Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
66 online now:
(66 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,163 Year: 4,275/6,534 Month: 489/900 Week: 13/182 Day: 1/12 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 taken no action
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-23-2002 11:24 PM EvO-DuDe has replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 5246 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 2 of 31 (12005)
06-23-2002 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by EvO-DuDe
06-16-2002 7:42 PM


(....sound of crickets chirping...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-16-2002 7:42 PM EvO-DuDe has taken no action

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 31 (12009)
06-23-2002 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by EvO-DuDe
06-16-2002 7:42 PM


EvO-DuDe, most creationists now accept that the decay has occurred. We propose that radioisotpoic decay was accerlated (via the evolution of fundamental constants and God ultimately) not for the purpose of confounding mainstream science (although that has been a side-effect) but for tectonically instigating the flood.

The scriptures talk of a 'kindling of fire in the foundation of the mountains' and we equate this with radiogenically generated heat. As you probably know, a portion of the heat in the earth's rocks is due to radiodecay and if decay was acclerated there would be a lot of crustal melting which could have tectonically instigated the flood and rapid continental drift.

So simply put, in our scenario we get millions of years of decay during a short period. It smacks of arbitariness of course but there does appear to be five orders of magnitude too much helium in deep granites that should have escaped if that helium was the result of millions of year old alpha decay.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-16-2002 7:42 PM EvO-DuDe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-24-2002 12:13 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 13 by wj, posted 06-24-2002 8:45 PM Tranquility Base 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

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 31 (12017)
06-24-2002 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by EvO-DuDe
06-24-2002 12:13 AM


Preliminary work by flood geologists estimates that 2.5 km of water is sufficent to protect Noah and the animals from catastrophic radiation damage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-24-2002 12:13 AM EvO-DuDe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-24-2002 12:56 AM Tranquility Base 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

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 31 (12033)
06-24-2002 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by EvO-DuDe
06-24-2002 12:56 AM


It is nothing to do with the water. We're proposing that dynamical evolution of the universal constants (like e, h ,c etc) generated the accelrated decay. Decay is of course governed by these consants. It is already known that these 'constants' have not been constant. The associated heat instigated the flood and continental drift. The heat calc on that web page is not in agreement with creationist calcs which show that the problem is tolerated in our scenario.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-24-2002 12:56 AM EvO-DuDe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-24-2002 2:27 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 06-24-2002 5:03 PM Tranquility Base 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 taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20753
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 9 of 31 (12074)
06-24-2002 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
06-24-2002 1:30 AM


Tranquility Base writes:

We're proposing that dynamical evolution of the universal constants (like e, h ,c etc) generated the accelrated decay. Decay is of course governed by these consants. It is already known that these 'constants' have not been constant.

You're talking about evidence that the fine structure constant may have been smaller billions of years ago by 0.00001%. The evidence comes from the light from ancient quasars. In other words, the reason they think the fine structure constant may have been different long ago is because of evidence. See http://www.sciencenews.org/20011006/bob16.asp.

The light from stars only 5,000 years ago indicates that the fine structure constant was the same then as now to the extent we can measure. You have no evidence of any change whatsoever.

What's more, you need changes of hundreds of percent, not a hundred thousandth of a percent, and this much change would probably be visible to even the naked eye when peering at 5,000 year-old starlight. In other words, the evidence, if there was any, wouldn't be subtle and couldn't be missed.

--Percy


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 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2002 8:45 PM Percy has taken no action

  
R. Planet
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 31 (12087)
06-24-2002 8:14 PM


quote:
Preliminary work by flood geologists estimates that 2.5 km of water is sufficent to protect Noah and the animals from catastrophic radiation damage.

What was the rate of this “accelerated” decay compared to current levels?

2.5 km of water ‘might’ shield the merry crew and passengers on the ark from accelerated decay from the bottom of the sea, but what about the air they breath, the food they eat, cosmic sources, the ocean itself, the radioisotopes already in their bodies when this “accelerated decay” began? What about the wood the ark was built from, the water stored on the ark?

We each receive about .3 Rem. a year from these sources of ionizing radiation. How many times do you think you can multiply that figure and live to tell the tale?

Also, do you have a reference for the claim that 2.5 km of water shielded the ark? I am very interested in reviewing it.

This may seem like a lot of questions asked of you for my first post here, but, they are relevant to the health and well being of those on the ark.

Thanks in advance for your reply.


Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2002 9:09 PM R. Planet has 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 taken no action

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 31 (12089)
06-24-2002 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by EvO-DuDe
06-24-2002 2:27 PM


Evo-DuDe

The creaitonists who did the calcs are also geophysicsits, physicists and geologists! Any scientist/mathematician knows that by playing with 6 factors that can vary by a factor of two one can change the prediction by a factor of 64 (=2^6). If the dependance is non-linear then aything is possible. These things aren't always simple and both sides are probably biased!

Of course radioactive decay constants are almost constant. They vary slightly with chemistry, temperature and pressure but we are not claimng that that is how they changed. The radiodecay constants are not independent constants. There are only about 26 free parameters in the entire known universe and there are probably less. Using quantum menchanics the decay constants can be claculated andthey depend on e, h ,c and more esoteric things like the electroweak Weinberg angle and the W and Z boson masses! We know for a fact that a combination of e, h, c have changed at the ppm level (recent astrophysics result). How each aprameter changed we don't know but creaitonists are proposing which paramters could be responsible.

Much empirical evidence also suggests a young earth. For example, there is too little helium in the air and far too much in deep granites.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-24-2002 2:27 PM EvO-DuDe has taken no action

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 31 (12090)
06-24-2002 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tranquility Base
06-23-2002 11:24 PM


The postulated acceleration in the radioactive decay rate also poses another anomoly. Why does radiometric dating of moon rocks and meteorites also produce datings as old as more than 4 billion years and no mention of the presence of shortlived isotopes that I am aware of? Have they been subjected to the same postulated (extremely) accelerated decay rate? If god's purpose in accelerating the decay rate was to generate the additional heat to cause the flood and incidentally(?) initiate the breakup of Pangea, why would he also accelerate decay on the moon and in meteors?

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 16 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-24-2002 8:58 PM wj has taken no action

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 31 (12091)
06-24-2002 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Percy
06-24-2002 5:03 PM


Percy, we know how much the fine structure constant changed. How much e, h, c individually changed is antoher question. And we don't even know about the Weinberg angle etc. And the decay constants are non-linearly related to these paramaters.

My main point it that the fundamental constants are evolving - it's a hint that we are on the right track. The 'when' issue is complicated in our scenairo because we also suspect a recent white hole expansion as you know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 06-24-2002 5:03 PM Percy has taken no action

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 31 (12092)
06-24-2002 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by EvO-DuDe
06-24-2002 8:33 PM


Edude

The main data supporting the idea is (i) decay halos prove beyond doubt that millions of years of decay has occurred (ii) there is 100,000 fld too much helium from alpha decay in deep granites that should have already diffused out.

This is documented here for example:

http://www.icr.org/headlines/ratereport.html

and the 1D diffusion calcs are graphed in the RATE book advertised on that web page.

It is a bizarre position that we have taken - agreed. Interestingly it was proposed some time in the 1990s and in 2001 we all learned that the fine-structure constant is evolving.

The flood water? Came from the same place that mainstream geology gets their continental innundations from - the sea! I presume you are aware that mainstrm science has the vast majority of the continents under water at one time or another? The radiogenic heating for us simply generated the tectonic unheavel that seperated the continents and caused sea level rises just as recorded by mainstream geology. We just say it happened a lot more quickly. The 40 days of rain we see as condensed steam from catastrophic sea-floor spreading.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by EvO-DuDe, posted 06-24-2002 8:33 PM EvO-DuDe has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022