1. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Jun '14 17:41
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Every time I bring up a topic to discuss the science of it, there is always someone like you that starts bringing religion into the discussion just because I am the one bringing up the topic. Then they complain to the mods that the topic is religion and not science.
    This has nothing to do with science. Creation is only religion, nothing more. This thread belongs in the spiritual forum. And I will complain every time I see a notion about creationism, intelligent designer, flood, shroud, talking snakes, and every other things that you are so spiritually fond of in the Science Forum.
    Because these discussions is about religion, and not science.
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    09 Jun '14 21:393 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Gentry has only a Masters degree which does not require you to do original work as you do in a Phd program. The second thing about him is he is biased towards creationism and will use every trick in the book to try to kill evolution, something he has failed at miserably. Sure, he wrote lots of papers but every one was refuted, as in this refutation of Polonium halo's:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
    Dr. Robert Gentry has been awarded an honorary doctorate from Columbia Union College because of his original work in the field and because he is the foremost expert. I did not see any refutation, only attempts at refutation.

    SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT GENTRY'S FINDINGS

    PROFESSIONAL QUALITY OF HIS DATA—"Robert V. Gentry writes lucidly of his meticulous experimentation with radioactive halos in ancient minerals. Many scientists with international reputations, such as Truman P. Kohman, Edward Anders, Emilio Segre, G.N. Flerov, Paul Ramdohr, Eugene Wigner, E.H. Taylor, etc., have commented favorably in regard to Gentry's integrity and the professional quality of his data."—*W. Scott Morrow, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Chemistry, Woofford College, quoted in Creation's Tiny Mystery [CTM], p. xi.

    IN THE TRADITION OF GALILEO—"Robert V. Gentry is a scientist in the tradition of Galileo. He, his work, and his Weltanschauung [overall conception of life and the world] do not deserve the premature obituary that my evolutionary colleagues are preparing for it."—*W. Scott Morrow, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Chemistry, Woofford College, quoted in CTM, p. xi.

    NOT WORTH THE EFFORT—"To date there has been only one effort to dispute Gentry's identification of polonium halos. As it turned out, that effort might better never have been written; the authors, having been impelled more by the worry that polonium halos, `would cause apparently insuperable geological problems,' than by a thorough grasp of the evidence."—*Talbott 1977, quoted in CTM, p. 47 [italics his].

    THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING—"I have been patiently scanning the `letters' section of Science since the publication, by you and your colleagues, of your findings on radiohalos. The silence is deafening—I think it can be interpreted as `stunned silence' . . Your results will not greatly trouble the engineer, whether he is a mining engineer, a geophysical engineer, or a ground-water engineer. But the impact on the science of geology, in possibly changing the accepted views as to the duration of geologic time, will be felt for many years.

    "We are indebted to you and your colleagues for your painstaking observation, the careful wording of your paper, and the courage you have manifested in presenting evidence that contravenes the conventional wisdom of the geological profession."—*Raphael G. Kazmann, Professor of Civil Engineering, Louisiana State University, 1977 letter to R.V. Gentry, quoted in CTM, p. 60.

    FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION—"Thank you for the reprints. It is apparent that you and your coworkers are unearthing fundamental information which will be difficult, if not impossible, to include in the accepted, uniformitarian-evolutionary, scheme."—*Raphael G. Kazmann, Professor of Civil Engineering, Louisiana State University, 1977 letter to R.V. Gentry, quoted in CTM, p. 60.

    THE PROBLEM WITH POLONIUM—"The polonium halos, especially those produced by Polonium 218, are the center of a mystery. The half-life of the isotope is only 3 minutes. Yet the halos have been found in granitic rocks . . in all parts of the world, including Scandinavia, India, Canada, and the United States. The difficulty arises from observation that there is no identifiable precursor to the polonium; it appears to be primordial polonium. If so, how did the surrounding rocks crystallize rapidly enough so that there were crystals available ready to be imprinted with radiohalos by alpha particles from Po? This would imply almost instantaneous cooling and crystallization of these granitic minerals, and we know of no mechanisms that will remove heat so rapidly; the rocks are supposed to have cooled over millennia, if not tens of millennia."—*R.G. Kazmann, 1979, summary of R.V. Gentry's symposium presentation at Louisiana State University, April 1978, quoted in CTM, p. 61.

    THE AGES BECOME MILLENNIA—"If isotope ratios are to be used as a basis for geologic dating, then presently accepted ages may be too high by a factor of 10,000, admitting the possibility that the ages of the formation are to be measured in millennia. Thus ages of the entire stratigraphic column may contain epochs less than 0.-1% the duration of those now accepted and found in the literature."—*R.G. Kazmann, 1979, op. cit., quoted in CTM, p. 62.

    GOOD AND CORRECTLY REPORTED—"I do not believe that Gentry's contentions can be regarded as of a `rather startling nature.' However, some of his experimental findings (like those of his predecessors) are quite difficult to understand, and the ultimate explanations could be interesting and even surprising. Many persons probably do not take them seriously, believing either that there is something wrong with the reported findings or that the explanations are to be found in simple phenomena which have been overlooked or discarded . . I believe it can be said that Gentry is honest and sincere, and that his scientific work is good and correctly reported. It would be very hard to believe that all, or any, of it could have been fabricated."—*Truman P. Kohman, Department of Chemistry, Carnegie-Mellon University, quoted in CTM, p. 236.

    SHAKE THE VERY FOUNDATIONS—"His [Gentry's] conclusions are startling and shake the very foundations of radiochemistry and geochemistry. Yet he has been so meticulous in his experimental work, and so restrained in his interpretations, that most people take his work seriously . . I think most people believe, as I do, that some unspectacular explanation will eventually be found for the anomalous halos, and that orthodoxy will turn out to be right after all. Mean while Gentry should be encouraged to keep rattling this skeleton in our closet for all it is worth."—*Edward Anders, Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, quoted in CTM, p. 236.

    DONE THOROUGHLY—"We made sure that [Gentry] carried out his investigations very thoroughly . . Therefore his data deserves serious attention."—*G.N. Flerov, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, quoted in CTM, p. 236.

    PROBABLY NO NEED TO DOUBT—"The very careful and time taking examinations of Dr. Gentry are indeed very interesting and extremely difficult to explain. But I think there is no need to doubt `currently accepted cosmological models of Earth formation' . . Anyhow, there is a very interesting and essential question and you could discuss it, perhaps with cautious restrictions against so weighty statements like the one above in quotes. It would be interesting and good if more scientists would have more knowledge of the problems."—*Paul Ramdohr, Emeritus Professor of Mineralogy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, quoted in CTM, p. 236.

    THOROUGHNESS, CARE, AND EFFORT—"I can attest to the thoroughness, care and effort which Gentry puts into his work . . In a general way these puzzling pieces of information might result from unsuspected species or phenomena in nuclear physics, from unusual geological or geochemical processes, or even from cosmological phenomena. Or they (or one of them) might arise from some unsuspected, trivial and uninteresting cause. All that one can say is that they do present a puzzle (or several puzzles) and that there is some reasonable probability that the answer will be scientifically interesting."—*E.H. Taylor, Chemistry Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, quoted in CTM, p. 236.

    WORLD'S LEADING AUTHORITY—"Mr. Anderson is correct when he states in his letter that Dr. Robert Gentry is the world's leading authority on the observation and measurement of anomalous radio-active haloes. Because of his recognized capabilities, Dr. Gentry's research was funded by the Foundation during the early 1970's."—*Francis S. Johnson, Assistant Director, National Science Foundation, 1982 letter to Robert S. Walker, U.S. Representative from Tennessee, quoted in CTM, p. 255.

    NEARLY 20 SCIENCE REPORTS—"Mr. Gentry has been a guest Scientist at ORNL [Oak Ridge National Laboratory] for the past 13 years. During this time, he has published nearly 20 scientific reports, some of which have received national recognition."—Jim Sasser, U.S. Senator from Tennessee, 1982 letter to W.S. Heffelfinger, Department of Energy, quoted in CTM, p. 261.

    MEETING THE SCIENTISTS—"In my recent defense of Act 590 of 1981 (better known as the Creation-Science Law), I had the opportunity to become acquainted with several of the world's leading scientists who testified on behalf of both the State and the American Civil Liberties Union. Of all the scientists involved on both sides of the lawsuit, no one impressed me anymore than Robert Gentry, who for the past several years has been a guest scientist at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee."—Steve Clark, Attorney General, State of Arkansas, 1982 letter to Dale Bumpers, U.S. Senator from Arkansas, quoted in CTM, pp. 172, 265. OUTSIDE MOST EXPERTISE—"Robert V. Gentry is widely regarded as one of the most conscientious and scholarly creationists. His research on radioactive halos is in a field outside the expertise of most scientists."—*Karl Fezer, Concord College, in a 1985 statement, quoted in CTM, p. 182.

    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/04earth5.htm

    Fingerprints of Creation - Dr. Robert Gentry

    YouTube
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    10 Jun '14 13:004 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    [b]Dr. Robert Gentry has been awarded an honorary doctorate from Columbia Union College because of his original work in the field and because he is the foremost expert. I did not see any refutation, only attempts at refutation.

    SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT GENTRY'S FINDINGS

    PROFESSIONAL QUALITY OF HIS DATA—"Robert V. Gentry writes lucidly of his meticulous expe ...[text shortened]... y where Gentry just by the strangest coincidence just HAPPENS to be what?

    Gee, 7th day adventist.
    Read this refutation:

    http://verity.wikispaces.com/Polonium+haloes

    Note Gentry's own admissions in court at the bottom of the page.

    And his so-called honorary Phd is from a 7th day adventist university and by this really strange coincidence, Gentry is 7th day adventist.

    Wow, no bias there, right?

    BTW, don't know how my words got into RJ's post I quoted, sorry about that.
  4. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    10 Jun '14 13:09
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Read this refutation:

    http://verity.wikispaces.com/Polonium+haloes

    Note Gentry's own admissions in court at the bottom of the page.
    RJHinds are simply betting on the wrong horse.
    The first time? No, only the last time. There will be more.

    He does the same mistake, again and again.

    Thank you sonhouse for digging up this source.
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    10 Jun '14 14:021 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Read this refutation:

    http://verity.wikispaces.com/Polonium+haloes

    Note Gentry's own admissions in court at the bottom of the page.

    And his so-called honorary Phd is from a 7th day adventist university and by this really strange coincidence, Gentry is 7th day adventist.

    Wow, no bias there, right?

    BTW, don't know how my words got into RJ's post I quoted, sorry about that.
    Well, that does seem to give an attempt at refutation. But I am still not clear if it refutes all his work on the Polonium haloes and it certainly does not prove granite is millions or billions of years old. I do not see anything on his information on coalification of wood much faster that evolutions thought possible. Of course that has already been proven to be true by other people now.

    And as far as the questions and answers from the trial, there does not seem to be any attempt to answer any question untruthfully. I wonder what other questions around those were asked, and what if any questions were asked on the other side that might have an impact on the interpretation.
  6. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    10 Jun '14 14:08
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Well, that does seem to give an attempt at refutation. But I am still not clear if it refutes all his work on the Polonium haloes and it certainly does not prove granite is millions or billions of years old. I do not see anything on his information on coalification of wood much faster that evolutions thought possible. Of course that has already been proven ...[text shortened]... t if any questions were asked on the other side that might have an impact on the interpretation.
    Well, your idol Robert Gentry is a fraud. Get over it. Learn something from it.
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    10 Jun '14 14:10
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Well, that does seem to give an attempt at refutation. But I am still not clear if it refutes all his work on the Polonium haloes and it certainly does not prove granite is millions or billions of years old. I do not see anything on his information on coalification of wood much faster that evolutions thought possible. Of course that has already been proven ...[text shortened]... t if any questions were asked on the other side that might have an impact on the interpretation.
    The whole point is 'scientists' working in creation science come in with the bias to prove a point in their agenda. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE. When you have an agenda to start with, you bend data, outright lie, cherry pick all with the goal of showing creation to be true.

    There is no credible work showing anything of the kind and all your so-called science video's are nothing but political tracts to sway uncommited voters and judges and congressmen to their side.

    They cannot EVER use it as actual science, but ONLY in the art of persuasion.

    Actual science would refute the data at the outset.

    That NEVER happens with so-called creation science.

    EVERY work of theirs is for the goal of killing evolution and forcing creation to be taught as if it were a science which you very well know is nothing more than religious dogma.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    10 Jun '14 14:34
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Well, your idol Robert Gentry is a fraud. Get over it. Learn something from it.
    I did not see any proof he was a fraud.
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    10 Jun '14 14:41
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The whole point is 'scientists' working in creation science come in with the bias to prove a point in their agenda. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE. When you have an agenda to start with, you bend data, outright lie, cherry pick all with the goal of showing creation to be true.

    There is no credible work showing anything of the kind and all your so-called science vi ...[text shortened]... be taught as if it were a science which you very well know is nothing more than religious dogma.
    Well, I could also say that the evolutionist came in with an agenda to prove Gentry wrong, since it would mess up everything they believed to start with. So they had a motive to bend data, outright lie, cherry pick all with the goal of showing Gentry to be wrong.
  10. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    10 Jun '14 14:532 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I did not see any proof he was a fraud.
    No of course, you cannot read with your eyes shut.

    Q: Did you not invent new alpha activity to explain unusual results and later admit you erred in so doing?
    Gentry: Yes.

    He is a fraud, alright.
  11. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    95105
    10 Jun '14 14:57
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Well, I could also say that the evolutionist came in with an agenda to prove Gentry wrong, since it would mess up everything they believed to start with. So they had a motive to bend data, outright lie, cherry pick all with the goal of showing Gentry to be wrong.
    people are not evolutionists first and then become scientists. taking a scientific approach leads to evolution.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    10 Jun '14 16:59
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    No of course, you cannot read with your eyes shut.

    Q: Did you not invent new alpha activity to explain unusual results and later admit you erred in so doing?
    Gentry: Yes.

    He is a fraud, alright.
    One question and answer in a court case does not prove fraud. I think they would need more than that. Anyway, in the US , a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty of charges of fraud, and it is not clear to me that what he admitted to had anything to do with fraud at this point.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    10 Jun '14 17:06
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    people are not evolutionists first and then become scientists. taking a scientific approach leads to evolution.
    I don't believe that is the case, because the theory of evolution is what students are taught to believe before they can get any degree in science other than perhaps engineering, where the theory of evolution plays no part.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    10 Jun '14 17:19
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I don't believe that is the case, because the theory of evolution is what students are taught to believe before they can get any degree in science other than perhaps engineering, where the theory of evolution plays no part.
    And that would be because so many different fields of science all point to evolution being true.

    You can't get geologists and mathematicians and astronomers and anthropologists and archaeologists and nuclear scientists all together to make one vast conspiracy, they have their own people they work with and don't often mix with other disciplines.

    It is when you view all the data together you see evolution fit best.

    Like the age of the Earth. That relies not on just say C14 dating which you know full well poops out at about 40,000 years back and you can't date stuff with no carbon and they know full well the limitations so that is just one tool, there are at least ten other dating methods that all converge on certain dates so the confidence level goes over the top when deciding on a date for some rock or the whole Earth or dating fossils less than 30,000 years old and such.

    You haven't studied the many dating techniques so your objections mean less than zero.

    The ONLY thing creationists are interested in is destruction not building up science. PERIOD. They could care less about actually learning something new, just as long as they get their way much like a spoiled child.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    10 Jun '14 20:131 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    And that would be because so many different fields of science all point to evolution being true.

    You can't get geologists and mathematicians and astronomers and anthropologists and archaeologists and nuclear scientists all together to make one vast conspiracy, they have their own people they work with and don't often mix with other disciplines.

    It is ...[text shortened]... t actually learning something new, just as long as they get their way much like a spoiled child.
    Practically all those guys are taught evolution in school regardless of what field of science is their specialty. So that fact alone will bias their point of view and interpretations. And if a scientist wants to get something published in the scientific journals, he had better not try to publish something that is clearly against the sacred cow of evolution, if he wants it accepted. That is called bucking the system.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree