37818
Well-Known Member
Here is a pdf of a general study:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAKegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1Zq8HTfe875BtSLnqYjb0k
Can you proved a correlation with the YEC findings.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Sediment on the bottom of oceans.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
Here is a pdf of a general study:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAKegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1Zq8HTfe875BtSLnqYjb0k
Can you proved a correlation with the YEC findings.
I don't get tbe "problem". Can you explain?
10 Best Evidences from Science That Confirm a Young Earth
Answers in Genesis
#1 - Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor
37818
Well-Known Member
The argument being made is the ocean sedement proves the flood could be no more that 4300 years ago, as opposed to millions of years that the graduated radiological dating may suggest between the continents of the Atlantic Ocean. The study in the pdf shows that the sedement varies in different locations on the ocean floor. What I would like to see is about the evidence that supports the argument that the ocean sedement disallows the millions of years for the continental drift. Noah was 10th from Adam. And what would be the evidence for the global flood is found on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Same plant and animal fossils in the corresponding sedement layers.
There was one continent before the flood and then the plates were broken up into seven continents. The oceans are the water from the flood.
37818
Well-Known Member
The same sedement and the common plant and animal fossils both sides of the Atlantic would support this view. At issue is what is the post flood sedement evidence that counters the graduated radiological dating of the solidifed rock between the two coasts and the trench dating a span of about 300 million years.
Haven't we already discussed the total unreliability of radiological dating or was that a conversation with someone else?
37818
Well-Known Member
Does not address the graduated radiological dating. Nor has any evidence been presented to against this characteristic. It spans consistantly about 300 million years. What is the evidence against this charateristic?
Many scientists rely on the assumption that radioactive elements decay at constant, undisturbed rates and therefore can be used as reliable clocks to measure the ages of rocks and artifacts. Most estimates of the age of the earth are founded on this assumption. However, new observations have found that those nuclear decay rates actually fluctuate based on solar activity.
In 2009, New Scientist summarized a mysterious and inadvertent discovery. Brookhaven National Laboratories physicist David Alburger found that the nuclear decay rate of silicon-32 changed with the seasons.1
In a separate but similar instance, Stanford University reported that Purdue physicist Ephraim Fischbach accidentally found that nuclear decay rates sped up during the winter while analyzing data from both Brookhaven and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany.2
The conclusion was that something from the sun must be affecting the decay rates, and researchers suspect that solar neutrinos may be the cause.
The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates
37818
Well-Known Member
Yes. But this has also been alleged to be disproven. A graduated neutrino flash during the period of the flood could explain the graduated dating. We do not know if only some and not all decay rates are affented, which might explain the alleged disproof. And may or may not explain the dating of the igneous rock being dated across the Atlantic.
37818
Well-Known Member
A more recent article:
Radioactive Half-Lives Not Affected by Earth/Sun Distance
Radioactive Half-Lives Not Affected by Earth/Sun Distance
You still can't prove that the rate of decay has always been the same. Thus your yardstick is worthless.
I work daily in medical hot lab around various isotopes.
They are used to detect disease and maladies.
Their reliability is dependent upon the predictability of their properties, particularity the rate of an isotopes decay.
The rate of decay can be used as a measurement of time.
Modern medicine depends upon them.
We can compare the known rates of an isotopes decay to other known measurements of time.
Church mouse, you can’t prove gravity has always been the same yet you don’t worry about falling off the edge of the earth.
Young Earth Creationism is feeding cockamamie fodder to uphold a simplistic biblical hermeneutics.
Those “scientists” that promote creation science are working science backwards.
Rob
They are used to detect disease and maladies.
Their reliability is dependent upon the predictability of their properties, particularity the rate of an isotopes decay.
The rate of decay can be used as a measurement of time.
Modern medicine depends upon them.
We can compare the known rates of an isotopes decay to other known measurements of time.
Church mouse, you can’t prove gravity has always been the same yet you don’t worry about falling off the edge of the earth.
Young Earth Creationism is feeding cockamamie fodder to uphold a simplistic biblical hermeneutics.
Those “scientists” that promote creation science are working science backwards.
Rob
So you are saying that these rstes have been the same for the last 6000 years? How do you know? You don't look a day over 85?
Oh I’m much more bold.
I’d say they they have been relatively stable for more than 6,000,000,000 years.
What would you say their rate of variablity would have been? There is a vast difference between scientists exploring the possibility of minute changes in the decay of nuclear isotopes and what is being accepted for science by young earth creationists.
And if the earth was only 6000 years, how fast did those continents race across the Earth, “Hold on the something Noah, watch out for moving land masses!”
Rob
How do you know? You don't look a day over 85?
37818
Well-Known Member
No. There is no evidence that it does change. Half life is random rate.
How do you know? Do you have measurements from millions and millions of years ago?
37818
Well-Known Member
Radiological half life is measured.
And some half lives are known to vary do to their electrons. Can the decay half-life of a radioactive material be changed?
They measured it.
hps.org
Last edited:
Yeah, that is all a recent measurement. How does what it is doing today prove that it was doing millions and millions of years ago? Do you have a chain of custody on the evidence?
We know from Mt. Saint Helens that the measurements are inaccurate because new rocks were given to various labs and the analysis was returned as millions and millions of years for fresh rocks. However, that problem had existed for many years from other volcanoes but this involved an American volcano and got a little more publicity.