oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
|
Sal also mentioned something called the "Evolutionary hypothesis of radioactivity". I'm guessing he really means the idea that standard radioactivity axioms support an old earth, so they must be wrong.
When asked to expand upon it he says
| Quote | There are several ideas for the presence of radioactivity:
1. stellar-planetary evolution (the evolutionary hypothesis) [not the same as biological evolution]
2. created radioactivity with missing isotopes [Sarfati Rolling Eyes ]
3. created radioactivity with accelerated decay that makes missing isotopes (Setterfield)
4. little or no created radioactivity, a late phenomena due to a rare mechanical, chemical, electrical reaction or a cosmogenic source or sources of things like neutrons(Brown unpublished, undeveloped speculation), followed up with accelerated decay
The problem with the stellar-planetary evolution model is uranium, being dense, should have sunk to the depths of the Earth and stayed there, not risen to the surface. Yet we find it in relative abundance at the surface. This would be true in any sort of "liquid" model of solid rock which geologist use. They say solid rock can be modeled like a liquid over great time scales and even the Earth was molten perhaps at one time. The "crustal recycling" ideas also fails to explain the presence of uranium at the surface because of the density issue. The same would be true of most other dense substances! Of course perhaps some chemical compound of uranium that is not so dense can help, but then we're still stuck with the issue of figuring out the mix of whatever exists on the surface in light of the density problem. Something doesn't add up either way. |
And the best line
| Quote | | Something doesn't add up either way. |
And anyway, how does Sal propose to tell if the "earth was molten at some time"
And has Sal not completely oversimplified things? In his model, the atmospheric gases would settle into layers for the same reason that the | Quote | | "crustal recycling" ideas also fails to explain the presence of uranium at the surface because of the density issue |
Something does not add up? It appears that thing is Sal's inability to use a search engine
The Cosmic Origins of Uranium
| Quote | We might further ask how long ago this synthesis of uranium occurred. Given
* the present day abundances of U-235 and U-238 in the various 'shells' forming our planet,
* a knowledge of the half-lives of these isotopes, and
* the age of the Earth (c 4.55 billion years) - known from various radiometric 'clocks', including those of the uranium-to-lead decay chains.
we can calculate the abundances of U-235 and U-238 at the time the Earth was formed. Knowing further that the production ratio of U-235 to U-238 in a supernova is about 1.65, we can calculate that if all of the uranium now in the solar system were made in a single supernova, this event must have occurred some 6.5 billion years ago.
This 'single stage' is, however, an oversimplification. In fact, multiple supernovae from over 6 billion to about 200 million years ago were involved. Additionally, studies of the isotopic abundances of elements, such as silicon and carbon in meteorites, have shown that more than ten separate stellar sources were involved in the genesis of solar system material. |
Ten separate sources huh Sal? Can you model even begin to explain the formation of uranium? Never mind where we find it in the crust...
--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
|
, and now claims that anyone who gives the YEC articles a "fair and charitable reading" MUST agree with his position.
and he asks 
