Become familiar with Polonium Halos, or, well, remain a dummy

[DoomsdayWars]

Polonium halos have already been refuted, quite a while ago

talkorigins(.)org/faqs/po-halo­s/gentry.html

[FateAv]

The Uranium-238 which is present throughout the earth is responsible for the TEMPORARY presence of Polonium-residual halos in Granite, As the Uranium decays, It created polonium over time, However this polonium was NOT created "Instantaneously", each atom decayed in around 30 minutes, but this happened gradually over billions of years, leaving the Halos frozen in their environment each time the decay process occurred.

[alyosha24601]

@FateAv Everyone knows Polonium is included in the Uranium decay chain. The whole point of this video is to reveal the discovery of Polonium halos existing WITHOUT the previous Uranium decay product halos nearby. There was no Uranium - that's the amazing thing! Thanks for sticking to the science, my respect to you for that! I don't know what your spam comment was, Youtube did that automatically, not me.

[alyosha24601]

@FateAv Yes, again: It's natural to assume that since Po218 is part of the U238 decay chain the other U238 products MUST be there, but that's the whole point! Dr G has discovered granite halos containing decay chains beginning with Po218, an isotope with a 3.1 min half-life! The Polonium halos are there, but there are no Uranium, Thorium, Protactinium, Radium, or Radon 222 halos. The photographs are in his papers. This earth was created faster than a decaying Polonium atom.

[BiiigT]

@BiiigT See, I got messed up and made a spelling error....lol

[alyosha24601]

@BiiigT says "See, I got messed up and made a spelling error....lol" Yes, well, I'm sure no matter how many spelling blunders you may accumulate, your spelling skills are surely far more evolved than my own!

[BiiigT]

@alyosha24601 This is the modus operandi of creationists. Disregard evidence and scientific findings, pick on a tiny insignificant point and think it`ll disprove ALL the other evidence, and then do it WRONG....

I`ll repeat myself; sad and pathetic. Oh, did I mention laughable?

[alyosha24601]

@BiiigT I don't see any science in your insult. Please present a piece of science that you feel "proves" evolution. Something besides a naturalistic definition. Some science please? Pick a topic.

[BiiigT]

@alyosha24601 Once again, evolution has gone through 150 years of scrutiny in 8 or 9 scientific disciplines and hasn`t failed once. You are simply willing to dismiss a mountain of evidence and get hung up on this tiny, meaningless detail.

Perhaps you should submit a paper for peer review (in REAL scientific journals) on polonium halos, since you`re clearly an expert ;) Or talk to some REAL experts...

[alyosha24601]

@BiiigT Why don't you pick a specific topic from your assumed "mountain of evidence" and we'll discuss it here. The mountain is hollow. For instance, how did sexual reproduction come about by evolution? This is a step that must occur in one generation. The mathematics of it are mind-boggling. Don't want to face up to the implications of creation? I don't blame you! Terrifying!

[BiiigT]

@alyosha24601

Polonium halos are a dead topic. Only creationists bring them up. Once again, this is what the peer review process is all about.

You get responses without science (if you disregard my demand to follow the scientific process), because creationists do NOT use science. They PRETEND to use science, and people with too much faith based on too little evidence are unable to tell the difference. YOU are unable to tell the difference.

[alyosha24601]

@BiiigT Truth is, this subject is one of the few that HAS been peer reviewed. It is merely ignored, not refuted. Evolution and the old earth idea are two religions with big scientific problems.

[BiiigT]

@alyosha24601 The fact that you believe these arguments also shows that you just simply do not understand the scientific process, and that you are too lazy to see what has already been researched on this topic.

[Dinoenthusiastguy]

@BiiigT So rather than stating we are all idiots, why don't you give some science to disprove this video? If you call us fools but cannot give an explanation why we are wrong, then you, sir, not us, are pathetic and laughable.

[BiiigT]

@alyosha24601

I`m just waiting to see the peer reviewed papers on this, LOL

It`s like arguing against flat earthers. Silly and meaningless.

Hey, seriously, nothing wrong with having contrary ideas in science, but until these ideas have gone through scientific scrutiny in the peer review process they are worthless. So far, not a single paper has gone through this process on creationism. Evolution has been peer scrutinized for 150 YEARS! You might as well dismiss every single modern amenity...

[alyosha24601]

@BiiigT Your confidence in the peer review process is rather naive. Publishers won't touch creationist articles but the reason is political, not scientific. There is no faster way to lose your reputation in academia than to consider the facts of creation science, and don't kid yourself - there are a LOT of uncomfortable facts. So, they are just ignored. Evolution cannot be criticized because it is a religion.

[BiiigT]

It`s sad and pathetic when creationists try to use science, and always fail so miserably.

"Doctor" Gentry is a fraud, but that`s besides the point. It`s amazing that there`s no embarrassment in the creationist crowd when they present scientific findings and DO NOT understand it.

[Dinoenthusiastguy]

@BiiigT Oh yes, so sad and pathetic when Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Robert Boyle, and Carolus Linnaeus (all creationists) tried to use science and failed miserably. Why don't you provide some scientific facts rather than claiming all creation scientists are idiots?

[BiiigT]

@Dinoenthusiastguy

LOL, only in America...the rest of the world is having a good laugh.

There`s no such thing as "creation scientists". Eliminating the scientific process, bypassing scientific scrutiny and peer review, and disregarding evidence automatically disqualifies anyone who claims to be a "creation scientist". '

I meant it when I stated "pathetic" and "laughable".

[Dinoenthusiastguy]

@BiiigT Yes, it certainly does disqualify one as a creation scientists, but very few of those who make such a claim do not use the scientific method. Matthew Maury discovered ocean currents because of a bible verse he read, and Carl Linnaeus made his classification system because he believed that nature showed God's character. But what does the evolutionary mindset produce? Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong-il.

[BiiigT]

@Dinoenthusiastguy LOL that`s funny! ;)

[alyosha24601]

@8i680085 Very few folks know about Polonium halos. One PhD I exposed to this sat absolutely stupefied as he watched. Its implications are too great to handle, so it is just ignored by scientists and the public. Even geologists can't refute it, they just ignore it.

[8i680085]

@alyosha24601

You know what, I completely stopped to discuss this subject of God to people. I realized that the worst blind is that person who doesn't want to see. The only scientific facts they want is the one in which goes in accordance to what they believe in and if any other correct scientific fact that comes along in disagreement to theirs, they just discard it as if it had no value to their science. So whatever, now its between them and God in the judgment day. now, I shake off the dust.

[sol3a1]

@alyosha24601 - "One PhD I exposed to this sat absolutely stupefied" and they PhD was in what? Geology, Geophysics, something else?

Gentry misreported his findings, aka he withheld or possibly lied, as he identify concentric ring structures with the 3 polonium isotopes in the uranium-238 decay. Ring haloes from polonium isotopes from uranium-235 or thorium-232 decay aren't reported though they'd need to be present under Gentry's primordial origin hypothesis

Go to Talk Origins Poloniom Decay FAQ

[yahuel1]

@sol3a1 uhm, no they have not been debunked, and they were not misrepresented, Dr. Gentry's work was published in scientific articles and were not debunked or refuted, what they DID do was redo his experiment and got the same results as he did, and it was hushed up. get your facts straight and stop telling people to go to websites like "talk origins" that are biased to one point of view (evolution in their case) and instead direct people to the actual experiments and results that were done

[DeathofSpeech]

@yahuel1

"...no they have not been debunked, and they were not misrepresented, Dr. Gentry's work..."

Mr. Gentry has a Masters Degree Emeritus (not an earned degree and not a doctorate).

Misrepresentation of himself as a PhD is only the beginning of this man's intellectual dishonesty.

Your misrepresenting him at the same time as making an appeal to illegitimate authority by claiming that you must be competent based upon your assertion that you are a physics major, makes your claim laughable.

[SkepticInTraining]

@yahuel1 watch this /watch?v=M4Z_JpG229s&feature=f­eedu

[BiiigT]

@yahuel1 "Doctor" Gentry has no scientific standing whatsoever. His ideas were not debunked because they were not taken seriously to begin with.

[alyosha24601]

@BiiigT says: "Doctor" Gentry has no scientific standing whatsoever. His ideas were not debunked because they were not taken seriously to begin with." I'm starting to get the idea with BiiigT - he hasn't made one scientific comment yet! Stick with science and stop spouting off religious, political, and philosophical comment Mr. Biiig.

[yahuel1]

@sol3a1 but you can't do that because then they will see that those anti-creation websites only publish lies and half-truths while hiding all the evidence to the contrary...the very thing you claim Dr. Gentry did...interesting. I'm a nuclear physics major and i can tell you that Dr. Gentry made no claims that were not true, and that were not tested multiple times by multiple universities/laboratories. people should beware of the shills out there, study the facts for yourself from neutral sources

[DeathofSpeech]

@yahuel1

"I'm a nuclear physics major and i can tell you that Dr. Gentry made no claims that were not true,"

If you are any sort of science major, demand a refund for your tuition.

Mr. Gentry (he does not hold a doctorate) has failed to demonstrate cause or even correlation between ring halos and any particular decay product.

"people should beware of the shills "

Like men who pretend to be qualified, pretend to have a doctorate, and make assertions with zero supporting evidence.

[MrRichardQED]

@alyosha24601 Polonium halos are debunked since at least 30 years, yet cretards still use them as argument. THATS how reliable and honest they are. Never trust a creationist source, allways check independant sources like talkorigins(dot)org. There you will find severall articles on this with a vast amount of sources for further study. It shows again how dishonest creationists are.

[BiiigT]

@alyosha24601 Yeahh,,,,,and if you believe that I can get you a good deal on a bridge in San Francisco, LOL