The following items pertain primarily to one theory.
Earthquakes and Electricity. Why does electrical activity frequently accompany large earthquakes?
59.
HP: During earthquakes, the piezoelectric effect and stresses within the vibrating crust can generate powerful electrical fields and discharges. For example, see at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXA3kUef21M
how the night sky lit up in rapidly changing colors during the 8.1 magnitude earthquake that hit southern Mexico on 8 September 2017. Notice the changing colors: blue, purple, and green—a clear sign that unusually powerful and changing voltages were released. Normal lightning is produced by a gradual voltage buildup in clouds. Once air’s break-down voltage is reached (only about 1,000 volts per inch), yellow/white lightning is discharged.
During earthquakes, cyclic piezoelectric stresses in the massive crust act over a broad area and produce extreme voltages over that broad area that simultaneously strip electrons from the atomic nuclei comprising an equally broad area in the air far above Earth’s surface.
Therefore, free electrons accelerating toward those stripped nuclei along millions of paths have much greater energies, and emit more energetic colors that are farther from the low-energy (red/yellow) end of the color spectrum and more toward the high-energy (blue/green/violet) end of the spectrum.
Pegmatites. How do pegmatites form?
60.
HP: Before the flood, SCW dissolved granite’s more soluble components, such as quartz and feldspars, giving the lower crust a spongelike texture. During the compression event, high-pressure fluids that had filled those spongelike voids were injected up into fractures in the Earth’s crust. As the hydrothermal fluids rose, their pressures and temperatures dropped, so quartz and feldspars came out of solution and sometimes grew large crystals called pegmatites. This also explains the origin of most mineral-rich, hydrothermal fluids and most of Earth’s ore bodies.
Batholiths. How did batholiths form?
61.
HP: Batholiths were pushed up during the compression event. They cooled rapidly because the water that filled channels and pore spaces rapidly escaped and evaporated. Batholiths were never completely molten.
As the granite pushed up into and displaced the water-saturated sedimentary layers above, liquefaction again occurred, but on a regional scale. The reliquefied sediments flowed off and stratified again in generally horizontal layers. [See “Liquefaction: The Origin of Strata and Layered Fossils” on pages 203– 214.] This solves “the room problem” which has perplexed geologists for at least a century.79
Radioactive Moon Rocks. Why were radioactive rocks found on the Moon’s surface?
62.
HP: From the Moon’s surface, astronauts brought back loose rocks containing hard, durable zircons. They contained 3.8-billion-years’ worth of radioactive decay products, based on today’s decay rates. The hydroplate theory postulates the rapid production of radioisotopes only on the Earth, not the Moon (or Mars). So why are radioactive rocks on the Moon?
As the flood began, the fountains of the great deep launched rocky debris containing those newly formed, but radiometrically “old,” zircons. Much of that debris came from the crushed subterranean pillars in which many radioisotopes quickly formed. The Moon’s craters, lava flows, and some loose surface rocks are a result of bombardment by material ejected from Earth at high velocities. [See Figure 175 on page 311.]
NASA’s Lunar Prospector, in a low polar orbit of the Moon from January 1998 to July 1999, detected alpha particles emitted by the decay products of 222Rn, which itself is a decay product of 238U. They were emitted from the vicinity of craters Aristarchus and Kepler which are located on the leading edge of the near side of the Moon, the most likely impact locations for debris launched by the fountains of the great deep.153 [See “The Debris When It Arrived at the Moon” on page 605.]
PREDICTION 53: Corings into basement rock on the Moon, Mars, or other rocky planets will find little radioactivity and fewer distinct isotopes than are on Earth.
Inconsistent Dates. Why are so many radiometric dates inconsistent with each other and with fossil correlations?
63.
CE: Radiometric dating is unfortunately subject to contamination and millions of years of unknown conditions. However, even if our dates are off by a factor of ten, the Earth is not less than 10,000 years old.
[Response: The public has been greatly misled concerning the consistency and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (such as the potassium-argon method, the rubidium-strontium method, and the uranium-thorium-lead method). For example, geologists hardly ever subject their radiometric age measurements to “blind tests.” 154 In science, such tests are a standard procedure for overcoming experimenter bias. Many published radiometric dates can be checked by comparisons with the evolution-based ages for fossils that sometimes lie above or below radiometrically dated rock. In more than 400 of these published checks (about half of those sampled), the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in error—indicating major errors in methodology and understanding.155 One wonders how many other dating checks were not even published because they, too, were in error.]
Baffin Island Rocks. Are some Baffin Island rocks as old as the Earth?
64.
CE: According to various evolutionary dating techniques, the oldest rocks in the world have been recently found on Canada’s Baffin Island. And yet, those rocks contain strange anomalies.156 They have the highest ratios ever found (on Earth or in space) of 3He/ 4He, long considered a measure of age, because the 3He remains from the material that originally formed the Earth. However, 3He in surface rocks should have escaped into the atmosphere long ago or have been subducted into the mantle, where mantle convection would have largely mixed all helium isotopes.
Also, Baffin Island rocks have been dated by uranium-to-lead and other evolutionary dating techniques that give ages as old as the Earth itself ! If they had been at the Earth’s surface for long, they would have been severely altered by erosion and weathering, but if they came from the mantle or below, they should have melted and been uniformly mixed.
[Response: Today, 3He is produced only by nuclear reactions. Agafonov et al. have duplicated in the laboratory reported occurrences of lightning discharges that produce 3He by nuclear fusion.1
Therefore, the electrical discharges and resulting fusion reactions during the flood probably produced the large amounts of 3He near Baffin Island.]
Chemistry in the Sun. Is the Sun a third-generation star?
65.
CE: The Sun contains heavy chemical elements, so evolutionists believe the Sun is at least a third-generation star. That is, the chemical elements in it and the solar system that are heavier than iron, such as gold and uranium, came from material spewed out by a supernova of a second-generation star that formed from earlier stars that exploded. This is ad hoc (a hypothesis, without independent support, created to explain away facts).
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 171– 171.]
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" as explained on page 414. For those who understand the flood and the origin of Earth’s radioactivity, there is no “tungsten problem.”
Chemistry in Stars. Why are stars so chemically different?
66.
CE: If all the heavier chemical elements came from debris made in stars and by supernovas, stars that formed from that debris should have similar ratios of these heavier elements. For example, a star named HE0107–5240, which has 1/200,000 of the iron concentration of the Sun, should have a similar concentration of the other heavier chemical elements relative to the Sun. Instead, HE0107–5240 has 10,000 times more carbon and 200 times more nitrogen than expected.157 Such problems can be solved only by making new assumptions for which there is no supporting evidence.
Star and Galaxy Formation. How did stars and galaxies form? According to the chemical evolution theory, their formation is a prerequisite for producing radioactivity and 98% of the chemical elements.
67.
CE: Let’s assume the big bang happened and all the heavier chemical elements and radioisotopes were made in stars and supernovas. A huge problem remains: mechanisms to form galaxies, stars (including our Sun), and the Earth are unknown or are contradicted by undisputed observations. [See pages 30– 39.]
Big Bang: Foundation for Chemical Evolution. How sound is the big bang—the foundation for the chemical evolution theory?
68.
CE: The big bang theory is extremely flawed. [See “Big Bang?” and “Dark Thoughts” beginning on page 36.] A better explanation for the expansion of the universe is found on pages 448– 465, “Why Is the Universe Expanding?” Cosmic microwave background radiation, discovered in 1965 and a main argument used to support the big bang, is better explained on pages 471– 472.
Also, the high concentrations of deuterium found on the Earth—and especially in comets—resulted not from the big bang, but from neutron capture by water during the early weeks of the flood.89 The widely taught beliefs concerning deuterium (as given from the chemical evolution perspective in the sidebar on page 417) may be wrong. A big bang would have probably consumed all the deuterium it ever produced, because deuterium is “burned” faster than it is produced. As advocates of chemical evolution and the big bang have admitted:
The net result of attempts to synthesize deuterium in the Big Bang remains distressingly inconclusive.161
The abundance of deuterium, in particular, is too high to be explained by stellar or cosmic ray processes. Deuterium is consumed more easily than it is produced, and, if cosmic rays were the source of deuterium, they would have also produced much more than the observed amount of 7Li.162