The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[Subduction Zone]

Robert Gentry showed that parentless polonium 210, 214, and 218 radio haloes must be primordial based on the decay rates of the isotopes in the decay chain.
And he gave a simple falsification test that has yet been met. This test should be child’s play today. Not only can they not produce the granite with even one polonium 218 halo, they can’t even make that type of granite with the coarse grain.
How do you explain that?
Also he showed, using some polonium halos which are not primordial, that the rock layers are from the flood and laid down within a period of about 1 year.
If Gentry’s reasoning is correct, he has found direct evidence for the instantaneous creation of the Earth and of the worldwide flood.
There are many trillions and trillions of these halos in granite rocks all around the world.
I guess you have not read his book?
If you do you would know that Gentry faced a lot of censorship in many forms.

No, his methodology was shown to be flawed and his conclusions were shown to be unjustified. You were given links that showed that.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, his methodology was shown to be flawed and his conclusions were shown to be unjustified. You were given links that showed that.

What exactly was the flaw in his methodology?
I looked at the link and the link was flawed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What exactly was the flaw in his methodology?
I looked at the link and the link was flawed.

He did not personally collect a lot of his samples. People would just send "granite" to him. He did not know where it came from and that is very important. Some of it would have dated to the time of the "flood" in your beliefs.

For research to be valid one has to give enough information for others to repeat one's work. It turned out that he knew so little that his sources refute his own works. The details are in the article that you either did not read or did not understand.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

He did not personally collect a lot of his samples. People would just send "granite" to him. He did not know where it came from and that is very important. Some of it would have dated to the time of the "flood" in your beliefs.

For research to be valid one has to give enough information for others to repeat one's work. It turned out that he knew so little that his sources refute his own works. The details are in the article that you either did not read or did not understand.

He wrote a book and showed much of the evidence in the book. They are many radiographs.
I read the article and it flubbed his work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He wrote a book and showed much of the evidence in the book. They are many radiographs.
I read the article and it flubbed his work.

Prove it. I doubt if you can. You keep demonstrating that you do not understand the scientific method or the burden of proof. When I make a claim that needs support I am willing to do so properly. You never do. You tend to admit that you are wrong by running away.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Prove it. I doubt if you can. You keep demonstrating that you do not understand the scientific method or the burden of proof. When I make a claim that needs support I am willing to do so properly. You never do. You tend to admit that you are wrong by running away.

Then what exactly is wrong with his methodology?
First, the decay chain is well known and the decay rates are well known. He eliminated all possibilities because there are only a few that were possible. That lead to the primordial conclusion.
Second, he offered a simple test to refute his work. And with today's technology that should be easy. No one has done it.
Third, the flood poof work also refutes evolution and billions of years.
Fourth, he documented the censorship he endured.
Have you even read his book?

No.
So you are using circular reasoning.

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.

This is it in a nutshell.

We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).

Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then what exactly is wrong with his methodology?

Nope, that was in my response. You either apologize for making false claims and being a hypocrite for not responding to answers to your post or we are done with this issue and you have lost by running away. You made claims about me that were clearly false.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Then what exactly is wrong with his methodology?
First, the decay chain is well known and the decay rates are well known. He eliminated all possibilities because there are only a few that were possible. That lead to the primordial conclusion.
Second, he offered a simple test to refute his work. And with today's technology that should be easy. No one has done it.
Third, the flood poof work also refutes evolution and billions of years.
Fourth, he documented the censorship he endured.
Have you even read his book?

No.
So you are using circular reasoning.

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.

This is it in a nutshell.

We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).

Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

False accusations are part of the circular reasoning that some evolutionist use. Please see if you can answer these questions. I looked at the article and it flubbed the issues.

Then what exactly is wrong with his methodology?
First, the decay chain is well known and the decay rates are well known. He eliminated all possibilities because there are only a few that were possible. That lead to the primordial conclusion.
Second, he offered a simple test to refute his work. And with today's technology that should be easy. No one has done it.
Third, the flood poof work also refutes evolution and billions of years.
Fourth, he documented the censorship he endured.
Have you even read his book?

 

[Subduction Zone]

False accusations are part of the circular reasoning that some evolutionist use. Please see if you can answer these questions. I looked at the article and it flubbed the issues.

Why did you quote yourself? Now it appears that you are only accusing yourself of false accusations and for once you may be right.

Then what exactly is wrong with his methodology?
First, the decay chain is well known and the decay rates are well known. He eliminated all possibilities because there are only a few that were possible. That lead to the primordial conclusion.
Second, he offered a simple test to refute his work. And with today's technology that should be easy. No one has done it.
Third, the flood poof work also refutes evolution and billions of years.
Fourth, he documented the censorship he endured.
Have you even read his book?

It appears that you have just copied and pasted your response from your earlier failure.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Why did you quote yourself? Now it appears that you are only accusing yourself of false accusations and for once you may be right.

It appears that you have just copied and pasted your response from your earlier failure.

When will you answer?
The article flubbed his research. It had flubber in it.

How about the falsification test he gave? How come they have not done that?
Just synthesize a hand sized piece of a particular type of granite that has the coarse grains he observed. That has not been done.
And just one parentless 218 polonium halo. That has not been done.

 

[McBell]

Why did you quote yourself? Now it appears that you are only accusing yourself of false accusations and for once you may be right.

It appears that you have just copied and pasted your response from your earlier failure.

I can not but help but wonder if they will win or lose...

 

[Subduction Zone]

When will you answer?
The article flubbed his research. It had flubber in it.

Sorry, unsupported claims are not refutations.

How about the falsification test he gave? How come they have not done that?

He may have had a falsification test. You have just demonstrated that you do not understand the scientific method again. He may have even passed it. That does not make his hypothesis true. Please pay attention. When one uses enough details to construct a testable hypothesis it is often testable by means that the author did not realize when he wrote his work. That can falsify it too. But from my understanding his test was flawed.

I do not see you quoting from and linking the article. That is what you need to do. Let me help you. Here is a link to it:

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

www.talkorigins.org

Just synthesize fist sized piece of a particular type of granite that has the coarse grains he observed. That has not been done.
And just one parentless 218 polonium halo. That has not been done.

LOL! That is not a reasonable test. Once again that is not how one tests in the sciences. A fist sized piece would possibly not be a good model. I am not sure of the crystalization times, but I am pretty sure that it is longer than can be done in a conventional lab.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can not but help but wonder if they will win or lose...

I think that they both will lose.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Sorry, unsupported claims are not refutations.


He may have had a falsification test. You have just demonstrated that you do not understand the scientific method again. He may have even passed it. That does not make his hypothesis true. Please pay attention. When one uses enough details to construct a testable hypothesis it is often testable by means that the author did not realize when he wrote his work. That can falsify it too. But from my understanding his test was flawed.

I do not see you quoting from and linking the article. That is what you need to do. Let me help you. Here is a link to it:

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

www.talkorigins.org

LOL! That is not a reasonable test. Once again that is not how one tests in the sciences. A fist sized piece would possibly not be a good model. I am not sure of the crystalization times, but I am pretty sure that it is longer than can be done in a conventional lab.

You are about as unscientific as yij can get with this post,
Gentry has presented clear evidence that evolution and billions of years is false,
I have refuted them too.
There are lots of evidence that proves evolution is false.
Only 1 can refute evolution forever.
You are using circular reasoning as I already showed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are about as unscientific as yij can get with this post,
Gentry has presented clear evidence that evolution and billions of years is false,
I have refuted them too.
There are lots of evidence that proves evolution is false.
Only 1 can refute evolution forever.
You are using circular reasoning as I already showed.

Oh my, more unsupported nonsense. I even linked the article for you so that you could properly support your claims. Here is the refutation again. Be specific in what is wrong with it:

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

www.talkorigins.org

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Oh my, more unsupported nonsense. I even linked the article for you so that you could properly support your claims. Here is the refutation again. Be specific in what is wrong with it:

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

www.talkorigins.org

Nonsense from you which is unsupported.
You have circular reasoning and that is why you have no real answer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually the truth and you just fulfilled prophecy and also used circular reasoning.

Pointing out falsehoods and logical fallacies, does not qualify as "circular reasoning".

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.

No

**mod edit**

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

False accusations by you prove that your pet theories are false.

That is all evolutionists have is circular .
That is why they have no real rational answer to the origin of anything.

Where did the universe come from?
If the explanation is the Bing Bang with or without inflation, what was there before that?
If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then that breaks cause and effect. It also violates every law of conservation too.
If there was something before that, what caused the thing that was before the Big Bang to come into being?

What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?
What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?
How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?

How many times are you going to copy paste your own nonsense?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Pointing out falsehoods and logical fallacies, does not qualify as "circular reasoning".




No


**mod edit**

There you did ii again. There is no falsehood. You assumed it false because if your circular reasoning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dude. I just wanna say this is CLASSIC 2012, fundamentalist vs. atheist discourse. It's really taking me back to my "bro atheist" roots.

Have we figured out if this individual is a POE or not? Someone asked that at some point. I'll tell you this: he ignores serious questions and concentrates on the more "lively" responses that he provokes. I say, 60% chance of POE.

My optimism and hope for human kind says "yes, it's a Poe".

**mod edit**