Polonium 214
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Robert

Tibro, Sweden

#1 Feb 10, 2008
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Name ONE.
Just ONE scientific discovery that DISPROVES evolution.
I'll wait-- but I WON'T hold my breath.
Recently there have been evolutionists online in newsgroups and on blogs that have claimed Polonium 214 doesn't exist. Main reason being is because they declare the Granite in the earth's crust took many millions of years to form and finally cool and Polonium 214 takes less then a second to expend all its half-lifes. In order to save face, some evolutionists have decided to lie and say Polonium 214 simply doesn't exist. HOWEVER, if you click here: http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/su...
you will see one of many online Scientific websites that list the element Polonium 214 to be found on Planet earth. On that page they share evidence that Polonium 214 is in fact a chemical profile that can and has been recorded by many scientists. Praise the Lord we have yet another factoid to prove evolution is a lie of Satan.

Evolution; the artificial escape from the God of creation.

“Rattling for Chemistry”

Since: Dec 06

Deep Swamps of Georgia

#2 Feb 10, 2008
Umm......If you really looked on the profile you will noticed that it didn't have a profile because it lack information. Other words Some chemicals listed in this database or not pure chemical compounds, rather they are mixtures/solutions of chemicals. It is not uncommon for wide range of molar ratios of a mixture to be lumped together as "synonyms" of the same "chemical". In some instances chemicals that are very similar from a health & safety and/or regulatory standpoint also may have been lumped together.
CAS Number: 15735-67-8
Synonyms/Related:
214Po
Polonium 214
Polonium, isotope of mass 214
Polonium-214
None of this disproves evolution and now to meat of the subject ......Gentry is dead wrong on his deceptive studies that he claims about Polonium 214 and you can read about this at this link:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/polfac.htm
mr Giblets

UK

#3 Feb 10, 2008
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Recently there have been evolutionists online in newsgroups and on blogs that have claimed Polonium 214 doesn't exist. Main reason being is because they declare the Granite in the earth's crust took many millions of years to form and finally cool and Polonium 214 takes less then a second to expend all its half-lifes. In order to save face, some evolutionists have decided to lie and say Polonium 214 simply doesn't exist. HOWEVER, if you click here: http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/su...
you will see one of many online Scientific websites that list the element Polonium 214 to be found on Planet earth. On that page they share evidence that Polonium 214 is in fact a chemical profile that can and has been recorded by many scientists. Praise the Lord we have yet another factoid to prove evolution is a lie of Satan.
Evolution; the artificial escape from the God of creation.
very interesting, but how it disproves evolution of the existence of God is quite beyond me. Just because AT PRESENT we don't quite know WHY something happens, doesn't mean that it is supernatural. That is why we have scientists now, and not wizards and occultists and priests to "explain" things.
Robert

Tibro, Sweden

#4 Feb 10, 2008
hexene wrote:
Umm......If you really looked on the profile you will noticed that it didn't have a profile because it lack information. Other words Some chemicals listed in this database or not pure chemical compounds, rather they are mixtures/solutions of chemicals. It is not uncommon for wide range of molar ratios of a mixture to be lumped together as "synonyms" of the same "chemical". In some instances chemicals that are very similar from a health & safety and/or regulatory standpoint also may have been lumped together.
CAS Number: 15735-67-8
Synonyms/Related:
214Po
Polonium 214
Polonium, isotope of mass 214
Polonium-214
None of this disproves evolution and now to meat of the subject ......Gentry is dead wrong on his deceptive studies that he claims about Polonium 214 and you can read about this at this link:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/polfac.htm
Hello Hexene.
It’s not surprising that some scientist shows up with a contra analysis which seem to prove
Gentry wrong. I understand that they have to come up with something, to defend their theory. Otherwise billions would come out of the dark they’re now captured in.
Since I cannot myself say anything (I’m only Ph. D. Carpenter) against the analysis here shown, I will forward it to Gentry, or someone who can detect the flaws in Mr. Brawley’s
arguments. We will see if they can say anything against it, or if they can refer to a link maybe. When, and if, I hear something I will get back to you. Meanwhile, think of this; don’t you think it’s strange that evolutionists end up becoming creationists?

Beware of Sunday laws (the mark of the beast)
Robert

Tibro, Sweden

#5 Feb 10, 2008
mr Giblets wrote:
<quoted text>…but how it disproves evolution of the existence of God is quite beyond me...
It disproves evolution because, if true, then there is not the time span required by the formation of rocks, according to evolution theory. And if there are no rocks around, then where has the animal kingdom evolved?

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

#6 Feb 10, 2008
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
It disproves evolution because, if true, then there is not the time span required by the formation of rocks, according to evolution theory. And if there are no rocks around, then where has the animal kingdom evolved?
I've never heard anyhone claim that Po 214 doesn't exist...it exists all of the time. It's a natural byproduct of Uranium 238 decay...

No big deal! It's formed continuously...it decays continuously... so what???

The errors and problems in Robert Gentry's work has been pointed out (for some time) by experts in the field.

“Rattling for Chemistry”

Since: Dec 06

Deep Swamps of Georgia

#7 Feb 10, 2008
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Hexene.
It’s not surprising that some scientist shows up with a contra analysis which seem to prove
Gentry wrong. I understand that they have to come up with something, to defend their theory. Otherwise billions would come out of the dark they’re now captured in.
Since I cannot myself say anything (I’m only Ph. D. Carpenter) against the analysis here shown, I will forward it to Gentry, or someone who can detect the flaws in Mr. Brawley’s
arguments. We will see if they can say anything against it, or if they can refer to a link maybe. When, and if, I hear something I will get back to you. Meanwhile, think of this; don’t you think it’s strange that evolutionists end up becoming creationists?
Beware of Sunday laws (the mark of the beast)
I will put it in simple laymans term for you...Gentry is lying and he is dead wrong about his halos hypothesis.

“we do sarcasm and irony here”

Since: Aug 07

Redlands, CA

#8 Feb 10, 2008
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Hexene.
It’s not surprising that some scientist shows up with a contra analysis which seem to prove
Gentry wrong. I understand that they have to come up with something, to defend their theory. Otherwise billions would come out of the dark they’re now captured in.
Since I cannot myself say anything (I’m only Ph. D. Carpenter) against the analysis here shown, I will forward it to Gentry, or someone who can detect the flaws in Mr. Brawley’s
arguments. We will see if they can say anything against it, or if they can refer to a link maybe. When, and if, I hear something I will get back to you. Meanwhile, think of this; don’t you think it’s strange that evolutionists end up becoming creationists?
Beware of Sunday laws (the mark of the beast)
Of course it's not surprising that someone comes out with a contra analysis, that is the way science works. It's not about maintaining the status quo, it is about peer review. If there is a problem with an finding, someone will find it.
Robert

Tibro, Sweden

#9 Feb 13, 2008
hexene wrote:
<quoted text>
I will put it in simple laymans term for you...Gentry is lying and he is dead wrong about his halos hypothesis.
Hello Hexene.

I've now got an answer from Mr. Gentry. It says:

Dear friend,

I am now sending you a copy of an email that I wrote in reply to a question similar to yours several years ago.

> Dear friend,
>
You need to understand that the reason I spent decades publishing in the most widely circulated premier scientific journals was so the entire scientific community -- obviously including staunch evolutionists -- would have ample opportunity to respond to my work in those same journals, if they actually found anything that was in error.

Decades have passed and the opportunity still stands.

But no one has refuted my work in those journals.

The published evidence for creation still stands unrefuted in the open scientific journals.

You need to understand that evolutionist editors of Science journals would long ago have accepted any credible refutation of my results and would have long ago filled the pages of their journals with it.

The reason this has not occurred is that whatever so-called evidence they have is spurious, and the evolutionist editors fully realize that publication of such spurious material would only expose them and evolution to ridicule.

Thus those who oppose my published findings of evidence for creation, who truly cannot find anything that is actually wrong with my work, have only one place to go, and that is to post their spurious comments on the internet.

For my further comments on this topic I suggest you to to my halos.com website and access my response to an evolutionist who about ten years ago tried to cast doubt on my work. The URL for this is:

http://www.halos.com/reports/ex-nihilo-1998-f...

Hope this helps,

Blessings to you

Robert Gentry

PS – It would be most helpful to you to read my book, which is on-line on halos.com

End of letter. Take care.
Robert

“we do sarcasm and irony here”

Since: Aug 07

Redlands, CA

#10 Feb 13, 2008
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Hexene.
I've now got an answer from Mr. Gentry. It says:
Dear friend,
I am now sending you a copy of an email that I wrote in reply to a question similar to yours several years ago.
> Dear friend,
>
You need to understand that the reason I spent decades publishing in the most widely circulated premier scientific journals was so the entire scientific community -- obviously including staunch evolutionists -- would have ample opportunity to respond to my work in those same journals, if they actually found anything that was in error.
Decades have passed and the opportunity still stands.
But no one has refuted my work in those journals.
The published evidence for creation still stands unrefuted in the open scientific journals.
You need to understand that evolutionist editors of Science journals would long ago have accepted any credible refutation of my results and would have long ago filled the pages of their journals with it.
The reason this has not occurred is that whatever so-called evidence they have is spurious, and the evolutionist editors fully realize that publication of such spurious material would only expose them and evolution to ridicule.
Thus those who oppose my published findings of evidence for creation, who truly cannot find anything that is actually wrong with my work, have only one place to go, and that is to post their spurious comments on the internet.
For my further comments on this topic I suggest you to to my halos.com website and access my response to an evolutionist who about ten years ago tried to cast doubt on my work. The URL for this is:
http://www.halos.com/reports/ex-nihilo-1998-f...
Hope this helps,
Blessings to you
Robert Gentry
PS – It would be most helpful to you to read my book, which is on-line on halos.com
End of letter. Take care.
Robert
OMG, where do I send my money so that I can support this worthwhile endeavor.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#11 Feb 14, 2008
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Recently there have been evolutionists online in newsgroups and on blogs that have claimed Polonium 214 doesn't exist. Main reason being is because they declare the Granite in the earth's crust took many millions of years to form and finally cool and Polonium 214 takes less then a second to expend all its half-lifes. In order to save face, some evolutionists have decided to lie and say Polonium 214 simply doesn't exist. HOWEVER, if you click here: http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/su...
you will see one of many online Scientific websites that list the element Polonium 214 to be found on Planet earth. On that page they share evidence that Polonium 214 is in fact a chemical profile that can and has been recorded by many scientists. Praise the Lord we have yet another factoid to prove evolution is a lie of Satan.
Evolution; the artificial escape from the God of creation.
Gentry is an incompetent moron.

He uses incomplete ideas, and then makes an assumptive leap to "prove" his claims.

His work has been pretty completly debunked already, and his ideas shown to be false as well.

Sorry, but since you mentioned him, I don't even need to click on your link at all.

I've already read the rebuttals from actual scientists.

Not proof of anything, except perhaps the degree to which people will stoop to "prove" that which is impossible to prove.

So as to "rescue" an impossible belief.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#12 Feb 14, 2008
Robert wrote:
PS – It would be most helpful to you to read my book, which is on-line on halos.com
End of letter. Take care.
Robert
Ah--HA!

Here, we have AT LAST, the TRUTH.

Notice the UNSUBTLE PLUG for his overpriced book.

Notice the admonishment to go out and procure a copy for yourself.

His motive is ALL TOO CLEAR-- to sell more books, obviously!

LOL!

“Rattling for Chemistry”

Since: Dec 06

Deep Swamps of Georgia

#13 Feb 14, 2008
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Hexene.
I've now got an answer from Mr. Gentry. It says:
Dear friend,
I am now sending you a copy of an email that I wrote in reply to a question similar to yours several years ago.
> Dear friend,
>
You need to understand that the reason I spent decades publishing in the most widely circulated premier scientific journals was so the entire scientific community -- obviously including staunch evolutionists -- would have ample opportunity to respond to my work in those same journals, if they actually found anything that was in error.
Decades have passed and the opportunity still stands.
But no one has refuted my work in those journals.
The published evidence for creation still stands unrefuted in the open scientific journals.
You need to understand that evolutionist editors of Science journals would long ago have accepted any credible refutation of my results and would have long ago filled the pages of their journals with it.
The reason this has not occurred is that whatever so-called evidence they have is spurious, and the evolutionist editors fully realize that publication of such spurious material would only expose them and evolution to ridicule.
Thus those who oppose my published findings of evidence for creation, who truly cannot find anything that is actually wrong with my work, have only one place to go, and that is to post their spurious comments on the internet.
For my further comments on this topic I suggest you to to my halos.com website and access my response to an evolutionist who about ten years ago tried to cast doubt on my work. The URL for this is:
http://www.halos.com/reports/ex-nihilo-1998-f...
Hope this helps,
Blessings to you
Robert Gentry
PS – It would be most helpful to you to read my book, which is on-line on halos.com
End of letter. Take care.
Robert
Ummm......His hypothesis on halos has been refuted by many scientist and he knows this. He is now writing books to creationists who he knows are ignorant of science and now is selling books about his deceptive lie.
Robert

Tibro, Sweden

#14 Feb 15, 2008
hexene wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummm......His hypothesis on halos has been refuted by many scientist and he knows this. He is now writing books to creationists who he knows are ignorant of science and now is selling books about his deceptive lie.
Ok, Hexene. Whatever...
Thank you for your time. Have a nice weekend.

Robert

“Rattling for Chemistry”

Since: Dec 06

Deep Swamps of Georgia

#15 Feb 15, 2008
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, Hexene. Whatever...
Thank you for your time. Have a nice weekend.
Robert
Robert..........not whatever about his deceptive lies. Gentry believes in Sexton Julius Africanus theory that the earth is about 6,000 years old. That alone destroys any integrity of his stupid and feeble halo theory in granite rock. Gentry is a physicists, not a geologist. He doesn't know jack about granite geological formation history and geo-chemistry. Read all these refutations of his theory by scientist that works in the field.
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted A Review of "Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological
and Cosmological Perspective" by Robert V. Gentry http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gent...
Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery" J. Richard Wakefield http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm
The Continuing Saga of the Po Halos "Mystery" By J. Richard Wakefield, Oct. 1988 http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/saga.htm
Evolution's Tiny Violences: The Po-Halo Mystery An Amateur Scientist Examines Pegmatitic Biotite Mica
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/viol...
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted A Review of "Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological
and Cosmological Perspective" by Robert V. Gentry
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gent...
Creation Science Book Review Thousands...Not Billions - Chapter 5 Radiohalos in Granite Review by Greg Neyman
http://www.answersincreation.org/bookreview/t...
Creationist Claims about Polonium Radiohalos DRAFT (C) Glen Kuban, 2006-2007
http://paleo.cc/ce/halos.htm
POLONIUM HALOS AND MYRMEKITE IN PEGMATITE AND GRANITE Lorence G. Collins
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm
Tetrapod Fossil Footprints, Polonium Halos, and the Colorado Plateau Stephen J. Godfrey page 8
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles...
Robert

Tibro, Sweden

#16 Feb 16, 2008
hexene wrote:
<quoted text>
Robert..........not whatever about his deceptive lies. Gentry believes in Sexton Julius Africanus theory that the earth is about 6,000 years old….
Mr. Hexene.

I understand that Mr. Gentry’s research is not going to convince you. So maybe it was not so smart of me to post about polonium halos here. I appreciate your motive by posting me all these links, but as you know, I’m a carpenter. So how am I supposed to acknowledge if Gentry’s research is correct, or if his opponents researches are correct?
However, I have personal experiences with God, so to me the choice is easy.
I know that some believers in evolution theory also believes in God, but that he created through evolution. I cannot stick to this belief. Let’s say, for arguments sake that I ought to, because the evidence speaking for evolution says that I should. Then here’s a reason why I still cannot accept this theory;

I have seen proof of the existence of the devil. This shows that it is highly unlikely that God would let a being like this, ravage the earth, for as long as humans, according to evolution, have existed. It would be in God’s, and all his host’s interest, that the devil should not have millions of years to show the outcome of his governing, but rather a couple of thousands.
A God of love could not permit that the whole universe, including the humans themselves, is forced to behold millions of years of human suffering. What would be the point? A God of love could neither find pleasure in the suffering of human souls in an everlasting hell. Would that be a God of love then (the everlasting hell is a lie used to scare people in to submission!)?
The reason he allows “the way of the devil” at this time, is that we all (the inhabitants of the whole universe) see the outcome of this being’s way of governing. He will put an end to this government at His return to the earth. Then He will resurrect all righteous people that ever lived. And since all has seen the results of sin (death and suffering), it will NEVER be allowed to happen again.

Continue
Robert

Tibro, Sweden

#17 Feb 16, 2008
Cont.

Another reason why I cannot accept evolution is bible prophecy. Since bible prophecy points out the bible to be true, then one has to consider the genesis creation account.
A mind boggling example of a prophecy is (like I’ve posted here before, but no one seems to want to read it) the 1260 year prophecy – of both the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation, which identifies the papacy as the antichrist. It says that this power shall persecute God’s followers for 1260 years until it receives a mortal wound. From AD 538 till AD 1798 the Roman Catholic institution has slaughtered, it is estimated to over 50 million people, most of them bible believers.
538 the papacy exterminated the last of three kingdoms, before commencing its terror reign (it shall uproot three horns – Book of Daniel). 1798 Napoleon sent his general Berthier in to Rome and arrested the pope, thus putting an end to the papacy’s reign.

(But the mortal wound healed – Revelation) The papacy is again ruling the world, through all the secret societies, controlled by the jesuit order. And as soon as they have established their New World Order, their terror regime will be back again.

These are some of the reasons why I believe what the bible says. And I know that God loves believers in evolution, just as He loves Christians, but that He is calling all to repentance and abandoning of sin, so that He can give them everlasting life in paradise, at His return.
That is why I follow up on you fellow brethren in this forum. Because I know that He loves you, and that He does not want you to be lost.

The prophecy about to being fulfilled, is that of the upcoming Sunday laws (the mark of the beast – Rev. 13). This will start in the U.S. and then all the countries will follow, one after the other. http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish...

Hexene, maybe all this seems like madness to you right now. But when the Sunday laws starts to be universal, and when you witness much turmoil about a certain denomination, called the SDA’s, please consider these words. Because that means that the end is at hand.

Best wishes

Robert

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#18 Feb 18, 2008
Robert wrote:
...
However, I have personal experiences with God, so to me the choice is easy.
...
So, basically, you're saying that your god has deliberately created false "evidence" to confuse scientists?

Is that what it boils down to?

Or, worse, that your god deliberately ALLOWS such evidence to be created, KNOWING the effect it will have on BILLIONS of people?

What SORT of god would allow/do these things?

Not a very GOOD one, for certain!

“opposable thumbs rock”

Since: Nov 07

Huntington Beach CA/Tuscon AZ

#19 Feb 18, 2008
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Recently there have been evolutionists online in newsgroups and on blogs that have claimed Polonium 214 doesn't exist. Main reason being is because they declare the Granite in the earth's crust took many millions of years to form and finally cool and Polonium 214 takes less then a second to expend all its half-lifes. In order to save face, some evolutionists have decided to lie and say Polonium 214 simply doesn't exist. HOWEVER, if you click here: http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/su...
you will see one of many online Scientific websites that list the element Polonium 214 to be found on Planet earth. On that page they share evidence that Polonium 214 is in fact a chemical profile that can and has been recorded by many scientists. Praise the Lord we have yet another factoid to prove evolution is a lie of Satan.
Evolution; the artificial escape from the God of creation.
Oh Bob I hope he starts holding HIS breath soon-- I also hope he puts a plastic bag over his head as well while he does it.
(no I am not playing nicely today, I'm tired of the poster children for mandatory birth-control yapping their idiocy)

BTW--- Satan is a myth too- so how can a myth lie? someone got a Tylenol?
TerryL

Appleton, WI

#20 Feb 18, 2008
anthrobabe wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Bob I hope he starts holding HIS breath soon-- I also hope he puts a plastic bag over his head as well while he does it.
(no I am not playing nicely today, I'm tired of the poster children for mandatory birth-control yapping their idiocy)
BTW--- Satan is a myth too- so how can a myth lie? someone got a Tylenol?
I would suggest 2 Tylenol-3. It'll take away the "pain" and at the same time get you to not "give a f*ck".....for a while anyway ;)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 min Ronnie 35,289
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 16 min THE LONE WORKER 199,437
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 21 min ChromiuMan 151,348
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 36 min Patrick 14,947
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... Tue DanFromSmithville 36
Ribose can be produced in space Jun 27 JanusBifrons 6
A Simple Simulation Jun 27 JanusBifrons 1
More from around the web