Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes?
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 76 of 128 (110861)
05-27-2004 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by edge
05-27-2004 12:19 AM


Re: Summary
We do not even know what causes atoms to be unstable and decay.
I'm not so sure about that. Nevertheless, we can measure the rate of decay and there is no known mechanism by which that rate can be changed so that you can turn a Ga date to a Ka date.
In some sense we don't know what causes atoms to be unstable and decay, and in some sense it appears that we never will; every layer of the atomic onion that we peel has so far revealed another layer underneath.
However, QM predicts radioactive decay, and is probably the most accurate and well-tested scientific theory ever. A change in radioactive decay rates would mean that QM is wildly wrong.
To amplify on "no known mechanism" IMHO it's worthwhile pointing out that lots of mechanisms have been tested, singly and in combination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by edge, posted 05-27-2004 12:19 AM edge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 77 of 128 (110924)
05-27-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by John Paul
05-26-2004 11:58 AM


Re: Summary
John Paul writes:
Percy writes:
Once again you are advocating a process for which there is no evidence.
LoL! And you are not just as guilty?
I proposed that the process was chemistry. Are you now rejecting evidence for chemistry?
It's becoming apparent that you don't just reject evidence for evolution, but evidence for any science at all. Since evidence is the foundation of science, if your approach continues to be only kneejerk rejection of all evidence, then there's really not much point in you being here.
Perhaps you should bring your objections to evidence to the What is science? thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by John Paul, posted 05-26-2004 11:58 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 128 (111040)
05-28-2004 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rei
12-15-2003 8:23 PM


Wasssup????????
God is a prankster
I don't think so. Just because we self proclaimed geniuses can't comprehend how and why God made things the way HE did, doesn't mean HE didn't create the earth to look old. Besides, who are we to say what "old" is. To GOD your million years is only equivelent to about 1 second. Our Lord loves to watch His children honor Him. In different ways, but mainly by having faith. It gives Him glory. What better way to give our Lord glory then by having an old looking earth that seems to not add up to what He says or what we believe Him to say about it but then to believe Him anyway.
Other "tricks" the good old Lord has played (according to Old Earthers) would be:
1. Light Years - We know that light travels with the speed of 299792.45 km/sec = 186282.39 mi/sec. This means that light will travel as much as 5.88 x 1012 miles per year. Light years defines a DISTANCE not a TIME. Some scientist would try to lead us to believe that it would have taken bilions of years for the light from a star so far away to finally make it here for us to see. But, GOD created ADAM as a fully grown man. The trees were already grown when He created them. Adam wasn't a baby growing up in the dark wilderness awaiting the light to get there. It was created that way. No waiting.
2. C-14 and K-40 dating - (not really a trick just a little tricky)The C-14 method has a half life of 5730 years and a second one of 1.3 billion years. The problem is that the system of equations for the radioactive decay is not mathematically definite. That is, scientists have to make certain assumptions, e.g. by defining certain constants. Example: Imagine a barrel that takes 100 gallons to be filled. You see the barrel just filled to the top and see a leeking faucet over it. You will measure the leakage amount of water to one gallon per hour. So, how long was the faucet leaking? Normally you would determine the time to be 100 hours, but I'm telling you that the time was only five hours--much younger. You would ask "why?" Well, it is because you don't know what the true and originall circumstances were. First you don't know that somebody put in some extra water; second you don't know that 50 gallons were already in
the barrel when the faucet started leaking; and third, you don't know that the faucet was dripping more rappidly in the beginning.
Those are the problems the scientists have to deal with using the method of radiometric dating. 1st They need a closed system (no other daughter elements from anywhere else) 2nd the mixture of elements of the beginnign process is definitely known (no daughter elements were already there for other reasons - all were produced by radioactive decay) 3rd the speed of the process was constant. And only by stating these assumptions will you have a solution of the equations.
By using these methods of radiometric dating, different laboratories determine the age of stones that were formed during volcanic eruptions 200 years ago to range from 160 million - 3 billion years old. With such great uncertainties in the results, scientists can arrive at exaclty the age they want - every time. Interesting?
#'s 1 and 2 were taken from an article written by Fritz Hagemann. He is here from Germany for NATO AWACS as a NATO Liason Officer. He used to teach the "Big Bang Theory" and is in Aeronautics and Space Engineering. It was written in "Ha Shofar" a newsletter from the Kehilat ROSH PINAH congregation.
I'm sure this will pick things up a bit in here.......Rock on. -Z
This message has been edited by Zachariah, 05-28-2004 01:05 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rei, posted 12-15-2003 8:23 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2004 4:02 AM Zachariah has replied
 Message 83 by JonF, posted 05-28-2004 11:56 AM Zachariah has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 79 of 128 (111058)
05-28-2004 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Zachariah
05-28-2004 2:03 AM


Re: Wasssup????????
Not a very good answer
1) 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Zachariah, posted 05-28-2004 2:03 AM Zachariah has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Zachariah, posted 05-28-2004 6:21 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 81 by AdminNosy, posted 05-28-2004 11:40 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 82 by AdminNosy, posted 05-28-2004 11:40 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 128 (111080)
05-28-2004 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by PaulK
05-28-2004 4:02 AM


Re: Wasssup????????
Are you saying that the stars GOD created in the beginning are the only ones we will ever have? Your statement
there are no need to create stars as distant objects...
Don't you scientist talk all the time about new stars coming into existence? Your reply to #1 doesn't work. Sorry. -Z

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2004 4:02 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2004 11:49 AM Zachariah has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 81 of 128 (111134)
05-28-2004 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by PaulK
05-28-2004 4:02 AM


Topic
This started out as such a clear topic. See msg 1.
Do I have permission to change the topic title to "YEC Answer to the Lack of short lived isotopes?" ?
Now it is starting to wander all over and we are back to God the prankster theme.
Could everyone get back to the topic at hand.
Is there or is there not a YEC answer to the presence and absence of certain isotopes?
If anyone wants to discuss other things there are thereads for them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2004 4:02 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by JonF, posted 05-28-2004 12:03 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 82 of 128 (111135)
05-28-2004 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by PaulK
05-28-2004 4:02 AM


double post
oops
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 05-28-2004 10:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2004 4:02 AM PaulK has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 83 of 128 (111139)
05-28-2004 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Zachariah
05-28-2004 2:03 AM


Re: Wasssup????????
But, GOD created ADAM as a fully grown man. The trees were already grown when He created them. Adam wasn't a baby growing up in the dark wilderness awaiting the light to get there. It was created that way. No waiting
That argument, known as "Omphalos" or "appearance of age", has been soundly rejected by essentailly all theologians, including most YEC theologians. If indeed God created Adam, there were good reasons for creating him as a full-grown-man; but the only reason for creating light in transit (and all the other indications of old life, old Earth, and old Universe) is to deceive us. Nobody seems to want to worship God the deceiver.
C-14 and K-40 dating - (not really a trick just a little tricky)The C-14 method has a half life of 5730 years and a second one of 1.3 billion years. The problem is that the system of equations for the radioactive decay is not mathematically definite.
For those two systems, yes. However, the premises (I don't like to call them assumptions because that implies that they haven't been checked) have been checked and cross-correlated with other methods. Those two methods might be wrong once in a while, but they are not wrong often.
In addition, the vast majority of radiosotope dates are carried out by other methods, such as isochron methods and concordia-discordia methods. These are mathematically definite.
I discuss this more here. If you are interested in finding out how radioisotope dating works, and exactly why Hagemann's claims are so silly, see Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
#'s 1 and 2 were taken from an article written by Fritz Hagemann. He is here from Germany for NATO AWACS as a NATO Liason Officer. He used to teach the "Big Bang Theory" and is in Aeronautics and Space Engineering. It was written in "Ha Shofar" a newsletter from the Kehilat ROSH PINAH congregation.
Well, he should not write about radioisotope dating; he obviously doesn't know much of anything about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Zachariah, posted 05-28-2004 2:03 AM Zachariah has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 84 of 128 (111142)
05-28-2004 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by AdminNosy
05-28-2004 11:40 AM


Re: Topic
Could everyone get back to the topic at hand.
OK.
There's an interesting new article at The Origin of Iodine-129: By Physics or Fantasies?. It reviews the arguments about the absence of short-lived isotopes and discusses an attempt by Woodmorappe/Peczkis to address the issue of one particular isotope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by AdminNosy, posted 05-28-2004 11:40 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 85 of 128 (112765)
06-04-2004 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Zachariah
05-28-2004 6:21 AM


Re: Wasssup????????
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Zachariah, posted 05-28-2004 6:21 AM Zachariah has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by AdminNosy, posted 06-04-2004 12:31 PM PaulK has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 86 of 128 (112767)
06-04-2004 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by PaulK
06-04-2004 11:49 AM


topic Title
Since Rei isn't around may I have those of you currently posting to change the topic title to:
What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2004 11:49 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by JonF, posted 06-04-2004 8:55 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 87 of 128 (112856)
06-04-2004 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by AdminNosy
06-04-2004 12:31 PM


Re: topic Title
OK by me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by AdminNosy, posted 06-04-2004 12:31 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by NosyNed, posted 07-03-2004 12:05 AM JonF has not replied

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


Message 88 of 128 (121397)
07-03-2004 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by JonF
06-04-2004 8:55 PM


bump bump
I've just noticed that, although we have a number of YEC's around the dates and dating forum is being left out in the cold.
Perhaps they want to take a shot at it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by JonF, posted 06-04-2004 8:55 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by d_yankee, posted 06-30-2005 11:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 89 of 128 (167739)
12-13-2004 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by NosyNed
05-03-2004 2:27 PM


Re: Are they really missing?
A while back, this thread strayed into my territory, here is a little background on the decay series that end with Nd142.
Nd142 can come from 4 different isotopes.
1) Ce142 (HL 5.0 E16 Years)We can pretty much rule that out as nothing much is coming down that route in 4 Billion years.
2) Pr142 (HL 19.12 hours) Not found in nature and has no parent.
3) Pm142 (HL 40.5 Seconds)
4) Sm146 (HL 1.03 E8 years) Not found anywhere.
Not including Sm146 this only leaves 1 possible decay path leading to Nd142 and that is via the short lived isotope Pm142. This path can be traced back through a series of short lived isotopes (each less than an hour) to Dy143 and Ho144. Neither of these have any parents.
In short this means that all Nd142 had to have come from the decay path leading through Sm146.
Sm146 actually has several decay paths leading into it. One of which is another conspicuously missing isotope Gd150 with a half life of 1.75 million years.
I haven't bothered tracing it back any further as it would be a wasted effort.
If anyone would like to do so all the available information about the nuclides is available here. Just type in the isotope of interest and it will tell you the parents, decay paths etc.
PY
This message has been edited by PurpleYouko for spelling, 12-13-2004 02:11 PM
This message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 12-13-2004 02:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 05-03-2004 2:27 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
d_yankee
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 128 (221026)
06-30-2005 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by agrav8r
01-08-2004 7:18 PM


Not even...
I wouldn't even call it scientism...as it isn't science at all. The use of science is for marketing purposes. True science is a neutral study using the laws of nature, not dogmatic and ficticious fairy tale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by agrav8r, posted 01-08-2004 7:18 PM agrav8r has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024