Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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?
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 121 of 128 (511340)
06-09-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 1:34 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
quote:
I'd love the see a chart of various "age of earth calculations" that aren't based on radioactive isotopes, and see if any of them would lead an unbiased scientist to a 4.5Byr figure.
You might like to take a look at the books and papers by Daniel Wonderly, a geologist and evangelical Christian. His "God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments: Evidences of Long Time Spans in Earth's History" details numerous non-radiometric evidences for an old earth. His "Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared with Young-Earth Creationist Writings" is a more pointed critique of YEC claims, and can be found posted on the internet. You can find links to it here: http://www.asa3.org/asa/education/ORIGINS/wonderly.htm
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 122 of 128 (511341)
06-09-2009 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 3:40 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
Anyhoo, I think we've gotten to the point where I'm gonna pull out RATE ...
Oooh, yes please.
Another instance where creationists admit that the evidence supports an old Earth? Bring it on!
Yes we recognize that that may have required a "miracle" - what, after all, is the act of creation anyway?
Sure. But why did God miracle the Earth into existence in such a way as to support, in every detail, an old Earth and evolution?
Either:
* Scientists are right.
* God faked the world in order to fool scientists.
* God was obliged to make the world in such as way as to fool scientists, not with the intention to fool them, but for reasons that no-one has yet adequately explained.

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

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


Message 123 of 128 (511438)
06-09-2009 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 1:34 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
Start with Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth. SOme ages well under 4.5 By, a few over it, all reflecting the imprecision of the non-radiometric tools ... but all far greater than a YEC scenario.
Full references available in "The Age of the Earth", G. Brent Darlymple.
Anyway, to answer the original post question: What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes?
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.
Just to reinforce what's already been siad: that's not compatible wwith the observed evidence.

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 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 124 of 128 (511460)
06-09-2009 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 1:34 PM


Re: God created a man, not an embryo
quote:
Anyway, to answer the original post question: What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes?
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.
How do the present isotopic ratios "provide the perfect environment for life and Man?" Why did God have to do any speed-up at all to the rate of decay? The isotopes that are typically used for dating (e.g. 14C, 40K) have very long half-lives; a much higher abundance would not cause an appreciably higher danger to man due to radiation. There is no appreciable chemical difference between, eg, 14C, 13C, and 12C. Thus, I can see no functional reason that the various isotopes need to have their present abundances. I see no argument that the present isotopic ratios "provide the perfect environment for life and Man." Can you provide such an argument?
Life would function just fine with no 14C (or 13C). So why did God create any 14C (or 13C)? And life would function fine with orders of magnitude more 14C. Why did He create the ratios that He did? I think there are two logical conclusions: 1) God did this to fool us, or 2) God did this to reveal to us the true (old) age of the earth.

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 125 of 128 (511490)
06-10-2009 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by dcarraher
06-08-2009 1:34 PM


other measurements of ages
Hi again dcarraher,
I caught note of this comment from another reply:
In fact, I'd love the see a chart of various "age of earth calculations" that aren't based on radioactive isotopes, and see if any of them would lead an unbiased scientist to a 4.5Byr figure.
While I can't get you all the way to 4.5 billion years, I can take you in stages and steps through a variety of different systems that measure years by annual events, complete with correlations between the different systems to show consistency. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.
One example of these correlations is between tree rings and C14 levels: in my previous post (Message 118) I noted that C14 levels were cyclic:
quote:
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.
The thing to note is not the correlation between tree rings and C14 age, but that the cycle of C14 levels shows up in the tree ring data, with the same cycle pattern as today, so the "accelerated decay" conjecture needs to explain why the decay pattern exactly matches the general trend in the tree ring data, AND it needs to explain how this cycle of solar variation also matches the data, and that is just the tip of the iceberg of layered annual dating systems.
With tree rings, lake varves, ice cores all matching for climate data where the overlap we see the use of such systems to reach an age for the earth of 740,000 years and possibly as much as 900,000 years. That is certainly much longer than any YEC concept of the age of the earth. In the process, the radioactive dating methods are validated during all those annual layers, and at that age it gets kind of pointless to hold onto the myth of changing decay rates in order to facilitate your belief in a young earth, rather than accept the reality that the earth is old, very old.
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.
Message 110
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.
Except that "uniformitarianism" does not mean "uniform processes" and no catastrophes, as you are conflating one kind of uniformity with another. This is another common confusion of creationists. Uniformitarianism means that stars go nova, catastrophically, for example, by the uniformitarian laws of physics. It also means that meteors strike the earth and catastrophically wipe out large populations of life, while operating under the uniformitarian laws of gravity.
Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia(science)
quote:
Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, assumes that the same natural processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past, and at the same rates; and that the same laws of physics apply everywhere in the universe. Its methodology is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.
Uniformitarianism means that the physical constants are constant, that the laws that tell us how things behave can be used to explain all kinds of catastrophic events observed and recorded in the natural history of the earth.
Enjoy.

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 105 by dcarraher, posted 06-08-2009 1:34 PM dcarraher has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by slevesque, posted 06-13-2009 6:22 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 126 of 128 (511997)
06-13-2009 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by RAZD
06-10-2009 1:40 AM


Uniformitarianism
Then how is it different from catastrophism ? I mean, catastrophist also use the same laws of physics an consider them constant ...
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2009 1:40 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Percy, posted 06-13-2009 6:53 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2009 9:36 AM slevesque has not replied

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


Message 127 of 128 (512002)
06-13-2009 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by slevesque
06-13-2009 6:22 AM


Re: Uniformitarianism
Neither catastrophism nor uniformitarianism are common scientific terms today. In scientific contexts they usually only come up when speaking about the history of geology or evolution. The only other place where the terms are commonly used is in discussions with creationists, who don't seem to know what uniformitarianism means.
Uniformitarianism means that the laws of physics are uniform and apply equally throughout the universe. It doesn't mean that all change is slow and gradual, which actually has another name no longer much in use, gradualism. Earthquakes and asteroid strikes obey the same laws of physics as gradual erosion and sea floor spreading. The term refers to the physical laws and processes that are in play, not to the speed of what happens as a result of those laws and processes
The ease with which the term uniformitarianism is misunderstood may have contributed to its being dropped from modern terminology.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by slevesque, posted 06-13-2009 6:22 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 128 of 128 (512015)
06-13-2009 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by slevesque
06-13-2009 6:22 AM


Re: Uniformitarianism
Then how is it different from catastrophism ? I mean, catastrophist also use the same laws of physics an consider them constant ...
Except when they claim that the catastrophe was caused by God doing magic.
Or when the ignore the laws of nature entirely and just make stuff up. If by "catastrophists" you mean creationists, then no, they don't use the laws of nature, and usually their gibberish involves ignoring some fairly well-known laws. This is why, for example, they have their magic flood washing debris up mountains, despite the fact that the laws of nature say that that wouldn't happen, and why they have their magic flood miraculously accelerating radioactive decay, despite the fact that the laws of nature say that that wouldn't happen, and why they assert that this wouldn't melt the Earth and kill everything on Noah's magic boat with radiation poisoning, despite the fact that the laws of nature say that that is what would happen, and why they assert that the magic flood would produce the strata we see in the rocks, despite the fact that the laws of nature say that that wouldn't happen.
Merely claiming that science is on their side is not using the laws of nature, nor even being aware of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by slevesque, posted 06-13-2009 6:22 AM slevesque 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