Re: [asa] ICR for December 2006

From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@adelphia.net>
Date: Tue Dec 12 2006 - 16:51:37 EST

As for the helium diffusion issue, most solid-state physicists will realize
that diffusion rates for noble gases, especially helium, in solids are
extremely sensitive to crystal structure, grain boundaries, temperature,
pressure, etc. In this article they claim that:

" Then in 2001, we commissioned (through an intermediary who kept us
anonymous) one of the world's best experimenters in this field to measure
the leak rates of our particular zircons at various temperatures. Not being
a creationist, he was not familiar with our prediction. Not being in touch
with the experiment, we had no control over its outcome. This was an ideal
way to get unbiased data."

It turns out that this unsuspecting "world's best experimenter" measured the
helium diffusion rates in those samples under laboratory vacuum conditions,
not knowing what the intended use would be. But under lab vacuum conditions,
elements like argon are known to have three orders of magnitude higher
diffusion rates than in field conditions. Helium is even more sensitive.
Net: helium diffusion is a most unreliable hourglass. No one knows the
crystal details and history enough to come within many orders of magnitude
of a reliable diffusion rate.

Later in the article, they do allude to a problem: " Technical readers may
want to study various technical resources,8-10 where we discuss problems
such as excess radiogenic heat." From that cryptic statement, how would you
guess that their own RATE technical report states that the excess heat
problem cannot be solved by any known thermodynamic process such as
conduction, convection, or radiation? Throughout their book, they express
"hope" that cosmological cooling will solve the problem, which, as George
Murphy has shown, is quite implausible. And even if it did cool the earth,
it would have frozen the ocean and locked in the ark since the cooling
mechanism wouldn't be material dependent.

Nowhere in this article do they allude to another problem they cite in their
own technical work. If there had been greatly accelerated nuclear decay, all
organisms alive at the time would have perished from the extraordinary
radiation from K-40, among other elements. The only "hope" to resolve this,
they state, is to find antediluvian organisms encased in amber and determine
whether perhaps organisms prior to the flood simply didn't have any K-40 in
the first place! They don't say why that might be.

The third major problem for them, they say, is the theological problem--how
could radioactive decay occur prior to the Fall? After all, "decay" is evil.
No comment.

Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carol or John Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 5:04 PM
Subject: [asa] ICR for December 2006

>A summary of ICR "Acts & Facts" - December 2006
>
> IMPACT No. 402 - A Tale of Two Hourglasses
>
> Humphreys writes: "In your kitchen you start a three-minute egg timer and
> a 60-minute hourglass simultaneously and then leave. You return a short
> while later to find the hourglass fully discharged but not the egg timer!
> Something must be wrong.
>
> The RATE project has found several striking examples of such
> contradictions ... ."
>
> He then goes on to argue that helium leak experiments conform to a 6000
> year old earth.
>
> Lots of stuff here suggesting the ICR hypothesis that God changed nuclear
> forces at various times (such as during the flood) to greatly accelerate
> nuclear decay. He claims that there are many scriptures which suggest
> just this. Fascinating.
>
> Read it at: http://www.icr.org/article/3131/
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 12 16:52:53 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 12 2006 - 16:52:54 EST