Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8105 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-31-2014 11:32 AM
219 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Epee
Post Volume:
Total: 733,611 Year: 19,452/28,606 Month: 2,723/2,305 Week: 365/563 Day: 21/108 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
18NextFF
Author Topic:   polonium halos
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 46 of 265 (484690)
09-30-2008 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by bluescat48
09-30-2008 10:18 PM


Re: Primodial Polonium Halo Young Earth!
Your previous post was on a different page. Deleted this post.

However it was evidence how granite by known science could of instantly formed as Gentry suggested due to primordial polonium it didn't take millions of years to cool but instant cooling. Thats what Gentry suggest in regards to the formation of primordial polonium halo's.

I just don't see how its off topic, but whatever deleted the on topic offensive messages of this post!

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by bluescat48, posted 09-30-2008 10:18 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-30-2008 10:45 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3554
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 47 of 265 (484692)
09-30-2008 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by johnfolton
09-30-2008 10:35 PM


Delete your messages content or get suspended
See my previous message.

Also, this is a science topic in a science forum. Genesis references are also off-topic.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by johnfolton, posted 09-30-2008 10:35 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15748
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 48 of 265 (484695)
10-01-2008 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by johnfolton
09-30-2008 10:14 PM


Problems with Primal Polonium argument: no OTHER Primal halos
thanks, whatever. It's just a question that involves one of the many possible other sources of radioactive decay that should show up in the rock along side the 214Po IF the 214Po were in fact "primal" -- for these would also be "primal" radioactive elements, with similar AND longer half-lives, and they should form their own halos.

Its an inert gas dude no reason it would stick around in any one spot any more than radon does. right?

Yes Argon is an inert gas, just like Radon, yes it would do exactly what the Radon gas would do, it would concentrate in the same locations by the same process of partial pressure equalization, and in those locations it would decay. You should see evidence of that decay.

This is but one example, for there are no halos of any of these other "primal" radioactive isotopes, isotopes that are not renewed by existing decay or excitation processes, but have "timed out" and decayed away since they existed during the early years of the formation of the earth.

There are no "primal" radiohalos of these "timed out" isotopes. They don't exist because the earth was already too old for them, even though some of them have pretty long half-lives and should also show up in this rock formation: 41Calcium (130,000 years) and 36Chlorine (301,000 years) for example.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : timeout


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 43 by johnfolton, posted 09-30-2008 10:14 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by johnfolton, posted 10-01-2008 1:13 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 49 of 265 (484698)
10-01-2008 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
10-01-2008 12:40 AM


Primodial Polonium Halo Young Earth!
There are no "primal" radiohalos of these "timed out" isotopes. They don't exist because the earth was already too old for them, even though some of them have pretty long half-lives and should also show up in this rock formation: 41Calcium (130,000 years) and 36Chlorine (301,000 years) for example.

It really hard to do, like the Holy Grail of nuclear physics, scientists that try to create a new element!

Maybe they they never existed before the sun began to shine, like C14 do you have any evidence like 41ca today "not" due cosmic radiation? The B-E Condensate if these elements were created due cooling rather than the big bang that the condensate expansion is the big bang but that it didn't allow for certain isotopes to be part of the condensate. Its like in the lab certain spinstates are not allowed in different senerio is the B-E condensates they are creating showing that it does not follow the normal rules in respect to matter! right?

Gentry talks about his halos suggest a sudden cooling and that is contrary to the big bang. But science is science even if B-E C is considered ridiculous by the ignorant! The earth is young and the big bang is ridiculous. Think about it how in the heck did it snowball into the earth but by something like the B-E Condensates and these condensates might well not allow certain spinstates. right? !!!!!!!

Whatever,

P.S. Its like the entire universe was designed before it came forth and from one giant condensate from one central location due redshit shows this condensate came from one central location just like Gentry suggests like the universe suggest the earth is the center that the universe was created from a central location due light redshifts in all directions from the earth. right? The spirals of the galaxies in the know universe non have unwound off distance right? and the earliest picture of the entire universe shows the early universes temperature was said to be only 2 degrees above absolute zero. right? It does appear the creationists picture trumps a big bang picture that requires heat that just was not present in the earliest WMAP pictures from NASA. You find just the opposite the entire universe was only 2 degrees from absolute zero. right? This is evidence like you see with the earth that the evidence is the granite formed instantly evidence the earth formed from a B-E Condensate more like a seed that expanded only then did friction develop causing radioactive decay heating the planet from the inside out. right? The crystal structure including its large size of grante of structures too shows its different from all the igneous rocks out there. NO one can recreate granites texture with its large pore size. right? In a B-E condensate scientifically friction does not exists in this condensate state. right? and only after the granite expanded could friction generate radiactive decay. right? It also supports the big bang theory puts the cart ahead of the horse but the truth is appearing that the universe including the earth is young. right? When they take a B-E condensate reheat it it causes it to explode with part of it missing. Maybe the particle accelerator looking for evidence of different dimensions should be looking at the B-E Condensates. right?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Creating a new element "is sort of the Holy Grail of nuclear physics,'' said Konrad Gelbke, a scientist who was not on the team but directs the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory at Michigan State University. "It's extremely hard to do.''

http://www.livescience.com/environment/061017_ap_heavy_element.html

Five Year Results on the Oldest Light in the Universe
WMAP 5-year Results Released - March 7, 2008

The Microwave Sky

Credit: NASA/WMAP Science TeamThe cosmic microwave temperature fluctuations from the 5-year WMAP data seen over the full sky. The average temperature is 2.725 Kelvin (degrees above absolute zero; equivalent to -270 C or -455 F), and the colors represent the tiny temperature fluctuations, as in a weather map. Red regions are warmer and blue regions are colder by about 0.0002 degrees.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/

Can Spacetime be a Condensate?
Author: Hu, B.1

Source: International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Volume 44, Number 10, October 2005 , pp. 1785-1806(22)

In this talk, working within the conceptual framework of geometro-hydrodynamics, we suggest a new way to look at the nature of spacetime inspired by Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) physics. We ask the question whether spacetime could be a condensate, even without the knowledge of what the‘atom of spacetime’ is. We begin with a summary of the main themes for this new interpretation of cosmology and spacetime physics, and the ‘bottom-up’ approach to quantum gravity.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/ijtp/2005/00000044/00000010/00008895;jsessionid=2jdrh0mn6tsng.alexandra?format=print

Totally ridiculous nonsense hidden. If JF posts more suspensions will follow.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminNosy, : hide nonsense.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2008 12:40 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1242 days)
Posts: 380
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 50 of 265 (484760)
10-01-2008 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
09-30-2008 10:02 PM


Re: Pompous Pronouncements of Primal Polonium Prevalence Provide no Proof not Poppycock
No, he has been refuted. Denial of evidence does not make a winning argument. What you really see is whatever\johnfulton desperately clutching at straws, any straws to try some new angle to get around the evidence that -- sorry -- polonium halos come from radon.

How long do you keep explaining that 2+2 = 4?

... been refuted. Completely. Curiously, repeating falsehoods has never been shown to make them any more valid or real.

I guess you missed where they were published. In 1980.

I reread all the posts, and maybe I did miss it. Please cite the peer reviewed published refutation. If possible the pdf.

Also, it seems to me that the radon/polonium argument is easily testable in a lab environment. Short half-lives. We ought to have oodles of papers on the creation of polonium halos in granite from radon being trapped in fissures. This is east to test. And you don't need the magic of millions of years.

Please cite a peer reviewed publication on this. So far all I have seen is skeptic web claims. Those are illegitimate and slightly biased.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2008 10:02 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2008 11:58 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15748
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 51 of 265 (484827)
10-01-2008 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by AlphaOmegakid
10-01-2008 1:24 PM


Previous Proof Provided Pompous Pronouncements of Primal Polonium is Poppycock
Hello AlphaOmegaKid,

I reread all the posts, and maybe I did miss it. Please cite the peer reviewed published refutation. If possible the pdf.

See Message 24:

If you could deal with these points you could likely get your rebutal published in a peer reviewed journal. right?

Irrelevant: already done.

http://www.ntskeptics.org/1999/1999april/april1999.htm

quote:
All of these theories and others were put fourth during the 1970s and early 1980s7. This is important because, in his 1994 video, Gentry claimed no one has even attemped to dispute his evidence. He decribed it as “stunned silence.” As a response to a book writen by Gentry4 (1986), a few geologists, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, studied the sites where Gentry got his granite samples and the specific type of granite Gentry used. They published their findings in some of the same journals as Gentry 8. Even our very own Ron Hastings apparently wrote a commentary on the subject. I guess if Gentry doesn’t agree with reviews of his work then he ignores them all together, a response seemingly contageous among “creation scientists.”

Ignoring already existing rebuttals does not make them go away.

I sorry, I guess expecting you to actually read the article and look at the reference cited was too much eh?

http://www.ntskeptics.org/1999/1999april/april1999.htm

quote:
7. Chaudhuri, N. K., and Iyer, R. H., 1980, Origins of unusual radioactive haloes, Radiation Effects, v. 53, p. 1-6.
Hashemi-Nezhad, S. R., Fremlin, J. H., and Durrani, S. A., 1979, Polonium haloes in mica, Nature, v. 78, p. 333-335.
Meier, H., and Hecker, W., 1976, Radioactive halos as possible indicators for geochemical processes in magmatites, Geochemical Journal, v. 10, p. 185-195.
Moazed, C., Spector, R. M., and Ward, R. F., 1973, Polonium radiohalos: an alternative interpretation, Science, v. 180, p. 1271-1274.
York, D., 1979, Polonium halos and geochronology, EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 60, no. 33, p. 616-619.

You can also find (if you look):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiohalo

quote:
Disputing a young earth interpretation
* Durrani, S.A. & Fremlin, J.H. (1979), "Polonium Haloes in Mica", Nature 278: 333-335, October 1979 .
* C, Schnier (2002), "Indications for the existence of superheavy elements in radioactive halos", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 253: 209-216, August 2002 .
* Ellenberger, C.L., with reply by Gentry, R.V. 1984. "Polonium Halos Redux," Physics Today. December 1984. pp. 91-92
* Ellenberger, C.L. 1986. "Absolute Dating," unanswered surrebuttal to Gentry, Physics Today. March 1986. pp. 152, 156
* Osmon, P., 1986, "Gentry’s pleochroic halos: Creation/Evolution," Newsletter, Feser, Karl D., Editor, v. 6, no. 1, Concord College, Athens, West Virginia
* Schadewald, R., 1987. "Gentry’s tiny mystery, Creation/Evolution" Newsletter, Fezer, Karl D, Editor, v. 4, no. 2 & 3. Concord College. Athens. West Virginia, p 20.
* Wakefield, J. R., 1987-88, "Gentry’s Tiny Mystery - unsupported by geology," Creation/Evolution, v. 22, p. 13-33.
* Moazed, Cyrus; Richard M. Spector; Richard F. Ward, 1973, Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternate Interpretation, Science, Vol. 180, pp. 1272-1274.
* Odom, L.A., and Rink, W.J., 1989, "Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle," Science, v. 246, pp. 107-109.
* York, D., 1979, Pleochroic Halos and Geochronology, EOS, v. 60, no. 33, pp. 617-618, Aug. 14, 1979 (publication of the American Geophysical Union).
* Henderson, G. H., A quantitative study of pleochroic halos, V, The genesis of halos, Proc. Roy. Soc. , A, 173, 250-264, 1939.
* Henderson, G. H., and F. W. Sparks, A quantitative study of pleochroic halos, IV, New types of halos, Proc. Roy. Soc., A, 173, 238-249, 1939.

I'll let you get on with your homework now.

Also, it seems to me that the radon/polonium argument is easily testable in a lab environment. Short half-lives. We ought to have oodles of papers on the creation of polonium halos in granite from radon being trapped in fissures. This is east to test. And you don't need the magic of millions of years.

So go do it. See if you can do a better job than

I have enough evidence from other sources to know for a fact that the earth is old. Very old. See Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) for more information on the correlations between the many different kinds of evidence one can find for an old earth.

You, on the other hand, think this proves a young earth: to validate that claim you need to show that Polonium halos cannot be formed by these conditions.

Please cite a peer reviewed publication on this. So far all I have seen is skeptic web claims. Those are illegitimate and slightly biased.

Yes the truth is so biased. You can also contact Professor Collins and ask him about it:

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

quote:
Since jousting with Robert Gentry, my own research has resulted in 36 articles demonstrating the validity of the replacement origin of some granites. More will be added. These articles show (among other matters) that granite that contains Po halos does not form from magma. ... There is no better refutation of Gentry's model that I can offer than my own research reported in the above website: (1) Not all granites must be formed by crystallization from melts and (2) granites that contain Po halos do not require instantaneous formation. They can be formed by replacement conditions that allow millions of years for their production and in purely natural environments. Moreover, experimental work is included in articles 36 and 37 on my website that supports the hypothesis that some granites form at temperatures below melting conditions by chemical replacement processes. Thus, my model is not just theoretical but has field, microscopic, and experimental support.

The link to "36 articles" actually lists 52 articles at the present time and an email address. He may be able to provide you with the PDFs of the old articles that refuted Gentry in the 1970s to 1980's.

I repeat: he has already been refuted.

Enjoy


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 50 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-01-2008 1:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-02-2008 11:57 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 53 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-02-2008 3:58 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 54 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-02-2008 5:49 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 55 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-02-2008 5:59 PM RAZD has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1242 days)
Posts: 380
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 52 of 265 (484866)
10-02-2008 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
10-01-2008 11:58 PM


Re: Previous Proof Provided Pompous Pronouncements of Primal Polonium is Poppycock
I will reply to your whole post, but for now I will just refute one portion...

Please cite a peer reviewed publication on this. So far all I have seen is skeptic web claims. Those are illegitimate and slightly biased.

Yes the truth is so biased. You can also contact Professor Collins and ask him about it:

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

quote:
Since jousting with Robert Gentry, my own research has resulted in 36 articles demonstrating the validity of the replacement origin of some granites. More will be added. These articles show (among other matters) that granite that contains Po halos does not form from magma. ... There is no better refutation of Gentry's model that I can offer than my own research reported in the above website: (1) Not all granites must be formed by crystallization from melts and (2) granites that contain Po halos do not require instantaneous formation. They can be formed by replacement conditions that allow millions of years for their production and in purely natural environments. Moreover, experimental work is included in articles 36 and 37 on my website that supports the hypothesis that some granites form at temperatures below melting conditions by chemical replacement processes. Thus, my model is not just theoretical but has field, microscopic, and experimental support.

The link to "36 articles" actually lists 52 articles at the present time and an email address. He may be able to provide you with the PDFs of the old articles that refuted Gentry in the 1970s to 1980's.

I repeat: he has already been refuted.

If it has then you haven't shown it by these web documents from Collins. Granted, Dr. Collins does have substantial credentials, and he can and evidently does write whatever he wants, but the items you listed are not peer reviewed scientific work.

If you read them you will recognize this. This is nothing more that a guy making a whole bunch of assertions about how granite is formed while he can't get his work published. If you actually read article 36 and 37 you will see that he is basing much of his claims on work done by Philip M. Orville who passed away and didn't complete his experimental work. Collins bases his whole argument on this. It is obvious that Collins writings here are not peer reviewed, and if you want further evidence here is Randy Isaac of ASA fame who is certainly no young earther...

quote:
Studies of radiohalos have not been widely reported in the peer-reviewed literature since Gentry documented them in the 1960s and 1970s. Though there remain unexplained phenomena connected with these halos, there does not appear to be an unsolvable contradiction with accepted ages of granite. Polonium halos have only been found in granite that also contain myrmekite and not in magmatic granite without myrmekite. [7] Though there is no scientific consensus in the literature about the formation of granite containing myrmekite, unpublished work by Collins indicates the plausibility of explanations for these halos with standard ages. [8] source

Now with all due respect, I certainly hope that you won't continue to defend that Collin's work as cited is peer reviewed.

The argument that Gentry makes is that his evidence hasn't been refuted. And it hasn't. The halos are polonium halos and they are in granite. The young earth arguments are not a part of Gentry's peer reviewed work. The YE arguments come from many other writings of Gentry. Gentry provided positive evidence for the YE argument. That's all. You can argue against it if you want, but you can't refute the evidence at least in a peer reviewed format.

I will review your other citations and respond to them. This one was easy. By the way, Collins is the main proponent of the Radon 222 argument. It is just more non published internet rhetoric.

But it does create a "slight of hand" (magic) for the unsuspecting EVC public, eh?

Enjoy...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2008 11:58 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1242 days)
Posts: 380
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 53 of 265 (484883)
10-02-2008 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
10-01-2008 11:58 PM


Previous Proof falls on its face
Hello RAZD:

If you could deal with these points you could likely get your rebutal published in a peer reviewed journal. right?

Irrelevant: already done.

http://www.ntskeptics.org/1999/1999april/april1999.htm

quote:
All of these theories and others were put fourth during the 1970s and early 1980s7. This is important because, in his 1994 video, Gentry claimed no one has even attemped to dispute his evidence. He decribed it as “stunned silence.” As a response to a book writen by Gentry4 (1986), a few geologists, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, studied the sites where Gentry got his granite samples and the specific type of granite Gentry used. They published their findings in some of the same journals as Gentry 8. Even our very own Ron Hastings apparently wrote a commentary on the subject. I guess if Gentry doesn’t agree with reviews of his work then he ignores them all together, a response seemingly contageous among “creation scientists.”

Ignoring already existing rebuttals does not make them go away.

I sorry, I guess expecting you to actually read the article and look at the reference cited was too much eh?

http://www.ntskeptics.org/1999/1999april/april1999.htm

quote:
7. Chaudhuri, N. K., and Iyer, R. H., 1980, Origins of unusual radioactive haloes, Radiation Effects, v. 53, p. 1-6.
Hashemi-Nezhad, S. R., Fremlin, J. H., and Durrani, S. A., 1979, Polonium haloes in mica, Nature, v. 78, p. 333-335.
Meier, H., and Hecker, W., 1976, Radioactive halos as possible indicators for geochemical processes in magmatites, Geochemical Journal, v. 10, p. 185-195.
Moazed, C., Spector, R. M., and Ward, R. F., 1973, Polonium radiohalos: an alternative interpretation, Science, v. 180, p. 1271-1274.
York, D., 1979, Polonium halos and geochronology, EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 60, no. 33, p. 616-619.

No, I'm sorry I must have missed post #24. And it's not too much to expect to actually read the citations, so I did. And you know what I found. I found that you quotemined the article. A little slight of hand.

Here is what your citation actually says in context....

quote:
With further investigation however, Gentry’s interpretation is obviously flawed. The first attempts to dispute his assertions, though on the right track, fell short and were easily dismissed by Gentry. They included hydrothermal injection of polonium (York 1979), uranium release during weathering (Meier 1976), and varients of uranium halos (Moazed 1973). All of these theories and others were put fourth during the 1970s and early 1980s7. This is important because, in his 1994 video, Gentry claimed no one has even attemped to dispute his evidence. He decribed it as “stunned silence.” As a response to a book writen by Gentry4 (1986), a few geologists, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, studied the sites where Gentry got his granite samples and the specific type of granite Gentry used. They published their findings in some of the same journals as Gentry 8. Even our very own Ron Hastings apparently wrote a commentary on the subject. I guess if Gentry doesn’t agree with reviews of his work then he ignores them all together, a response seemingly contageous among “creation scientists.”

The part in yellow there is the part you mistakenly (or conviently) left out. I think that is just a little important. eh?

That means that all of your citations in this section "fell short and were easily dismissed by Gentry."

Now what is important here is Gentry's claim. As stated in your citation...

quote:
Gentry claimed no one has even attemped to dispute his evidence.

That's true with these citations for the most part. They dispute his interpretation of the evidence, but not the evidence. Only Moazed 1973 tried to question whether they were polonium 218 halos, but this quicly fell by the wayside as thousands of these halos began to be discovered.

The other important part to remember is that Gentry created a theory about this evidence. A theory that can be falsified. Here is his theory....

quote:
Evidence that something is drastically wrong comes from the fact that this basic evolutionary premise has failed to provide a verifiable explanation for the widespread occurrence of Po halos in Precambrian granites, a phenomena which I suggest are in situ evidences that those rocks were created almost instantaneously ....

This theory is falsifiable....

quote:
I have challenged my colleagues to synthesize a piece of granite with 218Po halos as a means of falsifying this interpretation, but have not received a response. It is logical that this synthesis should be possible if the uniformitarian principle is true.

These quotes are from: http://www.halos.com/reports/aaas-1984-perspective.htm

The "stunned silence" (1994)that is referred to in your citation is in regard to this challenge of falsification which was in the 80's. The challenge still stands today.

And there is a big difference between a refutation and a falsification, eh?

Enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2008 11:58 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1242 days)
Posts: 380
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 54 of 265 (484889)
10-02-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
10-01-2008 11:58 PM


More spurious citations
Hello RAZD

Well I reseached the rest of your citations, and I found more of the same....

You can also find (if you look):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiohalo

quote:
Disputing a young earth interpretation
* Durrani, S.A. & Fremlin, J.H. (1979), "Polonium Haloes in Mica", Nature 278: 333-335, October 1979 .
* C, Schnier (2002), "Indications for the existence of superheavy elements in radioactive halos", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 253: 209-216, August 2002 .
* Ellenberger, C.L., with reply by Gentry, R.V. 1984. "Polonium Halos Redux," Physics Today. December 1984. pp. 91-92
* Ellenberger, C.L. 1986. "Absolute Dating," unanswered surrebuttal to Gentry, Physics Today. March 1986. pp. 152, 156
* Osmon, P., 1986, "Gentry’s pleochroic halos: Creation/Evolution," Newsletter, Feser, Karl D., Editor, v. 6, no. 1, Concord College, Athens, West Virginia
* Schadewald, R., 1987. "Gentry’s tiny mystery, Creation/Evolution" Newsletter, Fezer, Karl D, Editor, v. 4, no. 2 & 3. Concord College. Athens. West Virginia, p 20.
* Wakefield, J. R., 1987-88, "Gentry’s Tiny Mystery - unsupported by geology," Creation/Evolution, v. 22, p. 13-33.
* Moazed, Cyrus; Richard M. Spector; Richard F. Ward, 1973, Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternate Interpretation, Science, Vol. 180, pp. 1272-1274.
* Odom, L.A., and Rink, W.J., 1989, "Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle," Science, v. 246, pp. 107-109.
* York, D., 1979, Pleochroic Halos and Geochronology, EOS, v. 60, no. 33, pp. 617-618, Aug. 14, 1979 (publication of the American Geophysical Union).
* Henderson, G. H., A quantitative study of pleochroic halos, V, The genesis of halos, Proc. Roy. Soc. , A, 173, 250-264, 1939.
* Henderson, G. H., and F. W. Sparks, A quantitative study of pleochroic halos, IV, New types of halos, Proc. Roy. Soc., A, 173, 238-249, 1939.

I'll let you get on with your homework now.

I hope you are grading the homework. I've never enjoyed it so much..

* Durrani, S.A. & Fremlin, J.H. (1979), "Polonium Haloes in Mica", Nature 278: 333-335, October 1979 .

Addressed in message 53. "easily dismissed by Gentry" (your citation)

* C, Schnier (2002), "Indications for the existence of superheavy elements in radioactive halos", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 253: 209-216, August 2002 .

An interesting article that doesn’t present evidence it just presents a theory. Gentry discussed SHE’s in 1978. http://www.halos.com/reports/pisse-1978-superheavy-elements.pdf

* Ellenberger, C.L., with reply by Gentry, R.V. 1984. "Polonium Halos Redux," Physics Today. December 1984. pp. 91-92

wiki writes:

Although its content is scientifically rigorous and up to date, it is not a true scholarly journal in the sense of being a primary vehicle for communicating new results. Rather, it is more of a hybrid magazine that informs readers about important developments in the form of overview articles written by experts, shorter review articles written internally by staff, and also discusses the latest issues and events of importance to the science community such as science politics. - Physics Today

This is not peer reviewed literature.

* Ellenberger, C.L. 1986. "Absolute Dating," unanswered surrebuttal to Gentry, Physics Today. March 1986. pp. 152, 156

This is not peer reviewed literature.

* Osmon, P., 1986, "Gentry’s pleochroic halos: Creation/Evolution," Newsletter, Feser, Karl D., Editor, v. 6, no. 1, Concord College, Athens, West Virginia

This is not peer reviewed literature.

* Schadewald, R., 1987. "Gentry’s tiny mystery, Creation/Evolution" Newsletter, Fezer, Karl D, Editor, v. 4, no. 2 & 3. Concord College. Athens. West Virginia, p 20.

This is not peer reviewed literature.

* Wakefield, J. R., 1987-88, "Gentry’s Tiny Mystery - unsupported by geology," Creation/Evolution, v. 22, p. 13-33.

This is not peer reviewed literature.

* Moazed, Cyrus; Richard M. Spector; Richard F. Ward, 1973, Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternate Interpretation, Science, Vol. 180, pp. 1272-1274.

Addressed in message 53. "easily dismissed by Gentry" (your citation)

* Odom, L.A., and Rink, W.J., 1989, "Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle," Science, v. 246, pp. 107-109.

This article just asks a bunch of questions. It doesn’t refute anything about Gentrys work.

* York, D., 1979, Pleochroic Halos and Geochronology, EOS, v. 60, no. 33, pp. 617-618, Aug. 14, 1979 (publication of the American Geophysical Union).

Addressed in message 53. "easily dismissed by Gentry" (your citation)

* Henderson, G. H., A quantitative study of pleochroic halos, V, The genesis of halos, Proc. Roy. Soc. , A, 173, 250-264, 1939.
* Henderson, G. H., and F. W. Sparks, A quantitative study of pleochroic halos, IV, New types of halos, Proc. Roy. Soc., A, 173, 238-249, 1939

These were before Gentry's publications. They are meaningless in this debate.

So, what have you and all the other EVO websites produced? A long list of recycled articles, non-peer reviewed articles, and a few peer reviewed articles which were "easily dismissed by Gentry." There was also a few spurious articles listed.

So it appears to me that Gentry's claims haven't been refuted in the scientific community. It appears that so far the evidence stands. eh?

Enjoy....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2008 11:58 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1242 days)
Posts: 380
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 55 of 265 (484890)
10-02-2008 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
10-01-2008 11:58 PM


Poppycock Substantiated!
You, on the other hand, think this proves a young earth: to validate that claim you need to show that Polonium halos cannot be formed by these conditions.

No Gentry's work doesn't prove a young earth. Neither does your evidence prove an old earth. The age of the earth is a theory in both cases. Gentry provided evidence that suggests a young earth. His theory so far best explains that evidence. Science doesn't require me or Gentry to "show that Polonium halos cannot be formed in these conditions." What science requires is that you or others falsify Gentry's theory with other evidence. So your argument is fallacious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2008 11:58 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2008 7:42 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15748
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 56 of 265 (484894)
10-02-2008 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by AlphaOmegakid
10-02-2008 5:59 PM


Poppycock is still Poppycock 20 to 30 years later ...
Thanks AlphaOmegakid,

No Gentry's work doesn't prove a young earth. Neither does your evidence prove an old earth. The age of the earth is a theory in both cases.

Actually the age of the earth is a fact. The question is whether we understand that fact properly or not. The extensive evidence of old bits and parts show that the earth must be at least as old as these bits and parts, and likely older. We can hone in on the real age of the earth by finding older and older bits and pieces. This evidence comes from many different and isolated fields of study, from astronomy to geology to physics etc etc etc. Strangely it also correlates from one field to the other.

Gentry provided evidence that suggests a young earth.

Not really. He provided evidence that could suggest some bits and parts are younger than they should be, IF what he says is true. This does not suggest a young earth, because there is too much evidence, too many OLD bits and pieces, for an old earth: in order to suggest a young earth you need to ignore all the concurrent evidence for an old earth, including evidence that is also embedded in Gentry's data -- the uranium halos.

It is not possible to have bits and pieces of the earth that are older than the earth, but it is possible to have bits and pieces of the earth that are younger than the earth. Thus evidence of older bits and pieces of the earth ALWAYS invalidate a younger earth hypothesis, while younger bits and pieces of the earth NEVER invalidate an older earth hypothesis.

His theory so far best explains that evidence.

Not really, there are several things not explained by his theory:

His theory does not explain the evidence of the uranium halos in the slightest, because they would take hundreds of millions of years to form, no matter how long it takes to form the Polonium halos.

To "explain" the uranium halos he invokes "special" physics when there is no evidentiary basis for making such an unfounded assumption, while there is evidence that there has been no change in physics for billions of years. Fantasy like that is not theory.

His theory does not explain the Radon blurring of his halos (see pictures above).

His theory does not explain why the halos are only found in secondary rock formations that has been recrystallized over long periods of time.

His theory does not explain the absence of halos from all other short half-life isotope that would exist at the formation of the earth.

His theory does not explain why halos are only found of short half-life isotopes that are continually renewed by decay of other radioactive elements that are endemic in the area where the halos are found.

His theory does not explain why Polonium halos are not found without uranium in the local neighborhood.

His theory does not explain the uranium halos he found with no polonium-214 rings, where he claims that the rocks are sealed.

Just to name a few "problems" that Gentry's "theory" failse to explain. The big problem is that these unexplained things invalidate his theory.

Radon mobility, on the other hand, is confirmed by the truncated uranium halos, the limited types of rocks where the halos are found, the blurring of "polonium" halos, and the formation of "polonium" halos along fissures and cracks where Radon is known to exist. Radon mobility not only explains the polonium halos, it does not need to invoke any special physics to make uranium halos.

There is not one piece of evidence that is NOT explained by radon mobility.

Science doesn't require me or Gentry to "show that Polonium halos cannot be formed in these conditions." What science requires is that you or others falsify Gentry's theory with other evidence. So your argument is fallacious.

On the contrary: Gentry's theory is already falsified, and has been for over 20 years. It is falsified by the unambiguous radon mobility evidence that already exists, evidence that has not changed in the last 30 or so years. If you, or Gentry, think this is a false claim, then the onus is on you to demonstrate this.

Either a falsified theory is reformulated to reconcile it with the evidence that invalidates it OR new evidence needs to be provided that demonstrates the previous evidence needs to be reevaluated.

OR you are not doing science.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added


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 55 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-02-2008 5:59 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-02-2008 8:45 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 60 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 10-03-2008 9:16 AM RAZD has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3234
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 57 of 265 (484895)
10-02-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by RAZD
10-02-2008 7:42 PM


Why does "instantly created" equate to "young"?
RAZD writes:

He provided evidence that could suggest some bits and parts are younger than they should be, IF what he says is true.

As I see it, there are two variations of a scenario:

1) The geological mainstream view:

There is evidence of a long pre-intrusion process history of the Earth's geology. Then a granitic intrusion happens with a long history from injection to total solidity. Actually this long history is long only on the YEC timescale - Geologically is is pretty short, but still thousands to millions of years. Then there is further evidence of a further long post-intrusion process history.

2) The Gentry YEC view:

There is a short pre-intrusion process history of the Earth's geology. Then a granitic intrusion happens with an instant total solidity. Then there is a further short post-intrusion process history.

Now as I understand it, Gentry actually says nothing about the pre and post-intrusion history time frames. As such the scenario is unknown time period, instant creation, and unknown time period. But I guess the implied conclusion is that since there was an instant granite intrusion creation, it follows that the pre-intrusion period was also instantaneous. Which at best, even if you would accept the "instant granite" part, would be a case of instant creation with an appearance of great age.

Now setting aside any pre and post-intrusion considerations:

Why does an "instant" granite equate to a young (YEC time scale) granite? Why couldn't Gentry's halo granites have been instantly created millions or billions of years ago?

Or something like that.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change subtitle.


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for — but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2008 7:42 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2008 9:10 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 59 by bluescat48, posted 10-03-2008 12:14 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15748
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 58 of 265 (484898)
10-02-2008 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Minnemooseus
10-02-2008 8:45 PM


Re: Why does "instantly created" equate to "young"?
As such the scenario is unknown time period, instant creation, and unknown time period. ... Why does an "instant" granite equate to a young (YEC time scale) granite? Why couldn't Gentry's halo granites have been instantly created millions or billions of years ago?

That's kind of the time problem in a nutshell:

either both polonium AND uranium halos formed after "instant creation" of the granite, in which case you have an old earth (at least hundreds of millions of years),

OR both are formed with the "instant creation" ... and we have the appearance-of-age type creationism and/or last-thursdayism,

OR we have special pleading, where polonium halos form naturally, but uranium halos need "special" physics to form.

Enjoy.


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 57 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-02-2008 8:45 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 571 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 59 of 265 (484904)
10-03-2008 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Minnemooseus
10-02-2008 8:45 PM


Re: Why does "instantly created" equate to "young"?
There is a short pre-intrusion process history of the Earth's geology. Then a granitic intrusion happens with an instant total solidity. Then there is a further short post-intrusion process history.

If the above occurred it would not be granite.

The closest that it could be would be granite porphyry

granite is a plutonic igneous rock.

from Rocks and Minerals, Simon & Shuster

intrusive (or plutonic), crystallized slowly at depth, under pressures too great to allow the escape of magmatic gases

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary

Porphyry
(n.)
A term used somewhat loosely to designate a rock consisting of a fine-grained base (usually feldspathic) through which crystals, as of feldspar or quartz, are disseminated. There are red, purple, and green varieties, which are highly esteemed as marbles.
(the bold is for emphasis)


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-02-2008 8:45 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1242 days)
Posts: 380
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 60 of 265 (484933)
10-03-2008 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by RAZD
10-02-2008 7:42 PM


Poppycock is Radon 222 theories
Your welcome RAZD,

How did I do on my homework assignment? I was a little dissapointed. All that work and no comment? I guess it is pretty smart to just ignore it. eh?

Actually the age of the earth is a fact.

It is? which fact is it? Is it 98 million years old(Kelvin)? Is it 1.6Byo (Holmes)? Is it 3.4Byo (Rutherford)? Is it 4.5Byo (Houtermans)? source Of course it must be 4.5BYO because this is the data in the era you live and exist. What will the data say 100 years from now? You cannot possibly predict what science will demonstrate 100 years from now in regards to the age of the earth. But based on the evidence we can predict that the age of the earth will be different.

Not really. He provided evidence that could suggest some bits and parts are younger than they should be, IF what he says is true. This does not suggest a young earth,

Ah, but it does suggest a young earth, or you and many other old earthers would not be working so hard to disprove the suggestions by false claims such as Radon transport.

because there is too much evidence, too many OLD bits and pieces, for an old earth: in order to suggest a young earth you need to ignore all the concurrent evidence for an old earth,

Nope scientists don't ignore evidence. They just add on additional postulates and hypotheses to work around the evidence. I certainly hope you don't think scientists are ignoring the comets orbiting our solar system. They also suggest a maximum age for the solar system. They don't ignore this, they just make up postulates like the Oort cloud. The same with the fossil evidence of the Cambrian explosion. Scientists don't ignore this, they just create another hypothesis like PE. I don't want to discuss these subjects in this thread, but they are representative of the scientific process.

Thus evidence of older bits and pieces of the earth ALWAYS invalidate a younger earth hypothesis, while younger bits and pieces of the earth NEVER invalidate an older earth hypothesis.

Ummmmm. We wouldn't be having this discussion if this evidence did not involve the primordial oldest rocks of the earth.

Radon mobility, on the other hand, is confirmed by the truncated uranium halos, the limited types of rocks where the halos are found, the blurring of "polonium" halos, and the formation of "polonium" halos along fissures and cracks where Radon is known to exist. Radon mobility not only explains the polonium halos, it does not need to invoke any special physics to make uranium halos.

There is not one piece of evidence that is NOT explained by radon mobility.

Yes, you would be correct if you had any evidence that Radon mobility could create a Polonium halo. In all of the citations you listed, not one peer reviewed paper addresses Radon mobility. Instead you, and others are relying on non-peer reviewed web rhetoric from the likes of Collins and other. Should I invoke the term "evo scriptures"? This is not science.

Cetain individuals in these forums get admonished for using their scriptures in these science forums. But you are trying to masquerade these faithful, unsubstantiated claims as being scientific when they just are not.

My suggestion is that you keep to science in this discussion of Polonium halos. Stop citing your "scriptures".

On the contrary: Gentry's theory is already falsified, and has been for over 20 years. It is falsified by the unambiguous radon mobility evidence that already exists, evidence that has not changed in the last 30 or so years. If you, or Gentry, think this is a false claim, then the onus is on you to demonstrate this.

Well if only what you were saying was true. This is not how science works. Random web claims are not scientific. There is no evidence that Radon mobility can create a polonium halos. There is no peer reviewed publications on this subject. Fasification happens through evidence and observation. But none has been presented.

That's why Gentry stands scientifically justified for his claims that his evidence has not been falsified. The onus is not on me or Gentry or anyone else for that matter. The onus, as Gentry challenged, is on you and the scientific community to falsify his theory of granite in situ instananeous creation.

OR you are not doing science.

And your falsee claims of radon mobility creating polonium halos are not science. I state that emphatically by the scientific method.

This is a science forum, so why don't you stick to science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2008 7:42 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Joe T, posted 10-03-2008 3:59 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2008 8:56 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
18NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014