From the radionuclides that are present in our bodies, the average man in the United States receives an effective dose of about 0.3 mSv each year.
This is from radioactive isotopes internal to body tissues, Potassium-40, which emits beta and gamma radiation, Carbon-14 which emits beta radiation, and trace contributions from uranium and thorium in hair and nails.
Radiation exposure from within is a tithe of the background dose, and is far below levels of concern. But what if radioactive decay were speeded up?
To compress the billions of years results of radiometric dating to fit to a single flood year requires an increase on the order of a billion. Taking a dose of 0.3 mSv per year increased to that factor gives 0.3 million Sieverts while Noah was on his ark. Just divide by 300 in very round scratch numbers to yield something like a thousand Sieverts per day. That is massive overkill. The 50% fatality dosage is 4 to 5 Seiverts. It would be a particularly macabre way to go.
The same, of course, applies to every living animal on the ark.
Itās actually worse, because of the need to have multiple half lives go by (thus a lot more of the radioisotopes to start with) to be in accordance with more modern levels (for K40, roughly 3.6 half lives, so 12x as much radiation).
One aspect of speeded up radioactive decay that gets skipped over in YEC literature is the question of why would God do this? What possible purpose was it supposed to serve? Connecting radioactivity to a flood seems pointless and bizarre.
Hematopoietic. This syndrome is marked by a drop in the number of blood cells, called aplastic anemia. This may result in infections, due to a low number of white blood cells, bleeding, due to a lack of platelets, and anemia, due to too few red blood cells in circulation.[3] These changes can be detected by blood tests after receiving a whole-body acute dose as low as 0.25 grays (25 rad), though they might never be felt by the patient if the dose is below 1 gray (100 rad). Conventional trauma and burns resulting from a bomb blast are complicated by the poor wound healing caused by hematopoietic syndrome, increasing mortality.
Gastrointestinal. This syndrome often follows absorbed doses of 6ā30 grays (600ā3,000 rad).[3] The signs and symptoms of this form of radiation injury include nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, and abdominal pain.[10] Vomiting in this time-frame is a marker for whole body exposures that are in the fatal range above 4 grays (400 rad). Without exotic treatment such as bone marrow transplant, death with this dose is common,[3] due generally more to infection than gastrointestinal dysfunction.
Neurovascular. This syndrome typically occurs at absorbed doses greater than 30 grays (3,000 rad), though it may occur at doses as low as 10 grays (1,000 rad).[3] It presents with neurological symptoms such as dizziness, headache, or decreased level of consciousness, occurring within minutes to a few hours, with an absence of vomiting, and is almost always fatal, even with aggressive intensive care.[3]
Exposure to high doses of radiation causes DNA damage, later creating serious and even lethal chromosomal aberrations
While DNA damage happens frequently and naturally in the cell from endogenous sources, clustered damage is a unique effect of radiation exposure.[41] Clustered damage takes longer to repair than isolated breakages, and is less likely to be repaired at all.
Now Ron, I fully accept that mutations caused by an individuals exposure to radiation is not normally transmitted to offspring, howeverā¦
Now to my questions
What if the radiation exposure is ongoing within said population sample?
Wouldnt the biblical narrative given suggest that:
the exposure of nuclear energy that is contained within the earths core,
the effect of the flood event on global weather and our atmosphere,
the fall of mankind and introduction of sin into the world and the consequences God foretold Adam and Eve at the time they were arraigned (weeds, tares, toil by the sweat of ones brow, increased pain in childbirth, all creation groaning etc),
all the above events have exposed all of humanity to ongoing radiation that perhaps wasnāt around in the time of the Garden of Eden? I mean lets be honest, can you biblically refute that argument? I ask this because i can biblically support such a claim 100%ā¦thereās a wealth of biblical evidences that do support my claim there!
I note that with exposure to radiation comes an increase in susceptibility to infection. Therefore i put it to you that contrary to the current claims, ancient mankind actually had less vulnerability to infection rather than more and that whilst history shows that soon after the time of Christ, there was a significant increase in this kind of illness, it is indicative of a saturation of ongoing radiation exposure and disturbing of dangerous organisms as a result of the expansion throughout Europe and other parts of the world, that has only increased mortality rates and that if it werenāt for modern technology and medicine, our current situation (ie life expectancy) would be far worse due to these effects rather than better. So in reality, it is not direct biological evolution that is improving life expectancy.
The above then leads to another dilemma for Christian naturalismā¦is knowledge evolutionary or does it come from divine revelation? The Bible clearly says itās divine revelationā¦so how does a Christian resolve that problem?
Finally, is not stunted growth also a side effect of exposure to radiation? So if there is ongoing radiation exposure in the global environment, particularly after Noahs Flood, then the bible claim that we are of a lower stature, shorter lifespan, and lower intelligence than individuals prior to the flood is actually consistent with the flood model and what is recorded in the bible concerning the lifespan of the various patriarchs in the bible? (ie Adam = 930 years, ā¦after Noahs flood there is a very significant declineā¦ Shem= 600 years, Abraham = 175 years, Apostle John = 93 years, The middle ages English Landholder male = 31.3 years, Chinese citizen in 1800ās = 32 years)
Might i also include the following reference hereā¦
The record for the maximum verified lifespan in the modern world is 122+1ā2 years for women (Jeanne Calment) and 116 years for men (Jiroemon Kimura). Some scientists estimate that in case of the most ideal conditions people can live up to 127 years.[5][6] This does not exclude the theoretical possibility that in the case of a fortunate combination of mutations there could be a person who lives longer.
In Roman times, Pliny wrote about longevity records from the census carried out in 74 AD under Vespasian. In one region of Italy many people allegedly lived past 100; four were said to be 130, others up to 140. Longevity myths - Wikipedia
As radioactive isotopes are inherent to what are widely regarded as finely tuned parameters which permit life to exist in the universe, I see them as necessary and not a result of judgement or the fall. Given that difference in perspective, Iām not really the one to weigh in on these questions.
Uh, I dunno.
Reading the descriptions above of the overall effects of radiation sped-up makes health problems, stunted life spans, disease and more caused by the fall seem rather moot. A glowing ball of plasma is not a great environment for any life forms. Overkill, so to speak.
So, God bothering with Noah, the fam, and the critters seems moot as well.
@adamjedgar if science saves no one, and I agree with you on that, why try so hard to find a way to align it with YEC? They are incommensurable, as are both with the Bible ā as hard as YEC tries.
Why would you imagine that evolution has anything to do with it?
More science fiction.
Youāre great at thinking up things that have no basis in the text but sound like decent science. Stories like that are classified as science fiction ā the trouble is that YEC science fiction is really very bad science fiction, along with being bad exegesis.
It comes from believing the tenet of scientific materialism that says that for something to be true it must be scientifically and historically accurate. This is why I try so hard to get YECers to become aware that they have a worldview that does not come from scripture; that tenet of scientific materialism is not compatible with the scriptures.
Widely regarded??? According to what perspective? Uniformatarian view that what we see today is the same as its always beenā¦despite even secularists agreeing that in to beginning times this earth was a molten ball?
The point is, how do you know that one of the mechanisms God set in place in order to limit the age of mankind on this earth was not the small amounts of radiation exposure that you see as being necessary?
Lets add in another illustration from the bible that may help hereā¦
22But I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24By its light the nations will walk, and into it the kings of the earth will bring their glory.f25Its gates will never be shut at the end of the day, because there will be no night there.
So i ask you, in the new heavens and the new earth, is God bound to the use of the sun and moon? Cannot He provide all that is necessary for life to exist in a perfect environment without either of those things?
Im pre tempting that your answer to the above is that God is bound by science and that there must be a sun and moon in the new heavens and earth, therefore what the apostle saw in vision in the book of Revelation does not mean neither are necessary for life to exist or that they wont exist at that point in the future? (the argument Revelation is not to be read literally simply reinforces the notion that the entire second coming is a fairytaleā¦so that argument isnāt going to cut it)
To be honest, it surprises me that you appear to not understand the significance of what i have highlighted in my previous post regarding the fall of man, the flood, and the very obvious decline in ages of men on this earth. You havenāt even attempted to answer the age decline issue at all (which was my main point). That tells me, you either havenāt actually thought about this dilemma or, dont have an answer!
how can you possibly make this claim when in that endeavour, you donāt even quote any scripture that supports your claims here? Do you not understand how problematic that is for a Christian who gets their entire world view from the Bible? Are you proclaiming non biblical Christianityā¦ie that we can find and know God without the Bible?
You say āAdam doesnt get his worldview from scriptureā.
I believe that Exodus 20:8-11 says "In six days God created the heavens and the earth and the seventh day is the Sabbath. That we are to keep the Sabbath as a day of remembrance that we were created by God.
How do you suggest a person who actually has a bible doctrine should follow the above commandment?(because apparently my belief in that text is not from scripture)
Before you answer the above question, do not make the mistake of going down the āits a jewish traditionā rabbit warren. The Sabbath predates Judaism by 2000 years, Adam and Eve were not jewsā¦so that argument is bull.
Very few people actually believe all truth is found in science and science alone. Almost everyone agrees that philosophy is a legitimate source of knowledge and wisdom that can point towards truth.
What most people who hold science in high regard donāt believe is that faith is equal to scientific understanding when it comes to the natural world. Gaps are not god shaped holes and when people treat it as such, others who hold science in high regards calls it out.
thatās a reasonable conclusion, however, it fails to address a significant and as yet unasnwer dilemmaā¦where is the biblical support for it?
None of you people here are in the habit of finding any decent biblical support for any of your views on thisā¦are you Christians who follow a religious philosophy that comes from an ancient text or is this just cartoon stuff tagged onto the end of a scientific belief that struggles to reconcile how the big bang started?
Now to be fair to Kendel, Iām going to be nice here and redirectā¦Kendel i have to put it to you and the others that according to evolution, one doesnt need to be Christian to have moralityā¦so your goodness doesnt come from the bible according to the science that you so strongly have a bond to.
Mathematics???
So let me get this straight, you have measurements at the time just before and after Noahs flood that you can show me from 4500 years ago?
The truth is, the said measurements are based entirely on the assumption that nothing much has changedā¦even though the bible says the earth did change after the fall and especially at the time of the flood.
If God, who created the earth directly told Moses the above, and you prefer naturalisms assumptions (which are not measurements), then i have to suggest your underlying belief is an evolutionary one and not Christianity.
I have to return to a previous comment i madeā¦the bible says mans life expectancy has droppedā¦Adam 930 years, Shem 600 years, Abraham less than 200 yearsā¦middle ages average in Europe and China was 32years
Canyou explain that the above is consistent with historical measurments?
I think you need to familiarise yourself with what measurements we actually do have, Adam, before asking about measurements that we donāt.
You also need to familiarise yourself with the rules that constrain how measurements can and cannot be interpreted. Rules that have nothing to do with naturalism and that are the same for Christians and secularists alike.
You also need to familiarise yourself with the rules surrounding the concept of assumptions. Rules that have nothing to do with naturalism and that are the same for Christians and secularists alike.
You CANNOT just fob off measurements and their interpretations on the grounds of āassumptions.ā This is the fallacy that young earthists make over and over again. They assume that just because scientific findings make āassumptions,ā that somehow gives them a free pass to throw any of them that they donāt like straight out the window. It doesnāt.
Iāve said it before and Iāll say it again. If you want to challenge a scientific finding on the grounds that it makes assumptions, you MUST do all three of the following.
State exactly and precisely, in mathematical terms, what those assumptions are.
Make sure that the finding really does make the assumptions that you claim, and that it hasnāt been superseded by another, more modern technique, that has found ways to bypass those assumptions.
Provide a credible explanation as to how those assumptions could have been violated while remaining consistent with the measurements that we do have, right down to the fine details and cross-correlations between them.
I have never seen a young earthist even attempt to address point 3, and more often than not they donāt even get as far as points 1 and 2. Instead, far too often, itās just a repetition of āassumptions, assumptions, assumptionsā like a parrot going āfusty musty dusty, fussy Gussy, pop goes the weasel, how many times, send for the doctorā over and over again.
@adamjedgar, even the Bible doesnāt teach that my morality comes from being a Christian. āRighteous pagansā or āgentilesā are a known group in the Bible. The Good Samaritan that Jesus contrasted with the priest and Pharisee was fictional, but not impossible.
And being a Christian is no guarantee of morality, as evidenced by all the directions to Christians how to live appropriately.
Yes, evolution does have a naturalistic explanation for morality.
Non-christian philosophers have wrestled for thousands of years over what constitutes moral or right behavior and attitudes. We Christians donāt have a corner on it by any means.
As far as this goes, I understand your concerns, Adam. I disagree with you, though, on how we learn about the world or the scientific usefulness of a biblical understanding of the cosmos. I make no attempt to smooth the challenges over. I donāt believe it can be achieved anyway. I simultaneously hold two views that I see as irreconcilable. I have done so for decades. And will continue to. In faith that God knows what heās doing. And that must be the end of it.
I know you know what Iām talking about, and I see your frustrations. We are chosing to deal differently with the same problem. I am trying to do what I understand to be truthful. I think you are as well.
Discussion of lethal radiation from accelerated nuclear decay is conspicuous by its absence in YEC organizations. I could be missing it, but all I can find is ICR giving it a glancing mention
ā¦some have expressed concern that a radioactive element like potassium-40 that is present in the human body may have produced radiation within Noahās body itself.
In the same article Vardiman states
Another consideration is how Noah and his family could have survived the massive dose of radiation unleashed during the Flood. It is likely that the humans aboard the Ark would have been protected from most of the radiation occurring on the surface of the earth by the water covering the planet. It is common knowledge that water absorbs radiation, and an average of 8,000 feet of water covering the earth would have made a very effective shield.
which is typical of the tunnel vision that is characteristic of YEC arguments. Blah blah blah in support of the conclusion, then move on without a thought. Seawater would not help Noah. It is part of the problem.
There are more than 100 different measured radionuclides in seawater, every liter undergoing about 750 disintegrations per minute. Again, multiply by an YEC acceleration factor of a billion give or take, and that brings us to over 10 billion disintegrations per second. So Noah, already dead within minutes by radiation from within, is adrift upon a radioactive sea.
But as Vardiman says, water absorbs radiation. Think Vardiman, how does water do this? Yes, by distributing the fierce kinetic energy of emitted alpha and beta particles to the surrounding water molecules, and absorbing high energy photons. And what does all that kinetic energy do? Right. Raise temperature! Just as with highly effective nuclear power plants, water is driven to steam. And all this is before the contribution from the melting crust which would be violently flashing the ocean beds.
