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

Looking back it may indeed be hard to believe, however, soon after my
mother's death, I was an easy victim. Heck, I had a MS in Physics and
still I accepted their 'science', at least for a while.

On 9/29/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Pim,
>
> It is hard for me to imagine you being such a helpless and defenseless
> victim of YECism that you were in need of "saving". :)
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of PvM
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:36 PM
> To: Michael Roberts
> Cc: George Murphy; asa@calvin.edu; Steven M Smith
> Subject: 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.
>
>

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 20:57:52 2007