Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 106 of 128 (511236)
06-08-2009 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 1:34 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
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.
But as is typical with your ilk, you have no evidence. The reason you feel this is the answer is because you need this answer in order for your mythology to work out. Your belief in the supernatural can not exist with any other answer.
So your supernatural beliefs trump any other supernatural belief and ALL scientific evidence?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by dcarraher, posted 06-08-2009 1:34 PM dcarraher has not replied

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


Message 107 of 128 (511239)
06-08-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 1:34 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
Hi Dcarraher,
Let's examine your claim that radioactive decay might have been greater in the past. On average, humans are exposed to about .24 rem/year of radiation. Exposure to more than 5,000 rem brings death within a couple days.
While Biblical interpretations vary, the most common interpretation is that radiometric decay was accelerated only during the period of Noah's flood, a period of about a year, because the geologic layers containing the radiometric material was laid down during the flood. This means that for all the radiation of the 4.56 billion years of earth's existence to fit within a year, radiation would have had to have been 4.56 billion times stronger during the flood.
This means the normal background radiation from all sources of about .24 rem/year today would have been about 4.5 billion times stronger during Noah's flood, or about 1,100,000,000 rem/year. This is about 3 million rem/day, and only 5000 is enough to kill you.
In other words, accelerated decay would have wiped out all life on earth. The release of so much energy in so short a period of time would have turned the earth molten, probably vaporized it in fact.
Care to try again?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by dcarraher, posted 06-08-2009 1:34 PM dcarraher has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by dcarraher, posted 06-08-2009 3:40 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 108 of 128 (511240)
06-08-2009 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 1:34 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
quote:
If you take the uniformitarian axiom used when calculating radioactive ages (i.e. rate of decay is and always has been constant), and apply it to other measures of the age of the earth (rate at which moon is receding, rate at which salt is entering the ocean, rate of change of C14 in the atmosphere, etc.) you get completely different ages for the earth. You can only square the circle by discarding the concept of uniform processes.
There's another way. You can look at our understanding of the processes involved - and the evidence - to work out which processes can be expected to be constant and which cannot. Radioactive decay rates should be constant, atmospheric C14 levels and the rate of the moon's recession are known to vary. The salt argument has another flaw in that the net input simply isn't known.
And don't forget that the readiometric methods use several different isotopes decaying in different ways. Aside from the evidence against significant changes in decay rate there is no plausible way to get all the decay rates to change to the same degree, as required to explain away the dating results.
quote:
Answer the following:
1) If God created the world, He created it
a) with flowering plants, breathable atmosphere, temperate climate, drinkable water, and available shelter.
b) a radioactive boiling mass of molten lava.
2) Assuming you answered a), it follows that the earth would appear to have "age". Is this because:
a) God is a prankster.
b) God wanted Adam to survive.
The evidence is against 1 a). For instance the banded iron formations indicate that oxygen levels prior to their deposition were way too low to be breathable by humans. If you choose 1 a) anyway then - since the evidence is not explainable by God wanting Adam to survive - 2 b) should still be rejected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by dcarraher, posted 06-08-2009 1:34 PM dcarraher has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by dcarraher, posted 06-08-2009 3:55 PM PaulK has replied

  
dcarraher
Junior Member (Idle past 5068 days)
Posts: 13
From: Cols, OH
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 109 of 128 (511249)
06-08-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Percy
06-08-2009 2:00 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
Theodoric,
But as is typical with your ilk, you have no evidence. The reason you feel this is the answer is because you need this answer in order for your mythology to work out. Your belief in the supernatural can not exist with any other answer.
Short answer: Well, yeah, I'm a creationist, dude. God = supernatural.
Long answer: Belief in the supernatural - like, say, invisible undetectable matter? Semi-infinite parallel universes? Abiogenesis? The creation of matter/energy from nothing? When you have a model, and you come across a discordant note that was not predicted by your model, you refine the model by proposing a viable scientific explanation for the discrepancy. That's what I've done. I have the same "evidence" you do - I fit it to a different theoretical model. Saying "you have no evidence, you believe in the supernatural" is not a logical scientific argument. Percy at least proposed a logical argument against my hypothesis - see below.
Percy,
You missed (or ignored) the key element of my hypothesis:
At, during, or shortly after creation, before life was introduced to the world

If the accelerated decay was part of the creation of the earth and universe, before the introduction of life, the radiation, along with any heat, would have necessarily been dissipated as part of making the earth habitable (ie. God would have cooled and dispersed the radiation before putting plant life on the earth - see 1a above). Where did God put it? Dark Energy. (that was a joke).
Anyhoo, I think we've gotten to the point where I'm gonna pull out RATE and Humphreys, and you guys are gonna pull out Henke, and we're just repeating talking points ad nauseum. I just thought I'd provide the current consensus YEC opinion on "Short-life isotopes", in response to the original poster - Yes, we recognize that a lot of nuclear decay occurred, No, we don't think that Radioactive decay rates have been eternally constant, Yes we recognize that that may have required a "miracle" - what, after all, is the act of creation anyway? I'm not a materialist, so arguing that creationism doesn't fit a materialist model is kinda pointless, dontcha think? If you want to argue with a creationist using a mandatory materialist ruleset, you gotta wait til a) after Creation Week, and b) outside of places where the Bible says "Miracle happens..."
DRC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 06-08-2009 2:00 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2009 4:29 PM dcarraher has not replied
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 06-08-2009 7:45 PM dcarraher has not replied
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-09-2009 12:46 PM dcarraher has not replied

  
dcarraher
Junior Member (Idle past 5068 days)
Posts: 13
From: Cols, OH
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 110 of 128 (511251)
06-08-2009 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by PaulK
06-08-2009 2:11 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
PaulK,
So you don't think I ignored you:
1) C14 is assumed to be in equilibrium, otherwise C14 dating is invalid. Measurements contradict this assumption, yet it is used anyway.
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.
3) Accelerated nuclear decay would affect all isotopes uniformly, "to the same degree" as you put it. I was not proposing an ad hoc acceleration of various isotopes.
4) Iron banded formations only indicate oxygen levels prior to deposition were way too low to be breathable if you accept a uniformitarian (i.e. long-time-period) process for their formation (I don't). If the levels are the result of catastrophic occurrences (e.g. the entire layer was laid down during a short period under anoxic(sp?) conditions), it doesn't say anything about global atmospheric conditions.
5) As I said, if you start with the premise that God would not have created the world as a habitable environment, then to play your game with your rules would have the instruction set of:
"Rule #1: PaulK wins"
"Rule #2: See Rule #1"
DRC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2009 2:11 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2009 4:41 PM dcarraher has not replied
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 06-08-2009 6:14 PM dcarraher has not replied
 Message 116 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-08-2009 8:23 PM dcarraher has not replied
 Message 117 by Coyote, posted 06-08-2009 9:56 PM dcarraher has not replied
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2009 10:53 PM dcarraher has not replied
 Message 120 by kbertsche, posted 06-09-2009 12:35 PM dcarraher has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 111 of 128 (511253)
06-08-2009 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 3:40 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
If the accelerated decay was part of the creation of the earth and universe, before the introduction of life, the radiation, along with any heat, would have necessarily been dissipated as part of making the earth habitable...
Then why drag science into the discussion at all? If this Big Guy in the Sky can make anything happen, why invoke the rules of physics at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by dcarraher, posted 06-08-2009 3:40 PM dcarraher has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 112 of 128 (511255)
06-08-2009 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 3:55 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
3) Accelerated nuclear decay would affect all isotopes uniformly, "to the same degree" as you put it. I was not proposing an ad hoc acceleration of various isotopes.
But why would it affect the ages derived from different processes equally, when alpha decay and beta decay are governed by different forces? Why would uranium series decay (some of each mode) match up in dates with the electron capture decay of potassium-40, the beta decay of rubidium-87, and the alpha decay of samarium-147? Another miracle, to confound the atheistic physicists?
Added by edit: it's much worse than what I just wrote! You must accelerate the rates of each isotope to a different degree for that first couple of days of "creation week" to make the ages derived from the all agree. And those different accelerations must be precisely tuned to each other to make the "ages" come out the same.
Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by dcarraher, posted 06-08-2009 3:55 PM dcarraher has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Theodoric, posted 06-08-2009 5:06 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 113 of 128 (511259)
06-08-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coragyps
06-08-2009 4:41 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
Added by edit: it's much worse than what I just wrote! You must accelerate the rates of each isotope to a different degree for that first couple of days of "creation week" to make the ages derived from the all agree. And those different accelerations must be precisely tuned to each other to make the "ages" come out the same.
But dcarraher has a solution to that and any other problem you point out.
GOD DID IT.
Trumps everything I think

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2009 4:41 PM Coragyps has not replied

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


Message 114 of 128 (511268)
06-08-2009 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 3:55 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
quote:
1) C14 is assumed to be in equilibrium, otherwise C14 dating is invalid. Measurements contradict this assumption, yet it is used anyway.
This is false. In fact scientists KNOW that C14 cannot be in equilibrium (because the production rate is not constant) and have gone to considerable effort to calibrate C14 against other dating methods to eliminate the problem.
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.
No. The interaction with the tides is important - and affected by the positions of the continents. Thus the rate varies over time.
quote:
3) Accelerated nuclear decay would affect all isotopes uniformly, "to the same degree" as you put it. I was not proposing an ad hoc acceleration of various isotopes.
In fact your assumption that all decay rates would have affected equally is one of the things that shows that he whole idea IS ad hoc. There is NO plausible physical mechanism that would do that. It's needed for you to explain away the evidence but there's no other justification for it.
quote:
4) Iron banded formations only indicate oxygen levels prior to deposition were way too low to be breathable if you accept a uniformitarian (i.e. long-time-period) process for their formation (I don't). If the levels are the result of catastrophic occurrences (e.g. the entire layer was laid down during a short period under anoxic(sp?) conditions), it doesn't say anything about global atmospheric conditions.
Wrong. The layers are the result of INCREASING oxygen levels. And since the oxides are so insoluble conditions from the beginning up until that point must have included very little free oxygen.
quote:
5) As I said, if you start with the premise that God would not have created the world as a habitable environment, then to play your game with your rules would have the instruction set of:
"Rule #1: PaulK wins"
"Rule #2: See Rule #1"
Except that I DIDN'T start with that assumption. There is considerable evidence that the early stages of the Earth's existence were NOT inhabitable. Like a child who can't accept losing you're just falsely accusing me of cheating. Which is typical creationist behaviour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by dcarraher, posted 06-08-2009 3:55 PM dcarraher has not replied

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


Message 115 of 128 (511277)
06-08-2009 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 3:40 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
dcarraher writes:
You missed (or ignored) the key element of my hypothesis:
At, during, or shortly after creation, before life was introduced to the world
...
I just thought I'd provide the current consensus YEC opinion on "Short-life isotopes"...
You're mistaken about the "current consensus YEC opinion" on this topic. Even to most YECs your scenario makes no sense. As I explained, most YECs believe that there was accelerated radioactive decay during Noah's flood year because that's when the sedimentary layers were laid down. They also believe that the earth's magnetic field reversals were accelerated at the same time, because that's when magnetic sea floor striping occurred during sea floor creation while the continents were moving at very high speed.
Your scenario makes no sense because accelerated decay could not have influenced sedimentary layers and sea floor that wouldn't come into existence until much later during Noah's flood year.
If you would prefer to discuss your own particular view then that's fine, but don't call it the current YEC consensus.
As to the rest, as Coragyps noted, if you're going to invoke God and miracles then where is the need to reference physics at all?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by dcarraher, posted 06-08-2009 3:40 PM dcarraher has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 116 of 128 (511280)
06-08-2009 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 3:55 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
1) C14 is assumed to be in equilibrium, otherwise C14 dating is invalid. Measurements contradict this assumption, yet it is used anyway.
Calibration against organic materials of known age (eg old books) and against dendrochronological data show that this assumption is very close to the truth.
Which measurements are you referring to? Do you not realize that these measurements, if they were made, were made by scientists, who have therefore taken them into account?
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.
No. The assumption that the laws of nature are uniform includes the "precise mathematical equation involving mass and gravity".
3) Accelerated nuclear decay would affect all isotopes uniformly, "to the same degree" as you put it.
No it wouldn't: this is just something you made up.
4) Iron banded formations only indicate oxygen levels prior to deposition were way too low to be breathable if you accept a uniformitarian (i.e. long-time-period) process for their formation (I don't). If the levels are the result of catastrophic occurrences (e.g. the entire layer was laid down during a short period under anoxic(sp?) conditions), it doesn't say anything about global atmospheric conditions.
Laid down under anoxic conditions? Then what is the source of the oxygen in the BIFs?
5) As I said, if you start with the premise that God would not have created the world as a habitable environment
It's not a premise that he wouldn't, it's a conclusion that he didn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by dcarraher, posted 06-08-2009 3:55 PM dcarraher has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 117 of 128 (511285)
06-08-2009 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 3:55 PM


Radiometric dating and your boo-boos
1) C14 is assumed to be in equilibrium, otherwise C14 dating is invalid. Measurements contradict this assumption, yet it is used anyway.
This is a standard creationist talking point, and it is false.
C14 levels in the atmosphere are not assumed to be constant. It is known that they vary for a number of reasons. This was established by de Vries back in 1958.
And there is a method to correct for the atmospheric variations--calibration against tree rings and other annular phenomena. Not surprisingly, those various annular phenomena agree with one another to a high degree.
I've been reading the various creationist writings on C14 dating for years and 1) they don't agree with each other, 2) they don't match reality, and 3) they don't even rise to the level of junk science. They are merely religious apologetics, concocted by creationists trying to fudge whatever factors they need to make things come out they way their religious beliefs dictate.
3) Accelerated nuclear decay would affect all isotopes uniformly, "to the same degree" as you put it. I was not proposing an ad hoc acceleration of various isotopes.
Doubling the speed of radioactive decay would affect different isotopes differently. C14 would go from a half life of 5730 to 2685 years, while the various other half lives would still be in the millions to billions of years. To get a young earth, you would need a different decay rate for each isotope to make it all come out at 6,000 or whatever your favorite year is! And some of the side effects of decay accelerated to match a 6,000 year old earth would be spectacular!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by dcarraher, posted 06-08-2009 3:55 PM dcarraher has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 118 of 128 (511286)
06-08-2009 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 3:55 PM


C14, Accelerated rates of decay and reality
hi dcarraher, welcome to the fray. How's the pile on going?
1) C14 is assumed to be in equilibrium, otherwise C14 dating is invalid. Measurements contradict this assumption, yet it is used anyway.
Let me add to what PaulK said in his reply.
Curiously, it is a known scientific fact that C14 is not, and never will be, in equilibrium. This is a creationist canard. C14 is produced in the atmosphere as a result of solar radiation, which is known to be cyclic. The result is that the levels of C14 are also cyclic, they vary around an average value but can never reach a single equilibrium level. You can look up this information yourself to verify this simple fact. This should also tell you that anyone that claims there should be an equilibrium level is telling falsehoods, or is ignorant of reality, and should not be trusted as a source of information.
Strangely, using the average value gives remarkably consistent results. Facinatingly scientists are able to calibrate "C14 age" against ages from layering systems, so that C14 dates can be corrected for the amount of C14 in the atmosphere at the time the fossils formed. Amazingly all C14 dates are on the young side when corrected, the fossils are actually older. In other words the error in the C14 system are consistently too young.
3) Accelerated nuclear decay would affect all isotopes uniformly, "to the same degree" as you put it. I was not proposing an ad hoc acceleration of various isotopes.
Now I'll add to what Coragyps said.
There are many significant problems with this typical creationist ad hoc attempt to explain reality. I'll start with just four:

(1) The Oklo natural reactors

http://oklo.curtin.edu.au/
quote:
In 1972 the very well preserved remains of several ancient natural nuclear reactors were discovered in the middle of the Oklo Uranium ore deposit.
To keep it simple, what you had was a natural reactor, with a series of reactions occurring. If you accelerate the rate of decay what you are doing is increasing the nuclear reactions, it would be similar to increasing the purity of any radioactive substance. Double the rate and you have doubled the number of reactions in a set time frame, just as would occur with twice the purity of the element.
We know from Chernobyl that when reactions speed up and get out of hand you have a melt-down of the reactor, and this is part of the evidence at Oklo, but you are talking about much more than doubling the rate of decay, you are talking about a factor of thousands.
The problem you have with Oklo is that this kind of increase would have meant the deposit there would have reached critical mass and turned into an atomic bomb: this did not happen.

(2) the uranium halos

The energy of alpha decay is related to the decay rate by an inverse exponential relationship -- change the rate of decay and you change the alpha decay energy of the ejected particle.
See Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?
quote:
Very simply put, if you change the decay rate, you change the decay energy, and the diameter of the halo changes.
There should be no characteristic uranium halos with the unique energy of uranium alpha decay from fast decay.
The existence of (common) uranium halos then is evidence that shows the physical constants have not changed while they were formed, and their formation in turn is evidence that the earth is old, at least several hundred million years old.
Thus with accelerated decay you should not have any distinct uranium halos, and incredibly they exist in profusion. Thus the energy of alpha decay has not changed while they formed, and this means the decay rate has not changed.

(3) the Devil's Hole calcite vein

There is a correlation between two different radioactive isotopes AND deposit layer depth in a calcite deposit in Devil's Cave.
Message 9
quote:
So what exactly do we have here? Water dripping down a cave wall, depositing calcite and various other minerals and impurities, elements that are soluble in water, including trace levels of radioactive isotopes of uranium. Material that gets deposited as the water evaporates, forming layer after layer of similar deposits, each one trapping the material in their respective layers. The calcite forms a matrix that holds the impurities, minerals and trace elements in a position related to the time the calcite was deposited.
...
Radioactive elements decay into other elements, and some of these are not soluble, and thus the presence of these insoluble daughter elements is evidence of decay of the soluble parent elements. These daughter elements are still trapped in the layers of calcite that the parent elements were depositied in, so their position also relates to the age of the daughter elements in the calcite layers. We are interested in four isotopes of these matrix constrained elements, two radoactive - thorium-230 and protactinium-231 - and two not radioactive - oxygen-18 and carbon-13 - and what they can tell us about climate and age.
...
Using the half-lives of thorium-230 (75,380 years) and protactinium-231 (32,760 years), we can now draw the exponential curves for these isotopes (with % on the y-axis and time in k-yrs on the x axis, thorium in blue and protactinium in red):
. . . . (see link for graph) . . . .
This means we have a series of data with three different pieces of information: calcite layer age, Thorium-230 content and Protactinium-231 content. We also note that Thorium-230 has a half-life of 75,380 years, while Protactinium-231 has a half-life of 32,760 years - less than half the half-life of Thorium-230. This means that layer by layer the ratio of Thorium-230 to Protactinium-231 is different:
Read the post for more information, read the thread for a lot more information on basic problems with YEC age concepts, but the thing to note here, is that if the rate of decay was different then it is perfectly matched, not just between the decay of Thorium-230 and Protactinium-231, but also with the rate of deposit and evaporation to form the calcite deposit, again a variation not of a factor or two or so, but compressing 567,700 years into 1 or 2 thousand, and this should show up in the thickness of the layers formed by other elements that don't decay. The rate of deposition of calcite is tied to the rate of evaporation of water, and this would have to be varied exponentially in a manner that perfectly matches the decay rates in perfect synchrony. Other non-radioactive elements trapped in the calcite show the effects of climate, and from these we can tell that the rate of evaporation was not varied by factors necessary to create this deposit to match an accelerated decay rate.

(4) the SN1987A supernova

By a curious set of circumstances we can measure the actual distance to supernova SN1987A.
Dave Matson Young Earth Additional Topics Supernova » Internet Infidels
quote:
The distance is based on triangulation. The line from Earth to the supernova is one side of the triangle and the line from Earth to the edge of the ring is another leg. The third leg of this right triangle is the relatively short distance from the supernova to the edge of its ring. Since the ring lit up about a year after the supernova exploded, that means that a beam of light coming directly from the supernova reached us a year before the beam of light which was detoured via the ring. ... The lag distance between the two beams, of course, is just their present velocity multiplied by the difference in their arrival times. With the true distance of the third leg of our triangle in hand, trigonometry gives us the correct distance from Earth to the supernova.
The other interesting thing is that we see evidence of radioactive decay in the light wavelengths and gamma ray emissions of the supernova, as well as the wavelengths of non-radioactive elements. There is no difference in the relationships of these wavelengths to those known today for the same elements, and we can actually see the decay of Cobalt in the light and it matches the decay curve we see for this isotope today:
Evidence about Constants Being the Same in the Distant Past
quote:
Nickel-56 decays with a half-life of 6.1 days into cobalt-56, which in turn decays with a half-life of 77.1 days. Both kinds of decay give off very distinctive gamma rays. Analysis of the gamma rays from SN1987a showed mostly cobalt-56, exactly as predicted. And, the amount of those gamma rays died away with exactly the half-life of cobalt-56.
That decay curve does not show any acceleration of the decay rate, and thus, even if you add the ad hoc conjecture that light has slowed down (so that this supernova occurred in the time frame of your young earth\universe), it is still the same rate of decay as today. If you counter with the ad hoc conjecture that this occurred after the change in decay rate, then you are stuck with the event occurring 170,000 light-years away, and an old earth, so this doesn't help you either. Or you are changing different universal constants at different times and in different ways...

Conclusion

When you make an ad hoc conjecture to explain one piece of inconvenient truth, what you find, instead of a simple explanation that resolves the issue, is that it creates more problems than it solves. When you make the common conjecture that the rate of decay was accelerated, this may "explain" the inconvenient truth of the radioactive age of the earth, but it creates several new problems that each need to be explained by other increasingly extraordinary mechanisms ... and when you create another ad hoc explanation for those problems, they will most likely create more problems that need to be explained. It's like telling a lie, and then having to tell more, and more, and more lies to cover the original lie.
And when you are done with all of that frantic conjecturing, then you still have not explained the other evidence of an old earth (see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for several independent measures of an old earth, and how they correlate data for climates with ages and other data).
There was no significant variation in decay rate during the Oklo reactions, there was no significant variation in decay rate during the formation of uranium halos, there was no significant variation in decay rate during the formation of the calcite deposit in Devil's Cave and there was no significant variation in the decay rate since the formation of SN1987A. Four entirely different bits of evidence show a lack of variation in the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes, and any explanation of ONE is useless to explain the OTHERS, so you need MULTIPLE explanations all coordinated to produce the same results.
If there was a period of significant variation in the decay rate it occurred before any of these things occurred, which means the earth is was and will be old. That's reality.
As I said, if you start with the premise that God ...
... created reality, then you end up studying reality to see what was created, or you believe in a trickster god.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : gamma

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by dcarraher, posted 06-08-2009 3:55 PM dcarraher has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 119 of 128 (511333)
06-09-2009 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 1:34 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
dcarraher writes:
Next, Taq accuses me of claiming an apparent HISTORY as opposed to age. Again - a ratio of radioactive parent/daughter product hardly provides a "history".
Yes it does. It provides a history of decay over billions of years. There is no reason, other than a history of decay, that rocks should contain these isotopes. For example, when zircons form they exclude lead but include uranium. The only reason that we should find lead in zircons is due to the decay of uranium, and we find lead in zircons, lots of it in some zircons. The same for argon in rocks. Rocks do not include this gas when they form. The only reason that we should find these levels of argon in rocks is due to radioactive decay of potassium. There is nothing about the function of zircons or other rocks that requires them to have these inclusions.
The analogy of an "appendix scar" would be, for example, 4.5Byr layered sediment, or 4.5Byr of salt in the ocean, or dead moons around Saturn and Jupiter, not active moons or comets w/ decaying orbits, etc. - stuff that again requires you to discard your uniformitarianism to explain (and introduce all kinds of evidence-free hypotheses - like Oort clouds! and Dark Matter! and Multiverses! Woot!)
Our moon is dead and it's decaying orbit points to a long history. It is also covered in massive meteor impacts, scars of a long history of bombardment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by dcarraher, posted 06-08-2009 1:34 PM dcarraher has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 120 of 128 (511335)
06-09-2009 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 3:55 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by dcarraher, posted 06-08-2009 3:55 PM dcarraher 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