What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the earth can be made up of materials that are old, or have been through a process that has made them appear to be old, and still have been formed relatively recently.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chiro:
Are you comparing the creation of the earth with antiquities fraud?John Paul:
Nope, just making a statement. What I am saying is that even if the earth was formed recently doesn't mean all the materials that went into that formation had to be formed recently or that those materials were not subject to some process that "aged" them.

But you started with nothing but an assertion. You've described nothing specific of Humphreys' views, so there's nothing specific to rebut. It would seem you not only want a rebuttal of Humphreys' views, but also for someone else to relieve you of the responsibility of having to first describe them.--Percy

Once again you are advocating a process for which there is no evidence. You can refuse to believe modern dating methods all you like, but how are you going to persuade people to your own point of view if, to liken evidence to money, you've arrived a pauper and your opponent is sitting on Fort Knox.--Percy

But there must be some way of distinguishing an old earth from a young one. Otherwise God is guilty of a fraud.

We creos MUST relent to an old earth/universe. The scientific evidence is irrefuteable.For YEC to maintain that God created it to look and be immensely old, but in fact it is not immensely old, is a position that does not deserve respect. This is a position of pure dogma.There are eons and eons of time between Gen.1:1 and 1:2 according to the best theological scholarship. This doesn't mean 4-6 billion years necessarily.I agree with you, God is guilty of fraud IF the YEC's are right - but they are not.

Jeez, I swear I submitted a reply, but it isn't here .. so here it is again. Sure. Note that the forum guidleines specifically state that it's acceptable to wait until requested to provide support ... but your practice of ignoring requests for support is not acceptable.Hymphreys proposes that we once were inside a deep gravitational well, and that we are at the center of the Universe. There is absolutely no evidence for this claim. We obviously are not inside a deep gravitational well now, so how did the well go away? Magic. What caused it to form originally? Magic. Why don't we see the effect of that well on the light that was in transit while it existed? Magic. We do not observe any of the effects required for Humphreys' "cosmology" to be true (e.g. light blue-shifted to gamma rays).As for General Relativity, this is a horrible medium for discussing such (because of the difficulty of writing equations), and I suspect you don't have the background to discuss it. However, there's lots of information available (including some rather feeble hand-waving rebuttals from Humphreys) at http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp. I find it interesting that they omitted the obvious link to Page not found - Reasons to Believe. Well, I have a BSME and MSME from MIT, which required me to take several courses in physics (including relativity and basic QM), at which I did rather well. We used the Red Books as textbooks in some courses (of course, you must be familiar with the Red Books).Debate? Most amusing. Science isn't done by debate. An exchange of written materials, preferably peer-reviewed, with plenty of time for research and reflection, is appropriate. Oh, wait, that's been done already. No need for me to spend the time doing it.

Well said. I have gained some respect for you with that post.I don't agree with you about the exact distribution of the time as it relates to Genesis, but I'm not going to claim (or try to persuade you) that you are wrong.

JonF quote:
______________________________________________________________________
I don't agree with you about the exact distribution of the time as it relates to Genesis, but I'm not going to claim (or try to persuade you) that you are wrong.
______________________________________________________________________What do you mean by distribution ?Go ahead and persuade I am interested to see.....

I don't agree that "There are eons and eons of time between Gen.1:1 and 1:2". I agree that there are eons and enos of time, but I do not believe that there is any correspondence between Genesis and the history of the Earth.But I'm not going to make any attempt to persuade you; I don't proselytize religion, and I don't ahve any particularly persuasive arguments.

John Paul writes:
What I am saying is that even if the earth was formed recently doesn't mean all the materials that went into that formation had to be formed recently or that those materials were not subject to some process that "aged" them.Percy:
Once again you are advocating a process for which there is no evidence.John Paul:
LoL! And you are not just as guilty? Where is the evidence that this solar system was formed via the nebula hypothesis? How do we know what it is we see in Orion's nebula is actually the formation and not remnants of the explosion?Percy:
You can refuse to believe modern dating methods all you like, but how are you going to persuade people to your own point of view if, to liken evidence to money, you've arrived a pauper and your opponent is sitting on Fort Knox.John Paul:
And you can take it on faith that those methods are relieble because that would be all you have- faith. We do not even know what causes atoms to be unstable and decay. What we do is to measure what daughter product(s) and parent product(s) are in a sample and derive an "age" from that.

JonF. have you even read what Humphreys proposes? It would appear the answer is No! The gravity well is gone due to the fact the white hole has emptied its contents.And where did the imagined singularity of the big bang come from? Magic. Again your double standards are obvious.Humphreys has a PhD. in physics. It wasn't just a side course on his way to another degree.As for reasons to believe Humphreys has answered them and they refuse to debate him, even via written correspondence. Which would satisfy your criteria of peer review.BTW there was a recent peer reviewed paper that supports some of Humphreys premises.

WT:
We creos MUST relent to an old earth/universe. The scientific evidence is irrefuteable.John Paul:
That's a joke, right?What is this irrefutable evidence of an old earth? Or is it just unfalsifiable conclusions based on one worldview?

Yes. What Humphreys proposes is not a white hole. And the "emptying of its contents" is an ad-hoc hypothesis for which there is no evidence. Of course, the original "white hole: is not compatible with our observations, e.g. of light that was in transit wnhe the "white hole" existed. No. it's quite different. We admit that we don't know where the Big Bang came from ... but we have gobs of evidence that it happened, and we're working on where it came from. Humphreys has no evidence outside of his prejudices. Appeal to authority fallacy. The fact that he has a PhD leads us to think that he might know what he's talking about, but then examination of his work shows us conclusively that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Really? Please explain how he has answered them, in your own words, and present evidence that RTB has refused to discuss the matter further. And debates or proposed debates don't count, science isn't done by debate. Nope. You don't understand peer review. ROTFLMAO! You'll fall for anything, won't you! Of course, that paper (Shock-wave cosmology inside a black hole doesn't support Humphreys' lunacy at all. One of the authors was questioned about this and replied (as quoted at Re: Can anyone help me with this?, and with emphasis added by me):

quote:

---

Dear Adam:

​

Thanks for the e-mail and the interest in our paper. I do not think that the idea that some sort of time dialation reducing the age of the universe to 6000 years has anything whatsoever to do with our paper. In our paper, we explore the possibility that the explosion of the Big Bang that caused the outward motion of the galaxies, was an explosion of finite total mass, instead of the infinite mass explosion as touted by the standard model based on the Friedmann universe since the 1930'3. In our model, the explosion of the Big Bang generated a shock wave that went out from the center of the explosion, (like the outward shock wave of a nuclear explosion), and the expanding galaxies correspond to the region inside the outgoing spherical wave. What is new here is that when the shock wave is far enough out to be consistent with observations, (beyond one Hubble length--the distance light can travel since the Big Bang explosion), the whole explosion begins inside a (time reversed) black hole----a black hole in which everything is running backwards, exploding outward instead of collapsing inward. In our model, the universe eventually emerges from the black hole, and from then on expands like a huge finite ball of matter into empty space----we are inside the explosion, but to someone far out, this would look like a giant supernova explosion. It also follows from our model that information about the shock wave propagates inward from the shock wave, into the large central region of uniform expansion----and thus to an observer (like us) on the inside of the bubble, everything would look exactly like the Friedmann universe up until the time when the shock wave came into view from the farthest field of observations. In particular, up until the shock wave comes into view, everything looks the same as in the Friedmann model, inclulding the age of the universe---so I see no connection to a new idea on the age of the universe.

​

We believe that there very likely is such a shock wave out there---and that a model like ours is pretty much forced on you once you assume that the Big Bang was an explosion of finite total mass. (Assuming finite mass, the only other alternative is that the spacetime is not simply connected--this was the topic of Geoffrey Weeks talk in Berkeley last monday. We think this is much less likely that the existence of a wave way out there.) Our model shows that if this shock wave were close enough, it could conceivably have already come into view---that is, could be visible in the far field in the direction nearest the wave. We expect that this would be a region in the sky of lower temperature. (Shock waves always propagate into regions of lower density and pressure, so the temperature would be lower on the far side of the shock----that radiation would reach us when the wave came into view----when the shock wave got within one Hubble length of us.) One of the questions asked of Jeffry Weeks last Monday, was the question of whether there is a center to the universe, and he answered, based on the standard model---and his non-simply connected version of it--- there is no center. In our model, it is much more mundane---there is a center---but within the bubble like region near the center before the wave has appeared, all points ``appear'' the same observationally.

​

As far as we know, no one has ever looked for the shock wave at the edge of the expanding galaxies. We are researchers coming from the mathematical theory of shock waves, and this work is very controversial, and not accepted by cosmologists---although we have given many international talks explaining this model, and have heard no physical observation that rules this model out. To us, the FINITE explosion part makes a whole lot more physical sense than other alternatives.

​

You can download my radio interview on Quirks and Quarks and NPR, and some popular articles on this from my web page: Index of /~temple/articles

​

Good luck with your argument!

​

Blake Temple

---

IOW, they wrote a purely theoretical paper proposing a model in which the universe is 14-ish billion years old, in which everything we see is identical to the standard model, but predicts that at some time in the future we might see something that differs from what the standard model predicts.So, why don't you explain to us exactly how this paper supports Humphreys?Still waiting for your reply in Distinguishing Pb from Pb???.

quote:

---

One thing to remember- the earth can be made up of materials that are old, or have been through a process that has made them appear to be old, and still have been formed relatively recently. Such would be the case with Dr. Humphreys' cosmology.

---

Or space aliens could have tinkered with our planets mineral make up in a way that could make it look younger than it really is. Ad hoc hypotheses are fun, aren't they?To be serious, what observations led to the theory of a young earth made of materials that were artificially changed to look old?

quote:

---

John Paul writes:
What I am saying is that even if the earth was formed recently doesn't mean all the materials that went into that formation had to be formed recently or that those materials were not subject to some process that "aged" them.

---

Some process, eh? Such as?

quote:

---

John Paul:
And you can take it on faith that those methods are relieble because that would be all you have- faith.

---

Nope. There is evidence that they work. You may choose to deny the evidence, but that is of no consequence.

quote:

---

We do not even know what causes atoms to be unstable and decay.

---

I'm not so sure about that. Nevertheless, we can measure the rate of decay and there is no known mechanism by which that rate can be changed so that you can turn a Ga date to a Ka date.

quote:

---

What we do is to measure what daughter product(s) and parent product(s) are in a sample and derive an "age" from that.

---

Funny how that works out isn't it? Do you have an explanation for concordant dates yet?And, of course, your explanation of radiometric dating is so oversimplified that you clearly don't have any idea what you are talking about. It reminds me of your in-depth analysis of the fossil record: 'billions of animals died and were buried.' REally brilliant stuff!