioactivity Shown in Laboratory | Answers in Genesis (Apparently to create igneous rocks, God started with plasma, zapped it around the solar system and then miraculously converted it into artificially aged rock. Why God would do such a thing is left completely unexplained)

Sure, and it is equally defensible. It's actually easier to support because all that is required is for GOD to use his Master Mechanic/Creator Tool kit during the initial construction phase. Once the product is released from pre-production into the distribution channel it's shipped with only user servicable modules.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh, yes indeedy-doo. It's one of the main focuses of the RATE group, and the Humphreys study of helium in zircons (on which Syslas is somewhat of an expert, and on which Kevin Henke has written a rebuttal paper that I think is as-yet unpublished) supposedly supports it. From RATE GROUP CONFIRMS FAST DIFFUSION OF HELIUM IN ROCKS:

quote:

---

Dr. Humphreys reported on the results of laboratory measurements of helium diffusion as a function of temperature in biotites (containing helium from uranium decay in zircons) from two different rocks. The measurements confirm the RATE prediction that diffusion in biotite is rapid. ... The diffusion rate appears to agree closely with a young earth and recent accelerated decay. ... Dr. Snelling presented a preliminary report on the types and locations of radioactive halos in 18 samples from 11 different locations in the United States, Australia, and Europe ... These halos are also physical evidence that a lot of nuclear decay has occurred at some point during the earth's history. ... Dr. Eugene Chaffin presented some advances in his theoretical studies on possible mechanisms for accelerated nuclear decay. He has found a number of connections between nuclear and cosmic constants and accelerated decay. ... Some models appear to have the concept of accelerated decay rates built into them

---

That was in 2001, and we haven't heard much more except about helium diffusion, which is discussed in Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay and from a mainstream viewpoint at Claim CD015.This message has been edited by JonF, 03-16-2005 01:08 PM

I dug up an announcement about RATE at Answers in Genesis:

quote:

---

A few years ago an initiative was undertaken to research thoroughly the whole area of Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth. The RATE project began as a cooperative venture between the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the Creation Research Society (CRS) and Answers in Genesis (AiG). ...

​

When physicist Dr Russell Humphreys was still at Sandia National Laboratories (he now works full-time for ICR), he and Dr John Baumgardner (still with Los Alamos National Laboratory) were both convinced that they knew the direction in which to look for the definitive answer to the radiometric dating puzzle.

​

Others had triedand for some, the search went on for a while in the early RATE daysto find the answer in geological processes. But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that there were too many independent lines of evidence (the variety of elements used in ‘standard’ radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos, fission track dating and more) that indicated that huge amounts of radioactive decay had actually taken place. It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be a single, unifying answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.

​

Since, from the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place, it was clear that the assumption of a constant slow decay process was wrong. There must have been speeded-up decay, perhaps in a huge burst associated with Creation Week and/or a separate burst at the time of the Flood.

---

In HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY (PDF document), Humphreys et al write on page 3:

quote:

---

Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth at today’s rates of nuclear decay occurred.

---

Kevin Henke's reaction to this is at "RATE" Leaders Abandon Geologic Fantasies and Admit that Extensive Radioactive Decay has Occurred. His paper has now been posted at Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates": Misconceptions Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data.{Changed URL of Henke paper and simmediat4ely previous text}This message has been edited by JonF, 03-18-2005 08:00 PM

It is also now out on the web. Henke pretty much destroys the entire argument.CheersJoe Meert

I'm away from home and largely away from a computer, so I don't have access to exactly where I posted this - somewhere in this forum in the last year, maybe... But I did a calculation that complements Meert's on the heat that the uranium in the Earth's crust gave off in decaying to lead. If it was in a year or so, it would have melted the crust. And we have decent evidence that there is plenty of radiogenic lead in the crust - zircon won't incorporate lead when it crystallizes, but has lead now. And it does allow uranium in its lattice to provide a source for that lead.

Where? I see it in .doc format, but mine appears to be the only one in PDF. I don't download .doc files. I got mine from Dr. Henke when he put it out for review.ABE: Never mind, I see it now, at Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates": Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data.This message has been edited by JonF, 03-18-2005 07:57 PM

Yup, and Humphreys et al explicitly recognized that; see the end of Message 11. Of course 99% of creationists won't hear of it from creationist sources, or accept it when it's pointed out.