Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayjay · 04-23-2003, 04:53 AM

Thanks, I'll look them up.

And I'm not a troll, just clueless.

SULPHUR · 04-23-2003, 05:14 AM

Sorry

Coragyps · 04-23-2003, 07:19 AM

Quote:

If I'm correct, I'd like to have an example of two methods that are based on different kinds of decay. Or if I'm wrong or simply not making any sense at all, just shoot my ramblings down without mercy...

No, you're perfectly OK. The methods that start with Uranium or thorium are based on alpha decay, while potassium-argon is by electron capture (?), and most of the other methods - samarium-neodymium, rubidium-strontium, etc, on beta decay. And for all that, even if all your methods were based on beta decay, I'd like to see the single change in the governing equations that would still let dates agree both at 4.56 billion years and at 50 million. That'll take some pretty supernatural number twisting.

Jayjay · 04-23-2003, 07:27 AM

That was just the info I was looking for. But where did you get "50 million"?

nogods4me · 04-23-2003, 08:07 AM

Question (hopefully not a stupid one).

If decay rates had been previously so high as to allow for what we currently know is say 100 million years of decay to occur in less than 6000 years, wouldn't the amount of energy released pretty much bake the earth to a crisp?

SULPHUR · 04-23-2003, 08:14 AM

It was a joke.Read a little more and you will find it is not very complicated. Some self important people try to suggest it is beyond the common man.

SULPHUR · 04-23-2003, 08:20 AM

Lets change the first figure to 4.5 billion years and there is no way the decay could have taken 6000 years.Use some common sense

nogods4me · 04-23-2003, 08:40 AM

That is what I am saying. The YECs would have the flocks believe that 4 billion years of radioactive decay has been shortened to less than 6 thousand years. And they say this with a straight face. It seems that the amounts of energy released by that amount of decay, condensed into that time frame would be enormous, impossible in fact, without destroying the earth in the process.

SULPHUR · 04-23-2003, 08:49 AM

The world is a funny place.Sorry If I offended you tom

Jayjay · 04-23-2003, 08:52 AM

Actually, they don't usually say that the decay was "condensed", but rather that various isotopes were created instantaneously the way they are. Though I recall an article at AiG that claimed that the Earth might have been superhot plasma or something to that effect in order to accommodate some recent finding about how decay rates of some elements might have been different... in other words, they were happy to throw out the speculation about Earth being created "mature" in a heartbeat if given chance to abuse genuine science instead.

04-23-2003, 08:20 AM	#17
SULPHUR Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: hobart,tasmania Posts: 551	decay Lets change the first figure to 4.5 billion years and there is no way the decay could have taken 6000 years.Use some common sense

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-23-2003, 04:53 AM	#11
Jayjay Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 6,261	Thanks, I'll look them up. And I'm not a troll, just clueless.

04-23-2003, 05:14 AM	#12
SULPHUR Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: hobart,tasmania Posts: 551	Sorry

04-23-2003, 07:27 AM	#14
Jayjay Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 6,261	That was just the info I was looking for. But where did you get "50 million"?

04-23-2003, 08:07 AM	#15
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	Question (hopefully not a stupid one). If decay rates had been previously so high as to allow for what we currently know is say 100 million years of decay to occur in less than 6000 years, wouldn't the amount of energy released pretty much bake the earth to a crisp?

04-23-2003, 08:14 AM	#16
SULPHUR Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: hobart,tasmania Posts: 551	It was a joke.Read a little more and you will find it is not very complicated. Some self important people try to suggest it is beyond the common man.

04-23-2003, 08:40 AM	#18
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	That is what I am saying. The YECs would have the flocks believe that 4 billion years of radioactive decay has been shortened to less than 6 thousand years. And they say this with a straight face. It seems that the amounts of energy released by that amount of decay, condensed into that time frame would be enormous, impossible in fact, without destroying the earth in the process.

04-23-2003, 08:49 AM	#19
SULPHUR Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: hobart,tasmania Posts: 551	The world is a funny place.Sorry If I offended you tom

04-23-2003, 08:52 AM	#20
Jayjay Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 6,261	Actually, they don't usually say that the decay was "condensed", but rather that various isotopes were created instantaneously the way they are. Though I recall an article at AiG that claimed that the Earth might have been superhot plasma or something to that effect in order to accommodate some recent finding about how decay rates of some elements might have been different... in other words, they were happy to throw out the speculation about Earth being created "mature" in a heartbeat if given chance to abuse genuine science instead.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.