ESA Return to http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-app-21-b.htm. ESA

Creation's Tiny Mystery
Appendix: Transcription of Robert V. Gentry's Cross-Examination from Audio Tape

< Prev  T of C  ...  12  13  14  15  Epi.  Cat.  App.  Ref.  Cred.  Next >

Doc.:  T of C  ...  #17  #18  #19  #20  #21  #22  #23  #24  #25  ...

Part:  A  B  C

Line  Mr. Ennis (Attorney for the ACLU):
Q You tried to find some and had not found it—
A Well, I was reading what other people said— . . . [inaudible].
QYou testified in your direct examination—I think you will
quite candidly acknowledge—that you had what you described as
a biased perspective—that you were interested in finding evidence
if it exists.
AYes.
80 QAnd your question was, did my religious belief have any
evidence in science, this is what I was very much interested in
[inaudible]. [p. 307]
AAbsolutely, yes.
QAnd didn't you then decide that the only way you could
rationally live with yourself would be to undertake a research project
to determine if there was evidence to support your belief(s) in
Genesis?
AI think this is true.
QSo you began your research into radiohalos as a result of your
inquiries into the Bible and of becoming a Seventh-day Adventist.
AAbsolutely.
QIs it fair to say that the last person before you to do any
substantial work on radiohalos was Henderson in 1939?
AI think so, yes.
QThe research you do is very specialized and requires quite
sophisticated equipment including ion microprobe, microprobe
spectrometers, cyclotrons, and other equipment like that, does it not?


100
AWell, initially all you have to have is a microscope, a razor
blade, and a piece of rock. That's all it takes to find the halos. Now,
to actually demonstrate the experimental support for what I've said,
you do need sophisticated equipment. But Henderson identified
the polonium halos basically only with the, only with using the
microscope.
QDr. Gentry, let me ask you this. Are you aware of any changes
in the constancy of alpha decay or beta decay rates that have been
identified experimentally?
ANo, I'm not. At the present time, no.
QYou testified to some extent about singularities. You said that
singularities were something that could not be explained on the basis
of known physical laws.
AThis is how I formulate the hypothesis of the Big Bang versus
the creative event.
QGiven our current understanding, would it be fair to say that
the singularity would have to be thought of as an extension of natural
law?
AI think that's fair. Yes.
QIs it your present opinion that there is no physical process short
of a singularity which could cause any significant alteration of radioactive
decay rates?
120 AYes, I agree with that.
QYou believe the occurrence of a worldwide flood was the result
of such a singularity or extension of natural law, do you not?
AYes, let me qualify and say that when I say extension of natural
law, what I am basically saying is the processes in operation at that
time were above and beyond what we normally consider today. Yes.
QAnd you believe that those processes were caused by the direct
intervention of the Creator? [p. 308]
AYes, I do.
QIn 1976, you published a paper suggesting that there was
evidence for primordial superheavy elements—
AYes.
QAnd because that paper questioned more conventional
understandings, it did receive wide notice, did it not?
140 AWell, now the reason that the paper on primordial, primordial
superheavy elements elicited a lot of interest is because people
had been looking for and had spent a lot of money looking for
superheavy elements for 10 years at least. And so whenever I said
anything about superheavy elements, it was like ringing a bell all over
the world—it wasn't necessary that it had to be primordial,
although—
QWell, let me ask it this way. If the existence of primordial
superheavy elements had been confirmed, that would have required
drastic revisions of many existing ideas concerning nucleosynthesis
and nuclear theory, would it not?
AThis was generally understood to be the case, depending on
what element it was.
QWhen your data was re-examined using more sensitive techniques,
it was found that superheavy elements were not present, is that correct?
AWell, the techniques that we used to re-examine—actually
the original results were made, of course, using protons, and the
people who did—

Book Cover Photo

Get the entire printed version of our book for $18 + S/H.

To order our book and/or videos,

Call Us at (800) 467-6380, or use our order form.

Part:  A  B  C

Doc.:  T of C  ...  #17  #18  #19  #20  #21  #22  #23  #24  #25  ...

< Prev  T of C  ...  12  13  14  15  Epi.  Cat.  App.  Ref.  Cred.  Next >


The above page was found at http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-app-21-b.htm on October 24, 2014.

© 2004
Earth Science Associates