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.
Correct that to say "no natural source of the Polonium" since YEC's claim that the Polonium was instantaneously created by God when He formed the Earth 6000 years ago. I guess that would be the "assumption".
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.
Why do you consider it a diversion? The isotopes of Polonium in question are direct descendants in the chain of decay daughters from Uranium. You can't just dismiss it.
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.
It is plausible if you realize that the Polonium is a daughter product of a chain of decay daughters that started with Uranium.
Check out
this reference on page 2 for the U-238 decay chain.
"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.
You mean like the solubility of the Radon and Radium (Uranium decay daughters)in alkali water and the lesser solubility of Polonium (Radon decay daughter) in the same water? For those who don't know, solubility is a chemical characteristic. Going into solution (dissolving) and coming out of solution (precipitating) are "chemical changes".
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.
Implied statement: "Anything that disagrees with YEC doctrine is a lie and evolutionists are all just low down liars."
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!
Yet they exist in granites that have obviously formed after the Earth was made because those granites lie on top of sedimentary rock. Did God create the granites later after the earth was in place or did He create the sedimentary rock in the beginning and just made it to look like it had settled there?
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.
Why would geologists accuse Gentry of fraud if they can go out and find samples of the radio-halos themselves? Everyone can note that you are accusing geologists of an ongoing pattern of deception and false accusation.
