polonium halos

What does anyone know about Robert Gentry's work and polonium halos. I'm not a scientist. Why is this info not being challenged by OEC's or other scientists? No wise cracks please. Serious answers.

__________________
For it is God who works in you, both to will and to do for His good pleasure. Do all things without grumbling or disputing; so that you will be blameless and harmless, sons of God without rebuke in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom you shine forth as lights to the world, holding forth the word of life...
Phil 2:13-16
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It has been. Multiple times. I'll find a reference.

__________________
Bushido216

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF201.html

__________________
Bushido216

Oh dear God, not the Polonium Halos again.

Sorry marc, but this is really high on the list of PRATTs.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../polonium.html

The polonium halos should not be there if the granite is as old as the old earthers claim it to be.

The decay time of the radioactive elements is so small that they would have not even had a chance to form.

As an example, if you shoot a bullet through a freezing bucket of water the trail from the bullet would disappear long before the water froze and captured it.

Now if the water froze in an instant, just as the bullet entered the water you would then be able to capture the bullet trail.

This is what happened with the polonium halos.

Another point I need to make is that the old earthers will claim that the polonium was a daughter and decayed after the granite formed, BUT, gentry claims these halos are found in areas void of any parent elements. THEY were parentless.

I would send you to a few links like phoenix and bushido did, but i thought you would like a more personal answer and not a link to some biased site such as phoenix and bushido sent you to.

So... rather than providing a link to a page that concisely explains the science in better ways than myself or ThePhoenix could while providing citations, you'd just spew out some ****?

Besides, any site that has evidence contradicting your beliefs is going to be considered biased by you.

__________________
Bushido216

Why don't you argue science instead of presenting links?

heck anyone can do the link thing.

Irrespective of the halos, let's examine the man himself.

Doctorate is honorary.

Worked in the Chemical Division at Oak Ridge National Labs - he is not a 'world renowned nuclear physicist' as Creationist sites claim - in fact he is an unknown apart from his Creationist nonsense

People trying to replicate his results and specimen collecting have come to the conclusion he may be faking and/or lying about where his specimens are from.

His claims of censorship by www.arxiv.org with his Cosmology papers (where the heck did he become a cosmology expert???) is NOT true. He refused to submit them in the format they wanted so they took them down and said if he would conform to the format he could replace them.

The archive is not restricted - papers appear all the time from cranks like Gentry. Check todays astro-ph listing on the archive and you will see a paper on a plasma cosmology/Coherent Raman scattering to explain quasars as nearby objects - that is just as crazy as Gentry's stuff but it is there.

As for Ark Guy above - well let's just say he is scientifically challenged. Used to have on his profile 'science teacher' removed it and wont respond to any questions as to why or where he is a science teacher - the idea of which is frightening.

Or in otherwords you haven't read the refutations of the very points you just tried to make.