IMHO we can't answer the question at present, we can only speculate and 'make believe'. Give us another million years to explore every facet of existence and we will likely be closer to an answer.
My speculation is that there is a creative force behind the universe, but I don't even think it is sentient or self-aware. My evidence is that there is far too much 'order' in the universe to be accidental or a coincidence.
@skyblazer7 If it's not sentient or self aware...then explain why we (created in G-d's Image) can appreciate beauty outside of necessity... The only functional advantage of beauty is to attract in order to benefit the plant/animal... Yet WE perceive beauty outside these prerequisites, without that beauty doing ANYTHING to benefit itself, from our observation. We find galaxies in the sky beautiful...we find butterflies beautiful, we find poisonous plants beautiful... Why?
@skyblazer7 I personally feel that if we do not have the answers ourselves, and someone presents us with this kind of evidence,...the only LOGICAL conclusion to come to is to accept the explanation at face value. No one can tell me that something is NOT...when they cannot tell me what it IS... To know the difference one has to know both options, or there is nothing to compare it with in order to come to the conclusion that it is NOT.
if any one of its precursors is present in the liquid rock, especially U-238 (half life of 4.6 bil. years), polonium 218 would eventually exist in the rock.
@SymphoDeProggy Yes, look at the U-238 decay chain. In equilibrium, the ratio of isotopes is the same as or similar to the ratio of their half-lives, as I recall. Thus, the Po-218, if derived naturally from U-238, should produce a halo that also has a U-238 ring, unless transport has taken place.
But transport is a problem: (a) If the rock is too hot, the transported Po will not form a halo. (b) Absence of fossil alpha recoil tracks shows transport never took place.
@SymphoDeProggy Read through the scientific reports in the back of Gentry's book, and you'll be up to speed pretty quick.
There are a number of reasons why decay rates must have been altered in the past, not just one reason, and that alteration could have been in proportion to the current half life, so that long-lived isotopes had the most alteration.
The real question is whether uniformitarianism is a viable presupposition. Without it evolution crumbles.
assuming variable decay rates, Po isotopes could just as easily have decayed at a rate of millions to billions of years, making it impossible to draw any conclusion these halos.
another question, but this one's more general.
i've read that variable decay rates would make assigning an isotope to a halo impossible.
is it true ?
by context i'm guessing you're of the position that this is not true.
@SymphoDeProggy (1) If Po decayed that slow, then uniformitarianism and evolution are dead.
(2) Halo diameters depend on the energy of the alpha particle emissions. These energies today are in reverse proportion to the half-life. Those who raise this point assume that any alteration of the half-life would not touch the current half-life to energy relationship.
And because of this uniformitarian-like assumption, they ignore the obvious implications of the scientific data.
it still has plenty of other verification methods. most of which have nothing to do with dating (ERVs, comparative anatomy, nuclear and mitochondrial DNA analysis) and all of which sync up.
now that i think of it, this raises another question.
if dating methods don't work because of rate variation, wouldn't they be out of sync with phylogenetic trees constructed through other fields ?
@SymphoDeProggy Delve into these other areas, and you'll find they aren't as solid as what they're made out to be.
Would you expect to find similarities in DNA and anatomy if there was a common Creator? Of course! So the key is to look for everything that can only fit one model, not both.
If descendant's traits predate the ancestors, the tree is fiction.
U/Pb ratios in U halos is Jurassic & Triassic coalified wood show that those strata are young. The fossils in them cannot be older.
@SymphoDeProggy What many do not realize is that the dates are often made to sync with preconceived ideas, so it isn't enough for someone to just assert that various dating methods all agree.
To illustrate my point, see educatetruthDOTcom /la-sierra-evidence/radiometric-dating-can-be-very-tuff where the same formation was dated at .5 to 230 my. Too much subjectivity.
It's not just Po halos. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones is also a problem.
@SymphoDeProggy (a) It depends on the mechanism by which rates are increased.
(b) If the rate change were proportional to current rates, it be as easy to swallow as anything about radioactivity, quantum physics, or subatomic particles. And much easier to swallow than evolution, which requires a huge leap of faith.
One scientist stated that the complexity of the inner workings of a cell is such that if it was known in Darwin's day, evolution would have been considered a joke.
@gkcnae How come scientists who are believers in evolutionism don't do their research for free? How come they apply for grants? How come they don't teach for free? How come evolutionary books and videos aren't free?
@PicklePublishing I'm pretty sure most scientists don't sell their scientific theorems to the public for quick money. This guy is making a ton of assumptions based on flawed knowledge of scientific principles, I want to see more proof on his theories than a mystical DVD I can buy off the internet. He says the scientific proof is there, but fails to present any solid proof at all. I'm not saying he hasn't found these Po-218 halos, I just think he's making too many assumptions on such little facts
@brodersami I think you are mistaken. If Gentry had a "flawed knowledge," he would not have gotten so many articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Read his reports at halos.com/reports/
Most scientists have to make a living somehow. In Gentry's case, one can see all his videos for free at halos.com/videos/streaming-video.htm. Buying the DVDs helps his research continue, but his greatest concern is to get these important findings out there.
Coming close to scientificaly proving the existence of God is going to be found in a mathematical formula produced out of Quantum Physics. I read that somewhere. Sounds good to me.
@CesarPhilosophe You're the one who asked me how God created everything. The best I can tell you is what He Himself said, which is that He created everything by His word.
Like I said before, if you need more detail, ask Him yourself. He hasn't made me privy to more detail than what I gave.
Asking for a detailed description of processes that don't exist today is probably similar to asking by what mechanism the Big Bang took place.
@CesarPhilosophe You're not making sense, or you are trying to evade the obvious.
Creationists cannot explain in detail how God created the world using processes that do not exist today, simply because those processes cannot be observed since they do not exist today.
But what does exist today are today's scientific laws, according to which Po-218 halos cannot exist. The humble thing to do is to give God the glory for His creative power, rather than to deny His existence and involvement.
No repetition necessary. Just come up with a naturalistic explanation for the existence of Po-218 halos.
Otherwise, Po-218 halos shall continue to remain unrefuted evidence of creation, as they have been for decades, since according to established scientific laws, Po-218 halos cannot be formed using today's natural processes.
Uniformitarianism is therefore decisively falsified and refuted.
So then, what is your proposal for a naturalistic process for instantly crystallizing the rock?
If you can't come up with one, and coming up with one is definitively barred by established scientific law, then the only other possibility is a supernatural process, whether atheists and skeptics like it or not.
@CesarPhilosophe Scientifically, as already explained, we must conclude that the rocks containing the Po-218 halos crystallized instantly.
You and I both can't explain how that happened using natural processes. The difference is that presently, I am willing and you are unwilling to consider the possibility that supernatural processes are what instantly crystallized the rock.
I think, then, that the burden is on you to come up with a naturalistic process for instantly crystallizing the rock.
@CesarPhilosophe Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I thought you were saying that science is limited to naturalistic explanations.
Since the evidence does add up, conclusively, I'm not sure what the issue is.
We can measure the half life of Po-218. We can detect the effect of heat on radiohalos. We can measure the rate of diffusion. We can count the number of alpha-recoil tracks. We know the chemical properties of Rn. The evidence is in, and the verdict is: Creation.
@CesarPhilosophe In other words, I don't see how, at least this side of heaven, we are going to get to know all the nitty gritty of exactly how God created everything, how His Word is so powerful that things just pop into existence because He says so.
But we can know now that that is how everything came to be, since naturalistic processes cannot explain everything, such as Po-218 halos, and many other things.
@CesarPhilosophe Perhaps you don't understand as well. True science does not rule out the existence of God or miracles or His involvement in His creation.
Consider the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden. There was a certain knowledge that Adam and Eve were not permitted to have, which they decided to obtain anyway in direct disobedience to God. What a mess we've been in since then!
Deut. 29:29 is a key verse. What is revealed belongs to us, and what is secret belongs to God.
@CesarPhilosophe According to your logic, there can never be any evidence of creation because if it is impossible to use today's natural processes to produce a phenomena, it's just a mystery we have no explanation for yet.
I disagree.
And I don't get your question about the mechanism God used. He said He created everything through His Word, but you seem to want to know in greater detail how He did it. But He hasn't revealed everything. Like I said before, ask Him if you want to know more.
@CesarPhilosophe There are a number of lines of evidence I can describe. The Po halos is just one.
While evolutionists want to call them a tiny mystery, there's not much mystery there. The half-life of Po-218 is known. The rock containing the Po-218 halos must have crystallized instantly, since there is no way the Po-218 could have diffused into the rock before decaying.
You only want to call it a mystery because you are resisting the obvious conclusions. But you can't refute the science.
@CesarPhilosophe You asked what mechanism God used to create the world. I wasn't there, so I can't tell you firsthand. But God did say that He spoke everything into existence. That's the best answer I know of to your question.
@CesarPhilosophe The mountains of evidence are riddled with assumptions that must be tested. The Po halos provide a basis for testing some of those assumptions. If evolutionists refuse to test those assumptions, that refusal takes the questions out of the realm of science.
The laws of physics dictate that Po-218 halos not exist if the earth cooled slowly from a melt. Po-218 halos exist. Therefore, the earth did not cool slowly from a melt.
@CesarPhilosophe Easy for anyone (like Wilkerson) to say, but harder to logically substantiate.
If you mean that Rn-22 is thought to have produced the Po halos, there is no Rn-222 ring in Po halos in fluorite, showing it wasn't there. There is no excess of alpha-recoil tracks near halo centers, showing there was no flow of Rn-222 toward halo centers. Rn is inert, so nothing would cause it to collect in the centers anyway.
@CesarPhilosophe I'll repeat: The scientific explanation for the existence of Po-218 halos is that the rock in which they are found was crystallized instantly.
I wonder if you are saying that any scientific explanation that implies the involvement of God cannot possibly be really considered an explanation. If that is what you are saying, then you will not ever be satisfied with anything short of an atheistic explanation. That doesn't sound very open-minded, or scientific.
@CesarPhilosophe I'm not taking God's word for it without evidence. I never said that I was.
Sure, Po-218 halos have been explained by science. Get Gentry's book and read all about it, particularly the reprinted peer-reviewed articles in the appendix. The Po-218 halos could only exist if the rock they are in crystallized instantly. That's a definitive scientific conclusion.
@CesarPhilosophe I didn't describe it that way. It's a tiny mystery that is easily explained.
Based on known scientific laws, the Po-218 halos are evidence of instantaneous creation of the bedrock of the planet, because anything much slower than that would make it impossible for the Po-218 halos to exist.
I don't know what about all of that we aren't able to explain.
@CesarPhilosophe (a) Before natural selection can do anything, you have to have mutations produce something viable that can then be selected. And that's where a serious problem lies.
(b) I already answered your question. God said that He created everything through His word. Remember?
If you want to go beyond that and get into more detail, why not ask Him yourself?
@CesarPhilosophe (a) Yes, you referred to naturalistic processes, which referred to whatever I was referring to. Thus my comment applies.
(b) Gentry's initial research on Po halos dates back to the '60's. Far more recent than 200 years.
I suggest you deal with the facts rather than the age of the facts. Otherwise, we might as well toss out everything Darwin said since it's just old and tired stuff.
@CesarPhilosophe By definition, random mutations are blind chance.
I highly doubt that discussions about sequence space are old and tired arguments.
Random mutations within computer code do not produce viable new species of computer programs. What makes you think that random mutations within the genetic code is so drastically different?
@CesarPhilosophe If naturalistic processes driven by blind chance cannot explain what we see, then intelligent design must be considered.
Just looking at the science presented by the Gentrys, scientific evidence points to earth's bedrock crystallizing instantly, the Precambrian granites being but thousands of years old, everything higher than that being younger, Jurassic and Triassic strata being the same age and but thousands of years old, etc.
@CesarPhilosophe Sure, the evidence more than adds up, to the objective, unbiased researcher. (a) Cellular processes are so incredibly complex, they couldn't have just happened. (b) Po-218 halos exist, when according to naturalistic, uniformitarian evolution, they cannot. (c) Soft tissue and red blood cells have been found in dinosaur bones, showing they're not that old. (d) Protein content of dinosaur bones is way too high, considering the half life of protein molecules. Etc., etc.
The difficulty is that many skeptics have tried to discount the scientific evidence by saying that one day an answer may be found. That isn't good enough. The science already points to several obvious, inevitable conclusions. The skeptic is trying to ignore what the science says today in the hopes that the science tomorrow may say something different. Why won't they simply acknowledge the possibility that God created everything?
@CesarPhilosophe Your comment sounds as if you are treating nature itself and/or science itself as a god in which you have a lot of faith. Here we have clear, unmistakable, scientific evidence in support of creation, and you propose that science one day, somehow will be able to explain it all away.
But consider that during the last 40+ years science has nailed these issues down tighter and tighter, and skeptics and atheists have come up with nothing to refute them with.
For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the YHWH. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Scientists need to focus on the basic truth: something does not come from nothing. It violates scientific law. Start there, and accept that something must have always been there! ei- God
Great video. From the comments it can be seen that the typical American is just a government brainwashed sheep that is incapable of independent thought. Of course there is a reason that these sheep desire to not believe the Bible. They want to live their sinful lives thinking that they can put their heads into the sands of evolution and hide from God or be able to plead ignorance at judgement day.
Critics of Gentry have pointed out that Po-218 is a decay product of radon, which as a gas can be given off by a grain of uranium in one part of the rock and collected in another part of the rock to form a uraniumless halo. Gentry's examples rely on a radon ring that is close to the Po-210 ring and it is a bit difficult to tell them apart, and it is not certain whether the rings can be positively associated with polonium.[1]
One has to wonder why this point keeps coming up even though it was refuted years ago.
While Po-210 rings are indistinguishable from Rn-222 rings in mica, they are distinguishable in fluorite. This is proven by examining U-238 halos in fluorite. See the pictures in the 1974 Science report at Gentry's HALOS website, and in Plate 6 in the radiohalo catalog in the back of Gentry's book on the same site.
Secondly, if a Po-210 halo was really a Rn-222 halo, then one would expect to see Po-214 and Po-218 rings as well. A well-exposed Po-210 halo that consists of only a Po-210 ring cannot therefore be a Rn-222 halo, since the Po-214 and Po-218 rings are missing.
Lastly, Rn is inert, and there is therefore no mechanism whereby Rn could concentrate in a tiny little space in order to form a Rn-222 halo.
Also, the absence of fossil alpha-recoil tracks around the Po halo centers shows that there was no diffusion of Rn-222 into the rock to the vicinity of those halo centers.
Yes he has on his website. He basically challenges Thomas to publish his findings in a scientific journal. Other than that I have responded to his paper a little more directly on my myspace /nothingwilldie blog.
IMHO we can't answer the question at present, we can only speculate and 'make believe'. Give us another million years to explore every facet of existence and we will likely be closer to an answer.
My speculation is that there is a creative force behind the universe, but I don't even think it is sentient or self-aware. My evidence is that there is far too much 'order' in the universe to be accidental or a coincidence.
skyblazer7 5 months ago
@skyblazer7 If it's not sentient or self aware...then explain why we (created in G-d's Image) can appreciate beauty outside of necessity... The only functional advantage of beauty is to attract in order to benefit the plant/animal... Yet WE perceive beauty outside these prerequisites, without that beauty doing ANYTHING to benefit itself, from our observation. We find galaxies in the sky beautiful...we find butterflies beautiful, we find poisonous plants beautiful... Why?
GodHasNOMother 3 months ago
@skyblazer7 I personally feel that if we do not have the answers ourselves, and someone presents us with this kind of evidence,...the only LOGICAL conclusion to come to is to accept the explanation at face value. No one can tell me that something is NOT...when they cannot tell me what it IS... To know the difference one has to know both options, or there is nothing to compare it with in order to come to the conclusion that it is NOT.
GodHasNOMother 3 months ago
so his most reasonable and rational explanation is that god created all granite in seconds? ok sure.
headchip26 7 months ago
XD sry, nope.
/wiki/File:Decay_chain%284n%2B2,_Uranium_series%29.PNG
paste this after "org" in wikipedia
Po-218 is part of a huge decay chain.
if any one of its precursors is present in the liquid rock, especially U-238 (half life of 4.6 bil. years), polonium 218 would eventually exist in the rock.
in the SOLID rock.
nice try, but no dice.
SymphoDeProggy 8 months ago
@SymphoDeProggy Yes, look at the U-238 decay chain. In equilibrium, the ratio of isotopes is the same as or similar to the ratio of their half-lives, as I recall. Thus, the Po-218, if derived naturally from U-238, should produce a halo that also has a U-238 ring, unless transport has taken place.
But transport is a problem: (a) If the rock is too hot, the transported Po will not form a halo. (b) Absence of fossil alpha recoil tracks shows transport never took place.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing
i've read your comments on a similar video.
i'm quite obviously outmatched, so i'd lose a debate regardless of who's actually right.
maybe in a few years, when i've more knowledge to draw upon :)
but while i've got you, i'd like some clarification.
you accept variable decay rates as an explanation to the decay of U-238, solely on the fact that it hasn't been proven to be impossible.
well, what's stopping the same variability from existing in Po isotopes ?
SymphoDeProggy 8 months ago
@SymphoDeProggy Read through the scientific reports in the back of Gentry's book, and you'll be up to speed pretty quick.
There are a number of reasons why decay rates must have been altered in the past, not just one reason, and that alteration could have been in proportion to the current half life, so that long-lived isotopes had the most alteration.
The real question is whether uniformitarianism is a viable presupposition. Without it evolution crumbles.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing
assuming variable decay rates, Po isotopes could just as easily have decayed at a rate of millions to billions of years, making it impossible to draw any conclusion these halos.
another question, but this one's more general.
i've read that variable decay rates would make assigning an isotope to a halo impossible.
is it true ?
by context i'm guessing you're of the position that this is not true.
so why is this not true ?
SymphoDeProggy 8 months ago
@SymphoDeProggy (1) If Po decayed that slow, then uniformitarianism and evolution are dead.
(2) Halo diameters depend on the energy of the alpha particle emissions. These energies today are in reverse proportion to the half-life. Those who raise this point assume that any alteration of the half-life would not touch the current half-life to energy relationship.
And because of this uniformitarian-like assumption, they ignore the obvious implications of the scientific data.
Make sense?
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing
(1) uniformitariarism is obvious. why evolution?
it still has plenty of other verification methods. most of which have nothing to do with dating (ERVs, comparative anatomy, nuclear and mitochondrial DNA analysis) and all of which sync up.
now that i think of it, this raises another question.
if dating methods don't work because of rate variation, wouldn't they be out of sync with phylogenetic trees constructed through other fields ?
SymphoDeProggy 8 months ago
@SymphoDeProggy Delve into these other areas, and you'll find they aren't as solid as what they're made out to be.
Would you expect to find similarities in DNA and anatomy if there was a common Creator? Of course! So the key is to look for everything that can only fit one model, not both.
If descendant's traits predate the ancestors, the tree is fiction.
U/Pb ratios in U halos is Jurassic & Triassic coalified wood show that those strata are young. The fossils in them cannot be older.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing
similarities don't mean much.
the phylogenetic trees as constructed through progression of traits, not similarity of traits.
it's this visible progression that is the basis of evolution, not the mere similarity animals.
as for dating methods...
science is statistics, so i'd want to see the ratio of "young" Jurassic coalified wood compared to "old" Jurassic found.
you wouldn't happen to have that handy, would ya ?
SymphoDeProggy 8 months ago
@SymphoDeProggy Yet at times the traits of alleged descendants existed before the alleged ancestors.
Regarding the coalified wood U halo ratios, see halos dot com/reports/science-1976-coalified-wood.htm
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing
while we're on dating methods...
there are non radiometric dating methods.
biological dating methods (gov. by electromagnetic force) and astronomical dating methods (gov. by gravity)
and they sync up with the established radiometric methods.
wouldn't a young earth also demand independent variation in all these methods ?
that's an awful lot of assuming just to explain some halo rings.
makes more sense to invoke Occam and look for a less interdependent explanation.
SymphoDeProggy 8 months ago
@SymphoDeProggy What many do not realize is that the dates are often made to sync with preconceived ideas, so it isn't enough for someone to just assert that various dating methods all agree.
To illustrate my point, see educatetruthDOTcom /la-sierra-evidence/radiometric-dating-can-be-very-tuff where the same formation was dated at .5 to 230 my. Too much subjectivity.
It's not just Po halos. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones is also a problem.
We all tend to see what we are looking for.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
@PicklePublishing
(2) well i imagine the reason for that is that you're now forced to assume variation in two different coefficients. seems both ungainly and unlikely.
i read that in order for variable rates to produce the results we see all radioisotopes must be corrected with different coefficients.
so, U-238 would have to have decayed X*4 the rate of K-40.
if the change in rate was uniform... that's one thing
it'd be much more reasonable to swallow than every isotope varying independently
SymphoDeProggy 8 months ago
@SymphoDeProggy (a) It depends on the mechanism by which rates are increased.
(b) If the rate change were proportional to current rates, it be as easy to swallow as anything about radioactivity, quantum physics, or subatomic particles. And much easier to swallow than evolution, which requires a huge leap of faith.
One scientist stated that the complexity of the inner workings of a cell is such that if it was known in Darwin's day, evolution would have been considered a joke.
PicklePublishing 8 months ago
nice vid but ive heard of this evidence b4 i saw the video and there is alot more evidence for creation
mygutshurt1878 9 months ago
The man is a genius.
AtheistSpanker 9 months ago
evolution just got pwned
gjthewise 11 months ago
religion always try to rob our money.....if this is so shocking..how come it's not free!?
gkcnae 1 year ago
@gkcnae How come scientists who are believers in evolutionism don't do their research for free? How come they apply for grants? How come they don't teach for free? How come evolutionary books and videos aren't free?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing I'm pretty sure most scientists don't sell their scientific theorems to the public for quick money. This guy is making a ton of assumptions based on flawed knowledge of scientific principles, I want to see more proof on his theories than a mystical DVD I can buy off the internet. He says the scientific proof is there, but fails to present any solid proof at all. I'm not saying he hasn't found these Po-218 halos, I just think he's making too many assumptions on such little facts
brodersami 1 year ago
@brodersami I think you are mistaken. If Gentry had a "flawed knowledge," he would not have gotten so many articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Read his reports at halos.com/reports/
Most scientists have to make a living somehow. In Gentry's case, one can see all his videos for free at halos.com/videos/streaming-video.htm. Buying the DVDs helps his research continue, but his greatest concern is to get these important findings out there.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
Coming close to scientificaly proving the existence of God is going to be found in a mathematical formula produced out of Quantum Physics. I read that somewhere. Sounds good to me.
Mrgalacticone 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe
interestingly enough, there IS evolutionary programing, which actually DOES rely on random mutations within code to produce new viable code.
pyr666 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe You're the one who asked me how God created everything. The best I can tell you is what He Himself said, which is that He created everything by His word.
Like I said before, if you need more detail, ask Him yourself. He hasn't made me privy to more detail than what I gave.
Asking for a detailed description of processes that don't exist today is probably similar to asking by what mechanism the Big Bang took place.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe You're not making sense, or you are trying to evade the obvious.
Creationists cannot explain in detail how God created the world using processes that do not exist today, simply because those processes cannot be observed since they do not exist today.
But what does exist today are today's scientific laws, according to which Po-218 halos cannot exist. The humble thing to do is to give God the glory for His creative power, rather than to deny His existence and involvement.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe
No repetition necessary. Just come up with a naturalistic explanation for the existence of Po-218 halos.
Otherwise, Po-218 halos shall continue to remain unrefuted evidence of creation, as they have been for decades, since according to established scientific laws, Po-218 halos cannot be formed using today's natural processes.
Uniformitarianism is therefore decisively falsified and refuted.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe
So then, what is your proposal for a naturalistic process for instantly crystallizing the rock?
If you can't come up with one, and coming up with one is definitively barred by established scientific law, then the only other possibility is a supernatural process, whether atheists and skeptics like it or not.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe Scientifically, as already explained, we must conclude that the rocks containing the Po-218 halos crystallized instantly.
You and I both can't explain how that happened using natural processes. The difference is that presently, I am willing and you are unwilling to consider the possibility that supernatural processes are what instantly crystallized the rock.
I think, then, that the burden is on you to come up with a naturalistic process for instantly crystallizing the rock.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe
I think you're the one going round and round, and have yet to directly overcome what I have written.
God is not a non-explanation. That's a pretty disrespectful thing to say about your Creator, even if you don't think he exists.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I thought you were saying that science is limited to naturalistic explanations.
Since the evidence does add up, conclusively, I'm not sure what the issue is.
We can measure the half life of Po-218. We can detect the effect of heat on radiohalos. We can measure the rate of diffusion. We can count the number of alpha-recoil tracks. We know the chemical properties of Rn. The evidence is in, and the verdict is: Creation.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe In other words, I don't see how, at least this side of heaven, we are going to get to know all the nitty gritty of exactly how God created everything, how His Word is so powerful that things just pop into existence because He says so.
But we can know now that that is how everything came to be, since naturalistic processes cannot explain everything, such as Po-218 halos, and many other things.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe Perhaps you don't understand as well. True science does not rule out the existence of God or miracles or His involvement in His creation.
Consider the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden. There was a certain knowledge that Adam and Eve were not permitted to have, which they decided to obtain anyway in direct disobedience to God. What a mess we've been in since then!
Deut. 29:29 is a key verse. What is revealed belongs to us, and what is secret belongs to God.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe According to your logic, there can never be any evidence of creation because if it is impossible to use today's natural processes to produce a phenomena, it's just a mystery we have no explanation for yet.
I disagree.
And I don't get your question about the mechanism God used. He said He created everything through His Word, but you seem to want to know in greater detail how He did it. But He hasn't revealed everything. Like I said before, ask Him if you want to know more.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe There are a number of lines of evidence I can describe. The Po halos is just one.
While evolutionists want to call them a tiny mystery, there's not much mystery there. The half-life of Po-218 is known. The rock containing the Po-218 halos must have crystallized instantly, since there is no way the Po-218 could have diffused into the rock before decaying.
You only want to call it a mystery because you are resisting the obvious conclusions. But you can't refute the science.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe You asked what mechanism God used to create the world. I wasn't there, so I can't tell you firsthand. But God did say that He spoke everything into existence. That's the best answer I know of to your question.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe The mountains of evidence are riddled with assumptions that must be tested. The Po halos provide a basis for testing some of those assumptions. If evolutionists refuse to test those assumptions, that refusal takes the questions out of the realm of science.
The laws of physics dictate that Po-218 halos not exist if the earth cooled slowly from a melt. Po-218 halos exist. Therefore, the earth did not cool slowly from a melt.
Science at its basics.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe Easy for anyone (like Wilkerson) to say, but harder to logically substantiate.
If you mean that Rn-22 is thought to have produced the Po halos, there is no Rn-222 ring in Po halos in fluorite, showing it wasn't there. There is no excess of alpha-recoil tracks near halo centers, showing there was no flow of Rn-222 toward halo centers. Rn is inert, so nothing would cause it to collect in the centers anyway.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe I'll repeat: The scientific explanation for the existence of Po-218 halos is that the rock in which they are found was crystallized instantly.
I wonder if you are saying that any scientific explanation that implies the involvement of God cannot possibly be really considered an explanation. If that is what you are saying, then you will not ever be satisfied with anything short of an atheistic explanation. That doesn't sound very open-minded, or scientific.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe I'm not taking God's word for it without evidence. I never said that I was.
Sure, Po-218 halos have been explained by science. Get Gentry's book and read all about it, particularly the reprinted peer-reviewed articles in the appendix. The Po-218 halos could only exist if the rock they are in crystallized instantly. That's a definitive scientific conclusion.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe I didn't describe it that way. It's a tiny mystery that is easily explained.
Based on known scientific laws, the Po-218 halos are evidence of instantaneous creation of the bedrock of the planet, because anything much slower than that would make it impossible for the Po-218 halos to exist.
I don't know what about all of that we aren't able to explain.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe I still think I answered your question.
He said He created everything through His Word. Therefore, His Word was the "mechanism" He used to create everything.
Taking His word for it, to me that is not the same as assuming.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe (a) Before natural selection can do anything, you have to have mutations produce something viable that can then be selected. And that's where a serious problem lies.
(b) I already answered your question. God said that He created everything through His word. Remember?
If you want to go beyond that and get into more detail, why not ask Him yourself?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe (a) Yes, you referred to naturalistic processes, which referred to whatever I was referring to. Thus my comment applies.
(b) Gentry's initial research on Po halos dates back to the '60's. Far more recent than 200 years.
I suggest you deal with the facts rather than the age of the facts. Otherwise, we might as well toss out everything Darwin said since it's just old and tired stuff.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe By definition, random mutations are blind chance.
I highly doubt that discussions about sequence space are old and tired arguments.
Random mutations within computer code do not produce viable new species of computer programs. What makes you think that random mutations within the genetic code is so drastically different?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe If naturalistic processes driven by blind chance cannot explain what we see, then intelligent design must be considered.
Just looking at the science presented by the Gentrys, scientific evidence points to earth's bedrock crystallizing instantly, the Precambrian granites being but thousands of years old, everything higher than that being younger, Jurassic and Triassic strata being the same age and but thousands of years old, etc.
Sounds like evidence of a Creator to me.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe (a) If a researcher doesn't think that's evidence of a creator, he's either misinformed or biased.
(b) No evolutionist to my knowledge has ever laid out an evolutionary scenario that accounts for the complex cellular processes we now know exist.
I think Pitman's book, Turtles All the Way Down, explains well the impossibility of relying on random mutation.
(c) The Bible says that God spake and it was done, He commanded and it stood fast. So He used the power of His Word.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe Sure, the evidence more than adds up, to the objective, unbiased researcher. (a) Cellular processes are so incredibly complex, they couldn't have just happened. (b) Po-218 halos exist, when according to naturalistic, uniformitarian evolution, they cannot. (c) Soft tissue and red blood cells have been found in dinosaur bones, showing they're not that old. (d) Protein content of dinosaur bones is way too high, considering the half life of protein molecules. Etc., etc.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe Thank you for pointing out your wording.
The difficulty is that many skeptics have tried to discount the scientific evidence by saying that one day an answer may be found. That isn't good enough. The science already points to several obvious, inevitable conclusions. The skeptic is trying to ignore what the science says today in the hopes that the science tomorrow may say something different. Why won't they simply acknowledge the possibility that God created everything?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@CesarPhilosophe Your comment sounds as if you are treating nature itself and/or science itself as a god in which you have a lot of faith. Here we have clear, unmistakable, scientific evidence in support of creation, and you propose that science one day, somehow will be able to explain it all away.
But consider that during the last 40+ years science has nailed these issues down tighter and tighter, and skeptics and atheists have come up with nothing to refute them with.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
Um... Rapid Cooling?
FilmPA 2 years ago
@FilmPA from millions of degrees?
silentpimpsmak 1 year ago
@silentpimpsmak I don't think we have a way to determine precisely what the temperature was of the primeval fluids at the beginning of creation week.
Perhaps a simpler and more accurate way to put it is rapid crystallization.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the YHWH. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
repotinter 2 years ago
Scientists need to focus on the basic truth: something does not come from nothing. It violates scientific law. Start there, and accept that something must have always been there! ei- God
0004797466 3 years ago
Could you list some neutral websites as I'd like to examine both sides. Thanks.
NancyxEldridge 3 years ago 11
We need these books and videos to 1) solidify our faith, and 2) to give us defense against those who will attack our faith.
euphfellowship 3 years ago
Great video. From the comments it can be seen that the typical American is just a government brainwashed sheep that is incapable of independent thought. Of course there is a reason that these sheep desire to not believe the Bible. They want to live their sinful lives thinking that they can put their heads into the sands of evolution and hide from God or be able to plead ignorance at judgement day.
thechessstick 4 years ago
Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; ...
Psa 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: ...
Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Deu 32:5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.
sleanos 4 years ago
Quite helpful. Love the video.
Nevaehlegna777 4 years ago
Critics of Gentry have pointed out that Po-218 is a decay product of radon, which as a gas can be given off by a grain of uranium in one part of the rock and collected in another part of the rock to form a uraniumless halo. Gentry's examples rely on a radon ring that is close to the Po-210 ring and it is a bit difficult to tell them apart, and it is not certain whether the rings can be positively associated with polonium.[1]
arjaneds 4 years ago
One has to wonder why this point keeps coming up even though it was refuted years ago.
While Po-210 rings are indistinguishable from Rn-222 rings in mica, they are distinguishable in fluorite. This is proven by examining U-238 halos in fluorite. See the pictures in the 1974 Science report at Gentry's HALOS website, and in Plate 6 in the radiohalo catalog in the back of Gentry's book on the same site.
PicklePublishing 2 years ago
Secondly, if a Po-210 halo was really a Rn-222 halo, then one would expect to see Po-214 and Po-218 rings as well. A well-exposed Po-210 halo that consists of only a Po-210 ring cannot therefore be a Rn-222 halo, since the Po-214 and Po-218 rings are missing.
Lastly, Rn is inert, and there is therefore no mechanism whereby Rn could concentrate in a tiny little space in order to form a Rn-222 halo.
PicklePublishing 2 years ago
Also, the absence of fossil alpha-recoil tracks around the Po halo centers shows that there was no diffusion of Rn-222 into the rock to the vicinity of those halo centers.
PicklePublishing 2 years ago
For that last point, see the 1968 article at halos com from the journal Science. Click reports and then click the first article in the list.
PicklePublishing 2 years ago
Have you ever responded formally to Thomas A. Baillieul's "Polonium Haloes refuted"?
lourak 4 years ago
Yes he has on his website. He basically challenges Thomas to publish his findings in a scientific journal. Other than that I have responded to his paper a little more directly on my myspace /nothingwilldie blog.
owchywawa 4 years ago
GREAT video! Thank you so much for posting it!
fister10 4 years ago
very interesting, nice job
pjdtoshi 5 years ago