|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Empirical evidence for young earth - 4/30/2008 11:28:09 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 308
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Hey I'm an Architect, not a scientist - they looked good to me.
I suppose the best evidence I can give you for creation and a young earth are the same physical evidences that many scientists mistakingly use for the purposes of the religion of evolution. The evidences are the same, it's all in your paradigm.
Let's take the same evidence then. Zircons, by their chemical nature, exclude lead atoms when they are formed. But natural zircons often contain both uranium atoms and lead atoms. The half-life for the process that turns uranium to lead is around a billion years. Furthermore, the isotopes of the lead atoms are precisely the ones that result from radioactive decay, while different lead isotopes that exist in nature are not found in the zircons. How does this physical evidence point to a young earth?
I love how someone can say that the half life for this process is a billion years. so who is the 1 billion and 1 year old who stood around watching this happen. I would like to meet him.
You're right.. there is a margin of error..
by a few percent.
So it might not exactly be a billion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Empirical evidence for young earth - 5/1/2008 8:37:09 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1276
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Hey I'm an Architect, not a scientist - they looked good to me.
I suppose the best evidence I can give you for creation and a young earth are the same physical evidences that many scientists mistakingly use for the purposes of the religion of evolution. The evidences are the same, it's all in your paradigm.
Let's take the same evidence then. Zircons, by their chemical nature, exclude lead atoms when they are formed. But natural zircons often contain both uranium atoms and lead atoms. The half-life for the process that turns uranium to lead is around a billion years. Furthermore, the isotopes of the lead atoms are precisely the ones that result from radioactive decay, while different lead isotopes that exist in nature are not found in the zircons. How does this physical evidence point to a young earth?
I love how someone can say that the half life for this process is a billion years. so who is the 1 billion and 1 year old who stood around watching this happen. I would like to meet him.
You don't have to stand around for a billion years. Radioactive materials decay at constant rates with a steady, predictable curves. You only have to measure the amount of decay for a relatively short amount of time to be able to calculate the half-life.
-Dan.
_____________________________
It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Empirical evidence for young earth - 5/1/2008 1:35:01 PM
|
|
|
SavedByGraceMD
Posts: 265
Joined: 2/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Hey I'm an Architect, not a scientist - they looked good to me.
I suppose the best evidence I can give you for creation and a young earth are the same physical evidences that many scientists mistakingly use for the purposes of the religion of evolution. The evidences are the same, it's all in your paradigm.
Let's take the same evidence then. Zircons, by their chemical nature, exclude lead atoms when they are formed. But natural zircons often contain both uranium atoms and lead atoms. The half-life for the process that turns uranium to lead is around a billion years. Furthermore, the isotopes of the lead atoms are precisely the ones that result from radioactive decay, while different lead isotopes that exist in nature are not found in the zircons. How does this physical evidence point to a young earth?
I love how someone can say that the half life for this process is a billion years. so who is the 1 billion and 1 year old who stood around watching this happen. I would like to meet him.
You don't have to stand around for a billion years. Radioactive materials decay at constant rates with a steady, predictable curves. You only have to measure the amount of decay for a relatively short amount of time to be able to calculate the half-life.
-Dan.
I was just making a joke. I don't know much about that. But is it not possible for the process to slow down, or speed up , depending on the outside ( i am losing the word, so lets just say) forces. Like heat, cold, pressure, or some other instance. If so, than that statement is just a good old guess on assumptions.
_____________________________
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Empirical evidence for young earth - 5/1/2008 2:07:39 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 550
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
I was just making a joke. I don't know much about that. But is it not possible for the process to slow down, or speed up , depending on the outside ( i am losing the word, so lets just say) forces. Like heat, cold, pressure, or some other instance.
For conditions likely to be found on earth (as opposed to, say, in the middle of a neutron star) most of the nuclear decay processes of interest are virtually unchanged by these variables. As far as I know, a difference has never even been observed experimentally.
For one type of nuclear process, K capture, increasing the pressure has led to experimentally measured changes in the decay rate of less than one percent. K-capture is not involved in the zircon dating method I mentioned.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Empirical evidence for young earth - 5/2/2008 6:54:51 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1276
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
I was just making a joke.
Oh... well... ya never know 'round here. 
quote:
I don't know much about that. But is it not possible for the process to slow down, or speed up , depending on the outside ( i am losing the word, so lets just say) forces. Like heat, cold, pressure, or some other instance. If so, than that statement is just a good old guess on assumptions.
Like ES said, only certain types of decay can be altered and only by relatively small percentages and only under conditions that would have had some other side-effects (like, say, the whole planet being subjected to several hundred atmospheres of pressure or just being vaporized altogether).
-Dan.
_____________________________
It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
