Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 36 of 142 (484520)
09-29-2008 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by peaceharris
09-29-2008 4:56 AM


Re: Not about Polonium, Not about a Young Earth.
quote:
This was published in science vol 194. Even though what is published in a reputable journal need not be correct, Gentry and the reviewers at Science should know basic high school physics. In this case please believe what was published in Science rather than what RAZD keeps repeating.
Of course it is quite possible to believe both. The abstract of the paper clearly identifies the uranium haloes in question as "embryonic" - a fact that you did not mention for some reason. Thus well-developed haloes will clearly be older than these very recent examples (themselves older than typical YEC views allow - especially as these would be dated no earlier than the Flood, rather than the Creation).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by peaceharris, posted 09-29-2008 4:56 AM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by peaceharris, posted 09-30-2008 12:30 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 38 of 142 (484619)
09-30-2008 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by peaceharris
09-30-2008 12:30 AM


Re: Not about Polonium, Not about a Young Earth.
quote:
Gentry’s definition of embryonic can be derived from this statement in his report:
“Specifically, it was discovered that the halos (Fig. 1a) surrounding the -active sites are typically embryonic, that is, they do not generally exhibit the outer 214Po ring characteristic of fully developed U halos in minerals.”
He is basically saying that he can see the U halo but cannot see the 214Po ring, thus he has defined it as “embryonic”.
i.e. he is saying that THESE haloes are not "fully developed", just as I said.
quote:
Or do you think Gentry is blind . the 214Po halo exists but he can’t see it? If you think Gentry made a mistake, please use data to support your assertion, find the halos that have the 238U ring and the 214Po ring. Post the image in this forum and tell us how you identified each ring.
I'm not disagreeing with Gentry. I am objecting to your misuse of his work. The fact that THESE haloes are young does not in any way provide the slightest evidence against the existence of older "fully developed" haloes. Moreover even these young haloes require accelerated radioactive decay to be fitted into standard YEC timetables.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by peaceharris, posted 09-30-2008 12:30 AM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by peaceharris, posted 09-30-2008 5:01 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 40 of 142 (484631)
09-30-2008 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by peaceharris
09-30-2008 5:01 AM


Gentry and Uranium Haloes
quote:
Could you give us a photo of a fully developed Uranium halo. A halo where the 238U and the 214Po ring can be seen?
Probably, but since it isn't really releavnt to my point I think we'll settle the issues I did raise first.
Do you accept that Gentry's paper provides no evidence against the existence of older Uranium radiohaloes ?
quote:
You don't understand what I said in message 37.
On the contrary, I do know. That's why I replied to point out the obvious errors. You, on the other hand completely misunderstood my response as can clearly be seen.
quote:
Anyway, if accelerated radioactive decay did not take place, how old are the Uranium halos in Gentry's paper? Pls tell me how you arrive at your answer
Gentry supplied an estimate - which you quoted - putting the age at around 240,000 years. Granted this estimate is rough and probably too large, it is still far enough away from the typical YEC estimate (
Edited by PaulK, : Change of title to reflect contents

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by peaceharris, posted 09-30-2008 5:01 AM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by peaceharris, posted 10-03-2008 2:50 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 41 of 142 (484632)
09-30-2008 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by peaceharris
09-30-2008 5:01 AM


Re: Not about Polonium, Not about a Young Earth.
Duplicate
Edited by PaulK, : Duplicate (Posting appeared to time out)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by peaceharris, posted 09-30-2008 5:01 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 44 of 142 (484926)
10-03-2008 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by peaceharris
10-03-2008 2:50 AM


Re: Gentry and Uranium Haloes
quote:
There are 2 independent methods to estimate the age of the Uranium halos described in Gentry’s paper. Neither of these methods prove that the age of the halos is approximately 240000 years.
I didn't say that we had proof - as I indicated I simply used Gentry's rough estimate from your posts and pointed out that it would have to be drastically wrong to fit into YEC timescales.
To remind you, you claimed that Gentry's study showed that there was no need to invoke accelerated radioactive decay. That claim was seriously in error both in the general case (the existence of relatively young haloes does not show that there are no older haloes) and in the particular case (Gentry's estimated age is many times greater than the

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by peaceharris, posted 10-03-2008 2:50 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 67 of 142 (489157)
11-24-2008 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Coragyps
11-24-2008 1:53 AM


Activity Ratio
What it means is that for every U238 decay there is a U234 decay i.e. the isotopes are in equilibrium.
Thus is seems that we have the following situation:
Message 46 states that RAZD made an error in assuming that U234 and U238 would be in equilibrium.
Message 65 states that the new calculation is not applicable because U234 and U238 WILL be in equilibrium.
(The intermediate stages in the decay chain are so short that they won't have any significant effect).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 11-24-2008 1:53 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 119 of 142 (667736)
07-11-2012 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by foreveryoung
07-11-2012 3:19 PM


Where is your "model" ?
It's all very well to demand that we give your model "a chance" but if all we have is your assertions that is all it can be judged on. And your assertions all seem highly implausible.
If you indeed have a viable mechanism which can manage all these coordinated changes so as to leave no evidence behind whatsoever, then please present it rather than making vague references to "vacuum energy" without explaining how the vacuum energy could have the effects that you claim. Until you do I have no reason to think that you have even a remotely viable model.
How, for instance, does the vacuum energy slow down light to the extent that you say that it does ?
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by foreveryoung, posted 07-11-2012 3:19 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024