Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving


Judson McClendon <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dOZrj.28992$1f.18693@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Please give some *reasonable* hypothesis of how polonium particles could
come into existence and *completely* decay inside every grantie rock on
the
planet, leaving 100% of the decay resudue in place, *without* evidence of
any other decay that could produce the polonium. This is the situation as
it
is known to exist. It is perfectly consistent with instantaneous (or
nearly so)
creation of the Earth, with polonium particles embedded in the granite. I
is
not consistent with any reasonable theory on planetary creation that
leaves
God out. If that's not physical evidence of instantaneous creation, what
would you consider to be evidence?



If you want to have your face rubbed in it, consult the articles by Thomas
A. Baillieul (which I found on the net). His conclusions:

"Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails all tests.
Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of
assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are
caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from
the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces
of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively
reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative
lines of evidence that
demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence
which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three
"singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years.
Of course, supernatural events and processes fall
outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea
of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of
physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If
divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent
model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the
origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most
Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and
trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act
of faith, not science."

(Gentry's hypothesis requires that all radioactive decay rates, EXCEPT for
that of polonium, were substantially if not enormously faster in the
6,000-year period. This he attributes to acts of God. To attempt to prove
what's supposedly a purely physical theory by calling on acts of God removes
it from serious consideration as a physical theory).

Another, 10-page article by Richard Wakefield, blasts the Gentry theory
thus:

"1.The samples of biotite that contain Gentry's Po halos came from pegmatite
dikes and calcite vein-dikes that
cross-cut metamorphosed volcanic, sedimentary and igneous rock
units - the dikes are clearly the last to
form, not the first;
2.The dikes are not the vast extensive granite gneisses Gentry
claims are the backbone of the mountains and
continents -- they are relatively small features;
3.The rocks at two of the sites are not even granites but calcite
vein-dikes, most likely of hydrothermal origin.
The biotite was formed in the solid matrix by metamorphism and
4.Crystal size in igneous, vein and metamorphic rocks ranges from
microscopic to very large, is primarily due
to cooling rates and crystal growth, and cannot be used to
identify "created" rocks. "

(The author is a geologist in Canada and has worked at the sites that
provided Gentry's samples).

Finally, try "POLONIUM HALOS AND MYRMEKITE IN PEGMATITE AND GRANITE" by
Lorence G. Collins. Utterly trashes the theory.

Judson says that he finds all the refutations "preposterous". I will
politely suggest that they make perfect sense for any one who's versed in
geological science. I'm not, Judson's not, and Gentry isn't; he's a nuclear
physicist. Reading these articles makes it very clear that geology is an
immensely complicated field of knowledge which requires extensive study for
a person to make such unusual statements as Gentry has done.

Give it up, Judson. "Gentryism" just won't fly.

PL


.