Uranium Halos--decay constants...constant

[juvenissun]

Correct.



I believe that is what I have been saying. Elements with stronger alpha decay energies, have shorter half-lives.



In order for enough atoms of uranium to decay to form a sphere, it would take hundreds of millions of years. Hence, the earth is at least hundreds of millions of years old.

It may also be done by a lot of U in a much shorter period of time.

 

[Seipai]

It may also be done by a lot of U in a much shorter period of time.

Yes, but Uranium takes up volume. How are you going to get a lot of uranium atoms, enough to decay, in a very very small space?

See you have a problem, halos surround relatively small grains of minerals. There is not room for a "lot of U" in that tiny space.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, but Uranium takes up volume. How are you going to get a lot of uranium atoms, enough to decay, in a very very small space?

See you have a problem, halos surround relatively small grains of minerals. There is not room for a "lot of U" in that tiny space.

You have no concept about the scale of the size of atom.
Boy, I would ask 42 to explain this for me. Will you? 42?

 

[dad]

Surprise, surprise, you still haven't grasped the concept of consilience.

Yes, it is a buzz word you use to bundle same state past based selection of beliefs together in faint hopes that this might make it seem like a more formidable idea.

Look, the first 12,000 tree rings match up with the first 12,000 lake varves,

Since both formed fast in the former state, so what??

and the first 12,000 ice cores. The next 30,000 lake varves match up with the ice cores.

Circular. If the ice age was after the floood, the matches cannot represent time in a true sense. Therefore what we have is only a match within a constructed fantasy timeframe.

All of those match up radiometric dating methods.

Show one example, just so we can see how your claim resonates. If you don't..I will.

How could a different state just happen to speed up hundreds of thousands of ice cores, tens of thousands of lake varves, and 12,000 tree rings, at different speeds, and vastly different depositional methods, in such a way that the first 12,000 match all three?

Easy. The method of imposing same state past beliefs on those things always results in older ages! Then you try to match the erroneous so called dates with each other (even if a sledge hammer is needed).

More importantly, what possible reason could God have to change the state in such a way that they do match, other than pure deception?

How would He not make a change that kept the physical materials we have? There is NO way it looks old unless one completely colors it with same state past belief. The deception is there, not with the Creator.

I mean, basically, you are forced to believe that God manipulated time and put the universe on fast forward, like a movie, so he could get to the good stuff.

That is ho hum. He created the world and stars. One day they will be no more. For the time they exist, they exist for our use and benefit! Time included. If time needs to gradually be different as we leave earth...so what? How you view things in a far away place where time may not exist as we know it on earth is of no import.

 

[46AND2]

You have no concept about the scale of the size of atom.
Boy, I would ask 42 to explain this for me. Will you? 42?

Yeah, I'll find out how big the inclusion would have to be to reduce the time to a certain age of your choosing. I'm quite sure the inclusion would have to be much larger than could fit in the area inside the sphere we observe. And also larger than any zircon we have observed.

So, do you want me to find out how big the inclusion would have to be for a 6000 year old earth? 50,000? 1 million?

It'll take me a day or two to have time to figure out the math.

 

[Seipai]

You have no concept about the scale of the size of atom.
Boy, I would ask 42 to explain this for me. Will you? 42?

Actually I do. You have no idea how long the half lives of the two uranium isotopes are. But I will let 42 do the work since this is his topic.

 

[46AND2]

Actually I do. You have no idea how long the half lives of the two uranium isotopes are. But I will let 42 do the work since this is his topic.

If I have done my math correctly, the diameter of the inclusion would have to be at least several times bigger than the diameter of the ENTIRE HALOS we observe, nevermind the the nucleus of the halo (for 6000 years).

So no, there is not enough room to fit all those atoms. ;-)

I'll double check my work tomorrow and then post it here.

 

[juvenissun]

If I have done my math correctly, the diameter of the inclusion would have to be at least several times bigger than the diameter of the ENTIRE HALOS we observe, nevermind the the nucleus of the halo (for 6000 years).

So no, there is not enough room to fit all those atoms. ;-)

I'll double check my work tomorrow and then post it here.

Can't believe you said such nonsense. Is this what we are talking about?
The mineral at the center may have less than 1% of U.

 

[juvenissun]

Yeah, I'll find out how big the inclusion would have to be to reduce the time to a certain age of your choosing. I'm quite sure the inclusion would have to be much larger than could fit in the area inside the sphere we observe. And also larger than any zircon we have observed.

So, do you want me to find out how big the inclusion would have to be for a 6000 year old earth? 50,000? 1 million?

It'll take me a day or two to have time to figure out the math.

OK, I see what you are saying.

But, I never say anything like 6000 years. And I never say how obvious should the halo be.

A few million years would be fine with me. With that, I am still a YEC.

 

[46AND2]

Can't believe you said such nonsense. Is this what we are talking about?
The mineral at the center may have less than 1% of U.

I'm aware of that...in fact, there could be as little as 10 ppm uranium. So, how does that help you? It actually gives you LESS room to work with when trying to fit a lot of uranium. We know that there was not, say, 50% uranium, because after such a short time, the vast majority would still be there, and it would STILL BE nearly 50% today...

If you want more uranium, you'd have to have a bigger zircon.

 

[Loudmouth]

The darn thing is, Loudmouth confirmed that they could not observe one forming in say the last 70 years. So all you say is faith based. Not observed.

Ask someone who knows their stuff how much of a halo we did see forming.

If the Earth is young, then we shouldn't see any uranium haloes. That's the whole point.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you are not. You are tying bits of the present state processes to themselves, and using a belief that the past was the same as this present state.

Absolutely false. We are taking the present state and producing tests to see if the past was the same as the present. As it turns out, it was.

They had to use decay as the cause, because they have no other tools in their chest to work with.

It is no different than a forensic scientists finding a fingerprint and concluding that a finger put it there. What next? God plants fingerprints at crime scenes?

 

[juvenissun]

I'm aware of that...in fact, there could be as little as 10 ppm uranium. So, how does that help you? It actually gives you LESS room to work with when trying to fit a lot of uranium. We know that there was not, say, 50% uranium, because after such a short time, the vast majority would still be there, and it would STILL BE nearly 50% today...

If you want more uranium, you'd have to have a bigger zircon.

So what? Does it prove an old earth? How old is the earth according to the halo?

 

[Loudmouth]

So what? Does it prove an old earth? How old is the earth according to the halo?

Millions of years older than the 6,000 year old Earth proposed by many YEC's, including dad.

 

[juvenissun]

Millions of years older than the 6,000 year old Earth proposed by many YEC's, including dad.

But not 4.5 Ba.

 

[Loudmouth]

But not 4.5 Ba.

Nope, that evidence is found in zircons found on Earth which are close to 4.3 Ba by radiometric dating, and the consistent age of meteors at 4.5 Ba by multiple different radiometric dating techniques. Here is a chart of some of those dates. As you can see, multiple methodologies were used on multiple meteors in multiple labs. The dates agree with one another.

 

[juvenissun]

Nope, that evidence is found in zircons found on Earth which are close to 4.3 Ba by radiometric dating, and the consistent age of meteors at 4.5 Ba by multiple different radiometric dating techniques. Here is a chart of some of those dates. As you can see, multiple methodologies were used on multiple meteors in multiple labs. The dates agree with one another.

The table does not show anything about zircon and halo.

 

[46AND2]

The table does not show anything about zircon and halo.

Um...so?

 

[Loudmouth]

The table does not show anything about zircon and halo.

Zircon dating of Earth's oldest rocks:

Zircon Chronology: Dating the Oldest Material on Earth

Uranium-238 has a half life in the billions of years. We also see rings from the radioactive daughter products which have long half lives themselves. So you need millions of years to produce the rings and the rings from the daughter products.

 

[46AND2]

If I have done my math correctly, the diameter of the inclusion would have to be at least several times bigger than the diameter of the ENTIRE HALOS we observe, nevermind the the nucleus of the halo (for 6000 years).

So no, there is not enough room to fit all those atoms. ;-)

I'll double check my work tomorrow and then post it here.

Found some errors in my math...I know I can get it, but my skillz iz rusty. ;-)

Will try to get it up soon.

To appease juve, I will figure out the data for 6000 years, and 10 million years.

Although it won't matter. Juve is fine with a 10 million, 100 million, 1 billion year result...just so long as it's less than 4.5 billion, he can call himself a YEC.

I find that philosophy odd...he knows enough to know that the earth is much more than 6000 years old, but he doesn't want to agree with atheists in ANYTHING, so he argues semantics like a rock dated to 2 billion years old is not evidence of an old earth, because the old earth position is that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Hence, 2 billion is still "young." Nevermind the fact that we never actually said that 2 billion year old rock represented the actual age of the earth.