There is irrefutable evidence from Polonium halos that the rock layers of the Grand Canyon where all formed in a short time, the worldwide flood.

[sayak83]

There is direct irrefutable evidence from Polonium halos that the rock layers of the Grand Canyon where all formed within a short time, during the worldwide flood.

Robert Gentry has made several startling discoveries about certain granites, certain coalified wood samples, and polonium radio halos which he found in each. These have shown that the earth was formed instantly and that the rock layers of the Colorado Plateau where all formed in about 1 year, the result of the worldwide flood. This is all documented in his book “Creation’s Tiny Mystery”.

The part that shows that the rock layers of the Colorado Plateau where all formed within a short time, the result of the worldwide flood, is documented in chapter 4 of the book. In particular, Gentry has documented that there was a single event that produced these rocks layers, which evolutionist claim took supposedly took about 50 to 200 million years. Each coalified wood samples from each of 3 separate rock layers has a set of secondary polonium 210 halos, some elliptical and some circular. The elliptical ones were at one time circular but were flattened by the weight of the above layers while the lower layer containing the polonium 210 halos was still wet and in a gel like state. The circular ones formed after when those layers were hardened. This was documented in these 3 layers.

Please read that chapter as well as the rest of the book if you can so that you can understand this completely.

You can read of his work with primordial polonium 210, 214, and 218 halos which proves that the earth was created instantly. You can also read about why these granites were not from a cooled molten state. You can read about a falsification test challenge that Gentry has given for both of these. You can read about the polonium 210 halos that prove that the worldwide flood happened. You can read about the ratio of U-238 to Pb-206 that is off by a factor of 10,000 in these samples. You read about the discrimination that and censorship he faced due to the implications of his discoveries. And a lot more.

Refuted long back. These haloes were not created by Polonium at all. So the entire argument falls splat.
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

 

[blü 2]

Beucase it disproves billions of years and evolution.

You haven't explained HOW Gentry arrived at his conclusion.

You haven't explained THE SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS on which his own science community rejected his findings.

You haven't set out a SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION as to why they were wrong.

If you can't do those things, then save everyone's time and say so clearly.

Your real problem is that people might conclude your claims are the merest of self-serving invention.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You haven't explained HOW Gentry arrived at his conclusion.

You haven't explained THE SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS on which his own science community rejected his findings.

You haven't set out a SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION as to why they were wrong.

If you can't do those things, then save everyone's time and say so clearly.

Your real problem is that people might conclude your claims are the merest of self-serving invention.

Read his book.

It is online for free.

Creation's Tiny Mystery: Table of Contents

Earth Science Associates, ESA, conducts scientific research, publishes books and produces videos showing evidence for the young age of the earth and its instant creation in support of the Bible's Genesis record of creation. Scientist Robert V. Gentry has shown that polonium halos...

www.halos.com

 

[blü 2]

Read his book.

It is online for free.

Creation's Tiny Mystery: Table of Contents

Earth Science Associates, ESA, conducts scientific research, publishes books and produces videos showing evidence for the young age of the earth and its instant creation in support of the Bible's Genesis record of creation. Scientist Robert V. Gentry has shown that polonium halos...

www.halos.com

Ah, you're telling me that you haven't read it either.

No surprise there.

As I said, do be careful or people may conclude you're no more than a parrot, reciting without comprehension.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Ah, you're telling me that you haven't read it either.

No surprise there.

As I said, do be careful or people may conclude you're no more than a parrot, reciting without comprehension.

I have read it.
And you?

 

[blü 2]

I have read it.
And you?

Not my job to read it ─ I'm content to be advised by the less superstitious folk in Gentry's profession that Gentry's views are simply wrong.

I asked you before to explain why those scientific folk disagreed with Gentry and why in your view they were wrong.

What's the answer?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Not my job to read it ─ I'm content to be advised by the less superstitious folk in Gentry's profession that Gentry's views are simply wrong.

I asked you before to explain why those scientific folk disagreed with Gentry and why in your view they were wrong.

What's the answer?

So you are not well versed in this at all.
Well I am and Gentry found evidence of the worldwide flood and 6 day recent creation.

 

[Colt]

There is direct irrefutable evidence from Polonium halos that the rock layers of the Grand Canyon where all formed within a short time, during the worldwide flood.

Robert Gentry has made several startling discoveries about certain granites, certain coalified wood samples, and polonium radio halos which he found in each. These have shown that the earth was formed instantly and that the rock layers of the Colorado Plateau where all formed in about 1 year, the result of the worldwide flood. This is all documented in his book “Creation’s Tiny Mystery”.

The part that shows that the rock layers of the Colorado Plateau where all formed within a short time, the result of the worldwide flood, is documented in chapter 4 of the book. In particular, Gentry has documented that there was a single event that produced these rocks layers, which evolutionist claim took supposedly took about 50 to 200 million years. Each coalified wood samples from each of 3 separate rock layers has a set of secondary polonium 210 halos, some elliptical and some circular. The elliptical ones were at one time circular but were flattened by the weight of the above layers while the lower layer containing the polonium 210 halos was still wet and in a gel like state. The circular ones formed after when those layers were hardened. This was documented in these 3 layers.

Please read that chapter as well as the rest of the book if you can so that you can understand this completely.

You can read of his work with primordial polonium 210, 214, and 218 halos which proves that the earth was created instantly. You can also read about why these granites were not from a cooled molten state. You can read about a falsification test challenge that Gentry has given for both of these. You can read about the polonium 210 halos that prove that the worldwide flood happened. You can read about the ratio of U-238 to Pb-206 that is off by a factor of 10,000 in these samples. You read about the discrimination that and censorship he faced due to the implications of his discoveries. And a lot more.

Your debunk has been debunked! The flood is an invention of the Hebrew priest class, the same sort of men who conspired to kill Jesus!!!

Unfounded Creationist Claims about Radio Halos

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you are not well versed in this at all.
Well I am and Gentry found evidence of the worldwide flood and 6 day recent creation.

No,he didn't. Do you know what scientists do when they find new and exciting evidence? They publish in a well respected professional journal. That way others can confirm or refute their work. Gentry did not even try because he knew his work was garbage.

 

[blü 2]

So you are not well versed in this at all.
Well I am and Gentry found evidence of the worldwide flood and 6 day recent creation.

So, as I asked you in the first place, set out and explain Gentry's argument, and then explain WHY his peers rejected it.

And if you can't do that, honestly state that you can't, instead of ducking and weaving and appearing dishonest.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

So, as I asked you in the first place, set out and explain Gentry's argument, and then explain WHY his peers rejected it.

And if you can't do that, honestly state that you can't, instead of ducking and weaving and appearing dishonest.

They rejected it because they cannot accept the implications of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They rejected it because they cannot accept the implications of it.

Nope, try again. That sounds more like your line of reasoning.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope, try again. That sounds more like your line of reasoning.

The implications refute billions of years and evolution.
Those that rejected his work said that he must be wrong because then all their theories would be wrong.

 

[blü 2]

They rejected it because they cannot accept the implications of it.

No no no. That answer doesn't imply that you understand the science.

All your arguments are political. You want reality to go away and the bible to be true.

Yet as I've pointed out to you, the bible says the earth is flat, and immovably fixed at the center of creation so that the sun and the stars rotate around it, and that the sky is a solid dome that you can walk on, and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth.

A sample of quotes from the bible that say exactly that are >here<. I showed them to you last time, but you paid them no attention.

I'd suggest a better principle is to be guided by verifiable facts ─ the empiricism and induction of science ─ than by the cosmology of Babylon millennia BCE ─ otherwise you're stuck with a flat earth, a hard sky, no concept of heliocentry or gravity or orbits &c.. But whether you do or don't, using facts is how reasonable people like to reach their conclusions.

So let's try it again, those scientific reasons for which Gentry's views were rejected, and a fact-based demonstration as to exactly why they're wrong.

No more political arguments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The implications refute billions of years and evolution.
Those that rejected his work said that he must be wrong because then all their theories would be wrong.

Scientists actually celebrate it when the status quo is broken and shown to be wrong.
If such happens, it represents the most exciting research opportunity of their collective careers.

It's exactly for such situations that awards like a Nobel are reserved.

Nobody cares about scientists who publish papers that merely uphold the status quo.
Fame and glory and grant money is reserved for those who revolutionize their field and prove currently held ideas to be incorrect.
For any scientist, when such happens it's the most exciting time of their life.

So this "explanation" makes no sense. And it also shows us all how little you understand of the scientific enterprise as a whole.

 

[Sargonski]

There is direct irrefutable evidence from Polonium halos that the rock layers of the Grand Canyon where all formed within a short time, during the worldwide flood.

Why do you continue to make thread after thread .. making "Defacto" claims .. "irrefutable Evidence" - which all turn out to be false .. that the evidence is not only not irrefutable .. but easily refuted .. most of the time by your own link .. something you misunderstood .. or the article's misunderstanding of the science .. such as using C-14 to date Dinosaur bones .. when this is not the proper test .. then making conclusions based on the findings of improperly applying an improper test.

Need to vet your sources better friend .. when you see the source is "creation.com" .. confirm the findings via an alternate "non Creation.com" source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The implications refute billions of years and evolution.
Those that rejected his work said that he must be wrong because then all their theories would be wrong.

No, poorly done "science" does not refute anything. You really should try to learn what the scientific method is and how it is done. One of Gentry's problems is that he does not follow proper protocol for samples. For one's work to be valid one has to, among many others things,, is to accurately record where one's samples come from. Many of his samples were sent to him and he had almost no idea where they were from. The reason that one has to do this is so that others that want to replicate one's experiments. If someone challenging the work cannot get the same samples how can he verify the conclusions? His work is not scientific.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, poorly done "science" does not refute anything. You really should try to learn what the scientific method is and how it is done. One of Gentry's problems is that he does not follow proper protocol for samples. For one's work to be valid one has to, among many others things,, is to accurately record where one's samples come from. Many of his samples were sent to him and he had almost no idea where they were from. The reason that one has to do this is so that others that want to replicate one's experiments. If someone challenging the work cannot get the same samples how can he verify the conclusions? His work is not scientific.

Any samples sent to him were from people who told them were those samples came from.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any samples sent to him were from people who told them were those samples came from.

And that is nowhere near good enough. Thank you for confirming my claim.

Well Bob told me he dug them up from that ditch over there!

Vague claims are never good enough. Especially if one is wrong. You should have read the article refuting Gentry.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

And that is nowhere near good enough. Thank you for confirming my claim.

Well Bob told me he dug them up from that ditch over there!

Vague claims are never good enough. Especially if one is wrong. You should have read the article refuting Gentry.

Documented, analyzed and refuting evolution and billions of years.