Posted on 10/26/2006 8:46:33 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
One essential component of evolution is an extremely long timescale for earth history. Multibillions of years likewise are required by the big bang theory. However, this assumption of unlimited time is strongly challenged by recent creation research. From 1997 to 2005 a team of creation scientists explored the centerpiece of geologic time—radioisotope dating. This technique, developed over the last century, is used to date thousands of rocks, fossils and artifacts. The creation research project was given the acronym RATE, which stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. Rock and mineral samples were collected from around the world and then dated by top laboratories. The RATE results conflict with geologic time and instead support a recent creation.
Carbon-14 (14C) is by far the most familiar radioisotope dating method. There is a common misconception that 14C supports an ancient age for the earth. This is not the case, however, because 14C has a short half-life compared with other dating isotopes—“just” 5,730 years. Carbon-14 is limited to dating objects thousands of years old, but not millions or billions of years. For samples that are truly ancient, any initial 14C content should have completely decayed away.
And here arises a major challenge to a long timescale: in recent years, carbon-14 atoms have been found in samples of rocks, fossils, coal, and oil, which are thought to be very old. The RATE research team explored this anomaly with new measurements of 14C in ten distinct coal samples. These coals are traditionally dated at 34–311 million years old. With utmost care to avoid contamination, traces of carbon-14 were found in all ten samples.
The pervasive presence of Carbon-14 in earth materials supports biblical creation.
The RATE team next sought a more extreme challenge to age assumptions. Twelve diamond samples were obtained and prepared for 14C analysis. Such measurements had not been previously reported because diamonds are assumed to be at least a billion years old and therefore entirely free of 14C. Similar to the coal results, however, carbon-14 atoms were found in every diamond tested. The conclusion is clear: carbon-14 atoms in coal, diamonds, and a host of other materials provide strong evidence for a limited earth age of just thousands of years. The pervasive presence of carbon-14 in earth materials supports biblical creation.
Just as carbon-14 is found where it was not expected, similar results also occur for helium in granite. When granite rock forms underground from cooling magma, it locks in traces of radioactive elements, mainly uranium-238. This uranium decays through a series of steps and eventually becomes lead, Pb-206 (Figure 1). The half-life for U-238 is measured today at 4.47 billion years.
Figure 1: Zircon crystals occur inside granite. Uranium atoms within the zircons decay to helium and lead. Figures are taken from L. Vardiman, A. Snelling, and E. Chaffine, (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. 2, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2005.
Along the path of uranium decay, eight alpha particles also are emitted. Many of these alpha particles capture an electron and become helium atoms. The uranium and resulting helium actually reside inside tiny crystals called zircons within the granite rock. These zircons are typically 50–75 microns, which is about the thickness of this page (Figure 2).
If a sample of granite is truly millions of years old, then most of the helium resulting from uranium decay should have escaped long ago from the rock. This follows because helium atoms are relatively small and mobile, and they do not combine with other elements. Recall how a helium balloon gradually loses its helium content and sinks to the floor.
Figure 2: Dust-size zircon crystals extracted from granite rock are shown under polarized light. Photo by creation scientist Robert V. Gentry.
Some years ago large amounts of helium were found still existing in “ancient” granite samples. The RATE team expanded this unexpected discovery. Granite rock samples were obtained from a mile underground—the product of a government drilling project in New Mexico. This particular granite formation is dated at 1.5 billion years old. Zircon crystals were painstakingly separated from the rock after crushing. State-of-the-art instruments were then used to measure the helium content and also the ability of helium atoms to diffuse outward from the zircons. The results are shown in Figure 4. The vertical axis measures diffusion, the ease with which helium atoms exit the zircon crystals. The horizontal axis shows increasing temperature of the zircons as they were heated in the laboratory. The black circles show the actual RATE measurements of helium diffusion. This data trends upward because heat increases the movement of helium atoms. The upper squares are the calculated diffusion values, based on the amount of helium found in granite rocks, and an assumed timescale of 6,000 years. In contrast, the lower squares show the much smaller diffusion values required for the helium to be retained in the zircon crystals for a billion years. Clearly the creation model gives a much closer fit to the measured diffusion data. The long-age assumption is in conflict with the experimental diffusion data by a factor of at least 100,000.
These RATE studies indicate that helium atoms can only be retained in zircon crystals within granite for a few thousand years. Yet helium atoms are found in abundance inside granite zircons. The presence of this helium within granite points directly to a young Earth.
Figure 3: A radiohalo burn due to radiation damage within a crystal. The inner black circle is 70 microns across, about the thickness of a sheet of paper.
Radioactive decay, which occurs within crystalline rocks, may leave a permanent record in the form of radiohalos, or halos for short. These are tiny spherical regions of damage or “burns” in the crystal structure (Figure 3). The RATE team conducted a survey of halos in more than 100 granite rock samples collected from Finland, Australia and six western states. More than 40,000 halos were cataloged, and a fascinating trend became evident: most of the halos reside in granite rock which intrudes layers of Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata. RATE scientists believe that these sedimentary rock layers formed rapidly during the Genesis Flood. Upward-moving magma from tectonic activity intruded the layers and then cooled to become granite. The numerous radiohalos in this granite indicate that large-scale radioactivity accompanied the Flood event. This implies that radioactive decay was greatly accelerated during the year-long Flood.
The concept of accelerated nuclear decay was further explored by the RATE team. This is a radical idea because nuclear half-lives are assumed to be constant throughout history.
If nuclear lifetimes indeed varied in the past, then traditional radioisotope dating is fatally flawed. It is as if the world’s clocks temporarily ran faster in the past, which makes their present readings unreliable. The mechanism of accelerated decay may have included temporary changes in the fundamental constants of nature. Further study is needed, including the Creator’s possible reasons for modifying radioactivity.
Accelerated nuclear decay is one of several creation predictions that challenge the most basic assumptions of secular science. Similar predictions include evidence for ex nihilo creation, a young age for the earth, alteration of nature at the time of the Curse, the global Flood and the rapid formation of the earth’s sedimentary rocks and fossil record. This reappraisal of earth history opens entirely new horizons for inquiry, research, and data interpretation.
RATE research further explored such topics as fission tracks, isochrons, nuclear theory and biblical data. Without exception the results give significant support for the young-earth model of earth history. The multi-year effort clearly has raised the bar on the quality and depth of creation research.
RATE members include: Steve Austin, John Baumgardner, Steve Boyd, Gene Chaffin, Don DeYoung, Russ Humphreys, Andrew Snelling, and Larry Vardiman.
Anyone caught disagreeing with this thread must do so NICELY, SCIENTIFICALLY and SUCCINCTLY.
And I guess those who agree with it are not bound by your rules?
That's right. Those who agree do not have to disagree nicely, scientifically or succinctly.
But perhaps this is besides the point(?)...for it distracts from the information (the points raised) in the posted article.
Aah, but that was your point, right? To obsfucate early [and often?].
Now that we've (hopefully) gotten that out of the way, did you find what he posted stimulating, or thought provoking?
At the very least, it's potentially "interesting". Wouldn't you agree?
I think I'll go need to go back and read it again, just not right at this moment.
I'll be back, later [with my schedule, it may take a few days...].
And a question for those of you who use the short canon of the Old Testament, approved by Luther and the rabbis at Jamnia in 90 AD, rather than the longer one the Church has always used and canonized in a series of councils from the 4th to the 7th centuries: Can you quote chapter and verse to prove that creation ex nihilo, as distinct from creation from pre-existing material, is a Biblical doctrine?
By the way, everyone, please don't forget to say a prayer for Caleb Anderson, who is still missing.
http://www.visualidesign.com/findcaleb.htm
It's out of my area of expertise, so I don't have an opinion other than to note the ground rules and your snarky response to my observation of the uneven playing rules.
I was even willing to think that the ground rules were somewhat tongue in cheek, but instead, I'm the one obfuscating.
Whatever. Get back whenever your busy schedule allows.
And a question for those of you who use the short canon of the Old Testament, approved by Luther and the rabbis at Jamnia in 90 AD, rather than the longer one the Church has always used and canonized in a series of councils from the 4th to the 7th centuries: Can you quote chapter and verse to prove that creation ex nihilo, as distinct from creation from pre-existing material, is a Biblical doctrine?I give up. What's the difference?
The folks on the list know they have to behave, so I don't have to keep telling them like a schoolmaster.
I don't usually have too much trouble with folks on the creation ping list vehemontly and slanderously disagreeing. I cannot say so about almost anyone on the frevolutionist side. Hence, I make the respectful request that people disagree politely, scientifically, and without copy-pasting 300 some-odd pages pro-Darwin sites to snow anyone who disagrees.
If you do not have the scientific grounds to disagree, you're still welcome to engage in the thread. It's not a requirement that you have a PhD to join in. Now, you might not get such treatment from the other side. (Unless you agree with them.)
You are most likely correct that his (DLR's) asked-for ground rules, were most likely "somewhat tongue in cheek", as you put it.
Thanks for noticing.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 Peter 3:4-5 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
Actually, you can think of this issue in terms of 'dimensions'. The universe is a 4-dimensional object, 3-spatial dimensions and 1-time dimension. It can be considered as an 'object' for this purpose because the logic works in 3, 2, and 1 dimensions as well and might help the understanding. As a 4-dimensional object, the universe was created into a spiritual reality that was 4+-dimensional.
In 1-dimension, no two objects can exist at the same x-coordinate, but it is possible for two objects to exist in the same x-coordinate in a 2-dimensional universe because of the additional dimension (y) .
In the same manner, two objects cannot occupy the same xy-plane in 2-dimensions, but it is possible in a 3-dimensional universe because of dimension (z) . (Think of 1 piece of paper lying right on top of another.)
In a 3-dimensional universe, two objects cannot occupy the same xyz-position, but it is possible in a 4-dimensional universe because of the dimentions (t) ( you just move one out of the way and replace it with the other.)
In the same manner, what happened 'before' the Big Bang in our 4-dimensional universe can actually be thought of as existing *outside* our universe. In that case the additional dimensions allow a reality that exceeds our 4-dimensional universe 'object'.
This is why the question, what 'created' God is irrelevant. Only beings that are limited by the dimension of time need to be 'created'. The additional dimensions above the dimensions of time in a, let's say 12-dimensional reality, make that question as nonsensical as asking how two 3-dimensional objects can occupy the same xyz-coordinates?
The answer is that additional dimensions remove the 'apparent' restriction.
Or do you mean the difference between creation ex nihilo and creation from pre-existing material?
Now, mind you, I, as an Orthodox Christian, firmly regard creation ex nihilo as both true, and Scripturally supported. But I'd cite Second Maccabees 7:28.
It is a mere habit of mind to think of manifolds (spaces that look locally like Euclidean space) as embedded in a higher dimensional Euclidean space, or more to the point Minkowskian space, but it is really inconsistent with the physical and philosophical notion of universe to insist on a physical space outside the universe. It is also theologically unsound since either one introduces another thing coeternal with God--the ambient space--or that ambient space would be among the "all things visible and invisible" as spoken of in the Creed (rather obviously in the latter category), and one would then want a model of its origin.
Personally, I'm quite content with null-initial condition cosmology as a mathematical model for creation ex nihilo.
Whine whine whine whine whine. You are such a liar. I have lost all patience with you.
First, let's not confuse models with reality. Particularly mathematical models that are unobservable, no matter how 'elegant' they may be.
Then, let's not *assume* that the existence of a physical reality outside the universe *requires* an 'ambient space coeternal with God'. It does not. That is your personal requirement to fit the definitions of universe that you choose to accept. Only God is eternal and infinite. Nothing else.
Then you should be fine philosophically...personal preferences aside.
You are so welcome. Why don't you put it on your profile page so everyone can read it and laugh--I mean, feel sorry for you?
Hmm, why the hurry? Shooting some snide remark at me and then hastily suggesting I put it on the profile page suggests that was your intent from the beginning.
Good post!
It's about time some truth was known.
Yes, only God is eternal and uncircumscribed.
I see no point theologically, philosophically, or scientifically for locating the physical universe in an external ambient space. It violates Occam's Razor, has no warrant in Scripture, and is un-scientific, being by definition unobservable.
LOL! Please please please put me on your profile page! I'm begging you! It would be such an honor!
Sometimes you're so entertaining I can almost forgive you your other faults.
OK, so you don't see the theological and philosophical points. That's fine.
Course, a mathematical model that violates the observed laws of physics and is itself unobservable (and un-scientific) doesn't appear to be a superior position either.
TRD, you come to this battle unarmed.
Even the simplest mind should be capable of seeing that "creation from existing material" is not creation at all, but modification.
Genesis 1:1 came from God, Maccabees came from man only. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but it is not God's word.
LOL!
Some arguments for the 66-book Bible include the Book of Isaiah, which is a 'bible within a bible' and the work of Ivan Panin.
http://www.wordworx.co.nz/panin.html
In the case of the Book of Isaiah, Isaiah 40:3 corresponds to Matthew (the 40th book) Chapter 3. In addition, Isaiah 45:9 corresponds to Romans (the 45th book) Chapter 9.
Both the Isaiah and the Panin evidences would not exist if you include Apocryphal books in the canon. In Panin's case, they don't work unless you use the Received Hebrew Text and the Westcott and Hort Text.
Beautiful stuff, IMO.
You don't have to convince me.
Stuff and nonsense. Every people prior to the Hebrews conceived of creation as from pre-existing matter and matter as eternal. The word 'create' means 'make', as do its analogs in Greek and Hebrew. ba-RA in Hebrew and poiEO
(of which epoi'Esen in the LXX version of Genesis 1;1 is the third person past tense) are not special technical words, they mean "make", "form", "create" or "shape", all of which may be from pre-existing material.
The only Scriptural testimony to explicitly to making out of what was nonexistent is Second Maccabees 7:28.
You're secretly importing the Church's reading and the import of Scriptures you reject into your exegsis of Genesis. Assigning words technical meanings on the basis of what the Church or ancient Hebrews believe(d) is not reading Scripture literally as so of the Christian enthusiasts for the Masorete many purport to do.
This is actually rather wonderful. Since FR chased away the scientific contingent, now when Davey posts his ridiculous nonsense, his stupid threads descend rapidly into arcane internecine ecumenical arguments.
And perhaps, as a result, these crap threads will be moved to the religion forum where they belong.
Lots of science getting done here! ha.
Wasn't trying to convince you.
Just sharing some things I didn't know if you knew or not.
Sorry, won't do it again.
Don't be discouraged by my comment. I'm always open to interesting tidbits.
Why do you people always make it about me? And what is your obsession with mocking renditions of my name? (Davie or Davey or even Davey-boy, etc.)
I notice you answer NOTHING about the article itself, just a personal attack against me the poster. If you want to display your impotent jeers, may I suggest you do it on DarwinCentral where you're among friends.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.