at least follow the example of #8 Gorzaloon (This tagline intentionally left blank.) if you must
Posted on 11/22/2004 5:54:52 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Did you know that scientific evidence abounds to support the biblical accounts of creation and the flood? Were you aware that reports outlining this evidence passed peer review, and were published in the open scientific literature? Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community?
AN OVERVIEW
Etched within Earth's foundation rocks -- the granites -- are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.
The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres -- or -- halos contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.
A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radioactive paticles. In molten rock the traces of these radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.
An excedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our Earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.
REPLIES TO OBJECTIONS
Every question regarding the validity or implications of this polonium-halo evidence has been sytematically dealt with, in our published reports and in various discussions with those holding differing views. We invite you to peruse the points we have raised in our exchanges, consider them, and decide for yourself the truth of the matter.
Of particular interest will be our recent discussion with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regarding the validity of our work.
CHALLENGE TO THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo eveidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.
We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science.
REPORTS
Our published reports date back to the 1960's. Twenty of these reports can be downloaded free of charge from this website. A number of these also appear in the appendix to our book, Creation's Tiny Mystery.
Every question regarding the validity or implications of the polonium-halo evidence has been systematically dealt with in our published reports. Every proposal for an evolutionary origin of polonium radiohalos has been systematically and experimentally falsified. No hypothetical, naturalistic scenario has yet been suggested that can account for Creation's "tiny mystery" of the polonium halo.
Of course, you can find claims to the contrary on the internet and elsewhere. But if these claims had any real substance, they would have passed peer review and been published in the open scientific literature. The fact that they have not been, or have themselves been experimentally falsified, demonstrates the fact that this unique evidence for Creation still stands unrefuted.
Falsified, huh?
I suppose they mean "refuted", but who knows?
So Dinosaurs were running around with Humans...
Or are our fossil records also wrong?
So give us an estimate...The earth is what....3000 years old?
I think you should call President Gore immediately about this....He knows what to do. If he is not available...call The Lochness Monster to investigate...
Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.
In the end, Gentry's young Earth proposal, based on years of measuring discoloration haloes, is nothing more than a high-tech version of the Creationist "Omphalos" argument. This is the late nineteenth century proposition that while God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago according to the Genesis account, He made everything appear old. Unfortunately, because Gentry has published his original work on haloes in reputable scientific journals, a number of basic geology and mineralogy text books still state that microscopic discoloration haloes in mica are the result of polonium decay.
The information at the link that you provided has ben refuted. please click on the source URL. Scroll down to the section Replies To Objections, and click on REPORTS.
There, in HTML format, is the scientific evidence which refutes Gentry's and others challnenges to a non-creation reason for polonium-halos.
The presence of polonium tracks or haloes means little, as radioactive decay progresses indepenent of the temperature of phase of the rock.
I am not qualified to argue the point, but to say that it's "unambiguous" is incorrect, as Mr. Baillieul argues the opposite view.
The lnik you provided---Baillieul's analysis, did not pass peer-review.
Sorry.
Mr. Baillieul's analysis did not pass peer-review. It fell short of refuting the evidence.
When you don't follow scientific methods of analysis, you can get any conclusion you want.
at least follow the example of #8 Gorzaloon (This tagline intentionally left blank.) if you must
< /me> reaches for the popcorn...
at least follow the example of #8 Gorzaloon (This tagline intentionally left blank.) if you must. two in a row!!! what is this forum coming to?
That argument has also summarily been dealt with and refuted, according to waht I have read.
Wow, I am seeing the same scenario that Earth Science Associates described... "Claims to the contrary on the Internet and elsewhere. But none passed peer-review or been published in the open scientific literature."
Nice of you to try and deflect the discussion elsewhere.
Maybe you should have worked as one of Gore's spin doctors.
The creationists are resurrecting this hoary old canard. You'd think they'd do a bit of research before posting.
I am the only one on here that is excused from this one small requiremnt.
Anyway, who died and made you God?
If no one did, then you must scram.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.