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.
Not really: Radon is a gas and is capable of traveling within rock along the smallest paths known. When Radon decays into Polonium it is no longer a gas, and the rest of the decay pattern would be the same as for Polonium.
Helium can follow smaller paths. And Radon is not known to suspend its own decay on whims.
It's not hard to understand that migrating radon will leave a tube-shaped trail as it decays. A further problem is that gases obey the same laws, so a gas will not migrate to a designated point and stop. It will fill whatever space is available, and maintain roughly equal pressure & density within the space.
To posit that any gas follows a path to a pinpoint, and compresses itself into a tiny space when other space is readily available is contrary to everything science knows about gases. Linear tried to make it look as if
I am the one positing sentience among radioactive atoms...
So once a path is developed, it would be followed by other radon gas atoms, and over time would create the halo.
This wouldn't result in spherical halos. Rather, a halo would be generated in the shape surrounding the entire space available to the radon gas.
He even talks about how to test this explanation - by seeing if you can find the double rings.
A more direct test would be to pump radon gas through small paths in granitic rocks.
Dr. Gentry long ago challenged anyone to reproduce polonium radiohalos. As I said before, if they thought it could be done they'd accuse him of fraud. If this method would work, they would've produced their own halos artificially and accused him of faking the evidence.
I found it a bit interesting. Again you submit evidence that I am correct. I only need bold one word in the entire text.
Transmitted light microscopy of quartz-chlorite schist from Turamdih uranium deposit in Singhbhum Shear Zone has revealed the presence of distinctly circular aureoles of radiation damage, commonly referred to as radioactive halos or radiohalos, in chlorite surrounding inclusions of uraninite in the Turamdih uranium ore; particularly those surrounding tiny (< 2 mm) radiocentres show spectacular concentric aureoles. In well developed halos, four distinct rings of discoloration are clearly visible in host chlorite. The radiohalo pattern is in good agreement with the theoretical radiohalo pattern of 238U based on a-penetration ranges in air. Radii of individual rings surrounding tiny radiocentres (< 2 mm) in diametral/near-diametral sections are consistent and the mean radii of 32.4 mm (outermost), 22.0, 18.3 and 15.2 mm (innermost) compare well with the experimentally determined, theoretically calculated and observed penetration depths of a-particles emitted by 214Po (the outermost ring), 218Po, 210Po/222Rn, and 226Ra/234U/230Th (innermost ring) in biotite. Such ring structures can be assigned to the decay chain of 238U in which the above radioactive atoms correspond to daughters in the decay series and each of them emits a-particles of different energies. The undeformed circular nature of the radiohalos is indicative of their postkinematic origin. Petrographic studies also indicate possible mobilization of uranium by some later processes.
Thank you kindly for supplying confirmation, and insulting the intellectual capacity of the readership by assuming they'd get it exactly backwards.
This scientist understands that migration must leave trails.
This study provides petrographic documentation of radiohalo patterns in chlorite caused by the decay chain of 238U. It has shown that the damage pattern and penetration depths of a-particles are similar to those found in biotite. To the best of the author’s knowledge, such studies are not available on natural chlorites, at least from India. The observational data presented here will add to the existing data and this study offers an opportunity for future research to characterize and understand the nature of radiation damages in sheet silicates in general and chlorite in particular, using modern techniques like laser- Raman spectroscopy, optical absorption micro-spectro- scopy, high-resolution transmission electron microscopy, etc. Preliminary investigation in this direction is currently underway. It is also interesting to note that although the rock is highly deformed, none of the radiohalos observed in the present study shows any signature of deformation of the host mineral. This is a clear indication of the postkinematic origin of the radiohalos. Trails of radiocentres with their characteristic radiohalos along foliation planes in tandem with the undeformed nature of the radiohalos are also possible indications of the post-kinematic origin for the radiocentres. Possible leaching of uranium by later processes may have important implications in U–Pb geochronological investigation.
So we establish that uranium halos do occur, with rings characteristic of uranium decay.
A point not disputed. You & Linear will continue attempting to cause confusion between uranium halos & polonium halos. I will be clarifying & we'll see how this plays out. It is not a loss for me if those intending to be fooled are successful, and your continued attempts to obfuscate will make it obvious to the rest that you don't want them to know the truth.
Point for folks to remember: polonium halos will form right along with the rest of the halos of the decay series when uranium is involved. This is easily understood. All the radioactive materials sit in one place, and they all decay together, so all the halos form.
The problem for anticreationists is that polonium halos exist without "parent" halos. They are spherical, so they are post-kinematic.
The anticreation argument needs a means of transport that won't result in a traceable path. They need decay to be suspended, and only occur at the source & destination. They might as well posit Scotty beaming polonium into the granite.
At least it'd fit the evidence.
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.
Yes, evidence that the earth is old must be ignored, must be called "bunk," must be discredited without actually looking at the evidence:
I have not advocated dismissing any actual evidence. I don't call uranium radiohalos 'bunk', either. And I have considered them. I have evaluated the reasoning behind the "old earth" argument, and found it so obviously flawed that most folks should be able to find the flaw for themselves.
I'm not interested in playing your argument-from-spam game, so live with it.
Why should you address it: because it contradicts and invalidates your argument, and to ignore it is to ignore reality and the objective evidence of reality.
The evidence does not contradict or invalidate anything Dr. Gentry or I have said about polonium radiohalos.
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.
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?
That would be your argument from incredulity, strange how you predict your own behavior eh?
That's not an argument from incredulity. You claim there's an assumption and it doesn't exist. Pointing this out is not arguing from incredulity.
I did accurately predict you'd make this false accusation. Evolutionology is thus confirmed as a scientific field of study.
And meanwhile, the basic problem with the creationist argument is that if you have naturally forming modern Polonium, a modern source of Polonium, in such crystals, that then there is no argument that they represent a young earth, only recent (new) Polonium.
Okay Bugs, folks are really dumb enough to forget who pointed out that the argument over polonium halos is primarily about
creation. I have not argued that they indicate an age.
Whether stated implicitly or not, the argument only works if you exclude naturally forming modern Polonium from making the halos.
The evidence excludes "daughter" polonium from making the halos, to the best of everyone's knowledge. The polonium halo evidence alone does not exclude earlier dates for the creation event. It does not exclude Scotty from manufacturing them with a transporter beam. It is the rest of reality which excludes these things.
The evidence shows that there is an explanation for recent (new) polonium added to these rocks by natural processes.
Evidence does not show explanations. How dearly you love to confuse this term!
The evidence also shows that uranium halos exist and are numerous -- evidence of the fact that the earth is older than Polonium halos by hundreds of millions of years.
More confusion. I've seen no claim that the earth isn't older than polonium halos.
Such utter
Evosickness, or spam? I can't always distinguish which is which. And it could be this question is a case of false dichotomy.
These same people openly assume decay rates are always constant, any time this assumption will help them produce evodates.
And if the decay rates did change, then the energy of the decay would change and the halos would be different: the uranium halos would be blurred over measurable distances instead of still found in the rings dictated by the energy of the decay in modern times.
Looks like I may have to
Your argument-from-spam has overwhelmed me.
I am unable
to respond to everything
and debunk all bunk. All the :kookoo2: pathetic, moronic readers
will become captive to your lies. They'll
before linear :smiliewhipit: and razd. Soon the mush in their heads will be molded and they'll join the evosquad as
:cheerleaderponytails:
The rest of us will
be wondering how
things could've gone so wrong. Eventually, you'll
mobilize your :platoon: of
,
,
and take over the world.
Of course you might want to consider how long this will take at the present rate. Will you be
or
? Will your army be anything more than
?
