Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 131: Line 131:  
:"they assume the orbiting shield of electrons preventing substantial decay of the isotope nuclei did not itself evolve over time"
 
:"they assume the orbiting shield of electrons preventing substantial decay of the isotope nuclei did not itself evolve over time"
 
:Let me guess: you've never studied chemistry, right? This is not an assumption.--[[User:BudVar|BudVar]] 14:21, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
 
:Let me guess: you've never studied chemistry, right? This is not an assumption.--[[User:BudVar|BudVar]] 14:21, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
 +
 +
::Well, isotopes like Beryllium have seen changes in decay rates given external factors.[http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemical-environment][http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/full/news040913-24.html] The argument by Dalrymple isn't that such changes can't occur, but that they are minimal and rare. In fact though, particles have just been discovered to decay faster than they should, which could spell trouble for the Standard Model.[http://www.livescience.com/21024-particle-decays-standard-model-babar.html] Isn't Electron Capture something of an evidence for such evolution of electron strength in an isotope? Why do they assume the electron shield preventing decay to the isotope nuclei from all but powerful nuclear forces could not itself have evolved? And furthermore, now that they know mass extinctions did occur (Catastrophism) why do they assume these catastrophes did not have such nucleic effects to alter the decay rates? Volcanism is known to alter radioactive decay, in fact, this is a key talking point for Creationists, how lava-affected material from the recent Mount St. Helens eruption has been dated at millions of years old.[http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm][http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v23/n3/radiodating] --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 22:23, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,134

edits

Navigation menu