The Mainstream Science Math Defense

O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge—by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.

(1 Timothy 6:20-21) NKJV

As simple and convenient the young Earth creation (YEC) variable rate of nuclear decay response to radiometric dating may be, it’s also an Achilles Heel.

Here’s why, quoted directly from an article which calculates all the heat generated by all nuclear decay ever, and speculates what would happen if it occurred during the life of a 6,000 year old Earth:

One of the issues in the creation/evolution debate is the claim that radioactive decay is not constant. In order for the Earth to appear old, creationists must assume that radioactive decay rates in the past were faster. This solves the problems of old ages in rocks, but unfortunately opens up a bigger problem. Radioactive decay gives off heat. The amount of heat generated is proportional to the rate of decay and the amount of radioactive material present at the time. In the following exercise, I show how much heat can be generated by radioactive decay IF decay rates were faster in the past.

At 6000 years ago, it is pretty obvious that the entire Earth would be molten and Adam and Eve’s goose was cooked.

– Joe Meert, Were Adam and Eve Toast?

This may seem like a solid defense but it requires an unwarranted assumption and it depends on the principles of 19th Century Uniformitarianism. The assumption is that radioactive isotopes are distributed evenly throughout the crust and mantle. That’s impossible given the fact that the Earth formed around a gravitational singularity and we have a Biblical core accretion model which puts all of the high atomic weights in the center of the Earth, not the crust and mantle.

If you’re interested we’re linking Joe Meert’s full text for further reading. It’s an example of how mathematics can be easily manipulated to tell any lie you like. It’s an excellent example of something which is falsely called knowledge.

---