polonium halos

quote:

---

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

---

But these aren't the oldest rocks on earth. Creationist work since Gentry's has falsified that Halos occur in primordial rock.

quote:

---

The discovery and documentation of the three types of Po radiohalos in the biotites within three granitic plutons that were clearly sourced and formed during the Flood year falsifies the hypothesis for the formation of these Po radiohalos and their host granitic rocks during the Creation Week.

---

from: ANDREW A. SNELLING, Ph.D, Presented: Fifth International Conference on Creationism August 4-8, 2003found at: http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCradiohalo.htmlThis paper also references other work by creationists such as Kurt Wise that falsifies Gentry's ideas about the Halos being remnants of creation. Current creationist thinking is that the Po Halos are from some sort of intrusion during the Flood.

quote:

---

AOK: . 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.

---

Actually Snellings references much peer reviewed literature that there can indeed by Po halos as a result of transport. Go to his paper and see his references. Again from Snellings:

quote:

---

. there are now significant reports of 210Po as a detectable species in volcanic gases, in volcanic/hydrothermal fluids associated with subaerial volcanoes and fumaroles, and associated with mid-ocean ridge hydrothermal vents and chimney deposits [73, 92, 112], as well as in ground waters [61, 91]. The distances involved in this fluid transport of the Po are several kilometers (and more), so there is increasing evidence of the potential viability of the secondary transport of Po by hydrothermal fluids during pluton emplacement, perhaps in the waning stages of the crystallization and cooling of granitic magmas [117, 118].

---

Hello AlphaOmegaKid, But what did you actually do? Dismiss it as irrelevant. Denial is not a hard scholastic achievement to excel at. Curiously your most telling cause for denial was the Gentry had dismissed it or that it wasn't peer reviewed. Looks like you did nothing. Were you taking this pass-fail or did you intend to study for a good grade?Curiously you have not answered a single one of the numerous problems with primal polonium pointed out in Message 56, yet this is supposedly a reply to that message.You still have the problem that uranium halos exist in the same rocks with polonium halos. The uranium halos are evidence of the existence of that rock for at least a hundred million years, as that is how long it takes to form one (see Wiens). No, the age of the earth is a fact, you are confusing the measurement of age by different means with the actual age. The actual age has not been determined yet, but we have determined that bits and pieces are very old. One example of the evidence of old age is the uranium halos that mean a minimum age of hundreds of millions of years for the rocks where they are found. Various different pieces of evidence provide different minimum ages, some much older than others. Yes we can predict that the measured age will be different as we acquire more knowledge of how old the earth really is. Ah the old "because you disagree I must be right" logical fallacy. No is suggests fooling gullible people into believing a falsehood, possibly to sell a book, or to achieve some fame.Creationist: look at the evidence from polonium!Skeptic: look at the uranium, the fact that polonium is a daughter isotope of radon, a gas known to penetrate rock, the fact that the rock is a secondary formation that went through post-kinematic recrystallization, the fact that there are no halos of other short half life isotopes that are not formed by decay of other radioactive isotopes, etc etc etc ...Creationist: boy the polonium evidence must be good or you wouldn't be working so hard to prove it wrong ....Skeptic: it amuses me to see the mental gymnastics that people use to avoid admitting that reality has shown certain beliefs to be invalid. Except they aren't the oldest rocks, nor are they 'primodial' - they are secondary formations. 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. Curiously your claim of it being scientific method does not make it so, nor does your assertion become true because you claim it to be so.The evidence shows Radon-222 in the Polonium halos, and this invalidates the claim that it must be "primodial" or created polonium.Scientists that don't include ALL the evidence are not doing science. This includes (not a PhD, not a geologist) Gentry.Enjoy.

---

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

---

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

Razd,Any dog on the internet can post Poppycock if you have no peer reviewed evidence just admit it!JF

whatever, Of course: look at all the creatortionista sites, to say nothing of the loony stuff on utube.ALL the article you linked to in this thread have been to non-peer reviewed articles that mostly regurgitate invalid information.But that does not change the facts and arguments based on those facts. Wakefields article, for instance, is based on actually going and looking at the rocks in question, seeing if he can duplicate Gentry's finds, and looking if he can validate the radon gas theory.He did. His article is also referenced by several geologists.One does not need to be published in a peer reviewed journal just to present evidence that invalidates a theory: the evidence invalidates the theory, NOT the article.Hence any creationist that can present evidence that invalidates the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation won't need to publish it in a peer reviewed article: they just need to present the evidence.Enjoy.

---

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

---

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

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Gentry has challenged anyone to get your internet Poppycock rebuttals published in a reputable peer review science journal to start a peer review debate in a reputable science journal. That no reputable science journal will publish your palaver means the reputable science journals consider your rebuttals Poppycock!++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++According to Gentry:Briefly, to begin, those who are claiming to have found a natural explanation of polonium halos in granites are trying to hoodwink the unwary. They are misrepresenting the facts.
The reason evolutionists and others post objections on the Internet (anyone can do that, even a DOG :-)) is because they cannot get any reputable scientific journal to publish their claims. The journal editors know their claims are spurious. And were they to be published, the same editors know it would only expose the huge fallacies in their claimsThe evidence clearly favors Gentry: basically, Gentry challenged them to step up to the plate and start a debate in a peer-reviewed SCIENCE journals (the rebuttal works on halos are published on the Internet (no review at all) or in education journals).So far, Gentry has no luck... that really make you wonder how "scientific" these criticisms on Gentry's halo work really are.... Study Pages Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Thanks for the quotemine whatever. I guess this proves you are a dog eh? Perhaps Gentry's dog?Was that a peer reviewed article you got that from? Or was it just some dog's posting on the internet? Is this a peer reviewed statement? Or is it just someone posting dog scat. Curiously evidence is evidence whether it is published or not. The evidence of uranium halos show that the rocks that contain them, including all the ones with polonium halos, are hundreds of millions of years old.Even Gentry admits it.Enjoy.

---

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

---

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

Razd, The problem is reputable scientific journals won't publish your rebuttals apparently they agree with Gentry that your explanation of polonium halos is misrepresenting the facts spurious at best. I could not find anywhere that Gentry admits uranium halos are evidence rocks are hundreds of millions of years old.

Hi JohnFolton,It would be appreciated if you would stop posting to this thread. Thanks.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Whatever,The reason, as I see it, that Admin is asking you to cease posting, is because you are repeating arguments that have been dealt with.Whether Gentry is right or not about other papers being published is irrelevant to the issues raise that he has not refuted. It's where he talks about accelerated decay.The case against primal poloniumIn summary, I would say that polonium halos are not evidence of either a young earth or a special creation because:(1) polonium halos are only found in rocks and in geological conditions where uranium decay produces radon and radon diffuses through the rocks.(2) so called polonium halos also show damage due to radon-222 decay as a darker wider blurred band than any of the other bands, evidence that a secondary process is involved in the formation of those bands.(3) the polonium halos cannot affect the age of the earth due to the uranium halos in the same rocks, so for that you need another explanation.(4) uranium halos also invalidate changed decay rates, because decay rates and alpha energies are linked, and if one changes the other changes, and the halos would not have formed in the distinctive pattern that exists in the rocks.(5) truncated uranium halos also exist that do not have any polonium rings, and this is evidence that the radon formed before the polonium in the decay series left the vicinity of the uranium inclusion. This proves radon mobility in the rocks and provides the source of the radon/polonium halos seen in the rocks.(6) there are no halos from other "short half life primal radioactive isotopes" - ones that do NOT have parent isotopes whose decay results in their replenishment. There are halos from other radioactive isotopes, of many varying half-lives, but not from any of the known past "short half life primal radioactive isotopes" - and the cutoff for these "timed out" isotopes is a half-life less than ~0.9 billion years.Enjoy.

---

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

---

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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 PerspectiveHere 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. 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. 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. No, but my evidence of Gentry's peer reviewed multiple publications on this subject does make it so. Nor does your assertion of the uniformitarian assumptions become true because you or a million scientists claim it to be so. 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. Yes I agree. That's the reason for peer review. 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. 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

Sadly off-topic here, but this shows that Gentry is quite capable of being utterly mis-informed and ignorant of a subject he is supposedly critiquing. He appears quite unaware of the difference between the Special Theory of Relativity and the General Theory of Relativity. Either that, or he is deliberately conflating the two in the hope of deception. Either way, this is an appalling indictment on his status as a scientist. I find it very hard to believe this passed any real level of peer-review. Had it arrived on my desk for review, it would have made the 'nutter of the week' wall (and this purely on the bsais of his Relativity comments - nothing to do with his creationist stance)Anyone want to try to defend his argument in an appropriate thread?

You have just proved yourself wrong in the way you use the idea of singularities, "this hypothesis." A hypothesis is an attempt to come up with the answer to a question, a possible solution which in itself is useless until tested, evaluated, etc. so as to draw a conclusion whether the hypothesis is right or wrong. Until such time as to the singularity hypothesis is judged as relevant, it is not a theory.Next please!

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Thanks AlphaOmegaKid Curiously ad hominems are not an argument about the facts. 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.

---

Or from Dr. Collins (University of Illinois in Urbana, Ph.D. degree in geology):

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.

---

In essence Collins says that Gentry's geology is wrong, and his conclusions based on that geology are wrong. And it is in his geology that his "theory" falls apart, where his claim of "primordial origin" does not hold up to the light of day.Furthermore we have a Ph.D. in physics here, Message 71: So that's questioning his credentials as a physicist. And the substantial evidence that validates it. There is NO evidence that the natural processes, such as radioactive decay, we significantly different at any time in earth's past. There is SUBSTANTIAL evidence that it has remained the same for billions of years.In science, ALL of science, theory is based on observation of actual objective evidence, and then the theory is tested for validity by a number of various tests. The problem with asserting that this is just an assumption is that there is objective evidence that validates the uniform process of radioactive decay virtually unchanged for billions of years. Which still does not mean that his conclusions are correct.Nor does it mean that the evidence and arguments in the internet papers are wrong, particularly those by people with degrees in the field. It is just another version of the argument from authority, and it assumes that there are no other reasons for not being published. Did you email Ph.D. Geologist Dr Collins and ask him? Translation: Gentry's model is (remotely) tenable IF AND ONLY IF all we know about physics is discarded, and we create a whole new physics based on imagination. Only if we totally disregard the numerous and pervasive problems and errors in his "geology" part of the work and the evidence of old age all around us, as well as the evidence of natural processes occurring in the past just as they do today. By your argument it doesn't really question anything, because it is ONLY based on ASSUMPTION. He uses the a priori ASSUMPTION of creation to explain the polonium halos (when a perfectly valid explanation exists), and then finds that it requires A FURTHER ASSUMPTION of changing physical processes in order to explain away the evidence of uranium halos. Then because the alpha particle energy is tied to the decay rate, he will need ANOTHER ASSUMPTION to form rings that, curiously, LOOK JUST EXACTLY LIKE NO CHANGE IN DECAY RATES OCCUR. Just as predicted: now we have THREE MORE ASSUMPTIONs. Assumptions for which there is NO EVIDENCE other that wishful thinking. Calling them "singularities" is just playing semantic "hide-the-pea" games, the kind of thing done to delude gullible people.He starts by assuming one miracle occurs, and now to explain the evidence that refutes that miracle he needs three more miracles. One wonders how long it will be before he needs three miracles for each of those new miracles ... until we end up with the old scenario that all the evidence was made by miracle but with complete and accurate in every way appearance of occurring purely by normal processes ... and we have the Loki creation theory. Which, curiously, does not validate Gentry's claim in any way. Like I said, calling them "singularities" is word games - looks like you got suckered. Is this the new "explanation" for every little bit of inconvenient evidence? Trees rings 12,000 years old, caused by a singularity. Over 25,000 summer/winter varve layers in a lake, caused by a singularity.Please. It explains the existence of polonium halos in the types of granite in which polonium halos are found. Curiously Gentry does not explain their absence in the other kinds of granite, the ones where radon and uranium intrusion did not or cannot occur. It explains why polonium halos are ALWAYS accompanied by uranium, another point that Gentry does not explain. Must be another miracle.It not only is possible, but it is verified by the simultaneous existence of uranium halos that are MISSING the radon through lead series rings. Given the difference in decay times and the absolutely huge number of atoms needed to form a single ring, the ONLY valid explanation (unless, of course, it's ANOTHER miracle) for the complete absence of radon through lead halos is that the radon migrated into the rock and decayed elsewhere: some of it making radon\polonium halos, complete with the blurred ring that is evidence of radon-222 decay. They were referenced, they came from Gentry. Message 31:

quote:

---

This is the predicted picture with a "clean" Polonium halo (top)and a "smudged" Radon-222 halo (bottom):

​

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. With the addition of a few miracles here and there to do away with the inconvenient evidence of simple normal processes without needing to invent a whole new physics. 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.Because the inclusion doesn't change size during decay - unless it has a gaseous isotope that escapes - it always has the same number of atoms involved in the decay series, the thickness of the rings should be consistent. 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.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.What it looks like is that geology scientists are doing geology, publishing papers that document the objective evidence that continues to refute Gentry, while ignoring him rather than answering his challenge.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : moved photo

---

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

---

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

Curiously those ad hominen words are your exact metaphor from your skeptic/creationist dialogue.. Now to credibility.... 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.

AOK:

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.

---

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.Also I would appreciate a response to the creationist geologists criticisms of Dr. Gentry's hypothesis I cited earlier.Joe T.