Dave,
I criticized your combining "reactors" and "bombs" with tongue in cheek;
hence the "smiley." I know that both work on the same principle, but it's a
pity that the nuclear industry is saddled with the sad legacy of the atomic
bomb. As for fusion, I doubt that it will be viable in my lifetime. I
heard a presentation on fusion at "Summit 2000" in Reno last November where
the speaker said that fusion reactors were "20 years away" some 40 years ago
and that they are still "20 years away." Contrary to popular opinion,
fusion processes will generate large quantities of highly radioactive
material, such as the magnetic pole pieces that will be needed to confine
the plasma.
I would challenge your view that there are problems with waste products from
nuclear reactors. I've been working for the last 20+ years in nuclear waste
management and am convinced that, globally, we have solved the technical
aspects. All that's needed is to convince the general public which, I
admit, may be more difficult that solving the technical challenges.
I do not agree that coal is the answer, unless we are satisfied with
increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Keep in mind that coal comes from plants
and that plants contain low concentrations of heavy metals, such as As, Cd,
Hg, Pb, U, and Th. These are released when coal is burned and either end up
deposited downwind from the coal burning plants or buried as fly ash in land
fill sites. This contamination can be reduced somewhat by incorporating the
fly ash in concrete, which isolates the contaminants for some time.
The oceans can act as sinks for CO2 but it is my understanding that this is
a slow process and that the oceans cannot absorb the excess CO2 at the rate
we are producing it.
If you come across the article that suggests that Oklo never happened, I'd
like to see it. From what I have read, the evidence that "it" happened is
overwhelming and I'm curious how YECs would explain the isotopic ratios of
the rare earths (e.g., Nd) and of Ru.
As to the solution to our impending energy crisis, it will have to be a
combination of things. My guess is that we have to start relying more on
nuclear power, use wind and solar where possible, build more compact cities
(more like Paris than like Tucson) so that public transit will be viable,
and do with an awful lot less. As Christians, we should be taking a lead
role in this. However, no matter how you look at it, the future may not be
a pleasant place. Good thing we know that we are destined for a better
place and that, after our resurrection, we will inherit a new earth where we
will not have to face these issues.
Shalom!
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: David F Siemens [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Friday January 05, 2001 11:51 AM
To: vandergraaft@aecl.ca
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Lay Education Project
Chuck,
I put the good and the bad together because they both work essentially the
same way, fission, though at different speeds. Fusion is still a destructive
force with a hope that it can be used peacefully. I agree with you that
nuclear power is the rational way to go, even though there are problems with
waste products. The long term alternative is coal, for natural gas and
petroleum are being exhausted. All three produce CO2 with greenhouse
consequences. Coal also produces greater amounts of SO2 than petroleum.
Sopping that up has used limestone, with the release of more CO2. Fossil
fuels have serious consequences.
I'll agree that Oklo is an outstanding evidence for an old earth. But I
recall running across an article that said it never happened. I don't recall
how it was "explained," but it was not that God created it that way. You
need to remember that YECists do not need a rational justification, just
something that sounds plausible to those who are brainwashed. Note the use
of the second law to declare evolution impossible. Were they right, there
could be no growth of organisms, no alphabetizing of files, and no dusting
out a room. Truth has nothing to do with their claims.
Dave
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:39:24 -0500 "Vandergraaf, Chuck"
<vandergraaft@aecl.ca> writes:
Dave,
Why must "reactors" and "bombs" always be used in the same sentence? As a
proponent of non-greenhouse gas producing nuclear power, I face about the
same "uphill battle" as you mention! ;-)
To me, the most convincing evidence of an old earth is the Oklo natural
nuclear reactors that operated about 1980 Ma ago. The chain reaction could
only have occurred with a higher than current U235/U238 ratio (the half life
of U235 is shorter than that of U238) and the radioactive fission products
have decayed to stable daughters. I have elaborated on this topic some
years ago in the forum.
Of course, God could have created these deposits 10,000 years ago, but
that's not an elegant solution.
Chuck Vandergraaf
-----Original Message-----
From: David F Siemens [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Thursday January 04, 2001 12:55 PM
To: haasJ@mediaone.net
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Lay Education Project
The project, in my mind, is an uphill battle. I have read the articles in
the Evangelical Theological Society journal that deal with the
interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis. They do not support YEC. I
find the same claim in the publications of IBRI and Hugh Ross. If their
message has not reached the lay audience in evangelical churches, it is hard
to envision an approach that will make the message accepted widely.
Years ago Gish addressed the Western Section of the AAAS meeting in Santa
Barbara. He was asked what evidence could possibly change his mind. His
immediate response, "There is none." We are dealing with "true believers"
who are immune to all evidence that does not support their position. As
someone remarked, the greatest hindrance to learning something is to know it
all already. YECers "know" everything about creation. This is why so many
young people in college, faced with the contradiction between "what the
Bible [necessarily] teaches" and the scientific evidence chuck their faith.
The only way around this barrier that I see is the kind of one-on-one
psychologists and counsellors use to get through the defenses of their
clients. But this takes a lot of time and great skill, but is not always
successful. Can quantum physics, which obviously works for reactors and
bombs, and also justifies the timing of radioactive decay, be a backdoor
approach to the age of the earth? How many could follow the evidence? Is
there another approach? Exegesis and traditional interpretations have not
seemed to get through.
Dave
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:17:10 -0500 "Jack Haas" <haasJ@mediaone.net> writes:
Greetings:
I am writing to ask list members to help with a challenging project.
An ASA member has offered a five figure sum to the organization to support a
project that seeks to educate the lay Christian community (adults/youth) on
issues related to the 'young earth' movement.
His letter notes: "...The young-earth message has bitten very deeply into
the evangelical culture, and people trust this message. What will it take to
show people believably that the young-earth view is
not the only possible one, without undermining the Christianity or sincerity
of those that hold that position? [This grant is offered] to ASA, to promote
serious discussion of the feasibility of working on publications that show
the range of views that Christians have,and/or the necessity of believing
the evidence for an ancient universe and the possibility of finding
compatibility with Scripture."
He is rightly concerned with the tensions that can emerge in any evangelical
church or denomination over age and related origins questions. PSCF and
this list reflect this tension. In spite of the diversity of views about
details there is a broad consensus upon which to base a Christian view of
science - including (I think) age and origins. The question before us is
how to communicate this consensus to the Christian public.
I am representing the ASA Council in asking for your input. What do you
think about the project? What kind of approach should we use? What kind of
materials should we use? What types of media? Are your aware of things in
print that may be useful? Writers? My role is to collect ideas. The next
step will be to present them to a committee which will set the course of the
project.
We are open to any and all ideas!
Jack Haas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 05 2001 - 13:43:27 EST