Your reply comes across as if you aren't interested in a serious discussion.
When you say that Ellen White said such and such, are you saying by that that you reject the biblical teaching that it is Jesus who testifies by His Spirit through the prophets? See 1 Pet. 1:10-11. If you reject what peter taught on this in the New Testament, I would be curious to know what part of the Bible you do accept as authoritative.
Feel free to cite a specific article that gives specific U/Pb ratios, and then perhaps we can discuss that, if you really are as open to scientific evidence as you apparently want creationists to be.
A 1976 Science article reported U-238/Pb-206 ratios as high as 27,300, which suggests a time of formation more recent by a factor of 270 for Cretaceous and 760 for Triassic.
If it truly is all about science, then this scientific evidence will be properly and objectively considered. But if the root of the matter is certain philosophical and religious presuppositions, then it will probably be ignored or ridiculed even if it can't be refuted. That's just the nature of how this topic seems to work.
Before I get to the scientific side you can see from Pickle's circular reasoning is the order of the day for some people. As Pickle (I am assuming this is Bob Pickle) said:
When you say that Ellen White said such and such, are you saying by that that you reject the biblical teaching that it is Jesus who testifies by His Spirit through the prophets? See 1 Pet. 1:10-11. If you reject what peter taught on this in the New Testament, I would be curious to know what part of the Bible you do accept as authoritative.
What nonsense. if you can show things where Ellen White is clearly wrong you must be rejecting the Bible in entirety. As if Ellen White is somehow even talked about in the Bible. It is complete nonsense. But the assumption is Ellen White is a prophet, that assumption carries even when Ellen White is wrong because the assumption is the most important thing, not truth and not reality.
Do a Google search and see just how often the radiometric dating techniques are used. The science is against your position, that is all there is too it. In most all areas of science the sub specialities have become too technical for us amateurs to pretend that we understand the data.
Here is an article that refutes Gentry.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
Yahoo answers has a good answer to the question, has Science refuted Gentry
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080423224447AAKW4OR
Odom, L.A., and Rink, W.J., 1989, "Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle," Science, v. 246, pp. 107-109
Wakefield, J. Richard , 1988, Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery", Journal of Geological Education, May, 1988
If you are specifically referring to Gentry's 1992 "Creation's Tiny Mystery" 3rd Edition, then almost every peer reviewed work dealing with radioactive decay refutes it, because in order to avoid internal conflicts within his argument Gentry was forced to conclude that decay rates for his chosen polonium isotopes remained constant while those of a select few other radioactive isotopes were much, much greater until recently for some unknown reason, after which time they have remained absolutely constant.
I will give him credit though, to my knowledge he is one of the very few people (if not the only) to make a serious attempt, at least in the past half dozen or so decades, to publish Creationist oriented work for mainstream peer review on a subject similar to what he has some credentials in (Master's degree in physics from the U of Fla and an honorary doctorate of sciences from a small liberal arts college).
--
Here is an article that may help you
--
http://www.answersincreation.org/rate_admit.htm
"RATE" Leaders Abandon Geologic Fantasies and Admit that Extensive Radioactive Decay has Occurred
Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.
The following material may be freely copied and distributed as long as the author is properly acknowledged
and the material is not altered, edited or sold.
For decades, young-Earth creationists (YECs) have vainly searched the geology and geochemistry literature to find ways of discrediting radiometric dating and protecting their antiquated biblical interpretations. YEC John Woodmorappe (a pseudonym), for example, has been at the forefront in misquoting and misrepresenting radiometric dating results from the geology and geochemistry literature (e.g., Woodmorappe, 1979, 1999). Woodmorappe's shotgun attacks against radiometric dating even include the ridiculous accusation that concordant radiometric dates may be nothing more than products of "chance"; that is, random numbers (Woodmorappe, 1999, Figure 20, p. 51; p. 52, 87-92). Woodmorappe (1999, p. 85) even endorses YEC Robert Witter's outrageous charge that geochronologists could obtain just as good radiometric results by throwing darts at a concordia diagram. I often refer to this groundless attack as "Woodmorappe's Crapshoot".
A small group of YECs with legitimate Ph.D.s (including D. Russell Humphreys and John R. Baumgardner) have formed the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) committee to attack the validity of radiometric dating. Rather than embracing the embarrassing distortions and nonsensical accusations of Woodmorappe or John and Henry Morris, Humphreys and Baumgardner have finally realized that geology and geochemistry are not going to give them the answers that they want. In an Answers in Genesis (AiG) article Carl Wieland had this to say:
When physicist Dr Russell Humphreys was still at Sandia National Laboratories (he now works full-time for ICR), he and Dr John Baumgardner (still with Los Alamos National Laboratory) were both convinced that they knew the direction in which to look for the definitive answer to the radiometric dating puzzle. [new paragraph] Others had tried—and for some, the search went on for a while in the early RATE days—to find the answer in geological processes. But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that there were too many independent lines of evidence (the variety of elements used in "standard" radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos, fission track dating and more) that indicated that huge amounts of radioactive decay had actually taken place. It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be a single, unifying answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.
In other words, after decades of YEC failures to undermine radiometric dating with geology and geochemistry, these YEC leaders now recognize that enormous amounts of radioactive decay have occurred. They are now relying on nuclear physics, e.g., Chaffin, 2003 (Adobe Acrobat file) and probably an ample supply of groundless miracles to speed up the decay rates without frying Adam or Noah. Humphreys et al. (2003) (Adobe Acrobat file), although full of errors and bad assumptions, also makes the following candid admission (p. 3), which is a veiled attack on Woodmorappe's "crapshoot" and similar YEC schemes that involve bogus accusations against radiometric dating methods and equipment:
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27 and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [Humphreys, 2000, p. 335-337]. WE EMPHASIZE THIS POINT BECAUSE MANY CREATIONISTS HAVE ASSUMED THAT "OLD" RADIOISOTOPIC AGES ARE MERELY AN ARTIFACT OF ANALYSIS, NOT REALLY INDICATING THE OCCURRENCE OF LARGE AMOUNTS OF NUCLEAR DECAY. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth — at today's rates — of nuclear decay occurred. [my emphasis]
CONCLUSIONS
Over the years, YECs have invoked a large array of imaginative and fruitless excuses to defame radiometric dating. These attacks include: magma mixing, Woodmorappe's crapshoot, excess argon, neutron fluxes, neutrinos, and just plain creationist magic. Humphreys, Baumgardner, and other YECs in the ICR-AiG alliance have finally realized that they can't use geology and geochemistry to undermine radiometric dating. They are now relying on physics and probably a liberal dose of untenable miracles to save their dogma. YECs must realize that they're rapidly running out of "scientific excuses" for confusing and deluding the public about the true nature of radiometric dating.
REFERENCES
Chaffin, E.F., 2003, "Accelerated Decay: Theoretical Models," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. Chaffin, 2003
Humphreys, D.R., 2000, "Accelerated nuclear decay: a viable hypothesis?" in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, editors, Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, San Diego, CA, p. 333-379.
Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay", Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. Humphreys et al. (2003).
Woodmorappe, J., 1979, "Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised", Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 16, September, p. 102f.
Woodmorappe, J., 1999, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.
Here is some links to important articles:
Here is a site whose purpose is to contradict the prevailing idea that it is not Christian to believe in Theistic evolution.
http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/origins.htm
14 comments:
Yes, Ron, you definitely come across as if you are close minded, and as if you have no interest in discussing the issues.
You write:
"What nonsense. if you can show things where Ellen White is clearly wrong you must be rejecting the Bible in entirety."
Now why would you write such a thing? I was very clear in what I said, and my point was valid.
Peter said that Jesus testifies by His Spirit through the prophets. He said that in 1 Pet. 1:10-11. You apparently reject that Bible teaching. I simply want to know what part of the Bible you consider to be authoritative. You apparently like to pick and choose. Well, tell me what part you have chosen is authoritative.
And I don't believe we have yet discussed an area in which Ellen White is clearly wrong. But let's not widen the discussion yet. I would prefer to first deal with evidence pertaining to the fallacy of disguised infidelity.
Now, to narrow the discussion a bit to make it easier to deal with, could you please point out which web page or article or whatever contains the scientific data necessary to refute the specific evidence I referred to: The U/Pb ratios in U halo centers in coalified wood.
I could read through everything you cited, and I have a feeling I still wouldn't be able to find anything that refutes that particular evidence. But I could be wrong. Perhaps you really did find something in all that stuff that explains why the U/Pb ratios are so high. Otherwise, we have to entertain the possibility that Jurassic and Triassic strata are much younger than evolutionary scientists claim ...
... if we are open minded and interested in truth.
Regarding Odom and Rink, do you personally believe their hypothesis to be plausible? Have you thought through it to the point that you can personally say that you think it plausible? Or are you just taking someone's word for it?
"... in order to avoid internal conflicts within his argument Gentry was forced to conclude that decay rates for his chosen polonium isotopes remained constant while those of a select few other radioactive isotopes were much, much greater until recently ...."
Whoever wrote that I do not believe knows what they are talking about. Can anyone quote where Gentry ever said that?
"WE EMPHASIZE THIS POINT BECAUSE MANY CREATIONISTS HAVE ASSUMED THAT 'OLD' RADIOISOTOPIC AGES ARE MERELY AN ARTIFACT OF ANALYSIS, NOT REALLY INDICATING THE OCCURRENCE OF LARGE AMOUNTS OF NUCLEAR DECAY."
Of course, you're not including Gentry in that group, are you? And I think it was misleading to cite the amount of decay at today's rates without pointing out that the amount of helium retained in those zircons is evidence that those zircons were created recently.
"Here is a site whose purpose is to contradict the prevailing idea that it is not Christian to believe in Theistic evolution."
Well, are you also going to provide a link to a site that shows that theistic evolution undermines Christian beliefs? Why only provide a link to a site promoting disguised infidelity?
As Seventh-day Adventists we need to remember the warning God gave us, a warning no truly progressive Adventist will want to forget:
"Infidelity prevails to an alarming extent, not in the world merely, but in the church. Many have come todeny doctrines which are the very pillars of the Christian faith. The great facts of creation as presented by the inspired writers, the fall of man, the atonement, and the perpetuity of the law of God, are practically rejected, either wholly or in part, by a large share of the professedly Christian world" (GC 582).
I'll make a few more observations, which illustrate the hazards of taking people's word for things.
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.
wow Pickle you seem to think you know a lot about the physics involved in radiometric dating. What is your degree in if I may ask?
What's that matter?
Ron, even if you or I don't have a degree in this particular area, I am confident that both of us can think through the issues and data involved, and that neither of us have to rely on what someone else says.
For example, regarding Collins' theory, it occurred to me while I was dialogging with him that if his theory was true, there could be a problem if the crystal growth rate was such that the crystal did not reach the outer edge of the Po rings before the Po decayed. That is because such a scenario would produce a lop-sided halo, with one sider lighter than the other, or non-existent.
I asked Collins if there were any lop-sided halos. He said that if there were, Gentry would have reported them. That told me that he highly valued the quality and integrity of Gentry's work.
Gentry told me that a 10% difference of dose on one side of a halo would be noticeable. I then used that figure to calculate the required crystal growth rate to prevent the occurrence of any lop-sided halos, using figures for high dosage which would have been more plausible for evolutionary scientists than low dosage.
At low dosage, a slightly lower dosage on one side could have put the dosage below the threshhold needed to produce any coloration at all, and thus the difference in dosage required at low dosage to make a lop-sided halo would be smaller.
Collins, a retired professor, found my calculations to be sound.
The end result was that I didn't think it plausible to postulate that the crystal naturally grew that fast, and that the Po became emplaced during such growth. And Collins eventually said he felt the same way.
It was a catch 22. If the crystal grew too slowly, then there has to be lop-sided halos, which there aren't. But if the crystal grew too fast, then, besides other difficulties, one should be able to make granite in the laboratory, which one can't.
No one needs a degree to follow the above logic, though perhaps a point or two could be clarified.
The point is that you kept saying "are you just taking someone's word for it". In a world of extreme specialization I do take the word of the majority scientific community. When you compare the U/Pb ratio method of dating to the other methods you find that they are dating things to about the same time. So when the science has several methods of radiometric dating and they are coming to the same range of conclusions then they have a pretty good indicator that they are close to accurate. Which means that complaining about one method giving short or longer periods (which by the way happens in numerous cases) that does not make the aggregate dates wrong; because multiple methods are used.
This is not like global warming science where the models used can get you more grant money from the government because the issue is politicized so therefore multiple models are used.
In any case as I am not an expert on radioactive decay dating and you are not an expert I will leave it to the experts to decide. But the track record of science is pretty good. Of course young earth creationist lose on just carbon 14 dating and light arriving from the stars, so latching your hope on a 35 year old article seems a little hopeless to me.
Ron,
So rather than investigate the matter for yourself, you've chosen to put the assertions of the majority, who are often wrong, above what the Bible says.
Are you sure that is wise? I am certain that you are intelligent enough and educated enough to be able to check these things out for yourself.
The age of the article is not the issue. The issue is whether the arguments and evidence have ever been refuted.
I must backtrack just a tad after pulling out my old emails with Lorence Collins.
The difference in dose I used in my calculations was 25%, not 10%. Gentry felt that a 25% dosage difference between each side of a Po-218 halo would be plainly visible.
Okay, here's the various components of the problem.
Let's use a range of decays necessary to produce halos of 3 or 4 x 10^8 to 4 x 10^9.
If we assume that nothing less than a 25% difference in dosage will be visible, which is probably wrong, then the number of Po-218 atoms in a halo center cannot drop from 4 x 10^9 to 3.1 x 10^9 atoms before the crystal reaches the edge of the Po-218 ring. 4 x 10^9 - 3 x 10^8 = 3.7 x 10^9. 75% of this + 3 x 10^8 = 3.1 x 10^9.
Okay, now how much time would it take for 4 x 10^9 Po-218 atoms to become 3.1 x 10^9 atoms? The formula is as follows:
t = [ ln F / (-0.693) ] x t^1/2
where F = fraction of radioactive material remaining after t = time when that material has a half life of t^1/2.
Po-218 has a half life of 3.05 minutes.
F = (3.1 x 10^9) / (4 x 10^9) = .775
t = [ ln .775 / (-0.693) ] x 3.05 min. = 0.3678 x 3.05 min. = 1.12 min.
So it would take 1.12 minutes for the number of Po-218 atoms to decrease from 4 to 3.1 x 10^9.
A Po-218 ring has a radius of around 23.3 µm. The edge would thus be 22.8 µm from the edge of the halo point center if that center were 1 µm in diameter. 23.3 - (1 / 2) = 22.8.
If the crystal takes 1.12 minutes to reach 22.8 µm, it is growing at a rate of 1 µm per 0.05 minutes (3 sec). Thus nucleation and encapsulation of a 1 µm Po-218 halo center would take place in 3 seconds time.
How plausible is it that the necessary Po-218 atoms became encapsulated in a growing crystal in that length of time?
I broke up the above so that it might be easier to follow.
When a radioactive element is decaying, it and its daughter products are in certain proportions once equilibrium is reached. Those proportions are equal to the proportions of their respective half-lives.
Since Rn-222, the precursor to Po. 218, has a half-life of 3.8 days, and Po-218 has a half-life of 3.05 min., then in an equilibrium situation, there will be 1800 times as many atoms of Rn-222 as of Po-218.
If we use a figure of 4 x 10^9 Po-218 atoms needed to produce a single, well-developed halo, we can come up with an amount of U-238 needed to have that many Po-218 atoms available at any given point in time: 2.7 pounds, which would be the amount of U in 1,352 pounds of .2% ore.
In order for Collins' theory to work, we would have to have all the Rn-222 produced by 1,352 pounds of ore all present in the vicinity of a growing crystal, and all the Po-218 that that amount of Rn-222 produced would have to become encapsulated within 3 seconds.
When you really get down to it, even evolutionists believe in miracles.
Since Collins' theory doesn't work, what about the other theories evolutionists have proposed in order to refute the Po halo evidence for creation?
Often, these theories involve the transfer of isotopes into a crystal, whether by diffusion or whatever. But that proposal was ruled out by experiments published in 1968 in "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos." In essence, such transport should leave behind "footprints," alpha recoil tracks left by alpha rays from atoms that decayed before they arrived at the halo center. But no such footprints exist.
And we must remember that halos can't form in hot rock. That's why Collins was proposing that halos formed in rock that had recrystallized from hydrothermal fluids rather than in rock that had cooled from magma.
How fast must diffusion be in order to get the Po-218 into a rock to a halo center before the Po decays, so that a Po-218 halo can form?
Well, suppose you need X number of atoms to form a halo. If it takes 3 minutes for the diffusion to take place, then you need to start with 2X atoms, because, since the half-life of Po-218 is 3 minutes, you'll only have half of 2X left at the end of 3 minutes.
If it took 6 minutes, you'd have to start with 4X, since you'd have only 2X at the end of the first 3 minutes, and X at the end of the total 6 minutes. If it took 9 minutes, you'd need to start with 8X. Etc.
If it took a whole day for the Po-218 to diffuse into the solid rock, you'd have to start with 2^480 times the number of atoms at the beginning of the day that you wanted to end with. If you need 5 x 10^8 at the end of the day, you'd need to start with 1.56 x 10^153 atoms at the beginning of the day.
If I'm calculating this correctly, that would be 2.59 x 10^129 moles, or 5.65 x 10^131 grams, or 5.65 x 10^128 kilograms. And that should be around the mass of 5 earths.
That's a lot of Po-218 to make one itty bitty halo if the required diffusion only took one measly day.
No viable naturalistic explanation for the formation of Po-218 halos has yet been proposed. The existence of these Po-218 halos by the millions is evidence that the bedrock of the planet crystallized instantly just like the Bible says.
Pickle, we have already determined this is not your area of expertise please stop pretending that it is. You should spend some time looking at the counter arguments to Gentry. I mean if you are really open minded. I don't think you are as I recall you claiming the scientists to be infidels. But for those who want more information here is an article pretty indepth.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm
Here is the abstract;
J. Richard Wakefield
(Originally published in the May 1988 Issue of the Journal of Geological Education)
ABSTRACT
The unusual polonium halos described by Robert Gentry have been a problem for some years now. Gentry claimed that the polonium halos show that the Precambrian granite they are hosted in were 'instantly created.'
Some research on the halos has been carried our by other scientists, but most of it has been aimed at solving the problems of the peculiar configuration of these halos. Fortunately, Gentry provided two specific site locations in the Canadian Shield where his samples came from. The geological setting of these sites shows conclusively that Gentry’s notion of an 'instantly created' earth composed of granite is false. Specifically the samples came from crystallized rocks which can be shown to crosscut several sedimentary and other plutonic rocks. Some of the sedimentary rocks contain stromatolites. The geology of the sites shows that the uranium, and most likely the polonium, were deposited via postmagmatic hydrothermal fluids. Besides ignoring the geology at his collection areas, Gentry also makes numerous grossly erroneous generalizations about the origin of plutonic rocks.
Ron,
Where did I ever call scientists "infidels"? Any scientist who is a believer is definitely not an infidel.
Kind of interesting that while you can't refute or even discuss the evidence, and won't even try, you don't mind pasting in yet another article, this one from the website of Lorence Collins himself.
Now please note http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/premise.htm. Note the pictures illustrating the inability to differentiate Rn-22 rings from Po-210 rings.
Why is that picture still there 6 YEARS after I pointed out that this is NOT true of U-238 halos in fluorite?
My March 21, 2003, email to Collins about Wakefield's article:
Basically, I have five questions or observations below.
1. I just got done looking through your article on halos in coalified wood. You didn't seem to address Gentry's report that there should be fully developed U halos in the coalified wood if it really is as old as evolutionists say. Do you have an answer to this point of his?
2. Also, he makes a point of a high U/Pb ratio in the U halos, suggesting either young age or Pb removal. However, the latter idea is negated by the fact that the Po halos still have a considerable amount of Pb in their centers. Do you have an answer to this?
3. I noticed that your article at http://www.infidels.org referenced Wakefield's article on his 1997 web page. I don't think that very wise, given the fact that his article is not being straightforward.
I wrote him a few weeks ago after reading it. It seemed strange that on the bottom of page 1 he would put:
Gentry Pays a Visit! [future]
Reply to Gentry's Reply [future]
suggesting that Gentry hasn't replied yet in the last six years, when he in fact replied by 1992, and that reply is posted on the web.
I also found it strange that supplemental material copyrighted in 1992 added to Wakefield's article would cite pictures in Gentry's halo radiocatalog to prove that Rn-222 rings are indistinguishable from Po-210 rings, when that same radiocatalog proves that this is not true for U halos found in fluorite.
I haven't heard back from Wakefield yet, but I did suggest to him that his use of Hastings:
"In both cases conclusions vindicating preconceived religious convictions were desired so badly that often scientific integrity was compromised, intentionally or inadvertently" (Hastings. 1982, p. 51-52)
suggests that perhaps he has intentionally or inadvertently compromised his scientific integrity in order to vindicate his religious convictions.
4. Your coalified wood article spoke of Gentry postulating a flood 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. This is inaccurate, since if creation was at 6,000, the flood would be at around 1650 years later than that. I would be surprised if this was not Gentry's position, that the flood took place around 4350 years ago.
5. The Scriptures call both Christ and the Bible the "Word of God." Thus they both have some similarities: Both are divine and human. The Bible is divine thoughts put into human words, and Christ is Divinity enshrouded in humanity.
Now if the result of God's communications with man, the book which itself claims to be entirely inspired by a God who cannot lie, conveys erroneous information on a large scale, do you feel that Christ likewise was less than perfect? Or, if Christ was sinless and perfect, must not also the Bible be accurate? Can you view the Bible the way you do, and still end up with a sinless Savior?
The Bible claims that God cannot lie. "Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. 1:21). "The Spirit of Christ ... in [the prophets] ... testified" (1 Pet. 1:11). If Christ was thus the one who was speaking through the writers who wrote about creation and the flood, did Christ lie when He said that that was the way things happened? Or did Peter err when he wrote that Christ was speaking through the prophets? Did Paul err when he said that all Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable for teaching?
To what extent do we start tossing out things? I heard a preacher and a rabbi on a talk show on WHO out of Des Moines say that while it is good to pray, there's no one out there that's going to answer our prayers. Then there are those who say that the Bible writers made mistakes when they condemned homosexual behavior. There seems no end to this kind of skepticism. Where to draw the line ends up being every man's decision instead of man's acceptance by faith of God's revealed will.
Here is my February 21, 2003, email to Wakefield about his article. I do not recall ever receiving a reply:
Hi. I'm researching this thing about polonium halos, and I'm a little puzzled after reading your article posted at http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm. First of all, The bottom of the page says:
Gentry Pays a Visit! [future]
Reply to Gentry's Reply [future]
Now since Gentry replied at least 5 years before this page was posted, and since his reply is even posted at http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/Gentry'sGeology.html, why haven't you posted his reply? Why haven't you posted a reply to his reply? Why have you made it look like he doesn't want to reply or can't reply?
You quote:
"In both cases conclusions vindicating preconceived religious convictions were desired so badly that often scientific integrity was compromised, intentionally or inadvertently" (Hastings. 1982, p. 51-52) (http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/introduc.htm)
Here's the second puzzle I came up with. One would think that your material here would thus avoid doing the same thing as what Hastings refers to. Yet the added material in http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/premise.htm was either written by someone who either was ignorant or lacked "scientific integrity." Citing Gentry's "Radiohalo Catalog," this extra material says that radon-222 rings are indistinguishable from polonium-210, and yet the three fully-developed uranium halos in fluorite from that same catalog clearly show that these two rings are distinguishable from one another in fluorite. Even if Gentry were all wrong, why are such blatantly misleading statements found on a web page in 2003, apparently 11 years after those very statements were copyrighted?
As I see it, if one side or the other is intentionally presenting a distorted or one-sided picture, that is evidence that there must be something wrong with that side. At this point, you could talk a long time to me about cross-cutting relationships, but as long as your web site continues to give such false impressions as it has for years, I'd have a hard time believing anything you have to say.
In pursuit of truth,
Post a Comment