The Polonium Halo

SOS -- Yes Gentry has published responses to his critics and has also published results of debates with them.

Earth Science Associates
P.O.Box 12067
Knoxville, TN 37912-0067

http://www.halos.com/finger.htm

http://www.halos.com/

Enjoy!

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is excellent "proof" that evolutionists are not interested in science at all - merely their "religion" of evolutionism.

The Creationist points against the radiometric sooth-sayings is the following.

#1 Assumptions regarding the starting condition. Evolutionists "presume" to know it, but when pressed they must admit "it is a guess". Without knowing the amount of parent and daughter product at the start - you can not use the amount of daughter product "today" as a "clock".

"Obviously".

IF you assume that the radioactive content of earth's crust "is only needed so evilutionists can tell time and otherwise serves no purpose" - then of course God is "tricking evolutionists" by not having the right amount of daughter product for a 6,000 year start date.

IF you open your eyes and observe that the radioactive content in earth's crust DOES play a vital role in our eco-sphere - then it was NEEDED at the start when forming a viable living planet day one.

#2. Another observation made by the intelligent, thinking, objective creationist is that LONG half-life clocks are subject to the "changes" due to the erosion and displacement caused by water as well as atmospheric conditions and any condition that might have affected the speed of light.

So "long" half-life clocks span vast regions of time in which these "changes" accumulate and distort the accuracy of the clock.

However - a very SHORT clock could not be affected by those factors. For example if a 3 minute half-life was at one time a 5 minute half-life -- "so what"? Granite does not "form" in 3 minutes OR in 5 minutes. Nor does the basement rock of the earth's crust.

The point made by the anti-Creationist in the quote at the top of this post - merely "shows" that our evolutionist bretheren refuse to even "think" about the problems that plagues their mythology of evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

OK I can think of ways radioactivity plays a part in a 5 billion year old history of earth, such as providing the source of the interior heat and thereby driving continental drift, vulcanism and the building of new land to compensate for erosion, and such as that.

What is the vital part in the eco-sphere played by radioactivity in a young earth scenario?

 

Well,.. you know all that heat in the earth's crust, tectonic plate movement and volcanic activity that takes 4 billion years for an eruption to occur??

Ooops! That's right! It DOESN't take 4 billion years.

See? Evolution flops over on its soft under belly - "one more time". The "Living planet" complete with hydrosphere AND a circulating earths crust.

hmmmm - "and it don't take 4 billion years for stuff to move"????

That is amazing?? I guess it is to evolutionists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Gentry's ideas have gained no acceptance among mainstream science. Incidentally, the shortlived radionuclide that Gentry claims made the halos is STILL present in the atmosphere. Does that imply that the earth was made a few hours ago? Not at all!

 

Radio halos are an accepted fact of science. Period. There is no scientist today that has been able to show Polonium radio halos in solid rock formations that formed over a period of weeks or months. (Volcanic rock for example).

Gentry's work stands. The half-life of Polonium "stands".

The evolutionists are "unhappy about that" - but they will get used to it.

Bob

 

>>>>>>The evolutionists are "unhappy about that" - but they will get used to it.<<<<<<

Gentry's "work" is hardly noticed and to the extent that it is, his views are considered to be incorrect and eccentric. Halos certainly exist but do not require the instantaneous formation of the earth, and the rock formations that contain them. For an alternative viewpoint, see the following web site:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lorence_collins/polonium.html

 

Another web site that disagrees with Gentry's interpretation is:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

 

This is a quote from one of the above mentioned web sites:

"Gentry does not follow accepted scientific practice. He selects one inconclusive feature and then proceeds to discount out of hand two centuries of worldwide geological study by hundreds of thousands of trained scientists. No evidence of his "singularities" (one time divine interventions) has ever been observed. Like other "young Earth" hypotheses, Gentry's proposal is contradicted by such things as: the observed field relations of rocks in his own sample area; the patterns of sedimentation (marine and non-marine) worldwide; the growth of salt domes in the Gulf Coast region and Iran; the formation and structural control of petroleum deposits; sea floor spreading and the movement of crustal plates; multiple magnetic reversals reflected in oceanic basalts; the fossil record; the presence
of oxygen and argon (nearly 1%) in the atmosphere; multiple layered basalt flows of the Deccan Traps and the Snake River Plain; and thousands upon thousands of other features of the physical Earth. When this level of contradiction exists, it is always more appropriate to question the validity of the new hypothesis; that is the way of science.

 

>>>>>Radio halos are an accepted fact of science. Period.<<<<<

Yes, but is not the existence of halos that is in dispute, it is the implications of the halos. Gentry's interpretion is considered wrong and eccentric. To my knowledge, there is not a single mainstream scientist that accepts his interpretation. The only ones that accept it are religious fundamentalists who are creationists. I challenge you to state the name of a single actively publishing nuclear physicist, other than Gentry, who accepts his theory.

 

Peter shows AGREEMENT with RADIO HALO DATING methods AS LONG as they show an OLD earth

Peter quoted this under "Evolutionism Corrupts the Gospel"

Bob said:>>Radio halos are an accepted fact of science. Period.<<

Peter will now contradict himself in the prior thread by DENYING the "proof" from Radio Halo concept just ACCEPTED above...WHy? Because it shows a YOUNG earth in this case.

Notice that when SHORT half-life elements are used - showing INSTANT creation this is utterly REJECTED by the religion Peter holds to. But when LONG half-life elements are used THEN "they are compelling evidence".

Clearly - this is not a matter of science for Peter - but rather a anti-Gospel anti-Bible "religion" JUST as our atheist evolutionist friends admit.

A more damaging set of posts from Peter could hardly be imagined than these that form a defacto "confession" of the REALity behind what he has accepted.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The reality of halos is not in dispute. The point that Robert Gentry tries to make, on behalf of creationists, is that certain halos, thought to be caused by short half-lived isotopes, can only be caused by the sudden creation of the rocks in which they are now found. However, that is not the only possible interpretation, and in fact it is much more reasonable that the halos were not caused by primordial Polonium as he contends. The very same isotope of Polonium that he sees as the cause of the halos, is still present in rocks and in the atmosphere. Why is this so, if it has a half life of only minutes? The reason is that it is continually being produced from the uranium decay chain. There is nothing spectacular in finding these halos in rock. It is to be expected
that the halos can also be caused by Polonium that is not primordial, since this non-primordial Polonium is present in abundance in the earth, even now.

Gentry's interpretation demands that the halos be caused by primordial Polonium, but there is no reason to think that the halos can only be caused by primordial Polonium. So his interpretation fails. He conclusion does not follow from the data.

 

The problem is that the Halos are very short lived and the cooling process for Granite is "very long". 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 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.


Granite formation "lotta pressure" and "Lotta Time".

In Christ,

Bob

 

>>>>>>>>>The problem is that the Halos are very short lived and the cooling process for Granite is "very long". 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 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 think that perhaps you made a typo and also it seems that you do not understand Gentry's theory.
As for the typo, the halos are not short lived as they are still in the rock, having been created there either a few thousand years ago, or perhaps longer in the view of mainstream science. To explain Gentry's idea, he says that the halos were produced by primordial Polonium and that therefore this rules out a very long cooling time for the solidifying rock, since the halos would have been destroyed by melting, if the rock were in a molten condition when it was formed and if the Polonium quickly died away due to its short half life. So if we eliminate the possibility of non-primordial Polonium and accept the mainstream view of how granites are formed, with a very long cooling time, then the halos should not be there. but the problem for Gentry is that the possibility of non-primordial polonium cannot be eliminated and in fact that are hints that it is non-primordial polonium.

Therefore he concludes that the rock and the earth were all formed instantaneously in the solid form when God created the earth. His critics though, say that there is no proof that the halos, even if formed by the short lived polonium, were formed by PRIMORDIAL short lived Polonium. The halos can form by damage in solid rock, if there is a source of Polonium. And there is such a source, even today, since it is produced in large amounts from the uranium decay chain. Also the source of the halos has been found to include instrusive rocks, which are by definition, younger than the rocks that they intrude into, which is counter to Gentry's claim that these rocks were formed instantly, and not from molten material. You see, Gentry cannot allow the rocks with the halos to ever have been molten, or his halos, there in the beginning of creation, would have been destroyed and not visible now. But geologists tell us that by these rocks being intrusive, they were therefore molten.

Bob Ryan, I am sorry to have to be blunt, but indications are that you did not understand the main idea in Gentry's theory.