Thread: Radio Halo's?

I belive i mentioned this in another thread about evolution to you actually. It was used in a case in the court of law that happend a while back on why evolution shouldn't be tought in schools. They won the case BTW. Must evolutionist just dismiss this as non sence so i don't bring it up anymore. They just say that the guy that found this is a physist and not a geologist so he doesn't know anything about it and other assorted bullshit like that.

Originally Posted by Riot Maker

I belive i mentioned this in another thread about evolution to you actually. It was used in a case in the court of law that happend a while back on why evolution shouldn't be tought in schools. They won the case BTW. Must evolutionist just dismiss this as non sence so i don't bring it up anymore. They just say that the guy that found this is a physist and not a geologist so he doesn't know anything about it and other assorted bullshit like that.

Well, I am humiliated that scientists said such illogical things. It is interesting, but I do not know if I would make the leap to say it is a "God" given that this is all cogent and true.

I know very little about the matters involved and so this is why I wanted to see an oppositions opinion.

Furthermore, this could easily be part of evolution. I hardly see how it negates all of evolution.

If they are correct about what they observe, I would not say that it infers that all other residual proofs are invalid. (ie. "smashes evolution" etc.).

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Well, I am humiliated that scientists said such illogical things. It is interesting, but I do not know if I would make the leap to say it is a "God" given that this is all cogent and true.

I know very little about the matters involved and so this is why I wanted to see an oppositions opinion.

Furthermore, this could easily be part of evolution. I hardly see how it negates all of evolution.

If they are correct about what they observe, I would not say that it infers that all other residual proofs are invalid. (ie. "smashes evolution" etc.).

~

I wouldn't say it smashes it either because all of the other stuff that is left to be debunked. But like you say it is intresting that granite would form in that amount time, given that what we thought granite take millions of years to form.

This is proof of the existence of Zeus; when he created the earth.



I think I'm as justified to say that as you are to say it's proof of God.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

This is proof of the existence of Zeus; when he created the earth.

I think I'm as justified to say that as you are to say it's proof of God.

lol exactly.

And hey, no one can get to the bottom of Lake Avernus in the Bay of Naples, therefore, it is the gateway to hell - right?

~

Because we don't know why it happens... GOD DID IT.

Wait, I think I've heard this one before.

The scientist in the video has a speech impediment. FAIL for the argument.

The funny thing is, they're saying this somehow "smashes to pieces" evolution when it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. All it says is that some granite formed instantly. Interesting, but it doesn't do much to make me take the translation of genesis literally.

but it was kind of funny, I found. Do they honestly believe that this is proof of genesis??

Originally Posted by Korittke

The scientist in the video has a speech impediment. FAIL for the argument.

Yeah I thought that myself. But then you can see that they are reading. They have a concentrated gaze somewhere to the left of the camera. Annoying.

Here's a pretty thorough refutation, and here's the final summary:

Originally Posted by Thomas A. Baillieul

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory?This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.