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.

Online
Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9859
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #11

Post by Bust Nak »

Still small wrote: How is God deceptive? He, at no point, claims that the creatures are old. You have inferred an age from appearance, after making certain assumptions about processes changing over time, and about the starting conditions.
That's it right there, creating something that appears to be of aged X where it is not in fact, aged X, is deception.
God has made it perfectly clear how old the created kind were on Days 5 & 6 and a plain reading shows that.
It's one thing to make a one day old Adam looks like he is aged 30, it's quite another to make a one day old Adam complete with 30 years worth of false history.
Once again, only if you infer long age processes from assumed starting conditions.
Assumptions that are well justified. This thread wouldn't have existed if radioactive dating doesn't at worse appear to be accurate.
A plain reading gives a clear indication of the actual age. As an analogy - as I leave for work in the morning, expecting a long stressful day, I suggest to my loving wife that it would be nice to come home to a lovely warm bath.
I arrive home at my usual 6pm and find a bath had been run and was a delightful 38 deg C (close to 100 deg F). My hot water system is set to 68 deg C. At what time did my wife run the bath? And how did you arrive at that time?
Figuring out the rate of cooling and working backwards to calculate what time it would be. Presumably, you are hinting that would get me an inaccurate timing since your wife could have use other means of adjusting the temperature?

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

Post #12

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 11 by Bust Nak]
Presumably, you are hinting that would get me an inaccurate timing since your wife could have use other means of adjusting the temperature?


Or, possibly, a trick question to then bash radiometric dating as inaccurate by some argument? The bathtub cooling problem is exponential, not linear, but is well understood. So I'd also be interested to see what the point of the question was.

More importantly though, is where did Still Small find a wife that would accept instructions to have a hot bath waiting for him when he arrives home from work!
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 #13

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Ok, let's put some real numbers in now. A 9.0 on the richter scale earthquake is said to release the equivalent energy as 9.9 x 10^7 tons of TNT. 1 metric ton of TNT is said to release 4.184 x 10^9 joules of energy. So an earthquake release 4.14 x 10^17 joules of energy . Let's say that this energy is for the most part acted on 1 km2 of rock. With an understanding that there is an integration here we can roughly estimate the that force on this 1 km2 is around 4.14 x 10^11 N/m.

Using the voltage and charge sensitivity constants from above, Sc = 2.5 x 10^-12 C/N and Sv = 1.2 x 10-2 v/N.

Charge = (4.14 x 10^11N/m) x (2.5 x 10^-12C/N) x (1000 m)

Charge = 1035 C

Volts = (4.14 x 10^11 N/m) x (1.2 x 10^-2 V/N) x (1000 m)

Volts = (5.0 x 10^12 V)


Watts = 5 x 10^15 Watts

Product = (5 x 10^15 Joules) x (1 x 10^-4 g) x (2 x 10^-2 Joules)

Product = 1.0 x 10^9 grams (1 metric ton / 1 x 10^6 g)

Product = 1.0 x 10^3 metric tons of radioactive material per each 9.0 earthquake. If the Earthquake were more severe then more radioactive material would be made.

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 #14

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 3 by wiploc]

So god planned the fall? He did it to us?

God allowed the fall yes. We all choose to sin all by ourselves. Do you want Him to stop you from sinning? Sin is when we choose the short lived pleasure of sin, instead of loving God. Love chooses to do what the object of our love desires. Anything short of that is not love for another but love of self.



You know god's mind that well? Because I'm guessing that you would also argue, when it was convenient to you, that six thousand years, and 4.5 billion years is nothing--not even a drop in the bucket--compared to eternity.
If you understand that God created everything in the prime of its existence. Man was created for eternity just like John 3:16 says. So as man looks out at the heavens we can see what we lost at the fall. God made this universe with eternity in mind.

God is a God who loves to create. The creatures that live at the bottom of the ocean that man will never see. God made them so that man will always be in awe of the wonders of the the creation He has made.

Hang on to your seat as man pushes further out into space and be readied to be awed at what man will find. Other animal life maybe, intelligent life probably not.



Quote:

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


This, we must grant. An omnipotent god could have created a world that looks older than it is. He could also have deliberately written the bible to include misrepresentations.

Either of those moves would make him a liar.

When I look at a bible, I'm looking at copies of translations of copies of translations. One can at least argue that god isn't responsible for the errors. But when I look at the earth, with its fossils and layers and radioactivity and other spoor, I'm looking at the untranslated word of god. I'm looking at the real thing.

So it amuses me that some people say, in effect, "God tried to make the earth look old, but I am too smart for him."

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 #15

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 13 by EarthScienceguy]
Ok, let's put some real numbers in now.


Let's also add some common sense and reality. You can't start putting in numbers until you define the problem. First, a massive 9.0 earthquake is not going to be concentrated in a 1 km^2 area. Second, the depth of the granite for this area has to be known before you can calculate how the force is distributed. Third, you've botched the units for the Product values at the bottom and have the number you did use out by a factor of 10 (it should be 1.0x10^10 g using your numbers). And that is not correcting for the wrong Joules value that should be 2 x 10^2, not 2 x 10^-2, and it should be in the denominator. It should read like this:

Product = [(5e15 J/s) x (1e-4 g)] / (200 J) = 2.5e9 g/s

But this isn't grams which is what you wanted. You've used watts instead of joules for the 5e15 number which is wrong. To get grams you have to convert your watts number to joules, which means knowing the time over which this amount of watts was generated (1W = 1 J/s) which you don't specify. But the watts number itself has no source. Where did you get 5e15W? Just multiplied volts by 1000 for some reason? The charge and volts numbers you used use one linear side of the 1 km^2 area, not a depth. Are you assuming a slip fault rather than a thrust fault? How long does the earthquake last? Why are you using one linear side of the 1 km^2 area and not its depth in the charge and volts formulas?

But all of this is moot because you are assuming, very wrongly, that 100% of the energy from this earthquake goes into creating a Z-pinch, presumably via "earthquake lightning" or the electrical activity beneath the surface that creates this effect when it reaches the surface. These events are far from being quantified in any way, so your claim that they could create a Z-pinch of any magnitude is pure speculation. This effect is not really lightning and has nowhere near the energy of typical cloud-to-cloud or cloud-to-ground lightning, but it can somehow (god did it?) produce a relativistic flow of electrons capable of self-focusing (ie. a Z-pinch) to produce the radioactive elements? The lab experiments used 10 ns pulses of 50,000V electron flows inside a target electrode to produce their effects. There's no indication that similar conditions could exist in an earthquake, at all, and certainly not in so-called "earthquake lightning." And very obviously, 100% of the energy of an earthquake cannot go into a Z-pinch effect (if that happens at all) because we can see all the other forms it dissipates above the surface. Good thing this wasn't a test question that was actually important for you to get right.

This is just another example where you've found an effect that can qualitatively produce the effect you are looking for (in this case, production of radioactive material), then you make the giant leap of claiming that, under completely different conditions, it can quantitatively explain earth-scale observations. Until someone demonstrates that the conditions for a Z-pinch can exist in an earthquake, the claim that this method could produce all of the radioactive material on earth is nothing but baseless speculation. Plus, we already know that this is not the method by which radioactive materials on earth came to be.

I'll ask again, why do you bother trying to debunk real science with these pseudoscience arguments and easily discredited examples?
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 #16

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods]

I did not proof this so there are probably lots of type o's
Let's also add some common sense and reality. You can't start putting in numbers until you define the problem. First, a massive 9.0 earthquake is not going to be concentrated in a 1 km^2 area.

Every earthquake has a focus usually deep underground where the slippage occured. So yes, most of the force of an earthquake is applied to the rock around the slippage. If a car hits a wall traveling at 200 kph the force from the impact is applied to the front of the car and decreases because of molecular interaction as one moves towards the back of the car. But most of the force is applied to the front of the car.
Second, the depth of the granite for this area has to be known before you can calculate how the force is distributed.
I am not sure why you think this. Because the energy emanates from the focus of an earthquake.
Third, you've botched the units for the Product values at the bottom and have the number you did use out by a factor of 10 (it should be 1.0x10^10 g using your numbers). And that is not correcting for the wrong Joules value that should be 2 x 10^2, not 2 x 10^-2, and it should be in the denominator. It should read like this:

Product = [(5e15 J/s) x (1e-4 g)] / (200 J) = 2.5e9 g/s
Oops I did not change the 2 to 1/2.
The equation could also be written like:

Product = (5e15 J/s) x (1e-4 g) x (1/2e-2)

But the 1/2 does not change the calculation that significantly.
But this isn't grams which is what you wanted. You've used watts instead of joules for the 5e15 number which is wrong. To get grams you have to convert your watts number to joules, which means knowing the time over which this amount of watts was generated (1W = 1 J/s) which you don't specify.


Earthquakes last about 10 - 30 seconds. This would change the number of joules ot 1.6e14 joules.
But the watts number itself has no source. Where did you get 5e15W? Just multiplied volts by 1000 for some reason? The charge and volts numbers you used use one linear side of the 1 km^2 area, not a depth. Are you assuming a slip fault rather than a thrust fault? How long does the earthquake last? Why are you using one linear side of the 1 km^2 area and not its depth in the charge and volts formulas?
The formula I used was V = P g d/lw

V = volts
P = pressure
g = sensitivity constant
d = depth
l = length
w= width

w in joules= F x d or N m

A 9.0 earthquake releases 4.14 x 10^17 joules of energy

Divide 4.14 x 10^17 N m / (1000 m x 1000 m) = 4.14 x 10^11 N/m This is 4.14 joules spread out over 1 km2

Charge = (4.14 x 10^11N/m) x (2.5 x 10^-12C/N) x (1000 m)

1000 m here is the depth.

Charge = 1035 C

Conversion to amps

If we use the 10 ns the lab used.

amps = 1035 C / 10 e-9 s

amps = 103.5e9 amps.

Voltage is calculated

Volts = (4.14 x 10^11 N/m) x (1.2 x 10^-2 V/N) x (1000 m)

Volts = (5.0 x 10^12 V)


Watts = amps x volts

Watts = (103.5 e9) x (5e12 v)

Watts = 517.5e21 watts

Product

Earthquakes last about 30 seconds

17.2e21 Joules of energy are released over the 30 seconds.

Product = (17.2e21 Joules) x (1 e-4 g) x (1/2 e-2 Joules^-1)

Product = 8.6e15 grams

Product = 8.6e15 grams (1 metric ton / 1 x 10^6 g)

Product = 8.6e9 metric tons of radioactive material per each 9.0 earthquake. If the Earthquake were more severe then more radioactive material would be made.
But all of this is moot because you are assuming, very wrongly, that 100% of the energy from this earthquake goes into creating a Z-pinch, presumably via "earthquake lightning" or the electrical activity beneath the surface that creates this effect when it reaches the surface.


I am not saying that the lighting has to reach the surface. The z-pinch occurs in the ground.
These events are far from being quantified in any way, so your claim that they could create a Z-pinch of any magnitude is pure speculation. This effect is not really lightning and has nowhere near the energy of typical cloud-to-cloud or cloud-to-ground lightning, but it can somehow (god did it?) produce a relativistic flow of electrons capable of self-focusing (ie. a Z-pinch) to produce the radioactive elements?
The piezoelectric effect is a fairly well understood with charges and voltages are easily calculated.

The lab experiments used 10 ns pulses of 50,000V electron flows inside a target electrode to produce their effects. There's no indication that similar conditions could exist in an earthquake, at all, and certainly not in so-called "earthquake lightning."


Earthquake lightning is an observed event. It is not if this happens it is when it happens.

And very obviously, 100% of the energy of an earthquake cannot go into a Z-pinch effect (if that happens at all) because we can see all the other forms it dissipates above the surface. Good thing this wasn't a test question that was actually important for you to get right.
Most does yes. Just like most of the force would be applied to the front of a car that hits a wall going 200 kph.
This is just another example where you've found an effect that can qualitatively(quantitatively) produce the effect you are looking for (in this case, production of radioactive material), then you make the giant leap of claiming that, under completely different conditions, it can quantitatively explain earth-scale observations. Until someone demonstrates that the conditions for a Z-pinch can exist in an earthquake, the claim that this method could produce all of the radioactive material on earth is nothing but baseless speculation. Plus, we already know that this is not the method by which radioactive materials on earth came to be.
Rocks can carry electric current. They can actually carry enough current to produce magnetic fields on the surface of the earth and do during earthquakes.




I'll ask again, why do you bother trying to debunk real science with these pseudoscience arguments and easily discredited examples?
1. Might I remind you the science is actually based on Christian ideas and developed by Christian thinkers wanting to know more about God through creation. I will not bore you with another sermon on that.

2. I am not sure how you can call creation science a pseudoscience when there is an unbroken chain of cause and effect from creation to the present. Those that believe in uniformitarian ideas can make no such claim.

a. You mentioned that we know where radioactive elements come from. We really do not. Stellar evolutionary theory suggest that all stars and the heavier elements that make up these stars were produced by generation 1 stars that were made of nothing but hydrogen. Yet no matter how far out in space which means back in time we see no generation 1 stars. At one time it was believed that galaxies evolved from irregular, to spiral, and then into elliptical. That is no longer the case because as far back as astronomers look all they always see all three types of galaxies. So no astronomers really do not know where radioactive elements came from.

There is no observational evidence for this theory.

b. Radioactive elements are believed to come from stars but how stars form is a mystery including our sun. You are a chemist so you know all about Boyles and Charles gas laws. Pressure and temperature are directly related. So how could the temperature increase in a ball of gas and yet contract further? This is bomb building 101 increasing the temperature will increase the pressure until failure. Long before gravity can could confine the gases in a star the intermolecular forces would push the gases outward.
Theoretical Limits to a Collapsible Gas Cloud
If a cloud were small enough, gravity could take over and cause the cloud to contract. How small must the cloud be to collapse under its own gravity? The astronomer Sir James Jeans asked and answered this question in 1902. He found that the cloud must be somewhat larger than a star, but many orders of magnitude smaller than any observed cloud for this to happen. That is, no observed gas cloud is even close to the Jeans length.

Astronomers have long understood this fundamental problem, so they suggest that some outside mechanism may compress a gas cloud down to the Jeans length so that gravity can finish the process. Astronomers have suggested a number of mechanisms, such as the shock wave from a nearby supernova explosion.

The problem is that all of these mechanisms require preexisting stars that can explode and generate new stars. While this mechanism might possibly work in the universe today, it likely cannot produce new stars at the rapid rate required by modern evolutionary theories. Nor can it explain the origin of the first stars.
Stellar evolutionary theory must break gas laws for stars to form.

Pretty much everything in naturalistic theory of origins fall outside of what is observed in nature.

c. Evolution begins with the assumption of that life already exists. The law of biogenesis tells us that life can only come from life. This assumption breaks known laws of science

This is an irrational belief.

To believe that nature created everything means that miracles happen without a anything to create that miracle. I call them miracles because naturalistic theories have to break laws of nature to produce all that we see.

If fact the universe seems as if everything we see was created in the prime if its existence as a mature functioning creation.

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 #17

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 15 by EarthScienceguy]
Product = 8.6e9 metric tons of radioactive material per each 9.0 earthquake. If the Earthquake were more severe then more radioactive material would be made.


I won't waste any more time on this, but it is interesting (and telling) that you now come up with a number that is 8 MILLION times larger than your first attempt. Is a six order of magnitude adjustment acceptable in "creation science"? But there are too many assumptions and mistakes here to bother with, and you've yet to demonstrate that a Z-pinch effect at any level has ever been observed during any earthquake event. I could run through numbers for the Saturn V rocket that took man to the moon for the first time and show that it created most of the radioactive material on Earth. That would have just as much validity as your earthquake hypothesis (ie. none). Until you can provide evidence that a Z-pinch effect actually does occur in an earthquake, and that it can produce radioactive material despite not having an appropriate confined metal electrode, this is just wild and unsupported speculation.
The piezoelectric effect is a fairly well understood with charges and voltages are easily calculated.


Yes, I use PZTs every day. They are high voltage, low current devices and the effect can occur in rocks (in both directions ... ie. current can be generated from compression of rocks). But run the numbers again for how much current it takes to produce a Z-pinch effect, and how narrow and channel has to be.
I am not sure how you can call creation science a pseudoscience when there is an unbroken chain of cause and effect from creation to the present.


Not in the real world. You have to continually create false assumptions like Humphrey's water balls for planets, or that Z-pinch effects occur during earthquakes, or jump through all kinds of hoops to try and create validity for a global flood only 4,300 years ago, or to try and discredit radiometric dating, etc. If you cut out all this hand waving and made up, unrealistic assumptions, it all falls apart.
So how could the temperature increase in a ball of gas and yet contract further? This is bomb building 101 increasing the temperature will increase the pressure until failure. Long before gravity can could confine the gases in a star the intermolecular forces would push the gases outward.


A perfect example of what I just described. Stars are balanced by nuclear reactions in the core trying to blow the star apart, and gravity trying to crush things together (to put it simply). Boyle's law makes no consideration of nuclear reactions, and doesn't apply to a star in the simple way you have described. We understand how stars form, and how they make successively higher molecular weight elements via nuclear fusion until you get to Fe (iron). This whole process is well understood and has been refined since the 1930s when Hans Bethe first worked out the main cycle reactions (for which he won the Noble Prize in Physics in 1967).
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 #18

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 16 by DrNoGods]
I won't waste any more time on this, but it is interesting (and telling) that you now come up with a number that is 8 MILLION times larger than your first attempt. Is a six order of magnitude adjustment acceptable in "creation science"? But there are too many assumptions and mistakes here to bother with, and you've yet to demonstrate that a Z-pinch effect at any level has ever been observed during any earthquake event.


All equations that I used were standard piezo equations equations that you could find out of any textbook. Just because you do not like the implications is not my concern.
I could run through numbers for the Saturn V rocket that took man to the moon for the first time and show that it created most of the radioactive material on Earth. That would have just as much validity as your earthquake hypothesis (ie. none). Until you can provide evidence that a Z-pinch effect actually does occur in an earthquake, and that it can produce radioactive material despite not having an appropriate confined metal electrode, this is just wild and unsupported speculation.
I could say the same thing about your beliefs. Big Bang, abiogenesis, even evolutions (have you seen any duplications and then mutations that have not be deleterious lately?)

But we do




Quote:
The piezoelectric effect is a fairly well understood with charges and voltages are easily calculated.


Yes, I use PZTs every day. They are high voltage, low current devices and the effect can occur in rocks (in both directions ... ie. current can be generated from compression of rocks). But run the numbers again for how much current it takes to produce a Z-pinch effect, and how narrow and channel has to be.

Quote:
I am not sure how you can call creation science a pseudoscience when there is an unbroken chain of cause and effect from creation to the present.


Not in the real world. You have to continually create false assumptions like Humphrey's water balls for planets, or that Z-pinch effects occur during earthquakes, or jump through all kinds of hoops to try and create validity for a global flood only 4,300 years ago, or to try and discredit radiometric dating, etc. If you cut out all this hand waving and made up, unrealistic assumptions, it all falls apart.

Quote:
So how could the temperature increase in a ball of gas and yet contract further? This is bomb building 101 increasing the temperature will increase the pressure until failure. Long before gravity can could confine the gases in a star the intermolecular forces would push the gases outward.


A perfect example of what I just described. Stars are balanced by nuclear reactions in the core trying to blow the star apart, and gravity trying to crush things together (to put it simply). Boyle's law makes no consideration of nuclear reactions, and doesn't apply to a star in the simple way you have described. We understand how stars form, and how they make successively higher molecular weight elements via nuclear fusion until you get to Fe (iron). This whole process is well understood and has been refined since the 1930s when Hans Bethe first worked out the main cycle reactions (for which he won the Noble Prize in Physics in 1967).

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 #19

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 16 by DrNoGods]

I won't waste any more time on this, but it is interesting (and telling) that you now come up with a number that is 8 MILLION times larger than your first attempt. Is a six order of magnitude adjustment acceptable in "creation science"? But there are too many assumptions and mistakes here to bother with, and you've yet to demonstrate that a Z-pinch effect at any level has ever been observed during any earthquake event. I could run through numbers for the Saturn V rocket that took man to the moon for the first time and show that it created most of the radioactive material on Earth. That would have just as much validity as your earthquake hypothesis (ie. none). Until you can provide evidence that a Z-pinch effect actually does occur in an earthquake, and that it can produce radioactive material despite not having an appropriate confined metal electrode, this is just wild and unsupported speculation.
This is far from unsupported. Observations made
1. Piezoelectric effect can and does happen in granite.
2. There is sufficient force to fuse elements together.
3. Current can flow in rock.
4. An increase in Radon is now being used to determine earthquake risk. Radon has a half life of 3.8 days. What is causing this increase in Radon?
Yes, I use PZTs every day. They are high voltage, low current devices and the effect can occur in rocks (in both directions ... ie. current can be generated from compression of rocks). But run the numbers again for how much current it takes to produce a Z-pinch effect, and how narrow and channel has to be.




Not in the real world. You have to continually create false assumptions like Humphrey's water balls for planets, or that Z-pinch effects occur during earthquakes, or jump through all kinds of hoops to try and create validity for a global flood only 4,300 years ago, or to try and discredit radiometric dating, etc. If you cut out all this hand waving and made up, unrealistic assumptions, it all falls apart.
You keep trying to sell this false assumption. Who made you the arbiter of truth?

Evolutionist have to believe that life popped into existence with no reason or mechanism.

Naturalist also have to believe that the universe popped into existence with no reason or mechanism.

That is crazy.

These are not unbounded assumptions made out of thin air. They come from a document that is thousands of years old and is God's observations of how He created the world. And the catastrophe that He allowed to happen because of sin.

If the Bible said that the universe was made from a ball of water and there was very little Oxygen in the universe then you might be justified in your assertion that this is an invalid assumption.

Or if granite did not produce the piezoelectric affect. Then you might say that my assumption is invalid. But because these as assumptions were made over 2000 thousand years ago, does no make my argument weaker but stronger. These assumptions have not changed in over 2000 years.



A perfect example of what I just described. Stars are balanced by nuclear reactions in the core trying to blow the star apart, and gravity trying to crush things together (to put it simply). Boyle's law makes no consideration of nuclear reactions, and doesn't apply to a star in the simple way you have described. We understand how stars form, and how they make successively higher molecular weight elements via nuclear fusion until you get to Fe (iron). This whole process is well understood and has been refined since the 1930s when Hans Bethe first worked out the main cycle reactions (for which he won the Noble Prize in Physics in 1967).
Oh, I am very familiar on the life cycles of stars and the theory behind it. I am the Earth Science guy. But your explanation from above is starting at the wrong point. Once a star is formed yes gravity takes over and holds the star together. The problem is getting that much hydrogen to come together in the first place.

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 #20

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 17 by EarthScienceguy]
This is far from unsupported. Observations made
1. Piezoelectric effect can and does happen in granite.
2. There is sufficient force to fuse elements together.
3. Current can flow in rock.
4. An increase in Radon is now being used to determine earthquake risk. Radon has a half life of 3.8 days. What is causing this increase in Radon?


This is the definition of a "hand waving" argument, and yet another example of what I am talking about with trying to turn qualitative observations into quantitative conclusions. "Current can flow in rock" in no way suggests that enough current can flow during an earthquake event to cause a Z-pinch effect, or that any of the other conditions necessary for a Z-pinch effect can exist at any level. But the Z-pinch effect is the very thing you are claiming explains the radioactive material on Earth, and you've yet to provide papers or links to even a single observation that a Z-pinch effect has occurred in any rock at any time, earthquake or otherwise. You are just listing some qualitative effects that can occur, then leaping to the wild conclusion that not only can they produce a Z-pinch effect, but that it is sufficient to produce all the radioactive material on Earth. So it is a completely unsupported conclusion until you can demonstrate (or provide external references) that a Z-pinch effect of any kind can actually occur during earthquakes, and then follow that up with quantitative analysis to demonstrate that the effect could produce enough radioactive material to equal what we actually have on Earth. But you can't even get past step 1.
You keep trying to sell this false assumption. Who made you the arbiter of truth?


What false assumption? I didn't make any assumptions in that statement. My claim was that things like Humphrey's balls of water for planets, or your claim that Z-pinch effects actually happen during earthquake, are false assumptions because they demonstrably are. But prove me wrong. Provide some references to show that planets did start out as balls of H2O with all the H-atom nuclear spins aligned, or that Z-pinch effects have been observed during earthquakes.
Evolutionist have to believe that life popped into existence with no reason or mechanism.


No, this is creationism which you are pushing. Evolutionists don't make any assumptions about HOW life came to be, only that it did via some mechanism. The nature of that mechanism is irrelevant to what evolutionists believe, but of the people who do worry about how life arose, as far as I know none of them have proposed theories claiming that it just popped into existence for no reason. Again, that is exactly what creationism claims.
Naturalist also have to believe that the universe popped into existence with no reason or mechanism.


Again, this is creationism that you are pushing. See comments above as they apply here as well.
These are not unbounded assumptions made out of thin air. They come from a document that is thousands of years old and is God's observations of how He created the world. And the catastrophe that He allowed to happen because of sin.


Preaching. And the document was written when science knowledge was nearly nonexistent so cannot be expected to be accurate on anything relating to science. Humans had no idea where the sun went at night, or that microorganisms existed, etc. So they made up gods to explain things that they didn't understand.
If the Bible said that the universe was made from a ball of water and there was very little Oxygen in the universe then you might be justified in your assertion that this is an invalid assumption.


It was Humphreys who claimed planets started as balls of H2O with all the H-atom nuclear spins aligned, not the bible. But we know this is an invalid assumption, and he, himself, claimed that god aligned the nuclear spins (ie. a clear "god did it" claim as the basis of his entire "theory"). It is utter nonsense.
Or if granite did not produce the piezoelectric affect. Then you might say that my assumption is invalid. But because these as assumptions were made over 2000 thousand years ago, does no make my argument weaker but stronger. These assumptions have not changed in over 2000 years.


So the piezoelectric effect was known 2000 years ago? Care to give us some bible verses or other texts from 2000 years ago describing the piezoelectric effect? Wikipedia say that French physicists Jacques and Pierre Curie discovered piezoelectricity in 1880. But again, you've yet to relate the piezoelectric effect to creation of a Z-pinch, which is the basis for your entire claim. Just another grossly qualitative argument that because current can flow in granite due to a piezoelectric effect, that this can somehow create a Z-pinch effect (hint ... it can't), and on top of that a big enough one to produce all the radioactive material on Earth. Pure, unadulterated hand waving.
Oh, I am very familiar on the life cycles of stars and the theory behind it. I am the Earth Science guy.


I think that speaks for itself!
The problem is getting that much hydrogen to come together in the first place.


Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe ... think about it.
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