I have met Dr. Gentry personally and found his reasearch on readio-halos fascinating. It has been unanswered in published Scientific Journals, though lots of unscientific "just so" theories abound on the internet. This video is a nice overview of several processes that are in much conflict with the worldview of Materialists.
The Sudden Catastrophic Collapse of Evolutionary Time
by Perry 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
designs
Here is one of several critiques of Gentry's work and hypothesis on radio-halos/polonium-halos http://www.grisda.org/origins/15032/htm
-god must have been putting fossils into stone as he was creating them
-
Earnest
Moazed, Cyrus; Richard M. Spector; Richard F. Ward, 1973, "Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternate Interpretation", Science, Vol. 180, pp. 1272-1274.
Odom, L.A., and Rink, W.J., 1989, "Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle," Science, Vol. 246, pp. 107-109.
-
designs
Perry- do you ever look for criticisms to the things you post or are you so invested in YEC that you skip this process. Even other creationists disagree with Gentry.
-
bohm
Designs, you see, perry has met the guy, so that prooves it!
-
Perry
The critiques seem to simply deny that they are Polonium Halos
"But how do we know that they really are polonium halos? Answer: the polonium halos are readily identified by the numbers of rings, and the sizes of those rings (figures 4–7). This has been confirmed by experiments. 5,6"
Here's the problem with this discovery:
The implications are astounding. First, the polonium halos required an abundant supply of polonium, in fact, an amount equivalent to 100 million years of radioactive decay of uranium, at today’s rates. However, all this polonium had to be available quickly, before it could decay away. That is, it all had to concentrate within hours, or a few days at the most. Therefore, the polonium halos mean that 100 million years of radioactive decay of uranium (at today’s rates) occurred in just a few days! In other words, the radioactive decay of uranium was formerly up to a billion times faster than it is today!
Gentry has claimed that his experiments have never been successfully refuted in a published scientific journal.
-
adamah
Gentry has claimed that his experiments have never been successfully refuted in a published scientific journal.
Nope. A real-live geologist (professor at CSUN) who refuted a physicist's dabbling in geology in a published journal:
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wood.html
Perry, you DO know the difference between a physicist and a geologist, right? You do understand which ones deal regularly with stuff like how trees turn into coal?
I started watching the video, but was turned off by the conspiratorial string of "what if?" questions, and the obviously 'staged-for-the-camera' production value added.
Adam
-
Perry
I will read later Adamah. On the way out the door. I'll be having lunch today with a friend of mine who was a fighter pilot & who also obtained his doctorate in asto-physics. He also believes in a young earth. I'll ask him what he has to say on this.
Thanks for the link...looking forward to reading it later.
-
bohm
perry: I'll ask him what he has to say on this.
lemme guess.. if he agrees, you will follow the basic scientific principle that says "if someone agrees with you, then you are properly correct".
-
Band on the Run
You remind me of myself in seventh grade. Defending creationism b/c I wanted love from someone. Life is complex. Perhaps evolution is the method God used to create. I don't know. You did not list your scientific credentials to place this man's beliefs in context. Context is important. You did not state a list of your reading of evolutionary scientists in your post. Views out of a larger context can seem wonderful.
In my field, many people read Internet sites for legal advice. The material is often factual for the small portion that is related. A host of other factors govern the situation, however. For instance, I know I do not have the background to make a rational determination as to which scientist to believe from my personal knowledge. Many members here are quite impressive with their science backgrounds.
What is your point? Shall we start believing the WT again? I cannot. So many times when I was younger I did what you did. Embarassment was the result. Any reference in the WT is not good enough. Not too long ago they reference a Nurembereg convicted Nazi theologian who was executed by the tribunal's authority. The theologian popularized Nazism for the Lutheran multitudes. There must have been a host of theologians to quote to make the same scriptural interpretation.
Members have posted charts of intentionally misconstrued statements in the WT concerning scholarship and compared it wth the actual quotes in academic journals. I had no idea how systemic the fraud was. If I sound annoyed, it is b/c I am annoyed with my silly beliefs once upon a time.
No one here forces you to believe in evolution.