Re: It's no joke!

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Fri Apr 01 2005 - 14:14:36 EST

This is typical ICR rubbish which is discussed on the talk origins site. It is a complicated problem and beyond my skill to explain well. However I have yet to see anything form YEC sources eg ICR AIG which does not misrepresent radiometric age-dating. Their type of geology is like saying that (x+y)squared = 2x + 2y.

Also I cant glean anything specific from Baumgardner's extract, but I am not surprised. I couldn't get the weblink either.

YEC fairytales on radiometric age dating has been refuted many times but they wont listen. Hence the impatience of some of us.

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Vernon Jenkins
  To: George Murphy ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:51 PM
  Subject: Re: It's no joke!

  George,

  I accept your justifiable rebuke, and apologise. In retrospect, I agree that I should first have responded to your question before expressing any personal view regarding the unique nature of Darwin's Theory.

  You asked if I was prepared to change my beliefs about the age of the earth if a test on T.Rex marrow and associated bone found no C14. Now, if this were the only criterion available to me, I might be tempted to say 'Yes'. But the fact is that I am already convinced of the literal integrity of the Book of Genesis for reasons that I have already been brought to your attention. But, that aside, I am now aware of some interesting problems associated with carbon dating.

  A poster entitled "The Enigma of the Ubiquity of C14 in Organic Samples Older than 100 ka" may be found at http://www.icr.org/research/AGUC-14_Poster_Baumgardner.pdf.

  Here is the Abstract :-

  "Given the 5730 year C14 half-life, organic materials older than 200,000 years (35 half-lives), should contain absolutely no detectable C14. (One gram of modern carbon contains about 6 x 10^[10] C14 atoms, and 35 half-lives of decay reduces that number by a factor of 3 x 10^[-11].) An astonishing discovery made over the past 20 years is that, almost without exception, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record display C14/C ratios far above the AMS detection threshold of 0.001% modern carbon (pmc). C14/C ratios from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1 - 0.5 pmc, corresponding to C14 ages of 44,000 - 57,000 years, regardless of geological 'age'. An inference that can be drawn from these observations is that all but the very youngest Phanerozoic organic material was fossilized less than 70,000 years ago. When one accounts for the significant amount of biomass involved, the AMS measurements are consistent with the time scale from historical accounts of a global cataclysm that destroyed most of the air-breathing life on the planet only a few millenia into the past."

  A further interesting observation is made in the same publication, viz "A glaring (1000-fold) inconsistency that can no longer be ignored in the scientific world exists between the AMS-determined C14 levels and the corresponding rock ages provided by U238, Rb87, and K40 techniques. We believe the most likely explanation for this inconsistency to be the invalidity of uniformitarian assumption of time-invariant decay rates."

  Rather powerful evidence, wouldn't you agree?

  Shalom,

  Vernon
  www.otherbiblecode.com

  ----- Original Message -----
    From: George Murphy
    To: Vernon Jenkins ; asa@calvin.edu
    Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 11:11 PM
    Subject: Re: It's no joke!

    Vernon -

        Give me a break! You said that "a simple C14 test on a sample of the material and/or associated bone - openly conducted and properly monitored - would certainly shed some much needed light on the matter, and in the interests of truth would surely be hard to deny." I then asked if you were prepared to change your views about the age of the earth if such a test found no C14. Instead of giving me a straightforward answer you fall back on anti-evolution polemics. It's obvious that you really have no interest in scientific evidence about these matters.

    Shalom
    George
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Vernon Jenkins
      To: George Murphy ; asa@calvin.edu
      Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 3:45 PM
      Subject: Re: It's no joke!

      George,

      A situation has arisen which questions a basic tenet of that which is widely held to be a _scientific theory_. I suggest that if this were to occur in respect of any other theory, the matter would be addressed with far less complacency; indeed, following a thorough investigation, the original assumption would be quickly jettisoned in favour of the newly established _fact_ - and the theory modified accordingly. I detect a marked reluctance among members of this forum (and elsewhere) to follow this path - which suggests that evolution is no _scientific theory_, but something else. And I've already expressed a view on what that might be.

      Shalom,

      Vernon

      ----- Original Message -----
        From: George Murphy
        To: Vernon Jenkins ; asa@calvin.edu
        Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 2:10 AM
        Subject: Re: It's no joke!

        "Shed much light" or convince you? I.e., if no C-14 is found will you agree that the age of the material is at least ~50,000 years old. (I think that's about the limit for straightforward carbon dating but someone else may have a better number.) Or will you waffle?

        Shalom
        George
        http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Vernon Jenkins
          To: asa@calvin.edu
          Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 5:01 PM
          Subject: Re: It's no joke!

          Regardless of whether or not there are still traces of blood vessels and cells in these T.Rex bones, it is certainly remarkable that they are not completely fossilised after spending ' 70 million years' entombed in sandstone. All things considered, an impartial skeptic might reasonably inquire whether this generous estimate of burial time makes any sense. However, it is now evident that the situation offers a rare opportunity for 'old earth' proponents to justify this much-quoted feature of the geologic column. Thus, a simple C14 test on a sample of the material and/or associated bone - openly conducted and properly monitored - would certainly shed some much needed light on the matter, and in the interests of truth would surely be hard to deny.

          Vernon
Received on Fri Apr 1 14:16:48 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 01 2005 - 14:16:49 EST