It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Creationist Quackery, Part 150, 001 : Creationists Say Aliens Don't Exist, So Let's Stop Looking!

page: 19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 10:40 PM
a reply to: Prezbo369

edit on 31-12-2014 by mamabeth because: Decided that I shouldn't reply to this post.

posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 10:45 PM
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Sorry,not an imaginary incident and I would never call the entity a friend.

posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:37 PM
a reply to: Akragon

You might also notice Jesus said we are like angels in heaven

Totally out of context. Someone asked Him if there would be marriage in heaven and he said we (humans) would be like the angels, which neither marry nor are given in marriage.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 07:40 AM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I forgot to link my post to you yesterday - so I copy and pasted the post below as it's a response to your challenge. If you have any questions or want to discuss, let me know.

In response to the topic of Polonium halos, after reading through Gentry’s work and related references, I decided to focus on one point that would be fairly easy for a non-scientist to understand. Throughout his work, including interviews and videos, Gentry claims that radioactive decay varied in the past. He has no evidence for this claim, but since he has to account for the decay chain process which directly refutes his hypothesis of a young earth, he had to come up with something. His entire hypothesis on Polonium and Polonium halos stands or falls on that statement.

In an effort to demonstrate the outcomes of variable half lives of elements, in particular uranium, I put together an Excel sheet which takes the physical data on uranium and tested whether Gentry’s hypothesis of variable half lives in the past had any merit.

The spreadsheet shows the half life of Uranium 238 decreasing by a factor of 1000 for each speculative half life. So 4.5 billion years is dived by 1000 to yield 4.5 million years, etc. The total energy yield is then calculated on the known energy yield due to radioactive decay of 0.01 WATTS per short ton of Uranium.

The final result showed that as the half life of Uranium 238 decreased, the corresponding energy yield and temperature increased.

Based on Gentry’s interpretation of “instantaneous creation” at some point in time that is LESS than 4.5 billion years, the temperature approaches values that would decimate other elements that were presumably being formed simultaneously during the creation event. At half life 4.5 thousand years, the corresponding temperature would have to be approximately 6.55 million degrees Fahrenheit or 25,500 Kelvin. The surface of the Sun is 5778 Kelvin by comparison.

The conclusion is very obvious. In order to satisfy Gentry’s statement that half lives varied in the past, the corresponding energy yield and temperatures had to be so great as to preclude the formation of other elements. In addition, the instability of the isotopes would make it impossible to know if one or more isotopes were “frozen” in time during the creation event such that the correct Polonium isotope (one or more of 33 isotopes) could instantaneously form the halos. Gentry uses only one “pure” Polonium isotope in his work and never addresses the fate of the other 32.

Gentry is the poster boy for my description of Creationist science methodology. He started with a conclusion and worked backwards to create a model that seemed to fit his hypothesis. If he had approached the Polonium halos objectively, he would have asked the more important questions about Uranium. He acknowledges the validity of the decay chains, but wants everyone to accept his speculative statement that they were “different” in the past – that with not a shred of evidence.

Draw your own conclusions.

Link to Excel Spreadsheet:


edit on 1-1-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 07:42 AM
a reply to: mamabeth

try actually replying to what i said

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 09:58 AM
Happy new year to everyone .

Steve Goddard takes of some of the scientist that are creating a myth and that is AGW

Thank goodness that there are scientist capable of watching the pea while trying to maintain integrity . Something all groups should try to maintain because integrity is easier maintained then regained . Bob Tisdale is one of those men who has a sharp eye towards details and provides a picture to what is going on but unless the scientist can justify what they are doing in their work they are just arm-wavers and have no bases for their methods . Might also add that they paywall their data .You would think that the public already paid them for their work but I guess not .NOAA

And last but not least is the Myth that is science .Thinking about how to put just one subject in the vid I came up with this ...Sat you have a building that you only get to look at one picture that consists of only 4% of that building .How accurate could yo possibly in describing the whole house or building ? That is what science teaches us about the cosmos .They can account for 4% and so have to conjure us the other 96% based solely on the 4% that they say they

know about . So a 4% sample of data is all they have to work with and make up the rest of the data with big bangs and black or dark matter that they haven't seen . If science deals with imperial methods and data then I would think any group working with only a 4% sample wouldn't be able to do a very good job imo Any how the vid on the myths in science ,past present and future if they are left to continue .

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 10:41 AM
I agree that he didn't present a creation hypothesis to his work .But his work might suggest that the standard model of long time periods with the earth cooling could not have produced the polonium halos . The fact that they are there needs to be shown in a lab with empirical evidence .

From your post " There are two possible mechanisms to make this concentration happen. The first is by the formation of either vein-dikes or pegmatites containing uranium minerals that are associated with chemical replacement processes (metasomatism). The second is by the formation of pegmatites containing uranium minerals that result from magmatic processes. Both mechanisms are examined in this article." They may have good reasons to explain away Gentry's findings . I am definitely not scientifically literate enough to decide one way or another . That report is not a scientific paper that determines weather either option is so but only give a way to explain to students a way of actually addressing the issue . It might have been better if they took it to the scientist and the lab to establish the truth of the matter . More arm waving as far as I can tell . All they give is a plausibility explanation for the halos .Big difference between that and empirical evidence .a reply to: rnaa

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 11:07 AM
I am really trying to follow you so I will insert ,and question ....."but since he has to account for the decay chain process which directly refutes his hypothesis of a young earth" If you can show me the scientific paper with the hypothesis I would much appreciate . I was under the impression that he never went in that direction with the science but instead went in the direction of proving the old earth hypothesis of billions of years . I think you may have created a straw man in your first chapter but I could be wrong .

As to the rest of what you showed it could be true if we had all of the data of the cosmos but we only have 4% of the data to be able to make any conclusions of the past history . Not what I would call overwhelming data to prove a conjuncture or multipal ones which there is no shortage of in science .Even if it is shrunk down to two possible explanations that don't include one other possibility then we are left 0 empirical evidence one way or the other but a choice we can make .a reply to: Phantom423

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 11:13 AM
"Gentry either got it wrong or failed to include standard calculations which would refute his claims. Wouldn't the scientific way be to ask for the data and the math he used to determine one of the "either's" ? Climate audit is always trying to determine these sorts answers but are on many occasions refused the data used or the methods . a reply to: Phantom423

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 11:38 AM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Yes, you're right. Gentry did avoid going in that direction because the decay chains would invalidate his hypothesis. His "young earth" hypothesis stands or falls on his speculative idea that decay rates were variable in the past - for which he has no evidence.

As for your second comment, the values used in the Excel Spreadsheet are standard values. I'm not sure where you get the 4%, but in any case, it's irrelevant. Radioactive decay rates are measurements that are made for radioactive elements in the laboratory. The decay rate doesn't change over time. You can measure a decay rate of any radioactive element today, tomorrow or 10 years from now and it will be the same. So the calculations that I made are based on known values that are used for everything from MRI scans to nuclear reactors. Here's a link that explains it:

The empirical evidence is obvious. If decay rates changed in the past, there wouldn't be any other elements! The boiling point of uranium is 6904.4 degrees F. And as I mentioned in the paper, as the decay rate decreases, the energy yield increases. So if the decay rate is lower than 4.5 billion years, then the corresponding temperature will be much, much higher - much higher than the boiling point or vaporization rate of uranium. The numbers speak for themselves. That's empirical evidence.

Name: Uranium
Symbol: U
Atomic Number: 92
Atomic Mass: 238.0289 amu
Melting Point: 1132.0 °C (1405.15 K, 2069.6 °F)
Boiling Point: 3818.0 °C (4091.15 K, 6904.4 °F) Number of Protons/Electrons: 92
Number of Neutrons: 146
Classification: Rare Earth
Crystal Structure: Orthorhombic
Density @ 293 K: 18.95 g/cm3
Color: silverish

edit on 1-1-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 11:43 AM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

That data is in his papers. He made most of his calculations while he was at Oak Ridge Laboratory.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 01:56 PM
If the reasoning and math you have used and the conclusions are so clear cut then why not write up a paper for science and submit it . Surely if the claims you are making can be conclusive and they contradict Gentry's claims then that should conclude the matter . Unless if what you might be claiming Gentry is claiming has no basis . If you are correct on your assumptions and they are in conflict with Gentry assumptions then what are the differences ? Two different observers can bot be wrong about what they are seeing .The solution may require higher resolution to resolve the differences .In which case neither one of the observer's were correct . a reply to: Phantom423

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 02:10 PM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Because it's already been done. And reputable scientific journals would not accept papers which involve religious/philosophical beliefs - and with good reason.

And as I said above, Gentry's hypothesis stands or falls on a speculative assumption - that decay chains were variable in the past. He cannot provide one iota of empirical evidence to support that claim. A non-scientist may not recognize that point, but any real scientist would.

Therefore, his entire hypothesis is invalidated.

edit on 1-1-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 03:52 PM
In a earlier post to me I got this hypothesis

Gentry and Snelling’s claims are without validity (Collins 2008). These creationists ignore the fact that uranium in the original magma would be continuously supplying polonium isotopes during the 5 million years of cooling. The problem is not the disappearance of polonium through 5 million years, as Gentry and Snelling suggest, but the inability of polonium ions produced during this time to migrate from scattered uranium atoms in very viscous magma to precipitate as polonium atoms in a localized place in a growing biotite crystal lattice so that polonium halos can form. The question to ask, therefore, is: how has it been possible for uranium to concentrate in local sources so that polonium, which is derived from the decay of this uranium, could nucleate in growing crystals of biotite or fluorite? There are two possible mechanisms to make this concentration happen. The first is by the formation of either vein-dikes or pegmatites containing uranium minerals that are associated with chemical replacement processes (metasomatism). The second is by the formation of pegmatites containing uranium minerals that result from magmatic processes. Both mechanisms are examined in this article.
a reply to: Phantom423

That quoted source did not conclude but gave a possible explanation .Actually 2 possibilities .Could there be more ? Could he have made a error ? Could he be correct ? There is no shortage of examples explaining away what his work might or might not be saying but his work could suggest empirical evidence that the granit could not have cooled fast enough to capture the halos . I guess it would have to be proven in a lab and seeing things haven't changed over time ,both making the granit and capturing the halos should not be a problem . He claims it cant be done so ,prove him wrong , using the scientific method .

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 04:30 PM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I'm not sure what your question is. But the previous hypothesis is really talking about chemical diffusion and transport phenomena. Granite can be composed of as many as 11 minerals, all with different diffusion constants. One of the problems with Gentry's work is that he never identified where his samples came from. Apparently, colleagues from around the world sent him the samples, but no where in his work does he identify the origins. This is important because geologic data from the areas would render more information on the composition of the granite. So without breaking up the samples, identifying the mineral components and their ratios, then factoring in the diffusion constants, the diffusion discussion is a moot point. He knew absolutely nothing about his samples except that they exhibited halos!

Gentry says in his video that granite cannot be synthesized. Well he's dead wrong on that. Granite is primarily quartz and potassium feldspar. Both can be synthesized in the laboratory utilizing hydrothermal techniques which essentially precipitate high-temperature aqueous solutions at high vapor pressures which then form crystals. Additives like calcium, sodium, organic matter can be added to the mix to form the unique characteristics of granite.

Granites have a high degree of variability as to their composition so the fact that Gentry never bothered to characterize his samples says he wasn't concerned about how the differing characteristics of granite could affect the formation of the halos.

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 05:23 PM
I somewhat follow what you are saying .Sample identification could be unique from others depending on the locality from which it was collected .To your knowledge do you have a link to a source that has done the collections and analysis of granite's ? I don't ask because I am lazy but because someone who has better understanding of such things could save my looking in vain .I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to these sort of things :>) a reply to: Phantom423

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 05:50 PM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Distribution of granite on Earth:
A worldwide average of the chemical composition of granite, by weight percent, based on 2485 analyses:[6]
SiO2 72.04% (silica)
Al2O3 14.42% (alumina)
K2O 4.12%
Na2O 3.69%
CaO 1.82%
FeO 1.68%
Fe2O3 1.22%
MgO 0.71%
TiO2 0.30%
P2O5 0.12%
MnO 0.05%

Example of how granite is analyzed in a specific geologic location - USGS (US Geological Survey) is the best website for information about minerals and geology:

U.S. Geological Survey Certificate of Analysis
Granite, G-2
Material was collected from the Sullivan quarry near Near Bradford, Rhode Island, which is approximately three miles east of the site where G-1 was collected. The material was collected by Felix Chayes, Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution.
Element concentrations were determined by cooperating laboratories using a variety of analytical methods. Certificate values are based primarily on international data compilations (Gladney, et al. 1992, Govindaraju, K., 1989, Govindaraju, 1994). USGS reports (Flanagan, F.J., 1969, Flanagan, 1976) provide background information on this material

Examples of how granite is processed for lab experiments:

Laboratory experiments on bacterial weathering of granite and its constituent minerals

Lab Equipment used to analyze granite and other materials:

Spatially Resolved X-ray Analysis of Minerals

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 06:00 PM
Thanks ..I have a good chunk of reading to do now :>) a reply to: Phantom423

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 06:24 PM
a reply to: Phantom423
This is a great point.

Never take your marble for granite..

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 08:33 PM
That was a bit of interesting reading in your links ,thanks . It still doesn't answer some of the main points ,which are how did they form ,and how did the halos get there to be captured at the time . In this shortened vid on the subject some scientist lament to the fact that they still do not have the answer to those questions and have not presented to the scientific community the answers .Reading through some of the explanations only produces could be's and maybe's and probabilities which only shows uncertainty .Until it's answered once and for all it leaves the door wide open for speculation on both sides of the debate .
a reply to: Phantom423

new topics

top topics

<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in