SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 35:
Line 35: − There is no reason to expect that the rate of decay of a radioactive material is largely constant,<ref>At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments. See Walker, 2000.</ref> and it was almost certainly not constant near the creation or beginning of the universe.<ref>Multiple references:+ Line 42:
Line 42: − + + +
→Rate of decay: better bridge section
There is another effect, that is not understood. It appears that some radioactive decays are affected the Sun, and fluctuate over a period of about 33 days as the Sun rotates. The variation is about one tenth of a percent. It has been observed in silicon-32 and chlorine-36. While it is not understood why this happens, it would average out over long time periods and therefore not affect the final result.
There is another effect, that is not understood. It appears that some radioactive decays are affected the Sun, and fluctuate over a period of about 33 days as the Sun rotates. The variation is about one tenth of a percent. It has been observed in silicon-32 and chlorine-36. While it is not understood why this happens, it would average out over long time periods and therefore not affect the final result.
Creationists cast doubt on this analysis, and some apparently believe that decay rates could be so far off (by a factor of millions or more) that it could explain observations pointing to an old-Earth time-frame while young-Earth cosmology was actually taking place. They cite large numbers of articles on Creationist web sites.<ref>Multiple references:
*Sibley, Andrew (August 2013). [https://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rates-and-solar-activity Variable radioactive decay rates and the changes in solar activity]. ''Creation Ministries International'' (from the ''Journal of Creation 27(2):3–4''). Retrieved January 4, 2018.
*Sibley, Andrew (August 2013). [https://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rates-and-solar-activity Variable radioactive decay rates and the changes in solar activity]. ''Creation Ministries International'' (from the ''Journal of Creation 27(2):3–4''). Retrieved January 4, 2018.
*Wieland, Carl. [https://creation.com/rate-group-reveals-exciting-breakthroughs RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs!]. ''''Creation Ministries International''. Retrieved January 4, 2018.
*Wieland, Carl. [https://creation.com/rate-group-reveals-exciting-breakthroughs RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs!]. ''''Creation Ministries International''. Retrieved January 4, 2018.
*Thomas, Brian (August 5, 2009). [http://www.icr.org/article/4816 Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable]. ''Institute for Creation Research''. Retrieved January 4, 2018.
*Thomas, Brian (August 5, 2009). [http://www.icr.org/article/4816 Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable]. ''Institute for Creation Research''. Retrieved January 4, 2018.
*Snelling, Andrew A. (October 1, 2009). [https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/ Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved January 4, 2018.
*Snelling, Andrew A. (October 1, 2009). [https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/ Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions]. ''Answers in Genesis''. Retrieved January 4, 2018.
*Knapp, Alex (May 3, 2011). [https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/05/03/radioactive-decay-rates-may-not-be-constant-after-all/#4634f095147f Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All]. ''Forbes''. Retrieved January 4, 2018.</ref>
*Knapp, Alex (May 3, 2011). [https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/05/03/radioactive-decay-rates-may-not-be-constant-after-all/#4634f095147f Radioactive Decay Rates May Not Be Constant After All]. ''Forbes''. Retrieved January 4, 2018.</ref> While most of these articles accept that the possible discrepancies are nowhere near large enough to refute old-Earth cosmology, the Woodmorappe paper does make that claim. It uses the phenomenon of ionization, described above, to shut down electron capture decay, which could indeed cause a billion-fold discrepancy. However, this ionization would not have taken place under real-world circumstances. The Walker and Knapp articles refer to the noticeable discrepancies in Beryllium-7, described above.
Creationists also suggest that decay rates were almost certainly not constant near the creation or beginning of the universe. However, the billions of years of Uranium decay, for example, did not take place near the beginning of the universe.
As early as of 1673, John Ray, an English naturalist, wrote ''"in the primitive times the Creation of the earth suffered far more concussions and mutations in its superficial part than afterwards"''.<ref>{{cite book |title=Time's Arrows: Scientific Attitudes Toward time|author=Richard Morris|publisher=Simon and Schuster|year=1986|pages=240 pages|isbn=978-0671501587|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NOZ-r3YZrf0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Time%27s+arrows&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIkL6dqK7ZAhWl2YMKHa0QCAkQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=Time's%20arrows&f=false}}</ref> He was referring to the geological controversy that would later be dubbed "gradualism" vs. "catastrophism"; this long predated any knowledge of radioactivity.
As early as of 1673, John Ray, an English naturalist, wrote ''"in the primitive times the Creation of the earth suffered far more concussions and mutations in its superficial part than afterwards"''.<ref>{{cite book |title=Time's Arrows: Scientific Attitudes Toward time|author=Richard Morris|publisher=Simon and Schuster|year=1986|pages=240 pages|isbn=978-0671501587|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NOZ-r3YZrf0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Time%27s+arrows&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIkL6dqK7ZAhWl2YMKHa0QCAkQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=Time's%20arrows&f=false}}</ref> He was referring to the geological controversy that would later be dubbed "gradualism" vs. "catastrophism"; this long predated any knowledge of radioactivity.