|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
We do not even know what causes atoms to be unstable and decay.
I'm not so sure about that. Nevertheless, we can measure the rate of decay and there is no known mechanism by which that rate can be changed so that you can turn a Ga date to a Ka date. In some sense we don't know what causes atoms to be unstable and decay, and in some sense it appears that we never will; every layer of the atomic onion that we peel has so far revealed another layer underneath. However, QM predicts radioactive decay, and is probably the most accurate and well-tested scientific theory ever. A change in radioactive decay rates would mean that QM is wildly wrong. To amplify on "no known mechanism" IMHO it's worthwhile pointing out that lots of mechanisms have been tested, singly and in combination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
John Paul writes: Percy writes: Once again you are advocating a process for which there is no evidence. LoL! And you are not just as guilty? I proposed that the process was chemistry. Are you now rejecting evidence for chemistry? It's becoming apparent that you don't just reject evidence for evolution, but evidence for any science at all. Since evidence is the foundation of science, if your approach continues to be only kneejerk rejection of all evidence, then there's really not much point in you being here. Perhaps you should bring your objections to evidence to the What is science? thread. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zachariah Inactive Member |
God is a prankster I don't think so. Just because we self proclaimed geniuses can't comprehend how and why God made things the way HE did, doesn't mean HE didn't create the earth to look old. Besides, who are we to say what "old" is. To GOD your million years is only equivelent to about 1 second. Our Lord loves to watch His children honor Him. In different ways, but mainly by having faith. It gives Him glory. What better way to give our Lord glory then by having an old looking earth that seems to not add up to what He says or what we believe Him to say about it but then to believe Him anyway. Other "tricks" the good old Lord has played (according to Old Earthers) would be:1. Light Years - We know that light travels with the speed of 299792.45 km/sec = 186282.39 mi/sec. This means that light will travel as much as 5.88 x 1012 miles per year. Light years defines a DISTANCE not a TIME. Some scientist would try to lead us to believe that it would have taken bilions of years for the light from a star so far away to finally make it here for us to see. But, GOD created ADAM as a fully grown man. The trees were already grown when He created them. Adam wasn't a baby growing up in the dark wilderness awaiting the light to get there. It was created that way. No waiting. 2. C-14 and K-40 dating - (not really a trick just a little tricky)The C-14 method has a half life of 5730 years and a second one of 1.3 billion years. The problem is that the system of equations for the radioactive decay is not mathematically definite. That is, scientists have to make certain assumptions, e.g. by defining certain constants. Example: Imagine a barrel that takes 100 gallons to be filled. You see the barrel just filled to the top and see a leeking faucet over it. You will measure the leakage amount of water to one gallon per hour. So, how long was the faucet leaking? Normally you would determine the time to be 100 hours, but I'm telling you that the time was only five hours--much younger. You would ask "why?" Well, it is because you don't know what the true and originall circumstances were. First you don't know that somebody put in some extra water; second you don't know that 50 gallons were already in the barrel when the faucet started leaking; and third, you don't know that the faucet was dripping more rappidly in the beginning. Those are the problems the scientists have to deal with using the method of radiometric dating. 1st They need a closed system (no other daughter elements from anywhere else) 2nd the mixture of elements of the beginnign process is definitely known (no daughter elements were already there for other reasons - all were produced by radioactive decay) 3rd the speed of the process was constant. And only by stating these assumptions will you have a solution of the equations. By using these methods of radiometric dating, different laboratories determine the age of stones that were formed during volcanic eruptions 200 years ago to range from 160 million - 3 billion years old. With such great uncertainties in the results, scientists can arrive at exaclty the age they want - every time. Interesting? #'s 1 and 2 were taken from an article written by Fritz Hagemann. He is here from Germany for NATO AWACS as a NATO Liason Officer. He used to teach the "Big Bang Theory" and is in Aeronautics and Space Engineering. It was written in "Ha Shofar" a newsletter from the Kehilat ROSH PINAH congregation. I'm sure this will pick things up a bit in here.......Rock on. -Z This message has been edited by Zachariah, 05-28-2004 01:05 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Not a very good answer
1) Ignores important points - it ignores the fact that we don't see a constant background of stars - we see events happening. Supernovas are a good example. If light was created "in transit" those events are all illusions. But the most important point it misses is motive. There may well have been good reasons for creating Adam an adult, full-grown trees and even visible patterns of stars. But there is no need to create stars as distant objects or to create light from illusory stars that Adam could not even see nor to deceive us by showing images of events that never happened. 2) There are several other radiometric dating methods. Some of them use the so-called isochron method which not only does not rely on assuming the initial creation of the daughter product, it actually measures it. There are no known ways of altering radioactive decay rates that could have applied to any of the methods in use - let alone onwe that would affect all of them proportionately. We have reliable carbon dating calibrations back 11,000 years and measurements that confirm that carbon dating works for dates of 40,000 years and more.As for the final paragraph it is just a typical baseless attempt to insinuate fraud. While there have been "wrong" results obttained from recent volcanoic eruptions they are due to known factors. I will be away for a week and so any reply to responses to this post will be delayed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zachariah Inactive Member |
Are you saying that the stars GOD created in the beginning are the only ones we will ever have? Your statement
there are no need to create stars as distant objects... Don't you scientist talk all the time about new stars coming into existence? Your reply to #1 doesn't work. Sorry. -Z
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
This started out as such a clear topic. See msg 1.
Do I have permission to change the topic title to "YEC Answer to the Lack of short lived isotopes?" ? Now it is starting to wander all over and we are back to God the prankster theme. Could everyone get back to the topic at hand. Is there or is there not a YEC answer to the presence and absence of certain isotopes? If anyone wants to discuss other things there are thereads for them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
oops
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 05-28-2004 10:40 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
But, GOD created ADAM as a fully grown man. The trees were already grown when He created them. Adam wasn't a baby growing up in the dark wilderness awaiting the light to get there. It was created that way. No waiting That argument, known as "Omphalos" or "appearance of age", has been soundly rejected by essentailly all theologians, including most YEC theologians. If indeed God created Adam, there were good reasons for creating him as a full-grown-man; but the only reason for creating light in transit (and all the other indications of old life, old Earth, and old Universe) is to deceive us. Nobody seems to want to worship God the deceiver.
C-14 and K-40 dating - (not really a trick just a little tricky)The C-14 method has a half life of 5730 years and a second one of 1.3 billion years. The problem is that the system of equations for the radioactive decay is not mathematically definite. For those two systems, yes. However, the premises (I don't like to call them assumptions because that implies that they haven't been checked) have been checked and cross-correlated with other methods. Those two methods might be wrong once in a while, but they are not wrong often. In addition, the vast majority of radiosotope dates are carried out by other methods, such as isochron methods and concordia-discordia methods. These are mathematically definite. I discuss this more here. If you are interested in finding out how radioisotope dating works, and exactly why Hagemann's claims are so silly, see Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective #'s 1 and 2 were taken from an article written by Fritz Hagemann. He is here from Germany for NATO AWACS as a NATO Liason Officer. He used to teach the "Big Bang Theory" and is in Aeronautics and Space Engineering. It was written in "Ha Shofar" a newsletter from the Kehilat ROSH PINAH congregation. Well, he should not write about radioisotope dating; he obviously doesn't know much of anything about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Could everyone get back to the topic at hand. OK. There's an interesting new article at The Origin of Iodine-129: By Physics or Fantasies?. It reviews the arguments about the absence of short-lived isotopes and discusses an attempt by Woodmorappe/Peczkis to address the issue of one particular isotope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I am afraid that your answer clearly demonstrates that you do not even understand the issues involved.
If we see a supernova happening, say, 180,000 light years away then the actual event happened 180,000 years ago. If the universe is no more than 10,000 years old then clearly nothing we see more than 10,000 light years away is real at all. Every event we see beyond that limit is an illusion. But why would God create such an illusion ? But to get back to the specific subject why specifically would God make the Earth such that it appeared to be older than it really was in this particular way ? There is no real reason why God would have to exclude the shorter-lived isotopes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Since Rei isn't around may I have those of you currently posting to change the topic title to:
What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
OK by me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I've just noticed that, although we have a number of YEC's around the dates and dating forum is being left out in the cold.
Perhaps they want to take a shot at it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
A while back, this thread strayed into my territory, here is a little background on the decay series that end with Nd142.
Nd142 can come from 4 different isotopes.1) Ce142 (HL 5.0 E16 Years)We can pretty much rule that out as nothing much is coming down that route in 4 Billion years. 2) Pr142 (HL 19.12 hours) Not found in nature and has no parent. 3) Pm142 (HL 40.5 Seconds) 4) Sm146 (HL 1.03 E8 years) Not found anywhere. Not including Sm146 this only leaves 1 possible decay path leading to Nd142 and that is via the short lived isotope Pm142. This path can be traced back through a series of short lived isotopes (each less than an hour) to Dy143 and Ho144. Neither of these have any parents. In short this means that all Nd142 had to have come from the decay path leading through Sm146. Sm146 actually has several decay paths leading into it. One of which is another conspicuously missing isotope Gd150 with a half life of 1.75 million years. I haven't bothered tracing it back any further as it would be a wasted effort. If anyone would like to do so all the available information about the nuclides is available here. Just type in the isotope of interest and it will tell you the parents, decay paths etc. PY This message has been edited by PurpleYouko for spelling, 12-13-2004 02:11 PM This message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 12-13-2004 02:13 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
d_yankee Inactive Member |
I wouldn't even call it scientism...as it isn't science at all. The use of science is for marketing purposes. True science is a neutral study using the laws of nature, not dogmatic and ficticious fairy tale.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024