The “science” is radiometric dating. It conceals the horrendous error of uniformity in an appearance of scientific authority. It also regularly yields errant and inconsistent dates. But in spite of these falsifying problems, many think it still proves deep time because they believe radioactive decay rates have remained constant through all geologic processes. This belief is the scientific lie upon which the entire edifice of deep time rests, as it forces the invoking of multiplied eons in order to account for the quantities of daughter product we observe.
Yet, work by the RATE Group (Vardiman, et al., 2000, 2005)1 during 1997-2005 showed that extremely accelerated decay had in fact occurred, probably during the Deluge. And Walt Brown (2019)2 has now scientifically explained that acceleration:
It is well known that lightning produces ozone, and separates nitrogen atoms – both chemical processes. However, gamma ray emissions were discovered in 1990 emerging from high-up in thunderstorms! And in 2006, gamma rays were measured3 coming directly from some lightning bolts. But gamma rays are associated with nuclear, not chemical, reactions; and in this case, radioactive nitrogen-13 is a common product, demonstrating that naturally occurring terrestrial events – electrical discharges – affect atomic nuclei.
Now in the crust, piezoelectric effects from massive arrays of (primarily) quartz crystals produce enormous potentials when seismic activity strains4 the crystals5. Evidence is seen in earthquake lights – high-energy electrical auras and discharges – being reported from all over the world6. Brown (2019) has then postulated that super earthquakes during the Flood sent immense electrical discharges through the crust, which altered mineral elements, just as lightning alters atmospheric elements.
The array of new elements produced by these crustal bolts can then be cataloged through testing. Brown explains, “since February 2000, thousands of sophisticated experiments at the Proton-21 Electrodynamics Research Laboratory (Kiev, Ukraine) have demonstrated” that, in a process called Z-pinch7, a high-energy electrical discharge will assemble a large array of other elements throughout (and even above) the periodic table, including the gamut of radioactive parent isotopes used for radiometric dating.
Another process called photo-fission8 also occurs in association with electrical discharges, in which bremsstrahlung radiation violently shakes nuclei along its path, splitting unstable nuclei. The same gamut of radioactive parent isotopes that were assembled from Z-pinch now decay into the large build-ups of daughter product that are routinely misinterpreted to represent unreasonable time periods.
Notably, heat released by exothermic photo-fission would, in the same event, be pre-absorbed by endothermic Z-pinch. This is important because it eliminates the serious heat build-up that would otherwise occur from accelerated decay of already-existing materials. Thus, dangerous crustal radioactivity probably did not predate the Flood, and would therefore have resulted from God’s judgment rather than His creating.
Consequently, not only does radiometric dating (excepting postdiluvian radiocarbon) have a faulty foundation (uniformity) and inconsistent predictions (dates), but its very heart (isolation of the nucleus) is a fantasy. Moreover, the existence and ratios of radiometric elements in the crust can now be explained by plausible testable science, and were likely caused by processes occurring during the one year of Noah’s Flood.
_____________________
1Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A., and Chaffin, E.F., eds., (2000, 2005), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vols. I & II: ICR, El Cajon, CA and CRS, Chino Valley, AZ.
2Brown, Walt, (2019), In the Beginning, 9th edition: Mission Imperative, Inc., Lebanon, PA, 632 pp. ISBN 978-0-692-17764-8, https://kgov.com/walt-brown-in-the-beginning-pdf-of-the-draft-of-the-9th-edition
3Physics World: https://physicsworld.com/a/lightning-creates-radioactive-isotopes/
4Strain is distortion resulting from stress.
5Brown, pp. 392-394.
6Ibid. p. 389.
7Ibid. p. 386.
8Ibid. p. 400.
