Implications of Polonium Radiohalos in Nested Plutons of the Tuolumne Intrusive Suite, Yosemite, CA

Implications of Polonium Radiohalos in Nested Plutons of the Tuolumne Intrusive Suite, Yosemite, California

The formation of granite plutons has conventionally been thought to be a slow process requiring millions of years from generation to cooling. Even though new mechanisms for rapid emplacement of plutons have now been proposed, radioisotope dating still dominates and dictates long timescales for pluton formation. However, a new challenge to those long timescales has arisen from radiohalos. Polonium radiohalos found in biotite flakes of granites in Yosemite National Park place severe time constraints on the formation and cooling of the granite plutons due to the short half-lives of the polonium isotopes. The biotite flakes must have formed and cooled below 150ºC before the polonium supply was exhausted and the radiohalos could be preserved, so the U decay had to be grossly accelerated and the formation of the plutons had to be within 6–10 days. Furthermore, rapid cooling of the plutons was facilitated by the hydrothermal fluid convection that rapidly generated the Po radiohalos, challenging conventional thinking that cooling is a slow process by conduction. It is evident that there were greater volumes of hydrothermal fluids in the later central intrusions of the nested plutons of the Tuolumne Intrusive Suite. So as expected, more Po radiohalos were generated in these plutons as they were sequentially intruded, confirming the hydrothermal fluid transport model for Po radiohalo formation. Thus granite pluton formation is consistent with the timescale of a young earth, and accelerated radioisotope decay renders the absolute ages for these granite plutons grossly in error...

Thank you very much kind sir.

It is nice to know that you are thinking of me.

I did notice this note to the side of the page:

“Cutting-edge creation research. Free. Answers Research Journal (ARJ) is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.”

It is nice to see that this “peer-reviewed” journal is trying to make the facts fit their assumption rather than allowing the evidence to determine the findings.

I it also appears the this article was authored by Dr Snelling Number 1

“Snelling 1

For the past ten years Dr Andrew Snelling BSc, PhD, the CSF’s geological spokesman, has been the only prominent Australian creationist with geological qualifications. His credentials are not in question here, only his influence on science education in Australia.

Snelling 1 writes articles for creationist journals and lectures throughout the country in schools, public meetings and churches. Although his geological credentials are usually highlighted in creationist publications it would be more accurate to describe Snelling 1 as a Protestant evangelist, not as a geologist. Some CSF literature openly refers to him as a ‘missionary’.

Why should Snelling 1’s activities concern the scientific and educational communities? To appreciate this, one needs to analyse his published articles to see how geological data and discoveries are misused and reinterpreted from a Biblical perspective.

CSF members subscribe to a lengthy, very specific Statement of Faith. Apart from purely religious clauses, not relevant here, several clauses carry serious implications for those in scientific and educational circles, especially for those in the Earth (and other historical) sciences. As the extracts below reveal, to a dedicated creationist, scientific evidence is always subservient to Biblical authority.

“(A) PRIORITIES

1. The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator and Redeemer.

(B) BASICS

3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life.

5. The great flood of Genesis was an actual historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.

(D) GENERAL

The following attitudes are held by members of the Board to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture

(i) The scripture teaches a recent origin for man and for the whole creation.

(ii) The days in Genesis do not correspond to Geological ages, but are six

(6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of creation.

(iii) The Noachian flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

(iv) The chronology of secular world history must conform to that of Biblical world history.”

These statements reveal ‘creation science’ to be an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, based on religious dogma (and a simple minded dogma at that). Despite its name, ‘creation science’ has little to do with real science and, in fact, represents the antithesis of science.

Everything in his creationist writings and activities indicates that Snelling 1 subscribes fully to CSF’s Statement of Faith. Where this clashes with scientific evidence, the latter is always secondary to the former and his message, although often cloaked in scientific jargon, is simple and unequivocal; indeed one of his favourite lecture topics is “Why, as a Geologist, I Believe in Noah’s Flood”.

SNELLING 2

If we now turn to the scientific articles published by the other Dr A A Snelling, consulting geologist (also from PO Box 302, Sunnybank QLD, 4109), we find a remarkable contrast, both in approach and content. None of them mention the Creation or Creation Week, Flood geology or the need to revamp the classic geological timescale.

For the benefit of lay readers, this statement is summarised and simplified here:

“The oldest rocks in the Koongarra area, domes of granitoids and granitic gneiss, are of Archaean age (ie to geologists this means they are older than 2500 million years). The Archaean rocks are mantled by Lower Proterozoic (younger than 2500 million years) metasediments: all were later buried deeply, heavily folded and, between 1870 and 1800 million years ago, were subjected to regional metamorphism at considerable temperatures and pressures.”

There is no question here of “abandoning the geological column and its associated terminology”, and the term Myr refers unequivocally to millions of years.

One further quotation (p.807), “A 150 Myr period of weathering and erosion followed metamorphism.”, is self explanatory.

There are several further references to ages of millions and thousands of millions of years, and to commonly accepted geological terminology, throughout the paper but, to spare the lay reader, I will only summarise them here:

1. During Early Proterozoic times (from 1688-1600 million years ago) the area was covered by thick, flat-lying sandstones.

2. At some later date (but after the reverse faulting) the Koongarra uranium mineral deposit forms, perhaps in several stages, first between 1650-1550 million years ago, and later around 870 and 420 million years.

3. The last stage, the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan above the No 1 orebody seems to have begun only in the last 1-3 million years.

Nowhere in this, or in any other article by Snelling 2 is there any reference to the creation week, to Noah’s Flood or to a young age for the Earth. Nor is there any disclaimer, or the slightest hint, that this Dr Snelling has any reservations about using the standard geological column or time scale, accepted world-wide. The references above to hundreds and thousands of million of years are not interpolated by me. They appear in Dr Snelling 2’s paper.

The problem is obvious - the two Drs A A Snelling BSc (Hons), PhD (with the same address as the Creation Science Foundation) publish articles in separate journals and never cite each other’s papers. Their views on earth history are diametrically opposed and quite incompatible.

One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF’s Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?

Of course there may well be a simple explanation, eg that the two Drs Snelling are one and the same. Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to break his Statement of Faith. Why would they do this? Well, every creation ‘scientist’ needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific journal.

I think that both Dr Snelling and the CSF owe us all an explanation. WILL THE REAL DR ANDREW SNELLING PLEASE STAND UP?”

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.