Polonium Radiohalos and the Age of the Earth - Update

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

[-YYZ-]

If you can't see that this is a case of blatant circular reasoning that pretty much renders the rest of the arguement moot, there's something wrong with you:

"What then is the significance of these radiohalos, discovered in this first ever systematic search in these granitic rocks? The presence in them of so many dark, fully-formed U and Th radiohalos clearly implies that at least 100 million years worth of radioactive decay at today's rates must have occurred in these granitic rocks since they formed. However, these granitic rocks evidently formed only recently during the Flood year, so this implies that at least 100 million years worth of radioactive decay at today's rates must have occurred during the Flood year, when geologic processes were operating at catastrophic rates. 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."

But of course I've come to expect nothing better from the young-earth creationist crowd. You have to distort reality pretty badly to be able to cling on to such a fairy-tale picture of the world.

[f.Christian]

yz...

But of course I've come to expect nothing better from the young-earth creationist crowd. You have to distort reality pretty badly to be able to cling on to such a fairy-tale picture of the world.


61 posted on 01/31/2003 3:59 PM PST by -YYZ-


fC...

But of course I've come to expect nothing better from the old // old -- earth evolutionist crowd. You have to distort // project your FANTASY pretty badly to be able to cling on to such a fairy-tale picture of the world ..
.. ..

and shove it down children -- people's throat too !


BTW ...

did you know the FR is the premier internet news // forum on the internet - - -

and you are broadcasting liberalism ? ? ?

[-YYZ-]

Actually, it's more of a liberal/socialist thing to cling to deeply held irrational beliefs unsupported by any evidence, and in fact refuted by the evidence.

Conservatives typically reside in the real world.

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

fC...

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change.

LC...

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule for the assurance technocracy and expert rule.

152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic


Rule of monkeys // chaos // anarchy vs rule of law !

[f.Christian]

Evolution is pre // post // hype liberalism === advanced (( stealth ))!

Like the aids virus !

To: f.Christian

Dakmar...

I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.

fC...

These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Dakmar...

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar

[tortoise]

Umm... Nobody who knows anything about this subject is going to take this seriously. It is a lot of babble with correct-sounding words inserted at regular intervals but makes no sense whatsoever. Some of the assumptions that are given aren't even valid. It is some nutter raving, so it is no wonder it is ignored by the mainstream.

[longshadow]

perpetual motion placemarker

[PatrickHenry]

I told you never to bother me when I'm in my la-BOR-a-tory!

[PatrickHenry]

Post 69. What the hell.

[Old Professer]

I got lost around the point where Polonium 214 decays in 164 microseconds; must've blinked.

[Ichneumon]

uniformism (( time )) // evolution is ==== gone // over // never happened !

BURMA SHAVE

[Ichneumon]

One particular problem those who claim there is no evidence have, is that of polystrate fossils.

No problem at all: "Polystrate" Tree Fossils , More on "Polystrate" Fossils, and Could coal deposits be explained by a global flood?

Excerpt:

The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.

So, Dataman, how does it feel to be 140 years behind on your basic science reading?

[gore3000]

When a dog poops in my yard, I don't "refute it".

You should know! You do enough pooping on these FR threads!

[ContentiousObjector]

Oh look, it's little boy blue

[CalConservative]

I do not know of a specific refutation of Collins' claims by Gentry, but I can tell you that the vast majority of granitic rocks do not form by repeated cataclasis and recrystallization. Where you do see that happen, it is pretty evident and any first year (OK, second year) geology student should be able to recognize a migmatite, cataclastite or myrmekite in the field.

Gentry discusses that if there are fractures and permeabilities involved, then yes, you can move Uranium-bearing solutions or radon gas along the fractures and simulate the Polonium halo effect. Gentry's point all along, which Collins has obviously ignored, is that the Polonium halos form in the biotite crystals where there is no evidence of secondary fluid movement and indeed, no discernable fractures. Once again, where these do occur, they are pretty obvious. Even microfractures in something like biotite show up pretty well in thin-section under polarized light.

I'm not saying Collins' arguments are out to lunch, but, like so many evo arguments, he is building a strawman to poke holes in.

[CalConservative]

The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.

The explanation that fails to satisfy! I've read the TO "explanation" of polystrate fossils a number of times and still find it to be full of fluff and no substance.

For instance, there is no explanation of the polystrate trees that are often found upside down or at an oblique angles to bedding planes. The last time I was out in the forest, I just didn't see too many trees growing upside down, but, who knows, I might have missed a few.

A lot of the "trees" which constitute these fossils are actually large reeds such as lycopods which would hardly stand upright for the years and years it would take to cover them in a standard uniformitarian scenario.

The small reptiles found fossilized in some of these polystrate fossils would be using the hollow reed as shelter - there is no difficulty explaining that and I'm surprised TO would consider that an issue.

We often see polystrate fossils which not only cut across multiple strata, but also rock layers that are further cut by other fossils.

Some of the rock units cross cut by polystrate fossils include multiple seams of coal. I have trouble visualizing a lycopod standing upright long enough for that to happen.

The depositional environments found in the deposits that host these polystrate fossils are also inconsistent with the "explanations" found on TO.

Instead of relying on line drawings, it might be advisable to talk to someone who has actually done field work on these fossils; or perhaps that went out of date 100 years ago also.

So, as you said, no problem at all.

[Dataman]

So, Dataman, how does it feel to be 140 years behind on your basic science reading?

I usually avoid responding to links because, depending on context, it often serves as a substitute for an explanation. IOW, the link poster himself must be able to support his position with his own words. For example, I could respond to your links by posting links that give evidence to the contrary. I followed your links, however, and was amused to find not only very a very superficial dismissal of the problem, but the explanations for the limited examples actually indicated that some sort of flooding actually caused them, but surely not the Great Flood. One article went so far as to imagine a hypothetical situation in which a polystrate fossil could have been formed-- a nearby levee breached etc etc. There would, of course, have to be a nearby levee in the case of all polystrate fossils which are found all over the world.

Another interesting-though-not-unusual approach to the problem goes like this: "This anomaly has been dealt with years ago so we no longer have to try to explain it." Now you darwinists claim that the characteristic that separates man from the animals is his ability to reason. If one uses his reason, he must realize the fallacious nature of such a statement. Why would we teach school kids that spontaneous generation is superstition because it was proven wrong using a certain methodology which led to the law of biogenesis? Why not take the evolutionist's way out and just tell them that it doesn't require a detailed explanation because it was disproven many years ago?

That being said, why do evolutionists still believe in spontaneous generation?

Finally, there was a link to tips on debating creationists. I had to laugh out loud when I read the reasons why evolutionists lose debates: It's because the audience of the debates are too stupid to know that the evolutionist won!

No more links, please. You'll have to spend some time at the keyboard and give your understanding.

[Ichneumon]

The explanation that fails to satisfy!

If you're looking for satisfaction, try a different brand of beer.

I've read the TO "explanation" of polystrate fossils a number of times and still find it to be full of fluff and no substance.

Then you should read it again, because it addresses the issue quite well. But I see from your comments below that you didn't understand it well enough.

For instance, there is no explanation of the polystrate trees that are often found upside down or at an oblique angles to bedding planes. The last time I was out in the forest, I just didn't see too many trees growing upside down, but, who knows, I might have missed a few.

Feel free to document that there *are* polystrate trees that are actually *growing* "upside down or at an oblique angles to bedding planes". If you've found some, then you're the first creationist to do so, you'll be famous.

What I *have* seen are either trees that have:

1. Been clearly uprooted (unlike the still-rooted trees discussed in the FAQ) and thus ended up in fallen or tumbled positions in the strata, or

2. Are rooted and at odd angles, but the "bedding plane" has been skewed by geologic activity and slanted or even inverted, and the tree (which is "standing" properly relative to the actual bedding plane) with it.

Feel free to document any cases you think aren't covered by those well-known scenarios.

A lot of the "trees" which constitute these fossils are actually large reeds such as lycopods which would hardly stand upright for the years and years it would take to cover them in a standard uniformitarian scenario.

Now I *know* you didn't understand the FAQ. It specifically makes the point that "polystrate" tree fossils are *not* formed by "uniformitarian scenarios" -- not every geological event in standard geology has to happen slowly. I quote:

As for Malone's "problem" with the "thousands of years" for the tree to remain upright for "slow accumulation" to occur, it is a non-problem - he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach)

And:

Like the modern environments around Mt. St. Helens, there is potential to bury stumps in-place *and* to transport them upright in a variety of sedimentary environments (although burial in-place is far more common).

It's not spelled out as well as it could be, perhaps, but the point is that sometimes deep layers of sediment *are* laid down quickly. As the T.O. site mentions elsewhere on this topic:

The writer asks where, if there was no (global?) Flood, the sediment come from to bury and petrify trees in an upright position? The answer is rather simple, local flooding. Local large scale flooding is rather common and quite capable of burying trees in sediment. Another source of sediment capable of burying trees are volcanoes, which can bury whole forests in layers of volcanic ash.

Note that the Mt. Saint Helen's volcanic eruption buried thousands of acres of forest in deep ash, and that the Mississippi river flooding of 1993 flooded 8 million acres of land, and over 12,000 square miles of farmland was rendered useless because of sediment deposits. Maximum sand deposition in some areas was 8 feet, and the Mississippi is a slow-moving river. Flash floods can produce much deeper sediment pileups, as can heavy raids and/or mudslides.

"Reeds" (see below, more like "trees") can easily be buried in volcanic ash falls, for example, or rising silt deposits.

The Sleeping Bear Sand Dunes, on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, have been known to cover trees ten meters high in just a few years.

Another example of this is a burrow pit near Donaldsonville, LA. When they excavated backswamp clays to rebuild the adjacent levee, they uncovered three levels of upright cypress forests buried on top of each other beneath the recent floodplain. These polystrate trees are buried within recent Mississippi River deposits that are only 4,000 years old.

The small reptiles found fossilized in some of these polystrate fossils would be using the hollow reed as shelter - there is no difficulty explaining that and I'm surprised TO would consider that an issue.

You're right -- it's *not* an issue for standard geology. It *is* an issue for the "Flood did it" people, because the reptiles would presumably have been washed out as the reeds were allegedly being transported by the Flood waters to be deposited in their present locations.

We often see polystrate fossils which not only cut across multiple strata, but also rock layers that are further cut by other fossils.

Both consistent with repeated short-term layering events. And *not* consistent with a "Flood" explanation, because polystrate trees are almost always "cut off" at a given layer, which makes sense via traditional geology but hard to explain with the Flood version.

Furthermore, the Flood has a pretty much an impossible time explaining the discovery of MULTIPLY LAYERED forests, where polystrate trees with established roots are found several layers above polystrate trees. This only makes sense in traditional geology, where a forest has time to grow, then get buried by vulcanism or flooding, and then there is a calm period long enough for *another* mature forest to grow on top of it, then *again* get buried. You can't do *that* with a theory about the geologic column all being laid down in a single year of flooding...

Some of the rock units cross cut by polystrate fossils include multiple seams of coal. I have trouble visualizing a lycopod standing upright long enough for that to happen.

When it was laid down, the coal was just organic sediment, the type deposited in large quantities in river flooding (most coal seams, in fact, are due to river deposits). Many rivers have flooded twice or more in a bad year.

And you're really stretching it when you call lycopods just "large reeds". As even the ICR creationist website admits:

The most impressive fossils are the upright lycopod trees. They bear little resemblance to their modern vine-like counterparts, for the stems of these fossil "vines" are thick tree trunks, up to one meter in diameter. The two most common types found are Lepidodendron and Sigilaria, which grew to over 30 feet in height. These trees had overlapping scalelike bark with a pithy inner pulp.

Wow, that's some "reed"... Look, anything that can grow to a height of 30 feet and have a trunk one meter (over a yard) in diameter isn't a dainty little thing. It's going to be close to as strong as a modern tree, and just as sturdy and long-lasting.

Also on the ICR web page for polystrate fossils is the comment, "The fossils remain only as upright stumps usually from 2-10 feet tall—sometimes much taller." Needless to say, it doesn't take much of a flood or mudslide to bury a tree just 2 to 10 feet -- or several smaller floods to produce multiple layers, each a few feet thick.

The depositional environments found in the deposits that host these polystrate fossils are also inconsistent with the "explanations" found on TO.

You're welcome to try to document that, if you think you can.

Instead of relying on line drawings, it might be advisable to talk to someone who has actually done field work on these fossils; or perhaps that went out of date 100 years ago also.

Andrew MacRae, the fellow who wrote the T.O. FAQ on polystrate trees, has indeed done field work on such fossils. You say you've read the FAQ "multiple times", how could you have missed where he wrote:

I have seen plenty of examples of "polystrate" fossils in the field.

So, as you said, no problem at all.

Indeed, no problem for standard geology at all.

[Ichneumon]

I usually avoid responding to links because, depending on context, it often serves as a substitute for an explanation.

It also serves as a substitute for having to explain the same thing over and over again to each new wave of creationists. Not all of us have time compose anew the same responses to every creationist who wanders through, and even if we had the time we have better use for it. It's perfectly sensible to say, "here, this was written to address your issue, go read it, then if you still have any questions let us know". That is, after all the very purpose of a FAQ -- to save everyone time by providing newcomers a resource by which they can come up to speed on Frequently Asked Questions. I'm surprised that you seem not to immediately grasp that.

IOW, the link poster himself must be able to support his position with his own words.

And I can. I'm just not going to invest the time to personally educate every newcomer on old issues. But when people have further specific issues not addressed by the FAQ, *then* I'll spend a bit of personal time on it -- see my recent post to CalConservative, for example.

For example, I could respond to your links by posting links that give evidence to the contrary.

Feel free, if you think there are any good ones. I've looked around, and I haven't found any. I *have* found some that monumentally manage to miss the point, though, but those don't count.

I followed your links, however, and was amused to find not only very a very superficial dismissal of the problem,

Because it's a superficial "problem". Oh look, tree trunks buried a few feet deep in sediment. Let's all faint and pass out from the amazing miracle...

Hardly the "particular problem" you claimed it was.

but the explanations for the limited examples actually indicated that some sort of flooding actually caused them, but surely not the Great Flood.

Why is that "amusing"? Pointing out that ordinary floods (i.e., regular geology) can produce something that creationists try to claim could "only" be produced by a megaflood producing the entire geologic column in a year is a fine disproof of their mistaken assumptions.

You also apparently failed to note that volcanic ashfalls can cause them as well, along with other sorts of phenomena.

One article went so far as to imagine a hypothetical situation in which a polystrate fossil could have been formed-- a nearby levee breached etc etc.

Because such things do happen -- they are observed happening naturally today, and there are clear signs in the geologic column of them happening in the past. What's your point here?

There would, of course, have to be a nearby levee in the case of all polystrate fossils which are found all over the world.

*snort*. There's a name for that type of logical fallacy, but I'm too tired to recall or look it up right now.

Hint: There are other ways for floods to occur, and there are other ways for deposition to occur besides floods -- the FAQ file even mentions some.

Don't wast my time with sloppy reasoning.

Another interesting-though-not-unusual approach to the problem goes like this: "This anomaly has been dealt with years ago so we no longer have to try to explain it."

Fascinating -- and who said that, please? No one on this thread. Why don't you take Mr. Straw Man out and put him back in the cornfield where he belongs?

There were a few folks in the beginning who just laughed instead of explaining the errors in the base post, but I'll wager that their actual motives were more like "I don't have time to dig out the FAQ on this, but other people will likely do so in short order, so I'll just post a HA!"

Feel free to ask them if you're curious about their motivations. Don't just presume.

[wild tangent snipped]

Finally, there was a link to tips on debating creationists. I had to laugh out loud when I read the reasons why evolutionists lose debates: It's because the audience of the debates are too stupid to know that the evolutionist won!

Wow, that's a REMARKABLY dishonest twisting of:

The second problem is that the evolutionist debater has an upstream battle from the start. Evolution is a complex set of ideas that is not easily explained in the sound-bite razzle-dazzle of the debate format. Evolution applies to astronomy, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, biology, geology -- you name the field, and evolution will relate to it, like as not. Most audiences have an abysmal understanding of basic science. How are you going to bring an audience up to par? The goal of a debate (I assume) is to teach the audience something about evolution and the nature of science. This is possible in a debate format, but it is difficult to do well, because it is not easy to do quickly.

Or do you just suffer from really bad reading comprehension?

No more links, please. You'll have to spend some time at the keyboard and give your understanding.

I don't *have* to do anything at your behest. If you, or anyone else, keep asking Frequently Asked Questions, you're going to get the FAQ file to help you come up to speed.

[ALS]

Whether the Polonium point is true or false, Dataman hit the nail on the head regarding how the naysayers respond.

It's the exact same response one would expect from pious brats that can't deal with an opposing viewpoint.

Until you useful idiots can do something other than post links, excerpts or make up demeaning labels, you should shut piehole and make room for some of the same free discourse of thought you've chosen to deny yourselves.

The really ridiculous part is watching the useful idiots magically convert any and all non-conformists into the liberal category.

like lemmings with a chronic projection malady