Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
72 online now:
jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx (3 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,034 Year: 4,146/6,534 Month: 360/900 Week: 66/150 Day: 39/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 3 of 17 (677803)
11-01-2012 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JonF
11-01-2012 12:53 PM


They concluded that the amount of radioactive decay is inescapable, and the only possible explanation for that which is consistent with a young Earth is Accelerated Nuclear Decay (AND), specifically approximately 4 billion years worth in the first three days of Creation before there was any life to kill, . . .

You still have the problem of rock and sediment formation. There are sedimentary basins that span this time period, as well as pluton formation. This can't happen with the spectacular amount of heat being generated. What about clay sediments that date to 2 billion years before present? How does that work?

One solution has been offered that possibly could mitigate this problem—namely, that the 40K we measure in plants and animals today is the result of the Genesis Flood itself. The RATE team believes an attempt should be made to test for 40K in the bodies of pre-Flood insects which were trapped in amber during the Genesis Flood and were thereby protected from subsequent contamination.

How does a flood produce radioactive elements? That's just wacky. 40K is hardly the only radioactive element in the body. There is also uranium, 14C, and radium to name a few. Obviously, uranium was around because we find it in the oldest rocks. It is soluble in water so it would been in the drinking water just like it is now, and it would have moved into cells just like it does now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JonF, posted 11-01-2012 12:53 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by JonF, posted 11-01-2012 2:28 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 5 of 17 (677811)
11-01-2012 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by JonF
11-01-2012 2:28 PM


It works by AND with magical heat removal and magical radiation removal.

I was referring more to this:

"specifically approximately 4 billion years worth in the first three days of Creation before there was any life to kill"

Life is hardly the only problem. Rocks will be changed by the massive production of heat as well.

Also, having two eras of extreme decay rates should produce rocks with one of two ages, either 4.5 billion years old or 500 million years old. There shouldn't be anything in between, and yet there is. Even if we grant magical heat removal there is still the problem of a whole range of dates that shouldn't be there.

It supposedly isn't producing radioactive elements. They think that 40K was around before the Fludde but somehow living things had isotope sieves that prevented them from incorporating it into their bodies.

There is carbon isotope fractionation in photosynthesis, but it is only about a 1% shift towards one isotope, hardly the all or none needed in this scenario. If you are going to have naturally occuring biochemistry do this fractionation then it begs the question of how it was lost across all life. Surely we should find some remnant of it in modern organisms.

It reminds me of a time when I was having a discussion with a creationist on the topic of inverted retinas. He made the assertion that perhaps the human retina faced forward, but then became inverted after the "Fall". I then pointed out that ALL vertebrates have an inverted retina, and that his scenario would require the retinas to invert in thousands and thousands of species over the span of just a few thousand years. It just isn't practical. I see the same problem with isotope fractionation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by JonF, posted 11-01-2012 2:28 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by JonF, posted 11-01-2012 3:27 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 11 of 17 (677824)
11-01-2012 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by JonF
11-01-2012 3:27 PM


Well,if you're going to have magical real-time heat and radiation removal, the rocks wouldn't be metamorphized.

Then why even have accelerated decay? Why not just directly change the ratio of isotopes in the rocks?

They are also assuming that all the rocks dating to 500 Mya or less were deposited during the Fludde, which has a whole ton of problems that aren't on-topic here.

I guess that could work, sort of. Perhaps ash deposited in the last month of the flood year would have less time for accelerated decay. Perhaps the problem would be rock between the ages of 4 billion and 500 million? How do you get those ages? I would assume that all of the rocks created when the Earth was created would have gone through the same amount of accelerated decay so they should all be the same age (4 billion). How do you get rock that is 2 billion years old?

On top of everything else, the entire psychology of this approach is . . . interesting. Creationists try so hard to use only scientific or natural explanations to explain how the flood left the geologic record we see. However, when they run up against insurmountable odds they whip out magic. Why not just do that from the very start instead of using preposterous flood geology to explain the deposits? Why not just say that God magically sorted the fossils so that they just look like an evolutionary sequence instead of using ecological zones or whatever madness they come up?

Once you invoke magic you can't unring that bell, so why not go whole hog?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by JonF, posted 11-01-2012 3:27 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by JonF, posted 11-01-2012 6:35 PM Taq has taken no action
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2012 11:44 PM Taq 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