The Hawaiian Islands: A falsification of a young earth

MartinM · #61 21st October 2003, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by notto

1) A plausible mechanism to start it.
2) Death to many living things due to radiation and heat.
3) A plausible mechanism to stop it.

4) Production of isotopes not seen in nature. Probably.
5) Systematic disagreement between different radiometric dating methods.

TrueCreation · #62 21st October 2003, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by notto

There is no mechanism to speed up or slow down the plate movement. There is no mechansism to speed up the mountain building.

--Runaway subduction.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

TrueCreation · #63 21st October 2003, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by MartinM

4) Production of isotopes not seen in nature.

--Explain.

5) Systematic disagreement between different radiometric dating methods.

--Not if they were all accelerated by the same magnitude.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Arikay · #64 21st October 2003, 05:48 PM

So yes, you mean accelerated nuclear decay.

This accelerated decay would be pretty scary. It would need to be accelerated over 750,000X for it to fit within a 6000 year old earth.

We already know of one natural Nuclear reactor on the earth that formed naturally from current decay rates.

I would hate to see what would happen if these decay rates were increased almost a million fold. Not to mention all the evidence that would leave behind (if it left the earth behind at all.

)

Next you have to ask, was this decay rate increase for the earth only? If not, then we have to think exactly what would our sun do if the decay rates were increased a million fold.

notto · #65 21st October 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by MartinM

4) Production of isotopes not seen in nature. Probably.
5) Systematic disagreement between different radiometric dating methods.

6) An alternate explaination for this table
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/missing.html

notto · #66 21st October 2003, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by TrueCreation

--Runaway subduction.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

OK, I'll refphrase:

"There is no plausible mechanism . . . that does not rely on ad-hoc explainations and miracles such as accelerated decay . . . "

Also, could you explain how this runaway subduction would allow the plate to be in place long enough over the hotspot to build the islands we see?

MartinM · #67 21st October 2003, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by TrueCreation

--Explain

Technically, all elements undergo decay. It's just that many of them have half-lives so long you can wait around for as long as you like and never observe a single decay. YEC requires an increase in decay rates of at least six orders of magnitude, and perhaps as many as ten. That means that elements which are just the right side of stable, as it were, will decay at significant rates. These novel processes might be expected to leave daughter products not seen in known decay chains.

--Not if they were all accelerated by the same magnitude

How, exactly? Even a change in fundamental constants won't provide that.

TrueCreation · #68 21st October 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by MartinM

Technically, all elements undergo decay.

--Or, more accuratelly, all unstable isotopes.

It's just that many of them have half-lives so long you can wait around for as long as you like and never observe a single decay. YEC requires an increase in decay rates of at least six orders of magnitude, and perhaps as many as ten. That means that elements which are just the right side of stable, as it were, will decay at significant rates. These novel processes might be expected to leave daughter products not seen in known decay chains.

--Not necessarily. The same unstable radioisotopes have existed in the past, the hypothesis of accelerated nuclear decay merely proposes that somehow their half-lives drematically decreased for a period of time.

How, exactly? Even a change in fundamental constants won't provide that.

--I'm not the guy to ask I guess. I don't know the detailed nuclear physics behind it. Besides, I don't expect the acceleration to be naturalistic, and it is the only phoneomena which I expect to ever have been unnatural in earth history.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

TrueCreation · #69 21st October 2003, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Arikay

So yes, you mean accelerated nuclear decay.

This accelerated decay would be pretty scary. It would need to be accelerated over 750,000X for it to fit within a 6000 year old earth.

We already know of one natural Nuclear reactor on the earth that formed naturally from current decay rates.

I would hate to see what would happen if these decay rates were increased almost a million fold. Not to mention all the evidence that would leave behind (if it left the earth behind at all. )

Next you have to ask, was this decay rate increase for the earth only? If not, then we have to think exactly what would our sun do if the decay rates were increased a million fold.

--I think that if we can solve the problem that the radiogenic heat gives us, the young earth is in pretty good condition, I think this is the highest hurdle imaginable. I presume that a variable decay rate would have been universal.

--I think I went over the oklo reactor and similar natural nuclear reactors a while ago somewhere else, but you can present it again if you like here.

--Just keep in mind that this thread is supposed to be about the Hawaiian island chain and the emperor seamounts.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

TrueCreation · #70 21st October 2003, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by notto

OK, I'll refphrase:

"There is no plausible mechanism . . . that does not rely on ad-hoc explainations and miracles such as accelerated decay . . . "

--ok then, Runaway Subduction.

Also, could you explain how this runaway subduction would allow the plate to be in place long enough over the hotspot to build the islands we see?

--An effect of runaway subduction and CPT would logically be a sronger, less viscous, mantle plumes.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose