Scientists Travel U.S. Highway 441 Between Cherokee, NC and Gatlinburg,
TN to Test Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model
for Polonium Radiohalo Formation

 

 Figure 1: Radiohalos associated with uranium-238 decay (Figures from Snelling, 2005)

From time to time, new research results give additional insight into the Biblical flood. In fact, for one who understands the Biblical flood, many current discoveries are easy to understand. For example, a recent article in Science “calls for critical reappraisal of all mudstones previously interpreted as having been continuously deposited under still waters”.¹ Because mud sediments are “the dominant sediment type on earth”, this reappraisal has tremendous  implications for our understanding of the entire geological column.

For those who adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis and believe in a young earth, scripture is the first, final, and unrivaled authority (sola scriptura) on the questions of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of man, and the age of the earth. Young Earth Creationists (sometimes referred to as “YECs”) believe that the Bible is inerrant and clear in its teachings about origins. Good exegesis based upon the grammatical-historical hermeneutical approach and comparing scripture with scripture leads to the conclusion that the earth was created in six 24-hour days in the recent past. Nature viewed through the lens of scripture lends support to the recent creation view.

Figure 1. Rounded quartzite gravel mixed with angular gravel within residual piedmont soil suggesting abrasion by water transport. Underlying weathered rock is not quartzite.

Young earth creation scientists who agree on what the bible teaches about creation may still disagree on the interpretation of natural phenomena. Such is the case with creation scientists Robert Gentry¹ and Andrew Snelling² concerning polonium radiohalos.³

Parts I and II mentioned young carbon 14 dates as evidence that very old isotopic dates correspond to true ages in the thousands of years. Also, helium retention in zircons and the pattern of discordances in isotopic dates suggest an increase of decay rates in the past. There is also evidence that human mutation rates were faster in the past, which is consistent with a higher level of radiation. Furthermore, the genetic diversity of humans and other organisms suggests an origin a few thousand years ago. Several references by Anderson and Spangler suggest that decay rates can vary.

Part I mentioned helium retention in zircons and young carbon 14 dates as evidences for a recent creation and for an acceleration of decay rates in the past. Such an increase in decay rates should have more of an effect on ages computed from isotopes with long half-lives than elements with short half-lives.

Also, alpha decay and beta decay use different processes. Therefore they may not be affected the same amount by an increase in the decay rate. So discordances between alpha and beta decay ages are an evidence of disturbed decay. To sum up, the following are the evidences one would expect from accelerated decay in the past: Carbon 14 ages should be much younger than other isotopic ages like K-Ar, U-Pb, et cetera. Alpha and beta ages should differ. And ages computed from elements with long half-lives should be more affected than ages computed from elements with short half-lives.

If you add millions of years to the Bible, this is what you get.                        

One scientific challenge young earth creationists have had to address is the starlight-time question.

From NASA: Binary spiral galaxies NGC 2207 (left) and IC 2163
(right) are estimated to be 114 million light years away from Earth

That is, if the creation is only 6-10 thousand years old as the scriptures imply, how is it possible for us to see stars and galaxies which are billions of light years away? There have been several solutions advanced to solve this problem including decay of the speed of light, light created in transit, mature creation theory, and physicist Russ Humphreys' white hole cosmology (WHC)¹ theory, among others. This article will discuss Russ Humphreys' white hole cosmology and reply to some recent criticisms of it made by astronomer Hugh Ross.²