1 / 78

Evidence for a Recent Creation

Evidence for a Recent Creation. David A. Plaisted. Evidence for accelerated decay. Helium retention in zircons Recent Carbon 14 dates Radiation and accelerated decay Evidence of accelerated mutation rate Evidence of a nearby supernova Lack of objects in the Kuiper belt

Mia_John
Download Presentation

Evidence for a Recent Creation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evidence for a Recent Creation David A. Plaisted

  2. Evidence for accelerated decay • Helium retention in zircons • Recent Carbon 14 dates • Radiation and accelerated decay • Evidence of accelerated mutation rate • Evidence of a nearby supernova • Lack of objects in the Kuiper belt • Correlation between surface heat flow and the radioactivity of surface rocks

  3. Many lines of evidence are beginning to fit together into a consistent picture. How much evidence is necessary before a paradigm shift occurs?

  4. Creationists now feel that billions of years worth of radioactive decay has occurred on earth, giving old isotopic dates, but this decay took place in only a few thousand years.

  5. Alpha Decay

  6. ZIRCONS

  7. HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY D. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS,STEVEN A. AUSTIN, JOHN R. BAUMGARDNER, ANDREW A. SNELLING International Conference on Creationism Geneva College, Beaver Falls, PAAugust 4-9, 2003

  8. Two decades ago, Robert Gentry and his colleagues at Oak Ridge National Laboratory reported surprisingly high amounts of nuclear-decay-generated helium in tiny radioactive zircons from Precambrian rock. Up to 58% of the helium (that radioactivity would have generated during the alleged 1.5 billion year age of the granodiorite) was still in the zircons. Yet the zircons were so small that they should not have retained the helium for even a tiny fraction of that time.

  9. The high helium retention levels suggested to us and many other creationists that the helium simply had not had enough time to diffuse out of the zircons, and that recent accelerated nuclear decay had produced over a billion years worth of helium within only the last few thousand years, during Creation and/or the Flood. Such acceleration would reduce the radioisotopic time scale from megayears down to months.

  10. However, until a few years ago nobody had done the experimental and theoretical studies necessary to confirm this conclusion quantitatively. In 2000 the RATE project [14] began experiments to measure the diffusion rates of helium in zircon and biotite. We show that these data limit the age of these rocks to between 4,000 and 14,000 years. These results support our hypothesis of accelerated nuclear decay and represent strong scientific evidence for the young world of Scripture.

  11. Carbon 14 is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays and then slowly decays. The older an organic sample is, the less carbon 14 it will contain because it will not be absorbing new carbon 14 after it dies.

  12. MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL JOHN R. BAUMGARDNER,D. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, ANDREW A. SNELLING, STEVEN A. AUSTIN International Conference on Creationism Geneva College, Beaver Falls, PAAugust 4-9, 2003

  13. ABSTRACT Given the short 14C half-life of 5730 years, organic materials purportedly older than 250,000 years should contain absolutely no detectable 14C. An astonishing discovery made over the past twenty years is that, almost without exception, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the fossil record show detectable amounts of 14C!

  14. 14C/C ratios from all but the youngest samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1-0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological ‘age.’ A straightforward conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that all but the very youngest fossilized organic material was buried contemporaneously much less than 250,000 years ago. This is consistent with the Biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the air-breathing life on the planet in a single brief cataclysm only a few thousand years ago.

  15. Giem [18] reviewed the literature and tabulated about seventy reported AMS measurements of 14C in organic materials from the geologic record that, according to the conventional geologic time-scale, should be 14C ‘dead.’ The surprising result is that organic samples from every portion of the fossil record show detectable amounts of 14C. For the measurements considered most reliable, the 14C/C ratios appear to fall in the range 0.1-0.5 percent of the modern 14C/C ratio (percent modern carbon, or pmc). 0.1 percent modern carbon corresponds to a computed age of 57,000 years!

  16. The conventional uniformitarian age for these samples is well beyond 100,000 years (in most cases it is tens to hundreds of millions of years). The samples include coal, anthracite, and natural gas, as well as wood, shells, foraminifera, and other fossils. Even some Precambrian graphite samples have carbon 14 ages of about 60,000 years! Some of the researchers tried to explain this carbon 14 as contamination, but none of their attempts to clean it were successful.

  17. AMS analyses reveal carbon from fossil remains of living organisms, regardless of their position in the geological record, consistently contain 14C levels far in excess of the AMS machine threshold, even when extreme pre-treatment methods are applied. Experiments in which the sample size is varied argue compellingly that the 14C is intrinsic to the fossil material and not a result of handling or pre-treatment. These conclusions continue to be confirmed in the very latest peer-reviewed papers.

  18. Moreover, even non-organic carbon samples appear consistently to yield 14C levels well above machine threshold. Graphite samples formed under metamorphic and reducing conditions in Precambrian limestone environments commonly display 14C values on the order of 0.05 pmc. A good question is what possibly could be the source of the 14C in this material? We conclude that the possibility this 14C is primordial is a reasonable one.

  19. Organic matter consistently has a higher 14C ratio than Precambrian inorganic matter • Not noise • Not contamination

  20. Dr Baumgardner sent a diamond for C-14 dating.  It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive—i.e. the diamond, formed deep inside the earth in a ‘Precambrian’ layer, nevertheless contained radioactive carbon, even though it ‘shouldn’t have’.  This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior.

  21. The diamond’s carbon-dated ‘age’ of <58,000 years is thus an upper limit for the age of the whole earth.  And this age is brought down still further now that the helium diffusion results have so strongly affirmed dramatic past acceleration of radioactive decay.

  22. The fact that isotopic dates are generally too old by hundreds of millions of years, but Carbon 14 dates are only too old by thousands of years, is also evidence for accelerated decay because Carbon 14 decays much faster.

  23. An ounce of silver + a pound of gold: Not much difference An ounce of silver + a pound of bricks: Big difference $5.00 doesn’t mean much to a millionaire $5.00 means a lot to a beggar! 100 + 1/10: not much increase .001 + 1/10: big increase

  24. Small half life: Decay is frequent Large half life: Decay is rare Extra decay makes little difference if decay is frequent Extra decay makes large difference if decay is rare Conclusion: Isotopic ages of elements with large half lives should be more affected by an increase in decay rates

  25. Half Lives for Radioactive Elements

  26. Alpha decay and beta decay use different processes Therefore they may not be affected the same by an increase in the decay rate So discordances between alpha and beta decay ages are an evidence of disturbed decay

  27. Expected evidence of increase in decay rates: Carbon 14 ages much younger than other isotopic ages like K-Ar, U-Pb, et cetera Alpha and beta ages should differ Long half live ages more affected than short half life ages

  28. RADIOISOTOPES IN THE DIABASE SILL (UPPER PRECAMBRIAN) AT BASS RAPIDS, GRAND CANYON, ARIZONA: AN APPLICATION AND TEST OF THE ISOCHRON DATING METHOD STEVEN A. AUSTIN, Ph.D. ANDREW A. SNELLING, Ph.D. WILLIAM A. HOESCH

  29. Evidence for accelerated decay rates obtained from isotopic dates themselves Even airtight isotopic dates disagree – the only explanation is a change in decay rates!

  30. ABSTRACT: The five-point Rb-Sr whole-rock isochron age of 1.07 Ga for the diabase sill at Bass Rapids, Grand Canyon, has been regarded for 20 years as an excellent example of the application of conventional radioisotopic dating. However, our new K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb radioisotope data from eleven whole-rock samples (eight diabase, three granophyre) and six mineral phases separated from one of the whole-rock diabase samples yield discordant whole-rock and mineral isochron “ages.”

  31. These isochron “ages” range from 841.5±164 Ma (whole-rock K-Ar) to 1375±170 Ma (mineral Sm-Nd). Each method appears to yield concordant “ages” internally between whole rocks and minerals. It is therefore argued that only changing radioisotope decay rates in the past could account for these discordant isochron “ages” for the same geologic event. Furthermore, these data are consistent with alpha decay having been accelerated more than beta decay, and with the longer the present half-life the greater being the acceleration factor.

  32. This is not an isolated phenomenon but is characteristic of isotopic dates:

  33. Austin has already documented that, when the mineral isochron method is applied as a test of the assumptions of radioisotopic dating, discordances inevitably result. According to Austin, four categories of discordance are found in suites of rocks with a common origin — (1) two or more discordant whole rock isochron ages, (2) a whole-rock isochron age older than the associated mineral isochron ages, (3) two or more discordant mineral isochrons from the same rock, and (4) a whole-rock isochron age younger than the associated mineral isochron ages. Our radioisotope data from the Bass Rapids diabase sill exhibit all four categories of isochron discordance. Thus the assumptions of radioisotopic dating must be questioned.

  34. Airtight dates disagree: An evidence of a change in the decay rates

  35. Mutation rates “Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events.” “...Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"‑‑the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people‑‑lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old…” Gibbons, Ann, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock”, Science, Vol 279, No. 5347, Jan 1998, pp. 28 ‑ 29.

  36. Mutation rates In fact, a similar argument gives young ages for wolves, coyotes, dogs, ducks, birds, E. Coli, and Drosophila (fruit flies). Probably many organisms can be shown to have originated within the past few thousand years using genetic diversity arguments.

  37. Ages computed from nuclear DNA diversity are larger than ages computed from mtDNA diversity. This is also evidence for an accelerated mutation rate in the past because nuclear DNA mutates much slower and would be more affected. But what caused the increase? There is evidence that small doses of radiation can lead to unexpectedly high mutation rates in humans (Science 8 February 2002 vol. 295 page 946): ... researchers led by geneticist Yuri Dubrova of the University of Leicester, United Kingdom, describe a compelling connection between radioactive fallout and elevated mutation rates in families living downwind of the Semipalatinsk nuclear facility ...

  38. The findings bolster a controversial 1996 report by Dubrova and a different group of colleagues that linked germ line mutations to fallout from the 1986 Chornobyl explosion. That study, published in Nature, described double the usual mutation rate in the children of men living in a region of Belarus heavily contaminated with cesium 137. In each subject they examined eight minisatellite DNA regions that are prone to mutations. ... Compared to control families in a nonirradiated part of Kazakhstan, individuals exposed to fallout had a rougly 80% increase in mutation rate, and their children showed an average rise of 50%.

  39. So it all fits together: increased decay leads to higher levels of radiation and also increases mutation rates in humans! And there is some evidence that the rate of decay may vary:

  40. Slusher (1981, p. 26) reports: Anderson and Spangler maintain that their several observations of statistically significant deviations from the (random) expectation strongly suggests that an unreliability factor must be incorporated into age-dating calculations. Such irregularities were observed for carbon 14, cobalt 60, and cesium 137. The source for this information is Anderson, J.L. and Spangler, G.W., "Radiometric Dating: Is the `Decay Constant' Constant?", Pensee, p. 31.

  41. Even Dalrymple (1984, p. 88) recognizes such irregularities: Under certain environmental conditions, the decay characteristics of 14C, 60Co, and 137Ce, all of which decay by beta emission, do deviate slightly from the ideal random distribution predicted by current theory ... , but changes in the decay constants have not been detected. Dalrymple cites the references Anderson, J. L., 1972, Non-Poisson distributions observed during counting of certain carbon-14-labeled organic (sub) monolayers, Phys. Chem. J. 76: 3603-3612 and Anderson, J.L.and G.W. Spangler, 1973, Serial statistics: Is radioactive decay random? Phys. Chem. J. 77: 3114 - 3121.

  42. What could have sped up decay rates? The following comment by Keith Wanser, a creationist physicist, quoted in Creation Ex Nihilo 21(4) p. 40 is significant: Actually, it turns out that when you get the nucleus "excited", decay is going to be much quicker, making things look vastly "older". People have been talking recently about magnetic stars giving off big bursts of gamma rays; there are all sorts of ways that radiometric "clocks" could have been reset catastrophically, during the Flood, for example.

  43. “Furtive Glances Trigger Radioactive Decay," Science 2 June 2000 vol 288 page 1564 This article shows how interactions with elementary particles can cause decay rates to increase. One such particle is the neutrino, and supernovas produce many neutrinos.

  44. A recent result (Science 26 April 2002 vol. 296 page 633) implies that neutrinos interact with matter much more readily than previously thought: “The results also show that another property of neutrinos, related to how they interact with matter, known as the mixing angle, must be large, rather than small, contrary to what physicists believed until quite recently.”

  45. Where did all the radiation come from to speed up decay rates?

  46. The Crab Nebula is the remnant of a supernova explosion that was seen on Earth in 1054 AD. It is 6000 light years from Earth. At the center of the bright nebula is a rapidly spinning neutron star, or pulsar that emits pulses of radiation 30 times a second.

  47. The Crab Nebula

More Related