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