|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Paging johnfolton. Bring your evidence for a young earth. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
OK, johnfolton, this is the Dating Forum. This is where your contentions of a young earth should be posted and defended.
Here is your big chance. Let's see you present and defend your AnswersinGenesis talking points on young earth here where the topic belongs. And because you relied on the RATE Project in your post on a previous thread, here are a couple of articles for you to brush up on before you present your evidence. (Note, I said evidence--this is the Science Forum, so you have to present evidence for your contentions.) Here are the two articles, with brief excerpts from the conclusions of each:
Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac The conclusions of the RATE project are being billed as “groundbreaking results.” This is a fairly accurate description since a group of creation scientists acknowledge that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity have occurred. They attempt to explain how this massive radioactivity could have occurred in a few thousand years but admit that consistent solutions have not yet been found. The vast majority of the book is devoted to providing technical details that the authors believe prove that the earth is young and that radioisotope decay has not always been constant. All of these areas of investigation have been addressed elsewhere by the scientific community and have been shown to be without merit. The only new data provided in this book are in the category of additional details and there are no significantly new claims. Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science? Young-earth creationists have long claimed there is no evidence for an old Earth. The fact that billions of years of nuclear decay have occurred in Earth history has been denied by most young-earth creationists. Now, the RATE team has admitted that, taken at face value, radiometric dating data is most easily and directly explained by the Earth being billions of years old. This is a remarkable development because no longer can young-earth creationists claim it is merely the naturalistic worldview that makes scientists believe rocks and minerals are millions or billions of years old. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Coyote,
Ned would not allow biblical stuff to be included in a debate on the age of the earth, universe. Its like the appearance of age but not the age of the earth. Like biblically you have 4,000 years where excess gamma photon radiation could of been happening explaining accelerated radioactive decay. You have the biblical flood satisfying the sediment layerings happening suddenly approximately 5,400 years ago. No native hoof creature in australia because all perished in the world flood. The fossil record is the creatures destroyed in the world flood. The massive coal yards evidence of a world flood that the bible is inerrant. The glaciers of the northern hemisphere evidence of the biblical flood that happened in the winter in the northern hemisphere. P.S. I don't think you would accept the bible inferences nor accept Walt Browns information so a debate probably would be only going down you saying a biblical flood is a myth and me saying its evidence that a the sediment layers are no older than 5,400 years. We just see the evidence differently not sure if Humphreys take on space dilation is the same as mine but makes sense that the galaxies are young because if they would be old they would of unwound long ago. galaxies and the earth young due space dilation, that the earth probably the entire milkey way and all galaxies are jumping every 24 hours 1000 years forward in spacetime, etc...! Like if earth time since the creation has been 13,000 years that times 365 times 13,000 years if spacetime dilation distances are increasing at the rate of a thousand year to a day 2 peter 3:8 you have spacetime dilation calculated distance across the universe for the last 13,000 years equalling approximately 61,685,000,000 light years for an universe only 13,000 years old. A day is as a thousand years is why galaxies have not yet unwound is because the galaxies are young not old as the creationists have been saying all along, etc... P.S. God and God alone is spreading out the heavens. Is 62 billion light years about right as far as how old you believe the visible universe is? Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Your reply is a jumble. Take one item at a time and focus on that.
Right now the topic that Coyote has introduced is the RATE groups work. Stick to that until you and he have finished beating it to death. Why would you reply to a post that is only discussing that without mentioning it? It seems the only thing you are bringing from the Bible is "appearance of age". If you suggest that is the reason (and the RATE group agrees with you it seems) that science sees and old earth then just say so. You don't need all the rest of the what you posted. Do you intend to use only that? If so I think you should start a thread in the Bible area as it has very strong theological implications. For all the rest, take one and only one item at a time. This isn't easy but that is the way it is if you actually want to have "opinions" in the sciences. You actually have to "earn" them by supporting them with evidence and logic. As for Walt Brown, it doesn't matter where it comes from. Just bring his evidence in one bit at a time. That is evidence not speculations. In summary: The subtopic for now is the RATE groups report. Deal with it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
(Note, I said evidence--this is the Science Forum, so you have to present evidence for your contentions.) Well I've already presented the bible as evidence you have at least 13,000 years since the sun became a star and 4,000 of those years before it was placed at the present distance from the earth thus a change in gamma radiation and photon emission is my theory how rapid accelerated decay could easily be accounted for. Like in the beginning was the earth radioactive and needed to be purged by accelerated decay as well as the waters heated to create the atmosphere and the seas. You wanted evidence and I gave you the galaxies spirals indicate the milkey way and all galaxies are young because they have not unwound. The earth is part of a galaxy so I brought up space dilation which is just a theory to explain how the universe too explain how its possible for the galaxies to wound up and the vast distances between galaxies. Can you explain why galaxies have not yet unwound not just those close to the earths milkey way but those vast distances from the earth by anything other than space dilation? It makes sense with the expansion the stretching out of the heavens the stars have room to unwind yet they have not as yet unwound are the galaxies themselves evidence of an young earth by the universe itself being young. With just 13,000 years you have by spacetime dilation off 2 peter 3:8 gives you approximately 65 billion light years of stretching yet a universe only 13,000 years of age!
this is the Dating Forum. This is where your contentions of a young earth should be posted and defended. Maybe this thread should be in the free for all where the bible and theories like how come galaxies are not unwound like space dilation, and the bible like you have 4,000 years where the sun could of been giving off massive gamma photon radiation like purging the earth of toxic radiation by accelerated decay before life could be created on day 3,4 & 5. iN Theory no different than the patents of how to treat nucleur wastes right? The RATE Boys believe accelerated decay happened they have not said how yet but personally believe they have tied their hands by believing in 24 hour creation days. If you look to the bible you have 1000 year days those first 6 days plenty of time for accelerated decay and it makes sense the earth would have to go thru accelerated decay or life as we know it would died by radiation. With accelerated decay you have an appearance of age but not the age of the earth! right? Primordial polonium halo's overlaying means in the beginning before the rocks hardened into granite that radon could not of been the daughter to polonium forming these particular concentric overlaying alpha signatures that means the earth in its beginning had primordial polonium meaning a radioactive earth in those early days of the earth that was in need of remedial accelerated decay those first 4 creation days in the creation as the RATE Boys believe had to of happened. Uniformitarians like to believe the decay rate was the same in the past this is a belief but whent he sun first became a star did God use the suns gamma radiation to purge the earth in accelerated decay. The RATE Boys suggests the flood because they look at the first creation days as 24 hour those that see those first creation days as 1000 year days have no need to go to the flood for the time to purge the earth of toxic radiation. It makes more sense that the radioactive early earth was purged by the suns gamma radiation no different that how scientists today want to accelerate decay of nucleur wastes however when the sun became a star 13,000 years ago not during the flood is the window of time for accerated decay. Oh Well think the subject of the young age of the earth is too big to be just on the dating forum perhaps the free for all? Its like you want science to be put in a box so you can have an old earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
No, I prefer to leave it in the Dating Forum and have you present scientific evidence--if you can.
So far you have not presented any scientific evidence. Your suppositions and ramblings would get you laughed out of a high school science class, and certainly can't be mistaken for scientific evidence. Perhaps if you just addressed a single point concerning the RATE Project we could discuss that in more detail. For example, you write "The RATE Boys believe accelerated decay happened they have not said how yet..." This does not exactly inspire any confidence in their scientific findings, but does illustrate their religious bias. I don't know why you would place any trust in that kind of science (except that it agrees with your a priori beliefs). Or, do you have some scientific evidence for accelerated decay that scientists don't know about? Perhaps that would be a good place to start--just what you consider to be scientific evidence for accelerated decay. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
just what you consider to be scientific evidence for accelerated decay Gamma radiation is said to be highly absorbable especially with high atomic number and density materials and believed the exited part of the nucleus energy thats expelled as gamma radiation when an alpha particle is expelled. Its how scientists are proposing remedial accelerated decay patents of nucleur wastes. The sun is the logical source of massive amounts of gamma radiation and from a creationists point of view you have thousands of years of potential accelerated decay of the elements. It says the creation of the heaven and the earth. Its just seems logical the creation of the earth involved remedial accelerated decay otherwise the earth would not support life. right? The bible talks of the creation of the earth which is the soil. right? It talks of the creation of the heaven which is the atmosphere. right? I mean you can not have life without an atmosphere nor with soil thats as radioactive as nucleur wastes. I mean you would not grow your garden in the wastes from a nucleur reactor would you? Presently you have the atmosphere shielding us from gamma radiation. right? No reason to believe the early earth had an atmosphere to protect it from gamma radiation. right? etc.... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gamma decayGamma rays are often produced alongside other forms of radiation such as alpha or beta. When a nucleus emits an or particle, the daughter nucleus is sometimes left in an excited state. It can then jump down to a lower level by emitting a gamma ray in much the same way that an atomic electron can jump to a lower level by emitting visible light or ultraviolet radiation Shielding for gamma rays requires large amounts of mass. The material used for shielding takes into account that gamma rays are better absorbed by materials with high atomic number and high density. Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions Remedial treatment of nucleur wastes are looking to gamma radiation, proton acceleration, higher magnetic fields, photons " not neutrons or alpha radiation" to accelerate uranium decay rates, to treat nuke wastes, etc... nukwastpats In a few major bursts, the sun produces gamma rays with energies up to one million electron volts. The interaction of high-energy electrons, protons, and nuclei of the sun, emit the rays. SMGAELS | Play to Gain Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Good luck, Coyote, with this guy.
Gamma radiation is said to be highly absorbable especially with high atomic number and density materials and believed the exited part of the nucleus energy thats expelled as gamma radiation when an alpha particle is expelled. Its how scientists are proposing remedial accelerated decay patents of nucleur wastes. Except that this doesn't accelerate decay RATES. Nuclear reactions caused by gamma ray bombardment are not decay. Another way you can force "decay" to occur is through nuclear reactions, like bombs. That doesn't change the RATE of decay. In fact the rates of decay of the radioactive material in Oklo 2 billion years ago were the same as for these isotopes today. That doesn't leave you much time for "accelerated decay" to have impacted the age of the earth significantly. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : oklo added Edited by RAZD, : waswasiswere 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
From Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac
4. Two Unsolved Problems: Heat and Radiation The authors report that faced with this evidence, a young-earth advocate must address at least two key scientific problems resulting from a one-year period of accelerated decay rates during the Flood. The first is the heat problem. Thermal energy from radioactive processes is a major source of heat in the earth. If those processes were accelerated by many orders of magnitude, the earth would have quickly evaporated from the heat had there not been an extraordinary mechanism of cooling. The authors state: The removal of heat was so rapid that it likely involved a process other than conduction, convection, or radiation . We believe it may be possible to discover how [God] did it (p. 763). Future research is suggested along the lines of Russell Humphreys’ idea of volumetric cooling based on relativistic principles even though this known phenomenon, the basis for red-shifting of starlight, does not apply to bound particles such as the earth. It is acknowledged that this approach, even if it were valid, has the difficulty of being uniform rather than selective as would be needed to cool only radioactive material and not, for example, the oceans. In other words, the authors acknowledge that accelerated decay requires a most unusual heat removal mechanism that is outside the known laws of thermodynamics. The second unresolved problem cited in the book is the radiation problem. How did Noah and his passengers survive a year in which radioactivity was one million times greater than it is today? No known solution exists, they state. Nevertheless, “The RATE group is confident that these issues will be solved . ” I think the entire RATE Project can be summed up in those last words: "The RATE group is confident that these issues will be solved . ” This is not science, this is religious apologetics. They spent well over a million dollars of creationists' donations to come up with scientific data, and when it agreed with what scientists had discovered long ago the RATE group refused to believe their own data. I think you still need to provide some reliable scientific evidence for accelerated decay. So far there seem to be insurmountable side affects in what you have suggested. Your gamma ray idea, whereby the sun accelerated radioactive decay, neglects to mention that the earth would have been cooked in the process. You are suggesting compressing 4.5 billion years of decay into just 10,000 years without accounting for the massive amounts of heat that would be generated. Do you want to move on to another aspect of the young earth problem, or do you want to try and provide additional evidence on this point? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Except that this doesn't accelerate decay RATES. Would not a photon go into the atom as a whole not just the electron shield inducing not forcing the atom nucleus into an exicted state that reduces this state by the expulsion of an alpha particle and the energy is it not removed as a gamma ray?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You need to study what decay is, whatever, before you can argue how it can be changed.
Would not a photon go into the atom as a whole ... Decay occurs from the inside out, and is not caused by outside stimulus, whether by photons, electrons, protons, gamma rays, or whatever. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
I've already said the more appropriate time for accelerated decay was when the earth atmosphere was not fully developed shielding the earths waters. But perhaps some transfering of photons happened due the canopy above is believed to rain down upon the earths sediments. Perhaps the RATE Boys are onto something? Cool!!!!!!!
P.S. So there you have it the heat necessary to create the atmosphere canopy above the firmament also water is known to absorb gamma radiation. If the earth was being bombarded by gamma photons water might play a part of transferring gamma photons from the electron shield of water into the nucleus of atoms of heavy elements in need of accelerated decay. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Well you have to prove photons don't affect the nucleus inducing from the inside out. Its like inducing vomiting by taking Ipecac so your being induced from inside out, etc...
Ipecac has been used by individuals with bulimia nervosa as a means to achieve weight loss through induced defensive vomiting. Syrup of ipecac - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You need to understand reality, whatever, not just use your fantasy view whenever it suits you, if you want to discuss science.
Well you have to prove photons don't affect the nucleus inducing from the inside out. No. I. Don't. Why? Because ANY excitation from an external source IS NOT DECAY. It is a nuclear reaction caused by the excitation. Radioactive decay - Wikipedia
quote: Nuclear reaction - Wikipedia
quote: They are different processes, and no amount of hand waving denial or pretend alternate scenarios will change that fact. Decay happens on it's own from inside the nucleus, nuclear reactions occur with input from outside the nucleus. Causing any number of nuclear reactions has absolutely NO effect on the natural rate of decay of the isotope. Simple. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Decay occurs from the inside out, and is not caused by outside stimulus, whether by photons, electrons, protons, gamma rays, or whatever. This is not true, I'm pretty sure. If you wing a neutron into a nucleus you may trigger a decay for example. What you mean to say is that under the conditions under consideration (to be described) the decay happens "from the inside".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024