Re: Old/new universe perspective contradictions

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 11:19:52 -0700 "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
writes:
> I have an open question that I hope will stimulate some responses
> that
> may be useful in discussions relating to old/new earth perspectives.
>
> Some (most?) dating technologies are based on radioactive decay. It
> seems that a person might be in a state of contradiction when
> rejecting
> the radioactive decay evidence for an old universe, yet fully
> trusting
> the tools of nuclear medicine. I’m wondering if that notion (or
> something similar) can be clearly substantiated. Are there other
> reasonably easy to articulate and understand instances of
> contradiction
> of this sort?
> Regards
> Jim Armstrong
>
Jim,
What makes you think that a little matter of a contradiction will affect
young earthers? I think of an article I read in which the bristlecone
pines ring count going back well before the claimed time of the Flood was
explained by double rings some years. Since new discoveries of even older
wood extends the count further back, I expect there must have been some
years with triple rings, and almost all with double rings. That the
radiocarbon dates generally match the ring counts as found, not as
revise, was explained in another article as caused by a near supernova
that produced a massive increase in C-14. That the data as they
interpreted it could not match the decomposition pattern of the
explanation did not affect their conviction.

As I understand it, the original calculations of half-lives was based on
empirical counts. There was no treatment found that would alter the rate
of decomposition. I recall a more recent discovery of a slight change in
rate when the radio-atom is compounded in a certain way. Another nucleus
has two different ways to break down. Such situations allow true
believers to suggest that there MAY be other variants that change the
rate. On occasion, a supernova is suggested to produce a major change.

If supernovae have occurred in the vicinity of earth, the necessary
residues (neutron stars) must be someplace. But I have never seen a
suggestion that the remains of the transforming nova is such-and-such.
Additionally, I have not encountered a description of the terrestrial
fission products of the nova blast--for anything a nova can supply will
fission nuclei, not speed up the normal sequence.

Now there is understanding of the basic physics underlying radioactivity.
The theory that explains radioactivity also explains nuclear reactors and
bombs. Consequently, denial of the relevance of half-lives should involve
rejection of these other nuclear phenomena. But I have not encountered
any young earther who makes the connection. Indeed, it has been noted in
other connections that "explanations" have been given for some phenomena
which are contradictory to the explanations given for other phenomena. I
am reminded again of one of my professors who loved to misquote Emerson:
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and they do not want to be
small."

The contradictory claims made provide a logical foundation for the entire
position. /Consequentia mirabilis/ (the amazing consequence), discovered
by medieval logicians, provides that every conclusion validly follows
from a contradiction. The sole problem is that they choose the
conclusions they will accept rather than embracing them all, and thereby
recognizing the end of rationality. However, selectivity is not
warranted. This, unfortunately, does not affect the true believer.
Dave
Received on Mon Jan 3 16:39:11 2005