Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
is suspiciously inconsistent between creationists.Creationists have the word of God which...
of which there is no such thing. Again, when your arguments fail, you resort to insults. It would appear that is all you have....which trumps all atheist superstitious beliefs.
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 dont see anything but normal criticism NO HOME RUNS.
Again I will ask if you have anything in particular you wish to discuss?
I googled the amount of heat produce by radioactivity in granite and basaltWho 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 dont claim a result.
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.A regenerating magnetic field needs a dynamo. Attempts to model dynamos today in computer simulations that operate in the outer core dont 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%).
You understand that him using your number would cause the calculation to deviate even further from your target, yes?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?
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 earths core is in decay (it was kick started by accelerated decay) but will not continue at the present observed parameters.
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.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.
Which is why I asked you about the nasty gap between bar magnet and the dynamo starting up.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 earths core is in decay (it was kick started by accelerated decay) but will not continue at the present observed parameters.
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.
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.
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.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?]
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
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.
Yet, as a scientist, you are expected to contribute original research, not just muse over the research of others.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.
What does that have to do with anything??Granted, we don't know which publishers believe in God and which don't.
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.
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??
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?