Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation!

Earth Science Associates

Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation!


Fingerprints of Creation
Did you know that scientific evidence abounds to support the biblical accounts of creation and the flood? Were you aware that reports outlining this evidence passed peer review, and were published in the open scientific literature? Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community?


Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.

The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.
Replies to Objections

Every question regarding the validity or implications of this polonium-halo evidence has been systematically dealt with, in our published reports and in various discussions with those holding differing views. We invite you to peruse the points we have raised in our exchanges, consider them, and decide for yourself the truth of the matter.

Of particular interest will be our recent discussion with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regarding the validity of our work.

In the Exchanges section of our website we've posted our letter to Dr. K. R. Walker, requesting the references to successful granite synthesis experiments that UT's Dr. Larry Taylor had referred to. We also have posted two letters from Dr. Brent Dalrymple that refer to the unrefuted Polonium evidence for the creation of granite.
Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.

We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science.
Reports

Our published reports date back to the 1960's. Twenty of these reports can be downloaded free of charge from this web site. A number of these also appear in the appendix to our book, Creation's Tiny Mystery.

Every question regarding the validity or implications of the polonium-halo evidence for creation has been systematically dealt with in our published reports. Every proposal for an evolutionary origin of polonium radiohalos has been systematically and experimentally falsified. No hypothetical, naturalistic scenario has yet been suggested that can account for Creation's "tiny mystery" of the polonium halo.

Of course, you can find claims to the contrary on the internet and elsewhere. But if these claims had any real substance, they would have passed peer review and been published in the open scientific literature. The fact that they have not been, or have themselves been experimentally falsified, demonstrates the fact that this unique evidence for Creation still stands unrefuted.

Some of our newest research concerns astronomy and cosmology. Our findings provide a radically new model of the cosmos while also showing why the Big Bang Theory is fatally flawed. For more on this topic, please see our sister site, www.OrionFdn.org.
Lawsuit to Regain Password for Posting Papers in Support of Scientific Creationism

Our sister site, www.OrionFdn.org, has an entire section on this topic. Basically, what happened is that we posted ten papers outlining fatal flaws in the Big Bang theory on the arXiv, an internet service hosted at the time by Los Alamos National Laboratory. The arXiv distributes physics papers worldwide, and we had previously posted papers there with no problem. This time, when those in charge of the arXiv discovered that our papers very clearly outlined the fallacies of the Big Bang, and were supportive of a model of the universe that harmonizes with Genesis, the papers were removed. After we posted them again, they were removed a second time, and our password was revoked.

You can read the subsequent letters that were exchanged by clicking the links on the page "Documentation of Censorship by the Los Alamos National Laboratory arXiv Staff", a page on our sister site.

The arXiv is funded by tax funds. It is therefore inappropriate for the arXiv to discriminate on the basis of religion against scientists who do not ascribe to evolution.

Unable to regain our password through dialogue, we finally decided to bring suit against the parties involved. We have posted a copy of our lawsuit on this site.

www.halos.com...

unrefuted until several people refuted them ?

Professional geologist Tom Bailleul takes a second look at Gentry's claimed polonium haloes, arguing that there is no good evidence they are the result of polonium decay as opposed to any other radioactive isotope, or even that they are caused by radioactivity at all. Gentry is taken to task for selective use of evidence, faulty experiment design, mistakes in geology and physics, and unscientific principles of investigation and argument style.

www.talkorigins.org...

bad methodology = bad results

i guess he messed up a lil

Amateur scientist John Brawley investigated Gentry's claims directly by studying local rock samples, and concluded that there is no good evidence that these "polonium" haloes are actually produced by polonium at all, as opposed to longer-lived radionuclides such as radon or uranium.

www.talkorigins.org...

and another one

Several patrons have made claims or asked questions regarding the use of "Polonium halos" in granites as evidence of instantaneous creation (see, for example, Halos.com). In response, the Secular Web contacted geologist and petrologist Lorence Collins who had already tackled this complicated issue, and following is his reply for the benefit of our readers.

www.infidels.org...


fgor somthing thats unrefuted theres a whole lot of people refuting it wouldnt you think?

his methodolgy has been shown to be a little off the mark and his conclusions go even further off base

sorry science 1, creationist pseudo-science 0

[edit on 21/11/08 by noobfun]

Of course, you can find claims to the contrary on the internet and elsewhere. But if these claims had any real substance, they would have passed peer review and been published in the open scientific literature. The fact that they have not been, or have themselves been experimentally falsified, demonstrates the fact that this unique evidence for Creation still stands unrefuted.

i knew the op was going to post a lot to try and back this theory up.

it's very simple really, this does not prove the earth is young any more than typical scientific data proves the earth is old. proof is a rare commodity and it usually doesn't add up to much when you have it.

for instance, if you're a magician and you "prove" to a crowd that you can pull pigeons from your ear or that you can turn umbrellas into elephants and then expose the trick for what it is; this still will not disprove that elephants can be made out of umbrellas or that pigeons cannot be materialized out of yoru ear. it simply goes to show that perspective is everything and that you don't know a 1/10th of what you think you do.

what if radiation frmo the center of the galaxy passes by ever so often and causes things to vitrify or petrify instantly? what will happen 5 years from now when we discover that every time you throw away a cellphone it destroys a little piece of time with it and therefore the world used to be old but it's getting younger?

Originally posted by masterweb
Of course, you can find claims to the contrary on the internet and elsewhere. But if these claims had any real substance, they would have passed peer review and been published in the open scientific literature. The fact that they have not been, or have themselves been experimentally falsified, demonstrates the fact that this unique evidence for Creation still stands unrefuted.

unfortunatley its impossible to get there work peer reviewed, you cannot get somthing peer reviewed to refute a theory until the original theory its self has been peer reviewed

he has not handed this thieses to scientits for peer reviewing, becasue other earlier work have been peer reviewed(nothing to do with pulonium halo's) this allows his to get his work porinted in some scientific journals with out every thing bieng first peer reviewed

he is using a back door to get it published in some sceintific journals, when held up to scrutiby it is slighty shoddy work with very shoddy concluisons based on things he does not prove or even attempt to

while his words bieng printed in a sceince journal may be enough for you to hang your hat on it and call it science, science says other wise his work is un peer reviewed, unaccepted by science, inaccurate in its methodology, very inacurate in its conclusions and the asssumptions he made to reach them

teh science community concludes, its broken, go away and fix it then we can look at it if your perticularaily brave enough or stupid enough to bring it back here


he is right if it was pulonium halo's an alternate explenation using scientific method should be sort, unfortunatley he cant prove they are even made by pulonium, there are many other sources of radioactive material that could have casued them he just picked pulonium becasue it suited what he wanted to prove

he also is unable to show that they are the result of radiation let alone that it came from pulonium

peer reviewed lol if he even tried his career would be destoryed totally for presenting such shody ill thought out work

at least then he could have got a spot in Ben Steins 'Expelled: no intellegence used to make this' documentray and pretended he was being persecuted for his beliefs like the others did

[edit on 21/11/08 by noobfun]

It doesn't matter how much evidence exists from Creation/Intelligent Design...it will never be accepted. Proponents of the Big Bang/Abiogenesis (or whatever they're calling it these days) will never accept any evidence for Creation. Why? Because that would require that they also accept a Creator. They cannot do that - it would require that they surrender the concept of man's diety and adhere to the divine mandate.

That is never going to happen. The Bible warns us of people like this: they are willingly ignorant. They do not wish to believe the truth and no amount of scientific evidence will convince them to turn their back on the rapidly unravelling theory upon which their substitute ideas are based.

I don't know how accurate Dr. Gentry's results are concerning polonium atoms, whether or not his findings have withstood the test of peer review or even if he is an actual scientist. Frankly, I don't really care. Albert Einstein himself could not disprove evolution or the Big Bang at this point in time. It just isn't going to happen. People like our friend 'noobfun' have already made up their minds that God does not exist. They are lost, sorry to say, and our efforts should be focused on those who are still reachable.

Some battles just aren't worth fighting. Rather than focusing such enormous effort into proving Creation scientifically, we could easily rely on simple common sense arguments against Evolution and the Big Bang. I mean, how could 'nothing' explode in to 'everything' 15-20 billion years ago? If the universality of the physical laws is one of the underlying assumptions supporting the Big Bang, then why does it contradict the laws of conservation of matter and energy. Where did all the matter come from in the first place? By what outside force was the potential energy transformed into kinetic energy? What caused the Bang?

There is no answer for these questions. They know this and they don't care. They'll say "scientists are still looking into it" rather than admit they've got nothing at the moment. They'll say and do anything to place the burden of proof back onto the shoulders of skeptics.

After all, we're just a bunch of weak-minded fools, relying on the "crutch" of religion to make it through our pathetic littles lives. Who are we to argue with their superior intellect? Only a fool would have faith in a God he cannot see, but a man who believes in an impossible event occurring an impossibly long time ago is merely considered 'average' by modern standards. It is no wonder Al Gore won a Nobel Prize. He is one of their celebrated geniuses.

Proving a young Earth is actually much more complicated than the OP seems to think it is. One obscure "study" lacking peer review doesn't cut it, and it should be approached with extreme skepticism anyways since it was obviously conducted with an agenda.

Even if the study was validated, one would then be faced with explaining away the billions of other evidences for an old earth, not the least of which being fossils. One would then need to offer an explanation for what created the Earth and how it was somehow able to defy several laws of physics. "Goddidit, Goddidit all" doesn't cut it in science.

Here's a brilliant example;

how could 'nothing' explode in to 'everything' 15-20 billion years ago

Improbable, yes; but not as improbable as "nothing" exploding into "God" 6000 years ago.

You should be aware that the Big Bang is one of several hypotheses for the universe's origins, and that as much as you hate the Big Bang some creationists love it. You Christians sure are a coherent bunch!

Originally posted by SlyCM
Even if the study was validated, one would then be faced with explaining away the billions of other evidences for an old earth, not the least of which being fossils.

Haven't you heard? God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, and then put fossils here which were much older simply to test our faith.



reply to post by noobfun


Pwned.

I don't understand three consecutive words in that article, but just because it sounds smart doesn't mean it's sound!

There is way more evidence that science is correct with regard to the creation of the universe, or at least in the right ball park. You can't just say "it was God" and expect that to be the end of an otherwise intelligent debate.

You also can't skirt your way around facts and flaws with theories like the one in this original post, and expect it to be taken too seriously. But they use it and they'll beat it to death.

God is generally an unworthy opponent against science but damn if God don't pull those heart strings, and i think that's what keeps him in the game.