Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,924 Year: 4,181/9,624 Month: 1,052/974 Week: 11/368 Day: 11/11 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 265 (125485)
07-18-2004 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by CK
07-18-2004 3:05 PM


Re: some clean up
Another example that may be close to what you are asking for is Gentry's "polonium halos".
When at atom decays via alpha decay, it emits a helium nucleus (called an alpha particle). The distance the alpha particle travels through the crystal in which the original atom is a part depends on the particles energy. As it travels, it disturbs the crystal structure, which can easily be detected. Different isotopes emit alpha particles at different energies, so if one sees certain rings in the crystal, the size of the ring will be an indication that specks of a certain isotopes are embedded in the crystal.
Gentry claims to have found radio-haloes of a size that indicates certain isotopes of polonium. His claimed isotopes have very short lifetimes -- if one assumes that these isotopes were present at the beginning of the earth, they would have all decayed away by the time the geologic formations which Gentry was studying were formed. His conclusion is that this is evidence is inconsistent with standard geology, as I just explained, and that this fits an alternate theory, that all of these formations, and the included polonium, were all created in situ, all at once, during the Genesis creation event.
His initial discovery of these haloes were duly published in the scientific press. His conclusions were criticized because (1) in practice it's actually very hard to determine which isotope emitted the alpha particles (nothing in real life is perfect), and (2) the formations that Gentry was studying were very close to naturally occurring uranium deposits -- it is very easy for uranium particles to travel via ground water through micro-cracks to the rocks that Gentry was looking at, and polonium is in the decay series of uranium.
Once these alternate explanations were proposed, the "Genesis hypothesis" was then considered unreasonable -- after all, the other proposals are consistent with the vast, huge, immense, overwhelming, JUST ACCEPT IT, DAMMIT! amount of geologic, astronomic, and biologic evidence for an old earth and universe. So I seem to recall that Gentry was still trying to beat a now dead horse, couldn't get his more outlandish claims published, and now cries, "censorship".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 07-18-2004 3:05 PM CK has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 265 (125522)
07-18-2004 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NosyNed
07-18-2004 4:17 PM


Re: ID
quote:
Just a dead end path of research it appears.
More like stillborn. I'm unaware of any real research in this field. From the beginning, the proponents mainly wrote books and articles for popular consumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 07-18-2004 4:17 PM NosyNed 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