Polonium Radiohalos and the Age of the Earth - Update

Institute for Creaton Research ^ | November 2002 | Andrew Snelling, Ph.D.

[CalConservative]

I've followed this research and find it to be very interesting. It tends to get ignored by the "mainstream" scientific community because of the implications, of course.

[balrog666]

I've followed this research and find it to be very interesting. It tends to get ignored by the "mainstream" scientific community because of the implications, of course.

Or, perhaps it is ignored because it's idiocy.

[dpwiener]

Thanks, that was hilarious. Where do you find this stuff?

[Poohbah]

I just emailed this to my geology teacher from high school...he's laughing so hard on the phone that he can't talk...

[Junior]

An ancient creationist canard rears its hoary head.

[VadeRetro]

Everybody who thinks ICR has something to do with science has already copied every article onto FR's server space multiple times. This stuff is pure idiocy.

[Junior]

It tends to get ignored by the mainstream scientific community because it is hogwash. You write like a conspiracy nut ("they're trying to hide the truth!").

[VadeRetro]

"Polonium" halos get about all the mainstream attention they're going to get right here. It would be unrealistic to expect much more.

[VadeRetro]

An ancient creationist canard rears its hoary head.

I think every creationist is really medved. Back again with the same thing, not even edited for typos, year after year.

[nonsporting]

"... it's idiocy."

Can you offer another theory explaining their occurrence?

[Junior]

Can you offer another theory explaining their occurrence?

Proof that creos do not read links.

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

Professional geologist Tom Bailleul takes a second look at Gentry's claimed polonium haloes, arguing that there is no good evidence they are the result of polonium decay as opposed to any other radioactive isotope, or even that they are caused by radioactivity at all. Gentry is taken to task for selective use of evidence, faulty experiment design, mistakes in geology and physics, and unscientific principles of investigation and argument style.
 

Evolution's Tiny Violences: The Po-Halo Mystery

Amateur scientist John Brawley investigated Gentry's claims directly by studying local rock samples, and concluded that there is no good evidence that these "polonium" haloes are actually produced by polonium at all, as opposed to longer-lived radionuclides such as radon or uranium.

[RightWhale]

tends to get ignored by the "mainstream" scientific community because of the implications

What implications? Are careers on the line?

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the ping, guys. I can't deal with this thrilling thread right now, because my perpetual-motion experiments are reaching a critical stage, and require my constant attention. I'm also nearing the conclusion of my "Why are there still monkeys?" research. I'll keep you all posted. Golly, these are exciting times!
[From the la-BOR-a-tory of PatrickHenry]

[Congressman Billybob]

Regarding your experiments in perpetual motion, recall this conversation that takes place in The Music Man:

Professor Harold Hill: Have you ever done any experiements with perpetual motion?

Tommy: Yes. I almost had it a couple of times.

Congressman Billybob

Click here for "Historians against History (HAH!)" latest UPI article, now up on FR.

[dpwiener]

Thus the rates of radioactive decay had to have been accelerated during the Flood year and therefore conventional radioisotopic dating of rocks, which assumes constant decay rates, is unreliable and conventional "ages" are grossly in error.

Radioactive decay rates turn out to have been accelerated even faster than this article indicates. Recent scientific analysis of DU fragments recovered from the 1991 Gulf War indicate an almost total absence of the isotope U-235. This conclusively proves that the Earth is really only 561 years old.

[MineralMan]

"The initial focus of the research has been granitic rocks that had to have formed during the Flood year. "

What "Flood year?" What nonsense! This creationist stuff is pure pseudoscience. First you posit a global flood, then interpret real science in terms of this flood. There is no evidence for a global flood. None.

There is, however, ample evidence of localized flood feature that were formed millions of years before your global "flood." No evidence, however, of your global one.

This is not news. This is not anything but creationist propaganda.

I'll be waiting for f.Christian's comments.

[PatrickHenry]

Regarding your experiments in perpetual motion ...

Don't jest with me. I am on the verge of the greatest discovery in the history of the galaxy! I can give you this one little hint: My work involves chaining together several creationists in a rubber room. You get infinite output of hot air, yet there is no observable input of any kind.
[From the la-BOR-a-tory of PatrickHenry]

[js1138]

DU fragments ...

Had me going there for a second.