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
What about primordial polonium halo's concentric halo's means the earth cooled within 30 minutes. right? Its evidence the earth didn't cool for billions of years. right?
Traditional science says that earth was formed from molten matter from stars and it was cooled down slowly - overy billions of years. Then Robert Gentry discovered one of the most intriguing mystery that challenges the traditional theory of the "creation of the earth".
Gentry discovered Polonium Halos in granite rocks which CANNOT have formed if the earth cools down over billions of years....
There has not been any satisfactory explanation for this discovery, except one: that the earth was formed in a solid form within minutes !!!
Gentry reported that he had specifically tested whether the halos were caused by primordial polunium (i.e., starting with Polonium as initial element, in other words: the polonium was NOT a product of radio-active decade).
The Implications of Polonium-238 halos
So what the big deal about these Polonium-218 halos ??? Well, it would not be anything special if some other element (like U-238) was originally embedded in the rock when it was formed....
But the fact that the ORIGINAL material was Polonium-218 make every difference, because of the decay sequence and the half-time of Polonium-218.
Think:
To form a Polonium-218 halo, some Polonium-218 must be embedded into the rock BEFORE the rock becomes solid
To form a Polonium-218 halo, the Polonium-218 must be decaying AFTER the rock becomes solid
Polonium-218 halo has a half life of 3 minutes, so after 30 minutes, almost all of the Polonium-218 would have disappeared !!!
So ??? ....The time between the rocks of the earth was molten and that is was solidified is at most 30 minutes !!!!
Here in lies the problem for the traditional Big Bang theory - it proposes a hot earth and cooled down VERY SLOWLY - it took BILLIONS of years to cool, not just 30 minutes !!!
AdminNosy said "You haven't finished with the RATE group yet. You can get to Gentry's halos later." and there were no other replies on polonium to that message.
Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.
One focus of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project was radiohalos research.1 It was concluded that the uranium (238U) and polonium (Po) radiohalos frequently found in granitic rocks had to have formed simultaneously.2 This implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today's rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days!
One focus of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project was radiohalos research. ... 2 This implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today's rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days!
OR that the earth is actually in reality old. Very old. Billions of years old.
Seeing as doubling up the rate of decay several thousand fold by any method that changes the physical constants would also turn normal elements into radioactive elements, decaying right left and center, that this would have turned the whole earth into a huge nuclear bomb as well as a volcanic mass of radioactive magma that would have exploded into space, the continued existence of earth shows this concept to be false.
So that's out.
So, seeing as we know that changing the rate of decay is BOGUS, we know that the RATE group claim is BOGUS.
1 It was concluded that the uranium (238U) and polonium (Po) radiohalos frequently found in granitic rocks had to have formed simultaneously.
But this too is false. What is true is that you don't find Polonium halos without Uranium halos, and that you don't find Polonium halos without Radon having acces to fill voids in the rock in question. No Radon (produced by uranium decay) infiltration into rocks, means no Polonium halos. Curiously Polonium is a product of the decay of Radon, so what you are REALLY seeing are Radon Haloes.
The formation of granite by replacement of solid rocks means that Gentry's theory is no longer tenable. He can no longer legitimately say that Po-halo-bearing granites must form by supernatural means.
Solid diorite and gabbro rock, which had previously crystallized from magma, has been subjected to repeated cataclasis and recrystallization. This has happened without melting; and the cataclasis provided openings for the introduction of uranium-bearing fluids and for the modification of these rocks to granite by silication and cation deletion.
In uranium ore-fields the extra uranium provides an abundant source of inert radon gas; and it is this gas that diffuses in ambient fluids so that incipient biotite and fluorite crystallization is exposed to it. Radon (222Rn) decays and Po isotopes nucleate in the rapidly growing biotite (and fluorite) crystals whence they are positioned to produce the Po halos.
The whole process of Po halo formation can be accomplished without calling on a Creator to do it. The serendipity that has emerged from these observations implies that Po halos in myrmekite-bearing granite indicate a non-magmatic origin for the granite. The argument comes full circle when it meets Gentry's initial [truthfully made] observation that magmatically-derived granites cannot contain Po halos: the half-lives of the Po isotopes are simply too short.
The above material was taken from pages 128-140 in Hunt et al. (1992), except for the illustrations. Fig. 1 comes from Collins (1988.) The other figures are supplementary illustrations. See http://www.polarpublishing.com for publishing company information.
Collins (1988) "Hydrothermal Differentiation" can be ordered from Theophrastus Publications S.A., 33 J. Theologou Str., Zographou, Athens 622, Greece: $47.00 (U.S.).
There is nothing about Polonium haloes that is not explained by Radon gas infiltrating rocks under known geological processes, long after the granite rocks had cooled, and then decaying into Polonium.
This implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today's rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days, melting the earth and vaporizing most of it.
The possible effects of changing temperature, pressure, chemical state, and electric or magnetic field strength on the three decay mechanisms relevant to geologic dating have been intensively studied, both theoretically and experimentally. These studies have shown that changing environmental conditions have either no measurable effect or a negligible effect (less than 1%, and that only for 7Be, which decays through electron capture) on the rate at which the decay processes occur (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 86-90).
Interestingly they never mentioned photons which affect the nucleur forces inside the atom, etc...
They could not find any way that significantly changed decay rates
They either are uniformitarians or afraid of losing tenure? It takes a creationists to stand up to the status quo! right?
With biotite flakes having polonium halo's it does suggest accelerated decay happened during the biblical flood to a creationists! If it can not be radon because of mobility problems over long periods of time then it might well be due to accelerated decay in a water medium to deal with the mobility radon problems. right?
Andrew Snelling said: At the temperatures of these metamorphic processes such water would become hydrothermal fluids capable of transporting any U-decay products from nearby zircon grains and depositing Po in biotite flakes to form Po radiohalos.
The hydrothermal fluid transport model for Po radiohalos formation has thus been tested and verified. Neither the Po nor the biotite flakes were primordial. The biotite flakes were formed in the sandstone only during the metamorphism early in the Flood year, and the Po was derived from 238U decay in the zircon grains. And where extra water was generated during the metamorphic processes, many more Po radiohalos were formed. This successful verification only serves to spur on continuing research, because the time scale implications for the formation of the Po radiohalos and these metamorphic rocks are only consistent with a global Flood on a young earth
There is nothing about Polonium haloes that is not explained by Radon gas infiltrating rocks under known geological processes, long after the granite rocks had cooled, and then decaying into Polonium.
To produce the amount of polonium halo's Snelling is talking about thats not primordial polonium would require 238 U to decay so rapidly that Snellings suggesting its like evidence of 100's of millions of years of decay happening in just the one year of the biblical world flood.
There needs to have been that much decay of 238U to produce both the visible physical damage (the radiohalos) and the required Po, but that much Po would then have decayed within a few days (because of its short half-lives, that is, very rapid decay rates). So radioisotope "ages" for such granitic rocks of hundreds of millions of years, calculated on the assumption that radioactive decay has always occurred at today's rates, are grossly in error, and these rocks would thus have formed during the Flood year only 4500 years ago. A hydrothermal fluid (hot water) transport model was thus proposed which explained how the Po was separated from its parent 238U and then concentrated in radiocenters close by to form the Po radiohalos.3-5
The primordial polonium halos are pictures of the past showing radon gas is too mobile to of parented these perfectly focused polonium halo's. Its evidence the earth had to of cooled within 30 minutes or the polonium would of decayed before the granites formed. The granite can not form and go thru the decay chain to polonium 218 due radon gas is mobile meaning the halos Gentry is talking about would of been smudged because radon gas is not bound to one location.
Primordial Polonium however is bound to one location and because no evidence it decayed from radon means its primordial having no decay parent and without a parent the earth had to of cooled within 30 minutes. right?
There is nothing about Polonium haloes that is not explained by Radon gas infiltrating rocks under known geological processes, long after the granite rocks had cooled, and then decaying into Polonium.
Radon is just too mobile to produce halo's because radon is not positively grounded. right?
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)
With biotite flakes having polonium halo's it does suggest accelerated decay happened during the biblical flood to a creationists! If it can not be radon because of mobility problems over long periods of time then it might well be due to accelerated decay in a water medium to deal with the mobility radon problems. right?
Wrong. Why? Because Radon is a gas, immensely soluble in water and does not have "mobility problems of long periods of time" ... the gas will diffuse through water due to the nature of chemicals wanting to reach equilibrium partial pressures.
They either are uniformitarians or afraid of losing tenure? It takes a creationists to stand up to the status quo! right?
It takes a creationist to turn to a conspiracy theory every time reality proves they are completely wrong, that their pet belief is falsified, and that continued belief would be delusional. This is predicted behavior due to cognitive dissonance.
Andrew Snelling said: ...
... many lies
At the temperatures of these metamorphic processes ...
Except that it was shown that all the samples that Gentry used came from long after the metamorphic processes were history, when the rocks were cracked, infected with uranium and then saturated with Radon as a result. Then the granite recrystallized, complete with brand new polonium.
and ICR doesn't know a lie from the truth (or at least they make no distinction on their website), so they cannot be trusted for true information.
There needs to have been that much decay of 238U to produce both the visible physical damage (the radiohalos) and the required Po, but that much Po would then have decayed within a few days (because of its short half-lives, that is, very rapid decay rates).
Obviously the uranium DID decay over long periods of time - it takes over 100 million years to form a uranium halo. One of the decay products is Radon, which is mobile, which decays into Polonium, which is not. A pocket big enough to continually attract Radon by partial pressure will form a Radon halo that looks just (imagine that) like a Polonium halo.
Bottomline: radon gas will not accummulate in a single spot -
Except that it doesn't need to accumulate in a single spot, all it needs to do is be in one place with a higher frequency than the adjoining areas, and a small increase in the size of a pocket will do that. A small discontinuity pocket that has 100 times the volume of the neighboring part of a crack or fissure or crystal face will, over time, have 100 times the concentration of the radon than those other areas. The radon keeps forming, disbursing and decaying.
You still have no mechanism worth wasting bandwidth on for changing the rate of decay, all you have is bogus information from people that lie.
A small discontinuity pocket that has 100 times the volume of the neighboring part of a crack or fissure or crystal face will, over time, have 100 times the concentration of the radon than those other areas. The radon keeps forming, disbursing and decaying.
If you have a pocket of radon gas it has to be spot on. right? A pocket of mobile gases can never be right on in a crack and close only gets you a smudged image of polonium. right? If its not close to the previous polonium image it gives no image until the image is reinforced by previous alphas that that decayed from a positively grounded location in the center of the halo. Is not this why Gentry point of primordial valid? and why you don't see radon halo's? If this is in fact the case then its evidence toward young earthdom!
You still have no mechanism worth wasting bandwidth on for changing the rate of decay, all you have is bogus information from people that lie.
You mean your sources well all it appears they can do is but provide misinformation that radon could be center of halos the instant polonium decays which is of course baloney! right? If not in the exact center over time the halo would be smudged? Gentry has asked the Academy of Sciences to refute these points that they have not in over 15 years and all you have is radon gas might well be the people lying are those misrepresenting radon and long periods of time because the only alternative is the truth that its an "Young Earth". right?
If you have a pocket of radon gas it has to be spot on. right? A pocket of mobile gases can never be right on in a crack and close only gets you a smudged image of polonium. right? If its not close to the previous polonium image it gives no image until the image is reinforced by previous alphas that that decayed from a positively grounded location in the center of the halo. Is not this why Gentry point of primordial valid? and why you don't see radon halo's? If this is in fact the case then its evidence toward young earthdom!
Not really, all the halos are relatively blurry rather than well defined, so all you need to have is a small volume of the dimension of the blurring. The Polonium then settles to the bottom of the pocket, concentrating them at the bottom of the pocket before they decay. Remember that if you have a lump of Polonium that even then each atom decays from a different location inside the lump.
So you just need a space the size of a lump. And we are talking fissures as small in width as atoms, so a space that size is several hundred times the size of the fissure.
You mean your sources well all it appears they can do is but provide misinformation that radon could be center of halos the instant polonium decays which is of course baloney! right?
Yes, seeing as you have it mixed up, it certainly is balony. Radon decays and leaves Polonium in the lump sized pocket.The Radon halo is similar in size enough to one of the other rings that they can be blurred together.
Gentry has asked the Academy of Sciences to refute these points that they have not in over 15 years and all you have is radon gas might well be the people lying are those misrepresenting radon and long periods of time because the only alternative is the truth that its an "Young Earth". right?
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?"
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)
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.
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.
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)
quote:There are several odd facts surrounding Gentry’s claims. Each of Gentry’s samples came from granites which formed as veins during the precambrian period, long after the primordial origin of nearby terrain. Second, polonium halos are only found at sites rich with uranium ores. All of Gentry’s samples came from sites near uranium mines (Wakefield 1988). Third, polonium halos only appear in certain biotite and flourite bearing granites and not in any of the surrounding rocks. Biotite and flourite are products of replacement mineral intergrowth that formed the veins in the first place (Hunt 1992). Last, only Po218 halos and those of its daughter isotopes are ever found. Apparently God was picky about the types of halos he formed and where he put them.
The facts all come together when you consider radon, an inert gas, dissolves in hydrous fluids. Polonium, on the other hand, is a solid and easily falls out of solution once formed. Ra222, the parent of Po218, has a half-life of 3.82 days, plenty of time to circulate through cracks and fissures. This is evident by the many companies selling home radon detectors. There are several less abundant radon isotopes which decay to different polonium isotopes than those of Ra222. The longest half-life of these other radon isotopes is 54.5 seconds. Their polonium daughter halflives are measured in fractions of seconds, not allowing much time for travel to isolated secondary locations.
Seismic activity opens cracks causing a vacuum into which hydrous fluids carry Ra222. The Ra222 falls out of solution when it decays to Po218. The crystal lattice structure of biotite and flourite contain sites that can accommodate negatively charged fluoride and hydroxyl ions. Po218, Po214, and Po210 are also negatively charged ions similar in size to fluoride and hydroxyl ions. Consequently, polonium isotopes take up lattice positions and concentrate in the biotite and fluorite crystals. The continued replacement mineral intergrowth fills in some of the original cracks giving the appearance of undisturbed granite (Hunt 1992). Although most pictures show halos either along or near obvious cracks.
bold for empHAsis.
There's more there for the curious. Like a picture by Gentry that shows the blurred rings from radon-218\polonium-210 decay.
Poppycock, Primodial Polonium Halos, and Publications
YOur source seems to be talking about water causing a depositing of polonium as a solid out of solution as radon decays. This too is what Andrew Snelling seems to be saying about accelerated decay and biotite flakes polonium halos. A problem in granite is over long periods of time your cracks would seal due mineralization. right? If water is your means of moving billions of radon decays to a common location. right? but wouldn't mineralization seal the pathway over a long earth point of view defeat this theory that polonium halos happened due radon dissolved.
If, and only if, the mineralization occurred long ago and then all fissure forming stopped altogether.
Instead we can comprehend a continuous process of fracture, flow, mineralization, fracture, flow, mineralization ... etc. ... over billions of years.
Consider another piece of compelling evidence from the polonium halos themselves:
They are not dark filled in halos like many of the uranium ones but very light on the numbers of decay cycles needed to form them. You need less Polonium atoms than formed the uranium halos, and those took hundreds of millions of years of decay to form.
Thus for every uranium-235 halo in the rock, you need less than one radon-222 atom every (703,800,000 years/3.823 days) to get close enough to the same place and decay to get the same density halo.
Not very hard odds wouldn't you say?
Notice that Gentry says that "A concentration of 10^8 to 10^9 decayed atoms is needed to create visible damage rings" with no differentiation between whether we are talking uranium halo or polonium halo. And we just need them some time in the last 3+ billion (10^9) years ...
All of these theories and others were put fourth during the 1970s and early 1980s7.
And have also been published later ...
Collins, L.G. (1997), "Polonium Halos and Myrmekite in Pegmatite and Granite", in Hunt, C. W., Collins, L. G., and Skobelin, E. A., Expanding Geospheres, Energy And Mass Transfers From Earth’s Interior, Calgary: Polar Publishing Company, pp. 128-140, .
quote:New Evidence Against Gentry's Hypothesis
Richard Wakefield (1987-88, 1988) demonstrated that some rocks near Bancroft, Ontario, Canada, which contain Po halos in biotite, are uranium-rich, calcite-biotite veins associated with granite pegmatites. Careful documentation of the geological relationships show that these veins and pegmatites must have been introduced in Precambrian time, long after the primordial origin of the regional terrane. Such an age spread is, of course, incompatible with Gentry's interpreted time scale.
Wakefield's study, however, did not satisfy Gentry, who [illogically] disregards the time relationships implicit in the crosscutting of veins and dikes and the sequences of events in their metamorphism (Gentry 1983, 1988, p. 325-327). Moreover, in Gentry's hypothesis creation of metasediments, metavolcanic rocks, and metamorphosed intrusive gneiss complexes are all permitted from Day 1 to Day 3 of the Genesis Week. His model makes any Po-halo-bearing granite or pegmatite primordial, regardless of any complex history of the terranes in which they are found.
Therefore, although the ancient age of the Po-bearing rocks may be resolved for geologists, Gentry remains unconvinced and persists with his argument:...
The True Origin of Polonium Halos
The properties of radon are germane to this understanding. Radon (222Rn) is the radioactive decay product of 226Ra which evolves into 218Po. As an inert gas, it (222Rn) moves freely through cracks in rocks unimpeded by reactions with minerals lining the cracks. Evidence for this ease of radon travel is noticeable in water wells prior to earthquakes. The creeping rock movements associated with seismically-active terranes open avenues for radon-bearing water to move into lower-pressure pore space and to the surface. Therefore, on the basis of this mobility, we would expect radon to move into a shattered and sheared habitat of diorite or gabbro that was in the process of being converted to myrmekite-bearing granite.
The volumes of radon that emerge from deep in the Earth's Crust, dissolved in hydrous emanations, can be tremendous where uranium is abundant. Concentrations of this ambient radon can provide the enormous numbers of atoms needed to produce the Po decay halos. Radon emanating from a uranium source is a continuous chain of disintegration episodes that can provide a constant supply of new gas to a diorite or gabbro body as it is transformed into granite or pegmatite.
From these insights it follows that Po halos in a granite need not have been produced in a short time. Some halos may have formed early, some later. Rapid entry of radon and precipitation of polonium could occur if a gabbro or diorite site were made porous and depressurized by tectonism.
The frequent coexistence of Po halos in biotite with myrmekite in plagioclase and microcline of the same rock fabric gives a clear indication that a progressive replacement process in solid, unmelted rock has taken place. No magma is involved in this process.
Polonium Halos Explained
The formation of granite by replacement of solid rocks means that Gentry's theory is no longer tenable. He can no longer legitimately say that Po-halo-bearing granites must form by supernatural means.
Solid diorite and gabbro rock, which had previously crystallized from magma, has been subjected to repeated cataclasis and recrystallization. This has happened without melting; and the cataclasis provided openings for the introduction of uranium-bearing fluids and for the modification of these rocks to granite by silication and cation deletion.
In uranium ore-fields the extra uranium provides an abundant source of inert radon gas; and it is this gas that diffuses in ambient fluids so that incipient biotite and fluorite crystallization is exposed to it. Radon (222Rn) decays and Po isotopes nucleate in the rapidly growing biotite (and fluorite) crystals whence they are positioned to produce the Po halos.
If a billion more were decaying slightly off center Gentry has it that it would not be concentric but a smudged image. right?
And curiously some of HIS pictures show this smudging between the radon-222 and poponium-210 rings, blurring them over a band wider than their separation.
This is the predicted picture with a "clean" Polonium halo (top)and a "smudged" Radon-222 halo (bottom):
This is a Gentry photo
Curiously Collins also has photos that show the kind of damage along a crack that Gentry said would be evidence of Radon-222 and that he says do not exist.
So we can see Radon in both these pictures.
We could cut the rock in the last picture along a vertical line into the page and from the side you would see the same thing, because the fissure is a plane in the rock. What would you see from the top? You would NOT see the crack, and you WOULD see some general blurring ... if the crack were a constant thickness.
But if you had any small pocket or discontinuity the same size as a normal inclusion, one that fills up with more Radon molecules due to partial pressure, more than you have along the crack (even if it happens over billions of years), bingo you get a "polonium" halo. Put some in near proximity and you could easily generate the pictures that Gentry shows.
According to Donald Langmuir PhD Professor Emeritus of Geochemistry if you want to protect yourself from radon gas build your entire house out of granite.
Strangely this does not explain the actual evidence of actual Radon in the actual rocks in question, nor the actual pictures that show actual radon decay.
Did you ever think what you think is radon halos is a polonium 210 halo and the dark ring is polonium 210.
Yes, and no it can't, because once the Po-214 has decayed the location is fixed. For the atoms to be scattered enough to form a blurred Po-210 ring they would have to be scattered for all the other rings, so they would be blurred too. They aren't, ergo the atoms are not that scattered, ergo it must be Radon-222 that caused the scattered ring.
If you can not accumulate radon gas in a single spot your radon halo is actually instead a polonium 210 halo. right?
No, because there is no mechanism to scatter the decay from the Po-210 to cause the blurred ring.
The only explanation for the evidence is that radon-222 is concentrated within a pocket by partial pressure, compared to the radon-222 along the fissures, and this concentration occurs sufficiently often in the life of the rock (billions of years) that decay occurs while in the pocket and over time (billions of years) builds up to the amount required to form a ring. During that time (billions of years) the daughter isotopes, polonium-214 etc also decay, but they decay from a more concentrated location, having come out of suspension in the water when the radon-222 decayed and falling to the bottom of the pocket due to gravity before decaying on it's own. Once there, the polonium-214 and all other daughter isotopes decay and form nice clear, non-blurred rings.
Gentry says there are zillions of these halos.
And they all occur under the same conditions: rocks infested with uranium and saturated with radon. Similar rocks nearby that are not infested with uranium and saturated with radon have no halos.
There are also no halos for some elements that have no parent isotope yet have much longer half-lives than polonium:
quote:There is another way to determine the age of the Earth. If we see an hourglass whose sand has run out, we know that it was turned over longer ago than the time interval it measures. Similarly, if we find that a radioactive parent was once abundant but has since run out, we know that it too was set longer ago than the time interval it measures. There are in fact many, many more parent isotopes than those listed in Table 1. However, most of them are no longer found naturally on Earth--they have run out. Their half-lives range down to times shorter than we can measure. Every single element has radioisotopes that no longer exist on Earth!
Many people are familiar with a chart of the elements (Fig. 6). Nuclear chemists and geologists use a different kind of figure to show all of the isotopes. It is called a chart of the nuclides. Figure 7 shows a portion of this chart. It is basically a plot of the number of protons vs. the number of neutrons for various isotopes. Recall that an element is defined by how many protons it has. Each element can have a number of different isotopes, that is,
Figure 7. A portion of the chart of the nuclides showing isotopes of argon and potassium, and some of the isotopes of chlorine and calcium. Isotopes shown in dark green are found in rocks. Isotopes shown in light green have short half-lives, and thus are no longer found in rocks. Short-lived isotopes can be made for nearly every element in the periodic table, but unless replenished by cosmic rays or other radioactive isotopes, they no longer exist in nature.
This is just a portion of the missing isotopes that should - according to the Gentry scenario - be able to form halos IF the earth were indeed young.
Note that Argon is also an inert gas that is very soluble in water and present in air, and that Argon-39 has a half-life of 269 years.
Why don't we find Argon-39 halos mixed in with the Polonium-214 halos?
Because we have no parent source to replenish Ar-39 once it has all decayed, while we have a constant source to replenish Po-214.
It's that simple: the earth is indeed billions of years old.
Pompous Pronouncements of Primal Polonium Prevalence Provide no Proof not Poppycock
I see they are dropping out of the argument, you have done well.
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?
The main fact that needs to be repeated is Gentry has ...
... been refuted. Completely. Curiously, repeating falsehoods has never been shown to make them any more valid or real.
Indeed there are refutations on talk origins et al., but none of this is peer reviewed. That's because these arguments don't hold up with the radon gas moving though cracks in the rocks.
I guess you missed where they were published. In 1980.
These arguments sound good for the unscientific, but not the scientific. They chastize you for citing creationist websites, all the while they are citing non-peer reviewed material. That's why empirical evidence is only important when it fits their dogma. Everything else must be refuted. Just not by the scientific method.
Curiously you have not added anything of any kind of scientific merit.
Perhaps something about the other missing radioactive elements, like Argon-39 halos.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
More Polonium Poppycock Palaver ... no rebuttals of mobile Radon, just denial
Hello AlphaOmegaKid,
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?
But what did you actually do? Dismiss it as irrelevant. Denial is not a hard scholastic achievement to excel at. Curiously your most telling cause for denial was the Gentry had dismissed it or that it wasn't peer reviewed. Looks like you did nothing. Were you taking this pass-fail or did you intend to study for a good grade?
Curiously you have not answered a single one of the numerous problems with primal polonium pointed out in Message 56, yet this is supposedly a reply to that message.
You still have the problem that uranium halos exist in the same rocks with polonium halos. The uranium halos are evidence of the existence of that rock for at least a hundred million years, as that is how long it takes to form one (see Wiens).
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.
No, the age of the earth is a fact, you are confusing the measurement of age by different means with the actual age. The actual age has not been determined yet, but we have determined that bits and pieces are very old. One example of the evidence of old age is the uranium halos that mean a minimum age of hundreds of millions of years for the rocks where they are found. Various different pieces of evidence provide different minimum ages, some much older than others. Yes we can predict that the measured age will be different as we acquire more knowledge of how old the earth really is.
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.
Ah the old "because you disagree I must be right" logical fallacy. No is suggests fooling gullible people into believing a falsehood, possibly to sell a book, or to achieve some fame.
Creationist: look at the evidence from polonium!
Skeptic: look at the uranium, the fact that polonium is a daughter isotope of radon, a gas known to penetrate rock, the fact that the rock is a secondary formation that went through post-kinematic recrystallization, the fact that there are no halos of other short half life isotopes that are not formed by decay of other radioactive isotopes, etc etc etc ...
Creationist: boy the polonium evidence must be good or you wouldn't be working so hard to prove it wrong ....
Skeptic: it amuses me to see the mental gymnastics that people use to avoid admitting that reality has shown certain beliefs to be invalid.
Ummmmm. We wouldn't be having this discussion if this evidence did not involve the primordial oldest rocks of the earth.
Except they aren't the oldest rocks, nor are they 'primodial' - they are secondary formations.
Yes, you would be correct if you had any evidence that Radon mobility could create a Polonium halo.
Curiously the pictures show Polonium halos with Radon damage. Even Gentry's pictures show this. See Message 31: every one of those "polonium" halos shows the dark wide band that is predicted by Radon-222 decay. There is no source for that damage from "primal" polonium, no daughter decay sequence produces the correct radius, NOR the variable location within the pocket where the polonium condenses when it comes out of solution when the radon decays.
Polonium alone does not explain that band, Polonium plus Radon does explain it.
And your falsee claims of radon mobility creating polonium halos are not science. I state that emphatically by the scientific method.
Curiously your claim of it being scientific method does not make it so, nor does your assertion become true because you claim it to be so.
The evidence shows Radon-222 in the Polonium halos, and this invalidates the claim that it must be "primodial" or created polonium.
Scientists that don't include ALL the evidence are not doing science. This includes (not a PhD, not a geologist) Gentry.
Any dog on the internet can post Poppycock if you have no peer reviewed evidence just admit it!
Of course: look at all the creatortionista sites, to say nothing of the loony stuff on utube.
ALL the article you linked to in this thread have been to non-peer reviewed articles that mostly regurgitate invalid information.
But that does not change the facts and arguments based on those facts. Wakefields article, for instance, is based on actually going and looking at the rocks in question, seeing if he can duplicate Gentry's finds, and looking if he can validate the radon gas theory.
He did. His article is also referenced by several geologists.
One does not need to be published in a peer reviewed journal just to present evidence that invalidates a theory: the evidence invalidates the theory, NOT the article.
Hence any creationist that can present evidence that invalidates the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation won't need to publish it in a peer reviewed article: they just need to present the evidence.
It takes a creationists to stand up to the status quo! right?
™ Version 4.2
