Re: RATE Vol. II

Thank you for that analysis, Randy. I look forward to hearing more. I was
stunned by this phrase:
"In the meantime, as the evidence accumulates, initial dissemination of
these groundbreaking results should be made in creationist publications and
to Christians in general to encourage them regarding the reliability of the
Bible."

By RATE's own admission, their accelerated decay hypothesis creates huge
theological and scientific problems that they are nowhere close to solving.
Yet they plan to encourage people to bet "the reliability of the Bible" on
their findings?

A fine example of the perils of a scientific "research program" in which the
rejection or revision of the main hypothesis is not seriously considered.
__
Louise M. Freeman, PhD
Psychology Dept
Mary Baldwin College
Staunton, VA 24401
540-887-7326
FAX 540-887-7121

-----Original Message-----
From: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@adelphia.net>
To: "Peter Ruest" <pruest@mysunrise.ch>, <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 17:21:29 -0400
Subject: RATE Vol. II

Peter,
    I finally received my copy of the Vardiman book. I intend to write a
brief summary and send it to you. But after flipping through it for only 10

minutes I found some comments that I thought I'd share with everyone on this

list first. It seems that RATE II really did set some new directions for
YEC research. Not so much in terms of new evidences against an old earth
but in terms of how to explain a young earth. Of most interest was the
"Unresolved Problems" section in the book, pages 758-767.

    A key conclusion of RATE II "was that whatever happened in earth
history, a large amount of nuclear decay has occurred...The conclusion that
a large amount of decay has occurred had been denied or ignored previously
by many creationists. However, the evidence is overwhelming. The magnitude

of the nuclear decay indicates that, independent of initial conditions, the
equivalent of billions of years worth of nuclear decay has occurred during
earth history.
    "How then should a young-earth advocate proceed? The only remaining
avenue available appeared to be to question the assumption that nuclear
decay rates have been constant. This approach was adopted by the RATE group

as the preferred avenue for research, given the evidence for massive nuclear

decay." (pp. 765-766)

    The RATE researchers determined that there must have been at least two
periods of highly accelerated decay rates of radioisotopes. One is during
the first three days of creation. The other is during the Genesis Flood.
Three unresolved problems are presented with this scenario:
1) The Theological Problem. How can nuclear "decay" occur prior to the Fall

since God declared his creation to be "good" and "...the term 'decay' is
normally thought to be 'bad'"? Somehow "decay" must be seen as "good" and
"daughter products" as part of the good creation. More work to be done.
2) The Heat Problem. "...the heating would have been equal to that produced

by about a half billion years of decay at today's rates. But, it would have

been generated over the period of only one year of the Genesis Flood." (p.
761) "A primary piece of Biblical evidence that heat was not a problem is
the fact that Noah and his family made it through the year of the Genesis
Flood without being cooked!" (p. 762) "The implication is that most of the
heat from the rapid nuclear decay had to be removed by some extraordinary
process...other than conduction, convection, or radiation." (pp762-763) One

possible solution proposed by Russell Humphreys is volumetric cooling based
on relativistic principles. "It involves the stretching in four dimensions
of the space we experience in three dimensions and the consequent loss of
energy on the part of photons and particles as the expansion of the fabric
of space proceeds."(p. 763) The key difficulty is that the extraordinary
cooling rate cannot be uniform as Humphrey's model would suggest. Otherwise

the flood waters would freeze while the earth's core would have just enough
cooling to offset the accelerated radioactive decay. More work to be done.
3) The Radiation Problem. The massive dose of radiation from the accelerated

decay would have destroyed every living creature on the ark. Fortunately
the flood waters provided shielding due its absorption of radiation. But
there is no solution yet to the problem of the K-40 concentration in
organisms. With higher decay rates, this would have been lethal. Maybe
prior to the Flood, organisms didn't have any K-40. More work to be done.

    Other problems the book states that have not yet been adequately
addressed are daughter products in meteorites. I could not find a statement

regarding the need to address radioactive processes in stars and galaxies.

    Finally, the book concludes as follows (pp 768-769). "Such ingrained
concepts as an old earth and constant rates of nuclear decay will not be
overturned merely by the preliminary evidence and explanatory framework RATE

has been able to assemble thus far. It will take continued efforts on the
part of many more scientists and much greater levels of funding to build an
irrefutable case for accelerated decay before it will be entertained with
any seriousness by skeptics. This issue is at the core of a naturalistic
world-view, not only in the physical sciences but, also, in the life
sciences. Many years of additional research and reporting will likely be
needed in order to make an enduring impact. The research started by RATE
should be continued and expanded.
    "In the meantime, as the evidence accumulates, initial dissemination of
these groundbreaking results should be made in creationist publications and
to Christians in general to encourage them regarding the reliability of the
Bible. Research on the age of the earth may, with God's help, be one of the

most important methods for encouraging the church to work to return
recognition and honor back to the Creator and Savior and away from
naturalism. Although the technical issues are complex, the concept and
implications for belief in the Bible are easily seen by the layman.
Confidence in what the Bible says on these matters is important because, as
Christ told Nicodemus, 'If I have told you earthly things and you do not
believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?' (John 3:12)"

    I find this to be a remarkable development. The scientists commissioned

through the RATE project to reconcile radiometric dating with a young earth
have come to the consensus that data for billions of years of radioactive
decay are irrefutable. They conclude that the only path for a young-earth
advocate is to assert three assumptions: 1) a nearly six order of magnitude
temporary increase in radioactive decay rates in at least two or more
episodes in the past, 2) an extraordinary, selective cooling rate to offset
the large amount of heat generated by #1, and 3) a period of organic
immunity from deleterious radiation effects. These assertions involve
violations of well-measured "constants" and presume totally unknown physics
that would contradict all that is known today, by their own admission. This

is quite a departure from the previous view that if scientists only
interpreted their data correctly and did their statistics correctly, the
result would be a young earth. It seems that RATE II did indeed have
groundbreaking results. Perhaps "initial dissemination" is a great idea.

    Randy
Received on Mon May 15 17:51:21 2006