polonium halos

[marc]

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.

 

[Bushido216]

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

 

[Bushido216]

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

 

[ThePhoenix]

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/modern/lorence_collins/polonium.html

 

[Ark Guy]

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.

 

[Ark Guy]

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.

 

[Bushido216]

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.

 

[Ark Guy]

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

heck anyone can do the link thing.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

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.

 

[ThePhoenix]

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.

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

 

[marc]

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/modern/lorence_collins/polonium.html

I'm sorry, but I don't live on this forum like some people. What is a PRATT anyway.
I know that you are just sooo intelligent that you have it all figured out, but I don't.

 

[Didaskomenos]

It's obvious who has been to college, in which plagiarism is prohibited and bibliographies are routinely given on any subject matter, and those who haven't gotten there yet. When people get big and leave high school they understand that the way adults come to their opinions is not by blindly adopting the views of some anonymous forum poster but by checking multiple third party sources. In graduate school for most disciplines, for instance, reading primary sources is an integral part of the program, not listening to some other grad student spout off something that may be wrong so that the other students can call him names. It's like what was said in another thread, these forums are not for macho arm-wrestling in which the loser gets called "sissy", but for discussion. Links give us something to discuss and a reference point. There's no shame in deferring to a better source of information.

 

[Bushido216]

I'm sorry, but I don't live on this forum like some people. What is a PRATT anyway.
I know that you are just sooo intelligent that you have it all figured out, but I don't.

Point Refuted a Thousand Times

 

[Bushido216]

Phoenix, your a sissy.

You rely on some bigoted link rather than your own words.

Would you rather I read the links, paraphrase, and then cite my sources?

See, when you get big and start doing some real work, you'll learn that people don't like plagerism.

 

[Bushido216]

"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontolgists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution." Stephen Jay Gould Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(5).

Please stop taking Gould out of context. If you were to actually read any of his works you'd know that Gould makes a serious distinction between what Darwin said the geological record should / would show and what it actually does / should show. Gould himself is responsible for some of the major archaelogical finds supporting evolution.

 

[marc]

Please stop taking Gould out of context. If you were to actually read any of his works you'd know that Gould makes a serious distinction between what Darwin said the geological record should / would show and what it actually does / should show. Gould himself is responsible for some of the major archaelogical finds supporting evolution.

Is this enough context?

"The exteme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.
Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontolgists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never 'seen' in the rocks.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true strdents of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."

Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Evolution's erratic pace". Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(5), May 1977, p.14.

 

[Bushido216]

He's arguing against gradualism, which makes sense when you consider that he was the pioneer for punctuated equalibrium.

Will you please remove that quote now?

 

[marc]

He's arguing against gradualism, which makes sense when you consider that he was the pioneer for punctuated equalibrium.

Will you please remove that quote now?

why would I want to remove it?

 

[ThePhoenix]

I'm sorry, but I don't live on this forum like some people. What is a PRATT anyway.
I know that you are just sooo intelligent that you have it all figured out, but I don't.

This is just about, oh, the ninth thread on it. Didn't mean to snap at you, they're just OLD. They should come with a little label "prerefuted." Run a search if you don't believe me.

ArcGuy - The links have actual science in them, which disagrees with Gentry's results. Rather noticably. As in totally refutes it. If you really think that a verbal fist fight is what science is about then I really don't see the point of dialogue with you.

Here's a few quotes:

Since jousting with Robert Gentry, my own research has resulted in 36 articles demonstrating the validity of the replacement origin of some granites. More will be added. These articles show (among other matters) that granite that contains Po halos does not form from magma. The generally accepted model that all granites of large size must form from a magma is the basis for Gentry's own model for instantaneous origin of granite. Gentry is correct that Po-halos cannot form from granites that have crystallized biotite from magma at the same time that the Po-halos form. The short half-lives of the Po isotopes make this impossible. But if Gentry's initial premise is wrong about the necessity for granites to form from magma where Po-halos are found, then his whole thesis is wrong. There is no better refutation of Gentry's model that I can offer than my own research reported in the above website: (1) Not all granites must be formed by crystallization from melts and (2) granites that contain Po halos do not require instantaneous formation. They can be formed by replacement conditions that allow millions of years for their production and in purely natural environments. Moreover, experimental work is included in articles 36 and 37 on my website that supports the hypothesis that some granites form at temperatures below melting conditions by chemical replacement processes. Thus, my model is not just theoretical but has field, microscopic, and experimental support.

 

[marc]

=ThePhoenix]This is just about, oh, the ninth thread on it. Didn't mean to snap at you, they're just OLD. They should come with a little label "prerefuted." Run a search if you don't believe me.

thanks
Marc