Young Earth Creationist dynamics.

[Davian]

Creationists have the word of God which...

is suspiciously inconsistent between creationists.

...which trumps all atheist superstitious beliefs.

of which there is no such thing. Again, when your arguments fail, you resort to insults. It would appear that is all you have.

 

[RickG]

“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?

Only if you completely ignore the content of the rebuttals. They explicitly show why RATE is wrong.

 

[Assyrian]

Who is to say what the amounts of isotopes are deep inside the earth. The equilibrium as you say that exists would depend on an assumed value of isotopes to balance the exchange. I claim a new balance could work equally well to fit a mathematical model. A good question to explore would be the total thermal units that it would take to warm the earth from 2.7 deg Kelvin to the measured temperature observed today and balance that against radioactive decay output. My guess would be that there is not enough energy from radio active decay alone to melt the entire earth surface. I am playing with some numbers but don’t claim a result.

I googled the amount of heat produce by radioactivity in granite and basalt
Granite is 2.6x10[sup]-13[/sup]cal/gram sec
Basalt is 3.8x10[sup]-14[/sup]cal/gram sec

in a million years
a gram of granite will produce 8.3 cal
a gram of basalt will produce 1.2 cal

The specific heat of
Granite is 0.19 cal/g°C
Basalt is 0.2 cal/g°C

Which means
the 8.3 cal from granite will raise its temperature 43°C
the 1.2 cal from basalt will raise it temperature 6°C

To look at your question, lets take the highest temperature of the mantle 4000°C To raise the temperature to that 4000°C from -270°C, a total of 4270°C would take granite 99 million years and basalt 713 million years. Assuming as you point out that the mantle had a similar isotopic composition. We do not know the concentration of radioisotopes in the mantle, but let's take the material we do know. Granite and basalt. Granite starts to melt at 1215°C and basalt at 984°C. Assuming the earth was created at a comfortable 20°C, how many million years worth of accelerated decay would it take to bring granite and basalt to a temperature where they start melting?

It would only take 28 million years worth of decay to melt the granite and 161 million years would melt the basalt.

If we can't compare mantle isotopes with crust, what we can say is that creationism needs hundreds of millions and billions of years worth of accelerated decay to give the hundreds of millions and billions of years read by radiometric dating. But a mere 28 million years worth of accelerated decay would start to melt granite and 161 million years worth would melt basalt. It also means we should not be able to get dates for granites older than 28 million years or basalts older than 161 my. Any more than that and the radiometric clocks would reset, yet we have basalts 4.28 billion years old in the Canadian Shield.

A regenerating magnetic field needs a dynamo. Attempts to model dynamos today in computer simulations that operate in the outer core don’t seem to work; they need extra heat. In some cases the model produces dynamos but assume parameters thousands of orders different than proposed exist at this time. As far as I know no model is operating within observed parameters. A residual decaying magnetic field would be the best explanation for the observed field decay of the earth that has been documented by Gauss since 1835 (~10%).

Except as I pointed out the magnetism would have been lost when you went past the Curie temperature. Did Gauss know the temperature at the core was hot enough to degauss a bar magnet? Modeling the earth magnetic field may be difficult, but we know a molten core would produce a magnetic field, while it cannot be a bar magnet at those temperatures.

 

[Zaius137]

Good thought here, I have tried to get into serious calculation but have been occupied else ware. My big question is why you pick…

“20°C, how many million years worth of accelerated decay would it take to bring granite and basalt to a temperature where they start melting?”

When I wanted to start at the accepted CMB value of about 2.7 degrees Kelvin.


“Except as I pointed out the magnetism would have been lost when you went past the Curie temperature. Did Gauss know the temperature at the core was hot enough to degauss a bar magnet? Modeling the earth magnetic field may be difficult, but we know a molten core would produce a magnetic field, while it cannot be a bar magnet at those temperatures.”

Yes a dynamo is the answer to the problem. Again a dynamo in the earth’s core is in decay (it was kick started by accelerated decay) but will not continue at the present observed parameters.

 

[Orogeny]

Good thought here, I have tried to get into serious calculation but have been occupied else ware. My big question is why you pick…

“20°C, how many million years worth of accelerated decay would it take to bring granite and basalt to a temperature where they start melting?”

When I wanted to start at the accepted CMB value of about 2.7 degrees Kelvin.

You understand that him using your number would cause the calculation to deviate even further from your target, yes?

 

[CabVet]

You understand that him using your number would cause the calculation to deviate even further from your target, yes?

I suspect that supernatural explanations will do away with the difference between natural observation and creationist explanation.

 

[Keachian]

You understand that him using your number would cause the calculation to deviate even further from your target, yes?

He'll probably state something like, just more proof of scientists fudging the numbers

 

[Zaius137]

I googled the amount of heat produce by radioactivity in granite and basalt
Granite is 2.6x10[sup]-13[/sup]cal/gram sec
Basalt is 3.8x10[sup]-14[/sup]cal/gram sec

in a million years
a gram of granite will produce 8.3 cal
a gram of basalt will produce 1.2 cal

The specific heat of
Granite is 0.19 cal/g°C
Basalt is 0.2 cal/g°C

Which means
the 8.3 cal from granite will raise its temperature 43°C
the 1.2 cal from basalt will raise it temperature 6°C

To look at your question, lets take the highest temperature of the mantle 4000°C To raise the temperature to that 4000°C from -270°C, a total of 4270°C would take granite 99 million years and basalt 713 million years. Assuming as you point out that the mantle had a similar isotopic composition. We do not know the concentration of radioisotopes in the mantle, but let's take the material we do know. Granite and basalt. Granite starts to melt at 1215°C and basalt at 984°C. Assuming the earth was created at a comfortable 20°C, how many million years worth of accelerated decay would it take to bring granite and basalt to a temperature where they start melting?

It would only take 28 million years worth of decay to melt the granite and 161 million years would melt the basalt.

If we can't compare mantle isotopes with crust, what we can say is that creationism needs hundreds of millions and billions of years worth of accelerated decay to give the hundreds of millions and billions of years read by radiometric dating. But a mere 28 million years worth of accelerated decay would start to melt granite and 161 million years worth would melt basalt. It also means we should not be able to get dates for granites older than 28 million years or basalts older than 161 my. Any more than that and the radiometric clocks would reset, yet we have basalts 4.28 billion years old in the Canadian Shield.

Except as I pointed out the magnetism would have been lost when you went past the Curie temperature. Did Gauss know the temperature at the core was hot enough to degauss a bar magnet? Modeling the earth magnetic field may be difficult, but we know a molten core would produce a magnetic field, while it cannot be a bar magnet at those temperatures.

Yes a dynamo is the answer to the problem. Again a dynamo in the earth’s core is in decay (it was kick started by accelerated decay) but will not continue at the present observed parameters.

As I see it there must be several values that must be solved (or assumed) for….

• Total mass of the earth expressed by a caloric value (cal/g°C)
• Total of isotopes present in the mantel and there relative concentrations with their total caloric value at present
• Total heat loss for 6000 year period
• Feasible starting temperature (maybe initial 2.7 deg K)

I see you have the specific heat values of Granite and basalt, that is a good start but I do see some assumptions drawn by amounts of isotopes in basalt and Granite (the cal/gsec) that fits the old earth paradigm. I am simple saying a new paradigm needs a new set of parameters. I am confident reasonable assumptions to these items are possible just as they were for the old earth paradigm.

The calculations need to go this way… I see you calculated how many millions of years it would take to raise a gram of granite 4540 deg C by the (cal/gsec) figure but that figure contains the assumed isotope value. By using the specific heat you can disregard the old earth assumption of (2.6 cal/gsec) and find it takes 862.6 cal/g of energy into granite to raise it 4540 degrees. Now the question is how much decay is needed in that granite to take it up to 4540 deg C? You need a proper estimation of that isotope cocktail.

 

[Blayz]

I guess you'll ignore this request to either continue the RATE discussion or admit you are wrong, but anyway....

Yes a dynamo is the answer to the problem. Again a dynamo in the earth’s core is in decay (it was kick started by accelerated decay) but will not continue at the present observed parameters.

Evidence please. Otherwise this is yet another creationist hand wave.

 

[Assyrian]

Good thought here, I have tried to get into serious calculation but have been occupied else ware. My big question is why you pick…

“20°C, how many million years worth of accelerated decay would it take to bring granite and basalt to a temperature where they start melting?”

When I wanted to start at the accepted CMB value of about 2.7 degrees Kelvin.

I plugged the rates of heat generation into both Old Earth and Creationist models to see how they work. I used your CMB temperature (rounded off to -270°C because mantel temperatures are usually given in centrigrade) to see if radiation could account for the temperature of the earth in the Old earth model, This is why I talked about the length of time it would take Granite and basalt to rise by 4270° which would take you from CMB temperatures to the highest mantle temperature 4000°C.

My use of 20°C was looking at a creationist model, where the earth wasn't created at 2.7K, but at a temperature comfortable for human habitation, and working from those temperatures to see how many years worth of accelerated decay you could have before you start to melt granite and basalt.

“Except as I pointed out the magnetism would have been lost when you went past the Curie temperature. Did Gauss know the temperature at the core was hot enough to degauss a bar magnet? Modeling the earth magnetic field may be difficult, but we know a molten core would produce a magnetic field, while it cannot be a bar magnet at those temperatures.”

Yes a dynamo is the answer to the problem. Again a dynamo in the earth’s core is in decay (it was kick started by accelerated decay) but will not continue at the present observed parameters.

Which is why I asked you about the nasty gap between bar magnet and the dynamo starting up.

 

[Zaius137]

I like your hands on approach; right now I have not completed enough of the calculations to really give any kind of answers (just a speculation). I fully intend to devote more time to this and I truly appreciate your input.

 

[cupid dave]

OK so it's not, still can't find any gods, anyone would think they didn't want to be found, gods are as shy as a Yeti,
a UFO or the Loch Ness monster.

The New Testament argues that Truth is our God .

Isn't that what we seek right here?
The Truth?

 

[juvenissun]

I googled the amount of heat produce by radioactivity in granite and basalt
Granite is 2.6x10[sup]-13[/sup]cal/gram sec
Basalt is 3.8x10[sup]-14[/sup]cal/gram sec

in a million years
a gram of granite will produce 8.3 cal
a gram of basalt will produce 1.2 cal

The specific heat of
Granite is 0.19 cal/g°C
Basalt is 0.2 cal/g°C

Which means
the 8.3 cal from granite will raise its temperature 43°C
the 1.2 cal from basalt will raise it temperature 6°C

To look at your question, lets take the highest temperature of the mantle 4000°C To raise the temperature to that 4000°C from -270°C, a total of 4270°C would take granite 99 million years and basalt 713 million years. Assuming as you point out that the mantle had a similar isotopic composition. We do not know the concentration of radioisotopes in the mantle, but let's take the material we do know. Granite and basalt. Granite starts to melt at 1215°C and basalt at 984°C. Assuming the earth was created at a comfortable 20°C, how many million years worth of accelerated decay would it take to bring granite and basalt to a temperature where they start melting?

It would only take 28 million years worth of decay to melt the granite and 161 million years would melt the basalt.

If we can't compare mantle isotopes with crust, what we can say is that creationism needs hundreds of millions and billions of years worth of accelerated decay to give the hundreds of millions and billions of years read by radiometric dating. But a mere 28 million years worth of accelerated decay would start to melt granite and 161 million years worth would melt basalt. It also means we should not be able to get dates for granites older than 28 million years or basalts older than 161 my. Any more than that and the radiometric clocks would reset, yet we have basalts 4.28 billion years old in the Canadian Shield.

The granite in the Sierra Nevada will not melt no matter how radioactive and how old it could be.

I did not read the whole thread. But what is your point? What is wrong with Creationism on this issue?

[It reminds me that the HardRock guy is studying dikes in the Sierra granite. Is that interesting?]

 

[Assyrian]

The granite in the Sierra Nevada will not melt no matter how radioactive and how old it could be.

I did not read the whole thread. But what is your point? What is wrong with Creationism on this issue?

[It reminds me that the HardRock guy is studying dikes in the Sierra granite. Is that interesting?]

Granite won't melt because the heat from radioactive decay the thermal conductivity of granite is able to dissipate the heat produced. But creationism, especially young earth creationism claims the rate of radioactive decay was vastly accelerated in the past, that most of the 4.5 billion years worth of radioactive decay we read in rocks occurred between the creation week and the flood. The thermal conductivity of granite may be able to handle normal rates of radioactive decay, but ramp up the decay rate and it won't be able to dissipate the heat fast enough, especially in large masses of granite, the temperature will keep going up and up and the granite will simply melt.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

Not a valid complaint. Science doesn't works that way. It's always based on the work of others.

Here is one with an evolution subject with 145 citations of others work.
Granted, we don't know which publishers believe in God and which don't.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/08/1117774109.full.pdf

 

[Blayz]

Not a valid complaint. Science doesn't works that way. It's always based on the work of others.

Here is one with an evolution subject with 145 citations of others work.
Granted, we don't know which publishers believe in God and which don't.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/08/1117774109.full.pdf

Based on being the key words, Skywriting, based on. Not "entirely composed of"

Once again an ignorant layman comes in to tell us all how science works, and yet if I were to explain to everyone what Christianity meant, I'd probably get banned from the forum.

 

[RickG]

Granite won't melt because the heat from radioactive decay the thermal conductivity of granite is able to dissipate the heat produced. But creationism, especially young earth creationism claims the rate of radioactive decay was vastly accelerated in the past, that most of the 4.5 billion years worth of radioactive decay we read in rocks occurred between the creation week and the flood. The thermal conductivity of granite may be able to handle normal rates of radioactive decay, but ramp up the decay rate and it won't be able to dissipate the heat fast enough, especially in large masses of granite, the temperature will keep going up and up and the granite will simply melt.

What creationists ignore is all the independent ways that show that radioactive decay is the same today as it was billions of years ago. They also like to throw out the word "assumption" as if it were only a guess, while ignoring the very fact that their "assumption" that rates have changed is completely baseless with absolutely no supporting evidence.

I would like to see the supporting evidence that decay rates have change. The very few isotopes that do vary ever so slightly, are short-lived isotopes not used for dating; and even if they were that variation is not outside the realm of statistical reliability. Zaius?

 

[Split Rock]

Not a valid complaint. Science doesn't works that way. It's always based on the work of others.

Here is one with an evolution subject with 145 citations of others work.

Yet, as a scientist, you are expected to contribute original research, not just muse over the research of others.

Granted, we don't know which publishers believe in God and which don't.

What does that have to do with anything??

 

[juvenissun]

Granite won't melt because the heat from radioactive decay the thermal conductivity of granite is able to dissipate the heat produced. But creationism, especially young earth creationism claims the rate of radioactive decay was vastly accelerated in the past, that most of the 4.5 billion years worth of radioactive decay we read in rocks occurred between the creation week and the flood. The thermal conductivity of granite may be able to handle normal rates of radioactive decay, but ramp up the decay rate and it won't be able to dissipate the heat fast enough, especially in large masses of granite, the temperature will keep going up and up and the granite will simply melt.

So, according to them, the earth was molten. The secular knowledge also said that the earth was molten (by a different reason). So, judged by the argument of granite (or basalt) melting, how is Creationism wrong?

 

[SkyWriting]

Yet, as a scientist, you are expected to contribute original research, not just muse over the research of others.
What does that have to do with anything??

That was the complaint. No data was offered for us to examine.