This shows without a doubt that the evolution theory is false and unprovable, and that the only answer against that false religion is that God did indeed create the world. You are a man of integrity Dr Gentry, and I admire you for the gentlemanly way that you conducted yourself. Look again and see the bigger picture. God created all things and no one can prove otherwise.
There is nothing that will satisfy me more than the look on the face of Richard Dawkins when he wakes up after death on the day of judgment and sees my Lord Jesus. I am an engineer and I have a boss, very scientific person who always believed in evolution untill one day he had a NDE. He had lost all of his half bodily function and he was so close to death. He told me that when he was so close to death, he was scared to hell and prayed to God to give him his life back and God did.
What about all of the starving children that pray to god to have their lives back? What about the non-theist who is in a plane headed straight for a crash landing into the ground? What if that person prayed for their life back and another chance. But for some reason those 2 people died. So your boss lives but others die. I guess "god" picks and chooses all day, sounds like a gambling bastard to me. Gambling with peoples lives.
You can just say you don't respond to people who make sense while you are at it. That is what you truly mean. I would question any type of oppressor even if I am told not to question. I will not be led like a blind sheep.
All you said can be argued with a lot of sense, but I don't want to engage with someone who is willing to insult God calling Him "gambling bastard" and such..
Your God picks and chooses who he wants living for no apparent reason. And of course your boss wanted god, when humans get desperate, we will try anything to prolong our chance of survival. I would pray to something to. And that plane headed for the ground with all the people praying in it for a second chance gets blown into bits. Where the fuck are you God? But I guess its all part of the plan, right. Right?
"I cant force you to see it.. and even if I could I wouldn't.. that would make me just like you. "
That's astounding how the creationists reproach us their own faults.
It's them who absolutely want to break the laws of science to fit their belief, but when we prove them wrong, they say we are bending evidence to prove there is no god, which is not even our aim.
It's easy to know when a creationist is owned: It's when he starts insulting you.
Personally I was very disappointed when I learnt that Santa Claus was not existing, I was thinking it was a conspiracy...I still resent it! Is it the case for you too?
@hunchbacked This is a Good Start...but this proves that radiometric dating is totally false..so evolution is destroyed....there is evidence for the world wide flood....so for now..the evidence points to creation...no one has definite proof only overwhelming evidence...and this gentleman carries the day..obviously he is very smart...and a scientist...
@hunchbacked Could you explain how you can prove the earth is bililons of years ...step bye step...radiometric dating has been shown to be defunct....by this proof..so could you please tell me how a fossilized bone is billions of years...and do you know how quickly something needs to be buried without oxygen to become a fossil and not decompose...this is another evidence of a world wide flood...but no matter how much evidence is presented you will not change your mind...
@hunchbacked No it has been proven defunct....based on assumptions that cannot hold..which are faith based....obviously you know nothing of radiometric dating..but ..anyway..like I said no amount of evidence will convince you...
@hunchbacked it should be simple to explains as it is an obvious fact..according to evolutionists...never have been given an explanation..some evolutionists do not know what they believe...same as you..saying generalities does not refute the gentleman's evidence...and you are not even in college yet but you can refute this scientist...
It has been scientifically demonstrated that his theory is wrong, and there is a good article about that; I am not going to summarize it in a simple comment.
Now you use the same dumb arguments as the Moon landers, science ?. Science have never observed a species evolve, but science have observed by fossil digging, that species pop up out of the blue, 5 times all living above a few pound have been somehow wiped out, and brand new species have popped up. Your use of the word science is a disgrace to the word science. And it's dumb.
By the way, your denial of the fact that not anything like an evolution have ever been observed is irrational, you show yourself as a total irrational ordinary person, and you try to cover your stupidity by science.........
Plain real science is observation, and in the meaning of your word evolution, evolution have never been observed, your so-called science is a disgrace to thinking people.
"So either you prove that Radon is not involved in Po218 radiohalo formation or stop claiming this as evidence of a young earth. Either put up or shut up..."
You know how they'll prove it, CreationMyth?
They'll just quote some biblical verses, and as the bible can't be wrong, they'll have proven their point.
Seriously, I have already seen completely fucked up "scientific" books from creationists only made from biblical verses.
I've long given up on people like you that refuse to look at evidence and bend them to your ideology of "there is no god" crap.. what ever man, just live your life and leave me alone. Quite honestly, I'm more worried about this 700 billion dollar bail out that is about to happen. The affairs of your soul is your affair, not mine. I cant force you to see it.. and even if I could I wouldn't.. that would make me just like you.
"I've long given up on people like you that refuse to look at evidence and bend them to your ideology": this more or less sums up my entire positions on creationists. I just confronted you with the evidence but you have (not untypically) side-stepped the question. No one on here said there "there is no god" but some of us (who you will supprised to learn) also believe in a God but get a little pissed when we see "Christians" lying about the data. Ever heard of the 9th commandment ?
Its not due to lack of evidence that you refuse to see. We both know I can never prove that their is a God, but the evidence is there that points to him, or at least some higher thing that is bigger than us. All of the universe is in a state of chaos.. but evolution; either astrophysics or chemistry, biology or any of the other science wants me to believe that the chaos somehow produced order? I think not. I cant help you if you don't want to see.. thus the difference between you and I.
"he proved his point and provided evidence of an instantaneous creation."
Wrong he didn't.
There are flaws in his theory which has been exposed by other scientists, and he never gave any explanations for these flaws, and never will, put that into your obstinate head if you can.
Gentry's "falsification test", which he repeatedly hawks here, is totally spurious. If you take a piece of granite, grind it up and reheat it, what you get is an amorphized rock which has a microstructure which looks nothing like granite (rather like if you took a snowflake and tried to recreate it by heating and cooling). Granite can only be produced by slow hydrothermal cooling under extreme pressure using conditions virtually impossible to produce in the laboratory.
So if it is impossible to produce in a laboratory, that would mean it (the theory of how the earth formed) would fall short of what is commonly accepted scientific method .. I really wish you people would just fallow your logic or lack thereof and see how ridiculous your arguments are!
You clearly have no idea how difficult it is (note: difficult, not impossible) to crystallize a complex multicomponent system like granite under extreme hydrothermal pressure conditions in the laboratory. The reason no one has done it is because it would be extremely expensive. Instead of making strawman arguments may I ask you to actually look into this problem and find this out for yourself. Here's an idea - look into how difficult it is to how difficult it is to produce synthetic diamond.
No straw-man arguments here sir.. just pointing out the obvious. Now, you knowing how "difficult" it would be to "crystallize a complex multicomponent system like granite", should then at least explain how the got there? One more thing..we have made synthetic diamonds, why the scientific community has not crystallized granite is simple.. the evidence would kill their beloved "evolution".
You say "no straw man arguments here, sir" and yet you then go and invoke a strawman argument, i.e.: " why the scientific community has not crystallized granite is simple.. the evidence would kill their beloved "evolution"." - 24 carat strawman unless you can provide a citation for this, you have no proof of this argument and it is therefore worthless.
No sir.. have we or have we not made synthetic diamonds? Why then have we not crystallized granite? I find this very convenient for the "scientific community" since past "evidence" that was brought forth by creationist was quickly answered by this same "community." Now silence? In court that would be contempt.. I think.. I'm not a lawyer. lol! Are you a lawyer?
Well diamond consists of a single element (carbon), whereas granite consists of complex multiplicity of silica based minerals including quartz, plagioclase feldspars, potassium or K-feldspars, hornblende and micas - clearly you do not understand the complexity of the problem. And synthetic diamond in no way matches the quality of real diamond otherwise deBeers would have gone out of business years ago. As all of Gentry's claims were adequately refuted years ago, especially regarded halos,
Actually Gentry proved that the polonium halos were not part of the uranium decay chain, and he did so by finding polonium halos that were part of the decay chain of uranium and some that had no trace of uranium in them, and by showing the difference between the two different ways they form, he proved his point and provided evidence of an instantaneous creation. When researching, it helps to go to the original material, Gentry's peer reviewed papers and his book "creation's tiny mystery".
"Baillieul...and....Brawley...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...to form a uraniumless halo. Apparently a large number of radon atoms are caught or adsorbed at a particular point. This has not been proved experimentally, but is supported by the fact that Gentry's "polonium halos" are found along microscopic cracks...that also contain uranium halos (Wakefield 1988)"
From w w w . nationmaster . com / encyclopedia / Polonium_halo
So either you prove that Radon is not involved in Po218 radiohalo formation or stop claiming this as evidence of a young earth. Either put up or shut up...
This shows without a doubt that the evolution theory is false and unprovable, and that the only answer against that false religion is that God did indeed create the world. You are a man of integrity Dr Gentry, and I admire you for the gentlemanly way that you conducted yourself. Look again and see the bigger picture. God created all things and no one can prove otherwise.
staloneuk 5 months ago
after reading several of the comments, I'd like to suggest a book i read recently called "Letters from a skeptic" by Boyd
ffbrogdon 11 months ago
There is nothing that will satisfy me more than the look on the face of Richard Dawkins when he wakes up after death on the day of judgment and sees my Lord Jesus. I am an engineer and I have a boss, very scientific person who always believed in evolution untill one day he had a NDE. He had lost all of his half bodily function and he was so close to death. He told me that when he was so close to death, he was scared to hell and prayed to God to give him his life back and God did.
dooVoob 3 years ago 7
What about all of the starving children that pray to god to have their lives back? What about the non-theist who is in a plane headed straight for a crash landing into the ground? What if that person prayed for their life back and another chance. But for some reason those 2 people died. So your boss lives but others die. I guess "god" picks and chooses all day, sounds like a gambling bastard to me. Gambling with peoples lives.
thespecter2 2 years ago
Sorry I don't respond to people who insult God..
Hope you find the Truth though..
God bless!
dooVoob 2 years ago
You can just say you don't respond to people who make sense while you are at it. That is what you truly mean. I would question any type of oppressor even if I am told not to question. I will not be led like a blind sheep.
thespecter2 2 years ago
All you said can be argued with a lot of sense, but I don't want to engage with someone who is willing to insult God calling Him "gambling bastard" and such..
Jesus said not to do that..
Take care!
dooVoob 2 years ago
Your God picks and chooses who he wants living for no apparent reason. And of course your boss wanted god, when humans get desperate, we will try anything to prolong our chance of survival. I would pray to something to. And that plane headed for the ground with all the people praying in it for a second chance gets blown into bits. Where the fuck are you God? But I guess its all part of the plan, right. Right?
thespecter2 2 years ago
"I've long given up on people like you that refuse to look at evidence and bend them to your ideology of "there is no god" crap.. "
The problem is not whether there is a god or not.
The problem is to remain honest, and not bend science to make it fit with one's belief.
I don't say God doesn't exist, I just think he doesn't exist the way the creationists want him to exist; but that's something for you hard to accept.
What's important in one's life is to remain righteous.
hunchbacked 3 years ago
"I cant force you to see it.. and even if I could I wouldn't.. that would make me just like you. "
That's astounding how the creationists reproach us their own faults.
It's them who absolutely want to break the laws of science to fit their belief, but when we prove them wrong, they say we are bending evidence to prove there is no god, which is not even our aim.
It's easy to know when a creationist is owned: It's when he starts insulting you.
hunchbacked 3 years ago
ROFL !!
CreationMyths3 3 years ago
ROFL back!
Creationists are fun.
Not bad guys (for most), but brainwashed.
Personally I was very disappointed when I learnt that Santa Claus was not existing, I was thinking it was a conspiracy...I still resent it! Is it the case for you too?
hunchbacked 3 years ago
@hunchbacked you are describing yourself..lol..God bless you....
RunColorado100 1 month ago
@RunColorado100
You really believe in this, that Gentry proved that the earth is young?
hunchbacked 1 month ago
@hunchbacked This is a Good Start...but this proves that radiometric dating is totally false..so evolution is destroyed....there is evidence for the world wide flood....so for now..the evidence points to creation...no one has definite proof only overwhelming evidence...and this gentleman carries the day..obviously he is very smart...and a scientist...
RunColorado100 1 month ago
@RunColorado100
A scientist who has lost his mind.
He has proven absolutely nothing.
There is not the least proof for a young earth, absolutely nothing.
On the other side, there are many proofs that the earth is very old, several billion years old.
hunchbacked 1 month ago
@hunchbacked Could you explain how you can prove the earth is bililons of years ...step bye step...radiometric dating has been shown to be defunct....by this proof..so could you please tell me how a fossilized bone is billions of years...and do you know how quickly something needs to be buried without oxygen to become a fossil and not decompose...this is another evidence of a world wide flood...but no matter how much evidence is presented you will not change your mind...
RunColorado100 1 month ago
@RunColorado100
No radiometric dating has not been proven to de defunc; radiometric dating has only a margin of error, but remains globally correct.
hunchbacked 1 month ago
@hunchbacked No it has been proven defunct....based on assumptions that cannot hold..which are faith based....obviously you know nothing of radiometric dating..but ..anyway..like I said no amount of evidence will convince you...
RunColorado100 1 month ago
@hunchbacked it should be simple to explains as it is an obvious fact..according to evolutionists...never have been given an explanation..some evolutionists do not know what they believe...same as you..saying generalities does not refute the gentleman's evidence...and you are not even in college yet but you can refute this scientist...
RunColorado100 1 month ago
@RunColorado100
It has been scientifically demonstrated that his theory is wrong, and there is a good article about that; I am not going to summarize it in a simple comment.
hunchbacked 1 month ago
@RunColorado100
I am not even in college?
I have done very high engineer studies.
hunchbacked 1 month ago
@hunchbacked Liar...lol...wow..you are one sorry troll...
RunColorado100 1 month ago
@hunchbacked I do not believe the lunar landing happened..either...
RunColorado100 1 month ago
@RunColorado100
I can see that we have something in common.
But I don't doubt the moon landings for a religious reason, only because I can see many incoherences in them.
hunchbacked 1 month ago
@hunchbacked I see the same incoherence's in evolution...but anyway...we agree on something...
RunColorado100 1 month ago
@RunColorado100
I am going to tell you something: I find the creationists less irritating than the Apollo believers.
hunchbacked 1 month ago
@hunchbacked
But you don't see any incoherences in your Evolution, not at all ?
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen
There are people who believe in moon landings but not creationism.
There are people who believe in creationism but not moon landings.
I am a miscreant who believes neither in one nor the other.
But that does not mean I believe in nothing; I believe in science, but plain real science.
I believe in what is rational.
hunchbacked 1 month ago
@hunchbacked
Now you use the same dumb arguments as the Moon landers, science ?. Science have never observed a species evolve, but science have observed by fossil digging, that species pop up out of the blue, 5 times all living above a few pound have been somehow wiped out, and brand new species have popped up. Your use of the word science is a disgrace to the word science. And it's dumb.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@hunchbacked
By the way, your denial of the fact that not anything like an evolution have ever been observed is irrational, you show yourself as a total irrational ordinary person, and you try to cover your stupidity by science.........
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@hunchbacked
Plain real science is observation, and in the meaning of your word evolution, evolution have never been observed, your so-called science is a disgrace to thinking people.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen
There is at least one thing which is sure: The earth is not young, it is not 6000 years old, it is much older.
hunchbacked 1 month ago
@hunchbacked
No, that's not possible, it's just another dogma, as evolution is a dogma.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@hunchbacked
The 6000 years, that is.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
It's easy to know when a creationist is owned: When they say "I pray for you"
It's easy to know when a creationist is owned: When they say (especially in ALL CAPS) "GOD WILL JUDGE YOU."
That's how they passive aggressively lash out.
Chadfish 2 years ago
Agreed. When people stop reading what the data says and start inserting their preconceptions, well, not too many good things ever come of that.
magick205 3 years ago
"So either you prove that Radon is not involved in Po218 radiohalo formation or stop claiming this as evidence of a young earth. Either put up or shut up..."
You know how they'll prove it, CreationMyth?
They'll just quote some biblical verses, and as the bible can't be wrong, they'll have proven their point.
Seriously, I have already seen completely fucked up "scientific" books from creationists only made from biblical verses.
Junk science at best.
hunchbacked 3 years ago
I've long given up on people like you that refuse to look at evidence and bend them to your ideology of "there is no god" crap.. what ever man, just live your life and leave me alone. Quite honestly, I'm more worried about this 700 billion dollar bail out that is about to happen. The affairs of your soul is your affair, not mine. I cant force you to see it.. and even if I could I wouldn't.. that would make me just like you.
conradpilapil 3 years ago 8
"I've long given up on people like you that refuse to look at evidence and bend them to your ideology": this more or less sums up my entire positions on creationists. I just confronted you with the evidence but you have (not untypically) side-stepped the question. No one on here said there "there is no god" but some of us (who you will supprised to learn) also believe in a God but get a little pissed when we see "Christians" lying about the data. Ever heard of the 9th commandment ?
CreationMyths3 3 years ago
Its not due to lack of evidence that you refuse to see. We both know I can never prove that their is a God, but the evidence is there that points to him, or at least some higher thing that is bigger than us. All of the universe is in a state of chaos.. but evolution; either astrophysics or chemistry, biology or any of the other science wants me to believe that the chaos somehow produced order? I think not. I cant help you if you don't want to see.. thus the difference between you and I.
conradpilapil 3 years ago 2
"he proved his point and provided evidence of an instantaneous creation."
Wrong he didn't.
There are flaws in his theory which has been exposed by other scientists, and he never gave any explanations for these flaws, and never will, put that into your obstinate head if you can.
hunchbacked 3 years ago
Gentry's "falsification test", which he repeatedly hawks here, is totally spurious. If you take a piece of granite, grind it up and reheat it, what you get is an amorphized rock which has a microstructure which looks nothing like granite (rather like if you took a snowflake and tried to recreate it by heating and cooling). Granite can only be produced by slow hydrothermal cooling under extreme pressure using conditions virtually impossible to produce in the laboratory.
CreationMyths3 3 years ago
So if it is impossible to produce in a laboratory, that would mean it (the theory of how the earth formed) would fall short of what is commonly accepted scientific method .. I really wish you people would just fallow your logic or lack thereof and see how ridiculous your arguments are!
conradpilapil 3 years ago
You clearly have no idea how difficult it is (note: difficult, not impossible) to crystallize a complex multicomponent system like granite under extreme hydrothermal pressure conditions in the laboratory. The reason no one has done it is because it would be extremely expensive. Instead of making strawman arguments may I ask you to actually look into this problem and find this out for yourself. Here's an idea - look into how difficult it is to how difficult it is to produce synthetic diamond.
CreationMyths3 3 years ago
No straw-man arguments here sir.. just pointing out the obvious. Now, you knowing how "difficult" it would be to "crystallize a complex multicomponent system like granite", should then at least explain how the got there? One more thing..we have made synthetic diamonds, why the scientific community has not crystallized granite is simple.. the evidence would kill their beloved "evolution".
conradpilapil 3 years ago
You say "no straw man arguments here, sir" and yet you then go and invoke a strawman argument, i.e.: " why the scientific community has not crystallized granite is simple.. the evidence would kill their beloved "evolution"." - 24 carat strawman unless you can provide a citation for this, you have no proof of this argument and it is therefore worthless.
CreationMyths3 3 years ago
No sir.. have we or have we not made synthetic diamonds? Why then have we not crystallized granite? I find this very convenient for the "scientific community" since past "evidence" that was brought forth by creationist was quickly answered by this same "community." Now silence? In court that would be contempt.. I think.. I'm not a lawyer. lol! Are you a lawyer?
conradpilapil 3 years ago
Well diamond consists of a single element (carbon), whereas granite consists of complex multiplicity of silica based minerals including quartz, plagioclase feldspars, potassium or K-feldspars, hornblende and micas - clearly you do not understand the complexity of the problem. And synthetic diamond in no way matches the quality of real diamond otherwise deBeers would have gone out of business years ago. As all of Gentry's claims were adequately refuted years ago, especially regarded halos,
CreationMyths3 3 years ago
nobody is willing to invest the time, the effort and the money to do this useless experiment..
CreationMyths3 3 years ago
Although having said that someone has succeeded in partially recrytsallising granite - type the following into google:
Partial melting and recrystallization of granite and their application to deep disposal of radioactive waste Part 2—Recrystallization
Atrill and Gibb succeeded to recrystallise granite usuing a cooling rate of 0.1C/hour and a pressure of 0.15GPa.
Game over then. Gentry and contradpilapil can both pack your bags.....
CreationMyths3 3 years ago
Why don't you say that gentry's theories have been debunked by real scientists not obsessed with creationism.
He has proven absolutely nothing about the earth being young, and he will never, because the earth is actually old.
hunchbacked 3 years ago
Actually Gentry proved that the polonium halos were not part of the uranium decay chain, and he did so by finding polonium halos that were part of the decay chain of uranium and some that had no trace of uranium in them, and by showing the difference between the two different ways they form, he proved his point and provided evidence of an instantaneous creation. When researching, it helps to go to the original material, Gentry's peer reviewed papers and his book "creation's tiny mystery".
conradpilapil 3 years ago
"Baillieul...and....Brawley...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...to form a uraniumless halo. Apparently a large number of radon atoms are caught or adsorbed at a particular point. This has not been proved experimentally, but is supported by the fact that Gentry's "polonium halos" are found along microscopic cracks...that also contain uranium halos (Wakefield 1988)"
CreationMyths3 3 years ago
From w w w . nationmaster . com / encyclopedia / Polonium_halo
So either you prove that Radon is not involved in Po218 radiohalo formation or stop claiming this as evidence of a young earth. Either put up or shut up...
CreationMyths3 3 years ago
I'm sorry to be forced to ask this, but why are you lying to us?
narCONonExposed 3 years ago