"A scientific Dissent from Darwinism"

[Shermana]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

This here is a list of many scientists and PH.D.s of numerous subjects from Genetics to Molecular Biology to Marine Geology
Radiology, Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry, Nuclear Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Bioengineering, Immunopharmacology, Geoscience, Neuroscience, Pharmacognosy, Physiology, Kineseology, Plant Pathology, Microbiology, Molecular Biophysics, Mathematical Physics, and more, who agree that:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.�
This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.

Are these scientists all frauds?

Are these people all motivated by personal beliefs over objective evidence?

Are they all being dishonest?

Is their view on the matter unscientific?

Do they have basis for their claim to reject the majority opinion?

Are they being more honest than the majority concensus who accepts that the Darwinian (or "Neo"-Darwinian) approach can assertively be used to define the characteristics of life?

Is there evidence that the majority concensus is using that these PH.D.s and scientists are unaware of or ignoring?

Are they evidence that there is plenty of dissent on the issue of whether Macro-evolution is a "fact"?

Can one just brush off their opinions if the majority disagrees with them?

Is it fair to conclude that their dissent might be based on an objective, empirical examination of the available data and findings?

Is it fair to conclude that those who believe that Neo-Darwinian views CAN assertively account for the diversity of life may be just as biased (i.e. coming from a "naturalistic humanism" viewpoint) in which they base their belief on their pre-determined conclusion?

Is it safe to say that "Macro-evolution" is not a 100% agreed upon fact upon Professional scientists even if the majority support such an idea?

[TheJackelantern]

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:



I google this statement above and found that you copied it from some unanimous person named Hexine who posted this in a forum as a response to someone else on feb 2008. http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evoluti ... 8B9T0V9R67

You then cited http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/polfac.htm as the source but you were wrong.

The link took me to a self professed amateur. He did not name what field of science he was an amateur in, but nonetheless he proposes based on his studies that Gentry was mistaken. A google scholar search showed his name did not show up in any scholarly data bank and furthermore, he did not write the statment above. Again it was written by this person Helix and which actually makes no sense and who seems to think the subject is about chemical compounds. I have no idea what he means by profile and you have not explained it. Why do you send me this stuff?

I send you this stuff because they make an important distinction of many of the problems we find in the paper. For example, find me in his paper where he outlines exactly where he got his samples from, and his methodology in collecting samples... Oh, those details can not be found in his paper... perhaps you can show us his data on exactly how these formed and his experiments?.. Hence, his papers don't actually explain anything... Btw, his paper dealing with cosmology is just at most an opinion piece. He is by no means a cosmologist, and nor does he hold any PHD in many of the fields he's trying to inject his radiohalo's to... He's making a lot of assertions he can not support..

I suggest you read this and then get back to me on where in his paper does he address this:

http://ncse.com/cej/8/1/gentrys-tiny-my ... by-geology

Or:

(Converted for HTML using FrontPage 97 in March of 1997, colour images are for this website)
(Originally published in the May 1988 Issue of the Journal of Geological Education)
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm

hence one of the major problems with his paper abstracted:

So, the "basement rocks" in which Gentry found his halos turn out not to be "basement rocks" at all. In fact, they appear in rocks that formed much later than Earth's oldest rocks. This fact alone tells us that the rocks bearing Gentry's halos, even if instantly created, have no bearing on the origin and age of Earth.

Realizing how serious this problem is, Gentry has been forced to turn the science of geology upside down:

Gentry:. . . "just because geologists designate something as Precambrian doesn't automatically mean it has any connection with the primordial events of Day 1, or for that matter of creation week. In the case of the Precambrian granites it does have a connection; in other cases it may not. Investigation on a case-by-case basis is needed before it can be decided whether something called "Precambrian" can be connected to the events of creation week.

[1986, p. 302]

So, the rules have been changed. Gentry has attempted to establish new criteria for determining the oldest rocks.

You don't see a problem with his arguments he can not support in any sort of scientific context? No, he just goes on making assertions based on his observations of radiohalos to which he did nothing to actually explain anything..

I also want you to outline where he discusses the consequences in claiming super incredible radioactive decay rates in regards to life on Earth.. Yeah, umm, not very well thought out eh?

But here is what I agree on:

Radiohalos and how they are formed in more detail could use further study.

Here is what I disagree on:

Asserting GOD DONE IT, or making tons of baseless claims surrounding radiohalos while trying to transverse into other PHD's one does not have.. Like trying to apply these halo's to cosmology ect..

[THEMAYAN]

Umm the reason for posting those citations was only to show that creationists have gotten papers published. And yes, we can refute the papers cited..Who said I can't? I don't think you understood why I posted them..

You said that these articles represented good science

One of the biggest problems with his papers is that Po-218 is a decay product of radon, which as a gas can be given off by uranium.. All his samples had uranium in them and all his supposed halos were mostly uranium halos. The interesting ones rested in cracks where the decay product of radon Po-218 could have migrated into. All his examples that show possible P-218 halos involved these cracks.. But the key thing is to note is that P0-218 is a decay product of radon. Find this here:

None of your citations below confirm what you say, and in fact one of them post exactly the same decay cycle Gentry uses, .......

Polonium (Po214) does an alpha decay into Lead (Pb210) with a half life of 164 microseconds.

http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/devprot4.html
http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/experiments/ex1.html
http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/ ... /chain.htm

I told you it wouldn't matter If I told you to read your citation before you posted them


http://ncse.com/cej/8/1/gentrys-tiny-my ... by-geology

The article above you sent posted at the NCSE website is not peer reviewed and the writer J. Richard Wakefield does not show up on any Google Scholar search.

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

What does this have to do with Gentry's paper?

Well read above and you might understand Hence, there are a lot of problems with his paper.. :

/

You copied this from someone unanimous poster and gave link to the wrong source. I have no idea what he or she is talking about.

And what does this have to do with you on one hand saying that this is real science, and now you say........

When someone attempts to do real science, it doesn't mean they have done it right. :/ Should I point out cases of non-creationist work that have been disproved? Also, out side of his paper, he uses it as a means to make the assumption that Earth was magically created, and that decay rates were magically a billion times faster... Hence the trickster GOD?

His claim is that the rocks that he studied are much younger than the 1.5 billion age they are claimed to be at and he is doing it using the scientific method. There is no trickery involved. Your initial claim was not that they attempted to do real science but that it was an example of real science.

Again none of your links are peer review. Furthermore Thomas A. Baillieul who wrote the paper criticizing Gentry could not even get his criticisms published in a reputable scientific journal.

That's because he's citing other sources.. He doesn't actually need to. It's already shown the Gentry lied about where he got his samples from. Nor did his paper describe the methodology and details involving his sample collecting..

What or who is its? Where is it already shown? Again I ask you to cite peer review paper.

Explain to me in your own words why Gentry is being deceptive or why he is wrong? Are you capable of doing that.

His paper identifies radiohalos, but does not explain them, nor does to provide any actual detailed information.. There are many problems with his paper, but most of his deception is his use of his paper as a tool to suggest Earth was magically created in an instant ect. This to which his paper can not and does not support. This quote being a key note as to why:

That is a lie. He has published multiple articles in peer review and in less formal setting explaining it in great detail. This no longer a case of willful ignorance this is a lie.

There is a major misconception, and not just by Gentry, about the distinction between the formation of the host mineral and the formation of the Po halos. The formation of the minerals, like biotite, is irrelevant to Po halo formation since the Po was emplaced after the formation of the mineral was complete, maybe by millions of years. So it does not matter whether the biotite formed from the normal sequence of mineral formation from a magma (Faraday), or was deposited by hydrothermal processes, or grew in the solid matrrix of the host rock due to metamorphism (Silver Crater, Fission). The Po could have been deposited a some later time when the uranium-rich fluid started to flow.

Cite your source. Are you claiming that this is peer review above?

Lastly, he conducted no experiments to show his claims outside his paper, or provide a peer reviewed journal of his claims outside of his paper's findings..

I have no idea what your trying to say. You might want ot rethink wording that into a coherent statement.

His paper doesn't say anything about GOD DONE IT.. He does outside the confines of the paper. Hence taking it and then dishonestly using it as some sort of evidence of magical creation.. He just assumes GOD DONE IT. As if no other natural process could account for the halos..That's where most his dishonesty comes in if we ignore the fact he tried to deny where he actually got his samples from.. And nor did he explain how decay rates could magically be a billion times faster.. These halos provides no statistical information to support it.

So he is being dishonest by publicly stating his beliefs and backing it up with several peer review article. OK got it.

Giving this, we will have to wait for further studies on the subject by the scientific community.. And as far as I can tell, his paper hasn't yet passed the peer review process. Can you cite where he has ruled out all other processes cited to which could naturally account for the Halo's? Well, nope.. So what does that tell you about his honesty outside the limits of the paper?

Have you forgotten you cited one of his peer review papers on this subject as well as the many I cited?

[TheJackelantern]

Have you forgotten you cited one of his peer review papers on this subject as well as the many I cited?

No, I cited his paper to show you that creationists do get papers published. His paper btw has yet to pass the peer review process. Don't confuse why I cited the paper as me advocating or supporting it... There are some some things I agree with in the paper, and there are some glaring problems with it.. I've asked you to address them. Also we can not go by how he uses his paper to claim creationism outside the confines of the paper. Those claims have no scientific foundation, and reside on not actually going into proving his claims... :/ So far what we can gather is that he has an idea on radiohalos, but he hasn't gone any further than that. And there are serious problems there..


Besides the unaddressed problems listed, what's interesting is that the Institute for Creation makes no effort to ride this camel. Your talking about forming Earth in a single instant, and this doesn't jive with the creation story. Oddly however, I agree with one thing stated by the Institute for Creation:

"a very tiny mystery."
"so further research is warranted."

[THEMAYAN]

THE JACKKKELANTERN

He's had just as many disagreements with creationist as evolutionist.
Your upset because of the implications of his science, and because of this you have decided that your best defense is to acuse him of lying and cheating. This is as low as you can get. Even many of his critics respect his work. Even if they dont agree with his interpretation they dont doubt his honesty. This is why you have provided no peer review paper to counter and instead had to resort linking me to a self professed amateur who used his late moms high school biology microscope. Niether his name nor his paper, (if thats what you wish to call it) show up on any scholarly data base.

None of your criticism themselves have passed peer review, and believe me, there is nothing more than what some of these editors would rather do than to publish a sound defeat of Gentry's work.
Again what you have done is pretty low. I have posted some of his peer review work on this subject and you did also 2 days ago and called it good science, and now you deny that his work made it past peer review.

You can have the last word I think were done.

[THEMAYAN]

Umm the reason for posting those citations was only to show that creationists have gotten papers published. And yes, we can refute the papers cited..Who said I can't? I don't think you understood why I posted them..

You said that these articles represented good science

One of the biggest problems with his papers is that Po-218 is a decay product of radon, which as a gas can be given off by uranium.. All his samples had uranium in them and all his supposed halos were mostly uranium halos. The interesting ones rested in cracks where the decay product of radon Po-218 could have migrated into. All his examples that show possible P-218 halos involved these cracks.. But the key thing is to note is that P0-218 is a decay product of radon. Find this here:

None of your citations below confirm what you say, and in fact one of them post exactly the same decay cycle Gentry uses, .......

Polonium (Po214) does an alpha decay into Lead (Pb210) with a half life of 164 microseconds.

http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/devprot4.html
http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/experiments/ex1.html
http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/ ... /chain.htm

I told you it wouldn't matter If I told you to read your citation before you posted them


http://ncse.com/cej/8/1/gentrys-tiny-my ... by-geology

The article above you sent posted at the NCSE website is not peer reviewed and the writer J. Richard Wakefield does not show up on any Google Scholar search.

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

What does this have to do with Gentry's paper?

Well read above and you might understand Hence, there are a lot of problems with his paper.. :

/

You copied this from someone unanimous poster and gave link to the wrong source. I have no idea what he or she is talking about.

And what does this have to do with you on one hand saying that this is real science, and now you say........

When someone attempts to do real science, it doesn't mean they have done it right. :/ Should I point out cases of non-creationist work that have been disproved? Also, out side of his paper, he uses it as a means to make the assumption that Earth was magically created, and that decay rates were magically a billion times faster... Hence the trickster GOD?

His claim is that the rocks that he studied are much younger than the 1.5 billion age they are claimed to be at and he is doing it using the scientific method. There is no trickery involved. Your initial claim was not that they attempted to do real science but that it was an example of real science.


Again none of your links are peer review. Furthermore Thomas A. Baillieul who wrote the paper criticizing Gentry could not even get his criticisms published in a reputable scientific journal.

That's because he's citing other sources.. He doesn't actually need to. It's already shown the Gentry lied about where he got his samples from. Nor did his paper describe the methodology and details involving his sample collecting..

What or who is its? Where is it already shown? Again I ask you to cite peer review paper.


Explain to me in your own words why Gentry is being deceptive or why he is wrong? Are you capable of doing that.

His paper identifies radiohalos, but does not explain them, nor does to provide any actual detailed information.. There are many problems with his paper, but most of his deception is his use of his paper as a tool to suggest Earth was magically created in an instant ect. This to which his paper can not and does not support. This quote being a key note as to why:

That is a lie. He has published multiple articles in peer review and in less formal setting explaining it in great detail. This no longer a case of willful ignorance this is a lie.

There is a major misconception, and not just by Gentry, about the distinction between the formation of the host mineral and the formation of the Po halos. The formation of the minerals, like biotite, is irrelevant to Po halo formation since the Po was emplaced after the formation of the mineral was complete, maybe by millions of years. So it does not matter whether the biotite formed from the normal sequence of mineral formation from a magma (Faraday), or was deposited by hydrothermal processes, or grew in the solid matrrix of the host rock due to metamorphism (Silver Crater, Fission). The Po could have been deposited a some later time when the uranium-rich fluid started to flow.

I asked you to explain in your own words and instead you plagiarized someone else's non peer review quote from ..... http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/conclusi.htm

Cite your source. Are you claiming that this is peer review above?

Lastly, he conducted no experiments to show his claims outside his paper, or provide a peer reviewed journal of his claims outside of his paper's findings..

I have no idea what your trying to say. You might want ot rethink wording that into a coherent statement.

His paper doesn't say anything about GOD DONE IT.. He does outside the confines of the paper. Hence taking it and then dishonestly using it as some sort of evidence of magical creation.. He just assumes GOD DONE IT. As if no other natural process could account for the halos..That's where most his dishonesty comes in if we ignore the fact he tried to deny where he actually got his samples from.. And nor did he explain how decay rates could magically be a billion times faster.. These halos provides no statistical information to support it.

So he is being dishonest by publicly stating his beliefs and backing it up with several peer review article. OK got it.

Giving this, we will have to wait for further studies on the subject by the scientific community.. And as far as I can tell, his paper hasn't yet passed the peer review process. Can you cite where he has ruled out all other processes cited to which could naturally account for the Halo's? Well, nope.. So what does that tell you about his honesty outside the limits of the paper?

Have you forgotten you cited one of his peer review papers on this subject as well as the many I cited?

[TheJackelantern]

Have you forgotten you cited one of his peer review papers on this subject as well as the many I cited?

I am aware.. You forget the reason for my citing his paper was to show you that your claim of discrimination of creationists getting papers published was a bit wrong.. Now the papers you cite interestingly are only citations to themselves and base their work on the assumptions of radiohalos and his assumptions of radioactive decay rates that have no actual actual data supporting them.. Most people don't catch this.. If you go to places where his work is published, the citations are usually him citing himself, and other citations that disagree in various sub topics on atomic decay. The reason why other sources are cited in the material I give you is because many of the answers are found in those sources. The rest is just Gentry making baseless assertions outside his publications on radiohalos.

So I ask you to now post peer review work that proves all of Gentry's assertions, addresses the problems outlined with his paper, and especially those assertions of his outside of his paper..

Hence, please explain how earth is formed with such high decay rates, and then explain why such decay rates can not be measured but only assumed by loose ideas of radiohalos to which are likely a product of natural processes such as argon gas producing P0-218 as a daughter product to which even naturally occurs in soil. This to which I provided a link for. I am also curious of where he even addresses human life on such a radioactive Earth that would put Earths temperature far exceeding that of our own Star.

And you do realize that about 55 percent of Earth's heat comes from sunlight and is radiated back by our own atmosphere. Right now Earth radiates on average 215 joules/m2/sec. This includes Earths own radiation, and that which Earth receives from the sun. This gives us the average temperature to which is around 280 K. hence, do you have any clue or idea what it would mean to have Earth being a million times more radioactive, or have decay rates so fast that it magically shows Earth being about 4 billion years old in a matter of 6,000 years?. Yeah, I don't think Gentry's paper covers these issues / problems, and nor does his professing magic instant creation outside his papers. Yeah, find me a peer reviewed paper on that, or one that could even describe this in relation to nuclear physics and the cooling systems to prevent a total melt down. And I don't even need get into the background radiation problem to where the average is 3msv and where a lethal dose is around 4,500msv.

So there is glaring problems with Genrty's claims outside the rather simplistic observations of radiohalos in which he's made no effort in explaining scientifically.. He just uses them to say "GOD DONE IT", and to profess magical rapid radioactive decay at literally impossible rates. This seems to be a part of their R.A.T.E effort to make things seem like they happen faster so they can account for the age of the earth appearing to be billions of years old.

Yep the trickster GOD, and they to which he is associated with even tried claiming light has infinite speed, or that the Grand Canyon formed in 5 minutes.. :/

[TheJackelantern]

The article above you sent posted at the NCSE website is not peer reviewed and the writer J. Richard Wakefield does not show up on any Google Scholar search.

J. Richard Wakefield did publish his refutation in the Journal of Geological Education, this to which is a peer-reviewed journal publisher...Also, you won't find everyone under Google Scholar search. However, he is someone who's studying geology.. And this argument is supported by someone to whom is a Geologist..Baillieul, T.A. These two are actually far more qualified to be talking about rocks than someone whom only has a PHD in physics and make erroneous claims about primordial rocks. Gentry's radihalos provide a nice mystery to solve, but his assertions surrounding it are not scientific or anything but profession religious belief of supernatural creation.

Origins 15:32-38 (1988)
www.pageout.net/user/www/d/e/dekkens/Ge ... -paper.doc
File Format: Microsoft Word - Quick View
by RH Brown - 1988 - Cited by 4 - Related articles
Origins 15:32-38 (1988). EXAMINING RADIOHALOS. CREATION'S TINY MYSTERY 1988. R. V. Gentry. 2nd ed. Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee ...

Raises more questions about Gentry's work in relation to his claims about his work.