rationalskepticism.org

BlackBart wrote:The big bang can be demonstrated.

Dear Blackbart,
Here is a brief breakdown of the Big Bang discussion which you failed to address, so here it is again:
1) Several atheists here stated their BELIEF that the age of the earth is 4.5 to 4.6 BILLION years old. Why do they BELIEVE this? Because that's what they have been TOLD to believe.

My response: They don't KNOW the age of the earth as a FACT.
Why? Because there is NO ACCURATE METHOD to determine the vast ages of fossils, planets, etc. For over 20 years, physicists/scientists have repeatedly stated that isotope decay rates are constant ONLY in ambient temperatures but NOT under high heat. Radioactive isotopes initially formed at a temperature of 1 billion degrees (K) after the Big Bang, causing increased kinetic energy & accelerated isotope decay rates from millions/billions of years down to hours or minutes. These already-decayed isotopes were later deposited on the earth's surface as the earth formed, giving the erroneous impression of vast ages. This principle has been repeatedly published in peer-reviewed science journals (Journal of Geophysical Research, Physics Magazine, etc.) with warnings against erroneous vast ages. Proof of this principle is MODERN-DAY volcanic eruptions only decades old are ERRONEOUSLY dated as being millions of years old - even at moderately high magma temperatures much lower than the Big Bang. Millions/billions of years is a MISCALCULATION which does not take into account accelerated isotope decay rates under high heat - and this according to scientists who specialize in isotope decay rates.

Spearhead asked for a reference article specifically stating that a known decay rate of an isotope can no longer be used for age-dating/geochronology purposes. This is the article I gave him:

Article: Nuclear structure of 176Lu and its astrophysical consequences. Ref: Physical Review C/Covering Nuclear Physics C44/2839: "On the basis of the improved level scheme of 176Lu it is demonstrated that the stellar s-process production as well as the stellar beta decay rate of that nucleus DEPENDS STRONGLY ON TEMPERATURE. This behavior results from the completely different half-lives of the ground state and the isomer; since these states are coupled by induced transitions in the hot stellar photon bath, the effective half-life of 176Lu is DRASTICALLY REDUCED. Consequently, 176Lu CAN NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED AS A CHRONOMETER for the age of the s process."
N. Klay, F. Käppeler, H. Beer, and G. Schatz, Phys. Rev. C 44, 2839 – Published 1 December 1991

You did get that statement: "...CAN NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED AS A CHRONOMETER...."

There are several other articles from other peer-reviewed Physics journals which I have provided in previous posts here. These studies have been published multiple times in multiple peer-reviewed journals by multiple physicist teams since the late 1980s.

Someone here mentioned the articles are old. So what? The main idea is that heat increases kinetic energy (like it does in all substances) and therefore, increases the decay rate of isotopes (when compared to ambient temps).

Now, the question is, were the isotopes found on our planet exposed to a high-enough heat to significantly accelerate their decay rate? The UCLA Astrophysics Department gave us the answer which is Yes. The UCLA Astrophysics Dept. stated that radioisotopes began forming almost immediately after the Big Bang when temps were upwards of 1 billion degrees K. See this article:
Article: Brief History of the Universe (UCLA Astrophysics, 2004) "This occurs when the temperature is around 10^27 to 10^28K at 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang." "Universe grows and cools until 100 seconds after the Big Bang. The temperature is 1 billion degrees, 10^9 K. Electrons and positrons annihilate to make more photons, while protons and neutrons combine to make deuterons. Almost all of the deuterons combine to make HELIUM."

So where did earth get its helium (a radioactive isotope)? From the helium which formed under GREAT HEAT immediately after the very very hot Big Bang.

I NEVER said the earth got that hot. Neither did the article I quoted from. UCLA Astrophysics Dept. said isotopes were formed immediately following the Big Bang but the earth had not formed at that time. However, the earth was eventually formed from materials such as isotopes which had already formed under great heat. You do realize that kinetic energy and its associated acceleration in isotope decay rates have ranges on a continuum. This is why isotopes found in igneous rocks (the earth's mantle can be 4000 degrees K - much less than Big Bang temps but still hot enough to increase kinetic energies) also read in the millions of years old even when the eruption was very recent.

The decay rates under high heat can bring down the half-lives from the millions/billions of years down to days, even minutes. See following table:

Accelerated Decay Rate Table: Radiometric decay times are NOT constant. When heated up to plasma temperatures, the half-life of elements decrease from billions of years down to minutes. This PROVES Radio-isotope dating methods cannot reliably be used to calculate the ages of fossils, planets, or anything else.
Article: Accelerated Radioactive Decay Rates, Ref: Proceedings of the Cosmology Conference 2003, OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Columbus, Ohio.
If the following materials are heated up to 15.4 billion degrees Kelvin, the half-life changes as follows (the Big Bang is theorized to have been 1 billion degrees Kelvin or more - much hotter than our sun and plenty hot to accelerate radioactive decay).
(1) Uranium 238 decreases from 4.5 billion years to 2.08 minutes
(2) Thorium 232 decreases from 14 billion years to 15.6 minutes
(3) Samarium 147 decreases from 106 billion years to 1.56 minutes
(4) Rubidium 87 decreases from 47 billion years to 2.46 minutes
(5) Potassium 40 decreases from 1.2 billion years to 5.87 minutes.

So, since the earth contains isotopes which were already partially decayed following the Big bang and its subsequent heat, we cannot rely on them to determine the age of the earth using calculations involving ambient temp half-lives of those isotopes... or any other calculations.

So far, as you can see from the responses above, there are no rebuttals using SCIENTIFIC DATA - only cussing, cursing, insults, and accusations - which is an immediate red flag telling us those individuals do not have any SCIENTIFIC DATA to offer.

Now, are you going to provide us with some SCIENTIFIC DATA which shows us otherwise?