Re: You're assuming that things were the same back then!

On Jan 22, 12:56 pm, Vend <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 21 Gen, 03:17, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





Vend wrote:
On Jan 18, 7:54 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:01:41 -0800 (PST), in article
<65125c0e-943b-4606-9ddf-8cb08414e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Vend
stated..."

On 17 Gen, 23:27, Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
It's fairly absurd to think that numerous dating methods would all be
subject to unknown confounding factors that thrown them off by the
same exact amount.

In fairness I presume that if the earth orbital period was different
in the past, all the dating methods based on seasonal changes could
have a systematic bias.

Anyway I don't know any reason to assume that.
<snip>

One thing to keep in mind is that the difference between Young Earth
Creationism and the science-based ages is a factor of many, many
thousands. That is not something which can be easily accounted for.

To get the earth to orbit the sun only *ten* times faster would put
the earth in an orbit closer to the sun than Mercury. And, I believe,
just the ice core data that we have goes back more than ten times
a YEC's 10,000 years. Although maybe tree ring data doesn't go
back quite that far, it is still quite a stretch to get it to fit.

Agreed.
Moreover, the YEC also dispute radiometric dating with the claim that
radioactive decay rates could have been higher in the past, but at the
decay rates needed to account for a 6000 years old earth, there would
have been so much radiation to fry Adam, Noah and everything else.

I've forgotten, is that statement purely rhetorical or has someone
actually made the calculation?

I didn't made a precise calculation but just consider that to obtain
the creationist values the half-lives of radioactive isotopes should
have been at least 1000-2000 times shorter at some time in the past.
That would make the radiation intesity 1000-2000 times higher.

Take it this way: there's evidence that rocks were formed containing
small amounts of radioactive material which subsequently decayed,
leaving rocks containing decay products.  This decay is understood to
release a certain amount of energy as heat.  But how much aexactly?

Enough heat to keep the inside of the earth hot.
If the radiation intensity became tomorrow 1000 times higher, the
crust would probably melt. This effect would have been even more
dramatic in the past since there was more radioactive material back
then.

Also consider the direct effect of radiation on living organism.
Moreover, if radioactive decay rates were higher, most isotopes that
are now stable would have been radiactive.

That depends on precisely how God chose to change the rate of
radioactive decay, I think!

The extra heat generated now is about as much as is lost to space
through the crust - in other words, the earth is moderately well
insulated. So I'm not sure that a much faster rate would melt the
crust... of course, it /does/ keep the inside molten. If not for that
energy, the earth would have frozen a long time ago.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Youre assuming that things were the same back then!
    ... all the dating methods based on seasonal changes could ... One thing to keep in mind is that the difference between Young Earth ... radioactive decay rates could have been higher in the past, ... release a certain amount of energy as heat. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Higher decay rates would have burned the planet?
    ... "Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would ... uranium that it has lost by fission would have melted the surface, ... which is not reported to have happened between creation and now, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Universal Constants bent to 6 day creation.
    ... the evidence supports a young universe, a young Earth, and a creation ... get to earth in 10,000 years. ... radioactive decay that has obviously happened in the earth rocks. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang
    ... I have the idea that the atmosphere as part of the earth is quite ... I have the idea that the standard earth clock measures time by means ... of radioactive decay of Cesium. ... Other points raised by you have slipped my mind. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: why are interstellar planets luminous?
    ... leftover heat of formation and partly from radioactive decay. ... radioactive decay is the main contributor for Earth.) ...
    (sci.astro)
Loading