The Lorax Posted January 23, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 183 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,892 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/07/1985 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Thanks mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lcash Posted January 23, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 43 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/12/2008 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 23, 2008 Now what do we talk about? Now let me explain the question I asked about short half-lived radioisotopes. A short life is the amount of time it would take for an element to decay to one half of it's original mass. Neptunium has a half life of 2.14million years. If the earth were young there would be an abundance of neptunium in the earths crust. It is an isotope derived from uranium. Only trace amounts are found in nature around uranium deposits. Since there are no deposits of nepeunium that is an indicator that the earth is atleast 20,000,000 years old. This is just an example of the dating techneques that are used to judge the age of the earth.. It presents a problem for YEC's because they cannot explain it away. Using these and other measures the earth is ~4.5 billion years old. As for Noah, i believe that Adam was uch further back in the linege of homo sapiens an probably was what we call a caveman. Astolopithicus (sp) The flood of the Mediteranean sea happened ove 55 million years ago and this explains every condition raised in the book of Genesis including the lack of rain. Later tomorrow. Lcash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lcash Posted January 23, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 43 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/12/2008 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 23, 2008 (edited) Thanks for the explanation, Lcash. If the earth were young there would be an abundance of neptunium in the earths crust. What are the assumptions behind this claim? Let's examine them. As for Noah, i believe that Adam was uch further back in the linege of homo sapiens an probably was what we call a caveman. Astolopithicus (sp) The flood of the Mediteranean sea happened ove 55 million years ago and this explains every condition raised in the book of Genesis including the lack of rain. Later tomorrow. 55 million years ago? Did you mean 5.5 million years ago? check this out: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199808/0134.html I know Glenn. We have worked the same fields. He is a great source for this and is the author I followed for the theory of Noah's Ark. It did not originate with me. Have you read Glen's testimony? It is a sad story of how the church treats Christians who do not toe the line on orthodox thinking. You got me 5.5 million. Sorry The assumptions behind the claim for the amount of neptunium is that it is a naturaly occuring isotope similar to Uranium. The differense is that it has a much shorter half life than Uranium. There are still vast quantities of uranium found all over the world but not Neptunium. The half life is too short and it has all dispeared. Except for the trace amounts around uuranium mines. Having a longer half life it should be as abundant as uranium. Lcash Edited January 23, 2008 by Lcash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lcash Posted January 23, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 43 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/12/2008 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 23, 2008 Good explanation. I'll leave it to the TEC's to question the assumptions behind various absolute dating methods. The Mediterranean Flood theory as an explanation for the roots of the Biblical/Babylonian/Mesopotamian flood myths is very intriguing. I have long been inclined to believe that local flash floods, including occasional floods of immense magnitude, in the Mesopotamian valley were the likely explanation. What's of interest is that the bulk of these flood myths seem to be found in one form or another amongst various floodplain cultures. The main flaw in a local riverine flood is the speed it moves and the direction. If it flows as usual then Noah winds up in Africa not turkey. Mt Ararat is in Turkey. Also it says the hills of ararat which is the name of the entire region not just the one mountain. The flood lasted for 1 year and moved the Ark North to turkey and the only explainattion for that would be the refilling of the dessicated Mediteranean sea. Lcash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillingToDie Posted January 23, 2008 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 710 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/16/1984 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Now what do we talk about? Now let me explain the question I asked about short half-lived radioisotopes. A short life is the amount of time it would take for an element to decay to one half of it's original mass. Neptunium has a half life of 2.14million years. If the earth were young there would be an abundance of neptunium in the earths crust. It is an isotope derived from uranium. Only trace amounts are found in nature around uranium deposits. Since there are no deposits of nepeunium that is an indicator that the earth is atleast 20,000,000 years old. This is just an example of the dating techneques that are used to judge the age of the earth.. It presents a problem for YEC's because they cannot explain it away. Using these and other measures the earth is ~4.5 billion years old. How can we know for sure that half-life remains constant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 How can we know for sure that half-life remains constant? Considering The Earth's Immense Age, Why Are There Still Radioactive Elements Present? Do Geologists Ever Do The Math On Half-Lives To Figure Out When The Radiation Should Stop Based On Current Ageing Assumptions? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lcash Posted January 23, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 43 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/12/2008 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 23, 2008 The main flaw in a local riverine flood is the speed it moves and the direction. If it flows as usual then Noah winds up in Africa not turkey. Mt Ararat is in Turkey. Also it says the hills of ararat which is the name of the entire region not just the one mountain. The flood lasted for 1 year and moved the Ark North to turkey and the only explainattion for that would be the refilling of the dessicated Mediteranean sea. Would the waters have gotten so high that they covered mountains?? Yes. A flood caused by the re-filling of the mediteranean very well could have covered mountains. The ground water in the surrounding coasts would have to rise and actualy gush forth due to the increased pressure. Since before this flood there was no rain which would be logical due to the local wind patterns over the european continent (some areas adjacent to mountains with similar wind patterns have not had rain in the last 400 years in Peru). The suden uprising of super moist air from the rushing water would have caused torrential rain over the entire Mediteranean area that could have lasted for months. Now we get to the definition of mountains. The area of the Med that could have supported a popultion is around the present day coast. To them the coast itself is the high mountain because from their perspective that is what it looks like. The waters would also be able to take the Ark north and deposit in the hills of Ararat. Lcash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lcash Posted January 23, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 43 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/12/2008 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 23, 2008 (edited) Now what do we talk about? Now let me explain the question I asked about short half-lived radioisotopes. A short life is the amount of time it would take for an element to decay to one half of it's original mass. Neptunium has a half life of 2.14million years. If the earth were young there would be an abundance of neptunium in the earths crust. It is an isotope derived from uranium. Only trace amounts are found in nature around uranium deposits. Since there are no deposits of nepeunium that is an indicator that the earth is atleast 20,000,000 years old. This is just an example of the dating techneques that are used to judge the age of the earth.. It presents a problem for YEC's because they cannot explain it away. Using these and other measures the earth is ~4.5 billion years old. How can we know for sure that half-life remains constant? willingtodie, We know tht half-lives remain constant because in the lab we have created extremely short half live elements as short as seconds. It is measurable and repeatable. Fresno Joe, We have radioactive elements that have lost their radioactivity and it decays into other elements. Each element has it's own half life based on its own shedding of radiation. Some have half lives that are extremely long such as Uranium 238 which has a half-life of 4.46 billion years so we are almost to half of the uranium 238 than there was at the beginning of the earth. and some are extremely short such as Franconium with a half life of 22 seconds. I am not a physicist so I have not done the calculations you are asking about. The idea that we don't understand the decay rate is a non-starter. Most nuclear technology is built around understanding the decay rate of the elements. If it did not work then radiation therapy would not work, neither would most nuclear medicine, nuclear weapons, etc. Lcash Edited January 23, 2008 by Lcash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lcash Posted January 23, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 43 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/12/2008 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 23, 2008 Here is a better article of reconciling Genesis with modern science. The idea that the flood was the re-filling of the Mediteranean is not mine. It was from a geophysicist name Glenn Morton. Here is a link to a paper he wrote on the subject. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm Lcash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aworldofmanyfools Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 (edited) Here is a better article of reconciling Genesis with modern science. The idea that the flood was the re-filling of the Mediteranean is not mine. It was from a geophysicist name Glenn Morton. Here is a link to a paper he wrote on the subject. The Word of God doesn't need to be "reconciled" with any whimsical human speculation no one can say exactly what processes may have occurred at the Creation, it's completely outside the realm of human knowledge/reference, and the little PhD geologists don't have the slightest clue Assumption One: The radioisotope decay rates have been constant throughout the past. We know that some elements decay over time into another element, i.e., uranium (parent) changes into lead (daughter). Since these decay rates are now very stable, this has seemed to be a reasonable assumption. However, there are several clues that past rates have changed, or that some other process dominated. For example, the existence of short half-life polonium halos in rock have been used by many to argue for rapid formation (i.e., creation) of host rocks. Even evolutionists admit that the halos are a mystery. Yet nearby a full uranium halo might be found which would take a long period of time to form. These two 'mutually-exclusive' facts convince one that something has been overlooked. Assumption Two: No parent or daughter material has been added to or taken from the specimen. We know of many ways in which the materials can be made mobile, most particularly through ground water leaching. But even when questionable specimens are rejected, many results are still unusable, and explained away by contamination. Assumption Three: No daughter material was present at the start. Only rocks and minerals which formerly were in a hot molten condition (like lava) can be dated. But what if the original melt already had some radiogenic lead? The resulting rock would inherit a deceivingly "old" date. In recent years, the "isochron" method has been derived to differentiate between inherited material and true daughter material. Unfortunately, even this has now come into disfavor. Many "pseudo-isochrons" have now been published which yield bizarre, useless dates. This assumption actually denies the possibility of creation, for God may have created an array of radioisotopes which, if analyzed with false assumptions, could be misinterpreted as age. The method's unreliability is shown when rocks of known age are dated. For instance, the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens dates at 2.8 million years old! Such anomalous results are common. Edited January 23, 2008 by aworldofmanyfools Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts