Re: RATE Vol. II

2 commments on the material below.

1) There is not the slightest reason to think that radioactive decay is
evil & a consequence of human sin. In order to make the neutron stable
against beta-decay e.g. the physical properties of the universe would be
changed radically, leading to the quasi-Manichean conclusion that I've noted
earlier. & by insisting on this idea the RATE people have given themselves
a completely artificial difficulty. (Which is not to say that the notion of
increased decay before the fall has any observational basis anyway.)

2) Humphreys's idea which "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" is one which Glenn Morton & I demolished in a paper a
couple of years ago, “Flaws in a Young-Earth Cooling Mechanism,” Reports of
the National Center for Science Education 24.1, 31, 2004. Unfortunately
NCSE only referred briefly to the model I developed & didn't publish the
calculations which indicate that Humphreys' idea wouldn't work. I would be
glad to send the calculations to anyone who's interested.

(Humphreys was referring to a real effect in an expanding universe which has
been known since Tolman's work in the 30s. He makes it sound more
mysterious than need be by speaking of the "stretching in four dimensions of
the space we experience in three dimensions" instead of just "the expansion
of the universe with time." He extrapolates, without justification, a
result for free particles to bound ones & has to make use of a magical
speeding up of cosmic expansion by a huge factor.)

So the net RATE result is "Much ado about not much."

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@adelphia.net>
To: "Peter Ruest" <pruest@mysunrise.ch>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 5:21 PM
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 19:22:26 2006