How did it get there ?

Question

Polonium 218 halo in a granite rock has a half life of about three minutes. In other words, it takes very little time for this radioactive isotope to fully break down and create this halo in the granite. If the rock is heated, it destroys these halos. According to evolutionary geology, the granites now containing these special halos had originally formed as hot magma slowly cooled over long ages. On the other hand, the radioactivity responsible for these special halos had such a fleeting existence that it would have disappeared long before the magma had time to cool and form the granite rocks. How did they get there?

Dr. Robert Gentry explains why Polonium Halos prove an instant creation of earth by God....creation evolution fingerprints atheism radiometric geology radioactive halo rock polonium isotopes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9DtY-BXWnY

Dr. Robert Gentry explains why Polonium Halos prove an instant creation of earth by God....creation evolution fingerprints atheism radiometric geology radioactive halo rock polonium isotopes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSImWs1NXCw

Answer 1

I think this is fantastic information! How did they get there? God created everythng!!!

Answer 2

You should probably have posted this under the Geology category, there's a reason why they exist. Additionally, geology has nothing directly to do with biology so I don't know why you're calling it "evolutionary geology".

If you looked up polonium halos, you'd find that the hypothesis was actually refuted due to a substancial lack of evidence. Basically, we don't know what causes the so-called radiohalos, but using incorrect assumptions in attempt to use them to prove that all effected rock must have been created "in an instant" is ridiculous and unscientific.

Answer 3

One of the intermediate steps in the decay of uranium to lead involves the decay of polonium. Polonium has a very short decay time. So, when a uranium atom in a piece of mica decays, it produces lead surrounded by several halos, some of which are polonium decay halos.

The mystery is that some samples of mica have lead atoms surrounded by halos that look like polonium decayed, but there are no uranium halos. If the mica were liquid when the polonium decayed, there would be no halo. Apparently the mica formed very quickly (in a matter of minutes) with polonium in it, so that the mica was solid when the polonium decayed. This is taken to be evidence that the rock formed almost instantaneously. It has nothing to do with how long ago the rock was formed.

Answer 4

Science section! Or are you more interested in Creationism?

Here's something to counter your claim if you wish to consider it:

There is no evidence proof of halos in basement or primordial rocks, and likewise no evidence that halos arise only from the decay of polonium 218. Geologist Jeffrey Wakefield actually visited all of Gentry's sample sites, in every case Gentry's samples came not from primordial granites as he had clamed, but rather from young dikes (igneous rock infusions into vertical fissures) that crosscut older igneous and sedimentary rocks. The decay of Uranium or Thorium all have 7 or 8 alpha emitters! Since any alpha emitter can make halos, these other isotopes could be responsible.

Answer 5

I recall reading about this in a Josh McDowell book. I thought the polonium has a half life much less than the time you stated, I cannot remember.
But, the point is, the rock must not have existed, then it did...immediately.

Answer 6

OK you are quoting Gentry, the physicist who knew nothing about geology.

Here is why you are wrong.

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

I doubt you'll read it. Nobody likes being told they are wrong. Once agin this is more fuzzy science from Christians desperately trying to prove a young earth theory. Try again please.

EDIT

Another interesting fact about Gentry's research is that he relies on steady decay as a core element of his argument. Yet Christians are quick to claim that we can't be sure that radioactive decay was always constant when ever they criticise dating techniques that rely on radioactive decay.

Here we see a prime example of how Christians present contradictory arguments in order to justify positions. In arguing for a young earth 6,000 - 10,000 years old they state that radioactive decay is constant but in arguing against a 4.5 billion year old earth they state that it isn't constant. They can't have it both ways.

Answer 7

There are many things that can be explained
much better by a global flood, but science
is too biased to consider :0)

Answer 8

That's something, like the existence of God, which may not be an answerable question.

Answer 9

You do understand that Gentry is not a real scientist?

Answer 10

It would probably take a million years to figure that out!