By Dan Klarmann on August 28th, 2008
Deep Water Effects on Radioactivity
We’ve had a long comment aside in the Iridium Layer post about whether a Young Earth might be proven if one assumes that all isotopes “age” faster under water at some depth.
Let’s consider some of the repercussions if this were Truth instead of fantasy:
- Nuclear waste would not be a problem. If isotopes with surface half-lives of a billion years (U-238 has a 4.5 billion years half-life) decayed in a couple of hundred days to levels that we read now, the short-lived dangerous isotopes left over after fission would decay to nothing in a day or two at depth.
- Cheap energy: Long-life isotopes that are barely radioactive (like Lead-205 at 15 million years) could be immersed in water to increase their decay rate to give off their energy (as does Cobalt-57, 272 days) and used to run turbines.
- All isotopic dating methods would have to consider the depth and duration of immersion in water, even if we are looking at thousands instead of millions or billions of years.
But, to step back to reality: Why would the relatively level Atlantic ocean floor have isotope dates that consistently range from Now at the mid-Atlantic Ridge through 180 million years old approaching the continental shelf at Florida and Africa if water depth affects aging?
Also, why would rocks found in some mountain tops date as significantly younger than some at sea level, but still much older than Noah?
For me, I happen to be very comfortable with the reliability of the historicity of at least one carefully written, passed along and compiled document that takes us as close to human origins as can be obtained.
I am comfortable with the material in Genesis both pre and post flood being the best evidence from an observational sense that we will ever get for the early years of man on planet earth.
I am quite certain that anyone who tries to say that they are being objective about a matter is blind to their own bias or they would not be indignant about what they consider truth.
Most knowledge and the use of knowledge has a values based component that determines what one holds to be of more importance than something else. If this is denied by an individual, circular reasoning (induction and deduction) can be used logically to convince like minded individuals that what they want to believe to be true is true. The value of the premises one accepts as true will pretty much dictate what a sane person will end up believing in the long run. Sometimes beliefs are claimed to be based upon logical reasoning, and that logical reasoning tends to hold as long as the values behind the original premises are never open to reconsideration.
I understand how many scientists have come to believe that the evidence in the geologic record can point to an ancient earth, but I also understand that evidence is always in the hands of individuals with values and premises that are not capable of being truly objective.
Interpretations of non direct observational evidence is very subject to error no matter what the individual believes about the natural world, the people they discuss these matters with, or whom they agree or disagree with concerning any past events that may or may not have actually occurred.
I am comfortable with trying to build a model of the cataclysmic events of the flood that doesn’t separate potentially inter-related events into eons and epochs that could never be be shown to be directly related to one another if 100 of millions of years keep them distant from each other.
Mike asks, “…please tell me why you PREFER to accept Creationism or Evolution. Beyond the facts…why does it feel right to you?”
Both questions are absurd. First, it is not a question of creationism or evolution: creationism presumes to explain the origin of life; evolution presumes to explain speciation and does not make any predictions about how life originated. Second, if we go “beyond the facts” then there is no rational basis upon which to have a discourse: facts are what elevate evolution, and not creationism or “intelligent design,” to the realm of science.
All I can say is that I’m glad that my ideas of truth, justice, and goodness would not be shattered if Karl and his friends did the rather simple experiment we have described, and it turned out that deep water *does* have an effect on radioactivity. I might put money on the bet, but not my transcendent ideals.
Karl, I hope your students get a chance to examine real fossils like those described here:
A smiley face to anyone who can guess the author and approximate date - no fair googling!
Some uniformitarian naturalist who assume a flood catastrophy would be entirely tsunami like and finished quickly writes:
“If the Deluge had carried the shells for distances of three and four hundred miles from the sea it would have carried them mixed with various other natural objects all heaped up together.
Karl writes:
The author definitely has not thought through the full ramifications of easily demonstrable water flow principles.
In some places we do find sea shells mixed in with various other types of fossils in a sudden tsunami or earthquake like fashion.
But for over several months the tides waxed and waned across a great deal of the areas where fossils are found, including what are now mountain tops.
Steady fast moving water clearly carries less dense materials away from more dense materials.
Shore lines in even just a few days have a clear ability to remove flotsam.
For debris that has been buried under multiple composite layer after layer of rock uniformitarians can’t wrap their thoughts around what clearly had to happen. The flood was not a one time event that surged and then quickly went away. At some point rock materials were transported from the northern regions off of places like the Canadian Shield and deposited over many fossil beds.
Many may claim that repeated ice ages cleared off the Canadian Shield but I do not believe that to be the case. I believe huge massive ice glaciers full of rock materials that came out of Hudson Bay itself moved down over North America and Northern Europe and susequently buried all manner of fossils that were already somewhat sorted by flowing waters.
For those with values diametrically opposing the proposal of a new model for the rock beds over all manner of fossils its time to reconsider the real evidence.
Karl, thanks for your answer. You made some good points. Unfortunately you didn’t quite answer my question. We’re getting closer, though!
Let’s try this…I understand that you are comfortable, but WHY are you comfortable with the Genesis version of creation? Why does that make sense to you even though that account is widely disputed by many people?
Grumpy, I’m sorry if my terminology wasn’t exactly right, but I think you know what I mean. Your view of the origin and development of life and Karl’s view are very different. You rely on certain proven scientific facts which back up your view, I don’t dispute any of that.
But unless I’m mistaken, you weren’t on the archeological digs. You didn’t do the deep water experiments yourself. You haven’t drilled core samples of Arctic ice. You weren’t THERE while these things were being done and yet you accept the facts and their conclusions on the word of the scientists. I’m not suggesting the data was incorrect or falsified in any way, that’s not where I’m going with this. You CHOOSE to trust those facts even though your knowledge of them is second- or third-hand and those facts and their interpretation are widely disputed by many people.
What I am saying is that you accept your facts and Karl accepts his facts because they feel right to each of you for some deeply held reason that of which you may not even be entirely aware.
Let me rephrase the question so that it seems less absurd, although it will take a leap of your imagination to answer it honestly. It is the converse of the question I recently asked Erik B.
If tomorrow it were announced conclusively that the biblical account of creation was correct and the earth was only 6000 years old, (ignore for a moment the how and why, let’s just say there is no longer any question about it) would you be disappointed and why?
Karl, please read this recent release from the National Centers for Science Education:
The International Planetarium Society recently issued a statement on the ancient age of the earth and universe, noting that “Many independent lines of scientific evidence show that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old. Current measurements yield an age of about 4.6 billion years for the Earth and about 14 billion years for the Universe.” The statement adds, “These measurements of age are accepted by nearly all astronomers, including both research astronomers and planetarium educators. These astronomers come from nations and cultures around the world and from a very wide spectrum of religious beliefs.”
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/US/682_ips_statement_on_the_age_of_th_9_26_2008.asp
Karl, please enjoy this NASA tutorial on Geologic Time
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect2/Sect2_1b.html
I honestly prefer to believe that the so called facts of science has gotten things wrong in the past and could very well get things wrong now or even in the future concerning matters that are not really scientific in the clearest direct observational sense.
I am biased towards a model that I chose to believe could be wrong but I willfully chose to believe it because it provides a sense of meaning to existence and definition to knowledge in general that suits my philosophy of life.
The age of the earth can not be proven conclusively either way by science. If the consensus of the experts in the scientific community declared that they may have had their facts wrong and the earth could possibly be much younger than the 4.6 or so billion I wouldn’t be happy to see experts proven wrong, but I would be honest and say that I would be happy that science was not being monopolized by the interpretations of those with the predisposed point of view of naturalism.
Karl, Mike, Grumpy, etc: This is an interesting discussion, but not related to the Deep Water Effects on Radioactivity.
Might I suggest moving this conversation to Why Choose Naturalist Explanations Over Biblical Creation?
You’re right Dan. However I think this particular thread has run its course and I was interested in getting the two combatants away from their respective podiums and considering themselves for a moment. I always find people much more interesting than religion, science, theory, facts or faith anyway.
Where is grumpy’s response?
Karl wrote: “Where is grumpy’s response?”
My thoughts exactly!
Thanks Karl. Although I disagree with you in matters of science, I thought your answer was honest and good.
“…it provides a sense of meaning to existence and definition to knowledge in general that suits my philosophy of life.”
Please allow me to push you to self-explore a bit further. Please define what you mean by your “philosophy of life”.
Mike wrote: “…I’m sorry if my terminology wasn’t exactly right, but I think you know what I mean.”
No, I don’t know what you mean, because it is most definitely NOT merely a question of terminology. Creationism presumes to explain how life *began* on our planet. To the best of my knowledge, no existing theory of evolution presumes to explain how life *began*. Evolution theories seek to explain how life, however it began, *diversified* into the wide variety of species we find in the fossil record and which we see living today. Thus, creationism and evolution address two entirely different concepts…two different realms of knowledge. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other, except to the extent that (Biblical) creationism purports to also explain speciation; namely, by divine miracle. Many non-Christian cultures and religions have their own creation myths, but plenty of people who embrace those belief systems have no trouble understanding and accepting evolution — again, because evolution does not seek to explain how life originated on our planet.
I’m going to continue beating this point home to all of you because it is so vitally important. Biblical creationism is one myth among many creation myths that tries to explain how our planet came to have life on it. But evolution is the only coherent, fact-based theory that explains how speciation happened. It’s not a question of what “feels more comfortable”: evolution theories are based on fact and empirical research; creation stories are based on myth. This is why it simply makes no sense to ask, “If tomorrow it were announced conclusively that the biblical account of creation was correct and the earth was only 6000 years old, (ignore for a moment the how and why, let’s just say there is no longer any question about it) would you be disappointed and why?” We simply cannot “ignore the how and why,” because the how and why ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE DISCUSSION. To a great extent, they are the ONLY things that matter, because the great triumph of human reasoning over religious doctrine is not about evolution versus creationism — it is about the SCIENTIFIC METHOD versus every irrational thought that has ever entered a human mind. If we ignore the how and why, then one creation myth becomes just as valid as any other, because we have no rational basis for distinguishing between truth and fantasy.
Mike continues, “What I am saying is that you accept your facts and Karl accepts his facts because they feel right to each of you for some deeply held reason that of which you may not even be entirely aware.”
This comment continues to miss the point. The dispute between creationism and evolution is not a dispute about *facts*, it is a dispute about *methods*. It is the same with the ancient arguments that the Christian church had (and lost) about whether the earth or the sun was the center of our solar system, or whether germs or evil spirits were the cause of disease. The Christian church relies on dogma; science relies on the scientific method. That is the source of the conflict. Until you understand this critical point, your questions will continue to be nonsensical.
Grumpy, you truly live up to your moniker! Did you ever think about changing your pseudonym? It is well known that we very often live up to the meaning behind our name. I think that if you were “gentlepilgrim” or “mellowpilgrim” it might do your blood pressure some good!
I kid, of course!
Do you realize that if you boil down your recent posts in response to my “absurd” question and Dan Klarmans post, not-so-subtly chastizing this line of questioning…
http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/10/08/why-choose-naturalist-explanations-over-biblical-creation/
…you are both saying EXACTLY the same thing that Erik B said in his many responses to me which is, “The truth is the truth and I can’t (or won’t) even consider the alternative.”
But of course Erik B is insane and you and Dan are not.
Hey man, I’m on your side! I rejected my religion long ago and love keeping up with the latest scientific news about the nature of our universe. But I still have an imagination too! So, let me get this straight…you and Dan can no more imagine what it would feel like to find proof there IS a God any more than Erik B can imagine there is not?
Mike: Before addressing the balance of this discussion, I want to point out that finding proof that there is a god, finding proof that the god-of-the-Bible exists, and finding proof that the Bible accurately describes the nature of our universe, are three completely different things. From your queries, it is unclear to me which of these issues you are concerned about.
Grumps: Move it over here: Why Choose Naturalist Explanations Over Biblical Creation?
Unless it has to do with Deep Water Effects on Radioactivity