Re: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 6 & The End

From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
Date: Wed Oct 10 2007 - 23:19:15 EDT

Steve,

 I finally got back in town, back on the list, and almost caught up. I was particularly impressed with the thoroughness and completeness of your report on this conference. Thank you very much for taking the time and making the effort to take such detailed notes and sharing them with us. It is very very helpful. And disheartening, as you say.

I especially found noteworthy the final comments you reported from Don deYoung. You pointed out that:

"RATE is proposing that there was a "temporary acceleration of nuclear decay - most occurring during Noah's Flood."

DeYoung points out that there are some challenges to left for the RATE research. The first challenge is to determine "how was nuclear decay speeded up?" After all, we can't do it today. Neither variations in pressure, temperature, electrical, or magnetic fields has been shown to significantly affect nuclear decay. It probably involved some sort of change in the "nuclear binding force." This "must involve Divine intervention."

Another challenge to the idea of accelerated nuclear decay is heat energy. The amount of heat energy generated by the nuclear decay over that short of a time "would have vaporized the Earth." But the Earth was not vaporized so there must be some way to account for the heat. Again, "maybe Divine intervention?" We should also note some of Dr. Humphreys has also proposed evidence for expanding space itself, which would remove a lot of heat."

Recall that about a year ago, Don DeYoung was touring Australia/New Zealand to give the RATE results. In a post in August 2006, http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200608/0016.html Don Nield reported that Don DeYoung did not even mention accelerated decay. He seems to have gathered courage to do so now.

Most of all, note the reliance on "divine interpretation." This is perhaps the clearest statement yet from ICR/CRS that known scientific concepts are not consistent with the young-earth position. In my article, I focused on the deception of those who claim RATE concluded that science has shown the young-earth position to be credible while the actual technical report states clearly that there are unresolved problems that cannot be solved by any known scientific process. I did circulate my article to the Creation Research Society board of directors prior to publication, with no response. It is now interesting that DeYoung essentially admits that the young-earth advocate cannot close the loop with science but needs to fall back on "divine intervention." In so doing, he has been truthful in reporting the failure of RATE to settle the issue of the age of the earth scientifically. If the audience left the conference thinking that RATE had demonstrated the scientific feasibility of a young earth, then that was merely what they wanted to hear--they were told factually that "divine intervention" must be invoked.

Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 10 23:20:19 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 10 2007 - 23:20:19 EDT