A rebuttal to some points by Peter

Hi Peter:

A rebuttal to some of your points.

You wrote:

"The fact that the meager findings of RATE have been so trumped and ballooned into such significance is evidence of how scientifically weak the findings and evidences actually are."

That's what you would expect an evolutionist who does not want to accept the experimental results of RATE to say.

"There are so many inconsistencies and ad hoc requirements for the accelerated nuclear decay models to work, that it is only by a blind commitment to the model that a person can maintain allegiance to it."

This is an illusion created by evolutionary critics.

"Sample inconsistency: accelerated decay evidenced by helium dissipation vis-a-vis the incomplete decay of carbon 14 in Precambrian crystal. On the one hand RATE proposes accelerate decay in the uranium samples yet on the other hand RATE is eager to point out that millions of years of decay *could not* have happened because trace carbon 14 is evidence in Precambrian crystal."

RATE does propose variable accelerations. Carbon 14 decayed little while U-238 decayed much. This fits with the paradigm that heavier elements are more complex, and thus experience instability before lighter elements. Radioactive isotopes occur with greater frequency as the mass of the element increases. After the Fall of Man, the curse – death and decay became a reality. We may expect that the decay cascade was triggered in the more unstable elements first, and affected the lighter stable elements the least.

But the fact is that the assumptions of Uniformitarianist decay rates are experimentally wrong:

"The careful investigations performed by scores of researchers in more than a dozen AMS facilities in several countries over the past twenty years in an attempt to identify and eliminate sources of contamination in AMS 14-C analyses have, as a by-product, served to establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of 14-C in remains of living organisms from all portions of the Phanerozoic record. Such samples, with "ages" from 1-500 Ma as determined by other radioisotope methods applied to their geological context, consistently display 14-C levels that are well above the AMS machine threshold, reliably reproducible, and typically in the range of 0.1-0.5 pMC. Such levels of intrinsic 14-C represent an obvious difficulty for Uniformitarianism. After one million years, corresponding to 174.5 14-C half-lives, the fraction of original 14-C remaining is 3x10E-53. Yet a mass of 14-C equal to the entire mass of the earth (6x10E24 kg) contains only about 3x10E50 14-C atoms.

"Under uniformitarian assumptions, not a single atom of 14-C formed one million years ago anywhere in or on the earth should conceivably still exist. The clear inconsistency between the ages implied by the AMS-determined 14-C/C ratios and the corresponding rock ages provided by 238-U, 87-Rb, and 40-K techniques can no longer be treated merely as a yet to be understood anomaly by the specialists, for the time being to be explained away as "14-C contamination," and therefore ignored by [the] rest of the scientific world. Inconsistency of this magnitude demands substantive explanation. Our explanation is that the assumption of time-invariant nuclear decay rates is almost certainly not correct and is, in fact, the root of this inconsistency. Our other RATE research projects (for example, Humphreys [2005] and Snelling [2005]) lend strong support to this conclusion. Put simply, the evidence of 14-C throughout the Phanerozoic [life-bearing] part of the geological record argues the half billion years of time uniformitarians assign to this portion of earth history was instead a much briefer interval. Moreover, the relatively narrow range of 14-C/C ratios suggests all Phanerozoic fossil organisms prior to somewhere in the middle to upper Cenozoic were contemporaries and perished almost silmultaneously in the not so distant past. Finally, we note the presence of detectable levels of 14-C in natural diamonds, formed deep within the
earth during its history, hints the age of the planet itself may likewise be constrained by the brief life span of 14-C. We therefore conclude that 14-C
data provide noteworthy support for a recent global Flood and a young earth. (pg. 624, Vol. II, "14-C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth" (pages 586-630, Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth).

"What mechanism would allow for such disparities in decay rates? Really, there are none. Ad hoc....ad hoc....ad hoc. Not to mention that there are purely geological means through which carbon 14 can be produced as a decay byproduct nor to mention the absolutely absurd nature of Humphrey's unrepeatable uranium analysis."

This is really dodging the experimental results. A hypothesis when confirmed by experiment normally leads to more questions. So what if the answers to the additional questions are not at hand? The geologic theory of 14-C production is ad hoc, as there is no evidence that it skewed the results of the experiment:

"Dr Russell Rotta, Evolutionary explanations for anomalous radiocarbon in coal? Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(2):104–112, September 2004. E.g. if a uranium decay chain were responsible for generating the observed ¹⁴C, then the coal would have to contain 99% uranium, so colloquial parlance would term the sample ‘uranium’ rather than ‘coal’; and same with thorium. Neutron capture in ¹⁴N would generate only about a millionth of the observed amount even in best case scenarios. In any case, if it were significant, then we should observe wide ranges in radiocarbon dates with different nitrogen contents, which would render the method useless. And if atmospheric contamination were responsible, the entire carbon content would have to be exchanged every million years or so. But if this were occurring, we would expect huge variations in radiocarbon dates with porosity and thickness, which would also render themethod useless. " (http://www.answersingenesis.org/ /docs2005/ 0414lisle_transcript.asp#r5).

"Please see http://www/. talkorigins.org/faqs/ helium/ zircons. html for a thorough exposure of the inadequacy of RATE's flagship field evidence for accelerated decay."

A quote from the paper you cited: "DR. HUMPHREYS MISUNDERSTANDS AND MISREPRESENTS SCIENCE" (Henke, Kevin R., Ph.D. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html). Henke's paper is full of ad hominum attacks on Dr. Humphrey's character and accusations and misrepresentations of his work. He also insists that Humphrey's results are invalid because he did not publish in a journal controlled by the evolutionary priesthood. Such deck stacking is not honest from the outset. It means that I will find more of the same if I were to actually read and digest Henke's paper. Therefore, I must defer to the honest rebuttal of Dr. Humphrey's: http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

"Dan, you acknowledge the ability of God to use secondary means. We agree on this. I see secondary or what may be called deterministic means as God's activity through providence. What makes God any less God (or "a god" as you propose) if evolution is the providential way used?"

That wasn't any sort of concession! But I will point out that evolution was invented precisely so that God did not have to be acknowledged. The difference between your god and my God is that yours apparently uses billions of years of death and decay to accomplish his purpose long before there were any sentient responsible beings upon whom death and decay could be blamed (other than your god). In my world view, death and decay originated with sin, and that with a created being that willfully went astray. God on the other hand, even in judgment, has a redemptive purpose, and his intervention is to conduct a rescue operation. I see this in the flood. Very likely if God had not micromanaged it, the world would have been uninhabitable after the flood. God saved that which was not irrevocably contaminated by sin – Noah and his family.

A god represents itself as the god of death, decay, and suffering of trillions of creatures over billions of years is not worthy to be called a god. Such a god is an evil deceiver that does not care about the fate of creation. It is a false god, the god of idolatry. It is the god that the pagans serve, who say to the rock, "thou madest me" and to the mutation, "my lord" and to deep time, "I humbly bow down".

"Does such a God have to be minimized into a deistic or even immoral pathos?"

Absolutely! Even (God forbid) if the God of Life were an illusion (God forbid), those who serve Him would be better off in their world view. But the truth is that the true God who created the world in six days and rested on the seventh is really the true God. So He is all the more the Absolute truth.

"I see so much grandeur in a view of God that allows evolution to be the primary vehicle of created order."

I see nothing but needless hate from a propaganda machine that was created to spite the true God.

In a universe where your god allows billions of years of death, it is clearly the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest. Atheistic evolutionists understand this. That's why they are so willing to use immoral means to win the argument – slander, lies, and misrepresentation, and even bad science. They believe in their own survival and the need to do anything to ensure it, including hating the opposition, because in their world view their "god" is not going to rescue them from the death and destruction that has been going on for billions of years. No, it is up to themselves to save themselves by whatever nefariousmeans possible. The next mutation could be their last, and their god isn’t going to do anything about it.

July 17, 2007 2:34 PM