Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New helium retention work suggests young earth and accelerated decay
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 16 of 107 (21323)
11-02-2002 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by edge
11-02-2002 1:04 AM


quote:
You are way off the speculation meter, TC.
Time to revive my "Free For All" topic, "Are creationists capable of autonomous, self-propelled flight?", concerning profound arm waving?
http://EvC Forum: Are creationists capable of autonomous, self-propelled flight?
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by edge, posted 11-02-2002 1:04 AM edge has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 107 (21329)
11-02-2002 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Randy
11-01-2002 9:40 PM


Randy
Resetting etc? I wrote that presuming you knew about how the mainstream system works. The radioclock is reset by liquificaiton if I remember my discusions with Edge correctly. My flows are of course lava flows (most direct rock dating is done on igneous rock). There were lava flows during the flood and the lower ones cooled earlier than the upper ones obviously hence the great 'age' differences since decay was acclerated during this time. It is perfectly analagous to the mainstream system although in detail there would be differences.
Astronomy? Percy asked whether we should see the radiodecay rate changes in astronmical measurements (since we could potentially be able to see it in 4500 light year away observations). So I mentioned that (i) we don't know which constants did it for sure yet and (ii) in the creationist cosmological model time ran at a different rate in deep space compared to here at the start of the universe.
Neutron bombardment? We? If I write 'we' in this forum it usually means YECs obviously. Othertimes it means structural biologists, other tiems physicists and other times Apollo project fans. Genomics people are talking about multiple hundred year old lifespans soon, so shortly after creation there is nothing stopping it. The water shield was the flood waters that the ark was sitting on! I'm talking about neutron bombardment from below!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Randy, posted 11-01-2002 9:40 PM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Randy, posted 11-02-2002 8:06 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 21 by Randy, posted 11-02-2002 8:17 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 22 by edge, posted 11-02-2002 9:25 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 107 (21331)
11-02-2002 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
11-01-2002 11:42 AM


Percy
I need to think a little more about the discontinuity point. It may be a valid point (and not just a priori). My arguement about resetting for that part may be in error although there has been a nagging doubt in my mind about how radiodating works with regards to resetting. Edge explained it to me but even he expressed some uncertainty about the mainstream resetting question a few months ago. I'll get into it if I can.
Maybe of course there is a well known discontinuity and the in-crowd isn't telling us.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 11-01-2002 11:42 AM Percy has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 107 (21334)
11-02-2002 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brad McFall
11-01-2002 12:57 PM


Brad
Have you got the RATE book? It's very good although of course dated compared to recent revelations. These are good guys and they're getting better all the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 11-01-2002 12:57 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Brad McFall, posted 11-02-2002 1:00 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 20 of 107 (21337)
11-02-2002 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
11-02-2002 4:30 AM


Oh now I understand. I wasn't clear about what you were resetting.
Are you now saying that most of the large igneous provinces found around the globe
Page Not Found - About Trinity - Trinity College Dublin
as well as many thousands of smaller lava flows in the geological record flowed out during the flood?
Maybe you can tell us which of these LIPs flowed out during the flood.
Central Atlantic Magmatic Province
North Atlantic
Deccan Traps
Columbia River Basalts
Hawaiian Islands
Kerguelen Plateau
Broken Ridge
Ontong Java Plateau
Pigafetta Basin Flood Basalts
Nauru Basin Flood Basalts
East Mariana Basin Flood Basalts
Manihiki Plateau
The Siberian traps
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/...s/Permian/SiberianTraps.html
were formed about 250 million years ago by mainstream determination which would seem to put them during the flood by your estimation.
What about the Deccan Traps?
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/..._west_asia/india/deccan.html
They formed 65 million years ago. Do you think they were post-flood? A problem with placing them post-flood is that they are 6500 feet thick and have ancient temples carved in them. How long do you think 6500 foot think lava would take to flow out and cool.
Your explanation raises more questions than it answers.
Why is it that so many of the lava flows that you think occurred during the flood do not look like they flowed out under water? Did they always happen to flow out in areas that your magic flood surges had retreated away from?
How many apparent years of accelerated decay do you think occurred during the flood? If we bracket the flood by the Siberian and Deccan traps we have approximately 200 million years of radioactive decay occurring during the flood years. Do you really think radioactive decay could be speeded up by a factor of 200 million without sterilizing the earth?
Glenn Morton has also pointed out the severe problems that releasing sulfuric acid from all those volcanoes during the flood year would cause.
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/acid.htm
Have you noticed that each time you try to explain away an insoluble problem for the worldwide flood you create more insoluble problems? This is because you are trying use science to explain a myth and it just won’t work.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-02-2002 4:30 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-02-2002 4:01 PM Randy has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 21 of 107 (21338)
11-02-2002 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
11-02-2002 4:30 AM


quote:
Neutron bombardment? We? If I write 'we' in this forum it usually means YECs obviously. Othertimes it means structural biologists, other tiems physicists and other times Apollo project fans. Genomics people are talking about multiple hundred year old lifespans soon, so shortly after creation there is nothing stopping it. The water shield was the flood waters that the ark was sitting on! I'm talking about neutron bombardment from below!
This deep-water shielding explanation conflicts with your surging-flood, high ground claims. How deep do you think the water that produced this shielding was? Remember it can’t be too deep during most of the flood because you need to keep animals alive on high ground to make tracks between those magic flood surges. Also it seems to me that you claim that there were never any really tall mountains before the flood so you don’t need to generate water that is too deep. Further, aren’t you using this mechanism to start the flood? At the start of the flood there was no deep water so no shielding. I find that YECs never mind trying to explain away one problem with an explanation that is in direct conflict with their attempts to explain away another problem.
I don’t think the genomics people are really expecting to get lifetimes of multiple hundreds of years, at least not the realistic ones. They understand the problems that telomeres raise. Immortalizing cells is not really such a good idea as it will probably lead to cancers.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-02-2002 4:30 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by edge, posted 11-02-2002 9:29 AM Randy has replied
 Message 30 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-02-2002 4:06 PM Randy has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 22 of 107 (21343)
11-02-2002 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
11-02-2002 4:30 AM


As usual, your understanding is partial, but it appears that we are making progress:
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Resetting etc? I wrote that presuming you knew about how the mainstream system works. The radioclock is reset by liquificaiton if I remember my discusions with Edge correctly.
Well, by heating above the closure temperature anyway. Keeping in mind that the thermal history of any rock might be quite complex. This is another item that Humphreys, of course, does not address.
quote:
My flows are of course lava flows (most direct rock dating is done on igneous rock).
Yes, most, but it is not an absolute requirement for a rock to be igneous so that it can be dated.
quote:
There were lava flows during the flood and the lower ones cooled earlier than the upper ones obviously hence the great 'age' differences since decay was acclerated during this time. It is perfectly analagous to the mainstream system although in detail there would be differences.
Or it could be that the rocks really are of those 'great ages,' but I don't suppose that could be considered by YECs. They would rather call upon some unobserved, fantastic notion of 'accelerated decay.'
quote:
I need to think a little more about the discontinuity point. It may be a valid point (and not just a priori). My arguement about resetting for that part may be in error although there has been a nagging doubt in my mind about how radiodating works with regards to resetting. Edge explained it to me but even he expressed some uncertainty about the mainstream resetting question a few months ago. I'll get into it if I can.
Maybe of course there is a well known discontinuity and the in-crowd isn't telling us.
In fact there is no great discontinuity of ages, though there is clustering of data at various times. However, I have to admit that vagueness regarding when the flood occurred according to YEC mythology has aided them in avoiding this detail. If we take the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary, for instance, it was once debatable exactly where this time boundary occurred (in some sedimentary sections, I believe, there is very little to signify this transition as one would expect there would be). Only by refining the methods and collecting a lot of data is there now a precise (well, within a few hundred thousand years or so), generally accepted date.
Now, I would like to reiterate one of my earlier questions. I would like TB to look at Humphreys' graph in his response to Joe's critique and pick a point on the right side (the flat part) of the graph. Then tell me just what age corresponds to the He concentration at that point. Then tell me how any point on that flat section could yield a unique age. I think you will see that after a zircon crystal reaches [He] equilibrium (according to Humphreys, now) , it could be of ANY age including trillions of years old. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what Humphreys is telling you. In other words, he is saying that the He concentration of a zircon is independent of age, but at the same time telling you that it indicates a young age for (all, but this is another issue) zircons. Please explain this and why you blindly believe such utter nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-02-2002 4:30 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-02-2002 4:11 PM edge has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 23 of 107 (21344)
11-02-2002 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Randy
11-02-2002 8:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
This deep-water shielding explanation conflicts with your surging-flood, high ground claims. How deep do you think the water that produced this shielding was? Remember it can’t be too deep during most of the flood because you need to keep animals alive on high ground to make tracks between those magic flood surges. ...
Not only that, but it is also true that continental crust, which would logically form the high ground, concentrates more radioactive elements than oceanic crust. Heck, granites should explode according to this story...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Randy, posted 11-02-2002 8:17 AM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Randy, posted 11-02-2002 12:02 PM edge has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 24 of 107 (21353)
11-02-2002 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by edge
11-02-2002 9:29 AM


quote:
Not only that, but it is also true that continental crust, which would logically form the high ground, concentrates more radioactive elements than oceanic crust. Heck, granites should explode according to this story...
So those poor critters who are waiting around on the supposed "high ground" to run down and make some tracks between "flood surges" would really get fried by the neutrons and boiled by the heat.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by edge, posted 11-02-2002 9:29 AM edge has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 25 of 107 (21354)
11-02-2002 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tranquility Base
11-02-2002 4:51 AM


No, I was thinking of asking for it for Christmas. Last Year I got the Defender's Study Bible. Also, in Wolfram's A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE, there really has only been one series of pics that caught my eye which may not be irrelevant to the RATE stuff (about lattice growth of crystals). I guess they might have a two-pronged theory of fluid dynamics on two scales but my foucs and interest has been biology not stright physics however I am now starting to look in gels(associated with death processes in plants) for universality that it may not be long before my interest in this electronically which came from some thoughts in biodiversity informatics may meet the molecular models of the RATE crew. This was rather unexpected even for me but by focusing on computation rather than energy the whole c/e thing as science becomes acutally addressible without turning a large part of both sides off etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-02-2002 4:51 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-02-2002 4:10 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 26 of 107 (21357)
11-02-2002 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Randy
11-01-2002 9:40 PM


There is nothing "incomprehensible" if the numerologies to predict graphs in science need have a differnt ordering and differnt "constant" IN A MODEL.
It seems that depending on the relative understanding of a given laymen we JUDGE the use of these as used to be the discussion of what 99% 95% etc counted as statistical significance, so it would be needed to get every one on the same equation before we are all on the same page.
I only wish I WAS using eqauations and coeficients and not words but if I evetually start with MATHEMATICA even that could happen. So in the case of this model of radioelements maybe I, BSM need to restrict my dissucion in this thread to e-volts only. DONT know, but TB is getting this all on his own. YOu can drop the Brad reference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Randy, posted 11-01-2002 9:40 PM Randy has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 107 (21358)
11-02-2002 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by edge
11-02-2002 1:04 AM


"Actually, Percy is right. If the first layer suddenly radiodecays at rates millions(?) of times faster than the the previous layers, then it should have a starkly different age than the Precambrian rocks. Contamination or no. Face it, any process accelerated to the degree that you are talking is going to leave tracks a mile wide."
--Yes they would have a starkly different age than Precambrian, I am not arguing that if accelerated decay occurred that it only effected newly deposited sediments such as Cambrian+. Below Parent isotopes would be decaying at the same accelerated rate as above. I do not require that contamination be at all the reason we see this correlation. I fail to see why lower strata should have an apparent age to any degree younger than a latterly deposited sedimentary layer.
"So, you say that it is okay for you to have contamination, but for us it's not?"
--Of course not, I am saying exactly what I said, 'even mainstream studies have more than enough examples of similar events of contamination, we cope with it expectantly.' Whether the mainstream obtains successful hypotheses pertaining to such contaminations is not an argument I have made business with at all.
"But you have to account for billions of years of error. Why would there be less material to decay under your scenario?"
--Continental crust is the product of partial melting of less differentiated rock. Pre-Cambrian sediments I attribute as pre-flood. Therefore we can deduce that by the geochemical data that about .5Ga - .6Ga or so [in this depositional model] has decayed since Cambrian sediments were laid down.
"Man, I hope that I never hear the argument from you that evolution is based on assumptions!"
--If you were to, it would not be in the ridiculous form you see it 'explained' to you by many ill-informed YEC's you might come across.
"Well then show us some kind of calculations that indicate this. You are way off the speculation meter, TC."
--Yes I admit it is based conjecture (I wouldn't think you wouldn't notice it!), though I did not mean it to be sophistry of any kind, it is an unscritinized premise from which I would develop a coherent notion. Yes calculations would be wonderful. I am unable to give them now, though I will see what I can do. I need some time to critically examine my recent readings of the Heat Transfer section of T & S - Geodynamics.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by edge, posted 11-02-2002 1:04 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by edge, posted 11-02-2002 1:28 PM TrueCreation has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 28 of 107 (21361)
11-02-2002 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by TrueCreation
11-02-2002 1:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Actually, Percy is right. If the first layer suddenly radiodecays at rates millions(?) of times faster than the the previous layers, then it should have a starkly different age than the Precambrian rocks. Contamination or no. Face it, any process accelerated to the degree that you are talking is going to leave tracks a mile wide."
--Yes they would have a starkly different age than Precambrian, I am not arguing that if accelerated decay occurred that it only effected newly deposited sediments such as Cambrian+.
Okay, I read you so far.
quote:
Below Parent isotopes would be decaying at the same accelerated rate as above. I do not require that contamination be at all the reason we see this correlation. I fail to see why lower strata should have an apparent age to any degree younger than a latterly deposited sedimentary layer.
Okay, could you tell us then what is the mechanism for sudden and brief acceleration of nuclear decay. And why did it just happen to have correlated with your flood? You guys have a chain of coincidences that boggles the mind. I have heard some vague references to changing universal constants, but TB (I think) has not given us any more information than this.
quote:
"So, you say that it is okay for you to have contamination, but for us it's not?"
--Of course not, I am saying exactly what I said, 'even mainstream studies have more than enough examples of similar events of contamination, we cope with it expectantly.' Whether the mainstream obtains successful hypotheses pertaining to such contaminations is not an argument I have made business with at all.
Good then we will hear no whining about evolutionists appealing to contamination as a source of error in radiometric dating.
quote:
"Well then show us some kind of calculations that indicate this. You are way off the speculation meter, TC."
--Yes I admit it is based conjecture (I wouldn't think you wouldn't notice it!), though I did not mean it to be sophistry of any kind, it is an unscritinized premise from which I would develop a coherent notion. Yes calculations would be wonderful. I am unable to give them now, though I will see what I can do. I need some time to critically examine my recent readings of the Heat Transfer section of T & S - Geodynamics.
Good luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 11-02-2002 1:15 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 107 (21372)
11-02-2002 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Randy
11-02-2002 8:06 AM


Randy
These are all issues that need serious consideration and creationists have already raised these issues themselves. The RATE book provides some potential solutions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Randy, posted 11-02-2002 8:06 AM Randy has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 107 (21376)
11-02-2002 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Randy
11-02-2002 8:17 AM


Randy
You raise some very good points that need to be considered. Whatever the case these experimental diffusion results strongly suggest that decay was accelerated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Randy, posted 11-02-2002 8:17 AM Randy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024