Dover and the evolution of the anti-evolution movement 4of6

[djarm67]

"No one has ever said for sure how those halos have formed."

Gentry concluded that the halos were caused by Polonium decay. However, don't the above points refute his conclusions?

The absence of a clear understanding of the mechanism of the origin of these specific halos via repeatable experimentation, does not automatically support his conclusion that it was Polonium decay.

[Hooya2]

Lulz nice copy-paste from Talk Origins.

I know it's a scientific website with peer-reviewed references and I think under a CCL but I still feel kinda uncomfortable copying directly from it.

[Hooya2]

Scratch that last comment XD

[djarm67]

3. All of the locations Gentry examined show evidence of an extensive history predating the formation of the micas; they show an appearance of age older than the three minutes his polonium halo theory allows.

4. Stromatolites are found in rocks intruded by (and therefore older than) the dikes from which Gentry's samples came, showing that living things existed before the rocks that Gentry claimed were primordial

[djarm67]

1. The biotite in which Gentry (1986) obtained some of his samples (Fission Mine and Silver Crater locations) was not from granite, but from a calcite dike.

2. The biotite formed metamorphically as minerals in the walls of the dike migrated into the calcite. Biotite from the Faraday Mine came from a granite pegmatite that intruded a paragneiss that formed from highly metamorphosed sediments.

[mejc2]

Wakefield, J. Richard. 1998. The geology of Gentry's "tiny mystery". Journal of Geological Education 36 (May): 161-175.

That is the paper you cited and it is the paper that I read. I know that my genius status at least affords me the ability to read. Also the quote is from the very same paper. You are corrcect in the begining of the paper he does act as if the problem is solved but in the end he is honest and admits that he can't account for the halos. He is hopeful that someone will.

[Hooya2]

Genius status--rofl.

You're right, I did a search find before and missed it, not sure how.

But I find it amusing that you completely ignore what he said afterwards:

"There are several lines of evidence supporting the idea that a uranium-rich fluid precipitated the Polonium:

1. The very fact that Gentry's halos occur in areas of unusually high uranium mineraliration and metamorphism...

2. There are no halos for the thorium decay chain...

[Hooya2]

"3. No halos have been found in lunar rocks:

4. The dikes of the sites listed above have different origins...

5. The uranium mineralization is primarily a precipitation event...near the contact of the wall-rock...in the case of the Faraday pegmatite (Masson and Gordon, 1981);

6. Oxygenated fluids rich in fluorine [etc.] readily dissolve uranium and increase the fluid's mobility (Masson and Gordon, 1981)."

The way creationists pick and choose evidence never ceases to amaze me.

[mejc2]

1. you gave me the citing

2. I read it and quoted it

3. you accussed me of reading the wrong paper

4. I corrected you

5. you come back with a ream of shit about possible explanations for the halos Gentry has found. I admit there are possibilities but No one has ever said for sure how those halos have formed.

[Hooya2]

I've told you, there is a theory proposed by Wakefield--that free radon in the rock caused those rings. I quoted the lines of evidence Wakefield uses to support this argument.

Really mejc, it's like you're not even reading the same paper I am. Go back and read it from beginning to end--right from the start he proposes the Radon hypothesis and uses the geology of the sample to support his argument.

Quote-mining won't change what the paper actually says.

[mejc2]

Quote mining? How dare you! You gave me the paper to look at. Although he does present Hypotheses about how to discredit Gentry He admits "it does not explain the apparent occurrence of the Po halos as described by Gentry." It is you that chooses NOT to accept the conclusion of the very paper you recomended I read. I did not go out looking for it you told me to read it and now you don't like what it says so I am quote mining. SHEESH!

[Hooya2]

Mejc, Wakefield's point is that the "the apparent occurrence of the Po halos as described by Gentry" NEVER HAPPENED! Gentry DID NOT FIND THE HALOS IN THE ROCK HE CLAIMED HE DID.

Read the whole paper.

[mejc2]

Talk to Robert Gentry who did testify and isn't mentioned in this video. Also ask Robert Gentry about the pressure put on him to withdraw from the case. Then you will see who is lying through thier teeth.

[Hooya2]

"Talk to Robert Gentry who did testify and isn't mentioned in this video."

Uh no Gentry did not testify in Kitzmiller, he did testify in McLean and attend the Kitzmiller trial, but didn't testify in Kitzmiller--you might want to watch your research there kid.

[mejc2]

My apologies. However, he did testify once, pressure was put on him to withdraw, and his testimony was unrefuted. sorry for mixxing up the cases.

[Hooya2]

Are you kidding? Dalrymple spent a good hour refuting Gentry's arguments! They pretty much implode when you realize that Polonium-218 comes from decaying Radon in the Uranium-Lead decay chain.

It's Gentry who's never tried to defeat this argument--all he would have to do is show some halos in rock that is neither porous or fractured, to prove that it couldn't be free radon making the rings, but he just ignores the challenges.

[mejc2]

have you cheked his web site I seem to remember him answering the fractured and porus rock arguments. I'll check that myself again though. let me know what you find out.

[Hooya2]

He has "answered"--he's said that such halos, in rocks without cracks, exist. And yet for some reason he can't produce one, or even a picture a one.

Like I said, all he has to do is show halos in fractureless rock--yet he can't produce one.

[mejc2]

has anyone written a peer reviewed article refuting his findings. He claims no one has. According to you, it seems quite easy, I would think that geologists would jump at the chance to be published in major journals.

[Hooya2]

I only found a few dealing directly with the Polonium Halos--done by Lorence Collins and John Brawley. The most comprehensive one was an article by Richard Wakefield. The citation is: Wakefield, J. Richard. 1998. The geology of Gentry's "tiny mystery". Journal of Geological Education 36 (May): 161-175

[mejc2]

Thanks a lot. I will check it out and call him to the carpet on it.

[mejc2]

Although the geology of the three sites discussed above conclusively disproves Gentry's claims of instant creation of the 'primordial basement rocks,' it does not explain the apparent occurrence of the Po halos as described by Gentry. But this does not mean that there are no explanations. "Clearly there will be a more logical and scientific explanation, perhaps including misidentification of the halos themselves due to sectioning other than through the centre of the sphere. (Hastings, 1987b) "

[mejc2]

The above is a quote from Wakefields paper. Although he seems confident that the halos discount instant creation, he doesn't present evidence for the creation of the halos.

It's not exactly a refutation but it can cast doubt on the subject. In his book Gentry does deal with some of the topics raised by wakefield, but doesn't mention wakefield specifically.

[Hooya2]

"The above is a quote from Wakefields paper."

Not the paper I cited to you. The paper I cited contains an explanation for the rings--radon gas--within the first couple pages, and spends the rest of the time pointing out how the surrounding geology supports that conclusion.

[Desertphile]

"Dalrymple spent a good hour refuting Gentry's arguments!"

I spent five minutes refuting Gentry's arguments. Also note that Gentry *LIED* about where he got his granite samples.

[mejc2]

Hey DP what are you doin here.

It's amazing how you guys are jumping all over poor Robert Gentry. I've looked at and read many reports on his work. some on internet rags like talk origins, some in published papers. However, I haven't seen anyting that actually refutes him. there are many suggestions and implications. One guy named DP actually said he lied about his sample locations. But no hard facts only accusations. Although he doesn't have any hard facts that prove rapid creation either

[Desertphile]

"It's amazing how you guys are jumping all over poor Robert Gentry."

That is how science works; if Gentry does not want his claims refuted, he should hide from scientists and science.

"However, I haven't seen anyting that actually refutes him."

Quantum physics refutes him; direct observation refutes him. Gentry's claims were known to be wrong even before he made them!

"One guy named DP actually said he lied about his sample locations."

I wrote that, and it is true. Gentry lied--->

[mejc2]

WOW DP! Did Gentry admit that to you? were you with him when he collected his samples? did you do extensive research on his samples?

You did? Wow your amazing.

Oh wait.or did you read something that said that they suspected him of wrong doing and now you are accepting the acusation as fact?

I personally don't know what he did or didn't do. Obviously you have some inside information. bully for you DP

[Hooya2]

The scientific examination of the evidence in peer-reviewed literature shows conclusively that Gentry's statements regarding where he got his samples were wrong. Whether he lied or not is up for debate, but his claims were not correct.

[Desertphile]

"Whether he lied or not is up for debate, but his claims were not correct."

Naw, Gentry lied about where he got at least one of his samples. He said his samples did not come from anywhere near uranium mines, when at least one of them is known to have come from a uranium mine--- and he knew it.

[mejc2]

oh, so one hof his samples came from somewhere near a uranium mine, but you didn't say that did you. you didn't say that he lied about the location of one of his samples did you. you said "Also note that Gentry *LIED* about where he got his granite samples." leading the reader to believe that all of his samples were from dubious origins.

DP I thought you had more character than that!

[Hooya2]

Mejc, are you really trying to argue that "Well, you can only prove that Gentry intentionally lied about one of his samples"? I mean seriously, does that sound like a good argument in your head?

[Desertphile]

"I mean seriously, does that sound like a good argument in your head?"

Well, that argument works for astrologers, "psychics," palm readers, etc., so it ought to work for Gentry. Just because they are caught lying from time to time, that doesn't mean they ALWAYS lie....

[Desertphile]

"oh, so one hof his samples came from somewhere near a uranium mine, but you didn't say that did you."

Yes, I did write that; as I mentioned, I continued the comment after the "--->" sign which is why I added the "--->" sign.

Gentry lied; Gentry repeated his lie after he was exposed as a liar; Gentry's accidentally exposed his own lie when he revealed the actual locations of his samples--- which he had at first refused to do. You are defending a lie: why?

[mejc2]

Actually, I only brought up gentry because he said he was pressured by the ACLU not to testify in a trial. I then found myself defending his science. I can tell you this, that I have read works of other scientists that cannot refute him. they have made many suppositions or provided many other hypotheses for the halos that he found but I have never read any serious refutation of his actual findings. Again, many suppositons and possibilites but no actual refutations.

[Hooya2]

"they have made many suppositions or provided many other hypotheses for the halos that he found but I have never read any serious refutation of his actual findings."

You don't even understand what a refutation is, do you? It's proposing an alternate hypothesis and then offering evidence that your alternate is more likely to be correct. The paper I cited you--the Wakefield paper--provides a refutation, as do several others.

[mejc2]

I do understand thank you very much. However, he does not offer evidence for all of Gentry's work Read it again Hooya if you don't believe me. He offers evidence for some of the samples.I apologize but I must repeat that in his conclusion he admits that he cannot account for Gentry's findings. I am putting way more effort into this than I ever wanted to Hooya. If wakefield is willing to state that further research is needed why aren't you?

[Hooya2]

"However, he does not offer evidence for all of Gentry's work" He proposed a hypothesis that could be applied to all of Gentry's work, and supported it with evidence for those sites he was able to reach. Do you have a peer-reviewed paper offering evidence that the other sites are different?

"I apologize but I must repeat that in his conclusion he admits that he cannot account for Gentry's findings." Funny that his entire paper is about accounting for Gentry's findings, isn't it? Damn liar.

[Hooya2]

"If wakefield is willing to state that further research is needed why aren't you?"

When has "further research" in geology ever been "needed" (lol)? I don't think we need the research in the first place, except for satisfying curiosity.

Of course Wakefield's paper does not 100% prove that all of Gentry's findings were wrong, and further research might even prove Wakefield wrong. I'm just arguing that 1.Gentry's arguments have been refuted and 2.Based on the current evidence, Gentry is wrong.

[mejc2]

I think you are a bit more positive about it than anyone that is published, including wakefield, but you are entitled to your opinion.

You're too easy Hooya!

C ya

[Hooya2]

I find it incredibly amusing that despite all your squirming you can't find a flaw in Wakefield's argument. Radon could have caused the halos; the geology supports that; and you can't defend yourself against it. All you can do is quote-mine him in hopes that I'll forget the actual argument.

Cya mejc.

[mejc2]

Keep your blind fold on Hooya. It helps you ignore the truth that is right in front of you. your own citing has done you in. the conclusion of the article is hardly quote mining. Wakefield admits it, you can't. too bad hooya, I had hoped you could become a real person some day.

you're too easy Hooya!

[Hooya2]

And you're still ignoring the actual argument! You really are a class act mej lol.

[mejc2]

Actually I am a class act.

Hooya you cited a paper I read it and it supported what I was saying and you can't stand it. turthfully it's really kinda funny.

You're too easy hooya

[Hooya2]

Rofl you can't answer the actual argument--we both know you can't--but I'm going to ask you for an answer again anyway.

Radon provides an alternative explanation for the halos. Geological evidence supports the radon theory. Papers showing this have been published in the peer-reviewed literature.

Explain to me why I should accept the polonium halo argument over the radon halo argument. Don't give me quote-mines; give me a summary of an actual argument from a peer-reviewed paper.

[Desertphile]

"WOW DP! Did Gentry admit that to you?"

No: he admitted it to his cult, accidently. I see my follow-up comment (after the "--->" is missing).

Myself and several dozen others explained to Gentry over 20 years ago why his "Po halos" were not Po halos, but resulted from cascading radon effects due to uranium decay; the uranium came from faulted inclusions after oro-metamorphic stasis and vulcanism--- not during. 20 years debunked and you clown still believe the lie!