Freethought & Rationalism Archive

randman · 03-05-2002, 07:47 PM

There is this guy who has published his findings over the years in Science, Nature and elsewhere who has done a ton of research on polonium halos, and basically has a theory that granite formed in about 3 minutes rather than a lenghty slow-cooling period.
Basically, if you are not familiar, I don't want to get into it, but if you are and have debated it, I am interested in seeing some of your thoughts. I have read other Creationists rebuttals to Gentry, and evolutionists too, but what I am wondering is if anyone is aware of anything being subsequently published in the major science journals he published in.
By the way, this is my first post here.

ShottleBop · 03-05-2002, 07:59 PM

From someplace called the "Secular Web":

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lorence_collins/polonium.html" target="_blank">Polonium Halos 2000</a>

randman · 03-05-2002, 08:09 PM

I have already read that, and other critic's too, but none of his critics seem to have published to my knowledge in the same journals he has published in, and I thought maybe some of you would know if something has been.
If not, it seems odd that the only refereed journals that have published rebuttals of his research conclusions have been creationist publications.

Vorkosigan · 03-05-2002, 10:17 PM

Gentry's polonium halos have been cited in creationist publications for a couple of decades now. If you look on page 68-70 of Scientists Against Creationism, written in 1983, the haloes have already been proven useless as evidence for creationism. "Gentry's approach is considerably more objective than that of other creationists," the author says. "Such a large inaccuracy in the uranium-lead dating method would certainly be disturbing, but....would still leave the minimum age of the earth at 3 billion years."

Michael

Vorkosigan · 03-05-2002, 10:23 PM

BTW, you might search Gentry Polonium haloes on the web, and thousands of useful sites might pop up.

<a href="http://66.186.202.216/polohalo/poindex.htm" target="_blank">http://66.186.202.216/polohalo/poindex.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/gentry.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/gentry.htm</a>

Michael

randman · 03-06-2002, 07:05 AM

Guys, I have already seen the stuff on the web. I guess noone has refuted his claims in the same peer-reviewed publications he has published in. It appears that only Creationist journals have published rebuttals of Gentry.
As far as things with titles like "Scientists Against Creationism," they hardly carry the same weight as the places he has published. Guess he is right in stating he has not been refuted, at least not in Nature, Science, and places like that where he published his research.

Troll Hunter · 03-06-2002, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
 As far as things with titles like "Scientists Against Creationism," they hardly carry the same weight as the places he has published. Guess he is right in stating he has not been refuted, at least not in Nature, Science, and places like that where he published his research.

ANNOUNCER: E gads, folks! When someone makes a statement like that, it MUST be time for ...

TROLL HUNTER!!

[CUE manly theme music. CUT TO a vast grassland, reminiscent of the Serengeti plains, littered with the evidence of a hundred years� worth of fossil evidence for evolution.]

[PAN TO: STEVE, standing before a mountain of SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS AND TEXTBOOKS. A goofy grin spreads across his face.]

Okay, so, using that logic � because decades� worth of articles proving the validity of the Theory of Evolution in peer reviewed journals like Science and Nature have only seen rebuttals in books with titles like Creation and its Critics, and not in like-minded peer-reviewed journals like Science and Nature, then it hasn�t been refuted either, and must be valid!

Crikey!

So � how do you explain your post over in this thread???

Quote:

Dave H., don't let these guys fool you. You are right on about the fossil record. [ ... ]Here are a few good links. The sites are not all science sites, but they link to science articles published by critics of evolution on these matters.
<a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/index.asp" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/index.asp</a>
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Postings.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Postings.asp</a>
<a href="http://www.discovery.org/crsc/links.html" target="_blank">http://www.discovery.org/crsc/links.html</a>

TrueOrigins, AiG, and Discovery certainly aren�t peer-reviewed science journals. So which is it, mate? ToE: true, or false? And in what peer-reviewed journals has this damning rebuttal seen print?

Quote:

Guys, I have already seen the stuff on the web.

And we've all seen the sites you posted, mate. And we were not impressed.

Kosh · 03-06-2002, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Troll Hunter:


And we've all seen the sites you posted, mate. And we were not impressed.

TH! Why just the other day I was thinking that
we needed to have your series re-instated.

There's plenty new species of Trolls around
these days, stick around and have yerself a
barbie!

ShottleBop · 03-06-2002, 08:44 AM

According to this link, Gentry's speculations were supplanted in 1989, in an article published in Science itself:

<a href="http://www.skepticfriends.org/dawnhoax4a.asp" target="_blank">http://www.skepticfriends.org/dawnhoax4a.asp</a>

Excerpt (bolding mine): [quote]

Quote:

To return to Polonium halos, however, Gentry's theory was supplanted in 1989. I would like to add that Gentry apparently did not rebut the findings of this paper in the scientific literature. (I looked through the Science Citation index for the years 1984 to 1996. If it was there, I would have found it.) I now turn to that paper.

. . .

Quote:

"When an alpha decay in the inclusion occurs, the alpha particle starts out with a velocity that depends on its energy..." (Odom, L.A., and Rink, W.J. 1989. "Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle" Science 246: 107-109.)

"Thus a narrow zone at the outer limits of the range of alpha particles in quartz is a zone of excess hole production. The continuous production of holes during geologic time drives the electronic equilibrium of this microregime in th edirection fo stabilizing the Al color centers and producing a thin smoky halo. As hole-capturing centers such as Al defects become saturated, excess holes must migrate outward down a charge potential.

"If anomalous RICHs in other silicate minerals such as micas do not develop in fundamentally different ways (albeit the nature of the color centers can involve defects other than Al), then many of the special conditions and special alpha energies invoked to account for Po and giant halos in mica seem no longer necessary. Giant RICHs can grow by hole diffusion."

". . . the sizes and structure of giant and Po RICHs in mica also are artifacts of radiation-induced conductivity and that their explanation requires neither unknown radioactivity nor an abandonment of current concepts of geologic time." (Ibid.)

Quote:

The last two paragraphs are the most important in this argument. There you have it: how the halos came to be without invoking violation of known physical laws.

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: ShottleBop ]

John Solum · 03-06-2002, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Guys, I have already seen the stuff on the web. I guess noone has refuted his claims in the same peer-reviewed publications he has published in. It appears that only Creationist journals have published rebuttals of Gentry.
As far as things with titles like "Scientists Against Creationism," they hardly carry the same weight as the places he has published. Guess he is right in stating he has not been refuted, at least not in Nature, Science, and places like that where he published his research.

Hi Randman,

I just have time for a quick response, but here goes:

1) You haven't presented any reasons why the criticisms of Gentry's work that have been made on the internet, etc. aren't valid. You could say that wasn't your intent, and that's fine, but that doesn't make the criticisms of Gentry's work go away.

2) Peer-reviewed publications dealing with the articles Gentry published in journals like Nature and Science do exist. For example, take a look through the reference section of Gentry's papers, or go to this URL for a partial list:

<a href="http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/referenc.htm" target="_blank">http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/referenc.htm</a>

3) Finally, and this is the least important of my points, Gentry doesn't explicitly claim that his work indicates granites formed in less than three minutes, indicate a 6,000 year old earth, or that granites can't form naturally in the peer-reviewed literature. He makes these claims in the popular literature, such as in his book "Creation's Tiny Mystery". He does state that his work can't be explained based on current knowledge, but he doesn't state that it supports YEC.

"A further necessary consequence, that such Po halos could have formed only if the host rocks underwent a rapid crystallization, renders exceedingly difficult, in my estimation, the prospect of explaining these halos by physical laws as presently understood. In brief, Po halos are an enigma, and their ring structure as well as other distinguishing characteristics need to be made adundantly clear" (Gentry, 1974, Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective, Science, vol. 184, pp. 62-66)

"Polonium radiohaloes occur widely and not infrequently (total about 10^15-10^20) in Precambrian rocks but their existence has so dar deifed satisfactory explanation based on accepted nucleo-cosmogeochemical theories. Do Po haloes imply that unknown processes were operative during the formative period of the Earth? Is it possible that Po haloes in Precambrian rocks represent extinct natural radioactivity? A detailed comparison between an unusual array of Po halo radiocentres and U-Th halo radiocentres is presented here as bearing on the above question." (Gentry, 1974, 'Spectacle' array of Po^210 halo radiocentres in biotite: a nuclear geophysical enigma, Nature vol 252, pp. 564-566).

I don't think there's anything dishonest with his behavior, but it seems to me that if he doesn't claim that his findings support YEC in the peer-reviewed literature, then why should there be refutations of his claim that his findings support YEC in the peer-reviewed literature?

03-05-2002, 07:47 PM	#1
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Any of you ever hear of a guy named Gentry and his polonium halo research? There is this guy who has published his findings over the years in Science, Nature and elsewhere who has done a ton of research on polonium halos, and basically has a theory that granite formed in about 3 minutes rather than a lenghty slow-cooling period. Basically, if you are not familiar, I don't want to get into it, but if you are and have debated it, I am interested in seeing some of your thoughts. I have read other Creationists rebuttals to Gentry, and evolutionists too, but what I am wondering is if anyone is aware of anything being subsequently published in the major science journals he published in. By the way, this is my first post here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2002, 07:59 PM	#2
ShottleBop Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 77	From someplace called the "Secular Web": <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lorence_collins/polonium.html" target="_blank">Polonium Halos 2000</a>

03-05-2002, 08:09 PM	#3
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	I have already read that, and other critic's too, but none of his critics seem to have published to my knowledge in the same journals he has published in, and I thought maybe some of you would know if something has been. If not, it seems odd that the only refereed journals that have published rebuttals of his research conclusions have been creationist publications.

03-05-2002, 10:17 PM	#4
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Gentry's polonium halos have been cited in creationist publications for a couple of decades now. If you look on page 68-70 of Scientists Against Creationism, written in 1983, the haloes have already been proven useless as evidence for creationism. "Gentry's approach is considerably more objective than that of other creationists," the author says. "Such a large inaccuracy in the uranium-lead dating method would certainly be disturbing, but....would still leave the minimum age of the earth at 3 billion years." Michael

03-05-2002, 10:23 PM	#5
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	BTW, you might search Gentry Polonium haloes on the web, and thousands of useful sites might pop up. <a href="http://66.186.202.216/polohalo/poindex.htm" target="_blank">http://66.186.202.216/polohalo/poindex.htm</a> <a href="http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/gentry.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/gentry.htm</a> Michael

03-06-2002, 07:05 AM	#6
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Guys, I have already seen the stuff on the web. I guess noone has refuted his claims in the same peer-reviewed publications he has published in. It appears that only Creationist journals have published rebuttals of Gentry. As far as things with titles like "Scientists Against Creationism," they hardly carry the same weight as the places he has published. Guess he is right in stating he has not been refuted, at least not in Nature, Science, and places like that where he published his research.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.