Re: It's no joke!

Hi Vernon,

If it's OK, then I will chip in here.

> George,
>
> I accept your justifiable rebuke, and apologise. In retrospect, I agree that
> I should first have responded to your question before expressing any
> personal view regarding the unique nature of Darwin's Theory.
>
> You asked if I was prepared to change my beliefs about the age of the earth
> if a test on T.Rex marrow and associated bone found no C14. Now, if this were
> the only criterion available to me, I might be tempted to say 'Yes'. But the
> fact is that I am already convinced of the literal integrity of the Book of
> Genesis for reasons that I have already been brought to your attention. But,
> that aside, I am now aware of some interesting problems associated with
> carbon dating.

In other words, no matter what the evidence, you will not accept it because
of
your presuppositional beliefs of Genesis if it contradicts these fallable
beliefs.
Of course if evidence agrees with your beliefs, than you will accept it.
Most other
YECs that I have met are pretty much the same.

>
> A poster entitled "The Enigma of the Ubiquity of C14 in Organic Samples
> Older than 100 ka" may be found at
> http://www.icr.org/research/AGUC-14_Poster_Baumgardner.pdf.
>
> Here is the Abstract :-
>
> "Given the 5730 year C14 half-life, organic materials older than 200,000
> years (35 half-lives), should contain absolutely no detectable C14. (One gram of
> modern carbon contains about 6 x 10^[10] C14 atoms, and 35 half-lives of
> decay reduces that number by a factor of 3 x 10^[-11].) An astonishing discovery
> made over the past 20 years is that, almost without exception, when tested
> by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic
> samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record display C14/C ratios far
> above the AMS detection threshold of 0.001% modern carbon (pmc). C14/C ratios
> from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the
> range 0.1 - 0.5 pmc, corresponding to C14 ages of 44,000 - 57,000 years,
> regardless of geological 'age'. An inference that can be drawn from these
> observations is that all but the very youngest Phanerozoic organic material was
> fossilized less than 70,000 years ago. When one accounts for the significant amount
> of biomass involved, the AMS measurements are consistent with the time scale
> from historical accounts of a global cataclysm that destroyed most of the
> air-breathing life on the planet only a few millenia into the past."

C14 can also be created by exposure to radioactivity in the rocks, and of
course
there is the possibility of contamination.

>
> A further interesting observation is made in the same publication, viz "A
> glaring (1000-fold) inconsistency that can no longer be ignored in the
> scientific world exists between the AMS-determined C14 levels and the corresponding
> rock ages provided by U238, Rb87, and K40 techniques. We believe the most
> likely explanation for this inconsistency to be the invalidity of uniformitarian
> assumption of time-invariant decay rates."

Where is the evidence of these variable decay rates in the past. The decay
of
radioactive isotopes in distant supernova have been observed, and they are
exactly the same as in the lab.

>
> Rather powerful evidence, wouldn't you agree?
>
> Shalom,
>
> Vernon
> www.otherbiblecode.com

Baumgardner is a so called creation scientists, that means he has signed an
oath that his "science" will fit his beliefs on Genesis, regardless of the
evidence. The idea that there was a global flood, a few 1000 years ago, and
the icesheets of Antarctica and Greenland came after it is totally
preposterous, and until some of these Christians wake up and smell the
coffee, Christianity will continue to be riduculed and marginalzed.

Christopher Sharp
http://csharp.com/creationism.html
Received on Thu Mar 31 21:32:17 2005