Radioactive isotopes trapped in granite

Hi All
I came in 1/2 way through a discussion on TV last night and need some help in getting more information.

The general gist of the conversation was about a book (sorry, didn't get the title) that was offering money to anybody who could scientifically dispute the claims it made. The main dialogue of the book was based on a radioactive isotope (may have been called P14 or something along those lines) with a half life of 1/10,000 of a second (again, not 100% sure on this info, but it's close) that has been found trapped in granite. The theory that this book offers is that trapping this isotope that expires almost as soon as it is formed is irrefutable evidence that the granite was formed in an instant, hence lending credit to the creationist theory.

My intent of this is NOT to start another thread debating creationism vs. evolution. There are plenty of those out there already. Without accurate info I can't even do any research on the subject. I'm just curious if anybody else has heard of this book and can fill in the blanks that I have missed so I can actually do some research on the subject.

Originally posted by dragn
Hi All
I came in 1/2 way through a discussion on TV last night and need some help in getting more information.

The general gist of the conversation was about a book (sorry, didn't get the title) that was offering money to anybody who could scientifically dispute the claims it made. The main dialogue of the book was based on a radioactive isotope (may have been called P14 or something along those lines) with a half life of 1/10,000 of a second (again, not 100% sure on this info, but it's close) that has been found trapped in granite. The theory that this book offers is that trapping this isotope that expires almost as soon as it is formed is irrefutable evidence that the granite was formed in an instant, hence lending credit to the creationist theory.

My intent of this is NOT to start another thread debating creationism vs. evolution. There are plenty of those out there already. Without accurate info I can't even do any research on the subject. I'm just curious if anybody else has heard of this book and can fill in the blanks that I have missed so I can actually do some research on the subject.

Most likely you are speaking about Gentry's work. Gentry is an vehement creationist. Gentry's website can be accessed here. Gentry's work, while intriguing, is very controversial. Possibly due to the nature of the material and his extreme in your face personality. Obviously, the evolution camp doesn't support his theories, even members of the creation camp believe his work is flawed. While Gentry is extremely knowledgable, has lots of peer-reviewed work published, and can obviously think on his feet, my personal opinion is that his work, like all radiometric dating techniques, relies on unfounded or unprovable assertions and assumptions.

Gentry's book is called "Creation's Tiny Mystery." It's an okay read. The first four chapters discuss Gentry's theory, how he arrived at this conclusions, and covers much of his earlier work. Much of the remainder of the book seems to be centered around Gentry defending himself from his numerous critics. Much of the info in the book can be gleaned from the website.

I don't recommend not reading this book, but of course it should be taken with a grain of salt. There actually exists much evidence that would stand in opposition to Gentry's claims, though I've not kept up with this particular discipline for a bit of time now, so I am not sure if Gentry has made any claims to counter those of his most recent detractors. IMO, even if Gentry can make logical arguments against his detractors, his theory is still highly speculative, open to interpretation, and based on unknowable or unprovable assumptions.

Well, to start, P-14 is not an isotope. P, or Phosphorus has an atomic number of 15, but an atomic weight of 31. It is the mass that gives you the isotope.

Secondly, if an element has a half life of 1/10,000 seconds, it will decay away irregardless of weather the granite was formed slowly over time or instantly.

What is more likely is that this is a daughter element that is present because of the decay of a longer lived isotope. In other words, this �P-14� is continuously being formed based on the original chemical makeup of the minerals in the granite.

Sorry, but without more to go on, that is the best I can give you.

This should help. RATE is the largest form of research that ICR uses in defence of the Creationist theory

www.icr.org...

Here:

www.csun.edu...


a refutation of Gentry's claims

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Well, to start, P-14 is not an isotope. P, or Phosphorus has an atomic number of 15, but an atomic weight of 31. It is the mass that gives you the isotope.

Secondly, if an element has a half life of 1/10,000 seconds, it will decay away irregardless of weather the granite was formed slowly over time or instantly.

What is more likely is that this is a daughter element that is present because of the decay of a longer lived isotope. In other words, this �P-14� is continuously being formed based on the original chemical makeup of the minerals in the granite.

Sorry, but without more to go on, that is the best I can give you.

Howard, sorry, I meant to clarify this in my post. The isotopes being referred to are Polonium isotopes... 210P is the main one I believe. Gentry's point is that since polonium haloes exist in what is considered to primordial rock, or the rock the planet was 'created' with instantly. The observation of said Po haloes demonstrates creation. Gentry goes through a discussion about how he 'knows' they are polonium haloes in his book and at his site. I believe some of the daughter isotope issues you mention are discussed at his site as well.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
This should help. RATE is the largest form of research that ICR uses in defence of the Creationist theory

www.icr.org...

While it may be true that ICR relies heavily on RATE, the ICR is actually one of the creationist organizations that doesn't support Gentry's claims.