Posted: Apr 02, 2010 3:39 pm
Fascinating Calilasseia, the amount of heavy elements formed since the earliest supernovae began to detonate must be truly astounding - enough, surely, for untold numbers of metal-rich stars and planetary systems to form.
Alas, all this does not address the primary question - why should we expect to find isotopes with half-lives shorter than, say, 100 million years on a planet created only 6000 years ago? - If the matter it was created from originated from a supernova > 2 billion years ago? (more than 20 half-lives).
So long as a creationist is prepared to accept an old Universe, then a young Earth would not be contradicted by the absence of < 100 million year half-life isotopes.
Though I doubt any of them would like this scenario - if an old Universe, then why not an old Earth?
Alas, all this does not address the primary question - why should we expect to find isotopes with half-lives shorter than, say, 100 million years on a planet created only 6000 years ago? - If the matter it was created from originated from a supernova > 2 billion years ago? (more than 20 half-lives).
So long as a creationist is prepared to accept an old Universe, then a young Earth would not be contradicted by the absence of < 100 million year half-life isotopes.
Though I doubt any of them would like this scenario - if an old Universe, then why not an old Earth?