Mount Ojakangas

Transcription

Fingerprints of Creation With Host: Lonnie Melashenko Executive Producer: Glenn Aufderhar Producers: Mike Lee Beesley, Warren D. Judd and Colin K. Mead Writers: Mike Lee Beesley, Dr. Robert V. Gentry and Steven Mosley Directed by: Mike Lee Beesley Yosemite National Park Host: Many theories attempt to picture just how and when our planet was formed but until recently there has been little hard evidence to go by. Now, however, a new discovery has thrust before the world a revolutionary model of our origins, forcing many scientists to consider the unthinkable. The startling new evidence is found deep beneath the Earth, below layers of sedimentary rock, down in its primordial stones: the granites. There, tiny bits of radioactive matter have formed what scientists call “radiohalos.” They have left telltale traces, creating a discolored sphere around them. Scientists can identify precisely what kind of material caused these radiohalos by measuring their sizes. One U.S. Scientist, Dr. Robert Gentry, has examined more than 100,000 of these phenomena. Dr. Gentry has discovered a type of radiohalo that just should not be there. In fact according to every basic principle of evolutionary theory, it just can not be there. It is impossible. But after years of vigorous experimenting and testing, there is now no doubt. Dr. Robert Gentry: I have identified polonium radiohalos in the Earth’s basement granites from America, Canada, Scandinavia, Europe, Russia, Japan and Madagascar. This is extraordinary because these polonium isotopes have a very fleeting existence. One type I have identified, polonium-218 occurs for only a few minutes before decaying into something else. And yet this radioactive element has imprinted its identifying halo in solid granite, in particular in these pieces from the White Mountains in New Hampshire and from Naegi in Japan. In granite halos are found in this dark mineral, called mica. The mica must be thinly sliced or peeled with tape, and then mounted on a glass slide before halos can be observed. Animation helps us to understand the origin of the 3-ring polonium- 218 halo now seen under the microscope. The three sunburst patterns shooting out from the tiny center represent three different energy nuclear particles that were successively ejected from three different isotopes of polonium encased within the tiny center. The accumulated effects of millions of such particles discolored the mineral around the center thus producing three microscopic-sized concentric colored spheres. In the mineral the halo is always three dimensional. Under the microscope, however, it looks flat. By taking a thin slice of the mineral through the center we have effectively cut off the top and bottom of the spheres and are thus left to view the halo as a series of three concentric rings under the microscope, as is illustrated in this animation sequence. According to all present scientific theories, granites, such as this specimen from Pike’s Peak in Colorado, originated in a molten state, cooled, crystallized, and hardened over millions of years deep in the Earth. But if that was the case, the radioactivity produced by polonium would never have been captured. It would have decayed away long before the rock solidified. The grains of polonium that made these radiohalos were embedded deep in the granite. The element was there, somehow, when the rock was formed. But it could only form its radiohalo after the rock had already hardened. And if polonium exists for only a few seconds or minutes...the implication has stunned all those who are willing to listen. Polonium radiohalos indicate that the Earth’s foundation rocks--the granites--were formed almost instantly. In fact they are evidence that the granites had to be formed instantly. Scientifically, they can not be accounted for in any other way. Host: Dr. David Gentry, son of Dr. Robert Gentry and associate in his father’s work on creation. Dr. David Gentry: We can demonstrate the principal of polonium radiohalos. Imagine that this alka-seltzer tablet is a bit of polonium, and this glass of water is a piece of molten granite. I drop the tablet in, and it begins to fizz. Think of these bubbles as the radiation emitted by that bit of polonium, embedded in the granite. This fizz will go away in about thirty seconds and we will have nothing left but a slightly tangy glass of water. Now, is there any way we could preserve these bubbles as they are? We could try placing the glass in the freezer. The water, of course would solidify after a while. That is something similar to what Evolutionary Theory suggests: that molten rock slowly cools to form granite. But as you have already guessed freezing this glass of alka-seltzer would not do any good. The bubbles will have gone long before the water turns to ice. And that is exactly what would have happened to polonium radiation if the granite had slowly cooled. It would have disappeared long before any radiohalos could have been imprinted in the solid rock. If I show you a frozen glass of water with all the fizz of a tablet still intact, like this, you will know that something happened to instantly freeze the water. In this case, we merely froze it instantly in time by a pause of the videotape. Likewise, if we look at a radiohalo, demonstrated unmistakably to have been produced by a certain kind of polonium, we can know that the granite around it had to be formed instantly. Host: The implications are incredible. If Dr. Robert Gentry is correct, all the evolutionary assumptions about the Earth forming over millions or billions of years are wrong. And the account in Genesis of the creation of the Earth is substantiated. But is Dr. Gentry right? Is he just some maverick scientist conducting his work in virtual isolation? If his experimental results were brought to the light, would other scientists be able to quickly discredit them? As a matter of fact, Dr. Gentry conducted most of his research on radiohalos at the Oak Ridge National Laboratories in Tennessee. His findings have been published in many of the world’s leading scientific journals--“Science,” “Nature,” “Geophysical Research Letters,” “Earth and Planetary Science Letters,” “Physical Review Letters,” “Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science.” Papers appearing in these journals are subject to peer review. That is, other scientists in the same field carefully examine the evidence presented and the experimentation used to see if there are any flaws in the data. So far, it seems no one has been able to contradict Dr. Gentry’s findings. No one has been able to find a hole in his case. In December of 1981, Dr. Robert Gentry was called to testify at an Arkansas trial in which the American Civil Liberties Union attempted to prevent the teaching of Creation Science in that state’s public schools. He presented his findings regarding polonium radiohalos as evidence of an instantaneous creation of the granites. The ACLU brought one of the world’s foremost geologists, Dr. Brent Dalrymple, to testify for evolution. But on the witness stand no scientific evidence was offered to challenge this discovery for Creation, instead it was referred to as quote, “Just a tiny mystery...that we can’t quite explain.” With that background, let us step back and get a bigger picture, in order to place this revolutionary discovery in perspective. In particular, how does it impact on the age of the Earth? All attempts to determine the age of the Earth are based on radioactive decay. Heavy elements like polonium and uranium are unstable, their atoms tend to break down or decay by ejecting alpha particles. Over a period of time, unstable atoms decay through a chain of steps into an entirely different, stable atom. Unstable uranium, for example, eventually becomes a type of lead. Scientists have observed that radioactive elements decay in the present at incredibly constant rates. They can predict exactly when an element would pass through each of various stages in the decay chain, if present rates persist. Geologists have thought that they could use decay rates to tell geologic time, the age of the rocks. They study rocks that contain samples of radioactive elements. By using complex scientific equipment, they examine traces of uranium in granite for example, and figure out precisely how much of the uranium has decayed into lead in the rock. Then, based on present rates of decay, they figure back to the time when that uranium first began to decay. That, they reason, should be the rock’s starting point. Dr. David Gentry: A piece of granite rock has been loaded into this instrument. It is called an ion microprobe mass spectrometer. It measures the ratio of uranium to lead in a certain sample. By figuring from present decay processes backward, conventional Earth-age theories tell us that this rock in the machine is a billion years old. The question is: Are these theories correct? All dating techniques work on the same principle. Present rates of radioactive decay, which are constant, are used to compute what scientists think must have happened in the distant past. This involves an assumption. Host: There is nothing debatable about the present decay rates of various unstable elements. These have been established by observation and measurement as scientific facts. And the ratio of uranium to lead in various granite samples is not in question. But what has not been a matter of observation and measurement is what happened in the distant past. That is, until Dr. Gentry’s discovery, as we shall see. All conventional methods of determining the age of the Earth are based on an enormous assumption: what is happening now is exactly what happened at every point from the beginning of time to the present. This is known as the “Uniformitarian Principle,” which says, natural law can explain everything, and, no miracles by God have ever occurred. Another illustration will help us understand how this relates to the age of the Earth. Imagine that this dripping faucet represents the present rate of uranium decaying to lead. And this bucket, partially filled with water, represents the lead accumulated in the granite rocks we dig up in the Earth’s crust. Now we can measure precisely how many drops fall per second, and we can measure precisely how much water is in the bucket. In this way we can figure out how long the faucet has been dripping. That is all well and good. But what if, at some point, this dripping had become a steady stream... Even temporarily. You see, even if we know present rates of decay precisely, and present ratios of uranium to lead in granites precisely, these facts do not tell us anything about the time the rock was formed, unless uranium decay has been perfectly constant. Dr. Robert Gentry: What the polonium radiohalos demonstrate clearly is this: at some point the uniformitarian principle was broken, something very different happened in the past, something that calls into question constant rates of radioactive decay. To see why this is so we need to understand how polonium halos were discovered, that is , how they were found to be separate and distinct from halos formed by uranium decay. Most radiohalos exhibit various concentric rings, along with bands discolored in slightly different ways. They look like archery targets. Each ring represents a different type of element in the uranium decay chain. The parent uranium sends out alpha particles which travel a certain precise distance, creating an unmistakable, identifying halo. So do the other elements in the decay process, creating their own rings. You can see the evidence of the uranium decay process in these rings. But what I was amazed to discover were halos that began with polonium; there was no evidence of any parent uranium which produced them. That just should not happen. Polonium is supposed to exist in nature only as part of the uranium decay chain; it is one of the last, fleeting steps taken before that element turns into lead. By all that we know today, polonium simply can not exist apart from this decay process. Host: But as seen through the microscope. Something very, very different, which happened in the past. Polonium on its own. Something unexplainable according to present scientific laws. Dr. Robert Gentry: I ruled out every possibility except primordial polonium-- polonium that was made at the beginning. One of the most important experiments that ruled out uranium and confirmed primordial polonium as the cause for the polonium halos in granites was done with the ion microprobe. The ion microprobe uses a thin beam of ions to probe, or analyze, tiny microscopic specks of matter. The experiment was set so that the ion beam impacted directly on the halo center, sputtering it away atom by atom to then be analyzed by a magnetic spectrometer. A significant number of halos of the element polonium-218 were analyzed using the ion microprobe. The results were positive and unequivocal. The polonium-218 halo centers contained lead-206, the direct decay product of polonium-218 without the corresponding uranium found in uranium halos. These results confirm that polonium halos in granites originated with primordial polonium. Host: These halos not only indicate that the granites in which they are found were formed almost instantly, they also indicate that the process involved was significantly different from what we observe in the present. This brings us to the far-reaching implications of Dr. Gentry’s discoveries. If radioactive decay rates have not been constant, then conventional methods of calculating the age of the Earth are meaningless; they simply do not work. The polonium radiohalos offer proof that a different process was in operation when these granites were formed. This is clear evidence that invalidates the Uniformitarian Principle. Natural law can not explain everything, such as polonium halos, and, miracles by God have occurred, such as instant granite creation. The Uniformitarian Principle was the glue that held the entire theory of evolution together. Dr. Gentry’s discovery dissolves that glue. The hard evidence of the polonium radiohalos flatly contradicts the Uniformitarian Principle and thus poses a threat to the entire evolutionary framework that scientists have invested in so heavily for a century and a half. To put it bluntly: polonium radiohalos and the uniformitarian principle cannot both exist in the same universe it has got to be one or the other. So what has been the reaction of the scientific community to this evidence? The first reaction of many scientists who have spent their lives building on the framework of evolution is to try to dismiss the evidence of the radiohalos. Typically they viewed it as a tiny mystery which must be weighed against all the other evidence for evolution and for a constant rate of radioactive decay. Dr. Bruce Holman, professor of chemistry at Wisconsin Lutheran College. Dr. Bruce Holman: Any scenario for the formation of the Earth has to explain how the polonium halos were formed in the granites. Now if you think the Earth was cooling over millions of years, there is a contradiction no matter how you look at it. But it can be easily explained if you think the Earth was created by God in the way the bible describes. You know Robert Gentry has published work over many years in the scientific literature and on many subjects. His polonium halo results have been in the scientific journals for 25 years and could not be refuted at the Arkansas trial. You know what surprises me is the unwillingness of the scientific community to bring his work to the center of the scientific discussion in a land that prides itself on freedom of inquiry and expression. We owe Dr. Gentry the opportunity to fully share his results, his discoveries, and his explanation for them. Host: Why has not the scientific community brought this evidence to the center of discussion? The essence of science is to test all theories by repeated experimentations. This is how the basic laws of physics and chemistry were discovered. This is how Dr. Gentry’s results were obtained. If something is wrong, why have not the evolutionists countered by publishing their findings in the scientific journals where his reports appeared? Evolutionists would gladly have filled the pages of scientific journals in refuting this evidence for Creation if they could have done so. Their failure exposes what long has been the best kept secret in science. Evolutionists made a colossal mistake by building the theory of an evolving Earth on the premise that granites formed naturally without having firm scientific evidence to support this premise. Their uncertainty was aptly expressed in a comment from a renowned geologist who spoke at an international symposium on the “Origin of Granite” in 1947. “Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: It is a pleasure to take part in a discussion of this sort, for two reasons. In the first place, the newspapers and the radio are bringing problems before us every day, and they are threatening dire consequences if we do not solve them. In this symposium we are treating a problem that is really an old friend. This problem goes back through almost all the years during which there has been a science of geology. We have never satisfied ourselves as to the solution and we furthermore must note that no very serious consequences arise if we do not arrive at that solution.” From “Origin of Granite,” Geological Society of America, Memoir 28, F. Fitz Osborne, Laval University, Montreal. Host: Despite this lackadaisical attitude, geologists had good reason to be concerned about the origin of granite even before the polonium halo evidence was published. This rock is rhyolite. It forms when granite melted in the earth pushes its way to the surface and slowly cools. Its crystals are almost microscopic and of light color. In contrast, granite has some dark minerals--which contain the polonium halos--and its crystals are much larger. Geologists hoped that they were right in assuming that granite formed from slow cooling deep in the Earth. But from the first they had evidence that the assumption was wrong. This rhyolite formed by slow cooling at a depth of 1683 feet. It exhibits only tiny crystals. It’s not granite. So geologists had to assume that granites formed much deeper. In the 1960s geologists melted small pieces of granite and let them cool slowly under conditions of heat and pressure existing very deep in the Earth. This is a rock produced in those experiments. It has only tiny crystals, just like rhyolite. No large crystals. No dark crystals. It just is not granite. The polonium halos tell us that granites were formed by Creation, not by natural processes. Granites contain the signature of Creation. Rhyolites and rocks formed in the laboratory do not. It’s just that simple. Despite these facts, in 1987 geologists still treated the origin of granite as in 1947 when it was said to be an old friend. The 1987 symposium ended with the lament, “As was well documented by the discussion during this meeting, many old questions are still debated...I would certainly hope that 100 years hence we will not be debating the origins of granites!” - Professor W. S. Fyfe, Geology Department, University of Western Ontario, Canada. But, four years later, geologists at the 1991, “The Second Hutton Symposium on the Origin of Granites and Related Rocks,” left with that hope unfulfilled, the same old questions still being debated. Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling of the Creation Science Foundation of Australia, has examined the field evidence for the origin of the granites, and is considering the possibilities of their Creation. Dr. Andrew Snelling: The study of geology endeavors to unravel the history of the Earth and the origin of the rocks that make up the surface of the Earth and so to study the origin of granites is of primary importance because it is not just some isolated question. The reason is because these rocks, these granites, are found on every continent of the Earth’s surface, exposed to view over areas sometimes hundreds of square miles. For example, here in southern California these rocks are exposed in the mountain ranges that form the backbone of this area. So to deal with the question of the origin of granites is of fundamental importance if we are to understand the unfolding of Earth’s history. When answering the question of the origin of granite we can turn to the conventional scientific literature and read there that most scientists propose that rocks like this granite that we see here and exposed in the hills behind us originally was hot molten material called magma deep below the Earth’s surface. And they suppose that it cooled slowly over millions of years. And they suggest that millions of years of erosion of the material that covered the granite has now exposed them to view for us to study today. And this is what you will read in most if not all textbooks today and what is taught as the conventional wisdom as to the origin of these rocks. To answer this question of the origin of granites and to see if the conventional wisdom is the correct explanation we need to look at the field relationships of granite. How granite occurs and how it occurs in relation to other rocks. And here, for example, in the, in southern California in the ranges where these granites are exposed to view over hundreds of square miles we see some rather odd and strange relationships that conventional wisdom does not seem to be able to explain. For example, we see as here on this rock we can see dark, as it were, blocks and patches that are clearly delineated, they are sharply visible against the normal granite. And in other places we can see what appears to be vein like, light material and this raises the question as to whether we have had perhaps even two or even three melts of different composition. It raises a question as to how conventional wisdom can explain melts like this existing side by side to produce rocks like this that seem so different from one another and yet not mix. When we go to Bishop, for example, here in California, we can actually see where in a known area molten material--in this case it has cooled to basalt--has interacted with a granodiorite rock like the granite we have here. And there where we know for sure that there has been mixing and interaction we can actually see where blobs of the granodiorite have been included in the basalt. And this indicates that where we know molten material has interacted with rock it does produce mixing. And so that really raises questions about the conventional wisdom that would normally explain these rocks that we see here as perhaps being several melts cooling at the same time. They should have mixed, but these relationships show that they have not. This leads us then to ask the question, is there another possible explanation for the origin of these rocks, these granites? I believe there is another explanation. You see, when we look at these and see these relationships we have discussed here. Could these, we have to ask ourselves this question, could these rocks in fact form quickly? Suddenly? After all there has been no time for mixing. There has been probably no heat involved because otherwise the heat would have allowed the mixing to occur. That brings to my mind the possibility of what the bible speaks of that God created rocks at the beginning. Could these rocks be rocks that God created? The bible says that in the beginning God created the earth. He created the land. That means that he would have created the rocks. Could these rocks, these granites have had a sudden origin created by God? It is significant in this context therefore that not only may we look at the field relationships, but we should also look at these rocks under the microscope because in the microscope world looking at these rocks we need to be aware that there is exciting evidence that has been available for some time now of particles in these rocks. Radioactivity that suggests quite strongly that these rocks were created by God. Host: The telltale signature of that radioactivity appearing out of nowhere for a few moments, leaving its mark in hard granite, speaks to us of an instant creation like the frozen bubbles in the glass of alka-seltzer. Host: Something extraordinary happened when these rocks were formed. Something that defies all the physical laws that we presently observe. The evidence is captured in the granite. And we can see with a microscope, Creation’s tiny mystery, polonium halos. They are a mystery only to those who are determined to stick with their theory of an Earth billions of years old. For those willing to consider the Genesis account of a recent rapid creation, the halos are perfectly understandable. They fit the biblical picture being found in the very rocks called into existence in the beginning of Creation week. “In the beginning Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth (Hebrews 1:10).” “For He spake and it was done, he commanded and it stood fast (Psalms 33:9).” Polonium radiohalos offer hard evidence that the Earth’s foundational rocks--the granites--were created almost instantly. To Dr. Robert Gentry, those faintly colored rings are almost like the fingerprints of God...the signature of Creation. For more information read Dr. Robert Gentry’s book, “Creation’s Tiny Mystery.” For your copy call 800-467-6380. In our next video, “The Young Age of the Earth,” we will present scientific evidence that will prove the Earth was only recently created, erasing the theory that the Earth was formed over billions of years of evolutionary time. End