Helium in the atmosphere. Evidence for or against a young earth?

This is an utterly useless statement unless you do the math and demonstrate what the actual quantitative values would be. It is also a kind of speculation that isn't really worth voicing unless you are open to learning about the subject and from that learning reconsidering your views.Very few here that make such speculations (which are basically clutching at straws attempting to support an unsupportable position) are willing to modify their views based on learning anything new.Additionally, do you actually think that, in several decades, if the numbers were that radioactivity would have been "extremely" higher in the distant past that someone in the geologic or geophysics community would not have thought of actually doing the calculations? I'm actually very interested in your answer to this question as it indicates your degree of understanding of the kind of thinking that has been done.

Did the link I supply not deal with the results to which you are referring? If not, specify which results you find interesting; perhaps I or someone more knowledgeable than I can find more information on it.

And you would be correct: back 4,560,000,000 years ago or so, when there were bunches of radioisotopes like aluminum-26 and manganese-53 around our neighborhood, the Earth and/or the planesimals that came together to form it were much more radioactive than today. But all of those isotopes with half-lives of less than 80,000,000 years have now decayed: you'll only find them near the dying stars that synthesize them, or in nuclear laboratories. You can find magnesium-26 and chromium-53, the daughters of the two I mentioned, in minerals (in meteorites) where they "don't belong" chemically. They got there through nuclear dacay. Long ago.ABE: "dacay" is much more often spelled "decay."This message has been edited by Coragyps, 09-16-2005 04:13 PM

I know they claim to have been well received. Bear in mind that pretty much anyone can present pretty much anything at those poster sessions; the material is not reviewed. I've seen comments by those present at the meeting saying that the reception was polite but bemused; the audience appeared to have difficulty believing thaat anyone could seriously present such garbage. Yup. The well educated scientists noticed.

The refutation you reffed was refuted by Humphreys. Here is the link http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp . As to the part about the AGU conference, I see your pointThis message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-16-2005 09:11 PM

Hello, christ_fanatic.The link I supplied earlier has a side-bar, at the beginning, that mentions this particular "refutation" by Humphreys.

I'll take your point there for now, but I want to ask what you know about polonium radiohalos.

Most of the people on this board are aware of Gentry's and RATE's claims about polonium radiohalos, and of the mechanisms for generating those radiohalos that are consistent with mainstream scientific theories and are ignored by Gentry and RATE.

JonF has already answered this. The only thing I will add is a link to a short explanation of Gentry's polonium halos.