Gentry first needs to refute that Radon caused his halos. That in over 15 years he has failed to do so "might well be the people lying are those misrepresenting radon and short periods of time because the only alternative is the truth that its an "Old Earth". right?"
Wrong, Here's Gentries response to to what the dogs on the internet are saying about radon and why it all still comes out an young earth. right?
P.S. If you think your right then contact the academy of sciences to refute Gentry because thats the next step because any dog on the internet can post objections but can you get the academy of sciences to post your objections can you get any reputable scientific journal to publish your spurious claims? The answer is the evolutionists can not get their claims published. right?
Briefly, to begin, those who are claiming to have found a natural explanation of polonium halos in granites are trying to hoodwink the unwary. They are misrepresenting the facts. The reason evolutionists and others post objections on the Internet (anyone can do that, even a DOG :-)) is because they cannot get any reputable scientific journal to publish their claims. The journal editors know their claims are spurious. And were they to be published, the same editors know it would only expose the huge fallacies in their claims
The evidence clearly favors Gentry: basically, Gentry challenged them to step up to the plate and start a debate in a peer-reviewed SCIENCE journals (the rebuttal works on halos are published on the Internet (no review at all) or in education journals).
So far, Gentry has no luck... that really make you wonder how "scientific" these criticisms on Gentry's halo work really are....
Polonium as a result of radon decade
Another explanation of the polonium halos is "wandering radon" - see point 3 in click here.
Their logic is as follows:
Radium decades to Radon-222 and Radon is a gas - it can move through cracks in the granite
Radon is initially negatively charged (because it was formed by radium emitting a positively charged alpha particle, so the radon formed will have a surplus of electrons) and The negatively charged Radon gas could diffuse and gather at a "positively charged" location...
Then Radon decades to Po-218; and voila - Polonium halos...
This explanation has a lot of holes:
If the Radon did gather to a single "positively charged" location and did decade into Po-218; the alpha particle emitted by Radon-222 (when it decades to Po-218) would have form an extra ring in the halos Some articles did report a "fussy" radon ring in the sharply visible Polonium halos - but they did not reason further, so let me do that here: if the radon ring is "fussy", the most likely cause is: random location of decaying radon atoms. The result of this is randomly situated Polonium-218 atoms. The consequence of this is: a undetectable smear instead of sharply visible concentrated Polonium halos. (The discoloration will only happen by billions of Po-218 decades concentrated in a single spot - without high concentration, it will be a undetectable smear).
Although Rason-222 is initially negatively charged (because Radiun-226 emitted 2 positive protons away when it decaded into Radon-222), the Radon-222 will lose the extra (2) electrons when it collides with other molecules. Especially if the negatively charged Radon-222 is "directed towards a positively charged" location - Radon-222 will shet its electrons. After shedding the excess electrons, the radon gas is neutral and diffusion will make the radon gas go in every possble direction and will not "gather" at a negatively charged spot. Bottomline: radon gas will not accummulate in a single spot - and without high concentration of Po-218 in a single spot, you don't get halos (the discoloration will only happen by billions of Po-218 decades concentrated in a single spot - without high concentration, it will be a undetectable smear)
Well, in the article you linked to it is explained in the very first paragraph, it is due to Greenhouse gasses. Furthermore it talks about this period being 55 million years ago, thanks for refuting your ow point.
Your talking about those indicator fossils. right? If the RATE TEAM focus on accelerated decay can not be refuted then those fossils might well be 6,000 years old. right?
P.S. Got to take a break because Nosy is sending confusing messages its like creation science from his perspective is nonsense when it supports a young earth.
If the RATE TEAM focus on accelerated decay can not be refuted then those fossils might well be 6,000 years old. right?
The RATE team's ideas on accelerated decay have been refuted. I posted two links to detailed analyses upthread (or maybe on our other thread).
The only ones who support accelerated decay are motivated by religious belief; those who follow science find no evidence for it and a boatload of evidence against it.
Got to take a break because Ned is sending confusing messages its like creation science from his perspective is nonsense when it supports a young earth.
Creation "science" is nonsense. This is the Science Forum, so you have to use real science. If you do that, and leave out scripture and unsupported religious belief, you'll be fine.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
P.S. Got to take a break because Nosy is sending confusing messages its like creation science from his perspective is nonsense when it supports a young earth.
If you ever had anything sound that supported a young earth that would be interesting.
The "nonsense" this time was your PS. It is just chaotic words without any value whatsoever. Do not post crap!
I think this is a good idea. You're getting both mainstream and creation science wrong. You're talking nonsense from both perspectives. We're not going to try to coax you into sensibility, we'll just ask you to stop participating.
How do you account for the distance the moon moves away from the earth each year? If the earth is "millions" of years old, than the moon must have been touching the earth when the earth began.
NASA put 6 foot legs on the Apollo lander, because they calculated that at the current build-up rate of space dust on the moon, that there would be over 6 feet of dust, and a lander without legs would sink... But when they arrived, there was only 6 inches of dust... About the amount you would expect if the universe was 4000-6000 years old
How do you account for the distance the moon moves away from the earth each year? If the earth is "millions" of years old, than the moon must have been touching the earth when the earth began.
One of the common arguments made in support of young-Earth creationism is that the dynamic age of the Earth-moon system (as determined by the physics of the Earth-moon tidal interaction) is too young to support a multi-billion year age for the system. In this article I will (a) review the basic physics of gravity and tides, (b) review the history of theoretical models for Earth-moon tides, (c) review the paleontological evidence relevant to the history of the Earth-moon system, and (d) demonstrate that the combination of theory and observation refute the young-Earth creationist arguments, with reference to specific young-Earth arguments and their specific failures. Source
NASA put 6 foot legs on the Apollo lander, because they calculated that at the current build-up rate of space dust on the moon, that there would be over 6 feet of dust, and a lander without legs would sink... But when they arrived, there was only 6 inches of dust... About the amount you would expect if the universe was 4000-6000 years old
For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one, either). See Moon-dust argument no longer useful and Moon dust and the age of the solar system (Technical). Source
Note: this last rebuttal is found on the creationist website AnswersinGenesis, in the article titled "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use." That talking point is too silly even for most creationists!
You really have to do better than this if you want to be taken seriously on this website. These two creationist talking points you graced us with have been refuted thousands of times, and your presentation of them here only makes you look silly.
Other than that, welcome!
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
I think the problem with this site is people don't really understand the sciences. Perhaps Ned is a good computer programer but obviously didn't understand Sublimation. Called it nonsense and to repeat like stuff grounds of suspension. Its not his fault he is not too knowledgeable in the sciences but to threaten debate as if creation science is nonsense and grounds of suspension. There is a few people that seem to understand the sciences Ned is not one of them he only bully's people as a moderator. No wonder no one comes here to debate you can not debate if the moderator believes creation science is nonsense and grounds of suspension.
Its whats wrong with debate at EVC is people like Coyote who just said creation science is nonsense. I understand Coyote is all bark and no bite but still when debating creation science he turns with his tail between his legs and says he refuted anything is almost as funny as Ned moderating where the purpose of this thread was for me to bring my evidence of an young earth.
He immediately redefined it to be about the RATE Team when bringing stuff about young earth he threatened suspension. So I only talked about accelerated decay because to talk about the red dobbler, or about the strange ”connection’ between the galaxy NGC4319 and the quasar Markarian 205 which andrew snelling has brought up about distances by the dobbler redshift might well challenge distances based off Hubble Law would be grounds of suspension. If the universe is young the earth then is young, like galaxy spirals, etc...
No scientists will debate a Walt Brown because in the scientific circles its known that evolution is nothing but a myth and a religion. Actually seems the creationists have the evidence so now all the evolutionists can do is to deny, to deny, to deny because the evidence has swung to the creationists camp.
I presented scientific evidence that has not been refuted such as Robert Gentry's primordial polonium halo's being evidence of an young earth. Razd proved he was unable to refute Gentry's claims about the radon cracks didn't refute Gentry's response. Yet the evolutionists continue to spread their lies that he has been refuted.
Not being able to refute means your in Check. right? Gentry has had the evolutionists in check for over 15 years but while the creationists know its check mate the evolutionists simply refuse to make the next move to refute gentry. Why? because they know to refute in a scientific peer reviewed magazine would mean making the next move which to the evolutionists camp would be check mate! right? Check Mate!!!!!!!
Its whats wrong with debate at EVC is people like Coyote who just said creation science is nonsense. I understand Coyote is all bark and no bite but still when debating creation science he turns with his tail between his legs and says he refuted anything is almost as funny as...
That's Dr. Coyote to you son. And perhaps I should have said that creation "science" is religious apologetics, not science, but when it is filtered through your unique viewpoint and style of presentation, well, it does become nonsense.
I gave you your own thread to present a scientific argument for a young earth, but you presented a jumble of oft-refuted creationist talking points and other creation "science." That material is only suited for convincing folks who already believe in a young earth and know little or nothing of science, and who are willing to ignore all evidence which shows them to be wrong.
And that is why the admins are after you. You have presented no science which would stand up to high school science class scrutiny, let alone convince scientists. Religious apologetics might be acceptable in other fora, but this is the Science Forum.
But you still have a couple of hundred posts to redeem yourself.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
You should become a moderator because your one of those people that seems grounded in the sciences. You have your problems but they don't seem to be based on your understanding in the sciences. right?
P.S. This thread was supposed to be for a place for me to bring stuff related to a young earth. That was what was said in another thread by admin moose. It don't matter don't consider myself a rocket scientist either but its all so interesting, etc...
Hello, Twilly. Tell me, lad, are you rather new to this subject? Maybe a teenager or young adult who has recently converted to some bible-literalist Christian sect? Or someone who had previously belonged to such a sect, but only recently been turned on to "creation science" (the use of the 60's drug vernacular there was deliberate, BTW)? All this "creation science" stuff you're being fed is exciting, isn't it? All these new discoveries that will just blow those silly scientists away. Right?
Let me tell you a little story. Back in the early 1970's, a mall and mini-community was built in Orange, Calif, called "The City" (I'm operating without benefit of wikipedia here; by 1973 it was already well-established and was a bus node -- a lot of us made use of those buses due to the gasoline crisis). Somewhere in the late 1990's, the mall was razed and in its place they built "The Block".
Well, around 1990, a creationist opened a creationist fossil shop, "In the Beginning", in The City. That creationist also organized a short series of of amateur-night creation/evolution debate nights, wherein anyone who felt they had anything to say could get up and make a presentation. Since I had early knowledge of these "debates" I passed the word along such that the audiences seemed to be somewhat evenly divided -- a fact which I think led to the creationist organizer's decision to discontinue the event after a few times, since it didn't turn out to be the triumph that he had planned.
One night, a young creationist, maybe about 20 years old got up and announced that he had new scientific evidence that was going to blow the evolutionists away! Are you ready for this? The speed of light has been decreasing over time. Immediately, half of the audience burst into uncontrollable laughter. And then they all tried to explain to that poor hapless creationist how utterly wrong he was. How Setterfield's claim wasn't new, but was already over a decade old. And had been refuted almost immediately, as well as a thousand times afterwards as countless clueless creationists would regurgitate his false claims in countless public fora.
The sad thing is that at that time I had not yet realized the effects of "creation science" on its believers. That once the believers of "creation science" came to realize how utterly bogus and false and deliberately deceptive "creation science" is, that the next lesson would then take effect: "if these claims are false, if evolution is true, then Scripture is a complete and total falsehood, God does not exist, and we should all become hedonist atheists." (which is, BTW, like "creation science", complete and utter bullshit). It's a double-whammy, because those same religious teachers who had been lying to them about "creation science" and lied to them about the consequences of evolution being true, also lied to them outrageously about atheism.
Yeah, that poor kid was completely blown away. You could see it in his face. He had no idea what had just hit him. I don't know what happened to him after that trauma. Was his faith completely destroyed, as "creation science" had taught him must be the consequence? I don't know. Did he instead go into even deeper denial (a friend at church once described to me his own fundamentalist experience and how he had to blind himself to so many things in everyday life until he just could no longer deceive himself constantly -- after having applied the Matthew 7:20 test on Christianity, he became an atheist and thorough humanist and was so much happier and spiritually fulfilled for it)? I don't know. And I'm sorry that I had not yet become aware of how "creation science" destroys faith.
Those "new" claims that you're being fed are decades old and were refuted soundly almost immediately. I've been following "creation science" since around 1981. Most of the claims date back to the late 1970's. You see, in the 1920's, the creationists won. They succeeded in banning the teaching of evolution from the public schools. In four states they even succeeded in enacting "monkey laws" that not only made the teaching of evolution in public schools illegal, but also carried the penalty of stripping the offending teacher of his teaching credentials for life. Any teacher who dared to teach evolution would be forever barred from teaching. Didn't affect the universities, who paid very little attention of the "controversy", but it did affect the high schools. Creationist pressure on local school boards and on the textbook publishers finished the job.
But then at the end of 1950's, things changed. Sputnik! Part of the "missile gap" was the "science gap", which needed to be closed by also closing the "science education gap". So now science education was a national priority! And actual scientists (instead of mere textbook hacks) started writing the textbooks. Like the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), which was written by scientists and university professors and which had evolution as the cornerstone of biology, which it is. And when the BSCS books were mandated for use in Arkansas, one of those states with a "monkey law", a biology teacher named Susan Epperson was caught in a dilemma. If she refused to use the BSCS books, then she would be fired. But if she were to use them, then the "monkey law" would bar her from ever again teaching. So she filed suit and it went to the US Supreme Court, where the barring of the teaching of evolution for religious reasons was found to be unconstitutional. Which resulted in the striking down of all the "monkey laws", thus unravelling the creationists' triumph of four decades earlier.
So the creationists created a deliberate deception in order to get around the courts. That deliberate deception was "creation science", the claim that they have scientific evidence for creation and that it should be given "equal time" with evolution. And the claims that you have regurgitated here (fancy talk for "puked" or "barfed") are simply false claims that were created around that time and that were refuted almost immediately. The term used here is PRATT, which stands for (I never seem to be able to get that "p" right) "point refuted a thousand times". So now when you post yet another one of those deceptions and someone responds with "PRATT!!", you will understand what they are telling you.
The sad truth is that creationists have no such evidence. Epperson vs Arkansas was in 1968. In the subsequent four decades, creationists have been repeated asked, begged, to present their evidence. And to date, not a single bit of evidence FOR creation has ever been presented. Indeed, creationists have extremely strongly resisted efforts to get them to present any of that evidence that they would constantly claim to have. You can examine several topics in this forum wherein the creationists have been directly requested to please, please, please present their evidence. And none is ever presented.
You were directed to talkorigins.org . That is an excellent source from which to examine the truth about the creationist claims that you are being fed. Learn about those claims. Examine them. Seek the truth.
Even though the opening post was directed at you, I'm requesting that you please stop posting to this thread. I understand that you are unsatisfied with the moderation here, so I suggest you consider seeking out venues more to your liking.
Briefly, to begin, those who are claiming to have found a natural explanation of polonium halos in granites are trying to hoodwink the unwary. They are misrepresenting the facts. The reason evolutionists and others post objections on the Internet (anyone can do that, even a DOG :-)) is because they cannot get any reputable scientific journal to publish their claims. The journal editors know their claims are spurious. And were they to be published, the same editors know it would only expose the huge fallacies in their claims
The evidence clearly favors Gentry: basically, Gentry challenged them to step up to the plate and start a debate in a peer-reviewed SCIENCE journals (the rebuttal works on halos are published on the Internet (no review at all) or in education journals).
So far, Gentry has no luck... that really make you wonder how "scientific" these criticisms on Gentry's halo work really are....
Which doesn't prove Gentry right, nor does it show that he has answered those critics in any way other than bluff.
Perhaps the reason no one has taken him up is a problem with credibility as a geologist:
quote:Gentry is a physicist, not a geologist. He doesn't follow accepted geologic reporting practice and consistently fails to provide the information that a third party would need to collect comparable samples for testing. For his research, Gentry utilized microscope thin sections of rocks from samples sent to him by others from various places around the world. Thus, he is unable to say how his samples fit in with the local or regional geological setting(s). He also does not provide descriptive information about the individual rock samples that make up his studies - i.e., the abundance and distribution of major, accessory, or trace minerals; the texture, crystal size and alteration features of the rocks; and the presence or absence of fractures and discontinuities.
Gentry does not acknowledge that the Precambrian time period represents fully 7/8 of the history of the Earth as determined by decades of intensive field and laboratory investigations by thousands of geologists. Consequently, he does not recognize the wide diversity of geologic terranes that came and went over that enormous time span. His claim that his samples represent "primordial" basement rocks is patently incorrect . In Gentry's model, any rock looking vaguely like a granite and carrying the label Precambrian is considered to be a "primordial" rock. True granites are themselves evidence of significant crustal recycling and elemental differentiation (see for example, Taylor and McLennan, 1996), and cannot be considered primordial. A little detective work by Wakefield (1988) showed that at least one set of rock samples studied by Gentry are not from granites at all, but were taken from a variety of younger Precambrian metamorphic rocks and pegmatite veins in the region around Bancroft, Ontario. Some of these rock units cut or overlie older, sedimentary and even fossil-bearing rocks.
Your source has problems too:
quote:Necessary condition to form radio-halos: 1. Radio-active material must first enter the rock before the rock becomes solid - because you cannot put any material into a solid rock (example: how can you put a bean inside an ice-cube ? You put the bean inside water and then freeze it) 2. Halos can only form when the radio-active decay is going on after the rock has become solid (has crystal structure)
The first point is a false assertion: radioactive material can be carried by air and water, so all you need are cracks and fissures in the rock for uranium and other radioactive materials to be carried into the rock.
As we saw previously, the rocks that Gentry used were all rocks that have had an extensive period in their existence, since they cooled from magma, where the rock was fissured and later recrystallized, they were all cases where the rocks were infected with uranium inclusions, and where radon gas had plenty of opportunity to fill every void and fissure in the rock.
If the Radon did gather to a single "positively charged" location and did decade into Po-218; the alpha particle emitted by Radon-222 (when it decades to Po-218) would have form an extra ring in the halos Some articles did report a "fussy" radon ring in the sharply visible Polonium halos - but they did not reason further, so let me do that here: if the radon ring is "fussy", the most likely cause is: random location of decaying radon atoms.
Let me carry the logic one step further, the radon being a gas would decay from anywhere inside a pocket, the Polonium result would fall to the bottom of the pocket and concentrate in a smaller spot.
quote:Perhaps the most damaging challenge to Gentry's hypothesis comes not from what has been observed, but from what is missing. Of the three major, naturally occurring radioactive elements, uranium, thorium, and potassium, two - uranium and thorium - are marked by decay series involving alpha particle emissions. Gentry's polonium haloes are attributed to alpha particle decay of the polonium isotopes Po-210, Po-214, and Po-218, all part of the uranium-238 decay chain. Thorium-232 decays to stable Lead-208 through a series of steps which include two additional polonium isotopes, Po-212 and Po-216. Thorium has an elemental abundance between three and four times that of uranium in the Earth's crust. Also, in areas of uranium enrichment, such as those from which Gentry's halo samples apparently have come, thorium is also enriched. These thorium decay series polonium isotopes have alpha decay energies well within the range documented for uranium-series polonium decay. Thus, polonium isotopes which result from the decay of naturally occurring thorium-232 should also produce characteristic haloes. In fact, according to Gentry's model, all polonium isotopes should be represented equally. However as Collins (1997) points out, Gentry has identified only halos for those isotopes of polonium associated with the decay of uranium-238; halos attributable to polonium-212 and polonium-216 are not found. Additionally, haloes attributable to the two polonium isotopes in the decay series of uranium-235 (Po-211 and Po-215) are also missing. Uranium-235 currently comprises 0.71% of naturally occurring uranium (uranium-238 makes up 99.3%); 3 billion yeas ago, uranium-235 accounted for greater than 3% of natural uranium isotopes.
Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth.
And from the sidebar
quote:Expanding on the Radon migration idea
While Gentry does not provide a conclusive argument for demonstrating the relationship between concentric haloes and Polonium decay, the contribution of alpha-decay to halo development cannot be discounted entirely either. Collins (1997) reports that concentric ring halo structures commonly line up along visible micro-fractures in the host mineral grains, implying some association of the haloes with the fractures. An interesting argument can be developed to support the idea that concentric ring haloes are created following the migration of radon gas along mineral fractures and explain Gentry's missing haloes.
Polonium isotopes are produced in the radioactive decay chain of naturally occurring uranium-238, thorium-232, and uranium-235.
Gentry's studies identify concentric ring structures correlated with each of the three polonium isotopes in the uranium-238 decay series. Ring haloes correlated with polonium isotopes from the uranium-235 or the thorium-232 decay series are not reported, although they would have to be present under Gentry's primordial origin hypothesis.
The first polonium isotope in each decay series is the daughter of a different radon atom; these radon precursors have greatly different half-lives.
If polonium ring structures are the result of radon migration along micro-fractures (Collins' hypothesis), then the half-life of the specific radon precursor is important. Clearly, radon-222 can migrate much further than the other two radon species before it decays away. Also, because of its significantly longer half-life, radon-222 can accumulate in more significant concentrations in structural traps along the micro-fracture surfaces. Under these circumstances, one would expect to see many more radiogenic ring haloes associated with uranium-238 series polonium isotopes than those of the other two decay chains.
This explanation is more consistent with what is observed than Gentry's hypothesis, and is completely consistent with the standard geological model for rock formation.
The only Polonium halos found are for Polonium-218 that is a product of Radon-222 decay?
Bottomline: radon gas will not accummulate in a single spot
And this too is falsified by the evidence showing radon halos along fissures.
The bottom line is that Gentry et al cannot eliminate Radon as an explanation for Polonium halos, and because they cannot eliminate it, they cannot conclude that the only explanation is a young earth.
™ Version 4.2