Author
|
Topic: Helium in the atmosphere. Evidence for or against a young earth?
|
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 7 of 24 (243974)
09-15-2005 10:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by John 07-28-2002 8:25 PM
|
|
Just a concern.
The you website reffed didn't say when Dr. Vardiman was quoted as saying this. This is quite conspicuous as they give a date on everyone else's statements. As they didn't I can't be sure as to whether or not you are using outdated info.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 5 by John, posted 07-28-2002 8:25 PM | | John has not replied |
|
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 9 of 24 (244066)
09-16-2005 6:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by paisano 09-16-2005 1:27 AM
|
|
Very Interseting.
Your point is very interesting. The main point I have to make at this time is that the further you go back in time, the more radioactive our soil becomes. This probably wouldn't effect much in the last few "million" years, but you see my point. I'll look for some Tc articles and reff them for you if I find them. As to your point about lead, I was taught that most, if not all of the lead we have comes from nuclear decay, and only a small fraction of the product lead would be radioactive.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 8 by paisano, posted 09-16-2005 1:27 AM | | paisano has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 8:26 AM | | christ_fanatic has replied |
|
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member
|
Re: Very Interseting.
My point was that as you go back in time, past a few million years, the soil becomes more radioactive. My point any way was that the earth would be irradiated extremely. I've never heard of Oklo reactors.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 8:26 AM | | Chiroptera has replied |
|
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member
|
Re: Very Interseting.
Ok, are you familiar with the RATE project?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 1:43 PM | | Chiroptera has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 1:48 PM | | christ_fanatic has replied |
|
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member
|
Re: Very Interseting.
Did you know that they were well received at a geoscience conference? To get to this article go to The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research and hit research, then go to research papers, then scroll down until you see RATE posters well received at AGU conference. This bears the question, if their results have been refuted, wouldn't these well educated scientists have noticed? This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-16-2005 02:15 PM
This message is a reply to: | | Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 1:48 PM | | Chiroptera has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 3:41 PM | | christ_fanatic has not replied | | Message 19 by JonF, posted 09-16-2005 6:38 PM | | christ_fanatic has not replied |
|
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member
|
Re: Very Interseting.
The refutation you reffed was refuted by Humphreys. Here is the link http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp . As to the part about the AGU conference, I see your point This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-16-2005 09:11 PM
This message is a reply to: | | Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 1:48 PM | | Chiroptera has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 9:44 PM | | christ_fanatic has replied |
|
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member
|
Re: Interest is waning.
I'll take your point there for now, but I want to ask what you know about polonium radiohalos.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 9:44 PM | | Chiroptera has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 23 by JonF, posted 09-18-2005 3:32 PM | | christ_fanatic has not replied | | Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 09-18-2005 3:38 PM | | christ_fanatic has not replied |
|