Re: It's no joke!

From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Date: Mon Apr 04 2005 - 17:09:41 EDT

Hi Walt,

Regarding the Baumgardner poster you posed the question, "Is there any
reason why this could not be published in a peer reviewed journal (assuming
that the facts can be verified)?"

There can be little doubt that Baumgardner et al would be more than happy to
publish these findings in peer-reviewed form if a relevant journal could be
found to accept their work. However, the sad truth is that a paper
challenging the accepted uniformitarian paradigm - irrespective of its
intrinsic quality - invariably meets with editorial and reviewer hostility.

ASA members must surely be aware of this, and it is therefore hard to
understand the comments which from time to time appear in this forum; for
example,

(1) "They (the YECs) play their game by denying the reality of all science."
(GM, 1.4.05)
(2) "This (Baumgardner's poster) 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 from YEC sources eg ICR AIG
which does not misrepresent radiometric age-dating...YEC fairytales on
radiometric age dating has been refuted many times but they wont listen.
Hence the impatience of some of us." (MR, 1.4.05)
(3) "Instead of pfaffing about with little details why not face the fact
that the earth is billions of years old and all those who say otherwise are
either stupid or dishonest [shades of Richard Dawkins here! - VJ]...I await
the day when any TEC argument does not depend on misrepresentation or
misunderstanding...(MR, 2.4.05)

As for "verifying the facts", Walt, this would entail finding an independent
researcher to perform C14 analyses of items of varous (supposed) geological
ages, including diamonds. Clearly, since only a creationist would
contemplate the possibility that significant C14 levels could be found in
geologically "old" samples, it would be very hard to find anyone prepared to
undertake this job.

Some further personal comments:

A theory which needs to be shielded from the light and stoutly defended
against all criticism can hardly be deemed worthy of the epithet
"scientific", for such actions represent a complete denial of the spirit of
science and of the scientific method itself. It is this cuckoo-like
mentality and an adherence to fraying assumptions that sustains the Theory
of Evolution; and this practical demonstration of how the unfit may yet
survive hardly does credit to those whom the general public have been led to
believe are _the guardians of truth_. In this forum it surely invites the
question, "Should any Christian be involved in such shenanigans?" Yet when
do we find TEs demanding a fair hearing for YECs in the ongoing debate?

That Evolution is no 'run-of-the-mill' scientific theory should be patently
obvious to all. It is sustained by the fiction that those scientists who
refuse to accept it are 'second-raters', whose views are not worth hearing.
When one considers that many are Christians attempting to honour what they
read and understand of God's word it does appear appropriate that, on this
issue at least, TEs should part company with atheists and renounce the
fiction.

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "wallyshoes" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 2:39 AM
Subject: Re: It's no joke!

> Hi Vernon.
>
> looks interesting. Is there any reason why this could not be published
> in a peer reviewed journal (assuming that the facts can be verified)?
>
> Walt
>
>
>
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
> --
> ===================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
>
>
>
Received on Mon Apr 4 17:10:55 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 04 2005 - 17:10:57 EDT