Re: MS in Creationism

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:39:03 -0400, Still Just Me
<stillnoEmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:55:18 -0400, clare@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

No way to PROVE it is 4 billion years. According to the understanding
of todays science, all current indications point to an age of 4
billion years, perhaps. But many changes have taken place, even over
the last 5000 years, that may have skewed those numbers by an order of
magnitude or two.

Even if all the tools they have at hand today are inaccurate, you
can't change 4 billion into 5000.

Nobody said you could. The "historic record" of genesis is a record of
what was understood up to 5000 years ago, more or less.

ANd who's to say that evidence is not from "earth version 1" and
"earth version 2" - while we may be living in "earth version 5"

Yes, that would be called evolution.

Not necessarily, and not by the definition I gave. It COULD be
"creation #1" and "creation #2 etc, or it could be "big bang "\#1" and
"big bang #2", or "jurasic park #1" and "jurasic park #2", or even
"experiment by man from Mars #1 and Jurasic Park #2" etc , or any
other combination of totally unrelated occurences.

The Buckling and folding of the teutonic plates, and the formation of
coal, diamonds, and petroleun (which also means the paleo periods, the
dynasaurs, and all the other "prehistoric fossil record" MAY have
existed before this so-far final itteration of "earth". They MAY be
totally unrelated. And that is a valid scientific hypothesis which
can be investigated scientifically just the same as evolution can.
It is disproveable, and does not depend on any religious faith,
voodoo, or magic. It can be subjected to the same scientific criteria
as evolution and If investigated the same way, would LIKELY stand up
as just as valid a theory as evolution - except it will not be
investigated by today's scientific community because it leaves the
door open to the possibility of "intelligent design".

The Genesis record states in Genesis 1:2a

'The earth was void and without form and darkness covered the face of
the deep.'

That was the pre-existing condition of "earth" at the time of
"creation" however you want to describe or understand it.

Could well describe the state of planet earth after a catastrophic
interstellar event that wiped out ALL life on "earth #1" or whatever
version it was up to by that time.
Could well have caused an "ice age" or such terrible "global warming"
that life was unsustainable - which would explain why there are no
dinasaurs alive today. If everything was dead, there was nothing to
"evolve"


There may be NO connection between the paleo world and ours other than
that it occupies the same piece of space junk.

And that creatures developed in a obvious evolution. You can deny the
process of evolution if you like (natural selection) and suggest that
the hand of God caused species to change. You can even suggest that
man was created by a similar act of God if you like and that he did
not evolve from previous humanoids if you want. But, you can't deny
physical occurrence and timeline.

Evolution WITHIN A SPECIES is a provable fact. That is "natural
selection". Hybridization, cross-breeding, selective breeding, also
fall into this category. No denying this.

The timeline gets a little less positive.C14 dating is only useable
for about 52,000 years.

Also:
C-14 testing of a Lake Bonney seal estimated its age as 615 years ±
100. Yet, it had been killed only a few weeks previous to the
measurement. A recently killed seal at McMurdo Sound gave an age of
1,300 years.
This is caused by the well known "reservoir effect." These particular
seals fed:
"...off of animals that live in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone. The
water that is upwelling has been traveling along the bottom [of the
ocean] for a few thousand years before surfacing. The carbon dioxide
in it came from the atmosphere before the water sank...Thus the carbon
in the sea water is a couple of thousand years "old" from when it was
in the atmosphere." 7
Its C-14 would have decayed significantly. The plants picked up this
"old" carbon; animals eat the plants and pick up "old" carbon; the
seals eat the animals and incorporate this "old" carbon in themselves.
The seal is killed. The sample taken for C-14 measurement contains
partly "old" carbon and partly recent carbon. The instrument reads an
apparent year that the seal died, which is older than the actual year.

and:
A sample of oil, which evolutionists believe was derived from plants
that were living millions of years ago, was C-14 tested and found to
be only 50,000 old.

Fifty millennia is at the absolute limit of the capacity of the C-14
test. The difference in C-14 content between two carbon-containing
samples -- one of which is 50 millennia old and the other is many
millions of years old -- is minimal. The sample of oil did indeed come
from plants that were alive millions of years ago. By now, essentially
all of the C-14 atoms would have decayed so that none could be
detected. However, very small amount of contamination could generate
an apparent age of 50,000 years for the sample. Oil is typically
"found within a matrix of sand or shale." The rocks will have some
radioactivity which could have created new C-14, contaminated the
sample, and produced the results indicated.

and:
Shells of just-killed snails from Nevada were C-14 tested and found to
be 27,000 years old.

This is another example of the reservoir effect. These particular
snails lived in artesian springs which were "fed by carbonate
aquifers. As this water percolated through the enclosing carbonates,
it dissolved limestone and dolomite hundreds of millions of years
old." 9 Essentially all of its C-14 had decayed; there would be little
left. Again, the "old" carbon dissolved into the water, and was picked
up by the snails when they made their shells. The shells were thus
deficient in C-14 and appeared to be millennia old.

and:
A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this
ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere
has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this
assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to
about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use
would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age
estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If
this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect
dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate
of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly
through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of
14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being
removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this
is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would
make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or
impossible to accurately determine.

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed
this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in
evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old.
Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If
the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that
assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not
appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby
since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time
had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed
that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take
up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for
20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed
appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a
complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon
atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all
material in the life-cycle.2
Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and
he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has
turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms
per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is
known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3
What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach
equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth
is not very old.

Also:
The cause for the long term variation of the C-14 level is not known.
The variation is certainly partially the result of a change in the
cosmic ray production rate of radiocarbon. The cosmic-ray flux, and
hence the production rate of C-14, is a function not only of the solar
activity but also of the magnetic dipole moment of the Earth.4
Though complex, this history of the earth’s magnetic field agrees with
Barnes’ basic hypothesis, that the field has always freely decayed....
The field has always been losing energy despite its variations, so it
cannot be more than 10,000 years old.5
Earth’s magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker
than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started
keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.6
If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere was less in the past,
dates given using the carbon-14 method would incorrectly assume that
more 14C had decayed out of a specimen than what has actually
occurred. This would result in giving older dates than the true age.

Also:
In 1997 an eight-year research project was started to investigate the
age of the earth. The group was called the RATE group (Radioisotopes
and the Age of The Earth). The team of scientists included:

(CV to follow)
Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
Steven Austin, PhD Geology
Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies

The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by
evolutionary standards of dating. The scientists reviewed the
assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rocks and
fossils. The results of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious
problems for long geologic ages. Samples were taken from ten different
coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time
periods in the geologic column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic).
The RATE group obtained ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of
Energy Coal Sample Bank. These coal samples were collected from major
coalfields across the United States. The coal samples, which dated
millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standard
evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C. In
all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility
of contamination from other sources. Samples in all three “time
periods” displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant
discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730
years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000
years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these
three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However, using a
more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio reduces that age to about 5,000
years.


CV:

Dr. Vardiman is professor, Department of Astro-Geophysics, Institute
for Creation Research, in the United States. He holds a B.S. in
physics from the University of Missouri, a B.S. in meteorology from
St. Louis University and an M.S. and Ph.D. in atmospheric science from
Colorado State University. He is a member of the American
Meteorological Society and has authored numerous research papers in
the area of cloud physics and meteorology.

CV:

Dr Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State
University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced
creationist. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage
Laboratory of General Electric Company, designing and inventing
equipment and researching high-voltage phenomena. While there, he
received a U.S. patent and one of Industrial Research Magazine’s
IR-100 awards.

Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New
Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and
theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with
Sandia’s ‘Particle Beam Fusion Project’, and was co-inventor of
special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches, now coming
into wider use.

The last few years at Sandia had seen greater emphasis on theoretical
nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help
produce the world’s first lab-scale thermonuclear fusion. Besides
gaining another U.S. patent, Dr Humphreys has been given two awards
from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to
light ion-fusion target theory.

Education
B.S., Duke University, Durham, NC, 1963
Ph.D., Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 1972


CV:

Chaffin, Eugene F. - PHD Geophysics

B.S., Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 1970
M.S., Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 1972
Ph.D., Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 1974

CV:

John Baumgardner, Phd geophysics

Education
B.S., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1968

M.S., Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ,
1970

M.S., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los
Angeles, 1981

Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los
Angeles, 1983

CV:

Dr Donald DeYoung Phd Physics
(AiG–US)

Biography
Don DeYoung is Chairman of the Department of Physical Science at Grace
College, Winona Lake, Indiana. He has taught at Grace since 1972, with
sabbatical leaves spent in San Diego and the South Pacific. Dr DeYoung
is also on the faculty of the Institute for Creation Research, San
Diego. Courses taught include physics, astronomy and mathematics. He
speaks on creation topics and believes that the details of nature are
a powerful testimony to the Creator’s care for mankind.

Dr DeYoung and his wife Sally have three married daughters. In their
local church, Don is a Sunday school teacher, elder and member of the
Warsaw Christian School Board.

Education
Michigan Tech University (B.S., M.S., Physics)
Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics)
Grace Seminary (M.Div.)

CV:

Austin, Steven A., Ph.D. Geology
(USA)


Education

B.S. (Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970

M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971

Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA,
1979


CV:

Andrew A. Snelling, B.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D.Director of Research, AiG-US

Biography
Andrew A. Snelling is a geologist, research scientist and technical
editor. He completed a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Geology
at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, graduating
with First Class Honors in 1975. His Doctor of Philosophy (in geology)
was awarded by The University of Sydney, Australia in 1982 for his
research thesis entitled “A geochemical study of the Koongarra uranium
deposit, Northern Territory, Australia”. Between studies and since
Andrew worked for six years in the exploration and mining industries
in Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the
Northern Territory variously as a field, mine and research geologist.

Andrew commenced in full-time creation ministry at the end of 1983,
first working with the Creation Science Foundation of Australia until
late 1998, including three years with Ken Ham before Ham moved to the
U.S.A. From 1983 to 1992 Snelling was still required to be a
geological consultant to the Koongarra uranium project. He was
involved in research projects with several CSIRO (Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Organization) scientists, and in major
international collaborative research effort with ANSTO (Australian
Nuclear Science and Technology Organization) and university scientists
across Australia, and with scientists from the USA, Britain, Japan,
Sweden and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to investigate the
Koongarra uranium deposit as a natural analog of a nuclear waste
disposal site. As a result of these research endeavors, Andrew was
involved in writing numerous scientific reports, and scientific papers
that were published in international science journals.
In late 1998 Andrew joined the Institute for Creation Research near
San Diego, as a Professor of Geology. His responsibilities included
teaching Masters degree geology courses in ICR’s Graduate School,
leading tours to the Grand Canyon, England and Yosemite – Death
Valley, and research and writing projects. Andrew was a principal
investigator in the 8-year, ICR-led RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of
The Earth) research project to which he made major contributions in
rock dating studies using radioisotopes, and in studies of radiation
halos (radiohalos) and tracks (fission tracks) in various minerals. He
contributed two chapters to the first RATE technical volume in 2000,
and three chapters to the second RATE technical volume in 2005, as
well as being the primary production editor of both volumes. Andrew’s
time at ICR was also spent writing a major new three volume book on
geology, Creation and the Genesis Flood, which is expected to be
published in early 2008.

THESE SCIENTISTS ALL BELIEVE IN CREATION SCIENCE OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN
and are not afraid to admit it.
All were classicly educated in the sciences and hold degrees from
accredited public universities, and have worked in the scientific
field for varying lengths of time. They have had varying levels of
succsess in the acedemic and scientific communities and have garnered
respect in the scientific community.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Q!Re: Shall We All Leave At Once?
    ... The Travels of Noe into Europe is based on primary and secondary sources including Berosus' Chaldanean history and is not a personal opinion. ... Yove not studied real science or philosophy. ... other scientists - sneer at cosmology these days). ... Most of the elementary particles in modern physics were predicted by the mathematics decades before the equipment could be built to detect them. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: New report on Science in the 21st century: social, political, and economic issues
    ... This report presents a nonidealized vision of 21st century science. ... Nature, Science, or Physics Today... ... scientists feel lots of pressure to follow ... Consequently rejection is recommended». ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nameless critics on the Internet and critical analysis of Einsteins E=mc2
    ... (Book will be published in Dec. 2006, By NOVA Science, New York, ... E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. ... In his 1905 paper Einstein did not ... There may be back door critics but none of the scientists have dared to ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • 100 Years of E=mc2
    ... (Book will be published in Dec. 2006, By NOVA Science, New York, ... E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. ... In his 1905 paper Einstein did not ... There may be back door critics but none of the scientists have dared to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • 100 Years of E=mc2
    ... (Book will be published in Dec. 2006, By NOVA Science, New York, ... E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. ... In his 1905 paper Einstein did not ... There may be back door critics but none of the scientists have dared to ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
Loading