What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes?

Rei, What is the evidence that any of these alleged missing isotopes were ever on earth? IOW soemthing shouldn't be considered missing if it wasn't here in the first place. So that is where we need to start. It will only become a problem for YEC if and only if those isotopes can be placed on earth. If they can't be placed on earth at some point in the past then YECs have nothing to explain.

Daughter isotopes? It would depend if those alleged daughter isotopes have one and only one possible parent. Please state which daughter isotopes fall in to this category.

Percy, my point is that we don't know if they are missing or were never here. It doesn't matter what the half-life is. If that isotope wasn't here in the first place it is not an issue and not missing. I could say my bank account is missing one million dollars. I mean there isn't a million dollars in my account so it must be missing? Right? No, I never had one million dollars in any one account.

Percy:The isotopes are naturally occurring, and so they all should exist on earth.John Paul:
That is an assertion and is not evidence. Evidence would be to find a daughter product that could ONLY come from one of the alleged missing isotopes.

Ned, Nd 142 can also come from Ce 142, Pr 142 and Pm 142. How far am I going to go? Until I have the evidence that shows these nuclides are actually a problem for YECs.

Percy:
New solar systems condense from the stellar debris of nova and supernova.John Paul:
More assertions? Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Even if it were true it doesn't follow that every element/ isotope that was in that "cloud" would fall/ condense on one or all planets.You still haven't provided any evidence that these isotopes were ever on this planet.

Percy I am asking for evidence to support the "nebula hypothesis". There is a reason it is still a hypothesis.

One thing to remember- the earth can be made up of materials that are old, or have been through a process that has made them appear to be old, and still have been formed relatively recently. Such would be the case with Dr. Humphreys' cosmology.

JonF:
Unfortunately for you Humphreys' "cosmology", while perhaps seeming reasonable to the uneducated and prejudiced audience he's aiming at, is incompatible with the observations and General Relativity.John Paul:
Again with the assertions. Care toi give any specifics?JonF:
IOW, Humphreys is a psuedoscientific crank who knows not whereof he speaks.John Paul:
And who are you? I would love to see you debate Dr. Humphreys about his cosmology.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the earth can be made up of materials that are old, or have been through a process that has made them appear to be old, and still have been formed relatively recently.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chiro:
Are you comparing the creation of the earth with antiquities fraud?John Paul:
Nope, just making a statement. What I am saying is that even if the earth was formed recently doesn't mean all the materials that went into that formation had to be formed recently or that those materials were not subject to some process that "aged" them.

John Paul writes:
What I am saying is that even if the earth was formed recently doesn't mean all the materials that went into that formation had to be formed recently or that those materials were not subject to some process that "aged" them.Percy:
Once again you are advocating a process for which there is no evidence.John Paul:
LoL! And you are not just as guilty? Where is the evidence that this solar system was formed via the nebula hypothesis? How do we know what it is we see in Orion's nebula is actually the formation and not remnants of the explosion?Percy:
You can refuse to believe modern dating methods all you like, but how are you going to persuade people to your own point of view if, to liken evidence to money, you've arrived a pauper and your opponent is sitting on Fort Knox.John Paul:
And you can take it on faith that those methods are relieble because that would be all you have- faith. We do not even know what causes atoms to be unstable and decay. What we do is to measure what daughter product(s) and parent product(s) are in a sample and derive an "age" from that.

JonF. have you even read what Humphreys proposes? It would appear the answer is No! The gravity well is gone due to the fact the white hole has emptied its contents.And where did the imagined singularity of the big bang come from? Magic. Again your double standards are obvious.Humphreys has a PhD. in physics. It wasn't just a side course on his way to another degree.As for reasons to believe Humphreys has answered them and they refuse to debate him, even via written correspondence. Which would satisfy your criteria of peer review.BTW there was a recent peer reviewed paper that supports some of Humphreys premises.

WT:
We creos MUST relent to an old earth/universe. The scientific evidence is irrefuteable.John Paul:
That's a joke, right?What is this irrefutable evidence of an old earth? Or is it just unfalsifiable conclusions based on one worldview?