Give me that old time neutrino!

One of the arguments for a young universe involves neutrinos from the sun, and it goes like this:

An older sun of about 5 billion years would generate most of its energy from nuclear processes, while younger suns would generate some energy from other means, including gravitational contraction. Nuclear processes generate neutrinos, and so by measuring the arrival rate of neutrinos from the sun we can see if the intensity of nuclear reactions within the sun correspond to a young or old sun. We measure only 1/3 the amount of neutrinos expected for an older sun, and therefore the sun must be much younger than the 5 billion year figure cited by evolutionists.

This shortfall has long been known as the Solar Neutrino Problem. We didn't know why we weren't finding the expected number of neutrinos. Was our understanding of processes within the Sun flawed? Is the standard model of particle physics wrong? Are our measurements too inaccurate?Recent research results suggest an answer.There are three types of neutrino, the electron neutrino, which is the type generated within the sun, and the mu and tau neutrinos. Our neutrino detectors here on earth detect only the electron neutrino, and it is these detectors that measured only 1/3 the expected number.It had long been suspected that the shortfall was due to neutrinos flipping from one type to another during the journey from the sun to the earth, so to check this possibility scientists enhanced a neutrino detector to also be sensitive to mu and tau neutrinos. The final total of neutrinos found by the improved detector equaled the total of electron neutrinos predicted to come from the Sun, neatly solving the conundrum.Much research remains before this result can be considered confirmed, but it is a good example of the fate of much Creationist "evidence". Every scientific generation confronts its deep and imponderable mysteries at the frontiers of knowledge. Creationists love these scientific mysteries because they see them as evidence of God in action. Unfortunately for them, the history of science is of solving one previously intractable problem after another, and it seems likely the Solar Neutrino Problem is about to go the same route.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 09-07-2001).]

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 11-30-2001]

Not all Creationists are familiar with science, and those who aren't cannot be faulted too much for adhering to Creationist viewpoints, primarily because of the large amount of Creationist misinformation out there. For every scientifically supported position there is a ready Creationist answer. Just a few common examples:

• Science says that radiometric dating indicates an ancient earth, but radiometric dating is unreliable.
  ​
• Science says there is no source of water for Noah's flood, but God created the heavens to separate the waters below from the waters above, and the waters above formed a canopy that later fell to become Noah's flood.
  ​
• Science says that it takes millions of years for geologic layers to form, but the chaotic conditions during the flood were able to form them rapidly.
  ​
• Science says that the fossils in the geologic column form a record of change and progression, but the geologic column exists nowhere in the world.

People to whom science is just a bunch of disconnected facts cannot be expected to judge relative merit. Creationism is consistent with the religious beliefs of conservative Christians and therefore much preferable to them.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 11-02-2001).]