Appendix: "Radioactive Halos:
Implications For Creation"
Such patterns of isotope abundances are only theoretical patterns
because they involve several unverified assumptions about the
exact path by which fusion build-up of the heavier elements is
thought to have occurred. I should add that what correspondence
there is between the most commonly accepted theoretical abundance
pattern and the actual abundance pattern as measured on earth
is the result of varying the parameters in the theoretical calculations
to fit the measured abundances. (Readers desiring more details
on how isotope abundance calculations are linked to various aspects
of the Big Bang theory may consult an older publication, Nuclear
Astrophysics, authored by Nobel laureate William A. Fowler, and
published by the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia,
1967, or a more recent one, "Nucleosynthesis and its Implications
on Nuclear and Particle Physics", Proceedings of the NATO Advanced
Research Workshop on Nucleosynthesis and Its Implications
on Nuclear and Particle Physics, Les Arcs, France, March 17-23,
1985, 0. Reidel Publishing Company, 1986.)
The above discussion shows that the theoretical isotope abundance
pattern used by Brown to formulate his version of primordial
polonium and its most prominent decay product, thallium-205,
is hinged on the assumption that the heavier chemical elements
on earth—specifically including polonium—originated in stellar
nucleosynthesis. Using that assumption Brown interprets the absence
of thallium-205 in halo centers as indicating the absence of
primordial polonium, hence implying that something is wrong with
my identification of primordial polonium halos.
Here a most important point needs to be emphasized. There is
another explanation for the absence of thallium-205 besides the
one Brown has mentioned, namely: Instead of the missing thallium-205
indicating something is wrong with my identification of primordial
polonium halos, what it actually shows is that the Big Bang version
of primordial polonium is without any scientific basis. We should
ever remember that the validity of a theory is determined on
the basis of whether it agrees with the relevant experimental
facts, and in this case it is abundantly clear that the Big Bang
version of primordial polonium does not agree with the experimental
facts.
Therefore, I reaffirm that polonium halos in granites did form
from the decay of primordial polonium-218, polonium-214 and polonium-210,
and this is why halo centers feature the decay product lead-206.
(Halos from bismuth-212/polonium-212 also exist but are much
rarer than those just listed.) I believe these types of polonium
halos are evidence that the true isotopic composition of primordial
polonium—meaning the polonium God created when He called the
earth into existence—was irreconcilably different from that
expected on the basis of the Big Bang model. In other words,
when God called the earth into existence He left unambiguous
evidence of His creative power which could never be confused
with the Big Bang scenario. (Readers interested in knowing other
reasons why the Big Bang model is wrong should consult the more
extended discussion given in my book.)
On a different subject in paragraph 4, Brown refers to the presence
of selenium in both uranium and polonium radiohalo centers, and
the assertion is made that this is evidence for the explanation
of halos involving solution transport of uranium daughters. The
first problem with this view is that selenium is definitely not
a constituent of uranium radiohalo centers, and it is not clear
why such a claim would be made. (In fact, one of the other reviewers,
Dutch, correctly notes that Group VI elements, which includes
selenium, are not geochemically compatible with the U- and Th-bearing
minerals that normally constitute U and Th halo centers.) Secondly,
only in a very few cases have I observed selenium in the centers
of polonium halos in granites. Possibly Brown generalized the
results given in my 1974 Science report and incorrectly inferred
that selenium in polonium halo centers in granites is the rule
rather than the exception. Thus, all the arguments cited in this
paragraph in support of a secondary origin of polonium halos
in granites are based either on ideas or suppositions which are
foreign to my views, or on incorrect interpretations of my published
data.
In paragraph 5, my respected colleague does not directly comment
on the implications of the falsification test as I have defined
them, but instead generates his own interpretation predicated
on the assumption of a successful outcome of that test. Brown
is entitled to his views, but he fails to mention the evidence
which contradicts the assumption of a successful outcome—namely,
that, according to conventional theory, the conditions for reproducing
granite from a granite melt have existed in nature countless
times, yet the end result is rhyolite, a fine-grained, non-halo-containing
rock that is quite different from granite, a coarse-grained
rock which does contain halos. Additional explanation
is given in my book, Creation's Tiny Mystery (page 130).
[p. 319]
In paragraph 6 of his review, Brown claims my model of enhanced
alpha decay suffers a severe loss of credibility. But this conclusion
is obviously based on his acceptance of uniform radioactive decay
rates—a direct consequence of the uniformitarian principle.
Thus, this particular criticism results from his acceptance and
use of a fallacious assumption.
Paragraph 7 could easily be interpreted as a correction to an
erroneous claim on my part, but the fact is that my comments
about Feather's evaluation are correct as they stand.
In answer to paragraph 8, U and Th atoms are more tightly bound
because they are part of the zircon lattice structure. The Pb
atoms, on the other hand, being the radiogenic end-products of
U and Th decay, are rather loosely bound primarily because they
have been displaced about 100 angstroms (by recoil from a series
of alpha emissions) from the original U and Th lattice sites
into a region where lattice disruption has occurred.
Paragraph 9 refers to the helium content of helium-producing
wells. These may have their source in secondary uranium deposits,
that is, uranium which has been separated from primary uranium-bearing
minerals and widely dispersed via solution transport. A prime
example of secondary uranium deposits are those of the Colorado
Plateau. Helium migration occurs without difficulty from such
deposits because of the dispersed state of uranium and its daughters.
There are two reasons why helium migration from zircons in granites
is much lower than from helium escape from these secondary deposits.
First, there is the difference in uranium content. Zircons, which
may contain only about 100 ppm (parts per million) of uranium,
are encased within granites containing an even smaller concentration
of uranium, usually about several ppm. These concentrations are
generally much lower than the uranium concentrations found in
many secondary uranium deposits. Secondly, migration (or diffusion)
from zircons has been found to be relatively slow at ambient
temperatures, a fact which is attributable to the crystalline
structure of this mineral. These two factors account for helium
effusion from helium wells being significantly higher than helium
diffusion from zircons. Thus nothing in this paragraph contradicts
my claim that helium in zircons taken from deep cores is very
strong evidence for a several-thousand-year age of the earth.
About paragraph 10, I appreciate the compliments about my work
on halos in coalified wood. Of course, the analytical techniques
that were used to investigate polonium halos in
coalified wood were the same as those used to investigate primordial
polonium halos in granites.
In summary, I thank Dr. Brown for presenting his detailed objections
in print, thus enabling me to clarify to the scientific community
some issues that have long been misunderstood. And in closing
my response to his review, I again express my respect and admiration
for him personally.
|