For the benefit of those who may not recognize false statements when they're openly presented, and because I have some time to kill, I'll debunk a little more.

Note that the picture clearly shows a tube forming from the right side toward the center. It's just RAZD presenting evidence that he's wrong, hoping you'll assume nobody would ever do such a thing so it must support him somehow, even though it doesn't look like it.

But anyone who can see the picture can see that it conforms to what I said. Trust your own eys - not RAZD's words.
What a joke. The fracture dictates the shape of the surrounding field of discolouration. And any discolouration at all is evidence that migrating radon can't pass through the rock without leaving telltale marks. Now look at the pics of radiohalos and see if there's evidence of radon traveling through the regions around them. If there was, it would indicate migration.

The alpha-trace method is even better, since the trace marks show right up individually, rather than gradually building up discolouration fields.
What this shows is that RAZD cannot even be trusted to copy & paste the portion of the article he talks about. This is particularly deceptive, as RAZD presented the quotation, and then proceeded to misrepresent it. His remarks started "In other words..."

If this were an honest mistake, he was free to acknowledge it. He chose to pretend it was all in order. Anyone who doubts can scroll up and see. And enemies of truth will no doubt claim I'm making this up. Again, I'm thankful for scroll bars & no edit policies.

Note that this is conjecture.

But no tests have been conducted, have they? The article simply presents more conjecture.

See? Not test at all.

Dr. Gentry has challenged anyone to produce polonium halos by any means, and nobody can do it. Radon and the granites are in no short supply. If the grand fantasy were true, one could just find some fractured sample and pump a little radon through it. Of course this won't even come close to working, and everyone who knows the first thing about decay knows it.

You can't edit Post 40757, so everyone's welcome to scroll up and see for themselves what you've done.

Maybe not with words, but such affronts to intelligence amount to the same thing.

You even include one in this comment. You have more than once claimed polonium radiohalos are used to support a young age of the earth, even after I corrected you. Were this true, they'd certainly have quite an impact on all forms of evolutionism, without exception.*

See? There you go again. Of course contradicting yourself in such a short span, that's not the same as calling everyone "stupid" is it?

Presenting evidence, time and time again, that directly and obviously demonstrates your claims cannot be true, that's not "calling people stupid"? Putting false words in others' mouths, when we all have scroll bars?

Let me help, if I can. You don't have to post every thought that comes into your head. You can evaluate them.

* Allow me to mock in advance this response, and thereby deter you from typing it, or an equivalent. "Um, duh, whun I said 'evolution' I was just talkin' 'bout change. Normal, everyday change. The kind that has nuthin' to do with the debate. This just shows that yur ignorant 'bout what 'evolution' means."

Well, in the context of a debate forum, using a term that's identical to one of the terms which is subject to debate while intending it to mean something that isn't subject to debate is deceptive. Also deceptive, is claiming one meaning for a term, and later substituting another. If you mean 'change', you should say "change". Assuming you want to be honest (and I must admit this assumption runs counter to many an observation.)