Replies

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.