Young Earth Creationist dynamics.

[Zaius137]

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.

 

[Assyrian]

What stopped the earth's crust melting?

 

[Zaius137]

Who is to say that parts of the crust did not melt? Rapid transfer of heat to a cool earth could slow the melting and actually the only heat retained would be deep causing a molten mantel.

 

[Split Rock]

Explanation of accelerated decay for YEC dynamics.

The rapid decay happened in two processes.

What "rapid decay?" You have to provide evidence of this "rapid decay" before you try to explain how it happened.

The first accelerated decay happened during creation week and the second during the flood.

What "rapid decay?"

Basically the evidence provided by the RATE team happened with the following notes.

[*]Energy provided by accelerated decay started the earth’s dynamo.

The RATE study provided no such evidence!

[*]The earth was cool before the rapid decay started because it did not coalesce from the collapse of dust over millions of years.

The RATE study provided no such evidence!

[*]The cool earth simply absorbed the tremendous amount of heat from the accelerated decay rates and explains earth’s molten mantel.

The RATE study provided no such evidence!

[*]The spreading of the continents during the flood got its energy from accelerated radio active decay.

The RATE study provided no such evidence!

[*]What we observe in earth’s heat today is from that declining energy left over by accelerated radioactive decay.

The RATE study provided no such evidence!


[

*]The decline in earth’s magnetic field observed from 1835 is because the dynamo will not operate under current parameters (it needs accelerated decay).
[/list]

The RATE study provided no such evidence!

The earth cannot be billions of years old.

This is your initial assumption, not a conclusion.

<staff edit>

 

[Assyrian]

Who is to say that parts of the crust did not melt? Rapid transfer of heat to a cool earth could slow the melting and actually the only heat retained would be deep causing a molten mantel.

Rapid transfer of heat?

 

[Zaius137]

Rapid transfer of heat?

My assertions (Numbered) are plausible with minor changes in initial assumptions about isotropic concentrations at the time of earth formation. Primarily my assertions rest on the proposal that the earth did not coalesce from dust around a proto-star (energy from condensation was absent and earth’s initial temperature was around 2.735 degrees above absolute zero). Radioactive decay would only bring the earth up to the observed temperature today by heat convection.

My assumptions are only filling a gap in the RATE findings.

 

[Assyrian]

My assertions (Numbered) are plausible with minor changes in initial assumptions about isotropic concentrations at the time of earth formation. Primarily my assertions rest on the proposal that the earth did not coalesce from dust around a proto-star (energy from condensation was absent and earth’s initial temperature was around 2.735 degrees above absolute zero). Radioactive decay would only bring the earth up to the observed temperature today by heat convection.

My assumptions are only filling a gap in the RATE findings.

At present there is an equilibrium between heat production from radioactive decay in the earth and heat lost by conduction through the crust which results in the thermal gradient we find in deep mines where the temperature rises by 22.1°C for every km you go down. You propose an increased rate of decay to melt the earth below the crust, but the crust contains radioactive isotopes too. Dissipation of heat through solid rock works slowly would not be able to keep up with you vastly increased rate of decay. The crust would melt.

Wouldn't you have a problem with the magnetic field too? Our magnetic field now relies on a liquid outer core. If you started off with a solid bar magnet, it would lose its magnetism when you heated it above its curie temperature. We would be without a magnetic field until the outer core melted and a new liquid based magnetic field built up. Wouldn't the earth be fried by solar wind in the meantime? Shouldn't there be some record in geology of the gap when we had no magnetic field?

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

I don't see any of your points as concluding that
"The earth cannot be billions of years old."

They all seem to be pointing out that a young earth, as described
by a Catholic Bishop once upon a time, is a possibility.
Am I missing something?

 

[RickG]

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.

The RATE team has never performed any original research. All they have done is to source and misrepresent legitimate research done by legitimate scientists.

Not one of those points listed has even a thread of supporting evidence. NOT ONE.

 

[Split Rock]

My assertions (Numbered) are plausible with minor changes in initial assumptions about isotropic concentrations at the time of earth formation. Primarily my assertions rest on the proposal that the earth did not coalesce from dust around a proto-star (energy from condensation was absent and earth’s initial temperature was around 2.735 degrees above absolute zero). Radioactive decay would only bring the earth up to the observed temperature today by heat convection.

My assumptions are only filling a gap in the RATE findings.

Your assertions and assumptions are just that...assertions and assumptions. You are a very good example of the emptyness of creationist thought.

 

[Jazer]

The first accelerated decay happened during creation week and the second during the flood.

How did the Kangaroo get from Australia to the Middle east to Noah's Ark and back to Australia again after the flood? How is it that so many of the South Pacific Islands have their own unique Biodiversity that you do not see anywhere else. Did Noah go from Island to Island to pick them up and then drop them off again after the flood?

Oh, never mind, I am sure you will say that the dates on the skelton remains they find do not predate the flood. So they must have all moved there after the flood. Even though science tells us that the Middle East is not the only Biodiverse Hot Spot. That there are more Eden's then just the one we read about in our Bible in the Middle East.

 

[Zaius137]

How did the Kangaroo get from Australia to the Middle east to Noah's Ark and back to Australia again after the flood? How is it that so many of the South Pacific Islands have their own unique Biodiversity that you do not see anywhere else. Did Noah go from Island to Island to pick them up and then drop them off again after the flood?

Oh, never mind, I am sure you will say that the dates on the skelton remains they find do not predate the flood. So they must have all moved there after the flood. Even though science tells us that the Middle East is not the only Biodiverse Hot Spot. That there are more Eden's then just the one we read about in our Bible in the Middle East.

Very good question and I don’t know of a possible explanation. I really don’t have a good response to that. As a creationist I do believe in bio diversification in the form of adaptation but not speciation.

 

[Zaius137]

At present there is an equilibrium between heat production from radioactive decay in the earth and heat lost by conduction through the crust which results in the thermal gradient we find in deep mines where the temperature rises by 22.1°C for every km you go down. You propose an increased rate of decay to melt the earth below the crust, but the crust contains radioactive isotopes too. Dissipation of heat through solid rock works slowly would not be able to keep up with you vastly increased rate of decay. The crust would melt.

Wouldn't you have a problem with the magnetic field too? Our magnetic field now relies on a liquid outer core. If you started off with a solid bar magnet, it would lose its magnetism when you heated it above its curie temperature. We would be without a magnetic field until the outer core melted and a new liquid based magnetic field built up. Wouldn't the earth be fried by solar wind in the meantime? Shouldn't there be some record in geology of the gap when we had no magnetic field?

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.


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%).

 

[Zaius137]

A quotation...

&#8220;At this point, it should again be stressed that the model parameters adopted are in some cases a factor of 10^ 4 different from those applicable to the Earth. The agreement between models and observations is thus somewhat surprising, and suggests that Earth-like dynamos are possible over a large parameter space. What is not yet clear is the extent to which the model results will change as more Earth-like parameters are approached. At this stage, a certain amount of caution needs to be exercised in interpreting numerical model results.&#8221;

http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~nimmo/website/ptrsl.pdf

 

[USincognito]

The RATE team has never performed any original research. All they have done is to source and misrepresent legitimate research done by legitimate scientists.

Not one of those points listed has even a thread of supporting evidence. NOT ONE.

The atheists at American Scientific Affiliation have shredded RATE's claims as have many others. Odd how Creationists are unaware of that fact, isn't it.
RATE and Radiometric Dating

 

[Zaius137]

The atheists at American Scientific Affiliation have shredded RATE's claims as have many others. Odd how Creationists are unaware of that fact, isn't it.
RATE and Radiometric Dating

A skeptical conclusion:
The helium accumulation in zircon crystals and residual carbon-14 they documented are definitely interesting findings. It is, however, far from clear that they actually support the idea of accelerated decay, especially when the heat generated would have erased all the evidence they found. (my emphasis)

The Age of the Earth - Creationism and Accelerated Decay: Matthew Rognstad

There are criticisms of the RATE findings based on current scientific accepted paradigms. None have "destroyed" the basic research by the RATE team. I see that the major objection to the RATE findings is what happened to all the heat. I simply suggest that it went into heating the Earth’s mass from 2.7 degrees Kelvin to its present values. If heat were a problem then it would only make the findings of excess helium more an enigma.

Now do you have specific objections we can cover?

 

[Orogeny]

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.

This isn't an explanation, it's simply a list of ad hoc assertions that have no evidential backing. Good effort though.

 

[Orogeny]

I simply suggest that it went into heating the Earth’s mass from 2.7 degrees Kelvin to its present values.

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?

 

[SkyWriting]

The RATE team has never performed any original research. All they have done is to source and misrepresent legitimate research done by legitimate scientists.

That's an odd complaint.They source legitimate sources and legitimate scientists. Oh my.
I can only imagine how ticked you would be if they took the opposite approach.

Anyway, here is a recent report with references.
Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified
You should pick out a reference and explain how it matches your complaint of "misrepresentation."
(My stand is that it's all Science Fiction, and belongs in that section of the library.)

 

[Blayz]

That's an odd complaint.They source legitimate sources and legitimate scientists. Oh my.
I can only imagine how ticked you would be if they took the opposite approach.

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.

Anyway, here is a recent report with references.
Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified
You should pick out a reference and explain how it matches your complaint of "misrepresentation."

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

(My stand is that it's all Science Fiction, and belongs in that section of the library.)

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.