Why radioactive decay dates beyond around 4300 years are invalid

[The Barbarian]

On 4/3/2024 at 5:43 AM, RV_Wizard said:

No.  As I said, he's your hero, not mine. 

I'm just showing you that even Christians over 1500 years ago, knew that Genesis was not a literal history.   Augustine was one of those.

 

[RV_Wizard]

39 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I'm just showing you that even Christians over 1500 years ago, knew that Genesis was not a literal history.   Augustine was one of those.

 

You neglect the word "some."  Some THOUGHT that Genesis was not a literal history, but the church as a whole completely rejected the notion until the idea of long ages began to gain traction in the 19th century.  You word it as if belief in the Bible as written history is a new thing, when it was the prevailing understanding for 57 centuries.

[IgnatioDeLoyola]

On 10/16/2023 at 8:57 AM, dad2 said:

Radioactive dating techniques depend on the forces and laws we see today having also existed in the past.  Unless these forces did exist as we see them today, all dates have no meaning. There is no way to know this. There is another problem with deep space distances and time. But this thread is to discuss radioactive dating on earth. Unless you can prove that the laws were the same, then we can use young earth dates and still match all the patterns of isotopes we see in the rocks.

 

We simply lose assumptions such  as that all daughter isotopes (isotopes known to NOW form by decay) came to exist because of radioactive decay. (as we see them now coming to exist by this process)

In short, ONLY as long as this present nature/forces and laws existed is radioactive decay based dating valid. If our nature, say, started to exist somewhere around the time of Noah, then no date derived from radioactive decay methods is good before that point.

 

Dear @dad2,

I do genuinely understand this argument but, as a qualified physicist, I am obliged to tell you that it is misinformed, and undercuts many other solid apologetic arguments for God's existence and precise design of the universe.

The reason for my disagreement with you has to do with how fundamental the laws governing radioactivity are to the nature and consistency of matter and the universe.

Most people, unless they have studied physics, don't understand just how fundamental radioactivity is to the formation and nature of matter. Let me try to explain.

What is a nucleus?

Every atom has a "nucleus". This is a very small ball of positively charged protons, and neutral neutrons, that form the core of an atom, and determine its fundamental qualities such as weight, size, chemical element, nature (metal, gas, etc.).

The nucleus is a fine balance of different forces - some attractive, and some repulsive. For example, protons (being positive) repel each other through the "electromagnetic force". Protons and neutrons attract each other through the "strong force". In total, there are 6 types of "forces" (or 5 if you exclude gravity, which only applies to very very large nuclei, like neutron stars) which effect the energetic balance of nuclei.

Why do some Nuclei decay?

If a nucleus is too energetic, it cannot exist because it would instantly split apart. Indeed, there are many, many possible universes where nuclei cannot exist, because the balance of fundamental forces has to be "just right" for any matter to exist at all. You may have heard of "fine tuning" arguments for God's existence - this is one of them. 

Now, some nuclei exist on the "border" of being stable and unstable. That is, they are quite energetic, but not energetic enough to split immediately and therefore not exist. We call these nuclei radioactive - and exactly how radioactive they are depends on how much energy they have within them, depending on the balance of these fundamental forces. This balance determines how often these nuclei decay, and this determines their half life.

As you have noted in your post, if you change some fundamental constants (or if they were different in the past), then you can change the half-life of these elements. BUT - this creates a LOT more problems / questions than it answers, because of how fundamental these forces are to nature. 

Here are some of the questions / issues changes in these fundamental constants creates:

If nuclei were more unstable in the past, elements that are currently stable would have been unstable back then. 

To make radioactive decay faster in the past, you need to alter some of the fundamental balance and constants of forces in nature. The result will necessarily make ALL nuclei more unstable. In-so-doing, you widen the number and scope of nuclei that are unstable, creating huge amounts more radioactivity.

Why would God do this? How would he prevent this extra radioactivity damaging humans, and other life on earth?

Indeed, if nuclei were more unstable in the past, some radioactive elements couldn't have existed at all, obliterating many of the decay-chains we find in rocks today. From the evidence we have today, this clearly didn't happen.

Radioactivity produces heat. Making every nucleus way more unstable would destroy the earth and everything in it. 

Most folks don't know this, but the earth's core is kept molten through radioactive decay, and the heat released by it. By definition, ALL decay causes energy to be released from nuclei - because radioactive decay is the process by which nuclei become less energetic, and thus more stable.

This is why nuclear power stations work - they stimulate decay to become faster in a chain reaction - and this creates heat which drives turbines. It is also how nuclear fission (uranium / plutonium) bombs work - through the instant, or near instant,  release of nuclear decay energy.

If radioactive decay had been much faster and more widespread in the past, not only would the rocks and minerals it occurs in have melted and reset their radiometric dates, but in fact the earth would have melted and at least partially vapourised. Such is the level of energy released by radioactivity. Clearly this did not happen at any time from the Genesis narrative onwards.

There is no alteration of constants / forces that would make radioactivity accelerate by the same amount in different radioactive elements. 

For your hypothesis to hold true, there must be a constant or set of constants that you can alter that accelerates radioactive decay by the same rate / ratio in all radioactive substances. Otherwise, you wouldn't have different methods of radiometric dating agreeing on ages so often in the same rock. 

In other words, decay would have to become exactly 4 billion times faster in Rubidium-87, Uranium-235, Uranium-238, Potassium-40, etc, etc all at the same time.

But these elements have very, very different nuclei, that will be effected differently by changing certain fundamental forces. There is no constant, or set of constants, that you can change to make these nuclei's decay rates rise by the exact same ratio or multiplier. 

Therefore any proposed change would make radiometric dates differ radically depending on what dating method you used. This would be immediately apparent in almost all radiometric dating results, except those tiny tiny few that just so happened to agree by accident / coincidence.

If the Universe is "fine tuned" for creation to exist, why would God mess with this fine-tuning post-hoc ex-facto?. 

I think this question speaks for itself - but to drive home the point, if God created the universe perfectly so that life could exist, why would he make matter fundamentally more stable after the fall of man, or after the flood?

Wasn't the universe and everything in it created perfectly by God in the first place? Why would God make the universe's matter more unstable, then wait for man to sin, then make all matter more stable? 

While this is a theological rather than scientific argument, it still presents a considerable obstacle to accepting your narrative.

Summary

Sorry this was such a long and technical post @dad2. But I'm sure you can see why it had to be. In short, your hypothetical scenario is based on ignorance of the underlying physics behind radioactivity. It doesn't make sense or hold up to any form of logical scrutiny.

More than that, it doesn't produce the world we observe today (and thus cannot explain it), nor can it possibly fit in with the narrative we find in the book of Genesis. And, it opens up the possibility that God created the world in some way "wrongly" to begin with, and had to tune fundamental physics as a result, which is obviously not the case.

Sorry if that conclusion is blunt. I know you didn't mean badly or harmfully in your original post.

Best

I

[BeyondET]

17 hours ago, IgnatioDeLoyola said:

Dear @dad2,

I do genuinely understand this argument but, as a qualified physicist, I am obliged to tell you that it is misinformed, and undercuts many other solid apologetic arguments for God's existence and precise design of the universe.

The reason for my disagreement with you has to do with how fundamental the laws governing radioactivity are to the nature and consistency of matter and the universe.

Most people, unless they have studied physics, don't understand just how fundamental radioactivity is to the formation and nature of matter. Let me try to explain.

What is a nucleus?

Every atom has a "nucleus". This is a very small ball of positively charged protons, and neutral neutrons, that form the core of an atom, and determine its fundamental qualities such as weight, size, chemical element, nature (metal, gas, etc.).

The nucleus is a fine balance of different forces - some attractive, and some repulsive. For example, protons (being positive) repel each other through the "electromagnetic force". Protons and neutrons attract each other through the "strong force". In total, there are 6 types of "forces" (or 5 if you exclude gravity, which only applies to very very large nuclei, like neutron stars) which effect the energetic balance of nuclei.

Why do some Nuclei decay?

If a nucleus is too energetic, it cannot exist because it would instantly split apart. Indeed, there are many, many possible universes where nuclei cannot exist, because the balance of fundamental forces has to be "just right" for any matter to exist at all. You may have heard of "fine tuning" arguments for God's existence - this is one of them. 

Now, some nuclei exist on the "border" of being stable and unstable. That is, they are quite energetic, but not energetic enough to split immediately and therefore not exist. We call these nuclei radioactive - and exactly how radioactive they are depends on how much energy they have within them, depending on the balance of these fundamental forces. This balance determines how often these nuclei decay, and this determines their half life.

As you have noted in your post, if you change some fundamental constants (or if they were different in the past), then you can change the half-life of these elements. BUT - this creates a LOT more problems / questions than it answers, because of how fundamental these forces are to nature. 

Here are some of the questions / issues changes in these fundamental constants creates:

If nuclei were more unstable in the past, elements that are currently stable would have been unstable back then. 

To make radioactive decay faster in the past, you need to alter some of the fundamental balance and constants of forces in nature. The result will necessarily make ALL nuclei more unstable. In-so-doing, you widen the number and scope of nuclei that are unstable, creating huge amounts more radioactivity.

Why would God do this? How would he prevent this extra radioactivity damaging humans, and other life on earth?

Indeed, if nuclei were more unstable in the past, some radioactive elements couldn't have existed at all, obliterating many of the decay-chains we find in rocks today. From the evidence we have today, this clearly didn't happen.

Radioactivity produces heat. Making every nucleus way more unstable would destroy the earth and everything in it. 

Most folks don't know this, but the earth's core is kept molten through radioactive decay, and the heat released by it. By definition, ALL decay causes energy to be released from nuclei - because radioactive decay is the process by which nuclei become less energetic, and thus more stable.

This is why nuclear power stations work - they stimulate decay to become faster in a chain reaction - and this creates heat which drives turbines. It is also how nuclear fission (uranium / plutonium) bombs work - through the instant, or near instant,  release of nuclear decay energy.

If radioactive decay had been much faster and more widespread in the past, not only would the rocks and minerals it occurs in have melted and reset their radiometric dates, but in fact the earth would have melted and at least partially vapourised. Such is the level of energy released by radioactivity. Clearly this did not happen at any time from the Genesis narrative onwards.

There is no alteration of constants / forces that would make radioactivity accelerate by the same amount in different radioactive elements. 

For your hypothesis to hold true, there must be a constant or set of constants that you can alter that accelerates radioactive decay by the same rate / ratio in all radioactive substances. Otherwise, you wouldn't have different methods of radiometric dating agreeing on ages so often in the same rock. 

In other words, decay would have to become exactly 4 billion times faster in Rubidium-87, Uranium-235, Uranium-238, Potassium-40, etc, etc all at the same time.

But these elements have very, very different nuclei, that will be effected differently by changing certain fundamental forces. There is no constant, or set of constants, that you can change to make these nuclei's decay rates rise by the exact same ratio or multiplier. 

Therefore any proposed change would make radiometric dates differ radically depending on what dating method you used. This would be immediately apparent in almost all radiometric dating results, except those tiny tiny few that just so happened to agree by accident / coincidence.

If the Universe is "fine tuned" for creation to exist, why would God mess with this fine-tuning post-hoc ex-facto?. 

I think this question speaks for itself - but to drive home the point, if God created the universe perfectly so that life could exist, why would he make matter fundamentally more stable after the fall of man, or after the flood?

Wasn't the universe and everything in it created perfectly by God in the first place? Why would God make the universe's matter more unstable, then wait for man to sin, then make all matter more stable? 

While this is a theological rather than scientific argument, it still presents a considerable obstacle to accepting your narrative.

Summary

Sorry this was such a long and technical post @dad2. But I'm sure you can see why it had to be. In short, your hypothetical scenario is based on ignorance of the underlying physics behind radioactivity. It doesn't make sense or hold up to any form of logical scrutiny.

More than that, it doesn't produce the world we observe today (and thus cannot explain it), nor can it possibly fit in with the narrative we find in the book of Genesis. And, it opens up the possibility that God created the world in some way "wrongly" to begin with, and had to tune fundamental physics as a result, which is obviously not the case.

Sorry if that conclusion is blunt. I know you didn't mean badly or harmfully in your original post.

Best

I

I wonder what new info on radiation decay if any in dark matter or maybe something else happening in non-baryonic matter. It can be detectable by the gravitational influences it has in the universe yet eludes direct detection.

Edited April 11 by BeyondET

[dad2]

Quote

I do genuinely understand this argument but, as a qualified physicist, I am obliged to tell you that it is misinformed, and undercuts many other solid apologetic arguments for God's existence and precise design of the universe.

The reason for my disagreement with you has to do with how fundamental the laws governing radioactivity are to the nature and consistency of matter and the universe.

Most people, unless they have studied physics, don't understand just how fundamental radioactivity is to the formation and nature of matter. Let me try to explain.

That doesn't matter! How matter 'forms' is not the question. How matter formed would be more relevant. You simply assume it was always the same.

Quote

Every atom has a "nucleus". This is a very small ball of positively charged protons, and neutral neutrons, that form the core of an atom, and determine its fundamental qualities such as weight, size, chemical element, nature (metal, gas, etc.).

What was the charge like in Noah's day? The nuclear strong force...etc? We don't know. We use how it now is to base it all on, including dates.

Quote

Every atom has a "nucleus". This is a very small ball of positively charged protons, and neutral neutrons, that form the core of an atom, and determine its fundamental qualities such as weight, size, chemical element, nature (metal, gas, etc.).

Who cares what an atom "HAS"? Or what forces exist to act on it NOW?

Quote

The nucleus is a fine balance of different forces - some attractive, and some repulsive. For example, protons (being positive) repel each other through the "electromagnetic force". Protons and neutrons attract each other through the "strong force". In total, there are 6 types of "forces" (or 5 if you exclude gravity, which only applies to very very large nuclei, like neutron stars) which effect the energetic balance of nuclei.

It matters not at all what 'a nucleus IS' What matters is proving that nucleus' worked the same way in the nature of the far past.

Quote

If a nucleus is too energetic, it cannot exist because it would instantly split apart. Indeed, there are many, many possible universes where nuclei cannot exist, because the balance of fundamental forces has to be "just right" for any matter to exist at all. You may have heard of "fine tuning" arguments for God's existence - this is one of them. 

Now, some nuclei exist on the "border" of being stable and unstable. That is, they are quite energetic, but not energetic enough to split immediately and therefore not exist. We call these nuclei radioactive - and exactly how radioactive they are depends on how much energy they have within them, depending on the balance of these fundamental forces. This balance determines how often these nuclei decay, and this determines their half life.

Under TODAY'S laws a nucleus could not exist if such and such changed. Irrelevant to the different nature of the past

Quote

As you have noted in your post, if you change some fundamental constants (or if they were different in the past), then you can change the half-life of these elements. BUT - this creates a LOT more problems / questions than it answers, because of how fundamental these forces are to nature. 

How forces ARE does not matter at all. How forces WERE matters. The idea is not to change OUR present nature and laws. The idea is that God changed the nature that WAS into what we now have. We are the change. It is like saying 'man could not live a thousand years in this nature. So what? Man DID live nearly 1000 years (and will again in the future) in the past nature!

Quote

If nuclei were more unstable in the past, elements that are currently stable would have been unstable back then. 

Why would a nucleus existing in a different nature under different forces be unstable?? You are talking about a sudden change WITHIN OUR nature. It was NOT our nature that would have changed.

Quote

To make radioactive decay faster in the past, you need to alter some of the fundamental balance and constants of forces in nature. The result will necessarily make ALL nuclei more unstable. In-so-doing, you widen the number and scope of nuclei that are unstable, creating huge amounts more radioactivity.

Since radioactive decay is a feature of THIS present nature, why imagine a CHANGE IN radioactive decay?? I know, you can't imagine a different nature where there was no radioactive decay as we know it. There were still changes happening, but probably not because of radioactive decay. Since we look at things decaying now and making certain isotopes we imagine all such isotopes and ratios came to exist only as a result of radioactive decay.

Quote

Why would God do this? How would he prevent this extra radioactivity damaging humans, and other life on earth?

What if radioactivity came to exist, as we know it, after the nature changed?

Quote

Indeed, if nuclei were more unstable in the past, some radioactive elements couldn't have existed at all, obliterating many of the decay-chains we find in rocks today. From the evidence we have today, this clearly didn't happen.

As explained nothing was unstable. A so called decay chain was not a decay chain before decay existed! You look at how the chain NOW works and operates and exists. In some cases, for example, we had both the (what we now consider) parent isotopes AND the (what we now consider) daughter isotopes existing together already in some other relationship than present state decay. You see that NOW, daughter isotopes are produced from parent isotopes and leap to the conclusion all the isotopes came to exist that way! No. Only those daughter isotopes that were produced in this nature were produced that way. When you have a bunch of daughter and parent isotopes now in a ration, you assume all daughter isotopes were produced by radioactive decay (because they are now being made that away) Very short sighted.

 

So why would God change nature? For the sake of mankind I would guess, largely. Why did He change things at Babel affecting men's minds/language? For our sake, Why would He have changed nature so that men lived 1/10 of what they once did? For our sake of course. Imagine Hitler if he lived 950 years! Why would God change how laws like thermodynamics work? For our sake! If, for example He wanted Pangaea to separate fast, and not produce killing heat from friction etc! He wanted man separate. But we can surmise that the nature change happened around the same time, because we know a lot of heat was produced. So, if for example, the nature changed just before the rapid separation of lands was complete, we then would get a lot of heat even at the tail end. (like the ring of fire etc)

Quote

Radioactivity produces heat. Making every nucleus way more unstable would destroy the earth and everything in it. 

It does not matter what radioactivity does since it is a feature of THIS present nature.

Quote

Most folks don't know this, but the earth's core is kept molten through radioactive decay, and the heat released by it. By definition, ALL decay causes energy to be released from nuclei - because radioactive decay is the process by which nuclei become less energetic, and thus more stable.

No. No one has been down there. All models are based on indirect evidence such as interpreting sound waves. There are other interpretations! For example if laws in the core were not the same as here, then what we thought had to be a hot liquid could be a cool liquid etc etc etc

Quote

This is why nuclear power stations work - they stimulate decay to become faster in a chain reaction - and this creates heat which drives turbines. It is also how nuclear fission (uranium / plutonium) bombs work - through the instant, or near instant,  release of nuclear decay energy.

How they now work does not matter to the past. Or the future I might add! I suspect that God will change laws again in the final few years of the world before He returns. There are a few reasons from the bible to suspect this, but that is another thread.

Quote

There is no alteration of constants / forces that would make radioactivity accelerate by the same amount in different radioactive elements. 

There is no alteration in today's nature! If there was a different nature in the past, then whatever changed would not have been OUR laws.

Quote

If the Universe is "fine tuned" for creation to exist, why would God mess with this fine-tuning post-hoc ex-facto?. 

The universe will cease to exist one day. It is made for man. There were no stars and sun when the earth first was created. Man has not been even one lousy light day away yet. We see all light from the universe HERE. We interpret based on nature and laws here. We can't even say what the laws are in the distant universe. We can't say how distant any star is! ALL distances are faith based. I kid you not. Therefore all sizes of things in far space and a lot of other basics are not known after all.

Quote

I think this question speaks for itself - but to drive home the point, if God created the universe perfectly so that life could exist, why would he make matter fundamentally more stable after the fall of man, or after the flood?

Why will He dissolve the heavens one day but we will live on? Why will he make new heavens and a new earth for us?  I already mentions some changes in the life of mankind that God seemed to want to make. Shorter lives, moving continents for us to get around and separate from a one world situation. Changed languages. Also a greater degree of separation of spiritual from physical. Angels used to marry women and have kids for example. That does not happen today. Things are different.

 

Looking at the future, if I am correct that He will change it again, one reason might be to stop man from blowing up the world! (if nuclear physics no longer works then nukes won't work either!)

Quote

More than that, it doesn't produce the world we observe today

That is because present nature and laws DID NOT PRODUCE THE WORLD!

Quote

(and thus cannot explain it)

Of course using temporal current laws cannot explain  creation or the past or the future! A different future and past does explain it.

[IgnatioDeLoyola]

Hey @dad2,

Thank you for your carefully worded and thought through reply brother.

I think I understand what you are proposing. Let me outline it for you to confirm this:

1. Prior to the fall of man (assuming that the introduction of sin into the world was the point this changed), a totally different physical paradigm was in operation. This paradigm may well be unimaginable to us.

2. Therefore, the fundamental forces described by equations like the semi-empirical mass formula (the equation that governs the stability of nuclei) may not have even existed before the fall of man. Therefore, radioactive decay likely didn't exist before the fall of man.

Is this correct so far?

If so, there are still some really obvious questions to ask.

We find in present day a bunch of what we think of as "decay products" and "parent elements" in rocks and minerals.

When we test these rocks and minerals to find out the ammounts of "decay products" and "parent elements", and we calculate the apparent ages of these rocks (on the assumption that they really are decay elements and radioactive decay really has been going on since forever), these rocks appear many millions or even billions of years old.

Now, my assumption is that your answer is that these elements we find aren't really decay products, they were in the minerals and rocks all along from an originally created earth that worked under a totally different set of physical laws. Therefore, the age isn't really an age, but an apparent age - they have nothing to do with the age of the rocks - they were there all along. Is this correct? Or am I going off base with way too many assumptions?

Best,

I

[dad2]

Quote

I think I understand what you are proposing. Let me outline it for you to confirm this:

1. Prior to the fall of man (assuming that the introduction of sin into the world was the point this changed), a totally different physical paradigm was in operation. This paradigm may well be unimaginable to us.

No. That is probably true as well. I am talking about after the fall. The days of Adam and Noah etc. Right on up till after the flood of Noah and to the time or Peleg and Babel.

Quote

2. Therefore, the fundamental forces described by equations like the semi-empirical mass formula (the equation that governs the stability of nuclei) may not have even existed before the fall of man. Therefore, radioactive decay likely didn't exist before the fall of man.

As explained above I see no reason to think that our nature existed at all as we know it until about the time of Babel, when a big change happened. It affected men's minds and therefore language. It affected lifespans drastically and suddenly. It affected laws such as thermodynamics and how much heat gets produced by moving whole continents fast. It affected basically everything. There obviously was still some processes and laws at work on the same materials that existed. But what that process was exactly and how it worked and precisely what forces caused it, we don't know. All we know is how it NOW works. Therefore, unless someone proved there also was some radioactive decay back then, why would I assume there was?

Quote

We find in present day a bunch of what we think of as "decay products" and "parent elements" in rocks and minerals.

Yes we do. If there was foe example (using silly numbers for easy understanding) a ratio of isotopes in a rock of 200 parent and 100 daughter isotopes when the change happened, then after the nature was changed there would still be that ratio. The thing is that it would not have been BECAUSE of radioactive decay. Then, after the nature was different, more daughter isotopes were added to the total because there now was radioactive decay. So, let's say there are now 107 daughter isotopes in the total. That would mean 7 of those daughter isotopes WERE produced by radioactive decay in this present nature! So the total might look like say, 200 parent isotopes and 107 daughter isotopes. Looking at this you would assume that all daughter isotopes were produced by radioactive decay because they ARE NOW being produced that way. That also means that all dating methods based on that assumption are ridiculously wrong.

Quote

When we test these rocks and minerals to find out the ammounts of "decay products" and "parent elements", and we calculate the apparent ages of these rocks (on the assumption that they really are decay elements and radioactive decay really has been going on since forever), these rocks appear many millions or even billions of years old.

Exactly and it is THAT assumption I challenge. (since as in the example I gave, the vast majority of isotopes in the ratio got there by other means or were there when radioactive decay started)

Quote

Now, my assumption is that your answer is that these elements we find aren't really decay products, they were in the minerals and rocks all along from an originally created earth that worked under a totally different set of physical laws. Therefore, the age isn't really an age, but an apparent age - they have nothing to do with the age of the rocks - they were there all along. Is this correct? Or am I going off base with way too many assumptions?

As explained above, some of the isotopes would be because of the decay that has existed since things changed. So it is not really an age or apparent age. It is a misunderstanding.

[IgnatioDeLoyola]

@dad2

On 4/12/2024 at 6:23 PM, dad2 said:

No. That is probably true as well. I am talking about after the fall. The days of Adam and Noah etc. Right on up till after the flood of Noah and to the time or Peleg and Babel.

Understood. So likely the physical laws and makeup of the universe changed ~4300 years ago (about 2300BC)?

On 4/12/2024 at 6:23 PM, dad2 said:

So, let's say there are now 107 daughter isotopes in the total. That would mean 7 of those daughter isotopes WERE produced by radioactive decay in this present nature!

I understand. In practical terms though, for supposedly very "old" rocks, the vast, vast majority of the "daughter" isotope would have been in there to start off with from the previously created (pre-Babel) world.

For example, Rubidium-87 has a half-life of 49 billion years. That means that very, very little Strontium-87 in rocks is from Rudidium-87 if its only had 4000 years to decay.

Similar conclusions can be reached for Uranium-238 (half life of 4.5 billion years), Potassium-40 (half-life 1.2 billion years). We therefore have to assume that the vast majority of "daughter" isotopes of these that exist aren't daughters at all - they were there already 4400 years ago when the physics of the world changed, and have had very small quantities added to them since then. 

On 4/12/2024 at 6:23 PM, dad2 said:

Exactly and it is THAT assumption I challenge. (since as in the example I gave, the vast majority of isotopes in the ratio got there by other means or were there when radioactive decay started)

Great. We understand each other fully, I believe. This is exactly what I thought you were saying.

However, I am still unconvinced that your hypothesis could possibly explain the physical world we see today. My contention here however, is part scientific, and part theological.

Let me give you some examples of my problems with this:

Decay Chains:

Some radioactive elements do not decay immediately to the ultimate daughter element. For example, Uranium doesn't decay immediately to Lead. Rather, there is a long chain of radioactive elements from Uranium to Lead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain). 

As a bunch of Uranium (or indeed Thorium) decays, the decay chain is set up. After many millions of years, the decay has been going on long enough that the decay chain stabilises, with the ratios of decay chain elements becoming constant. The ratios of these elements are dependent on their half-life.

We find many, many rocks with stable decay chains - that is, the exact ratio of radioactive elements we expect from their half-lives. This suggests one of two things:

1. The decay has been going on many millions of year.

2. In your scenario, that God created rocks with exactly the amount of (at that time non-radioactive) elements to make it later look like a stable decay chain was in progress to scientists measuring the supposed age of the rock.

Remember, this has been measured in literally thousands upon thousands of rocks. The decay chains are so long (often involving literally dozens of elements) that the exact ratios occuring by chance are astronomical. The only conclusion is that God must have deliberately set these rocks up to have the appearance of great age when this was not the case.

Let me give you another example:

Multiple Agreeing Dating Methods:

Given your hypothesis, there is no reason at all that multiple dating methods should ever agree in a rock, because the amount of parent and daughter element in a rock are completely coincidental (since SR-87 didn't originate from Rb-87, Pb-206 didn't come from U-238, etc.)

Yet, using completely independent methods of radiometric dating, we very often find remarkable agreement. Are we to believe that this is coincidence (almost impossible statistically!) or are we to believe that God created the rocks this way (such that they would look extremely old when analysed by scientific methods, when really they are very young).

When you actually look at the methods of dating themselves, you find once again that God must have gone to great lengths to set the rocks up to look old. For example, in Rb-Sr dating, God must have formed rocks with the exact ratios of Rb-87, Sr-87 AND non-radiogenic Sr-86 to form old-looking isochrons. This is exceptionally precise work.

Or in the case of K-Ar dating, God must have put Ar-40 in rocks to begin with and trapped this Argon, even though it doesn't occur *anywhere* else in nature. The only known source of Ar-40 is from the decay of K-40, and we ONLY find it in rocks with K-40 (because it isn't naturally occuring).

If it was important for God to trap Ar-40 in rocks, why did he only trap it in rocks that had K-40? Why do we find this non-naturally occuring gas only in rocks with "parent element" K-40?

Is God a liar / trickster?

While the questions above are partially scientific, they are actually theological. The basic analysis is that the rocks we find either have experienced very long periods of radioactive decay, or have been created to look like they have experienced very long periods of radioactive decay.

This is different from creating things to look *mature*. Creating Adam as a human adult is making him mature. Creating Adam with a scar on his knee where he fell as a child, even though he was never a child, is creating him to look old. It is creating a false history for Adam. 

It is the same for the physical evidence we see. And that brings me to the ultimate question: is God capable of falsehood or deception? Could He trick us in this way? Can God lie, or deceive? 

The Bible gives us an answer of course: we know that Satan is the father of lies, and that God is Truth and Life, as we have experienced Him in His only begotten son Jesus.

Therefore I conclude that, while your hypothesis has a certain naive plausibility, it cannot explain the physical evidence we see UNLESS God is deliberately and carefully fabricating an artificial and false history of Earth. Since God would not do this, I cannot ascribe to your hypothesis and therefore reject it.

Best

I

P.S. I could have used a third (and equally compelling) case - of what we see in the galaxy and universe. For example, we see supernova explosions where, charting the speed of the debris and direction of the explosion, we can conclude that the explosion must have happened many millions of years ago. But of course, in your proposed universe, this is false. God created the debris mid-flight, to make it look like there had been an explosion many millions of years ago that, in actual fact, did not occur. Again, God has created "theatre" - a movie show in the sky to make everything look very ancient when in fact the universe is very young - the supernova never happened. And again, the movie he has created is very intricate and detailed - down to the composition of the elements in the explosion that we measure. Again I say: God isn't a liar. He isn't Steven Spielberg. He isn't in the movie business.

Edited April 15 by IgnatioDeLoyola

[RV_Wizard]

2 hours ago, IgnatioDeLoyola said:

This is different from creating things to look *mature*. Creating Adam as a human adult is making him mature. Creating Adam with a scar on his knee where he fell as a child, even though he was never a child, is creating him to look old. It is creating a false history for Adam. 

It is the same for the physical evidence we see. And that brings me to the ultimate question: is God capable of falsehood or deception? Could He trick us in this way? Can God lie, or deceive? 

Adam didn't have a scar when he was made in the image of God.  He was flawless; like Eve.  However, had Adam cut down a tree that was made three days earlier, I believe it would have had rings; not because it would APPEAR to be mature, but because it would be mature.  

God made trees bearing fruit.  Fruit trees take 5-7 years to bear fruit.  God told all the animals to be fruitful and multiply, including elephants which average 156-17 years to reach puberty.  Everything in creation was created in its mature state.  We can therefore conclude that the planet itself was created in its mature state.  The light from the stars takes years to reach the earth, yet they were seen instantly on the fourth day of creation.

God isn't deceiving us.  He told us exactly how He did it.  The deception comes from trying to find a natural explanation for a supernatural creation.  Things are not going to line up.  The old earth deception is but one of many false doctrines that will be abundant in the final days before the return of Christ in the clouds.  Like evolution, there will be more and more "evidence" that will lead many astray.  However, Satan, not God, is the father of these lies.  The heavens proclaim the glory of God.  The delusion that the earth came about by natural forces diminishes the glory of God.

The bottom line is that God made the earth as a home for man while man decides whether to follow Him or reject Him.  The earth will not last forever, but the souls of man will last forever... somewhere.  The beginning of the earth was supernatural.  The end of the earth will be supernatural.  The truth lies not with the temporary creation, but with the eternal Creator.

[IgnatioDeLoyola]

Dear @RV_Wizard,

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

However, had Adam cut down a tree that was made three days earlier, I believe it would have had rings; not because it would APPEAR to be mature, but because it would be mature.  

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I wonder if you can answer a question I have on the difference between "maturity" and "appearance of history". I think these are quite different things.

You say you think trees created in the garden of Eden would have rings. I am wondering however about the composition of those rings. I know this may seem a very stupid and detailed question, but bear with me.

Tree rings are interesting things. They do usually tell us information about the age of a tree. But they also often contain information about the climate and nature as the tree grew. For example, the width of rings tells us about the abundance of natural growth elements during that season of growth. The darkness or lightness of rings tells us about nutritional conditions. The chemical makeup of rings tells us about the light and nutrients present in the season they grew. The amoung of C-14 remaining in tree rings tells us about when they grew exactly. I'm sure you get the point.

Now, would I be surprised if trees had rings in the Garden of Eden? Probably not (although I would say it's a coin toss whether they did or not).

But I would be VERY surprised if they were like modern tree rings.

Imagine for example I chopped down one of these trees and examined the rings. I would expect them to be very, very uniform, because the trees didn't grow during different seasons causing disuniformity - they were specially created by God.

I wouldn't expect "older" rings to tell tales of drought, or diseases the tree might have had in the past (why would they? the tree had no diseases or past disuniformity of growth of nutrition). I wouldn't expect there to be significant climactic variation, and therefore colouration, of rings - because the tree didn't grow in different climates or epochs. I would expect there to be the same levels of C-14 (and other elements) in each ring - because they tree hasn't grown over a long period allowing changes to "earlier" rings - therefore such patterns should not exist.

This is the sort of difference I am talking about when I look at the appearance of maturity, and the appearance of history / age. 

Imagine then I look at the rivers coming out of Eden. I take core samples from the riverbeds. Would these have varves telling of different seasonal deposition of minerals, when there had been no seasons or mineral variation? What if these varves were present, and told of the same seasonal weather, climate and nutritional patterns the tree rings did from the garden? Would you agree that this would be a sign of history / age, not only maturity? Would God create such fabrications that gave the appearance of a real age and history, rather than maturity? Indeed, the agreement of the tree ring and varve history would suggest a genuine past that hadn't happened - would God decieve man in this way?

You say that the truth lies with the eternal creator, not the temporary creation. Of course that is true. But creation is part of our revelation of the creator, though scarred by our sin. It is one of the sources of information we have about Him, because his hand and design and intelligence lies behind all the created order. 

I do not wish to put barriers ahead of anyone's faith. I am not seeking to steal and destroy as Satan does. But I must tell you, if there is an "old earth deception", it is a deception of God's own hand, and this is impossible. Insisting that a person either believes in God and salvation, or that the earth is old, really is a barrier to faith for anyone who understands the evidence. It is to say that I must both accept that God is an active deceiver of believers as well as the Way, the Truth and the Life. I cannot believe God would put such a stumbling block in the way of faith, nor that God could intentionally makes things look a false way when the truth is different. 

All the best,

I