stupid question about the main site

[mr friendly guy]

Apologies if this is a silly question but from Darth Wong's main creation vs science site

So why don't we crunch the numbers for them? They like to say that we've only been measuring decay rates for a century or so, which isn't long enough to notice slow changes in decay rates that take billions of years to become significant. But they're forgetting something: they don't have billions of years. They claim that everything happened in just six thousand years, remember? Let's assign the variable µ to the current rate of decay of some radioisotope, and let's say it's been steadily dropping since Day One. If a 6,000 year old rock looks like it's 3.8 billion years old, this would suggest that its decay rate started off at more than 1¼ million times µ, and dropped at a rate of 1µ every 42 hours! We've been measuring decay rates for a long time now; have we detected such dramatic changes? Take a wild guess. We've also been observing the effects of faraway stars and supernovae which are far more ancient, and do they show any signs of these dramatic changes? Again, take a wild guess.

How do we derived the numbers calculated for the radiometric decay rates if the YEC assumptiong that rates can change happens.

[Luke Starkiller]

Apologies if this is a silly question but from Darth Wong's main creation vs science site

So why don't we crunch the numbers for them? They like to say that we've only been measuring decay rates for a century or so, which isn't long enough to notice slow changes in decay rates that take billions of years to become significant. But they're forgetting something: they don't have billions of years. They claim that everything happened in just six thousand years, remember? Let's assign the variable µ to the current rate of decay of some radioisotope, and let's say it's been steadily dropping since Day One. If a 6,000 year old rock looks like it's 3.8 billion years old, this would suggest that its decay rate started off at more than 1¼ million times µ, and dropped at a rate of 1µ every 42 hours! We've been measuring decay rates for a long time now; have we detected such dramatic changes? Take a wild guess. We've also been observing the effects of faraway stars and supernovae which are far more ancient, and do they show any signs of these dramatic changes? Again, take a wild guess.

How do we derived the numbers calculated for the radiometric decay rates if the YEC assumptiong that rates can change happens.

He's saying that if the decay rates are changing the way that YECs say they are it would very apparent

[mr friendly guy]

I know that. I am asking how he derives the figures.

[Darth Wong]

That's easy; the YECs need to compress billions of years of radioactive decay into 6000 years.

[Darth Servo]

That's easy; the YECs need to compress billions of years of radioactive decay into 6000 years.

I think he means "where did the 1.25 million mu figure come from?"

[Darth Wong]

That's easy; the YECs need to compress billions of years of radioactive decay into 6000 years.

I think he means "where did the 1.25 million mu figure come from?"

An assumption of linear change in decay rate, which would produce the absolute lowest possible rate of change. Anything but a linear rate of change would make things even worse, by forcing even greater rates of change at some point.

[mr friendly guy]

Ok, this is really stupid, but can you show me which equations you used? You don't have to crunch any numbers, (I will do that myself), but if I had something to start of with, I might understand it better?

[Kuroneko]

Assuming the rate of decay is directly proportional to the amount of the material, let N = N(t) denote the amount of material for t in the past (let's avoid negatives for now): dN/dt = ΌN, or N = N_0 exp(Όt), where N_0 is the amount of material now. On the other hand, if the rate of decay is itself linear instead of constant, dN/dt = (2At+B)N, then N = N_0 exp[(At+B)t]. Since the current rate of decay should be Ό, we have B = Ό. On the other hand, S = 6000 years should match T = 3.8e9 years under the original decay rate, so that N_0exp[(AS+B)S] = N_0exp(ΌT), or A = Ό(T-S)/S² = 106Ό. That means the decay rate 6000 years ago should have been 2AS+B = 1.27e6Ό, which sufficiently close to Mr. Wong's result.

However, a sufficiently determined creationist can simply propose a different model of the changing decay rate. For example, if the decay rate has a pole, e.g., dN/dt = -(A-B/t)N, where t is the time since creation of the world (or some other marker), this changes the character of the solution greatly: N = t^B exp(-At+C). This has the advantage that the decay rates becomes essentially constant for large t, which is exactly what a creationist would like. Of course, instead of a first-order pole, it could have an infinite-order one instead, just to add more drama. Unfortunately, we have passed the point of absurdity long ago.

[Darth Wong]

True, someone can simply declare that the change in decay rate was ridiculously fast and then slowed down after Day 6. But that would only exacerbate problems with the layers of sedimentary rock, since you would need multiple continuous cyclic ultra-rapid mass-extinctions followed by near-instantaneous compression and sedimentation into rock layers during the first few days of creation in order to distribute the fossils through the radiometric epochs. God would have to be continuously making billions of animals, killing them, and then smashing them into sediment in order to build up these layers during the critical period of ultra-rapid radiometric decay.

As Kuroneko said, once you start discussing this kind of idea you're just trading one absurdity for another no matter which way you turn.