Re: It's no joke!

What do you mean by a straight reading? What is the straight reading of Ps 114 vs 4? or Revelation 12 for example?

Also can you do any science without some assumptions, some of which may turn out to be wrong?

So far no grounds have been found to even hint at changes in decay rates. The only evidence is that they are suggested by Baumgardner etc in an attempt to discredit radiometirc age-dating.

Any comments on bivalves post which opens a can of worms on which bivalves feed?

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Vernon Jenkins
  To: CMSharp01@aol.com
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 9:53 PM
  Subject: Re: It's no joke!

  Hi Christopher,

  In response to my request for details of the technique(s) used for the
  remote measurement of decay rates - as in supernovae, you wrote:

  "The light curves of supernovae during the postmaximum decay phase
  are powered by the decay of radioactive nuclei, in particular Ni-56
  and Co-56. Not only that, but we can see the spectra of these and
  other radioactive nuclei, and the gamma rays given off when they decay.
  The decay rates are exactly the same as observed in the lab. No
  uniformitarian assumptions there, just direct observations."

  I still have some difficulty getting my head around the quantitative
  implications of all this. Is it your claim that _no_ assumptions of any kind are
  involved in the procedure?

  In response to my further questions, Do you discount the possibility
  of _local_ changes in these rates (as suggested by Baumgardner et al)
  as a result of a global cataclysm (e.g. the Noahic Flood)? If so, on
  what basis?, you wrote:

  "As to any global Noah's flood, which is a figment of imagination of
  the 7th Day Adventist Church, and the YECs who picked up on that,
  such a global catastrophe, even if it had taken place, would not
  have effected decay rates. With the exception of electron capture,
  which can be affected to some extent by the environment, regular
  alpha and beta decay are totally unaffected by the environment the
  atom is in. I suggest that YECs should take a course in nuclear
  physics 101."

  Whether or not one is a 7th Day Adventist, I suggest a straight reading of
  Genesis 6-9 inclusive fosters the understanding that the Noahic Flood
  was _universal_. Remarkably, you then appear to imply that there is
  nothing left to know about sub-atomic particle physics, and further assume
  that the local environment during the Mabbul via-a-vis decay rates was much
  as we experience today. Can you prove that it was? If not, then I suggest
  the matter (including the universality of the Flood) is hardly _closed_ ,as
  your words suggest, but wide open to further careful inquiry - which is
  what the RATE program is all about.

  Vernon
  www.otherbiblecode.com

   
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: CMSharp01@aol.com
    To: vernon.jenkins@virgin.net
    Cc: asa@calvin.edu
    Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 11:11 PM
    Subject: Re: It's no joke!

    Hi Vernon,

    The light curves of supernovae during the postmaximum decay phase
    are powered by the decay of radioactive nuclei, in particular Ni-56
    and Co-56. Not only that, but we can see the spectra of these and
    other radioactive nuclei, and the gamma rays given off when they decay.
    The decay rates are exactly the same as observed in the lab. No
    uniformitarian assumptions there, just direct observations.
    As to any global Noah's flood, which is a figment of imagination of
    the 7th Day Adventist Church, and the YECs who picked up on that,
    such a global catastrophe, even if it had taken place, would not
    have effected decay rates. With the exception of electron capture,
    which can be affected to some extent by the environment, regular
    alpha and beta decay are totally unaffected by the environment the
    atom is in. I suggest that YECs should take a course in nuclear
    physics 101.

    Christopher Sharp

      Hi Christopher,

      Yes, by all means 'chip in'.

      Before I address the points you make, perhaps you would be good enough to fill me in on the technique(s) for the measurement of decay rates remotely - as in supernovae.

      Do you discount the possibility of _local_ changes in these rates (as suggested by Baumgardner et al) as a result of a global cataclysm (e.g. the Noahic Flood)? If so, on what basis?

      Vernon
      www.otherbiblecode.com
Received on Tue Apr 5 17:48:48 2005