Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2017 9:00 AM
91 online now:
edge, Faith, JonF, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle (6 members, 85 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,704 Year: 21,310/21,208 Month: 1,743/2,326 Week: 198/881 Day: 23/97 Hour: 0/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
121314Next
Author Topic:   Validity of Radiometric Dating
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 151 of 196 (759871)
06-15-2015 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by JonF
06-15-2015 5:28 PM


Re: Interested
Educated people knew that the Earth was far older than 10,000 or so years in the early 19th century, mostly before Darwin was born. You can start with The Age of the Earth: Early Attempts. For your convenience I've posted a version of Table 1 with the religious-based dates removed and easier reading, click here (PDF). Changing Views of the History of the Earth.

Thanks for posting that, I see most of it was based on faulty reasoning based on rates of sedimentation. The catastrophic model was largely rejected. So hardly accurate stuff.

You are incorrect that I need detailed evidence that they all DID form quickly. Just the fact that evidence for evolutionary timeframes is lacking is perfectly sufficient. This thread is about the validity of evolutionary timeframes, (radiometric dating).

There would be a current radiation problem if all isotopes decayed rapidly now because of the slow build-up of unstable isotopes over time. But in a world where all isotopes decay rapidly that problem would have never existed.

The consilience is due to the decay being proportionate. The Purdue effect is the same across alpha and beta decay in the studies by the Israel Geological Survey.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by JonF, posted 06-15-2015 5:28 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Coyote, posted 06-15-2015 8:42 PM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 156 by JonF, posted 06-16-2015 9:01 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 188 by 46&2, posted 06-19-2015 7:28 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 196 (759878)
06-15-2015 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 5:29 PM


Re: Interested
please explain your thinking here. I'm not following. I require nothing more than the existing neutron flux for this to work.

Wrong. As I explained to you before...

If a neutron prevents a decay, then the neutron must exist proportional to the number of decays prevented. In order to have enough neutrons to convert a million year decay rate into a billion year decay rate, you need enough neutrons to prevent 999/1000 decays.

The parent isotope would only become heavy if there was a net gain, not a net decay.

You are claiming that the decays are stopped by neutron absorption. Such a thing would convert a nucleus to a higher and heavier is isotope. There is so evidence of any such conversion. I am not even complaining about the gain weight rather than a loss. I'm talking about a change in the isotopic ratio. In the earlier debate you claimed that lighter isotopes would replace the heavier ones that after absorption, but there are limited light isotopes and your scenario cannot work.

3) Yes, if completely shielded from the neutron flux they would revert to their natural decay rate. However most neutron shields do not shield for high speed muons which create the neutron flux from within the sample.

You scenario is does not apply for a nuclear reactor which must shield against all radiation. Ple

In the case of a nuclear reactor high speed muons are easily stopped by lead shielding and steel shielding. Neutrons are stopped by boronated poly shielding. The U-235 ought to be consumed at high rates. We ought to detect within the reactor compartment after shutdown high levels of gammas produced by nuclear decay. Instead we find that the U-235 is not lost and there are no extra decay gammas. In the previous discussion, you relied on another poster to describe a similar situation before you punted on this nonsense.

Please show that the current neutron flux is lethal to life.

The current neutron flux is not lethal to life. However the neutron flux required to make this scheme work would be lethal. The amount of flux required to slow down the decay of 1 cubic centimeter sample of U-238 after I isolate it isotopically, so the neutron flu must exist everywhere on earth since you don't know where I am going to move my sample. And the total number of neutrons/sec must match the rapid decay that it is supposed to be preventing.

I should also mention that the neutron flux in a nuclear reactor is continually monitored because the neutron flux is proportional to reactor power. There aren't any significant number of muon induced neutrons in a nuclear submarines reactor. You are just talking garbage.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 5:29 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by JonF, posted 06-16-2015 9:04 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 163 by mindspawn, posted 06-17-2015 5:26 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 196 (759891)
06-15-2015 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 5:29 PM


Re: Interested
Below is a link to the previous discussion on this exact same topic. I find that I was able to come up with a lot more objections to your scheme.

See Message 942.

If there is an effect, surely neutrons are not the cause.

By the way, this next quote is you acknowledging to PurpleYouko that a neutron flux does not affect decay rates.

From Message 954

PY writes:

First of all as I have pointed out above, the effects of neutron flux on decay rates has been tested rather thoroughly and categorically ruled out as a possible way to change decay rates.

Secondly and much more seriously, the kind of thermal or fast neutron flux needed for any isotope to capture a neutron would be many orders of magnitude higher than any form of organic life could survive. Such a flux on the surface of the planet would inevitably result in a sterile radioactive wasteland

mindspawn writes:

Ok I accept your first point, must still look into your second point.

Can we drop this now?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 5:29 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by mindspawn, posted 06-17-2015 6:10 PM NoNukes has responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1371
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 154 of 196 (759897)
06-15-2015 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 3:01 PM


Re: Interested
I assume you are familiar with the recent Purdue University and Israel Geological Survey studies? Here are some links:
Decay is affected by the sun's core:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0205

Decay is affected by solar flares:
http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2013/2053/

Only short-life isotopes have been mentioned in those studies, the effects on the longer life isotopes, those used to measure earth's earliest rocks, are not discussed. But what can be seen is that there is a negative relationship between speed of decay and penetration of the earth's magnetic field. Slight changes to penetration (flares/seasons/suns core) cause slight changes to decay rates.


Yes, I'm familiar with Fischbach's claims. Some comments:
1) Fischbach has been involved with other crazy-sounding theories going back many years, such as a search for a "fifth force".
2) Fischbach is largely a phenomenologist. This means that he starts with the experimental data of others and tries to find patterns that they have missed. The danger is that a phenomenologist is not intimately familiar with the experiments. Often the phenomenologist is the one who is missing things, not the original experimenters. And a phenomenologist rarely has a theoretical justification for his suggestions.
3) when I looked into Fischbach's claims a few years ago, I found that others had claimed to disprove him, and that he had claimed to disprove them, and that this went back and forth. At the least, this causes extreme doubt for his claims. (sorry; I can't find these references in the limited time that I have at the moment. Maybe someone else can find and post links to them?)
4) my tentative explanation for the very small periodic signals that Fischbach saw in the BNL decay data is a changing measurement sensitivity, not a changing decay rate. I suspect that the detectors (plastic scintillators?) that they used to measure the decay had a slight sensitivity to temperature or humidity, causing a seasonal variation in the decays that they were able to detect.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 3:01 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5944
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 155 of 196 (759899)
06-15-2015 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 5:48 PM


Radiocarbon dating
This thread is about the validity of evolutionary timeframes, (radiometric dating).

Creationists' claims about the validity of radiocarbon dating have been shown to be unfounded.

We have tree-ring sequences in a couple of areas that go back beyond the young-earth claims, and other annular data (corals, ice cores, lake cores, speleothems, etc.) that go back even farther--and all of the various annular data, relying on vastly different materials, are in close agreement.

Right there we have solid evidence that radiocarbon dating in particular and radiometric dating in general are accurate, and that creationists and their faith-based claims are inaccurate.

So why do you keep trying to pretend this is not the case?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 5:48 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by mikechell, posted 06-16-2015 10:43 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3898
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 156 of 196 (759927)
06-16-2015 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 5:48 PM


Re: Interested
Thanks for posting that, I see most of it was based on faulty reasoning based on rates of sedimentation. The catastrophic model was largely rejected. So hardly accurate stuff.

Yes, inaccurate. But far more accurate that an 10,000-ish year old Earth. As Asimov wrote (well worth reading in its entirety):

quote:
when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

Same thing. When people derived the age of the Earth from sedimentation they were wrong. But they were approaching truth more than anyone had before.

There would be a current radiation problem if all isotopes decayed rapidly now because of the slow build-up of unstable isotopes over time. But in a world where all isotopes decay rapidly that problem would have never existed.

Wow, that's got to be the dumbest thing anyone's ever said about decay. The problem has nothing to do with the buildup of unstable isotopes, and radioactive decay does not lead to the buildup of unstable isotopes; it leads to the buildup of stable isotopes.

Each decay of a radioactive atom releases heat and radiation. The amount it releases is constant. We are exposed to that heat and radiation today but it's not enough to cause serious problems. In a world where all isotopes decay rapidly the same amount of heat and radiation is produced but over a much shorter period of time. In any scenario YECs have produced that time period is so short that it would melt the Earth and kill all life twice over from the heat and radiation (as acknowledged by the RATE group). Again I post the link: See Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay. The math is not difficult, it's just arithmetic.

Proportionality has not been demonstrated over an applicable range, and since the equations of time for decay are non-linear I bet proportionality doesn't do the trick. I may have time to do that formally today.

Alpha decay is not just alpha decay and beta decay is not just beta decay; there are variations. Has the alleged effect been tested on all isotopes used in geochronology? Also, I specifically mentioned electron capture decay of 40K, widely used in radiometric dating. Has that been tested?

(Please don't get into K-Ar dating, that's hasn't been used widely for decades. Ar-Ar dating relies on the same decay and is much more robust and widely used.)

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 5:48 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by mindspawn, posted 06-17-2015 6:34 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3898
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 157 of 196 (759928)
06-16-2015 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by NoNukes
06-15-2015 6:40 PM


Re: Interested
In the case of a nuclear reactor high speed muons are easily stopped by lead shielding and steel shielding. Neutrons are stopped by boronated poly shielding.

Don't you have sub experience?

It occurred to me that a nuclear sub well under water would be further shielded by its hull and the water. I don't know how much. Any comment?

I surmise that Navy subs track the state of their fuel pretty closely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2015 6:40 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by NoNukes, posted 06-16-2015 9:58 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 196 (759938)
06-16-2015 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by JonF
06-16-2015 9:04 AM


Re: Interested
have sub experience

Indeed I do. I served in the US Navy on board submarines. Lots of training/experience with shielding, radioactivity, and reactor physics. Certainly too much training to accept this planet wide manipulating of reaction rates via nuclear flux proposition.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by JonF, posted 06-16-2015 9:04 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
mikechell
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 196 (759945)
06-16-2015 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Coyote
06-15-2015 8:42 PM


Re: Radiocarbon dating
we have solid evidence that radiocarbon dating in particular and radiometric dating in general are accurate

So why do you keep trying to pretend this is not the case?

You ask a question you already know the answer to. Because it doesn't "jive" with creation.
Of course ... if you want to believe creation ... you could always argue that ALL signs of pre-bible Earth are just props, placed by "the devil" to mis-lead us all.

LOL Yeah ... that takes the same level of "What, really?" as creation itself, so why not!!!


evidence over faith ... observation over theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Coyote, posted 06-15-2015 8:42 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by JonF, posted 06-16-2015 11:17 AM mikechell has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3898
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 160 of 196 (759946)
06-16-2015 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by mikechell
06-16-2015 10:43 AM


Re: Radiocarbon dating
When your model doesn't correspond to reality, reality isn't the one that's wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by mikechell, posted 06-16-2015 10:43 AM mikechell has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by NoNukes, posted 06-16-2015 7:59 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18866
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 161 of 196 (759982)
06-16-2015 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 8:52 AM


old earth evidence
Welcome back mindspawn.

Im interested in why you would say that "an apparent old Earth is consistent with the great amount of scientific evidence". What "great amount" are you referring to? I believe in an old earth, however I don't see all this evidence you refer to.

Perhaps you would like to return to Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD which ended with my Message 119? At last posted we were back to ~15,000 years ago with the annual layer counting of varves in Cariaco Basin. With Lake Suigetsu varves next in line.

If you prefer, we could move it out of Great Debate and let others participate.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 8:52 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 162 of 196 (760019)
06-16-2015 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by JonF
06-16-2015 11:17 AM


Re: Radiocarbon dating
When your model doesn't correspond to reality, reality isn't the one that's wrong.

It has always seemed to me that the best Creationist strategy for the "Fischbach" effect was to claim that the influence was unknown. In that case you can say that human attempts to demonstrate constant decay rates did not include this unknown effect. Blaming neutrinos is the next best thing to saying the cause is unknown. Except people will wonder why particles that scarcely react with matter are making an exception for radioactive elements. Neutrinos though are pretty much ruled out based on experimental evidence.

But claiming that neutrons are responsible is pretty silly. And then forgetting that you've already lost the debate on that issue is even more inane. I doubt mindspawn will want to pick up his point in this thread. He'll likely find a new debate with RAZD equally uninviting.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by JonF, posted 06-16-2015 11:17 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 163 of 196 (760112)
06-17-2015 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by NoNukes
06-15-2015 6:40 PM


Re: Interested
Wrong. As I explained to you before...

If a neutron prevents a decay, then the neutron must exist proportional to the number of decays prevented. In order to have enough neutrons to convert a million year decay rate into a billion year decay rate, you need enough neutrons to prevent 999/1000 decays.

Are you saying that there are not enough neutrons in the background to do so? How do you quantify such a neutron flux?

You are claiming that the decays are stopped by neutron absorption. Such a thing would convert a nucleus to a higher and heavier is isotope. There is so evidence of any such conversion. I am not even complaining about the gain weight rather than a loss. I'm talking about a change in the isotopic ratio. In the earlier debate you claimed that lighter isotopes would replace the heavier ones that after absorption, but there are limited light isotopes and your scenario cannot work.

I am not claiming that decays are stopped by neutron absorbtion. They continue. What we know as the "decay rate" is actually the "net decay rate" after some absorbtion has also occurred by the daughter element.

As wikipedia explains it:
Natural neutron background. A small natural background flux of free neutrons exists everywhere on Earth. In the atmosphere and deep into the ocean, the "neutron background" is caused by muons produced by cosmic ray interaction with the atmosphere. These high energy muons are capable of penetration to considerable depths in water and soil. There, in striking atomic nuclei, among other reactions they induce spallation reactions in which a neutron is liberated from the nucleus. Within the Earth's crust a second source is neutrons produced primarily by spontaneous fission of uranium and thorium present in crustal minerals.

This neutron background is difficult to quantify:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/...pubs/8000/slac-pub-8939.html
"Fast neutrons from cosmic-ray muons are an important background to underground low energy experiments. The estimate of such background is often hampered by the difficulty of measuring and calculating neutron production with sufficient accuracy. Indeed substantial disagreement exists between the different analytical calculations performed so far, while data reported by different experiments is not always consistent"

http://link.springer.com/article/10.3103%2FS1062873811030063
(this article shows the seasonal variation in muons and accordingly neutrons) Interesting to note that decay fluctuations are also seasonal.

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/...ame/nhess-3-777-2003.pdf
(variation in the neutron flux)

In the case of a nuclear reactor high speed muons are easily stopped by lead shielding and steel shielding. Neutrons are stopped by boronated poly shielding. The U-235 ought to be consumed at high rates. We ought to detect within the reactor compartment after shutdown high levels of gammas produced by nuclear decay. Instead we find that the U-235 is not lost and there are no extra decay gammas. In the previous discussion, you relied on another poster to describe a similar situation before you punted on this nonsense.

Can you please show evidence that muons were actually shielded in the scenario you are describing? You originally said they did shield for neutrons, now you are saying "muons are easily stopped" but can you prove that they did actually shield for muons.

The current neutron flux is not lethal to life. However the neutron flux required to make this scheme work would be lethal. The amount of flux required to slow down the decay of 1 cubic centimeter sample of U-238 after I isolate it isotopically, so the neutron flu must exist everywhere on earth since you don't know where I am going to move my sample. And the total number of neutrons/sec must match the rapid decay that it is supposed to be preventing.

Could you kindly provide links or quantify the claims you are making. The existing neutron flux is not dangerous to life, and yet has not yet been quantified. Please provide figures to back up your claim that the flux is not enough to prevent rapid decay. It is currently an unknown quantity.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2015 6:40 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by NoNukes, posted 06-18-2015 3:30 AM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 164 of 196 (760113)
06-17-2015 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by NoNukes
06-15-2015 7:58 PM


Re: Interested
Regarding my agreement with PY, I have realised that there was a tendency to shield for neutrons and not muons during the early establishment of the constancy of decay. Shielding for neutrons apparently ruled out neutrons as a source of decay variation, but more recent studies as per the links posted in this thread show that muons are the main source of the neutron flux and muons penetrate standard neutron shields.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2015 7:58 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by NoNukes, posted 06-18-2015 3:11 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 180 by NoNukes, posted 06-19-2015 11:44 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 165 of 196 (760114)
06-17-2015 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by JonF
06-16-2015 9:01 AM


Re: Interested
Yes, inaccurate. But far more accurate that an 10,000-ish year old Earth. As Asimov wrote (well worth reading in its entirety):

Just for the record, I'm not a YEC.

Wow, that's got to be the dumbest thing anyone's ever said about decay. The problem has nothing to do with the buildup of unstable isotopes, and radioactive decay does not lead to the buildup of unstable isotopes; it leads to the buildup of stable isotopes.

Each decay of a radioactive atom releases heat and radiation. The amount it releases is constant. We are exposed to that heat and radiation today but it's not enough to cause serious problems. In a world where all isotopes decay rapidly the same amount of heat and radiation is produced but over a much shorter period of time. In any scenario YECs have produced that time period is so short that it would melt the Earth and kill all life twice over from the heat and radiation (as acknowledged by the RATE group). Again I post the link: See Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay. The math is not difficult, it's just arithmetic.
)

Are you saying that we still have not reached equilibrium on earth yet? Please make up your mind, either there's still a build up of unstable isotopes or we have reached equilibrium already, which is it?

If we have reached equilibrium, then where is the so-called heat problem if the quantity of new unstable isotopes is equal to the quantity of recently stabilised istopes?

Maybe the "dumbest thing anyone's ever said" relates to your lack of understanding of the macro-situation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by JonF, posted 06-16-2015 9:01 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 06-18-2015 3:16 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 171 by JonF, posted 06-18-2015 9:13 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
121314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017