Why do creationists still dig up Gentry's discredited work on polonium halos?

Question

Come on guys............It's been discredited ever since he presented it back in the 80's

These two links are just an example of how little credibility there is in Gentry's claims.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

Are you guys so desperate in your search for evidence of a young Earth that you can't do any better than that?

Quantrill..........not in here they don't.

Dan H...........The other article I linked is somewhat easier to take in.

I included a link to a scientific paper to add strength to my argument. Also, if you read further, those premises are further explained. Or do you give up reading something as soon as it gets a bit more difficult to wrap your head around it?

Answer 1

Your use of the word creationists is on par with young earthers use of the word theory.

Most creationists believe in evolution and a Earth that is billions of years old.

Answer 2

oy.

Hey, it came from the 80s, at least, the "world used to be a matriarchy" nonsense some spew mostly comes from 1920 and 1975....

And the ancient religion crap I as a Wiccan have to deal with comes from 1912.

At least you can find good articles refuting the nonsense. The reason the first instance I discussed came back in 1975 was because the sources refuting it were all equally as old as those starting it, and not one had worked on discounting the theory for 60 something years.

They must have a special form of ERIC, PUBMED, etc., that allows you to view completely discredited theories without the scads and scads of papers refuting them....

At least polonium halos was a refreshing change from that nonsense about speciation never being observed.

Answer 3

Quote from Quantril "Your use of the word creationists is on par with young earthers use of the word theory.

Most creationists believe in evolution and a Earth that is billions of years old."

There are "Young Earth Creationists" and "Old Earth Creationists".

Quoted from wikipedia - "The wide spectrum of such beliefs includes young Earth creationism holding a very literal interpretation of Genesis, while old Earth creationism accepts geological findings but rejects evolution. "

The Creationism mueseum puts dinosaurs in with early humans, so I would say young earth creationism is a little more popular.

Answer 4

If you say you can understand all this, I'd question your credibilty not Gentry's

Gentry's six premises are:

(A) Polonium isotopes (218Po, 214Po, and 210Po) are the last three of eight decay products that are formed when 238U radioactively decays to 206Pb.

(B) The half lives of the three polonium isotopes are relatively short: 218Po = 3.05 minutes; 214Po = less than 200 microseconds; and 210Po = 140 days (Table IV-8).

(C) The decay of each isotope produces alpha particles, the radial ejection of which damages the lattice structures of biotite and fluorite creating visible spherical shells (rings in two dimensions) of damage.

(D) The radii of these rings are proportional to the energies of release of the alpha particles, are different among themselves, and hence, distinguishable for each isotope Fig. 1.

(E) A concentration of 108 to 109 decayed atoms is needed to create visible damage rings.

(F) Absence of rings indicative of Po precursors (238U, 234U, 230Th, 226Ra, and 222Rn) and the presence of high 206Pb/207Pb ratios are interpreted to mean that isolated Po halos could only have been created from concentrations of Po atoms that were isolated from precursors and encapsulated within biotite and fluorite crystals (presumably by the Creator). A separate progenerative uranium source would, thus, be precluded and unavailable for emplacement of the Po ... or so Gentry thinks.

Answer 5

If you want a good example of this just read "Case for a Creator". All of the "evidence" provided is either lies,information taken out of context, or old information that was once believed but has been proven wrong. Strobel is an idiot that does not check his facts. Read it, you will either laugh your a$$ off or get really mad.

Answer 6

"Are you guys so desperate in your search for evidence of a young Earth that you can't do any better than that?"

A much more important question is

"Are you so desperate to discredit the Bible because in your heart of hearts you know that one day you will have to stand before the Creator of this universe and give an account of what you did in regards to Jesus and the salvation that God offers to you?".

The Bible doesn't clearly teach how old the earth is. It does clearly teach that one day we will all stand before God and that if we have not trusted in Jesus for our salvation we will be eternally condemned.

Click on the Get Saved button @ http://www.express56.com/~bromar/

Answer 7

There are many misinformed people who believe in creation. How about all those who believe in evolution who are misinformed and use discredited works to cite their reasons to believe. Many claims for evolution have been discredited and yet remain in the newest textbooks, even some that are intentional frauds -can you explain that?

Answer 8

It is because christians rely on dogma, which cannot change, unlike scence, that is flexible enough to change in the light of newer and better research and evidence.

Answer 9

People don't like to be proved wrong, and they don't like to discover that they're part of a minority that includes extremists.

Answer 10

You know what i own a pair of shoes older then 6000 years.