Young Earth Creationist dynamics.

[Zaius137]

The Earth's bulk temperature was 2.7 Kelvin (which are not degrees, FYI) before the flood? Really? Didn't Noah and those get frostbite?

For your benefit I will repost what I propose. Please try and read before you air your mind, people will think you actually have a rebuttal.

“The rapid decay happened in two processes. The first accelerated decay happened during creation week and the second during the flood. Basically the evidence provided by the RATE team happened with the following notes.”

 

[Zaius137]

The complaint is that sourcing other people's work is all they do. The opposite of that would be to do their own actual research and as a result we would be the opposite of ticked off.

Sure thing. I choose the article itself as an example of misrepresentation.

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted
Radiohalo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Articles addressing creationist claims about radio halos


Your stand on science carries about as much weight as my stand on Christianity, which they still refuse to move to the fantasy section despite my protests.

“Perhaps the most damaging challenge to Gentry's hypothesis comes not from what has been observed, but from what is missing. Of the three major, naturally occurring radioactive elements, uranium, thorium, and potassium, two - uranium and thorium - are marked by decay series involving alpha particle emissions.”

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

Gentry uses U238 which is the logical candidate since it is the most abundant.


Robert V. Gentry studied halos which appeared to have arisen from Po-218 rather than U-238 and concluded that solid rock must have been created with these polonium inclusions, which decayed with a half-life of 3 minutes. They could not have been formed from molten rock which took many millennia to cool (the standard theory) because polonium decays in a few minutes. This is taken by creationists as evidence that the Earth was formed instantaneously (Gentry 1992).

Radiohalo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Does this author realize the Po-218 is a decay product of U238? Uranium-238> Po-218/6.00 Po-214/7.69 Po-210/5.3




Articles addressing creationist claims about radio halos

Same criticism as used in the talkorigins article.

I don’t see anything but normal criticism… NO HOME RUNS.

Again I will ask if you have anything in particular you wish to discuss?

 

[Blayz]

Gentry uses U238 which is the logical candidate since it is the most abundant.

Right, but Po isotopes are also derived from Th and U235, which is also present. You cannot equate "most abundant" with "only one there". If the Po theory is correct then there should be representative haloes from all sources of the various Po isotopes. It is not logical to take the most abundant and ignore everything else.

Does this author realize the Po-218 is a decay product of U238? Uranium-238> Po-218/6.00 Po-214/7.69 Po-210/5.3

Right, so where are the U235 and Th haloes? Those from Po212,216,215 and 211?

Again I will ask if you have anything in particular you wish to discuss?

Discuss away!

 

[CabVet]

Explanation of accelerated decay for YEC dynamics.

The rapid decay happened in two processes. The first accelerated decay happened during creation week and the second during the flood. Basically the evidence provided by the RATE team happened with the following notes.

• Energy provided by accelerated decay started the earth’s dynamo.
• The earth was cool before the rapid decay started because it did not coalesce from the collapse of dust over millions of years.
• The cool earth simply absorbed the tremendous amount of heat from the accelerated decay rates and explains earth’s molten mantel.
• The spreading of the continents during the flood got its energy from accelerated radio active decay.
• What we observe in earth’s heat today is from that declining energy left over by accelerated radioactive decay.
• The decline in earth’s magnetic field observed from 1835 is because the dynamo will not operate under current parameters (it needs accelerated decay).

The earth cannot be billions of years old.

Is there evidence for any of these statements?

 

[Zaius137]

Right, but Po isotopes are also derived from Th and U235, which is also present. You cannot equate "most abundant" with "only one there". If the Po theory is correct then there should be representative haloes from all sources of the various Po isotopes. It is not logical to take the most abundant and ignore everything else.

Right, so where are the U235 and Th haloes? Those from Po212,216,215 and 211?

Discuss away!

Yes but it is daughters that produce alpha decay is what Gentry concentrated on…. Short half lives.

Thorium yields a beta particle. Beta particles do not produce enough energy upon decay.

http://www.ccnr.org/gifs/chart_1.gif

 

[Zaius137]

Is there evidence for any of these statements?

Item 6… The rest of the assertions are at least as good as common descent.

 

[Blayz]

Yes but it is daughters that produce alpha decay is what Gentry concentrated on…. Short half lives.

Thorium yields a beta particle. Beta particles do not produce enough energy upon decay.

http://www.ccnr.org/gifs/chart_1.gif

Isotopes of polonium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
U238 (Gentry's favourites)
218 3 minutes
214 164 microseconds
210 138 days

U235 (ignored by Gentry)
211 various decays, nanoseconds to seconds
215 1.78 milliseconds

Th232 (also ignored)
212 299 nanoseconds
216 145 milliseconds

It is clear from the evidence that Gentry did not do what you claim, one of his isotopes lasts for days, and there are others that have far shorter half lives.

You are also incorrect about Th decay... mostly because you are confusing the naturally occurring Th232 that I am talking about with the 234 from the U238 chain. Your chart agrees with me on that as well.
Decay chain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which clearly has alpha emissions in its path, specifically its decay to Ra. Moreover both of its Po isotopes are also alpha emitters.

Your turn.

 

[CabVet]

Item 6… The rest of the assertions are at least as good as common descent.

That a joke?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

 

[Split Rock]

Item 6… The rest of the assertions are at least as good as common descent.

That a joke?

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its the lowest common denominator argument. Creationists don't have evidence for anything they assert, so they have to try to drag down common descent and modern geology to their level... the sewers.

 

[Zaius137]

That a joke?

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Real evidence against it....

http://www.christianforums.com/t7632315-2/#post59789612

The evolutionist own research eventually disproves the dogma.

 

[Zaius137]

Its the lowest common denominator argument. Creationists don't have evidence for anything they assert, so they have to try to drag down common descent and modern geology to their level... the sewers.

Creationists have the word of God which trumps all atheist superstitious beliefs.

 

[CabVet]

Creationists have the word of God which trumps all atheist superstitious beliefs.

Ah, now you finally admit it. So, let's level the playing field, your reasoning:

Hypothesis: God did it.
Evidence: The Bible says God did it.
Conclusion: God did it.

You could have said the above from the beginning instead of copying and pasting pseudoscience from creationist websites.

 

[CabVet]

Real evidence against it....

http://www.christianforums.com/t7632315-2/#post59789612

The evolutionist own research eventually disproves the dogma.

So, your one half a page confused and misleading post about mutation in the Christian forums disproves multiple lines of evidence (genetic, anatomical, physiological, paleontological, biogeographic, observed speciation, artificial and natural selection) supporting common descent. Keep dreaming.

 

[Split Rock]

Creationists have the word of God which trumps all atheist superstitious beliefs.

All you have is your erroneous, backward, naive interpretation of scripture, which you claim, trumps well-supported scientific theory. Back to Ape City with you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayEnaB0E_ak

 

[RickG]

Yes but it is daughters that produce alpha decay is what Gentry concentrated on…. Short half lives.

Thorium yields a beta particle. Beta particles do not produce enough energy upon decay.

http://www.ccnr.org/gifs/chart_1.gif

And when does decay begin? Hummmmm?

 

[RickG]

Real evidence against it....

http://www.christianforums.com/t7632315-2/#post59789612

The evolutionist own research eventually disproves the dogma.

There lies your problem. Evolution is not dependent upon mathematical formulas or probability. The over-whelming force is environment change; particularly that of climate change and isolation of populations.

Perhaps you can explain the appearance, and diversification of fauna and flora throughout geologic time with evolution?

 

[RickG]

Creationists have the word of God which trumps all atheist superstitious beliefs.

I have two problems with that statement.

First and foremost, all scientists are not atheist. In my forty years of being associated and/or practicing science, I have never met anyone who claimed to be an atheist. In fact, most I worked with were devout Christians. The only scientifically educated atheists I have met have been in forums this this one.

Science is based on physical evidence, religion is based on ideological belief.

 

[Orogeny]

For your benefit I will repost what I propose. Please try and read before you air your mind, people will think you actually have a rebuttal.

“The rapid decay happened in two processes. The first accelerated decay happened during creation week and the second during the flood. Basically the evidence provided by the RATE team happened with the following notes.”

Right. I don't appreciate your insults. If I have misunderstood your point, please explain it to me rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Help me understand the process you propose. You assert that rapid nuclear decay heated the earth from 2.7K to its current temperature during 2 events. How much heating happened during the first (I'm looking for a delta K here)? How much during the second? Were decay rates the same or similar during each event? How is this supported by evidence produced by the RATE project? Are current isotopic ratios, quantities, and distributions observed on earth representative of two rapid decay events? Can you provide evidence of this?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Blayz]

So, no response then Dr Z. I suspected as much.

 

[Split Rock]

So, no response then Dr Z. I suspected as much.

Actually, I consider the title of this thread to be an oxymoron.