Below is the online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood,
by Dr. Walt Brown. Copyright © Center for Scientific Creation. All rights reserved.
Click here to order the hardbound 8th edition (2008) and other materials.
Final Thoughts
Notice the many disciplines involved in understanding the origin of earth’s radioactivity: chemistry, physics, nuclear physics, meteorology, astronomy, cosmology, mineralogy, geology, and engineering (mechanical, nuclear, and electrical). The hydroplate theory draws on evidence from even more fields in solving the other 25 major mysteries it addresses. [See page 113.]
Nature is not divided into academic disciplines. If we stay within our comfort zones and consider only topics in our favored disciplines (or, worse yet, only a few topics within a single discipline), we will miss the big picture and not be able to “connect the dots.” We would be like the proverbial blind men trying to describe an elephant; disagreements would abound. This may partially explain why the global flood and its profound consequences have been overlooked for so long and why so few of us fully examine the complete subject scientifically.
No doubt, the almost unimaginable size and power of the flood also account for our past failure to understand the flood and its many consequences—such as earth’s radioactivity. We all tend to limit our thinking to familiar events, so it is a challenge to grasp the magnitude of the events unleashed when all the fountains of the great deep erupted and to recognize that the entire earth’s crust was once a gigantic nuclear reactor. Reprocessing all available evidence and various proposed explanations will take time, but we should attempt to follow the evidence.
The So-Called Tungsten Problem
Those who do not understand the origin of earth’s radioactivity are puzzled by what can be called the tungsten problem. Here is their dilemma:
“Some modern flood basalts have unusually high concentrations of tungsten-182 [182W]. That is significant because that isotope forms only from radioactive decay of hafnium-182 [182Hf]. And 182Hf [which has a relatively short half-life of 9-million years] only existed during Earth’s first 50 million years. ‘These isotopes had to be created early,’ says Rizo, of the University of Quebec in Montreal.”158
Since 182W is produced only in this reaction
hafnium-182 must have been present either (1) at earth’s beginning, or (2) when radioactivity began. Which is it?
182Hf is not a decay product today, so where did it come from? Not in the theorized big bang, because with such a short half-life, all 182Hf would have decayed in 50 million years, long before they say the first star formed, much less the earth. Besides, a big bang would only produce hydrogen, helium, and traces of lithium. So they conclude 182Hf was produced much later in a supernova explosion. But again, 182Hf could not have lasted for the vast time after that explosion until the earth began to form. This is why Hanika Rizo stated (in the quote above) that 182Hf had to be deposited early, in the earth’s first 50 million years. But, she never explains how that could happen.159
Let’s be generous, and assume that enough 182Hf was somehow incorporated into the very early earth. If earth evolved (grew in size over billions of years), any 182W produced that early would today be near the center of the earth. We should never see it at the earth’s surface. But we do! More than 26% of all tungsten is 182W, which is stable. Therefore, those who have this “tungsten problem” must argue that a plume carried 182W up from the earth’s core to earth’s surface, through almost 2,000 miles of what they believe was circulating (convecting) mantle! That also will not work, because a circulating mantle would dilute the tungsten.160 Besides, magma does not rise below the crossover depth (220 miles below the earth’s surface). Scientists give other reasons plumes cannot rise from the core to the earth’s surface. [See “Flood Basalts” on pages 168–168.]
So how did all that 182W arrive at the earth’s surface? It was produced at the earth’s surface during the flood—in the fluttering crust and during the compression event by the"Self-Focusing Z-Pinch" explained on page 407. For those who understand the flood and the origin of earth’s radioactivity, there is no “tungsten problem.”
Earth’s Age. If you ask a hundred adults “How old is the earth?”, you will probably hear ninety-nine scientifically shallow answers. On the old-earth side, some will say, “Scientists say it is billions of years old,” “Radiometric dating shows that it is billions of years old,” or “I learned in school (or hear every week in the media) that it is millions of years old.” Only opinions of others are given. This is how science was practiced for thousands of years before Newton, Galileo, Kepler and the era of modern science; one simply quoted the opinions of supposedly “learned men,” such as Aristotle. If science still worked that way, technological advancements during the last 500 years would have been much slower. All of us might still believe the earth is flat, because at one time the “learned men” said the earth was flat.
On the young earth side, you will sometimes see a listing of the many dating techniques that support a young earth, such as those on pages 40–43, or hear criticisms (accurate and inaccurate) of radiometric dating. Criticisms are not explanations. Some who think that the earth is young, base their belief on the Bible, but if their view is stated publicly, it usually draws scoffing by those who have heard all their lives that the earth is old and honestly believe that is the scientific view. Many who believe in a young earth become intimidated and avoid the subject. Also, in academic communities or in groups where political correctness is valued, young-earth views usually produce embarrassed silence.
A Scientific Revolution. Widespread belief systems seldom change when frequently reinforced by influential institutions, such as the universities, media, religious institutions, and the scientific and intellectual elite. But when vast numbers of people realize that they have been misled, an intellectual revolution begins. Such a revolution in thinking occurred when Copernicus and Galileo showed that the earth and other planets orbited the Sun. An equally significant transformation is occurring as more and more people realize that a global flood occurred and profoundly altered the earth. Again, entrenched interests and fixed opinions will resist this shift in thinking. Observers of this revolution should note which side avoids a rational, scientific debate.
So how can this subject be discussed scientifically?
a. We must focus on scientific evidence—that which has been measured with instruments or detected with our senses, is verifiable, and bears on the issue.
b. Possible explanations cannot be ruled out ahead of time. For example, the flood and all its consequences should not be dismissed unless one is prepared to first address the scientific case. [See Part II of this book, including all twenty-five topics listed on page 113.]
c. “The age of the earth” and “the origin of earth’s radioactivity” need to be discussed openly, before all who are interested and understand the science. (Feeling strongly about the subject is not sufficient.) This chapter and the hydroplate theory provide starting points for that discussion.
Page 509 is my offer to those who reject a global flood, believe in an old earth, and wish to participate in that open discussion. See if you, the reader, can flush out someone who will present scientific evidence opposing the global flood.
The assistance of Jon Schoenfield in writing this chapter has been invaluable and is greatly appreciated.