|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: polonium halos | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe T Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 41 From: Virginia Joined: |
quote: But these aren't the oldest rocks on earth. Creationist work since Gentry's has falsified that Halos occur in primordial rock.
quote: from: ANDREW A. SNELLING, Ph.D, Presented: Fifth International Conference on Creationism August 4-8, 2003 found at: http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCradiohalo.html This 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: 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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hello AlphaOmegaKid,
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? 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).
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. 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, 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. 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.
Ummmmm. We wouldn't be having this discussion if this evidence did not involve the primordial oldest rocks of the earth. Except they aren't the oldest rocks, nor are they 'primodial' - they are secondary formations.
Yes, you would be correct if you had any evidence that Radon mobility could create a Polonium halo. 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.
And your falsee claims of radon mobility creating polonium halos are not science. I state that emphatically by the scientific method. 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. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Razd,
Any dog on the internet can post Poppycock if you have no peer reviewed evidence just admit it! JF
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
whatever,
Any dog on the internet can post Poppycock if you have no peer reviewed evidence just admit it! 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. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
whatever said: Any dog on the internet can post Poppycock if you have no peer reviewed evidence just admit it! razd said: Of course: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 claims The 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks for the quotemine whatever.
whatever said: Any dog on the internet can post Poppycock if you have no peer reviewed evidence just admit it! razd said: Of course: 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?
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. Is this a peer reviewed statement? Or is it just someone posting dog scat.
The 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). 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. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5622 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Razd,
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 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.
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. I could not find anywhere that Gentry admits uranium halos are evidence rocks are hundreds of millions of years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi JohnFolton,
It would be appreciated if you would stop posting to this thread. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.
I could not find anywhere that Gentry admits uranium halos are evidence rocks are hundreds of millions of years old. It's where he talks about accelerated decay. The case against primal polonium In 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. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
Gentry in his AAAS paper writes: Lorentz's efforts to explain this null result on the basis of an absolute reference frame were supposedly untenable. The real explanation, according to almost every physics textbook written in the past 60 years, was given by the theory of relativity, namely that: Given the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, if the fundamental principles of relativity are true, then there is no absolute reference frame. But the CMR is an absolute reference frame, so the original relativistic deductions about the Michelson-Morley experiment are in error. More precisely, since logic requires the contrapositive of a statement to be equivalent to the statement itself, the preceding "if relativity is true, then no absolute reference frame" statement must be equivalent to "if an absolute reference frame exists, then the fundamental principles of relativity are untrue." In simpler terms the theory of relativity has been falsified because a major prediction of the theory is now known to be contradicted by an unambiguous experimental result. Without relativity theory there is no Big Bang, no Hubble relation for the redshift, and no explanation for the CMR in an evolutionary cosmological model. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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. 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, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks AlphaOmegaKid
RAZD, you just fell of the mental balance beam by trying to discredit Gentry's credentials and his scientific publications. 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. Curiously ad hominems are not an argument about the facts. The facts are that Gentry's credentials ARE questionable: "Polonium Haloes" Refuted
quote: Or from Dr. Collins (University of Illinois in Urbana, Ph.D. degree in geology):
quote: 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:
cavediver writes: ... 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) So that's questioning his credentials as a physicist.
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. 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.
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. 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?
I and Gentry only have a problem if the uniformitarian model assumption of constant radioactive decay is a correct assumption. 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.
The whole point of Gentry's work is that it calls into question the validity of the unformitarian assumption. 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.
And as you know, any dating method is only as good as its assumptions. 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.
Gentry proposes the thoery of a maximum of three singularities to account for the U and T halos and other phenomena.
quote: 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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:
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.
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. 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.
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. 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 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe T Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 41 From: Virginia Joined: |
AOK:
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024