Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 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?
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 128 (104982)
05-03-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Percy
05-03-2004 2:27 PM


Re: Are they really missing?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 05-03-2004 2:27 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 05-05-2004 8:48 AM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 128 (104984)
05-03-2004 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by NosyNed
05-03-2004 2:27 PM


Re: Are they really missing?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 05-03-2004 2:27 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 05-05-2004 10:34 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 48 of 128 (105492)
05-05-2004 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by John Paul
05-03-2004 3:54 PM


Re: Are they really missing?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by John Paul, posted 05-03-2004 3:54 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 1:21 PM Percy has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 49 of 128 (105515)
05-05-2004 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by John Paul
05-03-2004 4:00 PM


Re: Are they really missing?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by John Paul, posted 05-03-2004 4:00 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 128 (105559)
05-05-2004 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Percy
05-05-2004 8:48 AM


Re: Are they really missing?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 05-05-2004 8:48 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 05-05-2004 1:54 PM John Paul has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 51 of 128 (105577)
05-05-2004 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by John Paul
05-05-2004 1:21 PM


Re: Are they really missing?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 1:21 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 2:00 PM Percy has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 128 (105582)
05-05-2004 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
05-05-2004 1:54 PM


Re: Are they really missing?
Percy I am asking for evidence to support the "nebula hypothesis". There is a reason it is still a hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 05-05-2004 1:54 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 05-05-2004 5:10 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 54 by Coragyps, posted 05-05-2004 5:24 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 05-08-2004 4:44 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 53 of 128 (105648)
05-05-2004 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by John Paul
05-05-2004 2:00 PM


Re: Are they really missing?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 2:00 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 54 of 128 (105652)
05-05-2004 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by John Paul
05-05-2004 2:00 PM


Re: Are they really missing?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 2:00 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 128 (105663)
05-05-2004 6:09 PM


Summary
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by John Paul, posted 05-20-2004 11:28 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 56 of 128 (106534)
05-08-2004 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by John Paul
05-05-2004 2:00 PM


Bump for John Paul
^Bump^

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 2:00 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 128 (109553)
05-20-2004 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Loudmouth
05-05-2004 6:09 PM


Re: Summary
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Loudmouth, posted 05-05-2004 6:09 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by JonF, posted 05-21-2004 6:27 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 59 by Chiroptera, posted 05-21-2004 6:53 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 74 by Loudmouth, posted 05-26-2004 4:57 PM John Paul has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 58 of 128 (109736)
05-21-2004 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by John Paul
05-20-2004 11:28 PM


Re: Summary
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by John Paul, posted 05-20-2004 11:28 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 7:21 PM JonF has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 128 (109739)
05-21-2004 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by John Paul
05-20-2004 11:28 PM


Re: Summary
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.
Are you comparing the creation of the earth with antiquities fraud?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by John Paul, posted 05-20-2004 11:28 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by John Paul, posted 05-21-2004 7:24 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 128 (109748)
05-21-2004 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by JonF
05-21-2004 6:27 PM


Re: Summary
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by JonF, posted 05-21-2004 6:27 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 05-21-2004 7:34 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 66 by JonF, posted 05-21-2004 9:10 PM John Paul has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024