Bevin, I will accept your chalolenge, and respond to it:

a) I would not be surprised is the tiem were to come when science were to tell us that simple life forms either had existed, in the past, on other planets in our solar system, or that simple life forms presently so existed.

b) If this were to happen, I would NOT be forced to re-think my views of the Genesis story as a literal account. However, I might want to review my understanding as to what the Biblical account actually taught in regard to the origin and beginning of our solar system.

c) I would expect that others would have to review their understanding as to what the Bible actually teaches on this matter.

NOTE: In "b", above, I stated that I might want to review my personal understanding of what the Bible actually taught. My statement does NOT mandate that I would change
my mind as to what it taught. I think that I could quite easily accomodate within the boundries of what I expect them to find. Actually I would probably spend more time in understanding the science.

Here is a summary of some very interesting findings reported in two papers presented by Dr. Edward Boudreaux at the Cosmology Conference organized by the Creation Research Science Education Foundation held Oct. 31 to Nov.1, 2004, at the Fawcett Center of Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Note the implications for many basic assumptions regarding the age and size of the universe and age of the physical earth.

PLASMA TEMPERATURES

Dr. Edward Boudreaux presented two papers based on his recent work on nuclear reactions, both radioactive decay and nucleosynthesis. In the first presentation he discussed how elevated temperatures, such as those found in plasmas, increase the decay rates of all known radioactive elements that are used in dating the earth’s crust, including uranium, thorium, samarium, rubidium, and potassium. At temperatures above 1x 10^10 degrees Kelvin, most of these elements in their plasma states have accelerated decay rates that yield half-lives of less than 1 sec. Only potassium has a longer half-life — approximately one hour. These same elements at normal temperatures have half-lives of billions of years and are used by evolutionists to date the earth.

Dr. Boudreaux’s second paper described the effect of these same plasma temperatures on the formation of all the other elements from just water (hydrogen and oxygen) by nucleosynthesis. Again, the rates are sufficiently accelerated such that the mass and composition of the earth, as we understand it today, could have been produced in less than 14 hours. This research has a very significant impact on the creation/evolution controversy in that the age of the earth could be only thousands of years, and it could have been created in just one day in its present state if one assumes plasma temperatures during creation.

The preceding is from the Jan/Feb 2004 issue of Creation Matters, page 2

Evolutionists seem to be guilty of a very serious arrogance in assuming that their present understanding of physical laws, so-called "physical constants," and the origins of the universe are established truth, when in fact they know next to nothing. As science marches on, their biased views based on what is at best incomplete knowledge are going to be left behind.

At what stage in creation week, or in the history of the world, does Dr. Edward Boudreaux believe temperatures in the range of 10^10 K were present?

For those of you who don't understand temperatures, the surface of the sun is about 5 x 10^3 K, so this temperature (10^10) is a two million times hotter than the surface of the sun today.

Clearly the earth, as we know it, could not exist at these temperatures.

Quote:

---

These same elements at normal temperatures have half-lives of billions of years and are used by evolutionists to date the earth.

---

And the temperatures quoted are so far beyond the temperatures of the rocks as to be completely irrelevant when discussing the accuracy of those dating methods.

/Bevin

So Bevin, confronted with laboratory proof that the rates of all forms of radioactive decay are greatly increased under certain circumstances, enough to allow the creation of all the elements that the earth and universe are comprised of in a single day, you wish to duck the obvious implication, as if it makes any difference exactly when plasma temperatures were attained? (How about in the initial flash when God said, "Let there be light"?)

The proposition that all matter in the universe first came into existence at plasma temperatures is not remarkable--it is virtually predicted by most variants of the Big Bang theory. The mystery is how matter might have cooled quickly from a plasma. May I remind you that Dr. Robert Gentry has provided evidence from the preserved radiohaloes in granite that at some point the granite of the earth had to have cooled in a matter or seconds or minutes. His findings still have not been successfully refuted. All attempts themselves have been refuted, and his findings still stand.

Perhaps you also wish to deny or duck the obvious implication that the speed of light constant is not really always constant. This constant is the value "C" that is involved in the conversion of matter into energy in most forms of radioactive decay. So proof that this decay rate can change is also proof that the speed of light constant can change. Once it is proven that there is even one circumstance in which that constant or any other constant may change, that logically calls into question all assumptions based on those constants, including how old is the universe, and how large is the universe, since we measure these things by assumptions based on the speed of light. And since we now know there is indeed at least one circumstance in which some previously assumed constants may change radically, that logically allows the reasonable possibility that there could be other circumstances as well in which the same would be observed.

Perhaps there is yet another way to exceed the present speed of light constant, one that is not so destructive, perhaps one that angels use to travel all across the universe in moments, and that we might use to send space ships to other stars in a relatively short time. (As a science fiction fan, I for one would view this as really good news!)

Current theory is that there may be as many as 27 dimensions, and some theorists have actually suggested that some of those dimensions may be manifested as changes in what we take to be basic constants. Just as the appearance of a sphere passing through "Flatland" would only be perceived by "Flatlanders" (who can only perceive two dimensions) as a magical appearance of a dot that becomes a circle that grows larger and larger, then smaller and smaller, and then goes back to a dot and winks out of existence--so also the upper dimensions may well manifest as seemingly magical phenomena to us, who only perceive four or five dimensions, and cannot directly perceive the connections between other dimensions.

You seem to be greatly reluctant to admit the possibility that God created the earth or universe miraculously, when in fact you cannot avoid positing that a miracle had to occur at some point, for the universe to have ever come into existence in the first place.

I'm looking for more evidence on this notion of accelerated decay at high temperatures. As far as I know, radioactive decay is completely impervious to external conditions, and so far all I can find when searching on the issue is a whole lot of creationist sites. Does anyone have a reference for a reputable scientific paper that acknowledges a changed decay rate, even at plasma temperatures?

27 dimensions: The last I had heard was 13. But, maybe that has expanded to 27.

Ron, perhaps you might like to explain what it means in a practical state to propose a dozen or more dimensional states? In my understanding, this references different vibrational states of atomic matter. If I am wrong, correct me, please. If I am correct, what does this mean on a practical level as it pertains to human life now?

To everyone else: Yes, the mathmatics is there to propose a dozen, or more dimensional states. [NOTE: Once you accept that, I am not going to nit-pick as to whether it is 13 or double that, or more.]

On Robert Gentry: I have personally heard him speak. It should be noted that conservative SDA scientists (physics for one field) are not convinced by his arguements.

This paper cites Boudreaux (who incidentally works for a creationist institution) but is wrong on virtually every scientific detail it mentions, from the idea that nuclei are held together by electrostatic forces (wrong) or magnetism (wrong) to the idea that it takes the addition of energy to hold a nucleus together (wrong).

http://www.radiochemistry.org/documents/pdf/nuclear_binding_half-lives.pdf

Honestly people, if you're going to do science, you have to do it well, and honestly.

On plasma tempertures, radioactive decay, and the origon of the elements:

I should probably wait until I can go home and check my sources in a book I have there, and that I am currently reading. But, I am going to spout off anyway. Please correct me, anybody, if I missstate something.

Just about all theories on the Big Bang origon for the Universe postulate a time in the very early stages when the temperatrue was above the level of plasma temperatures. In the process of cooling, which is given a mechanism, the various elements came into being. Finaly, the Universe reached the current temperature. [By the way, astrophysicists claim to be able to find the evidence of the process I have just mentioned.]

Let us say for the purpose of this arguement, that radioactive decay is changed at temperatures at the plasma level, and above. O. K. All such theories provide for the formation of the elements at with a cooling to lower temperatures.

The point I do not remember, without checking my source, the the length of time that this process took: temperatures above the plasma level, cooling, formation of the elements, followed by much more cooling. But, disregarding that time factor, would not all agree that the radioactive decay rate was fixed once the temperature was cooled below the plasma level? If one then postulated that 13 - 14 billion years had elasped since that level of coolling, with the formation of the elements, how could one say that those early extremely high temperatures have any practial effect on dating methods that are used today and depend upon radioactive decay rates? I.e. If we agree that they, according to the theory, are fixed at the 13 - 14 billion year point, what is the value in suggestin that they may not have been fixed during a very limited, much earlier time?

Ron, I am asking a sincere question. If I am wrong, correct me, please.

Quote:

---

You seem to be greatly reluctant to admit the possibility that God created the earth or universe miraculously, when in fact you cannot avoid positing that a miracle had to occur at some point, for the universe to have ever come into existence in the first place.

---

I have no problem with God creating the universe miraculously. Heck, He could have done it 5 seconds ago.

The question is WHY DID HE MAKE THE EARTH LOOKING LIKE IT IS MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD?

I prefer to believe in an honest and loving God, not one who would deliberately create a huge lie and punish people for believing it.

/Bevin