4

Is it true that granite has formed in a matter of hours as described (and explained) in "Fingerprints of creation" by Robert Gentry (http://www.halos.com/).

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.

Community
  • 1
lakistrike
  • 43
  • 4

1 Answers1

7

Here is a paper which was written to refute Gentry's theory:

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted
A Review of "Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological
and Cosmological Perspective" by Robert V. Gentry
by Thomas A. Baillieul
Copyright © 2001-2005
[Last Updated: April 22, 2005]

It introduces rocks as follows.

About the Rocks

Geologists classify rocks into three main categories - sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic - based on the way in which they form. Sedimentary rocks are secondary in formation, being the product of precursor rocks (of any type).

Igneous rocks form from molten material, and are further subdivided into two main categories, the volcanic rocks which form from lava extruded at or near the surface; and plutonic rocks which form from magma, deep within the crust. Both types of igneous rocks comprise a mixture of different minerals. As igneous rocks cool, mineral crystals form following a specific sequence. The crystals develop an interlocking texture with some of the trace minerals becoming completely surrounded by later forming crystals. Volcanic rocks, because they are able to cool and crystalize rapidly, have a very fine-grained texture; the individual mineral grains are too small to see easily with the naked eye. Plutonic rocks on the other hand cool very slowly, on the order of a million years or more for some deeply buried and insulated magmas. The mineral grains in these rocks can grow very large and are readily distinguished in hand samples.

According to the above, granite, being a "plutonic" rock, will have cooled very slowly (more slowly than a volcanic rock), i.e. over many thousands of years.

The above description is consistent with Merriam Webster's dictionary definition of 'plutonic rock'

plutonic rock
: an igneous rock (as granite) of holocrystalline granular texture regarded as having solidified at considerable depth below the surface

Community
  • 1
ChrisW
  • 26,552
  • 5
  • 108
  • 141
  • 11
    That's a pretty good reference, but you are not quoting the points from it which actually refute Gentry's argument; you are just restating conventional geological wisdom. You would have a much better answer if you used the parts that address gentry's arguments. – matt_black Mar 07 '15 at 18:49
  • 5
    @matt_black What is there to refute? It relies on the unsupported statement that there's no other way the haloes could form except as he says. The alka-seltzer analogy, apparently offered as proof, does not support this contention at all. Because granite is not actually alka-seltzer. – greggo Mar 07 '15 at 19:33
  • 1
    @matt_black The whole paper is a reply to Gentry's arguments. The fact that I found a paper which addresses Gentry's arguments is an IMO-unnecessary bonus, which might please people who want to read it (in its entirety) because they're interested in a reply/refutation to Gentry's arguments. The bit of it which I chose to quote was the bit which best addressed, not Gentry's argument, but the OP's question: how long does it take granite to form? IMO a better answer needn't spend more time on Gentry's argument but could reference more evidence for the 'plutonic rock' theory. – ChrisW Mar 07 '15 at 20:46
  • 1
    My answer is mostly appeal-to-authority, i.e. "here is what an authoritative source says on that subject." It's not a very good appeal to authority, e.g. it isn't quoting some well-reviewed geology text book. IMO my answer didn't need to be very authoritative (because the meta-rule is that the source referenced in an answer mustn't be less authoritative than the source referenced in the question, and I wanted to choose this source for the "bonus" it provided). – ChrisW Mar 07 '15 at 20:56
  • 1
    I agree that this answer is citing the perfect source to answer the question, but you really should quote a different section of it (like @matt_black said). Something that specifically refutes the alkaseltzer comparison, for example, or something which Gentry doesn't consider at all. – Bobson Mar 08 '15 at 13:15
  • Maybe someone else wants to answer with a point-by-point analysis of Gentry's thesis? Either (preferably) as a separate answer, or by editing this answer (I'll make it community wiki if you like)? – ChrisW Mar 09 '15 at 09:26
  • I'm not enough of a geologist to answer, but one thing to consider is the viscosity of the molten rock. The alkaseltzer analogy is a poor one: Water has low viscosity, and there is a large density variation between bubble and water. The polonium spec on the other hand is small enough to be held in place by viscous forces, and the product of it's decay would show little tendency to move. A better analogy would be a very small salt crystal dissolving in cold honey. – Sherwood Botsford Mar 09 '15 at 19:07