To Evolutionists: Half Lives, trur or false?

Question

Is the study of half lives accurate?

"The sun is continuously burning out at a rate of 5 feet per hour. This means that the sun would have been TWICE the size that it is now only 100,000 years ago! Only 20,000,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that it would be touching the earth! Yet evolutionists insist that the universe, including the sun, is billions of years old."

"Because of meteors and meteorites, interplanetary dust falls upon the earth at a rate of at least 14 million tons per year. The evolutionists claim that the earth, the moon, and the various planets are at least 4.5 billion years old. This means that there should be a layer of space dust on the moon over 500 feet thick. However, when the astronauts landed on the moon, LESS THAN THREE INCHES of dust were found. Three inches could have accumulated in less than 8000 years."

Answer 1

Please cite sources for these preposterous quotes.

The suns energy comes from nuclear fusion not from combustion. rates of meteor strikes are not common over time. Early in the history of our solar system the rate of meteor strikes is thought to have been much higher. We date the age of the earth by radiometric means.

Answer 2

false logic,and a lack of knowledge of the cosmos and a total lack of scientific education,back to church school for you.spend some time reading text on cosmology, simple go to your local Junior collage and take some courses. get an education.

Answer 3

Just where exactly did you get the info that the Sun is, how did you put it, "...burning out at a rate of 5 feet per hour"?  First, anyone who took even high school physics knows the Sun doesn't burn.  It turns about 400-600 million tons of hydrogen into helium every second through nuclear fusion.  Some of the matter in the initial hydrogen atoms is convereted into energy a la E=mc^2.  Fusion is why it--and all stars--shine.  All stars are using fusion to keep themselves going.  Different types create the heavier elements which gives them their different colors.  "Burning", or oxidation, is a chemical reaction of changing around the atoms in molecules, not transmuting one element into another.  As small as our Sun is compared to other stars, it is still massive enough to have a lifespan of around 10 billion years.  It has about 5 billion of them left before the hydrogen runs out and it turns into a red giant burning Mercury, Venus and Earth to cinders. So, don't lose any sleep over it.

Please, don't throw out useless and, frankly, obviously maniuplated and censored statistics or information out there without providing the sources.

Answer 4

This is what happens when you get your information from people who:

1) have a religious agenda to push, and

2) don't understand science and the natural world.

The kinds of data you are using invariably omit information or fudge in such a way as to give the impression the religious nuts want it to.  Their (your?) agenda is to con as many people as they can into believing the literal biblical story of creation.  I have even seen numerous cases where creationists deliberately LIE to mislead the flock in the "right" direction -- like when they intentionally misquote scientists or take their comments out of context.

Radiometric dating is accurate enough to show that the creationist chronology, (as per Bishop Ussher), is wrong by a FACTOR of about 600 TIMES, for the age of humanity, 700,000 TIMES for the age of the earth, and about 2 million TIMES for the age of the universe.  Now, if some huge discovery was made, which would tell us that our estimates were off by a whopping 50%, you could proudly claim that your chronology is only a MILLION times shorter than what the physical world has revealed.

Answer 5

I would say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," but you don't even have a little knowledge. For instance, the Sun does not burn by shrinking. Scientists (but not filthy creationist liars) have been aware of this fact since 1914.

Answer 6

You obviously don't understand the science at all. Read some books on cosmology. Professor Hawking's "The Universe In A Nutshell" is a good place t start.

Cheers

Answer 7

Yes I do think the "study of half lives" is accurate. All independent lines of evidence found so far corroborate half lives. There is a new study that MAY show a VERY small change, near the beginning of the Universe, in a constant that would affect half lives. This change is so small that it is barely detectable and it may just be background noise or miscalculations and not be any change at all.

Visit Theologyweb.com and go to the Natural Science 301 section and ask these questions there. You will get very well thought out fairly complete answers from Christians, atheists, Jews, scientists, creationists, etc.

Same to the other two, well I suppose I'll call them 'questions'.

The one I'll deal with here (not enough room to discuss any of them very thoroughly) is the Sun one. Basically as the Sun uses up fuel it will shrink. Eventually it will reach an equilibrium and it will not shrink. If the energy production picks up the Sun will swell up some. Plus there is bound to be some changes due to currents and other perturbations within the Sun. No scientist that I know of thinks that the Sun has been shrinking 5 feet a hour for its entire existence. There are probably many other things I missed here and I can't go into detail for space and time limitations.

Again, go to Theologyweb.com and ask the questions there. And / or do a search there (and a general web search). I am pretty sure that these questions have been covered before there. And the questions could be covered in much more depth.

Answer 8

first of all, evolutionist do not exactly study the age of the universe.. they're biologists!

the fact that the sun is burning out at a certain rate now, doesn't mean that rate has been constant! I'd say the rate is increasing, but I'm not an expert.

I don't know about your dust question, but wouldn't the dust be sort of absorbed and incorporated in the layers on the ground? like on the earth, if you dig to some very old layers, you could find this outer-space dust there right?

Answer 9

Yes.

Answer 10

1. that is incredibly wrong, the sun isnt shrinking, in fact its growing slowly.

2. haha. you know how the measurement of 14 tons was calculated. this guy set up a machine to measure smog levels on a mountain top. he then found the amount of nickel the machine collected, assumed the only source of nickel was from meteors, and published a paper saying that 14 million tons was an over estimate, and said 5 billion tons was more likely. then, as technology developed, we used satellites to get a more accurate measurement of 18,000 to 25,000 tons per year. that fits EXACTLY with the predicted age of the universe.

Answer 11

first... the sun thing... at this point in time the sun may be burning at 5 feet per hour... but that is just an estimation of the VOLUME of gas that is burning. If you increase the radius of the sphere by a relatively small amount the volume increases greatly, so, say 20,000,000 years ago the radius of the sun may have only been slightly larger, but the surface area would be much greater. this means that only an inch or so would burn off each hour, but the same VOLUME of gas would be burned.

as for the moon... if you notice, there are craters all over the moon. these are created by asteroids/meteors hitting the surface of the moon. The moon has MUCH less gravity than the earth, so it is very possible that when an asteroid/meteor hits the surface of the moon it kicks off a ton of space dust into ourter space, never to fall back to the surface of the moon.

Answer 12

I can do better than that. The temperature rose 10° C today between 6 am and 4 pm. So two weeks ago, the temperature would have been absolute zero, proving that the earth is no more than two weeks old.

Right?

Don't laugh. I'm using the same logic you are.

The "shrinking sun" falsehood: It's not shrinking at all.

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-...

The "moon dust" falsehood: True figure about 20,000 tons per year, not 15 million.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dus...

Answer 13

Radioactive half lives is demonstrable in the lab.  You believe that the Earth is a sphere or flat?  It looks pretty flat, but it can be demonstrated that it is a sphere fairly easily.  It's the same with radioactivity.

The Sun burns an insignificant amount of mass in a day or year.  I'd need a source for "5 feet per hour".  Chances are, your source is outdated.  This is a common error.  I use the term "error" loosely, as i don't think it's accidental.  Very smart people generate this rubbish.

Ah, but this claim is certainly obsolete.  Before the Surveyor missions to the Moon in the 60's, it was feared that it might be covered in huge amounts of dust, that might not support the astronauts or the lander.  There are lots of processes that were not taken into account.

There are many arguments and lines of evidence that show that the Earth is older than 6000 years old.  But more than that, your literal interpretation of the Bible is extremely flawed.  The Biblical writers wrote poetry, not prose.  Every word has five, six, a dozen meanings.  The writers often meant all of them.  Modern translations often say "day", but the word could have meant "period", "era", "eon", and so on.  And besides, literal interpretation leads to a value of pi of exactly 3.  This is just silly.

Really, go to AnwsersInGenesis.  There's a section for obsolete arguments. They say "don't use these".  I'm tired of hearing about this crud.

Answer 14

Did you mean to say half LIES?  You are parroting pathetic falsehoods born of desperate cognitive dissonance. The only thing remotely true in your question are the estimates of the age of the solar system, and those are attributable to astronomers and cosmologists, not evolutionists. "Evolutionists" are biologists, and don't look back more than a few hundred million years.

First, the sun does not lose diameter as it burns. In fact, as time goes on, it becomes gradually hotter and swells up more.

The second lie is a three-part falsehood. First, as several others have pointed out, it uses an estimate of meteoric dust accumulation that has long since been discarded. Second, the accumulation on the moon could be expected to be considerably less than on Earth; Moon's smaller size and lower gravity would attract less debris. Third, a thick layer of dust will not stay fluffy; it will compact under its own weight. In a vacuum in particular, tightly packed particles cohere quite well.

Answer 15

Not much in the way of scientific knowhow in those quotations...

The Sun doesn't "burn". It fuses hydrogen atoms into helium. If the Sun was shrinking than were would its mass be going? For the most part the only thing the Sun radiates away from its surface is electro-magnetic waves. The Sun should stay the same relative mass for its entire life until expands into a red giant then super nova-ing into a white dwarf.

The Earth does receive a lot of space debris all the time, but your number might be well off. If you lay a large tarp on the ground over night with a magnet underneath and then run the magnet over the surface in the morning you should pick up a little iron that had drifted to the Earths surface. The Earth has a complex geological system to integrate this mass into itself without being completely inundated with extraterrestrial dust, but the Moon does not... However the moon is no where near as massive as the Earth and it being so close to Earth means it would git even less than its fair share of dust from space.

Half-lives of elements are as true as you can get. It is used all the time from measuring time to nuclear energy production. I don't see how those quotations have anything to do with half-lives.

The only thing related to evolution in your question is the general misunderstanding of information of those quotes equals the that of evolution theory opponents.