Acknowledging (as everyone who's looked into the issue has) that Polonium can be a result of decay does not alter anything. The halos in question are not produced by uranium - they're produced by polonium. Were there uranium present, it would also have left a telltale halo of its own when it decayed.
The evidence isn't consistent with uranium being present in the center of the halos. It is consistent with polonium.
So you agree that Polonium occurs naturally, and thus can find it's way - as pointed out by several people - into the rocks where the halo's are formed.
There are lots of things that occur naturally. Spring showers haven't been observed finding their way to the center of the sun.
Indeed, had polonium a motive, it still couldn't create the halos by the processes evolutionists describe. The problem with all migration scenarios is that the polonium
must decay en route, unless there exists a means to prevent decay. If you know of such a means, I'd be interested to hear about it.
More likely, you mean to claim it suspended decay & accuse me of "arguing from incredulity" if I don't buy your story.
But folks, please consider carefully what these evolutionists are advocating! They imagine decay can be halted. If it can be halted for polonium, why not all other radioactive elements?
These same people openly assume decay rates are
always constant, any time this assumption will help them produce evodates. Someone's story invalidates itself.
They also assume polonium has some desire to "find its way" to certain places and decay there. Sort of like the legend of
the Elephants' Graveyard. Some geologists must be fond of this concept, for wiki says
In geology, "elephants' graveyard" is an informal term for a hypothetical accumulation of "large blocks of country rock stoped from the roofs of batholiths".
Note that even this is
hypothetical.
Therefore Polonium halos in question are evidence of recent Polonium, but not of a young earth.
That's twice you've shown that you're not paying attention. I recall that there is a good "young earth" argument associated with radiohalos, but we haven't been discussing it.
Were there uranium present, it would also have left a telltale halo of its own when it decayed.
The evidence isn't consistent with uranium being present in the center of the halos. It is consistent with polonium.
Which doesn't address the issue of halos where uranium
IS at the center, and which have taken several hundred million years to form (due to the decay rate of Uranium vs Polonium).
So? I never suggested it did. Why should I address this now? It's pretty trivial business to find the error. Those who desire to divert their attention to this bunk, well, that's their own business.
You haven't yet given a lick of evidence to support the assumption you claimed creationists were making, either. It was just more empty, hollow bunk. Spam away & let us see how many morons fall victim to your trickery. What's next? Apoloniogenesis?
