Evidence for God from Science

Jbuza wrote:

numeral2_5 wrote:It wouldn't appear old.

that is an abstract claim not a disprovable hypothesis.

What do you mean Bgood that these elements would be present naturally if the earth were 10,000 years old? Why?

What reason would there be for God to not place these elements in the Earth unless they were present but decayed.

If the Earth was 10,000 years old we would expect Technetium to be present in the Earths crust in quantities comprable to Palladium or Silver.

I haven't seen many Technetium Jewelry vendors in Mexico have you?

Jbuza wrote:I understand, it is not suprising evolution has been ignoring the problem of 14c in coal and diamonds, so there is no reason for you not to do the same.

If there is 14C in diamond and coal, that is a problem. I looked around a bit, but couldn't find any explanation.
On the other hand, there are all the successes of 14C dating. Plenty of historical organic samples date just fine over the last few thousand years (the dates obtained agree with historical data). Pointing out a handful of cases where the technique does not work, especially older samples involving low amounts of 14C does not explain why the technique in general works.
So the broader question is: Does a technique have to work every single time in order for you to accept it, or are you willing to allow for sample contamination, human error, corrections due to unpredicted factors ? In this particular case I would like to see some reason to doubt all the 14C dating that has been corroborated by other evidence.

gone

gone

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:What reason would there be for God to not place these elements in the Earth unless they were present but decayed.

If the Earth was 10,000 years old we would expect Technetium to be present in the Earths crust in quantities comprable to Palladium or Silver.

I haven't seen many Technetium Jewelry vendors in Mexico have you?

I thought you said it was man made

Technetium you see is an element, like iron or silver.

Refer to the periodic table.

It's not a compound like teflon.

So why does it not occur naturally?

Jbuza wrote:I wasn't claiming that it doesn't work, but by the same token if it works in general why is it OK to simply dismiss the fact that coal has 14C, and not accept the date of that as well?

It isn't just a handful coal consistently shows 14C, and that indicates that there is something suspicous about geological time.

It is not okay to dismiss anomalous results without some understanding of why they are inconsistent. [In fact, examining such small discrepancies can often lead to new discoveries.] But in general, 14C dating works. In general, other forms of radiometric dating work as well.
To overthrow something as well-established scientifically as radiometric dating, the RATE researchers are going to have to do a lot better than point out a few oddities. Did you look at any of the references Kurieuo posted in the uniformitarianism thread (Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:55 pm ) ? http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... tric#20963

gone

On Technetium

Also there is a huge resevoir 47 miles under MT Everest.

Could you give us a link for that?

gone

gone.

"Dr. Gove wrote back the very next day, as did one of his colleagues. By sheer coincidence, they are currently studying this exact question. It turns out that the origin and concentration of 14C in fossil fuels is important to the physics community because of its relevance for detection of solar neutrinos. Apparently one of the new neutrino detectors, the Borexino detector in Italy, works by detecting tiny flashes of visible light produced by neutrinos passing through a huge subterranean vat of "scintillation fluid". Scintillation fluid is made from fossil fuels such as methane or oil (plus some other ingredients), and it sparkles when struck by beta particles or certain other events such as neutrinos. The Borexino detector has 800 tons of scintillant. However, if there are any native beta emitters in the fluid itself, that natural radioactive decay will also produce scintillant flashes. (In fact that's the more common use of scintillant. I use scintillant every day in my own work to detect 14C and 3H-tagged hormones. But I only use a milliliter at a time - the concept of 800 tons really boggles the mind!). So, the physics community has gotten interested in finding out whether and why fossil fuels have native radioactivity. The aim is to find fossil fuels that have a 14C/C ratio of 10-20 or less; below that, neutrino activity can be reliably detected. The Borexino detector, and other planned detectors of this type, must keep native beta emissions to below 1 count per ton of fluid per week to reliably detect solar neutrinos. (In comparison, my little hormone vials, here in my above-ground lab, have a background count of about 25 counts per minute for 3.5 milliliters.)

So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

So, it turns out that there isn't C-14 in coal deposits, unless they are lying close to deposits that produce C-14 in the process of nuclear decay.

Incidentally, if one assumes they aren't the result of contamination,(although that would require explaining why they exist only where such contamination is possible) the deposts date abouit 40,000 years old, with much older layers below them.

This assumption would mean that YE creationism was false.

Jbuza wrote:

numeral2_5 wrote:It wouldn't appear old.

that is an abstract claim not a disprovable hypothesis.

What do you mean Bgood that these elements would be present naturally if the earth were 10,000 years old? Why?

I'm sorry I was just finishing your sentence.

gone

gone

gone