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.
Utterly false. Whether or not I have repeated the hypotheses available in the links is a separate issue altogether. You even nested your own quote, but managed to forget its contents in the time it took you to compose your post.
There is no YEC claim that polonium cannot form naturally. It does not exist. It is not assumed or implied anywhere. The claim is pretty simple, and a kindergartener can understand the fallacy you attempt to convince people they should accept.
The implication of the evidence is clear, and there are creationists who won't hesitate to say "God made the polonium that produced the halos". But this is different from saying "God used separate acts of creation to continue making polonium." God has put laws in place which govern nature, and cause the other elements He created to decay. Sin may be involved too, but God is the ultimate creator of all that exists.
You attempt to confuse the polonium which is responsible for the halos with all polonium. Before you draw inspiration from RAZD, you might look at the quality of his own deceptions, especially the most recent attempts.
As I said, a kindergartener can understand that 'some' isn't 'all'. You might ask yourself why we have separate words for 'some' and 'all', and maybe do a little research if you intend to maintain 'some' actually is 'all'.
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?
Elsewhere you accuse me of claiming uranium
directly decays into polonium. Your hastily-composed false accusations invalidate themselves.
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?
What makes you think I did? You again attempt to sow confusion. I was not talking at all about your evostory in that context. I was talking about the potential for you & RAZD's imaginary "creationist assumptions" to have any substance behind them. Will you now claim these are both the same thing? From experience I know better than to assume you won't.
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.
I have hidden nothing here, to the best of my knowledge and capacity to communicate efficiently.
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.
And here it is, just as predicted. Be quick with the eyes. Now you see the pea....now you don't. Despite the fact that Uranium 238 DOES NOT decay directly to Polonium 218, Polonium 214 or Polonium 210, your sleight of hand man, CTD, will claim that the evolutionists said it does.
Really? When will this happen, oh false prophet? The day you obtain my password & log in as me, you may have a shot of making it appear thus. But you'd probably forget, or bungle the attempt in some unpredictably funny manner.
This is also in complete contradiction to the reference that I supplied to him
hereSince the Uranium decays to Thorium, then Radium, then Radon and all of those have 1/2 lives significantly longer than the Polonium isotopes it is entirely possible for the atoms to have migrated to the final resting place before becoming Polonium. So the Polonium did not have to "halt" its decay because the atoms were not Polonium when they were en route.
Then please explain which of the elements you are claiming can halt its decay at will, or at your convenience.
Of course, had, oh let's choose thorium... had thorium migrated to designated elephant graveyards, it would still have to decay before you'd have your polonium. The decay would produce halos,
thorium halos. But Dr. Gentry found
polonium halos. Your stories start out stupid, and go downhill.
By the way my dear readership, he has chosen you as the mark. Now...where's the pea?
If by "pea", you refer to hypotheses or evidence, they are supplied by the links given in the other thread.
I would further urge folks who haven't done so to view the halo pics I posted in that thread. Fractures are visible in some, but they're not consistent with the migration fantasies. Talk about grasping at straws! An what's the purpose? Why do they risk their reputations by pushing such an obviously false fantasy? To maintain their myth that God wasn't involved with creation. Shows just how "compatible" evolutionism is with truth.
