Orphan Radiohalos

[AV1611VET]

Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as Uranium-238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206. Viewed in cross-section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. Dr. Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.

Some of the intermediate decay products - such as the polonium isotopes - have very short half-lives (they decay quickly). For example, Po has a half-life of just 3 minutes. Curiously, rings created by polonium decay are often found embedded in crystals without the parent uranium halos. Now the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it cannot derive from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium halo. Either the polonium was created (primordial, not derived from uranium), or there have been radical changes in decay rates in the past.

Gentry has addressed all attempts to criticize his work. There have been many attempts, because the orphan halos speak of conditions in the past, either at creation or after, perhaps even during the flood, which do not fit with the uniformitarian view of the past, which is the basis of the radiometric dating systems. Whatever process was responsible for the halos could be a key also to understanding radiometric dating.

Source: The Answers Book, by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, pp. 90-91.

 

[CabVet]

Source: The Answers Book, by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, pp. 90-91.

So, are you going to start a new thread about every paragraph in the book?

 

[RickG]

Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as Uranium-238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206. Viewed in cross-section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. Dr. Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.

Some of the intermediate decay products - such as the polonium isotopes - have very short half-lives (they decay quickly). For example, Po has a half-life of just 3 minutes. Curiously, rings created by polonium decay are often found embedded in crystals without the parent uranium halos. Now the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it cannot derive from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium halo. Either the polonium was created (primordial, not derived from uranium), or there have been radical changes in decay rates in the past.

Gentry has addressed all attempts to criticize his work. There have been many attempts, because the orphan halos speak of conditions in the past, either at creation or after, perhaps even during the flood, which do not fit with the uniformitarian view of the past, which is the basis of the radiometric dating systems. Whatever process was responsible for the halos could be a key also to understanding radiometric dating.

Source: The Answers Book, by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, pp. 90-91.

Please note the change in my signature. The book you are citing ignores that part of the bible.

I notice you didn't comment on the part where Gentry says all the granite batholiths on earth solidified in 3 minutes. AV, if anyone knows that decay rates of radionuclides do not change, it should be Robert Gentry. Gentry spent several years as part of a team of scientists in Oakridge, TN trying to accomplish that very thing. His team was given the task of accelerating decay rates so nuclear waste could be disposed of more quickly. They failed on all levels.

I can go into great detail discussing radiohalos, but I think it would be completely useless for two reasons. (1) You couldn't begin to understand the chemistry and physics involved that Gentry completely ignores. (2) Everyone here knows you have absolutely no intention of trying to learn or understand anything. You have clearly stated that you reject all evidence presented many many times over. Why waste everyone's time.

THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT JUST ANOTHER OPINION. IT IS DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTED SCIENCE. This has been shown countless times in the CF.

And just one more thing, I wish to comment on the following sentence from the OP above.

"Dr. Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals."

That is a completely accurate and true statement.

What is not stated and leaves the readers to assume just the opposite is, none of those articles say anything about decay rates changing or radiometric dating being in question. Those articles questioning radiometric dating are only publishable in the literature of Ken Ham's AiG and like organizations that are willing to propogate such rubbish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

AVET, you should check out Talk Origins before you start new posts. Odds are that they have debunked your claim along with links to articles published in scientific journals that support their claims. They have already done all of the hard work for us. That being said:

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

 

[46AND2]

Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as Uranium-238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206. Viewed in cross-section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. Dr. Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.

Some of the intermediate decay products - such as the polonium isotopes - have very short half-lives (they decay quickly). For example, Po has a half-life of just 3 minutes. Curiously, rings created by polonium decay are often found embedded in crystals without the parent uranium halos. Now the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it cannot derive from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium halo. Either the polonium was created (primordial, not derived from uranium), or there have been radical changes in decay rates in the past.

Gentry has addressed all attempts to criticize his work. There have been many attempts, because the orphan halos speak of conditions in the past, either at creation or after, perhaps even during the flood, which do not fit with the uniformitarian view of the past, which is the basis of the radiometric dating systems. Whatever process was responsible for the halos could be a key also to understanding radiometric dating.

Source: The Answers Book, by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, pp. 90-91.

Gentry absolutely has not adequately addressed all attempts to criticize his work.

He has not adequately addressed the fact that the rocks he selected were not primordial, like he stated.

He has not adequately addressed the fact that the orphan radiohalos are more likely caused by Radon-222 migrating along cracks in the rock since it is an inert gas and has a decay energy nearly equal to the polonium decay causing a radon halo that is indistinguishable from the subsequent polonium halo.

He has not adequately addressed why all polonium halos are located in rocks in which an Uranium source is nearby. Nor why we don't see halos from other polonium isotopes which are not part of the Uranium decay chain.

He has not adequately addressed the problem of the other radiometric dating methods, which would require a significant change in the decay rates. He wants to assume a constant decay rate for his polonium halos, while at the same time requiring a change in the others.

And there are several other objections.

 

[Belk]

Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as Uranium-238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206. Viewed in cross-section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. Dr. Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.

Some of the intermediate decay products - such as the polonium isotopes - have very short half-lives (they decay quickly). For example, Po has a half-life of just 3 minutes. Curiously, rings created by polonium decay are often found embedded in crystals without the parent uranium halos. Now the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it cannot derive from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium halo. Either the polonium was created (primordial, not derived from uranium), or there have been radical changes in decay rates in the past.

Gentry has addressed all attempts to criticize his work. There have been many attempts, because the orphan halos speak of conditions in the past, either at creation or after, perhaps even during the flood, which do not fit with the uniformitarian view of the past, which is the basis of the radiometric dating systems. Whatever process was responsible for the halos could be a key also to understanding radiometric dating.

Source: The Answers Book, by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, pp. 90-91.

So I have to ask, if evidence is not something that effects your belief and you feel that there can be no evidence for a universe created ex nihilo why are you bothering to post these excerpts?

 

[46AND2]

So I have to ask, if evidence is not something that effects your belief and you feel that there can be no evidence for a universe created ex nihilo why are you bothering to post these excerpts?

I've often wondered the same thing.

On the one hand he says he doesn't have a problem with the 4.57 billion year age, then later argues against "problems" with the method for dating it.

 

[AV1611VET]

So I have to ask, if evidence is not something that effects your belief and you feel that there can be no evidence for a universe created ex nihilo why are you bothering to post these excerpts?

I've often wondered the same thing.

On the one hand he says he doesn't have a problem with the 4.57 billion year age, then later argues against "problems" with the method for dating it.

I'm a YEC at heart, but my mind says otherwise. This cognitive dissonance needs to be resolved.

 

[Strathos]

Didn't you say that you believe only Jesus can disprove evolution and an old Earth?

Then why are you bothering instead of just waiting for Him?

 

[AV1611VET]

Didn't you say that you believe only Jesus can disprove evolution and an old Earth?

I said only Jesus can disprove evolution.

If He should disprove an old earth as well, then I've been wrong all along, haven't I? since I too, believe in an old earth.

 

[46AND2]

I said only Jesus can disprove evolution.

If He should disprove an old earth as well, then I've been wrong all along, haven't I? since I too, believe in an old earth.

Actually, there are many things which could disprove evolution. Just none that have.

 

[RickG]

I said only Jesus can disprove evolution.

If He should disprove an old earth as well, then I've been wrong all along, haven't I? since I too, believe in an old earth.

Yeah right! A 6,000 year old earth. Happy birthday Earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, there are many things which could disprove evolution. Just none that have.

Well, for the record, I believe evolution will be alive and well on Planet Earth when the Antichrist does his dirty work through the Tribulation.

It will take Jesus, Himself (not Aig, DI, or anyone else) to put an end to it once and for all.

 

[46AND2]

Well, for the record, I believe evolution will be alive and well on Planet Earth when the Antichrist does his dirty work through the Tribulation.

It will take Jesus, Himself (not Aig, DI, or anyone else) to put an end to it once and for all.

Why do you think this? Why do you think that no evidence will become available which renders evolution falsified? If it is false, there certainly should be proof against its veracity. Is God hiding such evidence from us, so that he can rub it in our faces when the time comes? After all, we are merely making observations about the nature that he allegedly created, which he tells us we should be doing in the first place.

Why are we only able to find the evidence which supports evolution, but not any that refutes it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you think this?

QV please:

I think he was asking me about falsifying evolution, not the Rapture.

In my opinion, evolution will be the Antichrist's trump card in getting scientists to take the Mark of the Beast.

The Antichrist will explain evolution so eloquently as to make it easy enough that a child can understand it, and his magnum opus will be a demonstration of abiogenesis.

This one is more in-depth: 3

 

[46AND2]

QV please:


This one is more in-depth: 3

So in other words, yes, God is withholding evidence from us that will be provided by Jesus upon his return.

 

[AV1611VET]

So in other words, yes, God is withholding evidence from us that will be provided by Jesus upon his return.

 

[RickG]

Well, for the record, I believe evolution.

And now we have AV on record as a new proponent of evolution. Welcome to the world of reality and science.

Now tell us. How does it feel to be "quote mined"? Was that an honest thing I did? After all, you said it. That kind of thing is seen in the creationist literature quite often by people you have quoted, such as Kent Hovind, Robert Gentry, Ken Ham, etc........

 

[46AND2]

So, AV, if evolution is false, it should be VERY easy to see that in DNA. It would be just as easy to see that as it is to rule out a father in a paternity test.

The fact that we can't see that, and you believe we never will be able to see that until Christ's return, seems to indicate that God is not allowing us to see that hidden falsification, because he is going to use that field to help fulfill his second coming prophecy.

When you said that (paraphrasing) "evolution is only going to get worse until Christ comes" what you are really saying is that the evidence FOR evolution will only get better and stronger. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but that is what your statement amounts to. Because evolution is not a worldview. It is a scientific observation about nature.

 

[Belk]

I'm a YEC at heart, but my mind says otherwise. This cognitive dissonance needs to be resolved.

Fair enough. If it helps at all I think most of us see you as YEC. Certainly your embedded age idea has some major issues since we do not measure age we measure history.