Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[Polymath257]

I missed the reason in this well written explanation for why only the lightest elements developed early on in the very young universe.

Because the cross sections of the lighter elements and the expansion rate are such that nucleosynthesis is stopped when lithium starts to build up. You might notice that lithium is the third lightest element in the periodic table. It also turns out that because Boron-8 is so unstable, it is quite difficult to get from the lighter elements to the heavier ones. That is why you need the extra time that the interiors of stars provide.

Now, go and actually learn a bit about what you have asked about. It is all very basic stuff that you *could* inform yourself about (including the experiments that have been done) if you want to. You could start with the basic structure of an atom including the relative sizes of the nucleus and how atoms interact primarily through their electron clouds. That alone is enough to refute your claims about density. Then, you might want to look at exactly what happens in radioactive decay. There are three main types of such decay and a couple of minor variants. Can you name them? How about which isotopes (you know that word, right?) undergo which type of decay and why?

Anyway, like I said, that should get you started. If you really want to learn.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

but your professors have convinced you there is

What a delightfully wonderful assumption to make.

 

[Polymath257]

I most certainly have explained it. Perhaps you weren't listening.
I am being told that the density of the universe has absolutely nothing at all to do with the decay rate of carbon. Yet, it is absolutely clear that under certain densities the carbon atom can't even exist at all. It is clear the universe is becoming less dense, and that would affect every element that exists in this universe. If you do not even acknowledge that density can affect the existence of carbon, how can you begin to understand that it may indeed affect the decay rate of C-14. Now, please show that the density of the universe does not affect decay rates of radiometric isotopes used in dating methods.

Carbon atoms can exist perfectly well in the interiors of stars. The density there is MUCH more than anything you have claimed. The reason carbon didn't exist at first wasn't the density aspect. It was imply that carbon nuclei hadn't formed yet from the lighter ones.

 

[Sonofason]

Because of the nature of the nucleus and how it sits inside the atom. If you don't understand this, it is pointless to talk any more about it.

Yes, the heavier elements have to be built up from the protons and neutrons that were in existence primordially. We know this because of the abundances of the elements in the universe and how it matches the thermodynamics and cross-sections for the various isotopes.

And once again, may I see your evidence?

 

[Polymath257]

And once again, may I see your evidence?

Sure! Do you want a collection of the cross sections for all the relevant reactions? And to show how the Big Bang model and thermodynamics explain the observed abundances?

No problem. Oh, wait, do you to solve a differential equation? if not, you might want to go learn how.

 

[Sonofason]

It's irrelevant. Even increasing the density of the *materials* by a factor of 100 wouldn't affect the decay rates, A factor of 4 would be trivial.

Besides, and once again, if you are talking about 200 million years ago, you are neither talking about C-14 (requiring dates less than 50,000 years) nor are you talking about the early universe (the universe is about 13.7 billion years old).

What you have managed to do is throw up some smokescreens showing your lack of understanding of the basics of radioactive decay. That's fine if you really want to learn something, but it is clear you do not. You want to trash everything and play with irrelevancies.

The expansion of the universe doesn't change the density of the Earth (or even the solar system, or, for that matter our galaxy). When the universe was four times denser than today, space was still a far better vacuum than anything we can produce on Earth. Why you think that would cause the Earth itself to expand is beyond me.

So density has no relational value to volume?

 

[sayak83]

Yet no elements at all were emitted at the time of the event (the Big Bang). It was all light.

You can check wikipedia and look at the sequence of events. Hydrogen and Helium were indeed created. The laws of QM predicts the concentration one would expect and observational results match up with it. Which makes it a very good validation of the claim that the laws of physics has not changed since Big Bang.
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis: Cooking up the first light elements — Einstein Online
Elements of the past: Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and observation — Einstein Online
Equilibrium and Change: The physics behind Big Bang Nucleosynthesis — Einstein Online

Both the observations, the results and the derivation of the results using the laws of physics are presented. That should be sufficient.

 

[Sonofason]

Sure! Do you want a collection of the cross sections for all the relevant reactions? And to show how the Big Bang model and thermodynamics explain the observed abundances?

No problem. Oh, wait, do you to solve a differential equation? if not, you might want to go learn how.

No thanks, you've given me a few ideas that I still need to work out. Thanks for your time.

 

[Jenny Collins]

I forget what it was about the flood, but there was something that could have occurred, forget what! You can't argue against it and say I am badly informed, since I didn't even say what it was!

 

[Jenny Collins]

As I said already, some things were tested and were determined to be over a thousand years old, when in fact they were known to be new

 

[Jenny Collins]

You are the one who doesn't know science and yes, there is speculation that the flood may have had some impact, forget what! And this is from scientists!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Evolution is ludicrous and NOT a fact

 

[Jenny Collins]

Smithsonian.com has an article about radiocarbon dating being in jeopardy because of the fossil fuels in our times

 

[Jenny Collins]

Smithsonian.com has an article about how radiocarbon dating in our time is jeopardized because of fossil fuels

 

[Jenny Collins]

Microevolution has been observed, macroevolution hasn't

 

[Jenny Collins]

According to people like you, the only scientists who are entitled to an opinion about evolution are evolutionary scientists! Whenever I bring up scientists, even highly respected ones, I am told: "They aren't the right kind of scientists" Are you a scientist? And if you are, are you an evolutionary biologist! If you aren't, how do you know your interpretations are correct! Only an elite group of scientists know anything! You and I are both dumb slobs, I guess! If we none of us are entitled to an opinion on evolution, then how do we know that the evolutionary biologist are right? Because they tell us they are???

 

[Jenny Collins]

What you are describing when you mention bacteria, is microevolution! Nobody is disputing that!

 

[Jenny Collins]

The Sabbath does not in any way, shape or form settle anything! There are many different kinds of Sabbaths in the Bible! The sabbath here mentioned is a resting period after the six unspecified time periods of creation!

 

[Jenny Collins]

I am using the reply button, don't know what you mean! The Genesis accounts did occur and just because you smirk about them, doesn't prove anything! Scoffing isn't proof

 

[sayak83]

I see that your answer conforms to the claims made in the article you posted as evidence. Sadly, the article does not show any evidence to support the claims it makes. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it. Because I see no evidence that the expansion of the universe has no affect on the particles which are contained within it, I have no good reason to believe the claims. Can you provide evidence for any of these claims?

Without going into supremely complicated mathematics here is the gist:-

The rate of expansion of space is proportional to the distance separating two points in space. The current rate (which changes extremely extremely slowly, like in billions of years scale) is 72 km/s per Megapersec seperation. Now 1 Megapersec is 3*10^22 meters. So the rate at which space tries to expand the distance between matter located :-
a) Between surface of the earth and the center of the earth (distance is 6371*10^3 meters) is
[72*10^3 m/s]*[6371*10^3 m]/[3*10^22 m] = 1.52904*10^-11 m/s.
That is very small. But let us persist. In order to calculate the approximate force exerted on matter due to this expansion of space, let us do the following calculation.

b) In absence of any other force then, 1kg of matter at the surface of the earth will move 1.53 meters away from its current position on the surface in 10^11 seconds. So now, after 10^11 seconds, the distance between that piece of rock and the center of the earth is 6371.00153 * 10^3 m. Therefore the new velocity of separation between the center and the surface is [72*10^3]*[6371.00153*10^3]/[3*10^22] = 1.5290403672*10^-11 m/s

c) Hence the net change in velocity is (1.5290403672-1.52904)*10^-11 = 3.672*10^-13 m/s. And since this net change in velocity happens in 10^11 second time interval, the average acceleration is = change in velocity/time elapsed = 3.672*10^-13 / 10^11 = 3.672*10^-24 m/s^2

d) Since Force = mass*acceleration, the net repulsive force due to expansion of space between earth's center and earth's surface for a 1kg block of stone is F1 = 1kg * 3.672*10^-24 m/s^2 = 3.672*10^-24 kgm/s^2 = 3.672*10^(-24) Newtons.

e) Of course the gravitational attractive force for the same 1 kg block F2 = 1kg*9.80665 m/s^2 = 9.80665 Newtons

f) So the force of gravitational attraction pulling 1 kg block towards the center of the earth is 9.80665/(3.672*10^*-24) = 2.67*10^24 times greater
than the repulsive force due to expansion of space that tries to pull the 1 kg block further away.

Thus it is established that force due to expansion of space is completely overwhelmed by attractive forces such as gravity. The case is even more so when one compares the electrical attraction between nucleus and electron of an atom, since electrical forces are far far stronger than gravitational forces. In fact, the expansion of the universe only becomes important only in very very large intergalactic scales, where, due to relatively uniform distribution of galaxies, all the gravitational forces between galaxies cancel out. Inside galaxies and local clusters of galaxies, gravity easily overwhelms this itty-bitty repulsive force.

Hope that is adequate.