[__ Science __ ] 50 Years of Stunned Silence Demands A Proper Burial For Evolution

[Phoneman777]

**** Note from Phoneman777****
A nuclear scientist, I most certainly am not, so if I can understand this, anyone can. I attempted to reduce this heavy topic down to something anyone can grasp,
but if you have trouble with it,
feel free to message me.​

Dr. Robert Gentry, a Seventh-day Adventist scientist, made an extremely important discovery many years ago. In 1976, he published his findings in the top tier, elite, peer-reviewed journal "Science" and turned the atheistic scientific world upside down: Parent primordial Polonium-218 radioisotope halos contained in the Earth's basement granite rock layers, which completely erase the "millions of years" evolutionary time table which claims granite formed by slow cooling of magma into solid rock over millions of years. How so? We must first understand what radioisotope halos are before we can understand how they destroy this "millions of years" timetable upon which the entire theory of evolution rests:

All radioactive elements are unstable and go through a process of decay until they eventually become a stable lead element. A "parent" isotope, such as a Uranium-238, decays into a "daughter" isotope, which decays into another daughter isotope, and so on until the end of the "decay chain" is reached and a stable lead element is all that remains.

It's what happens during this decay process that is so important to Dr. Gentry's discovery.

As a radioactive isotope decays, it ejects either alpha or beta particles - depending on which isotope it is - from its radioactive center that shoot outward concentrically in all directions. If the particles are alpha, their violent, high-energy ejection causes damage to the surrounding crystalline structure of the rock in which the radioactive isotope is embedded (beta particles are too low-energy to cause any damage). The distance the alpha particles travel outward from an isotope's radioactive center varies from isotope to isotope on the decay chain, thereby producing varying distances of damage, seen as rings or "halos"; hence the name "radioisotope halos" - much like the cross-section of a hard boiled egg reveals the yellow center, the white layer surrounding it, and finally the outer shell layer. By examining the distance of each halo from the radioactive center, scientists can determine which isotope on the decay chain is responsible for the formation of each halo.

Here we see the radioactive center "dot" of a parent Uranium-238 isotope and all its daughter isotope halos on the decay chain, which means the radioactive center has almost reached (or reached) stable lead.

Still here? We're almost done!

Scientists with absolute precision have measured the "half life" of each radioactive isotope so they can well estimate how long it takes for any isotope to decay into its daughter isotope. One of these isotopes on the chain, Polonium-218, has a half life of only 3.1 minutes - which means it will fully decay into its daughter isotope in less than 30 minutes. The shocking discovery by Dr. Gentry is that he found parent primordial Polonium-218 halos, which means the Polonium-218 isotope that made them didn't decay from Uranium-238 down through the decay chain to Polonium-218 - because there are no halos from any isotopes that occur higher up the chain - they came into existence as parent primordial Polonium-218!

Therefore, because of the fleeting existence of Polonium-218, the only explanation for how parent primordial Polonium-218 halos could possibly form is that a parent Polonium-218 isotope suddenly sprang forth into existence within molten magma, immediately followed by the instantaneous hardening of that magma into solid granite whereby trapping the isotope inside, followed by an onslaught of halo-producing alpha particle damage to the newly hardened granite crystalline structure as this parent primordial Polonium-218 isotope decays into its daughter isotope, all of which must be accomplished in mere minutes! This could NEVER happen - literally never in a million years - if granite needed to form by slow cooling of molten magma into solid rock over millions of years!

"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made,
and all the hosts of them by the breath of His mouth...
For He spake, and it was done,
He commanded, and it stood fast."

Dr. Gentry's findings on Polonium halos have been published in the top tier, elite, premier authoritative, peer-reviewed science journals of the world such as Science, Nature, Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Earth and Planetary Science, Geophysical Research Letters, and many more. After the journal Science published his findings in October of 1976, Dr. Gentry got a letter from a professor at LSU:

"Dear Dr. Gentry,​

​

I have been patiently scanning the 'Letters' section of Science since the publication by you and your colleagues on your findings of radiohalos. The silence has been deafening -- I think it can be interpreted as stunned silence. Your results will not greatly trouble the engineer...but the impact on the science of geology, in possibly changing accepted views on geologic time, will be felt many years."​

Very truly yours,​

Raphael G. Kazmann, Professor​

"Stunned silence" brothers and sisters. The atheistic scientific community was blown away by Dr. Gentry's findings and for months sat in stunned silence, unable to offer an alternative explanation in defense of their false "millions of years" timeline. Almost 50 years later, not a single scientist has been able to publish an alternative explanation in any of these top tier, elite, premier authoritative, peer-reviewed science journals.

Oh, there are a few shills among the atheistic scientific community like John Baillieul who climb onto the internet and throw a few stones at Dr. Gentry, but none of their articles have ever been published in any top tier, elite, most authoritative, peer-reviewed science journal. Their work has been characterized as "spurious" and attempts to "hoodwink the unwary". They know their bogus claims don't even begin to approach the level of a serious challenge to Dr. Gentry's legitimate scientific work, but they can't stand the embarrassment of nearly 5 decades of deafening silence, so better to post an article on an internet website that isn't peer reviewed, isn't fact checked, isn't regarded by anyone accept atheists and foolish theistic evolutionists who wouldn't know an isotope from an ice cream sundae, and pretend they've found a "chink in the armour". Even the complicit editors of these top tier, peer-review journals know that publishing those desperate claims on their platforms would do extreme harm to the entire atheistic pseudoscience agenda because those claims would be swiftly exposed as fallacious.

Dr. Gentry boldly challenged his critics to public, peer-reviewed debates, but no one has ever stepped up to the challenge, so he's had to descend to their level in answering their criticism. The stunned silence continues. When this great man of God passed away in 2020, I'm sure there was much rejoicing among the atheistic pseudoscience community. His Wiki page is shamelessly biased against him and his extraordinary accomplishments, but in a time when a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth is finished lacing up it's boots, that's to be expected. Praise God it's as true today as it was when Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 13:8 KJV, "We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth" and I pray what I've written here is to the glory of God and for the protection of those who would otherwise be seduced by the satanic lie of evolution.

Useful links:
Study Pages

Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates​

 

[Barbarian]

The problem for Gentry was that the halos are found only in rocks containing radioactive elements such as uranium and thorium. His story was debunked a long time ago. Most creationists have given up on this argument for a number of reasons:

Gentry is a physicist, not a geologist. He doesn't follow accepted geologic reporting practice and consistently fails to provide the information that a third party would need to collect comparable samples for testing. For his research, Gentry utilized microscope thin sections of rocks from samples sent to him by others from various places around the world. Thus, he is unable to say how his samples fit in with the local or regional geological setting(s). He also does not provide descriptive information about the individual rock samples that make up his studies - i.e., the abundance and distribution of major, accessory, or trace minerals; the texture, crystal size and alteration features of the rocks; and the presence or absence of fractures and discontinuities.

Gentry does not acknowledge that the Precambrian time period represents fully 7/8 of the history of the Earth as determined by decades of intensive field and laboratory investigations by thousands of geologists. Consequently, he does not recognize the wide diversity of geologic terranes that came and went over that enormous time span. His claim that his samples represent "primordial" basement rocks is patently incorrect . In Gentry's model, any rock looking vaguely like a granite and carrying the label Precambrian is considered to be a "primordial" rock. True granites are themselves evidence of significant crustal recycling and elemental differentiation (see for example, Taylor and McLennan, 1996), and cannot be considered primordial. A little detective work by Wakefield (1988) showed that at least one set of rock samples studied by Gentry are not from granites at all, but were taken from a variety of younger Precambrian metamorphic rocks and pegmatite veins in the region around Bancroft, Ontario. Some of these rock units cut or overlie older, sedimentary and even fossil-bearing rocks.

Gentry provides no explanation for how polonium alone finds its way into biotite and fluorite, or why radiation damage haloes in these minerals are common in areas of known uranium enrichment, but rare where uranium abundance is low. Gentry's hypothesis would seem to suggest that there should be a uniform distribution of all polonium isotopes in primordial rocks, or at least no particular spatial association with uranium. Gentry (1974), himself, notes that haloes have not been found in meteorites or lunar samples, rocks known to be very low in uranium abundance. Lorence Collins (1997) has noted these and several other contradictory situations between the polonium halo hypothesis and observed geological relationships in the field.

• Polonium haloes in mica are found only in granitic, or granitic-type rocks, and not in mica from adjacent rocks of other compositions
• Polonium haloes are found only in rocks which contain myrmekite, a replacement mineral intergrowth - a clear indication that the rock is not "primordial.

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

Most devastating to Gentry's assumption, is the fact that some of these halos were taken from rock that overlays fossil-bearing rock, which completely destroys his claim that the halos were from "primordial rock."

 

[Phoneman777]

The problem for Gentry was that the halos are found only in rocks containing radioactive elements such as uranium and thorium. His story was debunked a long time ago. Most creationists have given up on this argument for a number of reasons:

Gentry is a physicist, not a geologist. He doesn't follow accepted geologic reporting practice and consistently fails to provide the information that a third party would need to collect comparable samples for testing. For his research, Gentry utilized microscope thin sections of rocks from samples sent to him by others from various places around the world. Thus, he is unable to say how his samples fit in with the local or regional geological setting(s). He also does not provide descriptive information about the individual rock samples that make up his studies - i.e., the abundance and distribution of major, accessory, or trace minerals; the texture, crystal size and alteration features of the rocks; and the presence or absence of fractures and discontinuities.

Gentry does not acknowledge that the Precambrian time period represents fully 7/8 of the history of the Earth as determined by decades of intensive field and laboratory investigations by thousands of geologists. Consequently, he does not recognize the wide diversity of geologic terranes that came and went over that enormous time span. His claim that his samples represent "primordial" basement rocks is patently incorrect . In Gentry's model, any rock looking vaguely like a granite and carrying the label Precambrian is considered to be a "primordial" rock. True granites are themselves evidence of significant crustal recycling and elemental differentiation (see for example, Taylor and McLennan, 1996), and cannot be considered primordial. A little detective work by Wakefield (1988) showed that at least one set of rock samples studied by Gentry are not from granites at all, but were taken from a variety of younger Precambrian metamorphic rocks and pegmatite veins in the region around Bancroft, Ontario. Some of these rock units cut or overlie older, sedimentary and even fossil-bearing rocks.

Gentry provides no explanation for how polonium alone finds its way into biotite and fluorite, or why radiation damage haloes in these minerals are common in areas of known uranium enrichment, but rare where uranium abundance is low. Gentry's hypothesis would seem to suggest that there should be a uniform distribution of all polonium isotopes in primordial rocks, or at least no particular spatial association with uranium. Gentry (1974), himself, notes that haloes have not been found in meteorites or lunar samples, rocks known to be very low in uranium abundance. Lorence Collins (1997) has noted these and several other contradictory situations between the polonium halo hypothesis and observed geological relationships in the field.

• Polonium haloes in mica are found only in granitic, or granitic-type rocks, and not in mica from adjacent rocks of other compositions
• Polonium haloes are found only in rocks which contain myrmekite, a replacement mineral intergrowth - a clear indication that the rock is not "primordial.

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

Most devastating to Gentry's assumption, is the fact that some of these halos were taken from rock that overlays fossil-bearing rock, which completely destroys his claim that the halos were from "primordial rock."

Clearly, you read nothing but the OP title, and proceeded to post this "copy and paste" nonsense from coward John Baillieul. Please read the OP and then we can talk about who refuted what and on what platforms these refutations took place.

Also, you claimed "most Creationists have given up on this argument" but you offerend nothing by way of evidence, no Creationist scientist statements, no polls, nothing - WHICH IS A VIOLATION of the terms of service. Please provide evidence or retract it immediately or I'll forward this to the mods. You don't get to come in here and throw around statements intended to discredit OP content without proof, understand?

BTW, here's a link to Gentry's smackdown of the copy and pasted internet article by Baillieul's "Refuted" you posted:

Bob Gentry: Creation halos and center of universe discoveries used to refute evolutionary polemics aimed at Brazilian med student's origins website

Why Thomas A. Baillieul's criticism's of Bob Gentry's work don't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

www.halos.com

 

[Barbarian]

Clearly, you read nothing but the OP title, and proceeded to post this "copy and paste" nonsense from coward John Baillieul. Please read the OP and then we can talk about who refuted what and on what platforms these refutations took place.

The Geology of Gentry's “Tiny Mystery”​

• J. R. Wakefield
• Published 1 May 1988
• Geology
• Journal of Geological Education

The unusual polonium halos described by Robert Gentry have been a problem for some years now. Gentry claimed that the polonium halos show that the Precambrian granite they are hosted in were “instantly created.” Some research on the halos has been carried out by other scientists, but most of it has been aimed at solving the problems of the peculiar configuration of these halos. Fortunately, Gentry provided two specific site locations in the Canadian Shield where his samples came from. The geological setting of these sites shows conclusively that Gentry's notion of an “instantly created” earth composed of granite is false. Specifically the samples came from crystallized rocks which can be shown to crosscut several sedimentary and other plutonic rocks. Some of the sedimentary rocks contain stromatolites. The geology of the sites shows that the uranium, and most likely the polonium, were deposited via post-magmatic hydrothermal fluids.

...

Creation/Evolution Journal
Volume 8 No.1 Winter 1988
...I confronted Gentry with the information about dikes by sending him some of the references and through subsequent phone conversations with him in February, March, and April 1987. In a phone conversation with him on April 12, he told me that the sequence of events in the area was not what I had told him it was but that the intrusive rocks were first and the sedimentary rocks were last to form. What made him the most anxious were the stromatolitic horizons recently found just south of Bancroft in the marble units cut by the Faraday gabbro and pegmatites. He challenged the fact that they exist. However, there is no question as to their authenticity (Easton, 1987).

I explained that there were features that show conclusively the sequence of rock formation from basaltic flows, thirty kilometers to the south near Madoc, followed in a complex way by the sedimentary rocks, succeeded by the intrusion of the gabbro plutons and, finally, the pegmatite intrusive bodies. In fact, I collected samples from this very sequence and sent them to him with a description. During our conversation on April 12, he challenged that sequence by claiming that it was not a vertical sequence but, rather, over a large distance. I told him the sequence had been tilted on its side. He still did not appreciate this sequence.

I argued that the nature of the intrusive rocks is very conclusive. Features include contact metamorphic recrystallization of the sedimentary rocks by the heat of the intrusive body. He claimed that the recrystallization was not due to the molten intrusive rock but, since the intrusive rocks were first, was caused by some sort of chemical alteration of the sedimentary rocks.

I explained to him that the intrusive rocks, including the pegmatites, show little or no regional metamorphic alteration but that the surrounding sedimentary and volcanic rocks are very much cooked. Thus, the intrusive rocks must have been implaced after or very near the end of the metamorphic event. I had to explain what regional metamorphism was (alteration of large areas by heat and pressure). He had no answer to that.

I described to Gentry another conclusive evidence of intrusion. There are pieces of sedimentary rocks enclosed within the intrusive rocks, engulfed and surrounded by the melt. The earlier comments on the Faraday Mine describe some of these features. I asked him how, if the metasedimentary rocks were younger than the intrusive rocks, he felt these inclusions got into the solid rock: Gentry denied the existence of these inclusions, but their occurrence is described in the literature I had already sent him. Now he acknowledges their existence but denies their implications. In addition, these inclusions are very common and descriptions of them occur throughout the geological literature of the shield, which Gentry either has not read or does not understand.

It's been a long time since I heard anyone cite polonium halos as an evidence for a young Earth. This is the first time I've seen it in any forum for several years. For the reasons listed above, it clearly won't work. Any time the supposed "primordial rock" is intrusive into sedimentary rock, there's no possible way for it to be as old as the rock into which it intrudes.

I'm not sure why Gentry doesn't understand that intrusive rock by definition must by younger the the rock into which it flowed as magma. I do sort of understand why a non-geologist might not understand contract metamorphisis, but if Gentry wants to discuss geology, he should be willing to put in the effort to learn about it.

 

[Phoneman777]

It's been a long time since I heard anyone cite polonium halos as an evidence for a young Earth. This is the first time I've seen it in any forum for several years.

More people would know about the truth of parent primordial Po-218 halos and ceased from the lie of evolution.

For the reasons listed above, it clearly won't work.

Every reason Baillieul gave for why they don't work has been discounted.

Any time the supposed "primordial rock" is intrusive into sedimentary rock, there's no possible way for it to be as old as the rock into which it intrudes.

Ever wonder why the granites - the Earth's foundational stones - which are supposed to be down there are sticking up out of the ground all over the place up here? Hello...there was a Flood. Massive turbidites burying animals, trees, granites too.

I'm not sure why Gentry doesn't understand that intrusive rock by definition must by younger the the rock into which it flowed as magma. I do sort of understand why a non-geologist might not understand contract metamorphisis, but if Gentry wants to discuss geology, he should be willing to put in the effort to learn about it.

I don't understand why Christians readily accept the flawed theories of atheist scientists who can't get their parent primordial Po-218 criticism published on top tier, elite, premier authoritative, peer-reviewed science journal platforms -- the very place where Dr. Gentry published the truth of parent primordial Po-218 halos which has left the evolutionary science community in STUNNED SILENCE for 50 years -- so they have to publish them on the same platforms where you find websites that teach us how men can get pregnant.

 

[Barbarian]

Every reason Baillieul gave for why they don't work has been discounted.

Discounted, but not refuted. There are indeed fossils lower than the rock Gentry assumed was "primordial granite." And Gentry assumed intrusive rock was primordial granite. Intrusive rock is rock that formed from magma that forced itself into cracks in older rock. And we know this is the case because we see contact metamorphosis where the magma contacted older rock. There's no point in denying the facts.

Ever wonder why the granites - the Earth's foundational stones

Except they aren't. They are ingeous rock that only formed after the continents were formed. Oceanic basalt is older, and more "foundational.

which are supposed to be down there are sticking up out of the ground all over the place up here?

It's called "erosion." Granite is melted continental crust that cooled underground. Where it erupts, as in the volcanoes of the Pacific Northwest, it cools more quickly, with smaller crystals and forms rhyolite. And that's another reason Gentry went off the rails. It takes ages for coarse granite to cool slowly enough to form visible crystals.

Hello...there was a Flood. Massive turbidites burying animals, trees, granites too.

Not according to the Bible. The Bible doesn't say that the flood was worldwide. It's not even certain if the flood is an actual event or an allegory. However, there was a huge flood in the Middle East about the right time, so I'm inclined to think it is an actual event.

the very place where Dr. Gentry published the truth of parent primordial Po-218 halos which has left the evolutionary science community in STUNNED SILENCE for 50 years

His misconceptions were addressed almost immediately. Would you like me to show you?

so they have to publish them on the same platforms where you find websites that teach us how men can get pregnant.

Guess how I know you don't read any geology journals? What in the world made you bring up something like that? Geology isn't about who can get pregnant. You'll have to look elsewhere for that.

 

[Phoneman777]

The Geology of Gentry's “Tiny Mystery”​

• J. R. Wakefield
• Published 1 May 1988
• Geology
• Journal of Geological Education

The unusual polonium halos described by Robert Gentry have been a problem for some years now. Gentry claimed that the polonium halos show that the Precambrian granite they are hosted in were “instantly created.” Some research on the halos has been carried out by other scientists, but most of it has been aimed at solving the problems of the peculiar configuration of these halos. Fortunately, Gentry provided two specific site locations in the Canadian Shield where his samples came from. The geological setting of these sites shows conclusively that Gentry's notion of an “instantly created” earth composed of granite is false. Specifically the samples came from crystallized rocks which can be shown to crosscut several sedimentary and other plutonic rocks. Some of the sedimentary rocks contain stromatolites. The geology of the sites shows that the uranium, and most likely the polonium, were deposited via post-magmatic hydrothermal fluids.

...

Creation/Evolution Journal
Volume 8 No.1 Winter 1988
...I confronted Gentry with the information about dikes by sending him some of the references and through subsequent phone conversations with him in February, March, and April 1987. In a phone conversation with him on April 12, he told me that the sequence of events in the area was not what I had told him it was but that the intrusive rocks were first and the sedimentary rocks were last to form. What made him the most anxious were the stromatolitic horizons recently found just south of Bancroft in the marble units cut by the Faraday gabbro and pegmatites. He challenged the fact that they exist. However, there is no question as to their authenticity (Easton, 1987).

I explained that there were features that show conclusively the sequence of rock formation from basaltic flows, thirty kilometers to the south near Madoc, followed in a complex way by the sedimentary rocks, succeeded by the intrusion of the gabbro plutons and, finally, the pegmatite intrusive bodies. In fact, I collected samples from this very sequence and sent them to him with a description. During our conversation on April 12, he challenged that sequence by claiming that it was not a vertical sequence but, rather, over a large distance. I told him the sequence had been tilted on its side. He still did not appreciate this sequence.

I argued that the nature of the intrusive rocks is very conclusive. Features include contact metamorphic recrystallization of the sedimentary rocks by the heat of the intrusive body. He claimed that the recrystallization was not due to the molten intrusive rock but, since the intrusive rocks were first, was caused by some sort of chemical alteration of the sedimentary rocks.

I explained to him that the intrusive rocks, including the pegmatites, show little or no regional metamorphic alteration but that the surrounding sedimentary and volcanic rocks are very much cooked. Thus, the intrusive rocks must have been implaced after or very near the end of the metamorphic event. I had to explain what regional metamorphism was (alteration of large areas by heat and pressure). He had no answer to that.

I described to Gentry another conclusive evidence of intrusion. There are pieces of sedimentary rocks enclosed within the intrusive rocks, engulfed and surrounded by the melt. The earlier comments on the Faraday Mine describe some of these features. I asked him how, if the metasedimentary rocks were younger than the intrusive rocks, he felt these inclusions got into the solid rock: Gentry denied the existence of these inclusions, but their occurrence is described in the literature I had already sent him. Now he acknowledges their existence but denies their implications. In addition, these inclusions are very common and descriptions of them occur throughout the geological literature of the shield, which Gentry either has not read or does not understand.

It's been a long time since I heard anyone cite polonium halos as an evidence for a young Earth. This is the first time I've seen it in any forum for several years. For the reasons listed above, it clearly won't work. Any time the supposed "primordial rock" is intrusive into sedimentary rock, there's no possible way for it to be as old as the rock into which it intrudes.

I'm not sure why Gentry doesn't understand that intrusive rock by definition must by younger the the rock into which it flowed as magma. I do sort of understand why a non-geologist might not understand contract metamorphisis, but if Gentry wants to discuss geology, he should be willing to put in the effort to learn about it.

This is an education journal, which is not peer reviewed. It's not a top tier, premier authoritative, peer reviewed science journal like those in which Gentry's discoveries were published.

Please try again.

 

[Phoneman777]

Discounted, but not refuted. There are indeed fossils lower than the rock Gentry assumed was "primordial granite." And Gentry assumed intrusive rock was primordial granite. Intrusive rock is rock that formed from magma that forced itself into cracks in older rock. And we know this is the case because we see contact metamorphosis where the magma contacted older rock. There's no point in denying the facts.


Except they aren't. They are ingeous rock that only formed after the continents were formed. Oceanic basalt is older, and more "foundational.


It's called "erosion." Granite is melted continental crust that cooled underground. Where it erupts, as in the volcanoes of the Pacific Northwest, it cools more quickly, with smaller crystals and forms rhyolite. And that's another reason Gentry went off the rails. It takes ages for coarse granite to cool slowly enough to form visible crystals.


Not according to the Bible. The Bible doesn't say that the flood was worldwide. It's not even certain if the flood is an actual event or an allegory. However, there was a huge flood in the Middle East about the right time, so I'm inclined to think it is an actual event.



His misconceptions were addressed almost immediately. Would you like me to show you?



Guess how I know you don't read any geology journals? What in the world made you bring up something like that? Geology isn't about who can get pregnant. You'll have to look elsewhere for that.

No, soundly discounted and disproven in Dr. Gentry's book, "Creation's Tiny Mystery" of which I have a copy. Why hasn't this "evidence against parent, primordial Po218" you present not been published in any top tier, premier authoritative, peer-reviewed science journal, as Dr. Gentry's evidence was?

Dr. Gentry himself explains why:

"Those who are claiming to have found a natural explanation of polonium halos in granites are trying to hoodwink the unwary. They are misrepresenting the facts.​

​

Despite what you find on various evolutionist websites, polonium halos — actually creation halos — are well and alive as unequivocal evidence of God's fiat creation of planet Earth. THE REASON EVOLUTIONISTS AND OTHERS POST THEIR OBJECTIONS ON THE INTERNET IS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT GET ANY REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL TO PUBLISH THEIR CLAIMS. THE JOURNAL EDITORS KNOW THEIR CLAIMS ARE SPURIOUS. AND WERE THEY TO BE PUBLISHED, THE SAME EDITORS KNOW IT WOULD ONLY EXPOSE THE HUGE FALLACIES IN THEIR CLAIMS AND THUS EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT EVOLUTIONISTS CANNOT OVERTHROW GOD'S EVIDENCE FOR HIS GREAT WORKS OF CREATION. So, if they were to venture to do this, evolution would rapidly be discredited, and the editors know it."​

​

I'm happy to send you a copy if you like, free of charge, friend. Please message me if you're interested. Thanks.

 

[Barbarian]

A quick look at the literature...

Science Vol. 180, No. 4092

Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternate Interpretation​

Abstract​

A study of the sizes of so-called polonium radiohalos of various types found in biotite from Bancroft, Ontario, has been carried out. The evidence is consistent with the interpretation that these halos are variants of the standard uranium halos. A review of the literature indicates that there is no firm evidence that polonium halos exist, all evidence being equally consistent with the interpretation that these are uranium halos.

 

[Barbarian]

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry ​

Volume 253: Issue 2 ​

Indications for the existence of superheavy elements in radioactive halos

Abstract ​

Many unexplained phenomena associated with the radioactive halos in very old minerals are described in the literature. In this paper these phenomena are enumerated. The new hypothesis that a primordial superheavy element (SHE) survived in the earth"s crust can help to solve the problems. According to this hypothesis, the SHE decays by spontaneous fission into fragments of very different mass. The heavy fragments, assumed to lie in the region of the natural decay series, exhibit many indications for a SHE. Additionally, the alpha decay of SHE may occur. Applying the methods of mass spectrometry and X-ray fluorescence can probably prove the existence of SHE.

 

[Phoneman777]

A quick look at the literature...

ScienceVol. 180, No. 4092

Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternate Interpretation​

Abstract​

A study of the sizes of so-called polonium radiohalos of various types found in biotite from Bancroft, Ontario, has been carried out. The evidence is consistent with the interpretation that these halos are variants of the standard uranium halos. A review of the literature indicates that there is no firm evidence that polonium halos exist, all evidence being equally consistent with the interpretation that these are uranium halos.

Friend, if you'd hadn't taken such a "quick look" at your literature, you'd have seen the year this journal Science article was published was 1973 - three years before Gentry shocked the global atheistic scientific community into 50 years of stunned silence when he published evidence to the contrary for the existence of primordial Po-218 in the October 1976 issue in the same journal.

 

[Phoneman777]

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry ​

Volume 253: Issue 2 ​

Indications for the existence of superheavy elements in radioactive halos

Abstract ​

Many unexplained phenomena associated with the radioactive halos in very old minerals are described in the literature. In this paper these phenomena are enumerated. The new hypothesis that a primordial superheavy element (SHE) survived in the earth"s crust can help to solve the problems. According to this hypothesis, the SHE decays by spontaneous fission into fragments of very different mass. The heavy fragments, assumed to lie in the region of the natural decay series, exhibit many indications for a SHE. Additionally, the alpha decay of SHE may occur. Applying the methods of mass spectrometry and X-ray fluorescence can probably prove the existence of SHE.

Since when is mere "hypothesis" or speculations that "probably prove" a thing ever used as "evidence" to discount empirically proven fact based on actual hard evidence?

Not until their hypothesis becomes "fact" and their "probably" becomes "definitely" - and not until its published it in a top-tier, premier authoritative, peer-reviewed science journal, will the 50 years of stunned silence finally be over.

 

[Barbarian]

Since when is mere "hypothesis" or speculations that "probably prove" a thing ever used as "evidence" to discount empirically proven fact based on actual hard evidence?

Seems like a much better hypothesis than Gentry's claim that granite that intruded into existing sedimentary rock (some of it with fossils) is "primordial granite." If you thought about it, you'd see at once why it couldn't be so.

 

[Barbarian]

Friend, if you'd hadn't taken such a "quick look" at your literature, you'd have seen the year this journal Science article was published was 1973 - three years before Gentry shocked the global atheistic scientific community into 50 years of stunned silence when he published evidence to the contrary for the existence of primordial Po-218 in the October 1976 issue in the same journal.

As you now see, there were simple and conclusive refutations of Gentry's assumptions almost immediately. It was simple to find the rocks from which his samples came, and most of them were demonstrably younger than the rock above and below them. There is even contact metamorphosis of the rock into which the magma intruded before hardening into granite.

His assumption that they were "primordial granite" is simply wrong. And the journal I cited?

Science is a leading outlet for scientific news, commentary, and cutting-edge research. Through its print and online incarnations, Science reaches an estimated worldwide readership of more than one million. Science’s authorship is global too, and its articles consistently rank among the world's most cited research.

Science | AAAS

Science is the leading multidisciplinary, international journal of peer-reviewed research including analysis and news coverage of breakthroughs and policy.

www.science.org

 

[BeyondET]

Barbarian presented the logical explanation, the doc unfortunately reached a bit to far didn't grasp much.