Young Earth Hypothesis

[samaus12345]

What is your question?

 

[The Engineer]

Now, my question is: Did you read my last post?

 

[samaus12345]

Yes.

 

[RickG]

There is no law saying things have to start decaying from the top of the decay chain, it gets taken by FAITH, based on apriori assumptions of deep time/big bang that everything is x million/billion years old then that apriori axiom is inserted into the world of radioisotopes and that no daughter element was present in sample is BLINDLY assumed as is that it started right from the top of the decay chain.

No geochronologist assumes that no daughter isotope is present. Geochronologists are not stupid. There are numerous methods for determining excess daughter isotope. There are also test methods that are not affected by excess daughter, i.e. isochron dating.

 

[Doveaman]

We observe that radioactive decay was the same in the past. RickG already linked the supernova 1987a evidence. There is more.
At it's most fundamental, radioactive decay is controlled by the weak and strong forces. You can't change radioactive decay without changing those two fundamental forces. If those two forces were different in the past it has far reaching consequences well outside of radioactive decay. It would change the pressures and temperatures involved in stellar fusion, as one example. Therefore, if these forces were different in the past then we should see those differences in distant stars. Those differences are not there. What we see is observations consistent with constant fundamental forces throughout the universe.

Not all scientists agree that looking at stars can give us an accurate picture of earth’s history since it has been scientifically demonstrated that the decay rate is not a constant.

Radiometric dating falsifies a biosphere that is 10,000 years old.

Only if we accept your dating method. I don’t.

 

[Doveaman]

Yeah, it's an assumption. If you ask me, everything is an assumption. But there's still a difference between a guess, an educated guess and an assumption that is supported by evidence.

A scientific theory can be proven false despite being supported by evidence.

Actually, the biosphere is younger than the planet. It is not 6000 years old, however. Thousands of fossils prove this.
Now, you might say, what if God just renewed the biosphere 6000 years ago? Well, then we would sure have found evidence of a massive extinction event 6000 years ago.

Why does it have to be massive? The extinction could have begun earlier and occurred gradually, and the biosphere renewed later.

The Bible does not say how long the earth was in a formless and empty state before the creation events began, but perhaps this was the transition period between the Pleistocene epoch and the Holocene epoch, and the waters covering the earth was from melted glaciers.

 

[samaus12345]

RickG

How does Uniformatarian ASSUMPTIONS account for C14 in coal?

WARNING WARNING Peer reviewed CREATIONISTS literature.. WARNING WARNING MIGHT CAUSE ONE TO THINK!!!! AND MAKE ONE FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE!!!!

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-364.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

About 300 million years ago, the earth had dense forests in low-lying wetland areas. Due to natural processes such as flooding, these forests were buried under the soil. As more and more soil deposited over them, they were compressed. The temperature also rose as they sank deeper and deeper. For the process to continue, the plant matter was protected from biodegradation and oxidization, usually by mud or acidic water. This trapped the carbon in immense peat bogs that were eventually covered and deeply buried by sediments. Under high pressure and high temperature dead vegetation were slowly converted to coal. As coal contains mainly carbon, the conversion of dead vegetation into coal is called carbonization

Hmmmm a flood? Covered vegetation in mud?

 

[Elendur]

RickG

How does Uniformatarian ASSUMPTIONS account for C14 in coal?

WARNING WARNING Peer reviewed CREATIONISTS literature.. WARNING WARNING MIGHT CAUSE ONE TO THINK!!!! AND MAKE ONE FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE!!!!

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-364.pdf

Coal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

About 300 million years ago, the earth had dense forests in low-lying wetland areas. Due to natural processes such as flooding, these forests were buried under the soil. As more and more soil deposited over them, they were compressed. The temperature also rose as they sank deeper and deeper. For the process to continue, the plant matter was protected from biodegradation and oxidization, usually by mud or acidic water. This trapped the carbon in immense peat bogs that were eventually covered and deeply buried by sediments. Under high pressure and high temperature dead vegetation were slowly converted to coal. As coal contains mainly carbon, the conversion of dead vegetation into coal is called carbonization

Hmmmm a flood? Covered vegetation in mud?

Could you stop it with the caps? It doesn't make your arguments more appealing, quite the opposite in fact.

 

[samaus12345]

Did you read the paper?

 

[Elendur]

Did you read the paper?

No, I'll leave that to those who know what they're talking about. I've got no education in physics, except for basic mechanics.

I did notice, however, that they only have one graph. That leads me to the suspicion that they have cherry-picked data.

 

[CabVet]

Did you read the paper?

Yes, I did, unfortunately papers published on "Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism" don't exactly qualify as "peer-reviewed", so you can remove your all caps warnings.

 

[samaus12345]

That leads me to the suspicion that they have cherry-picked data

lol ok mate

No education is necessary look at c14's half life, look at how old the wiki page says coal is. Find out after how many half lifes there should be undetectable amounts of radioisotope. Compare the findings.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not all scientists agree that looking at stars can give us an accurate picture of earth’s history since it has been scientifically demonstrated that the decay rate is not a constant.

And yet they are observed to be constant, both now and in the past such as in the case of supernova 1987a. We understand that creationists want to ignore this evidence, but that doesn't make it disappear. Pointing to plasmas producing different decay rates does nothing to change the decay rates of atoms in rocks that are obviously not plasma. The amount of energy needed to change the decay rates of the isotopes used in radiometric dating would destroy the rock itself. I think we all know what happens when you get an increase in the decay of uranium due to neutron capture. It isn't pretty.

To change decay rates you need to change the fundamental forces of nature. All of the evidence demonstrates that this has not occurred.

Only if we accept your dating method. I don’t.

Only because your religious beliefs will not allow you to do so.

 

[RickG]

lol ok mate

No education is necessary look at c14's half life, look at how old the wiki page says coal is. Find out after how many half lifes there should be undetectable amounts of radioisotope. Compare the findings.

C14 in coal is a product of in-situ uranium in the vicinity as well as from bacteria and fungi. It is not from the original organic material that eventually formed into coal. Those processes are well documented in the scientific literature.

 

[juvenissun]

YUP, you're right! Completely and totally correct. Which is why science has a definition for a second. The decay rate of a caesium atom. Which is a similar mechanism to carbon dating.

OK. So what?

 

[The Engineer]

Not all scientists agree that looking at stars can give us an accurate picture of earth’s history since it has been scientifically demonstrated that the decay rate is not a constant.

Someone already mentioned that it's dependent on the weak and the strong interaction, both of which are constants. Your argument is invalid.

Yes.

So you read my post, but decided to simply ignore it.

It is impossible to reason with a person who flat-out ignores your arguments.

A scientific theory can be proven false despite being supported by evidence.

A theory is a model for reality. If a better theory is invented, it can become obsolete.

Do you have a theory that is more consistent, and better and explaining the world than the evolution theory is? I doubt it.

Why does it have to be massive? The extinction could have begun earlier and occurred gradually, and the biosphere renewed later.

A time span of a million years would count as massive, too.

About 300 million years ago, the earth had dense forests in low-lying wetland areas. Due to natural processes such as flooding, these forests were buried under the soil.

If you believe that flooding can bury things under soil, why do you question that fossils could have been buried? Your inconsistency is astonishing!

OK. So what?

So we have an objective measurement how long a second is. So we can measure things without having to rely on our notoriously unreliable inner clock.

Also, thanks RickG:

C14 in coal is a product of in-situ uranium in the vicinity as well as from bacteria and fungi. It is not from the original organic material that eventually formed into coal. Those processes are well documented in the scientific literature.

There you have it: The origin of C14 in coal.


I'm pretty sure you'll just ignore anything I said, again. Just as you ignored the fact that earth would blow up, if your hypothesis was true.

 

[RickG]

Also, thanks RickG:

There you have it: The origin of C14 in coal.

Carbon 14 is also found in minute amount in diamonds as well due to uranium being in the vicinity. It is also a common fallacy that diamonds are formed from coal, indeed they are not. Diamonds form in the earth's mantel 80 - 120 miles below the surface under tremendous pressure. They are brought to the surface through volcanic vents in kimberlite or lamproites and are generally from 1 to 3 billion years of age.

Nevertheless, the one that really destroys young earth ideas is ice core chronology. There is an entire battery of independent markers in ice cores that not only identify annual layers, but seasons as well.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Decay chains are a prediction of the FALL OF MAN. DECAY. Why dont elements evolve?

You should look inside a red giant sometime.

 

[Doveaman]

And yet they are observed to be constant, both now and in the past such as in the case of supernova 1987a. We understand that creationists want to ignore this evidence, but that doesn't make it disappear. Pointing to plasmas producing different decay rates does nothing to change the decay rates of atoms in rocks that are obviously not plasma. The amount of energy needed to change the decay rates of the isotopes used in radiometric dating would destroy the rock itself. I think we all know what happens when you get an increase in the decay of uranium due to neutron capture. It isn't pretty.
To change decay rates you need to change the fundamental forces of nature. All of the evidence demonstrates that this has not occurred.

You keep making this argument despite the fact that scientists have observed decay fluctuations. I take it you are in denial.

Radiometric dating falsifies a biosphere that is 10,000 years old.

How exactly does radiometric dating falsify a young biosphere?

 

[Doveaman]

Don't forget to include the name of the person you are replying to.

Someone already mentioned that it's dependent on the weak and the strong interaction, both of which are constants. Your argument is invalid.

Decay fluctuations have been observed. Your argument is invalid.

A theory is a model for reality. If a better theory is invented, it can become obsolete.

My point still remains. "Supported by evidence" doesn't mean the theory is correct.

You are simply doing your best with what you have to work with, but what you have to work with isn’t always the best.

Do you have a theory that is more consistent, and better and explaining the world than the evolution theory is?

Yes, ReCreation Theory.

ReCreation Theory not only relies on observed facts, but primarily on the Biblical record which answers the questions that observed facts alone cannot answer.

A time span of a million years would count as massive, too.

Many extinctions occurred during the transition period between the Pleistocene epoch and the Holocene epoch, and scientist are not sure what was the cause of those extinctions. This is estimated to be around the time just before the recreation events in Genesis.