Re: Old/new universe perspective contradictions

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 16:18:01 -0500 bivalve
<bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com> writes:
> > Are there other reasonably easy to articulate and understand
> instances of contradiction of this sort?<
>
> The obvious fact that nuclear power plants, bombs, etc. work today
> does not avoid the excuse that different factors acted in the past.
> The observed patterns of nuclear decay in supernova spectra and the
> Oklo natural nuclear reactors are perhaps stronger evidences of past
> decay patterns. Perhaps more directly impressive to the average
> person likely to sypathize with YEC are the use of 14C in
> archaeological contexts to confirm the Biblical picture against
> skeptical claims. Recent papers in Science and Nature have used 14C
> to confirm the material prosperity of Solomon's and Rehoboam's time
> (by dating the destruction layer from Pharaoh Shishak's invasion and
> observing that there was substantial stuff below it, contrary to
> claims that all the impressive buildings were later and the united
> monarchy, if it existed, was local and insubstantial) and to confirm
> that Hezekiah's tunnel dates from Hezekiah's time. Much earlier
> work dating Dead Sea scrolls confirms that some of the sec
> tarian
> documents date a couple centuries BC, contrary to a crank claim that
> the bad guy of Qumran theology was Paul.
>
> A direct contradiction occurs in the YEC use of the polonium halo
> argument. In addition to geological and logical flaws in the
> argument, the halos can only be identified as polonium if the laws
> of radiometric decay have not changed. The geological problems
> relate to the need to identify "primordial", unaltered samples.
> It's not uncommon for someone to claim that identifying unaltered
> samples is impossible, disproving radiometric dating, while
> simultaneously claiming that Gentry is capable of identifying them.
> Thus, acceptance of the polonium halo argument mandates that
> radiometric dating is valid.
>
> Similar problems are raised by the 2nd law of thermodynamics being
> invoked incorrectly against evolution while ignoring the problms
> that the 2nd law poses for flood geology.
>
> Attacking old earth claims as "uniformitarian" and therefore
> inherently atheistic (via a few logical flaws) is popular, yet bad
> and internally inconsistent uniformitarian arguments are frequently
> advocated by the same young earth advocates. The amount of salt in
> the ocean is a classic example. Examination of residence times of
> various elements yields ages for the ocean ranging from about 200
> million years to 0 years. The method is obviously internally
> inconsistent, and the youngest dates (claimed without justificaiton
> to be more reliable) give an age for the ocean of less than 2000
> years, thus disproving the Bible.
>
> Dr. David Campbell

Jim,
There are contradictions with some of the specific interpretations from
YEC sources. I think of the "great deep" of a couple of chaps. In one of
Morris's books, he has a diagram in which there is a passage from the sea
to the underground deep. This in turn is connected by a vertical passage
to the "spring" watering the surface of the antediluvian earth, claimed
to be no more than 2000 feet above sea level. There is no one-way valve
in the passages, so movement of the waters apparently must be caused by
gravity and density differences caused by heating. Since water at the
boiling point weighs 41.62 g less per liter than at its greatest density,
there is a small problem raising it, even supplying boiling water to the
higher surface. Of course, one can invoke a geyser-like mechanism and
really cook things.

I recall a TV program that had a chap explaining that the Flood was
caused when the deep, which had contained most of the water at the time
of creation, broke through the mid-ocean rifts and covered all the
low-lying ancient land. If temperature rises with depth only 15C per
kilometer, and the deep has to be big enough to contain the water with
sufficient "pillars" to support the aboriginal crust, everything on the
top side of the earth would have been well-cooked.

Glenn calculated the terrestrial temperature assuming the
firmament/canopy that supposedly supplied the water of the Flood.

Re Oklo. If one calculates the necessary concentration of uranium
isotopes for a nuclear reaction against their half-lives, one can get the
latest possible date for the event. I understand that it's a little
difficult to deny that it was a nuclear reaction because the fission
products are present.

Of course, all problems may be solved through miracles.
Dave
Received on Tue Jan 4 18:42:24 2005