The Myth of radioactive dating.

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #1

Post by EarthScienceguy »

1. Myth is the ratio of parent daughter amounts.

Creation theory says that God created adult creatures and fully functional systems. God did not create Adam as an embryo God created Adam as a man. God did not create an egg He created an adult chicken. God created our sun as if it has been burning for billions of years. The reason why God created a universe with billions of years of life left in it is to show man the immortality that he lost in the fall. It is also meant to show man the future immortality that he can have.

With this being the case God could have very easily created radioactive elements with long half lives halfway through their decay cycle.

Now before I receive all the comments about God making thing magically appear. Might I remind all of those that believe in uniformitarianism that you have NO working theory of origins. Big Bang theory is not a theory of origins because it begins after all the energy is in the universe already. The universe from nothing is not a theory of origins because it also has to start with some sort of space. You have simply changed your belief in God to a pantheistic belief of the power of nature to overcome impossible odds. Saying that science just has not come up with a solution yet, is saying that you believe that nature found a way for life to come into existence, that is pantheism.

Although the above could be true, there are reasons why I do not believe that radioactivity was created during creation week.

1. Most Radioactive elements are found in the upper continental crust or granite. (https://www.nature.com/articles/208479b0) There really is no reason why God would create radioactive material in pockets in upper mantle crust. Deep in the earth I could see as a heat source for the liquefaction of the outer core. But not in the upper mantle. So it must have come into existence after the initial creation of the universe.

It has been shown in experimentation that fusion and heavy radioactive elements can be produced by high voltage currents of electricity in a process called z-pinch.
Since February 2000, thousands of sophisticated experiments at the Proton-21 Electrodynamics Research Laboratory (Kiev, Ukraine) have demonstrated nuclear combustion31 by producing traces of all known chemical elements and their stable isotopes.32 In those experiments, a brief (10-8 second), 50,000 volt, electron flow, at relativistic speeds, self-focuses (Z-pinches) inside a hemispherical electrode target, typically 0.5 mm in diameter. The relative abundance of chemical elements produced generally corresponds to what is found in the Earth’s crust.

... the statistical mean curves of the abundance of chemical elements created in our experiments are close to those characteristic in the Earth’s crust.33

Each experiment used one of 22 separate electrode materials, including copper, silver, platinum, bismuth, and lead, each at least 99.90% pure. In a typical experiment, the energy of an electron pulse is less than 300 joules (roughly 0.3 BTU or 0.1 watt-hour), but it is focused—Z-pinched—onto a point inside the electrode. That point, because of the concentrated electrical heating, instantly becomes the center of a tiny sphere of dense plasma.

With a burst of more than 1018 electrons flowing through the center of this plasma sphere, the surrounding nuclei (positive ions) implode onto that center. Compression from this implosion easily overcomes the normal Coulomb repulsion between the positively charged nuclei. The resulting fusion produces superheavy chemical elements, some twice as heavy as uranium and some that last for a few months.34 All eventually fission, producing a wide variety of new chemical elements and isotopes.


31. Stanislav Adamenko et al., Controlled Nucleosynthesis: Breakthroughs in Experiment and Theory (Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer Verlag, 2007), pp. 1–773.

Those who wish to critically study the claims of Adamenko and his laboratory should carefully examine the evidence detailed in his book. One review of the book can be found at

www.newenergytimes.com/v2/books/Reviews ... yDolan.pdf

u “We present results of experiments using a pulsed power facility to induce collective nuclear interactions producing stable nuclei of virtually every element in the periodic table.� Stanislav Adamenko et al., “Exploring New Frontiers in the Pulsed Power Laboratory: Recent Progress,� Results in Physics, Vol. 5, 2015, p. 62.

32. “The products released from the central area of the target [that was] destroyed by an extremely powerful explosion from inside in every case of the successful operation of the coherent beam driver created in the Electrodynamics Laboratory ‘Proton-21,’ with the total energy reserve of 100 to 300 J, contain significant quantities (the integral quantity being up to 10-4 g and more) of all known chemical elements, including the rarest ones.� [emphasis in original] Adamenko et al., p. 49.

In other words, an extremely powerful, but tiny, Z-pinch-induced explosion occurred inside various targets, each consisting of a single chemical element. All experiments combined have produced at least 10-4 gram of every common chemical element.

u In these revolutionary experiments, the isotope ratios for a particular chemical element resembled those found today for natural isotopes. However, those ratios were different enough to show that they were not natural isotopes that somehow contaminated the electrode or experiment.

33. Stanislav Adamenko, “The New Fusion,� ExtraOrdinary Technology, Vol. 4, October-December, 2006, p. 6.

34. “The number of formed superheavy nuclei increases when a target made of heavy atoms (e.g., Pb) is used. Most frequently superheavy nuclei with A=271, 272, 330, 341, 343, 394, 433 are found. The same superheavy nuclei were found in the same samples when repeated measurements were made at intervals of a few months.� Adamenko et al., “Full-Range Nucleosynthesis in the Laboratory,� Infinite Energy, Issue 54, 2004, p. 4.
It is totally in the realm of possibility for all of the radioactive elements in the earth's crust to be made by the z-pinch process.

It has also been observed that electrical current in the form of lighting takes place during earthquakes.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/new ... y-science/

https://www.livescience.com/43686-earth ... cause.html

All that would be needed to generate pockets of radioactive elements with all of the percentages of isotopes that we see today could have been made in an instant, with understood science that we see today.


Those that hold to uniformitarian beliefs have greater difficulty explaining radioactivity in the upper crust. Why would radioactive elements exist mainly in pockets in the upper continental crust? This is even harder to envision when one considers that it only takes 2 billion years for plate material to circumvent the radius of the Earth. All Tectonic plates should have been subducted several times over in the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth. Therefore uniformitarian beliefs would predict that radioactive elements should be evenly distributed about the surface of the earth after mixing in the mantle or non existent because of density. Especially since the density of U is around 19, Zirconium silicate has a density of over 4 and Zirconium has a density of over 6. Granite and basalt both have a density of around 3.

So any uniformitarian theory must first answer the question of why radioactive elements exist mostly in continental crust. Second, why would these radioactive elements exist in pockets in the crust? Third, why would these heavy elements not sink to the core when the earth was in molten form. Especially when one considers the oldest radioactive rocks on the earth were dated at 4.4 billion years old, long before the earth's crust cooled 4.1 billion years ago.


2. There are detectable subducted plates at the base of the mantle outer core boundary, along with detectable subducted plates at the transition zone. These subducted plates are detectable because they have not yet reached thermal equilibrium with the mantle rock around them. How could these slabs not have reached thermal equilibrium after millions of years? All of the images of the subducted slabs show consistently cooler rock surrounded by extremely hot mantle, even after traveling more than 1500 km (930 mi) right through the mantle itself.

Mao, W. and S. Zhong. 2018. Slab stagnation due to a reduced viscosity layer beneath the mantle transition zone. Nature Geoscience. DOI: 10.1038/s41561-018-0225-2.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ntists-say

There are so many subducted slabs under the pacific that many geologist describe the mantle below the the pacific ocean as a log jam of plates in the upper mantle. If it takes millions of years to for plates to subduct into the mantle then most of these plates should be already mixed with the mantle. A single shallow convection cycle takes on the order of 50 million years, though deeper convection can be closer to 200 million years. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_convection) So why have these plates not melted, mixed with the rest of the mantle and been recycled as new crust? Because they have not been in the mantle for millions of years simply thousands of years.

This melting and mixing in the mantle should produce an even distribution of radioactive elements, but that is not what is observed.

Pantheism does not have an answer for the problems associated with radioactive dating on the earth. Only creationism has an unbroken series of causes that lead to radioactivity on the earth.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #31

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 27 by EarthScienceguy]
But you still need to explain why the assumption produced correct calculations.


I have ... pure coincidence.

I can make the assumption that all refrigerators are made of carrot cake. Then I can go out and weigh refrigerators of all sizes and shapes and find that their weights very closely match that of an equivalent size of carrot cake. Have I proven that refrigerators are made of carrot cake because their weights agree with my hypothesis in every case?

This is exactly what Humphreys did. Instead of weight he used magnetic field strength, but it is the same nonsense. We know that planets did not start out as balls of H2O (and that refrigerators are not made of carrot cake). We also know that nuclear spins in a large ensemble of H2O molecules do not spontaneously align (Humphreys had to use "god did it" for that one, and he directly said so). My point is that whatever coincidences may fall out of his erroneous assumptions are meaningless, because his initial assumptions are known to be false.

If he had presented a legitimate argument, and data, to show that the planets did start out as balls of H2O, then further showed how the nuclear spins of the H-atoms could have become aligned at t=0, then he might have a case. But he did neither, and since we know those two things are false so we can stop right there. Anything predicted from these two false assumptions has no validity, and is nothing but coincidence.
In the end the spin on the protons of that much water did yield the correct results on every planet in the solar system. So why is that if the assumption is false.


Again ... it is pure coincidence. This assumption is known to be false, along with the other one (ie. planets started as balls of H2O) independent of anything else. Are you now saying his assumptions must be true because of his coincidental numbers on magnetic field strengths? If so, then you must explain how the planets in our solar systems went from balls of H2O to their present rocky or gaseous (with little or no H2O) compositions. Then you must explain how a large ensemble of H2O molecules is able to have the nuclear spins of all their H atoms align. He also assumed the planets formed only 6,000 years ago and we know that is false as well. So nothing about his "theory" holds water (pun intended) ... it is an example of pure coincidence and nothing more.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #32

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 27 by EarthScienceguy]
I do not know how to debate someone who keeps wanting to run from the scientific method.
Says the person who has quoted and cited from those who themselves make a pure mockery of the SM in support of his own arguments.
Statement-of-Faithers are NOT following the method.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #33

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Why does this bother you so much?

The assumptions of a naturalist as going to be totally different than those of a creationist.

A naturalist assumes that natural laws can be broken when nature chooses to so that the universe and life can come into existence.

Creationist believe in the unchanging nature of God and the laws He put in place in the universe He created.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9864
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #34

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 30 by EarthScienceguy]
Correction:

Creationists assume that natural laws can be broken when God chooses to do so that the universe and life can come into existence.

Naturalists believe in the unchanging law of nature that lead directly to a universe with life.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #35

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Bust Nak]
Creationists assume that natural laws can be broken when God chooses to do so that the universe and life can come into existence.
Neither one of these examples you listed is breaking any natural laws. The law of conservation of mass and energy simply tells us that energy cannot be created or destroyed. This law says nothing about the eternality of energy. Energy had to have always existed creationist simply define this eternal energy is in the form of a living being that we can know.

Life coming from life does not break the law of biogenesis. Creationism is the only theory that has an unbroken chain of causality.
Naturalists believe in the unchanging law of nature that lead directly to a universe with life.
The above is not true of Naturalists beliefs. Naturalists theories begin after the universe was created and after life came into existence. The assumption is that nature found a way for the universe to come into existence from nothing. And that life spontaneously arose from nothing. Both these ideas break well established laws of science. Naturalists beliefs have to break both the law of conservation of mass and the law of biogenesis.

If someone wants to have beliefs that breaks known laws of science that is up to them. If men want to believe foolish things, that is totally up to them. But I prefer to live in the light of the modern laws we have today.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9864
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #36

Post by Bust Nak »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Neither one of these examples you listed is breaking any natural laws. The law of conservation of mass and energy simply tells us that energy cannot be created or destroyed. This law says nothing about the eternality of energy. Energy had to have always existed creationist simply define this eternal energy is in the form of a living being that we can know.
So you are suggesting that your god used existing energy in the universe to create the heaven and the Earth?
Life coming from life does not break the law of biogenesis. Creationism is the only theory that has an unbroken chain of causality.
That doesn't mean much when you have a supernatural entity that can grant prayers.
The above is not true of Naturalists beliefs. Naturalists theories begin after the universe was created and after life came into existence.
Right, and nothing there would contradicts the laws of nature.
The assumption is that nature found a way for the universe to come into existence from nothing. And that life spontaneously arose from nothing.
Nah, those are creationist assumptions. Naturalist beliefs have are consistent with the law of conservation of mass and the law of biogenesis.
If someone wants to have beliefs that breaks known laws of science that is up to them. If men want to believe foolish things, that is totally up to them.
Nah, we should criticize them relentless until these creationist see the error of their ways.
But I prefer to live in the light of the modern laws we have today.
So welcome to evolution.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #37

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 32 by EarthScienceguy]
Energy had to have always existed creationist simply define this eternal energy is in the form of a living being that we can know.

Creationism is the only theory that has an unbroken chain of causality.


When you simply make up unsubstantiated definitions like the first comment above, then it is very easy to create "unbroken chains of causality" or virtually anything else you happen to like.

Where it totally falls apart is when the assumptions and arbitrary definitions that are the basis of creationism can't be shown to be valid or realistic, or consistent with the known laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. that all do have solid foundations and experimental and observational support.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #38

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 34 by DrNoGods]
When you simply make up unsubstantiated definitions like the first comment above, then it is very easy to create "unbroken chains of causality" or virtually anything else you happen to like.
Energy always needing to exist. is a need for any theory of origins.
Where it totally falls apart is when the assumptions and arbitrary definitions that are the basis of creationism can't be shown to be valid or realistic, or consistent with the known laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. that all do have solid foundations and experimental and observational support.
That is incorrect. The original energy had to exist outside this universe. That means this energy could and had to exist in a different form than it exists in this universe. Because according to most cosmologist, Greene, Caroll (author of "from eternity to here") All theorize that this constants and the laws of physics are a characteristic of this universe. So energy outside this universe has to exist in a form different than it does in this universe.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #39

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 35 by EarthScienceguy]

You do know you just contradicted yourself right?

Here it is
Energy always needing to exist.
I wouldn't word it like that myself, but yes...energy always exists. Cannot be created or destroyed (I snipped the end of the sentence regarding evolution because it's unnecessary for the point I'm making).
All theorize (theories?) that this constants and the laws of physics are a characteristic of this universe. So energy outside this universe has to exist in a form different than it does in this universe.
The contradiction is that you say the energy has to always exist...and then you say that the constant, the laws of physics among which would be the conservation of energy...is a characteristic of THIS universe.
Since you have earlier stated that you conflate energy with God, this would mean that the property of constant existence does not (at least not necessarily) apply...at least, if we follow your logic.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #40

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 35 by EarthScienceguy]
Energy always needing to exist. is a need for any theory of origins.


Who is talking about origins? My comment was that you completely made up a definition that "eternal energy is in the form of a living being that we can know." There is no substantiation for that ... it is simply a completely unfounded statement that you then use as a basis for other claims (much like Humphrey's magic balls of H2O).
The original energy had to exist outside this universe. That means this energy could and had to exist in a different form than it exists in this universe ...


Again, what does this have to do with making up arbitrary definitions such as energy being in the form of a living being? You're making comments that have no relationship whatsoever to the comments you are replying to.

Explain why you think "eternal energy" is in the form of a living being. If you can't justify that claim then nothing you derive from it has any validity. But you've misunderstood this fundamental point repeatedly (eg. Humphrey) and can't seem to appreciate why completely made up and unfounded assumptions are useless for deriving, or predicting, anything useful in science.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply