This argument (Pratt Claim CF201) assumes there is no source of modern Polonium.
I didn't detect that assumption in the talkdeceptions piece. I wouldn't put it past them, but I read it twice and the assumption just isn't there.
You might claim you refer to creationist arguments, but I know for certain they contain no assumption of the kind.
In either case, your "problem" seems to exist in your own imagination.
The problem for Creationists that use this example, though is to explain the existence of Uranium Halos:
Maybe I'll discuss that some other time. For now, score this attempt at diversion as a failure.
This refers to tiny halos of crystal damage surrounding spots where radioactive elements are concentrated in certain rocks. Halos thought to be from polonium, a short-lived element produced from the decay of uranium, have been found in some rocks. A plausible explanation for a halo from such a short-lived element is that these were not produced by an initial concentration of the radioactive element. Rather, as water seeped through cracks in the minerals, a chemical change caused newly-formed polonium to drop out of solution at a certain place and almost immediately decay there. A halo would build up over a long period of time even though the center of the halo never contained more than a few atoms of polonium at one time.
This is even less plausible than the one Linear parroted for us. Where is the evidence that decay stops when atoms are part of a solution? There are many types of chemical change, but I don't know of any that will suffice for this bluff.
"Hydrothermal" effects can act in ways that at first seem strange, such as the well-known fact that gold--a chemically un-reactive metal with very low solubilities--is concentrated along quartz veins by the action of water over long periods of time.
Apparently Dr. Wiens & his evopartners can't think of any known chemical process either, which would do the trick. This part suggests an imaginary 'chemical change', not yet observed, or even speculated about in any detail. But "plausible" all the same, according to evopushers.
Other researchers have found halos produced by an indirect radioactive decay effect called hole diffusion, which is an electrical effect in a crystal. These results suggest that the halos in question are not from short-lived isotopes after all.
Suggest? The diameters of the halos are just the right size to be diagnostic of polonium, but that's "just a coincidence", eh?
While these lies are insulting and arrogant, it is amusing to see how low their quality is, and how low some will sink in order to obscure the truth.
And this again comes back to the basic problem for all Young Earth scenarios: it is easy to find evidence of young things in an old earth, but how do you explain the evidence of old things in a young earth?
Enjoy.
You don't seem to be paying attention very well. The existence of these radiohalos isn't evidence that the Earth is any age. It is evidence that is only consistent with virtually instantaneous creation to the best of our knowledge. There is no known means of creating them by natural or artificial means. In spite of all the evidence & theory that says they shouldn't, they exist!
Want another laugh? If there were any possible way to manufacture the radiohalos, Dr. Gentry would have been accused of fraud. But everybody knows there's
no way to make them. Absence of actions by parties with strong motives and a history of consistently performing said actions can also speak eloquently.
