Do Polonium Halos Refute The Foundations of Common Ancestry?
Published by Polonium halos and their effect of common ancestry.
Polonium halos, also called Radio halos, are halos that are found in Granite and other stones that are thought to be millions of years old. This finding at first was published in many well known magazine like national geographic, until the conclusion of the data set in. the conclusion of the data provided seemed to refute the very foundation of all common ancestry had for it, time. If these radio halos are correct, than granite rocks would have to have instantly solidified instead of solidifying over the period of millions of years. This is a problem for Uniformitarianists, who believe that so rock on earth could have instantly solidified. If polonium halos are correct, than the whole theory of naturalism would collapse.
Polonium halos were discovered by a physicist with a masters degree by the name of Robert Gentry. He argues with his study that the only way for polonium, a element with a half life from milliseconds to days, would not be able to live long enough to engender a halo in granite rock. According to geologists, granite cooled down a solidified over a time-span of millions of years. If granite took millions of years to cool and solidify, than there would not be any halos visible, they would not have been able to form due to the quick rate of radioactive decay.
The only person who opposed to the theory of polonium halos labeled by a majority of evolutionists would be a man named Thomas A. Baillieul. Who claims that the granite could have had to have formed naturally, halos and all. Several synthetic tests of human made granite have been made by laboratories, not one of them yet have been able to reproduce any polonium halos in the newly synthetic granite. The conclusion of this would be that gentry was right, and the granite would have had to solidify instantaneously in order to this phenomenon to make sense. The same phenomenon has been observed in diamonds as well.
Another point made by gentry is the radiometric dating flaws, one of the biggest ones is the claim that radioactive decay is not a constant, or more along the lines that we could not possibly know if radio decay is a constant or not. Even if we are able to find that radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate at this day in age, we would not know if it would have changed in the past, even for a split second. So the assumption that radioactive decay is a constant is not a very good assumption, as it is only based on uniformitarianism, which is a flawed assumption that everything that happens today has happened all throughout time and space, with little to no change at all.
Liked it
On December 24, 2010 at 6:59 pm
[1]- The halos Gentry presents are, he purports, due to Polonium, not Plutonium.
-
[2]- Gentry’s data are ambiguous, because the Polonium isotopes he talks about are all daughter elements due to the initial decay of Uranium, which has a very lengthy half-life, and which generates halos with spreads of radii that overlap those which can be generated by Polonium. The halos aren’t sharp enough to clearly delineate them by species when their maximum and minimum radii aren’t exclusive of each other.
On December 24, 2010 at 10:01 pm
[1] Oops, I KNEW I was writing something incorrectly, thank you for the correction on that. i changed the plutonium to polonium.
For the second one, I cannot really make out exactly what you are saying, as i am not a expert in the field of this subject, i am just a writer of scientific knowledge and the evolutionism vs creation science debate. but i will use my knowledge thus far to try to interpret.
According to what I understand you argument is that gentry did not find polonium halos, that he found a form of uranium instead? Can you please delineate more clearly please?
On December 25, 2010 at 12:39 am
What I mean is that it’s not clear that the halos are due solely to Polonium. The radioactive contaminant could just as easily have originally been Uranium. The decay chain from Uranium through several successive daughter elements would take a very long time.
On December 26, 2010 at 10:28 pm
@ Joey
I do not think so, If it Could have been Uranium than I am sure someone in the field with a PhD who studies these Halos would actually have published a paper explaining so. Many years have gone by and these are still considered to be Polonium. Besides, the halos main element IS polonium, not uranium. Uranium halos look much different than polonium halos, and what was viewed by gentry was indeed a polonium halo. And not a single well-established scientist have been able to say with evidence and precision that it is uranium.
Excellent feedback by the way. Thankyou!
On December 28, 2010 at 10:29 am
iceveela,
If you don’t think anyone has published even a single paper refuting Gentry’s research, then I must respectfully say that you haven’t looked hard enough. I know that a number of refutations have been published.
Also, Polonium is an element in the decay chain starting with Uranium. This is not a speculation, nor is it controversial. The decay chains of various radioactive elements are well-known.
On December 28, 2010 at 4:33 pm
@joey
[1] Many people have tried, and all of them have failed to meet expectations in the field of science and none have actually gotten enough evidence to actually show that this study on polonium is in any way flawed. All the criticisms against the research has been answered in a respectful and organized way.
[2] And I also agree. Polonium is a decay product of Uranium, the thing is though that not a single iota of evidence that uranium is the culprit has been found. Not to mention that Polonium halos look extremely different than Uranium halos. And also it is known that the main element in these rings are not uranium, they are indeed polonium. the starting element is NOT uranium, the starting element is Polonium.
-I am sorry, but your evidence is wrong to state that it is Uranium instead of Polonium.
On December 28, 2010 at 10:47 pm
It’s not Uranium because it all decayed into daughter elements, which include Polonium. Those specks of radioactive contaminants are small enough that there’d be no detectable trace left of the original populations of Uranium atoms.
On December 28, 2010 at 10:51 pm
-Also, where exactly are you doing your literature searches? What are your search strategies?
On December 29, 2010 at 12:59 am
@Joey
You need to do your research, in these halo’s no speck of Uranium has been observed. let me spell this out for you. URANIUM HALOS LOOK DIFFERENT THAN POLONIUM HALOS!!!! what is seen is a POLONIUM halo. the decay would be seen by the halos itself, not to mention that many of the rocks these halos were found in CONTAINED NO URANIUM. nor did it contain radon, the next necessary ring. it was pure Polonium, no Uranium.
Are you sure you are doing proper research?
Your last two questions are irrelevant to the argument, please try to refute my data please, with real scientific knowledge and research that is able to pass through empirical science guidelines.