|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: polonium halos | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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: 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: 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: This theory is falsifiable....
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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: 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....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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: Gentry proposes the thoery of a maximum of three singularities to account for the U and T halos and other phenomena.
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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 hereweb 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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: 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: 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: Here's another view of the same picture:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Please provide documented, peer reviewed evidence that Radon222 is in the Polonium halos. There is none. CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 87, NO. 5, 10 SEPTEMBER 2004662.pdf | sep102004 | currsci | Indian Academy of Sciences quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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: So this is the scientific peer reviewed work you are trying to defend?Yes it is peer reviewed as you stated earlier: quote: 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: 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: 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024