ex-YECs -- a question

My situation is very similar to Mike's. I have not made the transition form YEC to OEC, however for the past year or two I no longer consider myself a YEC. I am stuck somewhere in between--an agnostic, per se. My detachment from YECism is a direct result of independent research and exhaustive discussion on various scientific (largely geological) topics on forums (especially ) and the general exchange of ideas and criticisms.The most significant problem which is largely responsible for leading me away from YECism is from my research in radiogenic isotope geology. An interval of accelerated radioisotopic decay is inhrerent to any hypothesis suggesting a shorter geologic time scale (such as the genesis catastrophe). However, unless accelerated decay implies a relative decrease in the amount of heat per unit volume of decayed material, the amount of decay required (and hence the amount of heat produced) for the during the event is ridiculous. Furthermore, even more relevant in this light, is the distribution of the earth's most significant heat producing radioisotopes in the earth. If the earth's most significant heat producing radioisotopes were concentrated in the mantle or core, it would be less of a problem. However, this is not the case as U, K, Th, are all lithophile elements; tending to concentrate in the earths crust and lithosphere. This is basically the worst place for excessive heat to be produced if we want fossil evidence of flora and fauna to persist past the Cambrian, let alone the Paleozoic--or if we even want to have fossil preservation possible at all during such a momentous heat flux.My reason for not coming to accept and believe in the 4.6 Ga earth is because I am a very difficult person to come to a confident conclusion on such an ultimate. I am stubborn in my philosophies. I still see possibility (albeit implausibility) for a younger earth. However, I am confident that the earth is not ~6000 years old, or even close to that age.This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-09-2005 19:04 AM

quote:

---

I'm curious... why is it not an option for you that God took care of all the heat resulting from accelerated decay rates?

---

--Because accelerated decay may have a purpose in CPT (eg. as an initiation process). That it produces heat may be a good thing. The problem is that calculations show that such a process would produce far too much heat. Postulating that excess heat was removed via some unfalsifiable supernatural mechanism has no basis whatsoever than to merely ignore the problem it directly implies.--Efficient redistribution of heat resultant directly from the runaway subduction process and the new cooling oceanic lithosphere could possibly occur through the said steam jets (ironically, the higher the temperature, the more feasible the process and hence remove--or at least depreciate--the problem), but removal of excess radiogenic heat in the continents; there is no viable mechanism at all that I know of.--Edit--> I think that the only possibility here would be a difference in the nuclear physics of a decaying radioisotope. Of course, I have only grasped the most fundamental of fundamentals in nuclear physics so this is merely my mind wandering.

quote:

---

Also, if you no longer believe in a young earth (~6,000 yrs. old), why do you have a hard time believing it's 4.6 billion years old? I would think all your research is pointing you in the direction (or at least the research you've already conducted) by now.

---

--I really don't have that problem. I just haven't made that conclusion. However I would agree that my research is pointing me in that direction. Indeed, I ultimately have little scientific reason to believe it is significantly younger; I only leave a small window open. A rigorous scientific community has been in operation for only a little over two hundred years--what will we discover and understand when that number becomes a relative fraction? Of course I won't be there to analyze the status of scientific acheivement, but that won't make me any less wrong.

quote:

---

By "philosophie" do you mean your religious convictions?

---

--By philosophy I mean my personal convictions--my subjective methods of interpreting the relative value and meaning of data and information, such as that involved in the acceptance of scientific theories.--I am currently taking a class geared toward the philosophy of natural sciences at USF--intended to be a graduate level course, very rigorous--which should help me sharpen my understanding of scientific methodology and= appropriately evaluate the credibility of theories.-ChrisThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-21-2005 18:53 AMThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-21-2005 18:54 AMThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-21-2005 19:02 AM

quote:

---

Thanks, TC. That was very illuminating.
Are you in college full time now?

---

--Yes indeed. And loving it This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-25-2005 01:44 AM

quote:

---

Great news!
Geophysics?

---

--Of course . Although I am actually double majoring in geology/geophysics and graphics design. Then again.. the philosophy of science is getting very interesting.

http://EvC Forum: What would be enough proof for a creationist? -->EvC Forum: What would be enough proof for a creationist?

quote:

---

Geology? I thought you hated geology?

---

...Blasphemy!