Polonium-218 Halo

Earth Science Associates

Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation!

Creation's Tiny Mystery


Appendix: Comments on Geological Objections

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

Doc.:  T of C  ...  #24  #25  #26  #27  #28  #29  #30  #31  #32

Part:  A  B

  1. repeatedly attempt (C/E 20; JGE 8) to establish an age sequence for Precambrian rocks but fail to state that all the radiometric dates being cited are based on the fallacious uniformitarian principle; [p. 337]

  2. wrongly infer (C/E 21; JGE 7) that betafite may be responsible for Po halos, because:

    1. betafite like all U minerals produces a U halo, not a Po halo, and
    2. x-ray and mass analyses show significant amounts of U in U-halo centers, but not in Po-halo centers;

  3. imply (JGE 3) that former museum curator Louis Moyd made detrimental remarks about my understanding of certain rocks, but my conversation with Louis in December 1987 revealed this is untrue;

  4. express an uncertainty (JGE 3) on where Po halos are found, which must be identified as a straw-man issue because the whole reason the author attempted to disprove a creation origin of the rocks at Bancroft was that I had reported Po halos are found there;

  5. lament (JGE 8) that I have disregarded what Dalrymple and others have repeatedly "told me" about the age and origin of granites;

  6. wishfully claim (C/E 19, 20, 25-27; JGE 7, 10) that geology can explain large crystal sizes in pegmatites even though geologists cannot synthesize a hand-sized crystal of the commonly occurring biotite, much less those mica crystals that weigh over 100 tons (which at the UT forum I noted were clear evidence of creation).

These numerous inaccuracies and my responses to them are important because this spokesman for evolution freely acknowledges having received considerable assistance from professional geologists. In fact, his collaboration with one of those geologists resulted in the repetition of many of the same inaccuracies at the Second ICC (see pp. 339-352). These errors represent the best collective effort that eminent evolutionists—and others opposed to my results—can make against the Po-halo evidence for creation. But nowhere is their collaborative failure to deal with this evidence more apparent than in the material that admittedly was "deliberately omitted" (C/E 31) from the discussions in both the C/E and JGE articles. Specifically omitted from those articles (C/E, 31) is the discussion of coalified-wood halos, the young-earth implications of lead/helium retention in granite, and the failure to artificially synthesize granite. All these are said to be left out "because of space limitations." (Similar omissions occurred at the Second ICC.) But if these publications:

  1. do not refute the evidence for creation—the Po halos in granites,
  2. omit the strongest evidences for a young age of the earth—the halos in coalified wood, and the lead/helium retention in granites,
  3. fail to retract the claim of granite synthesis that was made prior to the UT forum, and
  4. interpret field geology according to the fallacious uniformitarian principle,

then how could it possibly be concluded that the evidence for creation is invalid? The fact is, perhaps without fully realizing it, the author was apparently advised to make some amazing admissions in his concluding comments. The following are quotes from the Creation/Evolution publication: [p. 338]

"Still, we must give Gentry his due. Nothing in geology fully explains the apparent occurrence of the Po halos as described by Gentry. They do remain a minor mystery in the field of physics. But this does not mean that no explanations are possible or that it is time to throw in the towel and invoke the 'god of the gaps.' The generation, preservation and alteration of the radioactive halos involve complex physical processes that are not yet understood, and it is quite possible that they are not primordial Po halos at all. Other explanations include . . ." (C/E 31)

Here the author concedes the possibility of primordial Po halos—in other words, creation. The "other explanations" are those which Dalrymple has proposed, and these have all been refuted in this book (pp. 299-303). The next quote is even more explicit regarding instant creation:

"So the 'basement rocks' in which Gentry found his halos turn out not to be 'basement rocks' at all. In fact, they appear in rocks that formed much later than Earth's oldest rocks. This fact alone tells us that the rocks bearing [Po] halos, even if instantly created, have no bearing on the origin and age of Earth." (C/E 30)

First, it is true that the basement crystalline rocks were created. But as I said before, not all created rocks are at "basement" level. Some, such as Mt. Rushmore and El Capitan, are easily visible at the surface. Secondly, this evolutionist's reference to the oldest rocks is based on his use of spurious radioactive dates for those rocks. In my creation model the rocks at Bancroft are part of the oldest rocks because they are part of those created on Day 1 of creation week. Lastly, even though we see here the admission of the possibility of certain rocks being "instantly created," the opposition to creation is so strong that it is also claimed this would have "no bearing on the origin" of the earth! One final quote:

"Furthermore, he [Gentry] is forced to invoke the supernatural to explain away physical evidence that points to a tremendous amount of geological activity over a long period of time in this region where he found the halos. Since Gentry's God can do anything, he concludes that God created the region to have the features of age and activity that it exhibits and that he made 'Genesis rock' look for all the world like a recent intrusion, thereby fooling thousands of geologists." (C/E 30)

The Creator God is the source of all truth. He didn't make the rocks to have the features of great age. Geologists come to the wrong conclusions about the age and origin of the earth because of their acceptance of uniformity as the basis for interpreting the past. God made the rocks to appear as they are—the undeniable result of a recent creation. Nevertheless, for confirmed evolutionists God's created works will ever remain just a matter of dispute. For others, though, Creation's Tiny Mystery will be the key that reveals the consistency between the Genesis account and the record of creation etched within Earth's primordial rocks.

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

Doc.:  T of C  ...  #24  #25  #26  #27  #28  #29  #30  #31  #32

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

Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation!

Copyright © 2004, All Rights Reserved

Earth Science Associates
24246 Paulson Dr.
Loma Linda, CA 92354