Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Granite
meanbadger
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 20 (81097)
01-27-2004 11:42 AM


I recently ran accross some very interesting information on granite rock.
According to source, granite rock (the major basement rock of our planet)contains polonium 218. This is aparently a substance with a half life of 3 minutes.
These particles leave circles in the rock (when sliced). "These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.)
A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen."
Source: Page not found – Evolution-Facts
As such, my question is this: If the big bang happened, then evolution occurred over millions and millions of years, how can the very rock separating the liquid core of our planet from the outer shell have been created in less than 3 minutes??? It would seem that this discovery of polonium 218 in granite by Robert V. Gentry totally disproves an old earth and therefore ruins any theory using a substantially long period of time. In addition, how did the granite form so as to contain this polonium if it was not molten?
By the way it is my understanding that when granite is reduced to a molten state then cooled back to rock, it is no longer granite...therefore granite could not have ever existed in a molten state.
Thanks in advance for satisfying my curiosity in this matter.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dr Jack, posted 01-27-2004 11:45 AM meanbadger has replied
 Message 6 by Trixie, posted 01-27-2004 4:43 PM meanbadger has not replied
 Message 7 by Loudmouth, posted 01-27-2004 5:11 PM meanbadger has not replied
 Message 8 by Joe Meert, posted 01-28-2004 7:10 PM meanbadger has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 2 of 20 (81099)
01-27-2004 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by meanbadger
01-27-2004 11:42 AM


Polonium Halo FAQs
A word of friendly advice: before posting items gleened from creationist web sites do a quick search on talkorigins.org. You'll only be directed there by the first poster who reads your message anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by meanbadger, posted 01-27-2004 11:42 AM meanbadger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Loudmouth, posted 01-27-2004 2:28 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 10 by meanbadger, posted 01-28-2004 11:59 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 20 (81153)
01-27-2004 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Dr Jack
01-27-2004 11:45 AM


Am I remembering correctly, or did the author not concede that his theory was incorrect (Gentry if memory serves)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Dr Jack, posted 01-27-2004 11:45 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by JonF, posted 01-27-2004 3:50 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 4 of 20 (81184)
01-27-2004 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Loudmouth
01-27-2004 2:28 PM


You do not remember corectly. He's still pushing it, and the RATE group is also involved. From RADIOISOTOPES AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH (RATE) RESEARCH PROJECT BROCHURE:
"Experiment: Radiohalos
Description: Determine the geological distribution of polonium halos, their proximity to concentrations of uranium, and the relationship to different halo types.
Expected results: Resolve the question if polonium halos are special evidence for created rocks only or could they also occur in Flood rocks. This effort may also allow inferences about the process of radioisotope decay and halo formation."
It is not unusual that they aren't bothering to do experiments to resolve the question of what Gentry's halos are.
For Gentry's home page (sort of), see Earth Science Associates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Loudmouth, posted 01-27-2004 2:28 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Loudmouth, posted 01-27-2004 4:37 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 01-28-2004 9:34 PM JonF has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 20 (81193)
01-27-2004 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by JonF
01-27-2004 3:50 PM


quote:
You do not remember corectly. He's still pushing it, and the RATE group is also involved. From RADIOISOTOPES AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH (RATE) RESEARCH PROJECT BROCHURE: . . .
I was mistaken, but I think I have found the source of my confusion. In a trial about equal time for evolution and creation in Alabama, Gentry was questioned about his work. This is a short excerpt (found in post by Lucaspa on Christianforums.com):
quote
Q: You referred to the grant rejection letter of 11 July 1977. Isn't it fair
to say that one reason the request was turned down was because the panel felt
you were to be faulted for using a technique that was known to give false
results?
Gentry: Yes.
Q: And this was not the only time you had to retract results, was it?
Gentry: No.
Q: Did you not invent new alpha activity to explain unusual results and later
admit you erred in so doing?
Gentry: Yes.
Source: Lewin, Roger, 1982, Where is the science in creation science?, _Science_, vol. 215:142-146.
end quote
So he did not retract his theory but it sounds as if he had to retract some of his data.
I also found another site that covers the issue quite well:
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm (sorry if someone already posted this site)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by JonF, posted 01-27-2004 3:50 PM JonF has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 6 of 20 (81194)
01-27-2004 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by meanbadger
01-27-2004 11:42 AM


No-one has ever claimed that the Earth came into being within three minutes of the Big Bang. Where did you get that idea? Check out the proposed age of the Universe then check out proposed age of the Earth - you'll find that they're vastly different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by meanbadger, posted 01-27-2004 11:42 AM meanbadger has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 20 (81203)
01-27-2004 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by meanbadger
01-27-2004 11:42 AM


quote:
By the way it is my understanding that when granite is reduced to a molten state then cooled back to rock, it is no longer granite...therefore granite could not have ever existed in a molten state.
Not sure what you are going for here. If I melt snow and refreeze it, does it resemble snow? Of course not, but that really isn't saying much. I think you are forgetting the conditions under which granite forms. I am not a geologist, but I am pretty sure that pressure and time of cooling factor into what type of rocks are formed, be it basalt or granite. Simple melt and refreeze are probably not going to recreate the orignal granite, which really should come as no surprise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by meanbadger, posted 01-27-2004 11:42 AM meanbadger has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 8 of 20 (81396)
01-28-2004 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by meanbadger
01-27-2004 11:42 AM


Great
quote:
According to source, granite rock (the major basement rock of our planet)contains polonium 218. This is aparently a substance with a half life of 3 minutes.
So you accept that radioactive decay is constant? Let's talk further!
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 01-28-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by meanbadger, posted 01-27-2004 11:42 AM meanbadger has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 9 of 20 (81408)
01-28-2004 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by JonF
01-27-2004 3:50 PM


Expected results: Resolve the question if polonium halos are special evidence for created rocks only or could they also occur in Flood rocks.
Does that mean they're not going to consider real, actual rocks at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by JonF, posted 01-27-2004 3:50 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by JonF, posted 01-29-2004 10:10 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
meanbadger
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 20 (81416)
01-28-2004 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Dr Jack
01-27-2004 11:45 AM


So what you're saying is that websites favoring evolution are more accurate and more truthful than those favoring creation? Although I do appreciate the info and have reviewed the site. I am still left with more questions than answers. For example...if the earth was formed from a molten blob, then solidified...yet granite was not part of this process but formed later under pressure, where did the material that formed the granite come from and where did the material that buried the granite under pressure come from? In addition if the earth had cooled and formed a solid outer crust, how come everything below the granite is molten? Would not the this solid outer crust be under the granite? The more I read the more confused I get...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Dr Jack, posted 01-27-2004 11:45 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 01-29-2004 12:08 AM meanbadger has replied
 Message 12 by Dr Jack, posted 01-29-2004 5:52 AM meanbadger has not replied
 Message 14 by roxrkool, posted 01-29-2004 10:30 AM meanbadger has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 20 (81417)
01-29-2004 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by meanbadger
01-28-2004 11:59 PM


So what you're saying is that websites favoring evolution are more accurate and more truthful than those favoring creation?
Well, the most accurate and truthful websites are the ones truest to the scientific evidence. Because that evidence supports evolution, those websites will probably be evolutionist.
That doesn't mean that every evolutionist website will be truthful. But it does mean that none of the creationist sites will be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by meanbadger, posted 01-28-2004 11:59 PM meanbadger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by meanbadger, posted 01-29-2004 5:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 12 of 20 (81445)
01-29-2004 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by meanbadger
01-28-2004 11:59 PM


So what you're saying is that websites favoring evolution are more accurate and more truthful than those favoring creation?
Well, that's true; but not my point. If you look around Talk Origins you will find facts based on scientific evidence. The great thing about scientific evidence is that if you really want you can go and check the results yourself. If you look around a typical Creationist site you will find psuedo-science, dubious logic and 'facts' long since found to be false.
Although I do appreciate the info and have reviewed the site. I am still left with more questions than answers. For example...if the earth was formed from a molten blob, then solidified...yet granite was not part of this process but formed later under pressure, where did the material that formed the granite come from and where did the material that buried the granite under pressure come from? In addition if the earth had cooled and formed a solid outer crust, how come everything below the granite is molten? Would not the this solid outer crust be under the granite? The more I read the more confused I get...
Yeah. That's because real science is hard. Stick with it.
I'll try and answer as best I can but I'm no expert on either geology or astrophysics - hopefully someone here can correct me where I've strayed.
First off, you seem to think Granite is made of something special. It isn't; broadly speaking it's made of the exact same stuff as every other rock - it's the structure of that rock that makes it different, not the atoms that make it up.
Let me give you an analogy: Take a few eggs, now boil one, poach one, fry one, scramble one and make an omlette with another. You'll notice each of these eggs comes out differently from the others; but each is made of the exact same stuff. (Don't take the analogy too literally mind)
The material that formed the earth, the sun, the moon and all the other planets came from the first generation of stars. Stars work by fusion: fusion melds two (or more?) atoms of one type and creates a single (heavier) atom from them - releasing a truck load of energy in the process. To begin with, there was only hydrogen the early stars fused hydrogen to form helium, and helium to form Beryllium and so on, forming iron, carbon, nitrogen and (almost) all the other elements we find on earth.
The earth then was formed from interstellar dust and gas that collected together under their own mass. This formed into a ball, heating up due to the pressure from its own gravity and becoming molten.
Skip a billion or so years forward and we have something recognisable as the earth. It has a solid iron core, several layers of molten rock and a thin, solid crust. The crust is thicker in some places than others and formed out of 'techtonic plates' that 'float' on the molten rock beneath. These plates are moving (and still moving today), rubbing against one another (causing earthquakes), pushing against and riding over one another (creating mountains) and pulling apart from one another (causing volcanoes). This crust exerts the pressure you are wondering about. It formed from the molten rock that forms the earth, it is the same material that gets recycled (plates that go under other plates are melted down) to later re-emerge in volcanoes. Actually that's not quite true. Quite often magma will push some way into the crust, but not break through to the surface - this magma too will form igneous rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by meanbadger, posted 01-28-2004 11:59 PM meanbadger has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 13 of 20 (81465)
01-29-2004 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coragyps
01-28-2004 9:34 PM


Does that mean they're not going to consider real, actual rocks at all?
Probably.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 01-28-2004 9:34 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 14 of 20 (81467)
01-29-2004 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by meanbadger
01-28-2004 11:59 PM


meanbadger writes:
I am still left with more questions than answers. For example...if the earth was formed from a molten blob, then solidified...yet granite was not part of this process but formed later under pressure, where did the material that formed the granite come from and where did the material that buried the granite under pressure come from?
In the simplest of terms, granite evolves from basaltic melts through a process called fractionation. As melts cool, certain minerals will crystallize first, and they include minerals such as olivine, clino- and orthopyroxenes, and Ca-plagioclases. These early crystallizing minerals take the most compatible elements Ca, Ti, Ni, Mg, etc. out of the melt, which results in enriching the residual melt in the other 'incompatible' elements such as Fe, Na, S, K, etc. It is these 'left-over' elements that form their own minerals as temperature continue to drop and it is also these minerals that eventually form granite.
In other words, basalts and gabbros are dominated by mafic minerals which are formed from the earliest crystallizing minerals. Granitic melts form from the residual melt that has been stripped of these mafic minerals, leaving felsic minerals.
The only reason granite forms "under pressure" is because granite solidifies at depth. Granite is a plutonic rock, meaning it does not solidify on the surface as lava does, but underground. Being underground means the the magma chamber is insulated and therefore cools much slower than extruded lava. This extra time to cool allows the crystals to grow larger, unlike basalt and rhyolite (the extruded form of granite) which are exposed to the surface of the earth and cool much faster, resulting in smaller crystal sizes.
The stuff above the granite, that buries it, so to speak, is a combination of all the rock types, sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic. Granite, besides being plutonic, is an intrusive rock, meaning that it is derived from deep in the earth. For various reasons such as density differences, etc., granite generally travels in an upward direction to the surface of the earth. Sometimes it makes it and some lava is extruded, other times, it never makes it.
In addition if the earth had cooled and formed a solid outer crust, how come everything below the granite is molten? Would not the this solid outer crust be under the granite? The more I read the more confused I get...
The earth is basically a heat engine due to radioactive decay at the core. The further away you get from the heat source, the cooler the temperature. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Edited because I hit post too soon.
[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 01-29-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by meanbadger, posted 01-28-2004 11:59 PM meanbadger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 01-29-2004 12:45 PM roxrkool has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 15 of 20 (81487)
01-29-2004 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by roxrkool
01-29-2004 10:30 AM


Meanbadger - I'm not trying to "talk down" to you here, but just in case rox lost you with the clinopyroxine and stuff: granite and rhyolite are made up of exactly the same stuff. Rhyolite cooled from the molten state quickly and possibly under low pressure, where granite cooled slowly/under pressure. That difference alone accounts for big crystals in granite and small ones in rhyolite. You will see the same size difference if you dissolve some alum in warm water and let half the solution cool very slowly in a Thermos bottle but shake the other half while cooling it quickly. The Thermos one can grow crystals as big as a walnut; the shaken one more the size of sand grains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by roxrkool, posted 01-29-2004 10:30 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by roxrkool, posted 01-29-2004 1:29 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 18 by meanbadger, posted 01-29-2004 5:37 PM Coragyps 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