Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[orogenicman]

Polonium radio-halos being located at the same plane as uranium radio-metric decay is also very strong evidence for accelerated radiometric decay.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted
A Review of "Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological
and Cosmological Perspective" by Robert V. Gentry
by Thomas A. Baillieul

Conclusions:

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.

In the end, Gentry's young Earth proposal, based on years of measuring discoloration haloes, is nothing more than a high-tech version of the Creationist "Omphalos" argument. This is the late nineteenth century proposition that while God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago according to the Genesis account, He made everything appear old. Unfortunately, because Gentry has published his original work on haloes in reputable scientific journals, a number of basic geology and mineralogy text books still state that microscopic discoloration haloes in mica are the result of polonium decay.

It's rather sad, though not surprising that creationists are still trying to argue from refuted work.

---

Hmm, apparently Statler has a problem with scientists posting their critiques of creationists works on talk.origins. I have no problem with them doing so, and will continue to to refer to it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

Dr. Humphreys' Young-Earth Helium Diffusion "Dates"
Numerous Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data
by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

Now Statler, you complained that people weren't pouring over creationists' writings. The problem is that scientists have, in fact, done just that. Now, let's see you pour over the refutation at the link. Get back to us when you have a valid response.