The Polonium Halo

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Administrator2, Jun 25, 2002.

  1. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    ALEX

    The Polonium Halo, which was first discovered in 1923, has a big impact on the impossibility of Evolution.

    The gist of this Halo is that this radiation has a half life of only 3 minutes. These halos have been found in granite rocks around the world and
    latter in coal and other places. For these halos to be "trapped in granite", it would have had to be an instant creation with ALL things in place
    as IF these rocks were in a molten state first, then the halo would have been destroyed. This particular type radiation also suggests a creation in the realm of 1015 thousand years. This matches our Bible very closely.

    Non-Creation Scientists merely say that at some later date, they will "maybe" find a Evolution type answer for this. So far, this hasn't
    happened. In fact, they put it way back on their list and stopped ALL public knowledge, such as the News Media, from putting anything on Public TV
    about this as they DO NOT want the general public to know more about it.

    There is much, much more on this halo. I hope you are interested and have some questions.

    [ June 25, 2002, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]
     
  2. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    RADIOCHEMIST

    Alex: "Non-Creation Scientists merely say that at some later date,
    they will "maybe" find a Evolution type answer for this. So far,
    this hasn't happened. In fact, they put it way back on their list
    and stopped ALL public knowledge, such as the News Media, from
    putting
    anything on Public TV about this as they DO NOT want the general
    public to know more about it."


    Alex, that is quite an astounding claim that you have made about
    "they" stopping the flow of information because "they" don't want
    the public to know about it. Would you share with us some proof of
    your claim? Who precisely has stopped this flow of information? What
    are their names?

    The polonium halos were found by a guy named Gentry. Your source did
    not give you the following important facts which suggest that there
    are several other possible causes for the halos other than the one
    you quoted. Here is more information that you failed to mention
    about the Polonium halos, which Gentry claims are caused by Po-218.

    Gentry forgot to tell you that Po-218 is a volatile element, while
    uranium is not. He also forgot to tell you that the parent of Po-218
    is Rn-222, which is a gas, with a half-life of 3.8 days. The parent
    of Po-218 can therefore easily separate from uranium and travel great
    distances before producing its Po-218 daughter. Even at the present
    time, there is plenty of Po-218 in the atmosphere and even in the
    stratosphere that is separated by several miles from its uranium
    source, which remains in the earth. If it happens now, it certainly
    happened when the granite was created. I am not impressed by Gentry's
    "evidence".
     
  3. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    ALEX

    Hello, Radiochemist:

    First, I am not a college graduate and all my information is from Robert Gentry’s book on the Polonium Halo and the subsequent Arkansas trial. Since you do not believe Mr. Gentry, it may be futile for us to engage any farther as ALL of my debate will come from this book. It has been 4-5 years since I read it and my first post was from memory however after reading just a little I found were the media, the ACLU and the Evolution believing scientists were VERY against Gentry from the first mention of the “tiny mystery”. Since you have read his book, I won’t mention names but will give you the reference pages to the Medias reaction, etc. These references will be what I meant by, they. Please check the following pages and if we continue, remember my limited knowledge in radioactive materials even though I do have some background via reading and using radioactive testing machines with my past state job.

    Pages: These are all media, 4, 87-88,90-92, 99-100, 135-136, 138-139 and the trial 99. The book is: Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by: Robert V. Gentry.

    Now I would ask you, why, do you not believe his research as solid when many scientists of his time changed their view and joined him? He was on the other side and became a Creation Scientist because of this. By the way, Gentry did not find the original halos in 1923 but found them interesting and thus his long study and final end prompted by the ACLU who has always been evil. Who came up with the 3.8 days instead of the near 3 minutes for the half-life? I haven’t read more than this book BUT in my years of school and reading a lot about scientific findings, it seems that the Polonium Halo didn’t exist UNTIL I got this book????

    God Bless………………Alex
     
  4. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    JOE MEERT

    Alex,
    The conspiracy mentioned by Gentry is largely of his own invention.
    Po-haloes are discussed regularly in the geological literature and are
    not broadcast in the 'media' mainly because they are only of academic
    interest. Despite Gentry's claims that they indicate 'instant
    creation', many subsequent studies show that they are not 'a tiny
    mystery' at all. I won't bother to repeat all the arguments against
    Gentry's here, but you can find significant discussion
    http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm at this website. One thing
    that has always amused me about the discussion is that it relies on
    the
    constancy of the Po-half life. Why is it that creationists accept
    that
    half-lives are constant when it comes to Gentry's work, but argue that
    they are not constant for every other isotope! Seems to me that
    consistency would dictate that either rates are constant or they are
    not. If they are not constant, then we cannot be sure that Gentry's
    haloes show an instantaneous creation. If they are constant, then the
    conclusion is that the earth is older than 6000-10000 years. Anyway,
    Gentry's book is a lengthy cry of 'foul' whereas much of the problem
    stems from the fact that Po-haloes are meaningless in terms of age of
    the earth issues.
     
  5. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    SOS

    Has there been any published advancements to answer the critics who believe the issue is dead? Since polonium halos have been found in rocks that are intrusive and certainly not part of the primordial crust, some critics have relegated this topic to a dead issue.
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    This is excellent "proof" that evolutionists are not interested in science at all - merely their "religion" of evolutionism.

    The Creationist points against the radiometric sooth-sayings is the following.

    #1 Assumptions regarding the starting condition. Evolutionists "presume" to know it, but when pressed they must admit "it is a guess". Without knowing the amount of parent and daughter product at the start - you can not use the amount of daughter product "today" as a "clock".

    "Obviously".

    IF you assume that the radioactive content of earth's crust "is only needed so evilutionists can tell time and otherwise serves no purpose" - then of course God is "tricking evolutionists" by not having the right amount of daughter product for a 6,000 year start date.

    IF you open your eyes and observe that the radioactive content in earth's crust DOES play a vital role in our eco-sphere - then it was NEEDED at the start when forming a viable living planet day one.

    #2. Another observation made by the intelligent, thinking, objective creationist is that LONG half-life clocks are subject to the "changes" due to the erosion and displacement caused by water as well as atmospheric conditions and any condition that might have affected the speed of light.

    So "long" half-life clocks span vast regions of time in which these "changes" accumulate and distort the accuracy of the clock.

    However - a very SHORT clock could not be affected by those factors. For example if a 3 minute half-life was at one time a 5 minute half-life -- "so what"? Granite does not "form" in 3 minutes OR in 5 minutes. Nor does the basement rock of the earth's crust.

    The point made by the anti-Creationist in the quote at the top of this post - merely "shows" that our evolutionist bretheren refuse to even "think" about the problems that plagues their mythology of evolutionism.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK I can think of ways radioactivity plays a part in a 5 billion year old history of earth, such as providing the source of the interior heat and thereby driving continental drift, vulcanism and the building of new land to compensate for erosion, and such as that.

    What is the vital part in the eco-sphere played by radioactivity in a young earth scenario?
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well,.. you know all that heat in the earth's crust, tectonic plate movement and volcanic activity that takes 4 billion years for an eruption to occur??

    Ooops! That's right! It DOESN't take 4 billion years.

    See? Evolution flops over on its soft under belly - "one more time". The "Living planet" complete with hydrosphere AND a circulating earths crust.

    hmmmm - "and it don't take 4 billion years for stuff to move"????

    That is amazing?? I guess it is to evolutionists.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gentry's ideas have gained no acceptance among mainstream science. Incidentally, the shortlived radionuclide that Gentry claims made the halos is STILL present in the atmosphere. Does that imply that the earth was made a few hours ago? Not at all!
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Radio halos are an accepted fact of science. Period. There is no scientist today that has been able to show Polonium radio halos in solid rock formations that formed over a period of weeks or months. (Volcanic rock for example).

    Gentry's work stands. The half-life of Polonium "stands".

    The evolutionists are "unhappy about that" - but they will get used to it.

    Bob
     
  12. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    >>>>>>The evolutionists are "unhappy about that" - but they will get used to it.<<<<<<

    Gentry's "work" is hardly noticed and to the extent that it is, his views are considered to be incorrect and eccentric. Halos certainly exist but do not require the instantaneous formation of the earth, and the rock formations that contain them. For an alternative viewpoint, see the following web site:

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lorence_collins/polonium.html
     
  13. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
  14. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a quote from one of the above mentioned web sites:

    "Gentry does not follow accepted scientific practice. He selects one inconclusive feature and then proceeds to discount out of hand two centuries of worldwide geological study by hundreds of thousands of trained scientists. No evidence of his "singularities" (one time divine interventions) has ever been observed. Like other "young Earth" hypotheses, Gentry's proposal is contradicted by such things as: the observed field relations of rocks in his own sample area; the patterns of sedimentation (marine and non-marine) worldwide; the growth of salt domes in the Gulf Coast region and Iran; the formation and structural control of petroleum deposits; sea floor spreading and the movement of crustal plates; multiple magnetic reversals reflected in oceanic basalts; the fossil record; the presence
    of oxygen and argon (nearly 1%) in the atmosphere; multiple layered basalt flows of the Deccan Traps and the Snake River Plain; and thousands upon thousands of other features of the physical Earth. When this level of contradiction exists, it is always more appropriate to question the validity of the new hypothesis; that is the way of science.
     
  15. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    >>>>>Radio halos are an accepted fact of science. Period.<<<<<

    Yes, but is not the existence of halos that is in dispute, it is the implications of the halos. Gentry's interpretion is considered wrong and eccentric. To my knowledge, there is not a single mainstream scientist that accepts his interpretation. The only ones that accept it are religious fundamentalists who are creationists. I challenge you to state the name of a single actively publishing nuclear physicist, other than Gentry, who accepts his theory.
     
  16. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peter101, you do not allow private messaging so this warning is being given to you publicly. Please consider this a Christian forum as well as one dealing with science. Your courtesy and respect are requested. They are also part of the rules you agreed to abide by when you registered. Thank you.
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Peter shows AGREEMENT with RADIO HALO DATING methods AS LONG as they show an OLD earth

    Peter quoted this under "Evolutionism Corrupts the Gospel"

    Bob said:>>Radio halos are an accepted fact of science. Period.<<

    Peter will now contradict himself in the prior thread by DENYING the "proof" from Radio Halo concept just ACCEPTED above...WHy? Because it shows a YOUNG earth in this case.

    Notice that when SHORT half-life elements are used - showing INSTANT creation this is utterly REJECTED by the religion Peter holds to. But when LONG half-life elements are used THEN "they are compelling evidence".

    Clearly - this is not a matter of science for Peter - but rather a anti-Gospel anti-Bible "religion" JUST as our atheist evolutionist friends admit.

    A more damaging set of posts from Peter could hardly be imagined than these that form a defacto "confession" of the REALity behind what he has accepted.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    The reality of halos is not in dispute. The point that Robert Gentry tries to make, on behalf of creationists, is that certain halos, thought to be caused by short half-lived isotopes, can only be caused by the sudden creation of the rocks in which they are now found. However, that is not the only possible interpretation, and in fact it is much more reasonable that the halos were not caused by primordial Polonium as he contends. The very same isotope of Polonium that he sees as the cause of the halos, is still present in rocks and in the atmosphere. Why is this so, if it has a half life of only minutes? The reason is that it is continually being produced from the uranium decay chain. There is nothing spectacular in finding these halos in rock. It is to be expected
    that the halos can also be caused by Polonium that is not primordial, since this non-primordial Polonium is present in abundance in the earth, even now.

    Gentry's interpretation demands that the halos be caused by primordial Polonium, but there is no reason to think that the halos can only be caused by primordial Polonium. So his interpretation fails. He conclusion does not follow from the data.
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The problem is that the Halos are very short lived and the cooling process for Granite is "very long". The problem is "not" why does Polonium still exist as part of the decay chain life-cycle for Uranium. The problem is that only a LONG process such as the long half-life decay processes could remain IN PLACE and imprint over 1000's of years. Granite is not going to "record" 3-minute "events" during it's cooling process.


    Granite formation "lotta pressure" and "Lotta Time".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    >>>>>>>>>The problem is that the Halos are very short lived and the cooling process for Granite is "very long". The problem is "not" why does Polonium still exist as part of the decay chain life-cycle for Uranium. The problem is that only a LONG process such as the long half-life decay processes could remain IN PLACE and imprint over 1000's of years. Granite is not going to "record" 3-minute "events" during it's cooling process.<<<<
    -- Bob Ryan


    I think that perhaps you made a typo and also it seems that you do not understand Gentry's theory.
    As for the typo, the halos are not short lived as they are still in the rock, having been created there either a few thousand years ago, or perhaps longer in the view of mainstream science. To explain Gentry's idea, he says that the halos were produced by primordial Polonium and that therefore this rules out a very long cooling time for the solidifying rock, since the halos would have been destroyed by melting, if the rock were in a molten condition when it was formed and if the Polonium quickly died away due to its short half life. So if we eliminate the possibility of non-primordial Polonium and accept the mainstream view of how granites are formed, with a very long cooling time, then the halos should not be there. but the problem for Gentry is that the possibility of non-primordial polonium cannot be eliminated and in fact that are hints that it is non-primordial polonium.

    Therefore he concludes that the rock and the earth were all formed instantaneously in the solid form when God created the earth. His critics though, say that there is no proof that the halos, even if formed by the short lived polonium, were formed by PRIMORDIAL short lived Polonium. The halos can form by damage in solid rock, if there is a source of Polonium. And there is such a source, even today, since it is produced in large amounts from the uranium decay chain. Also the source of the halos has been found to include instrusive rocks, which are by definition, younger than the rocks that they intrude into, which is counter to Gentry's claim that these rocks were formed instantly, and not from molten material. You see, Gentry cannot allow the rocks with the halos to ever have been molten, or his halos, there in the beginning of creation, would have been destroyed and not visible now. But geologists tell us that by these rocks being intrusive, they were therefore molten.

    Bob Ryan, I am sorry to have to be blunt, but indications are that you did not understand the main idea in Gentry's theory.
     

Share This Page

Loading...