Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site iham1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!mhuxn!ihnp4!iham1!gjphw
From: gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Comments on: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part B)
Message-ID: <408@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 16:55:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.408
Posted: Tue Jul  9 16:55:39 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 08:14:04 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 62


 58.  Radioactive decay rates are unreliable and use unknown mechanisms.

    A bit of intentional semantic confusion appears to be introduced here.  In
 science, what is known is often considered synonymous with what can be
 calculated accurately, even though the description may be later shown to be
 incorrect (e.g., Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction) or an explanation may be
 essentially missing (e.g., tidal tables constructed by the ancient Egyptians).
 The area of study called nuclear theory deals with the many properties of the
 nucleus of a atom.  The constancy of nuclear decay, while directly checked for
 only 70 years, is incorporated into nuclear theory.  Nuclear decay is
 consistent with other known properties of the nucleus, so that direct
 laboratory observation is not the only support for constant radioactive decay
 rates.  It is not correct to state that no one knows what causes radioactive
 decay.  G. Gamow calculated alpha decay in the 1940's, beta decay has been
 calculated and is an important component in the recent theory unifying the
 weak nuclear force and electromagnetism.  One decay mode, positron decay, was
 calculated before it was observed in the laboratory.  There are twelve known
 radioactive decay modes.  The reference provided for variable decay rates is
 from someone (Gentry) who appears to be a creationist.  When his proposals
 were presented in scientific journals, others found different explanations for
 his observations that did not rely on variable decay rates.

 60.  Radiocarbon dating is unreliable.

    When I left graduate school, there was some discussion in the journals
 concerning variability in the rate at which carbon-14 (radiocarbon) was being
 produced in the Earth's atmosphere.  However, most authors wrote of variations
 of 10%-15% and were engaged in a study to see if these variations were
 periodic (and therefore correctable in dating).  No one that I read suggested
 an order of magnitude (factor of 10) variation as would be required to confuse
 5E4 years with 5E3 years.  Again, the only references are creationists' texts.

 73.  Trace elements are rapidly accumulating in the oceans.

    If I asked some of my physical oceanographer friends, they could probably
 come up with several explanations for the residence times and concentrations
 of trace elements in the oceans.  The problem would then be deciding which of
 the mechanisms is most important.

 75.  Meteoritic dust should be rapidly accumulating on the Earth's surface.

    Before the space program, the rate at which dust was accumulating on
 planetary bodies (e.g., Earth, moon) was speculative.  Most estimates were
 high compared to present estimates.  The references are taken from articles
 written before space flight became "routine", in an obvious attempt to support
 a point that is no longer valid.

 76.  If extrapolated into the past, the Earth's magnetic field is too big.

    This was convincingly refuted by someone on the net who presented careful
 evidence that T. Barnes purposely ignored data from the oldest rocks and fit
 an exponential to the remaining data when there was no reason for choosing
 that particular function for fitting.  This point is not supported anywhere in
 the recent scientific literature.

                               (To be continued)


                            Patrick Wyant
                            AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
                            *!iham1!gjphw