What Is ISLAM?

[Iskar]

Pleochroic Halos have naught to do with "atomic life of rocks", whatever that may be, and likely even contradict your assertion: They involve the decay of Uranium 238 with a half life of ~4* 10^9 years, making it easily discernable if a halo is more than 6000 year old by the intensity of the crystalline halo around the radioactive inclusion.

[basics]

Pleochroic Halos have naught to do with "atomic life of rocks", whatever that may be, and likely even contradict your assertion: They involve the decay of Uranium 238 with a half life of ~4* 10^9 years, making it easily discernable if a halo is more than 6000 year old by the intensity of the crystalline halo around the radioactive inclusion.

Ishkar,

Maybe I have phrased it wrong but the gist of his discoveries is that rocks are not as old as first appears due to his work as well as others on radio halos. Because his book infers a young aged earth in line with God's word it stands to reason that people who do not agree with God's word are going to dismiss his findings no matter what, why? Becauise it destroys the concept that we are billions of years in the making which the establishment will not accept. Gentry never hid from anyone what his intentions were and so from the very start he was being thwarted at every turn. Not being a scientist I look at things primarily from the Biblical perspective believing that God made all things in six wonderful days by the word of command meaning that as everything was up and running on the seventh day showing age in certain things or most things we could observe. Therefore when men like Gentry try to solve the problem of creation, and he was not the first to bring up the halos, it is exciting to read of other things that may support creation as God tells. Until then we must believe God or them that oppose Him.

[conon394]

conon394,

May I suggest you get hold of Robert V Gentry's Book called Creation's Tiny Mystery which is about his research into the atomic life of rocks whereby he proves that the earth is not as old as claimed by the establishment. He is recognised as the leading figure in his field which makes the book a need to read concerning the lifespan of this planet.

We have been round this one before.

He is an expert in a vary narrow field. Critically however he is not leading expert or even an expert in Geology. He is well published back in the 70s in his area of expertise in Physics and radioactive halos (although out of Oak-ridge looking for heavy elements for bombs not geology). Notably it should be pointed as part of team, often with co authors and peer reviewed... He flight of fancy into young earth creationism simply fails to pass muster as scientific and the lack of experts in the necessary fields as co authors should be a red flag - see below)

Anyway back to what I already posted

His work simply does not stand scrutiny. Many of his samples are taken out of geological context or not correctly sourced so his argument of finding the Halos only in 'primordial rock' are unfounded. Beyond that he demands special pleading that only one type of radioactive decay is constant but the others are altered willy-nilly by biblical events. That is the fundamental problem if you can just use the bible to adjust radioactive decay were you need it. You have not really developed a sound scientific explanation - but simply I found an anomaly in a few samples but not all and even my best ones don't really sustain scrutiny - when I even bother show my hand to allow replication.

He has isolated possibly in some of his samples an interesting phenomenon, but his either careless or mendacious handling of his data and the addition of fairy dust to explain away contrary evidence is not impressive.

You might also basics take the time to look up a few modern science papers. You might notice they often have 2, 3, 5 or more authors. There is a reason for that. In this a man with a MA in Physics is decidedly not as noted above an expert on geology his lack of co author in that field is telling. I would also expect an expert on Genetics and Coalescent theory to explain how it supports a young earth - oh wait I sorry it does not. Oh and he needs another expert to talk away 2.7 million years of ice core samples. By this I mean when you step out of your own area of expertise in modern science you very much need collaborators. If Gentry seemly cannot find a a solid Geologist to co author you should be skeptical.

Do yourself a favor basics be true in your belief, but don't look to pseudo science.

You might consider this. Very few scientists are avowed atheists. Very few less are like Richard Dawkins zealot like atheists who have achieved an almost religious belief. Many more may be Agnostic but that means you have an open mind. Most however I think you would find hold a religious belief of some kind. On the whole do really think any of them would not be quite happy to find proof of a god or their god or gods... In real science. The kind you get published and not a hack book, is hard, grueling, often not all that well paid. I really cannot think of any graduate student living on coffee and nicotine and little sleep who would not be delighted to know there was a reward in heaven for their work proved scientifically. But I am sorry to say that is not Gentry.

Also here a couple of links on the problems with his work

http://paleo.cc/ce/halos.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...-1368-36.3.161

[basics]

conon394,

I take it that you have read his book from cover to cover?

[Akar]

That's seriously your only response to everything Conon said? Some sort of insinuation that unless Conon has personally read everything he's ever written then nothing he said is true at all?

Ridiculous, man. Ridiculous.

[conon394]

conon394,

I take it that you have read his book from cover to cover?

I have not. I have some the amount I can find free online. That is sufficient to know that the critical reviews I cited are not making up the man's unsubstantiated assertions. I can see via his CV he is no expert in Geology. I can also see that his book makes no attempt to address non geological types of science that would contradict young earth creationism.

But to return the favor did you explore any of the links I cited and their references?

[basics]

conon394,

Yes, I did so that's one up for me. How can you see anything about his book if you haven't read it? If I were a top scientist which I am not, and I agreed with Gentry or that Gentry needs more looking into as has been cited in the book let's face it you would still oppose anything that differed from the evolutionary theory. That said, everyone will know the truth one day when our Creator returns to sort things out.

[Gromovnik]

This is divine level of trolling.

[conon394]

conon394,

Yes, I did so that's one up for me. How can you see anything about his book if you haven't read it? If I were a top scientist which I am not, and I agreed with Gentry or that Gentry needs more looking into as has been cited in the book let's face it you would still oppose anything that differed from the evolutionary theory. That said, everyone will know the truth one day when our Creator returns to sort things out.

On the Former. No I have not read it all the way through. Why, because fully everything after chapter 5 is self pity and whining or about the trial he got involved in etc. None of which has any much to say bout his proposal. I have read enough to that he is not a geologist. That he has no expert geologist collaborator. That he makes in the first 5 chapters as noted in critical reviews breathless unsubstantiated assumptions about say any granite and the pre Cambrian era being pristine primordial (but of course he not meet reporting standards for his samples anyway). No I'm not just parroting what contrary reviews say. That is a key basis for his assertions that he claims without any reference even a self reference. That is simply damning. He continues on in several other points to do the same. Again in similar way Gentry does in fact assert without evidence or support the ideal of variable radioactive decay for everything but polonium. You know in science when you start making stuff up to save your model rather question the hypothesized model that usually means a fail. You can add more circles inside of circles to keep the earth at the center of the solar system in the face of new evidence but eventually you have to face the fact your model is broken.


Nowhere in his first 5 chapters does he address non halo geology that contradicts his ideals, nor at all the vast pool of not geology that contradicts young earth creationism dating. He found an anomaly. But there are at least 3 or more different potential explanations for that anomaly (depending on the rock) none of which require young earth creationism. Again the problem here is you are rather like somebody who insists cold fusion is real. Sure one set of scientist though they had it. Were thay mocked no, rather the system tried to replicate it and well it failed. But interestingly there are still efforts to try to, smaller and less frequent with each failure however. It not like the inquisition showed up to whisk Pons and Fleischmann away to see Tomás de Torquemada. One suspects a lot people in the field in retrospect though they were foolish and should have approached others for verification tests before embarrassing themselves - but they were excited at the ideal.

The same goes for Gentry rather than the whine fest that is much of his book he would have done better to fine solid geologists and other physicists to replicate his ideal and certainly to put his sample handling on a consistent and professional footing. If you are going to challenge a whole field it really is a bad ideal to fail to adhere to basic best or even standard practices. He needs to that on the basis a fair number of unsupported assertions when he is seeking to use one particular anomaly that has multiple alternative explanations to not just overturn geology but dating by unrelated fields. Thus he really does need more collaborators to explain for example how this would invalidate genetic measures of time for example.

Occam's razor is your friend. You know you could break into my house on a given day and find cabinet doors all randomly open, chairs stacked on one another in odd places and dried blood on the bathroom wall. You could say that clearly the house is haunted by malevolent poltergeists. However more prosaically you might also suggest some small child wanted to get at treats that were supposed to be out of reach and was somewhat reckless, somebody else is lazy and seems to not care about closing doors and that perhaps one or more residents have regular bloody noses issues at night and do a bad job while sleepy of cleaning up in the dark. Poltergeist would require extraordinary evidence and also definitely dealing with all potential contradictory evidence of a more normal nature.

let's face it you would still oppose anything that differed from the evolutionary theory

Err no. I however am not impressed with a partial baked theory, based on unsupported assumptions, about one potentially interesting phenomenon that has other explanations that do not clash with the preponderance of evidence across multiple fields of scientific research. More so when pushed by a person clearly out his depth in Geology.

That said, everyone will know the truth one day when our Creator returns to sort things out

That as always remains a matter of personal belief. Who knows which creator is going to show? If any.

But anyway yes I finally did dig up an old link
https://archive.org/details/B-001-000-166/mode/2up

And the hour I spend spent re skimming the first 5 chapters will go down in my mind as about a as big of waste of time as a HS pep rally that I failed to duck out of

[LestaT]

Islam is not a religion. It is a way of life.

[LestaT]

Roughly 6,000 was used by Muslims and Christians. It up by adding up the ages of all the characters in the Bible using geneologies given in the Bible.going back to Adam. you can estimate how old the earth is..

Eer.... I'm a muslim all my life but I've never heard from any muslims I know that earth is 6000 years old? 🤔 Dont know about Chistians though or maybe you've heard some youtube muslim preachers that says that.

Quran even mentioned that there were indeed 'people' on earth before Adam ('people' because older traditions believe that they were kind of djinn, modern traditions accept that they may be from other homonid groups).

[Gromovnik]

Aaaaaaaand, here we go...

[Sar1n]

Islam is not a religion. It is a way of life.

*looks at hadith* pretty crappy way of life, a 6th century Arabic barbarism.

[PointOfViewGun]

Islamic revelations happened in 7th century...

[Sar1n]

Islamic revelations happened in 7th century...

And Muhammad grew up in 6th, so he was a product of that culture. Not that there's a substantial difference between those two....

[PointOfViewGun]

And Muhammad grew up in 6th, so he was a product of that culture. Not that there's a substantial difference between those two....

All Hadith stories are from 7th century though. If he was a product of that culture a lot of things in the Quran would not exist. Your confusion with which century Islam came to be just speaks for itself.

[Sar1n]

All Hadith stories are from 7th century though. If he was a product of that culture a lot of things in the Quran would not exist. Your confusion with which century Islam came to be just speaks for itself.

Like? Go ahead, show us what changed between late 6th and early 7th century Arabia so substantially beyond few, mostly superficial things that Muhammad introduced like the change of which idols they worshipped.

[Common Soldier]

Eer.... I'm a muslim all my life but I've never heard from any muslims I know that earth is 6000 years old? �� Dont know about Chistians though or maybe you've heard some youtube muslim preachers that says that.

Quran even mentioned that there were indeed 'people' on earth before Adam ('people' because older traditions believe that they were kind of djinn, modern traditions accept that they may be from other homonid groups).

Medieval Muslim.scholars used to think that. You likely not have read those medieval Muslim scholars. One of the issues with Muslim philosophers is that many of them adhered ro Greek philosopher idea of an eternal universe, which was contrary to orthodox Muslim teaxhing.

The Quran does not say thst there were people before Adam - provide a verse where it specifically says that.

I know there are Muslims who interpret the Quran as saying that there were people before Adam, but that is their interpretation, not what the Quran actually says.

[Common Soldier]

All Hadith stories are from 7th century though. If he was a product of that culture a lot of things in the Quran would not exist. Your confusion with which century Islam came to be just speaks for itself.

The hadiths are likely later than the 7th century, although they claim they are from the 7th century. The Quran was supposedly written in the 7th century, and there seems to be copies dating from then.

[PointOfViewGun]

Like? Go ahead, show us what changed between late 6th and early 7th century Arabia so substantially beyond few, mostly superficial things that Muhammad introduced like the change of which idols they worshipped.

Care to point out few changes that happened with Christianity so that I understand what you're aiming to see?