Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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?
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 1 of 128 (73137)
12-15-2003 8:23 PM


Reference: here. I've been looking for a YEC to offer their explanation of this for a long time.
Naturally occuring elements on Earth: 84
Naturally occuring isotopes on Earth: 339
Naturally occuring stable isotopes on Earth: 269
Naturally occuring radioisotopes on Earth: 70
Artificially produced radioisotopes: 1650
I assume everyone is following so far, correct? Now, radioisotopes can be produced through collisions, such as we do in particle accelerators, and they can be produced as part of a decay series (such as all of the stages from U238 to Pb208). Decay series isotopes will continue to be produced as long as the parent still exists. Likewise, there are some natural collisions that produce radioisotopes, such as Iodine 129 being produced from Tellurium 130 by cosmic ray muons.
Let's rule all of these out, and only look at isotopes which *aren't* renewed by any of these methods. What do we have? Let's list all of them with half lives of at least a million years, and check to see whether it has ever been found naturally occuring on Earth, even in the most minute quantities.
Vanadium 50: 6,000,000,000,000,000 years. Yes.
Neodymium 144: 2,400,000,000,000,000 years. Yes.
Hafnium 174: 2,000,000,000,000,000 years. Yes.
Platinum 192: 1,000,000,000,000,000 years. Yes.
Indium 115: 600,000,000,000,000 years. Yes.
Gadolinium 152: 110,000,000,000,000 years. Yes.
Tellurium 123: 12,000,000,000,000 years. Yes.
Platinum 190: 690,000,000,000 years. Yes.
Lanthanum 138: 112,000,000,000 years. Yes.
Samarium 147: 106,000,000,000 years. Yes.
Rubidium 87: 48,800,000,000 years. Yes.
Rhenium 187: 43,000,000,000 years. Yes.
Lutetium 176: 35,000,000,000 years. Yes.
Thorium 232: 14,000,000,000 years. Yes.
Uranium 238: 4,470,000,000 years. Yes.
Potassium 40: 1,250,000,000 years. Yes.
Uranium 235: 704,000,000 years. Yes.
Samarium 146: 103,000,000 years. No.
Plutonium 244: 82,000,000 years. By extreme effort - 10^-14 grams found in 85kg of ore.
Curium 247: 16,000,000 years. No.
Lead 205: 15,000,000 years. No.
Hafnium 182: 9,000,000 years. No.
Palladium 107: 7,000,000 years. No.
Cesium 135: 3,000,000 years. No.
Technetium 97: 3,000,000 years. No.
Gadolinium 150: 2,000,000 years. No.
Zirconium 93: 2,000,000 years. No.
Technetium 98: 2,000,000 years. No.
Dysprosium 154: 1,000,000 years. No.
Note that all of the isotopes that aren't produced that have halflives below one million years are similarly absent.
Quite a curious trend, is it not? For a young earth, this poses some serious problems, that as far as I can think of, can only be resolved through one of the following.
1) God is a prankster, and deliberately set up the universe to look old as a trick to us.
2) Radioisotopic decay went faster in the past (still involves a little bit of #1, but not nearly as much).
3) Evil Scientific Conspiracy.
4) Radioisotopes with half lives less than that of Plutonium 244 are, due to unknown phenomina, not naturally created in the universe.
#4 might initially sound promising. Unfortunately, it's false. We've witnessed, in the spectra of supernovae, some of the short half life elements not found on Earth being produced and then decaying. We can see it. So, you'd have to also argue that there's something wrong with spectra (of course, the distances of stars alone requires somewhat of a prankster God, but that's a whole different topic)
Of the remaining, I think #2 will probably prove most palatable to creationists. But this poses a new problem of its own. If radioisotope decay went faster in the past, [i]then the energy released by the decay (E=mc^2) would have been released at a faster rate. In short, Earth would be turned into a pool of molten slag.
Could god have altered the ratio of mass and energy? Sure, although that would alter pretty much *every other* parameter of existance. In short, the first couple days of creation would have to be so altered that space and time as we know it would be completely and utterly different. In short, it might as well have be considered an ancient universe.
I've never yet had the luxury of having a YEC respond to this line of argument. I would love to hear from one.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 12-16-2003 3:14 PM Rei has replied
 Message 6 by agrav8r, posted 01-08-2004 6:34 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 30 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-12-2004 1:14 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 37 by Brad McFall, posted 02-17-2004 3:06 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 38 by John Paul, posted 05-03-2004 1:18 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 78 by Zachariah, posted 05-28-2004 2:03 AM Rei has not replied
 Message 96 by peaceharris, posted 07-29-2008 1:02 AM Rei has not replied

  
hoju
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 128 (73144)
12-15-2003 8:56 PM


ok ill take a stab at it. i got the jist of it (radioisotope dating makes for an old earth?).
Here's a YEC explanation:
QUOTE FROM BIBLE:
"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; "
When God says "cursed is the ground for thy sake" he is saying that introduction of death into the world will be the means of salvation. It is for man's good that death was introduced so that Christ could take death upon his own body and pay the penalty for us.
The word "ground" is actually the same word used for "earth". So it was the entire earth that was cursed, and everything in it: humans, animals, plants.
When the Bible says: "cursed is the ground for thy sake" it is likely that a burst of radioactivity was released from the rocks. This would effect the rate of radioactive decay, thus throwing off dating methods (carbon dating etc). See my section on carbon dating for more info
Commentary on Genesis chapter 3
doubt evolutionists will think of this as a satisfying answer though...
[This message has been edited by hoju, 12-15-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Rei, posted 12-15-2003 9:10 PM hoju has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 3 of 128 (73152)
12-15-2003 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by hoju
12-15-2003 8:56 PM


quote:
When the Bible says: "cursed is the ground for thy sake" it is likely that a burst of radioactivity was released from the rocks. This would effect the rate of radioactive decay, thus throwing off dating methods (carbon dating etc).
The amount of radiation released would not only have sterilized the earth, but turned it into molten slag. Reread the third to last and second to last paragraphs, where I discussed the issue in more detail.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by hoju, posted 12-15-2003 8:56 PM hoju has not replied

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


Message 4 of 128 (73398)
12-16-2003 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rei
12-15-2003 8:23 PM


Rei, I think the answer is pretty obvious: only isotopes with half-lives over 100,000,000 years are "good" isotopes, so they were the only ones that were created. The decay products of non-good, short-lived isotopes like 93Zr, however, are "good", so 93Nb is substituted for Zr in zircons. God wanted it that way: a perfect crystal lattice is sinful, ya know. Snakey, perhaps, or something.
I'm surprised that I haven't seen this "explanation" at the ICR website! Should I submit it to them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rei, posted 12-15-2003 8:23 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Rei, posted 12-16-2003 3:52 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 5 of 128 (73418)
12-16-2003 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coragyps
12-16-2003 3:14 PM


Gee, why didn't I think of that? I can just picture God now...
GOD: Let There Be Isotopes Which Are Unstable! But Don't Let There Be Isotopes That Would Be Missing In A 4.5 Billion Year Old Earth, For Those Are Not Good. Let Those Appear Elsewhere In The Universe, However. And Let The Zircons Contain Only The Decay Products Of These Isotopes, For The Zircons Are Not Good In My Sight.
God is cool....
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 12-16-2003 3:14 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
agrav8r
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 128 (77201)
01-08-2004 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rei
12-15-2003 8:23 PM


Actually the arguement is not difficult, it is only that many are misinterpreting the bible. When God created Adam he was created in a mature state and capable of producing seed. when he created all the life on earth , it was also in a mature state and capable of producing seed.
Therefore all creations of God are mature nad when the earth and the universe were created they were created in a mature state.
you of course will jest at this reply, but it is consistant with the bible, and offers a plausable , reasonable explaination.

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 7 by Loudmouth, posted 01-08-2004 6:52 PM agrav8r has replied
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 01-08-2004 6:52 PM agrav8r has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 128 (77208)
01-08-2004 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by agrav8r
01-08-2004 6:34 PM


This is called an ad hoc rationalization. If radioactive atoms were discovered today and the implication of dating rocks using the half-lives of these isotopes became apparent, you would claim that they would show that the earth was young. Since that has not happened, you must invent scenarios that keep your presuppositions intact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by agrav8r, posted 01-08-2004 6:34 PM agrav8r has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by agrav8r, posted 01-08-2004 7:18 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 128 (77209)
01-08-2004 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by agrav8r
01-08-2004 6:34 PM


This begs the question, though. Of course Adam and the living things had to be created in a mature state, in order to live. But why did God have to create the earth in a "mature" state? What's "mature" about having the relative amounts of isotopes such that the earth looks 4+ billion years old?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by agrav8r, posted 01-08-2004 6:34 PM agrav8r has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by agrav8r, posted 01-08-2004 7:11 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 12 by truthlover, posted 01-08-2004 7:58 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
agrav8r
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 128 (77216)
01-08-2004 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chiroptera
01-08-2004 6:52 PM


1) I would never presume that i know the ultimate will of God, and so on one aspect i could never fully answer this question, but
2)god is consistant in what he does there by all things God creates are in a mature state or
3) Perhaps a galaxy that was younger/older looking would have been inappropiate to allow certian events to happen ( such as non believers asking certian questions ?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 01-08-2004 6:52 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by TechnoCore, posted 01-08-2004 7:59 PM agrav8r has not replied

  
agrav8r
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 128 (77219)
01-08-2004 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Loudmouth
01-08-2004 6:52 PM


No he stated how would you argue this point
If God is all powerful he could do anything, such as changing tomarrow the scientific laws you hold dear or creating an earth that appears old.
You have faith that what you consider truth is correct, as do I.
I would ask you , have we checked every atom on the earth? No we have not, and therefore your arguement could fold like a house of cards, and yet you claim it as truth. We both have faith, mine in God and yours in "scientism".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Loudmouth, posted 01-08-2004 6:52 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 01-08-2004 7:56 PM agrav8r has replied
 Message 90 by d_yankee, posted 06-30-2005 11:02 PM agrav8r has not replied

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


Message 11 of 128 (77225)
01-08-2004 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by agrav8r
01-08-2004 7:18 PM


Appearances can be deceiving
...or creating an earth that appears old.
So you think God created an earth that appears old? He did this when it is not at all necessary so what does that tell us about His sense of humour? You'd have to wonder about what other little jokes he has hidden and waiting for us.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by agrav8r, posted 01-08-2004 7:18 PM agrav8r has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by agrav8r, posted 01-08-2004 8:15 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 12 of 128 (77226)
01-08-2004 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chiroptera
01-08-2004 6:52 PM


What's "mature" about having the relative amounts of isotopes such that the earth looks 4+ billion years old?
If you think that's bad, think about extinct species that have been dead longer than 6,000 years ago. God created the earth 6,000 years ago with the appearance of being 4.5 billion years old. Part of that appearance was millions of species which no longer exist. The earth "looks like" it evolved. In fact, in a sense, it did evolve, since it was created as though it evolved.
All those dinosaur fossils? They are really there, so that the earth would appear old, and the earth is made in such a way that it was affected by the age of reptiles. However, those reptiles never really lived! They were just part of making the earth look old when it was made 6,000 years ago!
I think the word "preposterous" was invented for just such an assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 01-08-2004 6:52 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
TechnoCore
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 128 (77227)
01-08-2004 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by agrav8r
01-08-2004 7:11 PM


You say that god is consistant in what he does and thereby all things god creates are in a mature state. That sentence says absolutly nothing. What is a mature state? Is a mountain a mature state? Or a beach ? Mountains eventually erodes to beaches, and beaches becomes sandstone and finally mountains. Same goes with every other aspect in nature. Everything is recycled. It even goes for you. What was to become the first parts of you were food your mother and father ate some long time ago.
If god is consistant, then your view of the age of universe seems a bit un-consistant, doesn't it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by agrav8r, posted 01-08-2004 7:11 PM agrav8r has not replied

  
agrav8r
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 128 (77230)
01-08-2004 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by NosyNed
01-08-2004 7:56 PM


Source of Truth
Same fallacy as used before- who defines what God should have done and why
most of the problem between Sci's and Cre's is in the definition of truth and knowledge. sci's will state that truth is either arbitrary or ultimately created by self ( humans) ,and (most, i hope) Cre's believe that God is the source of all Knowledge and truth. in most aspects the two are like oil and water, for if God is the ultimate truth, to believe otherwise is to deny God.
on the contrary, If sci is to be correct, it cannot have a higher power that dictates truth other than the human experience. anything beyond that is unobservable and thus wrong.
Of course there will be some that will ride the fence, but ultimately they must choose which to place their faith in, man or God.
this is how i view these forums, Those that place their faith in sci-ism and those who place their faith in God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 01-08-2004 7:56 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by zephyr, posted 01-09-2004 12:02 AM agrav8r has not replied
 Message 16 by truthlover, posted 01-09-2004 9:35 AM agrav8r has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4551 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 15 of 128 (77258)
01-09-2004 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by agrav8r
01-08-2004 8:15 PM


Re: Source of Truth
Logical fallacies in your post - false dichotomy, strawman, inappropriate conflation of two separate ideas. Did I miss any?
Only one of the parties you describe claims to extend truth beyond matters which it possesses the means to understand. Thus, they are not separated in the way you claim (false dichotomy). You try to dismiss those who believe in God (or whatever supernatural phenomena) and yet recognize the power of the scientific method by insulting them and calling them fence-riders. The fact remains that faith in God does not dictate that one reject a useful method for discovering the natural world, and vice versa. The mere existence of these people destroys your artificial separation.
Let me explain further.
Beyond the fact that "scientism" as a religion (or whatever you claim it is) exists only in the mind of desperate creationists, actual science operates via methodological naturalism, which is completely different from philosophical or ontological naturalism. It does not inherently reject or accept the existence of a god or gods, instead leaving its practitioners free to make that choice themselves. There is no vast majority that make any one particular decision in this area, which further illustrates how totally unrelated these two subjects are. Instead of a dichotomy, you have two subjects: 1) the question of a god or gods; and 2) the validity of a method which operates on observable phenomena driven by mechanisms which can be discovered.
Science does not make any claims at all about phenomena that it cannot experience in a testable, repeatable way. It chooses to be honest about humanity's inability to prove or disprove things like deities. The argument you offer is a common strawman used against proponents of biological evolution (as overwhelmingly supported by research conducted via the scientific method) that conflates atheism with methodological naturalism.
In other words, the way you choose to attach these separate ideas to each other places you in a small minority. Most people have no problem accepting both of the ideas that you place in conflict with one another. Why? Because believing in God makes people feel good, and evolution is undeniable to anyone who is familiar with the staggering quantity and quality of evidence that supports it. I have no problem with you believing in God. My whole family does, and I don't, and we get along just fine. I only have a problem with people misinforming each other about the facts of the natural world because it supports their particular unverifiable idea about God.
(edited 1st paragraph for clarity)
[This message has been edited by zephyr, 01-09-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by agrav8r, posted 01-08-2004 8:15 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