RE: Anthropological items

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Tue Jul 09 2002 - 09:25:15 EDT

  • Next message: Allen Roy: "Understanding prophecy, Part 2"

    Jay wrote on Sunday, July 07, 2002 1:16 PM:

    >Thanks for your thoughts. I in no way wish to offend. Some comments in =
    >green below...

    Jay, Colors don't get to anyone else. You need to set your comments apart
    in some other way.
    I wrote:
    >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

    /\ *
      | *
      | *
      | *
    ***supernova---------------------------------------> earth
      | *
      | *
      | *
    \/ *

    ---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
    was found?

    "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

    /\ * |
      | * |
      | * |
      | | *
    ***supernova---------------------------------------> earth
      | | *
      | * |
      | * |
    \/ * 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
    old earth.

    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, How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth?
    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

    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.
    Jay wrote:
    >>Assumptions about braincase and other skeletal characteristics of the
    >>pre-historic hominids are fascinatingly speculative at best.

    I replied:

    >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
    the evidence.
        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
    pseudo science.

    >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)

      And =
    >Margaret Mead....

    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