Re: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 2

It was the dishonesty which saved me from YECism. It's a similar level
of dishonesty which should be a cure for many an ID proponent as well.

On 9/28/07, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I find I agree with George. When I first read YEC stuff on radiometric age
> dating in 1971 I was appalled at their misrepresentation, nothing has
> changed in the following 36 years and YEC writers on radiometric age-dating
> still misrepresent and continue to use untruthful arguments which have been
> criticised many many times.
>
> Is that honest?
>
> However I have valeued the contributions of Steve and others
>
> Michael
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Murphy
> To: asa@calvin.edu ; Steven M Smith
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 10:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 2
>
>
> You ignore the fact that in addition to increased decay rates during the
> creation week there were also changes in various reaction cross sections.
> In particular, the reaction N14 + n --> C12 + H3 was greatly favored
> relative to N14 + n --> C14 + p. The tritium produced by the former
> reaction of course decayed quite quickly.
>
> <Turning off sarcasm generator>
>
> I appreciate the knowledgeable analysis of the RATE claims by Steve & others
> here but the whole thing is quite sad because we know that Baumgardner et al
> are possessed of invincible ignorance in this area & short of a genuine
> conversion experience will never be convinced that their whole program is
> spurious.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steven M Smith
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 3:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 2
>
>
>
> David Campbell wrote in response to Jon Tandy ...
> (http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200709/0616.html)
>
> >> On another subject, does anyone has any technical response
> >> to Baumgardner's comment on the "excess carbon may have
> >> diluted the C14 in the pre-flood world such that the initial C14/C12
> >> ratio would be a lot smaller; perhaps by a factor of 100 - 500
> >> times" ? This sounds to me like pure hand-waving, like "theory"
> >> in the common sense of "speculation" rather than the scientific
> >> sense of the word, simply to make a rhetorical argument that
> >> agrees with what the audience wants to hear, i.e., that a 5000 year
> >> old earth might have some scientific plausibility. Does anyone
> >> know what he's talking about, and what (if any) basis it has in fact
> >> or evidence?
> >
> > This would work only if the excess carbon was supplied by a
> > source depleted in 14C, e.g., a large reservoir of carbon that
> > was over 50000 years old at the time.
>
> Excellent point. As I understood it, Baumgardner inferred that the original
> primordial carbon was essentially carbon 'dead' at Creation. Therefore in
> his scenario, all of the C14 before the flood had been formed by atmospheric
> processes between Creation & the Flood. This, however, ignores their own
> proposal that there was a tremendous amount of accelerated nuclear decay
> ('AND') during the first part of the creation week. This 'AND' would have
> produced a huge flux of neutrons that would have reacted with any available
> nitrogen-14 to produce a lot of C14. Using their proposal, I would predict
> that C14 rates would be higher before the Flood.
> ..........................

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 29 18:36:48 2007