Matty's Paradigm

The Decay Constant Isn’t

December 16, 2015

The Bible says that the earth is about 6,000 years old, yet scientists are convinced that they have dated rock samples and fossils up to 3.8 or so billion years old. How could this be? Clearly there is something wrong with the experimental method they are using, or the theoretical paradigm of which it is part.

In this case the culprit is easy to spot. The only way to derive radioisotope dates older than the earth is by assuming something called the Decay Constant. Ernest Rutherford insightfully realized that, if the then new Theory of Evolution was going to stand a chance of success, it would need a sound experimental foundation. Unfortunately the Theory of Evolution as it was conceived is just wishful thinking, and so a contrived foundation was the best that he could come up with.

The Decay Constant is the rate of decay of a radioactive element, and it is used to calculate the element’s half-life.

The assumption is that radioisotopes decay at a constant rate and they always have. Clearly this is wrong because the experimental data it generates is off by millions or billions of years.

It is much more consistent with Biblical testimony if radioisotopes have decayed exponentially since the moment that God cursed the earth. God did this when he drove Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden. At this time God withdrew his presence from the creation and that was enough to cause the instability in the larger atomic nuclei to cause them to begin to decay. Decay was very fast at first. The first fall occurred and no doubt Adam and Eve were terrified to see the leaves fall of the trees and all life around them appear to die.

The decay was like a cooling curve. Objects, like a nice cup of really hot tea, cool down faster the hotter they are. As they cool down the rate of cooling slows down. Eventually, when the cup of tea is very close to the temperature of the surrounding air, the rate of cooling is so small it is hard to measure. Here is an example of a typical cooling curve.

Cooling curve.

Cooling curve.

If we measure the temperature of the apple after day 4 the temperature seems pretty constant because the apple has reached the ambient temperature. That’s what has happened to radioactivity. Radiation was only discovered 120 years ago, and so we only have a short period of recent time from which to draw any data. It is impossible to prove that the decay rate has always been the same as it is now, but that is a necessary faith choice that has to be made in order to support the dominant paradigm of modern science.

Frequently when I tell scientists that the rate of decay was very rapid at first but has slowed down, they argue that this is impossible. If it were the case, they say, then the extremely high rate of radioactive decay would have melted the earth. This is ironic, because that is exactly what did happen. The earth did melt, but since the majority of the heavy metal elements were located at or near the core of the earth, it was the core that melted. This is stated in the Bible so we know that it is the truth:

For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains. (Deuteronomy 32:22)

Hell is at the center of the earth. It was caused by the rapid decay of radioactive elements.

Hell is at the center of the earth. It was caused by the rapid decay of radioactive elements.

Hell began the day that the Lord cursed the Earth and withdrew his presence. It was the perfect place to imprison the rebellious angels who had been cast down from heaven.

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. (2 Peter 2:4)

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6)

Tragically, now that death had entered the world, and all of us have to die, hell also became the destination for all who reject the free gift of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Indeed, it was for this purpose that God took on human form and walked among us, to give us the means of escape of this truly terrible place.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

The fact that unrepentant sinners go to hell is not because God is being mean. That’s another thing I hear a lot. The indignant cry: “I’m not going to believe in a god who would torture people who don’t love him!” and other such. Hell is the default outcome. The entire world is going to be destroyed. We are witnessing it. God has offered us a ticket off this doomed rock to be with him for eternity in a new heaven. All we have to do is believe in Jesus Christ. It’s so simple.

The Word of God is the foundation for any case against the dominant paradigm of godless existence, but it is worthwhile to consider something very practical:

If, as evolutionists believe, the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and we have radiometric data for just the last 120 years, this is not a statistically significant sample size to conclude that the decay constant is constant. For that matter, given that the earth is about 6,000 years old, 120 years of radiometric data is still statistically insignificant.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Advertisements

You Might Also Like

13 Comments

  • Reply Martyn Cornell December 21, 2015 at 3:15 pm

    And your proof of this is? And you expect to pick up your Nobel Prize when? Typical Creationist: when the evidence clearly shows you’re wrong, deny the evidence exists. Sad, really, that intelligent people can be so self-deluding.

    • Reply Matthew Lawrence April 19, 2016 at 8:16 am

      I have the same evidence that you have, the only difference is how you choose to interpret it.

      • Reply Martyn Cornell April 19, 2016 at 10:49 am

        The only difference is that you’re scared shitless you’re going to die one day and you’re in desperate denial about it. Stop lying to yourself.

        • Reply Matthew Lawrence April 19, 2016 at 11:02 am

          My friend, I assure you that I am not remotely scared of dying and I am ready to go anytime. You might want to check your own scared level.

          • Martyn Cornell April 19, 2016 at 12:03 pm

            If you’re not scared of dying why do you cling to the fantasy that you’re going to survive death? Those of us that accept death is truly the end are a lot more prepared than those who kid themselves otherwise.

          • Matthew Lawrence April 19, 2016 at 1:11 pm

            I’m not scared of dying because I know that it is the beginning of a new life in the presence of God. If you don’t know God, then you cannot know that death is the end, so what ever peace you find in it is merely self-deception

          • Martyn Cornell April 20, 2016 at 5:35 am

            “I’m not scared of dying because I know that it is the beginning of a new life in the presence of God. ”

            I can’t work out if it’s a pity or a good job that you’ll never know you’re wrong, since thee will be nothing left of “you” when you die to know anything. A pity, probably: it would stop you attempting to try to be so superior. Look at it this way, Matthew: if someone keeps saying “there’s a paradise though that door, though I’ve never actually seen it”, and no one has ever come back through the door to confirm it, why would anyone believe that to be true?

          • Matthew Lawrence April 20, 2016 at 8:42 am

            Ever heard of Jesus Christ? That’s the answer to all your questions.

  • Reply Andy Beckett (@moon_monkey9) April 17, 2016 at 11:10 am

    There is another possibility, though I admit it sounds unlikely. Might the Bible be bullshit?

    • Reply Matthew Lawrence April 19, 2016 at 8:15 am

      Science has been trying to make the case for that for the last 500 years. The problem is that when you truly understand what science is, there is no proof that the Bible is wrong, only a biased interpretation of evidence. I’m afraid that you still have to make a choice. To make things really simple, all you have to do is confess your sin and believe in Jesus Christ to receive the gift of everlasting life! The details really don’t matter once you get that settled

  • Reply In Consideration April 1, 2017 at 11:57 am

    Dr. Chuck Missler reported in his lectures and book, Cosmic Codes, that the speed of light is slowing. If so, then light and time may also follow such a curve as he pointed out.

    • Reply Matty Lawrence April 4, 2017 at 3:01 pm

      It sounds dubious. To be honest, in Matty’s Paradigm the speed of light is irrelevant.
      It’s function is to be the padded rail around the intellectual play pen that modern science wants to keep you in.

  • Reply In Consideration April 5, 2017 at 3:42 am

    The reference to the decay in the speed of light is conversational in a like idea to the model of heat decay. I didn’t intend it to either support or criticize your theory of hell. The intellectual playpen that you place me in would be shared by those who go along with the rest to avoid ridicule and therefore, the speed of light should remain unchallenged. In addition to jeopardizing a scientific career and loosing your credibility by considering change, there is the money to lose. Thinking out of the box one may chance loosing their grant money. if they suggest that C is not constant. So, the padded rail of the intellectual playpen you place me in consists of fear and money; all or any of which places the knee-jerk defenders of the intellectual status quo in your intellectual playpen and new ideas outside of the playpen.
    Rather than ridicule a new idea (to you, information is as old as 1980s and older) you could read a little and catch up. Google “speed of light slowing down” , find CBS News, Science News, Physics.org, Forbes, New Scientist, Smithsonian, and many more. If you are a creationist as I am, then at least read this: http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/225/
    Because of the science community status quo there is controversy associated with an idea like this. It won’t be settled until the community accepts it and even if they do the inbred knee-jerk fear of change will live on to ridicule future new ideas. Certainly, a varying constant is dubious but I’m not the one in the intellectual playpen.
    I enjoy your blog.

  • Leave a Reply

    %d bloggers like this: