Gutsick Gibbon's Five Points Answered, I, Heat Problem and Extra on Absence of Solutions As Criterium

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Gutsick Gibbon on Cross Disciplinarity Outlawed in Academia, Heat Problem, Gate-Keeping · Gutsick Gibbon's Five Points Answered, I, Heat Problem and Extra on Absence of Solutions As Criterium · Gutsick Gibbon on Overturning Paradigms and Castile Formation · Geologic Column : Absent from Land Vertebrate Palaeontology · Continuing with Kevin · Creation vs. Evolution : Could Guy Berthault Conduct a New Experiment, Please? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Correspondence with Gutsick Gibbon (Erika) and with Kevin R. Henke

Top FIVE Reasons Young Earth Creationism is Impossible
19th Jan. 2022 | Gutsick Gibbon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0tikAqD99M

Point I

4:31 Radioactive decay speeding up for some solids is not "physics breaking up" ... potassium 40 decaying quicker is no more impossible than U 235 and U 238 decaying quicker (confer 1986 51° 23′ 22,39″ N, 30° 05′ 56,93″ E.)

And potassium argon is linked to another heat problem, volcanic eruptions.

5:05 "we've thrown everything at it, and we can't do it"

We most certainly can if we "throw" radioactivity to it, also known as extra neutrons.

5:24 I don't think I need "all the radioactive decay in 4.5 billion years" in Noah's Flood, it's quite enough with "lots of the radioactive decay actually such in relation to radioactive dating methods" - and some of the solution in relation to these is more about : originally much less of the parent isotope.

5:43 Let's take the Indian plate colliding with the Asian or one of the Asian ones ... I got height of Himalayas at lower case phi times the present height of Mount Everest in 100 years after the Flood, meaning the initial speed in the Flood year was a rise of 290.425 meters per year. By 100 after Flood, this would have slowed down to 9.259 meters per year.

[See this series : Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked - I took this result from "quater".]

I don't think this means Indian plate was running race car speed into Asia ...

6:25 Do you have a link to what you are citing?

Wait .... Were Adam and Eve Toast? by Joe Meert (created 1996, Updated March 2002)

Here is an admission by him:

SPECIAL ADDED NOTE: Several creationists have suggested that I did not identify my starting assumptions and asked how much daughter was initially present? This question, while interesting in the general discussion of the age of a rock sample, is irrelevant to this exercise. I am discussing solely the amount of heat produced by decay rather than the age of a particular rock unit.

No, it is not irrelevant, it is highly relevant for what amount of decay we would have to account for.

Please also note, the intro:

"In order for the Earth to appear old, creationists must assume that radioactive decay rates in the past were faster."

No, it is not "creationists must assume" but Setterfield (one school of creationists) actually assumed. I am not a Setterfieldian. And I pretty much agree if every decay rate 4000 BC was universally much faster, and not just some of them locally faster by added neutrons speeding things up, there would have been a heat problem.

That would also have made "initial amounts of daughter elements" irrelevant, as he said.

Gutsick Gibbon, you are citing a refutation for sth some of us don't believe.

7:03 It is not just "just for the radioactive decay" - it is specifically for the view of radioactive decay according to Setterfield's theory of a slowing down of the universal normal halflife.

Why do you misapply this to YECs who don't share Setterfield's theory?

[See these posts for my disagreement: Is ICR Making a Case for Geocentrism? · Setterfield]

7:21 Shaun Doyle (article you cite) got a question involving this sentence:

"An argument they had against the Flood was that marine animals could not have survived the Flood waters because they say that the energy created during such event would generate 3.65 octillion calories which would increase the water temperature to 2700 C."

I think the same point was made by AronRa, citing one Soroka who made two mistaken assumptions on the Flood water:

1) that it needed to reach the height of Mount Everest rather than for instance c. 1 - 2 km up above present sea level;
2) that all the water came through rainfall, giving more friction than when some comes from subterranean water supplies.

[I have answered AronRa five years ago]

Michael Eco

"And potassium argon is linked to another heat problem, volcanic eruptions."

lol, no.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco Has it occurred to you where you find the samples of potassium and argon? In lava. Has it occurred to you how lava comes to be above a biological sample? Yeah, eruptions sounds a great explanation for that one!

Michael Eco

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Do you have a point, Hans-Georg?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Michael Eco Yes. The heat problem of lava is, eruption heat tends to keep lava liquid to when argon is expelled from the lava.

In conditions of the Flood, many eruptions would have been cooled lots quicker by water from the Flood, and thereby trapping lots of argon. Excess argon -> excess ages. Flood water is a solution.

Also under I, not commented:

7:54 identifying the second paper she cites:

Heat Problems Associated with Genesis Flood Models—Part 1:
Introduction and Thermal Boundary Conditions
William J. Worraker, Biblical Creation Trust*
https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v11/heat_problems_genesis_flood_models.pdf

Part 2. Secondary Temperature Indicators
https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v12/heat_problems_genesis_flood_models_part2.pdf

Part 3: Vapour Canopy Models
https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v13/flood_models_vapour_canopy.pdf

* William J. Worraker, Biblical Creation Trust, PO Box 325, Ely, CB7 5YH, United Kingdom

Under I, but General:

8:36 A lack of solutions makes an idea "non-scientific"?

Here are a couple of samples for you:

• abiogenesis 1 - origin of information in DNA or RNA
• abiogenesis 2 - origin of chirality
• abiogenesis 3 - origin of cell membranes
• evolution 1 - origin of sexes
• evolution 2 - origin of pluricellular
• evolution 3 - origin of new cell types
• evolution 4 - origin of new functional genes (hint : the one locus mutation that causes lactase persistence is NOT the origin of lactase production)
• human evolution 1 - origin of double articulation
• human evolution 2 - origin of notionality
• human evolution 3 - transition between simian (Australopithecus) and human (Homo erectus, incl. rudolphensis) speech related anatomy : presence / absence of Broca's area, with which one may presume Wernicke's, human vs simian hyoid, inner ear.

[Was deleted or spam marked]