Re: Scientific proof for an old earth

On Apr 28, 12:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Frank J wrote:
On Apr 27, 7:22 am, bill.m.tho...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Armin Held wrote:

Again and again, the dating methods of the natural sciences are criticized.
For this reason we want to present here a proof for the high age of the
earth which is independant of any dating method. It is due to Karl Philberth
and accomplishes a dating of the elements of the earth's crust on the basis
of the nuclide map alone.

It is based upon the fact that there are atoms which
disintegrate radioactively. A chemical element may exist in different forms
with different weights. They are called isotopes, and some of them, usually
the heavier ones of an element, are radioactive. Each of the radioactive
isotopes has a characteristic time interval, which is called 'radioactive
half-life', within which half of atoms decay. These radioactive half-lives
can be different and are characteristic for every kind of isotope. They are
virtually independent of external factors such as pressure and temperature,
as well as the chemical compound, in which the atom may be bound.

Now, it is an incontestable fact that all possible 263 stable
and all 23 long-lived isotopes with a radioactive half-life of more than 500
million years exist in the earth's crust and can be traced. On the other
hand, the 39 isotopes with a radioactive half-life between 10,000 and 500
million years are completely absent (the only exeption are a few isotopes
which are constantly being produced until today, either as intermediate
products of the decay chains of the long-lived uranium-238 and uranium-235,
or as products of cosmic-ray hits, such as carbon-14.)

There is only one possible explanation: so much time must have
passed since the formation of the elements of the earth's crust that all
isotopes which are not long-lived disintegrated to such an extent that they
can no longer be detected. This is the case after approximately thirteen
radioactive half-lives. The following table points out how many per cent of
an isotope are left after 1, 2, 3 ... radioactive half-lives:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
half-lives
50 25 13 6,3 3,1 1,6 0,8
% remaining

8 9 10 11 12 13
half-lives
0,4 0,2 0,1 0,05 0,02 0,01 % remaining

On the other hand, for the long-lived isotopes, less than thirteen
half-lives must have passed, because they are still present in a traceable
quantity. Since the detection limit coincides with a radioactive half-life
of about 500 million years, one can estimate that the time of the general
formation of the elements must be approximately 13 x 500 million = 6.5
billion years ago.

One might postulate that during the emergence of the earth's
elements all 286 stable and long-lived isotopes were formed, but none of the
39 isotopes with shorter half-lifes, or that they would later have
disappeared somehow. But, appart from the half-life, there is no systematic
difference between the traceable and the missing isotopes, either in their
physical structure of their atomic cores, and energy balance, or in their
chemical characteristics. Therefore, no reason can be found, why, on the one
hand, all stable and long-lived isotopes exist until today, while, on the
other hand, all those with shorter half-lives are completely absent. The
only factor which distinguishes them is their radioactive half-life. A
coincidental probability for exactly this distribution is smaller than one
in one quintillion!

The undeniable fact that all the isotopes with a radioactive half-life of
less than 500 million years can no longer be detected on earth, while all
the others still exist, can only be explained by an age of approximately 6.5
billion years for the chemical elements.

read more: http://www.urzeitundendzeit.de/creation_and_evolution.htm

A common young earth creationist response to this and similar
arguments is for them to state that their god created the universe
with the appearance of age. i.e the short lived isotopes are missing
because that is the way the god did it. Similarly we can see galaxies
millions of light years away because the light was created in transit.
Such are the intellectually bankrupt conjectures collectively called
the Omphalos hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_(theology)

Bill

Apologies if another reply covered this, but Omphalos and YEC are very
different approaches. YEC actually tries to scientifically defend a
young Earth - by cherry picking evidence, quote mining, etc., while
Omphalos is strictly faith-based. As such it is reasonable to think
that Omphalos creationists are honest believers (I knew one who
admitted that the evidence would support not only an old Earth but
even evolution), whereas YECs, the professionals if not the parroters,
can be reasonably suspected of deliberately promoting what they know
ain't so - like the ID crowd.

I find that there is no sharp dividing line. Many YECs will use the
occasional omphalos argument. Including the professionals. It's most
often used to explain why we see distant objects. YECs just don't use
omphalos as a universal explanation, perhaps because they realize how
weak it is.

Omphalos arguments are probably fairly common among the rank & file,
who haven't learned how to be dishonest. Even the one I spoke to at
length a few years back (& another I spoke to briefly) started out
with "evidences" arguments, then fell back on the "you gotta have
faith" line when they realized that those arguments were going
nowhere.

What makes it interesting, and often hard to describe to "newbies" (&
I vividly recall being one) is that there are no sharp dividing lines
anywhere - between rank & file and professionals, between YECs and
IDers, or even between "true believers" and scammers. But even a rough
outline of the differences is more helpful than the usual careless
lumping them all together as "creationists."

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Scientific proof for an old earth
    ... earth which is independant of any dating method. ... They are called isotopes, and some of them, usually ... half-life', within which half of atoms decay. ... and all 23 long-lived isotopes with a radioactive half-life of more than 500 ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Scientific proof for an old earth
    ... They are called isotopes, and some of them, usually ... half-life', within which half of atoms decay. ... and all 23 long-lived isotopes with a radioactive half-life of more than 500 ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Scientific proof for an old earth
    ... They are called isotopes, and some of them, usually ... half-life', within which half of atoms decay. ... and all 23 long-lived isotopes with a radioactive half-life of more than 500 ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Scientific proof for an old earth
    ... They are called isotopes, and some of them, usually ... half-life', within which half of atoms decay. ... and all 23 long-lived isotopes with a radioactive half-life of more than 500 ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Scientific proof for an old earth
    ... earth which is independant of any dating method. ... They are called isotopes, and some of them, usually ... half-life', within which half of atoms decay. ... and all 23 long-lived isotopes with a radioactive half-life of more than 500 ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading