Jay wrote on Sunday, July 07, 2002 1:16 PM:
>Thanks for your thoughts. I in no way wish to offend. Some comments in =
Jay, Colors don't get to anyone else. You need to set your comments apart
in some other way.
>Fine, then does that mean you believe humanity is over 2.5 million years
>old? That is how old the genus Homo is.
Jay apparently replied in green:
>That begs the debate on dating and whether God created isotopes at =
>various "ages" of decay.
There are several lines of evidence and logic which refute this idea:
1. If God made all the isotope look like the earth is 4.5 billion years old
when it isn't, then God is being deceptive.
2. Radioisotopes are essentially gone afte 10 half-lives. If one considers
only radionuclides which are NOT being made by any current process, then it
is really interesting that every short-lived isotope (half-life less than
4.5 million years) is gone (save Pu244[half-life 80 myr] which is barely
detectable), but every long-lived (half-life >450 myr) exists. It appears
from this that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
3. Supernova 1987A shows that the earth is older than you seem to think.
Here, at some length is what that supernova shows:
THat is why I went off on another tact! The permittivity change never could
have happened. True, it was an interesting speculation, but observational
data now disproves it because the speed of light never changed. The
supernova of 1987a disproves it. Study this slowly and carefully so that you
understand what I am saying.
In 1987 a supernova went off in the Large Magellanic Cloud which destroyed
both of those silly statements. This thing was observed less than 2 hours
after the explosion. (Pictures of that region taken Feb 23 9:22 GMT[I
believe] showed no supernova. A picture taken Feb 23 10:39 GMT showed the
supernova). About 6 months later, we began to detect a ring of gas
surrounding the supernova. This ring had been there prior to the explosion
but had been invisible because it was not illuminated. It is seen in the
photo below as the yellowish or orangish ring.
The geometry is as follows:
---ring of gas
---ring of gas
The *'s are the travel path of the light from the ring to the earth.
>From the speed of light we can determine that the ring is 1.37 light-years
diameter, we can measure the angular diameter of the ring from telescopes on
earth. From this, we can determine that supernova is 169,000 light-years
It merely shows that Morris and Lubenow have not done their research. Now,
can we use the supernova to determine how long it took the light to get to
earth? Yes. Theoretical models of supernovas had predicted that cobalt 56
would power the light decay curve early in its life. It would then be
replaced by the longer-half-lived cobalt 57 and the Co-56 vanished. What
"Observations of Supernova 1987A stunningly confirmed the prediction.
Cobalt 56 has a half-life of 77 days; from 1987 through 1990, the visible
light from the supernova faded at exactly that rate. The Solar Maximum
Mission satellite andinstruments on National Aeronautics and Space
Administration research balloons alsodetected gamma rays from the supernova
carrying 847,000 and 1,238,000 electronvolts. These are precisely the
energies associated with the decay of cobalt 56."
"Since 1991 the visible light from supernova 1987A has faded at a rate
corresponding to a half-life of about 270 days, the exact half-life of
cobalt 57. It seems that cobalt 57 is now the main radioactive isotope
powering the supernova. OSSE has followed up on the previous observations by
detecting the 122,000-electron-volt gamma rays characteristic of the decay
of cobalt 57."~Neil Gehrels,Carl E. Fichtel, Gerald J. Fishman, James D.
Kurfess, Volker Schonfelder, "The Compton Gamma Ray Observatory," Scientific
American, Dec. 1993, p. 75
The observation verified the theoretical prediction, but it did more than
that. Fundamental physics shows that the speed of light is proportional to
the rate of radioactive decay. Seeing the same half-life and energies for
Co-56 and Co-57 on the star as we see here tells us that the speed of light
has not changed since the light left the star. This means that the light
took 169,000 years to get here.
If the universe is only a few thousand years, then everything prior to the
vertical line is false.
---ring of gas
/\ * |
| * |
| * |
| | *
| | *
| * |
| * |
\/ * 6000 light years
---ring of gas
God had to manufacture the light in such a way as to form a sequence of
images for a supernova event which never happened. God must make just the
precise photon energies appear at the appropriate time. God must make the
amplitude of the light images decay precisely with the successive half-lives
of Co-56 and then Co-57. But none of these made up events ever happened.
Since only God Himself is powerful enough to create such an illusion, then
God can not escape the charge of deception IF the supernova didn't happen
169,000 years ago as we see it.
Thus I feel that in order to not have God deceiving us, I must believe in an
References in addition to the citations
N. Panagia et al., "Properties of the SN1987A Circumstellar Ring and the
Distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud", Astrophysical Journal 380, L23-L26
(1991) gives the distance as 51.2 +/- 3.1 kiloparsecs.
Bertram Schwarzschild,"Ring Around SN1987A Supernova Provides a
New Yardstick", Physics Today, February 1991, page 20;
A good book is Paul Murdin, End in Fire Cambridge University Press 1990
Jay wrote presumably in green:
>Look at how many homo e. and other hominid skulls exist in the =
>literature. Also, look at how many people have lived in history and how =
>many skulls we have measured. Reminds me of the old East Indian =
>proverb about the blind men looking at the elephant.=20
I fail to even follow this logic. What does the number of people who have
lived on earth say anything about how different the skulls are. By the way
for general information about 6 trillion people have lived on earth since
50,000 years ago (see Carl Haub, ìHow Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth?î
Population Today, Feb. 1995, p. 5)
>Of course, the arguement that the various hominids were simply animals =
>closest to man in habitat demands and hence were the first creatures we =
>drove to extinction is another potential explanation.
Then why did they construct religious altars? Animals don't do that.
Take a look at http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/rossrev.htm
Search for the phrase "From a biblical perspective" and then start reading
there about altars built by these men whom you claim aren't human. You
claim won't stand up in court.
>>Assumptions about braincase and other skeletal characteristics of the
>>pre-historic hominids are fascinatingly speculative at best.
>No, they are observational. I would ask if you have ever read a =
>journal or book on anthropology? If you are so sure of this, please =
Jay wrote in green:
>Observational from a very limited specimen set. Look at the variations =
>in the theories as new evidence is found in the very passages you cite. =
>Lucy really shook things up. So did recent finds in South America. =20
Lucy didn't shake things up like you think they did. And what finds in
South America are you referring to? Are you referring to Pedra Furada? No
one believes it. Here is what the NY Times had to say about that:
" At the invitation of the European and Brazilian excavators,
three archeologists from the United States, specialists in early
American settlement, inspected the rock shelter of Pedra Furada
in the Piaui region of northeastern Brazil. The excavators, led
by Dr. Niede Guidon of France, hoped the independent evaluation
might establish the site's great antiquity.
The three archeologists -- Dr. David J. Meltzer of Southern
Methodist University in Dallas, Dr. James M. Adovasio of
Mercyhurst College in Erie, Pa., and Dr. Tom D. Dillehey of the
University of Kentucky in Lexington -- came away unconvinced by
In a report in the current issue of Antiquity, a British
journal of archeology, the inspectors said the purported stone
tools were not clearly the work of humans; they could be
naturally broken stones. Nor were they sure that the charcoal at
the site was from human-tended fires and not the residue of
windblown wildfires." Feb 14, 1995.
People are now building a resort at that site--attempting to get rich off of
>I in no means wish to denigrate serious good science that keeps the line =
>clear between proven fact and hypothesis or theory.
And you are the arbitor of what is hypothesis and theory?
>>I love scientific inquiry but believe too many scientists tend to make =
>>hypothesis to theory leap prematurely.
>Are you another lawyer who, like Phil Johnson, thinks he doesn't have to
>actually read the subject matter before critiquing it?
>No, I have read some but certainly not all the literature. I have read =
>enough to form my opinion and also to have changed it since I graduated =
>27 years ago. I have enjoyed reading some of the posts and have looked =
>at some of the references.
Is this literature written only by young-earth creationists?
Jay wrote in green:
>Where and what do you teach? You are indeed fortunate to be a teacher =
>with the time and imprimateur to study these issues. We can agree to =
>disagree and you can convince me if you can. =20
I work in the oil industry. I was the manager of geophysics for the Gulf of
Mexico for about 10 years, then I was moved to Aberdeen, Scotland where I
was the manager of geophysics for the North Sea and now am manager of
subsurface technology with responsibilities for geophysics, well operations
and reservoir simulation.
I used to be a young-earth creationist but my work with geologic data forced
me to the conclusion that everything the YECs said about geology was false.
They didn't say anything which could stand up to scrutiny.
After publishing more than 20 papers in the Creation Research Society
Quarterly, I left young-earth creationism because I couldn't live with my
self and believe that which was false.
>>Abuses also are engendered by a media thirsty for news.
>Agreed, but you paint with a very broad brush. What IN PARTICULAR makes =
>think this applies here?
>What do you mean by here? =20
Where you were referring to!
>If you mean Anthropology in general, Peking Man comes to mind.
There is nothing wrong with Peking man. What is your beef with him? (I
suspect you have been reading too many young-earth tracts and not checking
out the other side)
She has nothing to do with fossils. One might as well say that all lawyers
are like Johnny Cochran.
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 09 2002 - 02:51:03 EDT