Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   polonium halos
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 39 of 265 (484653)
09-30-2008 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by johnfolton
09-29-2008 1:47 AM


Re: Primodial Polonium Halo Young Earth!
Hey johnfolton,
I see they are dropping out of the argument, you have done well.
The main fact that needs to be repeated is Gentry has published peer reviewed papers on this subject without refutation in peer reveiwed literature. 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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by johnfolton, posted 09-29-2008 1:47 AM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2008 10:02 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
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 replied

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

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
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:
Polonium Halos » Internet Infidels
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 seen this message but not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
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.
The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics
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?
The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics
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: Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective
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 seen this message but not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
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):
Pleochroic halo - Wikipedia
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/...s/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 seen this message but not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
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 replied

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

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
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 replied

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

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 70 of 265 (485361)
10-07-2008 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
10-03-2008 8:56 PM


Re: More Polonium Poppycock Palaver ... no rebuttals of mobile Radon, just denial
But what did you actually do? Dismiss it as irrelevant. Denial is not a hard scholastic achievement to excel at.
It is just a bunch of evo-babble unsupported assertions. They are irrelevant. And I will show you why in the course of this reply.
Curiously your most telling cause for denial was the Gentry had dismissed it or that it wasn't peer reviewed.
Well unfortunately for you, that is the scientific method. Science publications must hold up to the scrutiny of scientific peers. Gentry's has. Evo-babblers make assertions and don't publish them, because they know they will get demolished.
Looks like you did nothing. Were you taking this pass-fail or did you intend to study for a good grade?
Actually you, by paroting the evo-babbling websites have done nothing. I have done my homework. I have researched this topic, and there is no refutation in the science community for Gentry's work.
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
I disagree, you have the problem, not I. I and Gentry only have a problem if the uniformitarian model assumption of constant radioactive decay is a correct assumption. The whole point of Gentry's work is that it calls into question the validity of the unformitarian assumption. And as you know, any dating method is only as good as its assumptions.
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.
The age of rocks and the age of uranium halos is based on uniformitarian assumptions. Again, it is these assumptions that Gentry is challenging without refutation in the scientific field.
Every problem that you think exists within Gentry's work is addressed in this documents from the Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38 (1984). Please note, that this presentation is a review of all of Gentry's work on this subject, and it is a peer-reviewed presentation.
Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective
Here is Gentry's comment on the uniformitarian model:
quote:
The basis for thinking that standard size U and Th halos imply an invariant decay rate throughout geological time proceeds from the quantum mechanical treatment of alpha decay, which in general shows that the probability for alpha decay for a given nuclide is dependent on the energy with which the alpha particle is emitted from the nucleus. The argument is that if the decay rate had varied in the past, then the U and Th halo rings would be of different size now because the energies of the alpha particles would have been different during the period of change. This argument assumes that a change in the decay rate must necessarily be explainable by quantum mechanics, which is of course an integral part of the uniformitarian framework. Thus, the usual proof of decay rate invariance based on standard size U and Th halos is nothing more than a circular argument which assumes the general uniformitarian principle is correct. In fact, the failure of the uniformitarian principle to explain the evidence for creation presented herein invalidates the basis for the above proof.
Gentry proposes the thoery of a maximum of three singularities to account for the U and T halos and other phenomena.
quote:
A creation model with three singularities, involving events beyond explanation by known physical laws, is proposed to account for these evidences.
Now you may not like this hypothesis, because known physics laws can be violated in a singularity. However, let me remind you that this is exactly what is promoted by mainstream science in the BBT (the uniformitarian creation model). A singularity in which the known laws of physics and quantum mechanics breaks down.
Except they aren't the oldest rocks, nor are they 'primodial' - they are secondary formations.
According to the uniformitarian model and its assumptions, you are correct. That same model cannot account for the existance of polonium radia halos in granite. it's imposible. Hence the reason for a new hypothesis and model. One based on primordial granite which does explain the polonium halos as well as every other radiohalo.
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.
Again all of this is inconsistent web documented evobabble nonsense.
In message 31 you show undocumented, unreferenced photographs and you claim they represent radon damage. This is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion.
Henderson was the first to suggest this hypothesis in the 1930's. But his hypothesis is unsubstantiated:
quote:
Although the elliptical halos differ radically from the circular halos in minerals, the circular type resembles the 210Po halo in minerals and variations in the radii of circular halos approximate the calculated penetrated distances (26 to 31 m) of the 210Po alpha particle (energy E = 5.3 MeV) in this coalified wood (17). Henderson (18) theorized that Po halos might form in minerals when U-daughter Po isotopes or their alpha precursors were preferentially accumulated into small inclusions from some nearby U source. This hypothesis has not been confirmed for the origin of three distinct types of Po halos in U-poor minerals (1,2,11), but it does seem to provide a reasonable explanation for the origin of 210Po halos in U-rich coalified wood specimens.
Hundreds of thousands of these halos from multiple locations have been documented by Gentry since his original publication. The granites that display the three isotopes of polonium halos are in uranium poor minerals, not uranuim rich which would be required for such a radon transport solution. The hypothesis is without evidence. Your web citations are without evidence.
Gentry's work with Po halos in coalified wood demonstrate the Henderson model of fluid transport, but no U and T halos have been found in coalified wood. This peer reviewed paper refutes your model of fluid radon transport.
Curiously your claim of it being scientific method does not make it so
No, but my evidence of Gentry's peer reviewed multiple publications on this subject does make it so.
nor does your assertion become true because you claim it to be so.
Nor does your assertion of the uniformitarian assumptions become true because you or a million scientists 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.
What evidence? You've only made assertions about undocumented photograpghs. And you build your case on this? Please provide documented, peer reviewed evidence that Radon222 is in the Polonium halos. There is none.
Scientists that don't include ALL the evidence are not doing science.
Yes I agree. That's the reason for peer review.
This includes (not a PhD, not a geologist) Gentry.
My appeal to authrority fallacy detector just went off. Hey everybody, RAZD wants us to reject all of Einstein's work, because he wasn't a PhD.
Skeptic: it amuses me to see the mental gymnastics that people use to avoid admitting that reality has shown certain beliefs to be invalid.
RAZD, you just fell of the mental balance beam by trying to discredit Gentry's credentials and his scientific publications.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : changed a qs to a quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2008 8:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by cavediver, posted 10-07-2008 6:44 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 72 by bluescat48, posted 10-07-2008 11:51 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2008 12:31 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 85 by cavediver, posted 10-11-2008 1:38 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 74 of 265 (485442)
10-08-2008 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
10-08-2008 12:31 AM


More Evo Babble scriptures
Curiously ad hominems are not an argument about the facts.
Curiously those ad hominen words are your exact metaphor from your skeptic/creationist dialogue..
RAZD writes:
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.
Now to credibility....
RAZD writes:
The facts are that Gentry's credentials ARE questionable:
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted
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.
Yes let's look at those "credible???" credential facts. You quote an article by Thomas A. Baillieul who doesn't once challenge Gentry's credentials. The reason he doesn't do this is because "Thomas A Baillieul" doesn't seem to have any credentials himself. I tracked him to his personal website, and you can look at his articles. This is nothing more than evo-babble web rhetoric. There is nothing scientific on his site. Including the Po article that you are citing as your evidence.
So I researched a little further. His email address is hosted at amaxx.com. So I looked it up. Amaxx.com is an IT solution company in Ohio. So I called them on the phone. They told me this person doesn't exist and to their knowledge has never worked there. Then I emailed the address on the Talk origins citation asking if this was a fictitious address. They responded that this person and address doesn't exist.
I started this informational search from the Talk origins site. This was the response from Bob Patterson to the question of who this guy was:
quote:
In case Dr. Baillieul does not see this Feedback and have the opportunity to respond, you may visit his personal website at The Science and Evolution Page .
He invites inquiries by email at *******@amaxx.com
TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for June 2003
Note that Patterson doesn't give any answer to his credentials. Instead he refers to the website and email. His personal website is nothing more that a free hosted site at tripod.com.
Now RAZD, will you honestly admit that Gentry has well qualified credentials, and the pen name Thomas A. Baillieul has none? You are quoting "scripture" from the Talk Origins website which hosts such bogus science as this article supposedly refuting a bonified scientist who has earned his stripes in the science community.
Nothing in this article is credible! You would be laughed out of court if you presented such evidence. You also would not be allowed to publish such garbage in any kind of peer reviewed forum. Your whole argument is bogus. But many people can be fooled by this stuff. Unfortunately, I think you honestly have fallen to a Talk Origin scam. Sorry.
Next you quote Collins:
quote:
For your information Robert Gentry does not have a Ph.D. degree in physics, only a master's degree. But he is a competent physicist, and his laboratory experiments dealing with the amounts of radiation necessary to produce halos in mica and fluorite are accurate and acceptable to the referees for major journals. Hence, he has been able to publish in Major Journals and outside the creationists' sponsored journals. His science (at least the experimental part relating to radiation) is not at fault. It is his interpretations and applications of his results that err. As just one example of the problems with his interpretation, in some places polonium halos occur in granite that underlies some fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks and is older than the sedimentary rocks, but in other places polonium halos are found in granites that penetrate sedimentary rocks and are younger than the fossil-bearing sediments, impossible on Gentry's view.
I suspect that Robert Gentry likely claims that he has refuted me. Generally, it has been my experience that no logic exists that will change the minds of the die-hard creationists that instantaneous creation during the Genesis Week is the real truth. There are five articles on my website on Creationism that provide direct or indirect evidence that the Gentry model is wrong.
Now RAZD, Collins does not call Gentry's credentials into question does he? He only calls his reasoning into question. That's why we have the scientific method isn't it? All of us have reasoning, and some of it is faulty. Some of it is accurate. The purpose of the scientific method according to Popper is to weed out the faulty logic. Science is a process of falsification. That's why Collins and his friend Wakefield publish all their material on the unfiltered web where they can spout their evo-babble just like Baillieul. They cannot get their so-called refutations of Gentry's work published in a peer-reviewed format. My heart bleeds for them.
And finally you fallaciously appeal to Cavediver as your next authority against Gentry. Cavediver's credentials are nothing more than an assertion. He's an anonymous person with an anonymous occupation on his profile.
Why don't you admit that Gentry has good credentials, and he has met the hurdles of peer-review on multiple occations. Instead, you bring up fictitious Talk Origins writers, anonymous EVC forum authoritarians, and other non-credible unpublished geologists as evidence.
Whom should I believe? You, or Gentry. My money is on Gentry right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2008 12:31 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Joe T, posted 10-08-2008 4:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2008 9:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2008 9:38 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 76 of 265 (485478)
10-08-2008 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Joe T
10-08-2008 4:14 PM


Re: More Evo Babble scriptures
Wouldn't it have been easier to Google or Google Scholar Mr (Dr?) Baillieul to see what his geological creditentials are? Alternatively you could go to Amazon and you'll find eight or so publications there relating to uranium geology. It seems he is a retired geologist, painter and member of the UU church.
Mr. not Dr. as represented by Talk Origins. His resume is here
web page resume
His resume makes no mention of geological experience except his MS in Geology. His claim to fame is clearly artistry not geology. I guess anyone can write a Talk Origins citation for evos to quote the scriptures from. He still has a suspicious email address, and I suspect he is falsly being represented by Talk Origins. Again, I will restate, this guy is still a spurious expert, and he clearly has not refuted Gentry in any scientific way.
Now in regards to Andrew Snellings falsification of Gentry, you can note that his article is not peer reviewed either. And the two cited articles that you claimed to be peer reviewed are just more of Snellings non peer reviewed material. He was citing himself.
I don't want to get side tracked on the ICR Gentry debate. Gentry does an excellent job of exposing the fallacies here:
Open Letter to ICR: Are Granites Primordial? by R. V. Gentry. Table of Contents.
It's very lengthy, and I won't discuss it unless you can demonstrate that you have read it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Joe T, posted 10-08-2008 4:14 PM Joe T has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Wounded King, posted 10-08-2008 7:49 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2008 9:57 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 79 of 265 (485495)
10-08-2008 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Wounded King
10-08-2008 7:49 PM


Re: ad hominem much?
Is fame now a requirement? He seems to have worked in the geological field for the US Department of Energy for some time, perhaps he just didn't do the sort of academic research that focuses on publication as its raison d'etre.
Yes, I cited that post
Is fame now a requirement?
No, I didn't claim it was. I am simply stating his own representation of himself on his resume. It is a fact.
Again, I will restate, this guy is still a spurious expert, and he clearly has not refuted Gentry in any scientific way.
You keep stating it, but that isn't the same as making a case. Does whether Baillieul is or isn't a doctor make any difference to the validity of his arguments? Have you shown anything other than that he is an artist? Does this exclude him also being/ having been a geologist?
No, what I have claimed is that he presents no evidence to support his talk origin article. Science does have a standard. You don't see me citing creationist websites unless they have peer reviewed material or unless someone else has referred them first. Why should evos be allowed to claim non-scientific material as science? Gentry has given a falsification proposal for his theory. It doesn't seem so difficult at all to falsify his work if what Collins and Baillieul claim is true. So why don't they do it? Making claims and assertions is not science, whether you have a BS, MS or PhD doesn't really matter. You have to have the evidence to back up those claims. RAZD hasn't produced any scientific evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Wounded King, posted 10-08-2008 7:49 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 82 of 265 (485541)
10-09-2008 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by RAZD
10-08-2008 9:57 PM


Re: Back to the issue of "Primordial Polonium" being Primarily Poppycock Palaver
Hi RAZD,
I appreciate all of your well written posts, but your fingers work a little quicker than mine. I will be very busy the next two days, and I really want to answer your questions. Please be patient, because I will reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2008 9:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 10-10-2008 11:38 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 84 of 265 (485762)
10-11-2008 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by RAZD
10-08-2008 9:57 PM


Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't very fuzzy, was he?
All quotes from RAZD:
And again, AlphaOmegaKid, we have the issue of addressing the EVIDENCE that refutes Gentry.
Yes let’s look at your so called EVIDENCE.
Here's the next unanswered segment from Message 73: the evidence FOR radon-222 diffusion, even in Gentry's own photographs.
In message 31 you show undocumented, unreferenced photographs and you claim they represent radon damage. This is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion.
They were referenced, they came from Gentry. Message 31:
When someone requests a reference, they don’t want an answer like “they came from Gentry.” I was requesting the website/paper/book/page # reference so I could examine the original picture. I did discover where your cited picture came from, and I will reveal it below.
quote:
This is the predicted picture with a "clean" Polonium halo (top)and a "smudged" Radon-222 halo (bottom):
A prediction from ntskeptics . of course. This prediction is your evidence? Now let’s begin to unravel this strawman argument that only exists on evo-babbler websites. None of this talk of Radon halos is in any kind of scientific literature.
Now I am going to go slow, so all the audience can understand this slight of hand strawman. When scientists talk about radiohalos they refer to them by the emitting particles (the parent element) at the center of the halo. When you have a U238 halo, there are uranium elements emitting the alpha decay from the center of the halo. The rings around the center identify the alpha decay chain that proceeds after the parent material decays into each successive decay chain ion. With a Po218 halo, Po218 must originally be at the center.
When you look at mature uranium halos you will see a Po210 and Rn222 decay rings. The alpha decay energies of these two ions is very close, and one is a solid(Po210) and one is a gas (Rn222). The reason you have “fuzzy” rings where the Po210 ring and the Rn222 ring are is simply because in a mineral encapsulation the mineral damage from the alpha decay energy is about the same for the Rn222 as it is for the Po210.
It is important to emphasize at this point that the alpha decay always emits from the center portion of the halo. That means that when Rn222 forms at the center, the Rn222 gas is not migrating, or being transported by any fluid mechanism. It is locked or encapsulated and it is undergoing alpha decay. Now we know this for a fact, because if the Rn222 was allowed to escape from the center, then you would not have the subsequent decay rings of Po218, Po214 and Po210.
This is why no real scientist is even suggesting Rn222 halos. That would mean that a cavity large enough to encapsulate the Rn222 would be present and observable. It also means that this cavity would be substantially larger than the current observable radio centers, because Rn222 gas takes up much more space than the subsequent decay chain solids. That means that evidence of a cavity would be available in a Rn222 halo. It also means that the Rn222 gas must have been encapsulated in a very short time period also. But just what would that encapsulation mechanism be if the minerals weren’t molten?
Now all of this is obvious to the evo-babblers, but they try and trick you with their slight of hand. I will demonstrate this by quoting from your citation . ..
The Newsletter of The North Texas Skeptics
quote:
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.
Now unfortunately we have a logical bait and switch, which most people won’t catch. Note the underlined sections. The first paragraph is correct in saying that the Po218 can fall out of solution. What it doesn't say is that by the time it falls out, it decays. Then he switches in paragraph 2 and says Rn222 falls out of solution. Wrong, if the Rn222 is mobile in solution, then it will remain mobile in solution unless something encapsulates it. Then the author switches again and he is back to Po218,214,210 taking up lattice positions and concentrate in the biotite and fluorite crystals. Well if that is true, then you will have Po218,Po214, and P210 halos. And the Po218 would not have time to "gather" in a lattice structure.
The possibility of Rn222 halos doesn’t have a logical solution unless there is evidence of inclusions at the center. The mobility of the Rn222 must be constrained by the mineral to create a halo.
So the only scientific logical conclusion is that these are Po218 halos and not Rn222 halos.
This also means that there cannot be a “predicted” picture/drawing of a Radon222 halo.
Now lets go to the “fuzzy” halo logic which is basically what you are arguing .
quote:
This is a Gentry photo

Here's another view of the same picture:
quote:
Figure 2. Concentric haloes in biotite mica considered by Gentry to be caused by polonium isotope decay (Gentry, 1992).
Gentry, Robert V., 1992, Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, TN, 3rd Edition.
Same wide dark rings for polonium-210 and radon-222 instead of the narrow clear rings for the other isotopes in the decay series after radon-222.
Now at first glance, I must admit that this is an impressive display of “EVIDENCE” . Do you see how ntskeptics purposesly altered the image to make this argument. And you rest on this evidence?
The reason I asked for the actual citation of where the photos came from was because photos must be explained in context. Here is the original photo from Gentry . .
If you look there are eight Po218 halos in this photograph. TalkOrigin’s gif image is a cropped image of this fuzzy photograph which is then blown up. The cropping comes from the lower group of three halso together. No wonder your “EVIDENCE” is a little fuzzy. No wonder you and the other evo-babblers (non scientific) are promoting this stuff on the web. They know they can’t get it published, because the EVIDENCE shows it is a scam.
Now if you want to look at really good photos of Po218 halos, just go here:
Creation's Tiny Mystery: Radiohalo Catalogue, Index
Here are some good ones from biotite mica:
Now those aren’t so “fuzzy” are they? You see, in the seventies, photographic abilities with microscopes were horrible compared to today’s. By Gentry’s 1986 2nd edition book, the photo capabilities were much better.
But I guess if you crop an out of focus picture, and then blow it up, you can make people believe anything. That’s the real definition of MAGIC by the way.
Now keep in mind that Gentry didn’t just use a microscope and ring measurements to identify these halos. He used several other scientific techniques which I will discuss later in this forum. So in conclusion, your “EVIDENCE” isn’t evidence at all. These are not the improbable (if not impossible)Rn222 halos that evo-babblers claim. And Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn’t very fuzzy, was he?
Now if you want EVIDENCE, you may want to visit Gentry's website. He has identified over 100,000 of these halos. And even if you could show problems with the Po218 halos, you still couldn't explain why there are Po210 halos with no possibility of Rn222 precursor. Gentry presents evidence of Po218,214, and 210 halos in the same mica sections. Your problems don't go away, so please stop invoking MAGIC! form the evo-babblers as your evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2008 9:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 10-11-2008 3:51 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 10-11-2008 9:50 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 86 of 265 (485767)
10-11-2008 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by RAZD
10-08-2008 9:57 PM


More Rn222 Magic!
Please provide documented, peer reviewed evidence that Radon222 is in the Polonium halos. There is none.
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 87, NO. 5, 10 SEPTEMBER 2004
662.pdf | sep102004 | currsci | Indian Academy of Sciences
quote:
Radii of individual rings surrounding tiny radiocentres (< 2 mm) in diametral/near-diametral sections are consistent and the mean radii of 32.4 mm (outermost), 22.0, 18.3 and 15.2 mm (innermost) compare well with the experimentally determined, theoretically calculated and observed penetration depths of a-particles emitted by 214Po (the outermost ring), 218Po, 210Po/222Rn, and 226Ra/234U/230Th (innermost ring) in biotite. Such ring structures can be assigned to the decay chain of 238U in which the above radioactive atoms correspond to daughters in the decay series and each of them emits a-particles of different energies.
The radius of each ring will correspond in such a case to a step in the decay series. 238U is one of such radionuclides and it decays through eight alpha-decay steps (Table 1). The a- emitters in the decay chain of 238U are 238U, 234U, 230Th, 226Ra, 222Rn, 218Po, 214Po and 210Po. Accordingly, eight concentric rings are expected in well-developed radiohalos. However, as shown in Table 1, the energies of a particles in air (Ea) emitted by 234U, 230Th and 226Ra are very close. Similarly, Ea for 222Rn is close to that of 210Po. Consequently, characteristic rings of 234U, 230Th and 226Ra and those of 222Rn and 210Po cannot be distinguished in the resolution of common transmitted light microscope. Thus on microscopic examination, five distinct rings corresponding to 214Po, 218Po, 222Rn/210Po, 234U/226Rn/230Th and 238U are often visible in well-developed radiohalos. Best ring structures are developed when the radiocentre is extremely small in size. Larger radiocentres generally develop poor ring structure, partly because of overlapping thick shells/spheres produced by alphas emitted from the centre as well as those from the boundary of radioactive inclusion.

At least four clear rings are discernible in many halos. Typical concentric radiohalo rings in chlorite from the Turamdih U-ore are shown in Figure 4.
The four rings (marked by solid curves in Figure 5 b and data in Table 1) from outermost to innermost, correspond to the penetration depths of alpha particles emitted by 214Po (outermost ring), 218Po, 210Po/222Rn, and 226Ra/234U/230Th. The gaseous 222Rn can escape the micro-system related to each radiohalo through favourable conduits in the form of micro-fracture and cleavage. However, the presence of radiohalos related to the daughters (218Po 214Po, 210Po) of 222Rn indicates that radon loss was not pervasive, though part of it can escape the system. The suspected fifth ring, mentioned earlier, may correspond to 238U (innermost ring with dotted boundary in Figure 5 b). Strong radiation damage caused by 234U/ 226Rn/230Th resulting in dark discoloration surrounding the radiocentre might have smeared the fifth ring. The ring pattern as found in the present study can thus be assigned to the chain decay of 238U.
So you get blurring of ALL rings from large inclusions, because the source atoms are in different enough locations to cause have overlapping patterns, and you get blurring between 234U, 230Th and 226Ra because they are so similar in energy/radius, AND you get blurring from 222Rn and 210Po because they are so similar in energy/radius. What you end up with is wider rings for 234U/226Rn/230Th and 222Rn/210Po than you do for 214Po, 218Po, or 238U.
Yes, but this is blurring of rings. In all U and Th halos, you will get blurring of rings. The challenge was to produce evidence that Rn222 exists in the Po218 halos. There is none. This is a magical strawman argument trying to confuse rings with halos. If a Rn222 halo was possible the radio center would be much larger than a Po218 center, because Rn is a gas and takes up much more volume that Po218. This cavity would also be visible under microscopic examination.
Because the inclusion doesn't change size during decay - unless it has a gaseous isotope that escapes
You are being foot loose and fancy free here aren't you? If the gaseous isotope escapes the inclusion, then it cannot radiate the alpha decay particles. You won't have a Rn222 ring, or any Po218,214,210 rings. Right?
it always has the same number of atoms involved in the decay series, the thickness of the rings should be consistent.
But you just said "unless it has a gaseous isotope that escapes". You are referring to Rn222. If any ions escape, then what prevents all the ions from escaping? You can't have this fallacy both ways. You have fallen prey to internet evo-babble.
Thus IF you have a halo with a wide 222Rn/210Po ring and thinner 214Po, 218Po rings, THEN you have radon-222 and polonium-210 overlapping each other exactly as they do in complete uranium halos.
So, once again, where is the evidence of this in the so called Po218 halos? You don't have this in the Po218 halos. The reasons why are quite logical. You are trying to claim Rn222 encapsulation and Rn222 escape and mobility at the same time. Sorry. That's a fallacy.
If you have the exact same pattern of thin 214Po, thin 218Po and thick 222Rn/210Po rings without the inner 234U/226Rn/230Th or 238U, then you have a radon ring.
Your evo-babble contradictory assertion does not make it so. That's why none of this stuff is peer reviewed.
Thus the evidence says the cause of the halos is continuation of uranium decay through displacement of radon gas in the rocks, and that there is no need to postulate "primordial polonium" to explain the halos, NOR do we need to invent whole new magical miracle physics to change decay rates.
The only ones who have created magical miracles are the evo-babblers on the web which you have fallen prey to. First, there is NO EVIDENCE of Rn222 halos. Secondly, there is no model that makes Rn222 halos plausible. There is clear, unequivacle evidence that Po218 is encapsulated in the biotite. There is clear unequivocal evidence that Po210 is encapsulated in the biotite. Both ions have very short halflives. Far too short for any other means of mineral/silicate encapsulation other than a quick freeze of molten material.
Curiously, ignoring the mountains of evidence, from Wakefield to India, does not make it go away. Evidence documented by scientists IS scientific evidence.
I, nor Gentry has ignored any evidence. You certainly cannot claim to have presented any. At best, you have presented a hypothetical Rn222 halo schematic from ntskeptics. Then you present their clearly demonstrated bait and switch magical show as an argument. Then you present a strawman argument about rocks from India which have U238 halos in them. This article cites Gentry several times for his expertise on the subject, and never once challenges any of Gentry's conclusions.
The only person ignoring Po218, P210 halos in granites is you, and probably a whole bunch of others. Gentry for 20 years now has challenged the scientific community for an easy falsification of his hypothesis of instant creation. Produce a piece of granite with a Po218 or Rn222 or Po210 halo in it. That's how science works.
Your evo-babble assertions are not scientific in any way shape or form. To continue that assertion just continues to weaken your whole argument. I will address Wakefield in an upcoming post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2008 9:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 90 of 265 (485949)
10-13-2008 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by RAZD
10-11-2008 3:51 PM


Let's clear up your fuzziness from W(F)akefield
No, a prediction from Wakefields peer-reviewed article, which happens to be posted by ntskeptics. Here's another version of The Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery", where he lays out the evidence that is the basis for his theory, and where he develops his prediction from the theory:
quote:

First let's address the false claim that Wakefield's work is a scientific "peer reviewed" article. As you have shown before, Wakefield's article was published in the May 1988 edition of the Journal of Geological Education . This magazine is put out by the National Association of Geoscience Teachers and the magazine is now called the Journal of Geoscience Education. This journal is a teacher's educational journal. It is not a professional science journal by any means. Just look at the articles and you will discover that most of the articles are about "how" to teach a particular geological topic. Here are the articles from the May 2008 eddition:
quote:
The Effect of Using Inquiry and Multiple Representations on Introductory Geology Students' Conceptual Model Development of Coastal Eutrophication
Environmental History of the Southwest as a General Science Education Course
Some Cycles of Nature - Applications of M. Montessori's Cosmic Education in a Nursery School
Integrating Topics in an Introductory Hydrogeology Course through a Semester-long Hydraulic Containment Design Project
Professional Development Needs and Outcomes for Education-Engaged Scientists: A Research-Based Framework
Demonstrating the Stratification of Dimictic and Meromictic Lakes in a Fish Tank
Geoscience Conceptual Knowledge of Preservice Elementary Teachers: Results from the Geoscience Concept Inventory
The Dry-erase Cube: Making Three-dimensional Visualization Easy
Improving Urban Earth Science Education: The TRUST Model
Increasing Learning in Introductory Geoscience Courses Using Lecture Tutorials
So this is the scientific peer reviewed work you are trying to defend?
Yes it is peer reviewed as you stated earlier:
quote:
The Journal of Geoscience Education (JGE) is the premier peer-reviewed publication for geoscience education research at the undergraduate and pre-college levels. JGE is the publication of record for NAGT, and serves as the only international forum for the publication of research concerning the pedagogy, assessment, and philosophy of teaching and learning about the geosciences.
Now the yellow highlights are for you and others to understand that this is a teacher's journal by fiat and not a science journal by any measure. The articles are all written by undergraduates who don't even have a BS or BA and some haven't even graduated high school. Many are written by community college students.
So since you made the issue of Robert Gentry's credentials and credibility, let's do a little comparison....
Forbidden
quote:
In his early career, Robert V. Gentry served as a physicist (B.S., M.S.; University of Florida) in the nuclear/space defense industries and taught college/university math and physics. He then developed an absorbing interest in testing the conventional evolutionary model of Earth’s origin and age, and has dedicated his scientific career to finding answers that could only be obtained through years of investigating fossil traces of an extraordinary type of radioactivity inscribed in Earth’s basement rocks, the granites. His research so far has resulted in authoring or co-authoring over twenty research papers in scientific publications, such as Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, Annual Review of Nuclear Science, and Earth and Planetary Science Letters. Most of these reports were published during the thirteen years (1969-1982) he spent as a Visiting Scientist in the Chemistry Division of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, some of which detailed discovery of evidence of Earth’s rapid creation and its young age. In 1977 these discoveries led to an honorary D.Sc., and subsequently to his being called to testify in defense of the state’s creation position at the 1981 Arkansas creation/evolution trial. There he testified his discoveries disproved Earth’s evolutionary origin and instead affirmed the Genesis account of Earth’s six-day creation and young age.
So let me summarize... Gentry is a professional scientist with a BS, MS in Physics and honorary doctorate who served thirty years as a scientist, and has been published in all the major peer reviewed science journals multiple times. And we have J. Richard Wakefield who was published as an undergraduate in Geology. We don't know any of his professional credentials, and if you will check, his website is hosted by the infamous Lorence Collins. My what a comparison! Do you see why I have called this evo-babble????? It certainly is not credible science.
Now to demonstrate this, I will use your picture of the U238 halo above. It's an excellent representation and very well done. But it is not W(F)akefield's work, and it wasn't in his published article. If you look in the upper right hand corner, you can easily see that this is copyrighted work from some unknown John Bradley. So, I thought I would check the references. You know what? This artwork isn't referenced. Do I detect seeds of evo-babbling plagiarism.
So then I decided to look at all the references and guess what I found? OK, I can't wait for you to guess. If you scroll down to the bottom of this page, you will find J.Richard W(F)akefield's credentials....Here they are
References Cited
quote:
About the Author
Richard Wakefield is a professional firefighter for the City of Scarborough, Ontario, Canada, a self-taught amateur geologist, and a software developer. He was the Liaison for the Ontario Committee of Correspondence (OASIS) and was on the Executive Committee for the Ontario Skeptics. His main interest is the Precambrian Canadian Shield. Currently he is studying the rocks of the complex Grenville Supergroup, not far from his home. Wakefield attended the University of Toronto part-time where he studied zoology and physics. He hopes to return to university to finish his degree and eventually get his PhD in geology. He lives, with his wife and four children, in Pickering, Ontario.
Now I honestly wish Mr. W(F)akefield success in his long arduous task of gaining his BS. And I wish him much enjoyment as an amateur geologist. My son had a sandbox in his earlier days. But in the meantime, you and other evo-babblers have fallen prey to citing this work as professional scientific work, when it is just Pseudo science that is highly biased by evo-babbling skepticism. The web is full of it, and TalkOrigins is chief, so please be careful in the future when you choose your sources of information. That's why, as a creationist, I rarely cite a creationist websites in these forums.
Now, finally, you should realize that the fuzzy halo argument is the same hypothesis that Henderson made in 1939. As a good scientist would do (Robert Gentry) he would test the opposing hypothesis. That's what all of Gentry’s work is about in his multiple publications. He used a significant number of scientific tests to confirm or deny Henderson's hypothesis of hydrothermal flow of U238 ions. The microscope/visualization argument about the Po210 and Rn222 rings is what Henderson proposed. But Henderson didn't have the technology when he lived to go beyond the microscope and visual images. Gentry did. He destroys Henderson's hypothesis in multiple peer reviewed articles with multiple scientific tests other that the microscope providing unambiguous evidence that these are indeed Po218,214,and 210 halos.
I will spend my next posts detailing Gentry's work and showing that it is not based on microscope images. Those are mostly for his book and readers.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : Spelling

-AlphaOmegakid-
I am a child of the creator of the beginning and the end

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 10-11-2008 3:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2008 7:29 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2008 8:20 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024