Skip to comments.$27 million anti-evolution museum to open soon
Posted on 03/26/2007 12:18:38 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
click here to read article
It's the lens, Porky. I saw him a month or so ago and I can tell you it's the lens.
So we have:
* A fungi-bacteria hypothesis that even they admit is wrong.
* The confirmation of exactly what I said, which the parent was claiming wasn't true: that essentially all natural carbon sources have carbon-14, even "ancient" ones. I expect the concession of this fact.
* The investigation of the possibility that radium may cause it. Their conclusion? It doesn't.
This is your *counterargument*? Everything that they said just backed up what I stated!
From the source I cited:
So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating...
Coyoteman has provided a very good link. The C14 found in fossil fuels has a natural background level from radioactive decay from surrounding rocks. There is nothing in the article which invalidates the C14 dating technique. It seems that the background level is insufficient to throw off the dating technique except for the tail end of the range of the technique. C14 from solar radiation is the dominant source for times <40-50K years.
I will not be making any substantive arguments or comments
Frankly my "friend," the more I've been studying of late (putting in some overtime over at CreationWiki) the more I become convinced that evolution is wrong. Interestingly, most of the things I've been posting have been articles from journals like PNAS, Science, Nature and PLOS.
Why should I answer your question when you didn't answer mine? Why is it about me again, instead of about the article?
I'm glad you appreciated at least my honesty, if nothing else.
Coyoteman's link proposes theories then swiftly disproves them. Furthermore, this isn't discussion isn't about atmospheric C-12/C-14 (we can go there after this discussion is complete if you'd like); it's about deep reserves of carbon which should have *no* C-14. There is no mechanism to to convert C-12 or C-13 to C-14. Coyoteman's link points out that biological activity wouldn't bring in fresh C-14, and the studying of radioisotope decay sequences has also failed to explain it.
If there is C-14 in old carbon samples and they can't explain it, it's a deathblow to the carbon dating method and the uniformitarian decay model.
You're obviously not familiar with the edict of 1492 that gave the Jews the choice of death, conversion, or leaving Spain. The Jews who left included at least one of my ancestors as well as at least one of my wife's.
From where I'm sitting, your comments are akin to Holocaust denial.
Physics fact on a macro scale. Decaying radioactive substances have a fixed half-life within a specified range. For C14 that's 5730 plus or minus 40 years. The only difficulty is mapping that decay to calendar dates, and a lot of research has been done on that in the last 50 years. Since it is based on a physics fact it is not fundamentally flawed, but it does have various margins of error.
There is no such thing as C-12 mutating into C-14. Not alpha nor beta nor gamma nor neutrons of any energy can cause such a transmutation.
That's not the claim. Creationists love to state claims not made so they can shoot them down. Nitrogen 14 is the most abundant form of nitrogen, and nitrogen is found in crude oil.
Carbon 14 is usually created by N14 getting hit by a neutron.
There is radiation around many of these deposits.
Some radiation puts off neutrons.
You figure it out.
Should I ever get to Kentucky, I would actually probably make a visit to this museum if it was close enough to where I might be in that state...
However, since I support evolution, I am from the other side of this evo/crevo debate....this museum and I would be at odds with one another...yet, it would be interesting to see how they have presented their case, and how well they have presented it...
But since I live on the other side of the country, and have no future plans to visit KY, no doubt, I will probably never see this museum..
Perhaps if anyone actually goes there, they could present us with a report...and pics, we need lots of pics...
I guess you didn't figure it out.
It's a circular cycle. N14 + proton makes C14 + H, and the C14 then decays back to N14. Most of the C14 on this planet is formed by N14 getting hit by a neutron. It doesn't even require a fast or hot neutron to do it, much slower will work. Nitrogen in crude oil getting bombarded by surrounding neutron-producing radiation logically results in the creation of C14.
It doesn't come from, and was never claimed to come from, the C12/13 in the oil. That was a strawman created by you.
Please learn what you're talking about before you debate on the subject.
Take your own advice.
Uniformitarianism is a fallacy, and no less so when it comes to isotopic decay.
You realize that your proposition, if true, would throw pretty much all of nuclear science in the trash bin.
If I go, I'd intend to file a complete report with pics.
Typing mistake. The proton is the H given off by the N14 in forming C14. N14 + n > C14 + p. Look to 162 where I didn't type it wrong.
Now, this list only covers normal decay chains.
Thus your problem.
You can get *high energy* neutron bombardment of N-14 to make C-14, but these sorts of energies (GeV-range) only exist in cosmic rays and particle accelerators
Wrong. N14 > C14 only requires a thermal neutron, about 0.025 eV. These are slow, low-energy neutrons, having the approximate energy of surrounding particles. To get them in a nuclear reactor requires that the fast, high-energy neutrons be slowed down dramatically. But they are useful in starting reactions.
I'll reiterate: there is no way for Carbon-14 to form from radiation deep underground.
I might buy it if you weren't off by about 12 orders of magnitude on the energy required to make C14 from N14.
Nope, if you are calculating a trigonometric distance the ratios are irrelevant.
Either you can calculate a distance or you cannot.
A distance measure has no impact on the age of the universe. It's like saying that because it's 1,000 miles to NYC that the universe is 20 BY old.
Here is your error. You have it exactly backwards. The speed of light has absolutely no relevance to distance and is totally relevant to the time required to traverse that distance.
Just because it's 1,000 miles to NYC doesn't make the universe 20 BY old.
I'll search-up some references:
Gads! What inane drivel. I tried to correct your misconceptions on a different thread, but now I know for a fact it is hopeless.
I'm glad we agree about your posts. Now take some time and study. You will be surprised what you can learn on your own. :-)
Pushing the Frontiers of Ignorance.
Has a nice ring to it.
"Consequently, supernova SN1987A is about 170,000 light-years from us (i.e. 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles) whether or not the speed of light has slowed down."
All the man is saying is that it's 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles to SN1987A no matter what the speed of light has been over history. That's it. That's all he's saying and he is correct.
Distance to an object is independent of the speed of light, despite js's confusion. It is also irrelevant to 'age of the universe' arguments.
It can't be explained much simpler than that, guys.
Setterfield gives a more complex answer for others who are interested.
I'm glad we agree about your posts. Now take some time and study. You will be surprised what you can learn on your own. :-)
Some have highlighted the fact that no taxpayer money was spent on this project. However, the donations were likely tax deductible for the donors, so there likely was an indirect subsidy involved. Makes me sick.
All I can say is you sure need to up your Thorazine.
"Do you really believe that the Earth is at or near the center of the universe?"
If the universe is an ever-expanding ball of time and space, "center" depends completely upon one's perspective. It is as logical to assume that it is as much as anything else that might be.
I think it was my source that said the distance is independent of the speed of light.
Consequently, supernova SN1987A is about 170,000 light-years from us (i.e. 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles) whether or not the speed of light has slowed down.
Go back and read it.
But the physical constants are interrelated. If the speed of light changes significantly, the universe becomes something entirely unrecognizable.
"But one of [Jesus'] disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 'Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages.' He did not say this because he cared about the poor" - John 12:4-6a
This result says pretty plainly that there is no discernible decay trend in the data set presented by Norman and Setterfield.
Though an objective analysis of the data does not reveal any overall decay trend, the one-sidedness of the data before 1800 seems odd. In this regard, there are some peculiarities in Norman and Setterfield's selection of data of which the reader needs to be aware.
The data point which stands out by itself in the upper left-hand corner of the graph is most striking. It is attributed to uncorrected observations of the Roemer type, by Cassini, in 1693. To obtain the speed of light by this method, the earth's orbital radius (i.e. distance from the sun) is divided by the measured time of transit of that radius by light (about 8 minutes, 20 seconds, today). The following quote from Norman and Setterfield is illuminating: Observations by Cassini (1693 and 1736) gave the orbit radius delay as 7 minutes 5 seconds. Roemer in 1675 gave it as 11 minutes from selected observations. Halley in 1694 noted that Roemer's 1675 figure for the time delay was too large while Cassini's was too small (p. 11).
Norman and Setterfield have chosen to use a reworked or "corrected" value for Roemer's c determination (this is the earliest measurement shown on the graph), and an uncorrected value for Cassini's. It is peculiar that Norman and Setterfield were content to use an uncorrected value for Cassini, given the comments by the eminent and talented Halley, above. It is also unfortunate, since this single, anomalous point is responsible for most of the apparent 38 km/s/year decay which they report. Furthermore, Roemer's uncorrected c determination would graph below the line at -24%, more than offsetting the uncorrected Cassini value.
A number of creationist scientists have been subjecting The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time to careful scrutiny since its release in August 1987. It is anticipated that the results of the investigations of these scientists will soon be available to the creationist community. In the interim, caution is clearly in order.
Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons participate in the following reaction:Decay from 14C to 14N is via beta decay.
n + 14N yields 14C + 1H
The more detailed formulas, which I can't get to format here, are at wiki.
Sounds like antiRepublicrat's right and you are wrong.
In the minds of the true believers maybe.....
Geologically speaking, the earth is a hell of a lot older than 6,000 years.
Using only one source of information will lead you astray every time! (Duh!)
You still haven't figured it out, have you? Those creationist websites are lying to you. CreationWiki just assembles all of those lies into once place.
Son, you are an apologist, not a scholar.
...Needless to say, when you are on the surface of a balloon, there is no center.
Understood. This might be a legitimate way of interpreting our spatial relationship to the other stars/galaxies ... or we might actually be near the center of the universe.
I'm a Christian and send my kids to a Christian school. I'm also a scientist and find creationism science to be pure bunk. I find this entire debate depressing.
Creationism vs Natural Selection is Copernicus vs Ptomelic astronomy all over again.
I don't understand why some Christians feel so threatened by current scientific theories of cosmology and natural selection. Christianity did not collapse when the scientific world discovered that earth is not the center of the universe. Why are creationists so fragile in their faith?
Christian centers of higher education will never make an impact on society unless they reconcile genesis with modern science. Their credibility will remain in tatters until then.
"Christian centers of higher education will never make an impact on society unless they reconcile genesis with modern science."
Wow! What an incredibly and absurdly broad statement that is!
On the other hand, we do see the kind of impact universities that have bought into evolutionary dogma have had: they are the hotbeds of liberal, anti-American socialism and Marxism.
Well, at least you have THAT going for you!
The root of the problem is that "science" has two distinct definitions in our culture. On the one hand, science refers to a method of investigation involving things like careful measurements, repeatable experiments, and especially a skeptical, open-minded attitude that insists that all claims be carefully tested. Science also has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. It follows that nature had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included any role for God. Students are not supposed to approach this philosophy with open-minded skepticism, but to believe it on faith.
The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far beyond the available evidence?
All the most prominent Darwinists proclaim naturalistic philosophy when they think it safe to do so. Carl Sagan had nothing but contempt for those who deny that humans and all other species "arose by blind physical and chemical forces over eons from slime." Richard Dawkins exults that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," and Richard Lewontin has written that scientists must stick to philosophical materialism regardless of the evidence, because "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Stephen Jay Gould condescendingly offers to allow religious people to express their subjective opinions about morals, provided they don't interfere with the authority of scientists to determine the "facts" -- one of the facts being that God is merely a comforting myth.
Here's just one example of how real science is replaced by flim-flam. The standard textbook example of natural selection involves a species of finches in the Galapagos, whose beaks have been measured over many years. In 1997 a drought killed most of the finches, and the survivors had beaks slightly larger than before. The probable explanation was that larger-beaked birds had an advantage in eating the last tough seeds that remained. A few years later there was a flood, and after that the beak size went back to normal. Nothing new had appeared, and there was no directional change of any kind. Nonetheless, that is the most impressive example of natural selection at work that the Darwinists have been able to find after nearly a century and a half of searching.
To make the story look better, the National Academy of Sciences removed some facts in its 1998 booklet on "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science." This version omits the flood year return-to-normal and encourages teachers to speculate that a "new species of finch" might arise in 200 years if the initial trend towards increased beak size continued indefinitely. When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble.
Whether we're talking about feathered dino fakes, omissions about bird beaks, faked embryonic development illustrations, contraindicating evidence that is spiked or buried, or scientists and professors that lose grants and tenure because they don't goose-step in time with the "fuhrers" of Darwinian dogma, "evolutionary science" is more about protecting an atheist's need to feel "intellectually fulfilled" than it is about science.
Yeah, that's some "science" alright. O.o
I have a Masters Degree and I agree with you. Scoffers we will have with us until the trumpet sounds....
A late 19th century rabbi, Samson Raphael Hirsch, who did not believe Darwin, wrote that, even if Darwin was correct, Judaism should "give even greater reverence than ever before to the one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one single, amorphous nucleus and one single law of 'adaptation and heredity' in order to bring forth, from what seemed chaos but was in fact a very definite order, the infinite variety of species we know today, each with its unique characteristics that sets it apart from all other creatures."
Believing in both evolution and God this is a reverence that I have. Indeed, I find that a God who created a system, by which evolution arose to order chaos, to be a far more intellectually talented and creatively elegant deity than a hackwork god who would throw everything down, ready-made.
I short, I find in evolution an affirmation of God's greatness. To attack it is to disrespect and belittle God's creativity and genius.
So much for evolution being merely a prop for atheism. Rather, creationism is an attempt to cut God down to a manageable size.
I should expect such stupidity from someone who believes the sun, and the whole universe, revolves around the Earth. No wonder you believe such cr@p. You can't even do simple geometry!
This example PROVES that the speed of light has been invariant for 170,000 years to within 5%. If the speed of light was really faster in the past, then the 1 year interval between the supernova and the gas cloud emission would be an even farther distance. That would mean the two objects are proportionally more than 170,000 light years apart. And get this in your meat filled head: 'light year' is defines as a distance measurement. You are not an authority in such matters and what you do post is nonsense of the lowest order. That's the miracle of the internet. Never before has the ignorance of the few been able to be propagated to so many.
Too bad a liberal arts degree doesn't let you see how a love of astronomy and chemistry is incompatible with creationism, especially a YEC view. You ahve to be completely irrational to beleive that.
I'll wear the badge of an irrational with pride then, I guess. I absolutely ignored anything liberal about the liberal arts part of the program.
So you admit that the speed of light is constant, then? Because that 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles, when combined with the time lag observed, yields the speed of light over the past 170,000 years. Why? Because it took light from the supernova 1 year to cross a certain angle in the sky and that light made that crossing from the supernova to the gas cloud in the distant past. Therefore, the speed of light back then is the same as it is now and is a complee and total refutation to any claim that the universe is 6-10K years old. QED. I know you will not understand this. The kids on the short school bus didn't have to do geometry.
When I say I'm a Creationist, I suppose what I should say is that I believe in ID. God explained to the People of the Book in the best way that they could understand how He created this universe. I don't know how long a God-day is, nor how space-time looked at those seconds after he created Light. I do know that every time we are able to find a little more order out of the seemingly random chaos, I see the face of God in it. =)