Jump to content

Apologia And Radiometric Dating


RedFox
 Share

Recommended Posts

Does anyone here have an Apologia book or books with stuff on radiometric dating? From the table of contents of the Advanced Physics in Creation book that I downloaded from the samples part of the Apologia site, I see that there's a section on radiometric dating starting on page 597.

 

I am interested because I saw the writer in person at a presentation at an IVCF gathering at my school as detailed in this thread. I couldn't find the powerpoint from that presentation anywhere online.

 

What I want to know are the counter-examples he tried to use to say that all radiometric dating was no good. He gave an example of a nucleus with a decay rate that varies with things like temperature and pressure. I don't remember the example, so I'd like to find it again to be able to work things out now that I have more information on physics from my classes and books.

 

Someone told me that things like beryllium could have decay rates varied by pressure by crushing the inner electrons into the nucleus, making it decay by electron capture. Larger atoms are not so affected by this. Just try doing it to uranium atoms. I'm sure they'd need to be tossed into a neutron star to crush them that much. And not all decays are based on electron capture, so why was that YEC nuclear chemistry Ph.d trying to use particular example of a particular type of decay to discredit everything about how nuclear physics is used to date things?

 

He said that the decay rates were varying and that science assumed they were constant. I'm surprised that a Ph.d in nuclear chemistry said that. Of course, the rate varies by decreasing with the decreasing amount of original material according to the equations from my physics textbook:

 

R = -dN/dt = lambda*N0*exp(-lambda*t) = R0*exp(-lambda*t)

 

where R is the decay rate, N is the current number of parent nucleus, N0 is the orignal number and R0 is the orignial rate at t=0. The lambda value is the probability per unit time of decay in any given nucleus.

 

I think that the YEC was trying to say that the probability of decay was changing. But you know how fundies like hearing the world 'probability.' Changing lambda would change the half life, which is equal to ln(2)/lambda. He should've said that he believed the half lives were varying.

 

He said at the end of the presentation that he was open to input to correct incorrect views, so if someone here has a copy of that book and if it has a counter-example like the ones he tried to use in the presentation, maybe I could write something to him to see if he's that open.

 

I also plan on writing reviews of that sort of book. So maybe if anyone wants to unload themselves of such books, maybe I could find them useful for writing that.

 

Another thing he said was that crystals had been found that have an 'excess' of helium in it, thereby proving that decay rates were high in the past, discarding the need for an old Earth. I think it was a zircon crystal or something, but it's not the amount of helium in it that matters because it can leak out. It's the relative amounts of various isotopes of uranium, thorium and lead that matter because when the crystal forms, the U and Th can fit into the ZrSiO4 structure, but lead is rejected. But after formation, lead from the decay remains in the crystal.

 

The different isotopes of U and Th decaying into different isotopes of lead provide a check for loss of lead because the ages they give should be about the same. If the half lives changed while the material was decaying, they'd likely change differently for different decays, making the ages not match up. So why didn't the YEC say that?

 

So why was he focusing on the helium? I think it's to wow people into believing him. Not mentioning the matchups in results from different decays and how varying half lives would affect that would defeat his agenda because there've been no evidence of half lives varying so much for decays used in dating. If anyone has a copy of his books, do they mention this stuff too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realized that if the creationists think that there was accelerated decay of stuff making that helium 'excess' don't they think that mucking around with nuclear physics could also make stable nuclei decay too, causing people like Adam and Eve or Noah to disgenerate into radioactive puddles. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With each and every passing day my conviction gets stronger that as soon as someone makes clear that she's a babblical cretinist, the only reply she deserves is "MORON *PLONK*". Every single word, naye, every single letter sent to them as a reply is wasted. :Hmm:

 

Of course this is, sadly, not always practicable... :vent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(various edits) Sorry. I thought I could help. But I can't. Searching for "Apologia" is just freakin' me out.

 

How creationists do science:

 

1) Make up shit that sounds plausible,

 

2) Sell it to the naive & ignorant,

 

3) Profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(various edits) Sorry. I thought I could help. But I can't. Searching for "Apologia" is just freakin' me out.

Yes, I see what you mean. The thought occurs to me what that these home-skooled creationist lessons are really doing is not trying to win people's minds away from the secular world to keep their own ranks plump with fresh chickens, but they are maliciously making children idiots in the real world! Send little Billy out amongst the college educated, and when he talks about the T-Rex and Noah on the boat together 4000 years ago, guess where Billy's going to get a job? That's right! At Dinoworld, making $4.50/hour while everyone else in pulling in $70K a year!

 

Yeah, that's education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Does anyone here have an Apologia book or books with stuff on radiometric dating? From the table of contents of the Advanced Physics in Creation book that I downloaded from the samples part of the Apologia site, I see that there's a section on radiometric dating starting on page 597.

 

I am interested because I saw the writer in person at a presentation at an IVCF gathering at my school as detailed in this thread. I couldn't find the powerpoint from that presentation anywhere online.

 

What I want to know are the counter-examples he tried to use to say that all radiometric dating was no good. He gave an example of a nucleus with a decay rate that varies with things like temperature and pressure. I don't remember the example, so I'd like to find it again to be able to work things out now that I have more information on physics from my classes and books.

 

Someone told me that things like beryllium could have decay rates varied by pressure by crushing the inner electrons into the nucleus, making it decay by electron capture. Larger atoms are not so affected by this. Just try doing it to uranium atoms. I'm sure they'd need to be tossed into a neutron star to crush them that much. And not all decays are based on electron capture, so why was that YEC nuclear chemistry Ph.d trying to use particular example of a particular type of decay to discredit everything about how nuclear physics is used to date thing

 

He said that the decay rates were varying and that science assumed they were constant. I'm surprised that a Ph.d in nuclear chemistry said that. Of course, the rate varies by decreasing with the decreasing amount of original material according to the equations from my physics textbook:

 

R = -dN/dt = lambda*N0*exp(-lambda*t) = R0*exp(-lambda*t)

 

where R is the decay rate, N is the current number of parent nucleus, N0 is the orignal number and R0 is the orignial rate at t=0. The lambda value is the probability per unit time of decay in any given nucleus.

 

I think that the YEC was trying to say that the probability of decay was changing. But you know how fundies like hearing the world 'probability.' Changing lambda would change the half life, which is equal to ln(2)/lambda. He should've said that he believed the half lives were varying.

 

He said at the end of the presentation that he was open to input to correct incorrect views, so if someone here has a copy of that book and if it has a counter-example like the ones he tried to use in the presentation, maybe I could write something to him to see if he's that open.

 

I also plan on writing reviews of that sort of book. So maybe if anyone wants to unload themselves of such books, maybe I could find them useful for writing that.

 

Another thing he said was that crystals had been found that have an 'excess' of helium in it, thereby proving that decay rates were high in the past, discarding the need for an old Earth. I think it was a zircon crystal or something, but it's not the amount of helium in it that matters because it can leak out. It's the relative amounts of various isotopes of uranium, thorium and lead that matter because when the crystal forms, the U and Th can fit into the ZrSiO4 structure, but lead is rejected. But after formation, lead from the decay remains in the crystal.

 

The different isotopes of U and Th decaying into different isotopes of lead provide a check for loss of lead because the ages they give should be about the same. If the half lives changed while the material was decaying, they'd likely change differently for different decays, making the ages not match up. So why didn't the YEC say that?

 

So why was he focusing on the helium? I think it's to wow people into believing him. Not mentioning the matchups in results from different decays and how varying half lives would affect that would defeat his agenda because there've been no evidence of half lives varying so much for decays used in dating. If anyone has a copy of his books, do they mention this stuff too?

 

This may help

 

undefined

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Send little Billy out amongst the college educated, and when he talks about the T-Rex and Noah on the boat together 4000 years ago, guess where Billy's going to get a job? That's right! At Dinoworld, making $4.50/hour while everyone else in pulling in $70K a year!

 

I doubt it, many Christians I've known in my lifetime are living the American Dream, have gone to college, etc. raking in twice that and home educating their children. How much one knows or understands regarding evolution/creation really has nothing to do with what kind of career that they end up with in life. Most Christian home educators that I know are very tough academically with their children and have very high expectations. Their kids are on debate teams, winning spelling and geography bees, getting scholarships, graduating college, receiving bachelor and associate degrees, doctorates, etc.; and unless their child is going for some type of science degree in the field of evolution...it really doesn't matter what they believe, they'll only be seen as *stupid or ignorant* by those well studied regarding evolution as taught correctly. I know a shitload of Christian doctors who are vehement creationists, they are home educating their children, standardized testing and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may help

 

undefined

 

:shrug: Not sure how this applies. Sure under extremely unusual circumstances it may be possible to affect the half-life. But these are VERY unusual circumstances he's creating.

 

Firstly - most items that we do radiometric dating on weren't previous encased in metal.

Secondly - he states that this only occurs when the materials are reduced to a few degrees KELVIN. This is a VERY unusual state for any material to exist in. 2 degrees kelvin = -456.07004880700486 Fahrenheit. Even in the emptiest vacuum of space, the temp is still around 2.7 kelvin. And it's that cold precisely because there's NOTHING there, if you added materials of any kind, you wouldn't be able to reach this temperature in nature. Are we to assume then that not only did the half-life rates change, but the temperature at which they could be changed varied as well?

 

Seems like a red herring to me...

 

IMOHO,

:shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 degrees kelvin = -456.07004880700486 Fahrenheit. Even in the emptiest vacuum of space, the temp is still around 2.7 kelvin.

 

And its getting lower. This is the rate it has cooled to!! It used to be much higher! My uni's low temp lab was the best in the world and the machines we used were massive mental looking things! Finding emissions or something coming from anything at lower than 2.5K would be almost absolute proof of alien life as these temperatures have NEVER existed in nature!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.