Search This Blog

Monday, August 30, 2010

Radioactive decay rates are NOT constant. Science continues to learn from Creation!

There are few institutions of learning, so-called, that are more liberal than Stanford.  Stanford is an absolute bastion of Darwinism and Progressivecommunistliberalism.   So when two articles from Stanford get space on this blog, that is really something. (thanks to Karl Priest for bringing the first article to my attention). Here is an excerpt from article number one:

The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements

When researchers found an unusual linkage between solar flares and the inner life of radioactive elements on Earth, it touched off a scientific detective investigation that could end up protecting the lives of space-walking astronauts and maybe rewriting some of the assumptions of physics.
L.A. Cicero Peter Sturrock Peter Sturrock, professor emeritus of applied physics

It's a mystery that presented itself unexpectedly: The radioactive decay of some elements sitting quietly in laboratories on Earth seemed to be influenced by activities inside the sun, 93 million miles away.
Is this possible?

Researchers from Stanford and Purdue University believe it is. But their explanation of how it happens opens the door to yet another mystery.

There is even an outside chance that this unexpected effect is brought about by a previously unknown particle emitted by the sun. "That would be truly remarkable," said Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics and an expert on the inner workings of the sun.

The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts and when doctors determine the proper dose of radioactivity to treat a cancer patient.

Random numbers

But that assumption was challenged in an unexpected way by a group of researchers from Purdue University who at the time were more interested in random numbers than nuclear decay. (Scientists use long strings of random numbers for a variety of calculations, but they are difficult to produce, since the process used to produce the numbers has an influence on the outcome.)

Ephraim Fischbach, a physics professor at Purdue, was looking into the rate of radioactive decay of several isotopes as a possible source of random numbers generated without any human input. (A lump of radioactive cesium-137, for example, may decay at a steady rate overall, but individual atoms within the lump will decay in an unpredictable, random pattern. Thus the timing of the random ticks of a Geiger counter placed near the cesium might be used to generate random numbers.)

As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates – odd for supposed physical constants.

Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.

Was this fluctuation real, or was it merely a glitch in the equipment used to measure the decay, induced by the change of seasons, with the accompanying changes in temperature and humidity?

"Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant," Sturrock said.

The sun speaks

On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.

If this apparent relationship between flares and decay rates proves true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares prior to their occurrence, which could help prevent damage to satellites and electric grids, as well as save the lives of astronauts in space.

The decay-rate aberrations that Jenkins noticed occurred during the middle of the night in Indiana – meaning that something produced by the sun had traveled all the way through the Earth to reach Jenkins' detectors. What could the flare send forth that could have such an effect?

Jenkins and Fischbach guessed that the culprits in this bit of decay-rate mischief were probably solar neutrinos, the almost weightless particles famous for flying at almost the speed of light through the physical world – humans, rocks, oceans or planets – with virtually no interaction with anything.

Then, in a series of papers published in Astroparticle Physics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research and Space Science Reviews, Jenkins, Fischbach and their colleagues showed that the observed variations in decay rates were highly unlikely to have come from environmental influences on the detection systems.

Reason for suspicion

Their findings strengthened the argument that the strange swings in decay rates were caused by neutrinos from the sun. The swings seemed to be in synch with the Earth's elliptical orbit, with the decay rates oscillating as the Earth came closer to the sun (where it would be exposed to more neutrinos) and then moving away.
So there was good reason to suspect the sun, but could it be proved?..."

So you need to go there to read the entire article.   Needless to say if small variations in radiation decay rates are being detected now, during times of relative peace and tranquility on Earth, could there have been large changes in the past, particularly during the mega-catastrophic Noahic Flood?

Now here is the second article.  It is also from Stanford.   It is yet another example of the fact that "God did it" does not in any way end science but in fact it begins it.  Scientists working on design concepts for robot feet are studying the remarkable design and operation of the feet of the gecko.   See below:

Secrets of the gecko foot help robot climb

The science behind gecko toes holds the answer to a dry adhesive that provides an ideal grip for robot feet. Stanford mechanical engineer Mark Cutkosky is using the new material, based on the structure of a gecko foot, to keep his robots climbing.
Jack Hubbard Mechanical Engineering PhD Student Salomon Trujillo watches 'Stickybot" go through its paces.
L.A. Cicero Photo: Gecko Stickybot Paul Day and Alan Asbeck worked on adhesives for the feet of the gecko-like Stickybot.

A Stanford mechanical engineer is using the biology of a gecko's sticky foot to create a robot that climbs. In the same way the small reptile can scale a wall of slick glass, the Stickybot can climb smooth surfaces with feet modeled on the intricate design of gecko toes.

Mark Cutkosky, the lead designer of the Stickybot, a professor of mechanical engineering and co-director of the Center for Design Research, has been collaborating with scientists around the nation for the last five years to build climbing robots.

After designing a robot that could conquer rough vertical surfaces such as brick walls and concrete, Cutkosky moved on to smooth surfaces such as glass and metal. He turned to the gecko for ideas.

"Unless you use suction cups, which are kind of slow and inefficient, the other solution out there is to use dry adhesion, which is the technique the gecko uses," Cutkosky said.

Wonders of the gecko toe

The toe of a gecko's foot contains hundreds of flap-like ridges called lamellae. On each ridge are millions of hairs called setae, which are 10 times thinner than a human's. Under a microscope, you can see that each hair divides into smaller strands called spatulae, making it look like a bundle of split ends. These split ends are so tiny (a few hundred nanometers) that they interact with the molecules of the climbing surface.

The interaction between the molecules of gecko toe hair and the wall is a molecular attraction called van der Waals force. A gecko can hang and support its whole weight on one toe by placing it on the glass and then pulling it back. It only sticks when you pull in one direction – their toes are a kind of one-way adhesive, Cutkosky said.

"It's very different from Scotch tape or duct tape, where, if you press it on, you then have to peel it off. You can lightly brush a directional adhesive against the surface and then pull in a certain direction, and it sticks itself. But if you pull in a different direction, it comes right off without any effort," he said.

Robots with gecko feet

One-way adhesive is important for climbing because it requires little effort to attach and detach a robot's foot.
"Other adhesives are sort of like walking around with chewing gum on your feet: You have to press it into the surface and then you have to work to pull it off. But with directional adhesion, it's almost like you can sort of hook and unhook yourself from the surface," Cutkosky said.

After the breakthrough insight that direction matters, Cutkosky and his team began asking how to build artificial materials for robots that create the same effect. They came up with a rubber-like material with tiny polymer hairs made from a micro-scale mold.

The designers attach a layer of adhesive cut to the shape of Stickybot's four feet, which are about the size of a child's hand. As it steadily moves up the wall, the robot peels and sticks its feet to the surface with ease, resembling a mechanical lizard.

The newest versions of the adhesive, developed in 2009, have a two-layer system, similar to the gecko's lamellae and setae. The "hairs" are even smaller than the ones on the first version – about 20 micrometers wide, which is five times thinner than a human hair. These versions support higher loads and allow Stickybot to climb surfaces such as wood paneling, painted metal and glass.

The material is strong and reusable, and leaves behind no residue or damage. Robots that scale vertical walls could be useful for accessing dangerous or hard to reach places.

Next steps

The team's new project involves scaling up the material for humans. A technology called Z-Man, which would allow humans to climb with gecko adhesive, is in the works.

Cutkosky and his team are also working on a Stickybot successor: one that turns in the middle of a climb. Because the adhesive only sticks in one direction, turning requires rotating the foot.
"The new Stickybot that we're working on right now has rotating ankles, which is also what geckos have," he said.

"Next time you see a gecko upside down or walking down a wall head first, look carefully at the back feet, they'll be turned around backward. They have to be; otherwise they'll fall."

Cutkosky has collaborated with scientists from Lewis & Clark College, the University of California-Berkeley, the University of Pennsylvania, Carnegie Mellon University and a robot-building company called Boston Dynamics. His project is funded by the National Science Foundation and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The research is described in a paper published online Aug. 2 in Applied Physics Letters, "Effect of fibril shape on adhesive properties.""

So scientists who specialize in this particular field are studying the gecko foot and trying valiantly to come close to duplicating it's remarkable design features.   The gecko foot is one of millions of unique design features found in nature that mankind has copied or is in the process of trying to copy.  But some of you think that things such as the intricate combinations of physical and operational aspects of the foot of the gecko that must work in precisely coordinated ways to work just kind of *poofed* into existence.   Just like when you empty the kitchen junk drawer onto the floor and a microwave *poofs* into being.   Just like when you mow the lawn and empty a big, delicious watermelon from the mower bag.   Just like when you would jump off of 200 foot high cliff if you have scoliosis so that blind chance could fix that for you.   Yeah.   That is Darwinism in a nutshell with an emphasis on "nut."   I will make this perfectly and simply clear for you once I have time for a longer post.

BTW congratulations to Karl Priest upon getting his new book reviewed here.   Excerpt:

"Here's The Plan: "A bunch of unelected elitists are going to make you an offer you can't refuse – a free education for your children via public schools that will be run under the auspices of local governments, administered by state governments but actually controlled by the federal government. But don't get too excited by the word "free" because you're going to be paying for it with your taxes and most especially your children, who will be forcibly taken from your home if you refuse to comply, and/or you will be jailed for violating truancy laws written to enforce the new compulsory education law.

After about 100 years of conditioning parents and kids to the drill of leaving the home early in the morning for five days of reading, writing and arithmetic, The Plan goes into its second phase – full scale indoctrination and deliberate dumbing down. Reading, writing and math skills will be de-emphasized more and more. Science will be more theory than actual science, and historical figures like our founding fathers will fade away. Textbooks will no longer include traditional family values like truth, honesty and respect for others; instead, textbooks will instill doubt in American work ethics, patriotism and faith in the Christian God. Your kids will be de-programmed of those values taught at home and church and re-programmed with the Fundamentals of HumanismSocialism, Darwinism and Moral Relativism."

That's been the plan for over 150 years, and with few exceptions, everything has gone according to plan. One exception was the 1974 Textbook Wars that took place in Kanawha County, West Virginia. Karl C. Priest, a retired public school teacher and veteran of the 1974 Textbook Wars, has exposed The Plan by painstakingly documenting school board battles, protest skirmishes and the gory details of the war the Left declared against Bible-believing Christian a long time ago in his new book, “Protester Voices: The 1974 Textbook Tea Party.” I wish I had had this book for reference material when I sat down to write about my own experiences as a teacher in the public school system, “Legally STUPiD: Why Johnny doesn’t have to read.” “Protester Voices” is a wealth of information with eye witness testimony of those who first drew a line in the sand and told the humanist-socialist devils intent on taking over this country, “You can’t have my child!...”

You can read an interview of Karl discussing the book with Michael Shaughnessy here.

You can click below to buy a copy.

Minipost - No comments are being censored and talkorigins is still a bad source

Too busy for a new post at the moment.  To answer a couple of quick questions:

No, I am not erasing comments.  Also, sometimes people have repeated comments.  The problem may be with your computer or with the blogger site.  I would only erase obvious spammers and foul language, period.  You get your soapbox if you disagree with me as long as you watch your language even if I completely disagree with every word you write. 

No, talkorigins is not too busy to talk with me, I had several emails back and forth with them back about three years ago or so and have since then pointed out some errors that they simply will not change.  talkorigins is a site that posts information they KNOW is wrong and they will not change it.  I can only imagine that their aim is to be part of the ruling paradigm and have no qualms about what is right and wrong, correct or incorrect.  The particular post they have up about the acambaro figurines is preposterous.  DiPeso was shown to be a faker and a liar. As you all know I also steer people away from Dr. Dino.  I do not want people going to a fraud site on either side of the debate.  Talkorigins will lie to you.  So far as I can tell Dr. Dino (now under a new name) will as well...and they will have to make a LOT of changes before I change my mind about them.  So if you want to be laughed at and ignored by me, use either of those sites as sources.  Because if they are all you have, you have nothing.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Real Science - Tectonic Plate Subduction and the Noahic Flood

If you are a commenter, and you wish to argue with me by stating that one or two of the hundreds of sources I have referred to over the years disagrees with me on a point (like Po radiohalos), do not expect that to be an answer to the question.  I have quoted scientists of pretty much every major discipline on a wide variety of issues, some of whom I disagree with in other areas of study.  I would not be in agreement with Russell Humphreys or Michael Behe in some areas and yet totally with them on others.  We will all decide what we believe is true based on the evidence, hopefully, above and beyond the worldview.  That the NAS has been unable to dispute the polonium radiohalos as evidence but rather just try to scoot it off to the side as an inexplicable oddity is all the proof you need that the evidence is real, it is valid, and it is scientifically unassailable.  What you do with that is up to you.  Close your eyes to it and keep chanting "Darwin Darwin Darwin" or else begin to examine other aspects of origins with an open mind and think critically.  

Unlike most of the readers and commenters on this blog, I have been on both sides of the fence.  I have been a true believer in Darwinism and have come to make a 180 degree turn on the subject.  You may disagree with what I post, but unlike the more uncivilized or vulgar or childish of the commenters I do not lie about these subjects.  I also know the basics of both Darwinism and YEC and for that matter OEC and TE.  So give up on the "you just don't understand" gimmick and quit linking to talkorigins, for crying out loud!   Using talkorigins as a source of scientific knowledge is about as bright as asking Robert Tilton for spiritual guidance and is just as likely to get an honest response.
When you read the comments threads, keep in mind that there are some commenters who are completely sold out to a point of view and would not be capable of changing their minds.  They very well may lie in order to push their particular agenda, so be aware.  I still have some hope that one or more of them may suddenly have the lightbulb click on over their heads so I soldier on.

However, my primary concern is to keep posting evidence that will not be seen often, if ever, on television, in magazines, in movies, on the radio and sadly enough, in the classroom.   The standard method of teaching origins science is 99 and 44/100 per cent Darwinist myth with .0056 fact.   Darwinism is in violation of several scientific laws and yet it is drummed into the heads of young people all through grade school and high school and college.  Nevertheless it is heartening to know that the majority of Americans still tend to believe that God created the Universe rather than the idea that it *poofed* into existence.  For the people who are wanting and willing to research things like this on their own, those who consider education a personal journey rather than a few hours seated at a desk, then it is for you that I take the time to do these posts, to introduce you to sites with worthwhile information and to falsify the preposterous claims of Darwinism.

Let's be clear.  I am a Young Earth Creationist.  Some of my friends disagree.   A few of my commenters agree but many do not.  There are Old Earth Creationists.  There are Theistic Evolutionists.  There are God Made the Big Bangers and there are completely atheistic Big Bangers.  The standard view of scientists throughout most of Western civilization and, indeed, the world was a general agreement in a God of some kind who created the world in some way and at some time. 

So there you have it, a kind of a summary of what this blog means to me and what it is intended to do.  Following up on the last post, an introduction of sorts to rapid tectonic plate subduction, which is a key to understanding the Noahic Flood and the rock records both sedimentary and non-sedimentary, the fossils, the mountains and canyons and rifts and deeps of the Earth.  The world-wide flood event involved forces far beyond a few days of rain falling down and a cute little boat floating placidly upon a big expanse of water.   Both the Flood event itself and the post-flood era involved tremendous forces that YEC scientists are studying to understand in detail. 

by Andrew A. Snelling

What Is Plate Tectonics?

The earth’s thin rocky outer layer (3–45 mi [5–70 km] thick) is called “the crust.” On the continents it consists of sedimentary rock layers—some containing fossils and some folded and contorted—together with an underlying crystalline rocky basement of granites and metamorphosed sedimentary rocks. In places, the crystalline rocks are exposed at the earth’s surface, usually as a result of erosion. Beneath the crust is what geologists call the mantle, which consists of dense, warm-to-hot (but solid) rock that extends to a depth of 1,800 mi (2,900 km). Below the mantle lies the earth’s core, composed mostly of iron. All but the innermost part of the core is molten (see Figure 1).

Investigations of the earth’s surface have revealed that it has been divided globally by past geologic processes into what today is a mosaic of rigid blocks called “plates.” Observations indicate that these plates have moved large distances relative to one another in the past and that they are still moving very slowly today. The word “tectonics” has to do with earth movements; so the study of the movements and interactions among these plates is called “plate tectonics.” Because almost all the plate motions occurred in the past, plate tectonics is, strictly speaking, an interpretation, model, or theoretical description of what geologists envisage happened to these plates through earth’s history.
Cross-sectional view through the earth
Figure 1. Cross-sectional view through the earth. The two major divisions of the planet are its mantle, made of silicate rock, and its core, comprised mostly of iron. Portions of the surface covered with a low-density layer of continental crust represent the continents. Lithospheric plates at the surface, which include the crust and part of the upper mantle, move laterally over the asthenosphere. The asthenosphere is hot and also weak because of the presence of water within its constituent minerals. Oceanic lithosphere, which lacks the continental crust, is chemically similar on average to the underlying mantle. Because oceanic lithosphere is substantially cooler, its density is higher, and it therefore has an ability to sink into the mantle below. The sliding of an oceanic plate into the mantle is known as “subduction,” as shown here beneath South America. As two plates pull apart at a mid-ocean ridge, material from the asthenosphere rises to fill the gap, and some of this material melts to produce basaltic lava to form new oceanic crust on the ocean floor. The continental regions do not participate in the subduction process because of the buoyancy of the continental crust.

The general principles of plate tectonics theory may be stated as follows: deformation occurs at the edges of the plates by three types of horizontal motion—extension (rifting or moving apart), transform faulting (horizontal slippage along a large fault line), and compression, mostly by subduction (one plate plunging beneath another).1
Extension occurs where the seafloor is being pulled apart or split along rift zones, such as along the axes of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the East Pacific Rise. This is often called “seafloor spreading,” which occurs where two oceanic plates move away from each other horizontally, with new molten material from the mantle beneath rising between them to form new oceanic crust. Similar extensional splitting of a continental crustal plate can also occur, such as along the East African Rift Zone.

Transform faulting occurs where one plate is sliding horizontally past another, such as along the well-known San Andreas Fault of California.

Compressional deformation occurs where two plates move toward one another. If an oceanic crustal plate is moving toward an adjacent continental crustal plate, then the former will usually subduct (plunge) beneath the latter. Examples are the Pacific and Cocos Plates that are subducting beneath Japan and South America, respectively. When two continental crustal plates collide, the compressional deformation usually crumples the rock in the collision zone to produce a mountain range. For example, the Indian-Australian Plate has collided with the Eurasian Plate to form the Himalayas.

History of Plate Tectonics

The idea that the continents had drifted apart was first suggested by a creationist, Antonio Snider.2 He observed from the statement in Genesis 1:9–10 about God’s gathering together the seas into one place that at that point in earth history there may have been only a single landmass. He also noticed the close fit of the coastlines of western Africa and eastern South America. So he proposed that the breakup of that supercontinent with subsequent horizontal movements of the new continents to their present positions occurred catastrophically during the Flood.

However, his theory went unnoticed, perhaps because Darwin’s book, which was published the same year, drew so much fanfare. The year 1859 was a bad year for attention to be given to any other new scientific theory, especially one that supported a biblical view of earth history. And it also didn’t help that Snider published his book in French.

It wasn’t until the early twentieth century that the theory of continental drift was acknowledged by the scientific community, through a book by Alfred Wegener, a German meteorologist.3 However, for almost 50 years the overwhelming majority of geologists spurned the theory, primarily because a handful of seismologists claimed the strength of the mantle rock was too high to allow continents to drift in the manner Wegener had proposed. Their estimates of mantle rock strength were derived from the way seismic waves behave as they traveled through the earth at that time.

For this half-century the majority of geologists maintained that continents were stationary, and they accused the handful of colleagues who promoted the drift concept of indulging in pseudo-scientific fantasy that violated basic principles of physics. Today that persuasion has been reversed—plate tectonics, incorporating continental drift, is the ruling perspective.

What caused such a dramatic about-face? Between 1962 and 1968 four main lines of independent experiments and measurements brought about the birth of the theory of plate tectonics:4
  1. Mapping of the topography of the seafloor using echo depth-sounders;
  2. Measuring the magnetic field above the seafloor using magnetometers;
  3. “Timing” of the north-south reversals of the earth’s magnetic field using the magnetic memory of continental rocks and their radioactive “ages;” and
  4. Determining very accurately the location of earthquakes using a worldwide network of seismometers.
An important fifth line of evidence was the careful laboratory measurement of how mantle minerals deform under stress. This measurement can convincingly demonstrate that mantle rock can deform by large amounts on timescales longer than the few seconds typical of seismic oscillations.5

Additionally, most geologists became rapidly convinced of plate tectonics theory because it elegantly and powerfully explained so many observations and lines of evidence:
  1. The jigsaw puzzle fit of the continents (taking into account the continental shelves);
  2. The correlation of fossils and fossil-bearing strata across the ocean basins (e.g., the coal beds of North America and Europe);
  3. The mirror image zebra-striped pattern of magnetic reversals in the volcanic rocks of the seafloor parallel to the mid-ocean rift zones in the plates on either side of the zone, consistent with a moving apart of the plates (seafloor spreading);
  4. The location of most of the world’s earthquakes at the boundaries between the plates, consistent with earthquakes being caused by two plates moving relative to one another;
  5. The existence of the deep seafloor trenches invariably located where earthquake activity suggests an oceanic plate is plunging into the mantle beneath another plate;
  6. The oblique pattern of earthquakes adjacent to these trenches (subduction zones), consistent with an oblique path of motion of a subducting slab into the mantle;
  7. The location of volcanic belts (e.g., the Pacific “ring of fire”) adjacent to deep sea trenches and above subducting slabs, consistent with subducted sediments on the tops of down-going slabs encountering melting temperatures in the mantle; and
  8. The location of mountain belts at or adjacent to convergent plate boundaries (where the plates are colliding).

Slow-and-Gradual or Catastrophic?

Because of the scientific community’s commitment to the uniformitarian assumptions and framework for earth history, most geologists take for granted that the movement of the earth’s plates has been slow and gradual over long eons. After all, if today’s measured rates of plate drift—about 0.5–6 in (2–15 cm) per year—are extrapolated uniformly back into the past, it requires about 100 million years for the ocean basins and mountain ranges to form. And this rate of drift is consistent with the estimated 4.8 mi3 (20 km3) of molten magma that currently rises globally each year to create new oceanic crust.6

On the other hand, many other observations are incompatible with slow-and-gradual plate tectonics. While the seafloor surface is relatively smooth, zebra-stripe magnetic patterns are obtained when the ship-towed instrument (magnetometer) observations average over mile-sized patches. Drilling into the oceanic crust of the mid-ocean ridges has also revealed that those smooth patterns are not present at depth in the actual rocks.7 Instead, the magnetic polarity changes rapidly and erratically down the drill-holes. This is contrary to what would be expected with slow-and-gradual formation of the new oceanic crust accompanied by slow magnetic reversals. But it is just what is expected with extremely rapid formation of new oceanic crust and rapid magnetic reversal during the Flood, when rapid cooling of the new crust occurred in a highly nonuniform manner because of the chaotic interaction with ocean water.

Furthermore, slow-and-gradual subduction should have resulted in the sediments on the floors of the trenches being compressed, deformed, and thrust-faulted, yet the floors of the Peru-Chile and East Aleutian Trenches are covered with soft, flat-lying sediments devoid of compressional structures.8 These observations are consistent, however, with extremely rapid subduction during the Flood, followed by extremely slow plate velocities as the floodwaters retreated from the continents and filled the trenches with sediment.

If uniformitarian assumptions are discarded, however, and Snider’s original biblical proposal for continental “sprint” during the Genesis Flood is adopted, then a catastrophic plate tectonics model explains everything that slow-and-gradual plate tectonics does, plus most everything it can’t explain.9 Also, a 3-D supercomputer model of processes in the earth’s mantle has demonstrated that tectonic plate movements can indeed be rapid and catastrophic when a realistic deformation model for mantle rocks is included.10 And, even though it was developed by a creation scientist, this supercomputer 3-D plate tectonics modeling is acknowledged as the world’s best.11

The catastrophic plate tectonics model of Austin et al.12 begins with a pre-Flood supercontinent surrounded by cold ocean-floor rocks that were denser than the warm mantle rock beneath. To initiate motion in the model, some sudden trigger “cracks” the ocean floors adjacent to the supercontinental crustal block, so that zones of cold ocean-floor rock start penetrating vertically into the upper mantle along the edge of most of the supercontinent.13

These vertical segments of ocean-floor rock correspond to the leading edges of oceanic plates. These vertical zones begin to sink in conveyor-belt fashion into the mantle, dragging the rest of the ocean floor with them. The sinking slabs of ocean plates produce stresses in the surrounding mantle rock, and these stresses, in turn, cause the rock to become more deformable and allow the slabs to sink faster. This process causes the stress levels to increase and the rock to become even weaker. These regions of rock weakness expand to encompass the entire mantle and result in a catastrophic runaway of the oceanic slabs to the bottom of the mantle in a matter of a few weeks.14

The energy for driving this catastrophe is the gravitational potential energy of the cold, dense rock overlying the less dense mantle beneath it at the beginning of the event. At its peak, this runaway instability allows the subduction rates of the plates to reach amazing speeds of feet-per-second. At the same time the pre-Flood seafloor was being catastrophically subducted into the mantle, the resultant tensional stress tore apart (rifted) the pre-Flood supercontinent (see Figure 2). The key physics responsible for the runaway instability is the fact that mantle rocks weaken under stress, by factors of a billion or more, for the sorts of stress levels that can occur in a planet the size of the earth—a behavior verified by many laboratory experiments over the past forty years.15

The rapidly sinking ocean-floor slabs forcibly displace the softer mantle rock into which they are subducted, which causes large-scale convectional flow throughout the entire mantle. The hot mantle rock displaced by these subducting slabs wells up elsewhere to complete the flow cycle, and in particular rises into the seafloor rift zones to form new ocean floor. Reaching the surface of the ocean floor, this hot mantle material vaporizes huge volumes of ocean water with which it comes into contact to produce a linear curtain of supersonic steam jets along the entire 43,500 miles (70,000 km) of the seafloor rift zones stretching around the globe (perhaps the “fountains of the great deep” of Genesis 7:11 and Genesis 8:2). These supersonic steam jets capture large amounts of liquid water as they “shoot” up through the ocean above the seafloor where they form. This water is catapulted high above the earth and then falls back to the surface as intense global rain (“and the floodgates of heaven were opened”). The rain persisted for “40 days and nights” (Genesis 7:11–12) until all the pre-Food ocean floor had been subducted.
3-D modeling solution
Figure 2(a). Snapshot of 3-D modeling solution after 15 days. The upper plot is an equal area projection of a spherical mantle surface 40 mi (65 km) below the earth’s surface in which color denotes absolute temperature. Arrows denote velocities in the plane of the cross-section. The dark lines denote plate boundaries where continental crust is present or boundaries between continent and ocean where both exist on the same plate. The lower plot is an equatorial cross-section in which the grayscale denotes temperature deviation from the average at a given depth.

This catastrophic plate tectonics model for earth history16 is able to explain geologic data that slow-and-gradual plate tectonics over many millions of years cannot. For example, the new rapidly formed ocean floor would have initially been very hot. Thus, being of lower density than the pre-Flood ocean floor, it would have risen some 3,300 ft. (1,000 m) higher than its predecessor, causing a dramatic rise in global sea level. The ocean waters would thus have swept up onto and over the continental land surfaces, carrying vast quantities of sediments and marine organisms with them to form the thick, fossiliferous sedimentary rock layers we now find blanketing large portions of today’s continents. This laterally extensive layer-cake sequence of sedimentary rocks is magnificently exposed, for example, in the Grand Canyon region of the southwestern U.S.17 Slow-and-gradual plate tectonics simply cannot account for such thick, laterally extensive sequences of sedimentary strata containing marine fossils over such vast interior continental areas—areas which are normally well above sea level.

Furthermore, the whole mantle convectional flow resulting from runaway subduction of the cold ocean-floor slabs would have suddenly cooled the mantle temperature at the core-mantle boundary, thus greatly accelerating convection in, and heat loss from, the adjacent outer core. This rapid cooling of the surface of the core would result in rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field.18

These magnetic reversals would have been expressed at the earth’s surface and been recorded in the zebra-shaped magnetic stripes in the new ocean-floor rocks. This magnetization would have been erratic and locally patchy, laterally as well as at depth, unlike the pattern expected in the slow-and-gradual version. It was predicted that similar records of “astonishingly rapid” magnetic reversals ought to be present in thin continental lava flows, and such astonishingly rapid reversals in continental lava flows were subsequently found.19

This catastrophic plate tectonics model thus provides a powerful explanation for how the cold, rigid crustal plates could have moved thousands of miles over the mantle while the ocean floor subducted. It predicts relatively little plate movement today because the continental “sprint” rapidly decelerated when all the pre-Flood ocean floor had been subducted.
Snapshot of the modeling solution
Figure 2(b). Snapshot of the modeling solution after 25 days. Grayscale and arrows denote the same quantities as in Figure 2(a). For a detailed explanation of this calculation, see Baumgardner, 2003.

Also, we would thus expect the trenches adjacent to the subduction zones today to be filled with undisturbed late-Flood and post-Flood sediments. The model provides a mechanism for the retreat of the floodwaters from off the continents into the new ocean basins, when at the close of the Flood, as plate movements almost stopped, the dominant tectonic forces resulted in vertical earth movements (Psalm 104:8). Plate interactions at plate boundaries during the cataclysm generated mountains, while cooling of the new ocean floor increased its density, which caused it to sink and thus deepen the new ocean basins to receive the retreating floodwaters.

Aspects of modeling the phenomenon of runaway behavior in the mantle20 have been independently duplicated and verified.21 The same modeling predicts that since runaway subduction of the cold ocean-floor slabs occurred only a few thousand years ago during the Flood, those cold slabs would not have had sufficient time since the catastrophe to be fully “digested” into the surrounding mantle. Evidence for these relatively cold slabs just above the core-mantle boundary, to which they would have sunk, therefore should still be evident today, and it is (see Figure 3).22
Seismic tomography from 180° longitude Seismic tomography from 0° longitude
Figure 3. Distribution of hot (light-shaded surfaces) and cold (darker-shaded surfaces) regions in today’s lower mantle as determined observationally by seismic tomography (imaging using recordings of seismic waves), viewed from (a) 180° longitude and (b) 0° longitude. The very low temperature inferred for the ring of colder rock implies that it has been subducted quite recently from the earth’s surface. The columnar blobs of warmer rock have been squeezed together and pushed upward as the colder and denser rock settled over the core. (Figure courtesy of Alexandro Forte)

Moreover, whether at the current rate of movement—only 4 in (10 cm) per year—the force and energy of the collision between the Indian-Australian and Eurasian Plates could have been sufficient to push up the Himalayas (like two cars colliding, each only traveling at .04 in/h [1 mm/h]) is questionable. In contrast, if the plate movements were measured as feet-per-second, like two cars each traveling at 62 mph (100 km/h), the resulting catastrophic collision would have rapidly buckled rock strata to push up those high mountains.

Is Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Biblical?

The Bible does not directly mention either continental drift or plate tectonics. However, if the continents were once joined together, as suggested by Genesis 1:9–10, and are now apart, then the only possibility is continental division and “sprint” during the Flood. Some have suggested this continental division occurred after the Flood during the days of Peleg when “the earth was divided” (Genesis 10:25). However, this Hebrew expression can be also translated to mean “lands being divided among peoples,” which, according to the context, refers to the results of the Tower of Babel judgment. Furthermore, the destruction at the earth’s surface, where people and animals were then living during such a rapid continental “sprint,” would have been as utterly devastating as the Flood itself.

Therefore, using catastrophic plate tectonics as a model, mechanism, and framework to describe and understand the Genesis Flood event is far more reasonable and is also consistent with the Bible. Early skepticism about the slow-and-gradual plate tectonics model has largely evaporated because it has such vast explanatory power. When applied to the Flood, however, the catastrophic plate tectonics model not only explains those elements in a more consistent way, but it also provides a powerful explanation for the dramatic evidences of massive flooding and catastrophic geologic processes on the continents.

From the late eighteenth century to the present, most scientists, including creationists, rejected the Genesis Flood to explain the fossil-bearing portion of the geological record because it lacked an adequate mechanism to produce such a vast amount of geological change in such a short time. Only now are we beginning to understand at least part of the means God may have used to bring this world-destroying judgment to pass, including catastrophic plate tectonics.


Many creationist geologists now believe the catastrophic plate tectonics concept is very useful as the best explanation for how the Flood event occurred within the biblical framework for earth’s history. Even though the Bible does not specifically mention this concept, it is consistent with the biblical account, which implies an original supercontinent that broke up during the Flood, with the resultant continents obviously then having to move rapidly (“sprint”) into their present positions.

This concept is still rather new, and of course radical, but its explanatory power makes it compelling. Additional work is now being done to further detail this geologic model for the Flood event, especially to show that it provides a better explanation for the order and distribution of the fossils and strata globally than the failed slow-and-gradual belief. Of course, future discoveries may require adjustments in our thinking and understanding, but such is the nature of the human scientific enterprise. In contrast, “the word of the Lord endures forever” (1 Peter 1:25).

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.


  1. S.E. Nevins and S.A. Austin, Continental drift, plate tectonics, and the Bible; in D.R. Gish and D.H. Rohrer, eds., Up With Creation! Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, California, 1978, 173–180. Back
  2. A. Snider, Le Création et ses Mystères Devoilés, Franck and Dentu, Paris, 1859. Back
  3. A. Wegener, Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane, 1915. Back
  4. A. Co, ed., Plate Tectonics and Geomagnetic Reversals, W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, California, 1973. Back
  5. S.H. Kirby, Rheology of the lithosphere, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 25(1):219–1244, 1983. Back
  6. J. Cann, Subtle minds and mid-ocean ridges. Nature 393:625–627, 1998. Back
  7. J.M. Hall and P.T. Robinson, Deep crustal drilling in the North Atlantic Ocean, Science 204:573–576, 1979. Back
  8. D.W. Scholl et al., Peru-Chile trench sediments and seafloor spreading, Geological Society of America Bulletin 81:1339–1360, 1970; R. Von Huene, Structure of the continental margin and tectonism at the Eastern Aleutian Trench. Geological Society of America Bulletin 83:3613–3626, 1972. Back
  9. S.A. Austin et al., Catastrophic plate tectonics: a global Flood model of earth history; in R.E. Walsh, ed., Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 609–621, 1994. Back
  10. J.R. Baumgardner, Numerical simulation of the large-scale tectonic changes accompanying the Flood; in R.E. Walsh, C.L. Brooks, and R.S. Crowell, eds., Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 17–30, 1986; J.R. Baumgardner, 3-D finite element simulation of the global tectonic changes accompanying Noah’s Flood; in R.E. Walsh, C.L. Brooks, and R.S. Crowell, eds., Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 35–45, 1990; J.R. Baumgardner, Computer modeling of the large-scale tectonics associated with the Genesis Flood; in R.E. Walsh, ed., Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 49–62, 1994; J.R. Baumgardner, Runaway subduction as the driving mechanism for the Genesis Flood, in R.E. Walsh, ed., Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 63–75, 1994; J.R. Baumgardner, The physics behind the Flood, in R.L. Ivey, Jr., ed., Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 113–126, 2003. Back
  11. J. Beard, How a supercontinent went to pieces, New Scientist 137:19, January 16, 1993. Back
  12. Ref. 9. Back
  13. Ibid. Back
  14. Ibid. Back
  15. Ref. 5. Back
  16. Ref. 10. Back
  17. S.A. Austin, ed., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, 1994. Back
  18. D.R. Humphreys, Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis Flood; in R.E. Walsh, C.L. Brooks, and R.S. Crowell, eds., Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pensylvania, pp. 113–126, 1986. Back
  19. Ibid.; R.S. Coe and M. Prévot, Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 92:292–298, 1989; A.A. Snelling “Fossil” magnetism reveals rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field, Creation 13(3):46–50, 1991; R.S. Coe, M. Prévot, and P. Camps, New evidence for extraordinary rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374:687–692, 1995; A.A. Snelling, The “principle of least astonishment”! TJ 9(2):138–139, 1995. Back
  20. Ref. 9; Ref. 10. Back
  21. P.J. Tackley et al., Effects of an endothermic phase transition at 670 km depth on spherical mantle convection, Nature 361:699–704, 1993; S.A. Weinstein, Catastrophic overturn of the earth’s mantle driven by multiple phase changes and internal heat generation, Geophysical Research Letters 20:101, 104, 1993; L. Moresi and Solomatov, Mantle convection with a brittle lithosphere: thoughts on the global tectonic styles of the earth and Venus, Geophysical Journal International 133:669–682, 1998. Back
  22. S.P. Grand, Mantle shear structure beneath the Americas and surrounding oceans, Journal of Geophysical Research 99:11591–11621, 1994; J.E. Vidale, A snapshot of whole mantle flow, Nature 370:16–17, 1994. Back

Monday, August 23, 2010

Real Science - Taking a closer look at Granite from a non-Darwinist perspective with a splash of Yardbirds for good measure

About halfway through this blog post I will present some amazing evidence for the premise that the Earth was formed by a Creator God and did not develop over millions of years.   First please allow me to remind you of two earlier blog posts concerning the matter of the age of the Earth and of mankind?  Thanks!

!) Regular readers will remember a post from back in October of last year:  Rock Cores trump Ice Cores!

Allow me to share an excerpt with pictures:

Thursday, October 01, 2009

Rock cores trump ice cores

Granite aka granitic rock
Ice cores are terrible for determining the age of the earth or even of the ice within the core. As I have posted previously, several layers of ice can be laid down in less than a year. Substances within ice layers travel. Lower layers will compress and become hard to distinguish. With all these variables ice cores become a favorite of evolutionists because they can make subjective claims that cannot be substantiated about age based upon their evaluation of ice cores.

Here on my back recovering from pneumonia and feeling really sick, not even able to take my grandsons to the movies. Not supposed to work until Monday to beat the illness and be strong enough to go forward. But I can cut and paste and add some additional information concerning a much better method of determining age. Rock cores, and especially granite.

The first RATE initiative - The RATE Team discovered:

• Conventional radioisotope dating methods are inconsistent and therefore not reliable. In dating the same rock layer, radioisotope dating showed four different ages.

• Substantial amounts of helium found in crystals within granite. If the earth evolved over billions of years, all the helium should have already escaped.

• Radiohalos in rocks caused by the decay of uranium and polonium, which strongly suggests a rapid decay rate, not gradual decay over billions of years.

• Diamonds thought to be millions/billions of years old by evolutionists contain significant levels of carbon-14. Since carbon-14 decays quickly, none should have been found in the diamonds if the evolutionary age is correct.

pdf book about the RATE initiative.

More RATE studies are being done and published in technical journals and presented at technical conferences. Allow me to give a for instance.

One scientist, Dr. Russell Humphreys, decided that he believed that God created the Universe and that the Bible is true. He then proposed that the rocks cannot be much older than six thousand years old. But how could this be tested?

He found that scientists had done deep drilling at Los Alamos, down into granite to obtain rock cores. Deep cores drilled into the foundation of the rock of our continent would reveal granitic rock that had supposedly been in place for millions of years. Now granitic rock contains biotite or mica which contain zircon crystals. Zircon crystals buried deep in the earth would leak or diffuse helium atoms, which are relatively "slippery" and can be expected to diffuse in an orderly and predictable manner. He tells this better than I:

New RATE Data Support a Young World

by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Download New RATE Data Support a Young World PDF

New experiments done this year for the RATE project 1 strongly support a young earth. This article updates results announced in an ICR Impact article last year 2 and documented at a technical conference last summer. 3 Our experiments measured how rapidly nuclear-decay-generated Helium escapes from tiny radio-active crystals in granite-like rock. The new data extend into a critical range of temperatures, and they resoundingly confirm a num-erical prediction we published several years before the experiments. 4 The Helium loss rate is so high that almost all of it would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian 5 age of the rock, and there would be very little Helium in the crystals today. But the crystals in granitic rock presently contain a very large amount of Helium, and the new experiments support an age of only 6000 years. Thus these data are powerful evidence against the long ages of uniformitarianism and for a recent creation consistent with Scripture. Here are some details:

Radioactive crystals make and lose Helium

These radioactive crystals, called zircons, are common in granitic rock. As a zircon crystal grows in cooling magma, it incorporates Uranium and Thorium atoms from the magma into its crystal lattice. After a zircon is fully formed and the magma cools some more, a crystal of black mica called biotite forms around it. Other minerals, such as quartz and feldspar, form adjacent to the biotite.

The Uranium and Thorium atoms inside a zircon decay through a series of intermediate elements to eventually become atoms of Lead. Many of the inter-mediate nuclei emit alpha particles, which are nuclei of Helium atoms. For zircons of the sizes we are considering, most of the fast-moving alpha particles slow to a stop within the zircon. Then they gather two electrons apiece from the surrounding crystal and become Helium atoms. Thus a Uranium 238 atom produces eight Helium atoms as it becomes a Lead 206 atom. (See diagram.)

Helium atoms are lightweight, fast-moving, and do not form chemical bonds with other atoms. They move rapidly between the atoms of a material and spread themselves as far apart as possible. This process of diffusion, theoretically well-understood for over a century, makes Helium leak rapidly out of most materials...


There is much more information if you read the entire post.  The findings of the study are as follows:  The rate of escape of helium atoms from zircons contained in granitic rock (the supposed bedrock of the planet) give us a creation date for that granitic rock of 6,000 years, with plus/minus range of around 2,000 years.  Therefore by studying these rocks an age for the Earth can be estimated at between 4,000 to 8,000 years.  

Now, another post I did fairly recently showed that according to the Earth's population and the expected sigmoidal curve specific to populations would estimate that mankind began just a bit over 4,000 years ago.  This does not take into account the Noahic Flood but it does bolster the Genesis account.   If you carefully count the years of the history of existence as presented in Genesis, the Earth is a bit over 6,000 years old but man had to repopulate beginning with the family of Noah about 4,300 years ago.  

2) The link to that particular post concerning population is here.

Here is the beginning portion of that post:

Friday, March 27, 2009

Quick post on population and human genetics

In Six Days

Why 50 Scientists Choose
to Believe in Creation

The above is the title of a publication in which fifty (out of several hundreds associated with the site) presented evidence to explain their belief in a literal six days of creation and a young earth. I will present excerpts from one of those fifty quickly.

James S. Allan, genetics

Dr. Allan is a former senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa. He holds a B.S. in agriculture from the University of Natal, an M.S. in agriculture from the University of Stellenbosch and a Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. He currently serves as an international consultant in the field of dairy cattle breeding.

"As a biologist in the field of population and quantitative genetics, I had believed in the theory of evolution for nearly 40 years. During that period of my life, the long-time requirements of the theory did not really concern me. Chance (genetic drift) and natural selection in response to gene mutation and/or environmental change seemed to be logically acceptable mechanisms for the assumed extent of adaptive radiation.
My research involved using biometrical methods of analysis. I was concerned to predict rates of genetic change as a result of applying artificial selection procedures of varying intensities, based on different kinds and amounts of information. The accuracy of prediction of the rate of genetic change can be assessed theoretically and the results can, in many cases and in the short-term, be checked empirically. The change in genetic merit (and associated phenotypic merit) from one generation to the next is due to changes in the relative frequencies of the underlying genes.

Over all those years, because I accepted the “fact” of evolution, I saw no reason to differentiate in principle between changes in relative gene frequency as a consequence of either short-term or long-term natural selection. To me, these forms of selection resulted in just the one simple principle of change in relative gene frequency, and the essence of the theory of evolution is change in relative gene frequency as a result of genetic drift and of natural selection in response to gene mutation and/or environmental change.

When, at a fairly advanced stage of my career, I became a Christian I began to read the Bible reverently and as intelligently as I was able. At that time most of my reading was focused in the New Testament and, as my main concern was to know more of Christ as my Savior, my opinion concerning the theory of evolution remained unchallenged. I did not, in fact, give it much thought.

One day, after I had been expounding on the universality of DNA as evidence for the theory of evolution, my wife, who had been a Christian much longer than I, asked me whether there was any reason for God to have used other genetic systems. Just one simple question, but it stimulated me to ask myself many more.
Was there any reason for God to have created life-forms on the basis of ABC … PQR … and XYZ as well as DNA? Were that so, would it have influenced my belief in the theory of evolution, or would I have interpreted it as a number of independent origins of life?

Was there any reason why God should not have created all forms of life as “variations on themes” and so have provided the observed orderly degrees of genetic and phenotypic resemblance as evidenced in taxonomic classification? Relatives tend to resemble one another in physical, functional and behavioral characteristics. This is a phenomenon which is basic to the science of genetics. The resemblance is due to the fact that relatives, sharing in the common gene pool of a reproducing population, have genes in common. The closer the relationship, the greater is the proportion of genes in common and, therefore, the greater is the degree of resemblance. The theory of evolution assumes a common origin for all forms of life and, therefore, infers that species, genera, families, orders, etc. are genetically related. They all do carry some genes with similar structure and function, yes, but did this imply genetic relationship in the normal, within-species sense, and was one at liberty to assume a common origin for all forms of life? Was there any reason why God should have created different species, genera, etc. in completely different ways and with completely different genes?"

Why, indeed? Dr. Allan goes into depth in the article, which I hope you do read. He presents evidence that requires millions of years for a prehuman chimp-like ancestor to evolve into a human, if indeed something like that ever happened. But allow me to present his portion of population analysis in which he extrapolates the human population back to a beginning point using both genetic and mathmatical training in the process:

"According to the 23rd General Population Conference in Beijing in 1997, the total human population of the earth in that year was assessed to be in the region of 6,000 million, showing that there has been a remarkable increase over the past 200 years. Estimates of the population numbers back to the year 1500 and a prediction for the year 2080 are given in the following table.
Year 1500 1650 1800 1900 1950 1997 2080
No. (millions) 300 550 1,000 1,700 2,500 6,000 10,000
Extrapolation further into the past gives the following approximate numbers:
Year –2000 –1000 0 1000
No. (millions) 1 50 100 250
I find these figures to be in close agreement with what one would expect from the biblical specification after the Flood in 2344 B.C. The assumed existence of thousands of millions of “prehumans” is both physically and scripturally unrealistic."


So now that brings us to another subject of the RATE studies, polonium radiohalo analysis.   To briefly summarize, polonium is a very transitory element which occurs for a a moment in the decay cycle of Uranium 238 to Lead.  Scientists have calculated the time that such decay must take and right now the process is quite uniform.  Whenever you hear a narrator explain to you that such and such animal lived 500 million years ago, often that date is entirely suppositional.  But there are times and places where Darwinists have used radiometric dating to try to pinpoint ages of fossils.  It has hopefully been pointed out to you that wild variances in the results of such dating methods make them pretty useless.

But Polonium Radiohalos have been known to exist and their existence within granitic rock has been understood for more than 25 years.  Geologists have been presented evidence in peer-reviewed journals and conferences and they know what this means.  They simply don't want you to know.   However, if you will take just 28 minutes to watch this film clip, you will know what they know and hopefully understand the implications.  Just as helium atoms in zircons tell us that granitic rock is thousands, not millions, of years old,  Polonium has also asserted this same evidence as fact.  Beyond that, the radiohalos also are evidence that granite was made either precisely or almost instantaneously!

The film clip.

Earth Science Associates presents an overview and a challenge for you to consider if you have passed the film clip by:

"An Overview

Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.
The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.
An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.

Replies to Objections

Every question regarding the validity or implications of this polonium-halo evidence has been systematically dealt with, in our published reports and in various discussions with those holding differing views. We invite you to peruse the points we have raised in our exchanges, consider them, and decide for yourself the truth of the matter.

Of particular interest will be our recent discussion with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regarding the validity of our work.

In the Exchanges section of our website we've posted our letter to Dr. K. R. Walker, requesting the references to successful granite synthesis experiments that UT's Dr. Larry Taylor had referred to. We also have posted two letters from Dr. Brent Dalrymple that refer to the unrefuted Polonium evidence for the creation of granite.

Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.

We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science.


Our published reports date back to the 1960's. Twenty of these reports can be downloaded free of charge from this web site. A number of these also appear in the appendix to our book, Creation's Tiny Mystery.
Every question regarding the validity or implications of the polonium-halo evidence for creation has been systematically dealt with in our published reports. Every proposal for an evolutionary origin of polonium radiohalos has been systematically and experimentally falsified. No hypothetical, naturalistic scenario has yet been suggested that can account for Creation's "tiny mystery" of the polonium halo.

Of course, you can find claims to the contrary on the internet and elsewhere. But if these claims had any real substance, they would have passed peer review and been published in the open scientific literature. The fact that they have not been, or have themselves been experimentally falsified, demonstrates the fact that this unique evidence for Creation still stands unrefuted.

Some of our newest research concerns astronomy and cosmology. Our findings provide a radically new model of the cosmos while also showing why the Big Bang Theory is fatally flawed. For more on this topic, please see our sister site,

Tax-Funded arXiv Engaged in Religious Discrimination

Our sister site,, has an entire section on this topic. Basically, what happened is that we posted ten papers outlining fatal flaws in the Big Bang theory on the arXiv, an internet service hosted at the time by Los Alamos National Laboratory. The arXiv distributes physics papers worldwide, and we had previously posted papers there with no problem. This time, when those in charge of the arXiv discovered that our papers very clearly outlined the fallacies of the Big Bang, and were supportive of a model of the universe that harmonizes with Genesis, the papers were removed. After we posted them again, they were removed a second time, and our password was revoked.

You can read the subsequent letters that were exchanged by clicking the links on the page "Documentation of Censorship by the Los Alamos National Laboratory arXiv Staff", a page on our sister site.
The arXiv is funded by tax funds. It is therefore inappropriate for the arXiv to discriminate on the basis of religion against scientists who do not ascribe to evolution..."


As usual, Darwinists run away when cornered and then claim victory.  Geologists just try to close their eyes to radiohalos despite their significance.  They ignore helium in zircons.  Population experts close their eyes at the beginning date for human populations as presented by their own formulations.  Paleontologists sit around making up stories for imaginary evolutionary steps never identified in the fossil record and obfuscate when specific layers and fossils are examined in context.  Biologists are faced every day with the complex design and intricacy and monumental amounts of information in the cell and yet they must soldier on, trying not to think about it. 

That a child would believe in Darwinism (as he might believe in a Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus) is not surprising.  That grown men and women and entire organizations like NAS and NCSE would continue to adhere to a preposterous string of broken hypotheses held together by little but vast quantities of verbiage...?  It reminds me of a Yardbirds song.

You may or may not know that the Yardbirds at one time featured Eric Clapton and then Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page as members and that Led Zeppelin was at first known as the New Yardbirds?   But consider the juvenile and reprobate philosophy of this song by the youthful and inexperienced musicians back in 1966:

A rare live performance!   The words:

Over Under Sideways Down (Chris Dreja / Jim McCarty / Jeff Beck / Keith Relf / Paul Samwell-Smith)

Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey!
Cars and girls are easy come by in this day and age,
Laughing, joking, drinking, smoking,
Till I've spent my wage.
When I was young people spoke of immorality,
All the things they said were wrong,
Are what I want to be.

Over under sideways down,
Backwards forwards square and round.
Over under sideways down,
Backwards forwards square and round.
When will it end, when will it end,
When will it end, when will it end.
Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey!

I find comment 'bout my looks irrelativity,
Think I'll go and have some fun,
'Cos it's all for free.
I'm not searching for a reason to enjoy myself,
Seems it's better done,
Than argued with somebody else.

Over under sideways down,
Backwards forwards square and round.
Over under sideways down,
Backwards forwards square and round.
When will it end, when will it end,
When will it end, when will it end.
Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey!

Over under sideways down...


Foolish and talented young musicians may feel themselves immortal.   Until they or someone they love dies.  Perspective and experience help lead some people to wisdom. Danger and foolishness leads some to death. Celebrities seem particularly vulnerable to drug-related deaths.
Eric Clapton watched his son plunge to his death from a balcony.  Only then did he apparently begin to take some stock of his life.  I have no idea where that may have led him, personally, but there are indeed no tears in Heaven.  You would think that Clapton had everything he wanted in life - great fame, success, money, adulation, one of the world's more beautiful women as his wife...why did he need drugs and cocaine and thoughtless adulteries and wild parties?  I would say that no one stands firmly on a shadowy and meaningless foundation.

John Bonham (Led Zeppelin drummer) choked to death on his own vomit while hopelessly drunk.  They say Jimi Hendrix died the same way.  "Johnny Rotten" OD'd.  Someone I knew personally who had turned his life away from God and was dead of an overdose within a year's time.  I understand these things.  I was a young and foolish "immortal" once, one who partied hearty and stuck needles in his arms and legs and feet and ankles and anyplace he could get a good vein.  I took any kind of LSD or mushroom or speed or downers I could get my hands on, smoked entire fields of marijuana during my early years, drank barrels of booze and beer.  What did it get me?  All I can say is that I am thankful I lived long enough to change my foolish ways before I became the lost musician of the Needle and The Damage Done.

You don't think young people don't know intellectually that drinking and driving is dangerous or that taking a trip on LSD might not have a return ticket?  Don't you imagine that crackheads knew crack was addictive before they tried it the first time?  Don't you suppose that most Darwinists who are truly scientists realize they are applauding the nonexistent new wardrobe of a foolish ruler?   It is not too late to come to wisdom until it is too late to take a breath.  While you live, I have hopes all that are Darwinists, that you will begin to think critically and examine evidence and begin your journey of discovery much as I did some 32 years ago...

Psalms 4 reads as follows.  I hope any of you who are Darwinists will consider the question that is asked of you?

1 Answer me when I call to you,
       O my righteous God.
       Give me relief from my distress;
       be merciful to me and hear my prayer.

 2 How long, O men, will you turn my glory into shame  ?
       How long will you love delusions and seek false gods  ?


 3 Know that the LORD has set apart the godly for himself;
       the LORD will hear when I call to him.

 4 In your anger do not sin;
       when you are on your beds,
       search your hearts and be silent.


 5 Offer right sacrifices
       and trust in the LORD.

 6 Many are asking, "Who can show us any good?"
       Let the light of your face shine upon us, O LORD.

 7 You have filled my heart with greater joy
       than when their grain and new wine abound.

 8 I will lie down and sleep in peace,
       for you alone, O LORD,
       make me dwell in safety.