Polonium Halos

Uranium Halos

Dear Fellow AGU member, 
I am writing to tell you about ... the National Center for Science Education, Inc., (an) organization of scientists ... that defends ... rational science education. ... The problem is the fundamentalists' opposition to ... evolution. I know it's hard to believe that evolution can still be a problem in 1992, but the opposition to evolution throughout the US and Canada has actually increased during the last year. 
The movement called "scientific creationism" is composed of Biblical literalists who claim to have scientific evidence that the world was created all at one time ... only a few thousand years ago. ...Some of our colleagues thank that the scientific creationism movement can be ignored, but I think they are wrong...
The movement is beginning to affect some college classes, too, as members of Genesis Clubs enter class rooms with disruptive (and difficult to answer) questions. How would you answer a student who announced in your class that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't permit evolution? 
Or that the presence of Polonium halos in granite demonstrates that granite had to have formed suddenly (i.e.. . was specially created?... ) Singed by Brent Dairymple, Nov. 1992. 
 
It turn out that uranium halos also get into the act. Evolutionists claim they take hundreds of millions of year to develop. What they haven't realized is that they are actually coloration thermometers that tell they could not have developed slowly under the assumptio of a constant decay rate and hot conditions deep in the earth.Why is this? Because heat anneals the halo coloration when the temperature is above 150 degrees C.

 

- At surface the halos coloration looked normal. 
- At 3,148' the halos begin to fade. 
- By the time the sample was used from 7,115' @ 151C the halos were completely gone. No halos

Granite Cores Taken From Deep Drill Hole 

3,148'
7,115'
9,508'
12,885'
14,131'
105C 
151C
197C
277C
313C 
 

Thus uranium halos could never have developed at all if granites had cooled slowly from a hot melt over eons of geologic time because the higher temperatures existing deep in the curst would have erased them. 

Instead they could only have formed in rocks that have existed at about the present temperature since they formed. Thus the predictions of the constant decay rate assumption are contradicted by experimental observations. This fact is not found in any geology textbook. 

Note: This shows the halos formed at the present temperature of the rock at the surface. 

 

   We also find confirmation of this conclusion by mass analysis of tiny zircons extracted from granite cores taken from drilling a 13,500 foot deep hole into granite rock at Fenton Hill, New Mexico. 

This shows that we could not have a ancient earth. 

ICR's rerun of my experiments, published iin 2005 = see www.icr.org -- agrees with both my 1982 Geophysical Research Letters 9, 1129 (1982) publication, and also our young age interpretation of them in our "Young Age of the Earth' video. 
Their final calculation of the age of the earth based in their new results agrees with my age estimate. They arrive a definite average value of about 5680 years plus or minus 2,000 years, obviously very much in agreement with the results obtained from biblical genealogical record from Adam to Christ. 
In the Beginning, without form and void, the Foundations of the Earth, Adam and Eve, and the morning stars and sons of God singing together 
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving upon the face of the waters. Genesis 1:1-2
www.halos.com or call 1-800-467-6380

Google.com Blog

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

A Review of "Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological
and Cosmological Perspective" by Robert V. Gentry

by Thomas A. Baillieul
mailto:tbaillieul@amaxx.com
Copyright 2001-2005
[Last Updated: April 22, 2005]
 

Hi Baillieul, 

Is your report published in any peer magazines for peer reviews? 

1. Rn-222 and Po-210 rings are similar in size. You, Baillieul use that fact to suggest that all Po halos are really Rn halos, with the Rn gas migrating into the rock from elsewhere. Baillieul means when you says that Rn-222 and Po-210 rings can't be told apart. But the fatal flaw in that assertion is that they can easily be told apart in fluorite. Thus, since Po halos in fluorite lack the Rn-222 ring, they can't be Rn-222 halos.

2. You, Baillieul asserts that Lorrence Collins' theory is that Rn migrated along cracks to the halo centers. But that isn't Collins' theory. Collins proposed that as granite was re-crystallizing from fluids, the Po became deposited as the crystal grew. Why that is implausible I won't get into, but the point is that Baillieul's article is inaccurate.

3. Lastly, if Rn was migrating toward halos centers, some would decay before it arrive, leaving behind fossil alpha recoil tracks, damage left behind from alpha decay. Gentry published experimental findings after etching the fossil tracks and counting them: There were no more fossil alpha recoil tracks near halo centers than far away.

Look at it this way: If you proposed that 1 billion atoms walked to the center of a halo in a rock but not elsewhere, wouldn't you expect to find some footprints near the halo centers? That's sort of what these alpha recoil tracks are like, footprints. They're missing. Therefore, there was no migration of Rn through the rocks.

Those findings have been in print for a long, long time. Baillieul, why do you not make any effort at all to address these situations? Because you Baillieul, can in fact, cannot. 

So many worship man made up theory for satan and do not have any proven scientific facts or believing there is a Creator. It only shows me the level people that exist at this time and that GMO foods will kill billions and billions of them in the near future. There are hundreds of passed prophecies written hundreds of years before the event (s) and this is only 1 of them.  http://living-water.info/7/bible/007.htm

 

 

 
Here's some things I've written about Baillieul's article:
The TalkOrigins article you cite, written by a fellow that I believe is a Unitarian Universalist, cites Lorrence Collins, and claims:

"If polonium ring structures are the result of radon migration along micro-fractures (Collins' hypothesis), ...."

But that isn't Collins' hypothesis at all, is it? I thought his hypothesis was that Po became embedded in granite as it was recrystallizing, a theory Collins and I dialoged to the point that he admitted that he didn't think that hypothesis would work after all.

"Assigning a halo diameter to radon is difficult as the radon alpha decay energy is very close to that of polonium-210 ; the two ring structures commonly cannot be distinguished (Moazed, et al., 1973)."

But that isn't true in fluorite, correct? Now if Thomas Baillieul has done the research necessary for writing an article such as this one, why would he make the above statement which is true for mica but not for fluorite? Is that not misleading?

At some point it becomes apparent that the opposition many evolutionary scientists put up against scientific evidence for creation isn't about science at all. Otherwise, they would objectively look at the evidence and evaluate it for what it's worth rather than propose arguments that are illogical or already refuted.

But to their credit, some evolutionary scientists are open minded and can objectively look at scientific evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs.
And:
You write, "As far as my view the halos are discredited, and aside from your point, there is endless material on the net about them. The naysayers seem more cogent to me. I've placed a link to a sample below. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html." Have you personally read Gentry's published reports, his peer-reviewed articles, or just the criticisms of his naysayers? My guess based on your reply is that you haven't read his published reports.

To illustrate the problem and why I think so, note that Thomas Baillieul at the link you gave stated, "Migration of radon along fractures with hold-up points at tiny structural traps would result in exactly the same concentric ring pattern assigned by Gentry to polonium alone (because polonium is a daughter isotope of radon decay). Assigning a halo diameter to radon is difficult as the radon alpha decay energy is very close to that of polonium-210; the two ring structures commonly cannot be distinguished (Moazed, et al., 1973)." Now if Baillieul knows much about Gentry's findings, he knows he just lied. While the rings of Rn-222 and Po-210 are indistinguishable in mica, they are distinguishable in fluorite. This is such a basic point, and this point along with the absence of excess fossil alpha recoil tracks near halo centers, and along with the absence of Po-218 and Po-214 halos in coalified wood, falsifies all Rn diffusion hypotheses.

I would think one would have to be pretty biased to not notice such an obvious problem with Baillieul's article on the pro-evolution TalkOrigins apologetic site, and to think that Baillieul's arguments somehow refute the Po halo evidence. And that is my concern. You have a strong, pro-evolution bias, and you're missing some pretty obvious things.
And:
As I already mentioned, unitarian universalist Thomas Baillieul cited Gentry's 1968 paper on fossil alpha recoil tracks as if he had read that report, and then proposed a Rn migration hypothesis without explaining why the alpha recoil tracks are missing. Oversight or incompetence or dishonesty? That it wasn't a simple oversight by someone knowledgeable about the topic is clear from the fact that Baillieul also stated that Rn-222 and Po-210 rings are indistinguishable, when for decades it has been known that this is false for fluorite.

I think your bias is hindering you from genuinely grappling with the data. Set Gentry's interpretations aside for the moment and simply deal with the data itself. Do you believe that the ratio of isotopes reflects age? And if so, would not the U/Pb ratios in U halos in Jurassic and Triassic coalified wood indicate that the ages evolutionists assign to those formations are incorrect, unless there has been U added or Pb removed?