Young Earth Hypothesis

[Loudmouth]

Decay fluctuations have been observed. Your argument is invalid.

They have not been seen at the temperatures that rocks are at nor for the isotopes that are being used for radiometric dating, nor have they seen large changes in decay rates that would affect the accuracy of the methods.

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

Supported by evidence is supported by evidence.

ReCreation Theory not only relies on observed facts, . . .

Then we can stop there. Once you throw in fantasies it stops being a theory and becomes a fantasy.

 

[Loudmouth]

You keep making this argument despite the fact that scientists have observed decay fluctuations. I take it you are in denial.
How exactly does radiometric dating falsify a young biosphere?

How strong are those fluctuations? A tiny fraction of a percent? If so, then these methods are still very accurate. It is not enough to say "Hey, they change". You need to show how much they change by and why they are changing.

 

[Jamin4422]

Decay fluctuations have been observed.

I do not trust their ability to measure decay rate at all. It is just not that consistant.

 

[Jamin4422]

To change decay rates you need to change the fundamental forces of nature.

So you have to get a weather report before you can determine what the decay rate is?

 

[Elendur]

I do not trust their ability to measure decay rate at all. It is just not that consistant.

How much statistics have you studied?

 

[Loudmouth]

I do not trust their ability to measure decay rate at all. It is just not that consistant.

So what of all those nuclear bombs just sitting around? If the decay rates change as much as creationists claim then these bombs will either spontaneous explode or they will become inert. They are balanced right at the edge of hitting critical mass, and that balance depends strongly on our understanding of decay rates. The same applies to nuclear reactors.

If we change the decay rates by the amount needed for a 6,000 year old Earth then the heat produced would simply melt the crust. It isn't plausible. The fluctuations that are being cited are nowhere near the fluctations needed to for a young Earth.

 

[RickG]

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

Doveman, there are a few radionuclides known to have oscillations, most of which are cosmogenic in origin. Those oscillations are very small and are not in the least a decay rate change. Furthermore, none of the isotopes used in radiometric dating use any of those oscillating nuclides.

How exactly does radiometric dating falsify a young biosphere?

Please specify what you mean by a "young biosphere". Paleoclimatology happens to be my area of academic concentration.

By radiometric dating falsifying a young biosphere, I would imagine Loudmouth means that we pretty much know what Earth's atmosphere and ocean composition has been for much of geologic history. This is known through proxy's contained is marine sediment cores which can also be radiometrically dated as well as some non-radiometric dating methods. I hope that helps you understand a little better. I can provide a number of references in the scientific literature if you like.

 

[CabVet]

So you have to get a weather report before you can determine what the decay rate is?

Weather is not a fundamental force of nature. Try again. Or you can just use google:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/forces.html

 

[RickG]

ReCreation Theory not only relies on observed facts, but primarily on the Biblical record which answers the questions that observed facts alone cannot answer.
Many extinctions occurred during the transition period between the Pleistocene epoch and the Holocene epoch, and scientist are sure what was the cause of those extinctions. This is estimated to be around the time just before the recreation events in Genesis.

There are 5 major extinction events and 16 lesser extinction events of significance. The Quaternary extinction event you cite belongs in the lesser category.

 

[CabVet]

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.
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.
Many extinctions occurred during the transition period between the Pleistocene epoch and the Holocene epoch, and scientist are sure what was the cause of those extinctions. This is estimated to be around the time just before the recreation events in Genesis.

Interestingly enough, one of the main causes for extinctions at the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary is hunting by an ever growing (and ever smarter) human population. So much for "before Genesis".

 

[The Engineer]

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

As far as I understood this, the day rates fluctuate, but they don't do so randomly, hence it doesn't make them unreliable in the long run. So, lets say the dinosaurs didn't go extinct 65 million years ago, but 62 million years ago. This means that science was off by three million years. It still also means that humans didn't live in the same period as they did.

(That's not to say I actually believe we were off by three million years. Just a thought experiment.)

By the way, you still haven't addressed the issue of why earth hasn't blown up when the radioactive decay was 1000 times faster back then.

Decay fluctuations have been observed. Your argument is invalid.

No, it isn't. Of course radioactive decay isn't completely fixed, it can be quickened by compressing the radioactive substance, for example, as far as I know. That doesn't mean it randomly gets quicker or slower by orders of magnitude.

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

It means the theory is a good model for reality, and that's what's important.

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

As far as I understood it, this theory is that long time ago, God magically turned apes into humans. So again, a theory that relies on magic and unfalsifiable claims.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Anytime you start with an answer before asking the questions you don't have a scientific theory...

And yes, magic doesn't help us explain anything.

 

[Doveaman]

How strong are those fluctuations? A tiny fraction of a percent?

Strong enough to cause some scientists to have doubts about your dating methods.

If so, then these methods are still very accurate. It is not enough to say "Hey, they change". You need to show how much they change by and why they are changing.

The fact that they change and cause concern to some scientists is enough for me.

The fact that they fluctuate means that the fluctuations could have been far more significant at different intervals in the past.

If we change the decay rates by the amount needed for a 6,000 year old Earth then the heat produced would simply melt the crust. It isn't plausible. The fluctuations that are being cited are nowhere near the fluctations needed to for a young Earth.

But they are enough to cause some scientists to doubt a 4.5 billion year old earth.

 

[Doveaman]

Please specify what you mean by a "young biosphere". Paleoclimatology happens to be my area of academic concentration.
By radiometric dating falsifying a young biosphere, I would imagine Loudmouth means that we pretty much know what Earth's atmosphere and ocean composition has been for much of geologic history.

"Much" but not "all".

If the earth's atmosphere became incapable of supporting life for a brief period in geologic time you could have missed it.

This is known through proxy's contained is marine sediment cores which can also be radiometrically dated as well as some non-radiometric dating methods. I hope that helps you understand a little better. I can provide a number of references in the scientific literature if you like.

I have no confidence in your dating of sediments. Sorry.

There are 5 major extinction events and 16 lesser extinction events of significance. The Quaternary extinction event you cite belongs in the lesser category.

So they were many extinction events during the earth’s history leading up to one final extinction event during the last ice age just before the Holocene epoch began. Interesting.

That might explain why the earth was formless and empty and buried in water according to Genesis:

“Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Then God said, ‘Let there be…[recreation events]’” – (Gen 1:2-31).

 

[Doveaman]

Interestingly enough, one of the main causes for extinctions at the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary is hunting by an ever growing (and ever smarter) human population.

Yes, I’ve heard about the overkill hypothesis, which is only a hypothesis and not a fact. And that overkill would only apply to some animals even if it was a fact.

So much for "before Genesis".

The “human population” you mentioned above is now extinct too, not just the animals they hunted.

The more civilized human population was created after those extinctions, as explained in Genesis.

 

[Doveaman]

As far as I understood this, the day rates fluctuate, but they don't do so randomly, hence it doesn't make them unreliable in the long run. So, lets say the dinosaurs didn't go extinct 65 million years ago, but 62 million years ago. This means that science was off by three million years. It still also means that humans didn't live in the same period as they did.
(That's not to say I actually believe we were off by three million years. Just a thought experiment.)

If the decay rates fluctuate, then the fluctuations could have been far more significant in the past and would throw off the accuracy of your dating methods today.

In addition, the many catastrophes in earth’s history would have also disturbed the earth topography causing different rocks and fossils to become all mixed up.

By the way, you still haven't addressed the issue of why earth hasn't blown up when the radioactive decay was 1000 times faster back then.

This doesn’t sound like any claim I made. Where did that come from?

No, it isn't. Of course radioactive decay isn't completely fixed, it can be quickened by compressing the radioactive substance, for example, as far as I know. That doesn't mean it randomly gets quicker or slower by orders of magnitude.

If it gets quicker or slower by any rate, then it’s not a constant.

It means the theory is a good model for reality, and that's what's important.

Yes, I know how science works; it’s about the best model and not about reality.

As far as I understood it, this theory is that long time ago, God magically turned apes into humans. So again, a theory that relies on magic and unfalsifiable claims.

The resurrection of Jesus is evidence that life can be recreated with modifications.

Do you have a natural mechanism that can demonstrate how humans evolved from apes, or is that just a fairytale?

 

[The Engineer]

If the decay rates fluctuate, then the fluctuations could have been far more significant in the past and would throw off the accuracy of your dating methods today.

The fluctuations aren't random. They correlate with the earth's distance to the sun. For them to be quicker a few thousand years ago, the earth would have to be much closer to the sun. It would also mean the earth would drift away from the sun. I don't think that's the case.

By the way, I think substantial differences in the decay rate wouldn't show up unless earth was outside the life-zone. Probably not even then.

In addition, the many catastrophes in earth’s history would have also disturbed the earth topography causing different rocks and fossils to become all mixed up.

They aren't mixed up. That's why you find dinosaurs in different sediments than, say, dogs.

This doesn’t sound like any claim I made. Where did that come from

?

We explained that to you, time and time again. If the radioactive decay was a million times quicker, then it would have emitted a million times more energy per time unit. Guess what would happen then? The world would melt.

If it gets quicker or slower by any rate, then it’s not a constant.

No one said it was a constant, just that it's very closely linked to them and doesn't change for no reason because those constants are, you guessed it, constant. Decay rates can change, but not for no good reason.

Yes, I know how science works; it’s about the best model and not about reality.

That's because the best model helps you understand the world best.

The resurrection of Jesus is evidence that life can be recreated with modifications.

Too bad the resurrection of Jesus is not exactly a scientific theory, either.

Do you have a natural mechanism that can demonstrate how humans evolved from apes, or is that just a fairytale?

Yeah, evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Strong enough to cause some scientists to have doubts about your dating methods.

So how much change is there? Who are these scientists?

The fact that they fluctuate means that the fluctuations could have been far more significant at different intervals in the past.

That makes zero sense. Why wouldn't the fluctuations be the same as they are today? Why are you assuming that the fluctuations would be different in the past?

But they are enough to cause some scientists to doubt a 4.5 billion year old earth.

By "some scientists" you mean creationists who will never accept an old earth, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

If the decay rates fluctuate, then the fluctuations could have been far more significant in the past . . .

How so?

In addition, the many catastrophes in earth’s history would have also disturbed the earth topography causing different rocks and fossils to become all mixed up.

But they aren't mixed up. They are ordered. We consistently find a correlation between the species and the ratio of isotopes in the rocks that surround them. We never find rabbits in sediments that date to the Cambrian, as one example. If you think that fossils and rocks are all mixed up then you have a LOT to learn about geology.

The resurrection of Jesus is evidence that life can be recreated with modifications.

Just as Thor is evidence that lightning can be created by non-natural means.

Do you have a natural mechanism that can demonstrate how humans evolved from apes, or is that just a fairytale?

Yes, they are called mutation and natural selection.

 

[RickG]

I have no confidence in your dating of sediments. Sorry.

Specifically why? Your video does not support your comment.

[/quote]