( Download ) ♦ Thousands not Billions ☼ MOBI eBook or Kindle ePUB free

As I expected, this book is poorly disguised pseudoscience The first part that I read was the references Only 16 references for a work of such potentially revolutionary import, with just four of these from recognized peer reviewed scientific journals, and none of the article authors were authors of the chapters in this book Red Flag That provided a good indicator of where this book was going to go But each chapter did provide some introductory scientific background physics chemistry geology as relevant and this was informative and generally well written made understandable for the non specialist Be not deceived, however Thousands Not Billions TnB went to great lengths to highlight discordance among radiodating methods and results, and other radiodating pitfalls This may indeed be the case but that in and of itself is not the same as saying that because there are discrepancies, the universe is 6,000 years old TnB made everything all nice and tidy by way of pushing a completely unsubstantiated theory called Accelerated Nuclear Decay which apparently took place during the first two days of creation and during the Flood and ultimately explains the title of this book A quote my emphasis These results imply that accelerated decay likely persisted throughout the year of the Flood Then TnB played the apologist pot calling the kettle black by stating The questioning of radioisotope dating and the geologic timescale neither stifles inquiry nor hinders scientific progress Instead it serves the healthy purpose of uncovering assumptions and bias My emphasis to highlight their hypocrisy in hammering the 6,000 year square peg of young earth age dogma as science into the round hole of legitimate geologic dating inquiry Then things got really bizarre Proposing string theory as a possible explanation for accelerated decay Well, if you ask me, this is grasping at strings Then there is this quote about the danger of accelerated decay to life There is the obvious issue of protecting the precious animal and human life on board Noah s ark The water barrier between the ark and the earth s rock layers could have played a major role along with divine intervention my emphasis TnB then stating the obvious as an afterthought, In fact, most Biblical miracles require a temporary suspension of basic natural laws Why is it then necessary to try and convince the reader that natural laws are valid when they support young earth theory, but that God needed to suspend them for the week of creation and the Flood due to too high radiation levels This is farce If that was the case then they are not laws at all And why would God need them sometimes In fact, why don t the authors just drop the pretense of science altogether if it is not constant and not needed The authors are using science in a way that undermines science it doesn t ring true or righteous The last chapter before the conclusion convinced me that OK, there is both poetry and narrative in the Bible Well duh It did not make me believe that by virtue of being narrative as determined through a convoluted statistical analysis of Hebrew verb type , narrative is necessarily always literal and never allegorical Besides failing because it makes a mockery of the scientific method, TnB also fails to convince because its authors come across as apologists not objective scientists. Decades ago, some opponents of evolution argued that God had placed the fossils in the ground to test us Contrary to contemporary misrepresentations used to slander creationists as unsophisticated, modern creation scientists yes, scientists accept that fossils are the remains of actual living creatures, arguing that most of them were buried in Noah s flood recorded in Genesis This book focuses not on the biological evolution debate centered around fossils of animals, but rather on the geological evolution debate and looks at a different set of fossils evidence of past radioactive decay such as decay daughter isotopes, radiohalos and fission tracks In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a group of creation scientists did an extensive study called RATE, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, publishing a variety of scientific papers and two large technical reports This book is a high level summary written to be understood by non scientists that also answers some objections to the RATE conclusions.According to traditional radioisotope dating, the earth is 4.5 billion years old in contrast, the traditional interpretation of Genesis yields about 6,000 years of age This presents a bit of a dilemma with a number of possible resolutions 1 God created the present radioisotope inventories, radiohalos, fission tracks, etc to produce an appearance of age.2 The existing radioisotope inventories reflect 4.5 billion years of radioactive decay at current decay rates, but there were periods of time in the past when decay rates were higher, accounting for the present inventory.3 The Genesis creation account was not meant to be taken literally, rather to communicate truths about God being responsible for creation without reflecting exactly what He did.The RATE study considered the first option but rejected it due to the strong evidence of radioactive decay It also engaged a Hebrew scholar to critically evaluate the third option Because the writing style and verb usage so decisively correlated with narrative history in the Old Testament rather than with poetry in the Old Testament, the RATE team likewise rejected it, as well, leaving option 2 With the exception of a chapter summarizing the Hebrew linguistic study, the bulk of the book is focused on how the RATE study dealt with option 2.Early on, the book explains the radioactive dating process and its underlying assumptions 1 The initial conditions as in, when the rock was formed of the sample are known accurately.2 We can tell whether the rock being sampled has exchanged atoms with the surroundings during its history.3 The half lives of the isotopes under consideration have remained constant since the rock was formed.A method known as isochrons is used to validate the first two assumptions for any given radioactive dating method The method seems a bit like voodoo to me, but it appears to focus on ratios of different radioisotope concentrations, the ratios expected when the rock was formed and the current ratios based on decay rates If they are off relative to each other, the initial conditions might not have been as expected, or radiosotopes may have been transported into or out of the rock during its history, compromising the ability to properly date the rock.After this explanation of radioactive decay for the benefit of the average reader, the book turns to evidence of a young earth One method of dating organic materials is carbon 14 When a plant or animal is alive, its carbon 14 inventory is in equilibrium with the environment as a result of biological processes such as eating and breathing Once it dies, the processes causing this equilibrium stop, and the carbon 14 inventory starts a slow reduction due to radioactive decay Assuming that the equilibrium carbon 14 concentration in the environment has remained constant based on a baseline date of 1950, prior to large scale nuclear weapons testing, which has affected the carbon 14 inventory in the environment , the ratio of the carbon 14 in the sample to that in the environment can be used to identify how long ago the plant or animal died Because carbon 14 would decay away to negligible levels within 100,000 years, this dating method is valid only for samples below that age The RATE team did radiocarbon dating of coal dated between 34 and 311 million years of age by traditional dating, diamonds assumed to be millions or even billions of years old and found detectable levels of carbon 14, all within an order of magnitude of each other, suggesting a much younger age than millions of years The book provides an analysis of the results and answers alternative explanations by proponents of the traditional chronology.Zircons, crystalline ZrSiO4, are often found in granite along with the main mineral component quartz, feldspar and biotite Because uranium and thorium are chemically similar to zirconium, they sometimes replace zirconium at various points in the crystal matrix and then decay to lead via decay chains that include several alpha decays, as well as beta decays When a nucleus undergoes alpha decay, it emits an alpha particle, a helium nucleus In larger zircons, the alpha particle doesn t have sufficient energy to propel itself out of the zircon Afterwards, it can diffuse out of the zircon and surrounding rock The RATE team sampled some zircons from borehole rock dated to 1.5 billion years based on lead lead dating More than half of the helium from radioactive decay in the zircons was still in the zircons and most of the remainder that had diffused out was still in the surrounding biotite This discovery prompted the RATE temp to research helium diffusivity in zircon crystals and in biotite Based on diffusivity results and the helium concentrations still in the zircons and surrounding minerals, statistical analysis yielded an estimated age for the zircons of 6,000 2,000 years, a much shorter time than the 1.5 billion year lead lead age If the rocks were 1.5 billion years old, the helium should not still be there As with the carbon 14 discussion, the book answers alternative explanations for the helium retention.The chapter describing radiohalo research is quite interesting As discussed above, uranium and thorium atoms in the crystal structure of zircons decay via a decay chain of alpha and beta decay events The energy level of the alpha particle depends on the radioisotope in the decay chain that is decaying As mentioned above, the alpha particle cannot propel itself out of a large zircon, but it can propel itself out of smaller zircons into the surrounding biotite Since even a small zircon will have many decay events over its lifespan, alpha particles will be emitted in all directions As they pass through the crystal structure of both the zircon and the biotite, the alpha particles lose energy by colliding with atoms, knocking them out of position If there are sufficient such events, the result is a discoloration known as a radiohalo, the radius of which is a function of the energy level of the alpha particles Alpha particles emitted with higher energy travel farther, producing larger radiohalos If the radionuclides in a small zircon remain in place, the result is a radiohalo consisting of concentric rings for the different energy levels of the different alpha decays in the decay chain Radiohalos in rocks from different geologic eras were studied The flood geology paradigm of the creation scientists considers Precambrian rock to be pre flood and most of the subsequent rock layers to have been deposited during the flood The rocks with the highest concentrations of radiohalos were not pre flood rocks, as might be expected based on age, but the younger rocks of the flood layers This is potential evidence for shortened half lives during the flood One mystery identified in these studies is the existence of orphan radiohalos, in which the concentric rings associated with alpha decays early in the decay chain are missing The book discusses various possible explanations, including liquid transport of radioisotopes from one location to another between decay events and the timing of magma cooling.Aside from the decay chains discussed above, uranium atoms in zircons can also decay by spontaneous fission When this happens, the fission products, two nuclei, each having around half the mass of the original uranium nucleus, are propelled outward with a substantial amount of kinetic energy, leaving a trail of damage to the crystal structure Because spontaneous fission has its own half life, the concentration of the fission tracks in a sample is an indication of the age of the rock It appears that the RATE team used fission track dating to validate the amount of radioactive decay determined by helium retention diffusion and radiohalos discussed above There were few inconsistencies between fission track studies and the above mentioned studies If crystalline rocks containing such radiation damage as fission tracks and radiohalos are heated above a certain temperature, they will anneal, a process in which the crystalline structure repairs itself and erases the radiation damage, a process that makes the rock look younger from the standpoint of radiation damage.There are several different radioactive dating methods suitable for geologic strata that use different decay chains The RATE team did a test of consistency between different methods by having rock samples from different parts of the world dated by different methods and comparing the results The methods tested in this manner included potassium argon, rubidium strontium, lead lead and samarium neodymium Sometimes the different methods yielded results consistent among themselves and with the published ages of the rock strata under consideration However, there were several instances where the different methods yielded wildly different ages inconsistent with each other and with published dates The most interesting instance of this was andesite samples from Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand, which most recently erupted in the 20th century 1949, 1954 and 1975 In other words, the samples were from lava flows less than 100 years old Ages measured by Rb SR, Sm Nd and Pb Pb methods ranged from 3.5 million years to 3.908 billion years years for rocks only a few decades old This was by no means the only age discrepancy but was the most dramatic The book discusses a number of theories as to the nature and origin of these discrepancies, including inheritance of radioisotopic inventory from source material initial conditions , mixing between the magma and surrounding crustal rocks exchange with surroundings and non constant half lives over geologic history In short, these results challenge all three underlying assumptions of the radioactive dating process.Finally, the book explores the concept of accelerated radioactive decay This section discusses the mechanism of alpha decay via quantum mechanical tunneling and acknowledges that the how and why of accelerated radioactive decay is the subject of ongoing research The lack of a mechanism for accelerated decay is not the only weakness Accelerated decay would produce lethal levels of radiation, impacting when it could occur without affecting life The RATE team posits that it would be limited to the first two days the creation week, before the creation of life, and the flood year Further, there is the problem of the immense levels of heat generation from the accelerated decay How does the heat dissipate out of the rocks fast enough to keep the rock temperature below the annealing temperature at which radiation damage to the crystalline structure is erased This is the question that troubles me the most The RATE team has proposed cosmological cooling via cosmological inflation as a possible mechanism This is a tantalizing idea in that Noah and his family would have walked off the ark to see an apparent new earth as well as new heavens Even so, it is not clear to me how this cooling mechanism would get the heat out of the rocks fast enough to keep their temperature low enough I hope to see research in this area.While there remain holes in the creationist paradigm, the work of the RATE team has also poked some holes in the ruling old earth paradigm Personally, I would prefer to see research in certain areas of the paradigm, I am very much aware that the creationist paradigm is a minority view Resource limitations necessarily impede progress In addition, there have been other obstacles For example, Andrew Snelling, one of the RATE researchers whose work is summarized in part of this book, had difficulty getting permission to perform rock samples in the Grand Canyon for subsequent research Rock samples from the Grand Canyon had been used in some of the RATE research , and had to resort to a lawsuit to get permission to get the samples I don t what his research plan was, but this delayed it by four years, from 2013 to 2017.For the record, I am a nuclear engineer by profession but have a lot experience with heat transfer and fluid flow analysis than with radiation analysis My geology background is limited to secondary education If anything, this book has inspired me to read up further on geology and radioactive dating to better evaluate its claims Yes, I am a creationist, but have been reading works by both creationist and non creationist scientists and will continue to do so. Although I don t agree with everything written in the book and that can be said of nearly every book I ve read , it contains some very good information The discussion about the possibility of radioactive decay rates not being uniform over time is intriguing After all, what causes radioactive decay It is said to be spontaneous What does that mean Just happens, or as Curie suggested from an unknown cause I really like a statement on p 143 The questioning of radioisotope dating and the geologic time scale neither stifles inquiry nor hinders scientific progress Instead, it serves the healthy purpose of uncovering assumptions and bias. Godawful book, deluded fundamentalism Fabulous example of otherwise intelligent people having their brains reduced to mush due to indoctrination Seriously stupid PhDs using big words to mislead and deceive others the world is about 6,000 years old Right, and Bambi was a documentary ( Download ) ♇ Thousands not Billions ⚖ Destroys One Of The Major Barriers For Faith Seekers Alleged Long Ages For The Earth Provides Scientific Evidences That Correlate To Biblical History And Time Lines Can Be Used As An Apologetic Many Shun The Faith Because Of Alleged Scientific Facts A Sensational Answer To Old Earth Critics A Powerful Book Written In Plain Language This Long Awaited Book Shatters The Famed Dating Methods Employed By Evolutionists To Cast Doubt On The Veracity Of The Bible And Its Chronology Of Earth History Radiometric Dating Is One Of The Linchpins Of Evolutionary Education Today By Dating The Soil In Which Fossils Are Found To Very Long Ages, Evolutionists Undermine Faith In Genesis As The True Documentary Of The History Of The Universe When People Are Told That A Dinosaur Bone Has Been Determined To Be Tens Of Millions Of Years Old, That Obviously Doesn T Square With The Biblical Record Of Man Being Created On Day With The Land Animals But DeYoung Now Demonstrates That Christians No Longer Have To Puzzle Over This Glaring Contradiction A Must Have For The Serious Bible Student, Thousands Not Billions Will Bolster The Faith Of Many My only complaint is that I wish this was readable I know that it s supposed to be the layperson version of the technical reports produced by this team, but it was still very technical for someone not in that field and that s coming from someone with a master s degree in a different discipline If this had been made a little accessible for the average person, I would have given it 5 stars. DeYoung wrote this for Young Earth Creationists who may have an interest in the scientific apologetic for a 6000 year old earth He introduces the RATE Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth team that will provide research and experimentation for a young earth. Informative and detailed, but perhaps a bit complex for some. I teach advanced chemistry at the high school level and the main point stressed to my students as scientifically sound the mathematics of radioisotopic decay may be, many assumptions are made in calculating the final data For example, the age of dead people compare to 100 year old skeletons will be different because of the c 12 c 14 ratio Our consumption of oil buried dinosaur fossils are C 12 rich The amount of CO2 produce in the atmosphere increases as we consume fossil fuels So the ratio changes causing inaccurate dating This book is circumspect and clearly produces an understanding of the assumptions involved in radiometric dating I heartily recommend this book if not for total acceptance but as a meaningful counter argument If you want to debate old age vs young age it serves the debater best to know both sides of the coin. This book focuses on perceived flaws in current methods of aging the earth It is beyond my geologic knowledge to determine the truth or falsehood of his arguments, but I would say that the author, a physics professor, presents his case in a reasoned, logical manner at least until the last chapter, when he brings in a biblical scholar to statistically prove that Genesis is a factual recounting of events rather than poetry or metaphor Still I found his argument ultimately unconvincing, trying too hard to make available evidence fit into a preconceived 6000 year old earth view, to the point of pulling out the remarkable suggestion that nuclear decay may have been accelerated in the early days of the earth, resulting in the appearance of greater age.