Jump to content


Problems With Radiometric Dating


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
23 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 March 2005 - 07:17 AM

http://www.cs.unc.ed.../deception.html

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 March 2005 - 02:17 PM

The Deacon That’s quite a lot to read, so I will have to address it in portions as time permits. Firstly the introductory paragraphs (selected):

“The Radiometric Dating Deception”

Deception?, is the author seriously proposing some sort of global conspiracy amongst geologists?


It just doesn't seem reasonable that life could develop on its own by chance, and the evidence that this actually happened is missing.


Agreed, but strictly speaking that has nothing to do with evolution. Life from no life is abiogenesis. Reasonable or not is a ‘sentiment’ and not a logical conclusion one may argue from, as many things in life are counter intuitive.

It's also not a problem that geologists say that the sedimentary layers of rock took millions of years to form, since there are many evidences that the great geological formations on earth were formed rapidly and catastropically, as in the Biblical flood or subsequent catastrophic events.


Also agree (not the Biblical bit). But geologists don’t say that the strata is built up at a constant rate, bit of a red herring argument.

For example, there is too little erosion between the geological layers for them to have taken millions of years to form.


What!!! erosion implies that the rock is exposed to the elements and is being worn down, how can you say what is too much or too little erosion? This is just bizarre, I don’t follow what the author is trying to imply.

#3 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 March 2005 - 03:01 PM

Deception?, is the author seriously proposing some sort of global conspiracy amongst geologists?


No, that isn't his point. The point is that the methods have so many problems that to insist that they are authoritative is deceptive.


What!!! erosion implies that the rock is exposed to the elements and is being worn down, how can you say what is too much or too little erosion?
This is just bizarre, I don’t follow what the author is trying to imply.


He is saying that if a layer took millions of years to form there ought to be plenty of evidence of natural weathering. That evidence is largely lacking.

#4 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 16 March 2005 - 06:00 PM

All quotes from Deacons link:

I believe that the evidence does not permit the long ages given by radiometric dates, so there must be a problem with them somewhere, even on scientific grounds.


The scientific evidence conflicts with this guys belief system, so the scientific evidence must be wrong. OK.

The geological column has too little erosion to allow for such long time periods.


Not clear what he's talking about. The entire geologic column was created by erosion. That's where all the sediments came from- they were eroded from other rocks somewhere else, then redeposited. Also, the geologic column is full of evidence of "erosion". They're called "uncomformities".

Also, there is too little sediment on the sea floor for the oceans to have existed for hundreds of millions of years, and the continents would have worn away many times in this time period at current rates of erosion.


Don't know where he comes up with there being "too little" sediment. For example, the sediment in the Gulf of Mexico is MILES thick. Also, he seems unaware of plate tectonics- which recycles sea floor sediments into the earth, and builds mountains (which continue to erode).

Just the fact that there are so many fossils shows that the great sedimentary deposits on earth had to have formed rapidly, because well-preserved fossils do not form under conditions of gradual sedimentation.


Wrong on both counts. Fossils do "form" slowly- today- like in the deep ocean, for example, where sedimentation rates are very low, and we have abundant fossils of foraminifera and other planktonic and benthic (ground-living) organisms.

Fossils are also "formed" quickly- today- by events like floods, submarine landslides, etc.

I provided numerous modern examples of rapid sedimentation (by submarine landslides) in the "Young Earth Proofs, Old Earth Attempts" thread.

When will YECs stop reciting this totally disproven idea?


WRT to his criticisms of radiometric dating, there is too much for me for me to address, (and I am not an expert on radiometric dating) so I will provide this LINK which addresses all of his points, and then some.

Finally:

Now, there are some cases where radiometric dating does appear to be measuring a true age, where many methods agree, such as dating of meteorites, and certain very old rocks on the earth. If these dates are correct, then this material would have to originate from before the creation week. However, radiometric dating is based on the assumption that decay rates are constant. If decay rates have varied, then all methods can be in error, even when they agree.


He ADMITS that the evidence for some radiometric dates is impossible to contest. After all, how can different dating methods, using different isotopes, with different properties and different potential problems, all yield the same dates, just by coincidence???

(He doesn't even mention instances where radiometric dates agree with non-radiometric dates, derived by finding evidence of astronomical cycles in sediments, as discussed HERE and HERE.)

So what does he do?? He proposes that decay rates have VARIED through time.

There is absolutely no evidence to support that decay rates have varied significantly through time, or for any other reason. (There is, I think, one isotope - not used for dating- that shows a tiny change in decay rate under extremely high pressure).

But there is substantial evidence against that they have remained constant, as discussed HERE.


This guy is rationalizing away the data to support his preconceived beliefs, pure and simple.

#5 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 16 March 2005 - 06:55 PM

Oops- too late to edit.

The next to last line of my previous post should say:

"But there is substantial evidence that they have remained constant, as discussed HERE".

#6 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 March 2005 - 08:05 PM

from the OP artical

In fact, I believe that the evidence does not permit the long ages given by radiometric dates, so there must be a problem with them somewhere, even on scientific grounds.


The Author appears to be following the AiG statement of faith, “if the evidence is against biblical scripture, then it is the evidence (or it’s interpretation) that is at fault. This is about as Anti-science as you can get, only surpassed by doctoring evidence.


The geological column has too little erosion to allow for such long time periods.


Unsupported – how does the author justify this claim?

Also, there is too little sediment on the sea floor for the oceans to have existed for hundreds of millions of years, and the continents would have worn away many times in this time period at current rates of erosion.


How does the Author calculate what should be the ‘correct’ amount of sediment on the ocean floor? Continents are being built up and eroded, as there is no consistent rate of erosion this premise is falsified.

Just the fact that there are so many fossils shows that the great sedimentary deposits on earth had to have formed rapidly, because well-preserved fossils do not form under conditions of gradual sedimentation.


How rapid is rapid? A local land slide or deposition in a river bend is quite consistent with fossilisation methods for ‘well preserved’ specimens, while shelled creatures are not affected as much by speed of burial. In fact the ratio of shelled creatures no non shelled speaks volumes for this.

So what exactly is wrong with radiometric dating? How can we explain the fact that these dating methods do, in fact, yield dates in the hundreds of millions of years? Why is it that so many museums and textbooks confidently give ages for fossils in the hundreds of millions of years?


OK hear we go (I cut the fluff out and concentrated on the factual statements).

It was claimed that many different dating methods all agree to within a few percent on the ages of the fossils, and that there is no way to explain this except that these methods are giving the true ages. Otherwise, why would they all agree? These different dating methods involve different decay processes, and it is not reasonable to assume that chance or some other process would make them all speed up or slow down by the same amount.


Indeed this is compulsive evidence, some methods do not depend on radioactive decay and still agree (within the area of uncertainty) to each other method.

The geological time scale, described in this book by Harland and others, is based on less than 800 dates obtained by various methods on rocks from different geological layers. These dates tend to agree with each other, but there are hundreds of thousands of other dates that have been measured and were not listed. Many of these other dates disagree with one another, so it is not clear what the significance of these 800 dates is.


Perhaps if the Author asked he would receive a reply. By not asking is he implying some sort of cover up? When if he did ask, he would receive a very logical explanation like:
Duplicated results,
Contamination of the source, or
Poorly documented sample.

Perhaps the 800 is representative, there is no need to imply anything other than that, if there is some manipulating of the data to produce erroneous results THAT is what is needed.

#7 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 March 2005 - 10:50 PM

more from the OP link.

K-Ar dating is based on the decay of potassium 40 to argon 40. When lava is hot, argon escapes from it, so it starts out with potassium but no argon. Over time, potassium gradually decays to argon, and the rate at which this occurs can be measured in the laboratory. By measuring how much potassium and argon is in a rock, and knowing how fast potassium decays, one can compute how old the rock is. The more argon, the older the rock is. The more potassium, the younger the rock is, since a larger amount of potassium would produce argon faster.


Agreed this is consistent with other information I can find.

According to this link LINK K-Ar dating can be a problem, but if one uses Potassium 40 to Argon 39 the problem disappears. There is not one mention of Argon 39 in this paper?

In fact, a number of geologists themselves now say that K-Ar dating is not very reliable, or mainly of historical importance. This is quite an admission, since most of the geological time scale is based on K-Ar dating.


Hmmm, but as mentioned above the problems are well understood by the people who use them and appropriate measures are put in place. The whole article seems to assume that geologist blithely uses a faulty technique then shrug the problems off as if they were not important. The author can list the problems with K-Ar dating till he’s blue in the face, but it makes no senses to think they are some sort of proof if adequate measures are used to circumvent the problem.

Another problem with K-Ar dating is that many volcanoes that we know erupted in the past several hundred years give K-Ar dates in the hundreds of thousands or millions of years.


Apparently it does not, the author deliberately misrepresents what was measured (olivine, within the lava), this gives an old age because of excess argon, the actual lava gives the correct age.

A large number of K-Ar dates on which the geological time scale is based, are dates from a mineral called glaucony. However, many geologists say that this mineral is highly unreliable for dating. So here we have a large part of the geological time scale based on a mineral which geologists themselves say is highly unreliable.


Apparently this quote is based on an obsolete 1960 article. The method of measuring K-Ar, is has been more accurate for years, possibly even at the time of the Authors article.

So I guess we'll have to discard K-Ar dating as a reliable dating method.


Not yet.

When looking at the claims in detail one can see that the author has been very careful in selecting his facts, and the response he has made to them, while not deliberately lying, omitting the full story has made K-Ar dating appear as a faulty method.

#8 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 March 2005 - 05:26 AM

When looking at the claims in detail one can see that the author has been very careful in selecting his facts, and the response he has made to them, while not deliberately lying, omitting the full story has made K-Ar dating appear as a faulty method.


That sounds very much like how many, if not most, evolutionists present their arguments. But that doesn't excuse either side, does it?

#9 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 17 March 2005 - 09:21 AM

That sounds very much like how many, if not most, evolutionists present their arguments. But that doesn't excuse either side, does it?

View Post



Not quite. You will notice that your link obtained most of his information on radiometric dating- including it's problems and weaknesses- from "evolutionist" (i.e., mainstream science) sources.

The "evolutionist" papers discuss the problems with radiometric dating, and how to avoid, correct and/or interpret them. Creationist writings, however, discuss only the "problems" and completely ignore methodologies that have been developed to avoid the problems.

Do you have any responses to the comments made by Chance and myself? I would be particularly interested to know if you think the idea that decay rates have varied through time is reasonable, given the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support it.

#10 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 March 2005 - 11:11 AM

Not quite.  You will notice that your link obtained most of his information on radiometric dating- including it's problems and weaknesses- from "evolutionist" (i.e., mainstream science) sources.


Most, but not all.

The "evolutionist" papers discuss the problems with radiometric dating, and how to avoid, correct and/or interpret them.  Creationist  writings, however, discuss only the "problems" and completely ignore methodologies that have been developed to avoid the problems.


You make an inaccurate, all-inclusive statement. You say that creationist writings discuss "only problems". In the first place I doubt that you have examined all such writings, and in the second place what is wrong with highlighting the problems? Further, my own experience with the University environment at the graduate level has shown me that 'ultimate truth' is very frequently not the goal.

My point was simply to illustrate that there are problems with radiometric dating. If you wish to dispute specific statements made by the author, then please refer them directly to him.

Do you have any responses to the comments made by Chance and myself?  I would be particularly interested to know if you think the idea that decay rates have varied through time is reasonable, given the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support it.


Both Chance and youself have treated the linked material as though it was an original presentation of my own, and more or less demanded that I justify the comments of the author. Sorry. That won't do. But to answer your direct question about decay rates I will say that I see no reason to adopt the uniformitarianist view that because certain rates are observable today those rates must needs have always been the same. Your assumption that 'there is no evidence to support it' cuts both ways. There is no reason to assume that rates have been uniform either. Unless, of course, one has to have it that way in order to maintain a position.

#11 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2005 - 02:25 PM


When looking at the claims in detail one can see that the author has been very careful in selecting his facts, and the response he has made to them, while not deliberately lying, omitting the full story has made K-Ar dating appear as a faulty method.


That sounds very much like how many, if not most, evolutionists present their arguments. But that doesn't excuse either side, does it?

View Post


Does it? It has been my experience that all scientific data is open for scrutiny. As to how anyone presents there facts, is up to the individual, if questioned upon the source the reply should be a link to the source or state that it is “my understanding”. But as a general principle ‘selecting facts’ can be a delicate tight rope to walk, in one instance no one wants to be inundated with pages of dry dusty scientific calculations, when a summery will suffice, and on the other side if a claim is made will stand by it’s self. It ultimately depends on the honesty of the writer.

next dating method from the OP

Now let's consider another method that some textbooks say is reliable. This is the dating of zircons by uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating and some other related methods. Zircon is a gemstone, a mineral that can have a considerable amount of uranium in it. However, when zircons form, they exclude lead. Over time, uranium decays to lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and lead in a zircon and knowing the rate of decay, we can measure the age of the zircon.


Conclusions are from the same link I posted previously – the author appears to be using articles by Woodmorappe (can’t tell for sure because the attribution is missing) But the argument is the same, the author is attacking very old data as if it were the modern norm, from the article

This paper is a compilation of earlier studies performed in the 1950s when these techniques were first being developed.

Even if Zircon dating is somewhat less accurate, there can be no denying the fact that an approximate age is calculable and that the order is correct, i.e. old Zircon in old layers. In addition modern methods also measure Helium diffusion in Zircons, yet another collaborating method of radiometric dating.

From what I can gather from the authors article they appear to by focusing on results obtained from discarded samples and then drawing the conclusion that if one sample gives an erroneous result, then we should throw the baby out with the bath water. In the very practical wold of geology this is just not a reasonable thing to do, there is much work required in obtaining a representative sample and then ensuring that it is not contaminated by human or natural events.


P.S. when I refer to the Author I am of course referring to the OP link not yourself for all these replies.

#12 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 March 2005 - 02:42 PM

Most old earth geologists, like most other scientists, are honest and reputable. The same is true for those who hold other views that fall outside what is generally considered to be science. But 'science' simply means knowledge, it has no reference to ultimate truth. In other words, the Bible believer is also in possession of knowledge. (In fact, for those of you who don't know, Theology used to be known as "the Queen of the sciences".) It sometimes happens that the most voiciferous on both sides allow their personal convictions to intrude upon the data before them. I doubt that any reasonable person would dispute that assertion. The result is that it becomes nearly impossible to point out even the most obvious problems (in either direction) without having some opposing army charge into the gap to war against whatever the other side has to say without regard to any evidences that might be brought forth. That really is a sad state of affairs.

#13 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 17 March 2005 - 02:57 PM

In other words, the Bible believer is also in possession of knowledge.

View Post



On the contrary, Bible believers have just that, belief. If that were not so, faith wouldn’t be necessary.

#14 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 17 March 2005 - 06:18 PM

Deacon:

You make an inaccurate, all-inclusive statement. You say that creationist writings discuss "only problems". In the first place I doubt that you have examined all such writings, and in the second place what is wrong with highlighting the problems?


You're right- I haven't examined all the creationist stuff. But in a search for "radiometric dating" over at AIG, I did not find a single article (at least not among the first 70 or so that came up) that supported the accuracy of radiometric dating.

Nothing wrong with looking at the problems, but the creationists only present one side of the issue, while the "evolutionists" examine both sides. To me anyway, that suggests a bias by the creationists, one that is not supported by the evidence.


Deacon:

Both Chance and youself have treated the linked material as though it was an original presentation of my own, and more or less demanded that I justify the comments of the author. Sorry. That won't do.


Sorry, my/our mistake. But you only posted the link, without any other statement.

Maybe that's why the forum guidelines say this:

"Your post should not be simply a link to an article/website" :D


Deacon:

But to answer your direct question about decay rates I will say that I see no reason to adopt the uniformitarianist view that because certain rates are observable today those rates must needs have always been the same. Your assumption that 'there is no evidence to support it' cuts both ways. There is no reason to assume that rates have been uniform either.


Perhaps you missed this link from a previous post: LINK

This link provides provides numerous evidences that decay rates are essentially constant. Most interesting, perhaps, is this observation (from my link):

"Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002)".

Physicists take radioactive decay pretty seriously, because it is one of the fundamental processes in the universe. They have studied it intensely, and they have found no evidence that decay rates have changed significantly through time. But they have found substantial evidence that rates have remained constant.

I should also point out that physicists really don't have a dog in the "accuracy of radiometric dating"
fight. They are more interested in understanding the fundamental processes of the universe.

Do you know of any evidence that rates have varied through time, other than variable rates are needed to support a young earth?


Deacon:

Unless, of course, one has to have it that way in order to maintain a position.


True, true.

#15 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2005 - 08:45 PM

Most old earth geologists, like most other scientists, are honest and reputable.

View Post

I am of the same opinion.


The same is true for those who hold other views that fall outside what is generally considered to be science. But 'science' simply means knowledge, it has no reference to ultimate truth. In other words, the Bible believer is also in possession of knowledge. (In fact, for those of you who don't know, Theology used to be known as "the Queen of the sciences".)


Again I agree, as we discussed in another topic, Bishop Usher would be a good example of scholarly knowledge and a dogged search for the truth. IMO science is a ratchet for truth, slowly gaining more and more truth without slipping back (well not too far), the direction is always in the direction of gain.

It sometimes happens that the most voiciferous on both sides allow their personal convictions to intrude upon the data before them. I doubt that any reasonable person would dispute that assertion. The result is that it becomes nearly impossible to point out even the most obvious problems (in either direction) without having some opposing army charge into the gap to war against whatever the other side has to say without regard to any evidences that might be brought forth. That really is a sad state of affairs.


Well for my part I’m trying to stick to the facts and only about half way through the OP.

#16 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2005 - 09:59 PM

continuing with the OP

The next candidate dating method is fission track dating. Some minerals contain uranium 238 which decays by fission. It splits in two, and the pieces fly apart through the mineral, creating fission tracks. These tracks can be made visible by etching with an acid solution, and then counted. By knowing how much uranium 238 there is in a rock and by counting the number of fission tracks, one can measure the age of the rock.


I could find very little on this subject, other than what I posted for the other topics about the need for careful selection of a representative sample free from contamination. Same goes for the uranium 238 and it’s removal by water.

rubidium-strontium dating, which are based on the decay of a parent substance (in this case rubidium) to its daughter product (strontium). These methods all depend on knowing how much daughter product was initially present, which we cannot know. So we'll have to discard rubidium-strontium dating and similar methods as reliable dating methods


Actually I’m not sure this is a valid argument as with radiometric dating it’s the ratio that’s important.

There is also the so-called "isochron" method, which is a clever way to estimate the amount of daughter product present initially, so that one can then use rubidium-strontium dating and other methods to get reliable dates. Unfortunately, isochrons can also be caused by mixing processes that have nothing to do with true dates.


But chemically the isotopes are identical, and if one element leaches out, it takes with it equal quantities of both isotopes, what’s remaining will still give an accurate ratio.

there may be choices of methods to use for dating a rock, and choices of which minerals to date, and geologists choose methods and rocks that give dates that tend to agree with one another. They may treat a rock with an acid, or purify it using a magnetic separator, to get the dates to agree. Then they use this agreement between methods as evidence that radiometric dating is correct.


This is just a little to much of the “Hovering Black Helicopters™” for me to take this statement very seriously. I think we can give geologists in general a little more benefit of doubt than this.

radiometric dating is based on the assumption that decay rates are constant. If decay rates have varied, then all methods can be in error, even when they agree.


hmmmm, I suppose so, but they should be affected by the same ratio, so if X measures between 1000000 and 1000, and Y measured between 10000 and 10, then IF decay rates did change you would get X 100000 to 100, and Y 1000 to 1. So there would still be a consistency in the relative spans of ages to be measured, just out by fraction Z. If fraction Z could be calculated all methods are back in (in as far as this objection is concerned).

I’ll stop here as the next section is discussing if the speed of light was different in the past.

#17 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 March 2005 - 06:37 PM

Reply to OP

a number of scientists recently have suggested that the speed of light was much faster in the past. Now, the speed of light is a constant, so if this constant can change, maybe other constants, such as decay constants, which measure the rate of decay, can change as well.


There are two sources for this statement that I am aware of:

scenario 1. There is a new idea that just after the big bang light did indeed travel a small percentage faster than it does now, but the duration of this event was very short, a few seconds. I read about this in Scientific American (I think).

scenario 2. The other source is a creationist book “Starlight and Time” by Russell D. Humphreys.

The references to “a number of scientist” may be a referring to either source, as the OP is unclear on this.


A University of Toronto professor believes that one of the most sacrosanct rules of 20th-century science -- that the speed of light has always been the same - is wrong. <snip> John Moffat of the physics department disagrees - light once travelled much faster than it does today, he believes.

Recent theory <snip> suggest that very early in the universe's development, its edges were farther apart than light, <snip>. Moffat's theory - that the speed of light at the beginning of time was much faster than it is now - <snip>.


If this is the scenario 1 the reference to the duration of this event is missing from the text, because speed of light and decay rates, have been stable for 99.999……………% of the duration of the Universe.

Another possibility is that decay rates were increased by some astronomical catastrophe about the time of the flood. It is believed that a huge supernova exploded recently about 1000 light years away from the earth. This produced the Gum Nebula, which covers about 40 degrees in the southern hemisphere, a huge formation. The estimated time for this is 11,000 years ago, but this could be in error, and it could be 5,000 years ago or less, or about the time of the flood.


The biggest problem for arguments of this kind, is that we can still observe supernova in galaxies (near or far) all exploding at the same rate, a physical impossibility with a variable speed of time and light. If the speed of light varied in the past we should be able to view a ‘compressed in time’ supernova for distant galaxies, but we do not.

I think the author is fishing, first he is postulating a universal source then a ‘local’ event, not really the stuff of serious science.


  a supernova would have showered the earth with many different kinds of radiation that could have excited the nucleii of atoms and led them to decay much faster.


I seriously doubt that this is in any way possible, mainly because radiation will not penetrate very far into the ground.
Current thinking on our exposure to radiation from a supernova is limited to atmospheric affects, and possibly elevated damage to DNA.

This <supernova> could have even caused the flood, by generating terrific quantities of heat and causing volcanoes to erupt and water to spurt out of the earth. These excited nucleii may have taken a while to go back to their normal states, so decay rates may have been elevated for some time after the flood.


I know of no known mechanism where this scenario is even remotely possible. This type of reasoning is more like a fictional work where man gets bit by a spider and spiderman is created.

That concludes my response to the OP

#18 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 March 2005 - 07:48 PM

Someone pointed out up above that the rules require more than just a link to some topic. I neglected to add comment to go with the OP. Mia culpa, and I apologise.

#19 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 April 2005 - 02:20 PM

It appears that AiG has some reservations about the speed of light and some of the more popular YEC explanations. from the AiG artical

Perhaps the most commonly used explanation is that God created light ‘on its way,’ so that Adam could see the stars immediately without having to wait years for the light from even the closest ones to reach the earth. While we should not limit the power of God, this has some rather immense difficulties. <snip reasons usually posed by scientists>  To create such a detailed series of signals in light beams reaching earth, signals which seem to have come from a series of real events but in fact did not, has no conceivable purpose. Worse, it is like saying that God created fossils in rocks to fool us, or even test our faith, and that they don’t represent anything real (a real animal or plant that lived and died in the past). This would be a strange deception.

indeed.

Did light always travel at the same speed?
An obvious solution would be a higher speed of light in the past, allowing the light to cover the same distance more quickly. This seemed at first glance a too-convenient ad hoc explanation. <snip reasons usually posed by scientists> The biggest difficulty, however, is with certain physical consequences of the theory. If c has declined the way Setterfield proposed, these consequences should still be discernible in the light from distant galaxies but they are apparently not.


The two above has been replaced with,

A new creationist cosmology - If the speed of light © has not changed, the only thing left untouched in the equation [general relativity] is time itself. In fact, Einstein’s relativity theories have been telling the world for decades that time is not a constant.


hmmmmm? Anyone care to discuss?

#20 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 13 April 2005 - 08:56 PM

I have wondered about the argument that rates of decay, or the speed of light or some other such thing might have been different. For example, shortly after creation, maybe the speed of light was different or maybe things decayed at a higher rate at the beginning of creation.

Not wanting to pick a fight here, but I often wonder how creationists can tie that in with the Bible? Is there any mention of it in genises? That is to say, does the 'Theory of Theogenesis' predict that such rates would be different? If not why not? And how does this mesh with 2 Peter chapter 3 verse 4:

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users