RE: ID and YEC in Switzerland and "Thousands not Billions"

In addition to what Dave wrote, there is the evidence of anomalous isotope
ratio of such elements as Nd and Ru. The Nd isotope ratio found at Oklo is
a weighted average of that of naturally occurring Nd and Nd produced as a
result of fission of U-235. Similarly, there is a much higher percentage of
Ru-99. This is due to the decay of Tc-99 which has a half life of about 200
000 years.

The only argument that YECs can present, as far as I can determine, is that
half lives are not constant. However, there is no evidence that this is the
case.

Chuck

  _____

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 3:55 PM
To: pruest@mysunrise.ch
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: ID and YEC in Switzerland and "Thousands not Billions"

On Sat, 06 May 2006 19:44:21 +0200 Peter Ruest <pruest@mysunrise.ch> writes:
> Dear ASA friends
>
> Last Thursday, there was a discussion about ID on radio ERF
> (Evangeliumsrundfunk) hosted by a VBG (Swiss InterVarsity)
> initiative. There
> were three participants: one pastor (YEC), one philosopher of
> religion
> (advocating something like a Christian version of Gould's
> non-overlapping
> magisteria), and I was asked to substitute for ID (they couldn't
> find any ID
> advocate here; the host presented me as an OEC). I think I gave a
> fair
> presentation of ID's concerns, but I was also asked to give a
> critical evaluation.
>
> Today I received an angry email from an active YEC, who was upset by
> my very
> uncompromising support of an old Earth. He attached a German 3-page
> summary of
> the results of the RATE project of the American YECs, presented in:
> - Don DeYoung, Thousands. not Billions, Challenging an Icon of
> Evolution, Master
> Books, 2005, 190 pp., Green Forest, AR 72638, USA
> - L. Vardiman et.al. Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth, 2005,
> 876 pp.,
> Volume 2, ICR, El Cayon, CA 92021-0667, USA
>
> Now my question to you: Have any of you read one or both of these
> books? And if
> so, can you give me a short summary of the most egregious errors in
> their
> reasoning? As far as I see from the summary the YEC man sent me,
> there must be
> plenty wrong with these books. Frankly, I am not much motivated to
> read or even
> buy any of them.
>
> For the time being, I just responded with some short remarks about
> the
> independence of dating from the theory of evolution, about the
> distribution of
> radioactive isotopes on Earth (which ones are absent?), about the
> controls
> integrated into all radioactive dating methods (or external controls
> with C-14),
> and about the full corroboration of the geological time sequence by
> the
> radioactive dating methods developed later.
>
> I'm sure some of you specialists with dating methods and/or critical
> YEC
> evaluation can give me some helpful tips, without going out of your
> way. I would
> be very thankful!
>
> Blessings,
> Peter
>
A straightforward proof (to all but YEC) is the Oklo reactor in Gabon. The
story I got is contained in two articles: George A.Cowan, "A Natural
Fission Reactor," Scientific American (July 1976) 36-47; Alex P. Meshak,
"The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor," ibid. (November 2005) 82-91.
The latter article spells out the requirements for a reactor. It had to have
occurred over 1,700,000,000 years ago. See the table for the time when the
percentage of U-235 in uranium was greater than the 3% required.

Someplace in the technical literature there has to be the additional
evidence of the Pu and fission products produced. Combining this Oklo data
with the geological stratum where it occurred should be adequate evidence
that the half-lives are, apart from nearly unique situtions, unchanging, so
that the earth must be old.

The Oklo reactor pins down the radio-dating very thoroughly, though I do not
doubt that there are YEC lies on the topic. It was reading the literature on
dating before Oklo turned up that convinced me that the largest correction
could be a factor of 2 or 3, not the 3 to 6 orders of magnitude required for
a young earth.

Dave

Percentage of U235 in the Past
Million years ago Percentage

     0 0.720

 200 0.855
 400 0.997

 600 1.174
 800 1.381

1000 1.424

1200 1.909
1400 2.224

1600 2.633
1625 2.686

1650 2.741

1675 2.796

1700 2.852

1725 2.910
1750 2.969

1775 3.028

1800 3.089

1825 3.152
1850 3.215

1875 3.280

1900 3.345

1925 3.413
1950 3.481

2000 3.622
2200 4.242

 
Received on Sat May 6 21:48:08 2006