CONSTANT RADIOACTIVE DECAY RATES

Introduction

We hear only that radioactive decay rates are constant. After all they measure the decay in laboratories and publish them as decay constants. Work was done a long time ago to try and make the decay process change. Scientists were successful at making them vary by as much as 5% under extreme electromagnetic fields. Nice to know but not very world changing.

Well, hang on to your hats. A study by Fabio Cardone1 of the Institute per lo Studio dei Materiali Nanostrutturati in Rome have shown that ultrasonic cavitation can make the textbook rates rise dramatically. By this I mean the decay rate of thorium-228 was increased in experiments in water as a result of ultrasonic cavitation in excess of a factor of 10,000.

In the "Hunt for the Red Oktober", you may remember the American submarine reversed its engines for a moment and this alarmed the crew, not because the engines would be heard, but rather because the propeller blades were cavitating. Cavitation is caused by small vacuum bubbles formed in moving water, which, when collapsed, produce implosions and shockwaves.  This is just a preliminary study. Yet, if true, this re-opens the whole question of just how accurate the radiometric dates from the field are.

Billions of Years

One of the premier evidences given for the dating the Earth at 4.5 billions years is radiometric dating. Many dates have been recorded from isotopes such as potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, uranium lead and uranium-thorium.   Geologists know the rate of radioactive decay so they measure the ratio of parent to daughter elements. Plug the results into a formula and out pops the age. The problem is, many studies in the field experience large variations in results from the same minerals in the same area. Many results on rocks of known age have huge errors. They are explained by contamination but nobody knows for sure. Dates determined by radiometric dating methods which are not what the Darwinists expected are frequently unpublicized or written off as contamination errors.

There is no scientific evidence of what the radioactive constants were millions of years ago. No one was there to observe and measure the conditions. Decay rates cannot be proven to have remained constant.  This new study admits the possibility that a global catastrophic flood which caused massive cavitation might have tampered with the decay rates for a short period of time. If true then radioactive decay is no longer to be trusted to give true dates for the age of the Earth. An exception might be made for carbon-14  because most of the CO2 would have been absorbed since the flood. However, these dates are less than 100,000 years.

The lay person may not appreciate that without this technique there is little on the Earth, the Sun or the planets and their moons that appears to be old or that can be used to date them in the billions of years. Salts building up in the oceans take less than 60 million years, even starting with pure distilled water. Erosion rates are fast enough to put all rocks above sea level back into the sea in 16 million years. The helium content in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than 100,000 years. The age of Earth's magnetic field is less than 10,000 years old. Creationists successfully predicted the strength of 5 planetary magnetic fields based on the assumption that the age of these fields was only 6,000 years. The rings of Saturn will be clogged and dimmed by space dust in the next million years. It cannot remain as bright as it is now for billions of years.  You can see the youth of this solar system in the following presentation of Genesis Week. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFzJapa2REs&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL608FF9C588CFD9BC

We live in interesting times.

Alan Montgomery

1 F Cardone, R Mignani and A Petrucci 2009 Phys. Lett. A 373 1956.

DARWINISM AND THE GALAPAGOS FINCHES

The Galapagos Islands contain a very large number of different finches, as well as flamingos, penguins, giant tortoises, iguanas, seals, butterflies, and insects. Forty-two percent of the plants found on the Galapagos, seventy-five percent of the bird species and ninety-one percent of the reptiles and mammals are not found anywhere else in the world. Darwin’s name is long associated with these finches though he did not discover them, properly identify them or even use them in his book, Origin of the Species by natural Selection.  

Actually, it was not Darwin who mythologized the Galapagos finches, but 20th century evolutionists such as Percy Lowe and David Lack. Lack's 1947 book Darwin's Finches was an icon-maker for the Darwinists [1].  Thus Darwin's finches have been studied more than any other bird families.  In 1991 Peter Grant claimed he had found 20 cases of natural selection turning a middle ground finch into a great ground finch. This, he claimed, was direct evidence of evolution [2]. So has one species been transformed into another? A species is defined as a population consisting of individuals with similar structural and functional characteristics, able to mate only with one another in nature, and which are unable to mate successfully with other individuals outside their own population. 

According to this definition, it is incorrect to claim 14 distinct species of finches in the Galapagos Islands as they interbreed significantly. Indeed, Grant himself admits that a maximum of 6 separate species and perhaps less than the 14 recognized currently [3]. Darwin’s claim in the Origin was that his natural selection could be responsible not only for variation within a species but for the origin of species or transpeciation from one species to another.  The Galapagos finches have no genetic differences among them [4]. Max Planck Institute and Princeton University in 1999 announced that the traditional classification of Galapagos finches was not apparent at the molecular level [5] and Hau and Wikelski state, "There is no evidence for an absolute genetic barrier between Darwin's finch species. Thus many species can potentially hybridize.” [6] All evidence points to the fact that they are all the same species.

1. Geospiza magninostris 2. Geospiza fortis 3. Geospiza parvula 4. Certhidea olivecea

 Much of Grant’s claim emphasized the change in beak size. The average size of the Galapagos finches' beaks increases or decreases according to food resources and that depends greatly of the rainfall. El Niño takes place at irregular intervals every two and 11 years, and at different levels of intensity, also alters the climatic balances. At such times there is excessive rainfall; subsequent years are then generally dry and arid. In years of plentiful rain, ground finches can easily obtain the seeds they need to grow and breed. In years of drought, however, the plants on the islands may produce a limited amount of seeds and the number of finches decrease.  The rainfall in 1976 was normal, but fell to one-fifth in 1977. During the drought there was a significant drop in the quantity of seeds and a major reduction in the numbers of ground finches. The population fell 85%. The finches that survived the drought were rather larger than normal and had 5% wider beaks.  

When the rains returned the Darwinian process reversed and the finches returned to their previous size and previous beaks. Yet, in his book, Weiner described this change in the beak as "the best and the most detailed demonstration to date of the power of Darwin's process. [7]" The fact that a reversal occurred after the drought resulting in no long-term evolutionary change is neither mentioned nor interpreted.   California University biologist, Dr Jonathan Wells, stated the claims from the finch evidence were "exaggerated" [8].  Berkeley University's Professor Phillip Johnson said in the Wall Street Journal, "When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble.[9]"

In the research on Darwin’s finches the term natural selection has been used as a substitute for Darwinian evolution. However, Darwin clearly proposed that a change sufficient to create a new species was possible. In his day a substantial change in characteristics may have been essential criteria but in the age of Mendelian genetics and DNA splicing a new species must exhibit new DNA and chromosomal structure. This evidence is completely lacking. 

The error in the Darwinist thinking is one of extrapolation.  A cow jumps over a two-foot fence. From this you cannot deduce from that that a cow can jump over the moon. Nonsense! The cow's muscle power is absurdly inadequate to propel it to the moon. As we have seen the power of natural selection can make minor modifications to one aspect of its physiology. But, it is absurdly inadequate to change the DNA that allows reproduction possible. The general public's lack of biological knowledge causes them not to appreciate the extrapolation problem and thus the error in the Darwinist conclusion. Rather than admit that there is no finch evidence for transpeciation Darwinists, such as Grant and Weiner, have substituted subspeciation.   Bait and switch is not a scientific principle.

Now in Genesis Chapter 1, the text clearly states that everything brings forth "after its own kind".  Surely, if fish produce fish and only fish and cattle produce cattle and only cattle then finches produce finches and only finches. So subspeciation is no problem for Genesis. If Darwinism is the natural selection that produces subspeciation in finches - finches that reproduce more finches - then it agrees with Genesis 1. Statements that claim that Darwinism refutes Genesis 1 then are simply false. If, however, Darwinism means fish evolve into cattle which evolve into apes which evolve into humans then the natural selection of finches into finches is moot.  Darwinists must then admit that it is "other" evidence that "proves" evolution. But these other mechanisms have no results that demonstrate their effectiveness and so do not demonstrated the Bible is disproved.  Darwinists mechanisms are either effective and agree with the Bible or are ineffective. Am I to be impressed by these claims?

References

[1] http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1178

[2] Peter R. Grant, "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches," Scientific American, October 1991, p. 82-87.

[3] Peter R. Grant, Op.cit., pp. 127–139.

[4] James L. Patton, "Genetical processes in the Galapagos," Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Vol. 21, 1984, pp. 91-111; Nancy Jo, "Karyotypic Analysis of Darwin's Finches," in R.I Bowman, M. Berson, A.E. Leviton (editors), Patterns of Evolution in Galapagos Organisms, CA: Pacific Division, AAAS, San Francisco, 1983, pp. 201-217.

[5] A. Sato, C. O'huigin, F. Figueroa, P.R. Grant, B.R. Grant, H. Tichy, J. Klein, "Phylogeny of Darwin's finches as revealed by mtDNA sequences", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 96, Issue 9, 27 April 1999, p. 5101-5106.

[6] Michaela Hau, Martin Wikelski, "Darwin's Finches," Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, 2000, ğ.els.net.

[7] Jonathan Weiner, The Beak of the Finch, New York: Vintage Books, 1994, p. 9.

[8] Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing Inc., 2000, pp. 173-174.

[9] Phillip E. Johnson, "The Church of Darwin" The Wall Street Journal, 16 August 1999.

DARWINISM VERSUS SCIENCE

Is Materialism Falsified?

Dr. Thomas Nagel’s newest book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False¹ is causing Darwinists nightmares. The cat is out of the bag. He states in his new book “It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection.”  Translation: Life is no accident. It cannot be explained by matter and energy alone.

This statement would not be surprising if it came from an intelligent design advocate. However, it is coming from an atheist. Not just any old atheist but a professor. Not just a professor but a 75-year-old respected philosophy professor at New York State University. The scientific evidence is so overwhelming it is even convincing people whose lives show a persevering dedication to denying it.

Nagel's most challenging statements is,  "What is lacking, to my knowledge, is a credible argument that the story has a non-negligible probability of being true." The probability that life is self-generated from chemistry is zero. Ask a scientist to produce life from his laboratory with the most sophisticated equipment and he will respond that it is not yet possible. So on what grounds is the Darwinian claim made that life can arise spontaneously? It appears that such claims are based on hope more than reality.

So why is Nagel edging away from evolution? “In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture from a very different direction … by the defenders of intelligent design." He is referring to people like Dr. Behe and Dr Stephan Meyers. Though their scientific institute is a small one it has incurred the wrath of many Darwinists. Nagel admits, "Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair." Why would scientists 'who only seek the truth' unfairly discount seriously researched theories? Well, that is the question!

Responses by Darwinists to Nagel is interesting. Science philosopher Elliott Sober wrote, "If Nagel is right, our descendants will look back on him as a prophet—a prophet whom naysayers such as me were unable to recognize.2" Is this not an admission that Sober fears being judged as a stoner of scientific prophets? And so he should. But, if intelligent design can be dismissed as religion, can Sober's views not also be dismissed as anti-religion?

John Dupré, from the University of Exeter states, "The title of the book, however, all too readily interpreted as announcing the falsity of Darwinism, will certainly lend comfort (and sell a lot of copies) to the religious enemies of Darwinism.3" But why should true scientists care if any of their discoveries comfort religion as a by-product. Indeed, this statement clearly implies that Darwinism is primarily a defense against religion and secondarily it is concerned about truth.

Simon Blackburn fears Nagel is giving aid to the enemy creationists: “There is charm to reading a philosopher who confesses to finding things bewildering. But I regret the appearance of this book. It will only bring comfort to creationists and fans of ‘intelligent design’, who will not be too bothered about the difference between their divine architect and Nagel’s natural providence.4" Again there is a contrast between the divine architecture and natural providence - natural or supernatural - a conflict which is in nature theological not scientific.  

Science prides itself in its open-mindedness and pure motivation - we go where the evidence takes us and we change our minds when the evidence demands it. Then scientists should not be afraid to examine the obvious - life formation and operation are beyond any plausible accidental origin (statistics). Life is organized. It is organized by the coded information on the DNA (observation). It is not organized by the chemistry. Coded information comes from intelligence (all known codes are intelligently derived). Thus life had an intelligent designer. The lack of explanation for coded information in Darwinian thought is devastating to its whole position.

In Darwinian thinking nothing God does may be explained by the supernatural. It must ultimately be explained by something non-supernatural. Thus the purpose of science is to explain everything without God rather than seek the truth - the truth is now secondary to discomforting religion.

References

1. Nagel, T., Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Most Certainly False, Oxford University Press, 2012.
2. Sober. E., Remarkable Facts. Ending Science As We Know It, http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.6/elliott_sober_thomas_nagel_mind_cosmos.php, November 2012. 
3. Dupré, J., Thomas Nagel, http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/35163-mind-and-cosmos-why-the-materialist-neo-darwinian-conception-of-nature-is-almost-certainly-false/, 29 November 2012. 
4. Blackburn, S., Thomas Nagel: a philosopher who confesses to finding things bewildering, http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2012/11/thomas-nagel-philosopher-who-confesses-finding-things-bewildering, 8 November 2012.

THEISTIC DARWINISM AND HUGH ROSS

Theistic Darwinism and Apologetics

Dr Hugh Ross is a Christian scientist, evangelist and apologist. He runs a ministry called 'Reason to Believe'. He talks to many scientists who accept standard opinions in science and thus accepts the Big Bang. In fact, he uses the Big Bang as an entry into their thinking as the Big Bang proves there was a beginning. Ordinarily I let other people run their ministries their way. If he can lead them to Christ then Christ can deal with these scientists and their evolution theories. In Ross's case I will make an exception.

Ross actively sides with unbelieving scientists and chides creationists for their scientific theories as well as biblical belief in a six-day creation. God did not give him this responsibility. Some scientists see us as fundamentalists and they have a deep prejudice there. Ross and his colleagues should not pick up this prejudice to advance their ministry but they do. In his book, The Fingerprint of God, Ross makes the point that the universe though billions of years old had a beginning and thus there is a God. Then Ross tries to deal with creationist arguments that the world is young [H. Ross, Fingerprint of God, p.155] .

Continental Erosion

Measurements of continental erosion show a loss of .05 millimeters per year. This is enough to put all the rock above sea level into the oceans in only 16 million years. The Grand Canyon, we can see that there is pre-Cambrian rocks older than 500 million years old sitting on the bottom underneath the sedimentary formation. Cambrian rocks, 500 million years old sit on top of these rocks. Kaibob limestone sits near the top, dated to 250 million years old. So how is it that these formations last more than 16 million years? How is it after 25 cycles of continental erosion they are still standing undisturbed without any sign of erosion?

Well Ross claims we fail to grasp the other land building activities like coral reefs and volcanoes that are building up continents at the same time they are eroding. Dr John Morris, a geology creationist, in his book The Young Earth [John D. Morris, The Young Earth, p. 88] states, "The uniformitarian may take solace in the proposal that the continents are still rising and volcanoes are continually erupting, thereby replacing the the volume being displaced and keeping pace with erosion. But that does not address the problem that the surface at the time of the uplift is still the surface, and erosion has hardly touched it. Nor does it account for the present-day existence of so much ancient sedimentary rock." It seems Morris grasps Ross' view quite well.

So imagine that 500 million years ago some Cambrian rock was laid down. Later strata from later eras are laid down on top. Which of these layers get eroded every 16 million years? Suppose we call a continent's weight a glob. Only if the glob each and every 16 million years is made up entirely of additional volcanic rock alone - no fossiliferous rock - can the fossiliferous rock remain untouched until the present time. This, of course is not how erosion works and this is Morris's point. The pattern of rock deposition and continuance does not fit into the measured erosion rate. Ross's dismissal is superficial.

Earth's Magnetic Field

If you run a current through a solenoid a magnetic field will be formed running through the centre, out the top and then arching back around the outside to complete the cycle. Remove the current and the magnetic field decays. It gives back the energy it took to create it. Creationists believe that the Earth's magnetic field is an original feature. The field is decaying into electrical energy as in the lab. In the lab the curve produced by a decaying magnetic field is a negative exponential (which has a half-life). The earth's magnetic field data also shows a negative exponential curve with a 1400-year half life. This cannot be sustained for billions of years into the past.

The problem says Ross is that the curve is sinusoidal - it goes up and down like a sine wave. There is a dynamo that provides the energy to sustain this. However, the magnetic field data never shows the curve has gone up. Ross thinks it will increase some time in the future. But is the magnetic field caused by a dynamo? There is no proof of this. Thus Ross is saying without supporting data that the dynamo theory is true and contradicts the magnetic field decay. Yes, and if the magnetic decay theory is true the dynamo theory must be wrong. So what? Well, since the Earth IS old and the magnetic field theory predicts a young Earth it must be wrong and therefore the Earth is OLD. Yes, but this argument begs the question - it was already ASSUMED the Earth was old to begin with. What does that prove?

Conclusion

I said I make an exception for Ross as an apologist. He puts the discussion of creationist thinking under the heading, "Bogus evidences for a young universe." Well, the only thing that is bogus here is the pretense that  Ross has a knowledgeable understanding of the science involved. He thinks that his contemptuous attitude is a valid substitute for good science. Creationists are used to this attitude from unbelievers but Ross stands on his Christian faith as he presents this material. Does this fall into "Love thy neighbour as thyself?" You be the judge.