Originally Posted by CTD
Originally Posted by LinearAq

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".
Well guess again, because nobody has made this assumption either.

That's because, just like the Grand Canyon thread, you want to play "Where's Waldo" with your hypothesis about how the Polonium got to where it was before it decayed to lead. Since you claim this particular isotope of Polonium did not come from Uranium, then the only other option is that it was created instantaneously in place. Did I overstep my bounds by including God in the assumption?

Quote
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.

Both of these false assertions of assumptions where none exist are arrogant insults to the intelligence of the readership. Perhaps you might pray to your evogod(s) that they really are too stupid to notice.

No one here is saying that the Uranium from which the Polonium is a decay daughter was originally located at the site where the Polonium decayed. Why would you make such an obvious error in your assumption of what we are saying? Are you hoping that the readership here is too stupid to notice your little hide-the-pea shuffle? Maybe you should go to your prayer closet and ask Jesus to support your deceptions...I doubt He will.

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke