Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A creationist take on quickly forming giant gaseous planets
outblaze
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 3 (24980)
11-29-2002 6:26 PM


Jack Kinsella's spin on Quinn and team's research published in the 29 November issue of Science magazine.
Page not found | Omegaletter

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by gene90, posted 11-29-2002 6:45 PM outblaze has not replied
 Message 3 by Quetzal, posted 12-02-2002 7:57 AM outblaze has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 2 of 3 (24983)
11-29-2002 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by outblaze
11-29-2002 6:26 PM


From the above link.
If it decays in solid rock, the circle is preserved. But if it decays in a hot molten rock, the circle disappears. All over the world radio-polonium halos exist in granite, indicating the earth was never a hot, molten mass.
That's not correct and, from what I know of Gentry's work, it is not what he claims his research indicates. As long as there is a polonium source in the magma, there will be polonium to decay *after* the rock solidifies. By the way, granite is an intrusive igneous rock. It very clearly had a molten origin, though not during the beginning of the Earth. Therefore, the argument defeats itself.
The half-life of the polonium halo of just a few seconds also argues strongly in favor of an abrupt creation of the earth
That is also incorrect, as polonium may be generated by radioactive decay of other elements with longer halflifes. However, if the Earth were formed suddenly 6000 years ago there should be a lot more shortlived isotopes than we observe.
Gentry's research was published in many major science magazines until someone realized that it was proving the big bang theory to be a big dud.
Actually the implications were realized in the first paper he published, in Science, in the late 1980s. I have read the paper, and if memory serves, "Sudden formation" was in the abstract or perhaps even the title. The implications were obvious. Plus there were quite a few letters of rebuttal generated in the months that followed. What we have here is not censorship, but how the peer-review system works.
As the planets cool, the gas and dust thrown off from larger planets are attracted by gravity to planets like Earth.
That's impossible! First, gas does not climb up out of a giant planet, against gravity, and go over to a little planet such as Earth. Secondly, it is traveling in the wrong direction. Radiation pressure and the solar wind push dust and gases out, away from the Sun, not towards it so it can arrive on Earth. Finally, the Earth is too hot to accumulate volatile elements that cold outer planets gave up.
This actually goes in the opposite direction: volatile materials are cooked off the Earth and inner planets and swept up by the outer planets.
As an object of scientific neutrality, then, God must, by default, be assumed to exist unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Actually that's not true. If we applied "neutrality" towards the subject of God then we could only assume that we lacked enough information to determine if there is/are god(s). That's the position of the agnostic.
Instead, conventional scientific wisdom concludes ancient man inadvertently programmed that information at the genetic level himself through an unprovable tens of thousands of years of dog breeding. Does that make ANY sense at all?
Yep. New varities of domestic animal are still being produced today.
All the scientific evidence says we're running out of time.
What?
[This message has been edited by gene90, 11-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by outblaze, posted 11-29-2002 6:26 PM outblaze has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 3 of 3 (25230)
12-02-2002 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by outblaze
11-29-2002 6:26 PM


Here are a few sites discussing Gentry's Po haloes:
Polonium Haloes and the Age of the Earth
TalkOrigins PoHalo essay
creationism contains links to five articles refuting Gentry
Examining Radio Halos from the Geosciences Research Institute (scientific YECs! don't even like it)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by outblaze, posted 11-29-2002 6:26 PM outblaze has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024