Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Polonium Halos:Unrefuted Evidence - Earth's Instant Creation

halos.com — Discoveries in regard to microscopic granite and coal halos have "created" quite a stir - enough to cause a scrambling the last 40 years among evolutionists and their state of denial is in proportion to the threat of these discoveries against the vast evolutionary system/hoax. So far, efforts to refute halo creation evidence has summarily failed.

Bury

kenrayd 5 days ago

4 diggs
digg it

gordonj, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Please articulate the main argument for why these "polonium halos" are evidence for creation.
kenrayd, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3It's all there for you on the website. The key word is "instant." Keep that in mind - it corresponds to the Biblical account. "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:" Hebrews 1:10
- kenrayd, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect." Psalm 33:6-10
- gordonj, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Yes, but I wanted to know if you actually understood what the argument was.
  It goes as follows: There are small halos caused by radiation in granite which is supposed to take millions of years to form. Polonium isotopes decay extremely rapidly. If these halos were created by polonium, then it would be evidence that granite could form quickly, and negate those pesky scientists who insist the world is billions of years old based on all of their independent natural evidence.
  
  That's the thrust of the argument. IF these halos were created by polonium as opposed to some other longer lived isotope (of which there are many) then one type of rock could have formed quickly which doesn't actually go against the biblical story of creation, but also doesn't add any evidence for said story. There is no way of showing that those halos were created by polonium. It is just a hypothesis, and one that can never be properly resolved because we can't ever know what isotopes caused those halos.
  - kenrayd, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Actually very exact microprobe techniques were used to identify rapid half-life Po with the following results, quoted from the halos.com website specifically, http://www.halos.com/reports/nature-1973-ion-micro ...
    "RADIOHALOES associated with decay of several Po α emitters1,2 have been studied by optical microscopic techniques and more recently by mass spectrometric examination of the halo inclusion using ion microprobe techniques3,4. In such cases a large excess of 206Pb compared with 207Pb was found to be incompatible with the radiogenic decay of 238U and 235U, yet was explainable on the basis of polonium decay independent of uranium3. A straightforward attempt to account for the origin of these Po haloes by assuming that Po was incorporated into the halo inclusion at the time of host mineral crystallization meets with severe geological problems: the half-lives of the polonium isotopes (t1/2 = 3 min for 218Po) are too short to permit anything but a rapid mineral crystallization, contrary to accepted theories of magmatic cooling rates."
    - gordonj, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3"In such cases a large excess of 206Pb compared with 207Pb was found to be incompatible with the radiogenic decay of 238U and 235U"
      
      Please explain how the excess of 206Pb compared with 207Pb is incompatible with the radiogenic decay of 238U and 235U. Pb206 is a stable daughter product of 238U decay. Why do you need to assume that the 206Pb was formed by short lived Po isotopes as opposed to through the 238U decay chain (which also goes through Polonium stages and produces 206Pb as the end product), where the initial 238U has a half life of 4,500,000,000 years? Sure if you assume it, then it may make the rock formation fit into a possible timeline for creation, but once you make an assumption like that you are invalidating your scientific argument by trying to fit the data to your presumptions as opposed to formulating a hypothesis based on the data. You cannot prove creation, therefore it is not 100% certain. You may belive that it is, but that doesn't matter if it is unprovable. You are basing your argument on this unprovable presumption that creation occurred, thus making your whole argument unprovable and unscientific.
      
      Furthermore, if your reasoning was sound, you should be able to show that the age of the rocks is of the order of 5000 years old, and that goes for all rocks, everywhere. That is not consistent with any of the available evidence.
      - kenrayd, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1If you're talking about creation, that can neither be proven or disproven which involves supernatural which can neither be proven or disproven (by man-made science systems - spiritually, I've proved it myself, but I know you're not interested in that system).
        
        Anyway, focus on the concept of the halo publications, not to prove creation but to prove rapid formation of the granites and coal for that matter which has been done with no successful refutation to date which points to evidence for creation because the data fits the Biblical time-line.
        
        On the decay of Po from U, I'm not an expert, so you'll have to take that up with Gentry. As a lay person, my facination is that his work has passed the review necessary to be published in science journals years ago and those who have attempted to refute them "cannot get any reputable scientific journal to publish their claims. The journal editors know their claims are spurious. And were they to be published, the same editors know it would only expose the huge fallacies in their claims and thus emphasize the fact that evolutionists cannot overthrow God's evidence for his great works of creation."
        
        Woe - hold on there. Where did you ever see that a Bible-based creationist claimed that the rocks were 5000 years old? - Need to read your Bible. In Genesis, there's no discussion of the rocks during creation week because they were already present so Gentry doesn't address the age of the granites, only that the evidence points to their instantaneous formation rather than eons of cooling. Creation week is mainly about the beginning of life and the support systems of life, so creationists maintain that life began 6 to 7,000 years ago and the evidence is abundant for that tenant. By the way, carbon dating, which has been so heavily relied on has been shown to be good for only about that amount of time - a few thousand years.
nitsuj, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Where to start?

FAIL for fanatic ranting.

FAIL for clearly not knowing the difference between geology and biology.

FAIL for assuming that rapid cooling somehow proves your favorite brand of creator myth instead of Zeus et al.

And finally, FAIL for desperately trying to grab any kind of vague evidence to justify your belief system.

For a detailed refutation of this hopeless creationist claim: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.ht ...
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Polonium Halos:Unrefuted Evidence - Earth's Instant Creation

Login or register to add a comment