Continuation of Noah discussion

[Jim]

This is to avoid derailing the previous thread any more.

(1) According to my previous calculations each animal would have 6 sq.' each on the ark.

What, including whales? Insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds?

I take it the brachiosaurus and tyrannosaurs were crammed in there too?

You still haven’t defined kind nor come up with a solution to aquatic animals besides Noah building wooden aquariums that would have held habitats perfectly suited to every aquatic lifeform. Nor have you come up with a solution to how animals with travelling difficulties would have got to the Ark.

(2) Jim, just because the bible says "its mate" does not mean they were mature, it simply means Noah didn't take two males.

I thought the bible was to be taken literally? When taken literally, ‘male and his mate’ doesn’t really have much else you can spin from it. ‘Male and a female’ would have fit what you describe. Juvenile animals don’t take mates, no matter how you spin it.

(3) Also, those who are trying to refute the ark have what C.S. Lewis

As much as I like Lewis’ books, what bearing does an author’s opinion have on this discussion?

called "chronological snobbery."

And some creationists call evolutionists ‘intellectual snobs’ too. Apparently neither represent their faith very well.

How do you know that Noah did not have "superior" building techniques... for all we know, he could have made more sturdy ships out of wood than we ever have out of metal.

With the same skepticism I know the Celts didn’t resist the Romans with hand grenades and automatic weaponry. Or am I being a ‘chronological snob’ again?

Just because we are further along in the future does not mean we are smarter, more informed, more logical, ir [sic] more scientifically capable.

But we are all those things and more. We haven’t any reason to believe past civilizations had methods and technology like you suggest. If the shoe fits and all that.

 

[Eon]

Why are we discussing this - we already know how large the boat was, it's written down. And it's not big enough. And it has NO way to include fresh water creatures and fish and amphibians. And what about creatures with extreme requirements - like arctic or desert creatures? And what about all the plants? And how did he gather the bacteria - because we KNOW that he didn't have the correct facilities for gathering them!

And how did he gather them from across the world - he had his hands full just building the boat, didn't he? After all - he's creating a vessel that would require a slipway, and a dry dock and skilled fitters and carpenters, all by himself. With no Harland and Woolf facility. With no welding. No metallurgy. Where did the stock of wood come from? And how was it properly cured and treated in time?

Face it - this is strictly in miracle territory. As is how no evidence of such a catastrophe happening is surviving today. There HAVE been large scale innundations - two inside the golden crescent alone - but to think there is proof that the whole world was covered in water up to beyond the height of Everest? There really isn't. There just isn't. You'll have to simply accept the bible's word on it, and take it on faith.

 

[Jericho_falls]

Oh goodie, my two best buddies for the other side of the fence.

I'll try not to get sarcastic but... Whales on the ark Jim? Comon, Noah obviously did not need to take water animals, or insects or perhaps even amphibions.

As for Kinds: You've seen horses bred and dogs bred and birds bred. Some become sexually incompatable and thus become seperate species. However, they all came from one horse or one dog or one bird who had the potential for all the others. A kind is like a family. Naturally we have grouped animals into families such as Canine, Feline, Artiodactyla (deer), Rodentia, Lagomorphia. The species in these families (or orders) may have come from one or two species with the potential for all. This is a kind.

Eon... the Bible clearly states that God himself brought the animals to Noah. The bible also clearly states he took: Genesis 6:19-20 "And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth (description of reptiles) after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."

As for the "every animal and it's mate" Jim, you made that up. It does not appear in the NKJV, AV, ASV, NIV, NAS, or RSV translations. I'm sorry I did not catch the error sooner. They all say, as above, "male and female."

One other thing. How in the world does ones ability to build super killing devices bear in any respect to ones ability to build huge, structurally sound boats out of wood?

"Well God, I don't think I can make your boat until I've figured out how to make a good Bazooka!"

 

[[toj.cc]phantom]

"Well God, I don't think I can make your boat until I've figured out how to make a good Bazooka!"

I think I told God that once. He didn't take it to well.

 

[Jim]

Once again, to avoid derailing the other discussion further, I will answer this here (since it seems to apply anyway)

I offer a short and hopefully logical refutation.

Factors:
(1) The pre-flood world was far more accommodating than the post because of it's Edenic conditions.
(2) The population was also much smaller than our "modern" society.
(3) The human race was of much greater physical prowess.
(4) The human race was of much greater longevity.

Results:
(1,2,3,4) No inherrent need for mass transportation or even automatic transportation at all.
(1,3) Such things like plastics would have been laughed at when stone was readily availiable and far superior in durability, and because such things as plastic containers were useless in an envoronment designed to support human life.
(3,4) Medicinal advances were probably of much smaller priority than ours.

(1) The pre-flood world was far more accomodating than the post because of it's Edenic conditions

By Edenic, you are referring to the vapor canopy, yes?

The vapour canopy is impossible. A vapor canopy with more than twelve inches of precipitable water would raise the temperature of the earth above boiling, and of only four inches would raise the temperature to 144 degrees Fharenhiet. A vapor canopy capable of producing the global flood would have increased earth's atmospheric pressure from 15 PSI to 970 PSI You should be aware several prominent creationists agree with this and have since ceased advocating it.

(2) The population was also much smaller than our "modern" society.

Granted.

(3) The human race was of much greater physical prowess.

By how much was ‘much greater’? And could you provide evidence?

(4) The human race was of much greater longevity.

Granted the Bible states larger lifespans, but outside the Bible, where is the evidence? Scientists can’t simply take your word for it.

(1,2,3,4) No inherrent need for mass transportation or even automatic transportation at all.

1) fails, and I don’t understand your reasoning at all. Less people (2), and more physically capable people (3) doesn’t seem to imply anything at all about need of transportation, unless you are reffering to materials, in which case 2) would be a problem not a boost and 3) and 4) would be a boost if you could provide evidence.

(1,3) Such things like plastics would have been laughed at when stone was readily availiable and far superior in durability, and because such things as plastic containers were useless in an envoronment designed to support human life.

A vapour canopy which supports human life is absurd for the reasons above; it would kill us. And the plastic stuff is mind-bending. Why would they use stone over plastic? Plastic is strong, can be easily worked with the proper machines, doesn’t corrode and is waterproof, is lightweight... I could go on. That statement makes not one jot of sense. You can’t actually be serious about the stone being far superior to plastic in durability. That has to be either a joke or cut-and-paste from somewhere and you failed to read it properly. Try dropping a 5 foot square hewn rock from the top of a tower. Depending on the stone, it’ll shatter and crack. Try the same with most industrial construction plastics. It’ll hold. The same, if not better durability for much less weight and density.

(3,4) Medicinal advances were probably of much smaller priority than ours.

I suppose this would apply if you could prove (3) and (4), but I fail to see how it applies to the argument in question at all.

From above:

Oh goodie, my two best buddies for the other side of the fence.

Whoo-hoo! And the pond, don’t forget.

I'll try not to get sarcastic but... Whales on the ark Jim? Comon, Noah obviously did not need to take water animals, or insects or perhaps even amphibions.

Did you read anything at all I posted in the last debate? Aquatic animals require very specific conditions to survive. You flood the whole earth, diluting the water, screwing up its pressure zones, essentially crushing everything on the bottom, screwing the temperature and salinity, alkalinity... All those aquatic creatures and amphibians would have died because they would either have been poisoned by the salt (fresh water creatures) or otherwise died due to the shock of having such an extreme habitat change so quickly. Some fish cannot survive outside of specific temperature ranges.

Insects would have survived where, exactly? Vegetation mats? How many insects can survive 150 days with only vegetation mats to live on? Not one species in a thousand could survive in that state.

So I repeat my question, emphasising that in order to preserve aquatic creatures they must have been on the ark in their respective habitats: How did he manage it?

As for Kinds: You've seen horses bred and dogs bred and birds bred. Some become sexually incompatable and thus become seperate species. However, they all came from one horse or one dog or one bird who had the potential for all the others. A kind is like a family. Naturally we have grouped animals into families such as Canine, Feline, Artiodactyla (deer), Rodentia, Lagomorphia. The species in these families (or orders) may have come from one or two species with the potential for all. This is a kind.

It is ironic that for someone who laughs at evolution, you don’t have a problem using it as a magic wand to wave away problems with your belief.

From such few kinds to many is absurd; you are suggesting evolution, not on the micro or even macro scale, but on the hyper-macro scale. The changes from such small (virtually nil) genetic diversity requires a rate of change that even exceeds the speed that today’s plants and animals descended from common ancestors. And evolution from genera or families as you suggested would involve speciation with no barriers to change, making it undoubtedly macro-evolution.

Eon... the Bible clearly states that God himself brought the animals to Noah. The bible also clearly states he took: Genesis 6:19-20 "And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth (description of reptiles) after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."

Invoking miracles is outside the scope of scientific investigation. If you want science, you got it, but saying ‘godidit’ in place of science isn’t getting anywhere.

As for the "every animal and it's mate" Jim, you made that up. It does not appear in the NKJV, AV, ASV, NIV, NAS, or RSV translations. I'm sorry I did not catch the error sooner. They all say, as above, "male and female."

Uh-huh.
NIV-UK and ESV, among others, both use mate, as well as all the ones I've read at skool.
linkity

As well as the one I use, which says ‘male and his mate.’

One other thing. How in the world does ones ability to build super killing devices bear in any respect to ones ability to build huge, structurally sound boats out of wood?

You made a remark about ‘how do we know Noah didn’t have technological know-how that defeats both psychical laws and historical observation?’ I answered by using an example of skepticism of a similar argument.

"Well God, I don't think I can make your boat until I've figured out how to make a good Bazooka!"

Apparently God couldn’t figure out how to ‘poof’ people out of existence or use less of a wasteful method of dispatching His own errant creations.

 

[SLNT_FIR]

again, why would aquatic animals need to be on the ark?

I don't have time to read your post, sorry, gotta keep studying for finals.

 

[Jim]

Because they would be dead. Pure and simple.

If the flood occured and no aquatic animals were on board, there would be no surviving aquatic animals. And we would have little to none today. Certainly not the diversity we see, bottom-dwellers, large mammals and fresh and salt water fish. That is why representatives of aquatic animals would need to be aboard.

 

[SLNT_FIR]

? Well, mmm... you got us stumped there. wait a minute,

and every creeping thing of the earth

Did not mention aquatic animals.

 

[Eon]

The inclusion of acquatic animals on the arc is an inference. I personally believe that aquatic mammals could survive the deluge (provided it was gradual) because they breathe air, not water. But every fish, crab, urchin, eel and so forth would need to be preserved on the ark to survive. Even then you're looking at a MASS extinction due to starvation because of the fact that all their food just died.

Try it - buy some freshwater fish and dump them in a saline solution. You see how long they survive (here's a hint, it's not going to be 150 days. It's not even going to be 150 minutes. In some cases you'll be lucky to get 150 seconds).

Similarly birds. Some birds were described as roosting on the ark - so we'll assume that ALL of them needed to be protected and housed on the ark. All birds need somewhere to roost and only seabirds can do so floating on the surface (oh and things like ducks, of course).

Mostly I agree with Jim's points (except that I'm happy to accept miracles as a counter argument - I'm mostly interested in proving that such things cannot be proved and have no basis in fact) so I'll not burden you all with repetition.

 

[Jim]

I think you misunderstand; I don't have a problem with miracles or invoking them. They're the least you would expect if Noah was under protection from God.

In an argument of evidences and practicalities, miracles don't work though. That is why invoking miracles in a debate when both sides use science is bad form; naturally one side uses science and evidence, but the other side can insert miracles in addition to their science and evidence. Miracles cannot be measured or quantified by their very definition. That is why you cannot really have an argument involving them.

 

[SLNT_FIR]

Yes, I admit that my explanation does make not much sense, but again, I wouldn't really know... lol.

 

[Eon]

Yes, but to me simply claiming "Miracle" is an admission that there is no physical proof that such a thing happened, nor scientific explanation for how it did.

I'm happy to see that, because it means the point has been conceded, but at no loss of face to the other party. I've got what I want, they've lost nothing, everyone is happy.

 

[SLNT_FIR]

btw, i'm not claiming it's a miracle, i'm not saying i believe you are right, I'm just saying i don't know. XD

i'm done, and i understand it does make no sense. yay!

 

[PapaToad]

What if there was no salt water before the flood???? What if it was all freesh water??


They used to think that there would be 200 feet of moon dust on the moon due to its age, they way the calc'd it. Couldn't it be possible that the waters got salter after the flood. Doesn't the oceans get salter every year??

just a thought!

 

[Eon]

"The methodology used to determine how much dust would collect over time was severely flawed when Hans Pettersson first carried out the referenced study in 1960. A series of better-controlled measurements, beginning with one by J. S. Dohnanyi in 1972, arrived at collection rates about 0.1% of the original expectation. In other words, the dust collected at a much slower rate than researchers originally believed. Consequently, we would anticipate much less dust on the surface of the moon. Because of these more representative undertakings, the thin layer of lunar dust provides the moon with an age far beyond 6000 years."

Quote from http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter8.html

 

[Avesther]

And how did he gather them from across the world - he had his hands full just building the boat, didn't he? After all - he's creating a vessel that would require a slipway, and a dry dock and skilled fitters and carpenters, all by himself. With no Harland and Woolf facility. With no welding. No metallurgy. Where did the stock of wood come from? And how was it properly cured and treated in time?

It took a hundred years, the construciton and plans were incredibly simple in nature, (ie...it didn't requre an engine room, electricity or plumbing) and it didn't require a slipway or dry dock for that matter. Not like they were going to put it to sea when the sea would be coming to them.

Aquatic animals did not have to be on board, to say they did is really stretch ones imagination, at best.

Aquatic life would have found found places where the torrents and currents were not life threataning, those that didn't, died. Food was abundant, lots of drowned souls to feed from. And the make up of salt water vs fresh water aquatic is unknown, we don't know what the condition and make up of saltwater pre-flood, and to assume it was the same as it is today is practicing silly voodoo science.

 

[Eon]

I must be honest, although I feel the words "Voodoo Science" do apply to many of the points raised in this article I never expected to find them pointed at myself.

As you're now claiming the scientific highground, let me complete the role reversal by quoting you a bible verse. "Brother, before telling me to remove the mote from my eye, do thou removest the beam from thine."

When you begin to apply some scientific rigour to your own arguments, I'll accept a factless claim of inaccuracy against mine. After all, I'm not the one who believes in an earthwide innundation 6,000 years ago. I believe that the processes that are making the sea salty today are the same ones that were doing so for millions of years. By my lights, there is no reason to suspect anything else, and any scientific proof points exactly to a saline ocean.

 

[Avesther]

My post wasn't directed to you, unfortunatly, I opened a reply dialogue then had to go into a meeting for a few hours, responded to Jim actually, and didn't notice the plethora of additional posts.

 

[Arkanjel]

Found this great article online and figured i throw it up here for scrutiny. Have fun with it. This came from Answers in Genisis website. Lots of good stuff there and lots of good scientific evidence. I would ask the evolutionists to keep an open mind when reading and let the data speak for itself. Youll be amazed at the discovery.
-Arkanjel-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/geologictime.asp

The collapse of 'geologic time'
Tiny halos in coalified wood tell a story that demolishes 'long ages'.
by Steve Taylor, Andy McIntosh, and Tas Walker

The age of things is crucial in the debate over the authority of the Bible.

Most methods that could be used for calculating the Earth’s age, even though still based on unprovable uniformitarian1 assumptions, give upper limits much less than the billions of years required for evolution.2 Evolutionists widely use radio*isotope (or radiometric) dating of rocks to support the ‘geologic time’ figure of 4.6 billion years. Notwithstanding the inherent unreliability and demonstrated inaccuracy of the radiometric dating techniques (see Radiometric dating), ages of rock formations in the millions (and billions) of years are presented as fact in schools, universities and the media.

However, there is spectacular, but little-known, evidence that is completely inconsistent with the evolutionary timescale, but entirely consistent with the Biblical record of a young Earth and a catastrophic global Flood.

The evidence is provided by radio*halos in coalified wood. This work has been published in some of the best peer-reviewed scientific journals, and its strong case against evolution’s millions of years is so far unanswered by the evolutionary community.

What are radiohalos?
Radiohalos are spherical, microscopic-sized discolourations in crystals. They are found abundantly in certain minerals in Earth’s rocks, especially micas from granites. In cross-section on a microscope slide, they appear as a series of tiny concentric rings, usually surrounding a central core (Figure 1).3

This central core is (at least initially) radioactive. High energy alpha particles, emitted from the core during radioactive decay, damage the mineral and discolour it, with most of the damage occurring where the particle stops. How far this particle travels depends on its energy. Since all the alpha particles from a particular type of decay reaction have the same energy, and the particles are fired in all directions, a spherical shell of discolouration will form, appearing circular in cross-section.

Imagine shooting a bullet into a huge lump of cork. Eventually, the bullet will stop, leaving behind a ‘trail’ of damage, the length of which depends on the speed of the bullet. Different radioactive substances shoot alpha particles (‘bullets’) at different (though specific) speeds, so we can identify the substance from the diameter of the ‘sphere of damage’. The higher the energy of decay, the faster the speed of the ‘bullet’.

Uranium radiohalos
Radioactive uranium generates a beautiful, multi-ringed halo (Figure 1) because it decays in a number of steps. Of the 15 isotopes (or varieties of elements) in this ‘decay chain’ (see Radioactive decay series), eight emit alpha particles when they decay, forming eight rings.5 It is a bit like a sequence of guns, each of different power, firing an eight-gun salute. When this salute or decay chain is fired millions of times in every direction, the bullets from the different guns make eight concentric rings.

If, instead of radioactive uranium, the core was composed of an isotope along the chain, there would be fewer rings. Omitting the first few isotopes in the decay series would be like removing the first few guns in our ‘salute’. Thus it’s quite simple to work out which isotope was origin*ally in the core by counting the rings. Polonium-218 forms three rings, polonium-214 forms two, and polonium-210 forms only one.
Figure 1. A fully-developed uranium radiohalo in biotite (dark mica). Field of view is about 80 µm (0.08 mm). A uranium halo comprises eight rings, but some rings are of similar size and cannot easily be distinguished. Figure 2. Elliptical polonium-210 halos in compressed coalified wood. Length of ellipse is about 50 µm (0.05 mm). Figure 3. Combined circular and elliptical halos indicate that polonium-210 continued to decay after the wood was compressed. Diameter of halo is about 50 µm.



Radiohalos in coalified wood
Radiohalos have also been found in logs recovered from uranium mines on the Colorado Plateau of Western USA. The logs, partially turned to coal, were found in uranium-rich sedimentary rocks from three different geological formations.

Some of these formations had previously been assigned radiometric ‘dates’ ranging from 55 to 80 million years.6 Scientists Jedwab7 and Breger8 described these halos, and Dr Robert Gentry, a world authority on radiohalos, revisited their work. Following extensive investigation, Gentry published his results in the prestigious journal Science,9 in a book10 and in a video.11

Most of the halos found in the wood had only one ring, indicating that the radioactive cores once contained polonium-210—the last radioactive isotope in the uranium-238 decay chain (see Radioactive decay series). Clearly, the wood had been saturated in uranium-rich solutions, and certain spots attracted polonium atoms (also present in these solutions), allowing small cores of polonium-210 to form. As they decayed, these cores left the characteristic polonium-210 halo.

But the solutions must have penetrated the logs relatively quickly, certainly within a year or so. How do we know that? Because the half-life of polonium-210 is only 138 days. That is, within 138 days, half the polonium-210 present would have decayed into the next ‘daughter’ isotope in the chain. In other words, the solution had saturated the wood within two or three half-lives, about a year. It could not have taken very long, because in 10 half-lives (less than four years) virtually all of the polonium-210 would have gone.

Only one of the three radioactive isotopes of polonium was deposited in the tiny radioactive specks in the logs. We know because only one ring formed. The other isotopes from the decay chain (polonium-214 and polonium-218) were missing. Why? Because they had already decayed away. Their half-lives are very short (164 millionths of a second and three minutes respectively). So all polonium-214 would have disappeared within a thousandth of a second, and all polonium-218 would have gone in an hour—long before the uranium-rich solutions could saturate the logs.

Significantly, the halos were mainly elliptical, not circular (Figure 2). Obviously, after the halos formed, the wooden logs were compressed, squashing the originally-circular halos into ellipses.
Larger Size
Different radiohalos have a different number of rings. Diameter of largest ring is about 70 µm (0.07 mm) in biotite. All four isotopes are from the uranium-238 decay series.


Sometimes a circular halo could be seen together with an elliptical halo (Figure 3). This indicated that radioactive polonium-210 continued to decay from the same core after the wood was compressed. Thus, because of the 138-day half-life of polonium-210 as discussed above, there was less than four years between when the solution first infiltrated the wood and when it was compressed. (The presence of the second halo at the same spot shows that much less than four years had passed before the compression event, as there was still time to produce another halo afterwards.)12

An amazing event
The wood in which these tiny elliptical halos were found speaks of a devastating flood that uprooted and smashed huge trees, depositing the debris with an enormous volume of sediment over a large area. The halos themselves tell the story of an unusual geologic event. They speak of uranium-rich solutions saturating the logs in less than a year or so, forming tiny specks of polonium, which decayed to produce circular radiohalos, which were, in much less than four years, compressed and deformed.

The story is one of exceptional geological conditions—a highly unusual sequence of events. For one thing, in the usual ‘slow and gradual’ scenarios, it would take much longer for sufficient sediment to accumulate on top to deform the wood in this way. What is really amazing and significant, however, is the fact that this elliptical halo situation has been found in three different geological formations in the same general region. Evolutionists say these formations represent three different geological periods ranging from 35 to 245 million years.13 To believe this millions-of-years time*scale, we would need to believe that this amazing sequence of events (with all its precise timing) occurred three different times, separated by more than 200 million years. Clearly this is an incredible scenario. It makes more sense to believe that the sequence occurred once and that all the sedimentary formations were deposited in the same catastrophe, followed by the same earth movement causing deformation. These polonium halos collapse the ‘long ages’ of geology, and point to the unique, catastrophic Flood recorded in the Bible. Also, by the same reasoning, these halos leave little room for numerous layers of post-flood sedimentation as suggested by some authors.14

More confirming evidence
Further confirmation of this spectacular collapse of geologic time is provided by careful analysis of the tiny cores of some uranium halos found in the same wood samples.15 This revealed a large amount of uranium-238 but almost no lead-206.16 If the halos were millions of years old, much more ‘daughter’ lead should have been present. The scarcity of the daughter element, using the same assumptions upon which radiometric dating is based, would indicate that the halos are only several thousand years old, not millions. Similar results were obtained for halos from all three geological formations, indicating that all are approximately the same age. Again, the supposed millions of years of geologic time collapse into only a few thousand.17

Dinosaur tracks

Many fossilized dinosaur track patterns suggest that the creatures who made them were fleeing from something; in some cases this may have been a predator. A soft surface capable of receiving foot imprints would be unlikely to retain those prints unless relatively quickly covered by further sediment, such as in a flood catastrophe.

Fossilized dinosaur footprints have been found in these Colorado mines. In Cyprus Plateau Mine (Utah), a fossilized dinosaur footprint was found in the coal seam next to one of the many coalified logs of the plateau. In Kenilworth Mine, eight different types of dinosaur tracks were found.

The pattern of tracks suggests that the animals were fleeing from an imminent catastrophe. Nearby, a huge dinosaur graveyard has been found at Dinosaur National Monument (Vernal, Utah) in Jurassic sediments.

Obviously, the dinosaurs that made these tracks didn’t escape. The catastrophe got them. The collapse of geologic time and the young age for the rock formations confirm that these dinosaurs lived on Earth, at the same time as man, only a few thousand years ago.

Conclusion
This scientific evidence, presented in leading journals, is a major problem for the idea of ‘millions of years’. It is, however, consistent with the vast fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock deposits of the Colorado Plateau having been laid down rapidly by the catastrophic global Flood described in the Bible, some 4,300 years ago. The dinosaurs that left footprints on the plateau, and were then buried and fossilized in the nearby rocks, also lived then—at the same time as man.

Recommended Resources
References and notes
Such as the assumption of constant rates of change.

E.g. the amount of helium in the atmosphere, the decay and rapid reversals of Earth’s magnetic field, the salinity of the oceans, lack of continental erosion, and population statistics. A good summary is given by Morris, J.D., The Young Earth, Master Books, Arizona, 1994.

Primary polonium-218 radiohalos command attention because they provide a record of extinct radioactivity in minerals constituting some of Earth’s most ancient rocks. See Gentry, R.V., Creation’s Tiny Mystery (3rd ed.), Earth Science Associates, Tennessee, 1992.

Obviously not a perfect analogy, despite being useful—a bullet into cork leaves equivalent damage all along its path, unlike the alpha particles which do most damage at the end, as stated.

The others decay by beta decay (b), not alpha (a). Note that due to overlap, only five of the eight rings of a 238U halo are normally visible.

Steiff, L.R. et al., A preliminary determination of the age of some uranium ores of the Colorado Plateau by the lead-uranium method, US Geological Survey Circular271, 1953.

Jedwab, J., in: Given, P. (Ed.), Coal Science, American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., 1966.

Breger, I., in: Formation of Uranium Ore Deposits, Proceedings of Symposium in Athens 6–10 May 1974, pp. 99–124, International Atomic Energy Authority, Vienna, 1974.

Gentry, R.V., Et al., Radiohalos and coalified wood: new evidence relating to the time of uranium introduction and coalification, Science194:315–318, 1976.

Ref. 3, pp. 51–62.

Gentry, R.V., The Young Age of the Earth, Earth Science Associates LLC, Alpha Productions, 1996, available through AiG.

Gentry points out that the second halo could have formed from the decay of an isotope two steps back along the ‘chain’. Since the intermediary isotope undergoes beta, not alpha decay, the two possibilities cannot be distinguished from the halo. But this would stretch things from a maximum of around four years to some 22 years; a trivial matter.

The Eocene (supposedly 35–55 million years ago), the Jurassic (140–205 million years ago) and the Triassic (205–245 million years ago). See ref. 3, p. 56.

See refs. in McIntosh, A.C., Edmondson, T. and Taylor, S., Genesis and catastrophe: the Flood as the major Biblical cataclysm, CEN Tech. J.14(1):101–109, 2000.

Using X-ray fluorescence (EXMRF) and the more sensitive ion microprobe mass analysis (IMMA).

The ratios of uranium to lead were up to 64,000, indicating the halos are only thousands of years old. Halos millions of years old would have a far lower uranium-to-lead ratio. For details see ref. 3, pp. 61–62; and ref. 9.

It is chemically implausible to believe that lead could be leached out, leaving uranium—the reverse is far more likely.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The uranium-238 decay (238U) series. Eight of the fifteen isotopes emit an alpha particle when they decay. Letters signify the name of the element (e.g. U for uranium and PO for polonium) and the numbers indicate the mass of the atoms (e.g. 238 atomic mass units).


Radioactive decay series
Radioactive isotopes have an intrinsically unstable atomic structure which makes them disintegrate so that particles fly out. One way that a parent radio*active atom can decay into a daughter atom is by ejecting an alpha particle from its nucleus. Sometimes the daughter element is also unstable and subsequently decays into another unstable isotope, and so on in a series of steps—a ‘decay chain’.

The isotope uranium-238 starts a decay chain that disintegrates step-by-step into a stable form of lead. It involves fifteen isotopes and fourteen steps (diagram right). Different isotopes of the same element (e.g. uranium-238 and uranium-235) have a different mass but nearly identical chemical behaviour. An alpha particle is a helium nucleus with a mass of 4 atomic mass units. Thus, radioactive decay by emission of an alpha particle (e.g. uranium-238) produces a daughter isotope (thorium-234) which is 4 atomic mass units lighter.

The half-life of a radioactive isotope is the time required for half its atoms to decay. Different isotopes have different half lives (e.g. the half-life of uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years and of polonium-218 is 3 minutes).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radiometric dating relies on assumptions
Radiometric dating relies on three unprovable assumptions about the past:

The amount of ‘daughter’ isotope in the rock at the start is known.


No loss of ‘parent’ or gain of ‘daughter’ since the rock formed (closed system conditions).


Constant decay rate of ‘parent’ to ‘daughter’.

If these conditions could be guaranteed, the radiometric dating method would be correct. However, unless eye*witnesses observed the rock when it formed, and checked it constantly thereafter, it is impossible to guarantee that these assumptions are correct. Indeed, there are many cases in the scientific literature where assumptions one and two, though made in good faith, have been shown to be unreliable.

Constancy of decay rate (assumption three) implies that a parameter which scientists have been measuring for only a century has been constant for millions of alleged years of Earth’s history. This is of course not only unproven but also unprovable. Decay rates (which can vary greatly today under special conditions) may have been much faster in the past; evidence suggesting this is now being analyzed by a creationist consortium.1 A good summary of the documented inconsistencies and inaccuracies of radiometric dating is given by Woodmorappe.2

Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E.F. (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, California, and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Mississippi, 2000.

Woodmorappe, J., The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, California, 1999.

 

[Eon]

This is exactly the same stuff they were saying 5 years ago. All of this stuff has been discredited many times.

I'm hoping that most of it is strawman stuff advanced to be sacrificed to protect the flanks of the radiohalos in biometric potite argument. However the following link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/ should clear up any issues you have.