Posts: 398
Threads: 14
Joined: August 6, 2010
Reputation:
2
Radioactive decay and the sun
August 29, 2010 at 5:56 am
Not wanting to jump the gun, but I was on a certain website, that said radioactive decay may not be constant (not a creationist site). That, in fact, the sun affects radioactive decay???
This is a massvie surprise to me, whenever I argue or debate with creationists, I tell them, 'Radiometric dating is accurate, if you use more than two dating types.' Wouldnt this mean we dont know how old the Earth is? and that perhaps the world is only thousands not billions of years old? (Im not saying it is, only a creationist jumps to a conclusion, Im saying maybe, if we dont know how old the Earth is, it could be)
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/augus...82310.html
What do you guys think???
Its ok to have doubt, just dont let that doubt become the answers.
You dont hate God, you hate the church game.
"God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. If you understand you have failed." Saint Augustine
Your mind works very simply: you are either trying to find out what are God's laws in order to follow them; or you are trying to outsmart Him. -Martin H. Fischer
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: Radioactive decay and the sun
August 29, 2010 at 6:47 am
It will change the numbers, but it won't bring them down to thousands of years.
Remember that radiometric dating is only one of the ways we have of determining that the universe and the earth are old.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 398
Threads: 14
Joined: August 6, 2010
Reputation:
2
RE: Radioactive decay and the sun
August 29, 2010 at 6:56 am
Quote:It will change the numbers, but it won't bring them down to thousands of years.
Remember that radiometric dating is only one of the ways we have of determining that the universe and the earth are old.
I understand that. However, we date things billion of years with radiometric dating?
If we squeze time down to even a billion, perhaps that isnt enough time for evolution?
Its ok to have doubt, just dont let that doubt become the answers.
You dont hate God, you hate the church game.
"God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. If you understand you have failed." Saint Augustine
Your mind works very simply: you are either trying to find out what are God's laws in order to follow them; or you are trying to outsmart Him. -Martin H. Fischer
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: Radioactive decay and the sun
August 29, 2010 at 7:45 am
The sheer size of the visible universe shows that it is comfortably more than a billion years old.
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 274
Threads: 5
Joined: April 17, 2010
Reputation:
12
RE: Radioactive decay and the sun
August 29, 2010 at 10:48 am
We measure distances in the universe using algorithms, so even if radiometric measurements were off to the extent that creationists believe, the universe is still as old as we believe it to be. The mathematics used for determining distance between stars can measure distance with over 90% accuracy. We could be off by a billion years or so, but it wouldn't be reduced down to thousands of years.
"In our youth, we lacked the maturity, the decency to create gods better than ourselves so that we might have something to aspire to. Instead we are left with a host of deities who were violent, narcissistic, vengeful bullies who reflected our own values. Our gods could have been anything we could imagine, and all we were capable of manifesting were gods who shared the worst of our natures."-Me
"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." – Francis Bacon
Posts: 14932
Threads: 684
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
143
RE: Radioactive decay and the sun
August 29, 2010 at 11:20 am
(August 29, 2010 at 6:56 am)solja247 Wrote: If we squeze time down to even a billion, perhaps that isnt enough time for evolution? The evidence for evolution is far more than just "the Earth has been around for billions of years". The fossil record isn't going to vanish overnight because the Sun affects radioactive decay.
Secondly, the article does not mention how much the decay rate drops by. To make the jump from a simple announcement of a possible (i.e. unconfirmed) discovery to a suggestion that it would have a massive effect on our dating methods, without any data to back the assertion up, is unscientific.
Posts: 186
Threads: 11
Joined: May 28, 2010
Reputation:
0
RE: Radioactive decay and the sun
August 29, 2010 at 2:29 pm
(This post was last modified: August 29, 2010 at 2:31 pm by theophilus.)
The fact that the rate of decay is variable isn't the only reason we can't rely on radioactive decay to show the age of the earth. This method is accurate only if three things are true:
Quote:These three basic assumptions are:
1.All the daughter atoms had to be derived by radioactive decay from the parent atoms since the rock unit formed.
2.There were no additions or subtractions of parent or daughter atoms since the rock unit formed.
3.The rate of decay had to remain constant since the rock unit formed.
None of these three assumptions can be proven because there were no scientists there when the rock units formed, nor in the vast majority of time since, to make sure that the daughter atoms we measure today have only come from radioactive decay of parent atoms, have not been contaminated, and the parent atoms had a constant decay rate through all the millions of years.
Even worse is that these three assumptions are fatally flawed, and we have impeccable evidence to show that. There are numerous examples, documented in the secular geological literature, of inherited daughter atoms when a rock unit formed and of contamination. And now because of the RATE (Radioisotopes and Age of the Earth) project, results from numerous lines of investigations have shown that the radioactive decay rates have not been constant.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...efutations
(August 29, 2010 at 11:20 am)Tiberius Wrote: The evidence for evolution is far more than just "the Earth has been around for billions of years". The fossil record isn't going to vanish overnight because the Sun affects radioactive decay. Proving that the earth is too young for evolution to occure wouldn't remove the fossil record but it would force scientists to find a new explanation for it. Perhaps they would come to the conclusion that the fossils were formed as a result of some worldwide catastrophe, such as a flood. 
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Romans 1:20 ESV
Posts: 13900
Threads: 262
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: Radioactive decay and the sun
August 29, 2010 at 2:42 pm
(August 29, 2010 at 2:29 pm)theophilus Wrote: (August 29, 2010 at 11:20 am)Tiberius Wrote: The evidence for evolution is far more than just "the Earth has been around for billions of years". The fossil record isn't going to vanish overnight because the Sun affects radioactive decay. Proving that the earth is too young for evolution to occure wouldn't remove the fossil record but it would force scientists to find a new explanation for it. Perhaps they would come to the conclusion that the fossils were formed as a result of some worldwide catastrophe, such as a flood.
Nope because the flood myth is contradicted by more than just radioactive decay.
Read the whole article here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology
As you can see the flood myth is not consistant with any of the evidence.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 69248
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Radioactive decay and the sun
August 29, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Quote:Wouldnt this mean we dont know how old the Earth is?
Creationists already don't know how old the earth is. This is not likely to change that.
Your article asks many questions but gives few answers. These things take time. I know you don't like hearing that but it is the truth.
Posts: 398
Threads: 14
Joined: August 6, 2010
Reputation:
2
RE: Radioactive decay and the sun
August 29, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Quote:The evidence for evolution is far more than just "the Earth has been around for billions of years". The fossil record isn't going to vanish overnight because the Sun affects radioactive decay.
I understand that. However creationists will now argue, 'Radioactive decay varies, therefore we cant trust it, therefore Genesis 1 is true!'
Creationists will use this article (when it gets placed on answersingenesis.com) to 'prove' evolution is false.
I dont believe the world is thousands of years old, but creationists are desperate for some sought of evidence to prove evolution wrong, this could be what they were looking for.
No creationist can aruge with the geological column, they will just make crap up and convince people what they say is true.
(Mostly) the difference between a creationist and a scientist, is honesty...
Quote:Your article asks many questions but gives few answers. These things take time. I know you don't like hearing that but it is the truth.
Of course these things take time, but dont you enjoy a discussion?
Its ok to have doubt, just dont let that doubt become the answers.
You dont hate God, you hate the church game.
"God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. If you understand you have failed." Saint Augustine
Your mind works very simply: you are either trying to find out what are God's laws in order to follow them; or you are trying to outsmart Him. -Martin H. Fischer
|
