Deep Time

[lesliedellow]

How did the determine that this was a naturally occurring nuclear fission reactor?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-reactor/

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

On the subject of the tendancy to generalize.

You made the following comment.

Your comment is a good example of a generalization that is inaccurate.

Two billion years ago, eons before humans developed the first commercial nuclear power
plants in the 1950s, seventeen natural nuclear fission reactors operated in what is today
known as Gabon in Western Africa. (Scientific American, Gauthier-Lafaye, 2006. Time
constraint for the occurrence of uranium deposits and natural nuclear fission reactors in
the Paleoproterozoic, Franceville Basin (Gabon)).

Yes klutedavid, I am aware of those, however they have no bearing on what I am talking about because the products of fission and natural decay of uranium are different due to the process that drives them. Those occurrences were due to the extremely high concentration of uranium in those areas at a specific time in geologic history. Here's the abstract to the paper which Scientific American refers to:

Time constraint for the occurrence of uranium deposits and natural nuclear fission reactors in the Paleoproterozoic Franceville Basin (Gabon)

"Natural fission reactors at the Oklo uranium deposits in Gabon appear to have formed in a short interval of geologic time during which uranium could migrate to form deposits and the 235U/238U ratio was still high enough to trigger fission reactions. At the time of sediment deposition in the ore-hosting Franceville Basin ∼2100 m.y. ago, the oxygen deficient atmosphere would have inhibited uranium dissolution and therefore its migration to form deposits. Dissolution and migration of uranium probably began only during later diagenesis after ca. 2050 Ma, and local reduction reactions in the presence of hydrocarbons allowed formation of high-grade uranium deposits. At this time the 235U/238U ratio was still significantly higher than it is today, thus triggering nuclear fission reactions. Before 2.0 Ga, the 235U/238U ratio was also high enough to allow fission reactions but no mechanisms were able to produce high-grade uranium ores. Thus, oxygen in the atmosphere was probably the main factor controlling the occurrence of natural nuclear fission reactions. This conclusion is in agreement with earlier suggestions that oxygen contents in atmosphere increased during a “transition phase” some 2450–2100 m.y. ago."​

Now, the question is how do we know those high concentrations of 235U/238U responded like a nuclear reactor in the first place? Simple, from the daughter isotopes produced by them. They are quite different from those of natural non fission decay. There is no way of confusing the two in one of the uranium series dating processes.

Do you understand the difference between the two processes and how we know the difference?

 

[Loudmouth]

Now, the question is how do we know those high concentrations of 235U/238U responded like a nuclear reactor in the first place? Simple, from the daughter isotopes produced by them. They are quite different from those of natural non fission decay. There is no way of confusing the two in one of the uranium series dating processes.

Do you understand the difference between the two processes and how we know the difference?

The terminology seems to be a bit confused. All radioactive isotopes of uranium decay through fission, if memory serves. The difference between natural decay and what occurs in reactors and nuclear war heads is whether the fission reaction is spontaneous or initiated by the high energy particles created by a near by fission reaction.

In the case of chain reaction fission, you get products like Plutonium which are not produce by the spontaneous decay of Uranium. What would be interesting is seeing creationists figure out how many high energy particles the Earth has to be bombarded with in order for radiometric dating to be off by 4.5 billion years. Adam would definitely have a tan.

 

[RickG]

The terminology seems to be a bit confused. All radioactive isotopes of uranium decay through fission, if memory serves. The difference between natural decay and what occurs in reactors and nuclear war heads is whether the fission reaction is spontaneous or initiated by the high energy particles created by a near by fission reaction.

Yes indeed. What we were discussing earlier was the decay process, thus β−, where an electron antineutrio is produced and β+ where an electron neutrino is produced in the decay process. The focus was on neutrinos which he believed caused decay rates to accelerate.

In the case of chain reaction fission, you get products like Plutonium which are not produce by the spontaneous decay of Uranium. What would be interesting is seeing creationists figure out how many high energy particles the Earth has to be bombarded with in order for radiometric dating to be off by 4.5 billion years. Adam would definitely have a tan.

Or vaporized.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Rick.

Now, the question is how do we know those high concentrations of 235U/238U
responded like a nuclear reactor in the first place? Simple, from the daughter isotopes
produced by them. They are quite different from those of natural non fission decay.
There is no way of confusing the two in one of the uranium series dating processes.

Do you understand the difference between the two processes and how we know the difference?

Yes Rick, at the current rate of learning, I will be lecturing on fusion and fission reactors soon.

What a steep learning curve, so much information to absorb and analyse.

There will be a delay in my response of course.

 

[46AND2]

If you could provide me with your first name that would help 48.

I am working on my reply to you, but I can only do it bits at a time, and it's getting a bit lengthy. I'll try to have it ready for you before I go to work this afternoon.

The name is Alex.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Rick.

The problem of determining the age of the universe is closely tied to the problem of determining the values of the cosmological parameters. Today this is largely carried out in the context of the ΛCDM model, where the universe is assumed to contain normal (baryonic) matter, cold dark matter, radiation (including both photons and neutrinos), and a cosmological constant.

The cosmological constant makes the universe "older" for fixed values of the other parameters. This is significant, since before the cosmological constant became generally accepted, the Big Bang model had difficulty explaining why globular clusters in the Milky Way appeared to be far older than the age of the universe as calculated from the Hubble parameter and a matter-only universe.[10][11] Introducing the cosmological constant allows the universe to be older than these clusters, as well as explaining other features that the matter-only cosmological model could not.[12]

Cosmological Constant
Quantum field theory
See also: Vacuum catastrophe

A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge value for the quantum vacuum. A common assumption is that the quantum vacuum is equivalent to the cosmological constant. Although no theory exists that supports this assumption, arguments can be made in its favor.[14]

Such arguments are usually based on dimensional analysis and effective field theory. If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory down to the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of M_{\rm pl}^4. As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10^(−120). This discrepancy has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!".[15]

Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which further complicates things. This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the tiny cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle physics. (Wikipedia)

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

The problem of determining the age of the universe is closely tied to the problem of determining the values of the cosmological parameters. Today this is largely carried out in the context of the ΛCDM model, where the universe is assumed to contain normal (baryonic) matter, cold dark matter, radiation (including both photons and neutrinos), and a cosmological constant.

The cosmological constant makes the universe "older" for fixed values of the other parameters. This is significant, since before the cosmological constant became generally accepted, the Big Bang model had difficulty explaining why globular clusters in the Milky Way appeared to be far older than the age of the universe as calculated from the Hubble parameter and a matter-only universe.[10][11] Introducing the cosmological constant allows the universe to be older than these clusters, as well as explaining other features that the matter-only cosmological model could not.[12]

Cosmological Constant
Quantum field theory
See also: Vacuum catastrophe

A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge value for the quantum vacuum. A common assumption is that the quantum vacuum is equivalent to the cosmological constant. Although no theory exists that supports this assumption, arguments can be made in its favor.[14]

Such arguments are usually based on dimensional analysis and effective field theory. If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory down to the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of M_{\rm pl}^4. As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10^(−120). This discrepancy has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!".[15]

Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which further complicates things. This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the tiny cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle physics. (Wikipedia)

Greetings klutedavid, nice to see you back.

I'm afraid that post is quite a bit off topic. This thread is has nothing to do with the age of the universe, it is only about Earth's deep time.

Reviewing, I gather you now understand that the short episodes of natural nuclear reactor fission have no bearing on the uranium series dating method or any radiometric dating method for that matter. Right? Simply put, the two decay processes produce different daughter isotopes. There can be no mistake between the two in identifying the difference.

Would you like to discuss another aspect of radiometric dating, or perhaps a non-radiometric dating method?

 

[klutedavid]

Greetings klutedavid, nice to see you back.

I'm afraid that post is quite a bit off topic. This thread is has nothing to do with the age of the universe, it is only about Earth's deep time.

Reviewing, I gather you now understand that the short episodes of natural nuclear reactor fission have no bearing on the uranium series dating method or any radiometric dating method for that matter. Right? Simply put, the two decay processes produce different daughter isotopes. There can be no mistake between the two in identifying the difference.

Would you like to discuss another aspect of radiometric dating, or perhaps a non-radiometric dating method?

Hello Rick.

If we examine a rock with lead in it, then we examine the lead isotopes.

We might find say Pb-206 at 25%.

Now how do you know whether the isotope Pb-206, came from U-238 decay or a U-235 fission?

Secondly Rick, how do you know what the initial percentage of Pb-206 was in a given sample?

 

[RickG]

Hello Rick.

If we examine a rock with lead in it, then we examine the lead isotopes.

We might find say Pb-206 at 25%.

Now how do you know whether the isotope Pb-206, came from U-238 decay or a U-235 fission?

Cordial greetings klutedavid, you have expressed some very good concerns. For this reply I am going to only provide a brief overview. If you wish a more detailed explanation please ask.

If we look at the ratios of all 16 isotopes involved in the 238U decay series any excess of 206Pb would be obvious. Perhaps you have come across the term U-Series disequilibrium dating? I can go into detail with this if you like as previously stated, however, the fact that we know detrital materials may be present and that we can measure them quantitatively shows that corrections can be made if necessary.

Secondly Rick, how do you know what the initial percentage of Pb-206 was in a given sample?

U-Series disequilibrium dating methods. Emphasis on the plural of methods, thus there are several ways for identifying any excess or paucity 206Pb. Again, I can go into detail if you like.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hello Rick.

The problem of determining the age of the universe is closely tied to the problem of determining the values of the cosmological parameters. Today this is largely carried out in the context of the ΛCDM model, where the universe is assumed to contain normal (baryonic) matter, cold dark matter, radiation (including both photons and neutrinos), and a cosmological constant.

The cosmological constant makes the universe "older" for fixed values of the other parameters. This is significant, since before the cosmological constant became generally accepted, the Big Bang model had difficulty explaining why globular clusters in the Milky Way appeared to be far older than the age of the universe as calculated from the Hubble parameter and a matter-only universe.[10][11] Introducing the cosmological constant allows the universe to be older than these clusters, as well as explaining other features that the matter-only cosmological model could not.[12]

Cosmological Constant
Quantum field theory
See also: Vacuum catastrophe

A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge value for the quantum vacuum. A common assumption is that the quantum vacuum is equivalent to the cosmological constant. Although no theory exists that supports this assumption, arguments can be made in its favor.[14]

Such arguments are usually based on dimensional analysis and effective field theory. If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory down to the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of M_{\rm pl}^4. As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10^(−120). This discrepancy has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!".[15]

Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which further complicates things. This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the tiny cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle physics. (Wikipedia)

The rocks on Earth would be the same exact age whether the Universe had a beginning or is eternal.

 

[RickG]

Mainstream science and "creation science" differ considerably with respect to geologic dating methods. The scope of this thread is to look at what the "creation science" literature has to say about geologic dating methods and their validity.

Keep in mind that this thread is specific about the science and only the science. Its intent is not to question anyone's religious beliefs or have any discussion pertaining to any religion. Stick to the science and only the science. Citing or posting scripture is off topic for this thread.

Since there has been discussion and debate concerning dating methods in other threads I thought I would bump this thread where the actual science can be discussed. Keep to the topic and finish discussion/debate and focus on the specific item being discussed until it is resolved. No Gish gallops, one item at a time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It all falls apart when you cannot find human fossils in Mesozoic layer. That itself is evidence against creation.

Based upon incorrect translations of the Hebrew "hayah", the second word of the second verse, one might indeed come to that incorrect conclusion.

"hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be"

The other evidence is well looking at the star light. Considering stars were created on day 11 if creation were true
we shouldn't have star light.

Based again upon the incorrect translation of "hayah" and ignoring the first verse is in the past tense as in finished/complete, one again might come to that incorrect conclusion.

The stars were at that time "appointed" to serve as signs and for seasons, for planting and sowing. They then became visible in the heavens from the darkness that had encircled the earth when the dinosaurs became extinct. The earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste. And darkness "became" upon.... Comet, meteor? Who knows, but when the Hebrew is correctly translated, their are no problems.

Why would we not have starlight? The Bible tells you the earth is from old, from ancient times. Granted quite a few Christians also incorrectly translate the Hebrew word "hayah" which means "to fall out" from a pre-existing state into the state it then becomes. But someone that was concerned with accuracy and not merely repeating what suits their belief system would have looked up the original words to discern their meaning and not further propagate incorrect translations.

Not to mention there was an evening and a morning - day one. Such a belief that the stars were not created till the fourth day (not the 11th) is incompatible with the Bible itself. There have been 6 creations and 5 destruction's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

After every destruction all new forms of life sprang up fully formed everywhere - all over the globe. Man was part of the sixth creation as were the mammals created with him. The dinosaurs were part of the fifth creation and went extinct when that comet or meteor struck and caused the earth to become desolate and waste.

Why would anyone expect man to be found in the earlier layers? Man was part of the sixth creation, not the fifth, or fourth, or third, or second, or first. The geological record actually confirms the Bible quite well when one translates it correctly. Just as there will be a sixth destruction and a seventh and final creation.

 

[RickG]

Based upon incorrect translations of the Hebrew "hayah", the second word of the second verse, one might indeed come to that incorrect conclusion.

"hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be"



Based again upon the incorrect translation of "hayah" and ignoring the first verse is in the past tense as in finished/complete, one again might come to that incorrect conclusion.

The stars were at that time "appointed" to serve as signs and for seasons, for planting and sowing. They then became visible in the heavens from the darkness that had encircled the earth when the dinosaurs became extinct. The earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste. And darkness "became" upon.... Comet, meteor? Who knows, but when the Hebrew is correctly translated, their are no problems.

Why would we not have starlight? The Bible tells you the earth is from old, from ancient times. Granted quite a few Christians also incorrectly translate the Hebrew word "hayah" which means "to fall out" from a pre-existing state into the state it then becomes. But someone that was concerned with accuracy and not merely repeating what suits their belief system would have looked up the original words to discern their meaning and not further propagate incorrect translations.

Not to mention there was an evening and a morning - day one. Such a belief that the stars were not created till the fourth day (not the 11th) is incompatible with the Bible itself. There have been 6 creations and 5 destruction's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

After every destruction all new forms of life sprang up fully formed everywhere - all over the globe. Man was part of the sixth creation as were the mammals created with him. The dinosaurs were part of the fifth creation and went extinct when that comet or meteor struck and caused the earth to become desolate and waste.

Off topic.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Off topic.

On topic.

It's only off topic to you because you don't want to admit to incorrect translations so you can argue the Bible does not agree with science. Without your incorrect translations, you have no argument about the age of the earth - which is "of old" of ancient times.

No one who translated the Hebrew words correctly would ever dream the earth is young, only man.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-reactor/

We agree, basically everything they thought they knew about radioactive decay has been turned upside down, if people are wiling to see the truth.

 

[RickG]

On topic.

It's only off topic to you because you don't want to admit to incorrect translations so you can argue the Bible does not agree with science. Without your incorrect translations, you have no argument about the age of the earth - which is "of old" of ancient times.

No one who translated the Hebrew words correctly would ever dream the earth is young, only man.

Please read the OP.

 

[JackRT]

We agree, basically everything they thought they knew about radioactive decay has been turned upside down, if people are wiling to see the truth.

This is old news ---- 7 years to be exact. It overturned absolutely nothing that had already been known about radioactive decay. The only surprise was that this could happen spontaneously in nature. Ho hum.

 

[-57]

Based upon incorrect translations of the Hebrew "hayah", the second word of the second verse, one might indeed come to that incorrect conclusion.

"hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be"



Based again upon the incorrect translation of "hayah" and ignoring the first verse is in the past tense as in finished/complete, one again might come to that incorrect conclusion.

The stars were at that time "appointed" to serve as signs and for seasons, for planting and sowing. They then became visible in the heavens from the darkness that had encircled the earth when the dinosaurs became extinct. The earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste. And darkness "became" upon.... Comet, meteor? Who knows, but when the Hebrew is correctly translated, their are no problems.

Well, I checked it out and saw that 1961. hayah can mean a lot. For example, from that link:
act (1), administered* (1), allotted (1), am (13), appeared* (1), apply (1), became (85), became his and lived (1), became* (1), become (221), becomes (13), becoming (1), been (90), been done (2), befall (1), befallen (2), being (7), belong (9), belonged (4), belongs (2), brought (1), came (358), came into being (1), came expressly (1), cause (1), caused (1), come (86), come to pass (3), comes (2), comes to pass (1), committed (1), consists (1), continue (6), continued (3), correspond (1), decided* (1), done (4), done* (1), ended* (13), endure (3), event* (1), exhausted (1), existed (3), exists (2), extend (3), extended (3), fall (4), fallen (1), fared (1), fell (1), follow* (1), followed* (1), form (1), gave (1), give (1), go (4), gone (1), grown (1), had (80), had not been (2), had been (1), had belonged (1), had...been (2), happen (11), happened (48), happens (4), has (19), has become (1), has had (1), have (90), have become (6), have...place (1), having (2), held (1), help* (1), indeed (1), keep* (1), lasted (1), lasts (1), lay (2), left (2), lies (1), lived* (1), lives (1), made (3), marry* (4), marrying* (1), numbered (1), occur (7), occurred (3), occurs (3), own (3), placed (1), possessed* (1), present (1), pressed* (1), qualify (2), ran (1), reach (3), reached (1), realized (1), receive (1), received (1), remain (9), remain* (1), remained (6), remained* (1), remains (1), rest (1), rested (1), resulted (1), running (1), seemed* (1), serve (3), show (1), sold (1), surely become (1), surely come (1), surely come to pass (1), sustains (1), take (1), take place (3), taken (1), taken place (1), time (1), took place (4), turn (1), turn* (1), turned (4), use (1), used (3), waited (1), wear (1), went (1).

To simply conclude.... "the earth became - hayah" is without merit.

Gen 1:3 in the next verse says "and there was" when translating the same word. There is no indication the light became destroyed and God re-made it.

 

[RickG]

.