Can the standard "Young Earth Creationist" model be falsified by genetics alone?

Because he assumed that you were using the counting method yielding low mutation rates. I suppose in a way it shows his respect for your presentation so far.

No. I'm saying that if you compare a dude with his grandpa, would you not have to assume that more of the differences from the reference belonged to the dude than to his grandpa?ABE:Sorry, I worded that incorrectly. I should have asked the following:Ifyou compare a dude with his grandpa, would you not have to assume that most of the differences from each other belonged to the dude and not his grandpa? You wouldn't just divide the numbers by 2 and then assign them to each.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yep. That time compression is a mother.

The problem with your argument is even if physical traits are simple mixes and matches of existing traits that is not what is investigated in the papers. The papers look only at inherited genetic material and not any resulting traits. So even if brown eyes plus blue eyes produces green eyes that would not cut it.So the methods in the paper might well work even if your own understanding about trait inheritance were correct.You are going to have read the paper to have any hope of contributing to the discussion. As if.

If you understood any of what bluegenes said about the particular segment of the Y chromosome you would understand that what you are saying is simply not an issue. This is not about mutations leading to observed traits or to anything new and useful. This instead about genetic patterns that do not exist at all in the ancestors..But in any event, you need not agree with something in order to understand it. And there is no shame in not understanding something.

Have you considered just how much extra radiation would have been produced under your ridiculous scheme? Well guess what? You don't have to rely on Bible hating scientists for your answer.Interestingly enough, there is a study examining exactly how much additional radiation and radiation energy would be produced by such accelerated decay rates. The eight year study called RATE was produced by the Institute for Creation Research. The RATE concluded that there was indeed evidence of billions of years worth of radioactive decay (assuming conventional decay rates). They also found that the amount of heat produced would have melted the earth if produced over the short time Genesis claims that the earth existed.Now being good Christians, they concluded that the accelerated decay happened anyway. But they could not make things work without some unknown intervention at work. Is this your argument too?

Oh yeah? What about the scenario where you just don't give a crap about insurmoutable problems because you are just going to make up some more changed physics to resolve any issue.Here is my attempt.Back in the day, that extra radiation did have an effect. It shaved hundreds of years off the lifetimes of all of those humans. Noah and Methuselah might well have lived thousands of years were it not for that life, draining, body heating, radiation.

"I need calculations."I will answer more fully when I am not posting from a phone, but aren't the repercussions of rapid decay something you should have considered when you thought this stuff up? After all we all have radioactive elements in our bodies. Is it really scientific to only consider the effects you like?I'be provided enough info to find the RATE study if you are really interested, but I will provide a link later. Hopefully the info will allow starting a discussion at a more advanced level.Meanwhile you have a link already to the K40 self irradiation problem.ABE:The link previously provided was to previous discussion of the RATE study. I repeat that link Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay .Here is a link to the actual study:http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdfAnd AIG's Summary: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth | Answers in Genesis .

quote:

---

The jury is still out and, until we complete our research phase, this thesis remains tentative. The presence of supernatural process during creation is essential to our approach, however.

---

For completeness here are some rebuttals from "Old Earth Ministries" and other places. I understand that this information may not be helpful in preparing your defense of rapid decay, but please vet your ideas before making us do that for you. [1]RATE Project IndexRATE and Age of the Earth - Radiometric Dating[1] Hopeless plea. Creation scientists never do vet their own stuff as doing so interferes with a preferred "see what sticks" posting methodology.Edited by NoNukes, : Links as promised.

No. I cannot be bothered to do that. And if that seems unfair, remember that you are asking me to do your homework. You are the one who has claimed that rapid decay rates are a viable explanation. It is well known that radioactive decay releases energy and that radiation is harmful to cell based life. So why aren't you on the hook for showing us the neutral consequences to life and the earth from just speeding up decay rates?Vet your own stuff before you post it. By now we should be debating your answer to where all the heat went and not arguing about whether the heat and radiation is a problem.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Every time I read this paragraph something nagged at me so I finally sat down to think about this a bit.In the case of U-238, the daughter products (except for lead 206) decay much faster than U-238, but a couple of them are still relatively long lived. If the decay of U-238 consisted of a rapid period of decay long ago, we see essentially no daughter products now except lead to represent the original U-238 that had decayed when. This is the scenario you propose.On the other hand if the date of decay were always as slow as it is now, we would still have larger amounts of some of the more longer lived daughter products like U234 and Th 230 than your proposal suggests. In fact, we can calculate exactly how much of these things there ought to be by measuring just the lead 206 and the U238 using each scenario.In fact U-234 Th230 dating rules out your scenario having occurred anytime in the last 1,000,000 years, let alone 4400 to 1700 years ago. Your suggestion is simply not consistent with the facts.And no I'm not going to do your homework for you. At least not until you provide a reference for your neutrons stop tooth decay garbage.