Interesting Admission by Larry Vardiman
Troy Britain
Here is an interesting admission about radiometric dating [look for the ***]
made by ICR's Larry Vardiman from a couple weeks ago (details at bottom).
The following is a transcript of part of the presentation he gave.
Troy Britain
***************
I'm going to tell you some of the results of three of the major components
that came out of this project [RATE]. The basic thrust of this project was
the trust of the issue of radio isotope dating. Not just the simply uranium
into lead but potassium/argon and the various ah, types of isotopes as they
go from the parent product, the parent element, which, lets talk about
uranium and lead, the uranium would be the parent element that is unstable
and decays into daughter products, and in this case it would be lead which
we've normally heard of, that's the daughter product which is stable and
does not decay further.
You may not know this but there are other elements that are produced in that
process called a chain of decay and one of the final products as well is
helium, and that is one of those that we stressed in this particular
project.
We started off this project very uncertain of what we were going to find. In
fact we were quite concerned because we could do irreparable damage, not
only to our own reputation but to the church in general, if we found things
we could not explain and they actually argued against our position.
But we were so committed to be able to address this issue that we laid it
before the Lord and asked God to be able to provide in a very special way, a
miraculous way, in order to be able to understand these problems. And to
encourage us we took as an example David when he was before Goliath.
Remember David was a teenager, and he faced this giant, and we felt like
that. We felt we were faced with a giant problem. And we asked the Lord to
provide like he did for David. It's amazing when you read the story, back in
2nd Samuel, and you find that David went before Goliath and he made some
statements before the whole country to take care of this giant, and I'll
give you a quote from the actual scripture verse at the end of my
presentation.
But David had the audacity to do this and I came to the conclusion of my
study over the last eight years of that passage and I think I understand why
he did this. It's because he started back as a young man earlier, probably
he was only twelve, I don't know exactly his age, and a lion attacked his
sheep, the Lord allowed him to kill that lion, he gain confidence, a bear
attacked his sheep, the Lord provided for him to kill that bear, so that he
had enough confidence in answered prayer previously to be able ask that kind
of question and go before the Lord.
That was the kind of experience we had at ICR. We had some major issues that
happened at our graduate school over the past, that we had enough confidence
to ask the Lord to assist us in this problem and he provided.
And I want to share with you three of the big answers that came out of this
particular project I think they are very exciting, and they relate to
specifically to this issue of the age of the Earth. ***Because if in fact
you take the data at face value the best explanation is that the Earth is
billions of years old.*** So something else must be going on and we wanted
to have a look at the data.
We did a two phased project. The first phase of the project was three years,
which was basically the hypothesis developing and literature searching
stage, and we developed the questions we were going to ask and try to
answer. And we had a five year research phase. And we had to raise the money
for this project, and we raised, not only did we get answers, but people
responded to the tune of a million and a half dollars to help support this
project. There has never been a creationist research project of this
magnitude in history. And the Lords people provided for us to be able to do
this.
We started the project with basically three hypotheses, and this came out of
the first phase experiment, ah the first phase of the project, in which we
did the literature search, met annually, interacted with each other to
develop the questions we felt we needed to answer. And we believe the answer
after that first three years was some type of accelerated decay process.
When we started the project we had never even heard of this concept, but we
came to the conclusion that there had to be some kind of accelerated decay.
Now the reason we didn't have that at first was because we weren't confident
that the conventional literature was correct in saying that there ah, had
been a lot of decay there. In other words there wasn't evidence of a lot of
decay. Maybe there isn't a lot of lead, maybe there isn't a lot of material
that can be explained in another way.
As we went through that first three years we became confident, yes there has
been a lot of decay. There is a lot of lead there; there is a lot of fission
tracks there; there is a lot of radio-halos there. All of that giving an
indication that there has been a lot of decay, radioactive decay. So we
couldn't explain it away that way.
So, the only way we could fit a short period of time which we believe from
the Bible, [?>] is the verdict of the Bible, a young [<? garbled] period of
time based upon biblical interpretation, and we've got a lot of decay, that
means at somewhere in the process you had to have an accelerated rate of
decay. That is the decay had to happen a lot faster than it is going on
today.
***************
Source: Larry Vardiman, April 29th 2006, "Question of Age: Conference on
Creation, the Bible and Science", at the First Evangelical Free Church of
Fullerton, Fullerton, CA.
hbar...@troy.edu
over the experiment to get the "correct" results, I could have saved
several years of hard work!
HB
Gary Bohn
news:rLQag.71297$Fs1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
<snip [<? garbled]>
>So, the only way we could fit a short period of time which we believe
>from the Bible, [?>] is the verdict of the Bible, a young [<? garbled]
>period of time based upon biblical interpretation, and we've got a lot
>of decay, that means at somewhere in the process you had to have an
>accelerated rate of decay. That is the decay had to happen a lot faster
>than it is going on today.
ROTFLMAO! In other words they had to make shit up.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
r norman
What is abundantly clear from innumerable replications is that
swearing and cursing and damning various agents, animate and
inanimate, physical and imaginary, to Hell often has a very negative
effect on the progress of the work.
Desertphile
> Hi all,
>
> Here is an interesting admission about radiometric dating [look for the ***]
> made by ICR's Larry Vardiman from a couple weeks ago (details at bottom).
>
> The following is a transcript of part of the presentation he gave.
This is very funny. I wish to point out an error in Vardiman's
theology:
(Cuts)
> And to
> encourage us we took as an example David when he was before Goliath.
> Remember David was a teenager, and he faced this giant, and we felt like
> that. We felt we were faced with a giant problem. And we asked the Lord to
> provide like he did for David. It's amazing when you read the story, back in
> 2nd Samuel, and you find that David went before Goliath and he made some
> statements before the whole country to take care of this giant, [....]
David did not kill Goliath: Elhanan did.
bullpup
"Troy Britain" <evolut...@att.net> wrote in message
news:rLQag.71297$Fs1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
One picture is worth 1000 words:
http://www.acad.sunytccc.edu/instruct/sbrown/pic/miracle.jpg
Boikat
--
<42><
bullpup
"r norman" <NotMyRealEmail@_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b5nn621t64g6mkvth...@4ax.com...
True. I are an technicion. Yellin' and scremmin' don't work. Hammers and
a good swift kick on the other hand.....
But I'm being materialistic.
Boikat
--
<42><
Ron O
Gary Bohn wrote:
> "Troy Britain" <evolut...@att.net> wrote in
> news:rLQag.71297$Fs1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
> <snip [<? garbled]>
>
> >So, the only way we could fit a short period of time which we believe
> >from the Bible, [?>] is the verdict of the Bible, a young [<? garbled]
> >period of time based upon biblical interpretation, and we've got a lot
> >of decay, that means at somewhere in the process you had to have an
> >accelerated rate of decay. That is the decay had to happen a lot faster
> >than it is going on today.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO! In other words they had to make shit up.
>
>
> --
> Gary Bohn
It is a step forward for them. RATE has been going on for years. The
sad thing is that it took them a million and a half dollars to end up
with a lame excuse. Several years ago they came to the conclusion that
there wasn't anything wrong with the literature on radioactive decay.
Their lame excuse has been that you can't rule out mixing, but now they
have to admit due to decay intermediates that the mixing excuse is
dead.
Now all they have to do is determine why the earth didn't melt when
billions of years of radioactive decay happened in just a few hundred
or thousand years depending on how long this rapid decay phase took.
Are they going to claim that E=mC^2 didn't apply during this time
period? Just the amount of energy from the uranium would be staggering
and they have to account for all the other isotopes.
They will also have to explain why the decay differs in different flood
layers all layed down by the same global flood. Why do the upper
layers of flood sediment have less radioactive decay than the lower
layers of flood sediment?
They will have to also square this with the various excuses for how
light from galaxies billions of light years away reached the Earth in
only a few thousand years.
It doesn't take a very bright person to figure out that if you take all
the data and you don't fudge it, it all works out to one answer. The
earth is billions of years old. The universe is even older. No
increase decay rate needed. No ad hoc means of avoiding melting the
earth by the energy released by the radioactive decay because the decay
is spread over billions of years and not just a couple hundred or
thousand. You don't have to diddle with the speed of light or worry
about what changing the speed of light by 18 orders of magnitude would
do to the universe as we know it.
You can't expect them to be rational, but some of them must know that
the game is up.
YEC is as dead as flat earth and geocentric creationism. They just
can't admit it.
Ron Okimoto
bullpup
"Gary Bohn" <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns97C6CFC08...@130.133.1.4...
> "Troy Britain" <evolut...@att.net> wrote in
> news:rLQag.71297$Fs1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
> <snip [<? garbled]>
>
> >So, the only way we could fit a short period of time which we believe
> >from the Bible, [?>] is the verdict of the Bible, a young [<? garbled]
> >period of time based upon biblical interpretation, and we've got a lot
> >of decay, that means at somewhere in the process you had to have an
> >accelerated rate of decay. That is the decay had to happen a lot faster
> >than it is going on today.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO! In other words they had to make shit up.
Of course, they seem to ignore the fact that "accelerated rates of decay"
would release a equal increase amount of energy being released which would
be evident, and the accelerated rates of decay for all isotopes would have
had to have been proportional so that the differing rates still remained
consistant in order to fool the Isochrone method.
Creation science. Gotta love it!
Boikat
--
<42><
bullpup
"Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147921103.4...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No, David offed Goliath, Elhanan offed Lahmi, Goliath's brother.
Or, at least that what the KJV says, but it could be wrong. :}
Boikat
--
<42><
>
John Harshman
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
There were certainly many PCR gods in my lab, long ago when PCR was new
and not always reproducible. Everyone in the lab had their own PCR
religion and superstitions, little details of protocol that had never
been carefully controlled but which were thought to be the key to a
high-yield PCR reaction. There was always enough inconsistency in
people's results as they tried to control all their reagents that there
was plenty of scope for irrational, superstitious beliefs to creep in.
Ron O
More like PCR gremlins, and a little magic.
Ron Okimoto
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Does anyone even listen to anything that ICR says anymore . . . .?
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
Dogma Discharge
TomS
<ATRag.74451$Jk3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, bullpup stated..."
>
>
>"Gary Bohn" <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
>news:Xns97C6CFC08...@130.133.1.4...
>> "Troy Britain" <evolut...@att.net> wrote in
>> news:rLQag.71297$Fs1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>
>> <snip [<? garbled]>
>>
>> >So, the only way we could fit a short period of time which we believe
>> >from the Bible, [?>] is the verdict of the Bible, a young [<? garbled]
>> >period of time based upon biblical interpretation, and we've got a lot
>> >of decay, that means at somewhere in the process you had to have an
>> >accelerated rate of decay. That is the decay had to happen a lot faster
>> >than it is going on today.
>>
>>
>> ROTFLMAO! In other words they had to make shit up.
>
>Of course, they seem to ignore the fact that "accelerated rates of decay"
>would release a equal increase amount of energy being released which would
>be evident, and the accelerated rates of decay for all isotopes would have
>had to have been proportional so that the differing rates still remained
>consistant in order to fool the Isochrone method.
>
>Creation science. Gotta love it!
Not only the isochron method.
There are two main types of decay, alpha emission and beta
emission, which involve quite different nuclear processes. The
ratios between these two processes would have to remain nearly
fixed.
And, of course, there are lots of other things going on that
indicate billions of years.
All of these would have to remain in close proportion while
varying by factors of about a million.
This seeming coordination couldn't happen by chance.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Gary Bohn
news:70Sag.74453$Jk3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>> David did not kill Goliath: Elhanan did.
>
> No, David offed Goliath, Elhanan offed Lahmi, Goliath's brother.
>
> Or, at least that what the KJV says, but it could be wrong. :}
>
> Boikat
But, but, but... who shot Mr. Burns?
Desertphile
> "Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1147921103.4...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > David did not kill Goliath: Elhanan did.
> No, David offed Goliath, Elhanan offed Lahmi, Goliath's brother.
> Or, at least that what the KJV says, but it could be wrong. :}
The King James Authorized revision was deliberately redacted on the
subject. (Of course both versions are almost certainly wrong.) El-Hanan
came from a family of professional giant-slayers; the King James
Authorized deliberately redacted the text by inserting "brother of"
regarding El-Hanan killing Goliath. El-Hanan, in 1 Chronicles 20:5 also
slew the giant Lahmi. The Revised Standard Version leaves out "the
brother of" for 2 Samuel 21:19, stating El-Hanan killed Goliath.
Isaac Asimov, in his "Asimov's Guide to the Bible," gave his opinion
that a pious panegyricist ("one who praises highly in speech and/or
writing") rewrote the older version, which has El-Hanan killing Goliath
and Lahmi, and substituting David as the killer of Goliath. The David
version is so utterly laughably absurd that it is considered by many
(perhaps most) Bible scholars to be fictional. (Er, *MORE* fictional
than most such stories in the Bible.)
There are, of course, many thousands of web sites written by by
Fundamentalist Christians who offer "explanations" for this
contradiction.
June
[snip]
>
> Source: Larry Vardiman, April 29th 2006, "Question of Age: Conference on
> Creation, the Bible and Science", at the First Evangelical Free Church of
> Fullerton, Fullerton, CA.
ACK!!! They came into my town & I didn't even realize they were here.
Now I feel sorta unclean.
--
My 2¢ ß-}
June
Desertphile
> Troy Britain <evolut...@att.net> wrote:
> [snip]
"I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit . It's the only way to
be sure ."
Harlequin
This sort of information is worth being archived.
Kermit
Don't forget that these same people will tell us that the universe is
finely tuned for life, and the slightest deviation in the values of
universal constants would make life impossible.
While the lines of research in science continue to converge, and tell
the same story in deeper detail, the pseudo-arguments of the
creationists contradict each other, as well as the data.
>
> This seeming coordination couldn't happen by chance.
>
>
> --
> ---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
> "It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
> much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
> Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
> limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
Kermit
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>
>"Gary Bohn" <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
>news:Xns97C6CFC08...@130.133.1.4...
>> "Troy Britain" <evolut...@att.net> wrote in
>> news:rLQag.71297$Fs1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>
>> <snip [<? garbled]>
>>
>> >So, the only way we could fit a short period of time which we believe
>> >from the Bible, [?>] is the verdict of the Bible, a young [<? garbled]
>> >period of time based upon biblical interpretation, and we've got a lot
>> >of decay, that means at somewhere in the process you had to have an
>> >accelerated rate of decay. That is the decay had to happen a lot faster
>> >than it is going on today.
>>
>>
>> ROTFLMAO! In other words they had to make shit up.
>
>Of course, they seem to ignore the fact that "accelerated rates of decay"
>would release a equal increase amount of energy being released which would
>be evident, and the accelerated rates of decay for all isotopes would have
>had to have been proportional so that the differing rates still remained
>consistant in order to fool the Isochrone method.
They don't totally ignore it, but they try to minimize it. From
<http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm>:
"Thus our new diffusion data support the main hypothesis of the RATE
research initiative: that God drastically accelerated the decay rates
of long half-life nuclei during the earth's recent past. For a
feasibility study of this hypothesis, including God's possible
purposes for such acceleration, Biblical passages hinting at it,
disposal of excess heat, preserving life on earth, and effects on
stars, see Humphreys (2000, pp. 333-379). The last three problems are
not yet fully solved, but we expect to see progress on them in future
papers."
I don't see the problem. They acknowledge that their claim of
accelerated decay is magic; why not just magic away the heat and
radiation?
--
jrf
replace nospam with group to email
Jon Fleming
Decay of Potassium-40 to Argon-40 is by electron capture. Another
process for which the ratio has to remain the same.
> And, of course, there are lots of other things going on that
>indicate billions of years.
>
> All of these would have to remain in close proportion while
>varying by factors of about a million.
>
> This seeming coordination couldn't happen by chance.
--
snex
how do we tell the difference between a god who accelerated decay rates
in the past and one who made the missing helium disappear in the past?
Harry K
bullpup wrote:
> "Gary Bohn" <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
> news:Xns97C6CFC08...@130.133.1.4...
> > "Troy Britain" <evolut...@att.net> wrote in
> > news:rLQag.71297$Fs1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> >
> > <snip [<? garbled]>
> >
> > >So, the only way we could fit a short period of time which we believe
> > >from the Bible, [?>] is the verdict of the Bible, a young [<? garbled]
> > >period of time based upon biblical interpretation, and we've got a lot
> > >of decay, that means at somewhere in the process you had to have an
> > >accelerated rate of decay. That is the decay had to happen a lot faster
> > >than it is going on today.
> >
> >
> > ROTFLMAO! In other words they had to make shit up.
>
> Of course, they seem to ignore the fact that "accelerated rates of decay"
> would release a equal increase amount of energy being released which would
> be evident, and the accelerated rates of decay for all isotopes would have
> had to have been proportional so that the differing rates still remained
> consistant in order to fool the Isochrone method.
>
> Creation science. Gotta love it!
>
> Boikat
> --
Yep, Press Release: "We are starting a multiyear, multi million dollar
research program and here is the result we will get..."
Harry K
bullpup
"Harry K" <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148007626.1...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's easier that way. They don't have to do any actual research.
Boikat
--
<42><
Troy Britain
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@ij.net> wrote in message
news:1147954686....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Does anyone even listen to anything that ICR says anymore . . . .?
>
>
>
Yes Lenny, unfortunately they do.
Troy
Ron O
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
> Does anyone even listen to anything that ICR says anymore . . . .?
>
>
>
>
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
Guys like NashtOn, Goodrich, and even Sean Pitman with his flood
geology probably still listen to the basket cases at the ICR. The
political muscle dropped the ICR screw ups years ago. The
ID/creationist scam artists spent most of their early years trying to
claim that they weren't like the guys at the ICR, but they ended up
with the same old junk creationist obfuscation scam that the guys at
the ICR had developed. Without a scientific theory of ID (that they
admit that they do not have at this time) they have nothing better than
the old scientific creationists that they claimed not to be.
Heck, guys like Hovind are still making the rounds and scamming people.
There are ignorant or incompetent school board members and legislators
that might still think that these guys have something on the ball, but
the creationist political muscle that backed the ID scam know better.
Ron Okimoto
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
How the mighty have fallen . . . remember the days when ICR's lawyers
wrote "model bills" for legislatures? Now, alas, they are virtually
ignored in the halls of power.
I have heard, incidentally, that ICR has been hemorrhaging members ever
since John Morris took over. ICR's loss has been AiG's gain,
apparently.
But then, even AiG seems to have given up on the US, and is now putting
their eggs in a British basket. Why on earth they think they have any
better chance in the UK than they did here in the US, I don't know.
Hope springs eternal, I guess.
I suppose it's just a matter of time before DI gives up on the US and
focuses overseas, too. Indeed, I recall Dumbski saying something about
that.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
And we believe the answer
> after that first three years was some type of accelerated decay process.
> When we started the project we had never even heard of this concept
Liars.
"The uranium decay rates may well be variable". (Morris, Scientific
Creationism, 1974, p. 142.)