Talk:Polonium haloes indicate a young earth
From EvoWiki
Thomas Kettenring: Indeed the Claim above is different from the title of this page. But the Polonium Halo FAQ says Gentry claims recent creation. Should we change the title of this page?
Cubist: I don't see why; Gentry does indeed claim that these halos indicate recent creation. It's just that the evidence he provides doesn't actually support that claim. I've re-written that response to make this clearer...
"Gentry is correct"
Someone wrote this in the article:
- The above responses are incorrect. Gentry is correct. There is no rule that says that all isotopes should be present in equal abundance. There may have been only polonium-218, polonium-214, and polonium-210. Secondly if decay rates have changed as Gentry postulates then the evolutionists and old earth proponents have lost a major battle. It in no way destroys Gentry's arguments. The question still remains: how did these short half-life polonium radio halos form without a known parent present? The challenge still remains: create the kind of granite that Gentry has identified with the three types of parentless polonium radio halos. Until then evolution and the old earth theories have been refuted.
But the decay rates have not changed. The decay rates are consequences of the physics of the atomic nucleus, which would have to change greatly in order to make decay rates change. This would effect not only those changes in decay rates Gentry happens to need in order to keep up his religious belief, it would necessarily have other effects we would be able to detect as anomalies. There is no evidence for such a change in decay rates, and there is no theoretical basis for it. Science is not a kids' construction kit where you can exchange the parts as much as you like without affecting other parts.
Secondly, "if decay rates have changed... then the evolutionists and old earth proponents have lost a major battle" reminds me of other sentences starting with "If pigs could fly" or "when hell freezes over".
Thirdly, you have a really silly concept of science where theories can be temporarily refuted by single pieces of "evidence". --tk (t) 09:45, 26 April 2006 (BST)
