Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-13-2002, 01:21 PM | #31 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,369
|
Actually those that were still alive would be staggering around...
Partially because thier joints would be locked up and partially because they'd be coming down off a massive narcosis high. Most of them probably wouldn't survive long enough to decompress anyway. |
03-13-2002, 01:50 PM | #32 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 139
|
Quote:
Here's a brief summary of the problems with Gentry's work. 1) 210, 214, and 218-Po (the isotopes Gentry claims are responsible for the haloes) are all part of the decay series of U-238, and the haloes are found in areas that contain U-238. 2) It's not possible using the techniques that Gentry used (optical microscopy) to distinguish haloes formed due to the decay 222-Rn from 210, 214, or 218-Po haloes. Rn-222 is a gas, and so it is quite likely that it moved through the crystals of biotite (originally forming from the decay of 238-U) and formed the haloes(John Brawley has found evidence for this (although this idea has yet to be validated): <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos.html</a>) 3) Even if the haloes are Polonium haloes, Po-210, 214, and 218 all occur in the decay series of U-238 after Rn-222, and so it's possible that the "parent" of the Po that decayed to form the haloes is Rn-222. In other words, it's possible that the U-238 decayed (through several steps) to form Rn-222, which then migrated through the crystal, which then decayed to form the Polonium isotopes which in turn decayed and formed the haloes. |
|
03-13-2002, 02:55 PM | #33 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ginnungagap
Posts: 162
|
Quote:
|
|
03-13-2002, 02:58 PM | #34 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,369
|
Quote:
|
|
03-14-2002, 01:12 AM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jorja, USA
Posts: 920
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, that is probably too technincal still to make it into print around here. Maybe just an authoritative declaration that Gentry's work HAD been refuted would work better - it seems the same declaration that it hadn't sufficed for the original writer. |
|
03-15-2002, 12:02 PM | #36 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12
|
I think...if they construct the museum...we should gather a massive group of clear-thinking, active individuals that would be willing to march confidentally toward the structure, encircle it, and then on the end of a number count (insert puke, piss, other disrespectful yet harmless act) on the building that shamelessly celebrates our dark age. Then we'll all hold a picnic afterward.
I know, it's probably not feasible, but seeing such a building would probably envoke some bodily response in me. Just walk up, puke or piss one the doorsteps, then leave. Grrr, just grrr. |
03-15-2002, 12:57 PM | #37 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Washington, NC
Posts: 1,696
|
I love the secweb. You can go from the scholarly to the scatological in the span of a single post.
That being said, I don't think a "clear-thinking" individual would actually perform the actions in the last post. That might be a wee bit over the top, Skydiving_Grandma. |
03-15-2002, 01:18 PM | #38 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,369
|
True.
How about chasing a flock of pigeons over the top of it? |
03-15-2002, 01:22 PM | #39 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 441
|
I am surprised more Christian organizations and people are not objecting to the museum.
Of the many Evolution Vs Creation threads I have seen over the years, invariably the discussion centers around proving Evolution while pretty much ignoring creationism. Continuous requests for the theory of creationism is invariably met with why evolution cannot be true. On its own merits, creationism is ludicrous. The only leg it has to stand on is the alternative to evolution. Constructing such a museum will only give ammunition to those who can point out why its contents are either wishful thinking or just plain wrong. Theists usually avoid such things at all costs. I would hope, at the least, that if someone visits both this museum (when it is complete) and a museum based upon science, it will be that much more obvious how rediculous the creationism concept is. [ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Kvalhion ]</p> |
03-15-2002, 01:26 PM | #40 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Snyder,Texas,USA
Posts: 4,411
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|