Changes

::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 "not only rare but exceedingly small." (pg. 89) 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 from huge catastrophes ([[Catastrophism]]) why do they assume these catastrophes did not have such nuclear 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] So has lava from the New Zealand lava flows.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/dating] The effects of volcanism especially could throw off radiometric decay, especially if involved in a mass catastrophe like a global Flood, and underwater volcanoes could even be indicated in Genesis 7:11 where it talks of fountains of the deep breaking up. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 22:23, 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 "not only rare but exceedingly small." (pg. 89) 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 from huge catastrophes ([[Catastrophism]]) why do they assume these catastrophes did not have such nuclear 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] So has lava from the New Zealand lava flows.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/dating] The effects of volcanism especially could throw off radiometric decay, especially if involved in a mass catastrophe like a global Flood, and underwater volcanoes could even be indicated in Genesis 7:11 where it talks of fountains of the deep breaking up. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 22:23, 25 July 2012 (EDT)