Polonium Radiohalos and the Age of the Earth - Update

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

[Dataman]

Hey! You posted a link! That's a good start, but can YOU explain it?

[VadeRetro]

Hey! You posted a link! That's a good start, but can YOU explain it?

Are you sure that's the question?

[VadeRetro]

That's a good start, but can YOU explain it?

Take 2: Read it, save your questions, and I'll help you with the big words when you're done.

[Dataman]

Address the issue, not Gentry. If you read the article, you'd see that Gentry is only a footnote.

Amateur scientist John Brawley investigated Gentry's claims

Oh, good. An amateur investigated! I guess you guys win this round.

[Dataman]

There is no evidence for a global flood. None

A geologist you ain't. One particular problem those who claim there is no evidence have, is that of polystrate fossils.

[Poohbah]

Don't like the "amateur's" conclusions? Refute them.

[Dataman]

Of course, he not only has the burden of proving himself correct, but also proving why all the existing science (including but not limited to carbon dating, mathematics and physics of radioactive decay, geology) is wrong.

True, the burden of proof is on the new idea. Unfortunately that rule of logic has not been applied to evolution. The burden of proof is still on evolution. If there were proof, you all would have presented it to the world by now. You would have claimed the rewards offered for proof.

[balrog666]

When a dog poops in my yard, I don't "refute it". This article is no different than what a dog produces.

Looking to other people to provide you an education, especially when you give all appearances of being too lazy to do it yourself, is a very foolish plan for the rest of your life.

[f.Christian]

Obviously the guy wasn't a bricklayer (( philosopher )).. .. ..

science (( life )) school drop out - - - FRY cook (( clock // number - - - cruncher // puncher )) !

[PatrickHenry]

Refute this!

[f.Christian]

Evolution is a theory about science !



Evolution is a dumb // illogical // PERVERTED theory about science // God // humanity !



Evolution is a dumb // illogical // PERVERTED theory (( insult // blasphemy )) about science // God // humanity (( creation // intelligence // design )) !

[VadeRetro]

I'm also #11. Refute it.

Fastest draw in the West--West Virginia, that is--except I meant to link #10.

[balrog666]

Refute this!

Refute that!

[Dataman]

This article is no different than what a dog produces.

Ok, then. The feedback from all of you gentlemen can be summed up like this:

Observation 1:You can't discredit the claims in the article. A couple of you were able to post links or quote a couple of bums found by the RR tracks but that's it. I didn't see anyone say that they couldn't refute it or that they didn't want to refute it.

Observation 2:It is perfectly acceptable to respond in a way that does not address the issue, yet makes the poster feel as if he had actually destroyed the arguments in the article. This phenom is similar to public school students feeling good about the F they just got on the test.

Observation 3:If a rock hound from the hills of Arkansas sides with you, that counts as a professional opinion. If that works for evolutionists, it works for creationists, right? Why of course it does! The scientific minds of the FR evos cannot tolerate double standards.

Observation 4: This one is the best. An argument is stupid because you say it is stupid. Never mind why. Your opinion is enough to stop the discussion. As scientific high-minded rationalists, you would certainly agree that any creationist can now waltz onto one of your posts, call it stupid, and end the debate.

I write this not to change any of your minds, minerology is not my forte. I'm not sure I want any of you evos to change your minds. You do such a good job of making your case that you very often work against yourselves. And the lurkers notice.

[Poohbah]

If a rock hound from the hills of Arkansas sides with you, that counts as a professional opinion. If that works for evolutionists, it works for creationists, right?

If it's a properly done scientific study, yes. Mere possession of letters after one's name does not grant infallibility in scientific methodology.

[Focault's Pendulum]

Refute this! Refute that!

That's why I love these threads...There's a Whole Lotta Refutin' Going On

I'm standing on my office chair while typing...I think I might be Jerry Lee Lewis...incarnate.

[VadeRetro]

Did you forget something? Only one of the linked articles was written by an "amateur" scientist. The other is written by a professional geologist. You have at any rate failed to address the texts of their refutations, which is that your polonium halos aren't from polonium, and that's only the most basic difficulty.

Here they are again. Note the intro to the first article:

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.

That doesn't sound very good. It also looks as though you're pretending you can't see this material at all, just looking the other way and ranting in the same manner in which you walked onto the thread.

[f.Christian]

To: Havoc

Just calling evolution a theory is an overstatement . . . only an idea // mood // feeling - - - an ideology === perverse oddity ! ! !




70 posted on 01/21/2003 10:12 AM PST by f.Christian (Orcs of the world: Take note and beware.)




To: f.Christian

Conjecture masquarading as science might be more appropos - I agree.


71 posted on 01/21/2003 12:04 PM PST by Havoc ((Evolution is a theory, Creationism is God's word, ID is science, Sanka is coffee))


Main Entry: 1con·jec·ture
Pronunciation: k&n-'jek-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin conjectura, from conjectus, past participle of conicere, literally, to throw together, from com- + jacere to throw -- more at JET
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : SUPPOSITION
2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved