Affirmative evidence towards creationism

[painted wolf]

The problem is that RATE gropes in the dark hoping to find evidence to prove thier theory... in so doing they tend to stretch things a bit.

Thier scope isn't broad, its just trying to give a scientific facade to thier ideas.
If they realy wanted to broaden thier scope they would look at all the evidence not just the stuff they 'discover' to prove thier point.

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

The problem is that RATE gropes in the dark hoping to find evidence to prove thier theory... in so doing they tend to stretch things a bit.

Thier scope isn't broad, its just trying to give a scientific facade to thier ideas.
If they realy wanted to broaden thier scope they would look at all the evidence not just the stuff they 'discover' to prove thier point.

wa:do

You make it sound like a bunch of alchemists with no respect for physics. The problems of carbon retention and helium transfer are legimate fields of scientific inquiry all on their own. RATE asks some good questions, one's which science has so far been unable to answer within the limits of the assumptions usually laid down.

RATE is not static, the work goes on, and the practice of the use of external recognized non-creationist specialists to verify data will continue. The head in the sand approach of the bulk of the mainstream community will backfire badly as the YECers continue to reduce errors, tighten error bars and cross-reference with more and more fields. I'm not saying they will find 'affirmative evidence of creation' but I won't be surprised if they can show that the Earth is a lot younger than we think.

The anomalies they are investigating are very real and currently in the mainstream 'too hard basket'. A scientist must accept that there is a reason why these features are there in nature and investigate the causes. I am shocked at the ignorance surrounding this project.

 

[Ryan2065]

You make it sound like a bunch of alchemists with no respect for physics. The problems of carbon retention and helium transfer are legimate fields of scientific inquiry all on their own. RATE asks some good questions, one's which science has so far been unable to answer within the limits of the assumptions usually laid down.

RATE is not static, the work goes on, and the practice of the use of external recognized non-creationist specialists to verify data will continue. The head in the sand approach of the bulk of the mainstream community will backfire badly as the YECers continue to reduce errors, tighten error bars and cross-reference with more and more fields. I'm not saying they will find 'affirmative evidence of creation' but I won't be surprised if they can show that the Earth is a lot younger than we think.

The anomalies they are investigating are very real and currently in the mainstream 'too hard basket'. A scientist must accept that there is a reason why these features are there in nature and investigate the causes. I am shocked at the ignorance surrounding this project.

RATE has an answer and looks for the evidence to prove it... Science looks at the evidence and uses that to find an answer. This is the reason RATE finds "errors" where no one else sees them. They are looking at the problem with an assumed conclusion. "The dates must be wrong... Find reasons why they are!" Sure you can find reasons... Doesn't mean they are true but they can sure convince someone who doesn't study that stuff.

 

[rocketman]

RATE has an answer and looks for the evidence to prove it...

And I suppose you haven't heard the story of why the scientists went looking for fossils in the area where they found Tiktalik? Hate to break it to you but you can't have it both ways. The 'answer' is not pre-concluded (pre-hoped for, sure) - the evidence of anomolies, pointers or causal indicators is sufficient to go looking for causes and evidences. Regardless of the motivations of the YECers involved they nevertheless followed this principle. Their speculation regarding the evidence must be kept seperate from the evidence itself, a task that neither creationists nor mainstream scientists seem to be very good at in this media mad world.

This is the reason RATE finds "errors" where no one else sees them.

Your choice of words Ryan. I said anomalies. And they are physical features not dating errors. The errors are only inferred afterwards in light of the new evidence. How much do you actually know about RATE?

Sure you can find reasons... Doesn't mean they are true but they can sure convince someone who doesn't study that stuff.

I'm sure they hope the dates are wrong to suit their beliefs, but the RATE project does not pre-assume a date! They have had to adjust the dates in light of further evidence. I'm yet to see a response from the mainstream side that actually addresses the totality of the science involved. Unbelievable.


For the record I don't think RATE answers the OP. ie:sorry if I'm dragging us off-topic.

 

[painted wolf]

some scientific refutation of current and past RATE work. Scientist have indeed pointed out why the RATE work is flawed.

The current work with Pulonium in Mica is decietfull as they don't account for the fact that Pulonium is the result of prior decay of Radon which is a result of decay of Uranium. Thus the dates for Pulonium halo's must be much older.

Polonium is a decay product of radon, which in turn is a decay product of uranium. Radon, being a gas, can diffuse through in the rocks. As a result, Polonium haloes are found only around the in uranium minerals. What Gentry calls "assumptions" about original isotope proportions is actually a necessary consequence from the polonium generation process. Gentry's isotope proportions don't make sense.

1. To reconcile his young earth hypothesis with the fact that the decay rates of numerous elements have been used to demonstrate a very old Earth, Gentry postulates (without evidence) that decay rates were much higher in the recent past. Not only would this accelerated decay need to affect different isotopes differently, Gentry inexplicably assumes that the decay rates for isotopes of polonium were not affected. In actuality, once the idea of inconsistent decay rates (and therefore decay energies) is introduced, the whole idea that you can assign a specific halo size to a specific isotope becomes impossible.
2. If Gentry's hypothesis is correct, then haloes associated with all polonium isotopes should be present in equal abundance. However, Gentry does not report the presence of haloes corresponding to the decay of polonium-215 and polonium-211 (uranium-235 decay series); or polonium-216 and polonium-212 (thorium-232 decay series). Brawley (1992) has an explanation for this discrepancy that is wholly in keeping with current geologic theory for an ancient Earth.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Polonium_haloes_indicate_a_young_earth

some other sources that likely have already been brought up.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/original.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/appendixc.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/a.html#Humphreys2005

 

[rocketman]

The current work with Pulonium in Mica is decietfull as they don't account for the fact that Pulonium is the result of prior decay of Radon which is a result of decay of Uranium. Thus the dates for Pulonium halo's must be much older.

News to me. I can show you where the RATE supporters talk about uranium and polonium in the same breath. Here for example. And here. But that's missing the point. One of the anomolies is just that: apparantly parentless polonium. Science has yet to explain it. I say let RATE have a go. Why doesn't anybody understand this project??

As for Gentry, a scientist who has had many legitimate papers published, he should be applauded for keeping the RATE group on their toes. See here for example.

With regard to the other flawed criticisms you quoted all I'm going to say is that without being able to face up to the fact that an unexplained feature is a legitimate avenue of research regardless of motivation, then the critics will continue to have a poor understanding of what's actually going on. Both sides need to take a deep breath and keep the rhetoric seperate from the evidence. Perhaps if they work together they can explain the mysteries of carbon retention and other issues.

For those game enough to keep an open mind why not investigate the other side of the story? Here.

Peace.

 

[Ryan2065]

And I suppose you haven't heard the story of why the scientists went looking for fossils in the area where they found Tiktalik? Hate to break it to you but you can't have it both ways.

I do not know about the situation with Tiktalik but if they had unscientific reasons for searching where they did then they were not doing science when they searched there... I would not consider an archelogist finding fossils in his backyard when he was digging for a pool science either. Just because a scientist gets good end results does not mean he used science to get there.

The 'answer' is not pre-concluded (pre-hoped for, sure) - the evidence of anomolies, pointers or causal indicators is sufficient to go looking for causes and evidences. Regardless of the motivations of the YECers involved they nevertheless followed this principle. Their speculation regarding the evidence must be kept seperate from the evidence itself, a task that neither creationists nor mainstream scientists seem to be very good at in this media mad world.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp

Since, from the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place, it was clear that the assumption of a constant slow decay process was wrong. There must have been speeded-up decay, perhaps in a huge burst associated with Creation Week and/or a separate burst at the time of the Flood.

Of course... They don't think they know the answer to start with. Its not like they are basing their research on the assumption that the Bible is historically correct.

I'm sure they hope the dates are wrong to suit their beliefs, but the RATE project does not pre-assume a date! They have had to adjust the dates in light of further evidence. I'm yet to see a response from the mainstream side that actually addresses the totality of the science involved. Unbelievable.

See the above quote... They believe they know that the earth is only a few thousand years old so with this assumption they start looking at things from every angle and use pseudoscience to try and disprove this. They are the reason that no one takes them seriously.
http://icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf
Read the first two pages about this group... You will see how they assume there is a God (ahem... slightly unscientific), then you will see how they believe the Bible is literally correct, and then finally you will see this:

On July 5, 1997 a group of young-earth creationist researchers met in San Diego, California to address the issue of reconciling radioisotopes and the age of the earth as reported by Vardiman [24]. It was recognized by the group that this was a significant problem which must be addressed if young-earth creationism was to continue to have a significant impact on the issue of origins both within and outside the Christian community. The group, which has since become known as RATE, decided that the primary approach would be to explore accelerated rates of decay of radioisotopes during one or more of the Creation, Fall, and Flood events.

The group was created to affirm the beliefs of the young earth creationists. Therefore it is highly unlikely they will publish materials that go against their views... Seeing as they already believe the earth is only a few thousand years old I wouldn't be suprised if they dismiss any evidence otherwise as wrong (see their paragraph on evolution) to go with their views.

 

[Ryan2065]

Some other fun things from RATE papers... You know, to show how scientific they are...

http://icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Chaffin.pdf

A straightforward biblical interpretation does not rule out a period of accelerated decay early in creation week. Since life does not appear until some time on day three, the cessation of the accelerated decay at that point prevents life from receiving abnormally large radiation doses. The models presented depend on the compactification of extra dimensions, with the compactification being completed early in creation week. Other models may lead to accelerated decay at other points, for instance during the Fall of Genesis 3 or during the Flood of Noah, but it would seem that these other episodes would probably have to be explained using alternative models, and could not allow as much accelerated decay as could be accommodated early in creation week.
Since God is the origin of physical principles, it would be wrong to state that He must act in a certain way. However, Scripture is a reliable record of His actual creation. The models considered here merely point out some unnecessary assumptions involved in interpreting radioactive decay: half lives may not have been constant.

http://icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf

These diffusion data are not precise enough to reveal details about the acceleration episodes. Were there one, two, or three? Were they during early Creation week, after the Fall, or during the Flood? Were there only 500 to 600 million years worth of acceleration during the year of the Flood, with the rest of the acceleration occurring before that? We cannot say from this analysis. However, the fact that these zircons are from a Precambrian rock unit sheds some light on various creationist models about when strata below the Cambrian formed. We can say that the “diffusion clock” requires a large amount of nuclear decay to have taken place within thousands of years ago, after the zircons became solid. At whatever time in Biblical history Precambrian rocks came into existence, these data suggest that “1.5 billion years” worth of nuclear decay took place after the rocks solidified not long ago.

They don't model their work around the idea that the earth is a few thousand years old... Not at all...

 

[rocketman]

They don't model their work around the idea that the earth is a few thousand years old... Not at all...

You missed my point entirely.

I don't care what their motivations are, I want to know if RATE has done any serious research. My view is that despite some minor errors, yes they have. We must keep the rhetoric/personal interpretaions seperate from the evidence, on both sides. We must not allow the personal hopes expressed by creationists regarding their findings to interfere with our assessment of the findings themselves. And equally we must not allow the half-developed criticisms of one or two people on TalkOrigins to overshadow the fact that regarding RATE the silence from the big guns in this field is deafening. RATE are onto something. And we must not forget that RATE is a work in progress.

Even at the Dover trial it was admitted that mainstream science does not have a mainstream answer to these problems. The best thing in my opinion would be for the two sides to team up and solve these mysteries together.

Does RATE equal affirmative evidence towards creation (the OP)? I say it does not, for me anyway. But I seriously think they will eventually show that the earth is younger than we once thought, and that may be evidence enough for some.

 

[fantome profane]

You missed my point entirely.

I don't care what their motivations are, I want to know if RATE has done any serious research. My view is that despite some minor errors, yes they have. We must keep the rhetoric/personal interpretaions seperate from the evidence, on both sides. We must not allow the personal hopes expressed by creationists regarding their findings to interfere with our assessment of the findings themselves. And equally we must not allow the half-developed criticisms of one or two people on TalkOrigins to overshadow the fact that regarding RATE the silence from the big guns in this field is deafening. RATE are onto something. And we must not forget that RATE is a work in progress.

Rocketman, I am sorry but I think you have missed the point. The problem has nothing to do with the goals of this organization. The problem is with their methods. You can start with a hypothesis (for example that the earth is approximately 6000 years old) and then try to find evidence to prove it. That is a perfectly valid scientific approach.

But what this group does is start with the belief in a young earth and then proceeds to manipulate the evidence to force it to match. When they find that the evidence does not match their religious beliefs they simply invoke an omnipotent supernatural hypothesis in order to rationalize the data. That is not science.

The more I look into this RATE business the more I find that it is nothing but religion masquerading behind a bunch of pseudo-scientific gobblygook.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/miracle_henke.htm

Humphreys (2000, p. 334) also acknowledges that young-Earth creationism depends on miracles and actually welcomes them. Concerning the decay rates of radioactive isotopes, Humphreys (2000, p. 367) states:

“It appears that Christ already has direct control of the nuclear (and other) forces, and furthermore that He is intimately involved with them. So even if we cannot follow all the links in the chain of causes back past a certain point, we can be confident that Jesus Christ is not only at the end of it, but at every link along the way. The point I am trying to make is that we should avoid the pitfall of insisting on completely naturalistic explanations for accelerated [radioactive] decay. Instead, my approach is to push the science we think we know as far as is reasonable, but remain ready at every point to see that God has intervened, and is intervening.”

By no stretch could this approach ever be considered even remotely scientific. I am sure you will agree that there cannot possibly be any evidence that “Christ has direct control of nuclear forces”. Now I understand that many people believe that “God” or Christ exists and has the power to control all things, and that is fine, I respect that. But science is not equipped to assess the truth of this kind of religious idea. Nor can the idea of “God’s” control be considered evidence. What RATE is doing is starting with a religious supernatural hypothesis, and ending with a religious supernatural conclusion. You can do that if you wish, but it is not science, regardless of how much gobblygook you manage to stick in-between.

Even at the Dover trial it was admitted that mainstream science does not have a mainstream answer to these problems. The best thing in my opinion would be for the two sides to team up and solve these mysteries together.

What two sides are you referring to? There are those who are doing legitimate scientific research trying to find reasonable scientific explanations, and there are those are trying to produce pseudo-scientific propaganda attempting to delude people into believing that there is evidence supporting their non-scientific supernatural suppositions. I cannot imagine how the latter could be a benefit to the former.

 

[rocketman]

Rocketman, I am sorry but I think you have missed the point.

That's a fair comment. But I only say that because you group their assumptions about the evidence in with their evidence. I choose not to do that. Read carefully your quote from Humphreys: he does not say let's do psuedoscience, he says that where the science ends creationists will have faith about the blanks. That quote actually works against your claim. Even without them invoking Jesus there is still preliminary evidence that points to an earth a lot younger than we reckon. I would only urge people to have a comprehensive look at RATE, especially the bits that haven't been criticised (funny how Talk-Origins leaves those out, and it's funny how the big guns of the dating game have a wait and see approach before torpedoeing RATE).

What two sides are you referring to? There are those who are doing legitimate scientific research trying to find reasonable scientific explanations, and there are those are trying to produce pseudo-scientific propaganda attempting to delude people into believing that there is evidence supporting their non-scientific supernatural suppositions. I cannot imagine how the latter could be a benefit to the former.

Things like radiohaloes and carbon retention do, in many areas, directly violate the idea of an old earth. Obviously creationists are therefore going to focus on this area. What's lacking is strong data from the mainstream side to directly counter. If things like these anomalies are going to be properly understood by all involved then all parties should meet the challenge together. Mainstream science has severly lost face within the young-earth creationist community because it is percieved as being unable to clearly and concisely rebut RATE, and not because of the science but because of the unwillingness of the mainstream to participate. Ultimately all scientists, including the bad ones, are human, and unless people of different views come together and work together then divisions can remain for generations.


*********************************************************************************************************

PS: This RATE subject is beginning to evolve into a seperate topic from the OP. We all seem to agree RATE does not satisfy the OP. If somebody has more to say can we start a new thread please?

 

[Ryan2065]

But I only say that because you group their assumptions about the evidence in with their evidence. I choose not to do that. Read carefully your quote from Humphreys: he does not say let's do psuedoscience, he says that where the science ends creationists will have faith about the blanks. That quote actually works against your claim. Even without them invoking Jesus there is still preliminary evidence that points to an earth a lot younger than we reckon. I would only urge people to have a comprehensive look at RATE, especially the bits that haven't been criticised (funny how Talk-Origins leaves those out, and it's funny how the big guns of the dating game have a wait and see approach before torpedoeing RATE).

Most of their work, however, is held up by their own beliefs. Most of the dating problems they seem to attribute to the great flood with Noah and all the animals. They don't research much farther than that.

Things like radiohaloes and carbon retention do, in many areas, directly violate the idea of an old earth.

Er... radiohalos suggest that certain things formed faster than we had originally thought... This does not in any way violate the idea of an old earth... Lets say the Grand Canyon, something we presume took many many years to form, was found to have formed in 1 day. Does this now mean that the earth is that many years younger? No... It just means the Grand Canyon is younger. Also... I like this work...
http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/gentry.html

But there is a second point that has apparently and amazingly gone unnoticed, at least by young-earth creationists. Gentry’s entire argument that basal granites must have been formed quickly depends on the reliability of radiometric dating. (More precisely, it depends on the constancy of radioactive decay rates. But if decay rates are constant, then radiometric dating is reliable.) If radiometric dating is not reliable, he has no argument at all, no case whatsoever, for the rapid formation of basal granites. Running that in reverse, if Gentry can show (by means of the arguments he has presented) that basal granites were rapidly formed, that implies that radiometric dating is reliable. But if radiometric dating is, in general, reliable, then, because of the results of other applications of radiometric dating procedures, we know the earth is very old.
To avoid the latter conclusion – that radiometric dating shows the earth is very old – Gentry elaborates his position to the point of pretty obvious self-contradiction. He claims radioactive decay rates have changed and that we therefore cannot trust any radiometric dates extending back before the supposed Great Flood. Now, the supposition of changing decay rates is physically preposterous; there are deep reasons in quantum physics for holding that substantial changes are virtually impossible. But let’s waive that: if it were true that there had been substantial and coordinated change in decay rates for all samples much beyond the fairly recent past, it would cut all the ground from under Gentry’s arguments that basal granites were formed quickly. His position can’t possibly be correct.

Obviously creationists are therefore going to focus on this area. What's lacking is strong data from the mainstream side to directly counter.

So if I say 2+3=30 should I expect every main stream mathematician to instantly stop what work they are doing and prove me wrong? No... the current evidence already proves me wrong. Look at the above quote about how the whole theory of radiohalos requires carbon dating to be accurate yet if carbon dating is accurate then the earth is actually old. Quite a dilemma you don't read about on answersingenesis.

If things like these anomalies are going to be properly understood by all involved then all parties should meet the challenge together.

No... if creationist scientists want to ever be taken seriously they need to take God out of their research. No respectable scientist is going to read a paper that gives a Biblical answer to their questions. Most of their papers refer back to Gensis and the days god made the earth and the great flood. If they cannot even approach writing a paper in a scientific manner what chance is there they approach their research in a scientific manner?

Mainstream science has severly lost face within the old-earth creationist community because it is percieved as being unable to clearly and concisely rebut RATE, and not because of the science but because of the unwillingness of the mainstream to participate. Ultimately all scientists, including the bad ones, are human, and unless people of different views come together and work together then divisions can remain for generations.

Damn... a division between science and religion... Say it ain't so!


**Edit**

PS: This RATE subject is beginning to evolve into a seperate topic from the OP. We all seem to agree RATE does not satisfy the OP. If somebody has more to say can we start a new thread please?

The op is what evidence is there for creationism... I'd think this would be a great place to debate RATEs findings since they are what most creationists look to when trying to prove the earth is a few thousand years old.

 

[fantome profane]

That's a fair comment. But I only say that because you group their assumptions about the evidence in with their evidence. I choose not to do that.

They are assuming that the evidence indicates a young earth. Are you saying that you don’t agree with this assumption? I have no problem with examining the evidence they have, but if as you suggest you separate it from the assumptions they have made, it does not indicate a young earth.

Read carefully your quote from Humphreys: he does not say let's do psuedoscience, he says that where the science ends creationists will have faith about the blanks. That quote actually works against your claim. Even without them invoking Jesus there is still preliminary evidence that points to an earth a lot younger than we reckon.

Of course I don’t expect anyone to say “let’s do psuedoscience”, but that does not mean they are not doing it. I am not sure you understand my claim here. I am saying that without invoking a “miracle” (“God”, “Christ”, or whatever word you choose) they have no evidence that points to a younger earth. Without referencing Genesis they have no reason to believe that there ever was an “accelerated [radioactive] decay”, and without invoking a supernatural agent they have no explanation for how it could have occurred.

What is the difference between “faith about the blanks” and “God of the gaps”? Anyway faith about supernatural entities has no place in science. The instant you introduce a supernatural cause you completely invalidate everything you have done.

I would only urge people to have a comprehensive look at RATE, especially the bits that haven't been criticised (funny how Talk-Origins leaves those out, and it's funny how the big guns of the dating game have a wait and see approach before torpedoeing RATE).

There are people working in legitimate areas of research, it is not their job to criticize every crackpot theory that comes along. What you call a “wait and see” approach could more accurately be interpreted as an “ignore unless there is valid science” approach. If I were to run around saying the sky is falling, legitimate astronomers would not take the time to examine my theory, and their silence could not be considered evidence that they are taking me seriously. Organizations such as Talk-Origin however are in the business of debunking this kind of nonsense.

So specifically what parts do you think Talk-Origin has leaves out?

Can this work without invoking “Christ”?

Is there any reason outside of Genesis to believe that there was a period of “accelerated [radioactive] decay”?

Is there any explanation other than “God” to explain how a period of “accelerated [radioactive] decay” could be? And could be without frying everything to a crisp?



Btw, if you wish to start a new thread on this that is fine with me. I will talk about it there or here, it doesn’t matter to me. I agree with you that this is not evidence of creation, but I don’t think it is evidence of a young earth either. It is however the only thing anyone has come up with to talk about in this thread. If anyone could suggest some affirmative evidence towards creation we could discuss that instead.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm not seeing any evidence of parentless Pulonioum... just an attempt to ignore that Pulonium comes from the Radon that comes from Uranium.

eventually the Uranium decays away into Radon that decays away into Pulonium.

Things like radiohaloes and carbon retention do, in many areas, directly violate the idea of an old earth.

only if you don't look at all the evidence... IMHO

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

Are you guys still here? ....

Er... radiohalos suggest that certain things formed faster than we had originally thought... This does not in any way violate the idea of an old earth...

Ryan, have you actually researched this stuff for yourself? Gentry's work is not about decay rates, that stuff is secondary specualtion on his part. His main work shows that Earth's granite was probably never in a molten condition and that it came into being in a cool state. Think about the implications of that for a moment. This is recognised as a genuine problem by those in the know on the evolutionist side. Can you show me where this work has been refuted? Your friend you quote conveniently leaves out the part about cold formation but of the rapid formation at least he admits that it is a genuine mystery: "As far as I know, there is no widely accepted or well-supported theory about how that might have happened."

I'm not saying it's proof of creation or that it proves everything else wrong simply by contradiction, but what I am saying is that it is real scientific evidence that points more towards the YEC school of thought than anyone elses. When the evolution gang sidestep this one you have no idea how much courage it gives the other side.

The op is what evidence is there for creationism... I'd think this would be a great place to debate RATEs findings since they are what most creationists look to when trying to prove the earth is a few thousand years old.

Yeah, but even if RATE is proven true is it potential evidence for creation or just potential evidence for a young earth? Do you understand the difference?
BTW, I originally only brought RATE up as an example when someone else suggested that YECers don't do any real scientific research - I never argued it to be proof of the OP, nor did anyone else.

They are assuming that the evidence indicates a young earth. Are you saying that you don’t agree with this assumption? I have no problem with examining the evidence they have, but if as you suggest you separate it from the assumptions they have made, it does not indicate a young earth.

It indicates a possible age for the Earth much less than widely accepted, via the observation that certain things should not be so if they are billions of years old. This is the simple part that many people fail to see. The hard part is explaining HOW this might be, hence the religious interpretations. Can't you see the difference between the two FP? As I said to Ryan, I'm not saying this is proof of creation or that one anomaly outweighs everything else known, but the first part of it is genuinely scientific, and it certainly makes me wonder if we really know as much as we think.

Tell me, who else is currently measuring helium diffusion rates on the scale that RATE is? All it would take is for one group from the evolutionist side to do a parallel study to confirm or deny this work! And it doesn't matter if they argue that the tests are flawed, they must reproduce those flaws to confirm their claims. The longer they leave it...

So specifically what parts do you think Talk-Origin has leaves out?

How about most of the work done in the past two years? How about the fact that when RATE were shown that they had some errors that they corrected them? How about the fact that they now make an effort to get their data independantly verified? How about the fact that RATE is not saying that they have scientific proof of creation itself, just some findings which support their assumptions? When I see an eminent geologist writing for or quoted on TO disproving RATE's insistance that there exists evidence that supports a possible younger Earth then I'll be impressed. For now the habit of ommission entertains, if through nothing else than sheer astonishment. I'm beginning to think that I know more about RATE than the guy on TO.

I'm not seeing any evidence of parentless Pulonioum... just an attempt to ignore that Pulonium comes from the Radon that comes from Uranium.

I said 'apparently parentless polonium'. The fact is that the evidence looks for all the world that this stuff just popped into existence. As scientists, no matter how uncomfortable the evidence, we must review it with an open mind. If we assume it occurred the way you say then we do so with evidence in front of us that directly contradicts our assumption. Maybe there is an 'old earth' explanation, but let's be serious enough to admit that we don't know what that is just yet. And if/when that turns up, then I'm sure we'll hear from a lot more eminent geologists on TO.

only if you don't look at all the evidence... IMHO

I agree that one or two anomolies don't disprove the rest of sceince - but do you agree that they add some weight to the idea that Earth may turn out to be a lot younger than we think? The anomalies have always led the big changes in science you know..

Merry Xmas, Peace and happy holidays to you three characters.

 

[Ryan2065]

Gentry's work is not about decay rates, that stuff is secondary specualtion on his part. His main work shows that Earth's granite was probably never in a molten condition and that it came into being in a cool state.

Well... for starters can you show where Gentry provided evidence that the work he did was actually done on granite?

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

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.

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.

We have brought up this information about the refutation of his work. If you want a real scientist to refute his work find a real scientists who agrees with his work first. By real scientist I say a scientist who does not include God in his research.

I'm not saying it's proof of creation or that it proves everything else wrong simply by contradiction, but what I am saying is that it is real scientific evidence that points more towards the YEC school of thought than anyone elses. When the evolution gang sidestep this one you have no idea how much courage it gives the other side.

The evolution gang does not sidestep this issue... They see that the current evidence that has been agreed on by thousands of scientists does not go with Gentrys findings. Also, pointing out the fact that Gentry has used rocks before that he said were granite when in fact they were not gives reason for a scientist to wait for someone else to approve of his findings before going on (by doing their own experiments of course). If you were a scientist what would you rather do? Spend your life refuting someone who is considered a nut in the science world or do research that could further sciences understanding of your field?

Or would redoing all of Gentry's experiments be easy to do? (You know, because he apparently does not give the materials that prove the rocks he experiments on are the real thing). I know talkorgins is slanted so if you can find something that shows his experiments are done on real granite could you present that here? Cause, if not, you are asking a scientist to redo all of Gentry's experiments...

Yeah, but even if RATE is proven true is it potential evidence for creation or just potential evidence for a young earth? Do you understand the difference?

Well if RATE is proven true then I would imagine you would agree their explanations for what happened are also going to be proven true (seeing as they assume the Bible is true and use that as a template for their research). So then in fact the creationist account would be proven true.

 

[painted wolf]

I think one or two anomolies out of millions of exparaments are more likely just that, anomolies... poor reserch.
I think the 'apparent' is just 'apparent' to those who want to see 'parentless pulonium'.

I try not to keep too open a mind, I like a sceptical one better. I find I learn more that way.

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

Well... for starters can you show where Gentry provided evidence that the work he did was actually done on granite?

The author you cite on TalkOrigins clearly doesn't understand Gentry's work. Link.

We have brought up this information about the refutation of his work. If you want a real scientist to refute his work find a real scientists who agrees with his work first. By real scientist I say a scientist who does not include God in his research.

The implication of 'God' is his personal opinion derived from his conclusion that the earth is very young. You can substitute the word God for anything at all, it still doesn't change the scientific side of what he has shown. The papers he has had published and his personal opinion on the causes thereof should not be confused. When a mainstream anti-creationist publishes a popular science book condeming creationists or people of faith (with obvious emotional impetus) do we then go back to their science and say it is bogus because they dare to speak their mind?

The evolution gang does not sidestep this issue... They see that the current evidence that has been agreed on by thousands of scientists does not go with Gentrys findings.

A long time ago an odd physical property known as parallax completely overturned most of what observation and mesurement told us about our place in the universe. Any time there is something so strange it should be investigated thoroughly. Many have trouble accepting that these anomolies could be anything significant, but in doing so they are avoiding the issue, and playing into the hands of the creationists. With regard to the limited work that has been done by the mainstream side on this issue, as it says on the page you cite: "Clearly, more work is required to resolve all of these questions." We may disagree on the implications of these physical mysteries but's let's not pretend for a second that they have been explained satisfactorily by the mainstream side.

If you were a scientist what would you rather do? Spend your life refuting someone who is considered a nut in the science world or do research that could further sciences understanding of your field?

A nut? Who said that? The page you cite says of him: "..Robert Gentry, who holds a Master's degree in Physics (and an honorary doctorate from the fundamentalist Columbia Union College). For over thirteen years he held a research associate's position at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory where he was part of a team which investigated ways to immobilize nuclear waste." Can you prove he's a nut? Can you prove how the anomolies came into being? Are you more knowledgable on the subject than this 'nut'?? If he's a nut then he should be easy to refute. Why won't the big guns in geology and physics take him on? Not because he's necessarily right, but because he might be hard to prove wrong. The page you cite grossly misrepresents and oversimplifies his arguments and exaggerates the connection between his science and his religion. Pathetic.

Well if RATE is proven true then I would imagine you would agree their explanations for what happened are also going to be proven true (seeing as they assume the Bible is true and use that as a template for their research). So then in fact the creationist account would be proven true.

No, I haven't been arguing that at all. (Btw, Gentry's ideas and RATE are two rather different but similar things.) If either were shown to be right - ie, a young earth - that does not in and of itself prove that anyone created anything, but it would be taken as CONFIRMATION for what some claim to know already on a spiritual level. I still don't see what debating the scientific veracity of RATE/Gentry can contribute to this thread.

 

[Ryan2065]

The author you cite on TalkOrigins clearly doesn't understand Gentry's work. Link.

And this man?
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6020_issue_22_volume_8_number_1__7_24_2003.asp#Gentry's%20Tiny%20Mystery%20Unsupported%20by%20Geology

The interesting thing about Gentry's work is his claim that there is no uranium or thorium in the nucleus at the center of the polonium halos:

Application of [special acid technique] to regions of mica near polonium halos showed only evidences of trace amounts of uranium (a few parts per million) that exist throughout all mica specimens—there was no concentration of uranium in or near the halo centers in the clear areas.

[1986, p. 31]​

​

This is very difficult to accept since the Faraday pegmatite was mined for uranium. A total of some four million tons of U3O8 ore were mined for a total of 7.3 million pounds of uranium oxide up until the mine's closure in 1984. The average concentration consisted of 0.1074 percent uranium oxide. The most common radioactive mineral is uranothorite, hence lots of uranium and thorium. These minerals are very small (less than one-tenth of a millimeter) and scattered throughout the pegmatite, becoming ore grade in the quartz and magnetite regions of the pegmatite.

In our phone conversation in March, Gentry claimed that the sedimentary rocks cut by the dikes and pegmatites are "pristine"—that they were created during creation week—and that some of them were later reworked during the Flood. He gives us a time-frame for all this to occur in his book:

The Creator, after calling the chemical elements into existence, might well, in the next instant of time, have formed those elements into a liquid, and then immediately cooled that liquid so that it crystallized into the granites containing the polonium halos. These granites would have been created instantly and yet still show the characteristic of rocks that crystallized from a liquid or melt.

[1986, p. 129]​

​

Was then, the halflife of 218Po—just three brief minutes—the measure of time that elapsed from the creation of the chemical elements to the time God formed the granites?

[p. 32]​

​

[SIZE=-1]— page 22 —[/SIZE]
The question I ask is why did Gentry choose Po218's halflife of 3.04 minutes for this "measure of time" and not Po210 at 138 days or Po214 at 0.000164 seconds? Was this choice rationally, arbitrarily, or biblically based? Regardless of which one, this is an Omphalos argument. In fact, a look now at the whole shield will indicate how much must have been created with the appearance of age.

Realizing how serious this problem is, Gentry has been forced to turn the science of geology upside down:

. . . just because geologists designate something as Precambrian doesn't automatically mean it has any connection with the primordial events of Day 1, or for that matter of creation week. In the case of the Precambrian granites it does have a connection; in other cases it may not. Investigation on a case-by-case basis is needed before it can be decided whether something called "Precambrian" can be connected to the events of creation week.

[1986, p. 302]​

​

So, the rules have been changed. Gentry has attempted to establish new criteria for determining the oldest rocks. But his new criteria fail at every point. Furthermore, he is forced to invoke the supernatural to explain away physical evidence that points to a tremendous amount of geological activity over a long period of time in this region where he found the halos. Since Gentry's God can do anything, he concludes that God created the region to have the features of age and activity that it exhibits and that he made "Genesis rock" look for all the world like a recent intrusion, thereby fooling thousands of geologists.

Still, we must give Gentry his due. Nothing in geology fully explains the apparent occurrence of the polonium halos as described by Gentry. They do remain a minor mystery in the field of physics. But this does not mean that no explanations are possible or that it is time to throw in the towel and invoke the "god of the gaps." The generation, preservation, and alteration of the radioactive halos involve complex physical processes that are not yet well understood, and it is quite possible that they are not primordial polonium halos at all. Other explanations include the erasure or modification of the inner halos by the alpha radiation from other isotopes, the migration of uranium-series elements through the rock by fluids or by diffusion accompanied by precipitation of polonium at inclusion sites shortly after it is formed, and the modification of halos by heat and pressure and chemical changes during metamorphism. The very fact that Gentry's halos at these sites occur in areas of unusually high uranium mineralization and metamorphism suggest that halos may be connected with the migration of uranium-bearing fluids through or within the rocks.

Its 32 pages so I figured I would quote what was interesting...

The implication of 'God' is his personal opinion derived from his conclusion that the earth is very young.

See above... All the references to god... All those things that he uses god to explain rather than science...

You can substitute the word God for anything at all, it still doesn't change the scientific side of what he has shown. The papers he has had published and his personal opinion on the causes thereof should not be confused. When a mainstream anti-creationist publishes a popular science book condeming creationists or people of faith (with obvious emotional impetus) do we then go back to their science and say it is bogus because they dare to speak their mind?

If this other person only did research to disprove god and submitted questionable materials with supernational explanations that went against what is currently known by science I wouldn't exactly jump to read his work.

A nut? Who said that? The page you cite says of him: "..Robert Gentry, who holds a Master's degree in Physics (and an honorary doctorate from the fundamentalist Columbia Union College). For over thirteen years he held a research associate's position at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory where he was part of a team which investigated ways to immobilize nuclear waste." Can you prove he's a nut? Can you prove how the anomolies came into being? Are you more knowledgable on the subject than this 'nut'?? If he's a nut then he should be easy to refute. Why won't the big guns in geology and physics take him on? Not because he's necessarily right, but because he might be hard to prove wrong. The page you cite grossly misrepresents and oversimplifies his arguments and exaggerates the connection between his science and his religion. Pathetic.

See his "science" work above... How can a scientist disprove the statement "Well God did it!" If you want to be taken seriously in the science world you do not offer supernatural explanations for problems you have found in current work.

 

[rocketman]

If you want to be taken seriously in the science world you do not offer supernatural explanations for problems you have found in current work.

*sigh*

If we are going to debate his science, fine. If you can't seperate his data and his religious speculation/interpretation of the data then you are going to have to debate with someone else. If you can't see that the anomolies are real and go against the regular evidence of an old earth (without invoking God) then I give up trying to show you. You know Ryan, it's possible to admit that these anomilies exist without agreeing with the creationist position, because, as I've said, a young earth doesn't by itself prove a creator.

So tell me again what this all has to do with the OP?