Creationist Quackery, Part 150, 001 : Creationists Say Aliens Don't Exist, So Let's Stop Looking!

"During the question and answer session after the presentation, Dr. Larry Taylor made the claim that granite synthesis experiments had repeatedly produced granite in the laboratory, that it could be done in a matter of weeks, and that this had been published multiple times in the scientific literature. This letter is a follow up to that claim, asking for the references to those published scientific papers." Seeing that DR.Larry Taylor ,made that claim then ,in 1987 and Gentury claimed it was not a fact then ,has any thing changed ?

A snip from the above " Today I telephoned Dr. Taylor, intending to ask him whether he could provide me with the journal references on granite synthesis and whether he had successfully synthesized a piece of granite in the time since my presentation. After a few brief remarks to the effect that he didn't know who I was at the time of my presentation, he informed me that he intended to have nothing else to do with me and then uni1aterally abbreviated the conversation without supplying the references.

Despite this rebuff I am still interested in finding out whether references on granite synthesis actually exist. I assume that, as Head of the Department of Geological Sciences, you either know of the references on granite synthesis referred to by Dr. Taylor, or Dr. Taylor will supply that information to you, and you will then be able to forward the same to me. I shall look forward to hearing from you about this matter." www.halos.com... So if you or anyone else has a link to such data or papers of scientific quality it would be much appreciated . If not then Dr. Taylor would seem to be blowing hot air .

I am a bit surprised in one sense the ,what seems to be ,desperate letter written to try and make sure that creationist teachings are kept out of schools .I am a bit surprised at the numbers and the push back towards evolution that is noted in this letter sent out looking for monetary support . www.halos.com... Could it boil down to just 1 thing showing how something could be incorrect despite the thousand reasons why it might be true ,like Einstein supposedly put it . I know when it comes to climate sciences why they might be true if it were not for some facts that disprove their theory on AGW .I guess some will buy one product while others wont .

Seems strange that the scientific evolution side of the debate would stumble at " How would you answer a student who claims that the presence of Polonium halos in granite demonstrates that granite had to have formed suddenly (i.e., was specially created)?" that is from 1995 .Dr. Brent Dalrymple, 11/95 www.halos.com... I can imagine a student not having a scientific argument but I cant for the life of me imagine the scientist not addressing Dr. Gentury directly. in a open forum .Could it be because they cant ? Is this the Achilles heal of evolution ?

I did a small search and didn't find anything . Do you have a link to his cv or something I can have a peek at ? tks a reply to: rnaa

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I did a small search and didn't find anything . Do you have a link to his cv or something I can have a peek at ?

I cannot find an actual CV either, but he is not invisible on the internet either.

Wikipedia: Creation Science

Thomas A. Baillieul, a geologist and retired senior environmental scientist with the United States Department of Energy, disputed Gentry's claims in an article entitled, "'Polonium Haloes' Refuted: A Review of 'Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological and Cosmological Perspective' by Robert V. Gentry."

Tom Baillieul Visual Arts (Painting, 2D Mixed Media, Fiber Arts)

My training and much of my professional career has been as a geologist, resulting in extended periods in southern Africa and numerous locations around the U.S. A geologist must be able to re-create a bygone world from the evidence of a few samples of rock. The artist creates previously un-dreamt worlds from bits and pieces of his own reality...

Published works listed at Amazon. com

Religious affiliation: Unitarian Universalist Association

Thomas A. Baillieul, a member of the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Columbus and a senior environmental scientist and project manager for the federal government, has been painting for more than thirty years.

Please understand that I am not in the habit of doing research for lazy people. I did so in this case only because I made the assertion about his background in in response to your assertion that he was not a scientist, when in fact it was trivially obvious that he is a very accomplished scientist in the relevant field with exactly the right experience to discuss Gentry's hypothesis (Edit: side note - Gentry's background, on the other hand is as a physicist and nothing to do with geology - he gets almost all his geology wrong). I was hoping you would notice it took me about 5 minutes to find the information and you might ask yourself what that tells you about your research skills?

Clearly, you don't have any interest in actually finding out whether the psuedo-science sites you read have anything actually scientific to report. You have no interest in finding out about the wonderful universe that exists around you, or you would at least figure out how to use the internet tools that are available to you to go beyond your narrow little echo chamber. Remember the ATS motto: "Deny Ignorance".

That's fine. If you don't want to learn how to use a search engine don't bother to ask me to look it up for you. If you make an assertion about something you read on the web and 'how it all fits', man!, then at least provide the links to the various materials that you reference. Just don't expect people to run off and try to duplicate whatever 'research' rabbit hole you followed to find whatever material you have misinterpreted.

From the wiki link " Gentry claimed that Baillieul could not publish his criticisms in a reputable scientific journal,[85] although some of Baillieul's criticisms rested on work previously published in reputable scientific journals.[84] " I would think that having the belief that Gentry got it wrong would be a easy thing to refute using the scientific method. As well as the scientific journals to present their papers in . Failure to do that the evolutionist side is just left with arm waving .How scientific is arm waving ? Imagine how much notice a scientist would get if you did that . Imagine the stars and flags .Imagine the shame you could bring on Gentry . any takers ? best of luck ,I am done .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

From the wiki link " Gentry claimed that Baillieul could not publish his criticisms in a reputable scientific journal,[85] although some of Baillieul's criticisms rested on work previously published in reputable scientific journals.

I cannot comment on why Baillieul chose not to publish in a peer review journal, but the claim that he 'could not' do so is rather extreme. He is retired after all. Perhaps his painting means more to him than researching in an environment where he doesn't have access to a lab or research tools like he used to. "Could not" and "Couldn't be bothered" are two different things.

Furthermore, Gentry is admitting that others had already done the work that demonstrated that his ideas were wrong!

And as for publishing in peer reviewd journals:

Baillieul: "Polonium Halos" Refuted

Creationists frequently point out that Gentry’s research was published in mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journals. Like many creationist statements, this is partly true. Gentry published his research findings related to his hypothesis that circular halo features were caused by alpha particles from the decay of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes. However, Gentry never presented his hypothesis or conclusions regarding a young earth in these research articles.

I would think that having the belief that Gentry got it wrong would be a easy thing to refute using the scientific method.

And that is exactly what has happened. Just because Baillieul isn't the one doing the publishing, doesn't mean no one else is. For example Lorence G Collins & Barbara J Collins in the "Reports of the National Center for Science Education": Origin of Polonium Halos

INTRODUCTION
It has been more than twelve years since we (Collins 1988, 1997b; Hunt and others 1992) discussed Robert Gentry’s hypothesis proposing that polonium (Po) halos and granite were created nearly instantaneously on Day Three of the Genesis Week (Gen 1:9–10; Gentry 1965, 1970, 1974, 1983, 1988). It is worth examining new information pertinent to the origin of polonium halos. Gentry points out that most granite petrologists believe that all granite bodies of large size are formed deep in the earth’s crust from magma (molten rock) and that as much as 5 million years are required for this magma to be cooled sufficiently for biotite mica to begin to crystallize (see sidebar on p 13 for descriptions of these minerals).

Polonium halos occur in biotite in granites of supposed magmatic origin, and the half-lives of the polonium (Po) isotopes are short (218Po, 3.05 minutes; 214Po, microseconds; and 210Po, 140 days). Gentry claims, therefore, that no matter how much original polonium may have been present in the granite magma, all would have decayed to stable lead (206Pb) in 5 million years, long before the biotite in which polonium halos are found could have formed. He asserts on that basis that polonium halos can be used to support the literal interpretation of the Bible that granite in the earth was created during Day Three of the Genesis Week and not over a period of ~4.6 billion years (Dalrymple 1991). This rapid formation of granite during Day Three and supposed disappearance of polonium isotopes during 5 million years are ideas that are also promoted by Snelling (2008a, 2008b). [Thomas A Baillieul’s detailed summary and critique of Gentry’s views begins on p 17.]

Gentry and Snelling’s claims are without validity (Collins 2008). These creationists ignore the fact that uranium in the original magma would be continuously supplying polonium isotopes during the 5 million years of cooling. The problem is not the disappearance of polonium through 5 million years, as Gentry and Snelling suggest, but the inability of polonium ions produced during this time to migrate from scattered uranium atoms in very viscous magma to precipitate as polonium atoms in a localized place in a growing biotite crystal lattice so that polonium halos can form. The question to ask, therefore, is: how has it been possible for uranium to concentrate in local sources so that polonium, which is derived from the decay of this uranium, could nucleate in growing crystals of biotite or fluorite? There are two possible mechanisms to make this concentration happen. The first is by the formation of either vein-dikes or pegmatites containing uranium minerals that are associated with chemical replacement processes (metasomatism). The second is by the formation of pegmatites containing uranium minerals that result from magmatic processes. Both mechanisms are examined in this article.

The Collins' paper goes on to describe how the halos are actually formed, but I am not going to rehearse that here. On the other hand, the introductory paragraphs describe quite pointedly where Gentry's house of cards falls down at its first hurdle (I know mixed metaphors - so sue me) - he simply ignores that U238 has a half life of 4.4 billion years and is decaying down into U234 all that time. U234 has a lifetime of 245k years and is decaying to Thorium 230 all that time. Thorium 230 has a half life of 75K years and is decaying to Radium 226 which has a half life of 1600 years and decays to Radon 222 which has a half life of 3.82 days. Radon 222 decays to Polonium 218, which is what Gentry focuses on, and has a half-life of 3.1 minutes. (All of this has been published in Scientific articles by the way).

Now notice that whatever U238 is in the granite when the granite is formed proceeds to decay for 4.4 billion years. What happens then? Is the U238 all gone? No. Only half of it is gone - that is what 'half-life' means. So after another 4.4 billion years, the U238 is down to a quarter of its original mass, and after another 4.4 billions years it is down to an eighth of its original mass... but now we are closing in on the actual age of the universe.

So what actually happens to that half of the u238 that decays? It turns into U234. But not all at once. It take 4.4 billion years to turn half the U238 into U234. So U234 is being produced for 4.4 billion years (and on and on) and starts decaying to Thorium, which starts decaying to Radium which starts decaying to Radon which starts decaying to Polonium ( the chain continues down to lead). You don't have to wait 4.4 billion years for U234 to show up, it starts showing up immediately and continuously over that 4.4 billions years (and beyond).

That is Gentry's giant error: the Polonium is not there for just 3.1 minutes. It is actually there for 4.4 billion years. Gentry is a credentialed physicist and he doesn't even understand alpha decay and half-life. That is just too ridiculous for words.

Finally, you have already quoted Gentry as admitting that Baillieul relied on "work previously published in reputable scientific journals" when he was trying to raise a rebuttal to Baillieul. As a matter of fact, so does Gentry; and some very old ones apparently.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

From the wiki link " Gentry claimed that Baillieul could not publish his criticisms in a reputable scientific journal,[85] although some of Baillieul's criticisms rested on work previously published in reputable scientific journals.[84] " I would think that having the belief that Gentry got it wrong would be a easy thing to refute using the scientific method. As well as the scientific journals to present their papers in . Failure to do that the evolutionist side is just left with arm waving .How scientific is arm waving ? Imagine how much notice a scientist would get if you did that . Imagine the stars and flags .Imagine the shame you could bring on Gentry . any takers ? best of luck ,I am done .

Gentry's method of rebuttal to the valid scientific criticisms of his hypothesis is to claim that god intervened. He has moved outside of science by invoking an untestable, unfalsifiable supernatural cause for his results. Aside from making inherently unscientific claims, his claims that Po radiohalos were evidence for a young Earth were roundly refuted. "I'm just going to ignore the other radioisotopes found in the same geological area... you know, the ones that decay into radon, a gas that can travel through microfissures in the rock... which then decays into polonium... yeah, that one." Why would anyone spend more time doing research to counter an unscientific claim that isn't even remotely relevant when there are actual scientific questions to be answered?

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Prezbo369
You are into the alien/UFO phenomena and don't know why Hynek or Vallee are?

Nope and your appeal to authority isn't going to get you anywhere, especially when the people you present are 'UFOlogists'........who've never ever verified or anything and have never ever produced any evidence. I understand they're good are collecting peoples claimed sightings though.....

Doesn't the fact that they were involved in a Steven Spielberg fictional movie tell you anything?

Besides....you didn't answer the question you quested, do these guys believe (as you do) that aliens are not aliens but 'demonic' creatures?

You OBVIOUSLY have no clue who these giants of UFOlogy are. Quoting them on matters of UFOs and aliens is like quoting Einstein in matters of Quantum Physics or quoting Plato in matters of Philosophy.

......the fact the you compared these two gentlemen to Einstein and Plato only shows how ignorant and lost in your own beliefs you really are.....

I think you need to get a clue who those "someone else"s are. lol

I now know who they are and it makes no difference to anything ever. lol?

You don't even know what constitutes an alien for christs sake....

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Prezbo369

Crafty? it was a direct quote

" You cut out the part where I said I agreed with the conclusion of two of the most respected men in the history of UFOlogy, Drs J Alan Hynek and Jacques Vallee."

I left that out because it's irrelevant and an appeal to authority fallacy.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Prezbo369

Crafty? it was a direct quote

" You cut out the part where I said I agreed with the conclusion of two of the most respected men in the history of UFOlogy, Drs J Alan Hynek and Jacques Vallee."

I left that out because it's irrelevant and an appeal to authority fallacy.

Not true if the appeal is made to a legitimate authority on the subject. Then it would be a valid source. An appeal to authority would be if I said "I'm right, and I'm an authority on this so just take my word for it." For example, it's not an appeal to authority fallacy in Quantum Physics to appeal to Einstein.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Nope and your appeal to authority isn't going to get you anywhere

See above post.

And furthermore I never said "This theory is correct and objective truth because they said it.", I said I agreed with their conclusions and they aren't Christians. Agreeing with an authority's conclusions would be subjective, not objective. But thanks for playing Plato with me man, it's always fun.

......the fact the you compared these two gentlemen to Einstein and Plato only shows how ignorant and lost in your own beliefs you really are.....

Incorrect. They are comparable in the sense that each of them is considered pioneers in their respective areas of expertise.

And how can I be "ignorant" of my own beliefs? If they are my beliefs I would know them.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Definitely will prepare an opinion on the work. Gentry is a physicist - looked at his papers briefly. May be a question of interpretation of the data. Just cursory look at methods - seems to be okay - but looks like he's talking about how FAST the reaction is taking place - not dating the actual reaction or rock samples - so not sure how that validates the Young Earth hypothesis.

Need to look at it more closely and will get back to you.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Prezbo369
I left that out because it's irrelevant and an appeal to authority fallacy.

Not true if the appeal is made to a legitimate authority on the subject. Then it would be a valid source. An appeal to authority would be if I said "I'm right, and I'm an authority on this so just take my word for it." For example, it's not an appeal to authority fallacy in Quantum Physics to appeal to Einstein.

Incorrect.......

Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism. The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct

You should read up on such fallacies before posting....

a reply to: Prezbo369

A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct

But I never made that syllogism. I said I "agree with their conclusions". I never said their conclusions are objective truth. Simply put, I'm not out on a limb with some wacky idea from a Christian perspective.

You should read up on such fallacies before posting....

I know exactly what it is, you are trying to make a circle peg fit into a square hole.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Prezbo369

A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct

But I never made that syllogism. I said I "agree with their conclusions". I never said their conclusions are objective truth. Simply put, I'm not out on a limb with some wacky idea from a Christian perspective.

Who's talking about 'objective truth'?....has anyone even mentioned it?

It's a wacky christian idea with the addition of demonic demons, regardless of who else agrees with it. Unless you have anything other than your opinion and the opinion of apparent 'authorities' that you keep appealing to?

Besides, why would you have an opinion that you didn't think was true?......

a reply to: Prezbo369

Who's talking about 'objective truth'?....has anyone even mentioned it?

Hey man you brought up fallacies, surely then you would know that both the premise and conclusion must assert or reject an objective truth. If not then the statement is just a subjective opinion. You brought it up, lol. You don't know the "rules" of philosophical debate and logic?

It's a wacky christian idea.. apparent 'authorities' ..

Yes, it's not blatanly obvious you have no clue who Vallee and Hynek are. And btw, neither of them are Christians.

Besides, why would you have an opinion that you didn't think was true?

I DO think it's true, that's my belief. But I cannot go on record and claim it as fact like E=mc^2.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Prezbo369
Hey man you brought up fallacies, surely then you would know that both the premise and conclusion must assert or reject an objective truth. If not then the statement is just a subjective opinion. You brought it up, lol. You don't know the "rules" of philosophical debate and logic?

In this case, for the appeal to authority fallacy, the above is completely untrue. All that is required is that someone attempts to add more weight to their position or claim purely because someone of apparent authority also makes or agrees with that claim.

Objective truth and the claims to it are completely irrelevant in regards to your claim that your opinion should hold more weight purely because you claim two other people also hold that opinion, it's the very definition of the claim to authority fallacy. No matter how much you scream and squirm this wont change. This is you once again attempting to change definitions in order to fit your opinion or argument.

What you're trying to do is merely a tired old tactic when attempting to worm out of an untenable position.

Yes, it's not blatanly obvious you have no clue who Vallee and Hynek are. And btw, neither of them are Christians.

So neither of them are christians yet they both think that apparent alien visitors are in fact demons.....they're also neither muslims or hindus or any other type of superstitionist?

And yes I do not care who they are or how many claims of UFO's they ever recorded, your continued appeal to authority fallacy is kinda tragic and hilarious.

Demons lol

I DO think it's true, that's my belief. But I cannot go on record and claim it as fact like E=mc^2.

A belief that you're presenting as truth in this debate/exchange with the weight of two mighty UFOlogists that you compare to Einstein and Plato no less....lol

a reply to: Prezbo369

All that is required is that someone attempts to add more weight to their position or claim purely because someone of apparent authority also makes or agrees with that claim.

Wholly untrue, I mentioned them to refute the idea that my belief was "a wacky Christian" idea. They aren't Christians. And furthermore, I never claimed t as a fact, I said I agree with the conclusions they came up with. That is in no way an appeal to authority to make an assumption that it's a fact.

A belief that you're presenting as truth

You're lying. Quote me where I claimed it as a fact and not my personal conjecture/belief.

a reply to: Astyanax

It isn't insanity or even comical when it happens to you.I still have
physical problems associated with my paranormal rape from 1986.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

For example, it's not an appeal to authority fallacy in Quantum Physics to appeal to Einstein.

That is because Einstein is not an authority on Quantum Physics.

He didn't like the very thought of Quantum Physics - he could not however, argue with it on scientific/mathematical grounds - he just didn't like it on principle - it irritated him that nothing was certain. He didn't disagree with it, he just didn't like it. "God doesn't play dice with the universe", he is said to have said.

a reply to: rnaa

Dude, the foundations of Quantum Physics was in large part established by Albert Einstein amongst others. He was one of the first pioneers, much like in the same way Drs. Hynek and Vallee were in UFOlogy. Einstein is a perfectly fine and accurate analogy.