The Polonium Halo

>>>>Your courtesy and respect are requested. <<<<

The administrator

Dear Administrator, if you are going to be critical, you should explain yourself in a bit more detail.

 

The problem is that the Halos are very short lived and the cooling process for Granite is (assumed to be) "very long" (by our Evolutionist friends).

The problem is "not" why does Polonium still exist as part of the decay chain life-cycle for Uranium. The problem is that only a LONG process such as the long (Uranium based) half-life decay processes could remain IN PLACE and imprint over 1000's of years. Granite is not going to "record" 3-minute "events" during it's cooling process Bob Ryan

I guess I don't see the "difference". Short half-life, requires FAST solidifying times since a LONG period would have obliterated all traces of a SHORT event half life of 3+minute halo imprinting windows.

Feel free to expound on that point.

Also agree. And I don't see the "difference" in the above and what I have stated at the top.

In fact Gentry details this VERY subject comparing KNOWN non-Primoridial polonium halos in coalafied wood with the primoridal polonium halos in Granite.

Enjoy.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I'd like that opportunity.

The cooling of anything can be fairly well described thermodynamically. With granite, it is possible to calculate the cooling time given enough information such as initial temperature, thermal conductivity and so on. There is no way you are going to cool a mass of granite from molten to solid in less than three minutes. It is estimated that granite cools an average of 45 to 450 R per million years (Pitcher, W. S., 1993, The Nature And Origin Of Granite: London, Blackie Academic and Professional Press, p. 183-184). As evidence, there are places in the world today where it is possible to find still cooling granite. For example, the rhyolite in Califoria used for geothermal heat generation. Granite also records indications that it was once hot in the way in which the material crystallizes. Geologists can tell at what temperature the granite crystallized by looking at the minerals in it and this can be replicated with lab experiments (Bohlen, S. R., and Lindsley, D. H., 1987, Thermometry and barometry of
igneous and metamorphic rocks: Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 15, p. 397-420).

I believe Peter already informed you that the Po halos can be found in rocks that are obviously younger than the rocks into which they are intruded. By definition, the granite is younger than the rock into which it is intruded and was therefore formed after it. These granites could not have been formed initially. When granite intrudes into other rocks it leaves evidence of what has happened. For example, the rocks into which the granite is intruded will be heated and the temperture to which the rocks have been heated can be determined by looking at how the rocks are recrystallized. Because the rock at different distances from the granite are heated to different temepratures, a progression of different changes are found in the rock. These are called aureoles and can be a few feet to thousands of feet thick. There can also be seen evidence for patterns indicating flow when the rock was liquid and there can be found pieces of the rock into which the granite was intruded which were broken by the flow and enclosed in the granite as it cooled.

So, Bob, would you care to expound on how halos can be found in rock that undeniablely is younger than the rock in which it is included? Would you also like to explain, in thermodynamic terms if possible, how rock that shows evidence of having been liquid and contains crystalls that form at high temperatures and has a cooling period of milions of years could have been formed in the last few thousand years? (Hint: The first thermodynamic check I would do is to look up how much granite there is estimated to be in the world, what the average heat capacity of granite is, and at what temperature the liquid is before it begins to crystallize into granite. From this you can estimate how much heat would be released if the granite were instantly cooled or even cooled over a few years. From this take say the atmosphere or the oceans and do the calculation in the other direction to see what effect that much heat would have on the temperature of the earth. I haven't done this but I get the feeling you will not like what you find.)

 

That - obviously - is THE POINT. The granite formed quickly (as the Creation Account anticipates) INSTEAD of being restricted to natural processes alone as the evolutionist doctrine assumes.

Comparing NATURAL processes to the super natural event of "creation" simply does not work as the Po 218 ratio to Po 210 shows in the basement rock - the foundation rock Granite specimens.

As Gentry showed - the existence of the unique Po218 and Po210 is not in question NOR is the existence of intrusion in SOME specimens in question. RATHER the point is that there are a NUMBER of scenarios in which Po is found in Granite - ONE OF WHICH is the SINGLE contigous segment case (no cracks no intrusion) where the Po210o218 ratio is accounted for ONLY by the primordial Po scenario. A ratio where the expected value of 67000 to 1 (67000 Po210 to ONE Po218) is interrupted and in fact we find MORE Po218 than Po210.

The point is that ALL the samples do NOT show the SAME migrations between Rocks. Showing ONE scenario does not account for ALL scenarios where Granite has moved through the geothermal environment. EACH case is OBSERVABLE by measurements of the sample. Your "one-scenario-of-movement-fits-all" is NOT a proposition of the geosciences. Rather it is simply a red herring.

Hmm lets think really hard here. The "assumption" is that "NATURAL PROCESSES" might be found for the formation of Granite in the past 6000 years (recent) - and Creationists NEED to account for that formation in terms of NATURAL observable, repeatable PROCESSES.

Hint - assume natural processes are at work and explain the Genesis 1 account using purely natural processess to get the "cooling of the earth" in a day - THEN the "formation of seas" in a day THEN "the raising of the contenents" in a day THEN "the creation of PLANT life" in a day THEN "the Creation of the Sun and Moon" in a day... etc.

Because IF this is all "observable as natural processes INSTEAD of something that would require the DIVINE creative infinite Power of God" THEN the Genesis 1-3 "ACCOUNT" is wrong in attributing this to God ALONE.

Question - why is that key - salient point of the Creation account so hard to understand for our evoutionist friends who insist that natural processes must be ASSUMED to account for the EXISTENCE everything in 7 literal days?

In Christ,

Bob

 

OK, let me be a little more direct. I find that the presence of granite, given its thermodynamically provable cooling times on the order of millions of years, intruded into other rocks an extremely convincing proof of an age of the earth of more than several thousand years. I know that is off topic slightly but I think that it is a valid point and one I would like to see you deal with. Above I give you numerous pieces of evidence that these rocks are younger than the the rocks into which they are intruded and therefore must have formed since the other rocks formed.

Lest you simply assert that all of the rocks in question are simply originals and that there is some appearance of age going on, let me offer one more piece of evidence. Sometimes this granite has intruded into into fossil bearing sedimentary rocks. Now, you cannot in good faith assert that the fossil bearing rocks were here since the beginning. These sedimentary rocks show the same kinds of heat effects from the molten rock as other rocks with intruded granite show down to the point that in the more heat affected zones the fossils have been destroyed. I would love to hear your scenerio for depositing sedimentary rock layers containing fossils, allowing them to harden into rock, then the intrusion by molten rock, and then the cooling period for this rock into granite. This puts this outside any miracles of creation week so you actually have to use some science. And also bear in mind that the crystallization of the granite will reveal any rapid cooling method that you might propose.

I am presenting proof from outside the creation week. Please respond to the above with scientific evidence rather than assertions.

Could you please give me a reference that discusses this so I can have a basis to continue this line of reasoning. I am very skeptical that Gentry could tell the differentiate the isotopes given that the rings formed from Po218, Po210, and Rn222 are considered indistinguishable from one another due to the energy of the alpha particles emmitted during decay being almost equal.

I do not believe that showing that the same Po halos can be foung in rock that can be proven to be younger that other rocks is a "red herring" but think as you wish.

Oh Bob, I love it when you get off talking about assumptions as if you do not make any yourself. As you see above, I am asking for natural processes to explain evidence which I have demonstrated occured outside of the creation week. Surely you do not mean to explain every bit of evidence contray to your position with miracles. I do not need to show natural processes at work to get all the events of the creation week to occur in six days because I believe that the account is an allegorical story detailing the relationship between God, man, and the universe rather than a step by step historical account. But you do have to deal with the fact the there are some very long term natural processes at work that cannot be explained in terms of occuring in several thousand years.

Again, I do not insist that you use natural processes to explain what would have been a miraculous occurance. I do ask that you use natural processes to explain things that can be shown to have occurred by natural processes.

I look forward to getting some reading material regarding the Po ratios and distinguishing the halos from one another. (Because we know that if you cannot distinguish Rn from Po we have a problem.) I also look forward to future discussion of the formation of granite in a few thousand years.

 

BobRyan writes:>>>>>>I guess I don't see the "difference". Short half-life, requires FAST solidifying times since a LONG period would have obliterated all traces of a SHORT event half life of 3+minute halo imprinting windows.

Feel free to expound on that point.<<<<<<


If I understand you correctly, I agree with your comments above. If the halos are from primordial polonium, then they can be used as evidence for the instantaneous formation of the granite, in its solid form, in a supernatural creation event. But that is a big "if". For one thing, it is not beyond doubt that the halos were even created by the shortlived polonium. They don't come with a label telling how they were created. Another thing is that we for a fact that non-primordial polonium was present and is present in the earth, so it is difficult to rule the non-primordial polonium out as the cause of the halos. I will comment in the next post about Gentry's writing on the source of the halos.

 

The following quotation is from Gentry as quoted by BobRyan:

"Now in granite there are four different types of Po halos; on occasion two or three types can be seen microscopically in the same specimen of mica. This situation is virtually impossible to reconcile with the hypothesis that such halos formed from U-decay products because the different Po-isotope half-lives mean that greatly different quantities of each isotope will coexist. In particular, since the expected amounts are directly proportional to the different half-lives, this means that at any given time the atomic ratio 210Po:218Po should be about 67,000:1. Thus, if Po halos in biotites were from secondarily-derived Po from U decay, there should exist about 67,000 210Po halos for each 218Po halo. This is definitely not the case. In some mica specimens the number of 218Po or 214Po halos far outnumbers the 210Po halos."

I believe that Gentry has made a serious mistake in the above, even based on his assumptions. He says that if Po halos are derived from U decay, there should exist about 67,000 Po-210 halos for each Po-218 halo. But the problem with his thinking is that in the Uranium decay chain there is one Po-218 produced and one Po-210 produced, ultimately, from the decay of a single U-238 parent. Therefore, given an immense amount of time for the chain to decay, the number of halos should be approximately equal for Po-218 and Po-210. Where he goes wrong is that he is thinking of a situation where the instantaneous activity of Po-218 and Po-210 would be in the ratio that he suggests if they were produced in the beginning in equal amounts. But that is true only at time zero, where the shortlived Po-218 activity greatly exceeds that of Po-210. But after a few hours the activity of the Po-218 ceases due to the short half life, while the activity of the Po-210 continues for a few years, thus ultimately producing an equal number of halos. In this case, Gentry is not thinking clearly and is badly mistaken. Remember that each Uranium decay can produce one and only one atom of Po-218 AND Po-210, therefore it is impossible to claim, as he has, that the ratio of the respective halos will be vastly different, namely that the ratio of Po-210 halos to Po-218 halos will be 67,000 to 1. Activity, by the way, is the number of disintegrations per unit time. It is true that if equal amounts of Po-218 and Po-210 were present at any given time, that the activity of each would be vastly different, since activity is a function of the half-life. But it is not true that the number of atoms of each would be different by the same ratio. And it is a fact that ultimately the ratio of halos will be determined by the number of decays of each, which, integrated over time has to be equal, rather than vastly different as Gentry is claiming. This is a rather amateurish blunder on his part.

 

From Gentry as quoted by BobRyan:

"In particular, since the expected amounts are directly proportional to the different half-lives, this means that at any given time the atomic ratio 210Po:218Po should be about 67,000:1."

The ratios given above are perhaps valid for a uranium decay chain in equilibrium, but that does not mean that the integrated total of the halos will have the same ratio, as Gentry claims. Because, as I have said previously in a different way, the ratio of the halos is going to depend on the total number of decays, which ultimately must be equal for both Po-210 and Po-218. Another way to think of it is that the Po-218, will decay away quite rapidly for a given number of atoms, while the longer lived Po-210 will take a longer time to decay. Ultimately though, they have the potential to produce the same number of halos, not the vastly different number that Gentry suggests.

[ April 29, 2003, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Peter101 ]