Granite Halos

[BrianC]

Dr. Robert V. Gentry went around studying granite all over the earth. He wasn't a Creationist. He just wanted to study granite worldwide. He discovers halos in the granite caused from the moment the granite was created. Come to find out, when it was learned what the halos were and how they form, it turned out that it disproved the possibility that the earth was ever a molten mass as Big Bang advocates theorize about how planets form. What it proved was that our planet was created faster than a split second, in thousands of a second in fact. Otherwise, the granite would have exploded due to radioactive element imbalance. This site talks about halos if you want more details.

https://www.halos.com

What I find interesting is that scientists didn't just take this information and say that the earth, in a split second right after the big bang occurred, was produced instantly, and then just work that into their theory somehow. It's strange that they reject it entirely.

In fact, after Dr. Gentry had been telling about this discovery for a while, scientists began to realize that his discovery had disproved big bang theory in its current form. Once they realized that, the lost all of his funding and they kicked him out the door so he couldn't do anymore research. Funny how that happens even to non-Creation scientists in the world who discover things which disprove big bang or evolution.

EDIT:
Correction: It appears Dr. Gentry WAS a creationist and was searching for proof of creation when studying granite halos. I came across bad information on the net which did not indicate that he was a creationist. My mistake.

[Nash B.]

What makes your beliefs less absurd than somebody else's?

[BrianC]

What makes your beliefs less absurd than somebody else's?

Scientific evidence lends more support to my Creation theory than it does to Evolution theory. However, both are a religion, not science, plain and simple.

Notice how you never answer on topic? Do you even know what science is? lol

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Wasn't a creationist? You are a liar.


And Gentry was a quack, to boot

[exlude]

Scientific evidence lends more support to my Creation theory than it does to Evolution theory. However, both are a religion, not science, plain and simple.

Notice how you never answer on topic? Do you even know what science is? lol

[exlude]

Dr. Robert V. Gentry went around studying granite all over the earth. He wasn't a Creationist. He just wanted to study granite worldwide. He discovers halos in the granite caused from the moment the granite was created. Come to find out, when it was learned what the halos were and how they form, it turned out that it disproved the possibility that the earth was ever a molten mass as Big Bang advocates theorize about how planets form. What it proved was that our planet was created faster than a split second, in thousands of a second in fact. Otherwise, the granite would have exploded due to radioactive element imbalance. This site talks about halos if you want more details.

https://www.halos.com

What I find interesting is that scientists didn't just take this information and say that the earth, in a split second right after the big bang occurred, was produced instantly, and then just work that into their theory somehow. It's strange that they reject it entirely.

In fact, after Dr. Gentry had been telling about this discovery for a while, scientists began to realize that his discovery had disproved big bang theory in its current form. Once they realized that, the lost all of his funding and they kicked him out the door so he couldn't do anymore research. Funny how that happens even to non-Creation scientists in the world who discover things which disprove big bang or evolution.

I wonder if you could post just once without heading it or centering it around one of your giant lies. I was undecided before, but you would have to be completely illiterate to believe some of the shit you post.

[BrianC]

I wonder if you could post just once without heading it or centering it around one of your giant lies. I was undecided before, but you would have to be completely illiterate to believe some of the shit you post.

Tell me how I lied about anything. I haven't lied here, ever.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Tell me how I lied about anything. I haven't lied here, ever.

This is a lie:

He [Dr. Robert V. Gentry] wasn't a Creationist.

He absolutely was. He converted to Seventh Day Adventist in 1959. From Gentry's publications His first academic article on radioactive halos was published in 1968: "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos" which first introduced the idea that polonium may have been the cause of these radioactive halos, here There is absolutely no mention of granite in this article.

He even testified to this in court, link here, excerpt below:

Q: Well, let me ask it this way. Is it fair to say that for several
years you tried but were unable to find scientific evidence that would
support the information contained in the book of Genesis?

A [Gentry]: Well, let me give you the entire perspective so that we don't
infer the statement you're giving me is true here. I became a Seventh-day
Adventist in '59. I—from that time on until the time I actually
began my research in 1963, I was puzzling in my mind about things
concerning creation, reading books and trying to find, trying to find
out from other people if indeed there was evidence—

He was not studying granite and just happened upon this. He was searching for a smoking gun.

And you propagated a lie because you are too entrenched in your own desire to prove that the literal interpretation of Genesis has merit!

[BrianC]

This is a lie:


He absolutely was. He converted to Seventh Day Adventist in 1959. From Gentry's publications His first academic article on radioactive halos was published in 1968: "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos" which first introduced the idea that polonium may have been the cause of these radioactive halos, here There is absolutely no mention of granite in this article.

He even testified to this in court, link here, excerpt below:



He was not studying granite and just happened upon this. He was searching for a smoking gun.

And you propagated a lie because you are too entrenched in your own desire to prove that the literal interpretation of Genesis has merit!

I did not lie. I was misinformed. What I read about Dr. Gentry was that he was not a creationist and his research was about granite, not about creation. There's a lot of crap out there on the internet and it appears I came across some of it in my research.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, but I don't want to be called a liar when I did not intentionally lie. I didn't propoganize anything. I got some bad information which does happen on the internet from time to time. I apologize for the bad information and I'll correct it in the post. Thanks for bringing that up.

[racrguy]

I did not lie. I was misinformed. What I read about Dr. Gentry was that he was not a creationist and his research was about granite, not about creation. There's a lot of crap out there on the internet and it appears I came across some of it in my research.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, but I don't want to be called a liar when I did not intentionally lie. I didn't propoganize anything. I got some bad information which does happen on the internet from time to time. I apologize for the bad information and I'll correct it in the post. Thanks for bringing that up.

So, because of your shitty research you continued a lie. I knew he was a creationist with a quick google search. Make sure what you post is true, based in fact, and NOT 100% bullshit. That means reading something, then trying to find more than one source to back up/prove that claim.

[BrianC]

So, because of your shitty research you continued a lie. I knew he was a creationist with a quick google search. Make sure what you post is true, based in fact, and NOT 100% bullshit. That means reading something, then trying to find more than one source to back up/prove that claim.

I did not CONTINUE to lie. I didn't lie in the first place. I just read one source which was incorrect and I didn't care to read more about the guy, because I assumed the source was accurate about him.

I do extensive research when necessary, but sometimes I just don't want to spend the time. I just wanted to post the website so people could look at the research.

Technically, whether the guy is a creationist or not doesn't matter, because his research is the same regardless of his beliefs. Thus, his religious beliefs should have no part in this topic and I shouldn't have even mentioned it.

[racrguy]

I did not CONTINUE to lie. I didn't lie in the first place. I just read one source which was incorrect and I didn't care to read more about the guy, because I assumed the source was accurate about him.

I do extensive research when necessary, but sometimes I just don't want to spend the time. I just wanted to post the website so people could look at the research.

Technically, whether the guy is a creationist or not doesn't matter, because his research is the same regardless of his beliefs. Thus, his religious beliefs should have no part in this topic and I shouldn't have even mentioned it.

Fucking read what I wrote, use context clues and think a bit. But that may be asking too much of you.

[jones4stangs]

Dude, the last arguments you want to get into is between creation theories and geology. The very thought that you would attempt to use granite of all things to justify a creation theory has me laughing. I don't even what to follow the link.
Next thread.....


Oh hell, now I've got to see what it says.... the civil engineer in me can't resist.

[jones4stangs]

Dude, the last arguments you want to get into is between creation theories and geology. The very thought that you would attempt to use granite of all things to justify a creation theory has me laughing. I don't even what to follow the link.
Next thread.....


Oh hell, now I've got to see what it says.... the civil engineer in me can't resist.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm

Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery"
by J. Richard Wakefield

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.

Ain't Wikipedia grand.

[lowthreeohz]

Technically, whether the guy is a creationist or not doesn't matter, because his research is the same regardless of his beliefs. Thus, his religious beliefs should have no part in this topic and I shouldn't have even mentioned it.

Wrong. He went in search of a smoking gun, so from the onset his was a biased research. Not to mention everything I found about him online calls him a loon. Par for the course I guess.