On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:21:42 -0500 george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
writes:
> We know that we can rely on regularities of basic natural
> processes
> for inferring events for short intervals in the past. Bear tracks
> in the
> forest are evidence for a real bear. Radiocarbon abundances (with
> attention
> to possible variations in cosmic ray intensity &c) can be used to
> date
> pieces of wood for a few thousand years in the past. Tree rings
> give
> indications of real ages. In other words, nature is "truthful" up
> to about
> 6000 years ago. But according to the apparent age hypothesis,
> nature is
> supposed to suddenly become deceptive if we try to push it past that
> point.
> It's a pretty small step from that to the position that the one
> whose
> creation nature is, and who is supposed to have seen that creation
> to be
> good, is deceptive.
George,
I see clearly that you have not been reading YEC publications. Some
bristlecone pines are over 2000 years old by tree rings, and connect to
dead lumber that goes back additional millennia. This has been used to
correct radio-carbon dates--but not in YEC literature. They posit,
without any evidence that I have perceived, that the trees often produce
double rings in a year.
Another item of interest that I recall is the claim that a nearby
supernova produced such a blast of cosmic rays that a great excess of
radio-carbon was produced. This throws all dating off, for it also played
hob with all half-lives. Of course, supernovae always leave behind a
neutron star or, possibly, a black hole. This has not been pointed out
(unless God miraculously removed it to require acceptance of the date of
creation and the flood by faith). Also, were there a great excess of
radio-carbon produced, what we observed in dated relics (their revision
or standard science) does not match the half-life computations. The YEC
literature did not mention this: I did the calculation. But it apparently
proves that the rate of radioactive decay changes for all nuclei. That
has been claimed for U, Th, K, etc., but I haven't found it specifically
for C-14. I only infer the conclusion. But, from what has been alleged,
one cannot depend on logic when the implications are embarrassing.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 15 2001 - 15:52:24 EST