Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do YECs explain why there are no short-lived radioisotopes found in nature?
EvO-DuDe
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 31 (11663)
06-16-2002 7:42 PM


I'm new here, and I have a question for all you YECs out there. Why, if the earth is only 6000 years old, are there no radioisotopes with a half-life of less than 80,000,000 years found in nature? If the earth really is 6000 years old, as YECs claim, then the earth should be full of these short-lived nuclides. But there are none. However, the stable 'daughter' elements (or the 'end results' of the radioactive decay) are found in nature. Some of these daughter elements can only be formed by the radioactive decay of these short lived radioisotopes. It seems to me like YECs have no choice but to use the 'appearence of age' argument to explain this.
EDIT: There ARE some short-lived radioisotopes found in nature, but these only exist because some other processes continually produce them. What I was talking about were the radioisotopes that don't get produced by other processes. How do YECs explain why these short-lived radioisotopes don't exist?
[This message has been edited by EvO-DuDe, 06-24-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Zhimbo, posted 06-23-2002 9:31 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-23-2002 11:24 PM EvO-DuDe has replied

  
EvO-DuDe
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 31 (12014)
06-24-2002 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tranquility Base
06-23-2002 11:24 PM


I feel sorry for all of the people who died during the accelerated radioactive decay from the insane amounts of radiation and heat which would have been present.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-23-2002 11:24 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2002 12:29 AM EvO-DuDe has replied

  
EvO-DuDe
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 31 (12024)
06-24-2002 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
06-24-2002 12:29 AM


Okay, so the accelerated radioactive decay happened during the flood. Can you give me any evidence that lots of water can cause huge increases in radioactive decay rates?
Oh, and huge amounts of heat would be released during the accelerated radioactive decay too. I suggest you go to this site. I found it amusing.
http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/adam.htm
[This message has been edited by EvO-DuDe, 06-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2002 12:29 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2002 1:30 AM EvO-DuDe has replied

  
EvO-DuDe
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 31 (12070)
06-24-2002 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
06-24-2002 1:30 AM


The person who did the calculation on that site is a geophysicist. Are you suggesting that he got the calculations all wrong?
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I read that radioactive decay rates are pretty much constant. I read that they only vary by such tiny amounts that the effect on dating is insignificant. I did read some article about the radioactive decay rate of a certain element being made a heck of a lot faster, but it only went that much faster when heated to insane temperatures that certainly aren't present on the earth. What you are saying is not science, it's pseudoscience. Creationists have a fixed idea in their minds about how old the earth is and their bending and changing all of the evidence to fit their little 'thoery'. More than 99.9% of all geologists believe in an old earth. They are the experts, so shouldn't they know best? It seems to me that their is no real evidence for a young earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2002 1:30 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2002 8:41 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied

  
EvO-DuDe
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 31 (12088)
06-24-2002 8:33 PM


It seems to me that this 'acclerated radioactive decay theory' is a pretty dangerous position. It does not sound like there is any real scientific evidence supporting it.
By the way, Tranquility Base, where do you think all the water for the 'flood' came from?
[This message has been edited by EvO-DuDe, 06-24-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2002 8:55 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied

  
EvO-DuDe
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 31 (12118)
06-24-2002 11:35 PM


Wait, let me get this right. Are you saying that it was God who accelerated the radioactive decay?

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-25-2002 12:17 AM EvO-DuDe has not replied

  
EvO-DuDe
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 31 (13690)
07-16-2002 11:22 PM


Nothing has been posted here for quite a while. Is Tranquility Base at a loss for words?

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-17-2002 1:32 AM EvO-DuDe 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