- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
mornin James,
To add to the list:
In 1835 the German physicist Karl Friedrich Gauss made the first measurement of the earth’s magnetic dipole moment. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent. The record of measurements from 1835 to 1965 shows a magnetic half-life of {{#show:Earth|?Magnetic half life#years}}. Thus even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it now has. 20,000 years ago, this field would have generated enough Joule heat to liquefy the earth. One million years ago the earth would have had greater magnetism than all objects in the universe, and would have vaporized. Thus the earth could not be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old.
Zircon crystals were taken in core samples from five levels of a 15,000-foot (45,720 dm) shaft in New Mexico, with temperatures always above 313 °C (595.4 °F). The sea-level boiling point of water is, of course, defined at 100 °C.
Radiogenic lead gradually diffuses out of zircon crystals, and does so more rapidly at increased temperatures. But careful examination revealed that essentially none of the radiogenic lead had diffused out of the examined zircon samples.
Uranium and thorium are subject to alpha decay, i.e. they emit alpha particles, which are actually nuclei of helium. Analysis of the helium content of those same zircon samples revealed strikingly high helium retention in those crystals. The helium should have diffused out of the zircon samples even more rapidly than the lead would have, if the earth were more than several thousands of years old. Thus if the zircons were really 1.5 billion years old, as conventionally assumed, then nearly all the helium should have dissipated from the samples. Furthermore, accelerated decay appears to have produced a billion years worth of helium within not more than 6000 years, give or take 2000.
The core of the sun produces deuterium from hydrogen fusion at 5 million degrees K. The heat is transferred from the core by convection currents so it could reach surface in days, not a million years. It also leads to an age for the sun based on the deuterium/hydrogen ratio of the local interstellar medium of 6,000-12,857 years.
The RATE Group from Institute for Creation Research performed extensive tests with diamonds to detect measurable levels of carbon 14. As a carbon-based substance, diamonds are a perfect candidate to contain the isotope. As the world's hardest natural substance, a diamond is not subject to contamination/adulteration from external sources over time as may be the case with softer substances. As one of the oldest substances on Earth, diamonds should not contain any measurable Carbon-14.
The RATE group detected measurable Carbon-14 in diamonds. The opponents of this assertion attempted to show that other isotopes such as Uranium could cause the spontaneous formation of Carbon-14. The samples in this case were sufficiently isolated and their context documented such that no such evidence of other isotopes ever existed in the near-term since the purported formulation of the detected Carbon-14.
The same is true, however, for strata. In general the strata ostensibly laid down by gradual processes should have carbon-14 measurements increasing as the samples rise through the surface. No detectable carbon-14 should be in lower strata (generally speaking, owing to water percolation and the like). Pervasively however, carbon-14 measurements are inconsistent with the notion of gradual deposition of strata and as a rule have inconsistent measurements throughout the rock layers.
Regarding the moon: Samples brought back from the extensive Apollo mission have been thoroughly tested. One of these findings is the presence in those samples of the short-lived isotopes Uranium-236 and Thorium-230. Short-term radioactive isotopes decay quickly into lead. If the moon were even 50,000 years old, these short-lived radioisotopes would not be present, but indeed they are abundant in the collected samples. The moon therefore cannot be older than several thousand years.
In addition, many of the lunar samples were magnetic. This in itself is remarkable, because the magnetic dipole moment of the moon is very low ({{#show:Moon|?Present magnetic moment}}). Magnetic lunar samples are of two types: basalt and breccia. A magnetic basalt sample returned by the crew of Apollo 16 had formed in a magnetic field of flux density 0.12 mT, corresponding to a magnetic dipole moment of 6.3 * 1021N-m/T. A magnetic breccia sample returned by the crew of Apollo 15 had formed in a field of flux density 2100 nT, corresponding to a magnetic dipole moment of 1.1 * 1020N-m/T.
The problem for old-earth theories is evident and considerable. How could the moon have had a magnetic field as strong as it must have been when either of the two lunar samples formed, and not have nearly as strong a magnetic field today? By uniformitarian theories, any celestial body either has a magnetic field or it doesn't—and if it doesn't, then it never did. And so, while some evolutionist scientists insist that the moon had an internal dynamo that later ran down (and cannot explain how that happened), others insist that the moon never had a dynamo, and never had a magnetic field, and therefore the magnetism in the two lunar samples resulted from a magnetic field outside the moon (and, like the first group, cannot explain where this external field came from or where it went).
Russell Humphreys calculates that the moon's magnetic dipole moment at creation was {{#show:Moon|?Creation magnetic moment}}, with a half-life of {{#show:Moon|?Magnetic half life#years}}. Given that the radius of the lunar core is 350 km, the conductivity of the lunar core is 75 percent of that of the Earth's core. Thus the earth and the moon could have cores of similar composition. He then suggests that the basalt, a remnant of the lava flows that created the lunar maria, formed about 370 years after creation, and that the moon then suffered a meteoric bombardment less than two centuries following the global flood.
The rotational speed of the earth (about {{#show:Earth|?Rotation speed#mph}}) is gradually slowing down on account of the gravitational drag forces of the sun and moon along with other factors. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it should already be in tidal lock with the sun.
Lord Kelvin (the 19th-century physicist who introduced the Kelvin temperature scale) used this slowing rotation as a reason why the earth could not be very old. He calculated that had the earth existed for 7.2 billion years, its rotational speed would have been twice the present speed. This would have produced a difference of 86 kilometers between the equatorial and polar radii of the earth. The actual equatorial radius is {{#show:Earth|?Equatorial radius#km}}, and its polar radius {{#show:Earth|?Polar radius#km}}, a difference of 21 km, not 86
The decline in rotation rate is now known to be greater than previously thought. If the earth had existed for 5 billion years, then the difference between polar and equatorial radii would still have been significantly greater (64 km) than it actually is. Furthermore, the continents would have been distributed in the tropical regions, and the world's oceans would have collected in the temperate and polar regions. This is a distribution that Kelvin also would have predicted, and he cited the lack of such a finding as a falsification of a great age of the earth. Thus by either Lord Kelvin's original calculation or a more modern one, the earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old.
If anyone's interested in further research on the subject, go here: http://creationwiki.org/Young_earth_evidence
Of course, all evidence regarding this issue depends on certain assumptions. The main one being that everything has always been and acted as we see it today. My argument here is not to necessarily declare that there is scientific proof of a young earth and universe, but merely to make note that there is scientific evidence that can support such a claim which needs to be included and looked at along with the scientific evidence that says everything is millions or billions of years old. As I say, both veins of scientific research regarding this matter rest on a foundation of certain assumptions.
God bless,
In Christ, Ted
To add to the list:
In 1835 the German physicist Karl Friedrich Gauss made the first measurement of the earth’s magnetic dipole moment. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent. The record of measurements from 1835 to 1965 shows a magnetic half-life of {{#show:Earth|?Magnetic half life#years}}. Thus even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it now has. 20,000 years ago, this field would have generated enough Joule heat to liquefy the earth. One million years ago the earth would have had greater magnetism than all objects in the universe, and would have vaporized. Thus the earth could not be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old.
Zircon crystals were taken in core samples from five levels of a 15,000-foot (45,720 dm) shaft in New Mexico, with temperatures always above 313 °C (595.4 °F). The sea-level boiling point of water is, of course, defined at 100 °C.
Radiogenic lead gradually diffuses out of zircon crystals, and does so more rapidly at increased temperatures. But careful examination revealed that essentially none of the radiogenic lead had diffused out of the examined zircon samples.
Uranium and thorium are subject to alpha decay, i.e. they emit alpha particles, which are actually nuclei of helium. Analysis of the helium content of those same zircon samples revealed strikingly high helium retention in those crystals. The helium should have diffused out of the zircon samples even more rapidly than the lead would have, if the earth were more than several thousands of years old. Thus if the zircons were really 1.5 billion years old, as conventionally assumed, then nearly all the helium should have dissipated from the samples. Furthermore, accelerated decay appears to have produced a billion years worth of helium within not more than 6000 years, give or take 2000.
The core of the sun produces deuterium from hydrogen fusion at 5 million degrees K. The heat is transferred from the core by convection currents so it could reach surface in days, not a million years. It also leads to an age for the sun based on the deuterium/hydrogen ratio of the local interstellar medium of 6,000-12,857 years.
The RATE Group from Institute for Creation Research performed extensive tests with diamonds to detect measurable levels of carbon 14. As a carbon-based substance, diamonds are a perfect candidate to contain the isotope. As the world's hardest natural substance, a diamond is not subject to contamination/adulteration from external sources over time as may be the case with softer substances. As one of the oldest substances on Earth, diamonds should not contain any measurable Carbon-14.
The RATE group detected measurable Carbon-14 in diamonds. The opponents of this assertion attempted to show that other isotopes such as Uranium could cause the spontaneous formation of Carbon-14. The samples in this case were sufficiently isolated and their context documented such that no such evidence of other isotopes ever existed in the near-term since the purported formulation of the detected Carbon-14.
The same is true, however, for strata. In general the strata ostensibly laid down by gradual processes should have carbon-14 measurements increasing as the samples rise through the surface. No detectable carbon-14 should be in lower strata (generally speaking, owing to water percolation and the like). Pervasively however, carbon-14 measurements are inconsistent with the notion of gradual deposition of strata and as a rule have inconsistent measurements throughout the rock layers.
Regarding the moon: Samples brought back from the extensive Apollo mission have been thoroughly tested. One of these findings is the presence in those samples of the short-lived isotopes Uranium-236 and Thorium-230. Short-term radioactive isotopes decay quickly into lead. If the moon were even 50,000 years old, these short-lived radioisotopes would not be present, but indeed they are abundant in the collected samples. The moon therefore cannot be older than several thousand years.
In addition, many of the lunar samples were magnetic. This in itself is remarkable, because the magnetic dipole moment of the moon is very low ({{#show:Moon|?Present magnetic moment}}). Magnetic lunar samples are of two types: basalt and breccia. A magnetic basalt sample returned by the crew of Apollo 16 had formed in a magnetic field of flux density 0.12 mT, corresponding to a magnetic dipole moment of 6.3 * 1021N-m/T. A magnetic breccia sample returned by the crew of Apollo 15 had formed in a field of flux density 2100 nT, corresponding to a magnetic dipole moment of 1.1 * 1020N-m/T.
The problem for old-earth theories is evident and considerable. How could the moon have had a magnetic field as strong as it must have been when either of the two lunar samples formed, and not have nearly as strong a magnetic field today? By uniformitarian theories, any celestial body either has a magnetic field or it doesn't—and if it doesn't, then it never did. And so, while some evolutionist scientists insist that the moon had an internal dynamo that later ran down (and cannot explain how that happened), others insist that the moon never had a dynamo, and never had a magnetic field, and therefore the magnetism in the two lunar samples resulted from a magnetic field outside the moon (and, like the first group, cannot explain where this external field came from or where it went).
Russell Humphreys calculates that the moon's magnetic dipole moment at creation was {{#show:Moon|?Creation magnetic moment}}, with a half-life of {{#show:Moon|?Magnetic half life#years}}. Given that the radius of the lunar core is 350 km, the conductivity of the lunar core is 75 percent of that of the Earth's core. Thus the earth and the moon could have cores of similar composition. He then suggests that the basalt, a remnant of the lava flows that created the lunar maria, formed about 370 years after creation, and that the moon then suffered a meteoric bombardment less than two centuries following the global flood.
The rotational speed of the earth (about {{#show:Earth|?Rotation speed#mph}}) is gradually slowing down on account of the gravitational drag forces of the sun and moon along with other factors. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it should already be in tidal lock with the sun.
Lord Kelvin (the 19th-century physicist who introduced the Kelvin temperature scale) used this slowing rotation as a reason why the earth could not be very old. He calculated that had the earth existed for 7.2 billion years, its rotational speed would have been twice the present speed. This would have produced a difference of 86 kilometers between the equatorial and polar radii of the earth. The actual equatorial radius is {{#show:Earth|?Equatorial radius#km}}, and its polar radius {{#show:Earth|?Polar radius#km}}, a difference of 21 km, not 86
The decline in rotation rate is now known to be greater than previously thought. If the earth had existed for 5 billion years, then the difference between polar and equatorial radii would still have been significantly greater (64 km) than it actually is. Furthermore, the continents would have been distributed in the tropical regions, and the world's oceans would have collected in the temperate and polar regions. This is a distribution that Kelvin also would have predicted, and he cited the lack of such a finding as a falsification of a great age of the earth. Thus by either Lord Kelvin's original calculation or a more modern one, the earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old.
If anyone's interested in further research on the subject, go here: http://creationwiki.org/Young_earth_evidence
Of course, all evidence regarding this issue depends on certain assumptions. The main one being that everything has always been and acted as we see it today. My argument here is not to necessarily declare that there is scientific proof of a young earth and universe, but merely to make note that there is scientific evidence that can support such a claim which needs to be included and looked at along with the scientific evidence that says everything is millions or billions of years old. As I say, both veins of scientific research regarding this matter rest on a foundation of certain assumptions.
God bless,
In Christ, Ted
Last edited:
Upvote
0