Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 16 of 142 (478631)
08-18-2008 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by johnfolton
08-18-2008 11:35 AM


Re: Young Earth !!!!!!! - NOT THE TOPIC
Where is your evidence that accelerated decay would change the energy of the alpha particle affecting ring diameter, etc...?
The graph that you saw in post #7, you drooling goober!! At least make a tiny effort here, Whatever!

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by johnfolton, posted 08-18-2008 11:35 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by AdminNosy, posted 08-18-2008 8:30 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 18 by johnfolton, posted 08-18-2008 11:30 PM Coragyps has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 17 of 142 (478633)
08-18-2008 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coragyps
08-18-2008 7:43 PM


Watch the choice of words!
you drooling goober!
Your point is made without these words. If you can't resist that kind of thing with this poster and you don't want to be suspended for a short time then I suggest you ignore him.
It should be clear by now that this poster is impervious to learning, why waste more time if you are letting it get to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 08-18-2008 7:43 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 18 of 142 (478639)
08-18-2008 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coragyps
08-18-2008 7:43 PM


Re: Young Earth !!!!!!! - NOT THE TOPIC
Your graft is about present decay rates however is not the halos about the ionizing of the rock as the alpha particle leaves the nucleus.
How do you explain squashed Polonium-210 radiohalos and no evidence of the parent element? Orphan?
Enjoy,
JF
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24
Evidence for a Young World | Answers in Genesis
404 Not Found
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 08-18-2008 7:43 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by peaceharris, posted 08-19-2008 12:45 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 20 by Joe Meert, posted 08-19-2008 9:38 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 23 by Coragyps, posted 08-19-2008 1:58 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 19 of 142 (478641)
08-19-2008 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by johnfolton
08-18-2008 11:30 PM


Re: Young Earth !!!!!!! - NOT THE TOPIC
It is very speculative to say, “Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay”
Here are some of Gentry’s data taken from:
Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification
“More sensitive IMMA measurements on these U radiocenters revealed 238U/206Pb ratios (15) of approximately 2230; 2520; 8150; 8300; 8750; 18,700; 19,500; 21,000; 21,900; and 27,300 (again corrected for different ionization efficiencies).”
“Compared to a 238U halo radiocenter, a 210Po halo inclusion should contain much less 238U (perhaps none at all) and much more of the 210Po decay product 206Pb. The IMMA analyses of Po halo inclusions showed that the 238U content was low, the 238U/206Pb ratios varying from 0.001 to 2.0.”
There are halos with 238U/206Pb ratios as low as 0.001, as high as 27300. If a creationist has the liberty to speculate accelerated decay when explaining the low ratio of 0.001, an evolutionist also has the liberty to speculate ”decelerated decay’ to explain the high ratio of 27300.
Instead of speculating, why not just say, “I am not intelligent enough to analyze the data and determine the time when these halos formed.”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by johnfolton, posted 08-18-2008 11:30 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by johnfolton, posted 08-19-2008 1:02 PM peaceharris has not replied
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2008 7:31 PM peaceharris has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 20 of 142 (478660)
08-19-2008 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by johnfolton
08-18-2008 11:30 PM


Re: Young Earth !!!!!!! - NOT THE TOPIC
quote:
Your graft is about present decay rates however is not the halos about the ionizing of the rock as the alpha particle leaves the nucleus.
So, what decay rate does Gentry use for his Po-halos? How did he choose that number and how much does it differ from 'evolutionary science' estimates?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by johnfolton, posted 08-18-2008 11:30 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by johnfolton, posted 08-19-2008 1:23 PM Joe Meert has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 21 of 142 (478677)
08-19-2008 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by peaceharris
08-19-2008 12:45 AM


Re: Young Earth !!!!!!! - NOT THE TOPIC
There are halos with 238U/206Pb ratios as low as 0.001, as high as 27300. If a creationist has the liberty to speculate accelerated decay when explaining the low ratio of 0.001, an evolutionist also has the liberty to speculate ”decelerated decay’ to explain the high ratio of 27300.
Sounds like Gentry in your article is talking about coal not zircons in rock? Leaching (biblical flood likely) explains the high ratio in coal. Snelling in respect to orphans was about whats found in zircons in rocks. Leaning Gentry was just showing halo's exists too in coal.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Even though the biological fossil record has been extensively documented, the rather abundant fossil record of radiohalos that exists in the coalified wood from the Colorado Plateau has remained virtually undeciphered. Jedwab (1) and Breger (2) have determined some important characteristics of such halos; in fact, earlier (1, 2) as well as present investigations on these samples (3) agree that: (i) the microscopic-size radiocenters responsible for halos (Fig. 1a) in coalified wood are actually secondary sites that preferentially accumulated -radioactivity during an earlier period of earth history when uranium-bearing solutions infiltrated the logs after they had been uprooted;
Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by peaceharris, posted 08-19-2008 12:45 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 22 of 142 (478679)
08-19-2008 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Joe Meert
08-19-2008 9:38 AM


Re: Young Earth !!!!!!! - NOT THE TOPIC
So, what decay rate does Gentry use for his Po-halos? How did he choose that number and how much does it differ from 'evolutionary science' estimates?
The link Peaceharris gave in respect to Genty makes it sound like Gentry is a creationists and does not share uniformitists beliefs that uniformitists share in respect to the age of the earth.
P.S. Maybe Peaceharris knows the "number" your looking for and if Gentry uses a "number" that differ's from evolutionarism's?
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Joe Meert, posted 08-19-2008 9:38 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Joe Meert, posted 08-19-2008 4:13 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 23 of 142 (478683)
08-19-2008 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by johnfolton
08-18-2008 11:30 PM


Re: Young Earth !!!!!!! - NOT THE TOPIC
How do you explain squashed Polonium-210 radiohalos and no evidence of the parent element?
You might want to read the first two sentences of this thread again, JF.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by johnfolton, posted 08-18-2008 11:30 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 24 of 142 (478687)
08-19-2008 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by johnfolton
08-19-2008 1:23 PM


Re: Young Earth !!!!!!! - NOT THE TOPIC
JF wrote:
quote:
The link Peaceharris gave in respect to Genty makes it sound like Gentry is a creationists and does not share uniformitists beliefs that uniformitists share in respect to the age of the earth.
He is, indeed, a creationist. What's funny is that he uses the decay rates calculated by old-earth geologists. Uniformitarian geologists. So are decay rates constant, or not? Gentry tells us no on one hand and yes with the other. Does that strike you as odd?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by johnfolton, posted 08-19-2008 1:23 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2008 7:37 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 25 of 142 (478698)
08-19-2008 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by peaceharris
08-19-2008 12:45 AM


Neither Young Earth OR Polonium Please - NOT THE TOPIC
Thanks peaceharris, for your help.
Please keep in mind that this thread is intended (see Message 1) to talk about uranium halos and exclude talk about polonium (feel free to start a topic if you wish).
In particular, the question is whether uranium halos:
(1) show that the energy of alpha particle decay has not changed while the halos are formed (otherwise ring would be blurred or have some different diameters).
(2) because the energy of alpha particles is a result of the decay rate of an isotope, this means that the decay rate has not changed while the halos are formed.
(3) therefore the halos are several hundred million years old.
Thanks, and
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by peaceharris, posted 08-19-2008 12:45 AM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by peaceharris, posted 08-19-2008 8:31 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 142 (478699)
08-19-2008 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Joe Meert
08-19-2008 4:13 PM


Not Polonium Niether ... Uranium, and the age shown by Uranium halos etc ...
Hey Joe, nice to see you back and posting again. I've been reading your thread, and it is interesting stuff to this amateur geologist/naturalist.
So are decay rates constant, or not?
That is the big question here, and what I can see so far is that the decay rates are tied to the energy the alpha particle ends up with when it tunnels through the Coulomb wall\barrier, so that if one changes the other must also change.
Are there other variables? Would there be other effects (atoms falling apart)?
Thanks, and
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Joe Meert, posted 08-19-2008 4:13 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by johnfolton, posted 08-19-2008 9:40 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 27 of 142 (478702)
08-19-2008 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
08-19-2008 7:31 PM


Re: Neither Young Earth OR Polonium Please - NOT THE TOPIC
RAZD writes:
therefore the halos are several hundred million years old.
After Gentry made erroneous calculation based on the ratio of Pb206:U238, he wrote, "Even without attempting to subtract out the 206Pb component of the common and "old" radiogenic Pb (15), these 238U/206Pb ratios raise some questions. For example, if the 238U/206Pb = 27,300 value is indicative of the formation time of the radiocenter, this is more recent by at least a factor of 270 than the minimum (Cretaceous) and more recent by a factor of 760 than the maximum (Triassic) geological age"
-quote from Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification
I have already explained that is erroneous to do calculations based solely on Pb206:U238. Tree suck ground water, and coal is from trees.
Here is a quote regarding ground water from
http://de.scientificcommons.org/23859804
"Extremely variable and elevated U-234/U-238 ratios (of 2-12) are characteristic."
If there is a lot of U234, U234 also will decay to Pb206.
So in either case, whether someone chooses to neglect U234 or whether he wants to be more accurate without neglecting U234, the conclusion is that U halos do not in any way prove an old earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2008 7:31 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2008 9:57 PM peaceharris has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 28 of 142 (478706)
08-19-2008 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
08-19-2008 7:37 PM


Re: Not Polonium Niether ... Uranium, and the age shown by Uranium halos etc ...
Razd said: That is the big question here, and what I can see so far is that the decay rates are tied to the energy the alpha particle ends up with when it tunnels through the Coulomb wall\barrier, so that if one changes the other must also change.
The Alpha particle sometimes its said leaves the radioactive nuclei in an excited state.
The excess energy your talking about is removed by the emission of a gamma ray from the alpha particle!
Razd said: If the decay rates had changed we would not have Uranium halos, because the energy of the alpha particles would change WITH the change in decay rate, and the resulting rings would NOT be at the correct diameter, if they weren't smeared to much to see.
Actually given excess energy from the alpha particle is released by a gamma ray.
Interestingly its the lack of smearing that suggests polonium halo's are caused from primordial polonium instead of radon gas being the parent of polonium halo's.
Its all right back to the lack of a parent. Orphan? and alpha exicitations energy instead being released by the alpha particle itself releasing a gamma ray?
If the earth was an old one you should be seeing halo smearing which would be the result if polonium halos parent was not primordial polonium but mobile radon gas.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Alpha particles are emitted by radioactive nuclei such as uranium or radium in a process known as alpha decay. This sometimes leaves the nucleus in an excited state, with the emission of a gamma ray removing the excess energy.
Alpha particle - Wikipedia
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)
Study Pages
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2008 7:37 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 29 of 142 (478707)
08-19-2008 9:47 PM


THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT POLONIUM
SHEESH.

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by johnfolton, posted 08-19-2008 10:02 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 142 (478708)
08-19-2008 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by peaceharris
08-19-2008 8:31 PM


Re: Neither Young Earth NOR Polonium NOR Dating Methods
Thanks peaceharris.
So in either case, whether someone chooses to neglect U234 or whether he wants to be more accurate without neglecting U234, the conclusion is that U halos do not in any way prove an old earth.
Let's stick to the simple parts first: this is not about radiometric dating methods, but about the simple decay of uranium causing a steady stream of alpha particles that damage the surrounding rock at diameters directly proportional to their (present day) energy levels.
The consistency of these rings is not dependent on any correction or dating methodology, it is just a simple fact, bedded in the rocks.
There is no change in the alpha particle energies that form the uranium rings in all the time that it takes to form the rings.
We don't need to date the uranium halos to know that they are old: the decay rates for those rings unique to the long half-life isotopes in the uranium decay series, and the large number of impacts necessary to form a visible ring means that de facto the rings are several hundred million years old (a drop in the bucket for geological time, but too old for any YEC mythology).
It's simple evidence of an old earth, no rocket science corrections necessary.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by peaceharris, posted 08-19-2008 8:31 PM peaceharris 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