A simple question for a complex issue

Oh no...not the dreaded polonium halos! A while back, the same sort of garbage appeared in our school newspaper, using polonium halos to prove that the Earth was instantly created. I wrote a reply and I will duplicate it here. (I gathered the information from a couple sources, and I think that Talk Origins was one of them, but honestly, I don't remember where I got all of the information).
When all the evidence is examined rather than just selected evidence, a simple scientific explanation exists to explain the so-called problem of Polonium (Po) halos. Robert Gentry's claim is that Po halos prove the Earth was instantly created. Of course, he only discusses the isotopes of 218Po, 214Po, and 210Po (products derived in 238Po disintegration) while ignoring the Po isotopes of other mass numbers (215Po, 211Po, 216Po, and 212Po) which are produced in the 235U and 232Th disintegration series. If included, these isotopes would invalidate his claims (Masson, S.L. and Garden, J.B., 1981. Radioactive mineral deposits of the Pembroke-Renfrew area: Ontario Geological Survey, Mineral Deposits Circular 23,155 p., accompanied by Preliminary Map P. 2210. scale 1:126,120.). And, as it turns out, if you examine the location where Mr Gentry collected his samples, you find that 253U and 232Th are present in the surrounding strata. Makes ya wonder, doesn't it? His logic follows the typical creationists style of ignoring contrary evidence.
I'm not geologist (and I'm sure someone else out there can explain this far better than I can), but I'm also not the type to simply trust what I'm told without trying to validate it from other sources. Guess what...I could not find any other evidence to support Mr Gentry's claims. Why did I try to find alternate explanations to the polonium halos? Is it because I trust in the ToE? Partly. But it also seemed rather foolish to me to think that one man (Robert Gentry) could be correct and that everyone else is incorrect. Think about it, which seem more likely? Robert Gentry is correct (the Earth was instantly created) and everybody else...geologists, astronomers, physisicts, biologists, etc..are all incorrect. Or could it be that Mr. Gentry based his results on faulty evidence and perhaps other explanations exist? It's typical of creationsists. They get the answer they want and then stop looking. Kinda sad really. SpinyNorman73, don't fall into the same trap.

Hello whatever:You have me a bit confused here. In reading this it appears to me that even you don't accept this evidence?
Anyway, from what I know of Mr Gentry's Po halos, they were not a tool used to show the age of the Earth in any way. Rather, they were a feable attempt by him to show that the Earth was instantly created. Other evidence (an overwhelming amount of it I might add) tells quite a different story. Polonium halos do not show an instantaneous creation, it's plain and simple. Whatever, you should read some scientific literature.As for this: Have you ever heard of Albert Einstein and his famous equation E=mc2?
(hey, does anyone know if it's possible to do superscripts and subscripts on the wed page...and if so, how?).And this: Again, you have no relaible scientific evidence to support this sort of claim.And finally, this: Are you kidding me? I mean, you actually say "if one day is a thousand years to God". Hey, whatever, let's suppose that one day is really only 1/1000 of a second to God...then what?
And once again, the granites do not show that they were supernaturally created. Do you even know what poloniums halo are, or how they are formed?

whatever, did you read anything that I wrote? Read slowly this time. Polonium halos do not support a young Earth. Bible or no Bible, nothing (as in not one single solitary thing, as in zero, as in nil, as in zilch, as in naught) about Polonium halos address anything about the age of the Earth. But they did refute it...they showed that Gentry was completely wrong. What are you trying to say here?And I'm a bit surprised you had nothing to say about the equation e=mc² as it relates to the age of the sun. (by the way...thanks JonF and Percy)

JonF:Thanks for the heads up and the link. (I did go there and read a bit, and all can say is...WTF! Good stuff...lol).I guess it is like beating your head against the wall, but he (whatever) is so full of feces that I hate to just let it go. I mean, read his next post. Giant insects? Does he not know anything about the physiologial constraints of an exoskeleton? No transitional fossils...Ha! Trying to separate microevolution from macroevolution, which are of course, purely creationists terms anyway. I just find it so hard to resist. But you are correct...it is futile.Thanks again.

JonF:I stand corrected. I guess I should have been a bit more careful in my wording and stated that the bastardization of the terms and their meanings is a creationist ploy to differentiate the two events. That is to say that they try to separate the two events as unrelated phenomena.I also notice that even after informing me that debating with "whatever" is a bit like pissing in the Pacific to cause a flood (you feel better when you're done, but what have you really accomplished.), you couldn't resist one more "attack". Ha, it's too much fun and way too easy to pass up.