|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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 Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
John Paul writes: Percy writes: The isotopes are naturally occurring, and so they all should exist on earth. 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. The isotopes are naturally occurring. Many are produced in stars, either during a star's normal lifetime, or during nova and supernova. We detect all these elements, including both the short and the long half-lived elements, through spectrographic analysis. New solar systems condense from the stellar debris of nova and supernova. Once a solar system has formed and a stellar furnace has begun that prevents further influx of significant amounts of interstellar material, the source of these elements is gone. Those that were part of the original solar system slowly decay according to their radiometric clocks. If enough time passes, as has happened here on earth, the shorter half-lived elements decay away completely. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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.
But, for example, magnesium-26 inside the crystal lattice of an aluminum mineral didn't just crawl there - it came from the decay of aluminum-26. 26Al has a 770,000 year half, is formed by known mechanisms in AGB stars and supernovae, and is absent in today's solar system.I haven't found anything on the web about niobium-93 (from zirconium-93) in zircons, but if I get up to the library at Texas Tech in the near future, I'll look..... Cerium-142 has a half-life of 5 x 10^16 years, by the way. How much neodymium can you get from that in a couple of billion years? This message has been edited by Coragyps, 05-05-2004 09:37 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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 Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
John Paul writes: Percy writes: New solar systems condense from the stellar debris of nova and supernova. More assertions? Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Can you be more specific about what you're questioning? Are you questioning whether nova and supernova spew material into interstellar space? Whether solar systems condense from interstellar material? There *is* evidence for all this, but I need your help to know what to focus on.
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. Granted. So the short half-lived material is out there in interstellar space with all the long half-lived material and a lot of non-radiometric material, and a local concentration of matter is beginning to draw material in to start a new solar system. What mechanism are you proposing that would leave the short half-lived material out in interstellar space while drawing in all the longer half-lived materials, especially given that these elements possess a wide variety of densities and chemical behaviors. And don't forget the evidence that these shorter half-lived elements *did* exist on our planet at one time, as Coragyps has described concerning daughter isotopes captured in crystal lattices where their chemical behavior wouldn't allow them to be. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Percy I am asking for evidence to support the "nebula hypothesis". There is a reason it is still a hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
So you're saying you don't accept the evidence in support of the formation of stars and solar systems by condensing from interstellar material? The theory is broadly accepted within cosmological circles. What is it about the evidence you find unpersuasive.
You personally can reject this theory or any theory, but the key issue isn't whether you accept or reject a theory, but whether you can muster any evidence to persuade others of your point of view. So far I've heard lots of what evidence and theories you don't accept, but nothing of evidence for your point of view. Also, you haven't addressed Coragyps evidence that these elements *did* exist on earth in the past. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
JP, the Hubble Space Telescope and a variety of large ground-based telescopes have taken many pictures of solar systems being born from nebulae - in the Orion Nebula, the Taurus Molecular Cloud - lots of pictures. The pattern of stony planets in close and gassy ones further away in our own solar system support the "nebular hypothesis".
What else do you want?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Just to pull things together (both for me and John Paul):
1. Elements with short half-lives are observed after supernovae and novae activity. They are naturally occuring within the universe. 2. Solar system formation is observed in nebulae. The formation of our solar system is an extrapolation of observations. To posit another theoretical frame work for solar system formation one needs to have the same weight of observed evidence. No one has done so. 3. Magnesium-26 within an aluminum lattice can only be explained by the decay of Aluminum-26. The lack of naturally occuring modern Aluminum-26 with a half life of 770,000 years indicates an old earth. It seems like an open and shut case to me. Also, short lived isotopes are created by man on earth. Some of these elements, and their halve-lives were at one time theoretical, but are now proven. And how do humans make these radioactive elements? Through nuclear reactions like those found in stars. I would say that the lack of short lived radioactive isotopes ARE a problem for the YEC position. This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 05-05-2004 05:10 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
^Bump^
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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 Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Such would be the case with Dr. Humphreys' cosmology. 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. IOW, Humphreys is a psuedoscientific crank who knows not whereof he speaks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Are you comparing the creation of the earth with antiquities fraud?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024