"polonium halo theory"

Bruce bruceeverett at redwhitearmy.com
Fri Feb 18 16:43:54 CST 2005


It was suggested on this list (by Mr Davies) that "evolutionists" had
failed to explain polonium halos. Polonium halos are something that you
would go to a geologist for, that's why the Darwinian biologists haven't
given an answer to the Polonium halo scenario. Fortunately, I'm more of
a earth scientist than pure biologist, so I'll see what I can dig up for
you.

Here's some basic problems with the "Polonium Halo Theory".

It is assumed by Gentry that the polonium halo's within rock were put
there during creation 6000 odd years ago during the crystalisation of
the said minerals (this in in itself is his assertion, not "the
problem"). Gentry asserts that polonium halos only form during the
crystalisation of the rock, which is common sence but also not a
supported theory (no evidence to support this assumption). In fact,
other methods of polonium deposition after crystalisation have been
theorised such as entering in solution via superheated water as does
gold (Meier and Hecker). This hydrothermal mechanism isn't anything new
to geology (for theists and non-theists alike). 

The polonium halo containing rocks that are supposed to be the first
rocks left unchanged since creation have a few problems themselves. Some
of the minerals containing the polonium halos within the granite are
actually younger than the granite (suggesting the hydrothermal route).

Gentry suggests that because whenever granite has been re-melted in the
laboratory, it has re-crystalised as Pegmatite, that all of the granite
on earth was created by god, and any granite that has been remelted in
nature has become pegmatite (sans polonium halo). A polonium halo
containing formation of granite has been found containing fossils of
brachiopods (Malakhova and Ovchinnikov). The granite had to be melted in
order for the fossils to be contained. Now either Gentry was wrong and
granite can be remelted AND contain polonium halos (turfing out polonium
halos in granite as evidence of creation) or Genesis has to be revised
so that life on earth occurred before the earth formed. A lot of
scientists, both creationist and atheist opt for the first option.

I'm curious Michael, how old is the source that informed you that
polonium halos weren't explained? Gentry's work was 1980s stuff, but
Meier and Heckers work explaining how polonium halos form was from 1976!

I'd forward the idea that Gentry and his polonium halo theory are still
doing the rounds because he testified that mainstream journals
discriminated against him (because of his creationist status) in an
evolution/creation court case in the early 80s. The court found
discrimination could not be proved, and while civil about it, Gentry
didn't accept the courts reasoning (that his science not having merit
was just as or more probable than discrimination).

Incidentally, creationist institutions like the Creation Research
Society (www.creationresearch.org) are supposed to be a bit skeptical of
Gentry as well. This may also tickle your fancy:
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html
Look under Common Fallacies - The Unexplained Mystery. Something you may
find interesting is that the author believes the universe is billions of
years old AND believes in the literal in-errancy of the bible (something
for DW perhaps).

(Yet) again, I'm not tackling creationism, just tackling Gentry's
"polonium halo theory". 



More information about the linuxsa-talk mailing list