Paul wrote:
Papias...it would take a book to respond to your post so I will not be doing a point by point response...
Um, it would take a book to explain why you think I'm a YEC? I'm sure some of the points don't require a book (if any). In fact, you already answered #5, and #4 is just asking what, if anything, you find wrong in the data for Project Steve. (let's call that
Q 6.)
Again I never said Gentry was a geologist nor was he commenting on geology as his subject in the articles in Science and Nature I directed you to...he was a nuclear physicist reporting something that his field knows about and understand that he had observed in many cases (not all)...
OK, to clarify (Q2)- Gentry's YEC point is that
A. based on the GEOLOGY of his samples, they rocks should preserve only an old age
B. some rocks contain Po haloes, indicating a young age.
Do you and I (and the real geologists) agree that Gentry is likely wrong on point A? Being that Gentry is not a geologist, do we agree that he shouldn't be talking on point A?
As for point B - it looks like we agree that Gentry is right on point B, that there is no dispute on point B, and that the Nature and Science articles only support point B, right? And that his creationist argument falls apart with out point A?
as you say:
Thus you will not find geological articles posited by Gentry in these journals and periodicals they were articles on things pertaining to his field from the study of radio-metric halos...
Right. Which is why I pointed out:
Also you likewise have shown nothing that asserts your claim that he was blackballed for bad science or faulty claims regarding geology.
You are the one who asserted first that he was blackballed for ideas other than faulty science. I'm still waiting for any evidence of that. Remember, I wrote:
These defenders wrote about how good a geologist he was? links please. If they wrote about what a good physicist he was, or good person, or good accountant, they are irrelevant. Otherwise, we are back to your accountant doing brain surgery.
So do we agree on question #1:
do you seriously think it is a good idea to have your accountant do your brain surgery, on the basis that he's a competent accountant?
(on to #3)
3. Could you please repost the articles about geology by Gentry in Science and Nature? Or at least tell me what post # they were in?
In response, you wrote:
see Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological Cosmological Perspective, from the 63rd annual meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Extinct Radioactivity and the Discovery of a New Pleochroic Halo, in, Nature, 1967, 213:437-490
Spectacle array of 210po halo radiocentres in biotites: a Nuclear Geophysical Enigma, Nature, 1974 252:564 566
Radiohalos; some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios of unknown Alpha Radioactivity, Science, 1971, 173:727-731
Paul
Thank you. I apologize for not seeing them before. It's great to have actual citations.
Without access to these, I can't see if they express his GEOLOGICAL argument (point A) or just his PHYSICAL one (point B). If they only express point B, then they don't satisfy Q3, which asked for the articles about GEOLOGY. Do yo know if there is a place we can read these - or did you already read them and can scan them in ? Or do we agree anyway - that his point A is wrong, so his overall young earth argument is wrong?
that only leaves:
4. Can you show some reference or reason why you think it is "not really accurate"?
5. What examples (of "problematic fossils" ) do you really mean (with citations)?
Papias