Fountains of the Great Deep
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
taxpayerslavery
New member
Jukia
Don't get hung up too much on the 'exspurts', truth is not a matter of majority rule or even whether anybody knows it.
A good rule of thumb is, if somebody disagrees with God, God is the person who is right.
Don't get hung up too much on the 'exspurts', truth is not a matter of majority rule or even whether anybody knows it.
A good rule of thumb is, if somebody disagrees with God, God is the person who is right.
taxpayerslavery
New member
Gerald
I don't think you would have liked Jesus either. He didn't go along with the common ideas of the day (evolution), and He said that those who didn't believe in God were fools. He also talked about hell and damnation more than any other person in the Bible. :shocked:
Gerald you match the Biblical description of someone who is of the world, therefore; being found insufferable by you, is a badge of honor. :first:
It's not much of a point. It remiinds me of when my little boy says he doesn't like some food when he doesn't even know what it is. Like I said above, you wouldn't like Jesus either. Don't believe the candy canes and lolli pops version of Jesus that you get from some Christains. Jesus has a justice, hell and damnation side too. :Grizzly:
Last edited:
Sorry tps, but I think that "expurts" do add soemthing to the debate. My issue is that you and other Biblical literalist,YCers throw science around. If you wish to do that then you really need to engage the scientific community. Publish in peer reviewed journals rather than the creationist web sites. I made a simpe request, but have not received a real response other that what
is, once again, "It doesn't matter, the Bible is my source". If that is the way you wish to live your life, fine, it is not my choice. There is simply no credible evidence for your version of the last 6000 years, there is substantial evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, there was no world wide flood, evolution occurred. If you or creationist scientists have real evidence other than
anecdotal stories of human and dinosaur footprints together, recent plant material in dinosaur fossils (a Bob Enyart show that I actaully e-mailed the investigator on but have yet to get a response), Mt. St. Helen's somehow equates to the carving of the Grand Canyon post-flood, etc.
Oh, but wait, I forgot about the God-less evolutionist conspiracy to keep creationist science from the main stream. hey, now is the time for creationists to really deal with that issue, the current administration should be more than happy to aid creationists in defeating the anti-God conspiracy.
is, once again, "It doesn't matter, the Bible is my source". If that is the way you wish to live your life, fine, it is not my choice. There is simply no credible evidence for your version of the last 6000 years, there is substantial evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, there was no world wide flood, evolution occurred. If you or creationist scientists have real evidence other than
anecdotal stories of human and dinosaur footprints together, recent plant material in dinosaur fossils (a Bob Enyart show that I actaully e-mailed the investigator on but have yet to get a response), Mt. St. Helen's somehow equates to the carving of the Grand Canyon post-flood, etc.
Oh, but wait, I forgot about the God-less evolutionist conspiracy to keep creationist science from the main stream. hey, now is the time for creationists to really deal with that issue, the current administration should be more than happy to aid creationists in defeating the anti-God conspiracy.
Hello TPS. I would refer you to Lorence Colins' page on PO Halos at:http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm
The short answer is that the halos represent a process that occurred over hundred's of thousands or millions of years. In fact, Gentry's claims are so weak that the normally credulous young-earth Adventist group GRISDA has disavowed these as being valid
see:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/15032.htm
Basically, mainstream science (the evolutionists in your language) are were the action is in science. You are fed, clothed, and kept from freezing in the dark by things that you label as "evolutionist". So, I would suggest that you get with the program, get an education in mainstream science.
The nature of the complaints against Gentry are of 2 types. The first are his claims that he extrapolates from the instantly-created nature of granite he feels is proved by the halos. I won't try to defend those claims.
The second type is what Collins writes about. And like most others, his claims against Gentry rely on conduits to transport other material to the halo sites than the Po that Gentry claims made the halos. But Gentry claims that there are no conduits in his samples. Now we've left the realm of science and entered the realm of 2nd grade insults. Collins says "Gentry is too stupid to know that he has cracks in his samples." or "Gentry is too ignorant to know that he has cracks in his samples." Instead of doing real science where he verifies Gentry's method with Gentry.
And, Jukia, you should know better.
The second type is what Collins writes about. And like most others, his claims against Gentry rely on conduits to transport other material to the halo sites than the Po that Gentry claims made the halos. But Gentry claims that there are no conduits in his samples. Now we've left the realm of science and entered the realm of 2nd grade insults. Collins says "Gentry is too stupid to know that he has cracks in his samples." or "Gentry is too ignorant to know that he has cracks in his samples." Instead of doing real science where he verifies Gentry's method with Gentry.
And, Jukia, you should know better.
On the contrary, your reply is a gross mischaracterization of Colins' position.
Gentry had a good run, but basically his ideas have been shot down by the basic method of science. He made several claims, and each of those claims has been systematically shot down.
1) Gentry claimed that his specimens were from "primordial granites" and were not associated with uranium deposits. Both claims were shown to be false. Essentially, all of his samples came from the vicinity of uranium deposits, and furthermore all of the samples were in pegmatites.
Pegmatites occur in dikes which crosscut other geologic units, indicating that these are younger features than the surrounding country rock. Furthermore, the gradation and mineralogy (such as the presence of flourite) of pegmatites indicate that such formations are the result of chemical recrystallization rather than recrystallization from the molten state.
Thus, not only are the samples not primordial, but the crystallization of these minerals was no where near the annealing (i.e. melting) temperature of the minerals in question.
2) Gentry claimed that there were no fractures in his samples. The fact that his samples often do contain visible fractures contradicts this.
Furthermore, becuase Gentry's method of looking for fractures---polarizing microscopy---is simply not capable of seeing narrower fractures. Indeed, there are many instances of minerals that appear to be free of fractures under polarizing microscopy, being found to have fractures when examined using a technique called "cathodic luminescence".
Furthermore, the source material of the polonium is likely radon 222, which moves easily through minerals. Such minerals as biotite and fluorite have well developed cleavage planes that can easily pass the radon 222,
which then would decay to the required polonium isotopes.
3) Gentry claims that there is no alternate mechanism. This is perhaps the weakest claim.
Colins proposes that a particular attribute of biotite and fluorite as the mechanism for the formation of the halos. This attribute is the fact that zones that accept hydroxyl ions exist within biotite and fluorite as a crystal lattice defect. When a 222Rn atom decays into a 210Po atom, the resulting atom just happens to have a +2 ionization that is attracted to the hydroxyl accepting site within the
crystal of biotite or fluorite, explaining why there is a halo.
To have halo, you have to have several billions of decays at the same location within the crystal. Colins' idea provide just such a mechanism.
(Indeed, there is some doubt that Collins is actually seeing polonium halos in some of his samples owing to
the sloppiness of some of his measurements.)
This would be part of what Gentry extrapolates, and I've already said I won't comment on it.
Here again, the author says Gentry was too ignorant to understand he had cracks in his sample. This doesn't answer Gentry's challenge.
Here again, the author says Gentry was too ignorant to understand he had cracks in his sample. This doesn't answer Gentry's challenge.
The author needs to prove 1 of 2 things; That cracks were in the original samples before they were prepared, or there is another mechanism to create halos that does not rely on cracks in granite.
I'd say the test ought to be re-run, giving Gentry respect until cracks are found in the sample. Also, realize that preparing the samples, as Gentry says, creates the cracks that most critics mistakenly point too. All the halos in the world didn't disappear after Gentry took pictures of a few.
Basically you won't comment on it because it is an indefensible assertion. Gentry's claims were flat out wrong.
Gentry doesn't have a challenge anymore,
because he did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that there were no fractures.
Furthemore, it is not clear that it is even necessary that fractures be present. The minerals in question have well developed cleavage planes which can allow 222Rn to penetrate the crystals.
As to your usage of the term "ignorant" in your reply, this is a disengenuos attempt to mischaracterize the criticisms of Gentry's as being mere ad hominem attacks, which they are not.
It is up to the *proponents* of Gentry's instantaneous formation hypothesis to show to the scientific community, beyond any reasonble doubt that Po halos cannot form by the more conventional means such as those proposed by Colins.
If a person proposes an extraordinary hypothesis, it is up to *them* to provide the necessary extraordinary evidence to back up that idea. In Gentry's case, his claims run counter to the results of the majority of the scientific results from the geosciences.
I guess you could take it that way, but you would be wrong. I simply don't defend them because I haven't studied it enough. He could be right for all I know, or he could be wrong.
I don't think he would have to. If I ran a test that required distilled water, but the tests could be questioned if I did not, would I have to prove I used distilled water? One would know that any competent scientist can get distilled water, and Gentry claims that any competent scientists can use the method he did to detect cracks, and there were none in his samples. At that point, unless you can prove him wrong, your "reasonable doubt" is unreasonable.
Then run the test and take pictures of the halo. I'd be willing to doubt Gentry if it is done.
I'd say that the way Gentry's claims have been dealt with would make me tend to believe that his critics on this point are only interested in their philosophy, and not science. So, yes, I'd say the ad hominem label tends to fit.
I agree.
Really? He made a claim. It was questioned. He answered. And instead of evaluating the science in his answers, he was basically called ignorant or stupid without futher evalution. I say this because the "majority" don't have the scientific results you are claiming. They should do a few things if they were honest: use the latest method that insures there are no channels for 222Rn and see if they can find halos in that kind of sample. Find granites with channels for 222Rn and record the empirical results... do the pictures look the same?
Essentially Gentry misrepresented the origins of his specimens and was caught at it.
1) Gentry's method is *not* sufficient to detect
all cracks that are present.
2) The natural cleavage planes are all
parallel to the direction he is splitting his
specimens, direct crack detection more
difficult.
3) Finally, the fact that, of all the minerals
in the world, those that have radiohalos
in them happen to be two of the minerals
(biotite and flourite) with the most well
developed cleavage planes, gives us
the clue that the most parsimonious
explanation likely has something to do
with the well developed cleavage.
What test do you propose? Make a radiohalo? That would be interesting. It may even be doable if you could get a sufficiently large flux of 222Rn.
Gentry had his day. He published a few papers in _Science_ on radiohalos and
his stuff even looked like a real mystery
for a short time. Part of the problem is
that Gentry did indeed demonstrate that
he is unfamiliar with certain aspects
of geology and geochemistry. Call
him ignorant, or call him dishonest.
The fact that Gentry is not a geoscientist
made him "ignorant". If he had been
a geoscientist, he would likely have
been called "dishonest" and never would
have worked in the field again.
Gentry made a claim and certain inconsistencies were revealed in
his method. Basically, his conclusions
disappeared at that moment.
He failed to make any comeback.
Sorry, but the vast majority of scientific evidence---everything from deposition rates,
the sizes of crystals in igneous and metamorphic rocks, to radiometric dates---point to an old earth---4.5 billion
years old to be precise.
Indeed, it would be interesting to study radiohalos futher. No doubt these items
will be studied again in the future. However,
whatever Gentry has done, it has not
been to push scientific knowledge in
the direction of his conclusion. Indeed, it
is quite the reverse. Halo formation seems
to be another slow process.
The Collins article doesn't seem to question Gentry's claims on the origins of the samples. Gentry calls them "primordial", defined by his own criteria, while Collins disagrees, defined by long age criteria. Gentry cannot use long-age criteria since that is the very issue he is questioning. Gentry seems to be very clear with where he got his samples. So your accusation is unfounded.
I'll grant this. A test should be made where: a sample that does not have cracks according to Gentry's method is found that also has cracks that ARE detected by the newer method, and see how the 222Rn flows. Note the pattern of atomic disarrangement caused by the alpha particle emission. We should find something exactly/nearly like the Po halos if Collins is correct.
Gentry would have checked for cracks before he split his specimens. The direction he was planning on splitting his sample wouldn't have made any difference at the time he was checking for cracks.
Clues are evidence, so a test should be run to prove the clue rather than just assume it.
Yes. Make a radiohalo.
So far, the best anyone has done is offer their opinion that Gentry is ignorant or dishonest. They have yet to show that he actually had cracks in his samples, and if he did, does 222Rn actually show the same pattern as what he took pictures of. Until these are shown, the dishonesty and ignorance Gentry is accused of is speculation.
I agree to a point. Instead of just defending his findings with written responses, he should have done some more tests. However, the inconsistencies you sight are not conclusive, either.
Slow process based on what? Collins' theory? The only person to actually take pictures is Gentry. We should be able to test Collins' idea despite the time factor. And Collins' article does not even lend strong evidence that what he proposes, and what can actually occur, are the same. Or would Collins really say we know how it happened, but we cannot test it? So far, it sounds more like Collins is in the same boat as most of Gentry's critics – long on talk and short on action.
And I'm not even saying that Gentry won't be proved wrong. But to Collins and the others I've read (who publish on the internet) I say; what you say is interesting, now come back when you've run the tests that disprove Gentry's claim.
- Status