"et the entire #rinte$ version o% o&r 'oo( %or )1* + S,-.

To order our book and/or videos,

Call Us at (800) 467-6380, or use our order form.

Copyright 2011, All Rights Reserved

Earth Science Associates

P.O.Box 12067 Knoxville, TN 37 12!0067

Table of Contents
Foreword Preface Overview Adventure in Science Creation on Trial Creation Science: a Cause for Investigation? The National Academy of Sciences and Academic Freedom Chapter 1: Radiohalos and the Age of the Earth Evolution as a Total Framewor The !uestion of "rigins Reo#ened Radioactivity and the Age of the Roc s The $u%%le of the Rings in the Roc s The Radioactive Nature of the &alos Radioactive &alos and the 'ecay Rate !uestion (icrosco#ic Chances Chapter 2: The )enesis Roc s The A* +* C* and ' &alos E,tinct &alos Intrude on the Scene (odern Cosmology and E,tinct Natural Radioactivity The Enigma of the $olonium &alos $olonium &alos: a Revolutionary New Inter#retation The Im#act of Creation on Evolution and the Age of the Earth $rimordial and Secondary Roc s $recam-rian )ranites.the )enesis Roc s Chapter 3: $olonium &alos )o to $ress (isfits in the Evolutionary (osaic A New Affiliation and +etter Research "##ortunities E,tended $eer Review and Controversy Initial E,#eriments at "a Ridge An Invitation to /oin a National 0a-oratory Search for &alos in 0unar Roc s $olonium &alo Analysis A Novel Theory of $olonium &alo "rigin "-1ections Refuted The S#ectacle &alo Chapter : Secondary $olonium &alos Fuel the Controversy 2ranium in Coalified 3ood The "rigin of Sedimentary Roc s Radiometric 'ating of the Colorado $lateau 'e#osits Secondary $olonium &alos: Another 'iscovery New 'ata Su##orts the )lo-al Flood (odel A $rofessor Notes the Silent Res#onse 'e-ating the Time Scale

Chapter !: Rever-erations from Scientists A Falsification Test $ro#osed A Courageous Editorial 'ecision $olonium &alos: an Inde#endent Evaluation Chapter ": Reaction from the National Science Foundation The Elusive Su#erheavy Elements 'eclination of 4566 $ro#osal A##eal to the NSF Another $ro#osal.another 'enial In7uiry -y a (em-er of Congress.4566 $ro#osal In7uiry -y a (em-er of Congress.4565 $ro#osal $ro8evolution at the NSF? Freedom of In7uiry Chapter #: Creation Science 9 a $u-lic Issue The 0essons of Sco#es Stac ing the 'ec Against Creation Science The Ar ansas Trial: a 'ifficult 'ecision Re#ression in the Classroom Evolution $romoted as Fact Countdown to the Ar ansas Trial Chapter $: AC02 Strategy Revealed at 0ittle Roc The AC02:s $lan for the Treatment of "rigins 'irect E,amination of the AC02 3itness for +io#hysics The AC02 and the "rigin of 0ife: a Narrow Esca#e The /udge Rescues the AC02 The AC02: No Science -ut Evolution The Age of the Earth: Testimony of the AC02 )eology 3itness Chapter %: Confrontation in the Courtroom The State Challenges Radiometric 'ating Techni7ues The )ranite Synthesis E,#eriment: an Evolutionary $ers#ective A ;ery Tiny (ystery Chapter 10: Creation:s Test on Trial AC02 3itness E,#lains Evidence for Creation Confronting the Falsification Test $rimordial Roc s 'erived from a $rimordial 0i7uid Imitation )ranite $olonium &alos Revisited $rimordial and Secondary Roc s in a Creation $ers#ective Recross8e,amination Reflections on the First 3ee of the Trial Ta ing the Stand Chapter 11: The Trial 'ecision Evolutionists 3in the )ame Court /udgment Reveals Evolutionary +ias Radiohalos: Tiny (ystery or +loc to Evolution? Evolutionary Article of Faith

True Science 'efined -y the Court Chapter 12: (edia Reaction to the Ar ansas Trial Effects of /ournalism on Research Funding Re#orting from an Evolutionist $ers#ective 3here Is the Science in Creation Science? 'iscounting the Evidence Correction Attem#t Fails AAAS and Evolutionary $resu##ositions Audio Ta#es Reveal Factual Account Another ;iew#oint Chapter 13: The Aftermath of the Ar ansas Trial Conventional Nuclear 3aste Containment An Innovative A##roach to the Nuclear 3aste $ro-lem E,#erimental Results Reach the 2<s< Congress A##eal to Continue Research Final Results Su##ort =oung Age of Earth End of an Era . a Summary The Case of the 2nmailed 0etter Final In7uiry -y a (em-er of Congress Chapter 1 : Creation Confronts Evolution A )eologist Evaluates Creation Science (y $resentation at the AAAS Sym#osium A National Forum Creation>evolution Newsletter Attac s $olonium &alo Evidence ;istas in Creation Chapter 1!: Continued Attac s on Creation Science Survey of Creation8science 0iterature =ields !uestiona-le Results Another Res#onse 'enied Res#onse to the National Academy of Sciences Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences 2niversity of Tennessee $u-lic Forum on Creation Science Continuing Censorshi# at Science &pilog'e . The )rand 'esign Radiohalo Catalog'e Appe(di) Refere(ces Credits Fro(t Cover *ac+ Cover Order *oo+

Foreword
A( ope( letter to the readers of Creation's Tiny Mystery: If I were to follow the unwritten* -ut commonly understood* guidelines laid down -y my fellow evolutionists* many of whom are agnostics li e myself* when #resented with a -oo written -y a fundamentalist Christian on the to#ic of ?creation*? I would ignore the wor < "f course* I might ic over the traces a -it* s im through the thing 7uic ly.one must -e fair* you now.and then give the document a decent 7uiet -urial in the nearest waste-as et< After all* those among us who have -rains in our head instead of roc s.#resuma-ly #ut there -y the dead hands of ancient su#erstition. now that @4A science and religion are immisci-le* @BA true scientists cannot -e creationists* @CA creationists cannot -e scientific* let alone scientists* @DA the last factor is dou-led and redou-led.in s#ades.for fundamentalists* @EA as the good nongray /udge "verton has decreed: there is no science in ?creation8science*? in fact* @FA those #oor.-ut well8heeled -y the radical right .fum-lers don:t even now what science is< The #receding si, commandments.others may -e confidently added as time goes on.may -e referred to as the AGS 'octrine* in honor of the guiding cosmic luminaries* Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan< Fortunately* my scientific education came from teachers who fostered an im#ertinent curiosity alloyed with a tolerant s e#ticism< I have news for my evolutionary colleagues: ?there are more things in heaven and earth* than are dreamt of in < < <? the AGS 'octrine< !uite a#art from the matter of constitutional 1ustice* which has -een decisively treated in the wor s of Cord and +ird* the 7uestion of ?origins? remains a challenge not only to the human intellect* -ut also to the human s#irit< Creation:s Tiny (ystery is a fine documentation of the research of a tenacious* courageous scientist< Ro-ert ;< )entry writes lucidly of his meticulous e,#erimentation with radioactive halos in ancient minerals< (any scientists with international re#utations* such as Truman $< Hohman* Edward Anders* Emilio Segre* )<N< Flerov* $aul Ramdohr* Eugene 3igner< E< &< Taylor* etc<* have commented favora-ly in regard to )entry:s integrity and the #rofessional 7uality of his data< A non8 'arwinian evolutionist li e me is struc -y how often creationists and evolutionists loo at the same information* e<g<* the fossil record* and e,tract from it mutually e,clusive inter#retations< It is generally -elieved that science must remain essentially conservative* even ?fundamentally conservative? . no #un intended . if its domain is to #rogress in a nice orderly fashion< This intellectual strategy can lead to an institutionali%ed -ureaucracy of mind* theory* and investigation* that would re7uire a Carroll !uigley to unravel< 3hat are we to thin of the chairman of the #hysics de#artment who urged )entry to follow a ?more conventional thesis #ro-lem? that would not lead to an ?em-arrassment? to the university? Should Svante Arrhenius have #layed it safely also? )alileo? &ow many scientists* today* would give u# their doctoral wor in adherence to a #rinci#le? In writing of his struggle to do his own wor * to #u-lish his own inter#retations that were consistent with his data* )entry is fighting for academic freedom and intellectual decency for all scientists who defy the esta-lished o#inion of the day< The investigation of anomalies can -e critical to the structure of scientific revolutions* as Thomas Huhn has suggested< Creation:s Tiny (ystery can -e #rofita-ly read -y all scientists* regardless of their s#ecific disci#line* -y evolutionists and nonevolutionists ali e< Also* it is a challenge to students of government and #hiloso#hical thought< )entry has called into 7uestion the #ractice of science in the institutionali%ed #u-lic arena< Environmental scientists will find )entry:s ?young earth model?

es#ecially interesting in regard to the #ro-lem of nuclear waste confinement< I wonder if his information is -eing -uried somewhere at the -ottom of our ?tower of +a-el? on this #ro-lem? $erha#s it is intellectually inconvenient to recogni%e the #otential merit of )entry:s measurements < < < ? In this era of -urgeoning governmental waste* it should -e encouraging to learn of ste#s to reduce e,#enses* even in the research area* -ut I find it discomforting that ?"a Ridge National 0a-oratory:s -udget re7uired mar ed cut-ac s < < <? such as )entry:s I4<JJ>year su-contract< (ethin s this smac s of evolutionary hu-ris* es#ecially after )entry:s testimony at 0ittle Roc < &oyle #ut it rather well in "ssian:s Ride: ?In science and mathematics* the im#ortant thing is what is -eing said* not who is saying it<? Ro-ert ;< )entry is a scientist in the tradition of )alileo< &e* his wor * and his 3eltanschauung do not deserve the #remature o-ituary that my evolutionary colleagues are #re#aring for it<

,- .cot /orrow, Ph-0$rofessor of Chemistry Emeritus 3offord College

Preface
(any years ago the T; mini8series Roots cata#ulted to fame Ale, &aley* the African8American author whose -oo had traced in ca#tivating words the record of the hardshi#s of his fore-ears< This -oo too is a-out roots* for ultimately it deals with the ?roots? of our #lanet and how and when it came into e,istence< (y method of tracing those roots has -een through #ro-ing the historical ?records? of Earth:s -asement roc s< This 7uest for truth a-out origins unfolds a #ersonal odyssey a-out my e,#eriences in e,#loring the microsco#ic world enclosed within the foundation roc s of the earth< The central thesis of this -oo is that the Creator left decisive evidence ena-ling us to identify Earth:s )enesis roc s< +ut genuine evidence for creation falsifies the evolution model of origins* irres#ective of how many #ieces of the evolutionary #u%%le seem to fit together< Ironically this edition:s #u-lication can -e traced to the evolutionists themselvesK it is they who are causing interest in it to continue to grow< Their actions are revealing something to the #u-lic a-out the wor ings of the scientific esta-lishment #reviously hidden from view< It all can -e traced to the culture of the day which* with strong -ac ing from the media* has elevated scientists in general and evolutionists in #articular to a #reeminent status in society< This culture #romotes modern scientists as -eing o#en8minded* always an,ious to investigate and acce#t any discovery that might 7uestion* challenge* or overturn any well8esta-lished scientific theory* however esteemed that theory may -e< It:s a culture that strongly #romotes the scientific community:s #rotocol for communication through #eer8reviewed scientific 1ournals< The crucial lin missing from this culture is that all evolutionary theories are critically hinged on a set of assum#tions which my discoveries dis#rove< The #u-lic generally has no awareness of this most im#ortant fact -ecause those controlling the scientific 1ournals have long #ro1ected evolutionary underlying assum#tions are -eyond 7uestion< Thus the #u-lic -elieves any claim of significant contradiction to the theory of evolution re#eatedly #u-lished in leading scientific 1ournals would immediately -ecome the center#iece of worldwide scientific in7uiry< Even more than this -oo :s earlier editions* of which this one is a re#lica e,ce#t for minor u#dates* the la#se of time has now #roven this #erce#tion is a myth< 3hat has occurred since the earlier editions were #u-lished should o#en the eyes of all who are see ing for truth a-out origins< In #articular* my many #u-lications in the world:s leading scientific 1ournals have stood for decades as a continuing invitation for the world:s scientific evolutionary elite to investigate and res#ond to. and if #ossi-le refute.my #u-lished evidence of )od:s tiny mystery of creation in the roc s &e created< "f great significance is the fact that editors of these 1ournals would have #u-lished long ago anything that genuinely refuted this scientific evidence* if such had -een forthcoming< Indeed* the reason I s#ent decades #u-lishing in those #eer8reviewed 1ournals was to give eminent evolutionists the -est o##ortunity to refute the evidence for creation -efore the glo-al scientific community< Their failure to do so has given them o##ortunity to forthrightly admit in those same scientific 1ournals that evolution:s -asic assum#tions are falsified -y the scientific discoveries that confirm Earth is the #roduct of a virtually instantaneous creation< +ut that hasn:t ha##ened< Instead there has only -een a deafening silence in those 1ournals for over two decades concerning this evidence of Earth:s ra#id creation* a silence that reveals neither the world:s scientific elite nor anyone else has a genuine answer for )od:s great wor s of creation< It also clearly #roves that the world:s evolutionary esta-lishment is adamantly o##osed to e,#osing their failure to the attention of the world< So they continue to ee# this issue -uried from #u-lic view< Their cons#iracy of silence shows they face an im#ossi-le tas < 3hereas evolutionary geology:s cornerstone assum#tion is that granite roc s formed naturally under the same #hysical laws now o-served* all the many

la-oratory attem#ts to verify this hy#othesis have failed< First Corinthians 4:B6 a#tly descri-es their frustration from continuing efforts to deny this result: ?+ut )od hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise< < < <? =es* their utter failure to synthesi%e natural granite roc s and their enclosed creation halos #roves the stones are crying out @0u e 45:DJA< )od not only #laced &is record of Earth:s ra#id creation in its )enesis roc s* the granites* -ut also devised a way so that all see ing the truth a-out our -eginnings could arrive at certainty in their search -y o-serving the ina-ility of scientists to refute the evidence for creation< The )reat B4st Century Scientific 3atergate involves not 1ust a few #ersons* as in the #olitical situation of the 456Js* -ut the worldwide community of evolutionists and scientific 1ournal editors who are engaged in su##ressing this evidence< This 3atergate is not confined to discoveries of Earth:s ra#id creation and young age< (y ongoing research in the last decade or so has resulted in two e,citing new astronomical and cosmic discoveries* the first* that of finding a fatal flaw in +ig +ang cosmology< This led to the second* rather ama%ing discovery of a new model of the cosmos with a near-y universal Center* so close in fact that it may -e within our )ala,y< A scientific re#ort descri-ing this discovery* titled ?A New Redshift Inter#retation*? was #u-lished in (odern $hysics 0etters A* ;ol< 4B* No< C6 @4556A< "n Fe-ruary BL* BJJ4* ten additional scientific #a#ers descri-ing this model* and also #roving why the +ig +ang is invalid* were deleted -y scientists at the 0os Alamos National 0a-oratory -efore their scheduled release to the world on the arMiv* the National Science Foundation8s#onsored e8 #rint server that has now -ecome the acce#ted medium of ra#id communication for all fields of #hysics< Administration of this 2< S< government8s#onsored arMiv has since -een transferred to Cornell 2niversity* and -oth they and the NSF continue the same censorshi# that was -egun at 0os Alamos< This e,traordinary censorshi# #roves astronomers are even more concerned than geologists of the rever-erations that will occur if these #a#ers are released to the worldwide scientific community< Thus to #reserve the status 7uo they are willing to deny me First Amendment rights of freedom of s#eech< Readers can -etter understand the reason for their des#eration efforts to su##ress these ten #a#ers as they now see their main title* 1Flaws i( the *ig *a(g Poi(t to 2&3&.4., A 3ew /ille((i'5 /odel of the Cos5os-1 The full contents of these #a#ers* #lus details of my ongoing attem#ts to overturn the discriminatory actions of evolutionary astronomers and cosmologists* are descri-ed on www<orionfdn<org< The 2< S< Congress needs to now that the NSF* which is authori%ed -y it to im#artially su##ort scientific research in all disci#lines* has acted directly contrary to its Congressional mandate -y agreeing to continue to su##ress the release of my #a#ers on the NSF8Cornell s#onsored arMiv< American ta,#ayers.es#ecially those who have Christian -eliefs.need to now their monies are -eing used -y the NSF to s7uelch scientific evidence for )od:s creatorshi# of the universe* 1ust as surely as other evolutionists in high #laces are su##ressing discussion of my #u-lished scientific #a#ers of &is ra#id creation of the Earth< Readers may access www<orionfdn<org and www<halos<com for u#dates on my ongoing interaction with the scientific community* and through this latter site they may also find how to o-tain our two video>';' documentaries* Finger#rints of Creation and The =oung Age of the Earth* -oth of which have aired on various #u-lic television stations< This -oo and these videos #oint to one great scientific fact: the "ne and only Creator )od chose to call attention to the literal )enesis si,8 day creation of the Earth as given in the Fourth Commandment @E,odus BJ:L844A* ?For in si, days the 0ord made heaven and earth* the sea* and all that in them is* and rested the seventh day: 3herefore the 0ord -lessed the sa--ath day and hallowed it<? Thus )od:s im#rinting Earth:s foundation roc s* the granites @#< CBCA* with creation halos* &is uni7ue signature of its ra#id creation @$salms CC:F* 5A* forever lin s the Creator of the universe with &is Ten Commandments*

and shows this Creation Commandment is as immuta-le as )od &imself< Significant affirmation of this great truth comes from my recent discovery that this tiny mystery of creation is em-edded within the (t< Sinai granite* the same roc )od used to inscri-e the Ten Commandments given to (oses @E,odus CD:48DA< Finally* I have -een e,ce#tionally fortunate that my wife* $atricia* daughter* $atti 0ynn* and sons* (ichael and 'avid* have -een su##orters throughout the many years of my research< This -oo could not have -een written without my wife:s unfailing assistance< She colla-orated on many of the cha#ters and oversaw all editorial changes during the numerous manuscri#t revisions< And we remain greatly inde-ted to those who continue to #ray for our research<

Overview
'e-ate over the origin of man is as much alive in the B4st century as it was during the famous Sco#es trial of 45BE< A BJJ4 )allu# $oll found the #u-lic a-out evenly divided -etween -elief that )od created man within the last 4J*JJJ years and -elief in some form of evolution< At the very heart of the 7uestion of the origin of man is the matter of the origin of the earth< &ow did the earth arrive at its #resent condition? 3as it through slow* random* evolutionary changes? "r is there evidence the earth was called into e,istence -y an infinite Creator who is a-ove and -eyond &is creation? This -oo deals with these 7uestions as I tell of my efforts to unloc the secrets of nature hidden within the $recam-rian granites.the foundation roc s of the earth @A##endi,* ##< CBB8CBCA< According to modern evolutionary theory* our #lanet originated from the accumulation of hot* gaseous material e1ected from the sun* and the $recam-rian granites were among the first roc s to form during the cooling #rocess< 2niversity science courses convinced me that the evolution of the earth was 1ust a #art of the cosmic evolution of the universe< As a result I -ecame a theistic evolutionist< =ears later I -egan to re8e,amine the scientific -asis for that decision< (y thoughts turned to the age of the earth and the $recam-rian granites< 3ere they really -illions of years old? The su##osed #roof of their great age involved certain concentric ring #atterns found in the granites< 2nder the microsco#e a tiny radioactive #article could -e seen at the center of the rings* li e the -ull:s eye at the center of an archery target< These microsco#ic8si%ed ring #atterns -ecame nown as radioactive halos -ecause of their radioactive origin and their halo8li e a##earance<

Adve(t're i( .cie(ce
(y enthusiasm for #ursuing research on radioactive halos -egan a few decades ago while I was teaching and wor ing toward a doctorate in #hysics at the )eorgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta< I was informed* however* that the age of the earth had already -een scientifically determined* and it was not something the #hysics de#artment wanted to have reinvestigated< Concerns were e,#ressed that I might find something which would conflict with the acce#ted evolutionary time scale* and this could -e a cause of considera-le em-arrassment to )eorgia Tech< Since the outloo for my research on radiohalos was unfavora-le* my #lans for com#leting the doctorate #rogram were forfeited< 3or ing at home* I used a microsco#e to search for radiohalos in thin* translucent sections of granite8ty#e roc s< "ne s#ring day in 45FE I was #ondering over some s#ecial ty#es of halosK there seemed to -e conflicting re7uirements as to their origin< According to evolutionary geology* the granites now containing these s#ecial halos had originally formed as hot magma slowly cooled over long ages< "n the other hand* the radioactivity res#onsi-le for these s#ecial halos had such a fleeting e,istence that it would have disa##eared long -efore the magma had time to cool and form the granite roc s< I wondered how this -affling #ro-lem would -e resolved< As I #eered into the microsco#e to view these tiny halos again* some #rofound 7uestions flashed through my mind: 3as it #ossi-le that the $recam-rian granites were not the end #roduct of slowly cooling magma* -ut instead were the roc s )od created when &e s#o e this #lanet into e,istence? 3ere the s#ecial halos evidence of an instantaneous creation? 3ere they the Creator:s finger#rints in Earth:s #rimordial roc s? 3as creation a matter of science as well as faith? I determined to e,#lore these 7uestions<

(y goal* then* was clear: to #ursue an investigation of these halos with the aim of #u-lishing definitive results in well8 nown scientific 1ournals< I felt the scientific community needed to e,amine my wor #rior to #resenting it to nonscientists as evidence of creation< (y investigations would re7uire e,#ensive research e7ui#ment* and the #ros#ects of gaining access to such e7ui#ment seemed dim< There was no la-oratory s#ace save that carved from a small room in my house and no e7ui#ment -ut a -orrowed microsco#e< Even the granite8ty#e roc s used in my studies had -een -orrowed from a university in Nova Scotia< $ersonal funds were almost none,istent< At the time I could not visuali%e where this meager -eginning would lead in the future< Though I was an un nown in the scientific community when my research -egan* a few years later a way o#ened for me to affiliate for one year as a guest scientist at one of America:s national research la-oratories< E,ce#tionally cordial relations were esta-lished* and my stay was e,tended for thirteen years until /une CJ* 45LB< 'uring that time the la-oratory:s facilities were accessi-le for all #hases of my research* including wor on the s#ecial radiohalos< The story -ehind these investigations* some of which #rovide evidence for a worldwide flood and young earth* is related in the #ages of this -oo < It #rovides a -ehind8the8scenes account of the events surrounding the #u-lication of over twenty re#orts in nota-le scientific 1ournals< And it reveals how the scientific esta-lishment reacts when one of its su#erstatus theories is threatened<

Creatio( o( 6rial
The -oo also details the last year of my guest a##ointment at the national la-oratory* when I was faced with one of the most difficult decisions of my life: whether or not to testify as an e,#ert witness in the 45L4 Ar ansas creation>evolution trial< The friendshi# and good will I had esta-lished with other scientists over the years were at sta e* as was the o##ortunity to continue my research at this la-oratory< As the trial drew near* a num-er of #rominent evolutionists #ersisted in declaring that scientific evidence for creation was none,istent< It seemed the time had come for this claim to -e #u-licly e,amined< I decided to confront the issue -y testifying for creation at the Ar ansas trial< There my wor would -e scrutini%ed -y renowned scientists< They would have an o##ortunity to e,#ose any flaws< If the s#ecial halos in $recam-rian granites were not evidence for creation* they should -e a-le to #rovide an alternative e,#lanation. one which could -e scientifically verified< +ut if the evidence for creation could withstand the scrutiny of some of the world:s leading evolutionists and remain untarnished* this scientific truth should not remain hidden from the #u-lic< At the trial* the American Civil 0i-erties 2nion @AC02A argued against the Ar ansas law re7uiring -alanced teaching of evolution and creation science< They contended that creation science is religion in disguise -ecause there is no scientific evidence for creation< All their science witnesses* including a world authority in geology* agreed to this view -efore the court< 2nder cross8e,amination the 'e#uty Attorney )eneral as ed this geologist whether he could e,#lain the s#ecial halos in the granites< &e res#onded that I had found a ?tiny mystery? which scientists would someday solve< This was a moment I had long waited for.a moment of truth< +y #ost#oning the day of rec oning to the indefinite future* one of the world:s foremost geologists had deftly sideste##ed a ma1or confrontation with the evidence for creation< =et #ress re#orts carried virtually no mention of this event< (oreover* after widely #u-lici%ing the evolutionary witnesses: testimony during the first wee of the trial* some of the nation:s leading news#a#ers let my testimony fade into o-livion as the trial drew to a close< 3hen my testimony -egan* some of the media re#resentatives actually left the courtroom<

In other instances the media re#orts* es#ecially those in various scientific maga%ines* dealt a fatal -low to my ho#es of continuing research at the national la-oratory< "ne #restigious science 1ournal denied me the right to correct a misleading account of my testimony.an action that had far8 reaching effects on my research endeavors< The aftermath of the Ar ansas trial was a difficult #eriod* one of those times mar ed -y a##arent failure< The AC02 had convinced the 1udge that my results were irrelevant to the creation>evolution issue< I went to the trial to settle the 7uestion of whether valid scientific evidence e,ists for creation< =et my #resence there had #roduced only an admission that I had found ?a tiny mystery<? The scientific #ress generally coo#erated with the AC02 and their e,#ert witnesses in writing my scientific o-ituary< (y search for truth wasn:t over* -ut my contri-utions to science seemed destined to remain entom-ed in o-scurity< Then some other thoughts occurred to me< The trial had -een the crucial test of the scientific evidences for creation< Indeed* those evidences had stood unrefuted after the most critical e,amination< 0i e nothing else could have done* the trial had shown that creation does have a scientific -asis< I -egan to reali%e that the secrets loc ed within the granite roc s.the secrets until now hidden within earth:s invisi-le realm.#rovided the ey which unloc ed the scientific truth a-out the origin of the earth and human ind as well< I sensed this information might be of considerable import to the millions of individuals on this planet who are ardently searching for truth about their roots and their destinies. Thus the im#etus for this -oo was -orn out of the ashes of my a##arent defeat at the trial<

Creatio( .cie(ce: A Ca'se for 4(vestigatio(7

'uring the Ar ansas trial I listened carefully for any new* irrefuta-le evidence for evolution.such as the synthesis of life from inert matter< 'uring a news conference there I remar ed* if this were accom#lished* evolution would again -e acce#ta-le to me< (y intent is not to dis#arage the evolutionists who advised and testified for the AC02* -ut I do 7uestion whether their mind sets even allowed them to consider that they might -e scientifically wrong< As Americans* the AC02 and others have the right to o##ose the teaching of creation science in the #u-lic schoolsK li ewise* I have the right to -elieve that if the #u-lic schools are going to teach a-out origins* students should have the o#tion of studying either the evolution or creation model of origins< If there is unam-iguous scientific evidence that one view is true* this should not -e e#t secret< 2nder our form of government* citi%ens may advocate whatever #osition they choose as far as the Constitution and the courts allow< +ut is it ethical for the scientific organi%ation which is mandated to advise the Federal )overnment to unfairly re#resent the case for creation science in order to maintain #referential treatment of evolution in the #u-lic schools? I refer to the most esteemed scientific organi%ation in America.the National Academy of Sciences< In the s#ring of 45LD the Academy released a -oo let "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences" @National Academy of Sciences 45LDA< "n #age two the -oo let descri-es the Academy as a #rivate* self8su##orting organi%ation of distinguished scientists which was chartered over a century ago -y the 2<S< Congress to advise the Federal )overnment in matters of science and technology< In its official role* the Academy had a dou-le res#onsi-ility to act in the highest traditions of science and o-1ectively e,amine the scientific merits of all evidences for creation< +ut a #rere7uisite for this underta ing re7uired that the Academy -e o#en8minded on this issue< The -oo let contains a declaration which unmista a-ly reveals its #osition:

< < < The hy#othesis of s#ecial creation has* over nearly two centuries* -een re#eatedly and sym#athetically considered and re1ected on evidential grounds -y 7ualified o-servers and e,#erimentalists< In the forms given in the first two cha#ters of )enesis it is now an invalidated hy#othesis< < < < Confronted -y this challenge to the integrity and effectiveness of our national education system and to the hard8won evidence8-ased foundations of science* the National Academy of Sciences cannot remain silent< To do so would -e a dereliction of our res#onsi-ility to academic and intellectual freedom and to the fundamental #rinci#les of scientific thought< As a historic re#resentative of the scientific #rofession and designated advisor to the Federal )overnment in matters of science* the Academy states une7uivocally that the tenets of :creation science: are not su##orted -y scientific evidence* NandO that creationism has no #lace in a science curriculum at any level< < < @National Academy of Sciences 45LD* 6A 2nder the guise of defending intellectual freedom and the integrity of the national education system* the Academy has clearly im#ugned the scientific integrity of the +i-le< If s#ecial creation* as descri-ed in )enesis* has truly -een ?re1ected on evidential grounds? and ?invalidated*? as the Academy says* then the Academy should #rovide the -asis for these claims* or else tell where such evidence can -e found< +ut the Academy:s -oo let fails on -oth of these counts< Instead* it ar-itrarily #romotes the view that certain scientific results confirm the evolutionary model* without mentioning all the uncertainties connected with those results< Throughout the -oo let #lausi-ility arguments -ased on 7uestiona-le assum#tions are used to su##ort the evolutionary scenario< In its official ca#acity as the designated adviser to the )overnment in matters of science* the Academy has done its utmost to #romote evolution as truth< 'ou-tless there are many who -elieve that meritorious recognition should -e given for this action< &istory may even record that the timely #u-lication of their -oo let was one of the Academy:s greatest achievements< The other #ossi-ility is that the Academy will gain lasting fame in history for having o#ened its own $andora:s -o,< From the economic stand#oint* if genuine scientific evidence for creation has -een #u-lished in leading scientific 1ournals and if the Academy has ignored this evidence while e,tolling evolution as the only truly scientific theory of origins* should not there -e an investigation of this matter? The #otential cost for negligence in advising the )overnment of this information could -e enormous< For e,am#le* millions of dollars are granted annually -y government agencies to fund a variety of evolution8oriented research #ro1ects< "ne well8funded effort concerns attem#ts to synthesi%e life from nonliving matter< All such research is -ased on the fundamental evolutionary assum#tion that in the distant #ast life -egan s#ontaneously* -y chance< &owever* valid scientific evidence that the earth was created shows the evolutionary scenario to -e wrong* and the -elief that life -egan -y chance crum-les< Ta,#ayers have a sta e in learning whether the Academy has tried to maintain the status 7uo of evolution -y remaining silent a-out evidences for creation< And Americans have more at sta e in this issue than their money* almost none of which is used to investigate the scientific -asis for creation<

6he 3atio(al Acade5y of .cie(ces a(d Acade5ic Freedo5

The format of the Academy:s -oo let.-y e,cluding a fair #resentation of the evidences for creation .suggests the Academy wished to secure the condemnation of creation science on the -asis of the eminent re#utations of Academy mem-ers< 2sing #rivate funds* the -oo let was distri-uted gratis

to numerous #u-lic school officials and legislators across America @CF*JJJ to high school su#erintendents and science de#artment heads* and 5*JJJ to 2<S< Congressmen* governors* and other influential AmericansA< Clearly the Academy has assumed a leadershi# role in the growing movement to maintain the e,clusive teaching of evolution in #u-lic school science courses< Americans need to -e aware of what this action of the Academy means in terms of one of their most cherished heritages< +y em#loying authoritarian measures to #romote evolution as truth and creation science as error* the Academy seems to have directly contradicted itself on intellectual freedom< &ow did this ha##en? "n A#ril B6* 456F* eight years -efore its -oo let on creation science was #u-lished* the Academy ado#ted a magnificent resolution* 7uoted -elow* which a#tly re#resents what America stands for. the freedom to e,#ress minority views without fear of re#ression: AN AFFIR(ATI"N "F FREE'"( "F IN!2IR= AN' EM$RESSI"N I here-y affirm my dedication to the following #rinci#les: < < < That the search for nowledge and understanding of the #hysical universe and of the living things that inha-it it should -e conducted under conditions of intellectual freedom* without religious* #olitical or ideological restriction< < < < That all discoveries and ideas should -e disseminated and may -e challenged without such restriction< < < < That freedom of in7uiry and dissemination of ideas re7uire that those so engaged -e free to search where their in7uiry leads* free to travel and free to #u-lish their findings without #olitical censorshi# and without fear of retri-ution in conse7uence of un#o#ularity of their conclusions< Those who challenge e,isting theory must -e #rotected from retaliatory reactions< < < < That freedom of in7uiry and e,#ression is fostered -y #ersonal freedom of those who in7uire and challenge* see and discover< < < < That the #reservation and e,tension of #ersonal freedom are de#endent on all of us* individually and collectively* su##orting and wor ing for a##lication of the #rinci#les enunciated in the 2nited Nations 2niversal 'eclaration of &uman Rights and u#holding a universal -elief in the worth and dignity of each human -eing< This Affirmation is a marvelous statement of conscience< It focuses attention on the #light of many dissident foreign scientists who might otherwise have -een forgotten< 3e would e,#ect that influential scientists* es#ecially Academy mem-ers* would -e foremost in adhering to its #rinci#les< It is tragic that this #restigious organi%ation* which es#oused such high ideals in defense of dissidents* would su-se7uently advocate a #lan that could adversely affect the lives of many school8 aged Americans< In its Affirmation the Academy urges that those who search for truth should do so under our right of freedom of in7uiry and e,#ression< 'oes this include #u-lic school students in America? 'oes the Academy -elieve they have the right to as * to #ro-e* or to critically in7uire a-out creation science without fear of recrimination from their teachers? After their teachers inform them that "the

Academy states une uivocally that the tenets of !creation science! are not supported by scientific evidence"" how many students will as a-out it? The few who might venture to do so will now run the ris of -eing ridiculed -ecause of the invidious com#arison which 'r< Fran $ress* Academy $resident in 45LD* ma es in his $reface to the -oo let: < < < Teaching creationism is li e as ing our children to -elieve on faith* without recourse to time8tested evidence* that the dimensions of the world are the same as those de#icted in ma#s drawn in the days -efore Colum-us set sail with his three small shi#s* when we #now from factual o-servations that they are really 7uite different< @National Academy of Sciences 45LD* EA The thrust of $ress:s innuendo is clear< &e insinuates that creationism* e7uated in the -oo let with the first two cha#ters of )enesis* is a dece#tion which ignores demonstra-le scientific evidence< Thus* $ress:s 1udgment comes close to insulting those Americans who acce#t the scientific validity of the )enesis account of creation< It is difficult to conceive of a more effective method of intimidation than for a teacher to 7uote the a-ove statement in answer to any 7uestion a-out the scientific merits of creation< 0ater in his $reface* $ress confirms his unaltera-le faith in evolution: The theory of evolution has successfully withstood the tests of science many* many times< Thousands of geologists* #aleontologists* -iologists* chemists* and #hysicists have gathered evidence in su##ort of evolution as a fundamental #rocess of nature< "ur understanding of evolution has -een refined over the years* and indeed its details are still undergoing testing and evaluation< For e,am#le* some scientists currently de-ate com#eting ideas a-out the rate at which evolution occurred< "ne grou# -elieves that evolution #roceeded in small* #rogressive stages evenly s#read throughout the -illions of years of geological timeK another grou# -elieves that there were alternating #eriods of relatively ra#id and slow changes throughout time< Creationists cite this de-ate as evidence for disagreement a-out evolution among scientistsK some even suggest that scientists who advocate the latter hy#othesis are actually su##orting a #rocess similar to that of creationism< 3hat these creationists fail to understand* however* is that neither scientific school of evolutionary thought 7uestions the scientific evidence that evolution too #lace over -illions of years< Rather* the de-ate centers on only the finer details of how it too #lace< @National Academy of Sciences 45LD* FA If* as $ress claims* the de-ate centers only on how evolution too #lace* rather than whether it occurred* in effect the Academy has decreed that creation must -e false< Therefore* students have no choice -ut to acce#t evolution in their science curricula< Is this su##ression of in7uiry consistent with the #rinci#les of academic freedom for students? "r is it an e,am#le of how those in authority can re#ress an un#o#ular -elief? Some may thin that teachers in free America would never attem#t to intimidate students for 7uestioning evolution< 2nfortunately* this environment e,isted forty years ago when I was #ursuing my university studies* and as this -oo reveals* it still e,ists< The wides#read distri-ution of the Academy:s -oo let* reflecting the views of confirmed evolutionists* can only -e e,#ected to ma e it worse for conscientious* in7uiring students who will not -e cowed -y #roclamations issued -y the Academy< 3hat causes those in the National Academy of Sciences and others* who are confirmed in their

evolutionary convictions* to -e so entrenched in their views? $erha#s the reason can -e found in the following considerations: Staunch evolutionists are convinced that their theory must -e essentially correct -ecause numerous #ieces of scientific data from astronomy* geology* and -iology seem to mesh naturally to form the -eautiful mosaic of evolution< 3hat is often overloo ed is that the evolutionary mosaic is actually held together -y a glue nown as the uniformitarian principle. In reality this principle is only an assum#tion that the cosmos* including the earth and life thereon* evolved to its #resent state through the action of nown #hysical laws< If the uniformitarian principle is wrong* then all the #ieces in the evolutionary scenario -ecome unglued* and the mosaic disintegrates< Conse7uently* this principle is crucial to the overall conce#t of evolution< +ut valid* scientific evidence for creation would contradict the uniformitarian principle. The -illions of years #ostulated for the earth to evolve from some ne-ulous mass would eva#orate when confronted -y evidence of an instantaneous creation< The age8dating techni7ues thought to esta-lish a great age of the earth would -e invalidated< The essential time element needed for the geological evolution of the earth and the -iological evolution of life on earth would vanish< Thus* unam-iguous evidence for creation would devastate the entire evolutionary scenario< At the Ar ansas trial* creation and evolution met in a direct confrontation< The AC02 had the grand o##ortunity to discredit the evidence for creation< They failed to do this< Instead they minimi%ed the significance of the s#ecial halos -y having them la-eled a ?tiny mystery<? This #loy was so successful that the 1udge mimic ed the AC02 #osition.using the term ?minor mystery?.when he rendered a verdict favora-le to evolution< As effective as this strategy was in winning the court -attle at 0ittle Roc * the court of world o#inion has yet to give its verdict on the creation>evolution controversy< This verdict will -e rendered in #art -y those who read this -oo < In arriving at a decision the reader might reflect on another facet of the la-el ?tiny mystery*? not considered -y the AC02< In itself each of the s#ecial halos is very tinyK smaller still is a single atom< +ut enough atoms com-ined can ma e a mountain< 0i ewise* the trillions of ?tiny mysteries*? em-edded in -asement roc s all over this #lanet* together form Creation!s $iny %ystery.a )i-raltar of evidence for creation< +y the end of this -oo the reader should have in hand sufficient information to decide whether the National Academy of Sciences is correct in claiming that s#ecial creation is an invalidated hy#othesis.or whether the Creator chose to leave #ositive evidence of creation* thus showing that it is the evolutionary hy#othesis which is invalid<

Chapter 1: Radiohalos and the Age of the arth

0i e most students attending state universities in the fifties I was immersed in the theory of evolution in a first8 year -iology class< The #rofessor argued #ersuasively in favor of -iological evolution of life over immense #eriods of time< &e #resented evolution as the inevita-le outwor ing of the natural laws of the universe* a theory that could -e e,#lained in terms of mechanisms o-serva-le today< It was the only e,#lanation of origins #resented in that class and throughout the remainder of my university curriculum< I was one of the many Americans -rought u# in a conservative religious environment which conflicted with the evolutionary conce#ts taught at the university< &owever* my convictions were not strong enough to raise 7uestions a-out the inconsistencies -etween )enesis and evolution< Students who did were not always treated with res#ect< As an as#iring scientist* the wisest course was to shun anything controversial< /ust as millions of Americans nightly trust their favorite television news commentators to -e o-1ective and truthful* my classmates and I trusted that our education was giving us the whole story< Scientific evidence for )enesis was never mentionedK we assumed none e,isted<

&vol'tio( as a 6otal Fra5ewor+

The -iological arguments for evolution were not sufficiently convincing for me to -ecome an evolutionist< The final #ersuasion came several years later when I enrolled in a graduate #hysics course in cosmology* a field which deals with the origin and develo#ment of the universe< The course focused on the +ig +ang model* so named -ecause it #ictures the universe as having its -eginning in a gigantic #rimeval e,#losion< In some res#ects this theory a##ealed to me #hiloso#hically< It was fascinating to thin that science could #ro-e the ultimate -eginning of the universe* and this tended to overshadow many uncertainties in the theory< =et a ma1or 7uestion remained: A -asic tenet of #hysics is that matter and energy can neither -e created nor destroyed< &ut the standard &ig &ang theory supposes that absolutely nothing e'isted before it occurred billions of years ago ( neither matter" nor space" nor even time itself. 0ogically* then* if the +ig +ang had occurred at all* it had to involve the creation of matter< According to the laws of #hysics this was an im#ossi-ility< &ere was a fundamental contradiction that I was una-le to resolve< 3as it realistic to -elieve the universe had evolved from an event for which there was no scientific e,#lanation? "ne day in class the discussion focused on these issues< Sensing an uneasiness develo#ing a-out the entire conce#t* the #rofessor mentioned that decades earlier a Catholic theologian* )eorges 0emaitre* had #ostulated a #ossi-le solution< 0emaitre* who was also a cosmologist* suggested that )od might have initiated the +ig +ang< 3hy not* I thought< After all* )od can do anything: &e could have started the +ig +ang< The final e,am for the course was to calculate when the +ig +ang had occurred< (y result was E<6 -illion years ago* which was considered the right answer at that time< @In the last three decades this figure has escalated to a-out 46 -illion<A I e#t that final e,am as a reminder of how much my views a-out origins had changed during my collegiate days< (y university education had transformed me into a theistic evolutionist* one who -elieved that )od intended the )enesis account of creation to -e an allegory #icturing the total evolution of the cosmos< The #ieces of the #u%%le now seemed to fall into #lace.the si, days of creation were 1ust si, vast* indefinite #eriods of time< The -iological evolution of life on earth was

intertwined with the geological evolution of our #lanet* and everything was tracea-le to the mystical +ig +ang< Science and )od were really together after all* and I could still -elieve in a )od who always told the truth< After receiving my (<S< in #hysics from the 2niversity of Florida in 45EF* I -ecame involved in military a##lications of nuclear wea#ons effects at Convair8Fort 3orth @later 0oc heed8(artinA< Two years late I continued the same wor at what was then the (artin Com#any in "rlando* meanwhile %ealously defending evolution whenever the occasion arouse< Then someone confronted me with a ma1or o-stacle to my -elief in a )od of truth and my allegorical acce#tance of )enesis< &e #ointed out that )od had rewritten the )enesis record of creation in one of the Ten Commandments< )or in si' days the *ord made heaven and earth" the sea" and all that in them is" and rested the seventh day. . . @E,odus BJ:44A The conte,t of this #assage seemed to indicate that the ?days? were literal* not figurative< If this were true* I could no longer associate the si, days of creation with si, long geological #eriods of the earth:s develo#ment* and my -asis for -elieving in theistic evolution would -e negated< This was distur-ing< 3ere the Commandments allegorical as well? 3here did it all sto#? 3as anything that )od said relia-le? 3as &e really a )od of truth? 'id &e even e,ist? (y #ac age #lan uniting )od and science seemed to have colla#sed< Somehow I had to find time to reinvestigate the scientific evidences for evolution< This long8term goal caused me to re8evaluate my wor in the defense industry< For the ne,t two years I taught at the 2niversity of Florida and #ondered the 7uestion of origins while my wife com#leted her degree in mathematics<

6he 8'estio( of Origi(s Reope(ed

Again I e,amined the evidence* trying to determine which factors were most im#ortant in leading me to acce#t evolution< It seemed ironic that I had acce#ted a theological solution @)od initiating the +ig +angA to remedy a crucial defect in a su##osedly scientific theory @matter and energy from nothingA< This -rought to mind the su##osition that the earliest stars had accumulated from matter synthesi%ed in the +ig +ang< The #ro-lem was that fragments of an ordinary e,#losion don:t reaccumulate< Then why would matter formed in the greatest of all #ossi-le e,#losions ever reunite to form stars? (y dou-ts a-out this were later confirmed when I learned an astronomer had said* ?If stars did not e,ist* it would -e easy to #rove that this is what we e,#ect? @Aller and (c0aughlin 45FE* E66A< And what caused trillions of stars to cluster into the highly ordered systems o-served in different gala,ies? Could all this have resulted -y chance from such a vast homogeneous e,#ansion of matter? Coming closer to home* how reasona-le was it to -elieve that the origin of our #lanet was 1ust the last #hase in the evolutionary develo#ment of the universe? The +ig +ang is #resumed to have #roduced 1ust hydrogen and helium* only two of the ninety8two elements of the earth:s crust< 3here* then* did the remaining ninety elements su##osedly originate? Theoretically they came from thermonuclear fusion reactions that occurred -illions of years ago dee# inside certain stars< In this scenario* s#ace -ecame lightly s#rin led with these other elements when those stars later e,#loded @su#ernovaeA< Assuming all this* how did su#ernova remnants from throughout the vast reaches of interstellar s#ace reaccumulate to -ecome the raw matter for the solar system? (y cosmology course never e,#lained this any more than it e,#lained how stars could develo# from the +ig +ang< And 1ust how valid was the idea that the #lanets had their origin in an enormous ring of gases

surrounding the sun? 3hat #roduced the gaseous ring? And what 1ustification was there for -elieving the earth had its -eginning when #art of that ring coalesced into a hot* molten s#here.the #roto8earth? =et* one #iece of scientific evidence lent credi-ility to the entire scenario< (y training in #hysics had led me to #lace un7uestioning confidence in the radiometrically determined age of the earth< These data a##arently #rovided a direct lin -etween the earth:s geological evolution and the #resumed evolutionary develo#ment of the universe< According to radiometric dating techni7ues* the oldest roc s on earth formed several -illion years ago when a hot* molten #roto8earth -egan to cool< Timewise this fitted #lausi-ly into the +ig +ang framewor < (y earlier acce#tance of the +ig +ang scenario* including -iological evolution and the geological evolution of the earth* hinged on my -elief that radiometric dating techni7ues esta-lished an ancient age for the earth< +ut was my -elief well founded? It was time to do some critical thin ing a-out the assum#tions used in these techni7ues<

Radioactivity a(d the Age of the Roc+s

Radiometric @or radioactiveA dating of roc s involves the decay of some ?#arent? element into its sta-le @nonradioactiveA end #roduct< As an e,am#le* uranium is a #arent element which decays to its end #roduct* radiogenic lead< @It is called radiogenic lead to distinguish it from other lead which is not derived from radioactive decay<A +y measuring @4A how much of a #arent element in a roc has decayed into its end #roduct* and @BA the current rate of this decay* most geologists -elieve they can assess the date when the #arent was incor#orated into the roc * or e7uivalently* the #eriod of time that has ela#sed since the roc formed< (y attention turned to the 7uestion of whether the decay rates of different radioactive elements have always -een what they are at #resent< A uniform decay rate would mean* for e,am#le* that the amount of uranium in a roc would constantly diminish while the end #roduct* radiogenic lead* would constantly increase< In this instance the ratio of uranium to radiogenic lead would -e a measure of the time since the roc solidified< If* however* the decay rate was much higher sometime in the #ast* then the radiogenic lead would have ra#idly accumulated in the roc .what normally would have ta en eons would have -een accom#lished in a short #eriod< "n the -asis of the uniform decay rate assum#tion* the roc would -e falsely 1udged to -e 7uite ancient* not -ecause the data @meaning the ratio of uranium to radiogenic leadA was wrong* -ut -ecause of an erroneous #remise< &ow im#ortant* then* it was to now the truth a-out this matter< (y university #hysics courses had taught me to -elieve the assum#tion of uniform decay was -eyond 7uestion* -ut no #roof was given< 'id such #roof actually e,ist? If so* I needed to find it* for some weighty matters a-out the evolutionary scenario hung in the -alance< The assum#tion of constant decay rates is an integral #art of the evolutionary #remise that all #hysical laws have remained unchanged throughout the history of the universe< This is the uniformitarian principle" the glue that holds all the #ieces in the evolutionary mosaic together< If it is wrong* all the #ieces -ecome unglued and evolution disintegrates< 2nderstanda-ly* scientists who are convinced that evolution is -eyond 7uestion might have difficulty in considering varia-le decay rates< To do this would -e e7uivalent to admitting that the uniformitarian principle might -e in error* which would -e tantamount to agreeing that evolution could -e wrong< (y acce#tance of evolution had -een 7uite firmK yet I always remained willing to consider new evidence< Thus I didn:t feel any inhi-itions a-out continuing my in7uiry into radiometric dating and the crucial 7uestion a-out decay rates<

In the summer of 45FB I was awarded a National Science Foundation Fellowshi# for three months to attend the "a Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies Summer Institute in "a Ridge* Tennessee< (y free time was devoted to studying a-out radioactivity and the age of the earth< The following fall I taught #hysics full8time and concurrently #ursued graduate studies in #hysics at the )eorgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta< The investigation of radioactive dating techni7ues was sandwiched -etween teaching duties and course wor < (y attention was increasingly drawn to a tiny radioactive #henomenon found in certain roc s -ecause it was thought to -e the evidence for the constancy of radioactive decay rates throughout earth history< It occurred to me that a reinvestigation of this #henomenon might serve as an a##ro#riate thesis to#ic for the doctoral degree< +efore a##roaching the #hysics de#artment chairman with this suggestion* I #erused most of the im#ortant scientific re#orts on the su-1ect< The ne,t three sections are a summary of my initial findings<

6he P'99le of the Ri(gs i( the Roc+s

The scientific literature revealed a fascinating story that -egan to unfold in the late 4LJJ:s* when im#roved microsco#es -ecame availa-le< (ineralogists reali%ed the microsco#e could -e a #owerful tool to e,amine many features of roc s and minerals* hidden from normal view< They es#ecially wanted to see through #ieces of roc to learn how the different minerals were interlaced< To accom#lish this they learned to #re#are thin* translucent slices of minerals< (ineral s#ecimens that a##eared clear of defects with the unaided eye were now often seen to contain tiny grains of other minerals< (ost of these tiny grains aroused little interestK mineralogists 1ust assumed they were em-edded in the host mineral when it crystalli%ed< Some of the tiny grains attracted attention* not -ecause of their own a##earance* -ut -ecause of what a##eared around them< (ineralogists saw that these grains were surrounded -y a series of -eautifully colored* concentric rings< 2nder the microsco#e the tiny ring #atterns resem-led a miniature archery target* with the grain at the center as the -ull:s eye< +ecause of their halo8li e a##earance and -ecause they e,hi-ited color variations nown as #leochroism in certain minerals* these concentric ring #atterns came to -e nown as #leochroic halos< 2#on further study mineralogists found that what a##eared as a series of flat* concentric rings under the microsco#e was actually a cross section of a grou# of s#herical shells< To illustrate: If an onion is thinly sliced from to# to -ottom* the onion rings with the largest diameter will -e in the slice through the center< The off8center onion slices will still show the ring #attern* -ut the diameters of the rings will -e smaller< This is similar to what mineralogists found when they e,amined ad1acent slices of a mineral containing a #leochroic halo< Thin slices immediately a-ove and -elow the center grain showed reduced ring si%es when com#ared to the slice through the center< This #roved that the two8dimensional #leochroic halo seen under the microsco#e was actually a slice of a grou# of tiny* concentric micros#heres< The #resence of the tiny grain in the center was thought to hold the ey to the origin of the halos< Some mineralogists s#eculated that an organic #igment might have -een tra##ed in the halo center when the mineral formed* only to diffuse out later to form tiny colored s#heres< &owever* no one could identify the #igment or satisfactorily e,#lain how diffusion could #roduce multi#le s#heres< $leochroic halos defied e,#lanation until* a-out the turn of last century* uranium and some other elements were discovered to -e radioactive<

6he Radioactive 3at're of the :alos

In 45J6 the solution to the halo #u%%le came into focus in the geology la-oratory of $rofessor /ohn /oly of Trinity College in 'u-lin< /oly was 7uite familiar with halos* es#ecially those in -iotite* a dar mica that is easily s#lit into thin slices< /oly reali%ed the diffusion hy#othesis could not e,#lain either the well8defined edges of the halo rings* or their regular si%es< &e -egan to consider a radioactive origin for the halos< +y that time scientists new that uranium is the #arent of a radioactive decay chain* with the successive daughter #roducts -eing called the mem-ers of the chain< This decay chain is shown in Figure 4<4 along with other relevant information< /oly was also aware that uranium and its radioactive daughter #roducts decayed in one of two ways: @4A +y e1ecting a very light fragment @the -eta #articleA* which causes little damage as it #asses through matter* or @BA -y e1ecting a much heavier nuclear fragment @the al#ha #articleA* which interacts rather strongly as it #asses through a su-stance< +ecause of its light weight the -eta #article is easily -ounced around and there-y ta es a rather un#redicta-le* %ig%ag #ath -efore it finally comes to rest in matter< The al#ha #article* on the other hand* is heavy enough to #low almost straight ahead -efore it sto#s< As /oly thought a-out which of these #articles might -e res#onsi-le for the halos* dou-tless he 7uic ly reali%ed that the light -eta #articles would -e unli ely to #roduce coloration changes in the mica* and that their %ig%ag #aths could not yield shar# -oundaries< The heavier al#ha #articles seemed much more #romising candidates< Studies had shown that most al#ha emitters in the uranium decay chain had different energies* with the isoto#e BCL2 -eing the lowest< @See Fig< 4<4 for further e,#lanation<A 3as there a connection -etween the different energies of those al#ha #articles and the different si%es of the rings in the halos /oly had o-served? Al#ha #articles having different energies would travel slightly different distances in a mineral< 3hat if some uranium was in the tiny halo center? Could al#ha #articles from uranium and its daughters cause enough damage to the surrounding mineral to #roduce the #leochroic halos? In a mineral* al#ha #articles lose their energy 7uite ra#idly through collisions with other atoms< A single al#ha #article will ioni%e a-out 4JJ*JJJ atoms along its #ath of travel* leaving in its wa e a short damage trail which remains as a #ermanent scar< "n an atomic scale the damage to the mineral is so small that -y itself each tiny scar is invisi-le< Any mineral* such as mica* which contains trace amounts of uranium* will also contain some al#ha8damage trails from the uranium atoms that have already decayed< )enerally* however* the uranium atoms are uniformly dis#ersed throughout the mineral so that the damage trails do not overla#< Thus* a mineral may -e filled with invisi-le al#ha8damage trails< Even in the instances when several uranium atoms* or even several hundred* are close enough to #roduce overla##ing trails* this amount of overla# is still insufficient to #roduce noticea-le color changes in the mineral<

Fig're 1-1 2lossary of 6ech(ical 6er5s Radioactive atoms are ca#a-le of s#ontaneously changing* or decaying* to atoms of a different ty#e< A parent radioactive atom decays into a daughter atom in various ways* one of which is -y the emission of an alpha @PA #article< Numerous ty#es of radioactive atoms occur in nature* -ut only three are the initiators of a decay chain. For this -oo the one -eginning with uranium8BCL @BCL2 in scientific notationA is most im#ortant< The numerical su#erscri#t denotes the num-er of #rotons and neutrons in the nucleus and signifies how heavy the element is< Isoto#es of the same element have different masses -ut nearly identical chemical -ehavior.as for e,am#le @BCL2 and BCE2A< An al#ha @PA #article has a mass of D< 2ranium8BCL initiates a chain of ste#s which ends in the element lead @chemical sym-ol $-A< The BCL2 decay chain* as shown -elow* has some daughters which decay -y emitting a -eta @QA #article* which is nearly 6DJJ times lighter than the more massive al#ha @PA #article< The ty#e of decay is shown -y the sym-ols P and Q<

28uranium Th8thorium $a8#rotactinium Ra8radium

Rn8radon $o8#olonium +i8-ismuth $-8lead

The half+life of a radioactive isoto#e is the time re7uired for half the atoms in any collection to decay< If 4JJJ atoms e,ist at a certain time* then only EJJ will remain after one half8life* after two half8lives only BEJ atoms of the original collection will remain* and so forth< ,alf+life and decay rate are closely related 7uantities< isoto#es that decay 7uic ly have short half8livesK those that decay more slowly have longer half8 lives< At #resent BCL2 is decaying very slowly with a half8life of D<E -illion years<

In contrast* imagine -illions of uranium atoms clustered in the tiny grain at a halo center< Al#ha #articles e1ected from this grain can -e com#ared to the a##earance of a vast array of needles stuc into a #oint< To /oly it seemed 7uite #lausi-le that the overla##ing damage effects of this sun-urst

#attern of al#ha #articles might 1ust -e sufficient to #roduce the coloration seen in a halo< Figure 4<B illustrates this effect<

Fig're 1-2 .'(;'rst &ffect of Alpha<0a5age 6rails Sun-urst #attern of al#ha8damage trails #roduces a s#herically colored shell around the halo center< Each arrow re#resents E million al#ha #articles emitted from the center< &alo coloration initially develo#s after 4JJ million al#ha decays* -ecomes dar er after EJJ million* and very dar after 4 -illion<

"nly one main 7uestion now remained: 'id the si%es of the halo rings corres#ond to the #ath lengths of the uranium series al#ha #articles in mica? (easurements had shown al#ha #articles from the uranium decay chain traveled from a-out three to seven centimeters in air -efore coming to rest< /oly calculated that in mica al#ha #articles travel only 4>BJJJ as far as in air< Reducing the measured air8#ath lengths of the uranium series al#ha #articles -y this factor gave values which did corres#ond to the ring si%es of one halo ty#e he had found< The #ieces of the #u%%le had fallen into #lace< /oly #ro#osed that al#ha emission from the tiny halo center could account for -oth the s#hericity and the si%e of the different shells com#rising the halos< (oreover* the fact that al#ha #articles do most damage near the end of their #aths would e,#lain why the outer edges of halo rings could -e dar er than the interior regions< Thus /oly s#ecifically identified uranium and a com#anion element* thorium* as radioactive elements that could #roduce #leochroic halos< !uite a##ro#riately* they later -ecame nown as radioactive halos* or radiohalos< Figure 4<C gra#hically illustrates the ideali%ed three8dimensional cross section of a uranium halo< Color #hotos of uranium halos a##ear in the Radiohalo Catalogue< Those #hotos show five rings of the uranium haloK these can -e accounted for -y the eight al#ha emitters in the uranium decay chain as shown in Fig< 4<C< Figure 4<4 shows there are also si, -eta emitters in this chain* -ut* as 1ust discussed* their interaction with mica is insufficient to #roduce halo rings<

BCL

@BCL2

2 &alo Cross Section half8life R D<E -illion yearsA

Fig're 1-3 =ra(i'5 :alo Cross .ectio( Ideali%ed three8dimensional illustration of a uranium halo o-tained -y slicing the halo through the center< Each halo ring is identified -y the a##ro#riate isoto#e and its al#ha energy in (e; @(illion electron ;oltsA<

Radioactive :alos a(d the 0ecay Rate 8'estio(

Radiohalos* small though they were* soon commanded the attention of many scientists who were interested in 7uestions a-out the age and origin of the earth< $hysicists s#eculated that halos might #rovide the data needed to settle the 7uestion of whether the decay rate had always -een constant< )eologists were vitally interested in this to#ic -ecause they wanted to use radioactivity as a means of age determination< The 7uestion of the age of the earth was still vigorously de-ated in some geological circles* and this fact generated considera-le interest in /oly:s results on the measurement of uranium and thorium halo si%es< @For sim#licity* the discussion in the rest of this cha#ter will focus only on the uranium halo<A The reason for this interest was significant: #hysicists theori%ed that halo si%es were directly related to #ast radioactive decay rates< It was -elieved that faster decay rates would #roduce more energetic

al#ha #articles* and hence larger8si%ed halo rings< Thus* standard8si%ed rings were thought to #rove a constant decay rate whereas a deviation in si%e was thought to indicate a change in the decay rate sometime during earth history< For many years /oly studied the ring si%es of halos in roc s -elieved to re#resent some of the oldest geological ages< In 45BC /oly #u-lished a re#ort asserting that uranium halos had ring si%es that varied with age @/oly 45BC* FLBA< The im#lication was that the radioactive decay rate had varied with time< "f course this result called into 7uestion all the radioactive methods of dating roc s< &owever* the few researchers who studied halos later on disagreed with /oly:s conclusions< And they seemed to -elieve that their own research had nearly settled all remaining 7uestions a-out the matter< +ut was this true? 'id they have ade7uate and com#rehensive data? (ore im#ortantly* were halo ring si%es actually a measure of #ast decay rates?

/icroscopic Cha(ces
+y the end of 45FB* the close of my first graduate 7uarter at )eorgia Tech* I concluded that radioactive halos definitely needed further investigation< I discussed the results of my #reliminary study with the #hysics de#artment chairman and suggested my wor could -e e,#anded into a thesis for my doctoral degree< &is initial reaction was not very favora-le< &e felt radioactive dating techni7ues were almost -eyond 7uestion and -elieved my chances of finding anything new a-out #leochroic halos were ?microsco#ic<? (oreover* he was unwilling to give me that chance of finding anything new< &is stated concern was what might ha##en if #erchance I did succeed< 3ould the end result of my research -e an em-arrassment to )eorgia Tech and many of its faculty? &e strongly advised me to give u# my interest in radioactive halos and the age of the earth and #ursue my doctoral #rogram with a more conventional thesis to#ic* if I wanted to continue my graduate #rogram at )eorgia Tech< Fortunately* a year of grace was granted for me to ma e a decision< To do that I needed to investigate the halos themselves* rather than 1ust read a-out what other investigators had found< In lieu of teaching in the summer of 45FC at )eorgia Tech* I -orrowed funds for a research tri# to 'alhousie 2niversity in &alifa,* Nova Scotia* where the late #hysicist )< &< &enderson had conducted a decade8long series of halo investigations during the 45CJ:s< This tri# #roved to -e a launching #oint for an intensive study of radioactive halos and their startling revelation a-out the earth:s origin<

Chapter !: The "enesis Roc#s

The halo #hotogra#hs in &enderson:s scientific re#orts showed much more clearly defined rings than those re#orted -y /oly< +oth investigators had used the dar mica* -iotite* in their halo searches< &enderson* however* had used thinner slices* and this had given the shar#er rings< &enderson:s uranium halos were the very ones needed to ma e my own measurements< 3as his collection of thin sections still availa-le? Corres#ondence with the geology and #hysics de#artments at 'alhousie was not encouraging< &enderson had died many years earlier* and most of his halo collection had -een lost< It seemed that a tri# to Nova Scotia was the 7uic est way to o-tain more information a-out the intriguing halos< The tri# was an e,#erience in frugal living* and for a wee it a##eared little would come of it< Then* early the ne,t wee * the head of the #hysics de#artment returned from a -rief tri# and managed to locate the few remaining thin sections from &enderson:s original halo collection< A few days later my funds had almost run out* -ut my studies of the thin sections had -arely -egun< The tri# was made a success when it was agreed the halo s#ecimens could -e loaned to me for further study< In addition* the geology de#artment gave me many fresh s#ecimens of mica from their museum collection< I returned to Atlanta* -orrowed a microsco#e* and set u# a ma eshift la-oratory in my home< 2nfortunately* &enderson:s remaining thin sections did not contain the -est uranium halos #ictured in his re#orts< Some with -etter ring definition had to -e found* and this activity -egan to consume much of my time outside of my teaching duties< The mica s#ecimens given to me at 'alhousie -ecame the source material for my own search< &alos with large centers were common in these s#ecimens* -ut such halos did not e,hi-it the delicate ring structure #roduced -y those with #oint8 li e centers< $erfect uranium halos with clearly defined rings were needed to settle the 7uestion of varia-le8si%ed halo rings that /oly had re#orted< I s#ent long* tedious hours scanning different #ieces of mica* -ut the #erfect uranium halos remained elusive< The end of my second year at )eorgia Tech was a##roaching* and the time had come to decide a-out my graduate #rogram< (y interest in learning the scientific truth a-out the age of the earth was stronger than ever< And so was my conviction that radioactive halos might -e the ey to unloc that truth< At the same time* the #hysics de#artment chairman remained firm that research on radioactive halos was not an acce#ta-le thesis to#ic for my doctoral degreeK so I left )eorgia Tech at the end of that academic year and s#ent the summer of 45FD doing inde#endent research on halos* using my own funds< @Fortunately* my wife was in total agreement with this decision<A Savings and -orrowed funds do run out* though* and that fall I -ecame a su-stitute high school math teacher in the Atlanta area<

6he A, *, C, a(d 0 :alos

In addition to the uranium @and thoriumA halos* &enderson had re#orted four other ty#es which he designated as sim#ly A* +* C* and ' halos< Along with searching for #erfect uranium halos* my attention focused on the ' halos< 2nder the microsco#e this halo ty#e a##eared as a uniformly colored dis with a somewhat fu%%y #eri#hery< It was only a-out half the si%e of a fully develo#ed uranium haloK yet it much resem-led a uranium halo in an early stage of develo#ment when only the inner rings are visi-le< I -ecame curious a-out &enderson:s tentative association of this halo ty#e with an isoto#e of radium having a half8life of a-out 4*FJJ years< @Figures 4<4 and 4<C show

where this isoto#e* BBFRa* fits into the uranium decay chain<A The micas in which the ' halos had -een found were thought to -e so old that all the original radium should have died awayK only the sta-le end #roduct was thought to remain in the centers< &enderson claimed the radioactivity in the ' halo centers halos should -e dead* or ?e,tinct<? &owever* no one had shown this was true* and I decided it was worth investigating< 3ho new? $erha#s some new information a-out the age of the earth would #resent itself in the #rocess< The small num-er of radioactive atoms in the halo centers meant a low rate of al#ha8#article emission.only a few #articles #er month were e,#ected from the uranium8halo centers< Autoradiogra#hy was the only techni7ue that could show e,actly where an al#ha #article originatedK hence it was the only techni7ue which could determine whether the ' halo centers were still radioactive< The autoradiogra#hic e,#eriments re7uired the use of a s#ecial #hotogra#hic emulsion ca#a-le of recording the #assage of a single al#ha #article< The first ste# was to s#lit the mica s#ecimen so that the ' halo centers were either e,#osed on the surface or else very close to it< @The s#ecimens chosen sometimes contained uranium halos and one or more of the A* +* or C halos as well<A Ste# two consisted of #ouring a thin layer of this s#ecial emulsion over the e,#osed surface< 2nder these conditions* nearly half of all the al#ha #articles e1ected from the various halo centers would #ass u# into the al#ha8sensitive emulsionK there they would leave very short trails of ioni%ed atoms< These short trails would remain invisi-le until the emulsion was develo#edK after develo#ment they a##eared as short -lac trac s when viewed under the microsco#e< The emulsion8covered halo s#ecimens were #laced in a free%er to insure that the tiny trails didn:t fade away during the several8wee or more storage time< In the early e,#eriments the emulsion often slid over the sam#le during the develo#ment #rocess< This sli##age destroyed the e,act registration -etween the emulsion and the halo centers and made it im#ossi-le to now which* if any* of the al#ha trac s were actually from the halo centers< A change in #rocedure remedied this difficulty* and soon I had a techni7ue for maintaining registration throughout the e,#eriments< After the emulsion was develo#ed* I sometimes o-served a few short al#ha trac s radiating from -oth the uranium and the ' halo centers< I e,#ected the trac s from the uranium halo centers* -ut the trac s from the ' halos were a sur#rise< Something long held to -e a fact was not true: the ' halo centers were not e,tinct after all< @0ater e,#eriments have strongly suggested that the ' halos are 1ust uranium halos in an early stage of develo#ment* not really a com#lete sur#rise considering their almost identical a##earance<A It had ta en a lot of effort to come to this conclusion* -ut in the world of science it wasn:t much of a discovery< And it didn:t seem to have anything to do with my main interest in the age of the earth< 2ns#ectacular though they were* I decided to #resent the results of these initial investigations at the /anuary 45FE annual meeting of the American Association of $hysics Teachers in New =or City< (y wife encouraged me to ta e this tri#* even though it de#leted the last of our financial reserves< Some new ac7uaintances* 'rs< C<0< and A<(< Thrash* learned of this venture and soon after -ecame the #rimary s#onsors of my research for the ne,t year and a half< This was a difficult time for us* and my research would surely have ended without their hel#<

&)ti(ct :alos 4(tr'de o( the .ce(e

For a while it seemed the e,#eriments on the ' halos were done for no good #ur#ose< In retros#ect* it a##ears they were the most im#ortant e,#eriments I could have done at the time< They successfully focused my attention on the A* +* and C halos< 3ithout that focus it is 7uite #ossi-le

that my research would soon have ceased< For over a year I had dismissed the A* +* and C halos as -eing unim#ortant* not worthy of investigation< "utwardly it seemed that the autoradiogra#hic e,#eriments hadn:t shown anything startling at all< In contrast to the uranium and ' halos* there was* with one #ossi-le e,ce#tion* a com#lete a-sence of al#ha trac s from the A* +* and C halos after the emulsion was develo#ed< +ut it was this general nothingness that finally attracted my attentionK it occurred to me that the radioactivity that #roduced these halos really was e,tinctS I remem-ered that &enderson had descri-ed these halos in considera-le detail and had discussed e,tinct radioactivity in connection with them< I now went -ac and carefully reviewed his evaluation< (y measurements of the various halo ring si%es confirmed his tentative conclusion that the A* +* and C halos had originated with al#ha radioactivity from three isoto#es of the element #olonium< These three isoto#es.#olonium8B4J* #olonium8B4D and #olonium8B4L @in scientific notation B4J$o* B4D $o and B4L$oA.are all mem-ers of the uranium decay chain< This didn:t necessarily mean that the B4J $o* B4D$o and B4L$o halos were generated -y #olonium atoms derived from uranium* -ut for reasons to -e discussed shortly* &enderson #ostulated that this was the case< &e theori%ed that* sometime in the #ast* solutions containing uranium and all its daughters must have flowed through tiny crac s* cleavages or conduits in the mica< 2nder these s#ecial conditions he #ro#osed that the isoto#es necessary to #roduce the different #olonium halos would gradually accumulate at certain #oints along the #ath of the solution< Su##osedly* after a certain time* a sufficient num-er of atoms would -e collected for a #olonium halo to form< Earlier this e,#lanation had seemed so #lausi-le that I #rom#tly acce#ted it and almost lost interest in the A* +* and C halos< &owever* since the emulsion e,#eriments had shown that their radioactivity was e,tinct* I -ecame 7uite interested in why they were e,tinct and -egan to thin more critically a-out &enderson:s #ro#osed mode of origin< Figures B<48B<C show ideali%ed three8 dimensional views of the B4J$o* B4D$o and B4L$o halos< @Color #hotos of these halos a##ear in the Radiohalo Catalogue<A

@B4J$o half8life R 4CL<D daysA @B4J$- half8life R BB yearsA Fig're 2-1 210Po :alo Cross .ectio(

Ideali%ed three8dimensional illustration of a B4J$o halo o-tained -y slicing the halo through the center< Each halo ring is identified -y the a##ro#riate isoto#e and its al#ha energy in (e; @(illion electron ;oltsA<

@B4D$o half8life R 4FD microsecondsA @B4D$- half8life R BF<L minutesA Fig're 2-2 21 Po :alo Cross .ectio( Ideali%ed three8dimensional illustration of a B4D$o halo o-tained -y slicing the halo through the center< Each halo ring is identified -y the a##ro#riate isoto#e and its al#ha energy in (e; @(illion electron ;oltsA<

@B4L$o half8life R C minutesA Fig're 2-3 21$Po :alo Cross .ectio( Ideali%ed three8dimensional illustration of a B4L$o halo o-tained -y slicing the halo through the center< Each halo ring is identified -y the a##ro#riate isoto#e and its al#ha energy in (e; @(illion electron ;oltsA<

Could &enderson:s hy#othesis for the secondary origin of #olonium halos -e tested? &e had suggested this should -e done< &is entrance into Canadian defense wor during 3orld 3ar II and his death soon afterward #revented him from doing the tests himself< I -egan to e,amine #olonium halos closely and #aid s#ecial attention to why &enderson felt it was necessary to e,#lain #olonium halos -y some sort of secondary mechanism< "f courseS The reason was the vast difference in the decay rate* or average life s#an* -etween the uranium atoms and the #olonium atoms< Any hy#othesis #ro#osed for the origin of the #olonium halos had to ta e this difference into account< "n the average* uranium atoms are now decaying so slowly that it would ta e D<E -illion years for half of them to undergo radioactive decay< In contrast* the three isoto#es res#onsi-le for the origin

of the #olonium halos* namely B4J$o* B4D$o and B4L$o* decay far more ra#idly< Their -rief life s#ans #resent some uni7ue #ro-lems in formulating a satisfactory hy#othesis for the origin of the res#ective halos< The following syno#sis* showing what ty#es of radioactivity fit into evolutionary model of the origin of our #lanet* will ena-le the reader to more readily gras# the significance of these #ro-lems<

/oder( Cos5ology a(d &)ti(ct 3at'ral Radioactivity

According to the evolutionary +ig +ang scenario* our #lanet -egan as a hot molten s#here several -illion years ago< Cosmologists admit that the +ig +ang* if it occurred* could have #roduced only hydrogen @&A and helium @&eA and that the earliest stars were com#osed of 1ust these two lightest elements< They assume the heavier chemical elements* of which the earth is mostly com#rised* originated in thermonuclear reactions @nucleosynthesisA in the hot interiors of various stars< Su##osedly these elements were e1ected into s#ace when these stars later e,#loded as su#ernovae< They further -elieve that the newly synthesi%ed elements from one or more su#ernovae eventually reaccumulated to form vast interstellar clouds of gas< It is assumed that one of these clouds later condensed to form the #rimeval sun and then the em-ryonic #lanets of our solar system< Cosmologists -elieve a long time ela#sed -etween nucleosynthesis and the formation of the #rimordial earth< And they also thin a certain ind of radioactivity can reveal the a##ro,imate length of this #eriod< In #articular* they envision that some radioactive elements formed at nucleosynthesis decayed so slowly that significant fractions of the original amounts have survived to the #resent.uranium and thorium are e,am#les< They also -elieve* however* there were other elements whose decay was slow enough for them to -e initially incor#orated into the #rimordial earth* -ut which have almost com#letely decayed away during the last several -illion years< E,tinct natural radioactivity is the term used for this s#ecial category of radioactive elements< Scientists have diligently sought for e,tinct natural radioactivity in various roc s -ecause they thin it could #rovide an u##er limit on the time interval -etween nucleosynthesis and the formation of the #rimordial earth< +ecause they -elieve this interval was tens or hundreds of millions of years long* they have searched for certain long half8life @tens of millions of yearsA radioisoto#es in Earth:s crustal roc s< "ne isoto#e of #lutonium @not to -e confused with #oloniumA with a half8life of LC million years has -een found and acce#ted as e,tinct natural radioactivity -ecause it fits in with the +ig +ang scenario< @(odern cosmologists would consider it useless to loo for decay #roducts of relatively short half8life radioactivity* for in their view it would -e im#ossi-le for there to -e such evidence of e,tinct natural radioactivity<A

6he &(ig5a of the Polo(i'5 :alos

The #olonium halos in granites #resent a uni7ue challenge to the evolutionary view of earth history -ecause their origin can -e traced directly to certain nown isoto#es* none of which have long half8 lives< Figure 4<4 shows that B4J$- and B4J+i* whose res#ective half8lives are BB years and E days* successively -eta decay to B4J$o* the al#ha emitter whose half8life is 4CL days< +ecause -eta decays do not cause coloration* this means a B4J$o halo radiocenter could have initially contained any one of these three isoto#es* and a B4J$o halo would still have resulted< 0i ewise* Figure 4<4 shows that a B4D $o halo could have initially contained the -eta emitters B4D$-* or B4D+i* whose res#ective half8lives are a-out B6 minutes and BJ minutes* or the al#ha emitter B4D$o* whose half8life is 4FD

microseconds< There is no -eta #rogenitor for B4L$oK so the B4L$o halo must have originated with this isoto#e* whose half8life is 1ust three minutes< Clearly* any of these isoto#es which might have formed in a far distant su#ernova would 7uic ly have decayed away< Never -y any stretch of the imagination could they have survived the eons that su##osedly ela#sed -efore the hot #rimeval earth formed< Even in the hy#othetical situation where #olonium isoto#es are imagined to initially e,ist on the #rimeval earth* they would never survive the hundreds of millions of years #resuma-ly re7uired for its surface to cool down and finally crystalli%e into granite8ty#e roc s< Thus conventional geological theory considers it im#ossi-le for #olonium to -e a #rimordial constituent of Earth:s granite roc s< This im#ossi-ility is what motivated &enderson to #ro#ose a secondary origin of #olonium from uranium< &enderson classified #olonium halos as e,tinct only in the sense that the #olonium in the halo centers had already decayed away< Never did he hint that #olonium halos might re#resent e,tinct natural radioactivity* and for over a year and a half neither did this #ossi-ility once enter my mind< I sim#ly assumed &enderson:s idea for a secondary origin for them was correct.there seemed to -e no alternative< Nevertheless* I was #u%%led -y the fact that in most cases there was no visual evidence of a concentration of uranium near the #olonium halos< Even more #u%%ling was how the various #olonium isoto#es would -e e,#ected to se#arate to form the different halo ty#es< Technologically* se#aration of isoto#es is 7uite difficult -ecause they have almost identical chemical #ro#erties< And something else -othered me: &enderson:s theory of #olonium halo formation #rimarily involved uranium solutions flowing along tiny conduits or cleavages in the mica< I found* however* #olonium halos were also visi-le in clear areas that were free from those defects< The coloration that I e,#ected to see if uranium had flowed through those areas was generally a-sent< It was a curious situation< 3as it #ossi-le that uranium flowed through the mica without leaving a trail of coloration to mar its #assage? A-out this time a s#ecial acid etching techni7ue was discovered that was ca#a-le of locating very small amounts of uranium in mica< A##lication of this techni7ue to regions of mica near #olonium halos showed only evidences of trace amounts of uranium @a few #arts #er millionA that e,ist throughout all mica s#ecimens.there was no concentration of uranium in or near the halo centers in the clear areas< All my attem#ts to confirm &enderson:s hy#othesis for a secondary origin of #olonium halos had failed< It seemed that #olonium halos had not originated with radioactivity derived from uranium< +ut what other #ossi-ility was there? It was most #er#le,ing* li e having the solution to a #ro-lem -ut not nowing e,actly what the #ro-lem was<

Polo(i'5 :alos: A Revol'tio(ary 3ew 4(terpretatio(

"ne s#ring afternoon in 45FE I was e,amining some thin* trans#arent sections of mica under the microsco#e* a tas which had -een my main research occu#ation for over a year< 3inter had -egun to fade* and on that #articular day I had moved the microsco#e to the living room< The afternoon sun -eaming through the front windows #rovided a more conducive atmos#here for contem#lation than the shadowy -ac room that normally served as my la-oratory< Again I #u%%led over the origin of some -eautifully colored #olonium halos< The conflicting re7uirements concerning their origin continued to mystify me< According to evolutionary geology* the $recam-rian granites containing these s#ecial halos had crystalli%ed gradually as hot magma slowly cooled over long ages< "n the other hand* the radioactivity which #roduced these s#ecial radiohalos had such a fleeting e,istence that it would have disa##eared long -efore the hot magma had time to cool sufficiently to form a solid roc < It was a true enigma< 3ould I ever resolve it?

0oo ing u# from the microsco#e I -ecame aware that our home was 7uiet.our three -oisterous young children were aslee#< I wondered what they would thin if they were old enough to understand what my research was all a-out< +ac to wor < Again I #eered through the microsco#e and could vividly see #olonium halos in the thin sections of mica< At that moment the following verses in the +i-le flashed through my mind. and immediately triggered some awesome 7uestions: &y the word of the *ord were the heavens made- and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. )or he spa#e" and it was done- he commanded" and it stood fast. ./salm 00:1"23 4as it possible that the granites had not crystalli5ed out of a slowly cooling magma6 4as it possible that the earth had not begun as a molten sphere6 4as it even possible that the chemical elements of our planet were not the result of nucleosynthesis in some distant supernova at all(but instead were created instantly when the Creator spo#e this planet into e'istence6 4ere the polonium halos mute evidence of e'tinct natural radioactivity6 4as" then" the half+life of 789/o( :ust three brief minutes(the measure of time that elapsed from the creation of the chemical elements to the time that ;od formed the granites6 In my search for the truth about the age of the earth" had I discovered evidence for its instantaneous creation6 4ere the tiny polonium halos ;od!s fingerprints in <arth!s primordial roc#s6 Could it be that the /recambrian granites were the ;enesis roc#s of our planet6 I was stunned -y these thoughts< 'ou-tless there were trillions of #olonium halos scattered throughout the $recam-rian granites around the world< If each one was evidence for creation* it was staggering to thin how vast and #ervasive this evidence really wasS 3hat would its effect -e on radiometric and geologic calculations of the age of the earth? &ow might it affect the way that scientists viewed evolution? )radually I reali%ed the tremendous im#lications<

6he 45pact of Creatio( o( &vol'tio( a(d the Age of the &arth

Confirmed evolutionists -elieve that -y o-1ective scientific investigations they have -een a-le to fit together numerous #ieces of scientific data from astronomy* geology* and -iology to construct the -eautiful mosaic of evolution< The glue which holds this evolutionary mosaic together is the uniformitarian principle. In reality this principle is only an assum#tion that the cosmos* including the earth and life on it* evolved to its #resent state through the unvarying action of nown #hysical laws< It is the foundation of all radiometric and geological dating methods< 3ithout it there is no -asis for assuming that radioactive decay rates have -een constant and thus no -asis for -elieving the earth is -illions of years old< Nor is there any -asis for geological uniformitarianism.the assum#tion that #resent rates of accumulation* decom#osition and erosion have -een constant throughout earth history< After all* geological #rocesses are governed -y #hysical laws< Since valid scientific evidence for an instantaneous creation contradicts the uniformitarian principle" it must also contradict geological uniformitarianism. Thus the adhesive for all the interloc ing #ieces in the evolutionary scenario dissolves* and the mosaic falls a#art< Nowhere is this disintegration more a##arent than in the area of time< 2nam-iguous evidence for creation falsifies all as#ects of the theory of evolution -ecause it invalidates the -asis for the

radioactive dating techni7ues thought to su##ort a great age of the earth< In #articular* an instantaneous creation of the granites colla#ses several -illion years of earth history to almost nothing< Com#arison of Figure B<D @aA and @-A shows how evidence for creation results in a reassignment or elimination of some of the ma1or events in the evolutionary scenario and a drastic telesco#ing of the time intervals< The -illions of years -elieved necessary for the earth to evolve from some ne-ulous mass sim#ly eva#orate when confronted -y such evidence< The essential time element needed for evolution to occur 1ust vanishes<

Pri5ordial a(d .eco(dary Roc+s

If most of evolutionary time had vanished* there had to -e another framewor of earth history< 2sing different #remises* could the )enesis account of creation and a worldwide flood #rovide such a framewor ? The -asement roc s of the continents* the $recam-rian granites* would -e classed among the #rimordial )enesis roc s of our #lanet< And what a-out the vast roc formations that had -een laid down -y the action of water.those that contain #lant* animal* and marine fossils? Evolutionary theory held that it too hundreds of millions of years for all these sedimentary roc s to accumulate and millions more for erosion to carve out scenic wonders such as the )rand Canyon< +ut these conclusions were hinged on geological uniformitarianism. If that assum#tion was incorrect* then I had to as : &ad the ma1or sedimentary formations on the earth:s crust resulted from singular* catastro#hic events rather than uniformitarian #rocesses? If different #remises were used* was it #ossi-le that the raw data from geology could also fit into a creation framewor of earth history that included catastro#hism?

Fig're 2- /odels of Origi(s @aA +ased on Evolution @-A +ased on Creation

Ideas li e these would not have occurred to me ten years earlier< Admittedly* my interest in #ursuing this research was s#ar ed -y some #hiloso#hical 7uestions concerning the )enesis account of earth history* -ut I determined to -e faithful to the scientific evidence no matter where that led me< These new ideas concerning #olonium halos would have to meet scientific standards< The only sure guarantee that -ias was not cree#ing into my wor would -e to study this #henomenon as o-1ectively as #ossi-le and #resent the results in well8 nown scientific 1ournals< The scientific community attem#ts to guard itself against -ias -y #u-lishing e,#erimental results in its refereed literature< Such a forum would ena-le my data to -e scrutini%ed carefully -y researchers from many disci#lines* and any errors in methodology or #rinci#le would -e discerned< If #olonium halos in the granites were #art of the evolutionary develo#ment of the earth from the +ig +ang* they must -e e,#laina-le on the -asis of esta-lished #hysical lawsK their origin would have to -e tracea-le to the effects of nown chemical elements< I reasoned that* even if I failed to

uncover evidence for a conventional e,#lanation* my suggestions of a ra#id crystalli%ation of the $recam-rian granites would afford other researchers an o##ortunity to res#ond with contrary evidence* if such e,isted< To o-tain some informed feed-ac on my ideas as soon as #ossi-le* I decided to write u# the essential details and there-y o-tain #rivate critical reviews< 'r< Ro-ert $age* then 'irector of the Naval Research 0a-oratory in 3ashington* 'C* agreed to have some of his staff e,amine the manuscri#t< The consensus of their o#inion was that* if these ideas were #u-lished in the o#en scientific literature* they ?should certainly create comment and some hard analysis < < < which is all to the good<? I was encouraged that the mystery of the origin of the #olonium halos might yet turn into a real adventure in science<

Preca5;ria( 2ra(ites>6he 2e(esis Roc+s

Tentatively* I identified the $recam-rian granites as #rimordial @or )enesisA roc s -ecause they @4A contain the #olonium halos* @BA are the foundation roc s of the continents* and @CA are devoid of the fossils seen in sedimentary roc s< Such granites are coarsely crystalline roc s com#osed #rimarily of the light8colored minerals 7uart% and felds#ar* and smaller amounts of -iotite and horn-lende< I would need to -e careful when referring to granites -ecause geologists often used this term to cover a variety of roc s* some of which are not at all similar to the $recam-rian granite shown in Figure B<E<

Fig're 2-! A Preca5;ria( 2ra(ite fro5 Fi(la(d

It was interesting to learn that the origin of the $recam-rian granites @hereafter referred to as sim#ly granitesA had -een a controversial to#ic in geology for many decades< "ne school of geologists s#eculated that granites* es#ecially the massive formations nown as #lutons* had crystalli%ed at great de#ths from slow8cooling magma< The o##osite school held that the granites had resulted from recrystalli%ation of #re8e,isting* dee#ly -uried sedimentary roc s< Eventually -oth views had -ecome acce#ted as #ossi-le e,#lanations for different ty#es of granites< =et there was no e,#erimental ?standard? -y which to 1udge the relative merits of the two views< There was no direct #roof of either hy#othesis -ecause massive granitic #lutons had never -een o-served to form< Neither had sedimentary roc s such as limestones or sandstones -een o-served to transform into a granite< So* in #ractice there was no com#elling e,#erimental evidence that #roved either view was correct<

I reasoned that if the #olonium halos in the granites were #rimordial* it logically followed that the granites must also -e #rimordial.they must -e Earth:s )enesis roc s< It seemed that a crucial test of this idea hinged on determining whether the #olonium halos in the granites were derived secondarily from uranium< If more e,haustive e,#erimentation failed to reveal a secondary origin of those halos* then the #rimordial hy#othesis would remain intact< The research I had in mind would re7uire very e,#ensive modern la-oratory facilities< (y long8term goal was to conduct in8de#th research and disseminate the results through #u-lication in the world:s leading scientific 1ournals< $ossi-ly this might -e a difficult tas -ecause of the strong evolutionary stance of these 1ournals< In the summer of 45FE my short8term goal was to generate the necessary interest for funding that further wor < 3ere the #olonium halos the finger#rints )od left to identify the )enesis roc s of our #lanet? This 7uestion #rovided the driving* motivating force -ehind all my research<

Chapter $: The "enesis Roc#s

+y late 45FE my investigations of #olonium halos had yielded some results that could -e su-mitted for #u-lication< It seemed #rudent* however* to -egin with another #hase of my research which concerned some #u%%ling* a-normally large halos< I su-mitted a re#ort to Applied /hysics *etters" a 1ournal nown for ra#id #u-lication of new and interesting results in #hysics< It successfully #assed #eer review @the screening #rocess used to decide the suita-ility for #u-licationA* and was #u-lished early in 45FF @see )entry 45FFa in the ReferencesA<

/isfits i( the &vol'tio(ary /osaic

Soon afterward I su-mitted my e,#erimental results on #olonium halos for #u-lication to the same 1ournal< Near the end of the manuscri#t I included the following suggestion a-out the origin of #olonium halos: < < < It is difficult to reconcile these results with current cosmological theories which envision long time #eriods -etween nucleosynthesis and Nthe earth:sO crustal formation< It is suggested these N#oloniumO halos are more nearly in accord with a cosmological model which would envision an instantaneous fiat creation of the earth< I had -een naive enough to thin that something this straightforward might #ass #eer review< It didn:t< The editor sent the referee:s comments* 7uoted -elow in their entirety* to me< The ?, , , ,?s were su-stituted -y the editor in lieu of certain remar s made -y this referee< The author a##ears to -e a #erfectly com#etent technician who does not understand or em#loy the scientific method< &e has o-served certain #henomena @halos with anomalous radiiA and has considered certain e,#lanations and re1ected them< To illustrate his logic* I 7uote from the ne,t8to8last #aragra#h of his cover letter* ? < < < many of these variant halos cannot -e accounted for on the -asis of a hydrothermal mode of formation < < < and hence they do re#resent e,tinct natural radioactivity from the cosmological stand#oint<? Failing to thin of any other #ossi-le e,#lanations* he concludes that the earth was formed -y instantaneous fiat< In one -low he im#licitly re1ects all the carefully accumulated evidence of decades which is in com#lete conflict with his remar a-le conclusion< &e is undou-tedly well aware of the findings of the modern science of geochronology< The scientific a##roach would -e to use all these results to his advantage and try to find a com#ati-le e,#lanation< 3ithout going into a long harangue a-out ?#seudoscience*? let me sim#ly say that , , , ,* and I regard the reasoning dis#layed in this manuscri#t in its #resent form as unworthy of #u-lication< The e,#erimental o-servations* minus any wild s#eculation* might -e a##ro#riately re#orted in a 1ournal such as Nature. 2ncom#limentary comments aside* there was one #ositive note< The reviewer did concede that my investigations might merit #u-lication in the well8res#ected +ritish scientific 1ournal Nature" if the ?wild s#eculation*? i<e<* the im#lications for creation* were omitted from the manuscri#t< This e,#erience taught me a valua-le lesson: I was going to have to -e more cautious a-out e,#ressing the im#lications of the #olonium halos if my results were to -e #u-lished<

A 3ew Affiliatio( a(d *etter Research Opport'(ities

Clearly my manuscri#t would have to -e revised -efore sending it to Nature. $ossi-ly more e,#erimental wor needed to -e done< In the meantime I decided to #resent my results on #olonium halos at the 45FF annual s#ring meeting of the American )eo#hysical 2nion in 3ashington* 'C< This was a national meeting attended -y thousands of earth scientists< "nly a small num-er heard my #resentationK nevertheless this occasion served to -ring my results -efore the scientific community in a limited way< $erha#s more im#ortantly* at that time at least* this #resentation -ecame nown to the science faculty at Colum-ia 2nion College in near-y Ta oma $ar * (aryland< They e,#ressed interest in my affiliating with Colum-ia 2nion College to continue my research< This new affiliation was effective in /uly 45FF< It was a most welcome change< Ac7uisition of a 7uality research microsco#e and freedom to use the standard la-oratory facilities availa-le there made it considera-ly easier to #ursue my investigations< The su##ortive attitude of all the science faculty* es#ecially 'r< 'on /ones* was a source of great encouragement< Additional e,#erimental results were soon o-tained< These were incor#orated into a revised manuscri#t and sent to Nature. +y leaving out any direct reference to im#lications for creation* this manuscri#t successfully #assed #eer review and was #u-lished in early 45F6 @)entry 45F6A< 2sing the same strategy I su-mitted another manuscri#t on halos to <arth and /lanetary Science *etters" an international earth science 1ournal #u-lished in AmsterdamK this manuscri#t was also acce#ted and su-se7uently a##eared in this 1ournal late in 45FF @)entry 45FF-A< Although research on halos occu#ied most of my time* my general interest in the age of the earth had led me to #reliminary investigations of car-on84D fossil dating< In fact* as early as 45FE my attention was attracted to a re#ort in Nature concerning the #ossi-le car-on84D -uild8u# in the atmos#here resulting from the 45JL Tungus a meteor e,#losion in Russia< (y investigations of this to#ic were summari%ed in a manuscri#t I su-mitted for #u-lication to Nature. The manuscri#t successfully #assed #eer review and was #u-lished in Se#tem-er of 45FF @)entry 45FFcA<

&)te(ded Peer Review a(d Co(troversy

I reali%ed my 45F6 re#ort in Nature on #olonium halos had not settled the 7uestion of their origin in the eyes of my scientific colleagues< To more accurately test whether #olonium halos were of secondary origin* I needed a method that would allow me to determine whether uranium solutions had ever #assed through a s#ecimen of mica< A newly discovered techni7ue made this evaluation #ossi-le< It was -ased on the fact that an atom decaying -y al#ha emission leaves a very tiny damage #it when the nucleus of the atom recoils into the mica< +y etching the mica with acid* these tiny #its could -e enlarged sufficiently to -ecome visi-le under the microsco#e< Thus* any uranium solution which might have su##lied radioactivity for #olonium halos in a #iece of mica* must also have #roduced numerous additional recoil #its from those radioactive atoms which decayed in transit< @All mica s#ecimens have a -ac ground density of damage #its from trace amounts of uranium<A "n this -asis the mica s#ecimens containing #olonium halos should have a higher damage8#it density than the ad1acent areas which are devoid of #olonium halos< &owever* a long series of e,#eriments showed no difference in the density of damage #its -etween the two s#ecimens< These e,#eriments #rovided evidence against the secondary origin of #olonium halos in mica< I wrote u# these new results and su-mitted them for #u-lication in Science" a 1ournal with an outstanding re#utation among all scientific disci#lines< (y first draft* su-mitted in (ay 45F6* concentrated on the e,#erimental results and contained only o-li7ue reference to any im#lications<

As usual* two anonymous referees were chosen to review the manuscri#t< Referee A a##roved the manuscri#t< Referee + wanted more e,#lanation a-out how #olonium halos in granites had originated< (y revised manuscri#t was somewhat more e,#licit* for I suggested that the e,#erimental evidence indicates the inclusions of the #olonium halos contained the s#ecific al#ha emitters res#onsi-le for the halos @or #ossi-ly in certain cases -eta decaying lead #recursorsA at the time when the mica crystalli%ed* and as such these #articular halos re#resent e,tinct radioactivity< Reviewer + o-1ected to this statement* claiming that I had #ro#osed a ?very wea and contradictory argument*? and said the manuscri#t should not -e acce#ted< &owever* since this referee had not critici%ed the e,#erimental data* I had the o##ortunity to as for further consideration< After some discussion with the editorial office* it was agreed that the manuscri#t could -e revised and that different referees and 'A would -e selected< (y ne,t revision avoided direct references to the contradiction which #olonium halos in granites #ose to the conventional view of earth history< Instead the im#lications were #hrased in the form of a series of 7uestions< After some delay* I learned referee C had a##roved this revised manuscri#t< (y ho#es were high that referee ' would do li ewise< Soon I received another letter from the editorial office* stating that referee ' had raised some serious 7uestions which had to -e answered -efore the article could -e #u-lished< Reviewer ' had made some #enetrating o-servations a-out the #ossi-le meaning of my results: 'id they suggest a radically different model for the origin of the earth? $art of his review reads as follows: )entry #ro#oses in this and #revious #a#ers that ?e,tinct radioactivity? is res#onsi-le for halos whose ?#arents? are #olonium and>or lead isoto#es with half8lives ranging from C minutes to B4 years* and it is clear that he means ?e,tinct natural radioactivity? -y his statements that ?the inclusions of the #olonium halos contained the s#ecific al#ha emitters res#onsi-le for the halos @or #ossi-ly in certain cases -eta decaying lead #recursorsA at the time when the mica crystalli%ed*? and ?it is not clear 1ust how the e,istence of short half8life radioactivity may -e reconciled with current cosmological theories which envision long time s#ans -etween nucleosynthesis and crustal formation<? 'oes he mean to im#ly that current cosmological @and geologicalA theories are #ossi-ly so wrong that all of the events leading from galactic* or even #rotosolar* nucleosynthesis to the formation of crystalline roc minerals could have ta en #lace in a few minutes? "f course the answer was yesS It was gratifying to see the e,#erimental data s#o e so loudly that the im#lications of #olonium halos as e,tinct natural radioactivity could not -e overloo ed< Figure B<D@aA illustrates the evolutionary meaning of e,tinct natural radioactivity and Figure B<D@-A illustrates the creation im#lications of #olonium halos as e,tinct natural radioactivity< 'es#ite evidence to the contrary* referee ' concluded that &enderson:s model of secondary #olonium halo formation must somehow -e correct< The tenor of his comments made it seem futile to re7uest further consideration of my manuscri#t< =et one as#ect of his res#onse com#elled me to #ersevere< A seldom violated rule of the #eer review #rocess is that the scientists who act as referees remain anonymous to the authors of the su-mitted manuscri#ts< +ut this reviewer actually re7uested the editorial office to ma e his name and address nown to me< "n the reviewer:s statement form he even invited me to contact him directly< Encouraged -y his fran ness* I tele#honed him immediately<

At the very outset of this first conversation he as ed my o#inion of the im#lications of #olonium halos in granites< Such a direct 7uestion deserved an e7ually direct res#onse< I re#lied that they seemed to -e evidence for creation< Sur#risingly enough* he didn:t hang u#S Instead* this world8 renowned authority in radiometric dating continued to #ly me with incisive 7uestions over the ne,t hour< At the end of the conversation he was sufficiently im#ressed with the evidence to suggest that certain other e,#eriments -e conducted to ena-le him to further evaluate the im#lications of my wor < These additional e,#eriments re7uired research e7ui#ment not availa-le at Colum-ia 2nion College<

4(itial &)peri5e(ts at Oa+ Ridge

A search for the necessary facilities led me to in7uire at the "a Ridge National 0a-oratory in "a Ridge* Tennessee< =ears -efore* while I was still in Atlanta* a staff scientist* Roger ;< Neidigh* had indly assisted in getting some e,#eriments done at this outstanding research com#le,< I was again e,tremely fortunate that another 0a-oratory scientist* /ohn 3< +oyle* too a #ersonal interest in arranging for the additional e,#eriments then needed< 3ithout his cordial and very a-le coo#eration they could not have -een done< 3ith the results of these new e,#eriments and a newly revised manuscri#t in hand* I visited referee ' at his own la-oratory< This fair8minded colleague made an e,haustive study of the new results and concluded that #olonium halos in granites were more #er#le,ing than he had first thought to -e the case< The lac of evidence to su##ort the hy#othesis that they originated from some secondary source of uranium #u%%led him< &e indicated a willingness to consider this revised manuscri#t for #u-lication #rovided there was no mention of the #ossi-ility that #olonium halos may have originated with #rimordial #olonium< This re#ort* ?Fossil Al#ha8Recoil Analysis of ;ariant Radioactive &alos*? was su-se7uently #u-lished in the /une 4D* 45FL* issue of Science @)entry 45FLK A##endi,.this notation indicates the re#ort cited is also re#rinted in the A##endi,A<

A( 4(vitatio( to ?oi( a 3atio(al @a;oratory

In addition to my research on #olonium halos* I had continued to study some unusual halo ty#es nown as the dwarf and giant halos< Their rarity and uncommon si%es suggested they might have originated with an un nown ty#e of radioactivity< In late 45FL the 2<S< Atomic Energy Commission @AECA first -ecame aware of my research on dwarf and giant halos through a contact I initiated with the scientist who was then Chairman of the AEC< Su-se7uently* arrangements were made for me to give a seminar on my research at the 0awrence Radiation 0a-oratory @now the 0awrence +er eley 0a-oratoryA and the "a Ridge National 0a-oratory @"RN0A< +oth la-oratories were among several around the world which were then initiating a search for su#erheavy elements.chemical elements with atomic weights heavier than any #reviously discovered in nature< +ecause the dwarf and giant halos seemed to -e evidence of un nown radioactivity* I was invited to affiliate with "RN0 as a guest scientist and 1oin them in their search for su#erheavy elements< This one8year o##ortunity* which stretched to thirteen years* greatly accelerated my research< +efore 1oining the "a Ridge National 0a-oratory the AEC wrote letters of introduction ena-ling me to visit two well8 nown Soviet scientists who were involved in the search for su#erheavy elements< (y tri# to the Soviet 2nion in the s#ring of 45F5 included sto#s in (oscow and 'u-na* where the Soviet nuclear la-oratory e7uivalent of "RN0 is located< (y move to "RN0 occurred in /uly 45F5< +y 456J I had com#leted a series of new e,#eriments on giant halos using the advanced scientific instrumentation availa-le there< A manuscri#t detailing

those results was #re#ared for #u-lication< After it #assed the standard internal review #rocess at "RN0* it was su-mitted to Science. 3ith minor revisions this re#ort was #u-lished in August 456J as ";iant =adioactive ,alos: Indicators of >n#nown Alpha+=adioactivity6" @)entry 456JK A##endi,A< Eight #ossi-le e,#lanations for the origin of the giant halos were e,amined* -ut at that time none* including su#erheavy elements* could -e identified as the final solution< The origin of the giant halos remained an enigma* and this attracted attention to my research<

.earch for :alos i( @'(ar Roc+s

Soon after 1oining "RN0 as a guest scientist* I su-mitted a #ro#osal to the National Aeronautics and S#ace Administration @NASAA to search for halos in roc s returned from the A#ollo 44 mission to the moon< This #ro#osal was acce#ted -y NASA* and a search was made of the thin sections of the lunar roc s then availa-le< No halos were found< This is not sur#rising when one considers that the minerals which most often contain halos @in earth roc sA are generally a-sent from the lunar roc s returned on the A#ollo missions< In addition* most of those lunar roc s had recrystalli%ed from molten material #roduced -y meteorite im#act< Any halos* if they had e,isted* would have -een destroyed in this #rocess< (y summary re#ort on these investigations was #u-lished in the /roceedings of the Second *unar Science Conference @)entry 4564aA<

Polo(i'5 :alo A(alysis

The same advanced analytical techni7ues em#loyed to study the giant halos were also ada#ta-le to the study of #olonium halos< (ost of my earlier research on #olonium halos had involved the o#tical microsco#e* in com-ination with chemical etching and neutron irradiation techni7ues< These #rocedures were 7uite useful in showing that uranium was generally a-sent around the #olonium halos* -ut they could not reveal the com#osition of the halo centers< 3ith the e7ui#ment availa-le at "RN0* I analy%ed the centers of the halos* the tiny s#ec s where the radioactive atoms themselves were originally encased< 2sing advanced mass s#ectrometry techni7ues I discovered that #olonium halo radiocenters contained a com#osition of the chemical element lead which was different from any #reviously nown< This new ty#e of lead* greatly enriched in the isoto#e BJF$-* could not -e accounted for -y uranium decayK yet it was e,actly that e,#ected on the -asis of the decay of #olonium in the halo center< These e,#erimental results* along with others o-tained on the #u%%ling dwarf halos* formed the -asis of another re#ort #u-lished in Science in 4564 @)entry 4564-A< I e,#ected the discovery of this new ty#e of lead in #olonium halo radiocenters to attract more attention to my wor on #olonium halos than my #revious re#orts< Evidence that this had ha##ened came in 456B when I received an invitation to contri-ute a review article on radioactive halos for the Annual =eview of Nuclear Science @A=NSA< (y review article was #u-lished in the 456C edition @)entry 456CA< (y A=NS article -riefly discussed @4A limitations in the original arguments used to esta-lish a uniform radioactive decay rate over geological time* @BA characteristics of a num-er of unusual ty#es of radioactive halos @dwarf and giant halosA whose origin was still under investigation* and @CA evidence for the e,istence of #rimordial #olonium halos featuring the results of my most recent e,#eriments at "a Ridge< In that article I again drew attention to the im#lications associated with their e,istence: Now the reason for the various attem#ts to account for $o halos -y some sort of secondary #rocess is 7uite sim#leK the half8lives of the res#ective $o isoto#es are far too short to -e reconciled with slow magmatic cooling rates for $o8-earing roc s such as granites @tT R C min for B4L$oA< @)entry 456C* CEFA<

A 3ovel 6heory of Polo(i'5 :alo Origi(

A-out the time that I was #re#aring the A=NS review article* a colleague who had -ecome interested in my wor #rivately suggested an alternative e,#lanation of #olonium halos< &e s#eculated that an uncommon @isomericA form of radioactivity might have -een the source of the #olonium< Some colleagues and I used mass s#ectrometry techni7ues to investigate this #ossi-ility -ut found no e,#erimental evidence to su##ort it< @Cha#ter E cites the results of a renowned nuclear #hysicist who later e,cluded the isomer hy#othesis on the -asis of his theoretical studies<A "ur results were #u-lished in Nature in August of 456C @)entry et al< 456CK A##endi,A< The following 7uote from that re#ort shows how attention was again focused on the im#lications of the #olonium halos in $recam-rian granites: < < < A straightforward attem#t to account for the origin of these $o haloes -y assuming that $o was incor#orated into the halo inclusion at the time of host mineral crystalli%ation meets with severe geological #ro-lems: the half8lives of the #olonium isoto#es @tT R C min for B4L$oA are too short to permit anything but a rapid mineral crystalli5ation" contrary to accepted theories of magmatic cooling rates. @)entry et al< 456C* BLB.italics mineA Suggesting a ra#id synthesis of the earth:s -asement roc s was li e raising a red flag -efore some of my colleagues< Such statements invited scientists to refute my results if it could -e done<

O;Aectio(s Ref'ted
Indeed* even as the e,#erimental wor for this re#ort in Nature was underway* three scientists were #re#aring to contest my results on #olonium halos in granites< Their re#ort a##eared in the /une BB* 456C* issue of Science @(oa%ed et al< 456CA< The following 7uote shows the nature of their o-1ections: 3e now re#ort the results of a series of measurements made on #olonium8ty#e halos< "ur measurements do not su##ort the #olonium halo hy#othesis< 3e cannot definitely rule out the e,istence of #olonium halos* -ut it a##ears that there is no evidence re7uiring* or even firmly suggesting* their e,istence< It was reali5ed very early that their e'istence would cause apparently insuperable geological problems since the relevant polonium half+life is of the order of minutes. $olonium halos would re7uire that the #olonium atoms -ecome #art of the inclusion within minutes of the formation of the #olonium and that in this very short time the #olonium must -e so far removed from the #arent uranium mass that its #resence or location is no longer evident< @(oa%ed et al< 456C* 4B6B.italics mineA< The issues had -egun to focus< These scientists saw that #olonium halos in granites #resented ?a##arently insu#era-le geological #ro-lems? to the conventional view of earth history< To #rotect this view they suggested that #olonium halos might not even e,ist* claiming instead they might 1ust -e uranium halos< A later review of my wor * ?(ystery of the Radiohalos*? =esearch Communications Networ#" a#tly noted the futility of their effort to eliminate #olonium halos from the granites: To date there has -een only one effort to dis#ute )entry:s identification of #olonium halos< As it turned out* that effort might -etter never have -een written* the authors having -een im#elled more -y the worry that #olonium halos ?would cause a##arently insu#era-le geological #ro-lems*? than -y a thorough gras# of the evidences< < < < @Tal-ott 4566* F.em#hasis his: A##endi,A

In #re#aring my re#ly to the (oa%ed et al< re#ort I s#ent months studying uranium and #olonium halos* -oth in mica and in another mineral* fluorite< The Radiohalo Catalogue @see ContentsA shows #hotogra#hs of a variety of those halos< Fluorite sometimes occurs along with mica in the so8called granitic #egmatites.regions within granites where crystals of different minerals can -e 7uite large @several feet long in certain instancesA< The #olonium halos in fluorite are virtually identical to their counter#arts in mica< Sometimes they occur along tiny crac s and fissures and sometimes in regions free from mineral defects< $olonium halos in fluorite in defect8free regions are significant -ecause this mineral does not e,hi-it the #erfect cleavage #ro#erty of mica< Since no cleavages e,ist for uranium solutions to have flowed in a laminar fashion through fluorite crystals* this e,cludes the #ossi-ility that #olonium halos in defect regions could have originated secondarily from uranium daughter radioactivity< This is the same conclusion reached earlier in this cha#ter when the origin of #olonium halos in mica were investigated using al#ha8recoil techni7ues< A num-er of new e,#erimental techni7ues were incor#orated into my res#onse to the 456C re#ort of (oa%ed et al< A variety of e,#erimental results* o-tained with #article accelerators and a scanning electron microsco#e e7ui##ed with ,8ray fluorescence ca#a-ilities* formed the -asis for unam-iguously identifying three different ty#es of #olonium halos in granites< I ela-orated on a new standard for halo8si%e measurements to show conclusively that #olonium halos are easily distinguished from uranium halos -y their ring structure< Electron8induced* ,8ray fluorescence analysis of selected uranium and #olonium halo centers confirmed this difference: the uranium halo centers showed considera-le amounts of uranium and only a small amount of lead* whereas the $o halo centers showed only the lead< I su-mitted the manuscri#t to Science detailing the results of these e,#eriments< After some revision it was #u-lished in A#ril 456D @)entry 456DK A##endi,A< It contains the following statements a-out an alternative framewor of earth history: < < < It is also a##arent that $o halos do #ose contradictions to currently held views of Earth history< < < < A further necessary conse7uence* that such $o halos could have formed only if the host roc s underwent a ra#id crystalli%ation* renders e,ceedingly difficult* in my estimation* the #ros#ect of e,#laining these halos -y #hysical laws as #resently understood< < < < @)entry 456D* FBA < < < The 7uestion is* Can they N$o halosO -e e,#lained -y #resently acce#ted cosmological and geological conce#ts relating to the origin and develo#ment of Earth? @)entry 456D* FFA I stated these im#lications #lainly* thus inviting my scientific colleagues to challenge the evidenceK however* no one res#onded to this re#ort<

6he .pectacle :alo

'uring a routine e,amination of a mica s#ecimen from the Silver Crater (ine near Faraday Townshi# in "ntario* Canada* I discovered a most unusual #attern of B4J$o halos< In the more than 4JJ*JJJ halos which I had e,amined under the microsco#e* none had even faintly resem-led the connecting circular #atterns o-served in this ?s#ectacle halo? @a #hotogra#h of which is shown in Figure C<4 and in the Radiohalo CatalogueA< Incidentally* the sha#e of this s#ecial halo is com#letely different from any of the nown crystalli%ation #atterns* all of which yield minerals with straight

edges< No mineral crystalli%es in circlesK yet for some reason the radiocenters of the ?s#ectacle halo? did< From its a##earance it was the crown 1ewel of halos< If single or small grou#s of #olonium halos had defied e,#lanation -y conventional scientific #rinci#les* it was certain that the intricate array of #olonium halos in the ?s#ectacle halo? could only further com#ound the #ro-lems of e,#lanation< +ecause of its s#ecial value* a variety of analytical techni7ues were used in some e,haustive studies of this s#ecial halo #attern< The e,#erimental results on this uni7ue halo* o-tained in colla-oration with several of my colleagues* were first su-mitted for #u-lication to ;eophysical =esearch *etters in the s#ring of 456D< In this manuscri#t I made some e,#licit remar s a-out the constraints which #olonium halos #lace on cosmological theories< "ne reviewer recommended that the manuscri#t -e re1ected* while the other recommended that it should -e #u-lished< The latter made the rather astonishing comment that the e,#erimental results were ". . . indeed impossible to understand in terms of #nown nuclear physics and geochemistry." In s#ite of this remar the editor re1ected -oth this manuscri#t and the revised version<

Fig're 3-1 .pectacle :alo i( /ica fro5 the .ilver Crater /i(e @(agnification U CJJA

It seemed futile to #ress the issue further with this 1ournalK so I revised the manuscri#t again* with the cosmological im#lications of #olonium halos toned down* and su-mitted it to Nature. This time it #assed #eer review and was #u-lished in the 'ecem-er 4C* 456D* issue of that 1ournal< The statements -elow show how the re#ort focused attention on the im#lications of the #olonium halos relative to a ra#id synthesis of $recam-rian roc s: $olonium radiohaloes occur widely and not infre7uently @total a-out 4J4E84JBJA in $recam-rian roc s* -ut their e,istence has so far defied satisfactory e,#lanation -ased on acce#ted nucleocosmogeochemical theories< 'o $o haloes im#ly that un nown #rocesses were o#erative during the formative #eriod of the earth? Is it #ossi-le that $o haloes in $recam-rian roc s re#resent e,tinct natural radioactivity and are therefore of

cosmological significance? @)entry et al< 456D* EFDK A##endi,A The last cha#ter em#hasi%ed that when I associate #olonium halos in granites with e,tinct natural radioactivity* scientists understand this to im#ly only a few minutes ela#sed from nucleosynthesis to the formation of a solid earth< As Figure B<D @-A illustrates* the only ?nucleosynthesis? that could accom#lish this feat is the ?nucleogenesis? initiated -y the Creator.that of a virtually instantaneous creation of the earth< This re#ort did not go unnoticed< In a letter to Nature" $rofessor /< &< Fremlin* a leading radio#hysicist in England* resurrected the idea that #olonium halos in granites were secondarily derived from uranium* -ut #rovided no new data to su##ort his suggestion @Fremlin 456EA< (oreover* he tended to overloo much of my #u-lished evidence showing #olonium halos in granites had originated inde#endently of uranium< =ears earlier it occurred to me that this ty#e of thing might continue indefinitely unless I could find #olonium halos which were definitely of secondary origin and show how they differed from #olonium halos in granites< (y search was successful* and the results were so relevant to the 7uestion of #olonium halo origin in granites that I -riefly mentioned them in my res#onse @)entry 456EA to Fremlin:s letter< 2nfortunately* some colleagues overloo ed these new data the ne,t year when they too #ro#osed a secondary origin of #olonium halos in granites @(eier and &ec er 456FA< Their oversight was more understanda-le than the case of others @&ashemi8Ne%had et al< 4565A who later overloo ed my com#lete re#ort on the new data #u-lished in 456F @)entry et al< 456FaK A##endi,A< As the ne,t cha#ter shows* that 456F re#ort descri-es where secondary #olonium halos were discovered and how they were found to -e intrinsically different from the #olonium halos in granites< The evidence in this re#ort directly contradicted the idea of a secondary origin for #olonium halos in granites< +ut we shall see later that some scientists would still find it difficult to acce#t this conclusion<

Chapter %: &econdary Poloni'( )alos F'el the Controversy

'uring the early seventies I -egan to contem#late where secondary #olonium halos might have formed* reali%ing that the first re7uirement was an a-undance of uranium to su##ly the secondary #olonium atoms< 3hatever the host su-stance* it must have allowed ra#id movement of those atomsK otherwise* -ecause of the short half8lives* all of them would have decayed -efore they could -e ca#tured< "f course* even in a matri, where #olonium atoms could move freely* there must also e,ist microsco#ic sites where #olonium would -e collected in order for the halos to form< Summari%ing* I was see ing geological s#ecimens that were @4A high in uranium* @BA ca#a-le of having allowed ra#id movement of secondary #olonium atoms* and @CA #ossessing microsco#ic8 si%ed ca#ture sites for those #olonium atoms<

=ra(i'5 i( Coalified ,ood

These s#ecial re7uirements -rought to mind a reference to radioactivity in wood a-out which I learned several years earlier @/edwa- 45FFA< Further chec ing revealed that #ieces of wood* #artially turned to coal* some as large as logs* had -een found in certain uranium mines in western states< The mines were located in the uranium8rich sedimentary de#osits in the region geologically nown as the Colorado $lateau< $revious microsco#ic studies of thin slices of these s#ecimens showed halos* having formed around uranium8rich sites< The evidence suggested the wood had -een in a watersoa ed* gel8li e condition at some earlier #eriod in earth history< At that time solutions rich in uranium had #assed through the wood* thus #ermitting the accumulation of uranium at certain sites with an affinity for that element< Secondary halos had then formed around those uranium centers< These earlier studies were intriguing< If these coalified wood s#ecimens contained microsco#ic sites which had ca#tured uranium* #ossi-ly other sites might have ca#tured #olonium< Coalified wood s#ecimens had -een found in a num-er of uranium mines* -ut they were an uncommon occurrence< (oreover* some of those mines were now closed< "rdinarily it would have -een a long and arduous tas to collect such s#ecimens< Fortunately* though* I o-tained a variety of coalified wood #ieces from a colleague who had earlier collected sam#les from the mines for his own investigations @+reger 456DA< It occurred to me that* irres#ective of whether or not these s#ecimens contained secondary #olonium halos* they might contain im#ortant clues relative to the age of the earth and occurrence of a worldwide flood< To understand my thoughts at that time re7uires a -rief descri#tion of some different ty#es of roc s and their histories<

6he Origi( of .edi5e(tary Roc+s

Scientists generally agree that sedimentary roc s are initially the result of trans#ort and de#osition -y ice* wind* or water< (any sedimentary @or secondaryA roc s* such as shale* sandstone* and limestone* often contain the fossil remains of #lants and animals from -oth terrestrial and marine environments< The $recam-rian granites* which are one ty#e of crystalline roc s* do not contain fossils< 3hile there is general agreement on what sedimentary roc s are* views differ regarding how rapidly

and under what conditions they actually formed< The evolutionary view* -ased on geological uniformitarianism" is that they ordinarily formed slowly over hundreds of thousands or millions of years -y geological #rocesses o#erating at the same rates as o-served at #resent< Interestingly* some geologists now admit that some individual layers could have formed ra#idly under ?storm? conditions @Ager 45L4A< "ne immediate #ro-lem with the uniformitarian view#oint is the difficulty in finding a location where sedimentary roc formations are in the #rocess of develo#ing at #resent< River and ocean sediments are forming today* -ut it is 7uestiona-le whether any of these will ever turn into the massive limestone and sandstone formations seen in various #arts of the world< Nevertheless* evolutionary geologists usually assume that the different sedimentary formations accumulated from the -uild8u# of marine de#osits left from the e-- and flow of inland seas over millions of years< The alternate view of how most sedimentary roc s formed is -ased on the occurrence of su#ernaturally induced* catastro#hic events associated with a worldwide flood< The scri#tural record indicates that the entire earth was covered with water for over a hundred days< Sedimentary material could have -een de#osited -oth during the time when the waters were rising and again when they were receding< The scri#tural statement* ?fountains of the great dee# were -ro en u#*? suggests that #arts of the earth:s crust were -ro en o#en* im#lying that the flood was a #eriod characteri%ed -y intense volcanic activity< ;olcanic eru#tions in the ocean -asins would have triggered tidal action* resulting in the -urial of animal* marine* and #lant remains into freshly de#osited sediments< The e,istence of well8#reserved fossils in sedimentary roc s is often cited as evidence of a very ra#id -urial* in agreement with the a-ove scenario< A ra#id de#osition of different sediments would also -e e,#ected to #roduce only occasional erosion -etween successive layers< A #rime e,am#le of uniform layering of successive formations can -e seen in the )rand Canyon< If the hori%ontal sedimentary layers seen there were really se#arated -y vast #eriods of time* one would e,#ect to find dee# irregular cuts and other signs of erosion within the different layers< Instead* such features are the e,ce#tion rather than the rule<

Radio5etric 0ati(g of the Colorado Platea' 0eposits

(any geologists #ay little attention to these arguments for the flood scenario* #erha#s -ecause they -elieve radiometric dating confirms their views of an ancient age of the sedimentary formations< In #articular* radiometric dates of EE million to LJ million years have -een assigned @Stieff et al< 45ECA to some of the Colorado $lateau formations where the coalified wood s#ecimens are found< "n the -asis of the flood model these formations were de#osited within a few months of each other only a few thousand years ago< 3hich was correct? 'id radiometric dating 1ustify an ancient age of the coalified wood* or had mis#laced confidence in the uniformitarian principle" and hence a constant decay rate* led my colleagues to misinter#ret the data? $erha#s too* some of the data had esca#ed their attention< A singular thought occurred to me< The coalified wood s#ecimens I was soon to receive might have -een #arts of trees that were growing immediately #rior to the flood< (y antici#ation -egan to -uild< 3hen the secrets of the granites were unloc ed* they a##eared as roc s that were created. the )enesis roc s< 0i ewise* did these coalified wood s#ecimens contain secrets that would lin them to another #art of the )enesis record.the account of a recent worldwide flood?

.eco(dary Polo(i'5 :alos: A(other 0iscovery

(y o-servations of the coalified wood s#ecimens from the Colorado $lateau agreed with the ma1or

conclusions of other investigators< Evidence indicated that sometime in the #ast* #rior to coalification* a uranium solution had infiltrated the wood when it was in a water8soa ed* gel8li e condition< As earlier noted* other investigators had re#orted the halos around uranium8rich centers< These I saw as well* often in a-undance< This encouraged me to continue the search for secondary #olonium halos in these s#ecimens< In this case #ersistence #aid off.the long awaited day arrived< In a num-er of the coalified wood thin sections I discovered secondary #olonium halos in greater num-ers than the secondary uranium halos< Ama%ingly enough* sometimes there were over a hundred of them in 1ust one s7uare inch of a coalified wood thin sectionS Curiously* I found that the #olonium halos in these s#ecimens were of only one ty#e.those that had formed from the accumulation of B4J$o< None of the other two #olonium halo ty#es that occur in granites were seen< The reason for the a-sence of the B4D$o and B4L$o halos -ecame clear after I reflected on the difference in the half8lives of the three isoto#es< In -rief* the B4J$o atoms lived long enough @half8life of 4CL daysA for them to -e ca#tured from the infiltrating uranium solution -efore they decayed away< In contrast* the other two #olonium isoto#es* with half8lives of minutes or less* decayed away -efore they could accumulate at the tiny #olonium ca#ture sites< Nature had #rovided the most favora-le conditions for #roducing secondary #olonium halos* namely* an a-undant uranium su##ly cou#led with high mo-ility< =et even under these o#timum conditions only one type of polonium halo had formed. These e,#erimental data #resented an insurmounta-le o-stacle to the idea of a secondary origin of #olonium halos in granites< That is* if only one #olonium halo ty#e could form secondarily under the -est natural conditions* what was the scientific -asis for theori%ing that all three ty#es could form secondarily in the granites? In these roc s -oth the high uranium content and ra#id trans#ort ca#a-ility were missing< And this was not all< (ost of the secondary B4J$o halos in coalified wood e,hi-ited elli#tical rather than the circular cross8sections ty#ical of halos in minerals< &ow were these unusual halos #roduced? The sim#lest reconstruction of events #ictures uranium solutions infiltrating water8 soa ed wood that was freshly em#laced in the Colorado $lateau de#osits< &alo radiocenters* com#osed of lead and selenium* accumulated atoms of B4J$o out of that solution< In less than a year* secondary B4J$o halos develo#ed from the al#ha decay of those atoms< Naturally* these halos first formed as s#heres and hence initially had a circular outline* 1ust as the halos in minerals< &owever* as #ressure from overlying sediments increased* the gel8li e wood was easily com#ressed* thus leading to the develo#ment of the elli#tical halos as shown in Figure D<4@aA and the Radiohalo Catalogue< Their occurrence in three geological formations suggests they all originated at a-out the same time in agreement with the flood8related scenario<

Fig're -1 Polo(i'5 :alos i( Coalified ,ood @aA shows elli#tical B4J$o halos in coalified wood ty#ical of those occurring in the Triassic* /urassic* and Eocene formations in the Colorado $lateau* and @-A shows the dual B4J$o halo @magnification U BEJA

It could -e argued* however* that secondary #olonium halos might have formed in three widely s#aced -ut almost identical geological scenarios instead of the one scenario related to the flood< To -e fair* we must carefully e,amine this #ossi-ility< &ere we must reali%e that the formation of secondary #olonium halos re7uired an e,traordinarily com#le,* interrelated series of geological events< The -asic ingredients were: @4A water* @BA u#rooted trees as the source of the logs and smaller wood fragments* @CA a rich uranium concentration near the wood* and @DA a com#ression event occurring after the uranium solution invaded the wood* -ut #rior to its -ecoming coalified< The gel8li e condition of the wood suggests only a short time had ela#sed since the trees had -een u#rooted< At the very time the wood was in this s#ecial condition* it had to -e infiltrated -y a solution that had recently dissolved uranium from a near-y de#osit< Note that* if the water had contacted the uranium de#osit after infiltrating the wood* there would have -een no radioactivity in solution and hence no #ossi-ility of forming secondary halos< The same is true if the wood had already turned to coal -efore contact with the uranium solutions<

The evolutionary scenario re7uires that the com#le, se7uence of events descri-ed a-ove must have -een re#eated more than ten million years later in the same geogra#hical location< That this scenario would occur a third time* again in the same area a-out fifty million years later* seems im#ro-a-le< =et the issue must not -e decided merely on the -asis of im#ro-a-ility< Instead* we must determine whether this inter#retation is in harmony with all the scientific data< $reviously* geologists drew conclusions a-out the history of the Colorado $lateau formations -ased on data then availa-le to them< 3e must now focus s#ecial attention on the new data #resented -y the halos in coalified wood to see if these earlier conclusions are still 1ustified<

3ew 0ata .'pport the 2lo;al Flood /odel

It is 7uite significant that the elli#tical #olonium halos a##ear in coalified wood s#ecimens from three different geological formations in the Colorado $lateau de#osits< The im#ortance of this o-servation can hardly -e overestimated< In the evolutionary scenario those formations re#resent three geological #eriods: Triassic* 4LJ to BCJ million years agoK /urassic* 4CE to 4LJ million years agoK and Eocene* CE to FJ million years ago< The occurrence of the elli#tical secondary B4J$o halos in s#ecimens from all of these formations is evidence #ar e,cellence that the wood in all of them was in the same gel+li#e condition when infiltrated -y a uranium solution< These data fit the flood model #erfectly< Another vital #iece of scientific data relates to the 7uestion of how much time ela#sed from the formation of the circular #olonium halos to the time of com#ression< The length of this #eriod would have remained uncertain had it not -een for the discovery of ?dual? #olonium halos such as shown in Figure D<4 @-A and the Radiohalo Catalogue< These ?dual? B4J$o halos* which I have seen thus far in Triassic and /urassic s#ecimens* e,hi-it -oth a circular and elli#tical outline< @The search for dual halos in ?Eocene? wood has -een hindered -y lac of material<A Initially* I was #u%%led as to how two differently sha#ed halos could develo# around the same center< Then I reali%ed that the halo centers* com#osed of lead and selenium* could also have ca#tured another uranium daughter* B4J $-< Since this isoto#e of lead decays with a half8life of a-out BB years to B4J$o* a second B4J$o halo could develo# within a-out BJ years after the first one had formed< If there was no deformation of the wood* then -oth halos would remain circular and they would e,actly overla#< "r if the wood was deformed after a-out BJ years* then -oth halos would -e com#ressed into an elli#tical sha#e and they still would overla#< &owever* if deformation of the wood occurred within 1ust a few years after the introduction of the uranium* then only one B4J$o halo could have -een com#ressed -ecause only one @from B4J$oA had then formed< Several years later another circular halo could develo# @as B4J$- decayed to B4J$oA and su#erim#ose on the elli#tical halo< $rovided there was no further deformation* these two halos would retain their res#ective sha#es and now a##ear as the ?dual? halo shown in Figure D<4@-A< From this se7uence a very relevant conclusion emerges: only a few years ela#sed from the introduction of the uranium to the time when the wood was com#ressed< These data very s#ecifically su##ort the flood model* which includes considera-le read1ustment and deformation of freshly de#osited sedimentary roc s in the years after the flood waters receded< Additional data on the coalified wood s#ecimens were o-tained in colla-oration with some colleagues< 3e studied radiohalos in coalified wood using the same ty#e of advanced scientific instruments that had -een used on halos in granites< A re#ort descri-ing the outcome of these colla-orative studies was #u-lished in the "cto-er 4E* 456F* issue of Science @)entry et al< 456FaK A##endi,A< The evidence o-tained in these e,#eriments suggested a common source for the

uranium in all the coalified wood s#ecimens< These data im#lied only one uranium solution had infiltrated the different wood s#ecimens< This result* cou#led with the o-servations 1ust descri-ed* #ermits some rather firm conclusions to -e drawn< In #articular* a single uranium solution means the uranium infiltration occurred nearly simultaneously in all the wood s#ecimens< And since the elli#tical #olonium halos show the wood s#ecimens ta en from the /urassic* Triassic* and Eocene formations were all in the same gel8li e condition at the time of infiltration* it inevita-ly follows that these geological formations were all de#osited at a-out the same time< 0i ewise* the #resence of dual #olonium halos in wood s#ecimens ta en from -oth /urassic and Triassic de#osits #rovides strong evidence that the event which com#ressed the wood occurred simultaneously in -oth cases< This is e,actly what would -e e,#ected on the -asis of a near simultaneous de#osition of all the wood at the time of the flood< "n the other hand* the data 1ust discussed directly contradict the view that the /urassic* Triassic* and Eocene formations in the Colorado $lateau were laid down tens of millions of years a#art< If the evolutionary scenario were correct* the wood in the Triassic @oldestA formation would have turned into coalified wood millions of years -efore the Eocene layer was de#osited< In this case com#ressed halos could not have formed< The a-ove evidences contradict the evolutionary view that a hundred million years or more se#arate certain formations in the Colorado $lateau* su##orting instead a ra#id de#osition of them all< Earlier in this cha#ter I noted that well8#reserved fossils in various geological formations around the world are often cited as evidence of a ra#id -urial< This raises a significant 7uestion: Is there any similar #hysical evidence* a#art from the com#ressed halos* which would suggest that the wood #ieces now in the Colorado $lateau formations were encased in sediments somewhat ra#idly @that is* -efore decay set inA? Such evidence* if it e,ists* would -e most clearly im#ressed on the investigator who actually collected the coalified wood s#ecimens from the uranium mines which were then o#erating in Colorado* New (e,ico* 2tah* and 3yoming< That scientist* who wor ed for the 2<S< )eological Survey* su-se7uently #u-lished a re#ort on his studies @and later indly #rovided me with many coalified wood s#ecimensA< "ne sentence in the following e,cer#t from his re#ort succinctly descri-es the condition of the wood #ieces as he first saw them: The coalified wood in these sediments ranges in si%e from finely divided intergranular fragments visi-le with a hand lens to entire tree trun s many feet long and still having attached -ranches and roots< The larger #ieces of coalified wood are com#ressed or uncom#ressed* -lac or -rown in color* and may or may not contain siliceous* calcitic* or dolomitic fillings re#lacing the original #ithy cores< Some coalified fragments are still fle'ible when first collected but become brittle when dried. +lac and -rown fragments are occasionally su#erim#osed u#on each otherK the former have the a##earance of lignite* whereas the latter outwardly resem-le vitrain< < < < @+reger 456D* 4JJ.italics mineA I suggest the fle,i-ility of some freshly collected wood fragments is strong evidence of a ra#id de#osition< Returning to the su-1ect of my own studies of the coalified wood s#ecimens* I now summari%e some other im#lications of the investigations #u-lished in the 456F Science re#ort: @4A 2ranium to lead ratios were found suggesting that the various Colorado $lateau formations are only several thousand years old instead of the FJ to BJJ8million8year age re7uired -y the evolutionary time scale< Timewise this evidence agrees with the scri#tural chronology concerning the time @ca BCJJ -<c<A when the worldwide flood occurred< Thus* the entire radiometric age8dating

scheme develo#ed over the #ast eighty years is called into 7uestion< @BA The coalification #rocess.where-y organic material such as #lant vegetation or wood turns into coal.can occur in a year or less< This result contradicts the #resumed tens of thousands of years @or moreA thought necessary for the coalification #rocess< Interestingly* I have found references to e,#erimental data suggesting that* under certain la-oratory conditions* the #rocess of coalification can occur over 1ust a few days @Stut%er 45DJ* 4JE84JFK 0arsen 45LEA< Such data are consistent with my results<

A Professor 3otes the .ile(t Respo(se

The 456F Science re#ort @)entry et al< 456FaK A##endi,A on halos in coalified wood 7uestions -oth the conventional geologic age8dating schemes and the uniformitarian inter#retation of the entire geologic column< It #rovides data that distinguish the multi#le* #rimordial #olonium8halo ty#es in granites from the single* secondary #olonium8halo ty#e in coalified wood< These results challenge all as#ects of evolutionary geology* and they did not go unnoticed< A few months after the re#ort was #u-lished I received the following letters: @/anuary B6* 4566A 'ear 'r< )entry: I have -een #atiently scanning the ?letters? section of Science since the #u-lication -y you and your colleagues of your findings on radiohalos< The silence is deafening.I thin it can -e inter#reted as ?stunned silence*? coming as closely as it did on the ?neutrino crisis? stemming from a #a#er #u-lished in /anuary 456F on the a-sence of the e,#ected neutrino flu, from the sun< =our results will not greatly trou-le the engineer* whether he is a mining engineer* a geo#hysical engineer* or a ground8water engineer< +ut the im#act on the science of geology* in #ossi-ly changing the acce#ted views as to the duration of geologic time* will -e felt for many years< 3e are inde-ted to you and your colleagues for your #ainsta ing o-servation* the careful wording of your #a#er* and the courage you have manifested in #resenting evidence that contravenes the conventional wisdom of the geological #rofession< I might add that the findings have direct a##lication in the search for a semi8 #ermanent containment for radwastes< Again* my commendations for a difficult 1o-* e,tremely well done< ;ery truly yours* >s> Ra#hael )< Ha%mann Ra#hael )< Ha%mann $rofessor of Civil Engineering 0ouisiana State 2niversity

@(arch 5* 4566A 'ear 'r< )entry: Than you for the re#rints< It is a##arent that you and your cowor ers are unearthing fundamental information which will -e difficult* if not im#ossi-le* to include in the acce#ted* uniformitarian8evolutionary* scheme< &ere at 0S2 we are considering organi%ing a one or two day conference on geologic time including the age of the sun< There will #ro-a-ly -e a num-er of invited #a#ers and I will suggest to the conference organi%er that you -e invited* once the decision has -een made< If you have any thoughts on #ossi-le s#ea ers* #lease let me now< +est wishes* >s> Ra#hael )< Ha%mann Ra#hael )< Ha%mann $rofessor of Civil Engineering 0ouisiana State 2niversity $rofessor Ha%mann correctly #erceived that the data have called the evolutionary scheme into 7uestion< &e also understood that if conventional dating techni7ues have -een in error* as the data suggested* this might raise 7uestions a-out the #rocedures currently used to select nuclear waste storage sites< To e,#lore these matters further* he organi%ed a sym#osium addressing the #ro-lems and methods used in measuring geologic time<

0e;ati(g the 6i5e .cale

The sym#osium* ?Time: In Full (easure*? was held at 0ouisiana State 2niversity in A#ril 456L< There were five invited s#ea ers* including me< The sym#osium dealt #rimarily with the various as#ects of time measurement and the age of the geological formations< $rofessor Ha%mann* as the convener* #u-lished an account of those #roceedings in the Se#tem-er 456L issue of ;eotimes @Ha%mann 456LA* a monthly #u-lication of the American )eological Institute* and in the /anuary 5* 4565* issue of <?S @Ha%mann 4565A* a wee ly #u-lication of the American )eo#hysical 2nion< &is summary @Ha%mann 4565A of my #resentation at the sym#osium is as follows: < < < &is N)entry:sO s#ecialty is the study of minute halos in mica and -iotite crystals and* more recently* in coalified wood from uranium8-earing sands in the Colorado $lateau and the Chattanooga Shale< The halos are created -y al#ha8#articles of differing energies emitted -y such su-stances as uranium* thorium* #olonium* and other radioactives< &e #resented micro#hotogra#hs of an assortment of radiohalos in -iotite* fluorite* and cordierite and then a diagram where-y the lines #roduced -y the various al#ha emitters can -e identified< Among the eight emitters are two isoto#es of uranium and three of #olonium< N)entry 456DK )entry et al< 456DO The #olonium halos* es#ecially those #roduced -y B4L$o* are the center of a mystery< The half8life of the isoto#e is only C min< =et the halos have -een found in granitic roc s < < < in all #arts of the world* including Scandinavia* India* Canada* and the 2nited States< The

difficulty arises from the o-servation that there is no identifia-le #recursor to the #oloniumK it a##ears to -e #rimordial #olonium< If so* how did the surrounding roc s crystalli%e ra#idly enough so that there were crystals availa-le ready to -e im#rinted with radiohalos -y al#ha #articles from B4L$o? This would im#ly almost instantaneous cooling and crystalli%ation of these granitic minerals* and we now of no mechanisms that will remove heat so ra#idlyK the roc s are su##osed to have cooled over millennia* if not tens of millennia< &is studies of halos in coalified wood N)entry et al< 456FaK C4EO -ear directly on the meeting:s to#ic: geochronology< There he and his co8wor ers were a-le to define the tiny uranium centers and to distinguish the various halos #roduced -y different al#ha emitters< &owever* since the de#osits from which the coalified wood was o-tained are considered to -e of Cretaceous age* and #ossi-ly of /urassic or Triassic age* the ratio -etween BCL2 and BJF$- should -e low< Instead a num-er of such halos have -een found with uranium8 lead ratios ranging from a-out BBJJ to over FD*JJJ< If isoto#e ratios are to -e used as a -asis for geologic dating* then #resently acce#ted ages may -e too high -y a factor of 4J*JJJ* admitting the #ossi-ility that the ages of the formation are to -e measured in millennia< $hus ages of the entire stratigraphic column may contain epochs less than @.@8A the duration of those now accepted and found in the literature. . . . @Ha%mann 4565* 45.italics mineA The #u-lication of this clearly stated evaluation of my results was an im#ortant event in my research< Ha%mann:s account of the 0S2 sym#osium in -oth ;eotimes and <?S" two nationally circulated geological news maga%ines* -rought my wor to the attention of a much larger segment of the geological community< It was difficult to -elieve that my contri-ution to the 0S2 sym#osium would go unchallenged<

Chapter *: Reverberations fro( &cientists

Soon after Ha%mann:s summary a##eared in <?S @Ha%mann 4565A* I received a co#y of a letter from the eminent geochronologist* $rofessor $aul 'amon* 2niversity of Ari%ona* Tucson* to 'r< A< F< S#ilhaus* Editor of <?S. Even though 'amon:s letter was critical* I was elated -ecause his comments focused s7uarely on the im#lications of my wor < &e intended for his criticisms to -e #u-lished in <?S. If this was done* I ho#ed to have the #rivilege of res#onding to his assertions -y #resenting a further e,#lanation of my #osition< This would -e an o##ortunity to clarify the issues< The #ro-lem was that* as the following letter shows* initially 'r< S#ilhaus only as ed my o#inion of 'amon:s criticism without offering me the o##ortunity to res#ond: @Fe-ruary L* 4565A 'ear (r< )entry: I would a##reciate your comments on whether the remar s of $aul 'amon in his letter of /anuary BC* a co#y of which was sent to you* are scientifically sound< If they are* it will -e my inclination to #u-lish them as soon as #ossi-le in <?S. $lease let me now your o#inion -y return mail if #ossi-le< I will also consider further commentary on this article as it -ecomes availa-le< Sincerely yours* >s> A< F< S#ilhaus A< F< S#ilhaus* /r< E,ecutive 'irector* American )eo#hysical 2nion I called and then wrote to 'r< S#ilhaus* re7uesting that he allow me to res#ond to 'amon:s letter< A few wee s later the following letter was received: 'ear $rofessor )entry: @A#ril C* 4565A

As you well now and e,#ressed in your letter* the conclusions you reached from the inter#retation of your halo data are considered untena-le e,ce#t -y a very tiny minority of the earth sciences community< Nevertheless* my reviewers feel that you are due an o##ortunity to res#ond to 'amon:s comments* -ut you must ma e that res#onse short< Sincerely yours* >s> Fred S#ilhaus I was 7uite #leased to receive this letter* for there were some im#ortant matters at sta e< 'amon:s letter left no dou-t he understood that* if #olonium halos in granites were #rimordial* this meant the earth had indeed formed very ra#idly* thus calling into 7uestion the entire science of geochronology @radiometric age8datingA< The first sentence in his letter* later #u-lished in <?S" is 7uoted -elow: I was dismayed -y Ra#hael )< Ha%mann:s conclusion in his review of a sym#osium on

?Cosmochronology* geochronology* and the neutrino crisis? @Time: In Full (easure* <os $rans. A;>" FJ @BA* ##< B48BB* /anuary 5* 4565A that essentially casts in dou-t the entire science of geochronology* on the -asis of an a-surd inter#retation of the origin of ?#olonium? halos in minerals o-served -y Ro-ert )entry< < < < @'amon 4565* D6DA The ?a-surd inter#retation? referred to here is my claim that #rimordial #olonium halos e,ist in granites< $rimordial #olonium halos invalidate the assum#tion of uniform decay over endless time< 3ithout this #remise there is no factual -asis for a radiometrically derived D<E8-illion8year age of the earth< The last #aragra#h of his letter concludes: The history of science includes many e,am#les of valid o-servations that have -een given unacce#ta-le inter#retations< "ne need not dou-t the validity of )entry:s o-servations of the e,istence of halos with certain characteristics in order to re1ect his inter#retation as re#orted -y Ha%mann< &owever* I certainly ho#e that Ha%mann and his fellow engineers do not design structures such as nuclear reactor sites -ased u#on the short time scale suggested -y a misinter#retation of )entry:s a##arently valid o-servationsS @'amon 4565* D6DA 'amon agrees that my o-servations on #olonium halos are ?a##arently valid*? -ut he re1ects the #ossi-ility that they are of #rimordial origin without offering an alternative e,#lanation< It was -ecoming increasingly a##arent that an e,#erimental test was needed to settle the 7uestion of their origin<

A Falsificatio( 6est Proposed

'amon:s strongest o-1ections to my results centered around two #oints.the association of #olonium halos in granites with #rimordial #olonium and the identification of the $recam-rian granites as the #rimordial )enesis roc s of our #lanet< It occurred to me there was a la-oratory e,#eriment which* if successful* in theory would allow scientists to confirm a ma1or #rediction of the evolutionary scenario and at the same time falsify my model of creation< To understand this test readers must remem-er that in the evolutionary model the #roto8earth -egan some D<E -illion years ago in a semi8molten condition< A slowly cooling earth su##osedly led to the formation of various ty#es of roc s at many different times and #laces< )eologists thin that the $recam-rian granites* the crystalline -asement roc s of the continents* were among those roc s that formed at different intervals over that long cooling #eriod< According to the uniformitarian principle the #hysical #rocesses which governed the crystalli%ation of the granites in the #ast are the same as those o#era-le on earth today< The inevita-le conclusion is that it should -e #ossi-le to du#licate the #rocess of granite formation in a modern scientific la-oratory< That is* it should -e #ossi-le.provided the uniformitarian principle is really valid. This was the -asis of the la-oratory8-ased test #resented to the scientific community in my res#onse to 'amon:s letter in the (ay B5* 4565* issue of <?S. Two e,cer#ts from my res#onse show how this test was stated: < < < Therefore I regard the failure to resolve the long8standing controversy in geology which concerns the origin of the $recam-rian granites to -e -ecause such roc s are #rimordial and hence not necessarily e,#laina-le on the -asis of conventional #rinci#les< Even though I thin they further 7ualify for that role in their association as -asement roc s of the continents* nevertheless I would consider my thesis essentially falsified if

and when geologists synthesi%e a hand8si%ed s#ecimen of a ty#ical -iotite8-earing granite and>or a similar si%e crystal of -iotite< I will li ewise relin7uish any claim for #rimordial B4L$o halos when coercive evidence @not 1ust #lausi-ility argumentsA is #rovided for a conventional origin< < < < and in this res#ect I will consider my thesis to -e dou-ly falsified -y the synthesis of a -iotite which contains 1ust one B4L$o halo @some of my natural s#ecimens contain more than 4JD $o halos>cmCA< < < < @)entry 4565* D6DA (uch was and still is at sta e in issuing this challenge to synthesi%e* or #roduce a du#licate of* a single hand8 si%ed s#ecimen of a #iece of granite in the la-oratory< The e,#eriment -eing #ro#osed is 7uite straightforward< The -asic chemical elements of a granite* which are well8 nown* are to -e melted* and then allowed to cool to form a synthetic roc < If my colleagues could do this e,#eriment so that the synthetic roc re#roduces the mineral com#osition and crystal structure of a granite* then they will have du#licated or synthesi%ed a #iece of granite< +y doing this they would have confirmed a ma1or #rediction of the evolutionary scenario.they would have demonstrated that granites can form from a li7uid melt in accord with nown #hysical laws< I would acce#t such results as falsifying my view that the $recam-rian granites are the #rimordial )enesis roc s of our #lanet< Furthermore* if they were successful in #roducing 1ust a single B4L$o halo in that #iece of synthesi%ed granite* I would acce#t that as falsifying my view that the #olonium halos in granites are )od:s finger#rints< This test of the creation and evolution models was #u-lished in the o#en scientific literature for all my colleagues to study< In the s#irit of free scientific in7uiry I ho#ed they would closely e,amine my #u-lished evidences for creation and -e led to res#ond with contrary evidence* if I was wrong* or else admit there was valid scientific evidence for creation< Neither of these ha##ened<

A Co'rageo's &ditorial 0ecisio(

/ust a few months after 'amon:s letter and my res#onse were #u-lished* another criticism of my wor a##eared in the August 4D* 4565* issue of <?S @=or 4565A< The author was 'r< 'ere =or of the 2niversity of Toronto* a highly res#ected geochronologist who had also #artici#ated in the 0S2 sym#osium* $ime: In )ull %easure" mentioned under the heading ?'e-ating the Time Scale? in Cha#ter D< &is article was not -ased on any of his own e,#erimental o-servations a-out #olonium halos< Instead* he #romoted &enderson:s idea of a secondary origin from uranium and critici%ed me for not acce#ting it< &e did not mention that he had heard my #resentation on halos at the 0S2 sym#osium< Initially there was no o##ortunity for me to re-ut =or :s criticisms* for he never informed me that his article was to -e #u-lished< (y letter of o-1ection @to S#ilhausA concerning this silence is 7uoted in #art -elow* along with his re#ly: 'ear 'r< S#ilhaus: @"cto-er BC* 4565A

I have s#ent a great deal of time wor ing on the res#onse to 'ere =or :s direct attac on my research< I could have hel#ed =or avoid some em-arrassing remar s if he had only shared his article with me #rior to #u-lication< < < < +ut whatever the reason for =or :s secrecy* I cannot let his misre#resentations of my wor go unanswered< Actually* there is much more I could have said.and may yet have to say.a-out his comments on my wor <

The length of this manuscri#t is a-out half that of =or :s article* and* in fact* a-out the same length as my res#onse to $aul 'amon:s letter< +e assured that I have high #ersonal regard for 'ere =or * even though I have had to ta e e,ce#tion to his remar s< Sincerely* >s> Ro-ert ;< )entry @Novem-er 4D* 4565A 'ear 'r< )entry: I have forwarded your article to one of the <?S Associate Editors for review with regard to 7uality of the su-stance and for consideration of its suita-ility for #u-lication in <?S. These will -e difficult 7uestions< "ur decision will rest on whether your #resent letter ma es any su-stantive addition to the discussion and on the com#leteness and validity of the wor on which it is -ased< New material may also -e re1ected -y <?S as it is not an a##ro#riate medium for original #u-lication of scientific results< Sincerely yours* >s> Fred S#ilhaus (onths #assed with no further word from S#ilhaus a-out my res#onse to =or :s article< Finally* after five months had ela#sed* I received a letter from S#ilhaus* stating that he would -e willing to #u-lish a shorter version of my res#onse< &owever* his suggested version did not include enough detail to #ro#erly answer all of =or :s criticismsK so I wrote 'r< S#ilhaus again< !uoted -elow are -oth his letter to me and my su-se7uent letter to him: 'ear +o-: @A#ril 4D* 45LJA

I enclose a cut down version of the letter you su-mitted in res#onse to =or :s #a#er on #olonium halos< I would -e willing to #u-lish this in <?S immediately< I -elieve that #u-lication of this letter would call attention to the #rinci#al e,ce#tions you ta e to his remar s< In the interests of conducting the scientific #rocess in an orderly way* more e,tended technical discussion should -e directed to 1ournals devoted to the #u-lication of original research and>or reviews< Sincerely yours* >s> Fred @A#ril BL* 45LJA 'ear Fred:

As #er your suggestion* I would very much ho#e that 'ere =or and others will eventually #u-lish some original research material on radiohalos in s#ecialty 1ournals< And for your sa e I am willing to ma e some significant concessions on the length of my re#ly and not demand that my original version -e #u-lished< +ut I would also ho#e that you could see why my few -rief technical comments need to -e incor#orated into the revised version< First* to give 'ere the #rivilege of ma ing technical criticisms of my research while denying me the #rivilege of s#ecifically res#onding to those comments constitutes discrimination against a minority view< It would -e a case of the esta-lishment attem#ting to su##ress un#o#ular evidence< =ou have not struc me as the sort of individual who would agree to this sort of thing< Second* for me not to s#ecifically res#ond to 'ere :s technical comments would leave the im#ression that I don:t have a res#onse* or else it would have -een #u-lished< After all* a re-uttal is meaningless if it sim#ly says I am right and the other guy is wrong< Third* it would seem that if this 7uestion is ever going to -e resolved* those few technical comments need to -e #ut in so that when the ne,t fellow comes along and ta es a shot at me* he will at least -e firing at the right target< 0et me e,#lain< It is conceiva-le* I thin * that 'ere read my re#orts -ut sim#ly did not catch the significance of the difference in the $o halos in granites and coalified wood< This difference is a-solutely crucial to any #ro#osed e,#lanation of $o halos in granites and needs to -e -riefly s#elled out so that other researchers won:t go down -lind alleys thin ing they have solved the #ro-lem< &ere I want to em#hasi%e that my -rief technical res#onse to 'ere is not a matter of #u-lishing new dataK it is sim#ly that of clarifying data which has already -een #u-lished -ut which has -een misinter#reted< So* Fred* I am returning to you a revised version of my re#ly* which is -asically the version you sent to me with the technical comments added< The last sentence or so has -een modified to ma e u# for the loss of the -ac ground material that has -een left out< And one very im#ortant citation has -een restored to the references along with one or two word changes here and there< In closing let me again remind you that I did not instigate this discussion and I am not trying to turn it into a cause cVlW-re< I am of the o#inion* however* that there are some individuals who may want to do this if they new a-out my difficulties in getting this re#ly #u-lished< In this res#ect* as volatile as this su-1ect is* there is also a #ossi-ility it could turn into a mini83atergate if some within the news media sus#ected there was an attem#t to su##ress or coveru# my re-uttal evidence< For your sa e I am sincerely ho#ing this does not ha##en< As -efore* I am re7uesting that you have the galley #roofs sent to me -efore #u-lication< I have come a long way* and I don:t even want a miss#elled word to come out under my name* much less an inadvertently omitted word that could change the meaning of a sentence< I now you have -een under great #ressure a-out this situation* and I am trying not to

ma e it any harder on you< =our efforts to -e fair are greatly a##reciated< Sincerely* >s> +oCertainly I still greatly a##reciate his efforts< (uch was at sta e in my wor < It was im#erative that I -e given the right to res#ond -ecause =or had com#letely ignored the two main features of my letter in the (ay B5* 4565* issue of <?S @)entry 4565A* namely* the challenge to synthesi%e a #iece of granite and the reference to $rofessor Norman Feather:s conclusions relative to the origin of #olonium halos in micas<

Polo(i'5 :alos: A( 4(depe(de(t &val'atio(

$rofessor Feather:s interest in #olonium halos was a##arently tracea-le to some of my #u-lications< &e understood that the B4J$o halos discovered in coalified wood were secondarily derived from uranium activity< At the same time* he also saw that the origin of the different ty#es of #olonium halos in granites raised some difficult 7uestions< &is theoretical investigation* entitled ?The 2nsolved $ro-lem of the $o8&aloes in $recam-rian +iotite and "ther "ld (inerals*? was #u-lished in 456L in the Communications of the =oyal Society of <dinburgh @Feather 456LA< &is conclusions are a#tly stated in the Syno#sis of his article: Ever since the discovery of $o8haloes in old mica @&enderson and S#ar s 45C5A the #ro-lem of their origin has remained essentially unsolved< Two suggestions have -een made @&enderson 45C5K )entry et al< 456CA* -ut neither carries immediate conviction< These suggestions are e,amined critically and in detail* and the difficulties attaching to the acce#tance of either are identified< +ecause these two suggestions a##ear to e,haust the logical #ossi-ilities of e,#lanation* it is tem#ting to admit that one of them must -e -asically correct* -ut whoever would ma e this admission must -e fortified -y credulity of a high order< @Feather 456L* 4D6A Feather:s dou-ts a-out #olonium halos in granitic micas having originated from uranium daughter radioactivity* or from isomers* in essence confirm my earlier investigations< &is conclusions were derived from a theoretical investigation of the nuclear #ro#erties of the relevant isoto#es< (y 45FL and 456F Science re#orts @)entry 45FLK )entry et al< 456FaK A##endi,A and the 456C Nature re#ort @)entry et al< 456CA* to which Feather refers* show res#ectively that the secondary radioactivity and isomer hy#otheses are not valid for #olonium halos in granites< Feather did not #ro#ose a #rimordial origin of the $o halos as I have done* yet the results of his investigation greatly strengthened my contention that a conventional e,#lanation of the $o halos in granites is scientifically untena-le< =or did not mention this information in his review in <?S. I felt it necessary* then* to comment on Feather:s wor in my re-uttal* finally #u-lished on /uly 4* 45LJ* almost one year after =or :s article had a##eared< It is 7uoted in #art -elow: =or seems to regard even the e,istence of $o halos as only tentative< +ut notwithstanding the uncertainties* his article leans heavily toward the #ro#osition that $o halos do e,ist* at least in micas< =or :s thesis is that $o halos are most #ro-a-ly e,#laina-le within the acce#ted framewor -ecause the interloc ing nature of various radiometric dating techni7ues #rovides #owerful evidence that conventional

geochronology is correct< =or faults me for ignoring this internal consistency< Contrary to his understanding* I do not ignore these data< +ut neither do I acce#t the idea that the #resumed agreement -etween techni7ues is really coercive evidence for the correctness of the uniformitarian assum#tion which undergirds the #resent model< There was no discussion of the BCL2>BJF$- ratios N)entry et al<* 456FaO* which raise significant 7uestions a-out the acce#ted geochronological scheme< 3hile I can a##reciate =or :s desire to em#hasi%e internal consistency* it should -e evident that irres#ective of how much data has -een or yet can -e fitted into the #resent model* the 7uestion of its ultimate relia-ility hinges on whether there e,ist any o-servations which falsify the theory< < < < =or :s sur#rise that I would acce#t &enderson:s hy#othesis for $o halos in coalified wood N)entry et al<* 456FaO -ut re1ect this e,#lanation for mica -ecause of the slowness of solid state diffusion suggests first that the same ty#e of $o halos has -een found in -oth su-stances and second that my only o-1ection to acce#ting &enderson:s hy#othesis in mica was the slowness of solid state diffusion< &ere some very im#ortant data have -een glossed over< (ica contains three ty#es of $o halos* -ut coalified wood only one< (uch evidence suggests the B4J$o halos in coalified wood formed from selective accumulation of B4J$o and B4J$-* which have half8lives sufficiently long @4CL days and BB years* res#ectivelyA to have migrated to the radiocenters -efore serious loss occurred from decay< 0i ewise* the relatively short half8lives of B4D$- and B4L$o @B6 minutes and C minutes* res#ectivelyA mean these nuclides generally decayed away -efore reaching the accumulation sites* which e,#lains the a-sence of B4D$o and B4L$o halos< Thus the crucial 7uestion is: If &enderson:s model results in only B4J$o halos -eing formed under ideal conditions of ra#id trans#ort @#lus an a-undant su##lyA of 28derived $o atoms* then how can this model account for all three $o halo ty#es in mica* where -oth the 2 content and the trans#ort rate are considera-ly lower? Indeed* the close #ro,imity in clear mica @i<e<* without any conduitsA of two or more ty#es of $o halos #resents what may -e incontroverti-le evidence against e,#laining these halos -y &enderson:s hy#othesis NFeather* 456LO< Finally* =or failed to mention that my hy#othesis that $o halos in $recam-rian granites are #rimordial N)entry* 456DO could in theory -e falsified @and Feather:s o-1ections negatedA -y the e,#erimental synthesis of a -iotite crystal that contained at least two dissimilar $o halos in close #ro,imity N)entry* 4565O< @)entry 45LJ* E4DA The #u-lication of this res#onse showed that 'r< S#ilhaus was determined to a-ide -y the #rinci#les enunciated in $he Affirmation of )reedom of In uiry and <'pression @see "verviewA< This was the second time that scientists had -een challenged to #roduce the e,#erimental results that would su-stantiate the evolutionary view of earth history* and at the same time* in theory* falsify my evidence for creation< I wondered whether there would now -e a res#onse* or whether the challenge would continue to -e ignored< "nly time would tell<

Chapter +: Reaction fro( the ,ational &cience Fo'ndation

The financial su##ort for this research is a story in itself< 'uring my tenure as a guest scientist at "RN0* my salary was #rovided from grant funds o-tained through my affiliation with Colum-ia 2nion College< Through the early 456J:s these funds came from #rivate sources and the National Science Foundation to cover that e,#ense< The National Science Foundation @NSFA is the government agency entrusted with allocating hundreds of millions annually for research in the scientific disci#lines< 0i e all government agencies* it is #u-licly funded and legally o-ligated to dis#erse those monies im#artially< In theory* ta,#ayers: money should -e dis#ensed without #reference for #articular views or discrimination against alternative theories< The earth and #lanetary sciences receive much su##ort from the NSF through grants to university science de#artments for research -ased on the evolutionary model of origins< +ut has the NSF -een e7ually inclined to su##ort research related to a creation8-ased model of earth history? This cha#ter focuses on the reaction of NSF officials after it was more generally recogni%ed that my scientific discoveries su##orted creation< NSF was su##ortive of my research before they were aware that the im#lications were damaging to an evolutionary #oint of view< In 456D the NSF awarded me a two8year grant* later e,tended to mid84566* of a##ro,imately IEE*JJJ for research on -oth #olonium halos and the une,#lained dwarf and giant halos< At the time this grant was awarded* the im#lications of my research had not -een revealed to their fullest e,tent< !uite #ossi-ly most NSF officials and reviewers were then unaware that #olonium halos #rovided evidence for an instantaneous creation of the earth< Several of my scientific re#orts were #u-lished during the 456D866 grant #eriod: one related to my investigations of the ?s#ectacle halo*? a second to my wor on halos in coalified wood* and another to the e,istence of su#erheavy elements in giant8halo radiocenters< "f these three* the results on giant halos and su#erheavy elements attracted the greatest attention and the greatest criticism<

6he &l'sive .'perheavy &le5e(ts

A -ac ground of my research efforts on su#erheavy elements will -e given here to hel# the reader understand some of the NSF comments a-out my research #ro#osals< As earlier noted* the #rimary reason for my affiliation with "RN0 in 45F5 was to investigate whether the dwarf or giant halos #rovided evidence of su#erheavy elements< Conse7uently* much of my research there concentrated on these unusual halos in colla-oration with colleagues at "RN0< In s#ite of considera-le effort* -y 456E none of our investigations of giant and dwarf halos showed any convincing evidence of su#erheavy elements< In mid8456E I learned of a new analytical techni7ue for determining the com#osition of tiny #articles collected in air8#ollution studies< In this techni7ue the ion -eam from a nuclear accelerator was used to e,cite the characteristic , rays of the chemical elements com#osing the #article< Its very high sensitivity seemed ideally suited for searching for su#erheavy elements in the microsco#ic8si%ed radiocenters of the giant halos< In early 456F I -egan a colla-oration with #hysicists at Florida State 2niversity at Tallahassee @FS2A and the 2niversity of California at 'avis @2C8'avisA to search for su#erheavy elements in giant8 halo radiocenters< (y main contri-ution to S&E$ @Su#er&eavy Element $ro1ectA was in su##lying the sam#les to the e,#erimenters at FS2< 3e conducted our e,#eriments on the ;an de )raaff accelerator located in the FS2 #hysics de#artment< A few months after e,#erimentation -egan* we

found what a##eared to -e indications of su#erheavy elements in the tiny radiocenters of certain giant halos< +ased on the results of our e,#eriments* we #re#ared a 1oint article for /hysical =eview *etters" a ra#id8#u-lication #hysics 1ournal< The article announcing our evidence for su#erheavy elements was #u-lished in the /uly E* 456F* issue @)entry et al< 456F-A< This re#ort immediately triggered a greatly intensified worldwide search for su#erheavy elements< The #ossi-le discovery of su#erheavy elements was featured in all ma1or science news maga%ines and made the headlines of several news#a#ers< 2nfortunately* later e,#eriments did not confirm our original inter#retation of the evidence< I #artici#ated in two ela-orate follow8u# e,#eriments with colleagues from "RN0* -ut neither #rovided any data indicative of su#erheavy elements< The results of these e,#eriments were su-se7uently #u-lished in two se#arate re#orts in /hysical =eview *etters @S#ar s et al< 4566 and 456LA< Even though the evidence for su#erheavy elements was not confirmed in su-se7uent e,#eriments* our 456F re#ort s#ar ed enough interest in the to#ic so that an International Conference on Su#erheavy Elements was held in 0u--oc * Te,as* in (arch 456L< At that Conference my colleagues from FS2 and 2C8'avis continued to maintain that the giant8halo centers contained su#erheavy elements< A write8u# of that Conference a##eared in the A#ril 4E* 456L* issue of Science News. The following e,cer#t from that article illustrates the difference -etween their views and mine at the time of the Conference: At the 0u--oc sym#osium* )entry made clear that while in 456F he -elieved the evidence warranted the deduction that the inclusions contained element 4BF* now he does not< ?At #resent* I do not have evidence for su#erheavy elements in giant halo inclusions < < < < As the evidence stands today* I will acce#t the view that the synchrotron radiation e,#eriments did not confirm element 4BF<? )entry em#hasi%es that in ma ing that statement he s#ea s only for himself: ?I don:t s#ea for anyone else and they don:t s#ea for me<? The reason he says that* is that some other co8authors of the original re#ort have not given u# the claim< Thomas A< Cahill of the 2niversity of California at 'avis* for instance* vigorously defends the grou#:s original re#ort and strongly disagrees with )entry:s a-out8face< ?The evidence for 4BF in giant haloes has not gone away*? he told Science News. ?It:s even stronger? < < < ?The lines are there*? says Cahill< ?Something is there<? )entry ac nowledges that there are some things a-out the original e,#eriment that even today he does not understand< ?+ut*? he told Science News" ?I have to face it< In my o#inion the Stanford wor is of a sensitivity that it should see it Nany evidence of su#erheavy elementsO<? @Fra%ier 456L* BCLA "rdinarily* a scientist gains some res#ect from his colleagues when he admits an error< In this instance* however* some o##onents of my wor later used the a-ove retraction to cast dou-t on my #u-lished evidences regarding #olonium halos and their im#lications for creation< )enerally they ignored my contri-ution to this Sym#osium @)entry 456LaA in which I summari%ed the technical details of my research on the giant* dwarf* and #olonium halos<

0ecli(atio( of 1%## Proposal

In 4566 I su-mitted a grant #ro#osal to the NSF which was very similar to the one it had funded in 456D< I re7uested funds @4A to continue the search for su#erheavy elements* @BA for additional research on #olonium* dwarf* and giant halos in granites* and @CA for further investigations of halos in coalified wood< This time my #ro#osal was declined< (y colla-orators in the su#erheavy element e,#eriments at Florida State 2niversity and the 2niversity of California8'avis were still receiving NSF funding for further wor on su#erheavy elements< +ut my #ro#osal to continue similar wor had -een denied< I wrote for an e,#lanation< Funding decisions within the NSF are -ased on reviews -y si, scientists who res#ond -y mail* in addition to #anel reviews -y si, other scientists< "f the si, mail reviews of my 4566 #ro#osal* four had actually recommended further funding< The two negative ones cited as their main reason the mista en identification of su#erheavy elements< In contrast to the mail reviews* the #anel review evaluation of my #ro#osal was largely negative< 2#on my re7uest* 'r< /ohn &ower* then $rogram 'irector for )eochemistry at NSF* sent a summary of the #anel discussion< It dealt at length with my research on su#erheavy elements* concluding that ?there is little #ossi-ility of their detection -y #ro#osed techni7ues<? =et my colleagues at FS2 and 2C8'avis were using one of the same techni7ues outlined in my #ro#osal* and the NSF was continuing their funding< In my case* the #anel reviewers decided to re1ect my entire #ro#osal for what I thin were s#urious reasons< The following 7uote from 'r< &ower:s letter to me descri-es the decisive o-1ection found -y the #anel reviewers in my #ro#osal: The most im#ortant criticism of the #ro#osal did not* however* have to do with su#erheavy elements detection< The criticism stemmed from the general nature of the proposed research on haloes. The #rinci#al investigator has -een collecting s#ecimens* e,amining them #etrogra#hically* and re#orting their mor#hology and mineral occurrence for a num-er of years< The #anel considered that these descri#tive contri-utions have -een of some value* -ut felt that more of the same a##roach had little #otential to contri-ute something new< The main difficulty with the #ro#osal is that @aside from the su#erheavy element searchA there was no hy#othesis concerning the origin of the haloes that the #rinci#al investigator #ro#osed to test< &e has already loo ed at and descri-ed a num-er of occurrences< The #anel felt that it was not 1ustified in recommending funding of a research #ro1ect that merely #ro#osed to ma e additional o-servations of the #henomenon< There seems little #ossi-ility that the #rinci#al investigator could arrive at a hy#othesis -y loo ing at additional haloes since he has not -een a-le to #ro#ose one at this time< @&ower 4566K A##endi,. italics mineA Initially I understood ?haloes? in the first italici%ed #hrase referred to -oth giant halos and #olonium halos as discussed in the #ro#osal< ?&aloes? in the second italici%ed #hrase I understood to mean #rimarily giant halos -ecause of the reference to su#erheavy elements< And since ?haloes? in the last italici%ed #hrase was not 7ualified* I again assumed it referred to #olonium halos in granites< "n that -asis I felt there were some contradictions in the NSF handling of my case* and I decided to a##eal their declination of my #ro#osal<

Appeal to the 3.F

The relevant #art of my a##eal letter* addressed to 'r< Edward Todd* the Assistant 'irector for Astronomical* Atmos#heric* Earth* and Atmos#heric Sciences* National Science Foundation* is as

follows: Now with res#ect to the second criticism of the #ro#osal* the $rogram 'irector:s letter states that in essence the #anel was not a-le to find that I had any hy#othesis to test with res#ect to the other #hases of my research on halos* or that there was any #ros#ect of my finding a hy#othesis in the future< I can understand such statements could -e made -y #ersons unac7uainted with geochemical terminology who might read my #u-lished re#orts< It is* however* very difficult for me to understand how a #anel of geochemists could ma e such statements* es#ecially in view of the fact that I had #reviously discussed with the $rogram 'irector the hy#othesis and im#lications of my research on $o halos as they have been published in the open scientific literature and referred to in both the previous and the present NS) proposals. . . . I s#ecifically refer to the fact that I have #ro#osed that ?$o halos? in Earth:s -asement granitic roc s re#resent evidence of e,tinct natural radioactivity and thus im#ly only a -rief #eriod -etween ?nucleosynthesis? and crystalli%ation of the host roc s N)entry 456EO< < < < Furthermore* -ac in 456C* again in a Nature re#ort N)entry et al< 456CO* I #ointed out the e,istence of $o halos ?meets with severe geological #ro-lems: the half8 lives of the #olonium isoto#es @tT R C min for B4L$oA are too short to #ermit anything -ut a ra#id mineral crystalli%ation* contrary to acce#ted theories of magmatic cooling rates<? < < < In fact a #erson really doesn:t have to -e a geochemist* or even have training in geochemistry @actually I am a #hysicist turned aside into nuclear geo#hysicsA* to see that in my #u-lished re#orts I am claiming to have found evidence that sha es the foundations of modern cosmology and geochemistry< Thus -ecause I have -een very forthright in stating the im#lications of my research in my #u-lished re#orts* I would li e to suggest to you the #ossi-ility that* when the $rogram 'irector and the review #anel indicated they had difficulty finding my hy#othesis* what they really meant was that they could not fit the evidence I have re#orted into any of the #o#ular* currently held geochemical or cosmological theories concerning the origin of the earth< (uch later it occurred to me that the #anel reviewers may never have intended any reference to #olonium halos in their comments< $erha#s they decided to 1ust ignore this #hase of my #ro#osal< In any event* 'r< Todd:s res#onse to my a##eal letter did not address this issue< It stated: < < < It is my conclusion that your #ro#osal received a thorough and fair #eer review through the )eochemistry $rogram "ffice* a review that included a conscientious and careful consideration of si, ad hoc mail reviews< As #art of the reconsideration #rocess your re-uttal to those reviews has -een considered also< It is my o#inion that your #ro#osal was fairly reviewed and that the decision to decline was 1ustified< @Todd 4566K A##endi,A In this res#onse* 'r< Todd ignored the three main #oints of my a##eal letter: @4A NSF su##ort of the other researchers who #artici#ated in the original su#erheavy element e,#eriments* while denying similar su##ort for my researchK @BA the #anel:s refusal to ac nowledge that I had #ro#osed a hy#othesis for the origin of #olonium halosK @CA my claim of finding evidence which challenges the foundations of modern cosmology and geochemistry< Todd:s silence on these #oints led me to

-elieve it would -e futile to a##eal this decision to a higher level of NSF< 3as my #ro#osal re1ected -ecause of #hiloso#hic -ias rather than scientific considerations?

A(other Proposal > A(other 0e(ial

In 4565 I su-mitted a new #ro#osal to the National Science Foundation to investigate #olonium halos in minerals and other su-stances< This one was s#ecifically designed to test the NSF #ulse on the #rimordial origin of #olonium halos in granites< The im#lications for creation were clearly stated< In a few words I as ed for funds to continue my research< In this -rief #ro#osal there were no #eri#heral issues* such as su#erheavy elements* for the reviewers to focus on< In this instance they could not esca#e commenting on my #u-lished evidences for creation< They could legitimately critici%e the #ro#osal -ecause of its -revity< +ut if their reactions to the evidence for creation were #ositive* I could resu-mit a longer #ro#osal giving the necessary details< The reviewers: res#onses would reflect whether they were interested in #ro-ing for the truth a-out creation or in maintaining the status 7uo of evolution< Not sur#risingly* most of the #eer reviews of this new #ro#osal were 7uite negative< Five reviewers gave it a ?#oor? rating< I was elated* however* for the one o#en8minded reviewer who gave a ?fair? rating and* in fact* suggested that the #ro#osal should -e resu-mitted with more details< In general* though* the suggestion of the #rimordial hy#othesis was severely critici%ed* and the testing of a creation model was referred to as ?s#eculative? and ?ridiculous<? "ne reviewer argued that my #rimordial #olonium hy#othesis is ?unli ely to -e acce#ted until alternative* conventional inter#retations are convincingly shown to -e wrong<? Another held out the ho#e that conventional e,#lanations would still -e forthcoming: ?It is 7uite li ely*? argued one reviewer* ?that the e,#lanations are to -e found in trivial effects involving nown #henomena and that e,#lanations already in the literature will suffice<? Since my e,#lanation for the data was not conventional* one reviewer commented: ?I cannot find any #lan < < < to loo for alternative e,#lanations of these halos<? The suggestion to loo for an e,#lanation within the evolutionary framewor was in essence a re7uest to -ac trac and head down a dead8end street< "ver the #revious decade I had already investigated and re#orted on the two #ossi-le e,#lanations for #olonium halos in granites that are consistent with evolution* namely* @4A a secondary origin from uranium and @BA the isomer hy#othesis< As the earlier #arts of this -oo have shown* the scientific evidences negating these two #ossi-ilities had -een #u-lished in the o#en scientific literature for many years< Some reviewers critici%ed me for not offering ?new techni7ues*? ?suggestions for new #rogress*? or ?a research -asis for new #rogress on the su-1ect<? Some of their comments were dou-tless ins#ired -y the -revity of my #ro#osal< 3ith others it seems there was an emotional tone< "ne wrote: )entry merely #ro#oses to do more of the same ind of wor he has done -efore< &e does not #ro#ose any new techni7ue or a##roach < < < &e does not define any new scientific o-1ectives* e,ce#t -y im#lication the testing of ?a new framewor ? of cosmology< Therefore* I do not recommend this #ro#osal for su##ort< These comments e,#ress disa##roval for my continuing to wor with the #rimordial #olonium hy#othesis< "ne reviewer e,#ressed his views as follows: ?To me it certainly does not seem worthwhile to further su##ort s#eculations and ridiculous im#lications on this su-1ect<? Although this reviewer gave no scientific o-1ections to my wor * he was not a-ove reacting emotionally to my evidence for creation<

Several of these reviewers had difficulty regarding my hy#othesis as genuine and scientific< "ne felt I was ?highlighting #ersonal #ositions in controversies rather than defining distinct courses of investigation<? Another reviewer suggested that the #ro-lems I had raised could -e solved -y other researchers ?with greater o-1ectivity<? After first critici%ing me for not offering anything new* the most detailed evaluation of my research follows: "n the #lus side* )entry is < < < #ro-a-ly the world:s foremost e,#ert on the o-servation and measurement of radiohalos< &e does his own wor * and his financial re7uirements are 7uite modest< &e is remar a-ly tenacious in the #ursuit of certain o-servations which are difficult to e,#lain< ,is further wor# will result in publications. In the #ast he has sei%ed on several 7uite new techni7ues* and arranged to s#end several years at "RN0 in order to have access to a variety of instruments and scientific associates< &owever* his researches seem to have reached a dead end< < < < @Italics mineA This review e,em#lifies the contradictory res#onse of the NSF to my wor < "n one hand* the reviewer downgrades my wor * saying that I #ro#ose nothing new* yet he ac nowledges that I have a record of utili%ing new research techni7ues< (y research has reached a dead end* he asserts* yet my future wor will -e of a 7uality to warrant #u-licationS If that is so* why did this reviewer o##ose funding my wor ? $u-lisha-le research is* after all* e,actly what the NSF ho#es to o-tain from its grant funds< )entry ma es reference in the #ro#osal* and has mentioned in more detail in some of his writings* that the #olonium halos must -e ?#rimordial #olonium*? which he ta es to mean that the #olonium was created* along with the host roc s < < < in a &ible+li#e instant of creation. @Italics mineA Instead of res#onding to the evidence I had #u-lished* the reviewer sim#ly #oints out that my evidence contradicts the evolutionary framewor : < < < N)entryO does not discuss the enormous amount of conflicting evidence which ascri-es a long #rocess of evolution of the universe* the earth* life on earth* etc< to the #resent state< If he wishes to #ro#ose a new framewor for cosmology* he should descri-e it in detail* with all its su##orting evidence* im#lications* critical o-servations which could test it against the ?currently acce#ted cosmological and geological framewor < < < <? This reviewer faults me for not criti7uing the entire* com#rehensive framewor of evolution* as it touches all the scientific disci#lines< 3hat he overloo s is that irrefuta-le evidence for creation invalidates the uniformitarian principle" which has -een descri-ed in this -oo as the glue -inding all the #ieces in the evolutionary mosaic together< 3here is the logic in evaluating different #arts of a theory when all of them are de#endent on an erroneous #remise? $erha#s the reviewer should have -een more concerned that* after many years* evolutionists still failed to e,#lain my widely #u-lished evidences for creation< This reviewer further argues that I needed to detail ?critical o-servations which could test? my hy#othesis< This is an interesting -ut somewhat -affling remar -ecause included with my #ro#osal was a descri#tion of such a test.the one discussed at length in the last cha#ter and #u-lished in <?S @)entry 4565A< The suggestion that I should #ro#ose a new framewor of cosmology is

something which I had already started and even continued to develo# after my #ro#osal was finally re1ected< +oth the 4566 and 4565 #ro#osals were thus re1ected without any s#ecific* concrete o-1ections to my results on #olonium halos< The im#lications for creation were treated in 4566 with silence and in 4565 with disdain< There was no interest to see whether my o-servations had #in#ointed a critical wea ness in the theory of evolution< There was* however* one consolation in all of this< +y leaving unchallenged the scientific accuracy of my #u-lished e,#erimental wor on #olonium halos* the reviewers had shown that my evidence for creation must -e rather su-stantial< (y scientific colleagues* some of whom were o#enly antagonistic toward creation* had -een e,#osed to the im#lications of my research* and their only scientific res#onse to the evidence was silence<

4(B'iry ;y a /e5;er of Co(gress>1%## Proposal

(y interview with the news maga%ine Christian Citi5en @(elnic 45L4A #rom#ted an individual to contact his 2<S< Congressional Re#resentative a-out the NSF handling of my 4566 #ro#osal< The corres#ondence -etween the Congressman and the NSF was forwarded to me< The NSF gave what a##ears to -e a misleading account of my situation< The first letter* dated /une 45LB* and addressed to Ro-ert 3al er* Re#resentative from $ennsylvania* was written -y Francis /ohnson* Assistant 'irector of the 'ivision of Astronomical* Atmos#heric* Earth* and "cean Sciences< It reads in #art: (r< Anderson is correct when he states in his letter that 'r< Ro-ert )entry is the world:s leading authority on the o-servation and measurement of anomalous radioactive haloes< +ecause of his recogni%ed ca#a-ilities* 'r< )entry:s research was funded -y the Foundation during the early 456J:s< In 4566* however* a #ro#osal #resented -y 'r< )entry was declined< < < That action was -ased u#on the recommendations of si, of his #eer scientists* who found that the #ro#osal did not measure u# to either 'r< )entry:s earlier standards* as evidenced -y his #reviously successful #ro#osals* or to the standards of the Foundation< < < < @/ohnson 45LBK A##endi,A This letter im#lies that all si, reviewers gave negative evaluations of the 4566 #ro#osal* when* in fact* four reviews were actually #ositive< @The two negative ones focused on my su#erheavy element research<A It also suggests a decline in the standard of my research< &ow did the NSF determine that this #ro#osal ?did not measure u# to? my earlier standards or the standards of the Foundation? 2sually the NSF ta es the #u-lication record during the #receding grant #eriod as a #rime indicator of whether an investigator is ma ing #rogress in his research< Three re#orts were #u-lished during the 456D86F grant #eriod* and after the re1ection of my 4566 #ro#osal* five additional scientific re#orts were #u-lished in the ne,t five years< Thus as far as my scientific #u-lications were concerned* there certainly had -een no decline in my standards< (oreover* the words* ?'r< )entry is the world:s leading authority on the o-servation and measurement of anomalous radioactive haloes*? are in the #resent tense< If* -y the NSF:s own admission* I still had that re#utation at the time /ohnson wrote the letter @/une 45LBA* then my research after 4566 did continue to maintain the standards of my earlier endeavors< And if the NSF classifies someone as an authority in his field* doesn:t this im#ly he has met the Foundation:s ?standard? of scientific merit? Re#resentative 3al er was not given the full #icture< +y withholding co#ies of my corres#ondence with 'r< Todd* /ohnson glossed over the NSF:s discriminatory treatment of my #ro#osal< +ut more to the #oint* if my a##eal letter had -een sent to 3al er* he could have seen that the NSF avoided

res#onding to my evidences for creation< To find out if /ohnson:s failure to send my a##eal letters was inadvertent* I called him around /uly BL* 45LB* and #ointed out that* in all fairness* his corres#ondence with 3al er left a distinctly erroneous im#ression< &e res#onded that he was under no o-ligation to send my a##eal letters and drew the conversation to a close< In his letter /ohnson assured 3al er that the NSF would ?-e #leased to review and evaluate a #ro#osal from 'r< )entry at any time< I assure you that any su-mission will -e given a fair* honest and o#en a##raisal -y his #eers and that if they 1udge his ideas as worthy of su##ort* he will -e funded? @/ohnson 45LBK A##endi,A< The issue is what standard will -e used to 1udge whether my ideas are ?worthy of su##ort? or not? If scientific credi-ility hinges u#on whether the data su##ort evolutionary ideas* then o-viously my research would not measure u# to the ?standards? of the NSF<

4(B'iry ;y a /e5;er of Co(gress>1%#% Proposal

After hearing me s#ea at the /une 45LB meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science @AAASA in Santa +ar-ara* another citi%en wrote to his Congressional Re#resentative a-out my funding difficulties with the NSF in 4565< /ohnson again res#onded on -ehalf of the NSF* writing to Re#resentative Ro-ert /< 0agomarsino of California as follows: < < < "nly a-out half of the #ro#osals we receive can -e funded< Criteria used are stated in our -oo let ?)rants for Scientific and Engineering Research? @NSF L 4865* co#y of relevant #age enclosedA< The holding of unorthodo, scientific views is not a -arrier to the recei#t of NSF su##ort* and the -est evidence for this is the fact that during the 456J:s NSF funded several of 'r< )entry:s #ro#osals including one for IED*5JJ for the study of ?Nuclear )eo#hysics of Radiohalos<? $lease reassure your constituent that NSF funding decisions are -ased on well8identified criteria and that 'r< )entry:s views have not -een a -arrier to his receiving NSF su##ort< @/ohnson 45LCK A##endi,A /ohnson cites my #revious grants as evidence that the NSF was fair a-out my earlier #ro#osals< &owever* he omits relevant information a-out them: the #revious NSF su##ort was given during the early 456J:s* a time when the im#lications of my wor for creation were not reali%ed -y the scientific community at large< The creationist im#lications of my research were #u-lished more forthrightly 1ust -efore and during the #eriods in which my #ro#osals were refused.in 4566 and 4565< Scientists who had given tentative su##ort to my wor in the early 456J:s -egan to give u# their ho#es that I would discover a conventional e,#lanation of #olonium halos in granites* and their attitudes shifted significantly< As one reviewer of the 4565 #ro#osal wrote* ?I have #reviously su##orted the need for @)entry:sA unorthodo, inter#retations as a challenge to the rest of the scientific community< 0ately* I have concluded that newer* inde#endent efforts are re7uired< < <? So my e,#eriences show that* contrary to /ohnson:s words* the #u-lication of ?unorthodo, scientific views? a-out creation science did indeed #resent a ?-arrier to the recei#t of NSF su##ort*? once its reviewers understood the issues<

Pro<&vol'tio( at the 3.F7

The NSF has a long history of funding #ro#osals which encom#ass the evolutionary #osition< Certainly one of the largest grants of this nature was for the +iological Science Curriculum Study @+SCSA* which in 45FD #u-lished a controversial series of te,t-oo s incor#orating evolution as a ma1or theme< An NSF official led the way in denouncing the develo#ing creation science movement in America< At the 45L4 annual national meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science @AAASA* 'r< Rolf Sinclair of the NSF too the o##ortunity to arouse o##osition to creation science< Science News re#orted: Another to#ic that #rovided heat* if not light* was the revived anti8evolution movement< $hysicist Rolf (< Sinclair of the National Science Foundation organi%ed a session titled ?;iews of the 2niverse: Science versus Tradition<? &e came out of his ivory tower* he says* and was shoc ed to find out what the creationists are doing in schools< Their success in getting school districts to teach creationist ideas is restricting and #erverting science education* he says< < < < The session at this year:s meeting* e,#lains Sinclair* is 1ust a -eginning< The theme of ne,t year:s AAAS will -e Science Education* and tentatively it will include discussion of ways to com-at creationism and the teaching of religion as science< @ Science News 45L4* 45A Shortly thereafter Sinclair ela-orated further on his views in a letter to this news maga%ine @Sinclair 45L4A< There he em#hasi%ed that the solar system had come into -eing several -illion years ago and that the entire universe -egan in a ?-ig -ang? tens of -illions of years ago< &e also e,#ressed full confidence in the overall record of organic evolution and* in #articular* the record of life on earth going -ac more than a -illion years< +oth conclusions carry the connotation that evolution is -eyond dis#ute<

Freedo5 of 4(B'iry
Since its ince#tion* the NSF has e,#ended vast sums to su##ort research #ro1ects -ased on evolutionary assum#tions< It may -e argued that the NSF is 1ustified in e,#ending these huge sums -ecause a num-er of #rominent scientists* such as 'r< Sinclair* overwhelmingly endorse evolution as a confirmed theory* or even as fact< If the NSF could #rove that evolution is the true descri#tion of the origin and develo#ment of the cosmos* the earth* and life* then the NSF would -e 1ustified in denying funding to scientists whose research #ro#osals 7uestion the evolutionary scenario< +ut evolution is neither confirmed theory nor fact< If life actually originated -y chance* as evolution re7uires* evolutionary -iologists should -e a-le to re#roduce that #rocess in la-oratory e,#eriments< Still* des#ite decades of intensive efforts and generous government funding* all attem#ts to #roduce life from inert matter have #roved fruitless< 0i ewise* if life evolved -y the transformation of one ma1or grou# into another* where are the numerous transitional forms e,#ected on the -asis of evolution? +iologists could long ago have #ut to rest em-arrassing 7uestions a-out the general a-sence of transitional forms in the fossil record if they had #roduced e,am#les of missing lin s under la-oratory conditions< All attem#ts to create new forms in the la-oratory* such as inducing mutations through nuclear irradiation* have #roduced only variations of e,isting ty#es< 'evelo#ing new features in fish* for e,am#le* until they -egin to develo# into

am#hi-ians should certainly -e sim#ler than creating life itself and would -e the #resently o-serva-le evidence needed to ma e evolution a science instead of s#eculation< There would then -e no dis#ute a-out its validity< Since no such demonstration has -een accom#lished* at -est the NSF should consider evolution as a widely held -ut un#roven theory< The NSF is thus morally o-ligated to treat it as o#en to challenge* in the s#irit of the Affirmation of )reedom of In uiry and <'pression @see "verviewA< 3ritten -y evolutionists themselves* it declares that ?all discoveries and ideas < < < may -e challenged without restriction<? I assume that the NSF should also a-ide -y another #rinci#le of the Affirmation: ?Freedom of in7uiry and dissemination of ideas re7uire that those so engaged -e free to search where their in7uiry leads without fear of retribution in conse uence of the unpopularity of their conclusions." The reader may decide whether the NSF adhered to this #rinci#le in its evaluation of my 4566 and 4565 #ro#osals to continue wor on radioactive halos< The documentation in this cha#ter shows the reaction of the NSF after they were convinced that my discoveries were contradictory to the ?acce#ted? model of earth history<

Chapter -: Creation &cience.a P'blic /ss'e

0ittle did I sus#ect when my wor -egan in 45FB that nineteen years later the results of my research would -ecome a #u-lic issue< This all started in the s#ring of 45L4 when the Ar ansas state legislature #assed Act E5J* a -ill re7uiring ?-alanced treatment of creation8science and evolution in #u-lic schools<? The American Civil 0i-erties 2nion @AC02A filed suit* challenging the constitutionality of the Act* and a trial date was set for 'ecem-er 6* 45L4* at the Federal 'istrict Court in 0ittle Roc < The enactment of Act E5J served as a reminder of the anti8evolution law* the +utler Act* #assed in Tennessee in 45BE< That law was also challenged -y the AC02* and this led to the famous Sco#es trial in 'ayton* Tennessee< It is necessary to focus -riefly on this earlier trial -ecause its #o#ular legacy as an overwhelming victory for evolution was a ey factor in sha#ing the outcome of the Ar ansas trial< The #rinci#als in the 45BE trial were @4A /ohn Sco#es* a high school foot-all coach and su-stitute science teacher* @BA 3illiam /ennings +ryan* the great fundamentalist orator and three times #residential candidate* who #rosecuted the case against Sco#es* and @CA Clarence 'arrow* the eminent trial lawyer* who defended Sco#es< Sco#es: voluntary assent to -e arrested for teaching evolution -ecame nationwide news< The reaction to this e,traordinary #u-licity showed that many Americans felt the foundations of their religious -eliefs were at sta e in this -attle< To some the trial was seen as a means of either confirming or denying their understanding of the Scri#tures<

6he @esso(s of .copes

)enerally* #o#ular accounts of the trial #icture 3illiam /ennings +ryan as a man who feared the truth -ecause of his #resumed refusal to #ermit e,#ert testimony for evolution to -e given at the trial< Clarence 'arrow* on the other hand* is credited with having outmaneuvered such -igotry when he arranged for his e,#ert witnesses to give their scientific evidences for evolution to the news re#orters covering the trial< +y this master stro e* 'arrow managed to have the theory of evolution disseminated to the remotest -ounds of the civili%ed world< /ust as significantly* this was accom#lished without any arguments against evolution -eing mentioned< Thus evolution a##eared to -e -ased on incontroverti-le evidence< As a result* evolution is thought to have won the day @even though Sco#es lost on a technicalityA< The #erceived outcome of the trial among scientists was -oth #ervasive and self8#er#etuating< From henceforth any scientist who o#enly #rofessed any -elief in a literal inter#retation of )enesis -ecame sus#ect among his #eers< This disdain for creation was #assed on to each new generation of university students -y -oth scientists themselves and educators* many of whom new no -etter than to echo their scientific colleagues< Since the Sco#es trial* three generations of college8educated Americans have -een indoctrinated with the view that evolution re#resents scientific truth< This wides#read indoctrination #rovided the AC02 with a tremendous #sychological advantage as they #re#ared for the Ar ansas trial< The #residing 1udge at the Ar ansas trial did not live in a vacuum< Even though the Ar ansas trial was su##osed to -e decided solely on the -asis of evidence #resented in Court* the AC02 well new the historical im#act of the Sco#es trial could wor to their favor< In addition* the news releases #ertaining to the Ar ansas trial could -e a decisive factor< In general those news re#orts came from the #ens of media re#resentatives who reflected the American cultural scene< It is safe to assume they all had -een educated in the mold of contem#orary science and its overwhelming

#reference for evolution< And most li ely their image of creation science had -een molded -y the #o#ular accounts of the Sco#es trial< Inevita-ly their #erce#tions* and hence their news re#orts* of the Ar ansas trial would reflect the #rior conditioning from those accounts< 2nfortunately* it seems much that has -een written and filmed in certain of those accounts cannot -e su-stantiated either -y historical records or -y the transcri#t of the trial< To illustrate* a criti7ue -y 'r< 'avid (enton has shown that the account which has received the greatest #u-licity* namely* the Sco#es trial motion #icture Inherit the 4ind" -ears little resem-lance to the actual events and details of the trial itself< An im#ortant #art of this criti7ue @(enton 45LEA focuses on the circumstances surrounding the arrest of Sco#es for #resuma-ly -rea ing the law< According to the historical records* Sco#es maintained he never taught evolution during the two wee s he su-stituted as a science teacher< Thus* in reality* he never -ro e the law< &is arrest was -ased on a trum#ed8u# charge< It was contrived* with Sco#es: assent* -y a local mine o#erator so that the AC02 could challenge the +utler Act< 'id the lawyers who acted in Sco#es: defense now of these circumstances? The criti7ue mentioned a-ove #rovides a clear answer to this 7uestion when it refers to 0< S#rague de Cam#:s -oo * $he ;reat %on#ey $rial. In this -oo a remar a-le conversation is recorded -etween Sco#es and re#orter 3illiam H< &utchinson of the International News Service: ?There is something I must tell you< It:s worried me< I didn:t violate the law<? ?A 1ury has said you had*? re#lied &utchinson< ?=es* -ut I never taught that evolution lesson< I s i##ed it< I was doing something else the day I should have taught it* and I missed the whole lesson a-out 'arwin and never did teach it< Those ids they #ut on the stand couldn:t remem-er what I taught them three months ago< They were coached -y the lawyers< And that A#ril twenty8fourth date was 1ust a guess<? ?&onest* I:ve -een scared all through the trial that the ids might remem-er I missed the lesson< I was afraid they:d get on the stand and say I hadn:t taught it and then the whole trial would go -looey< If that ha##ened they would run me out of town on a rail<? ?3ell you are safe now*? said &utchinson< ?=es* I:m convicted of a crime I never committed*? said Sco#es< ?+ut my s irts are clear< =ou now I #leaded :not guilty<:? ?That will ma e a great story<? ?(y god* noS? cried Sco#es< ?Not a word of it until the Su#reme Court #asses on my a##eal< (y lawyers would ill me if it got out now<? @de Cam# 45FL* DCBA Thus* incredi-le as it seems* those who acted in Sco#es: defense a##arently not only new of* -ut a-etted the situation -y encouraging some of Sco#es: students to commit #er1ury and testify that Sco#es had taught evolution< @Interestingly* deCam#:s -oo @#< DCBA singles out 'arrow as the lawyer who did the coaching<A In his memoirs Sco#es once again disclaimed teaching evolution* which at his trial included a reference to the earth once -eing ?a hot molten mass? @Sco#es and $resley 45F6* 4CB84CDA< At the same time he also attem#ted to deflect the clear im#lication of #er1ury

-y claiming his students were #ossi-ly confused a-out where they had heard a-out evolution @Sco#es and $resley 45F6* 4CDA< These circumstances reveal an as#ect of the Sco#es trial that is not generally nown< "ne of the most 7uestiona-le #arts of Inherit the 4ind relates to its #ortrayal of 3illiam /ennings +ryan as a man who feared the truth -ecause he o-1ected to the introduction of e,#ert testimony for evolution< !uoted -elow are two #aragra#hs of (enton:s criti7ue which #resents a different #ers#ective on this matter: (";IE: The defense is una-le to get #ermission to use their several e,#ert witnesses -ecause +ryan is afraid of their testimony and considers it irrelevant< "ne -y one* 'arrow calls his distinguished scientists to the stand -ut each time* than s to an ignorant and -iased 1udge* +ryan needs only to say* ?o-1ection.irrelevant*? and that is the end of it< FACT: Technically* the only #oint at issue in the trial was whether or not /ohn Sco#es actually taught the evolution of man from lower orders of animals* so naturally the lawyers for the #rosecution did 7uestion the relevance of the testimony of e,#ert witnesses< The testimony of the evolutionists assem-led -y the defense was #revented* however* -ecause 'arrow adamantly refused to let his scientific witnesses -e cross8 e,amined -y the #rosecution @transcri#t* #ages BJF8BJLA< +ryan had as ed for* and received* the right to cross8e,amine the e,#ert witnesses* -ut 'arrow was so o##osed to allowing his e,#erts to -e 7uestioned that he never called them to the witness standS +ryan #ointed out that under the conditions demanded -y 'arrow* the evolutionists could ta e the witness stand and merely e,#ress their s#eculations and o#inions on evolution without fear of either #er1ury or -eing contradicted< @(enton 45LEA

.tac+i(g the 0ec+ Agai(st Creatio( .cie(ce

The negative image of creation science #ortrayed in the widely viewed Inherit the 4ind was considera-ly reinforced -y the #retrial #u-lication of some critical reviews of creation science< A good e,am#le is the article* ?A Res#onse to Creationism Evolves*? #u-lished in Science 1ust a few wee s -efore the Ar ansas trial< This article @0ewin 45L4A details the results of two scientific meetings* organi%ed for the #ur#ose of com-ating the s#read of creation science in America< The first was s#onsored -y the National Academy of Sciences @NASA and held on "cto-er 45* 45L4< The second meeting was organi%ed -y the National Association of +iology Teachers @NA+TA and held on "cto-er BJ* 45L4< At these meetings* -oth held in 3ashington* 'C* certain influential evolutionary scientists made it a##ear that creation science was a threat* not 1ust to evolution* -ut to all of science< They issued a call for o##osition to creation science at every o##ortunity< 3illiam (ayer* 'irector of the +iological Sciences Curriculum Study* 0ouisville* Colorado* is 7uoted as declaring: The whole structure of science is under attac < And it:s not 1ust -iology that:s in danger* it:s all of science: geology* #hysics* astronomy< The creationists are attem#ting to mandate what is a##ro#riate for study and what is not< @0ewin 45L4* FCEA These alarmist remar s were made -efore a sym#athetic audience< Ironically* these evolutionists failed to see that their own staunch o##osition to the teaching of evidence for creation was in itself an attem#t to mandate what is and what is not a##ro#riate for study< Note that the em#hasis here is

not what is truth* -ut how to maintain the status 7uo in science< This was further evident when Niles Eldredge* a curator at the American (useum of Natural &istory in New =or * used scare tactics to o##ose funding for creation science: The creationists have already made moves to secure funding for so8called creation science on an e7ual footing with evolution science< This should -e sufficient to convince my colleagues that the house really is on fire< @0ewin 45L4* FCEA "ther #retrial articles that #rovided the AC02 with #sychological advantage a##eared in the 'ecem-er 45L4 issue of the #o#ular monthly Science 98. @This issue* devoted #rimarily to a formida-le attac on the ?fallacies? of creation science* was deemed so im#ortant that co#ies were given to the National Science Teachers Association for distri-ution to its mem-ers<A An e,cer#t from the article ?Farewell to Newton* Einstein* 'arwin< < <? shows how the authors* Allen &ammond and 0ynn (argulis* attem#t to convey the im#ression that creation science is in direct conflict with true science: All scientific theories* inevita-ly* are tentative answers to 7uestions a-out nature< < < < This characteristic of continually revising ideas to reflect the world as it is o-served is what ma es science science< In contrast* the creationists start with a ?theory? or faith in a #articular descri#tion of nature drawn not from o-servation -ut from the +i-le< To argue.as the creationists do. that a theory must -e true rather than that the evidence com#els one to it as the -est choice is fundamentally antithetical to science< To -e unwilling to revise a theory to accommodate o-servation is to forfeit any claim to -e scientific< For it is not facts or theories that are essential to the growth of science -ut rather the #rocess of critical thin ing* the rational e,amination of evidence* and an intellectual honesty enforced -y the s e#tical scrutiny of scientific #eers< +y these standards creationism is not science< Indeed* creationists do not #artici#ate in the scientific enter#rise.they do not #resent #a#ers or #u-lish in scientific 1ournals< And it is #recisely -ecause creationists #resent themselves as ?scientific? that they do most harm to the educational system< @&ammond and (argulis 45L4* E6A The claim that creationists are unwilling to revise a theory to accommodate o-servation is nothing more than massive character assassination of all creation scientists< I have already referred to one revision in my own wor that occurred in reference to the #reviously discussed re#ort on su#erheavy elements< And the claim that creation scientists do not #u-lish in scientific 1ournals is directly contradicted -y my own #u-lications< Another writer* /ohn S ow* also #resented uncom#limentary views of creation scientists in his com#anion article in the same issue of Science 98: The scientific creationists have -een on the scene for something more than a decade now* and it is clear that their o-duracy is not the result of insufficient education< It is a resolute* structured ignorance* maintained -y choice and against odds< < < < They must find ?scientific? reasons for the scientifically unreasona-le* and -y heroic twisting of evidence* they do< < < < Their system of -elief resists unwanted information< @S ow 45L4* E5A The 7uestion could -e raised: /ust who is attem#ting to ?twist? the evidence? S ow claims that creationists resist unwanted information< &is accusations are 7uite incongruous* for -oth his and

the #reviously 7uoted article fail to mention the #ersuasive evidence for creation #u-lished in my scientific re#orts< Is it #ossi-le that he may have the ?system of -elief? that ?resists unwanted information?? This widely distri-uted issue of Science 98 greatly reinforced the negative view of creation science which had -een given such im#etus at the Sco#es trial< (y colleagues at the "a Ridge National 0a-oratory who saw this issue were dou-tless ho#ing that I would not -e drawn into center stage in this ra#idly develo#ing controversy over creation and evolution<

6he Ar+a(sas 6rial: A 0iffic'lt 0ecisio(

"n the morning of "cto-er B6* 45L4* a long8time friend called to inform me that he had -een as ed to testify as an e,#ert witness at the forthcoming Ar ansas creation trial< &e mista enly thought an invitation had already -een e,tended for me to testify as well< 2#on learning this was not the case* he informed the Ar ansas Attorney )eneral:s office of my wor < 0ater that same day I received a tele#hone call from the Attorney )eneral:s office re7uesting me to #rovide them with re#rints and other #ertinent data relative to my findings< A few days later the 'e#uty Attorney )eneral as ed me to testify for the State as an e,#ert witness for creation science< I new that my involvement in the trial could eliminate any ho#e of continuing at the 0a-oratory< If my testimony at the trial were misre#resented in #rint* it would almost certainly 1eo#ardi%e my research at "RN0< In Se#tem-er 45L4* a few months -efore the trial* a #rominent evolutionist had also called and urged me in a cordial way not to ris incurring the ill will of the scientific community -y testifying for the State< &e suggested that my re#utation as a scientist would undou-tedly suffer if I did* and I was inclined to agree with him< 2ntil I received the "cto-er call* it seemed that my #resence at the trial would -e a needless ris < Several factors led me to change my mind a-out testifying for the State< They have all come into much shar#er focus since the trial* as will -e seen in the remainder of this cha#ter< First of all* it was and still is difficult for me to follow the logic and consistency of the American Civil 0i-erties 2nion @AC02A in their o##osition to Act E5J< They claimed that this Act* in re7uiring -alanced treatment of evolution and creation science* constituted the esta-lishment of religion* thus violating the First Amendment< And yet witnesses at court trials swear -y )od to tell the truth* and the courts themselves are o#ened with a reference to )od< Also* -oth -ranches of the 2<S< Congress are often -egun with reference to the )od of the /udeo8Christian ethic< A stri ing e,am#le of this #ractice was given in the o#ening #rayer for the &ouse of Re#resentatives on A#ril B5* 45LB: The Reverend Ray A< &owe* First $res-yterian Church* +ennetsville* S<C<* offered the following #rayer: " Creator )od* who created the world and all that inha-it it* we than =ou we can so readily see the -eauty of =our wor < 3e than =ou for all intimations of =our -eauty and -eing in the world of nature and for those #ointers of =our -eing in the lives of =our #eo#le< 3e lift our voices in gratitude for these &alls of free de-ate* where our leaders can reason together and chart our course< Endow them with a #erce#tion of things that endure< (ay their energies go always to ma ing our land one where freedom and 1ustice find no-le e,#ression< (ay their efforts here for our Nation ma e no-le the idea that their service to #eo#le is a high and sacred calling< Amen< @&owe 45LBA This e,#licit reference to the Creator is recorded in the Congressional =ecord. It is availa-le to all

Americans* including #u-lic school students studying American government< Thus far* such reference to the Creator has always -een deemed consistent with the First Amendment and the academic freedom granted to -oth student and teacher< And if #u-lic schools may refer to the Creator in the conte,t of an American history class* on what -asis is it wrong for them to refer to scientific evidences of creation in a science class? /ust as relevant to this issue is the 'eclaration of Inde#endence itself: 3e hold these truths to -e self8evident* that all men are created e7ual* that they are endowed -y their Creator with certain unaliena-le Rights* that among these are 0ife* 0i-erty* and the #ursuit of &a##iness< Every state in the union uses these words to inform #u-lic school children of the Creator< 3hy* then* would it -e illegal for the states to inform the same students of the scientific evidences of creation?

Repressio( i( the Classroo5

I thought a-out my earlier encounters in the university classroom< There is evidence which suggests that it may -e worse now for religiously oriented university students than it was in my day< To illustrate* I refer to a letter #u-lished in the "cto-er 45LB issue of /hysics $oday" the national news maga%ine of the American Institute of $hysics< This letter was written -y an accom#lished #hysicist who is not a creationist< It should o#en the eyes of everyone who advocates -asic human rights and academic freedom for those who hold minority views: After reading a s#ate of virulently anti8creationist articles and letters in your #u-lication* I decided that something less virulent and more thoughtful should -e said< As we might all easily agree* it isn:t very scientific to ma e assum#tions dogmatically and then acce#t only evidence in favor of these assum#tions< It is the #ractice of this #rece#t that se#arates the un-elievers from the -elievers* shee# from goats* and so forth< (ost of us* history says* will test as goats< Therefore* a word of caution: &ow much do we actually now @other than that it has something to do with someone:s religionA a-out this set of ideas we are calling ?creationism?? I shall confess that I now ne,t to nothing< 3ill any of the noisema ers out there also confess? I do now what we do not now a-out creation: almost everything< Science* li e religion* is not a #hysical thing itself* -ut a non8material set of ideas< It is an ideology and is not e,em#t from the scrutiny to which we su-1ect other ideologies< Science* if it is to #rogress* must -e fed the fuel of ins#ired thin ing.-rainstorming* if you will< Religion has generally -een the re#ository of things we felt must -e true* in some sense new were true -ecause we e,isted ourselves* -ut which we could not demonstrate rationally or understand< Sometimes the ins#iration that s#ar s great scientific #rogress has -een religious< "ther times a dogmatically held religious conce#t has stifled the develo#ment of the very ins#iration that it may have -een meant to #rovide< The #oint is that we have never -een very good 1udges of this and* as scientists living in an age that has history -oo s telling of -oth atheistic Na%is who #ur#orted to worshi# science* and S#anish In7uisitors* who #ur#orted to -e doing )od:s will* that we -e a -it more hum-le and lower our voices<

3e have several things to gain -y lowering our voices< "ne is the #ossi-ility that #aying attention to some radically different ideas* however wac y* may suggest to us an insight into science that we do not e,#ect< For instance* we do not have a thoroughly rational* tested hy#othesis a-out the origin of our s#ecies< Indeed* we haven:t even -een a-le to agree u#on a -iological classification system for #rimates< Somewhere -uried in the creationist arguments may -e the right 7uestion* one that we have -een ignoring -ecause it wasn:t #ro#er to consider itS $he second thing we have to gain is our decency and humanity. I have myself sat in class after class in the sciences and humanities in which any idea remotely religious was belittled" attac#ed" and shouted down in the most unscientific and emotionally cruel way. I have seen young students raised according to fundamentalist doctrine treated li#e loathsome alley cats" emotionally torn apart" and I never thought that this sort of treatment was any better than the treatment that religious prelates" who held authority" gave ;alileo. 4hy scream about the inhumanity of nuclear war if you are also willing to force people of fundamentalist faiths to attend public schools in which their most cherished beliefs will be systematically held up to ridicule and the young children with it6 $hese people are mostly too poor for private schools to be an alternative. $he state tries to prevent them from teaching their children at home rather than sending them to school. 4hat choices do they have6 4ould you call it freedom6 Bo you call it fair6 Is it really a terri-le thing for a te,t-oo to mention that* aside from the 'arwin theory of evolution* there have e,isted other ideas* many of them religious in nature? 3ould that not o#en the mind of students rather than close them to scientific #ossi-ilities? 3ouldn:t it ma e the fundamentalist student feel a little more welcome and -etter e7ui# him to ta e an un-iased view of evolution? 3ell now* I:ve as ed a lot of 7uestions and I do not now the answers< I would far #refer to hear #hysicists discussing such 7uestions than loudly attac ing straw men and e,#ressing a Chic en 0ittle attitude that the educational s y is falling -ecause a few creationists want to -e heard< @0ane 45LB* 4E.italics mineA Re#ressive treatment of religious students would not -e sur#rising under a totalitarian* atheistic regime< +ut most readers of this -oo may -e sur#rised to learn that this ind of religious #ersecution e,ists here in America< This letter reveals a side of the story which the AC02 did not tell at the Ar ansas trial< The AC02:s o##osition to Act E5J was a direct attem#t to #reserve the e,clusive teaching of evolution in #u-lic schools< This letter reveals* however* some of the a-uses of this arrangement: students who e,#ress dou-ts a-out the ?facts? of evolution are under a #otential threat of retri-ution 1ust for as ing 7uestions< This is not academic freedom for all the students< =eal academic freedom should provide opportunity for the whole truth about creation and evolution to be made #nown to the students. This -elief* -ased on my earlier university e,#eriences* -ecame an increasingly strong motivation for me to testify at the trial< A num-er of well87ualified scientists had already acce#ted the State:s invitation to testify for creation science< $ossi-ly I could assist in their efforts to have the evidences for creation e,amined more o-1ectively<

&vol'tio( Pro5oted As Fact

Confirmed evolutionists who have used re#ressive measures during their teaching careers may have thought they acted in the -est interests of science< $erha#s they felt it was their duty to limit

in7uiries a-out creation in order to save society from harm< Readers may wonder how many evolutionists really -elieve that their theory is -eyond 7uestion: a##arently* 7uite a few< Reference has already -een made in the #revious cha#ter to the strident anti8creation remar s of 'r< Rolf Sinclair at the /anuary 45L4 American Association for the Advancement of Science @AAASA annual meeting< Similar views were also e,#ressed at the same AAAS meeting -y another eminent evolutionist* 'r< $orter Hier< The following 7uote ta en from Science News shows that Hier:s confidence in the certainty of evolution e7uals that of 'r< Sinclair: 'iscussing the evidence for evolution* Smithsonian Institution scientist $orter (< Hier* former director of the National (useum of Natural &istory* said there are 4JJ million facts which su##ort evolution< ?In the museums of the world?* he says ?there are over 4JJ million fossils that have -een identified and age8dated< These fossils have -een e,amined -y many thousands of #aleontologists and from their investigations we have learned a vast amount a-out the history of life on the earth<? 'es#ite this evidence* Hier admits* ?there are many well8educated #eo#le still 7uestioning evolution< $art of the #ro-lem may -e that evolution has -een descri-ed as the :theory: of evolution* which gives an erroneous im#ression.that scientists themselves don:t acce#t evolution as acce#ted<? The word ?theory*? he says* has done a great deal of damage and should -e dro##ed and the word evolution should stand alone< ?Scientists may argue over the details of evolution*? he says* ?-ut they agree that evolution is a fact and should -e so la-eled<? @Science News 45L4* 45A Nor were 'rs< Sinclair and Hier alone in e,#ressing their com#lete confidence in evolution< As the Ar ansas trial drew near* the American )eological Institute* which is com#rised of 4L geology8 related societies with over 4BJ*JJJ mem-ers* issued the following release: Scientific evidence indicates -eyond any dou-t that life has e,isted on Earth for -illions of years< This life has evolved through time #roducing vast num-ers of s#ecies of #lants and animals* most of which are e,tinct< Although scientists de-ate the mechanism that #roduced this change* the evidence for the change is undenia-le< Therefore* in the teaching of science we o##ose any #osition that ignores this scientific reality* or that gives e7ual time to inter#retations -ased on religious -eliefs only< @American )eological Institute 45L4A Readers may decide for themselves whether the dogmatism e,#ressed in the a-ove statement encourages the ind of intimidation of students referred to in the letter #u-lished in /hysics $oday. And they should also reflect on the im#act this timely resolution may have had on some of the media re#resentatives assigned to cover the Ar ansas trial<

Co'(tdow( to the Ar+a(sas 6rial

This cha#ter has recounted a few of the incidents where evolutionists had denied the e,istence of evidence for creation< It seemed that the only way to settle the issue was to go to the trial< (y #resence there would guarantee that my wor would -e scrutini%ed -y the -est evolutionist scientists< If errors e,isted* these would -e e,#osed< (ost im#ortantly* the trial should reveal why there had -een no res#onse from the scientific community to the critical falsification test which I had #ro#osed in <?S in 4565 and again in 45LJ< As discussion in Cha#ter E showed* the test was sim#le< According to the evolutionary scenario* the

$recam-rian granites had su##osedly cooled from a hot magma during a multi-illion8year evolution of the earth< If granites had really formed in this fashion* then it should -e #ossi-le to du#licate the #rocess todayK that is* it should -e #ossi-le to synthesi%e a hand8 si%ed #iece of granite from a hot melt #re#ared under la-oratory conditions< 0i ewise it should -e #ossi-le to #roduce a #olonium halo in that #iece of synthesi%ed granite< If these e,#eriments were successful* I would withdraw my claims that the $recam-rian granites are created roc s and that #olonium halos re#resent #rimordial radioactivity< The crucial 7uestion was whether my colleagues had -een a-le to #erform those e,#eriments< It was time for this issue to -e resolved< Scientists had re#eatedly claimed no credi-le evidence for creation e,isted< At the trial they would have an o##ortunity to #rove that claim -y refuting my #u-lished evidences for creation< If #olonium halos in $recam-rian granites were not evidence for creation* then I wanted all my scientific colleagues to now this as soon as #ossi-le< 0i ewise* if my results could not -e refuted* I new this would -e of com#elling interest to the millions of individuals who are ardently see ing to now the truth a-out the )enesis record of creation< For these reasons I acce#ted the invitation from the Attorney )eneral:s office to testify< It was one of the most challenging decisions of my life< It is also one I have not regretted<

Chapter 0: AC12 &trategy Revealed at 1ittle Roc#

The Ar ansas trial -egan on a cold (onday morning in 'ecem-er 45L4 at the Federal 'istrict Court in 0ittle Roc < /udge 3illiam "verton #resided over the trial where there were more than BJJ s#ectators.including FJ maga%ine* news#a#er* and T; #ersonnel registered as mem-ers of the media< They included such metro#olitan news#a#ers as the New =or $imes" 3ashington /ost" the $imes of 0ondon* Chicago $ribune" +altimore Sun" Hansas City $imes" 'etroit News" (ilwau ee Cournal" and (em#his /ress Scimiter- maga%ines li e $ime" >.S. News and 4orld =eport" ,arper!s" Nature" Science 98" Science News" Biscover" and Science- the A$ and 2$I news servicesK and of course the national T; networ s N+C* C+S* A+C* and $+S* and even the ++C @+ritish +roadcasting Com#anyA< The e,#ert witnesses for evolution gave their testimonies during the first wee of the trial< They came out with ?guns -la%ing*? a #rocedure which decidedly reinforced the #sychological advantage they already held< The AC02 witnesses had -een well coached to ma e evolution a##ear invinci-le< The e,cellent #re#aration of these witnesses reflected the efforts of a large* com#etent AC02 legal contingent< That contingent consisted of two local attorneys* two New =or AC02 lawyers* and two more from one of New =or :s most #restigious law firms* Scadden* Ar#s* Slate* (eagher* and Flom< In addition* many other lawyers and #aralegals from Scadden and Ar#s -ac ed u# the AC02< Altogether* the AC02 had over EJ lawyers and #aralegals wor ing on the case< In contrast* the Ar ansas Attorney )eneral:s office could only commit three of its attorneys to the case< This #laced the State:s case at a disadvantage even -efore the trial -egan< To counter the #erce#tion that evolution was incontroverti-le re7uired that the State strongly confront the e,#ert evolutionist witnesses during their cross8e,aminations and* 1ust as im#ortantly* -e #re#ared to e,#ose any flaws which might -e uncovered< It was im#ossi-le for the few State attorneys to com#letely #re#are for the cross8e,aminations and to also ade7uately rehearse their own witnesses for direct testimony< They had no choice -ut to concentrate on the latterK nevertheless* the cross8 e,aminations of the AC02 witnesses were conducted #roficiently< "n several occasions the State attorneys actually e,#osed some of the fatal wea nesses in the AC02 caseK -ut this seemed to have little im#act on the 1udge< In fact* in one instance the State was actually thwarted from e,#loiting a critical wea ness in the AC02 case -y the 1udge himself<

6he AC@=Cs Pla( for the 6reat5e(t of Origi(s

From my view#oint as a former evolutionist* it was 7uite revealing to see how the AC02 treated the su-1ect of origins< In my university courses the theory of evolution encom#assed the s#ontaneous origin of life as well as its diversification< +ut at the trial the AC02 sought to #resent the 7uestion of origins as something a#art from evolution< "ne of their witnesses* 'r< Francisco /< Ayala* a geneticist from the 2niversity of California at 'avis* re#ortedly maintained that even though life had arisen from nonlife -y natural laws* this occurrence was not a #art of evolution< @Ayala:s e,act words are not 7uoted here -ecause his testimony had not -een transcri-ed as of this writing in the s#ring of 45LF< &owever* his testimony is summari%ed in Norman )eisler:s -oo * $he Creator and the Courtroom @)eisler 45LB* LB8LDAA< There were good reasons why the AC02 wished to avoid directly lin ing evolution with the s#ontaneous origin of life< After decades of research the AC02 new that evolutionists had -een unsuccessful in their attem#ts to #roduce life from inert material< +ut o-viously they did not want the State to focus on this glaring failure as evidence that one of the -asic tenets of evolution was wrong< "n the other hand* the

AC02 had to maintain that life could -e formed naturalisticallyK otherwise they would have to consider the #ossi-ility of a sudden creation of life* which Act E5J ascri-ed to creation science< I watched with interest as the AC02 unfolded their strategy to divert attention away from this issue<

0irect &)a5i(atio( of the AC@= ,it(ess for *iophysics

That strategy was unveiled in the direct e,amination of their e,#ert witness for -io#hysics* 'r< &arold (orowit%* from =ale 2niversity< AC02 Attorney /ac Novi :s e,amination of (orowit% -egan with the usual legal formalities and then focused almost immediately on how Act E5J de#icted the origin of life from the creation science #ers#ective< According to the official transcri#t of the trial @Smith 45LBaA* some of the e,changes -etween Novi and (orowit% on this to#ic were as follows @all 7uotes from the transcri#ts follow the original wording e,ce#t where indicated in -rac etsA: ! A ! 'octor (orowit%* let me show you a co#y of Act E5J mar ed* I -elieve* E,hi-it B5 in these #roceedings< &ad you read this Act -efore? =es* I have< 3ould you loo at Section D of this statute* #articularly Section D @aA* #ur#orting to define creation science< 'o you see any reference in that section to the origin of life? D @aA @4A refers to sudden creation of life from nothing< And is ?sudden creation? a term that has scientific meaning to you? No< To my nowledge it is not a term in scientific literature or in general use in the scientific community< 'o you now the meaning of the words ?sudden creation?? ?Sudden creation? assumes a creator* and* as such* im#lies the su#ranatural e,#lanation* and* therefore* lies outside the -ounds of normal science< NSmith 45LBa* #< D5E* l< BJ* to #< D5F* l< 4CO

A ! A ! A

&aving #resuma-ly esta-lished that ?sudden creation? is e,cluded from conventional science -ecause it re7uires ?a creator*? Novi su-se7uently as ed: ! A 'oes the theory of evolution as used -y scientists include the study of the origins of life? Normally that:s treated as a se#arate su-1ect in a technical sense< NSmith 45LBa* #< D5L* ll< 468BJO

"rdinarily (orowit%:s res#onse would have e#t the lid on the origin8of8life matter< =et the AC02 still had to maintain acce#ta-ility for the naturalistic origin of life in order to #reserve the image that evolutionists have the truth a-out origins< Thus Novi found it necessary to return to the 7uestion of the origin of life on two se#arate occasions in his later direct e,amination of (orowit%< ! A 'octor (orowit%* do you now how life was first formed on this #lanet? 3e do not now in any #recise way how life was formed< &owever* it is a very active field of research< There are a num-er of studies going on* and we are

develo#ing and continuing to develo# within science a -ody of nowledge that is -eginning to #rovide some enlightenment on this issue< NSmith 45LBa* #< D55* l< BD* to #< EJJ* l< FO ! A 'o you now how life was formed #recisely? Again* not in #recise detail* although as I #ointed out* it is an active area of scientific research* and at the moment one* as an enthusiastic scientist always feels* that we are getting close< NSmith 45LBa* #< EJ5* ll< 4484EO

6he AC@= a(d the Origi( of @ife: A 3arrow &scape

(orowit%:s -old claim a-out getting close to nowing how life formed #rovided State Attorney Callis Childs with a uni7ue o##ortunity to #ro-e the wea nesses in the AC02 #osition on the origin of life< As the following e,changes show* Attorney Childs: incisive cross8e,amination of (orowit% came within inches of e,#osing the flaw in the AC02 strategy on this matter< ! A ! A ! A ! A ! A Are you familiar with the wor of a fellow named (iller? Stanley (iller? I -elieve so* yes* sir< There are a lot of #eo#le named (iller< Are there any (illers other than Stanley (iller that would -e wor ing in your #articular area of endeavor? Not that I:m aware of< 'id (r< (iller* or let:s say 'octor (iller* did 'octor (iller come u# with anything unusual in the 45EJ:s in his research? =es< 3hat did he come u# with? In (iller:s e,#eriments* he too a system of methane* ammonia and water* and in a closed system he #rovided energy through an electrical* high fre7uency electrical s#ar discharge* and he demonstrated the synthesis of amino acids* car-ocyclic Nsic* car-o,ylicO acids* and other #re-iotic intermediates< 3ho was the #revious historian* e,cuse me* the #revious scientist in history who dealt with that same su-1ect matter on a significant -asis? The origin of life? =es< $rior to the (iller e,#eriment* I would say that the leading name in that field was A< I< ":$arin Nsic* "#arinO< And #rior to that? $rior to that* in a sense* the field didn:t really e,ist< 3hy was that? +ecause #eo#le -elieved through the 4LJJ:s that life arose s#ontaneously all the timeK that maggots arose and -ecame meat NsicO* and mice old #iles of rags NsicO* and so forth and so on< And as long as #eo#le -elieved that* there was no need to have a theory of the origin of life<

! A ! A ! A ! A

! A ! A

3ho #ut that theory to rest? 0ouis $asteur< And what were 'octor $asteur:s e,#eriments? +asically his final e,#eriments that were most #ersuasive in this field consisted of flas s of sterile medium to which no organisms were admitted* and these flas s remained sterile for long #eriods of time< So? (eaning no growth of living organisms occurred in them< 3hat wor has -een done since Stanley (iller:s wor in the area of generating life in the la-oratory? 3ell* there have -een some several thousand e,#eriments on the* of the ty#e done -y (iller* follow8u# e,#eriments* where various energy sources have -een flowed Nsic* have flowedOK there have -een the flow of various inds of energy through systems of car-on* hydrogen* nitrogen and o,ygen* and there has -een a study of the inds of molecules that are #roduced in such energy flow systems< These e,#eriments universally show that the flow of energy through a system orders it in a molecular sense< &as any-ody created life -y the flow of energy? &ave any of those e,#eriments resulted in the synthesis of a living cell? Is that the 7uestion? =es* sir< No< Not to my nowledge* anyway< 3ould you say that this area has received intensive scientific scrutiny in the scientific community? =es< 'o you have any e,#lanation of why you have not -een a-le to synthesi%e life in the la-oratory? It:s an e,tremely difficult #ro-lem< 3hat is the difficult. I would #oint out to you that we have #ut far more money into trying to cure cancer* and that is still an unsolved #ro-lem* also< 3e have #ut far more time* money* effort and human endeavor into that #ro-lem* and that is also an unsolved #ro-lem -ecause it is a very difficult #ro-lem< 3hat is the information you need to accom#lish that? To accom#lish the synthesis of a living cell? =es* sir< Two inds of information< "ne is the detailed understanding of the chemical structure of the small molecules* micro molecules* organelles and other structures that ma e u# a living cell< And secondly* one has to now the inetic #rocesses -y which those structures came a-out in #re-iotic systems< In #erusing some of the literature that you:ve written last night* I came u# with an

! A ! A

! A ! A ! A ! A ! A

! A ! A

article which would seem to indicate that NyouO sincerely -elieve that given enough time and research* that you or scientists li e you can ultimately go -ac to the ultimate com-inations of atoms which led to the formation of molecules< A ! A ! A ! A That is not a 7uestion< 'o you recall an article to that effect? 3ell* you said ?we can go -ac to that? and then there should -e an :and: clause* :and do some things:< 'o you -elieve that you can go -ac and ultimately understand how atoms com-ined to form molecules? That is a -ranch of chemistry< That is rather well understood< 3ell* I:m tal ing a-out the first molecules on the surface of the earth< 'o you understand my 7uestion? No* I don:t< (R< C&I0'S: (ay I a##roach the witness* your &onor? T&E C"2RT: =es< ! The article that I have is &iology as a Cosmeological Nsic* CosmologicalO Science" re#rinted from %ain Currents and %odern $hought" volume BL* num-er E* (ay through /une* 456B< $age EJ to* well* the #age num-er I have on this is F4E4LF< The first column is in -rac ets< I:d li e you to read that #aragra#h* #lease< ?If we are a-le to o-tain the ind of theory of self8order* this ind of theory of self8 ordering should challenge us to a##ly the most #rofound insights we can muster to lin -iology to non8e7uili-rium #hysical chemistry<? ?The 1o- seems very formida-le indeed* -ut the rewards could -e very greatK the a-ility to see out our origins in terms of a law that would #romulgate our action< This is truly a new frontier* and one that challenges the ma,imum intellectual effort of which we are all ca#a-le<? 'o I understand this #aragra#h to mean that you -elieve that you and scientists from the scientific community can e,#lain the origins of man in terms of the laws of atomic interaction? I -elieve that the origin of life can -e e,#lained in terms of the laws of atomic interactions< NSmith 45LBa* #< ELE* l< BE* to #< E5J* l< BEO Is your theory that.0et me start over< 'o you now how life formed on the surface of the earth? I have a theory of how life formed on the surface of the earth< &ave you -een a-le to ta e that theory and create life in the la-oratory? No< NSmith 45LBa* #< FJJ* l< BJ* to #< FJ4* l< 4O

A ! A ! A

It is most revealing to com#are (orowit%:s res#onses in his direct testimony with those given under cross8e,amination< Note that when AC02 Attorney Novi as ed* ?'o you now how life was formed* #recisely?? (orowit% testified o#timistically* ?Not in #recise detail < < <? -ut ?that we are getting close<? &owever* during Attorney Childs: relentless #ro-ing of this matter* a different

#icture emerges< 3hen Childs as ed if (orowit% new how life had formed on the earth:s surface* he res#onded only that he had a theory< And when as ed whether he had -een a-le to use that theory and create life in the la-oratory* (orowit% was forced to answer* ?No<? @Remem-er that Childs had earlier gotten (orowit% to admit that thousands of e,#eriments designed to #roduce life had failed<A

6he ?'dge Resc'es the AC@=

(orowit%:s res#onses had esta-lished that leading evolutionists have only theories a-out how life -egan and* most im#ortantly* that none of them wor < A##arently Attorney Childs sensed that he had #in#ointed a flaw in the AC02 case* for his ne,t 7uestion to (orowit% was designed to refocus and e,#loit what he had 1ust uncovered< Interestingly* /udge "verton was not a-out to let Childs #ro-e this defect any further* as will -e seen -y the trial transcri#t: ! 0et me re#eat my 7uestion< 'o you now how life evolved on the surface of the earth? T&E C"2RT: &e 1ust answered that< (R< C&I0'S: I thin he said he had a theory< T&E C"2RT: I thin that is the answer< I thin he has a theory< &e doesn:t now for a fact< (R< C&I0'S: I thin there has -een a -lurring in the distinction -etween a theory and a fact in this lawsuit* and that is the #oint I am attem#ting to ma e* your &onor< T&E C"2RT: I don:t now how it:s -lurred* -ut it doesn:t seem to me li e that answer -lurred it< (R< C&I0'S: I will move on* your &onor< NSmith 45LBa* #< FJ4* ll< B84DO< Thus* whatever clima, Childs might have achieved in this #hase of his cross8e,amination was effectively short8circuited -y /udge "verton: s timely intervention in -ehalf of this AC02 witness< This was one of the critical #oints in the trial* generally unnoticed -y media re#resentatives< So the AC02 esca#ed from having one of the ma1or defects in their case e,#osedK namely* the numerous failures to synthesi%e life constitute #rima facie evidence that the uniformitarian principle is not now* nor ever has -een* a sufficient -asis for life to form< If it was* evolutionists long ago should have -een a-le to reconstruct -y design that which nature constructed only -y chance< Evolutionists continue to fail in synthesi%ing life from inert matter -ecause they are attem#ting the im#ossi-le.the du#lication of a #rocess that lies solely in the hands of the Creator<

6he AC@=: 3o .cie(ce ;'t &vol'tio(

(orowit%:s cross8e,amination had esta-lished that -elief in a naturalistic origin of life* as re7uired -y evolution* has no scientific -asis< To divert attention away from this truth* the AC02 used the clever strategy of de#icting creation science as -eing unscientific< )enerally the AC02 was a-le to have most of its e,#ert witnesses @)eisler 45LB* 5B855A affirm that creation science is not scientific without -eing challenged in their cross8 e,aminations< This was one of the State:s most costly shortcomings< In one instance* though* the State did e,#ose 1ust how far some evolutionists are willing to go in their o##osition to creation< This occurred during Attorney )eneral Steve Clar :s cross8e,amination of the AC02:s -iology witness* 'r< 3illiam ;< (ayer* from the 2niversity of

Colorado< !uoting )eisler @this #art of (ayer:s transcri#t was not availa-leA* in his direct e,amination this witness had earlier o-1ected to the term ?evolution science? in Act E5J on the -asis that it im#lied that there was such a thing as a science which was non8evolutionary* which he said is not true< @)eisler 45LB* 55A This statement effectively mandates that only evolution can -e viewed as science< 'uring cross8 e,amination Attorney Clar in7uired a-out this statement< Clar as ed (ayer if he had said it ?may well -e that creationism is correct a-out origins<? To this (ayer agreed* and added that he also had said ?even if it were correct* it:s not scientific<? @)eisler 45LB* 4JBA This was a revelation< "ver twenty8five years earlier I had acce#ted evolution -ased on what seemed to -e scientific evidence in its favor< At that time I assumed all scientists were searching for the truth* always ready to modify their #osition if contrary evidence were found< Indeed* my 7uest for truth was initiated with the ho#e that evolutionists would fairly evaluate new data even if the outcome conflicted with the status 7uo* hence my long arduous efforts to inform them of my results in scientific 1ournals< +ut it is difficult to see how (ayer:s view re#resents an un-iased search for truth< Rather it seems s#ecially geared to #reserve the status 7uo of evolution regardless of how much evidence is discovered for creation< This was another critical #oint of the trial.a #oint where the State could have decimated one of the foundations of the AC02 case< The AC02 had #ortrayed evolutionists as those dedicated to an o#en8minded search for truth in science* whereas creation scientists were re#resented as those who a-use science< +ut (ayer:s res#onses e,#loded this myth< If* according to (ayer* there is no science -ut evolution* then searching for truth in science means that only those evidences in agreement with evolutionary theory will -e acce#ted as scientific< I -elieve Attorney )eneral Clar should have focused strongly on this issue during his cross8e,amination of (ayer<

6he Age of the &arth: 6esti5o(y of the AC@= 2eology ,it(ess

The age of the earth was a ey issue in the Ar ansas trial< The general theory of evolution encom#asses -oth the multi-illion8year geological evolution of the earth as well as a multimillion8 year evolution of life on the earth< In order to win their case* it was im#erative for the AC02 to find a witness who would strongly #romote an ancient age of the earth consistent with geological evolution< To accom#lish this tas the AC02 called a scientist whom I #ersonally admire very much* one who is considered an eminent authority in the field of radiometric dating* 'r< )< +rent 'alrym#le< At the time of the trial 'alrym#le held the #osition of Assistant Chief )eologist of the 2<S< )eological Survey in (enlo $ar * California< Not sur#risingly* 'alrym#le testified that the earth is -illions of years old* contrary to the generally acce#ted creation8science #osition that the age of the earth is less than 4J*JJJ years< &e also stated that* on this #oint* creation science could -e falsified and* in fact* had -een falsified many times over the last several decades -y many different tests< As indicated in the #revious cha#ter* the #o#ular legacy of the Sco#es trial was that true scientists -elieve in evolution< At every o##ortunity the AC02 waged a clever #sychological war to ca#itali%e on this #erce#tion< The following e,cer#ts from the official trial transcri#t of AC02 Attorney +ruce Ennis: direct e,amination of 'alrym#le illustrate this #oint 7uite effectively regarding the age of the earth:

! A

Are you familiar with the creation science literature concerning the age of the earth? =es* I am< I have read #erha#s two do%en -oo s and articles either in whole or in #art< They consistently assert that the earth is somewhere -etween si, and a-out twenty thousand years* with most of the literature saying that the earth is less than ten thousand years old< Are you aware of any scientific evidence to indicate that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old? None whatsoever< In over twenty years of research and reading of scientific literature* I have never encountered any such evidence< Are you aware of any scientific evidence to indicate that earth is no more than ten million years old? None whatsoever< T&E C"2RT: 3ait a second< 3hat is it that the creation scientists say is the age of the earth?

! A ! A

They ma e a variety of estimates< They range -etween a-out si, and a-out twenty thousand years* from what I:ve read< (ost of them assert rather #ersistently that the earth is less than ten thousand years< +eyond that they are not terri-ly s#ecific< Are you aware of any scientific evidence to indicate the earth is no more than ten million years old? None whatsoever< Are you aware of any scientific evidence to indicate a relatively young earth or a relatively recent ince#tion of the earth? None whatsoever< If you were re7uired to teach the scientific evidences for a young earth* what would you teach? Since there is no evidence for a young earth* I:m afraid the course would -e without content< I would have nothing to teach at all< Is the assertion -y creation scientists that the earth is relatively young su-1ect to scientific testing? =es* it is< It is one of the few assertions -y the creationists that is su-1ect to testing and falsification< &ave such tests -een conducted? =es< (any times* -y many different methods over the last several decades< 3hat do those tests show? Those tests consistently show that the conce#t of a young earth is falseK that the earth is -illions of years old< In fact* the -est figure for the earth is in the nature of four and a half -illion years< And I would li e to #oint out that we:re not tal ing a-out 1ust the factor of two or small differences< The creationists: estimates of the age of the earth are off -y a factor of a-out four hundred fifth Nsic* fiftyO thousand<

! A ! A ! A ! A ! A ! A

! A

In your #rofessional o#inion* are Nsic* haveO the creation scientists: assertions of a young earth -een falsified? A-solutely< I:d #ut them in the same category as the flat earth hy#othesis and the hy#othesis that the sun goes around the earth< I thin those are all a-surd* com#letely dis#roven hy#otheses< In your #rofessional o#inion* in light of all of the scientific evidence* is the continued assertion -y creation scientists that the earth is relatively young consistent with the scientific method? No* it is not consistent with the scientific method to hold onto a hy#othesis that has -een com#letely dis#roven to the e,tent that it is now a-surd< NSmith 45LB-* #< DJ5* l< F to #< D44* l< 45O

I agree that theories which have -een shown to -e false should -e discarded.that is one of the main themes of this -oo < +ut is 'alrym#le correct in claiming those tests dis#rove or falsify a young age of the earth? As we shall soon see* 'alrym#le:s cross8e,amination showed that the tests he cited to 1ustify this conclusion all assume constant radioactive decay rates< This assum#tion is actually 1ust a #art of the uniformitarian principle.the glue that holds the evolutionary mosaic together.mentioned many times earlier in this -oo < 'alrym#le:s claim of certainty a-out the earth -eing four and a half -illion years old cou#led with his scathing comments a-out a young age of the earth were e,actly what the AC02 wanted /udge "verton to hear< Certainly Ennis new -eforehand that 'alrym#le #lanned to #sychologically attac the young8earth view -y lin ing it with the flat8earth hy#othesis< 3ould the AC02 ever have allowed 'alrym#le to draw this invidious com#arison unless they strongly sus#ected that /udge "verton had already -een #rimed in favor of evolution? Ennis then turned his direct e,amination to 7uestions concerning various ty#es of dating techni7ues< The e,cer#ts from the transcri#t* shown -elow* are some of those lin ing radiometric dating and the age of the earth< ! A ! A ! A ! A ! &ow do geochronologists test for the age of the earth? 3e use what are called the radiometric dating techni7ues< NSmith 45LB-* #< D44* ll< BJ8BCO 3hy did geochronologists rely u#on radiometric dating techni7ues rather than other techni7ues? +ecause radioactivity is the only #rocess that we now of that:s -een constant through time for -illions of years< Is radioactive decay affected -y e,ternal factors? No* radioactive decay is not affected -y e,ternal factors< That:s one reason we thin it:s -een constant for a long time< NSmith 45LB-* #< D4C* l< BD* to #< D4D* l< FO &ave any tests ever shown any change in the decay rates of any of the #articular isoto#es geochronologists use in radiometric dating? None< They:ve always -een found to -e constant< Are changes in decay rates of various isoto#es at least theoretically #ossi-le? NSmith 45LB-* #< D4F* ll< 684BO

< < < There have never -een any changes affecting any of the decays -eing used for radioactive dating< NSmith 45LB-* #< D46* ll< 4C84DO

Note here that my res#ected colleague asserts that radioactivity is the only #rocess #nown to -e constant for -illions of years and then affirms this assertion -y saying there have never -een any changes in the decay rates of the isoto#es used in radioactive dating< There is no 7uestion that his a-solutist remar s were crucially needed -y the AC02 to -olster their case for an eons8long evolutionary develo#ment of the earth< +ut the truth is that 'alrym#le was not around during the #eriod when he claims to have certain nowledge of radioactive decay rates< As we shall see in the ne,t cha#ter* his great assurance a-out this matter is* in fact* nothing more than what evolution assumes to -e true< This was -rought out clearly in 'e#uty Attorney )eneral 'avid 3illiams: cross8 e,amination of 'alrym#le< And it is in this cross8e,amination that the to#ic of radioactive halos comes to the fore<

Chapter 3: Confrontation in the Co'rtroo(

Regardless of how fervently the AC02 e,#ert -iology witnesses might #ro#ound the merits of -iological evolution* the AC02 well new that neither the geological evolution of the earth nor the -iological evolution of life was even remotely credi-le without the su##ort of vast amounts of time< So in the last analysis* the cornerstone of the AC02 case rested on esta-lishing the #lausi-ility of an ancient age of the earth< This is why 'alrym#le:s testimony a-out the relia-ility of radioactive dating was crucial to their intent of overturning Act E5J<

6he .tate Challe(ges Radio5etric 0ati(g 6ech(iB'es

2nder cross8e,amination 'alrym#le was as ed to affirm his confidence in uniform radioactive decay for increasingly greater times in the #ast< Although he e,#ressed -elief in a uniform decay #rocess for the #ast D<E -illion years* continued cross8e,amination -rought him to admit his uncertainty a-out this assum#tion for earlier #eriods in the history of the universe* saying that his area of e,#ertise did not e,tend to that time< !uoted -elow from the official trial transcri#t are segments of the cross8e,amination -y 'e#uty Attorney )eneral 'avid 3illiams: ! A Is constancy of the rate of radioactive decay a re7uirement for radiometric dating? =es< It is re7uired that radiometric dating -e -ased on constant decay rates* at least within limits of significant areas* and what I mean -y that is that if the decay rates were to change a #ercent or two* that would #ro-a-ly not significantly alter any of our ma1or conclusions in geology< To the -est of your nowledge* has the rate of radioactive decay always -een constant? As far as we now from all the evidence we have* it has always -een constant< 3e have no* either em#irical or theoretical* reason to -elieve it is not< So as far as you now* it would have -een constant one -illion years ago* the same as it is today< As far as we now< Five -illion years ago? As far as we now< Ten -illion years ago? As far as we now< Fifteen -illion? I don:t now how far -ac you want to ta e this* -ut I thin for the #ur#oses of geology and the age of the solar system* we are only interested in using radiometric dating on o-1ects we can #ossess in our hand* so we only need to ta e that -ac a-out four and a half or five -illion years< I thin whether it:s -een constant fifteen -illion years is irrelevant< 3e have no way of getting sam#les that old< 3e can only sam#le things that have -een in the solar system< NSmith 45LB-* #< DD5* l< L to #< DEJ* l< 4CO

! A ! A ! A ! A ! A

Notice the change in 'alrym#le:s #osition on the constancy of the decay rate< In his direct testimony @see Cha#ter LA he claimed to now that radioactive decay rates had -een constant without any time 7ualification whatsoever< 0i ewise during the initial #art of his cross8e,amination* he affirmed they had -een constant at least ten -illion years< &owever* at the fifteen8-illion8year mar he a##arently senses that 3illiams is a##roaching the #resumed time of the +ig +ang< &e then -egins to -ac trac and suddenly reveals that ?we only need? them to -e constant for the last four and a half -illion years< In other words* at this #oint in the cross8e,amination* it a##ears that the re7uirement* or ?need*? to esta-lish credi-ility of the evolutionary model determines how far -ac in time evolutionists are willing to affirm constant decay rates< 3illiams must have reali%ed this was a startling revelation* for he continued #ressing 'alrym#le to find out more a-out the decay rates and* in addition* to #ro-e 1ust what evidence he had for their constancy over the last several -illion years< ! A ! A &ow old is the solar system* to the -est of your nowledge? As far as we now* it is four and a half -illion years old< The solar system itself? The solar system itself< Now* when we tal a-out the age of something li e the solar system* you have to understand that there was a finite #eriod of time over which that system formed* and we may -e tal ing a-out a #eriod of a few hundred years* so it is not a #recise #oint in time* -ut some interval< +ut com#ared with the age of the solar system* it is thought that that interval was #ro-a-ly rather short.a few #ercent< Are you aware of when those scientists hy#othesi%ed or when the so8called -ig -ang occurred* how many years ago? No* I am not sure e,actly when that was su##osed. 3ould the rate of radioactive decay have -een constant at the time of the -ig -ang? I am not an astro#hysicist< I don:t now the conditions that e,isted in the so8 called #rimordial -owl of sou#* and so I am afraid I can:t answer your 7uestion< So you don:t have any o#inion as to whether it was constant then? That:s out of my field of e,#ertise< I can:t even tell you whether there were atoms in the same sense that we use that term now< +ut you did state that it had always -een constant as far as you new* -ut now you state you don:t now a-out the -ig -ang* whether it was constant thenK is that correct? 3ell* what I said* it:s -een constant within the limits in which we are interested< For the #ur#oses of radiometric dating it hardly matters whether it was constant at the moment of the -ig -ang< 0et me say this. I don:t want to interru#t you< That:s all right< =ou say as far as you are concerned* for the #ur#oses of your concern it has -een constant as far as you now* and your #ur#oses go -ac to the age of the earth for four #oint five -illion yearsK is that correct?

! A ! A ! A !

! A !

A ! A

=es* that:s correct< +ut you -ase that age of the earth on the assum#tion or on this re7uirement that it has always -een constantK is that correct? That is not entirely.That:s correct* -ut it is not an assum#tion< It is not fair to calculate it that way< In a certain sense it is an assum#tion* -ut that assum#tion has also -een tested< For e,am#le* if you loo at the ages of the oldest* least distur-ed meteorites* these o-1ects give ages of one #oint five to four #oint si, -illion years< A variety of different radioactive decay schemes* schemes it at Nsic* that have?O different half lives< They are -ased on different elements< They would not give those identical ages if the rate of decay had -een Nsic* had not -een?O constant< +ut do those schemes that you mentioned there rely u#on the re7uirement that the rate of radioactive decay has always -een constant as well? =es* they do< So all methods you now would rely u#on this* what you termed a re7uirement and what I termed an assum#tionK is that correct? That is correct< The rate of decay is a statistical #rocess* is it not? I thin you testified yesterday to that< +asically* it is< 3ould you agree that any deviation in the rate of decay would have to -e accom#anied -y a change in #hysical laws? As far as we now* any change in decay would have to -e accom#anied -y a change in #hysical laws* with the e,ce#tions that I mentioned yesterday< There are small changes nown in certain inds of decay* s#ecifically in electron ca#ture* a tenth of a #ercent< 3hat do you consider the strongest evidence for the constant rate of radioactive decay? 3ell* I don:t thin I could give you a single #iece of strongest evidence* -ut I thin the sum total of the evidence* if I can sim#lify it* is that rates of decay have -een tested in the la-oratory and found to -e essentially invarient Nsic* invariantO< Theory tells us those rates of decay should -e invarient Nsic* invariantO< And when we are a-le to test those rates of decay on undistur-ed systemsK that is* systems that we have good reason to #resume have -een closed since their formation clear -ac to the oldest o-1ects nown in the solar system* we find we get consistent results using different decay schemes on isoto#es that decay at different rates< So that is essentially a syno#sis of the evidence for constancy of decay< NSmith 45LB-* #< DEJ* l< 4D* to #< DED* l< FO

! A ! A ! A ! A

! A

It is most informative to com#are the res#onses that 'alrym#le gave in his direct testimony and cross8 e,amination< The last cha#ter revealed that in his direct testimony 'alrym#le claimed that ?tests consistently show < < < that the earth is -illions of years old<? 3hen 7uestioned what those tests

were* the res#onse was ?radiometric dating techni7ues<? And when as ed why ?geochronologists rely u#on? these techni7ues* the re#ly was that ?radioactivity is the only #rocess that we now of that has -een constant through time for -illions of years<? The a-ove cross8e,amination reveals* however* that 'alrym#le:s confidence in constant decay rates in the distant #ast rests on his -elief that the assum#tion of constant decay has -een tested< For one test he cites the fact that decay rates are o-served to -e constant at #resent< "f course this is not a test a-out events in the #ast* -ut sim#ly an o-servation a-out the #resent< &is only other test for constant decay rates was that certain sam#les give consistent results when they are analy%ed for different radioactive elements having different decay schemes< Attorney 3illiams* a##arently #erceiving there was a flaw in this #resumed test* continued to #ress 'alrym#le on this #oint< ! 'id you say. +ut is it not true that as long. 3ell* if the rate of decay has varied and as long as the variation would have -een uniform* would you still get these consistent results? It is #ossi-le to #ro#ose a set of conditions under which you could get those consistent results< T&E C"2RT: E,cuse me< I didn:t understand that< T&E 3ITNESS: I thin what he is saying is* is it #ossi-le to vary the decay rate in such a way that you could still get a consistent set of results -y using different decay schemes* and I thin it is always #ossi-le to #ro#ose such a set of circumstances* yes< So that 7uestion is in the nature of a ?what if*? and one can always come to the conclusion that you can restructure science in such a way to ma e that ?what if? ha##en< +ut that is not the sort of thing we usually do unless we have good reason to #resume the #hysical laws have changed* and we #resume they have not< The same is true with things li e the s#eed of light* gravitational constant and so forth< (ay I ela-orate 1ust a little -it more? 3e are not tal ing a-out small changes in decay< If the creation scientists are correct and the earth is only ten thousand years old* we are tal ing a-out many orders of magnitude* thousands of times difference< The difference -etween the age of the earth that scientists calculate and the age that the creationists calculate are different -y a factor of four hundred and fifty thousand< So you don:t have to #ertur- the constancy of decay laws a little -itK you have to #ertur- them a lot< NSmith 45LB-* #< DED* l< 6 to #< DEE* l< 44O In the a-ove res#onses my res#ected colleague now admits that consistent results o-tained -y different decay schemes do not actually #rove constant decay in the #ast after all< &e then attem#ts to reduce the im#act of this admission -y noting that varying decay rates would involve changes in #hysical laws< &is only argument against this #ossi-ility is #lainly stated: scientists ?#resume they N#hysical lawsO have not? changed< +ut the #resum#tion that #hysical laws have not changed over the course of time is 1ust the uniformitarian principle. Thus* his entire testimony concerning constant decay rates and an ancient age of the earth was hinged on his faith in this un#roven principle. No #roof was given for constant decay rates and an ancient age of the earth -ecause no #roof e,ists< Indeed* when 'alrym#le said* ?If creation scientists are right and the earth is only ten thousand years old < < < *? his main argument against an earth this young was that this meant decay laws had

to -e #ertur-ed ?a lot<? +ut 'alrym#le #rovided no evidence to show this had not occurred sometime in the #ast< In short* he was una-le to scientifically counter the #ossi-ility of a young earth< 2nfortunately for the State* this was not generally understood at any time during his cross8 e,amination< And there was something else of e7ual im#ortance for the State:s case that went undetected< 3e have already noted the change in my colleague:s stance on the decay rate: from his confident* o#ening assertion that the decay rate has always -een constant to his somewhat defensive #osition that its constancy -eyond a certain #oint is irrelevant< 3e now refocus on that #art of the cross8 e,amination when State Attorney 'avid 3illiams as ed whether the radioactive decay rate had -een constant at the time of the +ig +ang< The re#ly was: I am not an astro#hysicist< I don:t now the conditions that e,isted in the so8called #rimordial -owl of sou#* and so I am afraid I can:t answer your 7uestion< NSmith 45LB-* #< DE4* ll< 5844O 'alrym#le:s reticence to commit himself fully on the one assum#tion that su##orts the entire evolutionary framewor .the uniformitarian principle. together with his earlier assertion that it was irrelevant whether the decay rate was constant -eyond a certain time* #laced the AC02 case in a very vulnera-le #osition< If the State had drawn attention to the im#lications of these statements* this would have greatly reduced the credi-ility of the AC02 #osition for the remainder of the trial< &is res#onse also allowed him to avoid 7uestions a-out the su#ernatural nature of the +ig +ang< !uite #ossi-ly the AC02 reali%ed such 7uestions could o#en u# the #rover-ial $andora:s -o,< Any witness who testified a-out the evolutionary -eginning of the universe would give the State the o##ortunity to focus on the +ig +ang as an event not su-1ect to nown scientific laws< It would then have -een evident that evolution as well as creation re7uires a su#ernatural -eginning< Thus the cornerstone of the AC02 strategy would have crum-ledS

6he 2ra(ite .y(thesis &)peri5e(t: A( &vol'tio(ary Perspective

As the cross8e,amination continued* 'alrym#le first confirmed what has -een stated earlier: dating of fossils as well as roc s de#ends on geochronology< &aving esta-lished that geochronology is of #reeminent im#ortance to evolution* 3illiams then delves into this su-1ect #re#aratory to as ing a-out my wor and the falsification test< I had loo ed forward to this #art of the trial with great antici#ation< Everyone there would soon learn whether 'alrym#le or some other geologist had succeeded in synthesi%ing a #iece of granite< For this information I had decided to ris everything and come to the trial< If someone had -een successful in the synthesis e,#eriment* then I was going to withdraw my claim that the $recam-rian granites were the )enesis roc s of our #lanet< If this had not -een accom#lished* then it was certain that the #olonium halo evidences for creation were not going to -e refuted at the trial< I listened carefully as Attorney 3illiams #roceeded with the cross8e,amination< ! (r< 'alrym#le* is it correct that you thin that geochronology esta-lishes an age of the earth* not only that the earth is several million years old* -ut also esta-lishes the age of the fossils which are enclosed in the roc s? =es< That:s correct< NSmith 45LB-* #< DEL* ll< D85O Now* do you understand that -iologists consider these fossils enclosed in these roc s to -e the relics or the remnants of some evolutionary develo#ment?

A !

A ! A !

3ell* I thin the fossils are the relics of an animal< 3ould that -e the evidence of the evolutionary develo#ment? 3ell* as far as I now* yes< Then would it -e fair to say in your mind that the ages for the various ty#es of fossils have -een most #recisely determined or measured -y radioactive dating or -y geochronology? That sounds li e a fair statement< Since geochronology does #lay such an im#ortant role on the ages of the roc s and the fossils* would you agree that it would -e im#ortant to now whether there is any evidence which e,ists which would -ear on the fundamental #remises of geochronology? "f course< 0et me add that that:s a su-1ect that:s -een discussed considera-ly in scientific literature< 3e:re always searching for that sort of thing< That:s a much de-ated 7uestion< I thin you said yesterday that anyone who -elieves in a young age of the earth* in your o#inion* to -e not too -right scientifically* and are in the same category as #eo#le who -elieve that the earth is flat? =es< I thin if we are tal ing a-out #eo#le who #rofess to -e scientists and insist on ignoring what the actual evidence is for the age of the earth* then I find it difficult to thin that their thought #rocesses are straight< Is it true that you do not now of any scientists who would not agree with you* with your view#oint on this radioactive dating and of the age of the earth and fossils? 3ill you re#hrase that? I:m not sure I understand it< Is it true that you stated* I thin in your de#osition* that you do not now of any scientists. (R< ENNIS: E,cuse me< If you:re referring to the de#osition* #lease identify it* what #age< (R< 3I00IA(S: I:m not referring to a #age at this #oint* I:m as ing a 7uestion< (R< 3I00IA(S: @ContinuingA

A !

A !

! A

Is it true that you do not now of any scientist who does not agree with you and your view#oint and o#inion as to the age of the earth and the fossils? It de#ends on who you include in the word ?scientist<? I thin if you want to include #eo#le who categori%e themselves as creation scientists* then that would not -e a true statement< I now that some of those do not agree< As far as my colleagues* geologists* geochemists* geo#hysicists and #aleontologists* the ones that I now of* I don:t now of any who disagree that the earth is very old or that radiometric dating is not a good way to date the earth< Are you aware of any creation scientist* then* who has #u-lished evidence in the o#en scientific literature who has 7uestioned the fundamental #remises of geochronology -y radioactive dating? I now of one<

! A ! A ! A ! A ! A ! A

3ho is that? That:s Ro-ert )entry< I should say that Ro-ert )entry characteri%es himself as a creation scientist* if I understand what he:s written< Are you familiar with $aul 'amon? =es< I now him #ersonally< 3ho is (r< 'amon? (r< 'amon is a #rofessor at the 2niversity of Ari%ona at Tuscon Nsic* TucsonO< &e s#eciali%es in geochronology< Are you aware that (r< 'amon has stated in a letter that if (r< )entry:s wor is correct* that it casts in dou-t that entire science of geochronology? 3hich letter are you referring to? 'o you recall the letter which you gave to me from <?S -y (r< 'amon? =es< I recall the general nature of that letter< And do you recall that (r< 'amon said that if history Nsic* )entryO is correct* in his deductions it would call u# to 7uestion the entire science of geochronology? 3ell* I thin that:s the general sense of what $aul 'amon said* -ut I thin it:s an overstatement< I:m not sure I would agree with him on that< NSmith 45LB-* #< DE5* l< 45* to #< DFC* l< 4O &ere we see that 'alrym#le was so an,ious to minimi%e the im#lications of #rimordial #olonium halos in granites that he was willing to ta e issue with 'amon:s #u-lished statement< This #rom#ted Attorney 3illiams to focus on 'amon:s 7ualifications as he continued the cross8e,amination<

! A ! A ! A ! A

(r< 'amon is not a creation scientist* is he? No< 'octor 'amon is not a creation scientist* -y any means< 3ould you consider him to -e a com#etent scientist and an authority in this field? =es< &e:s e,tremely com#etent< Are you aware as to whether (r< )entry has ever offered or #rovided a way for his evidence to -e falsified? I am aware that he has #ro#osed one* -ut I do not thin his #ro#osal would falsify it either one way or the other< &ave you ever made any attem#ts* e,#eriments that would attem#t to falsify his wor ? 3ell* there are a great many. I guess you:re going to have to tell me s#ecifically what you mean -y ?his wor <? If you could tell me the s#ecific scientific evidence you:re tal ing a-out* then let:s discuss that< 3ell* first of all* do you li e to thin you ee# current on the scientific literature as it may affect geochronology? 3ell* I ee# as current as I can< There:s a mass amount of literature< In the -uilding ne,t to my office* there are over two hundred fifty thousand volumes*

! A

mostly on geology< It:s e,tremely difficult to ee# current< +ut I am currently relatively u# on the mainstream* anyway< ! A ! Certainly the most im#ortant #oints? I do my -est< And if someone had issued a study which would* if true* call u# to 7uestion the entire science of geochronology* would you not want to -e made aware of that and loo at that closely yourself* as an e,#ert in the field? "h* yes* I would< And as a matter of fact* your familiarity with (r< )entry:s wor is limited* is it not* to an article that he wrote in 456B and a letter that he wrote in res#onse to (r< 'amon:s letter* in terms of what you have read* is that correct? Those are the things I can recall having read* and the re#orts that I have some recollection of< I have never -een terri-ly interested in radioactive haloes* and I have not followed that wor very closely< And that is the su-1ect u#on which (r< )entry has done most of his research< As I thin I told you in the de#osition* I:m not an e,#ert on that #articular endeavor< I:m aware that (r< )entry has issued a challenge* -ut I thin that challenge is meaningless< 3ell* let me as you this< =ou stated in the de#osition* did you not. 0et me as you the 7uestion* can* to your nowledge* granite -e synthesi%ed in a la-oratory? I don:t now of anyone who has synthesi%ed a #iece of granite in a la-oratory< 3hat relevance does that have to anything? I:m as ing you the 7uestion* can it -e done? 3ell* in the future I sus#ect that it will -e done< I understand< +ut you said it has not -een done yet? I:m not aware that it has -een done< It:s an e,tremely difficult technical #ro-lem* and that:s -asically what:s -ehind it< NSmith 45LB-* #< DFC* l< B to #< DFE* l< 4CO

A !

! A ! A ! A

A long awaited moment of truth had come< 'alrym#le did not have a #iece of synthesi%ed granite to #resent at the trial< The AC02 had failed to res#ond to the challenge of creation* and they -adly needed to minimi%e the im#act of this failure< The -est 'alrym#le could do for them was to say he sus#ected that the granite synthesis would -e done in the future and that I had #ro#osed a meaningless test< 3e shall later discuss -oth comments in more detail< For the #resent we continue with the cross8e,amination as 3illiams -egins to as more s#ecifically a-out 'alrym#le:s nowledge of my wor <

A Dery 6i(y /ystery

! A ! To the e,tent that you are familiar with (r< )entry:s wor and that as you have reviewed it* would you consider him to -e a com#etent scientist? I thin (r< )entry is regarded as a com#etent scientist within his field of e,#ertise* yes< And you would agree with that?

From what I:ve seen* that:s a fair assessment of his wor * yes< &e:s a very* did some very careful measurements* and -y and large he comes to reasona-le conclusions* I thin * with the #ossi-le e,ce#tion of what we:re hedging around the fringes here* and that is his e,#eriment to falsify his relatively recent ince#tion of the earth hy#othesis< 3e have not really discussed what his hy#othesis is and what his challenge is* we:ve sort of -eat around the edges< 3ell* you haven:t read his articles that he wrote since 456B* have you? No< That:s true< So if his hy#othesis were in those articles* you really wouldn:t -e a-le to tal a-out it* at any rate* would you? &is hy#othesis* I -elieve* is #retty fairly covered in those letters -etween* e,change of letters -etween 'amon and )entry* and I can certainly discuss that #art< That:s a very current e,change of letters< It is 1ust a few years old< And it is in that letter that he throws down to Nsic* aO challenge to geology to #rove him wrong< 3hat I:m saying is* that challenge is meaningless< Are you familiar with his N)entry:sO studies of radio haloes? No* I:m not familiar with that wor at all< +ut to the e,tent that wor shows that evidence that these formations are only several thousand years old* you:re not familiar with that? I:m not familiar with that* and I:m not sure I would acce#t your conclusion unless I did loo into it< If you:re not familiar with it* I don:t want to 7uestion you a-out something you:re not familiar with< Fair enough< NSmith 45LB-* #< DFE* l< 4D* to #< DF6* l< 4O I thin you stated earlier that you reviewed 7uite a -it of creation8science literature in #re#aration for your testimony in this case and also a case in California* is that correct? =es< I thin I:ve read either in whole or in #art a-out two do%en -oo s and articles< +ut on the list of -oo s that you made or articles that you have reviewed* you did not include any of Ro-ert )entry:s wor as having -een reviewed* did you? That:s right< I did not< Although you consider )entry to -e a creation scientist? 3ell* yes< +ut* you now* the scientific literature and even the creation science literature* which I do not consider scientific literature.It:s outside the traditional literature.there is an enormously com#le, -usiness< There is a lot of it< And we can:t review it all< Every time I review even a short #a#er* it ta es me several hours to read it* I have to thin a-out the logic involved in the data* I have to reread it several times to -e sure I understand what the author has saidK I have to go -ac through the author:s references and sometimes read as many as twenty or thirty #a#ers that the author has referenced to find out whether what has -een referenced is true or

! A ! A

! A ! A ! A !

A ! A ! A

ma es any senseK I have to chec the calculations to find out if they are correct< It:s an enormous 1o-< And given the limited amount of time that I have to #ut in on this* reviewing the creation science literature is not a terri-ly #roductive thing for a scientist to do< ! A ! A &ow many articles or -oo s have you reviewed* a##ro,imately? =ou mean in creation science literature? Creation science literature< I thin it was a##ro,imately twenty8four or twenty8five* something li e that* as -est I can remem-er< I gave you a com#lete list* which is as accurate as I can recall< And if there were articles in the o#en scientific literature.E,cuse me.in refereed 1ournals which su##orted the creation science model* would that not -e something you would want to loo at in trying to review the creation science literature? =es* and I did loo at a num-er of those< And I still found no evidence< +ut you didn:t loo at any from (r< )entry? No* I did not< That:s one I didn:t get around to< There:s 7uite a few others I haven:t gotten around to< I #ro-a-ly never will loo into all the creationists: literature< I can:t even loo into all the legitimate scientific literature< +ut I can go so far as to say that every case that I have loo ed into in detail has had very* very serious flaws< And I thin I:ve loo ed at a re#resentative sam#le< And also in )entry:s wor * he:s #ro#osed a very tiny mystery which is -alanced on the other side -y an enormous amount of evidence< And I thin it:s im#ortant to now what the answer to that little mystery is< +ut I don:t thin you can ta e one little fact for which we now have no answer* and try to -alance* say that e7uals a #re#onderance of evidence on the other side< That:s 1ust not 7uite the way the scales ti#< Nitalics mineO If that tiny mystery* at least -y one authority who you ac nowledge his Nsic* is anO authority* has -een said Nsic* has saidO* if correct* Nit wouldO call NinO to 7uestion the entire science of geochronology< 3ell* that:s what 'amon said< And I also said that I did not agree with $aul 'amon in that statement< I thin that:s an overstatement of the case -y a long way< I thin that $aul in that case was engaging in rhetoric< NSmith 45LB-* #< DF6* l< BJ* to #< D6J* l< 4DO

A ! A

The a-ove res#onses vividly illustrate the AC02:s attem#ts to demean the significance of my re#orts< Certainly my colleague could have studied them -efore the trial if the AC02 had wanted this to -e done< A##arently the AC02 reasoned that it was safer to ignore them than to ris admitting that they had -een studied without successfully refuting the evidences contained therein< "n the surface it would seem that having #olonium halos in granites la-eled a very tiny mystery. something scientifically insignificant.was one of the cleverest achievements of the AC02 at the trial< +ut it also involved a serious contradiction which* unfortunately for the State* sli##ed -y unnoticed during 'alrym#le:s cross8e,amination< (y colleague generally claimed ignorance of the details of my wor * saying he hadn:t read any of my scientific re#orts #u-lished since 456B< +ut if he

hadn:t read them* he couldn:t #ossi-ly now much a-out the scientific evidences for #rimordial #olonium halos< ,ow then could he testify that polonium halos in granites were irrelevant to the issue of creation6 Even though the State didn:t ca#itali%e on this o##ortunity to #in#oint a contradiction in the AC02:s case* the States s incisive cross8e,amination did e,#ose the ina-ility of the AC02 to refute the evidence for #rimordial #olonium halos and the falsification test< This had damaged the AC02 case and made it im#erative for Attorney Ennis to conduct a redirect8e,amination of 'alrym#le< As we shall see in the ne,t cha#ter* my colleague gave some remar a-le testimony during this redirect8 e,amination and su-se7uent recross8e,amination -y the State< Readers should understand that it was im#erative for me to res#ond to the various #hases of 'alrym#le:s testimony if this -oo was to have any meaning< These res#onses have not lessened my #ersonal res#ect for him<

Chapter 14: Creation's Test on Trial

3e #ic u# 'alrym#le:s redirect8e,amination at the #oint where AC02 Attorney Ennis -egins to 7uestion him a-out the falsification test< 'alrym#le:s second answer s#urs /udge "verton to interru#t the #roceedings with some of his own 7uestions a-out my wor < 'alrym#le has no choice -ut to res#ond* and he does so in an ama%ing way< &e #rovides such a su#er- e,#lanation of the im#lications of #olonium halos in granites that* for the moment at least* it seems he is a-out to convince /udge "verton of the evidence for creation<

AC@= ,it(ess &)plai(s &vide(ce for Creatio(

!uoting from the transcri#t* Ennis continues his redirect8e,amination of 'alrym#le as follows: ! 'uring cross e,amination (r< 3illiams as ed you if (r< )entry:s argument or hy#othesis could -e falsified< &as (r< )entry #ro#osed a method for falsifying his hy#othesis? =es* he has #ro#osed a test and that is the one I characteri%ed as meaningless< 3hy would it -e meaningless? 0et me first see if I can find a statement of the test* and I will e,#lain that< I have it now< NNote: &ere 'alrym#le refers to the statement of the falsification test that I #u-lished in 4565 in <?S. The #u-lication of this test @)entry 4565* D6D and )entry 45LJA was earlier discussed in Cha#ter E<O T&E C"2RT: (ay I read what you 7uoted from the newsletter -efore you go to that? A @ContinuingA " ay* sir< The e,#eriment that 'octor )entry #ro#osed. T&E C"2RT: 0et me as you a 7uestion< As I understand it* that:s his conclusion< I still don:t understand what his theory is< T&E 3ITNESS: N'alrym#leO: &e N)entryO has #ro#osed that it is either a theory or a hy#othesis that he says can -e falsified< T&E C"2RT: 3hat:s the -asis for the #ro#osal? &ow does he come u# with that? T&E 3ITNESS: 3ell* -asically what he has found is there is a series of radioactive haloes within minerals in the roc s< (any minerals li e mica include very tiny #articles of other minerals that are radioactive* little crystals of %ircon and things li e that* that have a lot of uranium in them< And as the uranium decays* the al#ha #articles will not decay* -ut travel outward through the mica< And they cause radiation damage in the mica around the radioactive #article< And the distance that those #articles travel is indicated -y these radioactive haloes< And that distance is related directly to the energy of the decay< And from the energy of the decay* it is thought that we can identify the isoto#es< That:s the ind of wor that )entry has -een doing< And what he has found is that he has identified certain haloes which he claims are from $ollonium8B4B Nsic* #olonium8B4LK correct form of the chemical elements

A ! A

used hereafterO< Now* #olonium8B4L is one of the isoto#es intermediate in the decay chain -etween uranium and lead< 2ranium doesn:t decay directly from Nsic* toO lead< It goes through a whole series of intermediate #roducts* each of which is radioactive and in turn decays< $olonium8B4L is derived in this occasion from radon8BBB< And what he has found is that the #olonium haloes* and this is what he claims to have found* are the #olonium8B4L haloes* -ut not radon8BBB haloes< And therefore* he says that the #olonium could not have come from the decay of radium* therefore it could not have come from the normal decay change Nsic* chainsO< And he says* how did it get there? And then he says that the only way it could have gotten there unsu##orted -y radon8BBB decay is to have -een #rimordial #olonium* that is #olonium that was created at the time the solar system was created* or the universe< 3ell* the #ro-lem with that is #olonium8B4L has a half8life of only a-out three minutes* I -elieve it is< So that if you have a granitic -ody* a roc that comes from the melt* that contains this mica* and it cools down* it ta es millions of years for a -ody li e that to cool< So that -y the time the -ody cooled* all the #olonium would have decayed* since it has an e,tremely short half8life< Therefore* there would -e no #olonium in the -ody to cause the #olonium haloes< So what he is saying* this is #rimordial #oloniumK therefore* the granite mass in which it occurs could not have cooled slowlyK therefore* it must have -een created -y fiat* instantly< And the e,#eriment he has #ro#osed to falsify this is that he says he will acce#t this hy#othesis as false when some-ody can synthesi%e a #iece of granite in the la-oratory< And I:m claiming that that would -e a meaningless e,#eriment< 'oes that.I now this is a rather com#licated su-1ect< T&E C"2RT: I am not sure I understand all of this #rocess< "-viously I don:t understand all of this #rocess* -ut why don:t you go ahead* (r< Ennis? (R< ENNIS: =es* your &onor< "-viously* your &onor* these su-1ects are somewhat com#le,* and if the Court has additional 7uestions* I:d ho#e that the Court would feel free to as the witness directly< NSmith 45LB-* #< D6F* l< B4 to #< DLJ* l< BO At this #oint I sus#ect Attorney Ennis was more than 1ust a little nervous a-out /udge "verton:s comments< Ennis had 1ust heard my arguments for creation summari%ed e,tremely well -y his own star witness< In the light of 'alrym#le:s lucid commentary* it seems that /udge "verton was somewhat #er#le,ed.#erha#s he didn:t 7uite understand why my conclusions were wrong and why the falsification test was meaningless< Remem-er that in his earlier cross8e,amination 'alrym#le deftly sideste##ed the challenge of creation -y saying that #olonium halos are a tiny mystery* which some day would -e solvedK and he did li ewise with the falsification test* saying he sus#ected that a granite would -e synthesi%ed in the future< The AC02 claimed that evolution re#resented the true #icture of the origin of the earth* -ut they had signally failed to defend their #osition in two ma1or encounters<

Co(fro(ti(g the Falsificatio( 6est

This re#eated #ost#onement of confronting these issues* I -elieve* had come close to #lacing the AC02:s case in 1eo#ardy< The AC02 was on the verge of -ecoming victims of their own strategy. namely* someday* somewhere* someone was going to find a solution to the evidence for creation< To reesta-lish credi-ility in their case* Ennis may have thought that 'alrym#le needed to #resent something tangi-le to -ac u# his assertion a-out the falsification test* and so in his ne,t 7uestion he again as s a-out it: ! A 3hy* in your o#inion* would the test #ro#osed -y (r< )entry not falsify his hy#othesis? 0et me read s#ecifically first what his #ro#osal is< &e said* ?I would consider my thesis essentially falsified if and when geologists synthesi%e a hand8si%ed s#ecimen of a ty#ical -iotite -arium Nsic* -earingO granite and>or a similar si%ed crystal of -iotite<? And if I understand what he:s saying there* he:s saying that since his #ro#osal re7uires that granite form ra#idly* instantly* -y instantaneous creation* that he does not see any evidence that these granites* in fact* cool slowlyK his evidence said they cool ra#idly< And he would acce#t as evidence if some-ody could synthesi%e a #iece of granite in the la-oratory< There are a cou#le of #ro-lems with that< In the first #lace* we now that these granites did form slowly from a li7uid from the following evidence: These roc s contain certain inds of te,tures which are only found in roc s that cool from a li7uid< And we can o-serve that in two ways* these te,tures< They are called ligneous Nsic* igneousO and crystalline te,tures< 3e can o-serve these te,tures -y crystalli%ing com#ounds in the la-oratory that we are a-le to crystali%e Nsic* crystalli%eO< And they always form these crystalline te,tures< 3e can also o-serve things li e lava flows and watch them cool today and see what ind of te,tures they #roduce< There has -een an e,#eriment since 45E5 going on in the Hilauea8I i lava la e< Now* Hilauea8I i is a small volcano event on the to# of the Hilauea volcano* which is one of the five volcanoes which ma e u# the island of &awaii< And in 45E5* Hilauea8I i eru#ted* it not only threw u# fountains of lava* lava flows* -ut it formed a large #ool of lava that was ca#tured in a crater< And that lava is hundreds of feet thic < Since 45E5* scientists have -een drilling down through that lava* watching it crystalli%e< Every few years they go -ac and drill another hole and watch the degree to which that lava la e is cooled< It ta es a long time for this to cool< This is a fairly thic one< And we see that in the case of lava la es and lava flows and these things* when they cool from their melt* from their li7uid* they form these te,tures that are uni7ue to all roc s that #ool Nsic* coolO from a li7uid< 3hen we go to a granite and we see these same te,tures* then I thin we are entitled to #resume that these roc s also formed from a li7uid< There is no other way that they could have formed< The other #ro-lem with )entry:s #ro#osal is that the crystalli%ation of granite is an enormously difficult technical #ro-lem* and that:s all it is< 3e can:t crystalli%e granite in the la-oratory* and he:s #ro#osing a hand8si%ed s#ecimen< That:s something li e this* I #resume<

In the first #lace* the -usiness of crystalli%ing roc s at tem#eratures* most of them crystalli%e at tem#eratures -etween seven hundred and twelve hundred degrees centigrade< The tem#eratures are high< And in the case of granites and metamor#hic roc s* sometimes the #ressures are high* many ilo-ars< So it ta es a rather ela-orate* sometimes dangerous a##aratus to do this< And the a##aratus is of such a si%e that usually what we have to crystalli%e is very tiny #ieces< I don:t now of anyone who has develo#ed an a##aratus to crystalli%e anything that:s hand8si%ed< So he:s thrown down a challenge that:s im#ossi-le at the moment* within the limits of the #resent technical nowledge< The second thing is that the crystalli%ation of granite* the reason we have not -een a-le to crystalli%e even a tiny #iece in the la-oratoray Nsic* la-oratoryO that I now if Nsic* ofO* unless there has -een a recent -rea through* is essentially an e,#erimental one< It:s a inetic #ro-lem< Anyone who has tried to grow crystals in a la-oratory nows that it:s very difficult to do if you don:t seed the melt< That is* you have to start with some ind of a little tiny crystal to -egin with< And when the semiconductor industry* for e,am#le* grows crystals to use in watches li e this* they always have to start with a little tiny seed crystal< And once you have that tiny seed crystal* then you can get it to crystalli%e< So it:s -asically a #ro-lem of getting the reaction to go* it:s a #ro-lem of nucleation* getting it started* and it:s a #ro-lem of inetics* getting the reaction to go on these viscous melts that are very hot under high #ressure< And what I:m saying is that even if we could crystalli%e a #iece of hand8si%ed granite in the la-oratory* it would #rove nothing< All it would re#resent would -e a technical -rea through< All of a sudden scientists would -e a-le to #erform e,#eriments that we cannot now #erform< +ut in terms of throwing down a challenge to the age of the earth* that:s a meaningless e,#eriment< So he:s thrown down a challenge that has no meaning* hand8si%ed crystalli%ed granite< And he:s saying* ?If you don:t meet it* then I won:t acce#t you Nsic* yourO evidence<? 3ell* it:s a meaningless challenge< It:s not an e,#eriment< NSmith 45LB-* #< DLJ* l< D to #< DLC* l< BEO This is incredi-leS Evolutionists claim they have the truth a-out the origin and age of the earth* and yet when they have an o##ortunity to #rovide e,#erimental evidence to su-stantiate their views* they call it a ?meaningless? challenge< This forces me to as a #enetrating 7uestion: If evolutionists really -elieve that the granites formed -y slow cooling instead of instantaneous creation* why are they reticent to #ut their theory of granite formation to the test? It is inesca#a-le that the granite synthesis test is at the center of the creation>evolution controversy< For that reason we need to carefully e,amine 'alrym#le:s lengthy commentary a-out it< 'oing this also #rovides an o##ortunity to e,#lain a facet of my creation model that has not -een #reviously discussed<

Pri5ordial Roc+s 0erived fro5 a Pri5ordial @iB'id

'alrym#le -egins his res#onse -y referring to my statement of the falsification test< From this he concludes that my "proposal re uires that granite form rapidly" instantly" by instantaneous creation" that he D;entryE does not see any evidence that these granites" in fact" cool slowly- his evidence said they cool

rapidly." This statement* which contrasts slow cooling of the granites with their ra#id cooling and instantaneous creation* suggests that 'alrym#le #erceives that my creation model may involve a li7uid #recursor for these roc s< This is correct< /ust -ecause $recam-rian granites are considered #rimordial or created roc s does not #reclude the #ossi-ility that they were formed from a li7uid< The Creator* after calling the chemical elements into e,istence* might well* in the ne,t instant of time* have formed those elements into a li7uid* and then immediately cooled that li7uid so that it crystalli%ed into the granites containing the #olonium halos< These granites would have -een created instantly and yet still show the characteristics of roc s that crystalli%e from a li7uid or melt< 'alrym#le #resents no direct evidence to refute the #ossi-ility of instantaneous cooling -ut instead -egins to -uild a case for the granites having formed -y slow cooling in accord with the evolutionary scenario< In su##ort of this view* he testifies that the te,ture of roc s* nown to have cooled slowly from a li7uid* is the same as granite< &ere the term te,ture refers to the si%e* sha#e* and arrangement of the #articles of which a roc is com#osed< In #articular* he com#ares the te,tural similarity of granites to s#ecimens ta en from the Hilauea8I i lava la e<

45itatio( 2ra(ite
Since the trial I have o-tained some Hilauea8I i lava la e s#ecimens from the 2<S< )eological Survey in Reston* ;irginia< In -ul com#osition and mineralogy the lava s#ecimens are olivine8rich -asalt* grossly different from any granite< 'alrym#le did not testify a-out these ma1or differences.he only said that the te,ture was the same< +ut in e,amining the lava s#ecimens* I found that there is an essential difference in the te,ture which 'alrym#le did not mention< In the Hilauea8I i sam#les the minerals have grown together in the interloc ing* intergranular manner characteristic of roc s which have crystalli%ed from a melt< The minerals in $recam-rian granites also e,hi-it an intergranular* interloc ing arrangement* and thus are te,turally similar to the Hilauea8I i s#ecimens in this one respect. &owever* another as#ect of te,ture is the si5e of the minerals com#osing the roc < The Hilauea8I i sam#les are fine8grained* meaning that the different mineral grains in them are very small* often microsco#ic in si%e< The $recam-rian granites* on the other hand* are generally characteri%ed as -eing coarse8grained* having mineral grains large enough to -e identified visually without magnification< This means the only similarity between the granites and the lava specimens is the interloc#ing" intergranular arrangement of the crystals ma#ing up the roc#s. This characteristic can -e accounted for naturally -y slow cooling of the lava in the case of the Hilauea8I i s#ecimens.or -y ra#id or instantaneous cooling from a #rimordial li7uid in the case of the granites< Thus 'alrym#le is incorrect in claiming that the Hilauea8I i lava s#ecimens show that the $recam-rian granites formed -y slow cooling< And his reference to slow cooling -rings u# a most im#ortant #oint concerning a -asic assum#tion of evolutionary geology< It is a fact that hot fluid roc * such as that #roduced at Hilauea8I i* can cool over a #eriod of a few years to form fine8grained volcanic roc s com#osed of microsco#ic8si%ed crystals< The same is true of roc s that form when granites dee# in the earth are melted< The granite melt may e,trude onto the surface and cool ra#idly to form a glassy roc K or it may cool more slowly -eneath the surface to -ecome rhyolite* a fine8grained roc @which in certain instances contains unmelted fragments of sidewall roc s -ro en off in the u#ward #assage of the magmaA< +oth the glassy roc and the rhyolites are intrinsically different from the coarse8grained granites< The last section of the Radiohalo Catalogue illustrates the considera-le difference -etween a -iotite8rich* coarse8grained granite and a slowly cooled rhyolite s#ecimen* e,tracted from a de#th of 4FLC<C feet at Inyo 'omes* California @Eichel-erger et al< 45LEA< $his difference pinpoints another reason why granite synthesis remains a crucial challenge to evolutionary geology: even though the laboratory of nature has repeatedly

provided a suitable environment for granites to crystalli5e from a granite melt" still there is no evidence of this ta#ing place. )eologists say this is -ecause tem#erature* #ressure* and length of cooling must -e different< It a##ears* however* that evidence e,ists* inde#endent of #olonium halos* which long ago should have led geologists to dou-t their theory of granite formation< For e,am#le* the tiny crystals of which rhyolite is com#osed -ear no com#arison in si%e to the very large crystals found in certain regions within granites nown as #egmatites< Some #egmatites contain crystals of -iotite* the mineral in which #olonium halos are most easily found* that are several feet in length< Evolutionary geology assumes that these e,tremely large -iotite crystals are evidence of a very long #eriod of crystalli%ation.the larger the si%e* the longer it too to form< The #ro-lem is that no one has yet synthesi%ed even a #enny8si%ed crystal of -iotite in the la-oratoryK so the assum#tion that large crystals of -iotite have grown from small ones is actually a lea# of faith without a #oint of de#arture< In other words* there is no evidence from the la-oratory of nature or of science to show that #egmatitic -iotite crystals* as shown in the Radiohalo Catalogue* attained their large si%e -y evolutionary #rocesses< (oreover* the e,istence of #olonium halos in these -iotites #rovides clear evidence that these large crystals were the #roduct of instantaneous creation< @(ost of the #olonium halos in mica shown in the Radiohalo Catalogue were found in s#ecimens of -iotite ta en from #egmatites<A The a-ove analysis shows* I -elieve* that 'alrym#le:s com#arison of granites with the Hilauea8I i lava s#ecimens did not #rovide a scientifically valid -asis for re1ecting the falsification test< I do not now whether 'alrym#le reali%ed the wea nesses in ma ing this com#arison* -ut I do now that a-out midway in his res#onse he -egan to address the granite synthesis challenge directly< &e claims that granite synthesis is im#ossi-le.-ut only because of technical reasons. At first he em#hasi%es the monumental difficulties in trying to synthesi%e a hand+si5ed #iece of granite< Then he says.unless there had -een a recent -rea through.no one had yet succeeded in synthesi%ing a tiny piece. After #rotesting at length that I had #ro#osed an unreasona-ly large8si%ed #iece of granite to synthesi%e* the truth emerges: e,#erimenters have difficulties in even getting the granite synthesis reaction started<

Polo(i'5 :alos Revisited

Attorney Ennis continued his re8e,amination -y returning to the to#ic of #olonium halos< ! A ! A 'octor 'alrym#le* if I understand correctly* #olonium8B4L is the #roduct of the radioactive decay of radon8BBB* is that correct? =es* that:s correct< And does #olonium8B4L occur through any other #rocess? Not as far as I now< I sus#ect you could ma e it in a nuclear reactor* -ut I don:t now that< I:m not sure* -ut I don:t thin #olonium8B4L is a #roduct of any other decay chain< So if there were #olonium8B4L in a roc which did not have any #revious radon8 BBB in that roc * then that e,istence of #olonium8B4L would mean that the laws of #hysics as you understand them would have had to have -een sus#ended for that #olonium to -e thereK is that correct? 3ell* if that were the case* it might or it might not< +ut there are a cou#le of other #ossi-ilities< "ne is that #erha#s )entry is mista en a-out the halo< It may not have -een #olonium8B4L< The second one is that it:s #ossi-le that he:s not -een

a-le to identify the radon8BBB halo< (ay-e it:s -een erased* and may-e for reasons we don:t understand* it was never created< This is why I say it:s 1ust a tiny mystery< 3e have lots of these in science* little things that we can:t 7uite e,#lain< +ut we don:t throw those on the scale and claim that they outweigh everything else< That:s sim#ly not a rational way to o#erate< I would -e very interested to now what the ultimate solution to this #ro-lem is* and I sus#ect eventually there will -e a natural e,#lanation found for it< ! A 'oes (r< )entry:s data #rovide scientific evidence from which you conclude that the earth is relatively young? 3ell* I certainly wouldn:t reach that conclusion* -ecause that evidence has to -e -alanced -y everything else we now* and everything else we now tells us that it:s e,tremely old< The other thing that I should mention* and I forgot to ma e this in my #revious #oint* if I could* and that is that (r< )entry seems to -e saying that the crystalline roc s* the -asic roc s* the old roc s of the continents were forms Nsic* formedO instantaneously< And he uses granite< +ut the thing that he seems to overloo is that not all these old roc s are granites< In fact* there are lava flows included in those old roc s* there are sediments included in those old roc s< These sediments were de#osited in oceans* they were de#osited in la es< They Nsic* There areO even $re8Cam-rian glacial de#osits that tells NsicO that the glaciers were on the earth a long* long time ago< So it:s im#ossi-le to characteri%e all of the old crystalline roc s as -eing 1ust granite< )ranite is a very s#ecial roc ty#e* and it ma es u# a rather small #ercentage of the $re8Cam-rian or the old crystalline roc s that formed -efore the continents< NSmith 45LB-* #< DLD* l< 4 to #< DLF* l< CO

In the a-ove testimony 'alrym#le suggests I might -e mista en a-out the identification of the #olonium8B4L halo< As we shall shortly see* however* the recross8e,amination -y Attorney 3illiams showed these comments were only s#eculation< 'alrym#le also misunderstands how various roc ty#es fit into my creation model and thus arrives at incorrect conclusions a-out my views on the origin of the granites< A -rief discussion of my creation model is necessary to clarify this misunderstanding<

Pri5ordial a(d .eco(dary Roc+s i( a Creatio( Perspective

I agree with 'alrym#le that granite ?is a very s#ecial roc ty#e*? -ut I have not said that ?all of the old crystalline roc s? are granites< Neither do I necessarily consider all roc s that geologists classify as $recam-rian to -e #rimordial< 3hat I have said is that the #olonium halos in $recam-rian granites identify these roc s as some of the )enesis roc s of our #lanet.created in such a way that they cannot -e du#licated without the intervention of the Creator< The creation e#isode descri-ed in )enesis outlines a lot of geological activity on this #lanet during creation wee < The earth* after having -een created on 'ay 4* was left covered with water< "n 'ay C* the ?dry land? emerging from this watery environment may well have included* in addition to the #rimordial crystalline roc s of 'ay 4* certain sedimentary strata* #resently considered $recam-rian -y geologists< The sudden a##earance of ?dry land? also suggests tremendous u#heavals on or -eneath the earth:s surface and might even have included vulcanism and the formation of some roc s which geologists classify as intrusive roc s< $ossi-ly there was some mi,ing of the #rimordial roc s of 'ay 4 with other roc s

created on 'ay C< (any #ossi-ilities for mi,ing are via-le since 'ay 4 and 'ay C may also have included the creation of some non8$recam-rian granites and metamor#hic roc s< This discussion shows that my creation model is not governed or restricted -y the conventional geological classification of various roc formations< &ere I should em#hasi%e that creation wee and the duration of the flood were s#ecial #eriods* -oth characteri%ed -y events -eyond the e,#lanation of nown #hysical laws.#eriods when the uniformitarian #rinci#le was not valid< Each or -oth of these #eriods may have -een accom#anied -y an increased* nonuniform radioactive decay rate<

Recross<&)a5i(atio(
3e now turn our attention to the last #hase of 'alrym#le:s testimony: his recross8e,amination -y State Attorney 'avid 3illiams< ! A ! A =ou state that the challenge which (r< )entry has issued* if I understand you* is essentially im#ossi-le? It is #resently im#ossi-le within our #resent technical ca#a-ility< There have -een #eo#le wor ing on this* and I sus#ect someday we:ll -e a-le to do it< Is it not true that you can ta e a #ile of sedimentary roc s and -y a##lying heat and #ressure 1ust sim#ly convert that to something li e a granite? Something li e a granite* yes* that:s true< +ut it:s something li e a granite* -ut they have 7uite different te,tures< 3hen you do that* you now have a metamor#hic roc * and it has a different fa-ric* and it has a different te,ture* which is 7uite distinct from an igneous te,ture< They are very easily identified from -oth a hand s#ecimen and a microsco#e< Any third year geology student could tell you if you handle a #iece of roc whether it:s igneous or metamor#hic< It:s a very sim#le #ro-lem< +ut it is 7uite similar to a granite* -ut you 1ust can:t 7uite get it to -e a granite* can you? 3ell* granite sort of has two connotations< In the first #lace* in the strict sense* granite is a com#osition only< It:s a com#osition of an igneous roc < )ranite is a word that we use for roc classification< It is also used in a looser sense* and that looser sense includes all igneous roc s that cool dee# within the earth< And they would include things li e 7uart%* diorite. I won:t -other to tell you what those are* -ut they are a range of com#osition< Sometimes granite is used in that loose sense< $eo#le say that the Sierra Nevada is com#osed #rimarily of granite< 3ell* technically there is no granite in the Sierra Nevada< They are slightly different com#ositions< It is also used to descri-e the com#ositions of certain ty#es of metamor#hic roc s< So you have to -e a little careful when you use the term :granite: and -e sure that we now e,actly in what sense we are using that word< Now* you stated that you thin * in trying to e,#lain why )entry:s theory might not -e correct or not that im#ortant* you said that #erha#s he misidentified some of the haloes* and I thin you also said that #erha#s he had mismeasured something* is that correct?

! A

A ! A ! A

3ell* I thin those were the same statement< I:m 1ust offering that as an alternative hy#othesis< 'o you now that:s what ha##ened? "h* no* no< =ou have not made any of these studies and determined that yourself* have you? No* no< NSmith 45LB-* #< DLF* l< BF to #< DLL* l< BDO

In my view these answers constitute a marvelous testimony for creation< &ere we have the noted AC02 witness for geology again testifying that granite synthesis is essentially im#ossi-le for what he claims are only technical reasons< +ut if nature had gotten the reaction started endless num-ers of times throughout the #resumed vast e,#anse of evolutionary time* why would it -e so difficult to get it started now? %oreover since granite synthesis has never been done in the laboratory" how could my colleague possibly #now that the obstacles are only technological6 To -e sure* the a-ove res#onses also e,#osed the fact that he had no scientific data whatsoever to su##ort his criticisms of my identification of #olonium halos< 'alrym#le:s references to the different connotations of the word granite necessitate that I #rovide additional details of my creation model* for it encom#asses many more #ossi-ilities than he #erceives to -e the case< These details are given in ?;istas in Creation? at the close of Cha#ter 4D<

Reflectio(s o( the First ,ee+ of the 6rial

The State:s cross8e,aminations had revealed a num-er of serious flaws in the AC02:s case* -ut it seems these were usually overloo ed -y the media #ersonnel< For e,am#le* the cornerstone of the AC02 case rested on esta-lishing the scientific credi-ility of a multi-illion8year age of the earth< The State:s cross8e,amination showed* however* that the evidence for an ancient earth was -ased on nothing more than an un#roven assum#tion The numerous re#orters covering the trial seemed o-livious to this revelation< Their reaction to the la-eling of the #olonium halos as a ?tiny mystery? also seemed curious< "ne of the world:s foremost authorities in evolutionary geology did this while admitting that he was una-le to e,#lain my #u-lished evidences for creation -y conventional scientific #rinci#les< This hardly caused a stir among the re#orters< "rdinarily nothing attracts the attention of scientists and re#orters more than a scientific mystery* es#ecially a tiny one< A ?tiny mystery? should -e solva-le* and every scientist li es to wor on #ro-lems he feels can -e solved< At the trial the AC02 was given the o##ortunity to resolve the 7uestion of the ?tiny mystery? and its im#lications for creation -y res#onding to the granite synthesis test< Their only res#onse to this challenge was to call it a ?meaningless e,#eriment<? I have reflected on this evaluation many times since the trial< Certainly the AC02 wanted /udge "verton to -elieve it< +ut is it really a meaningless e,#eriment from the stand#oint of the American ta,#ayer? Each year the Federal )overnment* through the National Science Foundation* grants millions of dollars for research -ased on evolutionary ideas* and over the years of its o#eration #ossi-ly hundreds of millions have gone for the same #ur#ose< 3ith this much money at sta e* it is not easy to understand why the media did not see to find out more a-out this ?tiny mystery? which the AC02 had failed to e,#lain on the -asis of evolutionary #rinci#les< In any event* the first wee :s media coverage left the im#ression that the evolutionary witnesses

were infalli-le< "ver si,ty years ago in the Sco#es trial* evidence for evolution was #romoted nationally and internationally without mention of the wea nesses and flaws in the theory< It ha##ened again in Ar ansas< 3hy was there so little a-out these counter arguments? 3as it -ecause the issues were not made #lain or -ecause the re#orters were unfamiliar with them?

6a+i(g the .ta(d

The issues were clarified during the second wee of the trial< In my four8hour8long testimony given during the last two days* I reviewed most of the evidence for creation and a several8thousand8year age of the earth that I had #u-lished during the si,teen years of my research< I utili%ed an overhead #ro1ector and showed over a hundred trans#arencies as well as fifty CEmm color slides of radioactive halos @see Radiohalo CatalogueA< In several of the trans#arencies I outlined a creation model* showing how creation and the flood #rovide a credi-le framewor for incor#orating the data of earth history< (ore details a-out this creation model are given in Cha#ter 4D< In #articular* I testified at length a-out #olonium halos in granites as evidence of creation and em#hasi%ed the falsifia-ility as#ect of my creation model< 'uring my testimony /udge 3illiam "verton was given #ieces of $recam-rian granite and -iotite to ins#ect* to hel# him com#rehend what was involved in the #ro#osed granite and>or -iotite synthesis< 3hat was the reaction to my testimony? 3hat was the 1udge:s decision a-out Act E5J? Is there evidence that some #eo#le at the trial resisted ?unwanted? information?

Chapter 11: The Trial 5ecision

"n 'ecem-er 4L* 45L4* the day after the close of the creation trial in 0ittle Roc * AC02 Attorney +ruce Ennis was 7uoted on #age 4LA of the Ar ansas Bemocrat as saying: ?The state tried to #rove there is scientific evidence for creation< They failed not -ecause of a lac of effort -ut -ecause that evidence does not e,ist<? In the same article AC02 Attorney /ac Novi said: ?3e:ve made that #oint several times< If creation science had any credi-ility* they wouldn:t need a law to get it taught in classrooms<? These statements reflect the AC02 o-1ectives throughout the trial< They tried to #ortray evolutionary scientists as o-1ective* honest see ers for truth and to -lac en the State:s witnesses as religionists who only mas7ueraded as scientists< Novi :s comment im#lied that my testimony for creation on the last two days of the trial had -een com#letely discredited< Actually* during my cross8e,amination AC02 Attorney +ruce Ennis didn:t even attem#t to challenge my scientific evidence for creation< Instead* he first as ed whether I acce#ted the )enesis account of creation.an attem#t to -rand me as a religionist rather than a scientist< Interestingly* he never referred to the falsification test that I had #ro#osed< Ennis: other line of 7uestions focused on two scientific mista es in an attem#t to undermine my 7ualifications as a scientist< "ne involved the #reviously discussed wor on su#erheavy elementsK the other was a misidentification of a certain halo in the mineral fluorite< +oth of them had -een corrected in #rint years -efore the trial< Those mista es were rectified as a natural #art of my ongoing scientific research.an endeavor that involves testing new ideas over and over again* modifying and>or recanting as demanded -y further e,#erimentation and #eer evaluation< In summary* the cross8e,amination seemed to -e directed toward diverting the attention of the 1udge and the media away from my discoveries<

&vol'tio(ists ,i( the 2a5e

"n /anuary E* 45LB* /udge "verton ruled against Act E5J< In his %emorandum ?pinion" /udge "verton evaluates creation science as follows: The #roof in su##ort of creation science consisted almost entirely of efforts to discredit the theory of evolution through a rehash of data and theories which have -een -efore the scientific community for decades< The arguments asserted -y creationists are not -ased u#on new scientific evidence or la-oratory data which has -een ignored -y the scientific community< @"verton 45LB* Section I;<@'AA Such statements are not consistent with the evidence I #resented to the court< ;irtually none of my testimony consisted of a rehashing of #revious data or theories< "n the contrary* it visually #ortrayed how my recently discovered evidences for creation were -ased on la-oratory e,#erimentation and how* for the most #art* they had -een ignored -y the scientific community< In another #art of his ?pinion" /udge "verton states: Creation science* as defined in Section D@aA Nof Act E5JO* not only fails to follow the canons defining scientific theory* it also fails to fit the more general descri#tions of ?what

scientists thin ?K and ?what scientists do<? The scientific community consists of individuals and grou#s* nationally and internationally* who wor inde#endently in such varied fields as -iology* #aleontology* geology and astronomy< Their wor is #u-lished and su-1ect to review and testing -y their #eers< The 1ournals for #u-lication are -oth numerous and varied< There is* however* not one recogni%ed scientific 1ournal which has #u-lished an article es#ousing the creation science theory descri-ed in Section D@aA< @"verton 45LB* Section I;<@CAA It is difficult to understand these remar s< In my own case /udge "verton was given references to twenty or more scientific #u-lications< 3asn:t this am#le evidence that* for si,teen years* my wor had -een tested and su-1ected to review -y my #eers in the scientific community? Is it #ossi-le that the 1udge:s designation of who is a scientist was -ased on one:s #osition on origins rather than one:s actual scientific associations and wor ?

Co'rt ?'dg5e(t Reveals &vol'tio(ary *ias

$erha#s the most revealing of the a-ove comments was the statement* ?There is* however* not one recogni%ed scientific 1ournal which has #u-lished an article es#ousing the creation science theory descri-ed in Section D@aA<? This should not -e sur#rising since Section D@aA of Act E5J covers a -road s#ectrum of creation science< /ust as no one evolutionist is e,#ected to e,#ound on all the different as#ects of evolution* neither does any one creation scientist have the e,#ertise to write a-out all the diverse as#ects of creation science< The real issue centers on the different scientific articles for creation science which had -een #resented -efore the Court< 3hy were these discounted when the 1udge wrote his ?pinion6 /udge "verton gives his evaluation of my wor as follows: < < < (r< )entry:s findings were #u-lished almost ten years ago and have -een the su-1ect of some discussion in the scientific community< The discoveries have not* however* led to the formulation of any scientific hy#othesis or theory which would e,#lain a relatively recent ince#tion of the earth or a worldwide flood< )entry:s discovery has -een treated as a minor mystery which will eventually -e e,#lained< It may deserve further investigation* -ut the National Science Foundation has not deemed it to -e of sufficient im#ort to su##ort further funding< @"verton 45LB* Section I;<@'AA &ere /udge "verton greatly minimi%es my difficulties with the National Science Foundation* which were #resented in great detail -efore the Court< Readers may decide for themselves whether /udge "verton:s comments a-out those e,#eriences* as descri-ed in Cha#ter F* re#resent an o-1ective evaluation of the facts<

Radiohalos: 6i(y /ystery or *loc+ to &vol'tio(7

/udge "verton:s conclusion that my wor was ?ten years old? and that my discoveries were only a ?minor mystery*? which eventually would -e e,#lained* leaves the im#ression that the scientific community had found nothing significant in my wor < In essence* he inter#rets silence a-out my results as showing they are insignificant< 3as this conclusion 1ustified? Through $rofessor Ray Ha%mann:s letter @Cha#ter DA* the 1udge was shown that this silence a-out my results was -ecause they seriously conflicted with the evolutionary time scale< &e also was shown the article entitled ?(ystery of the Radiohalos*? which featured letters of evaluation a-out

my research from a num-er of eminent scientists here in America* Euro#e* and the Soviet 2nion< "ne of these letters* from an internationally nown American geochemist* reads in #art: &is N)entry:sO conclusions are startling and sha e the very foundations of radiochemistry and geochemistry< =et he has -een so meticulous in his e,#erimental wor * and so restrained in his inter#retations* that most #eo#le ta e his wor seriously < < < I thin most #eo#le -elieve* as I do* that some uns#ectacular e,#lanation will eventually -e found for the anomalous halos and that orthodo,y will turn out to -e right after all< (eanwhile* )entry should -e encouraged to ee# rattling this s eleton in our closet for all it is worth< @Tal-ott 4566* EK A##endi,A This is a very significant letter< At the time of the Ar ansas trial* a-out five years had #assed since it was written< 'uring that s#an I had endeavored to ? ee# rattling this s eleton < < < for all it is worth<? In this five8year #eriod I had challenged my evolutionist colleagues to du#licate a hand8si%ed #iece of granite or -iotite as a means of confirming the -asic #remise of their theory< The evidence for creation that had -een rattling in the evolutionary closet for many years was now noc ing more loudly than ever* -ut for some reason /udge "verton and the AC02 contingent had a difficult time hearing it< 3as this a case of resisting ?unwanted information?? /udge "verton:s dismissal of my scientific discoveries as a ?minor mystery? echoed the ?tiny mystery? designation given -y the AC02:s e,#ert geology witness< +y doing this the 1udge effectively denied the e,istence of valid evidence for creation science< To have done otherwise would have destroyed the logical -asis of his entire ?pinion.

&vol'tio(ary Article of Faith

In Section I;<@CA /udge "verton gives what he considers to -e the five 7ualifying characteristics of science: @4A It is guided -y natural lawK @BA It has to -e e,#lanatory -y reference to natural lawK @CA It is testa-le against the em#irical worldK @DA Its conclusions are tentative* i<e<* are not necessarily the final wordK and @EA It is falsifia-le< /udge "verton states that creation science fails to meet these essential characteristics* noting that the Ar ansas creation law ?asserts a sudden creation :from nothing<:? &e maintains that ?such a conce#t is not science -ecause it de#ends u#on a su#ernatural intervention which is not guided -y natural law* is not testa-le and is not falsifia-le<? +y a##lying this line of reasoning only to creation science* /udge "verton ignores #art of the evidence #resented to him< In my testimony I showed that evolution also re7uires a su#ernatural -eginning< I testified that the most widely acce#ted evolutionary scenario of the -eginning of the universe* the +ig +ang model* -egins with an article of faith< Evolutionary scientists #ostulate that all matter in the universe emanated some 46 -illion years ago from a gigantic #rimeval e,#losion< The ultimate cause for such a -eginning is not a matter ca#a-le of scientific investigation< That event is not #resumed to -e guided or e,#laina-le -y natural law* nor is it testa-le against the em#irical world< If the court had consistently a##lied its own descri#tion of science* it would have -een as critical of ?the -eginning? #ostulated for evolution as of the su#ernatural -eginning for creation science< 3hile writing this -oo * I found a comment which summari%es my testimony -efore the court

a-out this mythical event< It was made -y the well8 nown +ritish astronomer* $rofessor $aul 'avies< In one of his -oo s the comment is made that the creation of the universe -y the +ig +ang < < < re#resents the instantaneous sus#ension of #hysical laws* the sudden a-ru#t flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing< It re#resents a true miracle. transcending #hysical #rinci#les<<< @'avies 45L4* 4F4A This forthright statement -y an eminent evolutionist admits that evolutionary science re7uires as much of a ?miracle? in the -eginning as does creation science.?something to come out of nothing<? Such was the essence of my testimony a-out the +ig +ang< If /udge "verton had recogni%ed this fact in his ?pinion" it would have invalidated his contrast -etween creation and evolution<

6r'e .cie(ce 0efi(ed ;y the Co'rt

$erha#s the most -latant contradiction in /udge "verton:s ?pinion occurs when he critici%es the methodology of creation scientists: The methodology em#loyed -y creationists is another factor which is indicative that their wor is not science< A scientific theory must -e tentative and always su-1ect to revision or a-andonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with* or falsify* the theory< A theory that is -y its own terms dogmatic* a-solutist and never su-1ect to revision is not a scientific theory< @"verton 45LB* Section I;<@CAA This is truly an incredi-le statement< A##arently the 1udge decided to ignore a large #art of my testimony relating to the #ro#osed falsification e,#eriment< (y testimony a-out this e,#eriment encom#assed an in8de#th review of the material discussed in the earlier cha#ters of this -oo < It included @4A my #resentation at the 456L 0ouisiana State 2niversity sym#osium on the measurement of geological time @when I #resented evidence that #olonium halos in $recam-rian granites suggested a very ra#id formation of those roc sA* @BA $rofessor 'amon:s letter a-out my contri-ution to that sym#osium* along with my res#onses to 'amon and =or as #u-lished in <?S" and @CA a discussion of the comments of $rofessor Norman Feather @see Cha#ter EA concerning the e,ceeding difficulty of e,#laining #olonium halos in granites -y conventional scientific #rinci#les< I s#ecifically stated that the synthesis of a hand8si%ed #iece of granite or -iotite would suffice to render my creation model invalid< Thus* /udge "verton:s comments that creation science is not testa-le or falsifia-le were contradictory to the testimony #resented at length in his own court< Throughout his ?pinion /udge "verton seems to have acce#ted the AC02:s #osition on most of the issues that were argued at the trial< I must #ay my res#ects to the AC02 contingent for that achievement< Admittedly* they won a tremendous #sychological victory when the 1udge ruled in their favor< This was no small accom#lishment< They were sitting on $andora:s -o,* and throughout the trial they ran the ris of having it come o#en< 0egally* it was an im#ressive victory< +ut what an em#ty victory it wasS Scientifically* they were confronted with evidence for creation* and they didn:t even try to refute it< (a e no mista e.if the AC02 had found a flaw in that evidence they certainly would have -rought it out during my cross8e,amination< Their only recourse was to treat the evidence for creation #resented at the trial as a ?tiny mystery<? "n this occasion their strategy wor ed very well< 3hether it would ever wor again remains to -e seen< +y now the reader may reali%e that the events descri-ed in this cha#ter draw attention to the 7uestion arising in my mind when I first encountered the +ig +ang conce#t in a graduate #hysics course< That 7uestion centered on how matter and energy could -e formed in the +ig +ang when a

fundamental law of #hysics #rohi-ited it< In reality* as $rofessor 'avies: statement so cogently reveals* the laws of #hysics have never -een sufficient to account for the +ig +ang< Thus* ironically* even the most resolute evolutionists are* in the end* forced to admit to an incredi-le contradiction. a miracle of creation must -e invo ed to start this mythical scenario<

Chapter 1!: Media Reaction to the Ar#ansas Trial

Along with a few other cherished conce#ts in science* evolution en1oys su#erstatus< It is tacitly understood that any scientist who wants to maintain a re#uta-le standing within the scientific community must never #u-licly challenge such a theory< 2# until the Ar ansas trial my research was not generally considered in that category -ecause I had stayed within the norm of #u-lishing my results in the scientific literature< At the Ar ansas creation trial I ste##ed outside of that acce#ted norm and issued a #u-lic challenge to one of the su#erstatus theories of science< For that reason alone my #artici#ation at the Ar ansas trial was certain to evo e discussion among my scientific colleagues< To a large e,tent* their reaction would de#end on whether my testimony and evidences for creation received favora-le or hostile reviews in re#uta-le scientific maga%ines<

&ffects of ?o'r(alis5 o( Research F'(di(g

)overnment la-oratories are sensitive to any evaluation of their staff activities #u-lished in res#ected scientific 1ournals< A #ositive evaluation of a #ro1ect or scientist at a national la-oratory #rovides an incentive for the #arent agency* such as the 'e#artment of Energy* to recommend a high level of su##ort when -udgets are #re#ared for Congress< At the same time* a government la-oratory must -e wary of su##orting a scientist who is critici%ed in one of those 1ournals< Su##ort of controversial research could #roduce a negative reaction from the Congress and in turn affect funding for that la-oratory< This cha#ter focuses on two accounts of the trial #u-lished in the /anuary 4 and /anuary L* 45LB* issues of Science and how they adversely affected my status as a #rofessional scientist< This 1ournal had always given my technical re#orts fair treatment< Their chosen re#orter* Roger 0ewin* was e,#ected to #rovide an evenly -alanced account of the trial #roceedings< +ut as I read his re#orts @0ewin 45LBa and 45LB-A* it seemed that the creation #osition at the trial* my testimony in #articular* was considera-ly minimi%ed for the -enefit of evolution< A few months later I learned firsthand of his strong #reference for evolution when he was featured as an invited s#ea er at the American $hysical Society meeting in 3ashington in A#ril 45LB @0ewin 45LBcA< In that #resentation he u#held the standard evolutionary scenario< That same year he authored a -oo on evolution @0ewin 45LBdA< Conceiva-ly* some other staff re#orter might have given a different #ers#ective of the trial* and this cha#ter might not have -een written<

Reporti(g fro5 a( &vol'tio(ist Perspective

"n the surface 0ewin:s two re#orts of the trial a##ear to -e a sim#le reviewing of the im#ortant events< +ut a close e,amination reveals a different #icture< +y omitting and minimi%ing crucial #arts of the trial testimony* while em#hasi%ing other #hases* he favors the evolutionary #osition and leaves the im#ression that the creation science #osition was in sham-les< 0ewin accom#lishes this feat -y -uilding u# the AC02 contention that evolution is truly scientific whereas creation science is religion in disguise< In his first account 0ewin refers to the testimony of one of the AC02 witnesses: Science has to -e testa-le* e,#lanatory* and tentative* said (ichael Ruse* a #hiloso#her of science at the 2niversity of )uel#h* Canada* and he made it #lain that in his mind creation science was none of these< @0ewin 45LBa* CDA

A few #aragra#hs later the -uild8u# continues as these witnesses are allowed the #rivilege of defining the scientific status of their own theory: Each NevolutionistO testified that yes* evolutionary theory was thoroughly scientific even though there were #ro-lems with itK and that no* creation science @Ayala could hardly -ring himself to mouth the #hraseA most definitely was not< @0ewin 45LBa* CDA Note that 0ewin is not content to re#ort the evolutionists: evaluation of their own theory< &ere he uses a #arenthetical comment to in1ect his own a##raisal of Ayala:s reaction to creation science< From this one could easily conclude that the AC02 witnesses were intellectual heroes* the -rave defenders of scientific truth< In contrast* 0ewin #ictures the creation science #osition as -eing confused and fearful: The attorney general #resented si, science witnesses* two more than had testified for the AC02* #resuma-ly on the grounds that 7uantity made u# for evident lac of 7uality< There would have -een more had not a serious case of disa##earing witnesses set in as the second wee wore on< 'ean Henyon* a -iologist from San Francisco State 2niversity* fled town after watching the demolition of four of the State:s witnesses on day 4 of the second wee < @0ewin 45LBa* CDA True enough* one of the #lanned witnesses for the State did leave town very hurriedly after o-serving how the AC02 tried to intimidate the State:s witnesses during their cross8e,aminations< 0ewin cannot -e faulted for re#orting this occurrence< +ut to im#ly this was -ecause four of the State:s witnesses were demolished is an o#inionated statement< It leaves the im#ression that creation science was not u# to the challenge of the day< Near the end of 0ewin:s first commentary my wor is descri-ed as follows: 'efense witness Ro-ert )entry* a #hysicist associated with the "a Ridge National 0a-oratory* -rought the trial to a close with D hours of e,cruciating detail a-out an anomalous result in the radiometric dating of the age of the earth that 'alrym#le had descri-ed as a ?tiny mystery<? /udge "verton left the -ench at 4J:DF on Thursday* still holding his head from )entry:s massive #resentation< < < < @0ewin 45LBa* CDA Readers should note that after 0ewin heard those four hours of evidence* which encom#assed years of research and many #u-lications in res#ected scientific 1ournals* the most #erce#tive comments he can offer in this first write8u# are that my testimony was ?massive? and involved ?e,cruciating detail? of an ?anomalous result<? No mention is made of my scientific #u-lications or of the granite synthesis e,#eriment which I had #ro#osed< 0ewin:s greatest assist for the evolutionary #osition* the one most needed -y the AC02 to maintain a #osttrial image of scientific invinci-ility for evolution* is his re#eated silence a-out this critical falsifia-ility test<

,here is the .cie(ce i( Creatio( .cie(ce7

The second account of the trial* entitled ?3here Is the Science in Creation Science?*? is another deft attem#t to esta-lish that creation science is not science< The author sets the stage for his drama in this article -y noting that only seven out of si,teen #otential creation science witnesses actually testified at the trial< Ne,t he states:

?< < < in their #retrial de#ositions many creation scientists admitted that what they #racticed was not scientific<? < < < @0ewin 45LB-* 4DB.italics mineA This a##ears to -e a very damaging admission< +ut there is more than one way to inter#ret such a statement< In fairness the conte,t should have -een included so that the reader could evaluate 1ust what was meant -y these remar s< True* the wor of many creation scientists involves the o-servation and inter#retation of e,isting geological data< They also utili%e a flood model of earth history in inter#reting that data< Since geologists generally e,clude a worldwide flood from their scientific #ers#ective* #ossi-ly these creation scientists are only admitting their inter#retive framewor of science differs in some res#ects from the orthodo, view of science< To illustrate* I 7uote a recent statement from 'r< Ariel Roth* one of the creation scientists who was the target of 0ewin:s thrust: < < < the 7uestion of whether creation is science is trivial< It revolves around varied definitions of science and conflicting scientific #ractices< +y #romoting the #ro#osition that creation is not scientific* evolutionists are directing their energies to a non se7uitur that distracts from the more -asic 7uestion of origins< C:est magnifi7ue* mais ce n:est #as la guerreS @This is magnificent -ut this is not the war<A The real 7uestion is whether evolution or creation is true< @Roth 45LD* FDA I suggest this statement throws a different light on the issue< This ind of information 0ewin could easily have o-tained to give a -alanced #ers#ective* -ut he chose not to do so< Neither does 0ewin mention that my views on this to#ic were necessarily different< As a scientist whose wor has dealt mainly with e,#erimental data o-tained in the la-oratory* I have consistently maintained my wor is scientific and have invited my colleagues to test my results< This was made clear in my #retrial de#osition and in my court testimony* -ut 0ewin is silent a-out it< Anyone reading his second account of the trial may erroneously thin that all creation science witnesses* including me* had admitted that creation science* even my e,#erimental wor * was not scientific< This one misunderstanding alone would have -een sufficient to raise serious 7uestions among my scientific colleagues< And the damage does not sto# there< 0ewin then refers to an assessment of creation science held -y 'uane )ish* a well8 nown creation scientist who was not a witness at the trial: In admitting that creation science is not a science* )ish and his colleagues are 7uic to #oint out that* in their o#inion* neither is evolutionary theory scientific< < < < @0ewin 45LB-* 4DBA The #hrase ?)ish and his colleagues? suggests that all creation scientists thin ali e on this #oint* which again invites a misunderstanding a-out my e,#erimental results< In the ne,t #aragra#h 0ewin says: < < < creationist literature* Act E5J* and defendants: counsel* avoid the term ?theory? in reference to creation and evolution e,#lanations* -ecause of its im#lied #ro#erty of testa-ility* tentativeness* and e,#lanation< @0ewin 45LB-* 4DBA This statement im#lies that creation scientists cannot stand to have their ideas #ut in the mar et#lace of science for critical scrutiny< This is 1ust the o##osite of what I had done for a decade and a half of research< And it was contrary to the testimony which 0ewin heard me give -efore the

court< This is the third instance that 0ewin remained silent a-out my #osition< And there is more to come< A few #aragra#hs later we find: In addition to the #retrial #roclamation that creation science is not science* the defense o#ened its scientific case with a second distinct disadvantage< @0ewin 45LB-* 4DBA 3here is the ?#retrial #roclamation? 0ewin mentions? To my nowledge no such #roclamation was made< Is this a reference to the #retrial de#ositions of the other creation scientists? If so* this was no #roclamation< &ow could it -e when my #retrial de#osition em#hasi%ed the o##osite view? This is the fourth instance where the author* -y his silence* left a cloud over my e,#erimental results and cast dou-t u#on my re#utation as a #rofessional scientist< As earlier noted* this need not have -een the case at all for the other creation science witnesses* who were #ossi-ly utili%ing a different definition of what is scientific< The ?second distinct disadvantage? in the last 7uote refers to several creation science witnesses @including me* at that timeA who held mem-ershi# in the Creation Research Society @CRSA< 0ewin correctly notes that CRS mem-ers affirm faith in the )enesis account of creation and the flood as well as in the widely held Christian -elief that /esus Christ is the Savior of man ind< I as : Is the ?disadvantage? 0ewin mentions here a reflection of his own attitude toward these -eliefs? At the trial I as ed my evolutionist colleagues to show where my evidence for creation is wrong and theirs for the uniformitarian principle is correct< This they failed to do either at the trial or since then< Instead of faulting the evolutionists for this failure* 0ewin casts as#ersion on the CRS mem-ers who testified for the State: "ne after another these five witnesses agreed that the wor they did and the conclusions they felt a-le to draw were ins#ired -y these -eliefs< @0ewin 45LB-* 4DCA This statement contains factual information* -ut the whole truth is not evident< As one of those five witnesses* I must ta e e,ce#tion to this characteri%ation of my wor < As a scientist I have wor ed to uncover the truth a-out the origin and history of the earth< At the trial my conclusions une7uivocally su##orted creation* -ut those conclusions were -ased on scientific evidence< 3hat 0ewin does in the a-ove statement is to confuse the motivation for my research.wanting to now the truth a-out )enesis.with the scientific results achieved in that search<

0isco'(ti(g the &vide(ce

After recounting my testimony @which he gar-lesA* 0ewin refers to my cross8e,amination -y AC02 Attorney +ruce Ennis and focuses on my motivation as if it were a detriment to my wor : In 4J minutes of cross8e,amination Ennis showed that the #rinci#al motive for )entry:s wor was his literal reading of the +i-le.in #articular* )enesis< < < < @0ewin 45LB-* 4DFA (ore #recisely* Ennis: 7uestion a-out my motivation was in reference to one of the Ten Commandments: ! Isn:t one of the #rimary reasons that you -egan to rethin the entire issue of evolution and creation is -ecause of the moral #ers#ective of the Fourth Commandment? @(er el 45L4K A##endi, .l< BL to l< CJA Early in this -oo I discussed how my com#lacent acce#tance of theistic evolution was shattered when I reali%ed this Commandment refers to the si, days of creation in the conte,t of si, literal daysK thus my res#onse to this 7uestion was* ?A-solutely<?

The reader may wonder why Ennis chose to as this 7uestion< 3hat did it have to do with the issues -efore the court? The #ro-lem was that the AC02 had no way of directly countering the #u-lished scientific evidences for creation which I had discovered< So during my cross8e,amination Attorney Ennis steered clear of challenging my claim that #olonium halos in $recam-rian granites re#resent evidence for creation< To o-scure his ina-ility to confront this evidence re7uired that he somehow try to discredit me* or some facet of my wor < As a matter of tactics* he utili%ed two se#arate strategies< First* as we have 1ust noted* he focused on my motivation . it was almost as if the AC02 would li e to have -lamed the e,istence of #olonium halos in granites on my motivation< Ennis: second strategy was to raise dou-ts a-out my credi-ility as a scientist< To accom#lish this he referred to the su#erheavy element re#ort mentioned earlier in Cha#ter F< This was no sur#rise as I had fully e,#ected the AC02 would do this in an attem#t to undermine the credi-ility of my results #ertaining to creation< A considera-le sur#rise* however* was 0ewin:s recounting of this #hase of my cross8e,amination< There a##eared to -e serious variances -etween what I remem-ered and what was re#orted< =et for over four years after the trial I was una-le to challenge 0ewin:s version of this #hase of the trial -ecause my testimony had never -een transcri-ed< Fortunately* the re7uired information was o-tained 1ust in time to -e included in this -oo < For the sa e of chronological order my comments a-out this im#ortant material are deferred until near the end of this cha#ter< 0ewin:s second write8u# closes with the following comment: The com-ined testimony of the creationists: scientific witnesses was* it has -een ac nowledged* not im#ressive< Anyone who was ho#ing for a -ody of science to stand in e7ual force against conventional evolutionary -iology* and the -ac ground of geology* chemistry and #hysics* would have -een disa##ointed< @0ewin 45LB-* 4DFA 4ho ac nowledged that the com-ined testimony of the creationists: scientific witnesses was not im#ressive? Roger 0ewin? The AC02 witnesses? This was the theme of the AC02 case< Thus 0ewin #ermits the AC02 itself to #ass 1udgment on evidence for creation #resented at the trial< Then 0ewin assumes the role of final ar-iter of the trialK he #ictures su##orters of creation science as a disheartened lot -ecause their #osition could not withstand the force of evolutionary evidence< I grant there was much disa##ointment a-out the trial< +ut was it -ecause of lac of evidence for creation or -ecause it wasn:t accurately and fully re#orted? 0ewin:s -rief discussion of my testimony would have -een the o##ortune time to descri-e the #ivotal granite synthesis e,#eriment< +y synthesi%ing a #iece of granite in the la-oratory* evolutionist scientists could in theory falsify my creation model and show their uniformitarian principle to have some -asis in fact< An e,#lanation of the falsification test -y 0ewin would have ena-led other scientists to see that my testimony had a credi-le scientific foundation< +ut in his write8u#* my deduction a-out granites -eing #rimordial* created roc s a##ears to -e left hanging* as if it could not -e tested< The creation model I #ro#osed as a scientific framewor to incor#orate the evidences for creation and the flood is not mentioned< NThe creation model #resented later to the American Association for the Advancement of Science sym#osium @see Cha#ter 4DA is similar to the one #resented at the trial<O As a result* my testimony at the Ar ansas trial is #laced in the framewor of a religious ad hoc hy#othesis without scientific merit< 0ewin:s silence a-out my credentials #ortrays me as a scientist outside or* at -est* on the fringes of the scientific community* rather than one who had carried on recogni%ed scientific research for si,teen years< If he had forthrightly admitted that I had #u-lished evidence for creation and the

flood which had not -een refuted @even though a challenge to refute it had -een in the scientific literature for several yearsA* this would have shed a different light on my #artici#ation at the trial< +ut this did not ha##en* and the readers of Science were left with the im#ression that creation science was indefensi-le<

Correctio( Atte5pt Fails

The #receding accounts of the trial had a #ronounced* negative im#act on my #osition as guest scientist at "RN0< The attitude of certain colleagues toward my wor changed< The following res#onse to 0ewin:s remar s a-out my testimony was su-mitted to Science on (arch B* 45LB* in an effort to allow my colleagues at the 0a-oratory and elsewhere an o##ortunity to see in #rint where 0ewin had failed to re#resent my #osition correctly: %F =<S/?NS< $? =?;<= *<4IN!S $=IA* ACC?>N$ In Roger 0ewin:s summation ?3here is the Science in Creation Science?? @L /an< #< 4DBA* it was clearly his #rerogative to re#ort that some creation scientists testified that they did not -elieve that creation science is testa-le or scientific< +ut it hardly does me 1ustice -efore my scientific colleagues for him not to also mention that I re#resented a different #osition at the trial< The fact that I e,#lained how the one8singularity +ig +ang (odel and the two8singularity Creation (odel @ref< 4A -oth involve #rediction and are in theory ca#a-le of falsification ma es it dou-ly curious why 0ewin chose not to give the readers of Science an o##ortunity to evaluate my thesis for themselves< @I define a singularity as a set of events re7uiring more than nown #hysical laws to e,#lain<A In su##ort of the Creation (odel I referred to my results @ref< BA on halos in coalified wood as evidence for the Flood singularity< Such data also im#ly that certain coals should have formed within a few months to a few years @-ut not instantaneously as 0ewin re#ortedA< I suggest these #redictions a-out the relative ra#idity of coal formation can -e tested in the la-oratory -y su-1ecting water8saturated sam#les of wood to elevated tem#eratures @4EJ8CJJXCA and then analy%ing the residue for coal8li e #ro#erties< And s#ea ing of #redictions* on the -asis of this Creation (odel I have also suggested that newly develo#ed accelerator techni7ues should -e used to search for small amounts of 4DC in coal and am-er @ref< 4A< Conventional geological theory #redicts that the amount of 4DC in such materials should -e infinitesimally small* and hence undetecta-le< As evidence for the initial creation singularity @ref< 4A I referred to my results @refs< C* DA suggesting that #olonium halos in $recam-rian granites are #rimordial* hence im#lying that the granites must themselves -e #rimordial roc s* or roc s that were created< This hy#othesis would -e scientifically meaningless had I not also #ro#osed the following e,#eriment which in theory I will acce#t as falsifying that hy#othesis if it is successful< +riefly* I testified that since the standard +ig +ang (odel #redicts the $recam-rian granites formed slowly over geological time with nothing more than conventional #hysical laws to govern their crystalli%ation* then it should -e #ossi-le to synthesi%e in the la-oratory a small @hand8si%edA #iece of such granite to confirm that hy#othesis< (y testimony was that I would acce#t the synthesis of a #iece of granite as a falsification of my thesis that the $recam-rian roc s are #rimordial roc s* and further that the su-se7uent synthesis of a single B4L$o halo in such a #iece of granite would also -e

sufficient to falsify my view that $o halos in granites are #rimordial< I an,iously await the critical res#onse of my scientific colleagues to these #ro#osals< The issues are clearly too im#ortant for them to -e ignored any longer< Ro-ert ;< )entry References 4< Ro-ert ;< )entry* E"S* Trans< Am< )eo#hy< 2nion FJ* D6D @4565AK YYYYYY* F4* E4D @45LJA< B< Ro-ert ;< )entry et al<* Science 45D* C4E @456FA< C< Ro-ert ;< )entry* Science 4LD* FB @456DA< D< Ro-ert ;< )entry et al<* Nature BEB* EFD @456DA< As noted -y the following re#ly from the 0etters Editor* my attem#t to #rovide a re-uttal was refused< Such ar-itrary re1ection was difficult to understand< 'ear 'r< )entry: @(arch 5* 45LBA

Than you for your letter of B (arch* which has -een studied -y the editorial staff< I regret that we do not #lan to #u-lish it< 3hile it is understanda-le that you might have #referred a different em#hasis or different details in 0ewin:s account of your testimony* we do not find that* in this case* his #resentation needs clarification or am#lification< Science!s staff writers must #resent material in very limited s#ace and can not usually include all of the details that individuals featured in articles would li e< 3e note that much of what you have written has a##eared in other #u-lications and has therefore -een made availa-le to your colleagues< Sincerely* >s> Christine )il-ert Christine )il-ert 0etters Editor Science

@)il-ert 45LBA

(y situation at the 0a-oratory might have -een rectified had I -een afforded the customary #rofessional right to defend myself in Science. (y credi-ility as a scientist had -een called into 7uestion* -ut o-viously this had no effect on the decision not to #u-lish my re-uttal< This letter of re1ection seems contrary to the lofty aims of Science as dis#layed on the editorial #age of every issue: Science serves its readers as a forum for the #resentation and discussion of im#ortant issues related to the advancement of science* including the presentation of minority or

conflicting points of view" rather than -y #u-lishing only material on which a consensus has -een reached< Accordingly* all articles #u-lished in Science.including editorials* news and comment* and -oo reviews.are signed and reflect the individual views of the authors and not the official #oints of view ado#ted -y the AAAS or the institutions with which the authors are affiliated< @italics mineA 0ewin:s considera-le coverage of the Ar ansas trial #roves that Science considered the outcome of the Ar ansas trial as an im#ortant issue ?related to the advancement of science<? 3hy then was not my res#onse acce#ted for #u-lication? Certainly it 7ualified as a ?#resentation of minority or conflicting #oints of view<? First* it is certain that my re-uttal letter* if #u-lished* would have alerted the worldwide readershi# of Science to the credi-ility of the evidence for creation< This might have led to some #enetrating 7uestions a-out why such im#ortant information was missing from 0ewin:s #u-lished accounts of the trial< 3e must also as whether the official #osition of the AAAS toward creation science could have -een #artially res#onsi-le for su##ressing my res#onse<

AAA. a(d &vol'tio(ary Pres'ppositio(s

At the 45LB AAAS annual meeting* held soon after the Ar ansas trial* the Council of the AAAS and its +oard of 'irectors issued a 1oint resolution condemning creation science< That resolution reads as follows: 4hereas it is the res#onsi-ility of the American Association for the Advancement of Science to #reserve the integrity of science* and 4hereas science is a systematic method of investigation -ased on continuous e,#erimentation* o-servation* and measurement leading to evolving e,#lanations of natural #henomena* e,#lanations which are continuously o#en to further testing* and 4hereas evolution fully satisfies these criteria* irres#ective of remaining de-ates concerning its detailed mechanisms* and 4hereas the Association res#ects the right of #eo#le to hold diverse -eliefs a-out creation that do not come within the definitions of science* and 4hereas Creationist grou#s are im#osing -eliefs disguised as science u#on teachers and students to the detriment and distortion of #u-lic education in the 2nited States* $herefore be it resolved that -ecause ?Creationist Science? has no scientific validity it should not -e taught as science* and further* that the AAAS views legislation re7uiring ?Creationist Science? to -e taught in #u-lic schools as a real and #resent threat to the integrity of education and the teaching of science* and &e it further resolved that the AAAS urges citi%ens* educational authorities* and legislators to o##ose the com#ulsory inclusion in science education curricula of -eliefs that are not amena-le to the #rocess of scrutiny* testing* and revision that is indis#ensa-le to science< @American Association for the Advancement of Science 45LB* 4J6BA This resolution shows the AAAS hierarchy #icture themselves as guardians of the integrity of science< In this self8a##ointed role they assert that creation science has no scientific validity< +ut was

it scientific integrity for Science" the #u-lishing arm of the AAAS* to su##ress a letter that directly contradicted that assertion? @0ater I learned more a-out why my res#onse was re1ected* and this is discussed in Cha#ter 4E<A

A'dio 6apes Reveal Fact'al Acco'(t

Earlier in this cha#ter I reviewed how Roger 0ewin had raised dou-ts a-out my credi-ility as a scientist in his accounts of the Ar ansas trial< Also mentioned was a more serious matter: in certain #laces his version of my cross8 e,amination seemed to differ from my own recollection< For over four years my sus#icions a-out this material could not -e confirmed -ecause my testimony had not -een transcri-ed< Since there were no #lans for this to -e done* it seemed that the matter would rest as 0ewin had #ictured it< Then* as this -oo neared com#letion* I remem-ered that the court re#orter had made an audio recording of my testimony in addition to her own record< Contact was made and du#licates of the audio ta#es were sent to me in time for this new material to -e incor#orated into this cha#ter< !uoted -elow from the audio ta#es are the NSF and su#erheavy element8related 7uestions and my res#onses to AC02 Attorney Ennis: ! =ou testified at some length a-out a letter from the National Science Foundation* /uly 44* 4566* which denied your a##lication for a #articular grant< A =es< ! Is it not fair to say that that letter concluded that one of the reasons they denied your grant a##lication at that time was that the #anel felt that you and your colleagues were to -e faulted for the techni7ues you used in coming to your initial conclusion that there were su#erheavy elements? A =es* I -elieve it did say that< ! 'id not that re1ection letter go on to say that the #anel felt that the #rinci#al investigator and his colleagues should have chec ed out all such #ossi-le reactions -efore #u-lication -ecause we now that that techni7ue might #roduce the results you found? Is it not true? A I thin what you are saying is generally true< N(er el* 45L4K A##endi,.l<4F6 to l<4LBO The reader should understand that I agreed to Ennis: second and third 7uestions only -ecause he as ed whether the NS) letter .see Chapter 13 had made those criticisms. =es* ?the N)eochemistryO #anel did fault the #rinci#al investigator N)entryO and his colleagues for the techni7ues they used to try to detect su#erheavy elements? @&ower 456FK A##endi,A< &owever* with due res#ect to the NSF #anel .all of whom were evolutionists.nothing was at fault with the techni7ue which we used to generate our #u-lished re#ort on su#erheavy elements< And the NSF:s o-1ection to another method @see &ower:s letterA was 1ust a red herring -ecause our re#ort contained nothing -ased on it< The techni7ue used in the su#erheavy element e,#eriments* #roton8induced ,8ray fluorescence* is routinely used to determine the elemental com#osition of an almost unlimited variety of s#ecimens< It is -ased on one of the most relia-le elemental identification methods in e,#erimental #hysics< In our e,#eriments we did misinter#ret some of the ,8ray lines* -ut contrary to the im#lication of Ennis: third 7uestion* we did chec other reactions -efore #u-lication< I agreed to the third 7uestion only -ecause Ennis as ed whether the NSF letter made that criticism* not -ecause I -elieved that criticism was valid< Indeed* the reader may remem-er from Cha#ter F that some of my associates remained adamant that our original results did show evidence of su#erheavy elements long after other e,#eriments indicated otherwise< They reasoned that the other nuclear reactions had -een so thoroughly investigated that the evidence for su#erheavy elements still remained< In this res#ect* it is always #ossi-le to misinter#ret the results of a single set of e,#eriments* regardless of the techni7ue used< This is why continued e,#erimentation is necessary until a #ro#osed inter#retation is confirmed or denied<

3e now 7uote 0ewin:s version of the su#erheavy8element #art of my cross8e,amination: < < < Ennis also esta-lished that )entry had shown #oor 1udgment in using a certain techni7ue in loo ing for #rimordial su#erheavy elements< ! =ou referred to the grant re1ection letter of 44 /uly 4566< Isn:t it fair to say that one reason the re7uest was turned down was -ecause the #anel felt you were to -e faulted for using a techni7ue that was nown to give false results? A =es< @0ewin 45LB-* 4DFA A scientist who uses techni7ues that are ? nown to give false results? is incom#etent or untrustworthy* and this is the inference that can -e drawn a-out me from the a-ove information< The audio8ta#e 7uotes given a-ove show that 0ewin:s highly incriminating #hrase* ? nown to give false results*? is nowhere to -e found in Ennis: 7uestions< Neither is it found in the National Science Foundation letter @&ower 456FK A##endi,A to which Ennis referred< This means @4A 0ewin had no factual -asis to claim that Ennis ?esta-lished? that I had shown ?#oor 1udgment in using a certain techni7ue? in the su#erheavy8element e,#eriments* and @BA 0ewin:s version of the su#erheavy8 element #art of my cross8e,amination deviates* much to my detriment* from the actual courtroom #roceedings< 0ewin has my agreeing under oath to something essentially different from what Attorney Ennis actually as ed during my cross8e,aminationK moreover* I would not have agreed to the 7uestion if it had -een worded as 0ewin claimed< 0ewin:s last comment a-out my wor occurs near the end of his second re#ort: Ennis closed his cross8e,amination -y as ing )entry if other #eo#le wor ing in the field thought that conventional e,#lanations would -e found for the anomalous results he had< )entry said ?yes<? < < < @0ewin 45LB-* 4DFA This statement lends great credence to the idea that a conventional e,#lanation will -e found for my ?anomalous results? -ecause of its a##eal to the authority of ?#eo#le wor ing in the field*? which in this case must refer to scientists doing research on halos< I didn:t recall that Attorney Ennis had made such a reference* for this would have #rovided me with the o##ortunity to ta e e,ce#tion to their #ro#osed e,#lanationsK and I new this had not occurred< So I highly sus#ected that 0ewin:s version of Ennis: 7uestion was incorrect* and that again he had #ictured me as agreeing to something different from what actually trans#ired in the courtroom< The audio ta#es confirmed my sus#icions< They reveal Ennis: 7uestion and my res#onse as follows: ! And Anders< Is it not true that 3heeler and Anders and other scientists who have read your material thin that a conventional natural law e,#lanation will -e found for the e,istence of other #olonium halos in granites? A =es* they do< ! I have no further 7uestions< N(er el 45L4K A##endi, .l<BBC to l<BBLO The a-ove 7uotes show that the scientists whom Ennis cited are those ?who have read? my material< This is 7uite distinct and different from 0ewin:s characteri%ation of them as ?other #eo#le wor ing in the field*? -ecause o-viously this #hrase denotes scientists actually doing research< Thus* the ?other #eo#le? to whom 0ewin referred had no tangi-le scientific evidence which would su##ort a conventional e,#lanation of #olonium halos in granites< In fact* it would have -een much to my advantage if 0ewin had re#orted e,actly what 'r< /ohn 3heeler and 'r< Edward Anders had said a-out my wor @Tal-ott 4566K A##endi,A< Indeed* Anders: evaluation was 7uoted in the last cha#ter as evidence to show that /udge "verton had ignored some im#ortant information in arriving at his decision< The last #art of that evaluation reads: < < < I thin most #eo#le -elieve* as I do* that some uns#ectacular e,#lanation will eventually -e found for the anomalous halos and that orthodo,y will turn out to -e right

after all< (eanwhile )entry should -e encouraged to ee# rattling this s eleton in our closet for all it is worth< @Tal-ott 4566* EK A##endi,A $erha#s the #u-lication of this material* showing how 0ewin:s accounts deviate from the actual court #roceedings* may yet rattle another s eleton -uried within the scientific esta-lishment<

Fig're 12-1 2e(try /eets the Press This #hotogra#h was ta en shortly after his testimony for the State of Ar ansas at the creation>evolution trial in 0ittle Roc <

A(other Diewpoi(t
A #ositive account of my #artici#ation in the Ar ansas trial was #u-lished in the /anuary 4F* 45LB* issue of Science News. It was entitled ?They Call It Creation Science*? with the su-title* ?3hy would any re#uta-le scientist agree to testify on -ehalf of the state of Ar ansas in last month:s creationist trial? Two who did tell Science News.? These two were $rofessor N< C< 3ic ramasinghe* Chairman of the 'e#artment of (athematics and Astronomy at the 2niversity College at Cardiff* 3ales* and I< The first #aragra#h of this interview* 7uoted -elow* shows that the writer* /anet Raloff* #rovides a much different #ers#ective of my contri-ution at the Ar ansas trial: Not everyone in science shares the view that ?creation science? has no scientific validity< Among them are two who testified on -ehalf of the defending Attorney )eneral:s office as its ey witnesses during the creation science trial last month in 0ittle Roc * Ar < @Science News: 4>B>LB* #< 4BA< A-out the only things these scientists have in common are the res#ect of the scientific community for the meticulous 7uality of their #rimary #ursuits and their shared -elief that life:s grand scheme may -e the #roduct of ?a creator<?@Raloff 45LBa* DDA I was gratified that my research* when fairly evaluated* was recogni%ed for adhering to the scientific method and that this was #u-lished in a national news maga%ine< +ut in #ractical terms* this

su-se7uent account of my research was insufficient to override the negative im#act of the articles in Science. The history of science reveals that certain cherished theories have always -een considered immune to criticism< Scientists who refused to ac nowledge this immunity* o#enly challenging those theories* were on occasion ?e,communicated? from the scientific esta-lishment< Irres#ective of how much evidence I had accumulated* I had o#enly challenged a su#erstatus theory which certain scientists felt should -e immune from attac < Re#ercussions were -ound to follow<

Chapter 1$: The After(ath of the Ar#ansas Trial

At the time of the Ar ansas creation trial in 'ecem-er 45L4 I had -een at the 0a-oratory as a guest scientist for twelve and a half years< It was a most cordial and #roductive arrangement< 'uring this #eriod I had #u-lished research #a#ers in colla-oration with my colleagues at "RN0* and had underta en coo#erative research #ro1ects with scientists at other la-oratories and universities* some of them overseas< =et -y the summer of 45L4* my main #ur#ose of coming to the 0a-oratory. finding su#erheavy elements.still had not -een accom#lished< "ne final year was given me to do this< (y su#erheavy search involved several different e,#erimental a##roachesK all of them were 7uite time8consuming< Along with these investigations I turned some of my attention to a new research #ro1ect: the long8 term storage of nuclear wastes in granite< Two months #rior to the Ar ansas trial some colleagues and I had already o-tained definitive e,#erimental results concerning waste storage in those roc s< I ho#ed that the discovery of these new data might #rovide a -asis for the 0a-oratory to e,tend my stay -eyond /une of 45LB* irres#ective of my results on su#erheavy elements<

Co(ve(tio(al 3'clear ,aste Co(tai(5e(t

It is well nown that many individuals within and without government circles #erceive the long8 term storage of nuclear wastes to -e one of the more im#ortant technological #ro-lems of our time< The goal of nuclear waste research is to determine @4A what ty#e of storage container will -est withstand nuclear radiation effects so as to #revent lea age during a several8thousand8year storage #eriod* and @BA the geological site -est suited to minimi%e nuclear waste lea age into the environment in case of accidental ru#ture of the #rimary containers< This involves a #rediction of the long8term geological sta-ility of the site -ased on -oth #resent8day geological assessment and an estimate of the geological age of the formation< The standard a##roach to the #ro-lem of site selection assumes that the geological formations -est suited for storage are those thought to have remained sta-le over long geological #eriods< The 2<S< 'e#artment of Energy estimates geological age -y reference to the presumed geological develo#ment of the earth< Site selection #rocedures thus de#end #artly on the assum#tion of uniformitarian geology< If uniformitarian geology does not #rovide a correct timeta-le for the earth:s geological history* then one of the -asic criteria for nuclear waste site selection is called into 7uestion< 3e have already discussed @in Cha#ter DA how the results on the coalified wood from the Colorado $lateau #rovide evidence that those formations are only several thousands of years old instead of several hundred million< $rofessor Ha%mann:s article @Ha%mann 456LA focused attention on the nuclear waste im#lications of these results< Although it is #ossi-le to fill metal containers with radioactive wastes and -ury them in some underground cavity* common sense tells us we must ta e additional #recautions< There is always the #ossi-ility that container ru#ture might occur* due either to corrosion or to some disaster such as an earth7ua e< Thus it would -e unwise to select -urial sites near the earth:s surface* with its higher ris of waste lea age into the environment< The lea age ha%ard can -e reduced -y -urial in granite< )ranite formations* e,tending far -elow the earth:s surface* would o-viously #ermit waste storage at much greater de#ths< &owever* at greater de#ths the tem#erature rises shar#ly* again raising the #ossi-ility of waste8container ru#ture< "ne additional #recaution would -e to first enca#sulate nuclear wastes within some ty#e of im#ervious

matri,* which would resist lea age even at higher tem#eratures< A most im#ortant goal of nuclear waste research is to identify what ty#e of matri, would safely retain radioactive elements under high8tem#erature conditions< In recent years nuclear waste s#ecialists have investigated a variety of su-stances which could serve as the #rimary enca#sulation medium< Certain ty#es of glass have -een investigated* and initially some of them seemed to hold great #romise< The radioactive material was incor#orated into the molten glass mi,ture and then allowed to cool in the form of a cylinder< Su-se7uent studies have shown* though* that after a few years the radioactive emissions had damaged the glass structure* ma ing it more susce#ti-le to corrosion< This raises 7uestions a-out the long8term sta-ility of nuclear wastes in this matri,< An alternative a##roach is to investigate various ty#es of synthetic minerals whose natural forms contain significant amounts of the radioactive elements uranium and thorium< +y ascertaining which natural radioactive minerals have retained these elements over the course of the earth:s history* we can identify the most suita-le synthetic counter#arts for long8term nuclear waste enca#sulation< There was also the 7uestion of where the waste containers themselves would -e #laced< "ne #lan was to -ury the waste containers in dee# granite holes< The rationale was: even if the #rimary container did ru#ture* the radioactive ha%ard to the environment would -e reduced< $rior to our studies* scientists had only investigated the retention of radioactive minerals ta en from granite8 roc formations near the earth:s surface< +ut if nuclear waste containers were to -e encased in granite* they would need to -e -uried in 4E*JJJ8foot8dee# granite holes* where tem#eratures would -e 7uite high< &ow much these higher tem#eratures would affect lea age of radioactivity from the minerals was a crucial 7uestion< The only solution was to analy%e natural radioactive minerals from dee# granite cores< +ut where were such s#ecimens to -e found? &oles dee#er than 4E*JJJ feet had -een drilled in search of oil -ut always through sedimentary roc s such as limestones and sandstones<

A( 4((ovative Approach to the 3'clear ,aste Pro;le5

In mid845L4 I learned of a 4E*JJJ8foot8dee# hole in a granite formation drilled -y the 'e#artment of Energy in New (e,ico in the late 456J:s< The #ur#ose was to e,#lore the #ossi-ility of using high8 tem#erature roc at the -ottom of the hole as a heat e,changer to generate steam energy< In this hot8 dry8roc e,#eriment @as it was calledA* water in1ected into one drill hole at the to# would cascade to the -ottom and -e heated to steam< The steam would then return through a se#arate hole to a #ower8generating station on the surface< Core sections were ta en at five different de#ths from a-out CJJJ feet down to a-out 4E*JJJ feet during the drilling o#eration< Fortuitously* each of these granite cores contained many small crystals of the radioactive mineral %ircon< These cores were e,actly the sam#les needed to determine how well the radioactive %ircons had resisted lea age under the increasing tem#eratures @u# to C4CX C at the -ottom of the holeA< (y affiliation with the 0a-oratory #roved invalua-le in o-taining #ieces of each one of these #riceless cores< The advantage of analy%ing the %ircons from these cores was clear: they had already e,#erienced the e,act environmental conditions antici#ated for nuclear waste storage in granite< +y determining the amount of diffusion or lea age of radioactivity out of these %ircons* we could accurately determine whether it would -e safe to enca#sulate nuclear wastes in synthetic %ircons of the same ty#e< These e,#eriments also had the #otential of #roviding critical information a-out the age of the

granites< Remem-er that the element lead is the end #roduct of uranium and thorium decay chains @and hence is nown as radiogenic leadA< Since %ircon crystals contain small amounts of -oth uranium and thorium* there will -e a constant accumulation of this element in %ircons located on the earth:s surface< That is* lead diffuses out of %ircons very slowly at surface tem#eratures< 3ith increasing de#th* however* the tem#erature rises considera-ly* and the lead diffuses out of the %ircons far more ra#idly< Now the age 7uestion enters the #icture< If the granites in New (e,ico are over a -illion and a half years old* as uniformitarian geology su##oses* this would -e time for considera-le amounts of lead to -e lost from the %ircons ta en from the dee#est @highest tem#eratureA sections of the drill hole< In fact* in this scenario the lead should steadily diminish with increasing de#th @due to steadily increasing tem#eraturesA< &owever* if the earth is only several thousand years old* only negligi-le lead loss is e,#ected< In this case the amount of radiogenic lead in the %ircons should -e a-out the same regardless of de#th< &ere was a clear8cut test<

&)peri5e(tal Res'lts Reach the =-.- Co(gress

The results of our investigations were definitive< 3e found that the radioactive %ircon crystals e,tracted from the granite cores had lost essentially none of their radiogenic lead* even at the -ottom of the hole where the tem#eratures were highest< This is e,ce#tionally strong evidence that the #resumed 4<E8-illion8year age of these granites is drastically in error< S#ecifically* the data are consistent with a several8thousand8year age of the earth< I reali%ed* however* that these startling im#lications for a young earth would never #ass #eer review if they were clearly stated in any re#ort su-mitted for #u-lication< They would have to -e de8em#hasi%ed and ta e second #lace to the im#lications for nuclear waste in order for them to ever -e #u-lished< Thus* when the results were written u#* I em#hasi%ed that new evidence had -een found* showing that nuclear wastes enca#sulated in synthetic %ircons would constitute a very safe mode of containment< "ur re#ort was su-mitted for #u-lication to Science a month or so -efore the Ar ansas trial and* coincidentally* was -eing reviewed for #u-lication around the time I was testifying in 0ittle Roc < The re#ort did #ass #eer review and was su-se7uently #u-lished in Science under the title* ?'ifferential 0ead Retention in Zircons: Im#lications for Nuclear 3aste Containment? @)entry et al< 45LBaK A##endi,A< 0ater some geologists critici%ed certain as#ects of this re#ort< Fortunately* I was given the o##ortunity to res#ond @)entry 45LD-A< /anet Raloff* the writer who had #u-lished an interview a-out my testimony at the Ar ansas creation trial @Raloff 45LBaA* now #u-lici%ed the im#lications of this re#ort for nuclear waste storage in the (ay 4* 45LB* issue of Science News @Raloff 45LB-A< /ust -efore this date I learned that the 2< S< Senate was considering an amendment to a nuclear waste -ill< It would re7uire the 'e#artment of Energy to investigate nuclear waste storage sites other than the tentatively selected salt8dome re#ositories in 0ouisiana and (ississi##i< Senator Thad Cochran of (ississi##i was informed of our recently #u-lished re#ort and e,#ressed immediate interest* the e,tent of which can -e 1udged -y his actions when the nuclear waste amendment came -efore the Senate on A#ril CJ* 45LB< "n that date he introduced an amendment to the National Nuclear 3aste $olicy Act of 45LB< In doing this Senator Cochran -rought our results to the attention of the Senate and had our entire re#ort re#roduced along with his comments in the Congressional =ecord. @I was later informed that his office had also written to the Secretary of the 'e#artment of Energy a-out our re#ort and its im#lications for alternative storage sites<A Some of Senator Cochran:s remar s -efore the Senate are

7uoted -elow: < < < There is a great deal of controversy and concern* as has already -een e,#ressed* a-out the Nnuclear waste storageO sites the 'e#artment of Energy is now considering for #ossi-le site characteri%ation< There is no hard evidence that any of them will #rove suita-le for a #ermanent re#ository< $ast #ro-lems with hasty site selection have caused delays and undermined #u-lic confidence< As an e,am#le* (r< $resident* in 456B* the Atomic Energy Commission had to a-andon a salt site in 0yons* Hans<* that they were #lanning to use for a waste re#ository -ecause water was discovered lea ing into the mine* and scientists decided the mine had too many holes in it< Salt* des#ite serious #ro-lems associated with it* has -een a favorite geologic medium with the 'e#artment of Energy u# to this #oint -ecause it has -een the most e,tensively studied medium< Even though many e,#erts -elieve that granite and other forms of crystalline roc may -e very #romising media* they are not -eing aggressively investigated< < < < The fact is that the time that would -e re7uired for characteri%ation of granite falls -ehind the timeta-les set -y '"E and the schedule that this -ill contains as it is now drafted* and it ar-itrarily* therefore* eliminates granite from consideration in the selection #rocess< This decision flies in the face of scientific evidence that granite may -e the -est #ossi-le medium for a site for nuclear waste dis#osal< As evidence* (r< $resident* I cite an article contained in a recent edition @A#ril 4F* 45LBA of Science maga%ine< The article is authored -y scientists affiliated with the chemistry division of the "a Ridge National 0a-oratory addressing the 7uestion of using natural roc granite as a site to insure the ma,imum #ossi-le degree that radioactive material can -e stored in a way that would not #ermit esca#e or create any ha%ard< The authors used an innovative ultrasensitive techni7ue for a lead isoto#e analysis in a natural site of granite at 0os Alamos National 0a-oratory in New (e,ico< The results showed* (r< $resident* that lead* which is a relatively mo-ile element com#ared with nuclear waste* has -een highly retained at elevated tem#eratures under conditions that are similar to those that would a##ly to the storage of high8level nuclear wastes in dee# granite holes< This study is crucial and it is im#ortant -ecause it was -ased not 1ust on la-oratory wor -ut on an analysis in a natural site under adverse environmental conditions< The 'e#artment of Energy should -e a-le to incor#orate this ind of finding and this research immediately in its review #rocess< +ut to follow the dictates of this legislation and the #redis#osition of the 'e#artment to continue studying other inds of formations would result in their not -eing a-le to ta e advantage of this ind of research< (r< $resident* I as unanimous consent that a co#y of this article I have 1ust referred to -e

#rinted in the =ecord. @Cochran 45LB* SDCJ6A Senator Cochran was not the only senator to show interest in this re#ort< "n the day #rior to the Senate vote on the amendment* I was contacted -y (r< $eter Ross-ach* legislative aide to Senator /im Sasser of Tennessee* a-out the im#lications contained therein< Some Tennesseans had e,#ressed concern a-out the #ossi-ility of hauling nuclear wastes across the state down to the salt re#ositories in 0ouisiana and (ississi##i< According to (r< Ross-ach* Senator Sasser wanted a -etter understanding of our results so that he could vote more intelligently on the amendment< Even though Senator Cochran:s amendment did not #ass* (r< Ross-ach wrote me a letter of a##reciation and ended -y saying* ?If there is anything we can do for you from here* #lease let me now<?

Appeal to Co(ti('e Research

(r< Ross-ach:s offer of assistance was a##reciated* and I decided to as if Senator Sasser would consider a##ealing to the 'e#artment of Energy for a continuation of my guest #osition< In the ne,t few wee s I received co#ies of the following letters: (r< 3illiam S< &effelfinger Assistant Secretary for (anagement and Administration 'e#artment of Energy 3ashington* '< C< BJELE 'ear (r< &effelfinger: @(ay 4L* 45LBA

This letter is written on -ehalf of Ro-ert ;< )entry* Associate $rofessor of $hysics at Colum-ia 2nion College and currently )uest Scientist at "a Ridge National 0a-oratory< (r< )entry has -een a )uest Scientist at "RN0 for the #ast 4C years< 'uring this time* he has #u-lished nearly BJ scientific re#orts* some of which have received national recognition< I have enclosed two #u-lished commentaries concerning (r< )entry:s wor which testify to the de#th and im#ortance of the research he has -een a-le to conduct while at "RN0< In addition* Ro-ert )entry has -een #articularly hel#ful to me and my staff on energy8 related matters* #articularly nuclear waste site selection issues< &e has #rovided valua-le evaluations and technical e,#ertise* which has assisted us in ascertaining the full im#lications of various energy #olicies< It is my understanding that (r< )entry has -een notified that his current dollar8a8year consultant contract will -e terminated on /une CJ* 45LB< I also understand that he has recently discovered new evidence relating to nuclear waste containment a-out which he would li e to conduct e,#eriments and further research< &owever* he will -e una-le to do this if his contract is terminated on schedule< I wanted to ta e this o##ortunity to -ring my interest in (r< )entry to your attention and to re7uest that he -e allowed to continue his wor at "a Ridge National 0a-oratory* if at all #ossi-le< I am sure that an e,tension of his contract would allow him to finish his research and #re#are conclusions -ased on those e,#eriments<

I would greatly a##reciate any assistance you can offer (r< )entry in this regard* and I loo forward to hearing from you at your convenience< Sincerely* >s> /im Sasser /im Sasser 2nited States Senator @Sasser 45LBaK A##endi,A

I was grateful for this cordial res#onse* -ut as the following letters show* it was ineffective in securing a renewal of my research contract< @/une 4F*45LBA 'ear Ro-ert: I wanted to -ring you u# to date on the latest information I have received concerning your contract with the 'e#artment of Energy as a )uest Scientist at "a Ridge National 0a-oratory< =ou will recall that I contacted (r< 3illiam S< &effelfinger* Assistant Secretary of Energy for (anagement and Administration* 3ashington* '< C<* on your -ehalf< As a result* I have received the enclosed letter from (r< &effelfinger* which is for your information< Ro-ert* it was a #leasure for me to ma e this in7uiry* and I regret that a more favora-le res#onse was not received< &owever* I want to encourage you to contact me again in the future whenever I may -e of service to you on matters of mutual concern< Sincerely* >s> /im /im Sasser 2nited States Senator [[[[[[[[ &onora-le /im Sasser 2nited States Senate 3ashington* 'C BJE4J 'ear Senator Sasser: @Sasser 45LB-A @/une 4D* 45LBA

This is in reference to your letter dated (ay 4L* 45LB* on -ehalf of Ro-ert ;< )entry* a guest scientist at the "a Ridge National 0a-oratory @"RN0A o#erated -y 2nion Car-ide Cor#oration for the 'e#artment of Energy< At the time of his assignment at "RN0 4C years ago* (r< )entry:s su##orting s#onsor was Colum-ia 2nion College< The original #ur#ose of his research was to study #leochroic halos* an area of interest to "RN0 at that time* -ut a field of less significance

to the 0a-oratory:s mission in recent years< (r< )entry:s more recent efforts in nuclear waste containment referenced in your letter are 7uite #eri#heral to the #rimary thrust of "RN0:s ongoing waste isolation #rograms< 3hen "RN0 entered into its current su-contract with (r< )entry* effective /uly 4* 45L4* it was for him to continue his own research on halos* using 0a-oratory facilities< It was antici#ated that he could finish his wor during the yearK no other wor was authori%ed under the su-contract< &e was advised in /une 45L4 that he should see other arrangements under which to #ursue his research interests -eyond /une CJ* 45LB< 'iminishing "RN0 -udgets re7uire mar ed cut-ac s in activities not directly related to its #riority #rogram areas< 2nfortunately* (r< )entry:s wor does not fall in that category< Accordingly* we cannot -e encouraging a-out an e,tension of his agreement at "RN0< Than you for your continuing interest in 'e#artment of Energy #rograms< Sincerely* >s> 3illiam S< &effelfinger 3illiam S< &effelfinger Assistant Secretary (anagement and Administration 'e#artment of Energy

@&effelfinger 45LBK A##endi,A

The message in &effelfinger:s letter was 7uite clear< The recent attention given my wor in the 2< S< Senate was not a sufficient -asis for the 0a-oratory to renew my guest8scientist status<

Fi(al Res'lts .'pport Eo'(g Age of &arth

Another re#ort on the safety of long8term nuclear wastes in granite was com#leted 1ust #rior to my contract e,#iration date< It was -ased on colla-orative research with two colleagues and was #u-lished after I left "RN0 under the title ?'ifferential &elium Retention in Zircons: Im#lications for Nuclear 3aste Containment? @)entry et al< 45LB-K A##endi,A< As the title of the re#ort suggests* we again analy%ed microsco#ic8si%ed %ircons from the same five de#ths as were used in the lead8 retention studies< &owever* in these e,#eriments the %ircons were analy%ed for their content of the rare gas helium< These e,#eriments #rovided even stronger evidence for a several8thousand8year age of the earth than did the lead8retention e,#eriments< To understand this we must remem-er that al#ha #articles emitted in the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium* are in reality nothing more than helium atoms stri##ed of their electrons< So it follows that helium is #roduced wherever uranium and thorium occur< This is the source of the helium in the %ircons< &owever* -eing a gas means that helium can diffuse or migrate much more ra#idly than the solid element lead< Indeed* studies have shown that helium migrates out of various minerals* such as %ircon* even at room tem#eratures< +ecause of this continual loss* scientists have generally given u# using the helium content to estimate the radiometric age of %ircons found at or

near the earth:s surface< Thus* according to the evolutionary model* it would -e senseless to attem#t to measure the helium content of the %ircons ta en from the dee# granite cores< $resuma-ly almost all the helium should have migrated out of the tiny %ircons during the -illion or so years they were e,#osed to the higher tem#eratures at greater de#ths< &owever* on the -asis of my creation model I e,#ected something different< That model is -ased on the occurrence of #rimordial #olonium halos in $recam-rian granites as evidence that all such roc s were created on 'ay 4 of creation wee a-out FJJJ years ago< "n this -asis I thought helium might still -e retained in the %ircons ta en from some of the dee# granite cores< &ere was one of the clearest and most stringent tests of the creation and evolution models in regard to the age of the earth< The e,#eriments showed ama%ingly high retention of helium even at 456XC* directly contradicting the e,#ectation -ased on the evolutionary model of earth history< These startling results @)entry et al< 45LB-K A##endi,A are in com#lete agreement with my creation modelK moreover* they constitute what seems to -e the strongest scientific evidence yet discovered for a several8thousand8year age as o##osed to a several8-illion8year age of the earth< And they com#lement #erfectly the results of my earlier studies on the Colorado $lateau coalified wood s#ecimens< Those studies @Cha#ter DA #rovided evidence for a young age of sedimentary formations #reviously thought to -e several8 hundred8million years old< $arado,ically* 1ust when my research o##ortunities were a-out to -e withdrawn at "RN0* my long8 term goals were -eing reali%ed with more certainty than ever -efore< To outward a##earances I was losing everything I had wor ed so diligently to gain.friendshi# and res#ect of scientific colleagues and access to the finest of research facilities< In reality* I was succeeding in discovering stri ing evidence for a young age of the earth* evidence which accords #erfectly with the view that the $recam-rian granites were all created a-out the same time< (y first and latest scientific discoveries were com#lementing each other* and my two8decade 7uest for truth a-out the origin and age of the earth was -eing fulfilled< The cost was high in loss of friends* and my financial su##ort remained erratic until it com#letely disa##eared soon after my de#arture from "RN0< (y long association with Colum-ia 2nion College came to an end as well< $rovidentially* I -elieve* concerned #ersons made it #ossi-le for this -oo to -e written<

&(d of a( &ra>A .'55ary

(y original 45F5 a##ointment as guest scientist at the 0a-oratory was #rom#ted -y my research on unusual ty#es of radiohalos< At that time* several la-oratories around the world were gearing u# their research facilities to search for chemical elements heavier than any #reviously nown< Theoretical studies suggested the e,istence of su#erheavy elements* and the search for them was to intensify over the ne,t decade< The invitation to 1oin "RN0 had #rovided an e,ce#tional o##ortunity not only to search for su#erheavy elements -ut also to utili%e their un#aralleled research facilities in the investigation of #olonium halos< (y research endeavors continued to warrant #u-lication in res#ected scientific 1ournalsK thus I was invited year after year to continue as a guest scientist until the time of the trial* twelve and one8half years after -eginning my affiliation with the 0a-oratory< If my research endeavors had -een inferior* if my wor had not -een #u-lished in the o#en literature* or if I had shown #re1udicial -ias in my #u-lications* the 0a-oratory management rightly would have terminated my research contract long -efore they did on /une CJ* 45LB< I had not found su#erheavy elements in my research efforts* and the 0a-oratory was 1ustified in terminating my research

contract< &owever* had it not -een for the negative re#orting of my testimony at the Ar ansas trial* I thin my most recent research activities regarding nuclear waste storage might have -een deemed of sufficient value to warrant continuation of my research at "RN0< And so my wor at "RN0 came to an end< (y ho#es of continuing the search for the elusive su#erheavy elements a##arently had eva#orated< I had invested many years loo ing for them* and des#ite the ill8fated results of the giant halo e,#eriments at Florida State in 456F* I am still convinced that su#erheavy elements do e,ist<

6he Case of the =(5ailed @etter

A few wee s -efore my de#arture from "RN0 I learned that Steve Clar * the Ar ansas Attorney )eneral* was considering writing a letter to several Congressmen a-out my situation< A year and a half later* in the s#ring of 45LD* I as ed the former 'e#uty Attorney )eneral @who handled the State:s case for the Ar ansas creation trialA to investigate whether such a letter was ever sent from the Attorney )eneral:s office< In his investigation this former 'e#uty Attorney )eneral found a letter to Senator +um#ers in the state archives in 0ittle Roc < According to him* the #lan was for identical co#ies of this letter to -e individually addressed to each mem-er of the entire Ar ansas Congressional delegation after the co#y to Senator +um#ers was signed and the date affi,ed< Curiously this letter* which was a##arently signed a-out the time of my de#arture from the 0a-oratory* was never dated or sent< No one seems to now e,actly how this ha##ened< The letter is co#ied -elow so that readers may #onder for themselves what events may have trans#ired had it -een sent< The &onora-le 'ale +um#ers 2nited States Senator New Senate "ffice +uilding 3ashington* '<C< BJE4E 'ear Senator +um#ers: In my recent defense of Act E5J of 45L4 @-etter nown as the Creation8Science 0awA* I had the o##ortunity to -ecome ac7uainted with several of the world:s leading scientists who testified on -ehalf of -oth the State and the American Civil 0i-erties 2nion< "f all the scientists involved on -oth sides of the lawsuit* no one im#ressed me anymore than Ro-ert )entry* who for the #ast several years has -een a guest scientist at the "a Ridge National 0a-oratory in "a Ridge* Tennessee< This letter is written to -ring to your attention (r< )entry:s wor and to enlist your aid on his -ehalf< (r< )entry:s testimony at trial concerned the #resence of radioactive #olonium halos in granite< The significance of these halos is that their #resence in the granites is fundamentally inconsistent with the conventional wisdom that the granites underlying the earth:s structure cooled over thousands of years< (r< )entry is ac nowledged as the world:s foremost authority on this #articular su-s#ecialty< From every indication availa-le to me* )entry:s wor at the National 0a-oratory has -een of a uniformly high 7uality and has added significantly to the #rogress made at the facility< Furthermore* as a guest scientist* )entry has -een #aid only I4<JJ #er year -y the government< @A college of which he is a faculty mem-er has #aid his salary<A Thus* the

government has -een a-le to avail itself of his services essentially free of charge< &owever* (r< )entry has recently learned that his contract as a guest scientist will not -e renewed for ne,t year< As one admittedly viewing these events from afar* it a##ears to me that )entry is -eing #enali%ed for his generous offer of assistance to hel# the State of Ar ansas and his own religious -eliefs< +o- )entry is very fran and forthright in stating his religious -eliefs* of that there can -e no dou-t< &is religious -eliefs are* however* irrelevant to the wor which he #erforms at "a Ridge< &is wor in studying granites was recently 7uoted in the Congressional Record in connection with a discussion of #ossi-le sites for storage of low level radioactive wastes< "-viously* this is an im#ortant issue and one on which )entry has -een on the cutting edge< I want to as for your assistance to assure that Ro-ert )entry will not -e a victim of religious discrimination at the hands of his su#ervisors< The "a Ridge National 0a-oratory* although o#erated -y a #rivate cor#oration under a contract* is* as I understand it* under the 1urisdiction of the 2<S< 'e#artment of Energy< I solicit your hel# in contacting the Energy 'e#artment through a##ro#riate channels and re7uesting that the decision to not renew )entry:s contract -e reviewed #ersonally -y the Secretary of Energy to assure that this decision was -ased solely u#on the merits of his wor * and not u#on the su-1ective #re1udices of his su#ervisors< It will -e a sad day* indeed* if the First Amendment:s guarantee of freedom of religion and the su##osed freedom of scientific in7uiry have -oth -ecome hollow #romises for men li e +o- )entry< If I can su##ly you with any additional information regarding this matter* #lease call u#on me at your convenience< =ours truly* >s> Steve Clar Steve Clar @Clar 45LBK A##endi,A

Fi(al 4(B'iry ;y a /e5;er of Co(gress

Attorney )eneral Clar :s letter never reached Congress< &owever* in 45LD* 'on Strother* a +a#tist minister in /ohnson City* Tennessee* whom I did not now* wrote to 2<S< Re#resentative /ames &< !uillen* First 'istrict of Tennessee* and as ed for an in7uiry into the circumstances surrounding my de#arture from the 0a-oratory< The following letter relates the outcome of the investigation -y the 2< S< 'e#artment of Energy in "a Ridge* Tennessee: &onora-le /ames &< !uillen 2nited States &ouse of Re#resentatives Cannon &ouse "ffice +uilding 3ashington* '< C< 4JE4E 'ear (r< !uillen: @Se#tem-er D* 45LDA

This is in reference to your letter dated August F* 45LD* to Secretary &odel concerning 'r< Ro-ert ;< )entry* a former guest scientist at the "a Ridge National 0a-oratory @"RN0A<

"ur records reflect that 'r< )entry:s association with "RN0 -egan in /uly 45F5 with Colum-ia 2nion College as his su##orting s#onsor< The original #ur#ose was to conduct his own research on radioactive halos* which was an area of interest to "RN0 at the time* -ut during the late 456J:s -ecame less significant at "RN0< Since his wor in the 'e#artment of Energy:s 3aste Isolation $rogram involved moderately low #riority su##orting research* 'r< )entry was advised in /une 45L4 that he should see other arrangements under which to #ursue his research interests -eyond /une CJ* 45LB< This decision was the result of diminishing "RN0 -udgets that re7uired a cut-ac in activities not directly related to high #riority #rogram areas< 3e have found no evidence to suggest that 'r< )entry:s religious -eliefs influenced this decision in any way< 3e a##reciate your interest in this matter< Sincerely* >s> /oe 0a )rone /oe 0a )rone (anager* "a Ridge "#erations 'e#artment of Energy

@0a )rone 45LDA

This is a carefully worded letter< I never said that my religious -eliefs #er se were res#onsi-le for my termination* -ut I do -elieve that the negative #u-licity from the Ar ansas trial was a factor< After this letter was sent* I had a cordial visit with two officials at the "a Ridge National 0a-oratory whom I hold in the highest esteem< I e,#ressed gratitude for the thirteen years I was allowed to remain at "RN0 and as ed a-out the #ossi-ility of resuming my search for su#erheavy elements< 3hile the res#onse was negative at that time* nevertheless a change in circumstances may yet result in a favora-le decision< In the meantime my research continues using other facilities<

Chapter 1%: Creation Confronts vol'tion

A climactic event in the twenty8year history of my research was the invitation to s#ea -efore the $acific 'ivision of the American Association for the Advancement of Science @AAASA in /une 45LB< "<volutionists Confront Creationists" was the title of a sym#osium held at the Santa +ar-ara cam#us of the 2niversity of California< Two -iologists from San 'iego State 2niversity* 'rs< Fran Aw-rey and 3illiam Thwaites* organi%ed the sym#osium and invited eight scientists to #resent the evolutionary view< Two scientists from the Institute for Creation Research in San 'iego were originally scheduled to #resent the creation #ers#ective< Su-se7uently* one of them withdrew* and I was invited to ta e his #lace< This was a new day in the annals of the AAAS* for creation scientists had -een e,cluded from a similar sym#osium held at the AAAS annual meeting in 45L4< 'r< Rolf Sinclair later 1ustified their e,clusion from this meeting* saying that the organi%ers were at a loss to now whom they should choose to re#resent the creation #osition @Sinclair 45L4A< Creation>evolution sym#osia were similarly held at the American $hysical Society @A$SA meeting in 3ashington* 'C* @A#ril 45LBA and the )eological Society of America @)SAA meeting in New "rleans @Novem-er 45LBA< Again only scientists re#resenting the evolutionary #osition were allowed to s#ea < (y re7uest to contri-ute a #a#er was turned down -y the organi%ers of -oth meetings< +ut the forthcoming Santa +ar-ara meeting was different* and the #ros#ects were e,citing< The very title of the sym#osium suggested that all evidences for creation would -e confronted -y o##osing scientific evidence< If my wor was to -e refuted* the most li ely s#ea er to do so would have -een 'r< )< +rent 'alrym#le of the 2<S< )eological Survey in (enlo $ar * California< Seven months earlier he had -een the main AC02 witness at the Ar ansas creation trial in su##ort of a D<E8-illion8 year age of the earth< There he had la-eled the evidence* which I had #resented in -ehalf of creation* a ?tiny mystery<? 3hat would -e his #osition at this sym#osium?

A 2eologist &val'ates Creatio( .cie(ce

The title of 'alrym#le:s #resentation* ?Radiometric 'ating and the Age of the Earth.A Re#ly to :Scientific: Creationism*? suggested his views a-out creation science had not changed< In his #resentation 'alrym#le essentially re#eated what he said at the Ar ansas trial.that radioactive decay rates have -een ?effectively constant through time? and hence that radiometric dating methods are ?the most relia-le sources of geological information availa-le today? @'alrym#le 45LB* DA< As noted earlier* evidence for creation invalidates the uniformitarian principle.the -asis of the constant decay rate assum#tion used in radiometric dating< &owever* des#ite the title of the sym#osium* none of the s#ea ers chose to ?confront? the evidence for creation< There was no e,#lanation given for #olonium halo formation in granites* nor was there a res#onse to the challenge of du#licating a #iece of granite< Neither was there discussion of the evidences for a young earth o-tained in the coalified wood and the %ircon investigations< Instead* 'alrym#le chose to @4A focus on what are #erceived to -e wea arguments for creation* @BA again la-el #olonium halos in granites a ?tiny mystery*? and @CA define creation and science as -eing mutually e,clusive< &is feelings a-out creation science were vividly e,#ressed at the end of his tal : I thin that it will -e a sad day for civili%ed humanity if science* that magnificent field of o-1ective in7uiry whose only #ur#ose is to deci#her the history and laws of the #hysical

universe* is allowed to fall victim to the intellectual fraud of the creation8science movement< @'alrym#le 45LB* B6A I do not defend everything that is called creation science< Nevertheless* those who condemn all of creation science on the -asis of wea or irrelevant arguments advanced in its favor should consider that their #erce#tions may not -e entirely without -ias< They should also remem-er that most creation scientists have -een shut away from o-taining the research funds and e7ui#ment which would have allowed them to do -etter wor < "ften they have had to rely on the data that evolutionists have collected and #laced in the evolutionary framewor < True* the #rocess of fitting those same data into a creation science framewor may at times -e in error< +ut there is no field of science without some errors and misconce#tions in its formative stages* and efforts to develo# a #ractica-le creation model are no e,ce#tion< The #rogress of science de#ends on #ro#osing and testing ideas and hy#otheses in su##ort of various theories< Scientists do not discard a theory 1ust -ecause wea or erroneous arguments were once used to su##ort it< "n the contrary* if they are genuinely interested in nowing the truth a-out a theory* they see to test the strongest arguments in its favor< 3ere those in attendance at the AAAS sym#osium see ing to do this? "r were there attem#ts to dismiss creation science on other grounds? The answer is found in 'alrym#le:s introductory remar s of his #u-lished contri-ution to the sym#osium: < < < Even a cursory reading of the literature of ?scientific? creationism* however* reveals that the creation model is not scientifically -ased -ut is* instead* a religious a#ologetic derived from a literal inter#retation of #arts of the -oo of )enesis< Indeed* this literature a-ounds with direct and indirect references to a 'eity or Creator* and citations of the +i-le are not uncommon< < < < @'alrym#le 45LD* F6A &ere my colleague advocates a great loo#hole for evolution< $o dis ualify the creation model because it refers to ;enesis means that no amount of data supporting that model would ever be accepted" regardless of its empirical foundations. "n this -asis evolutionists would never have to res#ond to any scientific discoveries for creation.they may choose to relegate all such evidence to the confines of a religious a#ologetic< Followed to its logical conclusion* this reasoning would #ermit scientists to la-el these evidences as mysteries which will someday -e found to fit into the evolutionary framewor < This is #recisely how 'alrym#le referred to my wor near the end of his #resentation: The e,act way in which the enigmatic $o halos were formed is not yet nown< The $o halos are* I:m afraid* one of science:s a-undant tiny mysteries< As a scientist* I am confident that the halos will eventually -e e,#lained as the result of natural #rocesses< Certainly* I see no logical reason whatsoever to see e,#lanations outside of #hysical #rocesses* or to entertain for even a moment )entry:s creationist model* which re7uires us to sus#end the laws of #hysics and chemistry* to call u#on intervention -y an un nown and un nowa-le su#ernatural agent* and to ignore overwhelming and conclusive evidence that the Earth* as we see it now* formed and evolved -y natural #rocesses over -illions of years< @'alrym#le 45LB* BFA In Cha#ter 44 I 7uoted $rofessor 'avies: descri#tion of the mythical +ig +ang to show that even evolutionists recogni%e it to -e -eyond e,#lanation -y the laws of #hysics and chemistry< That my res#ected colleague would mention the sus#ension of those laws as a criticism of the creation model is therefore inconsistent with his own acce#tance of +ig +ang cosmology< True enough* creation cannot -e e,#lained -y nown laws of #hysics and chemistry* and it does re7uire the intervention

of )od< In this res#ect a faith factor enters the #icture< +ut the same is true with evolution< In fact* in the evolutionary scenario all the im#ortant events.the +ig +ang* and therefore the origin of gala,ies* stars* the sun* the earth* and life on it.have always -een a matter of faith< In a num-er of instances faith in evolutionary origins is held even when evolutionists themselves have -een una-le to find the crucial evidence to su##ort their -eliefs< To illustrate* in a -oo review a noted astro#hysicist has recently commented on the origin of stars: The universe we see when we loo out to its furthest hori%ons contains a hundred -illion gala,ies< Each of these gala,ies contains another hundred -illion stars< That:s 4JBB stars all told< The silent em-arrassment of modern astro#hysics is that we do not now how even a single one of these stars managed to form< There:s no lac of ideas* of courseK we 1ust can:t su-stantiate them< @&arwit 45LFA Not -eing a-le to su-stantiate those ideas is an understatement< As &arwit:s review e,#lains* the fundamental #remise of all modern theories of star formation involves the contraction of interstellar dust clouds into dense* massive o-1ects< This violent #rocess should -e mar ed -y three distinct astro#hysical #rocesses< &arwit notes that astronomical evidence for those #rocesses has not -een found< I suggest that astronomers have failed to find the critical evidences #redicted -y their model -ecause stars did not originate with evolutionary #rocesses.-ut instead were called into e,istence -y the same )od who created the earth<

/y Prese(tatio( at the AAA. .y5posi'5

The creation8-ased organi%ation* Students for "rigins Research @S"RA* #reviewed the AAAS creation>evolution sym#osium and featured a discussion of my research in the 3inter8S#ring 45LB issue of their #u-lication* ?rigins =esearch. A-out this time 'rs< Aw-rey and Thwaites* sym#osium organi%ers* sent a letter @dated (arch 4* 45LBA to S"R containing the statement* ?It would certainly ma e the Santa +ar-ara meetings the most im#ortant meetings of the century* if even one #iece of bonafide evidence for creation could -e #resented? @em#hasis theirsA< They further e,#lained they wanted to see hard data from #ro#erly controlled e,#eriments or o-servations* not meaningless e,tra#olations* out8of8conte,t 7uotations* or vague generalities< 3ith this challenge in mind* I set out for Santa +ar-ara to #resent my #u-lished scientific results in the conte,t of a creation model of origins< A lively crowd of a-out BJJ scientists was #resent in the am#hitheater where I s#o e on the first afternoon of the day and a half of lecturesK my #resentation was video8ta#ed the following day for wider distri-ution @+attson* 45LBA< The sym#osium was -illed as a collision encounter.?Evolutionists Confront Creationists<? +elieving that my #u-lished evidences for creation might satisfy the demand ?to see hard data*? I decided to reverse the em#hasis of the sym#osium and ma e the theme of my tal ?Creation Confronts Evolution<? The A-stract of my tal * #u-lished in the /roceedings of the sym#osium* shows how this theme was develo#ed: A+STRACT If the earth was created* it is a,iomatic that created @#rimordialA roc s must now e,ist on the earth* and if there was a Flood* there must now e,ist sedimentary roc s and other evidences of that event< +ut* if the general uniformitarian #rinci#le is correct* the universe evolved to its #resent state only -y the unvarying action of nown #hysical

laws* and all natural #henomena must fit into the evolutionary mosaic< If this fundamental #rinci#le is wrong* all the #ieces in the evolutionary mosaic -ecome unglued< Evidence that something is drastically wrong comes from the fact that this -asic evolutionary #remise has failed to #rovide a verifia-le e,#lanation for the wides#read occurrence of $o halos in $recam-rian granites* a #henomena which I suggest are in situ evidences that those roc s were created almost instantaneously in accord with $salm CC:F*5: ?+y the word of the 0ord were the heavens madeK and all the host of them -y the -reath of his mouth< For he s#a e* and it was doneK he commanded* and it stood fast<? I have challenged my colleagues to synthesi%e a #iece of granite with B4L$o halos* as a means of falsifying this inter#retation* -ut have not received a res#onse< It is logical that this synthesis should -e #ossi-le if the uniformitarian #rinci#le is true< 2nderdevelo#ed 2 halos in coalified wood having high 2>$- ratios are cited evidences for a Flood8related recent @within the #ast few thousand yearsA em#lacement of geological formations thought to -e more than 4JJ*JJJ*JJJ years old< Results of differential &e analyses of %ircons ta en from dee# granite cores are evidence for a recently created* several8 thousand8year age of the earth< A creation model with three singularities* involving events -eyond e,#lanation -y nown #hysical laws* is #ro#osed to account for these evidences< The first singularity is the e' nihilo creation of our gala,y nearly FJJJ years ago< Finally* a new model for the structure of the universe is #ro#osed* -ased on the idea that all gala,ies* including the (il y 3ay* are revolving a-out the Center of the universe* which from $salm 4JC:45 I e7uate with the fi,ed location of )od:s throne< This model re7uires an a-solute reference frame in the universe whereas modern +ig +ang cosmology mandates there is no Center @the Cosmological $rinci#leA and no a-solute reference frame @the theory of relativityA< The motion of the solar system through the cosmic microwave radiation is cited as une7uivocal evidence for the e,istence of an a-solute reference frame< @)entry 45LDa* CLK A##endi,A As the A-stract reveals* I suggested how the evidences for creation discussed in this -oo can -e em-odied within a via-le model of origins -ased on the )enesis account of earth history< This tentative creation model #ostulates three s#ecial #eriods* or singularities* which cannot -e e,#lained on the -asis of nown laws< These singularities are the creation* the fall of man* and the flood.events mar ed in a ma1or way -y the intervention of the Creator< The last #art of the A-stract refers to my most recent investigations involving astronomy< Technical comments on the inter#retation of galactic red shifts* the cosmic microwave radiation* and its sur#rising im#lications a-out the theory of relativity are given in the full article @)entry 45LDaK A##endi,A< This re#ort ela-orates on my discovery that the mathematical -asis for the +ig +ang model of an e,#anding universe is -ased on erroneous assum#tions< (y alternative model #ostulates that the gala,ies in the universe are revolving in different or-ital #lanes around a fi,ed Center* the Creator:s throne< This Center is calculated to -e several million light8years away from our gala,y* the (il y 3ay< @These results formed only a small #art of my tal and thus were not included in su-se7uent discussions at the sym#osium<A 'uring the 7uestion and answer session* dou-ts were e,#ressed that my #ro#osed creation model could account for all the data ada#ted into the evolutionary framewor < I reminded all those #resent that their own model involves at least one singularity* the +ig +ang* and then com#lete uniformity to the #resent< In contrast* my #ro#osed creation model involves three singularities* with uniformity -etween those events< I suggested that whatever data can -e fitted into a one8singularity model must also fit into a model with three singularities* for in this case there is much greater

latitude< Still* many of those in attendance seemed to thin that evolution must -e true -ecause of the a-undance of data already fitted into this framewor < I im#rovised a #ara-le to show that these numerous #oints of agreement in no way confirm evolution< The 7uest for truth was analogi%ed to the ?$ara-le of the )rand 'esign*? which is featured in the E#ilogue of this -oo <

A 3atio(al For'5
In the same month that the AAAS sym#osium was held* the nationally circulated #hysics 1ournal* /hysics $oday" o#ened the #ages of their 0etters section to the creation>evolution to#ic< From those 0etters it was 7uite a##arent that many #hysicists were still unaware of the im#lications of my wor for creation< Ta ing advantage of this new forum* I #u-lished a letter descri-ing the results of my research in the "cto-er 45LB issue @)entry 45LBA< This first letter #reci#itated o-1ections from a geologist< &is comments and my res#onse @)entry 45LCaA were -oth #u-lished in the A#ril 45LC issue of this 1ournal< "ther o-1ections and my res#onses @)entry 45LC-* 45LDc* 45LDdA were #u-lished in the Novem-er 45LC* A#ril 45LD* and 'ecem-er 45LD issues< (ost of these o-1ections reasoned from the assum#tion of the uniformitarian principle- hence it was argued that my inter#retation of #olonium halos must -e incorrect< Significantly* none of those letters attem#ted to directly refute the evidence for creation< And most significantly* there was no mention of the crucial granite synthesis e,#eriment<

Creatio(F&vol'tio( 3ewsletter Attac+s Polo(i'5 :alo &vide(ce

$u-lications of much less significance than /hysics $oday are also involved in the creation>evolution controversy< A nota-le e,am#le of this is the CreationG<volution Newsletter" edited -y Harl Fe%er of Concord College* Athens* 3est ;irginia< This newsletter is re#uted to -e ?dedicated to defending and enhancing the integrity of science education<? Its contents include news#a#er cli##ings su##ortive of evolution* news of the activities of certain creation scientists* and comments #utting down scientists or theologians who su##ort -i-lical creation< "ne issue of this newsletter #rinted a letter a-out my wor #receded -y these editorial remar s: )ENTR=:S $0E"C&R"IC &A0"S Ro-ert ;< )entry is widely regarded as one of the more conscientious and scholarly creationists< &is research on radioactive halos is in a field outside the e,#ertise of most scientists< )entry:s arguments are critici%ed -y )< +RENT 'A0R=($0E* 2<S< )eological Survey* (enlo $ar * CA* in the following letter to Hevin &< 3irth* 'irector of Research* Students for "rigins Research* Santa +ar-ara* CA: @Fe%er 45LE*4BA 'alrym#le charges in his letter @'alrym#le 45LEK A##endi,A that my creation model is ?unscientific? and ?ridiculous*? that my inter#retation of the #olonium halo evidence for creation is ?a-surd? and ?naive*? and that my challenge to the scientific community to falsify my conclusions -y the synthesis of a hand8si%ed #iece of granite is ?silly*? ?inconclusive*? and ?nonsense<? Another evolutionist @"smon 45LFA used 'alrym#le:s comments when he #u-lished a follow8u# letter in the same newsletter< (y res#onse @)entry 45LFK A##endi,A to 'alrym#le:s criticisms* given at the end of this -oo * also serves as a re-uttal to "smon:s technical comments< Elsewhere in his letter "smon urges that my ?creation hy#othesis? should -e given a ?thorough review*? to see whether it fits the canons of science as defined -y an evolutionist #hiloso#her

@Hitcher 45LBA< Hitcher:s -oo serves two functions for all those who are adamantly o##osed to creation: @4A it attem#ts to esta-lish that creation science is not true scienceK and @BA it constructs a #hiloso#hy of science in which evolutionists will never have to -e #laced in a #osition where they would -e forced to su-stantiate the -asic #remise of their theory with e,#erimental evidence< A##lying one of Hitcher:s criteria to my wor "smon concludes that: < < < neither N)entry:sO hy#othesis or the NhisO theory #rovides any #ro-lem8strategy at all< If a geologist as s how does roc with the #ro#erties of granite form* )entry:s answer is ?Ha%am<? < < < @"smon 45LFA This is somewhat ironic.I thought ?Ha%am? was the onomato#oetic descri#tion of the +ig +angS In another #lace "smon surmises that I might have #ro#osed the falsification e,#eriment -ecause I new ?it would -e very e,#ensive to #erform< < <? &ere "smon unwittingly reveals a -asic contradiction in his argument< "ver the last several decades countless millions of government funds have -een s#ent on incredi-ly ?far8 out? ventures s#ecifically designed to test a num-er of evolutionary #redictions.one #rime e,am#le -eing the costly unmanned s#ace mission to (ars to loo for evidence of the evolutionary -eginning of life< This mission failed to find any trace of even the most #rimitive forms of life< 'es#ite this failure* evolutionists continue to o-tain funds for almost any e,#eriment which they feel is im#ortant< 3e must conclude that until now evolutionists have not -een inclined to launch a full8scale effort to #erform the falsification test< +ut why would confirmed evolutionists want to continually #ost#one a confrontation -ased on e,#erimental evidence #roduced in the la-oratory? After all* success in this e,#eriment would -e the des#erately needed evidence to show that evolution has some -asis in fact* for it would su-stantiate the evolutionary origin of the granites -ased on the uniformitarian principle. 3ith everything at sta e* why are there not scores of dedicated evolutionists see ing to vindicate the fundamental #remise that holds all of the evolutionary scenario together? As a first ste#* why do they not show how #olonium halos can -e e,#erimentally #roduced in granite that already e,ists* instead of 1ust hy#othesi%ing a-out how these halos might have formed in accord with conventional laws? +y minimi%ing the crucial im#ortance of the granite synthesis e,#eriment* "smon has in effect deflected attention from some im#ortant truths: all models of origins.whether -ased on a -i-lical framewor * an atheistic framewor * or any com-ination of religious>atheistic -eliefs.involve a faith factor< I have already discussed how the +ig +ang cosmological model is de#endent on this faith factor< The theory of #unctuated e7uili-rium @7uantum 1um#s from one s#ecies to anotherA also involves an immense faith factor for -iologists mainly -ecause its -asic #remises are little more than ideali%ed s#eculation< The im#ortant #oint is that all scientific models of origins rest on certain -asic #remises< Thus the ultimate scientific test of any model of origins hinges on whether its -asic #remises are true or false< If data are discovered which contradict either a model:s -asic #remises* or an undenia-le conse7uence of those #remises* then the model is false regardless of how many #ieces of data can -e fitted into it< $olonium halos in $recam-rian granites falsify the entire theory of evolution -ecause they contradict its -asic #remise* the uniformitarian principle. The only way this statement can -e refuted is -y #roviding la-oratory evidence showing that granites with #olonium halos can form naturally< I do not -elieve that a re#ort will ever -e #u-lished descri-ing the synthesis of a granite containing even a single B4L$o halo* much less one containing all three ty#es< @+y com#arison* some natural

s#ecimens of -iotite contain thousands of B4L$o halos in 1ust one cu-ic centimeter<A (y confidence is -ased on e,#erimental data o-tained from the la-oratory of nature* the ultimate #roving ground for all models of origins< As detailed in Cha#ter D* the secondary #olonium halos in coalified wood #rovide demonstrative evidence that* even under ideal conditions of high uranium concentrations and ra#id trans#ort* only the B4J$o halo ty#e will develo# secondarily from the accumulation of uranium daughter activity< In contrast* three ty#es of #olonium halos occur in granites where -oth the uranium concentration and the trans#ort conditions necessary to #roduce secondary #olonium halos are missing< Conse7uently* I maintain that all attem#ts to du#licate a granite containing the three ty#es of #olonium halos will meet with failure< In brief" the laboratory of nature has provided both positive" unambiguous evidence for a primordial origin of polonium halos in granites as well as decisive" independent evidence against their secondary origin.

Distas i( Creatio(
This -oo has shown a num-er of instances where evolutionists have misunderstood my creation model< That model* -ased on the )enesis record of creation and the flood* is not restricted or at all governed -y the uniformitarian conce#t of a worldwide geologic column* which is -ased on radiometric dating and inde, fossil classification< Rather it -egins -y connecting ?In the -eginning < < <? with the #rimordial Earth -eing called into e,istence on 'ay 4 of creation wee a-out FJJJ years ago< (ore s#ecifically* I envision a continual series of geologically oriented creative events occurring throughout the BD8hour #eriod of 'ay 4* with each of those events -eginning with the a##ro#riate matter -eing called into e,istence from nothing< As mentioned in Cha#ter 4J* the initial state of that matter may have -een a #rimordial li7uid* which was instantly cooled to form #rimordial roc s< The $recam-rian granites show evidence of an instantaneous creation and hence are identified as #art of the #rimordial roc s of the earthK further investigations are needed to determine which additional roc s should -e classified as #rimordial< Those other #rimordial roc s could include sedimentary roc s @without fossilsA as well as some non8$recam-rian granites and metamor#hic roc s* such as some which occur in New England< 3hile 'ay 4 includes the #reeminent geological event of earth history* the geologic occurrences of 'ay C may also have -een 7uite significant< S#ecifically* the a##earance of dry land out of a watery environment on 'ay C may have -een accom#anied -y the ra#id formation of certain sedimentary roc s* in #articular those that geologists classify as $recam-rian< @Initially* of course* these ?creation8wee ? sedimentary roc s would have -een free of fossils<A The events of 'ay C might have included vulcanism and the formation>creation of some intrusive roc s as well< Conceiva-ly* there may have -een limited mi,ing of the different created8roc ty#es during creation wee < (y creation model of the glo-al flood envisions tremendous u#heavals of the earth:s crust and many o##ortunities for the de#osition* intrusion* mi,ing* erosion* and reorientation of different roc ty#es< &ere are some of the #ossi-ilities: Although the flood itself lasted 1ust a year* long8term geological effects may have lasted for hundreds of years thereafter< For e,am#le* while the sedimentary roc formations o-served in the )rand Canyon are ascri-ed to the #eriod of the flood itself* the erosional #rocesses that cut through the freshly de#osited sediments may well have continued for a num-er of years after the flood< In my model the -ul of fossil8-earing sedimentary roc s would have formed during the o#ening and closing stages of the flood* with lesser amounts -eing formed during the long #eriod of su-sidence and run8off after the flood<

E,tensive vulcanism is envisioned as occurring during the same #eriods* which means that o##ortunities e,isted for the intrusion of volcanic magma into sedimentary formations< ;ulcanism during and after the glo-al flood #rovides a mechanism where-y the #rimordial and other roc s* created during creation wee * could have mi,ed with flood8related volcanic and sedimentary material< To illustrate* consider that* as magma @hot fluid roc A formed dee# in the earth #asses u#ward toward the earth:s surface* it may #ass through and melt* or alternatively enca#sulate* a variety of roc s* -eginning with those created on 'ay 4 or 'ay C* and e,tending through those formed -y volcanic and sedimentary activity during the time of the flood< Thus* when that magma finally cools to a solid* it would -e a com#osite of all the roc s 1ust mentioned< If the magma tem#erature was not too high* then the com#osite roc would contain unmelted fragments of all the roc s through which the magma had #assed< (oreover* during and after the flood there were many instances where heat and #ressure from hot gases and molten roc dee# in the earth caused the u#lift and intrusion of granite roc into recently de#osited sediments< The hot gases accom#anying these solid granite intrusions would have turned the ad1acent sediments into metamor#hic roc < This descri#tion of my creation model is -y no means e,haustiveK however* I trust it will #rovide an e,#anded framewor for inter#reting diverse geological data< To me the )enesis record of creation and the flood is the master ey which unloc s all of Earth:s geologic history< (ore details a-out my creation model are given in the A##endi,* #< CBE<

Chapter 1*: Contin'ed Attac#s on Creation &cience

This closing cha#ter illustrates how some confirmed evolutionists continue to ignore* dis#arage* misconstrue* or su##ress the scientific evidence for creation< &aving said this* I nevertheless res#ect the right of anyone who chooses to acce#t evolution as his model of origins< This is what democracy is all a-out< &ere we have the right to choose any #hiloso#hy.or scientific hy#othesis.after having the o##ortunity to evaluate all the relevant data<

.'rvey of Creatio(<.cie(ce @iterat're Eields 8'estio(a;le Res'lts

In his ca#acity as Research News Editor of Science maga%ine* Roger 0ewin again attac s creation science in his (ay 46* 45LE* article ?Evidence for Scientific Creationism?? @0ewin 45LEA< The reader will recall my attem#t to correct his inaccurate account of my testimony at the Ar ansas trial @see Cha#ter 4BA< At that time the 0etters Editor* Christine )il-ert* re#lied that the editorial staff of Science had decided not to #u-lish my technical res#onse to his comments on my research< She added that 0ewin was una-le to include certain details -ecause of his s#ace limitations< (y com#laint to Science did not 7uestion the column s#ace given to my testimony -ut his gar-led and incom#lete account< It is interesting to note* however* that Science #rinted the entire ?pinion written -y /udge "verton< Evidently* s#ace limitations are no #ro-lem when the commentary su##orts evolution< This 45LE article -y Roger 0ewin erroneously #ortrays to the scientific community that creation science is devoid of #u-lished material in the eminent scientific 1ournals of the world< &e uses information o-tained from a com#uter survey -y Eugenie C< Scott* an anthro#ologist at the 2niversity of Colorado* and &enry $< Cole* a #rofessor in educational #sychology at the 2niversity of Hentuc y< 0ewin refers to their article @Cole and Scott 45LBA to -ac u# his contention that ?so8 called creation science? is -ased on ?#utative #illars*? not genuine evidence documented in the technical literature< &e 7uotes Scott and Cole:s conclusion* that ?nothing resem-ling em#irical or e,#erimental evidence for scientific creationism was discovered? in their survey of the scientific literature< 0ewin re8em#hasi%es this #oint in discussing their latest survey @Scott and Cole 45LEA* when he focuses on their central theme: ?why don:t the #rofessional scientists among creationists #u-lish em#irical* e,#erimental* or theoretical evidence for scientific creationism?? As soon as I read 0ewin:s article* I tried unsuccessfully to contact 'r< Scott at the 2niversity of Colorado and left word for her to return my call< I was a-le to reach 'r< Cole* though* at the 2niversity of Hentuc y< "ver the tele#hone I went into much detail outlining the -asic results of my research efforts since the mid8si,ties and 7uestioned the conclusions of their recent survey< &e re#lied defensively that 'r< Scott was more familiar with the radiohalos than he and that he would as her to call me< In #articular I as ed Cole a-out their re#ort in $he Huarterly =eview of &iology and the following statements made therein relative to my research: < < < $ro-a-ly the -est anomaly in the scientific creationists: arsenal is the e,istence of #olonium halos* a ?minor mystery? in /udge "verton:s words* of which the scientific creationists are 7uite #roud< )entry N)entry 45LBO claims that the e,istence of $o halos in granite* coalified wood* mica* and other su-stances indicate that such materials were formed suddenly* under cool conditions* an inter#retation su##orting s#ecial creation< These o-servations* however* have alternative e,#lanations within normal #hysical science* and are therefore not unam-iguous evidences for S#ecial Creation N'utch 45LC and &ashemi8Ne%had et al< 4565O< @Scott and Cole 45LE* BFA

Scott and Cole show their unfamiliarity a-out my wor when they include coalified wood in the category of su-stances which ?formed suddenly<? (ore unfamiliarity is evident -y their claim that my o-servations have alternative e,#lanations within normal science* a claim they su##ort -y citing 'utch and &ashemi8Ne%had et al< +ut these scientists did not do s#ecific research on polonium halos @)entry 45LC-* )entry 45LDaAK thus they had no alternative e,#lanations -ased on demonstrable evidence* only hy#othetical solutions< /ostulating a hypothetical origin for the polonium halos in granites is something that anyone can do. &ut for a scientist to truthfully claim he has found a conventional e'planation of polonium halos in granites" he must provide demonstrable evidence that his e'planation is correct. As I have noted several times* this can -e accom#lished only -y the artificial synthesis of #olonium halos in granites @)entry 4565* )entry 45LJ* and )entry 45LDaK A##endi,A< Such #roof of a conventional e,#lanation for these #olonium halos has not -een demonstrated< I e,#lained this to 'r< Cole* and again he indicated that 'r< Scott was largely res#onsi-le for the comments a-out my wor on halos< Soon after our conversation he wrote me a letter* stating that he had reread the article written -y 'r< Scott and him along with the #ertinent references to my wor < &e insisted there were* ?indeed* other scientists who #rovide alternative e,#lanations for the e,istence of $o halos<? &e ended the letter* assuring me that he would call 'r< Scott and as her to contact me< I have yet to hear from 'r< ScottS And o-viously my conversation with 'r< Cole had not changed his mind< &e was more convinced than ever to u#hold what had -een written in their article< &e was content to let plausibility arguments serve as ?alternative e,#lanations Nfor $o halosO within normal #hysical science<? I suggested that* if in fact he new of scientists who had demonstra-le e,#erimental evidence to refute the results of my wor on the halos* they should -y all means su-mit such evidence to the review #rocess in 1ournals li e Science or Nature" where it could -e critically analy%ed along with my res#onse< $u-lished theoretical statements a-out the origin of the halos* on the other hand* do not and never will constitute an alternative e,#lanation derived -y the scientific method< In Scott and Cole:s article in $he Huarterly =eview of &iology" they 7uote from my 456D re#ort in Nature and then comment on the statement as follows: < < < In an article in Nature N)entry et al< 456DO he as s ?'o $o halos im#ly that un nown #rocesses were o#erative during the formative #eriod of the earth?? &e ma es no statement a-out s#ecial creation here* however* and in fact goes on to #osit another ind of e,#lanation: ?Is it #ossi-le that $o halos in $recam-rian roc s re#resent e,tinct natural radioactivity and are therefore of cosmological significance?< < <? @Scott and Cole 45LE* B6A Scott and Cole* not -eing geo#hysical scientists* misinter#ret my conclusions -ecause they do not understand the terminology< They are not aware that connecting #olonium halos with ?e,tinct natural radioactivity? is 1ust a technical way of saying the #rimeval earth formed very ra#idly< "ne of my earliest re#orts was almost re1ected -ecause a referee understood this connection with creation @see Cha#ters B and CA< Thus* Scott and Cole are wrong when they say* I went on ?to #osit another ind of e,#lanation? a-out the im#lications of #olonium halos< The terms ?s#ecial creation? or ?creation? were not used in my re#orts to avoid re1ection of the manuscri#ts< Their concluding remar a-out my article is: < < < 0ater in the N)entry:sO article @#< EFFA another hint is offered: ?/ust as im#ortant as the e,istence of a new ty#e of lead is the 7uestion of whether $o halos which occur in a granitic or #egmatic Nsic* #egmatiticO environment < < < can -e e,#lained -y acce#ted

models of Earth history<? < < < Articles of this sort are li ely what creationists refer to as ?mas ed? literature< @Scott and Cole 45LE* B6A Scott and Cole im#ly that there is something mas ed a-out the a-ove statement* -ut actually they easily noticed the im#lications for creation* which* as Cha#ter C showed* was my intent in #utting this statement in my article< +ut of far more significance is something they did not say: that is* the im#lications for creation* e,#ressed in my article* have never -een re-utted< This fact was carefully ?mas ed? in the re#ort of their survey< Scott and Cole:s final declaration to the scientific community had the effect of a trum#et* sounding the call to -attle against creation science: < < < science teachers are faced with community cam#aigns for the teaching of scientific creationism -y influential #ersons* some with scientific credentials* who re#eatedly claim there is as much* and e7ually as good* scientific evidence for scientific creationist conce#ts as there is for evolution< Teachers* school administrators* and lay #ersons on school -oards are hard #ressed to deal effectively with these claims< Su##ort from university8level scholars is often crucial to these dis#utes* -ut it is not always offered< "-1ective documentation of the fallaciousness of the scientific creationist claim that their views are -ased u#on scientific evidence #rovides ?ammunition? for these #eo#le< 3e ho#e the results of our study will -e useful for those who directly confront the creationists< @Scott and Cole 45LE* B5A A##arently Roger 0ewin wanted to do his #art in #roviding ammunition ?for those who directly confront the creationists*? for he concluded his (ay 46* 45LE* article in Science -y 7uoting those very words< 2n7uestiona-ly inveterate evolutionists were ins#ired with new %eal as they #re#ared to use his article as a -asis for renewed attac s on creation science< 'ou-tless they thought that 0ewin had furnished them with all the relevant facts in his #ossession< 'id he?

A(other Respo(se 0e(ied

In Cha#ter 4B I recounted that 0ewin was #resent throughout my entire four8hour testimony at the Ar ansas trial* when #u-lished re#orts of my research on creation were #resented in detail to the Court< 3hy* then* did he choose to remain silent a-out my #u-lications for creation science instead of com#letely su##orting Scott and Cole:s claim that such #u-lished evidence was #ractically none,istent? In Cha#ter 6 I showed e,am#les of evolutionists who claim that creation scientists tend to twist the facts and resist unwanted information< I as : Is Roger 0ewin:s refusal to re#ort the whole story a-out #u-lished evidences for creation due to his resistance against unwanted information? &is 1ournalistic -ias for evolution #rom#ted me to send a res#onse to Christine )il-ert* 0etters Editor of Science- it was an attem#t to #resent the other side of the story* effectively omitted -y 0ewin: RES$"NSE T" R")ER 0E3IN:S (A= 46* 45LE* ARTIC0E IN SCIENCE.?E;I'ENCE F"R SCIENTIFIC CREATI"NIS(?? Roger 0ewin @4A 7uotes Scott and Cole @B*CA to deny -oth the e,istence of recent #u-lished evidences for creation and the #ossi-ility of censorshi#< 'es#ite these denials* all three of these evolutionists have omitted discussion of a critical test of the evolution and creation models< This test is derived from my #u-lished evidence which im#lies that #olonium

halos in $recam-rian granites originated with #rimordial #olonium @DA< "n this -asis* these granites must -e the #rimordial )enesis roc s of our #lanet* having -een created rather than having crystalli%ed naturally* as evolutionary geology su##oses< If the $recam-rian granites* with their #olonium halos* are indeed the handiwor of the Creator* then* in my view* it is im#ossi-le to du#licate them< "n the other hand* if the granites 1ust formed naturally* as evolution assumes* then it should -e #ossi-le to re#roduce a hand8si%ed #iece of granite in a modern scientific la-oratory< (y first o##ortunity to #resent this test to the scientific community came in 4565 @EA< There was no res#onse to this challengeK so on every availa-le occasion I have re#eated it @FA and focused attention on how clearly the issues are defined: Success in du#licating a granite containing 1ust one B4L$o halo would confirm the evolutionary view that -oth these entities formed -y natural #rocesses* and this would falsify my creation model< Failure in this e,#eriment would mean the o##osite is true< Now Scott and Cole @CA say* ?It is the nature of scientists to study and de-ate any scientific fact or finding that challenges e,isting scientific theories and models< If even one of the creationists: -asic assum#tions or conce#ts were su##orted -y em#irical evidence from any of the fields of scientific in7uiry* scores of scientists would floc to the sites of the evidence and wor earnestly to undo or :falsify: #revailing scientific theories in light of this new evidence<? Thus* when these authors were confronted with the falsification test in one of my #u-lications @6A* why didn:t they issue an urgent call for ?scores of scientists? to -egin wor ing ?earnestly? on it? A more #enetrating 7uestion is why 0ewin has maintained a deafening silence a-out this matter for over three years< &e was #resent at the Ar ansas trial when I testified a-out the #olonium halo evidence for creation and e,#lained the falsification test in detail< =et he neglected to mention this decisive test of the two models in his coverage of the trial @LA< I attem#ted to have this glaring omission @and other inaccuracies a-out my testimonyA corrected through a re-uttal letter to Science" -ut my res#onse was denied #u-lication< Su-se7uently* I lost my #osition as a )uest Scientist at a national la-oratory* even though shortly -efore my dismissal some of my latest research efforts @5A came to the favora-le attention of the 2<S< Senate @4JA< &ow much longer will the scientific -asis for creation -e su##ressed? For si, years I have waited for those scientists who o##ose creation to #u-lish their results on the e,#erimental challenge descri-ed a-ove< 3hy would they wait intermina-ly to refute what I claim to -e unam-iguous evidence for creation.e,ce#t that they face an im#ossi-le tas S Ro-ert ;< )entry References 4< B< C< D< R< 0ewin* Science BBL* LC6 @45LEA< &< $< Cole and E< C< Scott* /hi Belta Iappan @A#ril 45LBA* #< EE6< E< C< Scott and &< $< Cole* Huat. =ev. &iol. FJ* B4@45LEA< R< ;< )entry* et al<* Science 82J" C4E @456FA< R< ;< )entry* et al<* Nature 7K7" EFD @456DA<

R< ;< )entry* Science 89J" FB @456DA< YYYYYY* Annual =ev. Nucl. Sci. 70" CD6 @456CA< R< ;< )entry* et al<* Nature 7JJ" BLB @456CA< R< ;< )entry* Science 8L0" 6B6 @4564A< YYYYYY* Science 81@" 4BBL @45FLA< YYYYYY* Nature 780" DL6 @45F6A< E< R< ;< )entry* <?S 1@" D6D @4565A< F< R< ;< )entry* /roceedings of the 10rd Annual %eeting" /acific Bivision" AAAS 4*CL @45LDA< YYYYYY* /hysics $oday @'ecem-er 45LDA* #< 5B< YYYYYY* /hysics $oday @A#ril 45LDA* #< 4JL< YYYYYY* /hysics $oday @A#ril 45LCA* #< 4C< YYYYYY* <?S 18" E4D @45LJA< 6< R< ;< )entry* /hysics $oday @"cto-er 45LBA* #< 4C< L< R< 0ewin* Science 78K" CC@45LBAK I-id<* #< 4DB @45LBA< 5< R< ;< )entry* et al<* ;eophys. =es. *ett. 5* 44B5 @45LBA< R< ;< )entry* et al<* Science 781" B5F @45LBA< 4J<Congressional =ecord + Senate 879" DCJF @45LBA< I was ho#ing Science would -e more o#en to #u-lishing this res#onse than they were to the one I su-mitted in 45LB< 2nfortunately* this re-uttal to 0ewin:s view of creation science was also re1ected with the e,cuse: ?3e wish we could #rint more letters* -ut s#ace restrictions limit us to a very small fraction of those we receive<? I was curious as to whether there may have -een other reasons for their refusal to #u-lish my remar s and tele#honed the 0etters Editor< She informed me that the decision not to #u-lish my res#onse was made -y 'aniel Hoshland* Editor of Science. Su-se7uently* on /une BB* 45LE* I wrote to 'r< Hoshland* as ing for a re8 evaluation: 'ear 'r< Hoshland: Today I received a letter from Christine )il-ert indicating that my res#onse to Roger 0ewin:s write8u# would not -e #u-lished< S#ace limitations were given as the main reason for re1ecting my res#onse< I have tal ed to (s< )il-ert a-out this decision and have decided to a##eal directly to you for #u-lication of my res#onse< I reali%e my letter contains some #otentially em-arrassing information a-out one of Science!s staff re#ortersK -ut it is information that is nonetheless true* and the scientific community deserves to now what has -een going on -ehind the scenes< Than ing you in advance for consideration of this a##eal to #u-lish my res#onse* I am Sincerely* >s> Ro-ert ;< )entry< I never received a re#ly from Hoshland a-out this a##eal< In (ay 45LE* 'r< Russell &um#hreys of the Sandia National 0a-oratories also wrote a letter

res#onding to the im#lications of 0ewin:s article on Scott and Cole:s surveys< &is letter was li ewise turned down for #u-lication* and on /uly CJ* 45LE* he a##ealed to Christine )il-ert for a second consideration: 'ear (s< )il-ert: Than you for informing me of your decision not to #u-lish my BL (ay letter< It is the most courteous re1ection I have ever received< I would li e to as you* however* for a few details on why it was re1ected< I now that you have very limited s#ace* -ut there must -e some reasons why you filled that s#ace with other letters than mine< The reason I am as ing is that I have a sus#icion the letter was re1ected -ecause it su##orted creationism< (y sus#icion is -ased on the fact that in si, years* I have seen only one letter in Science which was in favor of creationism< I:m sure you have received many more than that* mine among many others< Even your sister maga%ine across the Sea* Nature" has #u-lished a reasona-le num-er< I:m sure you can see how this is related to the su-1ect of my letter* which concerns Roger 0ewin:s claim that creationists don:t su-mit articles to mainstream science 1ournals< If Science does indeed have a hidden #olicy of su##ressing creationist letters* surely (r< 0ewin can see why creationist scientists don:t s#end the much greater effort of su-mitting articles< I would a##reciate it if you would tell me fran ly: 'oes your 1ournal have such a #olicy? If it does not* the -est way you could #rove it is -y #u-lishing a com#etent creationist letter every now and then< =ours very truly* >s> Russ &um#hreys '< Russell &um#hreys* $h<'< 'ivision 4BEB Sandia National 0a-oratories "n August CJ* 45LE* she re#lied to him as follows: 'ear 'r< &um#hreys: Than you for your letter of CJ /uly< It is true that we are not li ely to #u-lish letters su##orting creationism< This is -ecause we decide what to #u-lish on the -asis of scientific content< The letters we received o-1ecting to the study re#orted -y Roger 0ewin contained arguments that were largely con1ectural or anecdotal< They were therefore not considered acce#ta-le material for Science. =ours sincerely* >s> Christine )il-ert

Christine )il-ert 0etters Editor Science

@)il-ert 45LEK A##endi,A

Notice that the e,cuse given was that the negative comments were ?largely con1ectural or anecdotal<? The readers can decide if my /une 45LE res#onse* re#rinted earlier in this cha#ter* fits this descri#tion< Note also that )il-ert:s admission that Science has a discriminatory #olicy against #u-lishing creation science letters seems to contradict its own editorial #olicy stated in every issue .the claim to include ?the #resentation of minority or conflicting #oints of view<? In summary* the first intent of my res#onse was to es#ecially focus the attention of the scientific community on 0ewin:s continued silence a-out the scientific evidences for creation and the falsification test< The second intent was to em#hasi%e that* in the case of my research* there had -een no attem#t within the scientific community to ?floc to the sites of the evidence and wor earnestly to < < < :falsify: < < < this new evidence? as Scott and Cole assured would -e the case if ?even one of the creationists: -asic assum#tions or conce#ts were su##orted -y em#irical evidence < < <? +y refusing to #u-lish my res#onse the editor of Science effectively allied himself with 0ewin and decided to stonewall the entire matter< $erha#s he felt secure in -elieving that his decision would never -ecome nown to the scientific community* or if it did* that he would have their full su##ort in ta ing action to su##ress dissent a-out such an un#o#ular cause< 3hatever the reason* -oth the editor of Science and 0ewin have shown how confirmed evolutionists can use the #ower of the Esta-lishment to #revent free and o#en discussion of the #u-lished evidences for creation* evidences that most clearly and directly falsify the -asic #remise of the general theory of evolution< $art of the Affirmation of )reedom of In uiry discussed in the "verview says ?that the search for nowledge and understanding of the #hysical universe <<< should -e conducted under conditions of intellectual freedom <<<? and ?that freedom of in7uiry and dissemination of ideas re7uire that those so engaged -e free to search where their in7uiry leads* free to travel and free to #u-lish their findings without #olitical censorshi# and without fear of retri-ution in conse7uence of un#o#ularity of their conclusions<? The reader may decide whether the editor of Science followed the #rinci#les of this Affirmation.

Respo(se to the 3atio(al Acade5y of .cie(ces

The ultimate -attle against creation science since the Ar ansas trial has -een waged -y the National Academy of Sciences< (uch discussion concerning how this #restigious scientific organi%ation has denied the evidence for creation was #resented in the "verview< In this concluding cha#ter* since the reader may now have a different #ers#ective of the evolution>creation controversy* I as : Is the National Academy of Sciences correct in claiming that s#ecial creation is an invalidated hy#othesis? In the Conclusion of its -oo let* Science and Creationism" we find the Academy:s final evaluation of creation science: It is* therefore* our une7uivocal conclusion that creationism* with its accounts of the origin of life -y su#ernatural means* is not science< It su-ordinates evidence to statements -ased on authority and revelation< Its documentation is almost entirely limited to the s#ecial #u-lications of its advocates< And its central hy#othesis is not su-1ect to change in light of new data or demonstration of error< (oreover* when the evidence for creationism has -een su-1ected to the tests of the scientific method* it has -een found invalid< @National Academy of Sciences 45LD* BFA

This #aragra#h contains five accusations* each deserving s#ecial comment: @4A The first sentence effectively hides the failure of evolutionists to confirm a -asic #rediction of their own theory.the s#ontaneous origin of life from inert matter< Instead of admitting that this failure invalidates the entire theory of evolution* the Academy attem#ts to e,clude creation science from the scientific landsca#e -y defining science to e,clude su#ernatural #ower< It is somewhat of a #arado, that the Academy would advance such a view -ecause the theory of evolution is in des#erate need of a su#ernatural #ower -oth for the origin of life and for the +ig +ang< )enerally these facts have not -een understood -y the #u-lic< @BA In the second sentence the Academy claims that the idea of a su#ernatural origin of life is e7uivalent to su-ordinating scientific evidence to revelation< In truth* the a-1ect failure of scientists to synthesi%e life from inert matter #oints to only one conclusion.that life originates only with the Creator.1ust as indicated -y the -i-lical account< @CA +y claiming that the documentation for creation science lies almost entirely within the realm of s#ecial #u-lications of its advocates* the Academy Committee mem-ers disregarded the scientific #u-lications descri-ed in this -oo su##orting creation< Readers should understand that the Academy cannot #lead ignorance of those #u-lications< Through my testimony at the Ar ansas creation trial in 45L4 and my #resentation at the American Association for the Advancement of Science sym#osium in 45LB* a significant num-er of #rominent evolutionists -ecame aware of the im#lications of my research< @DA The claim that the central hy#othesis of creation science is not su-1ect to change in the light of new data is directly refuted -y the falsification test that I had #ro#osed to the scientific community in 4565< As noted -efore* the failure of evolutionists to res#ond to this critical test leads to only one conclusion.the fundamental uniformitarian principle is not now* nor has it ever -een a sufficient -asis for granites to form< 3ithout this principle the evolutionary mosaic disintegrates< @EA In the last sentence the Academy asserts that evidence for creation has -een su-1ected to the scientific method and found to -e invalid< This statement is definite and une7uivocal* with no 7ualifications< Thus far* to my nowledge* whenever my evidences for creation have -een critically e,amined* they have successfully withstood those e,aminations< Nevertheless* due to the im#ecca-le re#utation of the Academy for scientific integrity* we must as : Is the Academy able to bac# up its all+inclusive claim6 If so" it should immediately reveal what published scientific report negates my published evidences for creation. American ta,#ayers* es#ecially those who 7uestion the evolutionary model* deserve to now whether such a re#ort actually e,ists< If it does e,ist* the integrity of the Academy remains intact< If it doesn:t e,ist* then the Academy:s claim must in reality ran as only one of its greatest wishes< In the latter case* it seems that all o#en8 minded evolutionists should 7uery whether their faith in evolution has -een mis#laced< They might consider that the Creator left trillions of ?tiny mysteries? in earth:s )enesis roc s to esta-lish su-stantive faith in the ins#ired record of creation<

Challe(ge to the 3atio(al Acade5y of .cie(ces

Shortly -efore I was scheduled to s#ea at the First International Conference on Creationism to -e held at 'u7uesne 2niversity in $itts-urgh* $ennsylvania* in August 45LF* I sent a letter to 'r< Fran $ress* $resident of the National Academy of Sciences* via overnight courier* inviting him to come to my lectures and #resent any evidence which he thought invalidated my scientific data< "n several occasions during my #resentation I as ed whether any re#resentative of the NAS was #resent< The audience was silent< A-out a month later I then sent a du#licate letter to 'r< $ress< Still there was no

re#ly< &owever* some others in attendance at this Conference did raise o-1ectionsK this afforded me an o##ortunity to clarify many issues* in #articular that the 3hite (ountain granites in New &am#shire are also created roc s< (y contri-ution and res#onse to those o-1ections were later #u-lished in the $roceedings of the conference @)entry 45L6aK A##endi,A< Thus came to an end my attem#ts to elicit a re#ly from the Academy -efore this -oo was first #u-lished in late 45LF< +ut the ne,t year another o##ortunity arose to as for a #u-lic res#onse from 'r< $ress and other #rominent evolutionists* and the results of that in7uiry will now -e discussed<

=(iversity of 6e((essee P';lic For'5 o( Creatio( .cie(ce

Early in 45L6* The Society for Creation Science* a student organi%ation* invited me to s#ea at the 2niversity of Tennessee in Hno,ville< (y #resentation entitled ?Should Creation Science +e Taught at 2T?? was #u-lici%ed in the student and local news#a#ers* $he Baily &eacon and the Hno,ville News+Sentinel" and on local radio and television networ s< A few wee s -efore my #rogram I wrote 'r< $ress and other evolutionists* challenging them to come and #resent any evidence which invalidated my results on creation< A-out FJJ #ersons re#resenting a cross section of community* students* and faculty came to the Alumni )ym on the evening of A#ril 4C* 45L6< Neither 'r< $ress nor any of the other invited evolutionists came* -ut some did come from the 2T geology de#artment< Their #resence made that evening a memora-le occasion< In my tal I used a familiar e,am#le to illustrate why #olonium halos in granites are uni7ue evidence of creation< A glass of water was #laced on to# of an overhead #ro1ector that was focused on a very large screen in the front of the auditorium< Then I reminded the audience that according to evolutionary theory the granites had formed as hot* molten roc slowly cooled over millions of years of geological time< To illustrate that #olonium halos could never form under these conditions* I com#ared the effect of a tiny s#ec of #olonium in molten roc with an Al a8 Selt%er ta-let which was then dro##ed into the glass of water< The -eginning of effervescence was e7uated to the instant that #olonium atoms -egan to decay and emit radioactive #articles< I e,#lained that traces of those #articles would disa##ear as 7uic ly in ?li7uid? roc as -u--les from the Al a8Selt%er disa##ear in water< +ut if the water were instantly fro%en* the -u--les would -e #reserved< These fro%en -u--les would -e analogous to the e,ceedingly large num-er of #olonium halos now encased in granites around the world< /ust as fro%en -u--les would -e clear evidence of an instantaneous free%ing of water* in li e manner #olonium halos are undenia-le evidence that many ra#idly ?effervescing? s#ec s of created #olonium interacted with a sea of #rimordial matter that was almost instantly ?fro%en? as solid granite< Ne,t I discussed the falsification test and was answering a 7uestion when someone s#o e out from the audience< I encouraged him to come down front to the micro#hone* for it was a##arent he had strong feelings which he wished to e,#ress< The following e,change of comments was ta en from the videota#e of the evening:s #resentation: 2T $R"F: (y name is YYYYYYYYY* a #rofessor of geology at 2T< 3ho said you cannot form a granite in the la-oratory? It:s -een #roven for BE years* -y hundreds of #u-lications* and 1ust -ecause you are ignorant of NthoseO #u-lications* doesn:t mean that it can:t -e done< I can do it in my la-oratory< $eo#le all over the world can< )ENTR=: =ou now* I am 1ust so ha##y you came forward tonight< I am a-solutely gratified* -ecause I will give you the #iece of granite< &ow long is it going to ta e you to

do it? 2T $R"F: 2nder controlled cooling rates* you can form it in a-out a wee < )ENTR=: Can we all come -ac in a wee * and < < < see it? /ust li e this? 2T $R"F: In that a##ro,imate grain si%e* not that si%e* o-viously< It would have to -e much smaller< )ENTR=: "h* wait a minute< 3hat was this a-out the grain si%e now? 2T $R"F: That a##ro,imate grain si%e is controlled* is a function of the cooling rate* the inetics of the situation* the crystalli%ation and growth< And you can form that coarseness of granite mineralsK you can form those mineral com#ositions with a cooling rate of a-out T degree #er hour crystalli%ing< )ENTR=: I want to show you a #iece of -iotite* a #iece of granite* which contains the #olonium halos< 3hy don:t you loo at it? < < < &ow long do you thin it would ta e you to do this? This one< NI handed him the larger #iece shown in $late 448- of the Radiohalos Catalogue<O 2T $R"F: That? The grain si%e* and I don:t now e,actly NwhichO mineral com#ositions are there* -ut I estimate the same a##ro,imate cooling rate< Anything slower than T a degree #er hour over the crystalli%ation range of a##ro,imately BJJ degrees over which these minerals crystalli%e will -e sufficient to do this< )ENTR=: And will in a wee < < < ? 2T $R"F: And #eo#le at 2C0A* at Cal Tech* at Chicago* at (IT* at &arvard* at < < < wherever you want to go* can do this< So I don:t see that it:s a -ig #ro-lem< Fran $ress is from (IT* and that:s where* I mean* he would -e s#ea ing to that< +ut I thin more #ro#erly that the reason why you are not getting a re-uttal to this is that #eo#le 1ust don:t want to re-uttal NsicO it< < < < It is so well esta-lished in the literature< )ENTR=: Now* is this the first time that you have heard of this test? 2T $R"F: =es* it is< )ENTR=: I see< So you thin that in one wee you can get this #iece of granite -ac in your la-oratory? 2T $R"F: I can give you < < < many* many #u-lications a-out < < < )ENTR=: No* no< I am not tal ing a-out #u-lications< I am saying* you have claimed tonight that you can do it* is that true? 2T $R"F: I don:t have my la-oratory set u# right for doing that #articular thing< I:m wor ing on -asalts* -ut* yes* you can do that<

)ENTR=: < < < I thin that < < < 2T $R"F: I will tell you the la-oratory where I could go and do it* and that would -e at /ohnson S#ace Center< They do that down there now< )ENTR=: Now you changed the to#ic 1ust a little -it* and I thin the audience needs to -e aware that you have gone from a granite to a -asalt< And they need to understand the difference< < < < there is an awful lot of difference -etween the grain si%e of the -asalt you are tal ing a-out and the granite crystal which I have right here< < < < NSame #iece shown earlier<O 2T $R"F: I -eg to differ< I -eg to differ tremendously* that there can -e grain si%e within a -asalt flow* within the &awaiian flows* that is of the same grain si%e as you have there < < < that can cool* that can form rather ra#idly< +ut regardless of < < < I am not tal ing a-out -asalt < < < I don:t now what your < < < )ENTR=: =ou mentioned -asalt< 2T $R"F: I said* I:m.what I have -een wor ing on recently is -asalts< )ENTR=: 3ell* I have to comment < < < further on what you:ve 1ust said < 2T $R"F: 3ell* o ay* < < < what I am saying is that you can ma e the grain si%e of the mineralsK you can ma e the mineral com#ositions without any #ro-lem in the la-oratory* < < < when you are geared u# to do this #articular ty#e of thing< It ta es controlled cooling rates* in closed containers< =ou cannot < < < you could ma e something grain8si%edK hand8 si%ed.-ut we don:t ma e them that largeK we have #ro-lems with containersK we ma e them smaller< So we ma e them on the order of 1ust a few* you now* five millimeters* si, millimeters across< 3e are not ma ing a hand8si%ed < < < in fact* we can du#licate everything* and it has -een done for many* many years< )ENTR=: < < < 3ell* let me as you this 7uestion< Following now on the comments you 1ust made in the < < < 2T $R"F: < < < I:m sorry* < < < -ut I feel that I:ll -e willing to show you the literature< I:ll -e willing to tal to you a-out demonstrations* whatever you want< +ut I am not a-out to come u# and* and sit here and have you change things around a-out -asalts and granites< I mean it is well esta-lished in the literature< I < < < can give you that< @A##lauseA NEarth Science Associates 45L6< See ESA reference @#< CECA for ordering a co#y of this videota#e<O &is -ravado had an effect on the audience< Everyone #resent reali%ed that the -attle lines were very clearly drawn* and the vigorous a##lause given after the geology #rofessor:s remar s showed he had su##orters for his #osition< Some of my friends later told me they were concerned my case was lost at this #oint< +ut they* along with most everyone else #resent* were unaware of some e,traordinary events that had trans#ired over the #receding month< In the ne,t several minutes they would hear me recount how those events had dovetailed to -ring into focus a largely overloo ed

#rediction in my -oo concerning any attem#ts to synthesi%e granite< At this #oint in my #resentation I related that in early 45L6 a staunch evolutionist in Canada had written me a-out a geology course* ?2nderstanding the Earth*? offered -y T;8"ntario< &e was 7uite adamant that the third #rogram in the series* ?Igneous Roc s*? showed the synthesis of granite in a la-oratory< I soon o-tained a co#y of the aforementioned #rogram from 'r< 'avid $earson* a geologist from 0aurentian 2niversity* "ntario* who had made the television series in the mid8 456J:s< &is -roadcast notes gave the following descri#tion: A la-oratory e,#eriment demonstrates the conditions under which granite might have cooled slowly< $owdered granite sealed in a ca#sule and heated to LJJX C under a #ressure of EJ tons #er s7uare inch* and then allowed to cool* shows a close resem-lance to actual granite< Such conditions of tem#erature and #ressure may therefore -e those under which granite crystalli%es in nature< Immediately I -egan a search for a s#ecimen from that e,#eriment< I called 'r< $earson for assistance and to find out what he meant -y close resem-lance< &e was una-le to hel# -ecause he wasn:t even involved in the original e,#eriment< &e indicated this #ortion of the videota#e was a cli# from an old <ncyclopaedia &ritannica film that had -een made in the mid8si,ties< 3hen I called them in (arch 45L6* the film was no longer availa-le< "ver the ne,t few wee s I #ursued a la-yrinthian #ath across America -efore finally locating one of the scientists involved in the &ritannica e,#eriments< &e initially indicated that all the s#ecimens from those decades8old e,#eriments had long since -een destroyed< Nevertheless* my #ersistent #hone calls caused him to remem-er that one s#ecimen might still remain #ac ed away somewhere in another #art of the country< Circumstances indicated he could not even -egin his search for the s#ecimen in 7uestion until 1ust a few days -efore my 2T #resentation< In s#ite of considera-le odds* the one and only s#ecimen of its ind was found on the evening of A#ril 44* 45L6* and sent to me via air e,#ress that very night< If evolutionists were right* that roc s#ecimen should -e a #iece of granite< +ut I had already #redicted @##< 4CJ84C4A a different result -y com#arison with what ha##ens when granite dee# in the earth is melted< The granitic magma thus #roduced may rise to the surface and cool 7uic ly* to o-sidian* a glassy roc * or it may cool slowly underground* eventually -ecoming rhyolite* a fine8 grained roc #ictured in $late 448d @see Radiohalo CatalogueA< Rhyolite is 7uite different from the coarse8grained granite shown in $late 448-< Thus I had earlier reasoned: If slow cooling of a granite melt within the earth does not result in the formation of granite.and this is where granite su##osedly formed according to evolutionary theory.neither would it ha##en in a modern scientific la-oratory< This was my #rediction< 3hen the #ac age arrived Sunday morning* I new the time had come for it to -e tested< I o#ened the -o,* e,amined the s#ecimen* and with a sense of een antici#ation loo ed forward to showing it the ne,t evening< Now the moment had come< After descri-ing the foregoing scenario to the audience* I then flashed u# on the screen a #hotogra#h dis#laying -oth the #iece of rhyolite shown in $late 448d and the roc s#ecimen that I had received 1ust the day -efore< The te,ture and color of the roc from the la-oratory e,#eriment showed an unmista a-le similarity to the rhyolite< The audience could #lainly see that granite which is melted* and then slowly cooled under modern la-oratory conditions* #roduces a fine8grained roc almost identical to rhyolite.the fine8grained roc resulting from the slow cooling of molten granite dee# in the earth< In neither case does the crystalli%ation #rocess re#roduce the original granite roc as #ostulated -y the theory of evolution< (y #rediction had -een confirmed while the fundamental #remise of evolution was revealed to -e

false< As never -efore #olonium halos in granites were shown to -e indeli-le autogra#hs of creation* finger#rints of the Creator* thus identifying the granites as the #rimordial )enesis roc s of our #lanet< The audience was 7uiet as I concluded my remar s to the geology #rofessor: )ENTR=: I will ma e a suggestion then< If indeed the day ever comes when you are successful in doing what you claim to -e a-le to do tonight* my tele#hone num-er will -e given to you< =ou can call me and immediately call 3T;H8T; and 3+IR8T; NHno,ville:s N+C and C+S affiliatesO< (a e it a city8wide or state8wide #u-lic event* whatever you would li e to do* and #u-licly #ut your evidence where your e,#ertise has -een tonight< NEarth Science Associates 45L6<.See ESA reference @#< CECA for ordering a co#y of this videota#e<O The events of that evening gave the audience new insights into the nature of evolutionary science< The 2T geology #rofessor never called me a-out his references on granite synthesis< 0ater I called him* -ut he refused to discuss the matter< Then I wrote to the 2T )eology 'e#artment chairman for hel# -ut received no re#ly< Though 'r< $ress did not attend* he did send a letter which I read at the 2T forum It says nothing to refute the $o8halo evidence for creation -ut instead tries to minimi%e its significance -y using the AC02:s strategy at the Ar ansas trial< There it was la-eled ?a very tiny mystery<? $ress:s letter @$ress 45L6K A##endi,A refers to it as ?one small #iece of data*? which ignores the vast num-er of une,#lained $o halos in Earth:s #rimordial granites< And what of the evolutionist who claimed granite synthesis was seen on T;? $rior to the 2T forum* he also wrote that certain geologists and others had found #ro-lems in my wor < Thus I invited him to come to the forum so their o-1ections could -e #u-licly e,amined< +ut along with other invited evolutionists* such as Carl Sagan and Ste#hen /< )ould* he failed to a##ear< The 2T forum made it evident to the American &umanist Association @A&AA that this growing controversy concerning the $o8halo evidence for creation was ra#idly eroding away the very foundations of atheism< &ow could the A&A counter this evidence when* for over two decades* it had remained unrefuted in the #remier scientific 1ournals where it was #u-lished? Their only defense was to #rint the views of the evolutionist who failed to come to the 2T forum in their own maga%ine* CreationG<volution NMII* L* no< 4* 4C @45LLAO< This article @iA ignores the 2T forum results showing the claim of granite synthesis on T; is false* @iiA assumes* without #roducing any su##orting la-oratory evidence* that granites and $o halos can form naturally* and @iiiA #ictures the region near +ancroft* "ntario . a site where I have re#orted $o halos in the micas . as e,#laina-le only -y evolutionary #rocesses< To o-tain this result the article first 7uotes geologists to esta-lish an a##arent evolutionary history of the +ancroft region* and then it concludes that the +ancroft roc s were formed e,actly as these geologists im#ly . a clear e,am#le of circular reasoning< &owever* to those unfamiliar with geological terminology* such reasoning can a##ear su#erficially #lausi-le if 7uotes are selected that closely interweave the factual mineralogical descri#tions of the roc s with evolutionary theories of their origin< This mi,ture of fact and su##osition can easily leave the im#ression that the #resumed evolutionary origin of those roc s is as scientifically valid as the mineralogical descri#tions< 2nfortunately* this com-ination of scientific fact and evolutionary theory #roduces a dece#tive ma%e which continues to confuse geologists and others concerning my views* as is shown -y two 7uotes from the CG< article: Since )entry:s )od can do anything* he concludes that )od created the region to have the features of age and activity that it e,hi-its and that N&Oe made ?)enesis roc ? loo for all the world li e a recent intrusion* there-y fooling thousands of geologists< < < < @CG<" #< CJA

Still we must give )entry his due< Nothing in geology fully e,#lains the a##arent occurrence of the #olonium halos as descri-ed -y )entry< They do remain a minor mystery in the field of #hysics< +ut this does not mean that no e,#lanations are #ossi-le or that it is time to throw in the towel and invo e the ?god of the ga#s<? < < < @CG<" #< C4A I a##reciate the Creator )od as "ne who cannot lie or deceiveK so &e cannot -e res#onsi-le for deceiving geologists into thin ing that instantly created roc s formed over long ages< )eologists should loo to their own assum#tion of uniformity as the reason for their confusion a-out the origin and age of created roc s< (oreover* there is nothing ?a##arent? a-out the occurrence of $o halos in granites and their associated roc s< Their e,istence is -eyond 7uestion* having -een e,#erimentally confirmed in #u-lished scientific re#orts for over two decades< +ut why did the Creator leave unam-iguous evidence they originated with #rimordial #olonium? 3hy did &e scatter these halos throughout a ty#e of roc that a C5*JJJ8foot drill hole in the Hola $eninsula has revealed @A##endi,* #< CBBA are the foundation roc s of the continents? Consider that )od created #rimordial $o halos to command the attention of scientists . es#ecially #hysicists and geologists . that they might understand this marvelous record of instantaneous creation is etched within those roc s that the +i-le e,#ressly designates @A##endi,* #< CBCA as the ?foundations of the earth<? Such consistency -etween science and Scri#ture affirms the accuracy of the entire +i-le* in contrast to the numerous contradictions that $o halos #resent to the evolutionary framewor < Those who ignore these contradictions will dou-tless continue to err when e,amining my #u-lished evidence for creation and a young earth* as is evident in two letters sent to an archaeology 1ournal< (y re#ly @A##endi,* ##< CC58CEBA is relevant -ecause it shows why $- @leadA and &e @heliumA retention in dee# granites #rovides strong scientific evidence consistent with an a##ro,imate FJJJ8year age of the earth< This evidence is to the age of the earth what #rimordial $o halos are to its creation< Evaluation of other related comments is also included in this edition @A##endi,* ##< CC48CCLA<

Co(ti('i(g Ce(sorship at .cie(ce

In 45L5 two geologists re#orted mainly on three giant halos in 7uart% NScience BDF* 4J6 @45L5AO and* as an aside* suggested that $o halos in mica resulted from 2>Th -eta decay instead of $o al#ha decay< Since data in my 45FL* 4564* and 456D Science re#orts refute this idea and since Science traditionally grants scientists an o##ortunity to correct errors it #rints a-out their wor * I sent a letter of correction< +ut Science!s editors determined to #revent their readershi# from learning that the $o8halo evidence for creation is still valid< After my first letter of correction was re1ected* I sent a revised res#onse to them* and it too was re1ected @A##endi,* #< CB 68CB5A< Confirmation of Science!s intent to censor the im#lications of this evidence came in a cordial letter from one of the geologists who authored the a-ove re#ort< This letter @A##endi,* #< CCJA contains two im#ortant facts: First* it states their idea of a -eta8decay origin of $o halos was made without actually having ac7uired a $o halo themselvesK second* it states Science had made a direct re7uest* #rior to their re#ort -eing #u-lished* that they omit any reference to ?instantaneous creation? as a #ossi-le e,#lanation for $o halos< 0i ewise* +rent 'alrym#le:s recent treatise "$he Age of the <arth" @Stanford 2niversity $ress* 4554A . which he admits was initiated -ecause of the creation science controversy . com#letely omits any discussion of my scientific re#orts su##orting creation and a young age of the earth< The reason given in his $reface @#< ,A is that he has dealt with the ?scientific? arguments for a young age of the earth elsewhere< Actually* he has -een silent on my young earth evidence and his arguments against

the ?tiny mystery? of creation were refuted in 45LD and in 45LF @A##endi,* ##< BFL8CJCA< Are Science!s actions and 'alrym#le:s silence consistent with 'r< $ress:s criterion @A##endi,* #< CBDA to ?consider all the evidence? relating to Earth:s origin and age? 'o Science!s editors and others #erceive Creation!s $iny %ystery as the Achilles: heel of evolution? &ave America:s highest scientific echelons decided to -lac out this ?tiny mystery? while at the same time #resenting to the media the idea that evolutionists would ?floc to the sites? of any data that 7uestion their theory? +ut what will ha##en if the media decides to #ro-e the misuse of #ower that has e#t this -lac out in o#eration? 3ould this arouse the #u-lic to what Creation!s $iny %ystery reveals a-out our roots? The decades ahead may #rovide many answers< In any event* my intent is not to cast as#ersion on those who continue to acce#t the evolutionary model of origins< To trace the handiwor of creation* as I have endeavored to do* is an end in itselfK to try to du#licate the handiwor of the )rand 'esign is in another realm altogether<

pilog'e
6he 2ra(d 0esig(
In the Overvie I indi!ated that "# the end of the "oo$ the reader should have suffi!ient information to de!ide hether the s!ientifi! eviden!e favors evolution or !reation. I have %resented ne eviden!es for !reation and &iven the rea!tions of these eviden!es "# %rominent s!ientifi! or&ani'ations, "oth &overnmental and %rivate, as ell as media re%resentatives. (he s!ientifi! !ommunit#, "# and lar&e, has not a!!e%ted even the possibility that these eviden!es !ould "e fitted into a !reation model of ori&ins. )istori!al !onsiderations have some "earin& on this attitude. *urin& the earl# nineteenth !entur# the uniformitarian principle and its !orollar#, &eolo&i!al uniformitarianism, ere "e!omin& a!!e%ted as the "asis for re!onstru!tin& the histor# of our %lanet and solar s#stem. +ith the %u"li!ation of *ar in,s Origin of the Species in -8./, it a%%eared that the unif#in& lin$ "et een &eolo&# and "iolo&# had "een found. Uniformitarian "iolo&ists and &eolo&ists a&reed that one fa!tor 0a vast e1%anse of time0 as an a"solutel# essential %rere2uisite for evolution. It !ould not "e other ise. 3vents hi!h the Creator !ould a!!om%lish in moments, da#s, or months ould ta$e eons of time if e1%lained on the "asis of natural %ro!esses o"served toda#. (he !reation event as one of those s%e!ial %eriods hen the uniformit# of %h#si!al la as su%erseded. 4i$e ise, the fall of man and the orld ide flood mar$ed other s%e!ial %eriods, !hara!teri'ed "# the mira!ulous intervention of the Creator. +ith the e1!e%tion of the 5i& 5an& event, the theor# of evolution e1!ludes an# deviation from the %remise of !om%lete uniformit# of the fundamental la s of the universe throu&hout endless time0%ast, %resent, and future. (his vie has "een a!!e%ted "# more and more influential s!holars in ea!h su!!eedin& &eneration. (oda#, the ma6orit# of so!iet# a!!e%ts that evolution is true, not "# $no led&e &ained from inde%endent stud#, "ut rather from "oo$s hi!h have %i!tured evolution as the only s!ientifi!all# !redi"le e1%lanation of earth histor#. (he !hallen&e I have %resented in this "oo$ to the uniformitarian principle in!ludes eviden!es of an instantaneous !reation and a #oun& a&e of the earth. (hus the essential time element needed for the &eolo&i!al evolution of the earth as ell as the "iolo&i!al evolution of life on it vanishes, and the entire evolutionar# s!enario is devastated. (hese !on!lusions %er%le1 man# s!ientists, ho for de!ades have "een !onditioned to a!!e%tin& eviden!es for evolution "ased on the uniformitarian principle. (he# feel to de%art from this !herished assum%tion ould "e e2uivalent to re&ressin& in time to the %eriod of the *ar$ 7&es, hen su%erstitions and traditions molded s!ientifi! theories. (o avoid that e1treme, the# have %resumed to shift their thin$in& -808 and have !on!luded all reli&ious foundations are uns!ientifi!. 7!tuall#, their !on!lusions are "ased on a false %remise. Instead of e1!ludin& all reli&ious !on!e%ts from s!ien!e, the# are onl# assistin& in the esta"lishment of a ne order, antitheti!al to "i"li!al foundations. (his ne order0evolutionism0has s%read to the +estern orld in the form of theisti! evolution. Under the &uise of s!ien!e, it has found a!!e%tan!e in a!ademi! institutions throu&hout !ivili'ed so!ieties. In vie of these histori!al influen!es ithin a!ademia, fe s!ientists reali'e that the "i"li!al re!ord %rovides a "road, e1%ansive frame or$ of earth histor#, !a%a"le of in!or%oratin& an almost unlimited variet# of &eolo&i!al data. Invaria"l#, I have found that 9ar&uments9 and:or 9%ro"lems9 %ro%osed a&ainst the "i"li!al frame or$ as a model of earth histor# are ultimatel# those hi!h result from im%osin& un arranted !onstraints. 7s mentioned "efore, the deli"erate or un ittin& a!!e%tan!e of the uniformitarian principle is the most %rofound e1am%le of su!h !onstraints. (here is no o"sta!le in !orrelatin& 3arth,s &eolo&i! histor# ith the "i"li!al re!ord on!e it is understood that the Creator is not &overned or restri!ted "# that principle. 5ut those ho a!!e%t uniformitarian !on!e%ts, su!h as a orld ide &eolo&i! !olumn and its !ounter%art0 radiometri! datin&0should never e1%e!t to find that !orrelation. (hose holdin& su!h vie s often insist that the# have found eviden!e !ontrar# to the "i"li!al re!ord, #et at the same time the# &enerall# fail to mention

that their eviden!e is "ased on uniformitarian assum%tions. (hus, in the last anal#sis, the# have onl# !onfirmed that the "i"li!al re!ord of !reation and the flood !annot "e re!on!iled ith a uniformitarian &eolo&i!al frame or$. ;erha%s the# should refle!t on the ins%ired ords s%o$en to <o", 9+here ast thou hen I laid the foundations of the earth= *e!lare, if thou hast understandin&9 (<o" 38>4). 3videntl#, man# s!ientists are illin& to a!!ommodate ?od into s!ien!e, %rovided )is %resumed a!tivities !an "e fitted into their evolutionar# frame or$. )o ever, hen unam"i&uous s!ientifi! eviden!e is dis!overed, hi!h is in!om%ati"le ith evolution and !an onl# "e attri"uted to ?od,s !reative %o er, there is a different rea!tion ithin the s!ientifi! esta"lishment. @o e have !reation s!ien!e 0 somethin& the @ational 7!adem# of A!ien!es sa#s has "een s!ientifi!all# invalidated, and hen!e should not have a %la!e in the s!ien!e !urri!ulum at an# level. (he 7!adem# has a ri&ht to its o%inion, "ut this "oo$ has sho n that hen the 7!adem# as !onfronted ith the o%%ortunit# to %rove its !laim a"out !reation at the First International Conference on Creationism and the U( forum, it si&nall# failed to meet the !hallen&e. @othin& !ould have more effe!tivel# unmas$ed the 7!adem#,s s%urious !laims a"out !reation than did its deafenin& silen!e on these o!!asions. 7nd nothin& !ould have more !learl# %in%ointed its !ontradi!tor# %osition on the Affirmation of Freedom of Inquiry and Expression. On one hand, the 7!adem# uses the Affirmation to defend the a!ademi! and !ivil li"erties of forei&n dissidents. On the other hand, it %romotes the e1!lusive tea!hin& of evolution in %u"li! s!hools not ithstandin& that, as definitel# im%lied in 4ane,s letter (%%. /4-/6), this %ra!ti!e has involved the %erse!ution of some 7meri!an 9dissidents90students ho have the !oura&e to stand for their reli&ious !onvi!tions. (he 7!adem# and others o%%osed to !reation s!ien!e should have reali'ed lon& a&o that for some 7meri!ans the im%osed stud# of evolution is a moral issue. (he %hiloso%h# of evolutionism dire!tl# !ontradi!ts their !onvi!tion that the literal si1-da# !reation a!!ount &iven in ?enesis, and e1%li!itl# reaffirmed in the Bourth of the (en Commandments (%artl# 2uoted at the !lose of this 3%ilo&ue), re%resents the !orre!t des!ri%tion of earth histor#. 7&ain I sa#, this "oo$ has demonstrated that valid, s!ientifi! eviden!e e1ists to su%%ort this "i"li!al !reation model. (herefore to eliminate the %resent dis!riminator# %ra!ti!e in the !lassroom a&ainst those students o%%osed to evolution, h# not allo all %u"li! s!hool and state universit# students the o%tion of stud#in& either a !reation or evolution-"ased model of ori&ins in their s!ien!e !ourses= In m# o%inion, no one, evolutionist or !reationist, should "e for!ed into a !ourse of stud# that violates his !ons!ien!e. 7fter all, the freedom to !hoose 0 as lon& as our !hoi!es do not infrin&e adversel# on the ri&hts of others 0 is the essen!e of our demo!ra!#. If e fail to u%hold that freedom for %u"li! s!hool students on this !riti!al issue, e o%en the door for !oer!ion 0 the unmista$a"le hallmar$ of totalitarian &overnments 0 to &ain the as!endan!# in all %hases of 7meri!an so!iet#. +hat is at sta$e is reli&ious and a!ademi! freedom for all 7meri!ans. Ahould s!ien!e edu!ation %rohi"it the tea!hin& of !ertain eviden!e 6ust "e!ause of its %hiloso%hi!al settin&= A!ien!e is the $no led&e o"tained from a 2uest for truth and !an "e illustrated "# the 9;ara"le of the ?rand *esi&n9> 4on& a&o, a master artist !on!eived a mural hi!h he ished to use as an illustration of the ?rand *esi&n of nature. Cu!h time and effort ere s%ent in !om%letin& this enormous tas$. (ra&i!all#, "efore it as unveiled, an a!!ident o!!urred, shatterin& the mirror-li$e mural into innumera"le fra&ments throu&hout the fa!e of the earth. 4ater %hiloso%hers "e!ame interested in re!onstru!tin& the ?rand *esi&n. Cost ere a are of the an!ient outline left "# the master artist, "ut man# !ame to 2uestion the authenti!it# of the outline, !hoosin& instead to !onstru!t their o n version, "ased on the %ie!es the# found in the earth. 7fter man# #ears, the !onsensus of ise men and %hiloso%hers as that the# had develo%ed the "asi! s$eletal frame or$ of the ?rand *esi&n, even thou&h there ere lar&e &a%s in the !enter and man# %ie!es hi!h !ould not "e re!on!iled ith the overall *esi&n. @evertheless the# %ro%a&ated this s$eletal frame or$ as a"solute truth until &overnments and universities ever# here %rovided the funds the# needed to !ontinue their or$. (here ere still a fe remainin& artists ho "elieved that the an!ient outline as the "lue%rint for the real *esi&n used "# the master artist. (he# !arefull# %ointed out that all of the !olle!ted %ie!es ould also fit into this an!ient outline. 7nd most im%ortantl#, the millions of re!entl# dis!overed mi!ros!o%i! %ie!es, hi!h did not fit into the s$eletal frame or$, ere found to %erfe!tl# fit into

the an!ient outline. Aome ere !onvin!ed that the# should redire!t their stud# and use the an!ient outline as their model for the ?rand *esi&n, "ut the &reat ma6orit# never a!!e%ted its validit#. Aomeda# the truth ould "e evident to all, for the master artist %romised to return and restore the ma&nifi!ent ?rand *esi&n to its ori&inal "eaut#. Until that da#, hi!h I "elieve is imminent, Creation's iny !ystery ill stand as the Do!$ of ?i"raltar a&ainst the tide of evolution. @earl# 6,000 #ears a&o the Duler of the Universe en&raved an indeli"le re!ord of !reation in the ?enesis ro!$s of our %lanet 6ust as )e later ins!ri"ed the (en Commandments on ta"les of stone at Count Ainai, in!ludin& the ords, "For in six days the #ord made hea$en and earth% the sea% and all that in them is% and rested the se$enth day . . ." &Exodus '()**+ In a sin&le stro$e, the Caster 7rtist irrevo!a"l# "lended the ?enesis re!ord of !reation and the moral la into )is ?rand *esi&n.

Radiohalo Catalog'e
Co(te(ts
$late 4 B C D E $hoto 'escri#tion @aA 8 @dA . Fully develo#ed uranium halos in mica @-iotiteA @aA 8 @dA . B4J$o halos in mica @-iotiteAK @aA . also with a B4L$o halo @aA 8 @dA . B4D$o halos in mica @-iotiteA @aA 8 @dA . B4L$o halos in mica @-iotiteA @a* - G dA . Elli#tical @com#ressedA B4J$o halos in coalified woodK @cA . 'ual B4J$o halo in coalified wood 2ranium halos in fluorite in different stages of develo#ment: @aA 8 @-A . Em-ryonicK @cA 8 @dA . Fully develo#edK @eA . "vere,#osed* first8stage reversalK @fA 8 @gA . "vere,#osed* second8stage reversalK @hA . "vere,#osed* third8stage reversal @aA 8 @hA . B4J$o halos in fluorite @aA 8 @hA . B4L$o halos in fluoriteK @cA . center dar ened -y electron micro-eam analysis @aA . B4L$o halos in mica @-iotiteAK @-A . S#ectacle halo in -iotiteK @cA 8 @dA . B4D$o halos in -iotite @aA . "verla##ing B4J$o halos in -iotite* using #hase contrastK @-A and @dA . Thorium halo and giant halo in (adagascan micaK @cA . 'warf halos in =tter-y micaK @eA 8 @fA . Assortment of different #olonium halo ty#es in -iotiteK @gA . B4D$o halos in -iotiteK @hA . A B4J $o and a B4D$o halo in -iotite @aA . +iotite crystal from (urray +ay* CanadaK @-A . $o halo containing s#ecimens of granite from New &am#shire* the dar areas are -iotite crystalsK @cA . Zircon crystals e,tracted from granite drill cores ta en from a de#th of a-out 4E*JJJ ft<K @dA . Rhyolite from 4*FLC<C ft< @s#ecimen o-tained from /< Eichel-erger* Sandia National 0a-sA

F 6 L 5

4J

44

A##ro,imate (agnification @aA 4 B C D E F 6 L 5 @-A @cA @dA @eA @fA @gA @hA

U5JJ U4J4E U44BJ U4J4E UEDJ UL6E ULJJ ULJJ U5CJ U6CJ UEJJ UEJJ U6BE U6BE U6BE U6BE U6BE U6BE UBDE UE6E UL6E ULJJ U5FE UEJJ ULLJ U6BE U6BE U4FE UEJJ UCJJ U66J ULFE U5LE UEJJ U6BE ULFJ U6BE UBFE UBEJ [ UB6E U4DJ UB6E UBFJ U6BE U6BE U6BE U6BE U6BE U6BE U6BE U6BE U6BE U6BE U6BE U6BE

4J UDBJ UBEJ 44 [ [

[ Scale shown in figure

Plate 1 GaH < GdH > F'lly developed 'ra(i'5 halos i( 5ica G;iotiteH

Plate 2 GaH < GdH > 210Po halos i( 5ica G;iotiteHI GaH > also with a 21$Po halo

Plate 3 GaH < GdH > 21 Po halos i( 5ica G;iotiteH

Plate GaH < GdH > 21$Po halos i( 5ica G;iotiteH

Plate ! Ga, ; J dH > &lliptical Gco5pressedH 210Po halos i( coalified woodI GcH > 0'al 210Po halo i( coalified wood

Plate " =ra(i'5 halos i( fl'orite i( differe(t stages of develop5e(t: GaH < G;H > &5;ryo(icI GcH < GdH > F'lly developedI GeH > Overe)posed, first<stage reversalI GfH < GgH > Overe)posed, seco(d<stage reversalI GhH > Overe)posed, third<stage reversal

Plate # GaH < GhH > 210Po halos i( fl'orite

Plate $ GaH < GhH > 21$Po halos i( fl'oriteI GcH > ce(ter dar+e(ed ;y electro( 5icro;ea5 a(alysis

Plate % GaH > 21$Po halos i( 5ica G;iotiteHI G;H > .pectacle halo i( ;iotiteI GcH < GdH > 21 Po halos i( ;iotite

Plate 10 GaH > Overlappi(g 210Po halos i( ;iotite, 'si(g phase co(trastI G;H a(d GdH > 6hori'5 halo a(d gia(t halo i( /adagasca( 5icaI GcH > 0warf halos i( Etter;y 5icaI GeH < GfH > Assort5e(t of differe(t polo(i'5 halo types i( ;iotiteI GgH > 21 Po halos i( ;iotiteI GhH > A 210Po a(d a 21 Po halo i( ;iotite

Plate 11 GaH > *iotite crystal fro5 /'rray *ay, Ca(adaI G;H > Po halo co(tai(i(g speci5e(s of gra(ite fro5 3ew :a5pshire, the dar+ areas are ;iotite crystalsI GcH > Kirco( crystals e)tracted fro5 gra(ite drill cores ta+e( fro5 a depth of a;o't 1!,000 ft-I GdH > Rhyolite fro5 1,"$3-3 ft- Gspeci5e( o;tai(ed fro5 ?&ichel;erger, .a(dia 3atio(al @a;sH

Appendi6
Contents
4< )entry* R<;< 45FL< ?Fossil Al#ha8Recoil Analysis of ;ariant Radioactive &alos<? Science 4FJ* 4BBL< B< )entry* R<;< 456J< ?)iant Radioactive &alos: Indicators of 2n nown Al#ha8Radioactivity?? Science 4F5* F6J< C< )entry* R<;< et al< 456C< ?Ion (icro#ro-e Confirmation of $- Isoto#e Ratios and Search for Isomer $recursors in $olonium Radiohalos<? Nature DDB* BLB< D< Tal-ott* S<0< 4566< ?(ystery of the Radiohalos<? =esearch Communications Networ#* Newsletter Num-er B< E< )entry* R<;< 456D< ?Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological $ers#ective<? Science 4LD* FB< F< )entry* R<;< et al< 456D< ? :S#ectical: Array of B4J$o &alo Radiocentres in +iotite: A Nuclear )eo#hysical Enigma<? Nature BEB* EFD< 6< )entry* R<;< et al< 456F< ?Radiohalos and Coalified 3ood: New Evidence Relating to the time of 2ranium Introduction and Coalification<? Science 45D* C4E< L< &ower* /< 4566< 0etter to R<;< )entry dated /uly 44* 4566< 3ashington* '<C<: National Science Foundation< 5< Todd* E<$< 4566< 0etter to R<;< )entry dated Se#tem-er 4E* 4566< 3ashington* '<C<: National Science Foundation< 4J</ohnson* F<S< 45LB< 0etter to R< S< 3al er* &ouse of Re#resentatives* dated /une 46* 45LB< 3ashington* '<C<: National Science Foundation< 44</ohnson* F<S< 45LC< 0etter to R</< 0agomarsino* &ouse of Re#resentatives* dated Fe-ruary 4D* 45LC< 3ashington* '<C<: National Science Foundation< 4B<)entry* R<;< et al< 45LBa< ?'ifferential 0ead Retention in Zircons: Im#lications for Nuclear 3aste Containment<? Science B4F* B5F< 4C<Sasser* /< 45LB< 0etter to 3<S< &effelfinger* 'e#artment of Energy* dated (ay 4L* 45LB< 3ashington* '<C<: 2<S< Senate< 4D<&effelfinger* 3<S< 45LB< 0etter to 2<S< Senator /< Sasser dated /une 4D* 45LB< 3ashington* '<C<: 'e#artment of Energy< 4E<)entry* R<;< et al< 45LB-< ?'ifferential &elium Retention in Zircons: Im#lications for Nuclear 3aste Containment<? ;eophysical =esearch *etters 5* 44B5< 4F<Clar * S< 45LB< 0etter to '< +um#ers* 2<S< Senate* not dated< 0ittle Roc : State of Ar ansas* "ffice of the Attorney )eneral< 46<)entry* R<;< 45LD< ?Radioactive &alos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological $ers#ective<? /roceedings of the 10rd Annual %eeting of the /acific Bivision" American Association for the Advancement of Science 4* CL< 4L<'alrym#le* )<+< 45LE< 0etter to H<&< 3irth dated (arch BF* 45LE< CreationG<volution Newsletter K" No. 0" 87.

45<)entry* R<;< 45LF< )entry Res#onds to 'alrym#le:s 0etter to Hevin 3irth< BJ<)il-ert* C< 45LE< 0etter to '<R< &um#hreys dated August CJ* 45LE< 3ashington* '<C<: Science. B4<(er el* $< 45L4< Transcri#tion of Ro-ert ;< )entry:s Cross8E,amination from Audio Ta#e< (c0ean vs< Ar ansas State +oard of Education< 0ittle Roc : Ta#e recorded -y $< (er el* "fficial Court Re#orter* 2<S< 'istrict Court< BB<)entry* R<;< 45L6a< ?Radioactive &alos: Im#lications for Creation<? /roceedings of the )irst International Conference on Creationism ;ol< II* L5< BC<Earth:s Foundation Roc s Revealed -y Su#er 'ee# 'rill &ole in Hola $eninsula< BD<+i-lical References to the Foundations of the Earth< BE<$ress* F< 45L6< 0etter to R<;< )entry dated A#ril F* 45L6< 3ashington* '<C<: National Academy of Sciences< BF<)entry* R<;< 45L5a< A Tentative Creation (odel< B6<)entry* R<;< 455Ja< 0etter to the Editor* Science" dated (arch B5* 455J< Res#onse to "dom and Rin @Re#orts* Science BDF* 4J6* 45L5A< BL<)il-ert* C< 455Ja< 0etter to R<;< )entry dated (arch 6* 455J< 3ashington* '<C<: Science. B5<)il-ert* C< 455J-< 0etter to R<;< )entry dated (ay 45* 455J< 3ashington* '<C<: Science. CJ<"dom* A<0< 45L5< 0etter to R<;< )entry dated "cto-er B6* 45L5< Tallahassee* Florida: The Florida State 2niversity< C4<)entry* R<;< 45L5-< Res#onse to ?Radioactive &alos: )eologic Concerns*? Creation =esearch Society Huarterly BE* 46F< CB<)entry* R<;< 455B< Comments on )eological "-1ections< CC<)entry* R<;< 455J-< Creation:s Tiny (ystery E,#lored<? Res#onse to letters sent to Archaeology and &iblical =esearch" Su##lement to ;ol< C* No< C<

71 Fossil Alpha8Recoil Analysis of Certain 9ariant Radioactive )alos &cience, vol- 1"0, pp- 122$<1230, 1%"$A-stract< $he distribution of alpha+radioactivity in the vicinity of uranium and of certain variant radioactive halos in biotite was investigated by the fossil alpha+recoil method. 4ithin the limits of the method I could not confirm a previously proposed hydrothermal mechanism for the origin of certain variant halo types due to polonium isotopes. (icrosco#ic e,amination of thin sections @\ BJ MA of certain minerals sometimes reveals a distinctive #attern of colored concentric rings surrounding a minute central inclusion a-out J<E to 4 M in radius< Although these structures had long -een o-served -y mineralogists* their origin was a mystery until almost simultaneously /oly @8A and (ugge @7A correctly attri-uted the #henomenon to the #resence of radioactivity in the central inclusion< 3hile in some instances the inclusions have -een identified as %ircon @8* 0A* ,enotime* or mona%ite @JA* the halo nuclei are often too small for #etrologic analysis< In #olari%ed light* the a##earance of the varicolored ring #atterns in such anisotro#ic minerals as -iotite suggested the designation ?#leochroic halos*? although ?radioactive halos? is clearly more a##ro#riate< 3hile the radioactivity in the central inclusion may consist of N+* O8* and P8radiation* the develo#ment of a halo is -asically due only to the #ro#ortionately much higher ioni%ation effects of the N8#articles< This is an e,tremely fortuitous situation -ecause* since the N8#article has a rather #recise range = in a mineral for a given initial energy <" one can often ascertain not only the elements res#onsi-le for a #articular halo ty#e -ut also the s#ecific isoto#es< If the halo nucleus contains uranium* the N8emission from the eight N8emitters in the decay chain #roduces a region of radiation damage surrounding the inclusion< In certain -iotites this region -ecomes faintly visi-le when a-out 4JL atoms of BCL2 have decayedK with increased N8emission a series of colored* s#herically concentric shells eventually a##ears* corres#onding to the ranges of the res#ective N8 emitters of the BCL2 decay chain< The three8dimensional nature of the halo -ecomes stri ingly a##arent when a sam#le of -iotite is #re#ared for microsco#y< The leaves of a -oo of mica are easily cleaved with trans#arent cello#hane ta#e* and each successive layer of mica reveals a ring #attern of increasing si%e until the diametral section is o-tained< =ears ago there was great interest in the ring structure of uranium and thorium halos in investigation of the invariance of the radioactive transformation rate over geological time @KA< It is in this connection that radioactive halos have again drawn interest @1A< Naturally ring si%es are always measured from diametral sectionsK results are -est from s#ecimens having e,ce#tionally small nuclei< 2se of a filar micrometer shows the ring radii for the uranium and thorium halos to agree very well with the calculated N8#article ranges of BCL2 and BCBTh and their res#ective N8emitters< Thus an e,#erimental range:energy relation for N8#articles may -e determined for any mineral containing well8defined uranium or thorium halos* with small central inclusions< Certain ty#es of halos @I call them variant halosA e,ist that cannot -e identified with the ring structure of either the uranium or thorium halos< 3hat is the nature of the N8emitters res#onsi-le for these variant halos? Several ty#es of variant halos were discovered -ut were not claimed to -e evidence of new N8emitters -ecause radioactive8decay schemes of uranium and thorium were still -eing refined< Nevertheless /oly @LA re#orted three variant halo ty#es: one he attri-uted to ?emanation? @BBBRnA* a dwarf having a very small radiusK another was sim#ly designated the M8halo< "thers @9+8@A have re#orted unusual halo si%es* and I have found halos having anomalous ring

structure @88" 87A< For greater clarification of the variant halos* I classify as class I those rather easily identifia-le with nown N8emittersK as class II* those @such as /oly:s M8haloA whose ring structure has not -een correlated with nown N8emitters< For e,am#le* &enderson re#orted four variant halo ty#es: A* +* C* and '< Ty#es A* +* and C were correctly attri-uted to the #olonium isoto#es B4J$o* B4D $o* and B4L$o* res#ectivelyK thus they are of class I< +ut I have -een una-le to confirm &enderson:s association of the '8halo with BBFRa @80A< I confine this re#ort to investigation of class8I halos.in #articular to analysis of &enderson:s #ro#osed origin of the #olonium halos< The #olonium isoto#es have relatively short half8livesK any mechanism #ro#osed for their origin must -e consistent with this fact< The B4L$o halo @Fig< 4* leftA* so8called -ecause B4L$o is the initiating isoto#e* e,hi-its three rings arising from successive N8decay of B4L$o @<4* F<J (evK r4* BC MA* B4D$o @<B* 6<FL (evK rB* CD MA* and B4J$o @<C* E<C (evK rC* 45 MA< <i and ri denote* res#ectively* the N8#article inetic energy and the corres#onding average halo8ring radius< +y analogy the B4D$o and B4J$o halos @Fig< 4* rightA are* res#ectively* dual and single ring #atterns< I have o-served the #olonium halos in many $recam-rian -iotites* and the halos in Fig< 4 were found in -iotites from the +altic @NorwayA and Canadian shields* res#ectively< Since these #olonium isoto#es are daughter #roducts of BCL2* it was initially conceived @8@A that they were #referentially fi,ed out of uranium8-earing solutions at locali%ed de#osition centers along small conduits or veins within the host mineral @mica* for e,am#leA<

Fig- 1- &alos of B4L$o @leftA and B4J$o @rightA<

3hile coloration surrounding minute veins in the mica is an indication of the flow of radioactive solutions @very wea solutions may show no staining whatsoeverA* it does not follow that halos that formed around small nuclei in the conduits were necessarily derived from radioactivity in solution< For e,am#le* #olonium* uranium* and thorium halos also form around very small inclusions* with no visi-le conduit or crac in the mica connecting the halo nuclei* and it is certainly not clear that these halos are of hydrothermal origin< An attem#t to determine whether the halo nuclei were ca#a-le of acting as selective fi,ation sites for certain radionuclides* -y electron8micro#ro-e analysis of the halo inclusions* failed -ecause of the small si%e involved< &owever* refinement of techni7ues may lead to clarification of the nature of the

inclusions @8JA< Thus a more sensitive techni7ue is re7uired for testing of the hy#othesis regarding genesis of the #olonium halos from a uranium8-earing solution< Fission8trac techni7ues @8KA may serve this #ur#ose< 2ranium8BCL fissions s#ontaneously* and the damaged regions in the host mineral* #roduced -y the fission fragments* can -e enlarged sufficiently -y acid etching for visi-ility under an o#tical microsco#e< Immersion of -iotite sam#les* containing the #olonium and uranium halos in hydrofluoric acid for a few seconds and su-se7uent o-servation of the areas in the vicinity of the inclusions reveal a stri ing difference: the #olonium halos are characteri%ed -y com#lete a-sence of fission trac s* whereas the uranium halos always show clusters of fission trac s< To eliminate the #ossi-ility that fission trac s may have -een annealed out of the sam#le* I have irradiated mica s#ecimens containing the uranium and #olonium halos with a neutron flu, of E U 4J46 neutrons #er s7uare centimeter and again etched the mica< The uranium halos show* as e,#ected* mar ed increase in the num-er of fission trac s emanating from the central inclusion* due to neutron8induced BCE2 fission* whereas the #olonium halos are again com#letely devoid of trac s @87A< If a uranium solution had -een in a conduit feeding the central inclusions of the #olonium halos with daughter8#roduct activity* a-out 6J fission trac s #er centimeter of conduit would -e e,#ected -y use of &enderson:s model @8@A< This result de#ends on such #arameters as the uranium concentration in the solution* the rate of flow @conservatively I have assumed that the solution ceased to flow when the #olonium halos formedA* and the total num-er of #olonium atoms @E U 4J LA necessary to form a well8develo#ed B4L$o halo< This last value I determined -y o-serving the degree of coloration in uranium halos as a function of the num-er of fission trac s emanating from the halo nucleus* the total num-er of N8#articles re7uired for #roduction of a halo -eing com#uted as eight times the num-er of fission trac s times the ratio of the half8lives for s#ontaneous fission and al#ha decay for BCL2< 3hile fission trac s are o-served along stained conduits* in general I cannot correlate the distri-ution of fission trac s along clear conduits with the #resence of #olonium halos< $olonium halos are also found randomly distri-uted throughout the interior of large mica crystals far removed from any conduit< @A limited survey may indicate halos occurring within certain cleavage #lanes* -ut more e,tensive search shows this is not the case<A The 7uestion now arises of whether the source of the short8half8life radioactivity* characteristic of such #olonium halos* was due to @iA the laminar flow of a non8uranium8-earing solution* containing dise7uili-rium amounts of daughter8#roduct N8activity* through a thin cleft #arallel to the cleavage #lane* or @iiA the diffusion of gaseous radon through the mica< The latter case has -een considered @9A* -ut only recently has the discovery of N8recoil trac s in micas @81A ena-led 7uantitative chec ing of either of these mechanisms< This techni7ue is -ased on the fact that an atom recoiling from N8emission im#inges on the host mineral and forms a damaged region large enough to #roduce a #it which is visi-le in #hase contrast when etched with hydrofluoric acid< The original e,#eriment @81A determined that a series of multi#le recoils* such as is e,#ected in the se7uential N8decay of BCL2 and BCBTh* yields N+recoil trac s< Two additional #oints necessary for a com#lete N8recoil analysis.@iA whether a single N8recoil #roduces a trac * and @iiA whether N8recoil #its form in a sam#le #laced in contact with an N8emitter.have now -een resolved< Several sam#les of mica were annealed for removal of -ac ground N+recoil #itsK three different concentrations of dilute solutions of americium @E #ercent BD4Am and 5E #ercent BDCAmA were eva#orated on se#arate sam#les* and an N8count was ta en< The daughter #roducts of the

americium isoto#es have very long half8lives* so that any N8recoil #its occurring reflect only single N+ decay< The higher N8count sam#les yielded corres#ondingly higherN8recoil densities within the area of de#osition* accom#anied -y almost com#lete a-sence of trac s outside the radioactive %one< Thus was esta-lished the e,istence of one N8trac from a single N8recoil @8LA< Corres#onding N8recoil densities were also noted in annealed mica sam#les #laced in contact with the americium8coated sam#les< It follows that any e,cessN8radioactivity in micas may -e effectively determined -y analysis of the sam#les -y the N8recoil techni7ue< The #rocedure for ascertaining the e,tent of increased N8activity consists in measuring -ac ground fossil N8recoil trac densities in areas far removed from the halos themselves* and in com#aring these values with the densities near the halos for determination of the degree of e,cess N8activity< Sam#les of $recam-rian mica from Canada and Ireland @89A* containing uranium and #olonium halos* were investigated -y etching in DL #ercent hydrofluoric acid for a-out 4E to EJ seconds< As in earlier e,#eriments* BCL2 halos revealed the #resence of fission trac s emanating from the central inclusions* whereas no fission trac s were noted from the central inclusions of the #olonium halos< The e,#erimental #rocedure was to #hotogra#h in #hase contrast a given etched area* enlarge* and count anywhere from several hundred to 4JJJ N8recoil centers for each density measurement< The enlargement factor was determined -y #hotogra#hing the rulings of a stage micrometer* using each o-1ective< Re#licate measurements were made on several areas with different halo ty#es< The -ac ground fossil N8recoil density was measured -efore a count was made in the mica cleavage #lane a-out E to 4J M directly a-ove the halo nucleus< The mica was then cleaved until the central inclusion a##eared on the surfaceK the mica was etched again and another count was made to ena-le a density com#arison of three se#arate regions<

Fig- 2- Fossil N8recoil centers in the vicinity of a B4J$o halo @#hase contrastA<

The mean fossil N8recoil densities were 4B<6 U 4JF and 44<F U 4JF N > cmB for the Canadian and Irish micas* res#ectively* regardless of where the N8recoil count was ta en< For a given etch #eriod these results are re#roduci-le within ] 4J #ercent< The fission8trac density e,hi-ited a random distri-ution in each #iece of mica e,ce#t @as e,#ectedA near the BCL2 halos< The N8recoil:fission8trac ratios were a-out B<E U 4JC and C<J U 4JC* res#ectively* for the Canadian and Irish micas< &uang and 3al er @81A have shown that the -ac ground N8recoil density in micas is due to -oth uranium and thorium N8decayK -y using 4JJ ^ and 4J M for the al#ha8recoil and fission8trac ranges* res#ectively* one can determine that uranium alone contri-utes an N8recoil:fission8trac ratio of a-out B<B U lJC* any e,cess -eing due to thorium< Figure B #ortrays a B4J$o halo @Irish micaA showing the distri-ution of N8radioactivity @fossil N8recoil centersA in the vicinity< As far as the e,#erimental analysis is concerned* there is no detecta-le difference in the microsco#ic distri-ution of N8radioactivity @with res#ect to -ac ground densityA near either the uranium or the #olonium halos< NI note that thin clefts* which usually result near the edges of the mica from weathering @-ut not within the -ul of the micaA* are easily detected -y an acid etch since N8recoil trac s a##ear throughout the e,tent of the cleft area<O This finding seems to im#ly that there was no gross trans#ort of N8radioactivity to the #olonium8halo inclusions @iA -y way of laminar flow of solutions @through thin cleftsA dise7uili-rated as to uranium daughter8#roduct activity* or @iiA -y diffusion of radon* since an increased N8recoil density* higher than -ac ground -y several orders of magnitude* should -e evident within a lJ8M radius of the halo inclusions in either case< This last value is a conservative estimate* for I have considered only the decay of B4L$o atoms en route to an inclusion< Furthermore* autoradiogra#hic e,#eriments on the sam#les of Canadian mica containing BCL BCB 2* Th* and #olonium halos showed only the normal -ac ground distri-ution of N8trac s* indicating that if e,cess activity now e,ists it is -elow the detection level of the method< Thus* as far as the e,#erimental analysis is concerned* I cannot confirm &enderson:s model for the secondary origin of the #olonium halos< To the 7uestion of what mode of origin is consistent with the relatively short half8lives of the #olonium isoto#es @or their O8decaying #recursorsA* I can say only that other mechanisms are under study< 3hatever hy#othesis is invo ed* to e,#lain the origin of the #olonium halos* must also e,#lain -oth the one found -y &enderson @82A Ndue to a com-ination of isoto#es from -oth the thorium series @B4B$o and B4B+iA and the uranium series @B4J$oAO and a halo #resuma-ly due to B44+i @87A from the BCE 2 series< $erha#s most interesting of all is the occurrence of BJ*JJJ to CJ*JJJ B4L$o and B4J$o halos #er cu-ic centimeter in a Norwegian mica.without the B4D$o halos< R"+ERT ;< )ENTR= Institute of /lanetary Science" Columbia >nion College" $acoma /ar#" %aryland 7@@87

References and ,otes

4< /< /oly* /hil. %ag. 13, CL4 @45J6A< B< "< (ugge* Qentr. %ineral. 1%0#, C56 @45J6A @see "a Ridge National 0a-oratory ?=N*+tr+LKLA< C< /< /oly* /hil. $rans. =oy. Soc. *ondon Ser. A 21#, E4 @4546AK $< Ramdohr* ;eol. =undschau %, BEC @45FJA @see ?=N*+tr+LK9A< D< C< "< &utton* Amer. C. Sci. 2 !, 4ED @45D6A< E< /< /oly* Nature 10%, DLJ @45BBAK F< 0ot%e* ibid. 121, 5J @45BLA<

F< )< )amow< /hys. =ev. *etters 1%, 6E5 @45F6A< 6< /< /oly* /roc. =oy. Soc. *ondon Ser. A 102, FLB @45BCA< L< S< Iimori and /< =oshimura* Sci. /apers Inst. /hys. Chem. =es. !, 44 @45BFAK A< Schilling* Neues /ahr-< (ineral< A-handl< !3A, BD4 @45BFA @see ?=N*+tr+12LA< 5< /< S< van der 0ingen* Qentr. %ineral. Abt. A 1%2", 466 @45BFA @see ?=N*+tr+122AK C- (ahadevan* Indian C. /hys. 1, DDE @45B6AK &< &irschi* Viertel:ahresschr. Naturforsch. ;es. Querich "!, BJ5 @45BJA @see ?=N*+tr+L@7AK E< 3iman* &ull. ;eol. Inst. >niv. >ppsala 23, 4 @45CJAK )< &< &enderson* /roc. =oy. Soc. *ondon Ser. A 1#3, BCL @45C5A< 4J<)< &< &enderson* /roc. =oy. Soc. *ondon Ser. A 1#3, BEJ @45C5A< 44<R< ;< )entry* Appl. /hys. *etters $, FE @45FFAK <arth /lanetary Sci. *etters 1, DEC @45FFA< 4B<..* Nature 213, DL6 @45F6A< 4C<"-servations on this and other class8II halos will -e re#orted< 4D<I than 0arry Ho-ren* )oddard S#ace Flight Center* for the electron8micro#ro-e analysis< Also I than Truman Hohman* Carnegie8(ellon 2niversity* for suggesting the micro8#ro-e e,#eriments and for valua-le discussions concerning the origin of the halos< 4E<R< 0< Fleischer* $< +< $rice* R< (< 3al er* Science 1 %, CLC @45FEA< 4F<3< &< &uang and R< (< 3al er* ibid. 1!!, 44JC @45F6A< 46</< +oyle and R< ;< )entry* in #re#aration< 4L<)< &< &enderson* /roc. =oy. Soc. *ondon Ser. A 1 !, E54 @45CDA< 45<I than )< C< (illigan and other mem-ers of the geology and #hysics de#artments of 'alhousie 2niversity* &alifa,* for the loan of &enderson:s halos and micro#hotogra#hs< The halo referred to is in this collection< BJ<I than $aul Ramdohr* 2niversity of &eidel-erg* for this #articular s#ecimen< Also I than R< R< )or-atschev @2##salaA* +< 0o-erg @Stoc holmA* '< E< Herr80awson @Swasti a* "ntarioA* /< &< /< $oole @Trinity CollegeA* and /< A< (andarino @Royal "ntario (useumA for other mica s#ecimens containing halos< I also than &< 0< $rice for assisting in the N8recoil analysis and /ohn +oyle< "a Ridge National 0a-oratory* for the N8recoil e,#eriments< For more e,tensive investigation I would a##reciate contri-utions of sam#les of -iotite from as many $recam-rian localities as #ossi-le< BF A#ril 45FL

7! "iant Radioactive )alos: /ndicators of 2n#nown Radioactivity: &cience, vol- 1"%, pp- "#0<"#3, A'g'st 1 , 1%#0A-stract< A new group of giant radioactive halos has been found with radii in e'cess of anything previously discovered. Since alternate e'planations for these giant halos are inconclusive at present" the possibility is considered that they originate with un#nown alpha radioactivity" either from isomers of #nown elements or from superheavy elements. A radioactive halo is generally defined as any ty#e of discolored* radiation8damaged region within a mineral and usually results from either al#ha or* more rarely* -eta emission from a near-y radioactive inclusion containing either uranium or thorium< 3hen the inclusions are very small @\ 4 MmA* the uranium and thorium daughter al#ha emitters #roduce a series of discolored concentric s#heres surrounding the inclusion* which in thin section a##ear microsco#ically as concentric rings whose radii corres#ond to the ranges of the res#ective al#ha emitters @ 8A< Although the radii of normal uranium and thorium halos vary from 4B to DB Mm in mica* #ossi-le evidence of un nown radioactivity e,ists in the scattered re#orts of unusual halos with anomalous ring radii @ 7" 0A varying from E to 4J Mm in the dwarf halos to a-out 6J Mm in the giant halos< The very few #reviously re#orted occurrences of giant halos seem to have -een largely ignored* #erha#s -ecause either definite information on the #resence and si%e of the halo inclusion was a-sent @0A or -ecause su-se7uent confirmation of the re#ort was lac ing< &o##e @JA* for e,am#le* was una-le to confirm the e,istence of giant halos found -y 3iman in certain Swedish granites* -ut this is not sur#rising in view of the large varia-ility in the occurrence of #articular halo ty#es and the relatively small num-er of thin sections that &o##e e,amined< Indeed* after a more e,tensive search in which I e,amined a-out 4JJJ thin sections from these granites* I find that giant halos in the EE8Mm range do e,ist in the -iotite along with ordinary uranium and thorium halos< These giant rings invaria-ly occur only around very densely colored thorium halos* a result which im#lies a correlation of this ring with a high thorium content of the inclusion< E,amination of the thorium decay scheme shows that the daughter al#ha emitter* $oB4B* emits a low8a-undance @4 : EEJJA al#ha #article of slightly higher energy @4J<EE (ev* com#ared to a normal L<6L (evA* whose range may -e correlated with the o-served giant ring< Although there is some 7uestion whether the fre7uency of the low8a-undance al#ha #articles in this energy range can #roduce a halo ring* I #resently infer this association to -e correct< The density of giant halos in these granites is 7uite low* however* and after a further search I have found a mica sam#le from (adagascar with uranium and thorium halos* in addition to an e,ce#tionally fine collection of giant halos including all the si%es re#orted -y 3iman as well as several much larger varieties of halos heretofore unre#orted< The close #ro,imity of occurrence of different halo ty#es in the (adagascar mica #rovides an e,cellent range8energy relation which chec s with coloration -and widths #roduced e,#erimentally in ;an de )raaff helium ion irradiation of the mica matri, @KA< 3hereas the induced coloration -ands are dar er than the mica* the halos show reversal @-leachingA effects and are generally lighter than the surrounding matri,* e,ce#t ad1acent to the inclusion< Electron micro#ro-e analyses indicate that the inclusions are mona%ites @1A* and* since they are somewhat large @_ 4J Mm in diameterA* they do not show ring structure as well as halos with #oint8li e inclusions do< Also* the high radioactive content of some of the inclusions leads to an overe,#osed condition which tends to further o-literate inner ring structure<

Fig 1- The halo on the right is a com-ination uranium and thorium halo* with the inner ring radius of CD Mm from the uranium daughter emitter $oB4D @< R 6<FL (evA and the outer ring radius of DJ Mm from the thorium daughter emitter $oB4B @< R L<6L (evA< The halo on the left with a relatively small inclusion is a giant halo with a-out a EJ8 Mm radius< "ne scale division R 4J Mm<

The visual a##earance of the giant halos @Figs< 48CA is similar to that of the com-ination uranium8 thorium halos* and the 7uestion arises whether long8range al#ha #articles have #roduced the giant halos< The affirmative answer to this 7uestion cannot -e acce#ted without a critical e,amination of other modes of origin* since the magnitude of the giant halo radii involved im#lies the #revious e,istence of naturally occurring al#ha emitters with energies higher than any currently nown< &ence it is considered that the giant halos may have originated from: 4A Variations in alpha particle range due to structural changes in mica. "-servations show that certain halo inclusions e,hi-it sha#es or structural symmetry not e,actly identical to the #resent outline of the inclusion in the mica matri,* and such deformations of the inclusion from radiation8damage effects might very well alter the structure of the matri, in the vicinity of the inclusion< &owever* there are numerous sites where uranium and thorium halos of normal si%e e,ist ad1acent to and* in some cases* actually overla# giant halos @the inclusions of which show no evidence of any e,#ansion or contractionA< At least in these cases it would a##ear that the giant halos do not arise from normal8range al#ha #articles* which #assed through a region of lower mica ?density<? BA Biffusion of a pigmenting agent from the inclusion into the matri'. Although it is #ossi-le that some #igmenting su-stance may have -een #resent* electron micro#ro-e traverses across the region of the halo revealed no variations in elemental a-undances of the matri,< Furthermore* in annealing

e,#eriments that were carried out at DEJXC for BD hours the yellowish tint of the halos either remained the same or in some cases -ecame o#a7ueK that is* there was no fading or otherwise any difference -etween the reaction of the uranium and thorium halos and that of the giant halos< In essence* if a #urely chemical diffusion mechanism is o#era-le* it is #roducing a ty#e of coloration that is thus far indistinguisha-le from that initiated -y radiation8damage effects< NSmall crystalline structures @0iesegang #atternsA often occur in mica* -ut these are easily distinguished from radioactive halos<O CA Biffusion of radioactivity from the inclusion to the matri'. Electron micro#ro-e analyses showed that uranium and thorium were confined to the inclusionK techni7ues -y which fission trac s were induced indicated only a -ac ground uranium concentration surrounding the inclusion* and autoradiogra#hic e,#eriments with Hoda NTA emulsion showed al#ha radioactivity restricted to the site of the inclusion< If diffusion of radioactivity has occurred* it is -elow the detection limit of these three methods< Ta-le 4< Fre7uency of halo si%es of radii CB to 44J Mm< Interval of halo radius @MmA CB8CE C68DC DE8DL EJ8EL FJ8F6 6J86E LJ8LE 5J85E 4JJ844J 6<FL L<6L \5<EJ \4J<FJ \44<6J \4B<CJ \4C<BJ \4D<4J \4E<4J (a,imum energy Total of al#ha No< of #articles halos @(evA

)rou#

I II III I; ; ;I ;II ;III IM

BB B6D BL 4CJ F5 EL CJ 4J E

DA Channeling. Even though different o#tical #ro#erties in the region #arallel to the cleavage #lane ma e it difficult to o-serve a transverse halo section in any mica* the giant halos do e,hi-it a three8 dimensional< structure ty#ical of radioactive halos when successive mica layers are cleaved< The

idea that channeling of normal8range al#ha #articles #arallel to the cleavage #lane would -e instrumental in the formation of giant halo rings is certainly correct in #rinci#le< 3hether the relatively small num-er of al#ha #articles emitted along any given cleavage #lane is sufficient to #roduce coloration is not clear< Furthermore* if channeling were the e,#lanation* a series of successive outer -ands corres#onding to a given multi#le of the ranges of the uranium or thorium daughter al#ha emitters* or -oth* might -e e,#ected in a given giant halo< This situation is not o-served< EA &eta radiation instead of alpha emission. 0aemmlein @LA found -eta halos of rather diffuse -oundaries with radii u# to several thousand micrometers surrounding thorium8containing mona%ite inclusions in 7uart%< The fact that many of the #erimeters of these giant halos in this mica are well8 defined does not favor the association of these halos @Figs< 48CA with the -eta halosK neither do the radii corres#ond< In addition* 0aemmlein noted a correlation -etween the radius of the -eta halo and the volume of the halo inclusion @that is* the thorium contentA< This is understanda-le* since energetic -eta rays #roducing coloration at ma,imum range would emanate throughout the volume of the inclusion< In contrast* no such effect is o-served in this mica< )iant halos and uranium and thorium halos occur around relatively small inclusions as well as around larger ones< FA *ong+range alpha particles from spontaneous fission. 0ong8range al#ha #articles with a -road energy s#ectrum accom#any normal s#ontaneous fission events from 2BCL in an a-undance of a-out 4:DJJ< Neither of these factors is favora-le for the #roduction of relatively shar# -oundaries such as are seen in certain giant halos< 2#on etching several giant halos with hydrofluoric acid to reveal fission trac s* I have found that fission trac s emanate from the inclusions of some* -ut not all* giant halos< The trac s emanating from some of the inclusions may -e attri-uted to the uranium content of the halo inclusions< The lac of fission trac s in other inclusions im#lies that at least in these cases long8 range al#ha #articles from s#ontaneous fission are not instrumental in #roducing the giant halos<

Fig- 2 GleftH- A giant halo a##ro,imately E6 Mm in radius* #resuma-ly due to the long8range al#ha #articles from $oB4B @< R 4J<EE (evA< "ne scale division R 4J Mm<

Fig- 3 GrightH- A giant halo a##ro,imately LD Mm in radius* whose origin is un nown< If the halo is due to long8range al#ha #articles* the energy would -e a-out 4C<4 (ev< "ne scale division R 4J Mm<

6A Alpha particles or protons from @n"NA or @N"pA reactions. (ica sandwiches containing halo inclusions were irradiated with a total flu, of E U 4J4L neutron>cmB< No induced coloration was noted in the mica section ad1acent to the inclusion after irradiation< Since this integrated flu, is several orders of magnitude higher than would -e e,#ected in naturally occurring inclusions* it a##ears that @n* NA reactions have not #roduced the giant halos< Calculations show that @N*#A reactions are also insufficient to #roduce coloration @see 9A< From the #receding comments it would a##ear that* although some of the a-ove e,#lanations cannot -e definitely e,cluded* neither can any -e #resently confirmed as a factor res#onsi-le for the origin of the giant halos< Therefore* a few remar s may -e made concerning the distri-ution of halos in this mica and the #ossi-ility that the giant halos may have originated with long8range al#ha activity either from isomers of nown elements or from su#erheavy elements< The radii of several hundred halos that were measured with a #recision of a-out ] 4<E Mm are given in Ta-le 4< )reater accuracy was #ossi-le -ut seemed unnecessary* since for halos with large inclusions the actual radius of the halo as measured from the inclusion edge to the halo #erimeter will vary u# to around E to F Mm with the variation de#endent u#on the stage of halo develo#ment @2A< "ther uncertainties in the radii measurements arise if the inclusion is inclined with res#ect to the cleavage #lane< The intervals of halo radii were thus chosen to -e rather -roadK it may well -e that certain of the grou#s listed are com#osites of su-grou#s of halos with slightly different ma,imum radii* -ut further su-division did not seem 1ustified at #resent< The ma,imum energy values of the al#ha #articles are recorded for #ur#oses of com#arison only and are not meant to necessarily im#ly that the res#ective halo grou#s originated with al#ha #articles of that energy< There were a few halos which did not fall into any of the a-ove categories* -ut the num-er of this ty#e was only a small #ercentage of the total @B #ercentA< &alos in grou#s I and II are the normal uranium and thorium halos* whose ma,imum radii may -e identified with the res#ective daughter al#ha emitters $oB4D .< R 6<FL (evA and $oB4B @< R L<6L (evA of these decay series< &alos in grou# I; may -e associated with the low8a-undance* long8range al#ha #articles from $o B4B @< R 4J<EE (evA in the ThBCB decay series< An attem#t to relate other grou#s of long8range al#ha emitters of #olonium isoto#es in the uranium and thorium decay chain with the giant halo radii is more difficult< For e,am#le* the 5<E8(ev grou# of $oB4B* which conceiva-ly could #roduce a DL8Mm halo* occurs in an a-undance of only a-out 4:CJ*JJJK the 58(ev grou# @4:DE*JJJA of $oB4D could #roduce a DE8Mm haloK and there e,ist still other grou#s with energies u# to 4J<E (ev* -ut these occur in an a-undance of only a-out 4:4JF< If it is considered that these al#ha #articles were emitted in the same a-undance as is #resently o-served* only the halos in grou# I; may reasona-ly -e attri-uted to nown low8a-undance al#ha #articles of higher energy< )< N< Flerov has suggested that $oB4Bm* an isomer of #olonium with a half8life of D6 seconds and an al#ha8#article energy of 44<6 (ev* not nown to occur naturally* may have -een res#onsi-le for the halo grou# in the FB8 to F68Mm range* since the energy correlates with the #rescri-ed range @8@A< This identification* if correct* would* first* constitute another e,am#le of a

rather #eculiar #henomenon* namely* the occurrence of halos originating with #olonium isoto#es a##arently unrelated to uranium and thorium daughter #roducts @88A* and* second* raise the interesting #ossi-ility that the other giant halo grou#s may -e associated with un nown isomers emitting high8energy al#ha #articles in the 4J8 to 4E8(ev range< Hohman has suggested that such al#ha emitters* if they e,ist* may -e sha#e isomers @87A of nown nuclides< ;ery recent mass s#ectrometric studies in which the Ion (icro#ro-e (ass Analy%er @I((AA @A##lied Research 0a-oratoriesA was used revealed an isoto#e ratio for $-BJ6 to $-BJF of a-out J<4F for the halo inclusions as contrasted with a value of a-out J<CE for the -ul mona%ite crystals @4CA*which occur ad1acent to the mica @-oth values were uncorrected for common $-A< If su-se7uent wor shows that this difference cannot -e attri-uted to common $-* this result might suggest that a closer e,amination -e made of #ossi-le high8energy isomers* namely* an isomer in a chain decaying to $-< The #ossi-ility that the giant halos originate with a #ostulated su#erheavy element @ 8JA in the region from atomic num-ers 44J to 44D seems remote* since these elements @iA would not -e e,#ected to occur in mona%ites and @iiA would -e e,#ected to e,hi-it s#ontaneous fission activity either directly or indirectly @that is* to decay -y way of al#ha emission to the nown s#ontaneous fission region -elow atomic num-er ; R 4JEA @8KA< As noted earlier* some giant halo inclusions do not e,hi-it -ac ground fission trac s< &owever* of s#ecial interest in this conte,t are very recent theoretical calculations -y +assichis and Herman @81A* which indicate an island of su#erheavy element sta-ility at somewhat higher ; @around 4BJA< If such an element e,ists* it might -e e,#ected to occur in a #egmatitic mica< Chemistry Bivision" ?a# =idge National *aboratory" ?a# =idge" $ennessee 0L90@ R"+ERT ;< )ENTR=

References and ,otes

4< )< &< &enderson and S< +ateson* /roc. =oy. Soc. *ondon Ser. A %ath. /hys. Sci.1 !, EFC @45CDA< B< E< 3iman* &ull. ;eol. Inst. >niv. >ppsala 23, 4 @45CJAK &< &irschi* Viertel:ahresschr. Naturforsch. ;es. Querich "!, BJ5 @45BJA @see ?a# =idge Nat. *ab. =ep. ?=N*+tr+L@7AK /< /oly* /roc. =oy. Soc. *ondon Ser. A %ath. /hys. Sci. 102, FLB @45BCAK R< ;< )entry* <arth /lanet. Sci. *ett. 1, DEC @45FFAK /< S< van der 0ingen* Qentralbl. %ineral. ;eol. /alaeontol. Abt. A 1%2", 466 @45BFA @see ?a# =idge Nat. *ab. =ep. ?=N*+tr+1223. C< R< ;< )entry* Appl. /hys. *ett. $, FE @45FFA< D< )< &o##e* ;eol. )oren. Stoc#holm )orhandl. $1, DLE @45E5A @see ?a# =idge Nat. *ab. =ep. ?=N*+ tr+LK13. E< I than 'r< F< =oung* $hysics 'e#artment* 2niversity of (aryland* for coo#eration in the ;an de )raaff e,#eriments< F< 0< Ho-ren* )oddard S#ace Flight Center* National Aeronautics and S#ace Administration* and C< Feldman* "a Ridge National 0a-oratory* #erformed the electron micro8#ro-e analyses* which revealed ty#ical mona%ite constituents< 6< )< )< 0aemmlein* Nature 1!!, 6BD @45DEA< L< I assumed that @iA @N*#A reactions in the inclusion occur mainly with #hos#horus and have a cross section of J<4 -arn* @iiA weight fractions are J<BE* J<JE* and J<B for Th* 2* and $* res#ectively* and @iiiA J<B is the fraction of 2 atoms decayed @\ J<4 from fission8trac analysis on the micaAK calculations then show that the integrated #roton flu, from @ N*#A reactions in an

inclusion BE Mm in diameter is at least a factor of 4JB -elow that re7uired to #roduce threshold coloration @\ 4J4C al#ha #articles #er s7uare centimeter from ;an de )raaff irradiationA in a giant halo of radius 6E Mm< Similar considerations hold for @N*#A reactions on nuclides of low ; in the surrounding matri,< 5< ;ariations of 4 Mm in halo radii are noted even with #oint8li e inclusions* #ossi-ly resulting from ma,imum ioni%ation @colorationA occurring at slightly less than end8#oint range< In larger inclusions the halo radius a##ears to increase several micrometers as the halo develo#s -ecause a greater fraction of the al#ha #articles are -eing emitted within the outermost micrometer of the inclusion< Nonuniform halo -oundaries also occur and may result from a nonuniform distri-ution of radioactivity in the inclusion or may -e related to one of the unusual develo#ment modes #reviously descri-ed herein< 4J<I than )< N< Flerov* 'irector* 0a-oratory for Nuclear Reactions* /oint Institute for Nuclear Research* 'u-na* 2<S<S<R<* for this suggestion< 44<R< ;< )entry* Science 1"0, 4BBL @45FLA< 4B<T< $< Hohman* #ersonal communicationK >.S. At. <nergy Comm. =ep. No. NF?+9JJ+L1 @45F5A* #< 6D< 4C<This wor was #erformed -y C< Andersen* A##lied Research 0a-oratories* )oleta* Calif< In the I((A a finely focused @4J MmA "B8ion -eam is used to s#utter material directly into a mass s#ectrometer< 4D<)< T< Sea-org* Annu. =ec. Nucl. Sci. 1$, EC @45FLA< 4E<(ass s#ectrometric analyses of mica containing the giant halo inclusions* #erformed at 0edou, G Com#any* Teanec * N</<* and the )CA Cor#oration* +edford* (ass<* indicated that* if su#erheavy elements are #resent* their a-undance must -e less than BJJ #arts #er million< The I((A analysis of the mona%ite inclusions revealed the #resence of what are almost certainly molecular ions with a mass of CJC @#ossi-ly CaTh$A* C4J @#ossi-ly 0a B"BA and somewhat higher values< 4F<3< &< +assichis and A< H< Herman* /hys. =ev." in #ress< 46<I than $< Ramdohr* 2niversity of &eidel-erg* and &< de la Roche* National Center for Scientific Research* Nancy* France* for the (adagascar mica sam#lesK I than /< +oyle* "a Ridge National 0a-oratory* for valua-le assistance with the e,#eriments< The research #erformed at "a Ridge National 0a-oratory was s#onsored -y the 2<S< Atomic Energy Commission under contract with 2nion Car-ide Cor#oration< $art of the research was #erformed at Colum-ia 2nion College* Ta oma $ar * (aryland* from which I am #resently on leave of a-sence< 4B Fe-ruary 456JK revised 5 /une 456J Re#rinted from SCIENCE 4D August 456J* ;olume 4F5* ##< F6J8F6C CopyrightR 82L@ by the American Association for the Advancement of Science

7$ /on Microprobe Confir(ation of Pb /sotope Ratios and &earch for /so(er Prec'rsors in Poloni'( Radiohaloes ,at're, vol- 2 , (o- ! 1 , pp- 2$2<2$3, A'g'st 3, 1%#3-

RA'I"&A0"ES associated with decay of several $o P emitters4*B have -een studied -y o#tical microsco#ic techni7ues and more recently -y mass s#ectrometric e,amination of the halo inclusion using ion micro#ro-e techni7uesC*D< In such cases a large e,cess of BJF$- com#ared with BJ6$- was found to -e incom#ati-le with the radiogenic decay of BCL2 and BCE2* yet was e,#laina-le on the -asis of #olonium decay inde#endent of uraniumC< A straightforward attem#t to account for the origin of these $o haloes -y assuming that $o was incor#orated into the halo inclusion at the time of host mineral crystalli%ation meets with severe geological #ro-lems: the half8lives of the #olonium isoto#es @t4>B R C min for B4L$oA are too short to #ermit anything -ut a ra#id mineral crystalli%ation* contrary to acce#ted theories of magmatic cooling rates< This dilemma might -e resolved @R<;<)<* un#u-lishedA if several long half8life high8s#in or sha#e isomers of #olonium @or the Q8decaying #recursorsA were formed at nucleosynthesis and were su-se7uently incor#orated into the halo inclusions during crystalli%ation< This hy#othesis eliminates the geological difficulties* and is o#en to e,#erimental verification using several techni7ues such as charged #article reactions* though the long half8lives may #resent an o-stacle< +ut long half8lives im#ly that some of the isomers may still e,ist* in which case a mass analysis of the #olonium halo inclusions should reveal whether significant 7uantities are still #resent< 3e now re#ort additional ion micro#ro-e analyses of these $o inclusions as well as 2 inclusions in search of the isomers and for additional information on the $- isoto#e ratios< (ass scans were ta en on areas of the -iotite free from haloes< All the normal elemental constituents as well as some trace elements were seen in these scans< The mass region from 4EJ to CJJ is cons#icuously free from any mass #ea s< )enerally FeB` at #osition 44B is the only high mass #ea of significance o-served from the -iotite itself< In the #ure uranium* thorium* or uranium8thorium inclusions* ion micro#ro-e analysis showed that the inclusions were either %ircons or mona%itesK in many cases the BJD$- ion current or signal was near -ac ground* so that it was difficult to ma e a common $- correctionK the BCL2>BCE2 ratio was normal in inclusions which contained uraniumK and the BCL2>BJF$- signal ratio varied from 4J to 6J in the different inclusions analysed< The actual BCL2>BJF$- atom ratio is difficult to determine -ecause of the uncertainty in the 2 and $- secondary ion yield from different minerals< In general* 2 is detected with several times greater efficiency than $-< The radiogenic BJF$->BJ6$- ratio was difficult to evaluate in those inclusions where the BJD$- signal was near -ac ground< In other cases it was found to vary within normal limits< There is a wide s#ectrum in the 2 and Th halo ty#es.some inclusions contain 1ust 2 or Th without the other element* while other inclusions contain varying amounts of 2 and Th and in some cases e,hi-it rings from -oth decay seriesK it seems that the same situation #revails with $o and 2 ty#e haloes in certain micas< In the analyses thus far it seems that the larger the $o halo inclusion the greater the 2 content tends to -eK -ut more wor is needed to verify this< Also the larger inclusions seem to -e definite mineral ty#es @usually rare earths -ut not s#ecifically identified as yetA* whereas

some of the #oint8li e $o halo inclusions consist of only elemental $- @without BJD$-A and +i< $reviously no detecta-le 2 was found in such cases as the latter ty#e< In contrast to the $- ratios in the 2 and Th halo inclusions* we again re#ort e,ce#tionally high BJF $->BJ6$- ratios which are characteristic of the B4L$o decay se7uence ty#e $o halo< The results may -e summari%ed as follows: BJF$->BJ6$- ratios of 4J* 4B* 4L* BB* BE* DJ* and 4JJ were o-served< In four of these cases no BJD$- was detected< In the other two cases BJD$- was almost -ac ground* so that no common $- correction was made on any of the ratios @any such correction would have #roduced a larger BJF$->BJ6$- ratioA< In three of the cases @4J* 4B* and BBA the small uranium signal seen was 4J to 4JJ times less than that re7uired to su##ort the $- o-served< These results confirm the earlier ion micro#ro-e analyses of $o halo inclusions in which $- ratios were found that were im#ossi-le to e,#lain on the -asis of 2 decay< They give confidence that we are indeed dealing with a class of haloes that is distinct from the ordinary 2 and Th ty#es as the o#tical microsco#ic measurements invaria-ly suggest< "therwise* the most im#ortant as#ect of the results is that the decay #roduct of the #olonium @$-A still e,ists in these inclusions in measura-le 7uantities @4J L84J4J atomsA and has not diffused away< "n such a -asis we then e,#ect that any isomer #recursor of $o* if the half8lives were sufficiently long* would also still e,ist and -e detecta-le -y ion micro#ro-e techni7ues< The only source of geochemical data a-out the #ostulated isomer is derived -y inference from the ty#e of halo inclusion< Some $o halo inclusions are of the rare earth variety while others contain only elemental $- and +i< The latter case might suggest the e,istence of an isomer geochemically similar to those elements* whereas the former case is rather non8s#ecific< Fortunately ion #ro-e mass analysis techni7ues do not de#end on nowing the chemical identity of the #ostulated isomer< To o-tain these $- ratios* we first cleaved the mica until the halo inclusion a##eared on the surface< In some cases the sam#le was coated with a thin conducting layer of car-on* -ut it was -etter to overlay the sam#le with electron microsco#e8ty#e Cu grids< In the latter case there was no e,traneous material introduced anywhere near the region of interest< +efore ta ing mass scans on the $o haloes the ion micro#ro-e was o#timi%ed to o-tain the -est $- signal from large 2 ty#e halo inclusions that were mounted on the same sam#le -ut in a different area< In many cases the ion #ro-e was #ea ed on mass BJF #osition and then moved to the area in the vicinity of the $o halo inclusion< The signal at this mass #osition remained at -ac ground @4 &%A until the -eam was shifted to the $o inclusion itself< In some cases several minutes ela#sed -efore the signal reached ma,imum intensity< )enerally mass #ositions BJD* BJ6* BJL* B4L and BCL were monitored* as well as the regions considera-ly -elow $-* for #ossi-le interference from molecular ions< In other cases mass scans of the entire region from mass 4 to BEJ were ta en< It can -e definitely stated that the e,ce#tionally high BJF signal* com#ared with BJ6* occurs only in the $o halo inclusions and is not an artifact due to a molecular ion originating with the mica itself* the inclusion* or a com-ination of the mica and the elemental constituents of the inclusion< This is not to say the ion micro#ro-e does not generate molecular ions* for in certain cases it does so very efficiently< +ut in the case of the $o haloes* we too care to monitor the various #ossi-ilities* which could have interfered with the results< The search for the isomer consisted of carefully scanning the region around mass B4L* for the $o haloes used in these e,#eriments originated with B4L$o P decay< To -e certain of the mass #osition* a small amount of &g was #laced on the sam#le holder to use as a mass mar er at the B4L #osition @BJB&g4FJA< In all $o inclusions e,ce#t one no signal was o-served at the B4L #osition< That one e,ce#tion was due to interfering &g" ions from the #resence of &g in the inclusion itself<

A very rough estimate of what these results mean in terms of the #resent e,istence of the isomer in the inclusion may -e o-tained -ecause the BJF$- s#uttered ion count rate was greater than 4*JJJ &% in some $o inclusions< If it is assumed the isomer resem-les $- in s#uttered ion efficiency @$- has a relatively #oor s#uttered ion yieldA* then the #resent a-undance of the isomer in the inclusion is a 4JbC that of the BJF$-< "ne inter#retation of these results is the isomer has sim#ly decayed to the #oint where it was not detected in these e,#eriments< @These sam#les were from an early $recam-rian #egmatite in Scandinavia<A It is yet to -e determined whether this information is consistent with the half8lives of the #ro#osed isomers that can -e ascertained -y determining the latest geological e#och in which such haloes occur< This wor was s#onsored -y the 2S Atomic Energy Commission under contract to the 2nion Car-ide Cor#<* the )eneral Electric Com#any and Colum-ia 2nion College with National Science Foundation grants< R"+ERT ;< )ENTR= Chemistry Bivision" ?a# =idge National *aboratory" ?a# =idge" $ennessee 0L90@ S< S< CRIST= /< F< (C0A2)&0IN *aboratory Bevelopment Bepartment" ?a# =idge F+87 /lant" ?a# =idge" $ennessee 0L90@ /< A< (C&2)& Inolls Atomic /ower *aboratory" Schenectady" New For# 870@8 Received April 13, 1%#3-

References
4< B< C< D< &enderson* )< &<* /roc. =. Soc.* A, 1#3* BEJ @45C5A< )entry* R< ;<* Science* N< =<* 1"0* 4BBL @45FLA< )entry* R< ;<* Science* N< =<* 1#3* 6B6 @4564A< Andersen* C< A<* and &inthorne* /< R<* Science* N< ;<* 1#!* LEC @456BA<

7% Mystery of the Radiohalos

Research Co(('nications , T<OR= *R&AL6:RO=2: R&POR6 Fe;r'ary 10, 1%## N$his review is based upon a series of telephone interviews with =obert V. ;entry" as well as the available technical literature.O Current #hysical laws may not have governed the #ast< Earth:s #rimordial crustal roc s* rather than cooling and solidifying over millions or -illions of years* crystalli%ed almost instantaneously< Some geological formations thought to -e one hundred million years old are in reality only several thousand years old< )rant these #ro#ositions and.any researcher will tell you.the entire structure of the historical natural sciences would dissolve into formlessness< Few certainties would remain< =et these very #ossi-ilities @and others e7ually disintegrativeA have -een suggested in a remar a-le series of #a#ers #u-lished over the #ast several years in the world:s foremost scientific 1ournals.Nature" Science" and Annual =eview of Nuclear Science* among others< Nor has this assault u#on orthodo,y elicited a vigorous counterattac : the research results #u-lished to date have -een so cautiously and ca#a-ly ela-orated* and evidence so thoroughly #iled u#on evidence* as to forestall any outcry -y those whose scientific sensi-ility may have -een outraged< 3hile some investigators a##ear finally to -e arming themselves for com-at* the issue has not yet -een 1oined< It was over a decade ago that Ro-ert ;< )entry* #u%%ling over 7uestions a-out the

2lossary of 6ech(ical 6er5s

A pare(t radioactive atom decays into a da'ghter atom in various ways* one of which is -y the emission of an alpha #article from the #arent atom:s nucleus< Numerous ty#es of radioactive atoms occur in nature* -ut only three are the initiators of a decay series: uranium8BCL @BCL2AK uranium8BCE @BCE 2AK and thorium8 BCB @BCBThA< @The numerical su#erscri#t signifies how heavy the element is< 4sotopes of the same element have different weights -ut nearly identical chemical -ehavior.as for e,am#le @BCL2A and @BCE2A< An al#ha #article has a weight of D<A Each of the three decay8series initiators decays* -y a chain of ste#s* into lead< For e,am#le* the al#ha8decay ste#s in the BCL2 series are the following @ste#s not involving al#ha8decay are not shown hereA:
BCL

2 BCD 2 BCJ Th BBF Ra

c c c c

BCD

Th BCJ Th BBF Ra BBB Rn

BCB

Rn B4L $o B4D $o B4J $o

c c c c

B4L B4D

$o $B4J $BJF $-

Similarly* BCE2 decays -y a different series of ste#s to BJ6 $-* and BCBTh decays to BJL$-< Note that while all the series end u# with lead* each one results in a different isoto#e of lead< The half<life of a given ty#e of radioactive atom is the time during which half the atoms in any collection will decay< The half8life of BCL2 is DT -illion years< &alf8life* decay rate* and decay co(sta(t are closely related 7uantities< If we assume that the decay rate has not changed over geologic time*[ and if we measure 4A how much of a #arent in a roc has decayed into its daughterK and BA the current rate of this decay* then we can* it is generally -elieved* assess the date when the #arent was incor#orated into the roc .that is* the date when the roc was formed< In the case of Earth:s oldest roc s* this date @some CT -illion years agoA is thought to -e the time when the molten Earth first cooled down sufficiently for roc s to solidify from the #rimordial magma< [Numerous other assum#tions and technicalities also come into #lay<

Earth:s age* directed his attention to an o-scure and neglected class of minute discolorations in certain minerals< &e has since e,amined more than 4JJ*JJJ of these ?radiohalos*? and without dou-t stands as the world:s leading authority on the su-1ect< As an assistant #rofessor of #hysics at Colum-ia 2nion College @Ta oma $ar * (arylandA* he has -rought to -ear u#on the halos an array of so#histicated instrumentation such as few researchers ever have the #rivilege to wield< As a result* he has converted the entire field of radiohalo research into an e,act science* transmuting the microsco#ic s#heres of mystery into rich mines of e,citing and challenging information< RA04OAC64D& :A@O Gor RA04O:A@OH: ?In some thin sam#les of certain minerals* nota-ly mica* there can -e o-served tiny aureoles of discoloration which* on microsco#ic e,amination* #rove to -e concentric dar and light circles with diameters -etween a-out 4J and DJdm Na lone micrometer is one8millionth of a meterO and centered on a tiny inclusion< The origin of these halos @first re#orted -etween 4LLJ and 4L5JA was a mystery until the discovery of radioactivity and its #owers of colorationK in 45J6 /oly and (ugge inde#endently suggested that the central inclusion was radioactive and that the al#ha8 emissions from it #roduced the concentric shells of coloration< < < < halos command attention -ecause they are an integral record of radioactive decay in minerals that constitute the most ancient roc s? @4A< )entry:s studies have led him to the following conclusions: 4< Some halos @?#olonium? halosA im#ly a nearly instantaneous crystalli%ation of Earth:s #rimordial roc s: and this crystalli%ation must have occurred simultaneously with the synthesis>creation of certain elements< B< Some halos corres#ond to ty#es of radioactivity which are un nown today< C< 3hereas radiohalos have -een thought to afford the strongest evidence for unchanging radioactive decay rates throughout geological time @and these rates ena-le scientists to determine roc agesA* in actuality the overall evidence from halos re7uires us to 7uestion the entire radioactive dating #rocedure: something a##ears to have disru#ted the radioactive cloc s in the #ast< D< &alos in coal8-earing formations that are conventionally thought to -e 4JJ to BJJ million years old suggest these strata to -e only several thousand years old< Further* the time re7uired for coal formation is much less than #reviously thought< E< Ta en together* these conclusions #oint to one or more great ?singularities? in Earth:s #ast. events or #rocesses that are discontinuous with the rest of history* uni7ue occurrences that critically affect the data we now have< If we attem#t to inter#ret these data solely in terms of current #rocesses* we go astray< In this re#ort we will discuss only those researches leading to conclusion @4A* reserving the rest for a su-se7uent re#ort<

6:& CO3.&RDA64./ OF .C4&3C&

(any have noted a conservatism in science essential to its orderly advance: s e#ticism toward radically new ideas ena-les scientific 1ournals to retain focus* #revents anarchic descent into theoretical chaos* and ma es it #ossi-le to e,tend currently reigning theories as far as they can -ear -efore re#lacing them with other theories yet more em-racive< A successfully modified* ?tested? theory is #refera-le to a new ?untried? theory< And so scientific nowledge advances in an orderly fashion* with as few wrong turns as #ossi-le<[

NS $his conservatism(and its deceptive advantages(will receive continuing discussion in these newsletters.O )entry has so far avoided clashing with this conservatism* chiefly -y concentrating his efforts on #u-lication of data rather than discussion of their im#lications.and also -y the good fortune that his wor has -een slow to draw wides#read attention< That is -eginning to change* however< +ut #erha#s the reaction of a num-er of #rominent #hysicists to )entry:s wor on #olonium halos @see insets on this and the following #ageA is the most significant gauge of what will -e forthcoming< This reaction is noteworthy -oth for the confidence e,#ressed in )entry:s wor and for the almost uniformly conservative.al-eit o#en.stance toward any e,tra#olations from the raw data that challenge acce#ted theory< "f those whose o#inions we sam#led* only one seemed to suggest @without wishing to -e 7uotedA that we not #u-lici%e )entry:s wor < &e felt that the su-1ect should -e ?left to the e,#erts*? while cautioning that it is too early to re1ect the conventional view of Earth:s history< In the end* it is* #resuma-ly* the evidence which will decide the issue< 0et us loo more closely at the radiohalos themselves<

Canuary 72" 82LK Fou as# for my opinion of Br. =obert ;entry!s wor# on pleochroic polonium halos. I spent a number of hours reviewing this fascinating wor# with him some wee#s ago. I was impressed with the clarity of the evidence for "anomalous halos"(that is" cases where there are rings indicating the presence of some members of the normal radioactive decay chain without the other members of the family tree that normally are present" that normally do show up in rings of their own" and that have to be there on present views of the radioactive decay chains involved. If the evidence is impressive" the e'planation for it is far from clear. I would loo# in normal geologic process of transfer of materials by heating and cooling- in isomeric nuclear transitions- and in every other standard physical phenomenon before I would even venture to consider cosmological e'planations" let alone radical cosmological e'planations. $o e'plore all the avenues that need e'ploring would ta#e months" not the few hours I was privileged to spend in Br. ;entry!s company. A few days ago I reviewed this wor#" all too briefly" with Br. ;. 4asserburg of Cal $ech" who is an e'pert in the radioactive dating of roc#s" whose opinion would be much more to the point than mine" especially if he will give it to you in writing.S

6:& 3A6=R& OF :A@O.

If a small grain @inclusionA containing radioactive atoms is em-edded in certain roc minerals* the al#ha #articles emitted from the radioactive atoms travel outward from the inclusion and damage the crystalline structure of the mineral* in time #roducing the visi-le discoloration ty#ifying halos< Since each ty#e of radioactive atom emits al#ha #articles with a characteristic energy* and since this energy determines how far the #article will travel in the host mineral* the diameter of a halo:s rings guides researchers in determining which radioactive element is res#onsi-le for the halo< If the radioactive element in an inclusion is the initiator of a decay series* then a grou# of ?O:3 A- ,:&&@&R concentric halo rings results* each ring corres#onding to a @$rofessor of $hysics* ste# in the decay series* that is* to al#ha #articles of a $rinceton 2niversityA #articular energy< In the case of the BCL2 series* with eight al#ha8decay ste#s* there are five distinct halo rings @some of [$rofessor 3heeler re7uested that the al#ha #articles are so close together in energy that their his letter -e #rinted in full< 'r< 3asser-urg:s views have not -een rings are not distinguisha-leA< o-tained< The conventional argument drawn from o-served radiohalo si%es is summari%ed -y Struve:

?There is e,cellent evidence that the rates of radioactive #rocesses measured in the la-oratory at the #resent time are valid also for the remote #ast< If a radioactive element and its decay #roducts are em-edded in a crystal* each al#ha #article emitted during disintegration travels a certain distance that de#ends only on the rate of that #articular decay ste#< The more ra#id this rate* the greater the energy of the al#ha #articles* and the farther they go -efore -eing sto##ed and #roducing a color change in the crystal< ?Su##ose a s#ec of BCL2 has remained undistur-ed since the formation of a mineral containing it< Then* -ecause the rate of disintegration at each successive emission is different* eight concentric rings of mineral discoloration will -e found surrounding the #article of uranium< These rings < < < have -een found in many roc s of different geological ages* and the A uranium8BCL halo @leftA and a #olonium8B4J halo in -iotite< Scale diameters of the res#ective rings are always the same< ?Thus it can -e concluded that the rates of disintegration of uranium and thorium are constant? @BA<
is 4 cm e7uivalent to DE dm Nin the original #u-lication* ed.O<

As we will learn in a su-se7uent review* the evidence from halos has led )entry in a direction 7uite o##osite from Struve:s< +ut more than that* )entry:s halo research a##ears to stri e at the roots of virtually all contem#orary cosmologies* #osing a fundamental #ro-lem which has so far resisted every effort to solve it in conventional terms< This is the #ro-lem of the #olonium halos<

PO@O34=/ :A@O.
The last three al#ha decay ste#s in the uranium8BCL decay series @see glossary a-oveA involve the successive decay of #olonium8B4L @B4L$oA* #olonium8B4D @B4D$oA* and #olonium8B4J @B4J$oA< In contrast to the decay of the #arent uranium* these ste#s occur very 7uic lyK the half8lives of the three forms of #olonium are C<JE minutes* 4FD microseconds* and 4DJ days* res#ectively< $olonium* therefore* is not thought to -e o-served in nature e,ce#t as a daughter #roduct of uranium and thorium decay< That is where the enigma -egins< For )entry has analy%ed numerous #olonium halos #ossessing* in some cases* the rings for all three #olonium isoto#esK in other cases the rings for B4D$o and B4J$oK and in other cases* the ring for B4J alone.but none of these halos e'hibits rings for the earlier uranium+ 709 daughters< These halos are evidence for #arentless #olonium* not derived from uranium<[ N[ ;entry has also found halos with rings from polonium+789" +78J" or +78@" combined with a ring from polonium+787 which is in the thorium decay series. $his last form of polonium is also parentless( that is" there are no halo rings for thorium itself or its other daughters.O +ut the 7uestion then arises* &ow did the #olonium inclusions ever -ecome em-edded in the host roc s @more s#ecifically* in Earth:s oldest.$recam-rian.roc sA? "n the conventional view* these roc s slowly cooled and crystalli%ed out of the #rimordial magma @molten roc A over millions of years< 2nder such circumstances* any #olonium @with its e,tremely short half lifeA that was incor#orated into the solidifying roc s would have com#letely decayed long -efore the crystalline roc structure was esta-lished< No halos could have formed* for they consist #recisely of radiation damage to this crystalline structure< $olonium rings should e,ist only in con:unction with the other uranium series rings< +ut since the actual halos were caused -y #arentless #olonium* they re7uire

nearly instantaneous crystalli%ation of the roc s* simultaneously with the synthesis or creation of the #olonium atoms< )entry* well aware that this conclusion is unthin a-le to most* has -uttressed it with im#ressive e,#erimentation: fission trac and neutron flu, techni7ues @CA reveal no uranium in the inclusions that could have given rise to the #olonium.a conclusion more recently confirmed -y electron microsco#e ,8ray fluorescence s#ectra @DAK fossil al#ha recoil analysis @CA demonstrates that neither #olonium nor other daughter #roducts migrated from neigh-oring uranium sources in the roc * which agrees with calculations -ased on diffusion rates @EAK ion micro#ro-e mass s#ectrometry yields e,traordinarily high BJF$->BJ6$- isoto#e ratios that are wholly inconsistent with normal decay modes @FA* -ut which are e,actly what one would e,#ect as a result of #olonium decay in the a-sence of uranium< To date there has -een only one effort @6A to dis#ute )entry:s identification of #olonium halos< As it turned out @DA* that effort might -etter never have -een written* the authors having -een im#elled more -y the worry that #olonium halos ?would cause a##arently insu#era-le geological #ro-lems*? than -y a thorough gras# of the evidences< Challenges to )entry:s interpretation of the #olonium halos have -een more noteworthy< English #hysicist /< &< Fremlin wrote in Nature @Novem-er BJ* 456EA that ?The nuclear geo#hysical enigma of the B4J$o halos is 7uite fascinating* -ut the e,#lanation #ut forward is not easy either to understand or to -elieve<? Fremlin #ro#osed two #ossi-le e,#lanations: "eologic transfer< If there are uranium inclusions reasona-ly close to #olonium halos* then it is #ossi-le that one or more of the uranium daughter #roducts migrated from the uranium site to a new location* where su-se7uent decay gave rise to the #olonium halo< Since the daughter #roducts have much shorter half8lives than uranium* we would not e,#ect to find any 7uantity of them remaining at the site of the halo< The #olonium would therefore a##ear to -e ?#arentless<? The difficulty with this view is that transfer of uranium daughters in minerals occurs so slowly that the daughters would decay long -efore they could migrate any significant distance @C* EA< If the so#histicated e,#erimentation cited a-ove #roved telling against the transfer hy#othesis* )entry and several co8wor ers delivered a yet more conclusive -low in a very recent #a#er: #olonium halos derived -y geologic transfer from uranium sources have now actually -een found in coalified wood de#osits @LA< Their #resence here was to -e e,#ected: #rior to coalification the wood was in a gel8li e condition #ermeated -y a uranium8-earing solution< Such a material ?would e,hi-it a much higher trans#ort rate as well as unusual geochemical conditions which might favor the accumulation of B4J$o?.7uite different from the situation in mineral roc s< Further* of these uranium8derived #olonium halos* none were found due to B4L$o* and only three could conceiva-ly @-ut dou-tfullyA -e attri-uted to B4D$o* in contrast to numerous B4J$o halos< The half8life of B4J$o we will recall* is 4DJ days* whereas the half8life of those forms of #olonium which failed to generate halos in the coalified wood is a few minutes or less< So even under the ideal conditions in this wood* the short8half8lived B4L$o and B4D$o were not a-le to migrate ra#idly enough from the #arent uranium to form ?#arentless? halos< Clearly* then* such migration could not account for the B4L$o and B4D$o halos )entry has found in $recam-rian minerals* where the diffusion rate is very much lower even than in wood @EA< /so(er prec'rsors< Two atoms with identical nuclear com#osition -ut different radioactive -ehavior are termed ?isomers<? For e,am#le* B4B$o @in the thorium decay seriesA decays to BJL$- -y emission of an al#ha #article with an energy of L<6L (e;< &owever* a-out one out of every EEJJ B4B$o atoms

emits an al#ha #article with a much higher energy of 4J<EE (e;< These rarely occurring* higher8 energy B4B$o atoms are isomers* and they are a##arently e,#lained -y some variation in nuclear structure< The suggestion has -een made* therefore* that #olonium halos may result from the #resence of heretofore un nown isomers which are long8lived and which decay[ into #olonium< These isomers @?#recursors? of #oloniumA would circumvent the cosmological #ro-lem caused -y the short8half8life #olonium< N[ by beta+emissionO &owever* not only are such isomers un nown* -ut a careful search has revealed the #resence of no elements which might 7ualify as the re7uired isomers @D* EA< ?E,#erimental results have ruled out the isomer hy#othesis? @EA< Co55e(ts ;y @eadi(g .cie(tists &efore the demise of the :ournal" $ensVe* the editor(in preparation for a planned article on ;entry!s wor# (approached a number of leading scientists for their assessment of polonium halos. $he following responses were received during the first month or so of 82LK. PROF&..OR 6R=/A3 P- LO:/A3, 0epart5e(t of Che5istry, Car(egie</ello( =(iversity, Pitts;'rgh- ?I do not -elieve that :)entry:s contentions: can -e regarded as of :rather startling nature<: &owever* some of his e,#erimental findings @li e those of his #redecessorsA are 7uite difficult to understand* and the ultimate e,#lanations could -e interesting and even sur#rising< (any #ersons #ro-a-ly do not ta e them seriously* -elieving either that there is something wrong with the re#orted findings or that the e,#lanations are to -e found in sim#le #henomena which have -een overloo ed or discarded< < < < I -elieve it can -e said that )entry is honest and sincere* and that his scientific wor is good and correctly re#orted< It would -e very hard to -elieve that all* or any* of it could have -een fa-ricated PROF&..OR &0,AR0 A30&R., &(rico Fer5i 4(stit'te, =(iversity of Chicago- ?&is N)entry:sO conclusions are startling and sha e the very foundations of radiochemistry and geochemistry< =et he has -een so meticulous in his e,#erimental wor * and so restrained in his inter#retations* that most #eo#le ta e his wor seriously< < < < I thin most #eo#le -elieve* as I do* that some uns#ectacular e,#lanation will eventually -e found for the anomalous halos and that orthodo,y will turn out to -e right after all< (eanwhile* )entry should -e encouraged to ee# rattling this s eleton in our closet for all it is worth<? 0R- &/4@4O .&2R&, 4stit'to 0i Fisica 12'gliel5o /arco(i,1 =(iversitM 0egli .t'di, Ro5e?The #hotos Nof radiohalosO are remar a-le* -ut their inter#retation is still uncertain<?

PROF&..OR FR&&/A3 0E.O3, 4(stit'te for Adva(ced .t'dy, Pri(ceto(- ?Su##osing that the results of )entry are confirmed* what will it mean for theory? I do not thin it will mean any radical changes in geology or cosmology< It is much more li ely that the e,#lanation will -e some tric y #oint in nuclear #hysics or nuclear chemistry that the e,#erts have overloo ed< That is of course only my #ersonal o#inion and I am accustomed to -eing #roved wrong -y events< @I 1ust lost a I4J -et that Ni,on would -e in office till the end of 456D< I will -e glad to lose this one too<A? ACA0&/4C4A3 2- 3- F@&ROD, ?oi(t 4(stit'te for 3'clear Research, /oscow- ?3e made sure that N)entryO carried out his investigations very thoroughly< < < < Therefore his data deserve serious attention< < < < It is not e,cluded that N#olonium halosO have -een formed as a result of the e,tremely rare com-ination of geochemical* geological and other conditions* and their e,istence does not contradict the logically grounded system of conce#ts involved in the history of Earth formation<? 0R- PA=@ RA/0O:R, &5erit's Professor of /i(eralogy, :eidel;erg =(iversity, :eidel;erg- ?The very careful and timeta ing e,aminations of 'r< )entry are indeed very interesting and e,tremely difficult to e,#lain< +ut I thin there is no need to dou-t :currently acce#ted cosmological models of Earth formation:< < < < Anyhow* there is a very interesting and essential 7uestion and you could discuss it* #erha#s with cautious restrictions against so weighty statements li e the one a-ove in 7uotes< It would -e interesting and good if more scientists would have more nowledge of the #ro-lems<? PROF&..OR &=2&3& P- ,423&R, 0epart5e(t of Physics, Roc+efeller =(iversity, 3ew Eor+- ?Even though I now 'r< )entry #ersonally* I am not sufficiently familiar with his scientific results to -e a-le to 1udge them< $ersonally* however* I have a very high regard for him<? 0R- &- :- 6AE@OR, Che5istry 0ivisio(, Oa+ Ridge 3atio(al @a;oratory, Oa+ Ridge, 6e((essee- ?I can attest to the thoroughness* care and effort which )entry #uts into his wor < < < < In a general way these #u%%ling #ieces of information might result from unsus#ected s#ecies or #henomena in nuclear #hysics* from unusual geological or geochemical #rocesses* or even from cosmological #henomena< "r they @or one of themA might arise from some unsus#ected* trivial and uninteresting cause< All that one can say is that they do #resent a #u%%le @or several #u%%lesA and that there is some reasona-le #ro-a-ility that the answer will -e scientifically interesting<?

1.432=@AR464&.1 And so we have )entry:s conclusion in his re#ly to Fremlin: ?+ut if isomers and uranium8daughter diffusion do not #roduce #olonium halos in roc s* we are left with the idea that #olonium halos originate with #rimordial $o atoms 1ust as 2 and Th halos originate with #rimordial BCL2 and BCBTh atoms< < < < Carried to its ultimate conclusion* this means that #olonium halos* of which there are estimated to -e 4J4E None million -illionO in the Earth:s -asement granitic roc s* re#resent evidence of e,tinct natural radioactivity* and thus im#ly only a -rief #eriod -etween :nucleosynthesis: Ncreation of elementsO and crystalli%ation of the host roc s? @EA< In #lainer terms* these roc s must have formed almost instantaneously u#on the synthesis of the elements com#rising them< )entry -elieves the evidence #oints to one or more great ?singularities? that have affected Earth in

the #ast* re#resenting #hysical #rocesses which we do not now o-serve< If this is so* then attem#ts to define these #rocesses in conventional terms will #rove fruitless* and the s#an re#resented -y geologic time is a wide o#en 7uestion< Further @as we will e,#lore in a su-se7uent reviewA* )entry concludes that the most recent ?singularity? may have occurred only several thousand years ago< And he finds com#elling reasons to 7uestion the entire radioactive dating scheme which undergirds our conce#t of geological time< )entry reali%es that he still must rec on with the conservatism of science< 3hile his e,#erimental wor has -een im#ressive* few would yet concede that it is im#regna-le* or that his e,#lanations are the only #ossi-le ones< As 3heeler remar ed: ?If the evidence Nfor the #olonium haloO is im#ressive* the e,#lanation for it is far from clear< I would loo in normal geologic #rocess of transfer of materials -y heating and coolingK in isomeric nuclear transitionsK and in every other standard #hysical #henomenon -efore I would even venture to consider cosmological e,#lanations* let alone radical cosmological e,#lanations<? 3hile the evidence does not seem to favor the s#ecific mechanisms 3heeler suggested in early 456E* )entry can -e sure that* in #ressing his own decidedly radical e,#lanations* the sound and fury lie yet -efore him<

References
4< B< C< D< E< F< 6< L< R< ;< )entry* Annual =eview of Nuclear Science 70 @456CA* #< CD6< "< Struve* S#y and $elescope 89 @/une* 45E5A* ##< DCC8E< R< ;< )entry* Science 81@ @/une 4D* 45FLA* ##< 4BBL8CJ< R< ;< )entry* Science 89J @A#ril E* 456DA* ##< FB8FF< R< ;< )entry* Nature 7K9 @Novem-er BJ* 456EA* ##< BF586J< R< ;< )entry* 0<'< &ulett* S<S< Cristy* et al<* Nature 7K7 @'ecem-er 4C* 456DA* ##< EFD8FF< C< (oa%ed* R<(< S#ector* and R<F< 3ard* Science 89@ @/une BB* 456CA* ##< 4B6B86D< R<;< )entry* 3<&< Christie* '<&< Smith* et at<* Science 82J @"cto-er 4E* 456FA* ##< C4E84L<

7* Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cos(ological Perspective

&cience, vol- 1$ , pp- "2<"", April !, 1%# A-stract< New photographic evidence" data on halo ring si5es" and '+ray fluorescence analyses provide unambiguous evidence that polonium halos e'ist as a separate and distinct class apart from uranium halos. &ecause of the short half+lives of the polonium isotopes involved" it is not clear how polonium halos may be e'plained on the basis of currently accepted cosmological models of <arth formation. I have e,amined some 4JE or more radiohalos* mainly from $recam-rian granites and #egmatites located in several continents< In addition to 2 and Th halos* originally studied @ 8* 7A for information on the constancy of the N8decay energy <N and the decay constant e* I have discussed M halos @ 7* 0A* dwarf halos @0A* and giant halos @JA* and e,#lained how these remain #rime candidates for identifying un nown N8radioactivity and* not im#ossi-ly* un nown elements as well< I have also re#orted @KA on a class of halos which had -een tentatively attri-uted @1* LA to the N8decay of B4J$o* B4D$o* and B4L$o< Earlier investigators @7* L+8@A* #ossessing only a s#arse collection of $o halos* at times confused them with 2 halos or invented s#urious ty#es such as ?emanation? halos @ 7A or ?actinium? halos @9A to account for them< @Figure 4* a to d* is a schematic com#arison of 2 and $o halo ty#es with ring radii drawn #ro#ortional to the res#ective ranges of N8#articles in air<A To e,#lain $o halos* &enderson @LA #ostulated a slow accumulation of $o isoto#es @or their res#ective O8decay #recursorsA from 2 daughter #roduct activity< I demonstrated that this secondary accumulation hy#othesis was untena-le and showed* using the ion micro#ro-e @ 0A* that $o halo radiocenters @or inclusionsA e,hi-it anomalously high BJF$->BJ6$- isoto#e ratios which are a necessary conse7uence of $o N8decay to BJF$-< Recently* these ion micro#ro-e results have -een 7uestioned* &enderson:s results misinter#reted* $o halos considered to -e only 2 halos* and allusions made to the geological difficulties that $o halos would #resent if they were real @88A Nsee @87A for commentsO< Admittedly* com#ared to ordinary $- ty#es* the $- isoto#e ratios of $o halos are unusual* -ut new ion micro#ro-e analyses have confirmed @80A my earlier results @0A< It is also a##arent that $o halos do #ose contradictions to currently held views of Earth history< For e,am#le* there is first the #ro-lem of how isoto#ic se#aration of several $o isoto#es Nor their O8 decay #recursors @80AO could have occurred naturally< Second* a straightforward e,#lanation of B4L $o halos im#lies that the 48Mm radiocenters of very dar halos of this ty#e initially contained as many as E U lJ5 atoms @a concentration of more than EJ #ercentA of the isoto#e B4L$o @half8life* C minutesA* a #ro-lem that almost defies reason< A further necessary conse7uence* that such $o halos could have formed only if the host roc s underwent a ra#id crystalli%ation* renders e,ceedingly difficult* in my estimation* the #ros#ect of e,#laining these halos -y #hysical laws as #resently understood< In -rief* $o halos are an enigma* and their ring structure as well as other distinguishing characteristics need to -e made a-undantly clear< In order to ascertain the <N corres#onding to a s#ecific halo radius* I have #roduced a new series of standard si%es against which halo radii may -e com#ared without relying on estimates derived from ranges of N8#articles in air< Standard si%es may -e #re#ared -y irradiation of halo8-earing mineral sam#les with D&e ions @JAK the coloration -ands thus #roduced show varying si%es @as measured from edge to coloration e,tinctionA which are de#endent on energy* total dose* and dose

rate* the latter two factors not -eing accounted for in other com#arative methods< I made more than CEJ irradiations 4 to 4JD seconds in duration using D&e ions with energies ranging from 4 to 4E (ev* on over DJ sam#les of -iotite* fluorite* and cordierite @8JA< Selecting the -and si%es which corres#ond to the energies of the BCL2 N8emitters @see Ta-le 4A #ermits a direct com#arison with new as well as #revious @8* 2* 8@* 8KA 2 halo measurements in -iotite* fluorite* and cordierite< Figure 4e shows a coloration -and in -iotite #roduced -y 6<68(ev D&e ions* and Fig< Ba shows a densitometer #rofile of Fig< 4e< Fig- 1- G3e)t PageH The scale for all #hotomicrogra#hs is 4 cm BE<J Mm* e,ce#t for @h:A and @r:A* which are enlargements of @hA and @rA< @aA Schematic drawing of BCL2 halo with radii #ro#ortional to ranges of N8#articles in air< @-A Schematic of B4J$o halo< @cA Schematic of B4D$o halo< @dA Schematic of B4L$o halo< @eA Coloration -and formed in mica -y 6<68(ev D&e ions< f: direction of -eam #enetration< @fA A BCL2 halo in -iotite formed -y se7uential N8decay of the BCL2 decay series< @gA Em-ryonic BCL2 halo in fluorite with only two rings develo#ed< @hA Normally develo#ed BCL2 halo in fluorite with nearly all rings visi-le< @h:A Same halo as in @hA -ut at higher magnification< @iA 3ell8develo#ed BCL2 halo in fluorite with slightly -lurred rings< @1A "vere,#osed BCL2 halo in fluorite* showing inner ring diminution< @ A Two overe,#osed BCL2 halos in fluorite showing inner ring diminution in one halo and o-literation of inner rings in the other< @lA (ore overe,#osed BCL2 halo in fluorite* showing outer ring reversal effects< @mA Second8stage reversal in a BCL2 halo in fluorite< The ring si%es are unrelated to BCL2 N8 #article ranges< @nA Three B4J$o halos of light* medium* and very dar coloration in -iotite< Note the differences in radius< @oA Three B4J$o halos of varying degrees of coloration in fluorite< @#A A B4D$o halo in -iotite< @7A Two B4L$o halos in -iotite< @rA Two B4L$o halos in fluorite< @r:A Same halo as in @rA -ut at higher magnification<

The coloration e,tinction -oundary is #oorly defined near threshold colorationK only a few very light -ands in -iotite could -e relia-ly measured< Re#roduci-le measurements were o-tained in the #lateau region @8JA* where variations in -and si%e are minimal< 'ar er halos in -iotite generally have slightly larger radii than lighter halos @0* JA< Also* reversal effects in some -iotites immediately e,terior to the terminus of a halo ring cause a##arent diminution of the radius< Therefore* while there are differences -etween the si%es of medium coloration hands @Ta-le 4* column BA and the radii of 2 halos in -iotite @Ta-le 4* columns L* 5* and 4JA that could -e inter#reted in terms of an actual change in <N and e @81A* such differences more li ely arise from a com-ination of dose and reversal effects @8K* 8LA* #roducing slightly diminished radii< 'iminution of 2 halo radii may also result from attenuation of N8#articles within the small -ut relatively dense %ircon radiocenters< Even though slight differences -etween -and si%es and 2 halo radii do e,ist in -iotite* the ideali%ed 2 halo ring structure @Fig< 4aA com#ares very well with an actual 2 halo in -iotite @Fig< 4fA< +iotite and fluorite are good halo detectors* -ut fluorite is su#erior -ecause the halo rings e,hi-it more detail* often have smaller radiocenter diameters @g 4 MmA* and have almost negligi-le si%e variations due to dose effects in the em-ryonic to normal stages of develo#ment< Figure 4g shows an em-ryonic 2 halo in fluorite with only the first two rings fully develo#edK the other rings are -arely visi-le -ecause* due to the inverse s7uare effect* threshold coloration has not -een reached< Figure 4h shows a 2 halo in fluorite in the normal stage of develo#ment* when nearly all the rings are visi-le< This halo closely a##ro,imates the ideali%ed 2 halo in Fig< 4a< 2nder high magnification even se#aration of the B4J$o and BBBRn rings may -e seen< Figure 4i shows another 2 halo in fluorite* with a ring structure that is visi-le -ut not ade7uate for accurate radius measurements< In Ta-le 4* columns D* 44* and 4B* the fluorite -and si%es agree very well with the 2 halo radii measured in this mineral -y myself and Schilling @2A< This suggests that the differences -etween 2 halo radii and -and si%es in -iotite are not due to a change in <N &owever* e,#erimental uncertainties in measuring 2 halo radii #reclude esta-lishing the constancy of e to within CE #ercent* and under certain assum#tions 2 halos #rovide no information at all in this res#ect @ 81A< 3hile halos with #oint8li e nuclei which show well8defined* normally develo#ed rings @as in Fig< 4hA can -e used to determine the <N:s of the radionuclides in the inclusion* there are #itfalls in ascertaining what constitutes a normally develo#ed ring< In contrast to the easily recogni%a-le 2 halos in fluorite in Fig< 4* g to i* the overe,#osed fluorite 2 halo in Fig< 41 shows a diminutive ghost inner ring* which could -e mista en for an actual BCL2 ring< Figure 4 shows two other #artially reversed 2 halos* one of which shows the diminutive inner ring* while in the other all the inner rings are o-literated< The 2 halo in Fig< 4l is even more overe,#osed* and encroaching reversal effects have given rise to another ghost ring 1ust inside the #eri#hery< Figure 4m shows a still more overe,#osed 2 haloK in which second8stage reversal effects have #roduced s#urious ghost rings that are unrelated to the terminal N8#article ranges< Since this association of the halos in Fig< 4* l and m* with 2 N8decay cannot -e easily #roved -y ring structure analysis alone* I have utili%ed electron8induced ,8ray fluorescence to confirm this identification< Figure Ca shows the #rominent Ca ,8ray lines of the fluorite matri, @the F lines are -elow detection thresholdA along with some -ac ground Ag and Rh lines which are not from the sam#le* -ut are #roduced when -ac 8scattered electrons stri e a Ag8Rh alloy #ole #iece in the sam#le cham-er< Figure C-* the ,8ray s#ectrum of a halo radiocenter ty#ical of the halos in Fig< 4* l and m* clearly shows the ,8ray lines due to 2 @as well as a small amount of SiA in addition to the matri, and -ac ground #ea s< A more detailed analysis @89A reveals that the 2T line mas s a small

amount of $- #ro-a-ly generated -y in situ 2 decay< The variety of 2 halos shown in Fig< 4* g to m* esta-lishes two #oints: @iA only a thorough search will reveal the numerous variations in a##earance of 2 halos* and @iiA unless such a search is made* the e,istence of halos originating with N8emitters other than BCL2 or BCBTh could easily -e overloo ed< So far* three criteria have -een used to esta-lish the identity of 2 halos: @iA close resem-lance of actual halos in -iotile @Fig< 4fA and fluorite @Fig< 4hA to the ideali%ed ring structure @Fig< 4aA* @iiA identification of lines in ,8ray fluorescence s#ectra* and @iiiA agreement -etween 2 halo radii and e7uivalent -and si%es @very good in fluorite and fair in -iotite and cordieriteA< 2sing the third criterion @either -and si%es or 2 halo radiiA I can determine <Nfor a normally develo#ed fluorite halo ring to within ] J<4 (ev< For -iotite halos* 2 halo radii may form a suita-le standard for determining <N for rings that show reversal or other effects characteristic of 2 halos in the same sam#le< If good 2 halos are not availa-le* and if the halos with variant si%es show well8develo#ed rings without reversal effects* then the -and si%es form a suita-le standard for <N determination when coloration intensities of variant halos and -and si%es are matched<

Fig- 2- 'ensitometer #rofiles of the #hotogra#hic negatives of @aA Fig< 4e* @-A Fig< 4f* @cA the light B4J$o halo in Fig< 4n* @dA the medinm B4J$o halo in Fig< 4n* @eA the dar B4J$o halo in Fig< 4n* and @fA Fig< 4#<

Therefore* if halos result from the N8decay of B4J$o to BJF$-* their a##earance should resem-le the ideali%ed schematic @Fig< 4-A* and the light and dar halos of this ty#e in -iotite should e,hi-it radius variations consistent with the differences -etween lower and higher coloration -and si%es @Ta-le 4* columns B* C* F* 4D* and 4EA< Further* such halos* whether very light or very dar * should a##ear without any outer ring structure* as illustrated in Fig< 4n< Com#are also the densitometer #rofiles of the halo negatives of Fig< 4f @the 2 haloA and Fig< 4n shown in Fig< B- and Fig< B* c to e* res#ectively< Fig< 4o shows three similar halos in fluoriteK here* irres#ective of coloration differences* the halo radii are the same and corres#ond to the <N of B4J$o @Ta-le 4* columns D* F* and BJA< Accordingly* the halos in Fig< 4* n and o* are designated B4J$o halos< @Actually I should em#hasi%e that since not all -iotites e,hi-it the same coloration res#onses* the radius measurements in Ta-le 4 are strictly valid only for the #articular micas I used< I did try to illustrate a range of res#onses -y utili%ing four different -iotites for the 2 halo and the three $o halo ty#es<A +y analogy* the moderately develo#ed -iotite halo in Fig< 4# shows a mar ed resem-lance to the ideali%ed halo that would form from the se7uential N8decay of B4D$o and B4J$o @see Fig< 4cA< Ta-le 4* columns B* C* F* 6* 4F* and 46* shows the corres#ondence of the radii with -and si%es< The #rominent unmista a-le feature of the B4D$o halo is the -road annulus se#arating the inner and outer rings Nsee the densitometer #rofile of Fig< 4# shown in Fig< Bf and figures 6 to 5 in @ 1AO< 3ith res#ect to comments in @88A it should -e noted that the B4D$o halo can easily -e distinguished from a 2 halo< The last corres#ondence to -e esta-lished is the resem-lance of the two three8ring halos in -iotite @Fig< 47A and two similar halos in fluorite @Fig< 4rA to the ideali%ed B4L$o halo @Fig< 4dA showing the ring structure from the se7uential N8decay of B4L$o B4D$o* and B4J$o< In -iotite such halos may a##ear very light to very dar with radii corres#ondingly slightly lower and higher @e,cluding reversal effectsA than those measured for medium coloration -ands @com#are Ta-le 4* columns B* C* 4L* and 45A< Cursory e,amination of inferior s#ecimens of this halo ty#e could lead to confusion with the 2 halo* es#ecially in -iotite* where ring si%es vary slightly -ecause of dose and other effects< &owever* good s#ecimens of this ty#e are easily distinguished from 2 halos* even in -iotite< In fluorite* where the ring detail is -etter* a most im#ortant difference -etween BCL2 and B4L$o halos is delineated* that is* the #resence of the BBBRn ring in the 2 halo @Fig< 4aA in contrast to its a-sence in the B4L$o halo @Fig< 4dA< For e,am#le* note the slightly wider annulus @C<5 MmA -etween the B4J$o and B4L$o rings of the B4L$o halo com#ared to the e7uivalent annulus @C<J MmA in the BCL2 halo @Fig< 4* a* d* h* h:* r* and r:A< This is evidence that the B4L$o halo indeed initiated with B4L$o rather than with BBBRn or any other N8decay #recursor in the 2 chain< As further #roof* Ta-le 4 @columns D* 44* 4B* and B4 shows that the B4L$o halo radii agree very well with e7uivalent -and si%es and 2 halo radii in this mineral< Additional $o halo ty#es also e,ist @0A -ut are 7uite rare< NAs yet I have found no halos at all in meteorites or lunar roc s @82AO<

Fig- 3- Scanning electron microsco#e8,8ray fluorescence s#ectra of @aA the fluorite @CaFBA matri,* @-A a 2 halo radiocenter in fluorite characteristic of Fig< 4* l and m* and @cA a B4L$o halo radiocenter in fluorite characteristic of Fig< 4r<

The #receding discussion has shown that $o halos can -e #ositively identified -y ring structure studies alone< That ,8ray fluorescence analyses also #rovide 7uite convincing evidence is seen in Fig< Cc* where I show for the first time the ,8ray s#ectra of a $o halo radiocenter @s#ecifically* a B4L$o haloA< Com#arison of Fig< C* - and c* reveals that the $- in the $o halo radiocenter in fluorite did not arise from in situ decay of 2< N0onger runs have shown small amounts as Se as well as 2 in some $o halo radiocenters @89A<O "n the other hand* the #resence of $- is to -e e,#ected in a B4L$o halo radiocenter -ecause the decay #roduct is BJF$-< That the #arent nuclide was B4L$o and not a O8 decaying isomer #recursor @80* 7@A follows from half8life considerations of the 2 halo 2>$- ratio @_ 4JAK the #ro#osed isomer* if formed at nucleosynthesis* should now -e detecta-le in $o halo radiocenters< No trace of this isomer has yet -een found* and I thus view the isomer hy#othesis as untena-le< The ,8ray data in Fig< Cc are unam-iguous and should remove any dou-t that #reviously re#orted BJF$->BJ6$- mass ratios @0* 80A actually are $- isoto#e ratios* and in fact re#resent a new ty#e of $- derived s#ecifically from $o N8decay< In summary* the com-ined results of ring structure studies* mass s#ectrometric analyses* and electron induced ,8ray fluorescence #resent a com#elling case for the inde#endent e,istence of $o halos< The 7uestion is* can they -e e,#lained -y #resently acce#ted cosmological and geological conce#ts relating to the origin and develo#ment of Earth? Chemistry Bivision" ?a# =idge National *aboratory" ?a# =idge" $ennessee 0L90@ R"+ERT ;< )ENTR=

References and ,otes

4< )< &< &enderson* C< (< (ush at* '< $< Crawford* /roc. =. Soc. *ond. Ser. A %ath. /hys. Sci. 1!$, 455 @45CDAK )< &< &enderson and 0< )< Turn-ull* ibid. 1 !, ELB @45CDAK )< &< &enderson and S< +ateson* ibid.* #< E6C< B< /< /oly* ibid. 21#, E4 @4546AK Nature .*ond.3 10%, DLJ @45BJA< I have e,amined /oly:s collection and found that he associated certain $o halos with 2 halos and incorrectly associated the B4J$o halo as originating with Rn N8decay< C< R< ;< )entry< Science 1#3, 6B6 @4564A< D< ..* ibid. 1"%, F6J @456JA< E< ..* ibid. 1"0, 4BBL @45FLA< F< )< &< &enderson and F< 3< S#ar s* /roc. =. Soc. *ond. Ser. A %ath. /hys. Sci. 1#3, BCL @45C5A< 6< )< &< &enderson* ibid.* #< BEJ< A fourth ty#e attri-uted to BBFRa N8decay is in error< L< S< Iimori and /< =oshimura* Sci. /ap. Inst. /hys. Chem. =es. $o#yo !, 44 @45BFA< 5< A< Schilling< Neues Cahrb. %ineral. Abh. !3A, BD4 @45BFA< See translation* ?a# =idge Natl. *ab. =ep. ?=N*+tr+12L. Schilling* as did /oly* erroneously designated B4J$o halos as emanation halos< As for e,#lanation of the 4D<J8Mm* 4D<D8Mm* and 4E<L8Mm rings which Schilling attri-uted to 2I* 2II* and Io* I can state that one of the rings at 4D<J Mm and 4D<D Mm is a ghost ring< I also rarely o-serve a light at a-out 4F Mm* -ut do not #resently associate this ring with BCJTh @IoA N8decay< 4J<C< (ahadevan* Indian C. /hys. 1, DDE @45B6A< 44<C< (oa%ed* R< (< S#ector* R< F< 3ard* Science 1$0, 4B6B @456CA< 4B<(oa%ed et al. @88A stated that -ecause they could not find halos with dimensions matching those of &enderson:s ty#e + halo @the B4D$o halo in my terminologyA such halos do not e,istK however* &enderson gave -oth measurements and #hotogra#hic evidence @ 1* figure D* facing #< BDBA< They then inferred that a different halo @a 2 haloA must -e the e7uivalent of the ty#e + halo* although the radii of the inner ring of &enderson:s ty#e + halo and the outer second ring of their halo were significantly different @BJ com#ared to BB<C MmA< They concluded that all $o halos are only 2 halos* O without having 2 halos with normal ring structure availa-le for com#arison< I showed @KA that $o halos and 2 halos are distinguished -y the num-er of fossil fission trac s after etchingK that is* few* if any* com#ared to a cluster of BJ to 4JJ trac s< I also showed that the threshold coloration dose is directly o-taina-le -y converting a 2 halo fossil fission8trac count @BJ to 4JJA to the num-er of emitted N8#articles -y using the BCL2 -ranching ratio* eN>efK this contradicts the su##osition that such data are un nown to two orders of magnitude< Ion #ro-e analyses of 2 halos show that a high 2 isoto#ic ratio can not -e res#onsi-le for a small induced fission8trac count< Furthermore* contrary to a statement -y (oa%ed et al.* &enderson was a-le to distinguish relia-ly -etween his ty#e + and ty#e C halos @1* ##< BDF8BDLA< 4C<R< ;< )entry* S< S< Cristy* /< F< (c0aughlin* /< A< (c&ugh* Nature .*ond.3 2 , BLB @456CA< 4D<The irradiated -iotite sam#les were cleaved in a-out E8Mm sections for microsco#ic e,amination< The coloration threshold @CTA for CJ8Mm -iotite sections varied from C U 4J4C to F U lJ4C D&e ions #er s7uare centimeter< +and si%es monotonically increased with dose to a-out 4JJ CT -ut were re#roduci-le in a #lateau region around 4J to BJ CT< +ecause -and si%es were un#redicta-le at high house intensities it was necessary to use -eams of only a-out 4J na>mmB< 4E<'< E< Herr80awson* >niv. $oronto Stud. ;eol. Ser. No. 7L @45BLA* #< 4E<

4F<From N8decay theory* de>e @C>BA@Q=AT @d=>=A ` @BQ><TA @d<><A* where Q is the atomic num-er* = is the nuclear radius in 4Jb4E m* and E @R ENA is the N8decay energy in million electron volts< A #article of mass m and charge 5 has a range r @halo radiusA* given -y the es#ression r R constant U <B>m5B< Then de>e DC@d=>=A ` DF@dr>rA< If the difference -etween the halo radius and the coloration -and si%e at D<B (ev is real* then hr R bJ<D Mm and de>e DF@bJ<D>4CA R b4<D< Since the minimum uncertainty in ma ing com#arative range measurements is hr R J<4 Mm* it is actually im#ossi-le to esta-lish the constancy of e @for BCL 2A from radiohalo data any -etter than de>e DF@J<4>4CA R J<CE< Also* if d<>< R J while d=>= i J* then de>e i J< In such a case* halos furnish no #roof that e is constant< 46<Some inner ring coloration in Fig< 4f results from other N8emitters in the 2 decay chain< Fission trac analysis shows that the dose of N8#articles from BCL2 is only a-out 4J4C #er s7uare centimeter* a-out ten times less than the D&e ion dose for medium coloration< 4L<R< ;< )entry* in #re#aration< 45<..* in /roceedings of the Second *unar Science Conference @(IT $ress* Cam-ridge* 4564A* vol< 4* ##< 4F684FL< BJ<..* Annu. =ev. Nucl. Sci. 23, CD6 @456CA< B4<This wor was s#onsored -y the Atomic Energy Commission under contract with 2nion Car-ide Cor#oration* and -y NSF grant )$8B5E4J to Colum-ia 2nion College* Ta oma $ar * (aryland< B /uly 456CK revised BF 'ecem-er 456C

7+ '&pectacle' Array of !14Po )alo Radiocentres in >iotite: a ,'clear "eophysical nig(a

Grepri(ted fro5 ,at're, Dol- 2!2, 3o- ! $ , pp- !" N!"", 0ece5;er 13, 1%# H $olonium radiohaloes occur widely and not infre7uently @total a-out 4J4EblJBJA in $recam-rian roc s -ut their e,istence has so far defied satisfactory e,#lanation -ased on acce#ted nucleocosmogeochemical theories4< 'o $o haloes im#ly that un nown #rocesses were o#erative during the formative #eriod of the Earth? Is it #ossi-le that $o halos in $recam-rian roc s re#resent e,tinct natural radioactivityB and are therefore of cosmological significance? A detailed com#arison -etween an unusual array of $o halo radiocentres and 2bTh halo radiocentres is #resented here as -earing on the a-ove 7uestions< )enerally* radiohaloes occur in one of several mineralogical conte,ts 4* C* D< First* as single haloes around discrete inclusions well isolated from other mineral defects and haloesK second* as single haloes around discrete inclusions lodged in conduits or cleavage crac sK third* as single haloes randomly s#aced in clusters @sometimes overla##ingAK fourth* as vein haloes which formed from a continuous distri-ution of radioactivity @a##arently de#osited from hydrothermal solutionsA along a conduitK and fifth* as line haloes* which surround* not conduits or crac s* -ut genuine single inclusions which are long @for e,am#le* BE dmA com#ared with their width @#erha#s 4 dmA< 0arge* amor#hous* coloured regions without discrete inclusions are not haloes< A stri ing e,ce#tion4 to this classification is the :s#ectacle: coloration #attern @Fig< 4A* which e,hi-its two almost circular rings of inclusions 1oined -y a linear array of inclusions< As far as we now this is unli e any grou# of haloes #reviously seen< This geometrical arrangement of halo radiocentres* found in a $recam-rian -iotite from Silver Crater (ine* Faraday Townshi#* "ntario* e,hi-its true radiohalo characteristics< First* the coloration is identical to that of normal haloes found a-out CJJ dm away in the same mica s#ecimen< Second* the three8dimensional nature of the halo #attern B4J was demonstrated when the s#ecimen @initially a-out EJ Fig- 1 :S#ectacle: array of $o haloes in -iotite< &alo radius* 4L<E dm< dm thic A was cleavedK -oth halves revealed matching :s#ectacle: coloration #atterns* the only difference -eing the #resence of the inclusion array in one half and its a-sence in the other half< Third* the radius of the coloration -and @4L<E dmA im#lied an origin from B4J$o P decay< (ass s#ectrometric and M8ray fluorescence methods were used to ascertain whether this was indeed a $o halo array< +efore a##lying these techni7ues to the :s#ectacle: halo* we esta-lished that ion8micro#ro-e mass analyses and scanning electron microsco#e M8ray fluorescence @SE(MRFA studies of :normal: or :standard: halo radiocentres @those formed from -oth 2 and Th P decayA yielded data consistent with the visual means of identification< Several 2bTh haloes @see* for e,am#le* #hoto insert* Fig< BA found in a $recam-rian #egmatitic mica from Rossi* New =or * were analy%ed -y M8ray and ion8

#ro-e techni7ues< Several 2bTh halo radiocentres were chosen which contained only 2* Th and $in any significant a-undance* there-y virtually eliminating any molecular ion interference in the $-bThb2 region @m>e R BJDbBCLA in the ion #ro-e<

Fig- 2 Ion micro#ro-e and MRF com#arison -etween mica matri, and 2bTh halo inclusion< That the mica matri,E yielded insignificant molecular ion currents in the region m>e 4FJbCBJ is evident from the data in the lower #ortion of Fig< B< In contrast* the recorded s#ectra of a 2bTh inclusion @u##er left #ortion of Fig< BA revealed a significant num-er of ion counts accumulated in 4B #asses of the regions m>e BJDbBJ5 and @with a different scaleA m>e BCBbBDJ< Total ion counts are ta-ulated 1ust a-ove the two s#ectra< The scans on the $-b+i region @m>e BJDbBJ5A lasted for several minutes and were ta en -efore the scans @e7ual timeA on the 2bTh region< E,act BJF$->BCL2 and BJL$->BCBTh ratios are not o-taina-le from the ion count data in Fig< B -ecause varia-le 2 and Th concentrations were o-served as the ion #ro-e -eam s#uttered away the inclusionK accurate ratios could -e o-tained -y simuitaneously accumulating counts in the region BJDbBCL #rovided that the greater secondary ion yield of 2 and Th as com#ared with $- is ta en into account< "n the other hand* the se#arate $- and 2 isoto#e ratios are meaningful< Note* for e,am#le* that after su-traction of -ac ground counts at m>e BDJ from the total counts at m>e BCE and BCL* the BCE>BCL value @J<6FA satisfactorily a##ro,imates @considering the relatively small num-er of counts collectedA the natural 2 isoto#ic ratio* BCE2>BCL2 R J<6B< The a-sence of a #ea at BJD shows there is little or no common lead in the inclusion and therefore* that the BJF>BJ6 ratio is that of BJF$->BJ6$- as derived from in situ 2 decay< Also shown in Fig< B are the SE(MRF s#ectra of the mica matri, and the 2bTh halo radiocentre*

-oth of which correlate well @with the e,ce#tion of the low ; and low a-undance elements in the formerA with the res#ective ion8#ro-e s#ectra< "nly 2* Th and $- are e,clusively in the inclusion< The ion8micro#ro-e mass s#ectrum of the mica matri, surrounding the :s#ectacle: halo was nearly identical to the mica s#ectrum shown in Fig< B and is not re#eated in Fig< C< Figure C @to# centreA shows the #ortion m>e R 4FJbBFD of the ion8micro#ro-e s#ectrum @verical log scaleA of several of the inclusions< Also shown is the actual ion8#ro-e trace of the im#ortant region from m>e R BJDbB4J using a linear vertical scale and an e,#anded hori%ontal scale< There is no significant ion current a-ove m>e R BJ5K that is* no significant ion signals were detected at any of the #rominent 2 and Th #ea s: BCL@2`A* BED@2"`A* BCB@Th`A and BDL@Th"`A< No m>e R BJD was detected a-ove -ac ground @4 c<#<s<A* and the BJF>BJ6 mass ratio was BJ @BJF signal B*JJJ c<#<s<A<

Fig- 3 Ion micro#ro-e and SE(MRF s#ectra of mica matri, and B4J$o halo inclusions< Figure C also shows SE(MRF s#ectra of the surrounding mica and of one of the $o halo radiocentres< 0ead is the only element detecta-le in this radiocentre e,clusive of the micaK some ad1acent radiocentres revealed +i as well< The use of two different instruments* and longer counting times* account for the slightly different M8ray s#ectra in Figs B and C< The e,cellent resolution of the SE( showed the $-8rich areas to coincide e,actly with the $o halo radiocentres which are visi-le -oth in ordinary transmitted @Fig 4A and reflected light microsco#y< Regions as close as 4 dm to the radiocentres showed virtually no $- or +i* im#lying little if any diffusion loss from the inclusions< As the M8ray data definitely show $- @and sometimes +iA in the :s#ectacle: halo radiocentres* and as there is no evidence for any molecular ion contri-ution in the region from m>e R BJDbBCL* the BJF* BJ6 and BJL #ea s are inter#reted as $- isoto#es and BJ5 as BJ5+i< BJD$-* a constituent of -oth common and #rimordial $-* is missing @no BJD #ea A* im#lying that the :s#ectacle: halo inclusions analy%ed contained no detecta-le $- of either of these ty#es< A-sence of the BCB* BCE and BCL #ea s is inter#reted as showing the inclusions contain virtually no BCBTh* BCE2 or BCL2 and* therefore* no radiogenic BJL$-* BJ6$- or BJF$- derived from the in situ decay of these isoto#es< The BJ6 and BJL #ea s are therefore attri-uted to BJ6$- and BJL$-* #erha#s arising from the decay of minute amounts of B44+i and B4B+i within the inclusionsE*F< The BJ5+i is considered to -e #rimordial<

The outstanding feature of the mass analysis is the #rominent BJF signal which* when attri-uted to the #resence of BJF$- in the inclusions* fits #erfectly with the #rediction -ased on ring structure measurements* that is* that the BJF$- is radiogenically derived* not from 2 or Th* -ut directly from B4J $o P decay< In this res#ect* the large difference in the BJF>BCL @BJF$->BCF2A ratio -etween the :s#ectacle: halo and the 2bTh halo @Figs B and CA is es#ecially significant< Clearly the :s#ectacle: halo resulted from B4J$o P decayK an e,#lanation for its geometry is still under study< +ecause the $- isoto#e in these inclusions is not e,#lica-le as any com-ination of common* #rimordial* or from in situ $- derived radiogenically in situ from 2 or Th* we conclude that a different ty#e of $-* derived from $o P decay* e,ists in nature< Su##ortive evidence comes from electron8#ro-e and ion8#ro-e analyses of a B4L$o halo radiocentre found in a mica from the Iveland 'istrict* Norway* which yielded a BJF$->BJ6$- ratio of BC< This is consistent with that e,#ected from B4L $o a decay to BJF$-< Such a $- ratio is im#ossi-ly high -ased on normal isoto#ic BCL2>BCE2 decay* the theoretical ma,imum -eing B4<L< "ther investigations have shown varying mi,tures of 28derived and $o8derived $- may occur in the same radiocentre* for there e,ists an almost continuous halo s#ectrum stretching from ?#ure? 2 to ?#ure? $o haloes< "nly a few @gJ<J4A $o haloes in -iotite may survive the delicate sectioning #rocess necessary for SE( M8ray analysis< /ust as im#ortant as the e,istence of a new ty#e of lead is the 7uestion of whether $o haloes which occur in a granitic or #egmatitic environment @for e,am#le* in mica* fluorite or cordieriteA can -e e,#lained -y acce#ted models of Earth history4< @R< ;< )< has found other B4J$o haloes that differ essentially from those in granites8un#u-lished information<A This research has -een s#onsored -y the 2nited States Atomic Energy Commission under contract with 2nion Car-ide Cor#< and -y Colum-ia 2nion College with an assistance grant from the National Science Foundation< Than s are due to R< I< )ait and /<A< (andarino* Royal "ntario (useum* 0ouis (oyd* National (useum of Canada* and )< Swit%er* 2nited States National (useum* for #roviding s#ecimens< Chemistry Bivision" ?a# =idge National *aboratory" Analytical Chemistry Bivision" ?a# =idge National *aboratory *aboratory Bevelopment Bepartment" ?a# =idge F+87 /lant" ?a# =idge" $ennessee 0L90@ Inolls Atomic /ower *aboratory" Schenectady" New For# 870@8 %cCrone Associates" 797@ %ichigan Street" Chicago" Illinois 1@181 R"+ERT ;< )ENTR= 0< '< &20ETT S< S< CRIST= /< F< (C0A2)&0IN

/< A< (C&2)& (IC&AE0 +A=AR'

Received ?'ly 31, 1%# -

References
4< )entry* R< ;<* Science* 1$ * FB @456DA< B< Hohnan* T< $<* Ann. N. F. Acad Sci<* "2* EJC @45EFA< C< &enderson* )< &<* (ush at* C< (<* and Crawford* '< $<* /roc. =. Soc<* A1!$* 455 @45CDAK &enderson* )< &<* and Turn-ull* 0< )<* ibid<* 1 !* ELB @45CDAK &enderson* )< &<* and +ateson* S<* ibid<* E6C @45CDA< D< )entry* R< ;<* Ann. =ev. NucI. Sci<* 23* CD6 @456CA< E< )entry* R< ;<* Cristy* S< S<* (c0aughlin* /< F<* and (c&ugh* /< A<* Nature* 2 * BLB @456CA< F< )entry* R< ;<* Science* 1#3* 6B6 @4564A<

7- Radiohalos in Coalified <ood

Re#rinted from 4E "cto-er 456F* ;olume 45D* ##< C4E8C4L .C4&3C&

Radiohalos in Coalified <ood: ,ew vidence Relating to the Ti(e of 2rani'( /ntrod'ction and Coalification
Ro-ert ;< )entry* 3arner &< Christie* 'avid &< Smith* /< F< Emery S< A< Reynolds* Raymond 3al er* S< S< Cristy and $< A< )entry Co#yright j 456F -y the American Association for the Advancement of Science A;stract- $he discovery of embryonic halos around uranium+rich sites that e'hibit very high 709>G7@1/b ratios suggests that uranium introduction may have occurred far more recently than previously supposed. $he discovery of 78@/o halos derived from uranium daughters" some elliptical in shape" further suggests that uranium+daughter infiltration occurred prior to coalification when the radionuclide transport rate was relatively high and the matri' still plastically deformable. Even though the -iological fossil record has -een e,tensively documented* the rather a-undant fossil record of radiohalos that e,ists in the coalified wood from the Colorado $lateau has remained virtually undeci#hered< /edwa- @8A and +reger @7A have determined some im#ortant characteristics of such halosK in fact* earlier @8* 7A as well as #resent investigations on these sam#les @0A agree that: @iA the microsco#ic8si%e radiocenters res#onsi-le for halos @Fig< 4aA in coalified wood are actually secondary sites that #referentially accumulated N8radioactivity during an earlier #eriod of earth history when uranium8-earing solutions infiltrated the logs after they had -een u#rootedK @iiA although autoradiogra#hy shows some N8activity dis#ersed throughout the matri, @8* 7A* most of it is still concentrated in the discrete halo radiocentersK @iiiA variations in coloration among radiohalos cannot necessarily -e attri-uted solely to differences in the N8dose -ecause there is evidence that the coalified wood was earlier far more sensitive to N8radiation than at #resent @8AK @ivA halos that a##ear most intensely colored in un#olari%ed transmitted light also show evidence of indurationK that is* when #olished thin sections of coalified wood are viewed with reflected light @Fig< 4-A* such high N8 dose halos e,hi-it high reflectivity and #ronounced reliefK and @vA some areas of coloration are of chemical rather than radioactive origin @8A< In addition to the a-ove verifications* the studies re#orted here mar the first time that @iA radii measurements have -een made to determine the ty#e and stage of develo#ment of halos in coalified su-stances and @iiA the radiocenters of such halos have -een analy%ed -y modern analytical techni7ues< The discoveries re#orted herein raise 7uestions relative to when 2 was introduced into the wood* the duration re7uired for coalification* and the age of the geological formations< S#ecifically* it was discovered that the halos @Fig< 4aA surrounding the N8active sites are ty#ically em-ryonic* that is* they do not generally e,hi-it the outer B4D$o ring characteristic of fully develo#ed 2 halos in minerals @JA< Such underdevelo#ed halos generally im#ly a low 2 concentration in the radiocenter< &owever* electron micro#ro-e ,8ray fluorescence @E(MRFA analyses @Fig< BaA show many such radiocenters contain a large amount of 2 with the amount of daughter #roduct $- -eing generally too small to detect -y E(MRF techni7ues @Fig< BaA< Although we discuss -elow the a##lication of ion micro#ro-e mass s#ectrometer @I((AA techni7ues @ KA to the #ro-lem of 7uantitatively determining the BCL2>BJF$- ratios* two im#ortant #oints deserve

mention here: @iA if there was only a one8time introduction of 2 into the wood @ 7A* these radiocenters date from that event unless su-se7uent mo-ili%ation of 2 occurred* and @iiA if 2 was introduced #rior to coalification @8A* then the BCL2>BJF$- ratios in these radiocenters also relate to the time of coalification<

Fig- 1- @aA Coalified wood halos with 2 radiocenters in transmitted light @U 4BEA Nsee @LAO< @-A The same halos in reflected light< The -right central s#ot in each halo is the radiocenter @U 4BEA

Another class of more shar#ly defined halos was discovered #ossessing smaller inclusions @ 4 to D Mm in diameterA than the N8active sites< These inclusions e,hi-it a distinct metallic8li e reflectance when viewed with reflected light< Three different varieties of this halo e,ist: one with a circular cross section* another with an elli#tical cross section with varia-le ma1or and minor a,es* and a third most unusual one that is actually a dual halo* -eing a com#osite of a circular and an elli#tical halo around e,actly the same radiocenter @see Fig< C* a to cA< Although the elli#tical halos differ radically from the circular halos in minerals @ 1A* the circular ty#e resem-les the B4J$o halo in minerals and variations in the radii of circular halos a##ro,imate the calculated #enetration distances @ BF to C4 MmA of the B4J$o N8#article @energy EN R E<C (evA in this coalified wood @LA< &enderson @9A theori%ed that $o halos might form in minerals when 28daughter $o isoto#es or their O8#recursors were #referentially accumulated into small inclusions from some near-y 2 source< Although this hy#othesis was not confirmed for 28#oor minerals @ 2A* it did seem a #ossi-ility in this 28rich matri,<

The E(MRF analyses @Fig< B-A showed that the halo inclusions were mainly $- and Se< This com#osition fits well into the secondary accumulation hy#othesis for -oth of the 28daughters* B4J$o @half8life* t4>B R 4CL daysA and its O8#recursor B4J$- @t4>B R BB yearsA* #ossess the two characteristics that are vitally essential for the hy#othesis: @iA chemical similarity with the elements in the inclusion and @iiA half8lives sufficiently long to #ermit accumulation #rior to decay< This latter re7uirement is de#endent on the radionuclide trans#ort rate< In minerals the diffusion coefficients are so low that there is a negligi-le #ro-a-ility that B4J$o or B4J$- atoms would migrate even 4 Mm -efore decaying* and thus the origin of $o halos in minerals is still -eing argued @ 1* 8@A< &owever* in this matri, the situation is 7uite different< A solution8#ermeated wood in a gel8li e condition would e,hi-it a much higher trans#ort rate as well as unusual geochemical conditions which might favor the accumulation of B4J$o and B4J$- nuclides< Evidence that this accumulation was essentially finished #rior to com#lete coalification comes from the fact that most $o halos are #lastically deformedK furthermore* after coalification it is much more difficult to account for such ra#id and wides#read migration of the radionuclides @that is* within the B4J$o half8lifeA< For e,am#le* a hundred or more B4J$o halos are sometimes evident in a single thin section @B cm -y B cmA of coalified wood* and they occurred 7uite generally in the thin sections e,amined @ 88A< "f the thousands of $o halos seen in this matri,* only three show any trace of a ring that could #ossi-ly -e attri-uted to B4D$o N8decay Nthat is* from the accumulation of the 28daughters B4D$- @t4>B R B6 minutesA* B4D+i @t4>B R BJ minutesA* or B4D$o @t4>B R 4FD MsecAO* and none has -een seen with a ring from B4L$o N8decay Nthat is* from the accumulation of short8lived B4L$o @t4>B R C minutesAO< @$ossi-ly these faint outer rings are of chemical rather than radioactive origin<A $ositive identification for the B4J$o halos comes from the I((A analyses< Com#ared to a BCL2 halo radiocenter< a B4J$o halo inclusion should contain much less BCL2 @#erha#s none at allA and much more of the B4J$o decay #roduct BJF$-< The I((A analyses of $o halo inclusions showed that the BCL2 content was low* the BCL2>BJF$- ratios varying from J<JJ4 to B<J< NThese values were corrected for the different ioni%ation efficiencies @k B : 4A of $-` and 2` in this matri,<O This small BCL2 content im#lies that only an e,tremely small amount of $- could have -een generated -y in situ 2 decay< There are certainly three other #ossi-le sources for the $- in these inclusions: @iA common $-* @iiA $o8 derived radiogenic $- generated -y in situ decay of secondarily accumulated B4J$- and B4J$o* or @iiiA 28derived ?old? radiogenic $- that had accumulated in the hy#othesi%ed @ 87A $recam-rian 2 ore de#osit @which is one #ossi-le source of the 2 now in the Colorado $lateauA #rior to the time it was carried with the 2 in solution into the wood< Since the BJD$- count rates* which are uni7ue indicators of common $-* ranged from undetecta-le to a few counts #er second a-ove -ac ground when BJF$- count rates were several thousand counts #er second* it was evident that relatively little common $- was #resent< Thus only BJF$->BJ6$- ratios had to -e measured to o-tain evidence of BJF $- originating from the decay of B4J$o: the results were indeed confirmatory<

Fig- 2- Curve a* E(MRF s#ectrum of a 28rich radiocenter< Curve -* E(MRF s#ectrum of the radiocenter of a B4J$o halo<

The ratios o-tained were as follows: BJF$->BJ6$- R L ] J<E* 44<F ] J<C* 44<6 ] J<D* 4C<C ] J<6* 4C<D ] 4<J* 4C<6 ] J<F* 4C<5 ] J<F* 4D<L ] J<5* 4E<L ] 4<4* and 4F<D ] J<E< The variation in this ratio can easily -e understood to have resulted from the addition of an increment of BJF$- @generated -y in situ B4J$o decayA to the isoto#ic com#osition of the ?old? radiogenic $-< The lowest $- ratio* o-tained from a very lightly colored B4J$o halo* differs slightly from the lowest $- isoto#e ratio #reviously determined on -ul sam#les of Colorado $lateau 2 ore s#ecimens @87A< 3hat is the meaning of these $o halos? Clearly* the variations in sha#e can -e attri-uted to #lastic deformation which occurred #rior to coalification< Since the model for B4J$o formation thus envisions that -oth B4J$o and B4J$- were accumulating simultaneously in the $-8Se inclusion* a s#herical B4J$o halo could develo# in J<E to 4 year from the B4J$o atoms initially #resent and a second similar B4J$o halo could develo# in BE to EJ years as the B4J$- atoms more slowly N8decayed to #roduce another cro# of B4J$o atoms< If there was no deformation of the matri, -etween these #eriods* the two B4J$o halos would sim#ly coincide< If* however* the matri, was deformed -etween the two #eriods of halo formation then the first halo would have -een com#ressed into an elli#soid and the second halo would -e a normal s#here< The result would -e a dual ?halo? @Fig< CcA< The wides#read occurrence of these dual halos in -oth Triassic and /urassic s#ecimens @ 80A can actually -e considered corro-orative evidence for a one8time introduction of 2 into these formations @ 8* 7A* -ecause it is then #ossi-le to account for their structure on the -asis of a single s#ecifically timed tectonic event< The fact that dual halos occur in only a-out 4 out of 4JJ single $o halos is of s#ecial significance @8JA< In halos with 2 radiocenters* the low $- a-undance made it generally 7uite difficult to measure 2>$- ratios with E(MRF @Fig< BaA techni7ues< (ore sensitive I((A measurements on these 2

radiocenters revealed BCL2>BJF$- ratios @8KA of a##ro,imately BBCJK BEBJK LlEJK LCJJK L6EJK 4L*6JJK 45*EJJK B4*JJJK B4*5JJK and B6*CJJ @again corrected for different ioni%ation efficienciesA< Ty#ically* the 2` ion signals from which these ratios were derived were greater than C U 4J D counts #er seconds @c#sAK for e,am#le* the 45*EJJ value was o-tained from a halo with a 2` signal of 4JF c#s @] E #ercentA with -ac ground C c#s< 3e chec ed the BCL2>BCE2 ratio inde#endently @and found it normalA -y e,cising several radiocenters and analy%ing them directly on the filament of a high sensitivity thermal ioni%ation mass s#ectrometer @81A< Even without attem#ting to su-tract out the BJF$- com#onent of the common and ?old? radiogenic $- @8KA* these BCL2>BJF$- ratios raise some 7uestions< For e,am#le* if the BCL2>BJF$- R B6*CJJ value is indicative of the formation time of the radiocenter* this is more recent -y at least a factor of B6J than the minimum @CretaceousA and more recent -y a factor of 6FJ than the ma,imum @TriassicA geological age estimated for the introduction of 2 into the logs @87* 8L* 89A< To o-tain BCL2>BJF$ratios that more accurately reflect the amount of $- from in situ 2 decay* a search was made for sites with even higher ratios* for such areas #ossi-ly contained negligi-le amounts of e,traneous $-< Two halo radiocenters were found that e,hi-ited BCL2` signals of D U 4JD and F<D U 4JD c#s* res#ectively while the BJF$-` signals were indistinguisha-le from -ac ground @ C c#sA in -oth cases @BJ6$- also a-sentA< Such e,traordinary values admit the #ossi-ility that -oth the initial 2 infiltration and coalification could #ossi-ly have occurred within the #ast several thousand years< At the same time it may -e argued that this view is 7uite im#ro-a-le for there e,ists another e,#lanation that could invalidate the association of the 2>$- ratios with the initial introduction of 2< This e,#lanation would admit that* although $o halos constitute evidence that 2 infiltration and hence 2 radiocenter formation occurred #rior to coalification* some 2 may have -een added or $- may have -een selectively removed* or -oth* -y groundwater circulation after coalification< &ence varia-le 2>$- ratios would -e e,#ected* and the highest ratio would sim#ly reflect the last time when 2 remo-ili%ation or $remo-ili%ation* or -oth* occurred< Although this hy#othesis has -een used to account for 2 dise7uili-rium @89* 82A in -ul s#ecimens of 28im#regnated Colorado $lateau material* there are some 7uestions a-out its a##lica-ility here< For e,am#le* if $- was removed from the 2 sites* it must have -een a very selective removal for -oth the E(MRF and I((A results show that considera-le 7uantities of $- still remain in the near-y @within EJ Mm of the 2 sitesA $o halo $-8Se inclusions< If $- loss was minimal* then to e,#lain the high BCL2>BJF$- ratios -y remo-ili%ation re7uires that significant 7uantities of 2 were introduced into the 2 radiocenters 7uite recently< In any event* whether the hy#othesis is 2 addition or $- removal* the crucial #oint that seems 7uite difficult to e,#lain under either assum#tion is the fact that* in general* the halos around 2 sites are em-ryonic @ 7@A< That is* since it seems clear that the 2 radiocenters formed during the initial introduction of 2 and if this were as long ago as the Triassic or /urassic are generally thought to -e< then there should -e evident not only fully develo#ed* -ut overe,#osed 2 halos as well @78A< Clearly* it was im#ortant to determine whether these #henomena were characteristic only of the 28 rich Colorado $lateau coalified wood @7* 0A< 3e therefore initiated studies on coalified wood fragments which are occasionally found in the Chattanooga shale @0* 88* 77A< Thus far only em-ryonic halos have -een seen* and the BCL2>BJF$- ratios are much too high @_4JCA to correlate with the geological age of the formation @'evonianA< The low 2 content of the Chattanooga shale @4 to EJ #arts #er millionA ma es it 7uite difficult to see how 2 remo-ili%ation could account for these

very high isoto#e ratios< Thus the evidence does not a##ear to su##ort the remo-ili%ation hy#othesis as a general e,#lanation of these unusual BCL2>BJF$- ratios in either the Colorado $lateau or Chattanooga shale s#ecimens<

Fig- 3- @aA Circular B4J$o halo @U BEJA< @-A Com#ressed B4J$o halos @U BEJA< @cA Circular and com#ressed B4J$o halo @U BEJA<

If remo-ili%ation is not the e,#lanation* then these ratios raise some crucial 7uestions a-out the validity of #resent conce#ts regarding the anti7uity of these geological formations and a-out the time re7uired for coalification< Finally* in addition to again focusing attention on the 7uestion of the origin of $o halos in minerals @1* 8@A* the e,istence of 28derived single and dual $o halos in different formations suggests that the original source of 2 may have -een a $recam-rian ore de#osit that was geogra#hically not far removed from the #resent Colorado $lateau< Thus* in view of America:s energy re7uirements* it might -e #rofita-le to search for such an ore de#osit -y dee# drilling into selected areas around and within the Colorado $lateau< R"+ERT ;< )ENTR= Chemistry Bivision" ?a# =idge National *aboratory" ?a# =idge" $ennessee 0L90@ 3ARNER &< C&RISTIE 'A;I' &< S(IT&

/< F< E(ER= S< A< RE=N"0'S RA=("N' 3A0HER Analytical Chemistry Bivision" ?a# =idge National *aboratory S< S< CRIST= *aboratory Bevelopment Bivision" F+87 /lant" ?a# =idge National *aboratory $< A< )ENTR= Columbia >nion College" $a#oma /ar#" %aryland 7@@87

References and ,otes

4< /< /edwa-* Coal Science @American Chemical Society* 3ashington* '<C<* 45FFA< B< I< A< +reger* in )ormation of >ranium ?re Beposits* $roceedings of a Sym#osium* Athens* F84J (ay 456D @International Atomic Energy Agency* ;ienna* 456DA* ##< 5584BD< C< I< A< +reger donated Colorado $lateau coalified wood s#ecimens from the following mines: @iA /urassic.$eanut and ;irgin No< C* ColoradoK Corvusite* 2tahK and $oison Canyon* New (e,icoK @iiA Triassic.0uc y Stri e No< B* 'irty 'evil No< B* Adams* and North (esa No< 5* all in 2tahK and @iiiA Eocene.'ocamour* Colorado< /< S< 0evinthal #rovided 4F other s#ecimens< &owever* only those from the Ra1ah D5 mine NSalt 3ash mem-er of the (orrison Formation @/urassicAO were sufficiently well #reserved to e,hi-it halos< The Chattanooga shale coalified wood @'evonianA* which came from near Nashville* Tennessee* was donated -y I< A< +reger and ;< E< Swanson< +reger:s analysis of this coalified wood yielded J<JJ4 to 4F #ercent 2* ED to LD #ercent C* C to 6<E #ercent &* J<C to 4<L #ercent N* F to CL #ercent "* and J<F to 4D<E #ercent S< E,ce#t where stated* all e,#erimental results refer to wor on Colorado $lateau coalified wood @Triassic and /urassic formationsA< A thin section of a coalified wood s#ecimen @earlier o-tained from I< A< +regerA was #rovided -y /< /edwa- and was used along with +reger:s other s#ecimens< Although #ersonal communications with +reger and /edwa#roved of great value* this in no way im#lies that either /edwa- or +reger necessarily concurs with the results #resented here< D< R< ;< )entry< Annu. =ev. Nucl. Sci. 23, CD6 @456CA< The halo in Fig< 4a would e,tend another BJ Mm if fully develo#ed< E< C< A< Andersen and /< R< &inthorne< Science 1#!, LEC @456BA< F< R< ;< )entry* ibid. 1$ , FB @456DA< 6< If the a##ro#riate formulas N)< Friedlander* /< 3< Hennedy* /< (< (iller* Nuclear and Radiochemistry @3iley* New =or * ed< B* 45FDA* ##< 5E85LO are used for com#uting N8ranges in various solids* the ranges of a E<C8(ev N8#article in coalified wood Nsee @0AO of density 4<C and 4<F g>cmC would -e C4 and BE Mm res#ectively< 2niform shrin age of the matri, could also reduce the radius< L< )< &< &enderson* /roc. =. Soc. *ondon Ser. A 1#3, BEJ @45CJA< 5< R< ;< )entry* Science 1"0, 4BBL @45FLA< 4J<YYYYYY< Nature .*ondon3 2!2, EFD @456DAK ibid. 2!$, BF5 @456EA< 44<This occurrence of $o halos refers to the Colorado $lateau coalified wood< 4B<0< R< Stieff* T< 3< Stern* R< )< (il ey* >.S. ;eol. Surv. Circ. 7L8 @45ECA<

4C<'ual halos have thus far -een found in s#ecimens from the North (esa No< 5 mine in 2tah and the ;irgin No< C and Ra1ah D5 mines Nsee @0AO< 4D<The coloration #attern of the dual halo #rovides the ey to understanding its rarity< If 2 with its daughters were concurrently flushed out of some $recam-rian ore de#osit* even with a relatively short transit time from the ore de#osit to the wood* e7uili-rium conditions still re7uire that more than EJ times as much B4J$- as B4J$o -e availa-le for accumulation< If the wood e,hi-ited constant sensitivity to N8induced coloration* then the outer circular halo resulting from B4J$- accumulation would -e e,#ected to -e much dar er than the elli#tical halo resulting from B4J$o accumulation< The fact that 1ust the o##osite is true is in good agreement with the evidence found -y /edwa- N@8A and #rivate communicationO indicating that during the 2 infiltration the gel8li e wood e,hi-ited much higher sensitivity to a induced coloration as com#ared to the later stages of coalification< $ossi-ly then* a relatively dar halo could have formed rather 7uic ly from as few as 4J D to lJE $o atoms* whereas some BJ to EJ years later the change in the coloration sensitivity of the matri, might re7uire an N8 dose EJ to several hundred times higher from the B4J$- decay se7uence to #roduce even a light halo< Thus #ossi-ly only in rare cases would the $-8Se inclusions accumulate large enough 7uantities of B4J$- to su-se7uently generate the outer circular halo< 4E<The variation in the BCL2>BJF$- ratios may -e attri-uted #rimarily to the ?old? radiogenic $com#onent and secondarily to BBFRa and B4J$-* which* in varying amounts* were also incor#orated into the 28rich radiocenters< Evidence for this ?old? radiogenic $- was also found in larger* millimeter8si%e 28rich regions which also contained varying amounts of Na* Al* H* Ca* Ti* ;* Fe* =* Zr* +a* and the rare earths< Such regions e,hi-it varia-le @-ut not very highA 2>$- ratios and very little common $-< 4F<'< &< Smith* 3< &< Christie* &< S< (cHown* R< 0< 3al er* )< R< &ertel* Int. C. %ass Spectrom. Ion /hys. 10, CDC @456B8456CA< 46<R< $< Fischer* in /roceedings of the International Conference on the /eaceful >ses of Atomic <nergy" ;eneva" August 82KK @2nited Nations* New =or * 45EFA* vol< F* #< FJEK <con. ;eol. "!, 66L @456JA< 4L<S< C< 0ind and C< F< 3hittemore* >.S. &ur. %ines $ech. /ap. 99 @454EA* #< 4K T< 3< Stern and 0< R< Stieff* >.S. ;eol. Surv. /rof. /ap. 07@ @45E5A* #< 4E4K /< N< Rosholt* in /roceedings of the Second >.N. International Conference on the /eaceful >ses of Atomic <nergy" ;eneva" September 82K9 @2nited Nations* New =or * 45ELA* vol< B* #< BC4< 45<Nondestructive P8ray s#ectrometry was utili%ed to chec on 2 dise7uili-rium in gram8si%e s#ecimens of the Colorado $lateau coalified wood< 3e found significant differences in the P8 s#ectra that could reasona-ly -e attri-uted to 2 dise7uili-rium< +y removing micro#ortions of 28rich areas and #hysically smearing the material onto steel #lanchets for N8counting* we o-served one N8s#ectra that unam-iguously indicated 2 dise7uili-rium -etween BCD2 and BCJ Th* or BCJTh and BBFRa* or -oth< E,cess N8activity in the k D<68(ev region was not attri-uted to e,cess BCD2 -ecause mass s#ectrometry measurements on a se#arate s#ecimen showed an e7uili-rium BCL2>BCD2 value< BJ<0ess than B<E #ercent of the halos with 2 radio8centers have any trace of an outer ring< It is difficult to associate these with se7uential N8decay from BCL2 -ecause such wea rings do not correlate with the 2 content< These wea rings may have resulted from diffusion of N8 radioactivity out of the radiocenter #rior to induration of the halo region -y the N8 radioactivity< Alternatively* these wea rings may have resulted from the accumulation of

small amounts of BBBRn* B4D$-* or BBFRa< In fact* the si%e of the dar halo region around the 28 rich sites admits of the #ossi-ility that the inner halos may have formed from the accumulation of minute amounts of BBFRa or B4J$-* or -oth< Their more diffuse radiocenters* however* would #revent the formation of well8defined -oundaries as in the case of the $-8Se inclusions< B4<This would -e true even if coalified wood is only 4>4J as sensitive to N8coloration as -iotite< BB<I< A< +reger and /< (< Scho#f* ;eochim. Cosmochim. Acta #, CL6 @45EEAK ;< E< Swanson* >.S. ;eol. Surv. /rof. /ap. 0@@ @45EFA* #< DE4< /< /edwa- informed me of halos in this material< BC<I than I< A< +reger* /< S< 0evinthal* ;< E< Swanson* and /< /edwa- for su##lying coalified wood s#ecimens< Research s#onsored -y the Energy Research and 'evelo#ment Administration under contract with 2nion Car-ide Cor#oration* and -y Colum-ia 2nion College under NSF research grant 'ES 6D8BCDE4< 4E Se#tem-er 456E* revised CJ /une 456F

70 First 1etter fro( ,ational &cience Fo'ndation

NATI"NA0 SCIENCE F"2N'ATI"N 3AS&IN)T"N* '<C< BJEEJ 'ivision of Earth Sciences /uly 44* 4566 'r< Ro-ert ;< )entry 'ear 'r< )entry: This is in answer to your letter of /une B6* re7uesting #anel review comments on your #ro#osal @EAR664CD5FA< The #anel review comments were not included in the declination letter -ecause according to our rules that letter must go out first and then -e followed -y the comments* if re7uested< 3hat I have done -elow is to give you the general nature of the #anel discussion* -ased on my notes at the time* my memory of the discussion* and a short @two sentenceA recommendation #ut on ta#e -y the Chairman of the )eochemistry $anel< 3e do not ta#e the whole discussion< &ere it is: (uch of the #anel discussion centered on the general significance of the occurrence of ?radioactive haloes? @-oth giant and dwarfA and the techni7ues the #rinci#al investigator has used to investigate them< The #anel considers the occurrence of haloes of interest* -ut not of #rime im#ortance to geochemistry< "ne as#ect of the #ast research was to try to detect ?su#erheavy? elements in the mineral nucleii of giant haloes* and a tentative identification of su#erheavies was shown to -e incorrect< The #anel felt that the #rinci#al investigator and his colleagues handled the release of information concerning su#erheavy element detection 1udiciously . i<e<* in an o-1ective and straightforward manner with no sensationalism @which could have ha##ened considering the #otential scientific im#ortance of the discoveryA< &owever* the #anel did fault the #rinci#al investigator and his colleagues for the techni7ues used to try to detect su#erheavy elements< The initial method of an M8ray fluorescence attachment on a scanning electron microsco#e should have -een nown not to have the sensitivity< The tentative identification of elements with an atomic num-er near BF resulted from using the #roton induced M8ray emission method< The signal that resulted in the tentative identification of these elements has now -een attri-uted with some confidence to a Ce @#* n PA nuclear reaction rather than M8ray fluorescence from elements with an atomic num-er of around 4BF< The #anel felt that the #rinci#al investigator and his colleagues should have chec ed out all such #ossi-le reactions -efore #u-lication -ecause mona%ite @the mineral inclusion of the center of the haloA is a mineral nown to contain large amounts of cerium and other rare earth elements< The #rinci#al investigator #ro#oses a continuation of the search for su#erheavy elements< The #anel felt that there is little #ossi-ility of their detection -y the #ro#osed techni7ues< The most im#ortant criticism of the #ro#osal did not* however* have to do with su#erheavy element detection< The criticism stemmed from the general nature of the #ro#osed research on haloes< The #rinci#al investigator has -een collecting s#ecimens* e,amining them #etrogra#hically* and re#orting their mor#hology and mineral occurrence for a num-er of years< The #anel considered

that these descri#tive contri-utions have -een of some value* -ut felt that more of the same a##roach had little #otential to contri-ute something new< The main difficulty with the #ro#osal is that @aside from the su#erheavy element searchA there was no hy#othesis concerning the origin of the haloes that the #rinci#al investigator #ro#osed to test< &e has already loo ed at and descri-ed a num-er of occurrences< The #anel felt that it was not 1ustified in recommending funding of a research #ro1ect that merely #ro#osed to ma e additional o-servations of the #henomenon< There seems little #ossi-ility that the #rinci#al investigator could arrive at a hy#othesis -y loo ing at additional haloes since he has not -een a-le to #ro#ose one at this time< In summary* the #anel considers giant and dwarf haloes to -e of some geochemical interest* -ut feels that the #ro#osed research was not li ely to ma e significant additional contri-utions to our nowledge of their origin< I ho#e that this outline of the #anel discussion will -e of use to you in your consideration of any future #ro#osal you may want to su-mit< Sincerely yours*

Co#y to: (r< )ordon E< +ulloc +usiness (anager Colum-ia 2nion College

/ohn &ower $rogram 'irector for )eochemistry

73 &econd 1etter fro( ,ational &cience Fo'ndation

NATI"NA0 SCIENCE F"2N'ATI"N 3AS&IN)T"N* '<C< BJEEJ

Se#tem-er 4E* 4566

"FFICE "F T&E ASSISTANT 'IRECT"R F"R ASTR"N"(ICA0* AT("S$&ERIC* EART&* AN' "CEAN SCIENCES

'r< Ro-ert ;< )entry 'ear 'r< )entry: I am writing to res#ond to your letter of August BF* 4566* re7uesting reconsideration of the Foundation:s earlier decision to decline your #ro#osal* ?Nuclear )eochemistry of Radiohalos*? @EAR 6684CD5FA* as #rovided for in the Foundation:s Im#ortant Notice No< F4< I re7uested a Section &ead who is not a #art of the 'ivision of Earth Sciences to analy%e the #ro#osal 1ac et* to study the reviews* and to discuss the decision with me< Following his re#ort to me* I have reviewed the documents in the case myself< It is my conclusion that your #ro#osal received a thorough and fair #eer review through the )eochemistry $rogram "ffice* a review that included a conscientious and careful consideration of si, ad hoc mail reviews< As #art of the reconsideration #rocess your re-uttal to those reviews has -een considered also< It is my o#inion that your #ro#osal was fairly reviewed and that the decision to decline was 1ustified< I would #oint out to you that under the terms of Im#ortant Notice No< F4 you are entitled to ma e a further a##eal to the 'e#uty 'irector< =ou are also invited to revise or e,tend your thoughts for the su-mission of a new #ro#osal at any time< Sincerely yours*

Co#y to: +usiness (anager Colum-ia 2nion College

Edward $< Todd Acting Assistant 'irector

714 ,ational &cience Fo'ndation's 1etter to 2?&? Rep? <al#er

NATI"NA0 SCIENCE F"2N'ATI"N 3AS&IN)T"N* '<C< BJEEJ /une 46* 45LB

"FFICE "F T&E ASSISTANT 'IRECT"R F"R ASTR"N"(ICA0* AT("S$&ERIC* EART&* AN' "CEAN SCIENCES

&onora-le Ro-ert S< 3al er &ouse of Re#resentatives 3ashington* '<C< BJE4E 'ear (r< 3al er: Than you for your memo to (r< Raymond +ye* /r< of (ay 4B and the enclosed letter from (r< 0eroy Anderson of 'enver* $ennsylvania< +oth of these are enclosed with this re#ly< (r< Anderson is correct when he states in his letter that 'r< Ro-ert )entry is the world:s leading authority on the o-servation and measurement of anomolous radio8active haloes< +ecause of his recogni%ed ca#a-ilities* 'r< )entry:s research was funded -y the Foundation during the early 456J:s< In 4566* however* a #ro#osal #resented -y 'r< )entry was declined< A co#y of the #ertinent corres#ondence is enclosed< That action was -ased u#on the recommendations of si, of his #eer scientists* who found that the #ro#osal did not measure u# to either 'r< )entry:s earlier standards* as evidenced -y his #reviously successful #ro#osals* or to the standards of the Foundation< Following the declination* 'r< )entry re7uested a formal reconsideration of his #ro#osal< The #rocedures to -e followed in such a situation are set forth in the enclosed NSF Circular No< 4B6 @revised August 45LJA< The outcome of the reconsideration was that the decision to decline was sustained< A co#y of the letter informing 'r< )entry of that decision is enclosed< The #ro#osal to which your constituent* (r< Anderson* refers was su-mitted in 4565< It was reviewed -y mail -y si, of 'r< )entry:s #eer scientists and -y a #anel of si, additional scientists< +ased u#on the recommendations of these twelve nowledgea-le #ersons* the #ro#osed research was declined in A#ril 45LJ< A co#y of the corres#ondence is enclosed< $lease note that in each letter to 'r< )entry he has -een invited to resu-mit his #ro#osed research ideas< The funding #rocess within the NSF is com#etitive for each su-mission of a #ro#osal< The fact that a #ro#oser has a grant in force does not -ear u#on whether he will -e awarded a new grant< Each offering must stand on its own merit< 3e will -e #leased to review and evaluate a #ro#osal from 'r< )entry at any time< I assure you that any su-mission will -e given a fair* honest and o#en a##raisal -y his #eers and that if they 1udge his ideas as worthy of su##ort* he will -e funded< 3e a##reciate your interest in the Foundation:s #rograms and will -e #leased to su##ly you with

further information if you wish< Sincerely yours*

Enclosures

Francis S< /ohnson Assistant 'irector

711 ,ational &cience Fo'ndation's 1etter to 2?&? Rep? 1ago(arsino

NATI"NA0 SCIENCE F"2N'ATI"N 3AS&IN)T"N* '<C< BJEEJ

Fe-ruary 4D* 45LC

"FFICE "F T&E ASSISTANT 'IRECT"R F"R ASTR"N"(ICA0* AT("S$&ERIC* EART&* AN' "CEAN SCIENCES

&onora-le Ro-ert /< 0agomarsino &ouse of Re#resentatives 3ashington* '<C< BJE4E 'ear (r< 0agomarsino: I am re#lying to your letter of /anuary B6* 45LC* in which you as ed a-out NSF:s handling of a research #ro#osal from 'r< Ro-ert )entry of Colum-ia 2nion College< All NSF funding decisions are -ased on a #rocess of #eer review which involves mail reviews -y several e,#erts in the field and* in many cases* further consideration -y a #anel of scientists from outside NSF< "nly a-out half of the #ro#osals we receive can -e funded< Criteria used are stated in our -oo let ?)rants for Scientific and Engineering Research? @NSF L4865* co#y of relevant #age enclosedA< The holding of unorthodo, scientific views is not a -arrier to the recei#t of NSF su##ort* and the -est evidence for this is the fact that during the 456J:s NSF funded several of 'r< )entry:s #ro#osals including one for IED*5JJ for the study of ?Nuclear )eo#hysics of Radiohalos<? $lease reassure your constituent that NSF funding decisions are -ased on well identified criteria and that 'r< )entry:s views have not -een a -arrier to his receiving NSF su##ort< Sincerely yours*

Enclosures

Francis S< /ohnson Assistant 'irector

71! 5ifferential 1ead Retention in ;ircons

Re#rint Series 4F A#ril 45LB* ;olume B4F* ##< B5F8B5L .C4&3C&

5ifferential 1ead Retention in ;ircons: /(plications for ,'clear <aste Contain(ent

Ro-ert ;< )entry* Thomas /< Swors i* &enry S< (cHown* 'avid &< Smith* R< E< E-y* and 3< &< Christie Co#yright j 45LB -y the American Association for the Advancement of Science A;stract- An innovative ultrasensitive techni ue was used for lead isotopic analysis of individual 5ircons e'tracted from granite core samples at depths of 21@" 78L@" 72@@" 020@" and J08@ meters. $he results show that lead" a relatively mobile element compared to the nuclear waste+related actinides uranium and thorium" has been highly retained at elevated temperatures .8@KU to 080UC3 under conditions relevant to the burial of synthetic roc# waste containers in deep granite holes. 3e re#ort here the measurement of $- isoto#e ratios of whole* undissolved %ircons* which were loaded directly onto the rhenium filament of a thermal ioni%ation mass s#ectrometer< This innovation eliminates the $- contamination introduced in standard chemical dissolution #rocedures< +y using this techni7ue* we were a-le to measure contamination8free $- isoto#e ratios on single* microsco#ic @k EJ to 6E dmA %ircon crystals* which we estimate contained only k J<B to J<E mg of $-< 3e a##lied this ultralow8level detection method to study the differential retention of $in %ircons @ZrSi"D A e,tracted from $recam-rian granite core sam#les @8A ta en from de#ths of 5FJ* B46J* B5JJ* C5CJ* and DC4J m< These de#ths corres#ond to #resently recorded tem#eratures of 4JEX* 4E4X* 456X* B66X* and C4CXC* res#ectively @7A< 3e measured a-out the same BJF$->BJ6$- ratio for %ircons from all five de#ths* and we found that the total num-er of $- counts measured #er individual %ircon was* to the limit of our e,#erimental #rocedures* inde#endent of de#th< Ta en together* these results strongly suggest that there has -een little or no differential $- loss* which can -e attri-uted to the higher tem#eratures e,isting at greater de#ths< As discussed -elow* this evidence for high $- retention under adverse environmental conditions a##ears to have immediate and #ractical a##lication to the 7uestion of long8term containment of ha%ardous nuclear wastes< Sam#les of granite @7A from 0os Alamos National 0a-oratory drill holes )T8B and EE8B from all five de#ths were individually crushed and then #assed through different heavy li7uid @methylene iodideA se#aratory funnels to o-tain the high8density fraction containing the %ircons< This #rocedure was re#eated several times with different sam#les from each de#th< The high8density fraction was then washed thoroughly with acetone to eliminate the methylene iodide residue -efore -eing #laced on a standard 4 -y C inch glass microsco#e slide< 2nder a #olari%ing microsco#e* the %ircons were #ic ed out of the high8density fraction with a fine8ti##ed needle and then loaded either onto #yrolytic gra#hite dis s for ion micro#ro-e analysis or onto ;8sha#ed rhenium filaments* which were mechanically com#ressed -efore mass s#ectrometric measurements< @Surficial residues on the %ircons -urned off at tem#eratures well -elow that used to measure $- from within the %ircons<A Some %ircons were analy%ed -y ,8ray fluorescence -efore mass analysis< "ur efforts to measure lead isoto#e ratios in %ircons with an A##lied Research 0a-oratory ion micro#ro-e failed -ecause of molecular ion interferences< 3e then concentrated on determining

relative a-undances of 2* Th* and Zr* using mostly an 4F"b #rimary ion -eam< Ion count rates were o-tained on the 5JZr`* BCBTh"`* and BCL2"` #ea s< The data were then 7uantified with sensitivity factors o-tained from si, different National +ureau of Standards glass standards containing Zr* Th* and 2< Two or three %ircons from three de#ths were analy%ed* and usually four determinations were made from each %ircon< Fre7uently* there were significant differences in the 2 and Th concentrations from two different locations on the same %ircon< The results are given in Ta-le 4 as a range of values o-tained from each %ircon< Kirco( depth G5H 6h Gpp5 ato5icH = Gpp5 ato5icH

DC4J DJ8LE 4BE8B4J DC4J FC846E 44J8EEJ C5CJ FC84BJ LC8BBJ C5CJ FJ85J 5J844J 5FJ BBJ86EJ DFE844CJ 5FJ 4JJ8B6E 4BEJ8CCJJ 5FJ LJJ8BJJJ BDJ8ECJJ 6a;le 1- Ion micro#ro-e determinations of 2 and Th concentration ranges in atomic #arts #er million on se#arate %ircons from 5FJ* C5CJ* and DC4J m< Calculations were -ased on a com#arison of BCL2"`* BCBTh"`* and Zr` #ea si%es and on the assum#tion that the %ircons were #ure ZrSi"D<

The most im#ortant results came from the thermal ioni%ation e,#eriments< The thermal ioni%ation mass s#ectrometer used in this wor is similar to others descri-ed #reviously @0A< It has a single magnet with 5JX deflection and a CJ8cm central radius of curvature< It is e7ui##ed with a #ulse8 counting detection system to allow com#lete isoto#ic analyses to -e made on small 7uantities@g4 ngA of suita-le elements ioni%ed from a single filament< The filaments* made of ;8sha#ed rhenium foil J<FD cm long and J<JL cm dee# @JA* were -a ed out at BJJJXC -efore loading the %ircons< Ions are formed -y resistive heating of the filamentK ty#ical tem#eratures for this wor were 4DJJX to 4D6JXC @uncorrected #yrometer readingsA< $revious wor done to develo# a techni7ue for analy%ing small lead sam#les led to the use of silica gel to enhance ioni%ation efficiency @KA< +ecause individual %ircons are chemically somewhat similar to silica* we decided to try to analy%e lead from individual %ircons loaded directly on the rhenium filament< Such a techni7ue would have several advantages over traditional methods: contamination would -e essentially eliminated -ecause no chemical se#aration would -e re7uired and* since the %ircons are small @k EJ dm in diameterA* they would #rovide an a##ro,imate #oint source of ions* which is nown to o#timi%e ion8o#tical conditions in the mass s#ectrometer @ 1A< Test e,#eriments with %ircons from other localities @LA were uniformly successfulK ion signals were o-served at masses @mA BJF* BJ6* and BJL which could definitely -e ascri-ed to $- isoto#es< To hel# ensure that we were at the correct ion lens conditions* we focused on the 4CL+a"` #ea @the %ircons contained some +aA* which was reasona-ly intense at 4BJJXC< Surficial residues left on the %ircons after the acetone wash -urned off -efore the o#erating tem#erature of 4DEJXC* where the lead signal

was measured< )reat care had to -e e,ercised to avoid ma ing the tem#erature too highK very ra#id eva#oration of the lead occurred only a little a-ove the o#erating tem#erature< Ty#ical count rates were 4JJ to CJJJ counts #er second for BJF$-`< Traces of thallium @m R BJC and BJEA were sometimes o-served* -ut -urned out more ra#idly than the lead< "ther than thallium* lead gave the only su-stantive #ea s in the range m R BJB to B4J< There was* however* a general -ac ground generated -y the sam#leK chemically unse#arated sam#les such as these %ircons almost always yield such -ac grounds< This -ac ground has little effect on the BJF* BJ6* and BJL #ea s* -ut made #recise measurement of the BJD$- signal* which was very small* im#ossi-le< For e,am#le* in an analysis ty#ical of these e,#eriments* 4<F U 4JE counts from BJF$- were collectedK the -ac ground correction was a-out DJ counts and* after correction* 4L counts remained at mass BJD< Although these counts are listed as BJD$- counts in Ta-le B* more wor is needed to determine how much may -e uncom#ensated -ac ground< Ta-le B shows the results of our mass analyses of filaments loaded with single and multi#le %ircons from five granite cores< The range of BJF$->BJL$- values reflects the fact that this ratio varied from one grou# of %ircons to another* and sometimes varied during measurements on a single %ircon< These variations are not sur#rising in view of the ion micro#ro-e analyses* which showed significant 2>Th variations at different #oints on a single %ircon @BCBTh decays to BJL$- and BCL2 decays to BJF$-A< These varia-le BJF$->BJL$- ratios do not furnish any direct information on differential $- retention in these %ircons< For that #ur#ose* it is generally acce#ted that the Radiogenic BJF$->BJ6$- ratios derived from BCL2>BCE2 decay are more s#ecific< 3e note that Zartman:s @9A isoto#ic measurements of $-* which was chemically e,tracted from %ircons ta en from the )T8B core at B5JJ m* yield an ad1usted BJF$->BJ6$- ratio @2A that a##ro,imates our ratios< In a conventional chemical e,traction of lead from %ircons* the lead measured in the mass analysis is considered to -e a com-ination of radiogenic lead @from 2 and Th decayA and nonradiogenic lead @from common lead contamination and from some initial lead in the %irconA< The radiogenic com#onent is o-tained -y su-tracting out a nonradiogenic com#onent #ro#ortional to the amount of BJD$-< In our e,#eriments* however* the direct loading #rocedure virtually eliminated the common lead contamination* and we circumvented the need to ma e ad1ustments for initial lead in the %ircons -y acce#ting only analyses @8@A showing a ratio of BJD$- to total $- of less than B U 4JbC< Thus the BJF$->BJ6$- ratios shown in Ta-le B re#resent highly radiogenic lead and hence are #otential indicators of $- retention< 3e consider that the most im#ortant o-servations on the data in Ta-le B are: @iA the fact that the BJF$->BJ6$- ratios on single %ircons closely a##ro,imate the ratio o-tained when a grou# of similar %ircons was loaded simultaneously on a single filament* @iiA the relative uniformity of the BJF $->BJ6$- ratios for %ircons from all de#ths* and @iiiA the fact that the total num-er of $- counts #er %ircon @the counts in column D of Ta-le B divided -y the #roduct of columns B and CA shows no systematic decrease with de#th* as would -e e,#ected if differential $- loss had occurred at higher tem#eratures< Ta en together* items @iiA and @iiiA #rovide strong evidence for high $- retention in %ircons even for a #rolonged #eriod in an environment at an elevated tem#erature< These results have #ossi-le im#lications for long8term nuclear waste dis#osal<

Averag e Kirco( Fila5e(t 6otal 9irco(s depth s P; per G5H a(aly9ed co'(ts fila5e( t 5FJ 5FJ B46J B5JJ C5CJ C5CJ DC4J DC4J D D C C B B 6 B k 4J 4 kE kD k 4J 4 k 4J 4 4<B U 4JF 4<C U 4JE L<5 U 4JE D<4 U 4JE F<E U 4JE L<J U 4JD E<F U 4JD 4<F U 4JE

Co'(t Average Ra(ge 20 P;F s 20"P;F 20"P;F of total P; 20$P; 20$P; 20 P; BCE CE BF5 44D 4CB DF 4DJJ 4JJ B U 4JbD B<6 U 4JbD 5<F ] J<C F<E85<B 5<5 ] J<D E<L84D

C U 4JbD 4J<J ] J<D F<D84B<D B<L U 4JbD 44<B ] J<C D844<D B U 4JbD 44<J ] J<D E<58L<6 E<L U 4JbD 4J<D ] J<4 C<48F<5 B<E U 4JbD F U 4JbD 5<6 ] J<F C<D85<L 5<L ] J<D D<E84J<6

6a;le 2- Results of thermal ioni%ation mass measurements for %ircons with a BJD $->total $- ratio of less than B U 4JbC< The -ac ground correction was ta en from the BJL<E mass #ositionK it was a##lied to the raw data to o-tain the isoto#ic a-undances* which were used to com#ute the isoto#ic ratios< Standard deviations are listed with the $- isoto#ic ratios<

For e,am#le* Ringwood @88* 87A has suggested that highly radiation8damaged minerals that have successfully retained 2* Th* and $- @80A over a significant fraction of earth history might also serve to immo-ili%e high8level nuclear waste in synthetic roc @S=NR"CA containers* which could -e -uried in dee# granite holes< Even though %ircons are not envisioned as #art of Ringwood:s s#ecial ty#e of synthetic roc waste container* our results are relevant since they show that $-* which is much more mo-ile in %ircons than 2 and Th @87* 8JA* has -een highly retained at de#ths @5FJ to DC4J mA which more than s#an the #ro#osed -urial de#ths @4JJJ to CJJJ mA for synthetic roc containers in granite @88A< The inclusion of this elevated tem#erature effect in our sam#les means that our results #rovide data which have heretofore -een unavaila-le in su##ort of nuclear waste containment in dee# granite< In addition* the contamination8free method we used to analy%e the %ircons for radiogenic $- may #rove valua-le in searching for other minerals suita-le for synthetic roc waste containment< +ecause it has -een suggested that tem#eratures in the granite formation are rising @ 8KA* we do not now #recisely how long the %ircons have -een e,#osed to the #resent tem#eratures< &owever* -y using diffusion theory and the measured diffusion coefficient of $- in %ircon @81A* we can estimate future loss of $- -y diffusion in synthetic roc 8enca#sulated %ircons -uried at the #ro#osed de#ths of 4JJJ to CJJJ m @88A if we assume a tem#erature #rofile similar to that in the drill holes< At a -urial de#th of CJJJ m @k BJJXCA* we calculate that it would ta e E U 4J4J years for 4 #ercent of the $- to diffuse out of a EJ8dm crystal< At BBJJ m @k 4EJXCA it would ta e 6<D U 4J4C years* and at 4JJJ m @k

4JJXCA it would ta e 6<6 U 4J46 years for 4 #ercent loss to occur @81A< Since all these values greatly e,ceed the 4JE to 4JF years estimated for waste activity to -e reduced to a safe level @88A* and since* as noted earlier* 2 and Th are -ound even more tightly than $- in %ircons @ 87* 8JA* our results a##ear to lend considera-le su##ort to the synthetic roc conce#t of nuclear waste containment in dee# granite holes< Ro-ert ;< )entry[ Thomas /< Swors i

Chemistry Bivision" ?a# =idge National *aboratory" ?a# =idge" $ennessee 0L90@

&enry S< (cHown 'avid &< Smith R< E< E-y 3< &< Christie Analytical Chemistry Bivision" ?a# =idge National *aboratory

Refere(ces a(d 3otes

4< A< 3< 0aughlin and A< Eddy* *os Alamos Sci. *ab. =ep. *A+120@+%S @4566A< A< 3< 0aughlin #rovided the core sam#les used in this wor < B< R< 0aney and A< 3< 0aughlin* ;eophys. =es. *ett. $* EJ4 @45L4A< C< '< &< Smith* 3< &< Christie* &< S< (cHown* R< 0< 3al er* )< R< &ertel* Int. C. %ass Spectrom. Ion /hys. 10* CDC @456BA< D< 3< &< Christie and A< E< Cameron* =ev. Sci Instrum. 3#* CCF @45FFA< E< A< E< Cameron* '< &< Smith* R< 0< 3al er* Anal. Chem 1* EBE @45F5A< F< '< &< Smith* 3< &< Christie< R< E< E-y* Int. C. %ass Spectrum" Ion /hys. 3"* CJ4 @45LJA< 6< "< Ho## and &< (cSween of the 'e#artment of )eological Sciences* 2niversity of Tennessee* Hno,ville* #rovided %ircons from )1erstad* NorwayK "a,aca* (e,icoK and &enderson County* North Carolina< L< R< E< Zartman* *os Alamos Sci. *ab. =ep. *A+L270+%S @4565A< 5< If the BJD$- in Zartman:s @9A $- isoto#ic a-undances in his %ircons is attri-uted to common lead* the corrected BJF$->BJ6$- ratio for the %ircons from B5JJ m is 44<JC< 4J<This criterion resulted in the re1ection of four single %ircon analyses whose average BJF $->BJ6$- ratio was L<L ] 4<C< These lower ratios im#ly that some %ircons contain more initial $- than others* as noted in some other runs< 44<A< E< Ringwood* Safe Bisposal of ,igh *evel Nuclear =eactor 4astes: A New Strategy @Australian National 2niv< $ress* Can-erra* 456LA< 4B<A< E< Ringwood* H< '< Reeve* /< '< Tewhey* in Scientific &asis for Nuclear 4aste %anagement* /< )< (oore* Ed< @$lenum* New =or * 45L4A* vol< C* #< 4D6< 4C<;< (< "vers-y and A< E< Ringwood* C. 4aste %anage.* in #ress< See also A< E< Ringwood* *awrence *ivermore Natl. *ab. =ep. >C=*+8K0JL @45L4A< 4D<R< T< $idgeon* /< ":Neill* 0< Silver* Science 1! * 4ECL @45FFAK )ortschr. %ineral. !0, 44L @456CA< 4E<'< )< +roo ins* R< +< For-es* '< 0< Turner* A< 3< 0aughlin* C< 3< Naeser* *os Alamos Sci. *ab.

=ep. *A+1972+%S @4566A< 4F<In general* if = is the gas constant* $ is the a-solute tem#erature* and B and H are* res#ectively* the diffusion coefficient and activation energy of a certain nuclide in a given diffusing medium* then B R BJ ebH>=$ where BJ is a tem#erature8inde#endent #arameter< In #articular* if CJ is the initial concentration of that nuclide within a s#here of radius a* then the average nuclide concentration C within that s#here at some later time t is given -y

Nsee 0< "< Nicolaysen* ;eochim. Cosmochim. Acta 11* D4@45E6AO< 3e used measured values of BJ B<B U 4JbB and H R EL cal>mole for diffusion of $- in %ircon Nsee Sh< A< (agomedov* )eo himiya 2, BFC @456JAO and a com#uter #rogram to calculate the times when C>CJ R J<55 for $ R 4JJX* 4EJX* and BJJXC< 46<Research s#onsored -y the 2<S< 'e#artment of Energy* 'ivision of +asic Energy Sciences* under contract 386DJE8eng8BF with the 2nion Car-ide Cor#oration< [ ;isiting scientist from Colum-ia 2nion College* Ta oma $ar * (d< BJ44B< C Novem-er 45L4K revised BB /anuary 45LB

71$ &enator &asser's 1etter to the 5ept? of nergy

/I( SASSER
TENNESSEE C"((ITTEES:

A$$R"$RIATI"NS +2')ET )";ERN(ENTA0 AFFAIRS SE0ECT C"((ITTEE "N S(A00 +2SINESS

=(ited .tates .e(ate

,ashi(gto(, 0-C- 20!10 Ca# -8, -/8E (r< 3illiam S< &effelfinger Assistant Secretary for (anagement and Administration 'e#artment of Energy /ames Forrestal +uilding 4JJJ Inde#endence Avenue* S<3< 3ashington* '<C< BJELE 'ear (r< &effelfinger:

This letter is written on -ehalf of Ro-ert ;< )entry* Associate $rofessor of $hysics at Colum-ia 2nion College and currently )uest Scientist at "a Ridge National 0a-oratory< (r< )entry has -een a )uest Scientist at "RN0 for the #ast 4C years< 'uring this time* he has #u-lished nearly BJ scientific re#orts* some of which have received national recognition< I have enclosed two #u-lished commentaries concerning (r< )entry:s wor which testify to the de#th and im#ortance of the research he has -een a-le to conduct while at "RN0< In addition* Ro-ert )entry has -een #articularly hel#ful to me and my staff on energy8 related matters* #articularly nuclear waste site selection issues< &e has #rovided valua-le evaluations and technical e,#ertise* which has assisted us in ascertaining the full im#lications of various energy #olicies< It is my understanding that (r< )entry has -een notified that his current dollar8a8year consultant contract will -e terminated on /une CJ* 45LB< I also understand that he has recently discovered new evidence relating to nuclear waste containment a-out which he would li e to conduct e,#eriments and further research< &owever* he will -e una-le to do this if his contract is terminated on schedule< I wanted to ta e this o##ortunity to -ring my interest in (r< )entry to your attention and to re7uest that he -e allowed to continue his wor at "a Ridge National 0a-oratory* if at all #ossi-le< I am sure that an e,tension of his contract would allow him to finish his research

and #re#are conclusions -ased on those e,#eriments< I would greatly a##reciate any assistance you can offer (r< )entry in this regard* and I loo forward to hearing from you at your convenience< Sincerely*

/im Sasser 2nited States Senator

71% Reply fro( 5ept? of nergy to &enator &asser

0epart5e(t of &(ergy ,ashi(gto(, 0-C- 20!$! &onora-le /im Sasser 2nited States Senate 3ashington* 'C BJE4J 'ear Senator Sasser: This is in reference to your letter dated (ay 4L* 45LB* on -ehalf of Ro-ert ;< )entry* a guest scientist at the "a Ridge National 0a-oratory @"RN0A o#erated -y 2nion Car-ide Cor#oration for the 'e#artment of Energy< At the time of his assignment at "RN0 4C years ago* (r< )entry:s su##orting s#onsor was Colum-ia 2nion College< The original #ur#ose of his research was to study #leochroic halos* an area of interest to "RN0 at that time* -ut a field of less significance to the 0a-oratory:s mission in recent years< (r< )entry:s more recent efforts in nuclear waste containment referenced in your letter are 7uite #eri#heral to the #rimary thrust of "RN0:s ongoing waste isolation #rograms< 3hen "RN0 entered into its current su-contract with (r< )entry* effective /uly 4* 45L4* it was for him to continue his own research on halos* using 0a-oratory facilities< It was antici#ated that he could finish his wor during the yearK no other wor was authori%ed under the su-contract< &e was advised in /une 45L4 that he should see other arrangements under which to #ursue his research interests -eyond /une CJ* 45LB< 'iminishing "RN0 -udgets re7uire mar ed cut-ac s in activities not directly related to its #riority #rogram areas< 2nfortunately* (r< )entry:s wor does not fall in that category< Accordingly* we cannot -e encouraging a-out an e,tension of his agreement at "RN0< Than you for your continuing interest in 'e#artment of Energy #rograms< Sincerely* 3illiam S< &effelfinger Assistant Secretary (anagement and Administration

71* 5ifferential )eli'( Retention in ;ircons 2eophysical Research @etters, Dol- %, 3o- 10, Pages 112%<1130, Octo;er 1%$2

0iffere(tial :eli'5 Rete(tio( i( Kirco(s: 45plicatio(s for 3'clear ,aste Co(tai(5e(t Ro;ert D- 2e(try,1O 2ary @- 2lish,2 a(d &ddy :- /c*ay2
1Physics 2A(alytical

0epart5e(t, Col'5;ia =(io( College, 6a+o5a Par+, /0 20012

Che5istry 0ivisio(, Oa+ Ridge 3atio(al @a;oratory, Oa+ Ridge, 63 3#$30

A-stract< A very sensitive helium lea detector was utili%ed to measure the helium li-erated from grou#s of %ircons e,tracted from si, dee# granite cores< The o-served low differential loss of gaseous helium down to B5JJ m @456XCA in these ancient $recam-rian roc s is easily attri-uta-le to the greater diffusion of &e at higher tem#eratures rather than losses due to corrosion of the %ircons< This fact strongly suggests that dee# granite -urial should -e a very safe corrosion8resistant containment #rocedure for long8term waste enca#sulation< Recent mass s#ectrometric studies @)entry* et al< 45LBA have revealed that lead has -een retained in %ircons e,tracted from dee# @5FJ m to DC4J mA granite cores where the am-ient tem#erature increases from 4JEXC to C4CXC at the greatest de#th< As a follow8 u# to those e,#eriments we now re#ort the results of differential helium retention in similar %ircons e,tracted from the same granite core sam#les which were used in the lead analyses @0aney and 0aughlin* 45L4A<

F7lso> Desear!h 7ssistant ;rofessor, ;h#si!s *e%artment, Universit# of (ennessee, Gno1ville, (@ 37/-6. Co%#ri&ht -/8E "# the 7meri!an ?eo%h#si!al Union. ;a%er num"er E4-38.. 00/4-8E76:8E:00E4--38. H3.00

The #rocedure for se#arating the %ircons from the si, different granite cores @from de#ths of 5FJ* B46J* B5JJ* CEJB* C5CJ* and DC4J mA was the same as that used in the #revious e,#eriments< The high8density fractions* o-tained -y #assing the crushed core sam#les through different methylene iodide se#arating funnels* were thoroughly washed with acetone -efore -eing #laced on a standard microsco#e slide< A fine8ti##ed needle was used to #ic out the individual %ircons with the aid of a #olari%ing microsco#e< )rou#s of these se#arated %ircons* usually a-out 4J in num-er* were then loaded onto the #latinum filament of the thermal inlet #ro-e of the mass s#ectrometer for differential helium analysis< The helium measurements were #erformed on a 0ey-old8&eraeus model F helium lea detector

that had a Chemical 'ata Systems $yrolysis unit interfaced to the test #ort< The lea detector has a detection limit of less than 4Jb4J cmC>sec when o#erating in the dynamic mode< @The instrument could have -een o#erated in a near8static mode with increased sensitivity down to klJ b44 cmC>sec of &e* -ut our e,#eriments did not necessitate this increased sensitivity<A In our initial series of measurements our s#ectrometer was cali-rated against a E @]J<EA U 4J bL cmC>sec standard &e lea < A su-se7uent recali-ration with a more #recise E @]J<EA U 4J b4J cmC>sec standard &e lea revealed the total helium li-erated during these initial measurements was slightly underestimated< The general #rocedure was to measure helium evolution from a grou# of %ircons at #rogressively higher tem#eratures of DJJXC* FJJXC* and 4JJJXC for BJ sec intervals< @$revious studies of helium diffusion @(agomedov* 456JA from %ircons indicated 4JJJXC was sufficient to li-erate the helium with an activation energy of 4E cal>mol<A 3e did not include the small amount of &e o-served at 44JJXC in the total &e summation -ecause of #ossi-le atmos#heric contamination< +etween si, and eight grou#s of %ircons were analy%ed at each de#th< Runs were re#eated at a given tem#erature until -ac ground helium levels were o-served< 'ata recordings and integration under the #ea s were done with a Nicolet 446J signal averager< The third column in Ta-le 4 shows* as a function of de#th* the total amount of &e li-erated #er dg of %ircon for %ircon grou#s com#rised of a##ro,imately e7ual8si%e @kEJ86E dmA %ircons< The fourth column in Ta-le 4 shows the ratio of the amount of &e actually measured in %ircons from any #articular de#th to the estimated amount of &e which should have accumulated in those same %ircons assuming negligi-le diffusion loss< For the %ircons ta en from a surface outcro# we assumed this ratio was one -ecause the s#ecimens we used were small fragments from the interior of larger %ircon crystals< For the other %ircons from the granite and gneiss cores* we made the assum#tion that the radiogenic $- concentration in %ircons from all de#ths was* on the average* the same as that measured @Zartman* 4565A at B5JJ m* i<e<* kLJ ##m with BJF$->BJ6$- and BJF$->BJL$- ratios of ten @)entry* et al<* 45LBK Zartman* 4565A< Since every 2 and Th derived atom of BJF$-* BJ6$-* and BJL$- re#resents L* 6* and F P8decays res#ectively* this means there should -e k6<6 atoms of &e generated for every $atom in these %ircons<

6a;le 1: The values listed -elow show first* as a function of de#th and tem#erature* the amount of helium li-erated from various grou#s of %ircons in units of 4J bL cc #er dg and second* the ratio of the amount of helium li-erated to the theoretical amount which would have -een retained assuming no diffusion loss< The near e7uality of the &e concentrations in the surface and 5FJ m de#th %ircons is not #articularly meaningful -ecause the surface %ircons were from an entirely different geological unit and dou-tless have different 28Th8$- concentrations than the %ircons from the core sam#les< .a5ple 0epth G5H Surface 5FJ B46J B5JJ CEJB C5CJ DC4J .a5ple 6e5pGPCH BJ 4JE 4E4 456 BC5 B66 C4C :e G10N$ ccFQgH L<B L<F C<F B<L 6<F U 4JbB kB U 4JbB kB U 4JbB :eG5eas'red H :eGtheoret-H 4 J<EL J<B6 J<46 4<B U 4JbB k4JbC k4JbC

Hnowledge of the %ircon mass and the a##ro#riate com#ensation factor @to account for differences in initial &e loss via near8surface P8emissionA ena-led us to calculate the theoretical amount of &e which could have accumulated assuming negligi-le diffusion loss< This com#ensating factor is necessary -ecause the larger @4EJ8BEJ dmA %ircons lost a smaller #ro#ortion of the total &e generated within the crystal via near8surface P8emission than did the smaller @DJ8EJ dmA %ircons< For the smaller %ircons we estimate as many as CJ8DJl of the P8#articles @&eA emitted within the crystal could have esca#ed initially whereas for the larger %ircons we studied only E84Jl of the total &e would have -een lost via this mechanism< The ratio of the measured to the theoretical amount of &e is shown in the last column of Ta-le 4< The uncertainties in our estimates of the %ircon masses and com#ensation factors #ro-a-ly mean these last values are good only to ]CJl< In s#ite of these uncertainties* it is 7uite evident from Ta-le 4 that the %ircons from 5FJ m seem to have retained considera-le amounts of &e* and #erha#s more significantly* differential &e loss with increasing de#th @and tem#eratureA has occurred rather slowly down to B5JJ m @456XCA -efore a #reci#itous dro# is o-served at BC5XC @CEJB mA< In fact* at #resent we are not certain whether the minute amounts of &e recorded from the dee#est %ircons @C5CJ and DC4J mA are actually residual &e in the %ircons or derived from some other source< That is* in the two dee#est %ircon grou#s @C5CJ and DC4J mA* we o-served only short -ursts of &e @kl8B secA in contrast to the #rolonged BJ sec or

more evolution of &e which was ty#ical of &e li-eration from %ircon grou#s down to and including CEJB m< In fact* it was this #rolonged &e li-eration #rofile seen in two 4EJ8BEJ dm si%e %ircon grou#s from CEJB m which convinces us that some residual &e is still tra##ed in the %ircons down to that de#th @BC5XCA< Now it was recently noted that the high retention of $- in even the dee#est granite cores had favora-le im#lications for nuclear waste containment in dee# @4JJJ to CJJJ mA granite holes @)entry* et al<* 45LBA< The rationale for these im#lications is straightforward: If %ircons* which have -een e,#osed to the same ty#e of elevated tem#erature environment antici#ated in dee# granite -urial* show no detecta-le $- loss either from higher tem#eratures or from a7ueous solution corrosion effects* then nuclear wastes -uried in that same granite should* if anything* e,#erience even greater retention -ecause of the com#arative immo-ility of waste8ty#e elements as com#ared to $-< The #resent results are im#ortant in that they #rovide clear evidence that the dominant factor in slow &e loss down to B5JJ m is attri-uta-le to greater diffusion loss at higher tem#eratures rather than any corrosion induced losses from the %ircons< This is not at all sur#rising -ecause microsco#ic e,amination shows first that %ircons from all de#ths e,hi-it well8defined #rismatic faces without any evidence of e,ternal corrosion* and secondly that the delicate internal inclusions within the %ircons do not show any evidence of alteration from a7ueous intrusion via any microstructural defects< Indeed* the relatively slow li-eration of &e over several BJ sec intervals o-served in %ircons from the surface all the way down to B5JJ m is strong evidence that these %ircons are virtually free of any microfractures which would have #ermitted a more ra#id &e esca#e< In fact* considering the $recam-rian age of the granite cores @Zartman* 4565A* our results show an almost #henomenal amount of &e has -een retained at higher tem#eratures* and the reason for this certainly needs further investigation for it may well turn out to have a critical -earing on the waste storage #ro-lem< Thus the additional evidences re#orted herein considera-ly reinforce the view that dee#8granite storage should -e a very safe corrosion8resistant waste containment #rocedure< The certainty of these results stands in clear contrast with the uncertainties a-out how well alternative storage sites @e<g<* salt domesA could withstand corrosion and>or dissolution from intruding a7ueous solutions< Ac nowledgments< This research was s#onsored -y the 2< S< 'e#artment of Energy* 'ivision of +asic Energy Sciences* under contract 38644JE8eng8BF with 2nion Car-ide Cor#oration< 3e than A< 3< 0aughlin of the 0os Alamos National 0a-oratory for #roviding the core sam#les<

References
)entry* R< ;<* T< /< Swors i* &< S< (cHown* 'avid &< Smith* R< E< E-y* and 3< &< Cristie* 'ifferential lead retention in %ircons: Im#lications for nuclear waste containment* Science" 21", B5F8 B5L* 45LB< 0aney* R<* and A< 3< 0aughlin* Natural annealing of #leochroic haloes in -iotite sam#les from dee# drill holes* Fenton &ill* New (e,ico* ;eophys. =es. *ett." $, EJ48EJD* 45L4< (agomedov* S< A<* (igration of radiogenic #roducts in %ircon* ;eo#himiya" 2, BFC8BF6* 456J< Zartman* R< E<* 2ranium* thorium and lead isoto#ic com#osition of -iotite granodiorite @Sam#le 5EB68B-A from 0AS0 'rill &ole )T8B* 0os Alamos Sci< 0a-< Re#< 0A865BC8(S* 4565< GReceived A'g'st ", 1%$2I accepted .epte5;er 3, 1%$2-H

71+ 1etter fro( Ar#ansas Attorney "eneral

.6&D& C@ARL A66OR3&E 2&3&RA@

STATE "F ARHANSAS "FFICE "F T&E ATT"RNE= )ENERA0 /2STICE +2I0'IN)* 0ITT0E R"CH 6BBJ4

G!01H 3#1<200#

The &onora-le 'ale +um#ers 2nited States Senator New Senate "ffice +uilding 3ashington* '<C< BJE4E 'ear Senator +um#ers: In my recent defense of Act E5J of 45L4 @-etter nown as the Creation8Science 0awA* I had the o##ortunity to -ecome ac7uainted with several of the world:s leading scientists who testified on -ehalf of -oth the State and the American Civil 0i-erties 2nion< "f all the scientists involved on -oth sides of the lawsuit* no one im#ressed me anymore than Ro-ert )entry* who for the #ast several years has -een a guest scientist at the "a Ridge National 0a-oratories in "a Ridge* Tennessee< This letter is written to -ring to your attention (r< )entry:s wor and to enlist your aid on his -ehalf< (r< )entry:s testimony at trial concerned the #resence of radioactive #olonium halos in granite< The significance of these halos is that their #resence in the granites is fundamentally inconsistent with the conventional wisdom that the granites underlying the earth:s structure cooled over thousands of years< (r< )entry is ac nowledged as the world:s foremost authority on this #articular su-s#ecialty< From every indication availa-le to me* )entry:s wor at the National 0a-oratory has -een of a uniformly high 7uality and has added significantly to the #rogress made at that facility< Furthermore* as a guest scientist* )entry has -een #aid only I4<JJ #er year -y the government< @A college of which he is a faculty mem-er has #aid his salary<A Thus* the government has -een a-le to avail itself of his services essentially free of charge< &owever* (r< )entry has recently learned that his contract as a guest scientist will not -e renewed for ne,t year< As one admittedly viewing these events from afar* it a##ears to me that )entry is -eing #enali%ed for his generous offer of assistance to hel# the State of Ar ansas and his own religious -eliefs< +o- )entry is very fran and forthright in stating his religious -eliefs* of that there can -e no dou-t< &is religious -eliefs are* however* irrelevant to the wor which he #erforms at "a Ridge< &is wor in studying granites was recently 7uoted in the Congressional Record in connection with a discussion of #ossi-le sites for storage of low level radioactive wastes< "-viously* this is an im#ortant

issue and one on which )entry has -een on the cutting edge< I want to as for your assistance to assure that Ro-ert )entry will not -e a victim of religious discrimination at the hands of his su#ervisors< The "a Ridge National 0a-oratory* although o#erated -y a #rivate cor#oration under a contract* is* as I understand it* under the 1urisdiction of the 2<S< 'e#artment of Energy< I solicit your hel# in contacting the Energy 'e#artment through a##ro#riate channels and re7uesting that the decision to not renew )entry:s contract -e reviewed #ersonally -y the Secretary of Energy to assure that this decision was -ased solely u#on the merits of his wor * and not u#on the su-1ective #re1udices of his su#ervisors< It will -e a sad day* indeed* if the First Amendment:s guarantee of freedom of religion and the su##osed freedom of scientific in7uiry have -oth -ecome hollow #romises for men li e +o- )entry< If I can su##ly you with any additional information regarding this matter* $lease call u#on me at your convenience< =ours truly*

SC>clr

STE;E C0ARH

71- Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cos(ological Perspective

$R"CEE'IN)S of the FCrd ANN2A0 (EETIN) of the $ACIFIC 'I;ISI"N* A(ERICAN ASS"CIATI"N F"R T&E A';ANCE(ENT "F SCIENCE ;olume 4* $art C A#ril CJ* 45LD

vol'tionists Confront Creationists

Edited -y Fran Aw-rey and 3illiam (< Thwaites

$acific 'ivision American Association for the Advancement of Science San Francisco* California 45LD

Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cos(ological Perspective

Ro-ert ;< )entry[ Colum-ia 2nion College Ta oma $ar * (aryland BJJ4B If the earth was created* it is a,iomatic that created @#rimordialA roc s must now e,ist on the earth* and if there was a Flood there must now e,ist sedimentary roc s and other evidences of that event< +ut* if the general uniformitarian #rinci#le is correct* the universe evolved to its #resent state only -y the unvarying action of nown #hysical laws and all natural #henomena must fit into the evolutionary mosaic< If this fundamental #rinci#le is wrong* all the #ieces in the evolutionary mosaic -ecome unglued< Evidence that something is drastically wrong comes from the fact that this -asic evolutionary #remise has failed to #rovide a verifia-le e,#lanation for the wides#read occurrence of $o halos in $recam-rian granites* a #henomena which I suggest are in situ evidences that those roc s were created almost instantaneously in accord with $salm CC:F*5: ?+y the word of

the 0ord were the heavens madeK and all the host of them -y the -reath of his mouth< For he s#a e* and it was doneK he commanded* and it stood fast<? I have challenged my colleagues to synthesi%e a #iece of granite with B4L$o halos as a means of falsifying this inter#retation* -ut have not received a res#onse< It is logical that this synthesis should -e #ossi-le if the uniformitarian #rinci#le is true< 2nderdevelo#ed 2 halos in coalified wood having high 2>$- ratios are cited evidences for a Flood8 related recent @within the #ast few thousand yearsA em#lacement of geological formations thought to -e more than 4JJ*JJJ*JJJ years old< Results of differential &e analyses of %ircons ta en from dee# granite cores are evidence for a recently created* several8thousand8year8age of the earth< A creation model with three singularities* involving events -eyond e,#lanation -y nown #hysical laws* is #ro#osed to account for these evidences< The first singularity is the e' nihilo creation of our gala,y nearly FJJJ years ago< Finally* a new model for the structure of the universe is #ro#osed -ased on the idea that all gala,ies* including the (il y 3ay* are revolving a-out the Center of the universe* which from $salm 4JC:45 I e7uate with the fi,ed location of )od:s throne< This model re7uires an a-solute reference frame in the universe whereas modern +ig +ang cosmology mandates there is no Center @the Cosmological $rinci#leA and no a-solute reference frame @the theory of relativityA< The motion of the solar system through the cosmic microwave radiation is cited as une7uivocal evidence for the e,istence of an a-solute reference frame< N[ Current Address: $<"< +o, 4BJF6* Hno,ville* TN C654BO Fig- 1- G3e)t PageH The scale for all #hotomicrogra#hs is 4 cm BE<J Mm* e,ce#t for @h:A and @r:A* which are enlargements of @hA and @rA< @aA Schematic drawing of BCL2 halo with radii #ro#ortional to ranges of N8#articles in air< @-A Schematic of B4J$o halo< @cA Schematic of B4D$o halo< @dA Schematic of B4L$o halo< @eA Coloration -and formed in mica -y 6<68(ev D&e ions< Arrow shows direction of -eam #enetration< @fA A BCL2 halo in -iotite formed -y se7uential N8decay of the BCL2 decay series< @gA Em-ryonic BCL2 halo in fluorite with only two rings develo#ed< @hA Normally develo#ed BCL2 halo in fluorite with nearly all rings visi-le< @h:A Same halo as in @hA -ut at higher magnification< @iA 3ell8develo#ed BCL2 halo in fluorite with slightly -lurred rings< @1A "vere,#osed BCL2 halo in fluorite* showing inner ring diminution< @ A Two overe,#osed BCL2 halos in fluorite showing inner ring diminution in one halo and o-literation of inner rings in the other< @lA (ore overe,#osed BCL2 halo in fluorite* showing outer ring reversal effects< @mA Second8stage reversal in a BCL2 halo in fluorite< The ring si%es are unrelated to BCL2 N8

#article ranges< @nA Three B4J$o halos of light* medium* and very dar coloration in -iotite< Note the differences in radius< @oA Three B4J$o halos of varying degrees of coloration in fluorite< @#A A B4D$o halo in -iotite< @7A Two B4L$o halos in -iotite< @rA Two B4L$o halos in fluorite< @r:A Same halo as in @rA -ut at higher magnification<

Fig're 2- The scale for all #hotogra#hs is 4 cm R BE Mm< @aA 'warf halos @B Mm radiusA in =tter-y mica< @-A 'warf halos @C Mm g r g 5 MmA in =tter-y mica< @cA "vere,#osed Th halo in ordinary -iotite< @dA Th halo in (adagascan mica< @eA Th halo in (adagascan mica with a larger inclusion< @fA 2 halo in (adagascan mica< @gA )iant halo of FE Mm radius* and two light Th halos @(adagascan micaA< @hA )iant halo of 5J Mm radius (adagascan mica< @Re#rinted from ref< @4A -y #ermission of the ARNS<A

=ra(i'5 a(d 6hori'5 Radiohalos i( /i(erals

A radioactive halo is generally defined as any ty#e of discolored* radiation8damaged region within a mineral and usually results from either al#ha or* more rarely* -eta emission from a central radioactive inclusion< 3hen the central inclusions* or radiocenters* are small @4 MmA* the 2 and Th daughter al#ha emitters #roduce a series of discolored concentric s#heres* which in thin section a##ear microsco#ically as concentric rings whose radii corres#ond to the ranges of the various al#ha emitters in the mineral< "rdinary radiohalos are herein defined as those which initiate with BCL2 and>or BCBTh al#ha decay @4A* irres#ective of whether the actual 2 or Th halo closely matches the res#ective ideali%ed al#ha decay #atterns< In a few instances the match is very good< Com#are* for e,am#le* the ideali%ed 2 halo ring #attern in Fig< 4a with the well develo#ed 2 halos in -iotite @Fig< 4fA and fluorite @Fig< 4h*h:AK these halos have ring si%es that agree very well @4*BA with the D&e ion accelerator8induced coloration -ands in these minerals @see Ta-le 4A< In general a halo ring can -e assigned to a definite al#ha emitter with confidence only when the halo radiocenter is a-out 4 Mm in si%e< In other cases* however* such as the halos in fluorite @4*BA shown in Fig< 4@g* i8mA* much wor was re7uired -efore these halos could -e relia-ly associated with 2 al#ha decay @BA< As e,#lained elsewhere @BA* reversal effects accom#anying e,treme radiation damage caused the a##earance of rings that could not -e associated with definite al#ha emitters of the 2 decay chain< Thus some halos may e,hi-it a ring structure different from the ideali%ed 2 and>or Th al#ha decay #atterns -ecause of reversal effects< And even though most other halos e,hi-it -lurred ring structures due to the large si%e of the inclusions* nevertheless the outer dimensions allow them to -e classified as 2 and>or Th ty#es< (odern analytical techni7ues such as Scanning Electron (icrosco#e M Ray Fluoresence @SE(MRFA and Ion (icro#ro-e (ass S#ectrometry @I((AA methods have -een utili%ed to show that 2 and Th and their res#ective end8#roduct isoto#es of $- are contained within the 2 and Th halo radiocenters< As is noted shortly* these modern analytical techni7ues have #roved 7uite valua-le in demonstrating that $o halo radiocenters in minerals contain little or no 2 or Th* which is in direct contrast to the a-undance of these elements detected in the 2 and>or Th halo radiocenters @B*CA<

Radioactive :alos a(d the 8'estio( of 4(varia(t 0ecay Rates

A most im#ortant 7uestion #ertaining to the evolution>creation issue is whether radioactive decay rates have remained invariant during the course of earth history< If they have* geochronologists are 1ustified in inter#reting various #arent>daughter isoto#e ratios found in undistur-ed roc s in terms of ela#sed time< If on the other hand there have -een #eriods in earth history where the decay rate was higher @i<e<* during a singularityA* then in general the isoto#e ratios in roc s would not reflect ela#sed time e,ce#t in the s#ecific case where secondary roc s or su-stances containing only the #arent radio8nuclide formed at the end of the most recent singularity< The #ractical significance of this last statement will -e evident in the discussion of the secondary* 2 halos found in coalified wood s#ecimens from the Colorado $lateau< Even though most of /oly:s @DA measurements of 2 and Th halos showed their radii were a-out the si%es e,#ected from the al#ha decay energies of the 2 and Th decay chains* nevertheless he claimed there were slight discre#ancies which raised 7uestions a-out whether the radioactive decay rate had -een constant over geological time< &is result was not confirmed however -y later halo radii

measurements @E84JA* which agreed to within e,#erimental error with the theoretical si%es< To eliminate any uncertainty a-out this corres#ondence I irradiated s#ecimens of various minerals with &e ion -eams of varying energies to #roduce different si%e coloration -ands whose widths corres#onded to the various al#ha energies of the 2 decay chain< The results of these e,#eriments* #resented in Ta-le 4* show there is e,cellent agreement -etween the 2 and Th halo radii and e7uivalent &e ion #roduced #enetration de#ths @BA< The -asis for thin ing that standard si%e 2 and Th halos im#ly an invariant decay rate throughout geological time #roceeds from the 7uantum mechanical treatment of al#ha decay* which in general shows that the #ro-a-ility for al#ha decay for a given nuclide is de#endent on the energy with which the al#ha #article is emitted from the nucleus< The argument is that if the decay rate had varied in the #ast* then the 2 and Th halo rings would -e of different si%e now -ecause the energies of the al#ha #articles would have -een different during the #eriod of change< This argument assumes that a change in the decay rate must necessarily -e e,#laina-le -y 7uantum mechanics* which is of course an integral #art of the uniformitarian framewor < Thus* the usual #roof of decay rate invariance -ased on standard si%e 2 and Th halos is nothing more than a circular argument which assumes the general uniformitarian #rinci#le is correct< In fact* the failure of the uniformitarian #rinci#le to e,#lain the evidence for creation #resented herein invalidates the -asis for the a-ove #roof<

Polo(i'5, 0warf, a(d 2ia(t :alos i( /i(erals

"f the three ty#es of unusual halos that a##ear distinct from those formed -y 2 and>or Th al#ha decay* only the $o halos* Fig<4 @-8d* n8r* r:A* can #resently -e identified with nown al#ha radioactivity @48C*4484CA< $o halos occu#y a s#ecial niche in my creation model* and these halos will -e discussed in more detail su-se7uently< Several lines of evidence which indicate the enigmatic dwarf halos @see Fig< BA were #roduced -y some #resently unidentified radioactivity have -een summari%ed @4*4B*4D*4EA< The ra#id etch from &F and the H>Ca inversion are strongly characteristic of highly radiation8damaged regions< The characteristics of the giant halos found in a certain (adagascan mica have also -een summari%ed @4*4D*4FA* and while no definitive evidence as yet e,ists for a radioactive origin* some halos with o#a7ue inclusions in this same mica e,hi-it isoto#ic anomalies which raise 7uestions a-out the uniformity of 2 and Th al#ha decay< For e,am#le* the mass scans and ,8ray fluorescence analyses shown in Fig< C clearly indicate that* whereas -oth the mona%ite and o#a7ue inclusions e,hi-it BJF$- and BJ6$- from 2 decay* the o#a7ue inclusions e,hi-it a mar ed deficiency of BJL$from BCBTh decay @4DA<

Fig're 3- (ass scans and an ,8ray fluorescence s#ectrum of a mona%ite and an o#a7ue halo inclusion in (adagascan mica* showing $- deficiency in the latter<

.eco(dary Radiohalos i( Coalified ,ood

All the various ty#es of halos discussed thus far are termed #rimary halos -ecause they develo#ed from al#ha radioactivity emanating from small accessory inclusions that were #resent when the mineral crystalli%ed< +ut secondary halos also e,ist in #ieces of coalified wood ta en from highly uraniferous de#osits in the Colorado $lateau< There is a-undant evidence that 2 solutions infiltrated much of the sedimentary material in the geological formations of that region when the wood was still in a gel8li e condition @46A< 3hen 28-earing solutions #assed through #ieces of wood* certain active sites within these s#ecimens #referentially collected 2* other sites collected rare earth ty#e elements* and still others Se* $o* and $-< It is 7uite significant that the 2 halos* which develo#ed around the tiny 28rich sites* are all underdevelo#ed* which* on the -asis of a uniform decay rate @the rationale for using this assum#tion for these s#ecimens will -e e,#lained su-se7uentlyA* suggests only a relatively short time since 2 infiltration< Ion micro#ro-e mass scans of these 2 halo centers have shown e,tremely high BCL2>BJF$- ratios* which* again on the assum#tion of a uniform decay rate* is consistent with a 2 infiltration within the last several thousand years @46A<

Fig're - Elli#tical @com#ressedA B4J$o halos in coalified wood from the Colorado $lateau< Re#roduced from ref< @46A -y #ermission of the AAAS< @U BEJA Non #< B6DO

Fig're !- Circular B4J$o halos in Colorado $lateau coalified wood< @U BEJA Non #< B6DO

Fig're "- Circular and elli#tical B4J$o halo in Colorado $lateau coalified wood< Re#roduced from ref< @46A with AAAS #ermission< @U BEJA Non #< B6DO

Similar underdevelo#ed 2 halos have -een found in the coalified wood from the Chattanooga Shale* and in fact recent ion micro#ro-e analyses show* in agreement with earlier results @46A* that the BCL2>BJF$- ratios of the 2 halos in the Colorado $lateau sam#les @Eocene* Triassic* and /urassicA and the Chattanooga Shale @'evonianA are virtually indistinguisha-le< These results suggest that 28 infiltration occurred concurrently in all these formations< Another class of more shar#ly defined halos was also discovered in the Colorado $lateau coalified wood s#ecimens @46A< The centers of these halos e,hi-it a distinct metallic8li e reflectance when viewed with reflected light< Three different varieties of this halo e,ist: one with a circular cross section* another with an elli#tical cross section with varia-le ma1or and minor a,es* and a third most unusual one that is actually a dual halo* -eing a com#osite of a circular and an elli#tical halo around e,actly the same radio8center @see Figs< D8FA< Although the elli#tical halos differ radically from the circular halos in minerals* the circular ty#e resem-les the B4J$o halo in minerals and variations in the radii of circular halos a##ro,imate the calculated #enetrated distances @BF to C4 MmA of the B4J$o al#ha #article @energy E R E<C (e;A in this coalified wood @46A< &enderson @4LA theori%ed that $o halos might form in minerals when 28 daughter $o isoto#es or their al#ha #recursors were #referentially accumulated into small inclusions from some near-y 2 source< This hy#othesis has not -een confirmed for the origin of three distinct ty#es of $o halos in 28#oor minerals @4*B*44A* -ut it does seem to #rovide a reasona-le e,#lanation for the origin of B4J$o halos in 28rich coalified wood s#ecimens< Electron microsco#e ,8ray fluorescence analyses showed these halo centers were mainly $- and Se< This com#osition fits well into the secondary accumulation hy#othesis for -oth of the 28daughters*

B4J

$o @half8life* tT R 4CL daysA and its -eta #recursor B4J$- @tT R BB yA* #ossess the two characteristics

that are vitally essential for the hy#othesis: @iA chemical similarity with the elements in the inclusion and @iiA half8lives sufficiently long to #ermit accumulation #rior to decay* a re7uirement related to the nuclide trans#ort rate< 3hat is the meaning of the B4J$o halos in Figs< D8F? Clearly* the variations in sha#e can -e attri-uted to #lastic deformation which occurred #rior to coalification< Since the model for B4J$o formation thus envisions that -oth B4J$o and B4J$- were accumulating simultaneously in the $-8Se inclusion* a s#herical B4J$o halo could develo# in J<E to 4 year from the B4J$o atoms initially #resent and a second similar B4J$o halo could develo# in BE to EJ years as the B4J$- atoms more slowly -eta decayed to #roduce another cro# of B4J$o atoms< If there was no deformation of the matri, -etween these #eriods* the two B4J$o halos would sim#ly coincide< If* however* the matri, was deformed -etween the two #eriods of halo formation* then the first halo would have -een com#ressed into an elli#soid* and the second would -e a normal s#here< The result would -e a dual ?halo? @Fig< FA< The wides#read occurrence of these dual halos in -oth Triassic and /urassic s#ecimens can actually -e considered corro-orative evidence for a one8time introduction of 2 into these formations* -ecause it is then #ossi-le to account for their structure on the -asis of a single s#ecifically timed tectonic event @46A<

:alos i( Coalified ,ood: a Flood<Related Phe(o(e(a

A worldwide Flood* which is #ostulated to have occurred a-out 4FEJ years after creation* is the third singularity in the creation model #ro#osed herein< I have advanced the hy#othesis that the underdevelo#ed 2 halos in -oth the Colorado $lateau and Chattanooga Shale coalified wood s#ecimens e,hi-it very high 2>$- ratios -ecause the uranium infiltration of the wood occurred only when those geological de#osits were -eing em#laced at the time of the Flood several thousand years ago* instead of the FJ to DJJ millions of years ago acce#ted -y uniformitarian geology< I suggest at least #art of the 28series dise7uili-ria @45A found in the Colorado $lateau 2 de#osits is -ecause some 28daughter radionuclide se#aration occurred at the time of the Flood* and there has -een insufficient time since then to reesta-lish e7uili-rium conditions< The high 2>$- ratios and secondary B4J$o halos in the coalified wood sam#les from the Eocene e#och and the Triassic and /urassic #eriods suggest to me that the wood in all these formations was in the same gel8li e condition when infiltrated -y the 28-earing solutions< To me these data re#resent evidence for a concurrent* single8stage invasion of 2 into all the different geological formations re#resented -y the coalified wood sam#les< This is #recisely what would -e e,#ected on the -asis of a Flood8related #henomena< The dual $o halos also fit well into the Flood scenario* i<e< the #resence of a s#herical and elli#tical $o halo around the same radiocenter suggests a tectonic event occurred within EJ years after the initial infiltration of uranium into the wood sam#les< A read1ustment of the earth:s crust after such a massive event is not une,#ected< Another im#lication of the e,istence of B4J$o halos in these s#ecimens is that the transformation of the wood to a semi8coal8li e condition must have occurred within a #eriod of a-out one year< This evidence for a ra#id coalification #rocess is in contrast to the generally acce#ted view that coalification is a long8term geological #rocess<

6hree 6ypes of Polo(i'5 :alos i( /i(erals

Now there are two other $o isoto#es @B4D$o and B4L$oA in the 2 decay chain -esides B4J$o* -ut no halos re#resentative of these other $o isoto#es have -een found in coalified wood< This is not sur#rising* -ecause the half8lives of the other $o isoto#es are rather short* i<e<* t T R C m for B4L$o and tT R 4FD Ms for B4D$o as are the half8lives of the -eta #recursors of B4D$o* i<e< tT R BF<D m for B4D$- and tT R 45<L m for B4D+i @the #recursor of B4L$o is the inert gas BBBRnA< 3hat is sur#rising is that all the three ty#es of $o halos occur in certain minerals which ty#ically contain orders of magnitude less uranium than the 28rich coalified wood< Further* the minerals such as -iotite and fluorite must have diffusion rates considera-ly lower than those e,#ected for a 28solution8infiltrated s#ecimens of gel8 li e wood< Figure 6 shows the ideali%ed structure of the different $o halos in com#arison with the 2 halo< $hotogra#hic evidence relating to the e,istence of different ty#es of $o halos in minerals is shown in Fig< 4< Figure 4@nA shows three B4J$o halos of light* medium* and very dar coloration< The slightly higher radii for the dar er halos is attri-uta-le to the higher dose< Figure 4@oA shows three different B4J$o halos in fluorite< Figure 4@#A shows a B4D$o halo in -iotite* and Fig< 4@7A shows two B4L$o halos in -iotite< Com#arison of these halos with the ideali%ed ring structure in Fig< 6 shows that $o halos in minerals can -e clearly identified -y ring structure studies alone< The data in Ta-le 4 shows there is an e,cellent agreement -etween the e,#erimentally #roduced &e ion #roduced coloration -ands and the $o halo ring radii< An im#ortant o-servation from Fig< 6 is that in the ideali%ed BCL2 and B4L$o #atterns* it is evident that the BBBRn ring should -e missing from the B4L$o halo and #resent in the BCL2 halo< Figures L and 5 show the #resence of the BBBRn ring in the 2 halo in contrast to its a-sence in the B4L$o halo< This is une7uivocal evidence that the B4L$o halo initiated with B4L$o rather than with any earlier al#ha emitter in the 2 decay chain< Figures 4J and 44 show B4D$o halos and B4L$o halos in different ty#es of -iotite< &enderson:s @4LA original idea that /o halos in minerals may have originated from a secondary source of radioactivity encounters formida-le o-stacles when closely e,amined< In most cases the minerals contain only ##m a-undances of uranium* which means only a negligi-le su##ly of $o daughter atoms is availa-le for ca#ture at any given time< To form a halo these daughter atoms must migrate or diffuse so they can -e ca#tured at a collecting site* a #ro-lem which is com#ounded -y the low diffusion rates in minerals @44*BJ*B4A< 'es#ite these o-1ections* in 4565 several investigators suggested their results @BBA might #rovide su##ort for secondary $o halo formation in minerals after all< They were a##arently unaware that three years earlier I had re#orted the e,#erimental o-servation of secondary B4J$o halos in coalified wood @46A< In that re#ort I discussed how even under the most favora-le conditions @i<e<* an a-undant su##ly of 28daughters in a highly mo-ile environmentA for the formation of secondary $o halos* only the longer half8life B4J$o halos actually formed* the reason -eing that the shorter half8life $o isoto#es generally decayed away -efore they could -e ca#tured at the tiny $-8Se sites< If these other two $o halo ty#es didn:t form under the -est conditions in the gel8li e wood* how could it -e e,#ected they would form naturally in the granites where diffusion rates are vastly lower and the su##ly of $o atoms is negligi-le? The identity of 2* Th and $o halos in minerals has -een confirmed -y analy%ing the various ty#es of halo radiocenters using scanning electron microsco#e ,8ray fluorescence @SE(MRFA and ion

micro#ro-e mass s#ectrometric @I((AA techni7ues @B*CA< Studies of various $o halo radiocenters in -iotite and fluorite have generally shown little or no 2 in con1unction with anomalously high BJF $->BJ6$- and>or $->2 ratios which would -e e,#ected from the decay of $o without the 2 #recursor which normally occurs in 2 radiohalo centers @B*CA< These results were o-tained clearly in the analysis @CA of the most unusual array of $o halos which I ever found< That array* shown in Figure 4B* has the a##earance of a #air of s#ectacles* hence the designation :S#ectacle &alo<: The S#ectacle &alo a##earance com#ounds the #ro-lem of e,#laining its e,istence on the -asis of nown #hysical laws< In conclusion* in s#ite of attem#ts to define them out of e,istence @BCA* there is demonstra-le evidence that $o halos do e,ist as se#arate entities @48CA<

Fig're #- Ideali%ed schematic of BCL2* B4L$o* B4D$o* and B4J $o halos<

Fig're $- BCL2 halo in fluorite< @U ECEA

Fig're %- B4L$o halo in fluorite< @U ECEA

Fig're 10- B4D$o halos in mica< @U BEJA

Fig're 11- B4L$o halos in mica< @U BEJA

Fig're 12- The S#ectacle &alo* an overla##ing series of B4J $o halos discovered in a #iece of -iotite from the Silver Crater mine* Faraday Townshi#* "ntario< Re#roduced from ref< @CA -y #ermission of Nature< @U EFJA

Polo(i'5 :alos i( /i(erals: a( 4(depe(de(t &val'atio(

+ecause of the im#lications which will -e attri-uted to the #resence of $o halos in minerals* it is im#ortant that my colleagues -e a##rised of the inde#endent investigation of these #henomena -y $rofessor Norman Feather< In an e,haustive theoretical treatment @BDA of the #ro-lem concerning their origin in minerals* Feather concludes it is difficult to account for the e,istence of $o halos in certain minerals on the -asis of nown #hysical #rinci#les< &is e,act words* as given in the syno#sis of his #a#er* are as follows: Ever since the discovery of $o8haloes in old mica @&enderson and S#ar s 45C5A the #ro-lem of their origin has remained essentially unsolved< Two suggestions have -een made @&enderson 45C5K )entry et al< 456CA* -ut neither carries immediate conviction< These suggestions are e,amined critically and in detail* and the difficulties attaching to the acce#tance of either are identified< +ecause these two suggestions a##ear to e,haust the logical #ossi-ilities of e,#lanation* it is tem#ting to admit that one of them must -e -asically correct* -ut whoever would ma e this admission must -e fortified -y credulity of a high order<

Polo(i'5 :alos a(d Pri5ordial Roc+s: a 6est of the :ypothesis

I have advanced the hy#othesis @BE*BFA that the three different ty#es of $o halos in minerals re#resent the decay of #rimordial $o* in which case the roc s that host these halos* i<e<* the $recam-rian granites* must -e #rimordial roc s @BE*BFA< +y this reasoning the $recam-rian granites are identified as roc s that were created almost instantly as a #art of the creation event recorded in )enesis 4:4 rather than roc s that are a #roduct of the evolution of the earth< This rationale would

-e without scientific content if I had not also stated @BEA that the la-oratory synthesis of a hand8si%ed #iece of granite or -iotite would -e acce#ted as falsifying my view that the $recam-rian granites are created roc s and* li ewise* that the su-se7uent #roduction of B4L$o halos in that synthesi%ed s#ecimen of granite or -iotite would -e acce#ted as falsifying my view that $o halos in $recam-rian granites originated with #rimordial #olonium< The only res#onse to my re#eated @BE*BFA challenges to #erform these la-oratory syntheses and falsify the aforementioned evidences for creation has thus far -een silence< It is inesca#a-le that these e,#eriments should -e successful if the uniformitarian #rinci#le is true< Thus* with so much at sta e for evolution* I sus#ect the reason why my evolutionary colleagues have failed to achieve success is -ecause the $recam-rian granites never formed -y the uniformitarian #rinci#le to -egin withK hence* to attem#t to utili%e it now to #roduce a synthesi%ed #iece of granite is 1ust a futile effort< The end result is that the uniformitarian #rinci#le is essentially falsified -ecause of its failure to live u# to its own #redictions< +ut since all the #ieces in the evolutionary #u%%le are glued together -y this #rinci#le* we must now come to the same conclusion a-out evolution itself<

A Proposed Creatio( /odel a(d the Age of the &arth

The evidence for creation cited a-ove suggests there may have -een s#ecial #eriods in earth history when #hysical laws as #resently understood were insufficient to e,#lain all the events trans#iring within those #eriods< This evidence also undergirds the formulation of a creation model -ased on the /udeo8Christian ethic< The creation model #ro#osed herein #ostulates that on at least three occasions @singularitiesA during the #ast FJJJ years there were significant e,ce#tions to the uniformitarian #rinci#le within our local cosmos @the (il y 3ayA* vi%<* the e, nihilo creation of our gala,y a-out FJJJ years ago* the Fall of man shortly thereafter* and the occurrence of a worldwide Flood a-out DCEJ years ago< These ages are derived from Scri#tural chronology< It is assumed that the creative act which -rought the (il y 3ay into e,istence also caused the immediate #ro#agation of light throughout the gala,y< No constraints are #laced on the age of the universe< .i(g'larities a(d =(ifor5ities: A Co5ple5e(tary Approach It is essential to understand that uniform action of #hysical laws between singularities is an integral #art of this creation model< (oreover* the occurrence of a singularity does not mean a com#letely chaotic condition without any laws to govern the o#erations of nature during that #eriod< 'uring the Flood singularity some #hysical #rocesses may not have changed at all whereas there is evidence others varied considera-ly< An enhanced radioactive decay rate during the Flood singularity would have generated a considera-le amount of heat* thus initiating volcanic and tectonic activity during and after that #eriod< This three8singularity model a##ears to -e the minimum framewor that includes the essential features of the )enesis narrative< $ossi-ly the continent8se#arating e#isode recorded in )enesis 4J:BE* when the earth was divided in the days of $eleg a few hundred years after the Flood* should also -e included as a singularityK certainly it must figure #rominently in any creation8-ased reconstruction of earth history that deals with continental drift< &owever* to sim#lify matters* the following comments e,clude consideration of this event< .i(g'larities a(d the 4(terpretatio( of Radioactive 0ecay as &lapsed 6i5e In summary* the creation model envisions an initial creation singularity followed -y a short #eriod of uniformity until the second singularity* an event which involved degenerative changes in the -iological world and 7uite #ossi-ly modification of some of the original #hysical laws which governed the earth and our near celestial environment< Another #eriod of uniformity follows* with

the modified #hysical laws now in effect* for a-out 4FJJ years down to the longer8duration Flood singularity< The last #eriod of uniformity e,tends down to the #resent< In this scenario 2>$- ratios are #resently utili%ed as indicators of ela#sed time since the last singularity< BCL2>BJF$- ratios are not used as time measures #rior to this last singularity -ecause of conflicting evidence of very high $- and &e retention in natural %ircons su-1ected to a #rolonged high tem#erature environment in dee# granite< Those results* discussed -elow* are consistent with a very young age of the earth* and suggest that the radioactive decay rate may have -een enhanced @indeed* had to -e if this creation model is correctA during any one of the three singularities< @The $eleg e#isode #otentially adds one more #ossi-ility<A The assum#tion of uniform decay since the Flood is the -asis for inter#reting the very high 2>$- ratios in coalified wood sam#les as evidence for a several8thousand8year age of s#ecimens which conventional geology holds to -e a-out FJ to DJJ million years old< Possi;le &vide(ce of &(ha(ced Radioactive 0ecay fro5 C*lasti(gC :alos Additional evidence for an enhanced radioactive decay rate comes from Ramdohr:s o-servations on fractured radioactive halos in #olished ore sections< &e re#orts @B6A that certain radioactive inclusions* which e,hi-it a considera-le volume increase due to isotro#i%ation from radioactive decay* have in numerous cases -een o-served to fracture the surrounding mineral in a random #attern< Ramdohr #oints out that the surrounding mineral should e,#and slowly over geological time due to radioactive isotro#i%ation* and individual crac s should a##ear as soon as the elastic limit is reached< &e further #oints out that* while these e,#ansion crac s should occur first along cohesion minimums and grain -oundaries* nothing li e this ha##ens< Individual crac s surrounding the radioactive inclusion are randomly distri-uted and evidently occur 7uite suddenly in the form of an e,#losive fracture and not a slow e,#ansion< Ramdohr shows many #hotogra#hs of instances wherein the central inclusion fractures the non8isotro#ic outer %one< The occurrence of this #henomenon is worldwide< 3hile there might -e other alternatives* one #ossi-le e,#lanation of these ?fractures? or ?-lasting? halos is that the rate of radioactive decay was at one time far greater than that o-served today< The isotro#i%ation of the host minerals would have occurred very ra#idly due to an anomalous decay rate* and hence fracturing of the outer mineral would -e e,#ected< 6he Age of the &arth a(d P; Rete(tio( i( 0eep 2ra(ite Cores Results #ertaining more s#ecifically to a recent creation of the earth come from studies of $retention in %ircons ta en from dee# $recam-rian granite cores @BLA< To understand the rationale for this last statement* it must first -e understood that the $- in these %ircons is #rimarily a secondary trace com#onent derived from the decay of small amounts of 2 and Th< Secondly* this radiogenic $- has a tendency to migrate or diffuse out of the %ircon crystals far more ra#idly than the #arent 2 and Th -ecause these elements are relatively tightly -ound in lattice sites* whereas the $- atoms really do not fit into the %ircon lattice< Further* since all elements show an e,#onential increase in the -ul diffusion rate with increasing tem#erature* and since the tem#erature in the granite cores increases significantly from near the to# @4JEXCA to the -ottom @C4CXCA of the granite #ortion of the drill hole* calculations show that EJ Mm8si%e %ircons ta en from the -ottom of the drill hole @C4CXCA should have lost 4l of their $- content in a-out CJJ*JJJ years< Since the %ircons were in cores ta en from a $recam-rian granite that is estimated to -e 4<E -illion years old -y conventional geochronology @B5A* the #rediction -ased on uniformitarian geochronology would -e that most of the $- would have long ago diffused out of the %ircons e,tracted from the dee#est cores at C4CXC< +ut the results of the e,#eriments did not agree with this #redictionK rather they showed e7ually

high retention of $- in %ircons ta en from all de#ths< In fact no $- loss from %ircons at C4CXC would a##ear to #lace an u##er limit to the age of this $recam-rian granite* which* on the #resum#tion that these granites are #rimordial roc s* in essence #laces the same limit on the age of the earth< 6he Age of the &arth: @i5ited ;y :eli'5 Rete(tio( i( 0eep 2ra(ite Cores Another a##roach which seemed to hold greater #ros#ects for more closely defining an u##er limit for the age of these $recam-rian granites @and hence of the earthA was the differential analysis of similar si%e %ircons from these same cores for helium* the second most volatile chemical element nown< The helium accumulates in these %ircons in a manner similar to the radiogenic $-* vi%<* from the al#ha #articles emitted from trace amounts of 2 and Th< &owever* the e,treme volatility of this gas means that it diffuses out of the %ircons at a far greater rate than $-< "n a #urely uniformitarian -asis the search for helium in these %ircons would 7uite #ossi-ly never have -een done -ecause conventional geological wisdom suggests negligi-le helium retention in %ircons su-1ected to even 4JJXC for the #resumed 4<E -illion year age @B5A of those granites< +ut having already discovered that the $- retention in these %ircons contradicted the age estimates determined -y radiometric dating techni7ues* I decided that* from a creationist #ers#ective* the search might 1ust reveal something of e,ce#tional interest< )rou#s of %ircons from si, different de#ths were re#eatedly analy%ed for helium using an e,tremely sensitive gas mass s#ectrometric system< The results @CJA showed a helium retention of a-out ELl in the tiny EJ Mm %ircons from 5FJ meters de#th @4JEXCA* a-out B6l in %ircons from B46J meters @4E4XCA and a #henomenal 46l retention of helium even at B5JJ meters where the tem#erature is 456X C< These results show a creation8-ased #ers#ective of science does #ossess #redictive ca#a-ilities which can -e scientifically tested< It is difficult to understand how such high retention @CJA of helium can -e accounted for e,ce#t -y restricting the age of these granites @and hence the earthA to something of the order of several thousand years< These results are consistent with an a##ro,imate FJJJ8year age of the earth and moreover are in direct conflict with the #resumed D<E8-illion8year age of the earth determined -y radioactive dating techni7ues< Evolutionary colleagues can #rove this deduction for a young age of the earth is wrong if they can show 1ust how this unusually high retention of helium can -e deduced from the acce#ted 4<E8-illion8year age @B5A of those %ircons -y using only uniformitarian #rinci#les<

A Creatio( /odel of the .tr'ct're of the =(iverse

'ecades of research in astronomy and cosmology have led to the general -elief that the #resent state of the universe can ultimately -e traced to an initial event #o#ularly nown as the +ig +ang< 'es#ite this #o#ularity it should -e remem-ered that the +ig +ang cosmological model is only as valid as the fundamental #remises which su##ort it< Thus the discussion of the #ro#osed creation model of the universe must necessarily also focus on the validity of the +ig +ang theory* whose -asic framewor consists of the cosmological and uniformitarian #rinci#les together with the general theory of relativity< The #revious sections of this article have documented the failure of the uniformitarian #rinci#le to #rovide confirmation for the geological evolution of the $recam-rian granites< If this #rinci#le cannot account for the evolution of the earth* is it difficult to understand how it can #rovide a rational -asis for constructing an evolutionary model of the universe< It may -e argued* however* that the edifice of modern cosmology fits together too well for there to -e something wrong with -asic assum#tions< This #oint will receive close e,amination in the following discussion of the hot +ig +ang (odel @C4*CBA<

6he *ig *a(g /odel a(d the :';;le Relatio( A-out EJ years ago &u--le #ro#osed that the astronomical data then availa-le seemed to linearly relate the redshift % of a gala,y with the distance R to the gala,y* and this has -ecome nown as the &u--le relation< Since then galactic redshifts have -een mainly inter#reted as 'o##ler shifts resulting from high recessional velocities of the distant gala,ies and* moreover* have -een generally thought to #rovide some of the strongest evidence for the hot +ig +ang model of an e,#anding universe< @See* however* &etherington:s evaluation @CCA of the &u--le relation<A The reason for confidence in this inter#retation is that -y using the general theory of relativity as the mathematical -asis for calculating the s#ace8time develo#ment of the #rimeval fire-all* it is #ossi-le to derive the % R &u--le relation @C4*CBA #rovided certain assum#tions are made< Notwithstanding the general -elief that the accumulated astronomical data do su##ort a % R relation* the fact is that over the #ast two decades several detailed studies of redshift distri-utions have -een #u-lished which call the &u--le relation into 7uestion< As early as 45FB &aw ins @CDA claimed that the redshift data indicated an a##ro,imate 7uadratic8distance redshift relation* in #articular % RB<BB< (ore recently the case for a % RB relation @for low %A was considera-ly reinforced -y the e,tensive statistical analyses of Segal @CEA and of Nicoll and Segal @CFA< Even though these latter results have -een dis#uted -y Sandage et al< @C6A* it a##ears that Nicoll and Segal @CLA have res#onded with stronger evidence for a % RB relation< In fact* Nicoll et al< @C5A have gone so far as to claim statistical invalidation of the &u--le relation for low values of %< At a minimum the foregoing results ma e it very difficult to -elieve that the redshift data as #resently inter#reted actually su##ort the &u--le relation* which is the cornerstone of +ig +ang cosmology< As noted a-ove* the latest analyses of Nicoll and Segal @CLA show the redshift data more closely fit what is thought to -e the e7uivalent of a 7uadratic rather than a linear distance relation< The reason for 7ualifying the last statement is -ecause astronomers measure not distances -ut a##arent magnitudes* which are first corrected for various factors -efore -eing used as a -asis for esta-lishing the magnitude8redshift relation< "ne im#ortant correction involves the assum#tion that the galactic light intensity @for any given fre7uency intervalA as o-served on earth is reduced -y two factors of 4 ` %* one for the redshift itself* and the other for the #resumed galactic recession< "f course if the gala,ies are not receding* then an unwarranted factor has -een introduced into the magnitude correction #rocedures* and this would affect the #erceived redshift distri-utions< 6he *ig *a(g /odel a(d the Cos5ic /icrowave Radiatio( GC/RH In 456L $en%ias and 3ilson received the No-el #ri%e in #hysics for their discovery of the C(R in 45FE< Since then it has -een widely claimed that this #ervasive radiation field is a relic of the time eons ago when radiation 7uanta decou#led from matter in the #rimeval fire-all @C4A< According to this theory* the decou#ling #resuma-ly occurred a-out CJJ*JJJ years after the +ig +ang when the #rimeval fire-all had e,#anded and its tem#erature had dro##ed to the #oint where matter and radiation ceased to interact as it had -efore< After this time* su##osedly a-out 4E -illion years ago* it is -elieved that this radiation #ro#agated throughout s#ace in an uno-structed fashion to eventually -ecome the C(R< It is essential to note that the radiation leaving the #rimeval fire-all at the time of decou#ling was #resuma-ly still 7uite hot @a-out CJJJXHA< The e,#erimental measurements of the C(R tem#erature at #resent reveal that it is very cold @CXHA< +ut if the radiation from the #rimeval fire-all is assumed not to interact with matter after the time of decou#ling* then how did this initially hot radiation lose its energy* or tem#erature* to later -ecome the CXH C(R? The standard e,#lanation is that the general relativistic analysis of the s#ace8time e,#ansion of the #rimeval fire-all #redicts that the decou#led radiation 7uanta will lose energy 1ust

as a result of the e,#ansion of the universe< There is* however* nothing in modern e,#erimental #hysics which suggests that radiation 7uanta change energy -y moving through free s#ace< Thus* the standard e,#lanation for this remar a-le thousand8fold energy loss in the decou#led radiation 7uanta de#ends u#on an as#ect of general relativity that is unsu##orted -y scientific evidence< To avoid #ossi-le misunderstandings* some recent e,#erimental results of gravitational effects on #hotons will -e discussed< Einstein:s #rinci#le of e7uivalence* which is inde#endent of general relativity* does not distinguish whether a #hoton traversing a gravitational #otential gradient undergoes a change in energy in transit* or whether its energy is uni7uely determined -y the gravitational #otential at the #oint of emission< The earliest (oss-auer e,#eriments @DJA on the gravitational redshift could not distinguish -etween these two alternatives* and it was widely -elieved that the #hoton energy could change when #assing through a difference in gravitational #otential< +ut recent e,#erimental results @D4A suggest the #hoton energy is characteri%ed -y the gravitational #otential at the #oint of emission rather than varying as the #hoton moves to a different #otential< In the light of these results it is 7uite difficult for me to -elieve that radiation 7uanta can undergo energy loss in free s#ace as #redicted in the general relativistic +ig +ang model< At this #oint my views on the theory of relativity need to -e clarified< I recogni%e there are some nota-le e,#erimental results in #hysics such as a##arent time dilation* the transverse 'o##ler effect* the increase in mass with velocity* and the gravitational -ending of light* which are in accord with the #redictions of the theory of relativity< &owever* these e,#erimental results cannot -e used as confirmations of the s#ecial or general theory of relativity -ecause there are other @al-eit far lesser nownA theories which #redict similar results< @See for instance North:s @DBA review of various alternative theories of gravitation and their #redictions<A Further* recently Rastall @DCA and es#ecially (arinov @DDA have shown inde#endently that it is not necessary to assume the general relativistic framewor to o-tain many of the same mathematical results< "n the other hand* the 7uestion of whether the +ig +ang model is a correct descri#tion of the origin and evolutionary develo#ment of the universe is entirely hinged on the ultimate validity of general relativity:s fundamental #ostulate* which in #rinci#le denies that #rivileged reference frames e,ist< ;ery germane to this discussion is the recent admission @DEA of an eminent #hysicist to the effect that the C(R #resents undenia-le e,#erimental evidence for the e,istence of an a-solute reference frame in the universe* a result which is consistent with (arinov:s @DDA evidence for a-solute s#ace8time and also with at least one of the earlier gravitational theories reviewed -y North @DBA< This #oint is treated in more detail su-se7uently and it is shown that the e,istence of the C(R as an a-solute reference frame is #erha#s the most im#ortant evidence that can -e adduced for the creation model of the universe as #ro#osed herein< +efore engaging in this discussion further* it is necessary to com#lete the #resent discussion of the C(R and the Cosmological $rinci#le< (easurements have shown the s#atial distri-ution of the C(R is so uniform that it is 7uestiona-le whether it could have -een #roduced -y the +ig +ang scenario as it was originally conceived< 3eiss o#f @DEA has recently reviewed the nature of this and other #ro-lems with the +ig +ang model* and has discussed the #rovisional solutions offered -y #ostulating an e,#losive e,#ansion in the very early stages of the +ig +ang< !uestions still remain* however* not the least -eing that the entire scenario assumes some ty#e of grand unification theory which has yet to -e verified< +ut is it consistent for cosmologists on one hand to claim that the universe evolved only through the action of nown #hysical laws and on the other hand to devise solutions to cosmological #ro-lems -y using unverified hy#otheses as a -asis for those solutions? 3e have already noted the failure of the uniformitarian #rinci#le to successfully account for the origin of $o halos in $recam-rian granites*

or to #rovide a -asis for synthesis of a #iece of granite< In a similar manner it seems the introduction of unverified #hysical conce#ts as the -asis for #ossi-le solutions to difficult evolutionary cosmological #ro-lems is 1ust the inevita-le result of the failure to e,#lain the creation of the universe on the -asis of the uniformitarian #rinci#le< In any event* the newly #ro#osed e,#ansionary modification to the +ig +ang only deals with the earliest instants of the +ig +ang* after which it is su##osed the e,#ansion of the #rimeval fire-all continues as envisioned in the original +ig +ang model< As we shall soon see* it a##ears there may -e a contradiction involved in the theoretical develo#ment of e,#ansion of the fire-all<

6he *ig *a(g /odel a(d the Cos5ological Pri(ciple In s#ite of the foregoing difficulties it might still -e argued that +ig +ang model must -e correct -ecause it #redicts a universe in accord with the Cosmological $rinci#le* vi%<* that the universe a##ears the same irres#ective of the location of the o-server in the universe< The #ro-lem with this argument is that we really do not now the Cosmological $rinci#le is true< In fact* all that we now is that the large scale structure of the universe a##ears to -e a##ro,imately isotro#ic @i<e<* the same in all directionsA from our #resent #oint of o-servation< (odern cosmology 1ustifies the Cosmological $rinci#le -y cou#ling the o-servation of isotro#y a-out our #osition with the assum#tion that our gala,y does not occu#y a s#ecial #osition in the universe< That is* if our gala,y occu#ies a non8s#ecific or ar-itrary #osition in the universe* then it follows the universe must -e isotro#ic everywhere and hence homogeneous as well< +ut what if our gala,y does occu#y a #rivileged #osition in the universe? First* it would no longer -e logical to e,tra#olate the isotro#y which we o-serve to the other #arts of the universe* which means it would no longer -e #ossi-le to 1ustify either the condition of homogeneity or the cosmological #rinci#le< Second* the sim#lest deduction of the o-served isotro#y of the universe from our location is that the universe must -e s#herically symmetric a-out either the (il y 3ay or some #oint which is astronomically near-y< +ut s#herical symmetry a-out any #oint in the universe im#lies that #oint is the Center* and this -rings us to the discussion of the creation model< A Creatio( /odel of the =(iverse: 6he F'(da5e(tal Post'late The fundamental #remise of the /udeo8Christian creation model of the universe is determined -y the scri#ture* ?The 0ord has esta-lished &is throne in the heavens* and &is ingdom ruleth over all<? $salm 4JC:45 @RS;A< "n the -asis of this statement it is evident that the Creator has esta-lished* or fi,ed* &is throne at some #oint in the universe* which in my view is none other than the Center of the universe< It is a,iomatic that a fi,ed #oint in the universe re7uires the e,istence of a fi,ed or a-solute reference frame< $reviously it was noted that the C(R has -een recogni%ed as esta-lishing an a-solute reference frame @DEAK so it is 7uite clear that the fundamental #ostulate of this creation model of the universe is -ased on tangi-le scientific evidence< 6he Revolvi(g .teady .tate /odel of the =(iverse: A *rief 0escriptio( Assuming there is a Center @CA to the universe* I #ro#ose that the gala,ies are not receding from each other as #resently su##osed* -ut instead are revolving at different distances and at different tangential s#eeds around C< "n this -asis all gala,ies must have a tangential velocity around C< (easurements have shown that our solar system* and hence the (il y 3ay* has a cosmic velocity through the C(R @DFA* and it is this velocity which is identified with the tangential velocity of the

(il y 3ay around C< In this view C must lie somewhere in that #lane which #asses through the (3 which is also #er#endicular to the cosmic velocity vector of the (3< It is evident that the RSS model #ictures the gala,ies or-iting C in any one of many different8si%ed concentric shells which suggests the alternate designation :Shell (odel of the 2niverse<: As originally conceived this Revolving Steady State @RSSA model envisions a universe with gala,ies which move in circular or-its under the gravitational field #roduced -y all of them< The field is assumed to -e stationary and s#herically symmetric< 'ecades ago Einstein made a general relativity study @D6A of circulating #articles constrained -y this ty#e of gravitational field* -ut his analysis did not mention redshifts* nor was there any hint that he considered his analysis had any reference to the structure of the universe< 6he R.. /odel a(d 2alactic Redshifts Assuming the gala,ies are revolving in different or-ital #lanes and with different tangential velocities v around some universal center C* initially I thought that if the (il y 3ay was one of the innermost gala,ies* then most of the galactic redshifts as o-served on earth might -e due to a com-ination of gravitational and transverse 'o##ler effects< @A literature search showed that +urcev @DLA had #ro#osed over a decade ago that 7uasars were #ossi-ly stellar o-1ects whose redshifts might -e attri-uta-le to the transverse 'o##ler effect<A Although 7uestions have arisen a-out this e,#lanation for the galactic redshifts in the RSS model* it seems worthwhile to e,#lain my original rationale and the o-1ections which now a##ear to #resent themselves< In #articular* in the Newtonian8-ased RSS model the gala,ies of mass m and tangential velocity v remain in circular or-its -y gravitational attraction of the total mass ( within the s#here of or-ital radius R< In this scenario* mvB>R R m()>RB* or vB R )(>R* where ) is the gravitational constant< Thus an o-server on an innermost gala,y located at a distance R4 from C would in theory see light from a more distant gala,y @at RB from CA shifted in fre7uency -ecause of the transverse 'o##ler effect and the change in gravitational #otential ;@RA R b)(>R< The #resumed limiting distance R: at which gala,ies could remain in sta-le or-its would -e when the tangential velocity v R c* the velocity of light< +eyond this #resumed galactic cutoff distance the RSS model tentatively assumes a ra#idly diminishing mass>energy density so that we do not encounter an infinite gravitational #otential @see discussion of e7uations @BA and @CA for more detailsA< The fre7uency shifts e,#ected in the RSS model can -e com#ared to an earth8-ound o-server com#aring the fre7uency of a light signal emitted from his #osition on the rotating earth:s surface* where the tangential velocity is v4* and the gravitational is ;4* with the fre7uency of the same signal emitted from an overhead satellite which is or-iting with velocity vB in a gravitational #otential ;B< The e,#erimentally confirmed @D4A e7uation for the redshift* as derived from the #rinci#le of e7uivalence* is: @4A % R @;4 b ;BA > cB b @v4B b vBBA > BcB<

The same e7uation a##lies in the RSS model e,ce#t that v4 and ;4 are the cosmic velocity and gravitational #otential of the (il y 3ay at R4 from C whereas vB and ;B re#resent the same 7uantities for a more distant gala,y at RB from C< Another source of fre7uency shifts arises -ecause the (il y 3ay @(3A is not e,actly at C< In this case the more distant gala,ies* which are rotating away from or toward the (3* #roduce first order

'o##ler redshifts or -lueshifts< The -lueshifts* which would -e most #ronounced for near-y gala,ies* can -e eliminated for all #ractical #ur#oses if it is assumed that the more distant gala,ies are rotating away from the (3< This scenario would result in a recessional redshift which* -ecause it de#ends on the cosine of the angle -etween the velocity vector of the outer gala,y and the line of sight from the (3 to that gala,y* would diminish with distance< Thus* of itself this redshift could at most -e only a #art of the total galactic redshift o-served on the earth< "f course* a significant distance8related redshift* irres#ective of its origin* could overshadow most -lueshifts e,#ected from gala,ies rotating toward the (3 and eliminate the need for assuming rotation away from the (3< 3e now return to the discussion of the redshifts e,#ected on the -asis of e7< @4A< If the m* the mass>energy density of the universe is assumed to -e constant then ( R D nm R C>C* and su-stitution of the a##ro#riate 7uantities into e7< @4A leads to the formal result that % is #ro#ortional to R B* which is of the same form of the redshift relation #ro#osed in references @CC*CD*C68C5A< "n a similar -asis* if the density is assumed to vary inversely as R* then one can o-tain an e,#ression for % which is #ro#ortional to R* which is of the same form as the &u--le relation @D5A< "f course* astronomers measure a##arent magnitudes* not distances* and* for there to -e a 7uantitative com#arison -etween the a-ove results and the redshift distri-ution* the light flu, relation for the RSS model must -e formulated so as to include the com-ined effect of the redshift and gravitational focusing< This formulation has yet to -e doneK thus on this -asis alone it would -e #remature to claim the forgoing results are consistent with the galactic redshift relation #ro#osed -y Nicoll and Segal @CLA< (oreover it should -e remem-ered that if the universe is revolving* then an e,traneous factor has -een included into the data which com#rise the redshift distri-ution* and this would #reclude any immediate com#arison< +ut regardless of the outcome of the a-ove calculations* there seems to -e a more fundamental o-1ection to the #receding formulation< In #articular* we must carefully investigate whether the gravitational #otential ; R b)(>R used in the a-ove calculations is the correct e,#ression for the #otential function< It is of crucial im#ortance to now whether it is correct for it is used as the -asis for the derivation of the &u--le relation @C4*CBA in +ig +ang cosmology< According to Sil @C4A and 3ein-erg @CBA* its use in com#uting the #otential at the surface of an ar-itrarily large* -ut finite s#here* of radius R within an infinite universe is 1ustified -y a theorem due to +ir hoff< $art of the #roof of this theorem im#licitly assumes that the universe is structured according to the Cosmological $rinci#le< Now the creation model of the universe #ro#osed herein is also of infinite e,tent* -ut the Cosmological $rinci#le does not hold* so that there is no -asic reason why this theorem should yield the correct gravitational #otential in the RSS model< +ut should it hold for the +ig +ang model? To answer this 7uestion we first note that the negative gradient of the #otential ; R b)(>R yields a re#ulsive force #er unit mass F>m R )(>RB whereas there is an e,#erimentally confirmed theorem in classical mechanics which definitely re7uires an attractive force #er unit mass F>m R b)(>R B to e,ist at any #oint R within a s#here enclosing a uniform mass distri-ution< This latter result is an integral #art of -oth the RSS and the +ig +ang models< Thus the #otential ; R b)(>R is 1ust as wrong for the +ig +ang model as it would -e for the RSS model -ecause it yields an incorrect sign for the force< Even Sil :s @C4A elementary treatment @see #age CCBA ma es it clear that the derivation of the Friedmann e7uation for the +ig +ang e,#anding universe is -ased on the #otential ; R b)(>R< &ere we have a logical contradiction in the theoretical develo#ment of the #rimeval fire-all* which is of course the -asis for #redicting the &u--le relation in the +ig +ang< An e,#ression for the #otential @EJ*E4A which does yield the correct attractive force is given -y

@BA

;@RA R b)(>R

b ) oRp D nm r dr

where ( R Dn ooR mrBdr<

The #ro-lem here is that for a finite* uniform density we encounter an infinite #otential due to the #resumed infinite si%e of the universe< This result is the same for -oth the +ig +ang model and the RSS model< Alternatively* a finite #otential can -e o-tained from e7< @BA -y assuming the density diminishes more ra#idly than 4>RC after R:* where v R c< As a first a##ro,imation this assum#tion truncates the #otential at R:< In this case the u##er integration limits in e7< @BA must -e changed from infinity to R:* and we have the following #otential: @CA ;@RA R b)(>R b ) oRR: D nm r dr where ( is defined in e7< @BA<

If this #otential is used in e7< @4A to com#ute % for the RSS model* then for a uniform density for all R less than R:* we find the redshift is %ero< If* however* the density increases as RJ<BB then we can formally o-tain a relation @E4A similar to that deduced -y &aw ins @CDA< Again* however* it is #remature to ma e any claims a-out this result until more wor is done< Another #ossi-ility for o-taining redshifts in the RSS model is to assume the mass>energy density diminishes as 4>RD< In this case the galactic or-its are no longer circular -ut s#irals* and there is a recessional com#onent to the velocity which leads to a first order 'o##ler shift and a &u--le ty#e % R relation< For this view to have any credi-ility most of the mass>energy of the universe must -e in a form other than the matter and radiation energy #resently o-served and>or inferred in stellar systems and intergalactic dust< In this conte,t it is #erha#s worth mentioning that Ellis @EBA has #ro#osed that there may -e a large amount of undetected mass>energy in other forms @e<g<* neutrinosA which could raise the cosmic mass>energy density to more than a million times the #resent density estimates of 4JbC4to 4JbB5g>cmC< "f course the RSS model does not re7uire that the redshifts are velocity de#endent< In this res#ect it is well nown that years ago #ro#onents of a static or steady state universe #ro#osed a variety of distance8de#endent inter#retations of the redshift which were non8recessional in nature @see North:s @DBA review for details and referencesA< The investigation of the origin of the redshifts in the RSS model should include a ree,amination of these alternatives< &sti5ates of the 0ista(ce fro5 the /il+y ,ay to the Ce(ter Earlier it was im#lied that the (il y 3ay could -e one of the innermost gala,ies in the RSS model< This view is -ased on the assum#tion that the (il y 3ay:s cosmic galactic velocity of EEJ m>s through the C(R @DFA is 1ust the tangential velocity of the (il y 3ay @(3A around C< )alactic #eculiar motions may also -e of the same nature< "n this -asis we can com#ute the angular velocity q of the (3 around C from vB R qBRB R )(>R* which leads to the result that q R B@nm)>CAT< For a constant m R 4JbB5g>cmC* then q R E U 4Jb44 rad>y* and the distance from C to our gala,y would -e a-out C<6 U 4J6 light8years< @C of course would -e located somewhere in the #lane #er#endicular to the direction of the motion of the (3 through the C(R<A If m R 4J bB6g>cmC then q R E U 4Jb4J rad>y @or E U 4JbE arc8s>yA* which means that differential angular motions of the more distant gala,ies @as o-served at the (3A would still -e -elow the #resent detection limit of light telesco#es @4JbC arc8s>yA< In the latter case the distance from the (3 to C is a-out C<6 U l" F light8 years and is considered the #referred value so as reduce #otential -lueshift effects< This distance #laces C outside our gala'y -ut still in the #lane which is #er#endicular to the (3:s cosmic velocity

vector< No o-servational data as yet seems to locate the direction of C in that #lane< "n the other hand "rion is in that #lane* and is #rominently mentioned in Scri#ture @/o- 5:5K CL:C4K Amos E:LA< As a wor ing hy#othesis I suggest that C may lie a few million light years -eyond "rion< "ne density used in the #receding calculations is higher than current estimates -ut* as #reviously noted* Ellis @EBA has suggested there may -e a large amount of undetected mass>energy which may raise the value to more than 4JbBD g>cmC< "n this -asis the higher density estimate is not unreasona-le< In the RSS model the value of the density cannot much e,ceed 4JbBF g>cmC or else the angular velocity will increase to the #oint where differential motions of distant gala,ies would -e o-served< 6he R.. /odel a(d Ol;erCs Parado) 3e -riefly digress to note that "l-er:s $arado, is resolved if the universe is structured according to the RSS model -ecause the finite num-er of gala,ies within a s#here of radius R: will only #roduce a finite light flu, at the (il y 3ay< Even if there is luminous matter -eyond R:* the density is assumed to diminish so ra#idly that the light flu, received at the (il y 3ay from -eyond R: will also -e finite< 6he R.. /odel a(d Darsh(iCs A(alysis of 8'asar Redshifts In the conte,t of the #resent #ro#osal for the structure of the universe it is most a##ro#riate to refer to ;arshni:s @ECA investigation of the redshift distri-ution of CLD 7uasars< From a #ro-a-ility analysis of those CLD 7uasars he found an astounding E6 sets of redshift coincidences within small redshift intervals< ;arshni calculates the #ro-a-ility of chance coincidence of these grou#s to -e a-out 4J bLE< &e concludes that if uasar redshifts are real .he thin#s they are not3 and are of cosmological origin .i.e." distance related3" then the only logical deduction from the data is* in his own words* as follows: The Earth is indeed the center of the 2niverse< The arrangement of 7uasars on certain s#herical shells is only with res#ect to the Earth< These shells would disa##ear if viewed from another gala,y or a 7uasar< This means that the cosmological #rinci#le will have to go< Also* it im#lies that a coordinate system fi,ed to the Earth will -e a #referred frame of reference in the 2niverse< Conse7uently* -oth the S#ecial and the )eneral Theory of Relativity must -e a-andoned for cosmological #ur#oses< These deductions are ama%ingly similar to the deductions of the RSS model e,ce#t that* first* the earth* or (3* is only astronomically close to rather than -eing e,actly at the Center* and* second* the a-solute reference frame is defined -y the C(R and not the #osition of the earth< And from earlier discussions in this article* it should now -e clear that the s#ecial and the general theory of relativity are not credi-le theories in the RSS model< In fact* as shown -elow* if anything it now a##ears that the results of one of the most cele-rated e,#eriments in the history of #hysics contradict the -asic #remises of -oth s#ecial and general relativity so directly that* to me at least* it seems these theories are no longer tena-le< As noted earlier* however* 1ust -ecause s#ecial and general relativity are shown to -e untena-le does not invalidate all the mathematical results o-tained -y these theories< It suggests rather that there must e,ist an a-solute s#ace8time framewor which would encom#ass all the results of relativity which do accord with e,#eriment* -ut different results where relativity theory ma es incorrect #redictions< Several investigations #ertaining to this alternative framewor have already -een cited @DB8DDA< In addition we should also mention Clu-e:s @EDA wor and his e,changes with others @EEA on neo80orent%ian relativity<

6he R.. /odel, the C/R, a(d the 6heory of Relativity Clu-e:s @EDA e,#lanation for the C(R is undergirded -y the assum#tion of a non8relativistic 0orent% invariant material vacuum< It is intriguing to consider that the C(R may -e the result of emissions from a cold material vacuum< "n a related matter* Clu-e cites other wor @EFA as evidence that o-servations are not at all inconsistent with an essentially Euclidean infinite cosmos< Certainly these ideas a##ear easily reconcila-le with the RSS model since they assume the e,istence of an a-solute reference frame< &owever* the details of Clu-e:s theory have yet to -e wor ed out so it is #remature to ma e any claims until further wor is done< "f course there is also the #ossi-ility that the C(R may -e a #art of the :light: that was created in )en< 4:C< Interestingly* 3eiss o#f @DEA alludes to that very #ossi-ility in the closing #aragra#h of his recent article: Indeed* the /udeo8Christian tradition descri-es the -eginning of the world in a way that is sur#risingly similar to the scientific model< $reviously* it seemed scientifically unsound to have light created -efore the sun< The #resent scientific view does indeed assume the early universe to -e filled with various inds of radiation long -efore the sun was created< The +i-le says a-out the -eginning: ?And )od said* :0et there -e light:K and there was light< And )od saw the light* that it was good<? Irres#ective of how it originated* the most im#ortant fact a-out the C(R is that it re#resents une7uivocal evidence of an a-solute reference frame in the universe* a very necessary condition in the RSS model* -ut an inconsistent condition for the relativistic foundations of the +ig +ang model< To e,#licitly show e,actly how this inconsistency arises* it is most hel#ful to include another 7uote from 3eiss o#f:s recent article: It is remar a-le that we now are 1ustified in tal ing a-out an a-solute motion* and that we can measure it< The great dream of (ichelson and (orley is reali%ed< They wanted to measure the a-solute motion of the earth -y measuring the velocity of light in different directions< According to Einstein* however* this velocity is always the same< +ut the CH radiation re#resents a fi,ed system of coordinates< It ma es sense to say that an o-server is at rest in an a-solute sense when the CH radiation a##ears to have the same fre7uencies in all directions< Nature has #rovided an a-solute frame of reference< The dee#er significance of this conce#t is not yet clear< 3ith all due res#ect to my eminent colleague I suggest the meaning of this fact is not o-scure at all< I suggest the evidence @the C(RA which has received worldwide acclaim as confirmation of the +ig +ang is in reality its death nell for* ironically* it is now clear that the e,istence of the C(R essentially falsifies the fundamental #ostulates of the theory of relativity< The logic is 7uite straightforward< Referring to the last 7uotation -y 3eiss o#f* we note he mentions the famed (ichelson8(orley e,#eriment* which achieved only a null result< 0orent%:s efforts to e,#lain this null result on the -asis of an a-solute reference frame were su##osedly untena-le< The real e,#lanation* according to almost every #hysics te,t-oo written in the #ast FJ years* was given -y the theory of relativity* namely that: ;iven the null result of the %ichelson+%orley e'periment" if the fundamental principles of relativity are true" then there is no absolute reference frame. +ut the C(R is an a-solute reference frame* so the original relativistic deductions a-out the (ichelson8(orley e,#eriment are in error< (ore #recisely* since logic re7uires the contra#ositive of a statement to -e e7uivalent to the statement itself* the #receding ?if relativity is true* then no a-solute reference frame? statement must -e e7uivalent to ?if an a-solute reference frame e,ists* then the fundamental #rinci#les of relativity are untrue<? In simpler terms the theory of

relativity has been falsified because a ma:or prediction of the theory is now #nown to be contradicted by an unambiguous e'perimental result. 3ithout relativity theory there is no +ig +ang* no &u--le relation for the redshift* and no e,#lanation for the C(R in an evolutionary cosmological model<

Ac+(owledg5e(ts, Reflectio(s, a(d Co(cl'sio(s

S#ecial than s goes to 'rs< Fran Aw-rey and +ill Thwaites* +iology 'e#artment* San 'iego State 2niversity* for e,tending to me the o##ortunity of #artici#ating in this sym#osium* and for their understanding and #atience during the revision of this contri-ution< S#ecial than s also to 'r< Alan 0eviton* 'irector* $acific 'ivision of the AAAS* who very indly undertoo the tas of translating my com#uter dis s into a finished manuscri#t< Several years ago the American $hysical Society sent its mem-ers a co#y of the National Academy of Sciences resolution of A#ril 456F* ?An Affirmation of Freedom of In7uiry and E,#ression*? which reads in #art ?< < < That the search for nowledge and understanding of the #hysical universe and of the living things that inha-it it should -e conducted under conditions of intellectual freedom* without religious #olitical or ideological restrictions< < < < That freedom of in7uiry and dissemination of ideas re7uire that those so engaged -e free to search where their in7uiry leads < < < without #olitical censorshi# and without fear of retri-ution in conse7uence of un#o#ularity of their conclusions< Those who challenge e,isting theory must -e #rotected from retaliatory reactions<? In recent years the lofty aim of that resolution has not -een reali%ed as I have tried to #ursue my research< In my o#inion some of my more influential colleagues have found it easier to su##ort this NAS resolution for foreign dissident scientists than for an American scientist who dissents from evolution< In fact I read in a recent issue of Science @E6A that the NAS itself has recently ste##ed u# its anti8creation cam#aign -y the wides#read distri-ution of a #u-lication which claims that creationism is not science< I will #resent the o##osite view#oint in my forthcoming -oo @ELA while also relating some details concerning my difficulties in #ursuing research in this somewhat controversial field< The im#act of aforementioned NAS resolution on my research efforts receives s#ecial attention< In closing I wish to e,#ress my gratitude to those of my evolutionary colleagues who on so many occasions have assisted me* and on other occasions have colla-orated with me in my research< "f one thing I am certain: "nly in America could my research over the #ast two decades have -een accom#lished< I close -y e,#ressing gratitude to my Creator for allowing me the #rivilege of -eing an American< I su-mit this article to the scientific community not as an antagonist who #ur#orts to have the last word on the su-1ect* -ut as a colleague who* in the s#irit of free scientific in7uiry* genuinely see s a vigorous* critical res#onse to the evidence #resented herein< $erha#s a future ?Evolutionists Confront Creationists? AAAS sym#osium would -e the ideal forum for this e,change to occur<

References
4< B< C< D< )entry* Ro-ert ;< 456C< Annual Rev< Nucl< Sci< BC: CD6< )entry* Ro-ert ;< 456D< Science 4LD: FB< )entry* Ro-ert ;< et al< 456D< Nature BEB: EFD< /oly* /< 4546< $hil< Trans< Roy< Soc< 0ondon Ser< A< B46: E4865K Idem< 4546< Nature 55: DE68EL* D6F86LK Idem< 45BC< $roc< Roy< Soc< 0ondon Ser< A 4JB: FLB86JEK Idem< 45BD< Nature 44D: 4FJ8 FD< E< Herr80awson* '< E< 45BL< 2niv< Toronto Stud< )eol< Ser< No< B6:4E

F< &enderson* )< &<* C< (< (ush at* '< $< Crawford< 45CD< $roc< R< Soc< 0ond< Ser< A< (ath< $hys< Sci< 4EL: 455< 6< &enderson* )< &<* and 0< )< Turn-ull< 45CD< $roc< R< Soc< 0ond< Ser< A< (ath< $hys< Sci< 4DE: ELB< L< &enderson* )< &<* and S< +ateson< I-id<* $roc< R< Soc< 0ond< Ser< A< (ath< $hys< Sci< 4DE: E6C< 5< Schilling* A<* 45BF< Neues /ahr-< (ineral< A-h< ECA: BD4< See also "a Ridge Nat< 0a-< Re#< "RN08tr8F56< 4J<(ahadevan* C<* 45B6< Indian /< $hys< 4: DDE< 44<)entry* Ro-ert ;< 45FL< Science 4FJ: 4BBL< 4B<)entry* Ro-ert ;< 4564< Science 46C: 6B6< 4C<)entry* Ro-ert ;< et al< 456C< Nature BDD: BLB< 4D<)entry* Ro-ert ;< 456L< Are Any 2nusual Radiohalos Evidence for S&E? In $roc< International Sym#osium on Su#erheavy Elements< 0u--oc * (arch 456L< $ergamon $ress* New =or * ",ford< 4E<)entry* R< ;<* 3< &< Christie* '< &< Smith* /< 3< +oyle* S< S< Cristy* G /< F< (c0aughlin< 456L< Nature B6D: DE6< 4F<)entry* R< ;< 456J< Science 4F5: F6J< 46<)entry* R< ;<* 3< &< Christie* '< &< Smith* /< E< Emery* S< A< Reynolds* R< 3< 3al er* S< S< Cristy* G $< A< )entry< 456F< Science 45D: C4E< 4L<&enderson* )< &< and F< 3< S#ar s 45C5< $roc< R< Soc< 0ond< Ser< A (ath< $hys< Sci< 46C: BCL< &enderson* )< &<* i-id<* #< BEJ< 45<0ind* S< C<* and C< $< 3hittemore< 454E< 2<S< +ur< (ines Tech< $a#< LL:4< Stern* T< 3<* and 0< R< Stieff* 45E5< 2<S< )eol< Surv< $rof< $a#< CBJ:4E4< Rosholt* /< N<* 45EL< In $roceedings of the Second 2<N< International Conference on the $eaceful 2ses of Atomic Energy* )eneva< 2nited Nations* New =or * vol< B* #< CB4< BJ<)entry* Ro-ert ;< 456E< Nature BEL: BF5< B4<Fremlin* /< &< 456E< Nature BEL: BF5< BB<&ashemi8Ne%had* S< R<* et al<* 4565< Nature: 46L: CCC8CCE< BC<(oa%ed* C<* R< (< S#ector* and R< F< 3ard< 456C< Science 4LJ: 4B6B< BD<Feather* N< 456L< Roy< Soc< Edin-urgh Commun< 44: 4D6< BE<)entry* Ro-ert ;< 4565< E"S FJ: D6D< Idem< 45LJ< E"S F4: E4D< BF<)entry* Ro-ert ;< 45LB< $hysics Today CE: No< 4J* 4C< I-id<* CF: No< D* 4C< B6<Ramdohr< $< 45E6< A--< der 'eutsch< Adad< d< 3iss<* +erlin* Hl< f< Chem<* )eol< u< +iologie* no< B: 4< See also "a Ridge National 0a-oratory Translation @"RN08tr86EEA< BL<)entry* Ro-ert ;<* T< /< Swors i* &< S< (cHown* '< &< Smith* R< E< E-y* 3< &< Cristie< 45LB< Science B4F: B5F< See also R< ;< )entry< 45LD< Science BBC: LCE< B5<Zartman* R< E< 4565< 0os Alamos Sci< 0a-< Re#< 0A865BC8(S< CJ<)entry* R< ;<* )< )lish* G E< R< (c+ay< 45LB< )eo#hys< Res< 0ett< 5:44B5< C4<Sil * /< 4565< The +ig +ang< 3< &< Freeman G Co<* San Francisco< CB<3ein-erg* S< 456B< )ravitation and Cosmology< 3iley* New =or < CC<&etherington* Norriss< 4564< Astron< Soc< of the $acific* 0eaflet No< EJ5* Novem-er< CD<&aw ins* )< S< 45FB< Nature 45D: EFC< CE<Segal* I< E< 456F< (athematical Cosmology and E,tragalactic Astronomy< Academic $ress< Idem< 456E< $roc< Nat< Acad< Sci< 6B: BD6C< CF<Nicoll* /< F< and I< E< Segal< 456E< $roc< Nat< Acad< Sci< 6B: DF54< C6<Sandage* A<* )< A< Tammann* and A< =ahil< 4565< A#< /< BCB: CEB< CL<Nicoll* /< F< and I< E< Segal< 45LB< $roc< Natl< Acad< Sci< 65: C54C< Idem< 45LB< A#< /< BEL: DE6< Idem< 45LB< Astron< G Astro#hys< 44E: C5L< See also Segal* I< E< 45LB< A#< /< BEB: C6<

C5<Nicoll* /< F< et al< 45LJ< $roc< Natl< Acad< Sci< 66: FB6E< DJ<$ound* R< ;< and /< 0< Snider< 45FD< $hys< Rev< 0ett< 4C: EC5< Idem< 45FE< $hys< Rev< 4DJ: +6LL< D4<Alley* C< J< 45LB< $ro#er Time E,#eriments in )ravitational Fields with Atomic Cloc s* Aircraft* and 0aser 0ight $ulses< In !uantum "#tics* E,#erimental )ravitation* and (easurement Theory< Edited -y $< (eystre and (< J< Scully* $lenum $u-< Cor#<* New =or < DB<North* /< '< 45FE< The (easure of the 2niverse* Clarendon $ress* ",ford< DC<Rastall* $< 456L< Astro#hys< /< BB: 6DE< Idem< 4565< Can< /< $hys< E6: 5DD< DD<(arinov* S< 45L4< E##ur Si (uove< East 3est $u-lishers* )ra%* Austria< DE<3eiss o#f* ;< F< 45LC< Am< Sci< 64* No< E: D6C< DF<Smoot* )< F< et al< 4566< $hys< Rev< 0ett< C5: L5L< Idem< 4565< A#< /< BCD: 0LC< D6<Einstein* A< 45C5< Ann< (ath< DJ: 5BB< DL<+urcev* $< 45FL< $hys< 0ett< B6A: FBC< D5<)entry* R< ;< 45LC< +ull< of the Am< $hys< Soc< BL: CJ< EJ<0ands-erg* $< T< and '< A< Evans< 4565< (athematical Cosmology< Clarendon $ress* ",ford< E4<)entry* R< ;< 45LC< $hys< Today CF* No< 44: 4BD< EB<Ellis* )<F<R< et al< 456L< (on< Not< R< Astr< Soc< 4LD: DC5< EC<;arshni* =< $< 456F< Astro#hys< S#ace Sci< DC: C< 4566< I-id< E4: 4B4< ED<Clu-e* S<;<(< 45LJ< (on< Not< R< Astr< Soc< 45C: CLE< Idem< 45LB< $roceedings of an International Collo7uium on the Scientific As#ects of the &i##arcos (ission* Stras-ourg* France @ESA S$8466A< EE<Clu-e* S<;<(< et al< 45LJ< Comm< R< "-servatory* Edin-urgh* No< CLC: DF6< EF</aa ola* T<* (< (oles G /< $< ;igier< 4565< Astr< Na< CJJ:BB5< E6<&olden* C< 45LD< Science BBC: 4B6D< EL<)entry* Ro-ert ;< 45LD< Creation:s Tiny (ystery @to -e #u-lishedA<

710 5alyry(ple's 1etter to <irth

N$u-lished in CreationG<volution Newsletter K" No. 0" 87.O 2NITE' STATES 'E$ART(ENT "F T&E INTERI"R )E"0")ICA0 S2R;E= +ranch of Isoto#e )eology @ms 5C6A CDE (iddlefield Road (enlo $ar * CA 5DJBE BF (arch 45LE (r< Hevin &< 3irth 'irector of Research Students for "rigins Research $< "< +o, BJC Santa +ar-ara* CA 5C44F 'ear (r< 3irth: Tom /u es sent me co#ies of your e,change of corres#ondence and your 'ocument CB to $ACIFIC 'ISC";ER=< I note that in the latter you have incorrectly characteri%ed my testimony at the Ar ansas trial -y omitting nearly the entire su-stance of my comments on )entry:s #leochroic halos< A-out my testimony you say* ?Although it is conceiva-le to test )entry:s findings* his challenge was dismissed at the trial -y 2S)S e,#ert witness for the AC02 +rent 'alrym#le us a :minor mystery: with #rohi-itively high costs for -uilding a test mechanism and that was that< No more discussion<? =our statement is untrue and since my testimony is a matter of #u-lic record I am mystified as to the source of your information< $lease allow me to summari%e what I have said a-out )entry:s conclusions* -oth at the trial and at the Santa +ar-ara AAAS meeting< First and foremost* )entry:s ?hy#othesis? is unscientific -ecause he #ro#oses fiat creation of the Earth* and a fiat8induced flood< In science* miracles are a no8no< (iracles may occur @although I am unconvinced that they doA* -ut they are the su-1ect of #hiloso#hy and religion* not science< Second* there have -een several credi-le alternate hy#otheses advanced in the scientific literature for the origin of anomalous $o8halos* including erasure or modification of the inner halos -y the Al#ha radiation from another isoto#e* such as $o8B4J* migration of uranium8series elements through the roc s -y either fluid migration or diffusion* and modification of halos -y heat* #ressure* and chemical change during metamor#hism< )entry has dis#uted all of these e,#lanations -ut has dis#roved none of them and I find his arguments unconvincing< Third* there are numerous #ro-lems with halo inter#retation and there is a distinct #ossi-ility that the $o halos are not what they a##ear to -e< Hnown difficulties include coloration reverals due to saturation effects* attenuation of al#ha #article ranges -y the radioactive inclusion* dose de#endence of halo radii* the lac of ade7uate data on the relation -etween energy and distance in the various mineral ty#es in which halos are found* and the #ro-a-le -ut un nown effects of crystal im#erfections and chemical im#urities<

Thus* the identification and inter#retation of the so8called $o8halos is a very uncertain -usiness< 3e don:t now with certainty* aA that they are $o8halos* or -A how they are formed< This is the -ac ground of my descri#tion to the court of $o8halos as one of sciences many ?tiny myateries?. mysterious -ecause their e,#lanation is uncertain and tiny -ecause I thin that they are a #ro-lem of minor im#ortance @which e,#lains why few scientists -other with themA< The fact that the origin and inter#retation of $o8halos is uncertain lends no credi-ility to )entry:s unscientific ?hy#othesis?< Science is full of mysteries* that is why there are still em#loyment o##ortunities for scientists< As for )entry:s ?challenge?* it is nonsense for several reasons< First* the synthesis of a hand8si%ed #iece of granite in the la-oratory would neither #rove nor dis#rove )entry:s ?hy#othesis?* only demonstrate that someone had figured out the technology and s#ent the money to ma e large #ieces of granite< Thus* for its stated #ur#ose it would -e a worthless e,#eriment and that is one reason why no serious scientist will ta e )entry:s challenge seriously< The #ro-lems in com#letely crystalli%ing igneous roc s in the la-oratory are well nown and are due to scale* i<e<* it is not always easy to re#roduce in the la-oratory what nature re7uires hundreds of thousands or millions of years to do< The #rinci#al difficulties are nucleation* inetics* time* and volume< )entry:s insistence on a hand8si%ed #iece also is somewhat of a #ro-lem< E,#erimental #etrologists find it most convenient and sufficient to wor with e7ui#ment of reasona-le si%e and cost< As a result* most high8#ressure and tem#erature -om-s use charges of less than a gram in weight< An a##aratus to synthesi%e a hand8si%ed #iece of an igneous roc would -e immense and costly* and as far as I now* no e,#erimental #etrologist has found it necessary to -uild and utili%e such an a##aratus when the smaller* less costly e7ui#ment serves the #ur#oses of science< Second* )entry:s ?challenge? is a-surd -ecause it is not necessary to #erform )entry:s e,#eriment to #rove his hy#othesis incorrect -ecause it is already #roven false< )entry:s main #oint seems to -e that granites @and here we don:t now whether he is using the term loosely to include all granitic roc s or s#ecifically to include only granite in the strict com#ositional senseA do not cool from a li7uid roc melt* -ut there is am#le #roof that he is wrong< Igneous te,tures are distinct and can -e du#licated in the la-oratory using a variety of materials* including roc s< Igneous roc s with igneous te,tures can also -e o-served forming in nature< "ne e,am#le is Hilauea I i lava la e* where drilling over a #eriod of several years has recovered a continuum of sam#les in #rogressive stages of crystalli%ation -y cooling of a roc melt< "ther e,am#les include lava flows* many of which crystalli%e com#letely within a year or so< The te,tures of these lavas are virtually identical to granites* which is not too sur#rising< Recall* if you will* that the #rimary difference -etween volcanic and -atholithic intrusive roc s @granitesA is that the former reaches the surface whereas the latter does not< Furthermore* the se7uence of crystalli%ation of minerals in granite* which can -e determined -y any e,#erienced #etrologist for any given roc * invaria-ly agrees with the order #redicted -y thermodynamic calculations and la-oratory #hase e7uili-ria studies for minerals crystalli%ing from a roc melt of granitic com#osition< Third* )entry seems to thin that the $recam-rian consists entirely of ?#rimordial? granites and that this ?#rimordial -asement? is overlain -y the stratified roc s of the world @de#osited during the Flood* of courseA< At -est this view is naive< The $recam-rian consists of roc s of virtually every ty#e* including lava flows* glacial de#osits* and continental and oceanic sedimentary roc s< In fact* the oldest roc s on Earth @C<E to C<L -illion years.3estern Australia* )reenland* southern AfricaA are lava flows and shallow marine sedimentary roc s< These are intruded -y younger granitic roc s< There are no ?#rimordial granites? as #er )entry* or at least none have -een found< As for as I am concerned* )entry:s challenge is silly< &e has #ro#osed an a-surd and inconclusive e,#eriment to test a #erfectly ridiculous and unscientific hy#othesis that ignores virtually the entire

-ody of geological nowledge< Science is not re7uired to res#ond to such a challenge and the fact that )entry:s #ro#osal has -een ignored does not entitle him to any claim to victory< As you can see from the a-ove @and as you should have recalled from my remar s at the AAAS sym#osium* my o-1ections to )entry:s inter#retation of $o8halos are far more numerous and su-stantive than* as you say in your document* the ?high costs for -uilding a test mechanism?< =ou also im#ly that I have no su-stantive o-1ections to )entry:s #ro#osal< In so doing you have falsely re#resented my #osition and incorrectly re#orted my testimony at the Ar ansas trial< I trust that you will ta e immediate ste#s to correct the error< =ours truly* )< +rent 'alrym#le cc: S< 3arric 3< +ennetta T< /u es 3< (ei le

713 "entry Responds to 5alry(ple's 1etter to =evin <irth

0alry5pleCs @etter O'tli(ed Alo(g ,ith 2e(tryCs Co55e(ts to &ach Poi(t I< N)entry:sO hy#othesis is unscientific -ecause it assumes fiat creation of the earth and a worldwide flood* according to )enesis< "entry: In his tal# at the AAAS symposium at Santa &arbara Balrymple referred to science as ". . . that magnificent field of ob:ective in uiry whose only purpose is to decipher the history and laws of the physical universe. . ." A "field of ob:ective in uiry" implies that scientists are searching for the truth. If Balrymple is really loo#ing for the truth" he has no logical basis for a priori e'cluding the possibility of creation. Scientists should #eep an open mind to all possibilities and ma#e decisions on the weight of the evidence. II< Several credi-le alternate hy#otheses advanced to e,#lain $o halos: A< Erasure of inner halos -y al#ha8radiation from another isoto#e* such as $o8B4J "entry: I have shown .;entry 82L9a and 82L9b3 that erasure of inner halo rings occurs at e'tremely high doses when reversal effects are apparent. $his is an e'tremely rare occurrence that is easily discernible by microscopic observation and can be confirmed by scanning electron microscope '+ray fluorescence methods which show the reversed region is characteri5ed by a calcium and potassium inversion anomaly. $here is no basis for claiming erasure of inner halo rings has caused misidentification of /o halos. +< (igration of 28series elements through roc s -y diffusion @secondary hy#othesisA "entry: I have investigated the hypothesis of the secondary origin of polonium halos in granites from uranium daughter activity and have shown .;entry 8219- ;entry 82L1a- ;entry 829Ja3 that this hypothesis has no basis in fact. Balrymple presents no new data to support his comment- so it must be assumed that this comment is similar to the one he made at the Ar#ansas trial. 4hen Attorney 4illiams as#ed whether he had done any investigations to support such comments" he responded negatively. It appears he is doing the same in his correspondence to Ievin 4irth. C< (odification of halos -y heat* #ressure* and chemical change during metamor#hism "entry: ,alos occur in many mica samples which have not undergone metamorphism of any #ind- so it is useless to ob:ect that halos have been modified for that reason. /roof of this is demonstrated by the fact that /o halos occur in the same mineral specimens with well+defined uranium and thorium halos" which show no modification of their ring structure. .See" for e'ample" ;entry 8219- ;entry 82L8b- ;entry 82L0a- ;entry 82LJa- ;entry 82L9- ;entry 829Ja.3 III<$ro-lems with Inter#retation of $o &alos A< Coloration reversals due to saturation effects "entry: Fears ago I showed .;entry 82L0a and ;entry 82LJa3 that /o halos e'ist in all stages of coloration" ranging from those which are barely discernible to those which are densely colored. Saturation effects" if they were to e'ist at all" would only occur with those halos that were densely colored. $here is no basis to the claim that saturation effects are a cause for misinterpreting /o halos.

+< Attenuation of al#ha8#article ranges -y radioactive inclusion "entry: At the Ar#ansas trial" my colleague admitted he had read virtually none of my technical reports on radioactive halos. ,is suggestion that alpha+particles may be attenuated by the finite si5e of the /o halo radiocenter suggests that he still hasn!t read my reports" or if he has" he hasn!t read them very carefully. ,ad he done so" he would have learned that /o halo radiocenters in micas are typically e'tremely small" about :ust one or two micrometers in si5e. >ranium halos with radiocenters this small show e'cellent definition of all the uranium halo rings because there is virtually no attenuation of the alpha particles. Since the energies of a number of the uranium+series daughters are the same as for the /o halos" it li#ewise follows there is virtually no attenuation of the alpha particles by /o+halo inclusions. C< 'ose de#endence of halo radii "entry: I have reported on a long series of helium+ion irradiations of several minerals and documented in detail the dependence of coloration on the alpha dose .;entry 82L0a and ;entry 82LJa3. $he coloration bands measured at various doses and energies were then shown to correspond almost e'actly to the measured values of the corresponding halo radii. $hus there is no uncertainty about /o+halo identification relating to the alpha dose. '< 0ac of data on relation of energy and distance in the various mineral ty#es in which halos are found "entry: $he same comments apply here as in .C3 above with the additional statement that the reports mentioned contained e'actly the information on the relationship of energy and distance that Balrymple seems to feel is in uestion. Again I as#: ,as he even read my reports6 E< 2n nown effects of crystal im#erfections and chemical im#urities "entry: As Balrymple well #nows" there are crystals of various minerals" which are well+ nigh perfect and others which have many crystallographic imperfections and chemical impurities. I have made it a practice to perform my halo studies using good mineral specimens. It is a simple matter to avoid the poor specimens. %oreover" I should again point out that /o halos are found in the same mineral specimens with well+defined uranium and thorium halos. Crystal imperfections did not affect the structure of the uranium and thorium halos" neither did they affect the structure of the /o halos. F< Conclusion of Inter#retation . Tiny (ystery Tiny . -ecause halos are #ro-lem of minor im#ortance (ysterious . e,#lanation is uncertain This e,#lains why few scientists -other with them< "entry: $he net result of Balrymple!s evaluation is that /o halos in granites are only a tiny mystery. $o him and many others" they may be only this" but the fact remains they cannot be e'plained on the basis of uniformitarian evolutionary principles. Something so tiny should already have found a rational e'planation within the realm of conventional science" if indeed one was to ever have been found. No" more than that" since the secondary origin of /o halos from uranium is the favorite candidate for e'plaining /o halos in granites" we must as# why no one has artificially produced a /o+789 halo in granite. $he radioactivity necessary to do the e'periment is available as is the roc# itself So what is the barrier in reproducing a tiny mystery such as a /o+789 halo if indeed it can be done by man6 I suggest the /o halos are mysterious only to those who wish to e'clude the activity of the Creator of the universe to ,is own creation. /erhaps scientists should awa#en to the possibility that the Creator is attempting to attract their attention by this parado'ical" tiny mystery that continues to confound giant

intellects in science. I;<'iscussion of Challenge A< Nonsense for several reasons 4< Synthesis of hand8si%ed #iece of granite would neither #rove nor dis#rove hy#othesis< "entry: As has been pointed out a number of times in this boo#" confirmed evolutionists have essentially dug their own graves by insisting on the universal application of the uniformitarian principle. If evolutionary theory is right" the /recambrian granites formed numerous times over the vast e'panse of time during which the earth was evolving" and this was presumably being done solely by the action of the same physical laws that are operating today. It is inescapable" therefore" that it should be possible to reproduce today by design what nature presumably did :ust by chance. B< $ro-lems in crystalli%ing igneous roc s in la-oratory are aA due to scaleK i<e< nucleation* inetics* time* and volumeK and -A hand8si%ed #iece is a #ro-lem -ecause it would involve immense and costly a##aratus< "entry: As we showed in Chapter 2" Balrymple!s contention that he #nows why it has thus far been impossible to synthesi5e a granite is based on his own view of <arth!s history" namely" that the granites crystalli5ed slowly over geological time. $here we also noted that if nature was supposedly successful in overcoming the obstacles of nucleation and #inetics numerous instances during the course of geological time" there is no reason why these obstacles should not be surmounted in the modern scientific laboratory. ,e refuses to admit that the impossibility lies" not in technological factors" such as those he mentioned" but in the fact that the /recambrian granites are the ;enesis roc#s of the earth" made by the Creator in such a way it is impossible to reproduce them without ,is intervention. )inally" at the Ar#ansas trial Balrymple admitted that geologists had failed to synthesi5e even a tiny piece of granite. So why does he now claim that the problem in granite synthesis is related to its si5e6 +< A-surd -ecause: 4< 2nnecessary to falsify hy#othesis -ecause it is already #roven false "entry: %y hypothesis is that the /recambrian are the ;enesis roc#s of the earth" created by ;od in such a way that they cannot be duplicated without ,is intervention. Balrymple apparently is claiming my view of these roc#s has already been proven false. 4here is the proof6 $here is no proofV 4hat Balrymple calls a disproof of my views relates to his flawed comparison of the Iilauea+I#i lava specimens with granites" as was discussed in Chapter 8@. B< 3rong in saying granites do not cool from a li7uid melt a< Igneous te,tures are distinct and can -e du#licated in la-oratory using roc s< Igneous roc s with igneous te,tures o-served forming in natureK e<g<* @4A Hilauea I i lava and @BA lava flows . te,ture virtually identical to granites< "entry: $his is the so+called "proof" that my hypothesis is wrong. $he inference of these comments is that there is a lot of similarity between the

Iilauea+I#i samples and granites. $rue" Balrymple claims that only the te'ture is the same" but in Chapter 8@ we showed that only one aspect of the te'ture is similar(the intergranular structure(whereas the grain si5e is considerably different between the lava la#e samples and the granites. %oreover" we also showed in Chapter 8@ that the samples are grossly different in bul# composition and mineralogy" meaning there is little similarity between the Iilauea+I#i lava la#e samples and the granites. -< Se7uence of crystalli%ation of minerals in granite agrees with the order #redicted -y thermodynamic calculations and la-oratory #hase e7uili-ria studies for minerals crystalli%ing from roc melt of granitic com#osition< "entry: In Chapter 8@" I pointed out that my creation model envisions a primordial li uid as a precursor of the /recambrian granites. &ut there is nothing in my model which prohibits the /recambrian granites from having a se uence of crystalli5ation that agrees with thermodynamic calculations. So Balrymple!s argument that granites came from a melt is no argument at all against the /recambrian granites being among the primordial ;enesis roc#s of our planet. C< Naive -ecause )entry claims $recam-rian consists entirely of ?#rimordial? granites* overlaid -y stratified roc s of the world de#osited -y flood< Actually* $recam-rian consists of every ty#e of roc including lava flows* glacial de#osits* and sedimentary roc s< "ldest roc s in world @C<E 8 C<L -<y<A are shallow marine sedimentary roc s< These are intruded -y younger granitic roc s< "entry: ,ere Balrymple argues against a "straw man" creation model. In Chapter 8@ I e'plained in detail that my creation model is much broader and envisions many more possibilities for the formation of various roc# types than Balrymple considers to be the case. In particular I e'plained that the ;enesis record of creation wee# and the subse uent events of the world+wide flood encompass" in addition to the primordial created roc#s such as the /recambrian granites" the formation of pristine sedimentary roc#s" lava+li#e roc#s" the intrusion of granite+li#e roc#s into pristine sedimentary roc#s" and almost unlimited possibilities of mi'ing these various roc# types with secondary roc#s that were formed at the time of the flood. Balrymple also refers to /recambrian glacial material" apparently for the purpose of attempting to cast doubt on my creation model. $he reader should understand that :ust because geologists designate something as /recambrian doesn!t automatically mean it has any connection with the primordial events of Bay 8" or for that matter" of creation wee#. In the case of the /recambrian granites it does have a connection- in other cases it may not. Investigation on a case+by+case basis is needed before it can be decided whether something called "/recambrian" can be connected to the events of creation wee#. So the mere e'istence of what Balrymple refers to as /recambrian glacial deposits does nothing to detract from the solid identification of the /recambrian granites as the primordial roc#s of our planet. I should also remar# that whatever it is that Balrymple is classifying as glacial material may or may not ultimately prove to be glacial material at all. Additional information about my creation model is given in Chapter 8J. $hat model includes the possibility that some granites may have been created on Bay 8 ad:acent to and immediately after some primordial or pristine "sedimentary" roc#s were created. /erhaps this is what Balrymple refers to as granites intruding ancient sedimentary roc#s.

;< Conclusion A< )entry:s challenge is sillyK synthesis test is a-surd and inconclusiveK hy#othesis is #erfectly ridiculous and unscientific* ignoring virtually the entire -ody of geological nowledge< "entry: I agree that my discoveries upset virtually the entire body of geological #nowledge. %y colleague is obviously concerned" as many other scientists have been over the past 7@ years" because of the implications of my research. $he falsification test puts evolutionists on the defensive" and naturally a human reaction is to recoil with negative rhetoric. $he important point to be emphasi5ed is that instead of relegating the phenomenon of polonium radiohalos to the realm of anomalies" scientists should admit that the evidence e'ists and deal with it ob:ectively. +< Science is not re7uired to res#ond to such a challenge* and the fact that )entry:s #ro#osal has -een ignored does not entitle him to any claim to victory< "entry: Science deals with reality. /olonium halos in granites are real(they will not disappear because evolutionists ignore them. I have not claimed victory(only the discovery of irrefutable evidence for creation.

7!4 1etter fro( &cience to 5r? R'ssell )'(phreys

.cie(ce
'r< '< Russell &um#hreys 'ivision 4BEB Sandia National 0a-oratories Al-u7uer7ue* N( L64LE 'ear 'r< &um#hreys:

$2+0IS&E' += T&E A(ERICAN ASS"CIATI"N F"R T&E A';ANCE(ENT "F SCIENCE 4CCC & STREET* N<3<* 3AS&IN)T"N* '<C< BJJJE @BJBA CBF8FEJJ CA+0E A''RESS: A';ANCESCI

CJ August 45LE

Than you for your letter of CJ /uly< It is true that we are not li ely to #u-lish letters su##orting creationism< This is -ecause we decide what to #u-lish on the -asis of scientific content< The letters we received o-1ecting to the study re#orted -y Roger 0ewin contained arguments that were largely con1ectural or anecdotal< They were therefore not considered acce#ta-le material for Science< =ours sincerely* Christine )il-ert 0etters Editor

C):1#

7!1 Transcription of Robert 9? "entry's Cross8 6a(ination fro( A'dio Tape /c@ea( vs- Ar+a(sas .tate *oard of &d'catio( @ittle Roc+, 0ece5;er 1#, 1%$1
@i(e 4 /r&((is ! @Attorney for the AC02A: 'r< )entry* didn:t you get the o##ortunity to review the transcri#t of your de#osition on Novem-er BD of this year and ma e every correction that you considered a##ro#riate? =es* I did< =ou have -een a mem-er of the Creation Research Society since the formative date of that organi%ation* haven:t you? =es< I -elieve you testified on direct e,amination that you do su-scri-e to the statement of -eliefs of the Creation Research Society* is that correct? =es* I do< =ou -elieve* then* that all the assertions of the +i-le are scientifically true in all of the original autogra#hs< Is that correct? (y understanding is that all the assertions in the +i-le which #ertain to science would -e true< 'o you -elieve that )enesis is literally true? I -elieve that the +i-le record in )enesis is a factual account of the creation narrative< =ou -elieve that the descri#tion of creation in )enesis is literally true* do you not? =es< =ou -elieve that the earth was created in si, literal days* do you not? =es* I do< Twenty8four hours< 'o you -elieve that only -y scri#tural chronology can we determine how long ago that si,8day #eriod was? =es* I do< Isn:t one of the #rimary reasons that you -egan to rethin the entire issue of evolution and creation is -ecause of the moral #ers#ective of the Fourth Commandment? A-solutely<

A ! A !

A ! A ! A ! A ! A ! A !

BJ

The 1udge as ed a-out the 7uestion and res#onse<

/r- &((is: The 7uestion was* =our &onor* was it not true that one of the ma1or reasons that 'r< )entry -egan to rethin the whole issue of evolution or creationism was -ecause of the moral #ers#ective of the Fourth Commandment? And that is.that is. Ninaudi-leO 2e(try: =es< ! It is fair to say* is it not* 'r< )entry* that for several years you tried -ut were una-le to find scientific evidence that would su##ort the information contained in the -oo of )enesis? 3ell* there were a num-er.there was a #eriod of time in which after I -egan my research.certainly there was a #eriod of time that I was loo ing for evidence for which I didn:t have< That was the whole #ur#ose* of course* in -eginning the research< So with very few e,ce#tions I was ta ing what other #eo#le said to -e true a-out time< I thin .if you would you re#eat that statement.I thin I am in essence agreeing with what you said< 3ell* let me as it this way< Is it fair to say that for several years you tried -ut were una-le to find scientific evidence that would su##ort the information contained in the -oo of )enesis? 3ell* let me give you the entire #ers#ective so that we don:t infer the statement you:re giving me is true here< I -ecame a Seventh8day Adventist in :E5< I.from that time on until the time I actually -egan my research in 45FC* I was #u%%ling in my mind a-out things concerning creation* reading -oo s and trying to find* trying to find out from other #eo#le if indeed there was evidence. I recall that in your direct testimony* 'r< )entry< I:m not as ing you to say that that:s your -elief today< I:m sim#ly as ing you* is it not true that for several years you tried -ut were una-le to find scientific evidence to su##ort the information contained in the -oo of )enesis? " ay< Is that true or not? " ay if we use the word ?tried? to define my thin ing from 45E5 to l5FC.generally s#ea ing in 45FC -efore I -egan this research I thought there was a #aucity of evidence* and after I -egan this research in 45FC. I am not as ing you after that time* I am sim#ly as ing you if that was true u# to that time. From 45E5 to 45FC I understand I thin there was a #aucity of evidence. =ou tried to find some and had not found it.

DJ

! FJ

A ! A

! A !

A !

3ell* I was reading what other #eo#le said. < < < Ninaudi-leO< =ou testified in your direct e,amination.I thin you will 7uite candidly ac nowledge.that you had what you descri-ed as a -iased #ers#ective.that you were interested in finding evidence if it e,ists< =es< And your 7uestion was* did my religious -elief have any evidence in science* this is what I was very much interested in Ninaudi-leO< A-solutely* yes< And didn:t you then decide that the only way you could rationally live with yourself would -e to underta e a research #ro1ect to determine if there was evidence to su##ort your -elief@sA in )enesis? I thin this is true< So you -egan your research into radiohalos as a result of your in7uiries into the +i-le and of -ecoming a Seventh8day Adventist< A-solutely< Is it fair to say that the last #erson -efore you to do any su-stantial wor on radiohalos was &enderson in 45C5? I thin so* yes< The research you do is very s#eciali%ed and re7uires 7uite so#histicated e7ui#ment including ion micro#ro-e* micro#ro-e s#ectrometers* cyclotrons* and other e7ui#ment li e that* does it not? 3ell* initially all you have to have is a microsco#e* a ra%or -lade* and a #iece of roc < That:s all it ta es to find the halos< Now* to actually demonstrate the e,#erimental su##ort for what I:ve said* you do need so#histicated e7ui#ment< +ut &enderson identified the #olonium halos -asically only with the* only with using the microsco#e< 'r< )entry* let me as you this< Are you aware of any changes in the constancy of al#ha decay or -eta decay rates that have -een identified e,#erimentally? No* I:m not< At the #resent time* no< =ou testified to some e,tent a-out singularities< =ou said that singularities were something that could not -e e,#lained on the -asis of nown #hysical laws< This is how I formulate the hy#othesis of the +ig +ang versus the creative event< )iven our current understanding* would it -e fair to say that

A LJ !

A !

A !

A ! A !

A 4JJ

A !

A !

the singularity would have to -e thought of as an e,tension of natural law? A ! I thin that:s fair< =es< Is it your #resent o#inion that there is no #hysical #rocess short of a singularity which could cause any significant alteration of radioactive decay rates? =es* I agree with that< =ou -elieve the occurrence of a worldwide flood was the result of such a singularity or e,tension of natural law* do you not? =es* let me 7ualify and say that when I say e,tension of natural law* what I am -asically saying is the #rocesses in o#eration at that time were a-ove and -eyond what we normally consider today< =es< And you -elieve that those #rocesses were caused -y the direct intervention of the Creator? =es* I do< In 456F* you #u-lished a #a#er suggesting that there was evidence for #rimordial su#erheavy elements. =es< And -ecause that #a#er 7uestioned more conventional understandings* it did receive wide notice* did it not? 3ell* now the reason that the #a#er on #rimordial* #rimordial su#erheavy elements elicited a lot of interest is -ecause #eo#le had -een loo ing for and had s#ent a lot of money loo ing for su#erheavy elements for 4J years at least< And so whenever I said anything a-out su#erheavy elements* it was li e ringing a -ell all over the world.it wasn:t necessary that it had to -e #rimordial* although. 3ell* let me as it this way< If the e,istence of #rimordial su#erheavy elements had -een confirmed* that would have re7uired drastic revisions of many e,isting ideas concerning nucleosynthesis and nuclear theory* would it not? This was generally understood to -e the case* de#ending on what element it was< 3hen your data was re8e,amined using more sensitive techni7ues* it was found that su#erheavy elements were not #resent* is that correct? 3ell* the techni7ues that we used to re8e,amine.actually the original results were made* of course* using #rotons* and the #eo#le who did. 'r< )entry* I am not as ing you a-out which techni7ues were used< I am sim#ly as ing you* it is true* is it not* that when your

4BJ

A ! A

! A ! A ! A

4DJ !

A !

data was re8e,amined using more sensitive techni7ues that it was found that su#erheavy elements were not #resent< Is that true or false? A 4FJ 3hat I am trying to tell you is that in e,amining the inclusions again we used the same techni7ues we used to -egin with< So it wasn:t that we necessarily had to use more sensitive techni7ues . < < < N#artly unclear or inaudi-leO< It turns out we didn:t do* the #eo#le doing the NoriginalO e,#eriments didn:t N#ro#erlyO do the -lan -ac ground e,#eriments< NNote: The original e,#eriments used #rotons and the later ones used , rays to fluoresce the giant8halo inclusions* -ut ,8ray analysis was the detection techni7ue used in -oth e,#eriments<O =ou testified at some length a-out a letter from the National Science Foundation* /uly 44* 4566* which denied your a##lication for a #articular grant< =es< Is it not fair to say that that letter concluded that one of the reasons they denied your grant a##lication at that time was that the #anel felt that you and your colleagues were to -e faulted for the techni7ues you used in coming to your initial conclusion that there were su#erheavy elements? =es* I -elieve it did say that< 'id not that re1ection letter go on to say that the #anel felt that the #rinci#al investigator and his colleagues should have chec ed out all such #ossi-le reactions -efore #u-lication -ecause we now that that techni7ue might #roduce the results you found? Is it not true? I thin what you are saying is generally true< Now* 'r< )entry* I am not trying to em-arrass you on this #oint -ecause you yourself candidly ac nowledged -y your own admission. There is no #ro-lem< =ou ac nowledged -y your own admission* did you not* that the evidence descri-ed in that earlier #a#er was not due to su#erheavy elements -ut was due to a more conventional #henomena? That:s right< That:s not the only time you have #u-lished conclusions you later retracted* is it? No* that is right< In fact* didn:t you once invent new al#ha activity to account for some ghost rings in radiohalos?

A !

A ! 4LJ A !

A !

A ! A !

A ! BJJ A ! A !

=es* if you are referring to the slides of the 3rlsendorf fluorite.the slides that I showed yesterday.yes< And did you not later ac nowledge that you erred in inventing new al#ha activity? < < < Ninaudi-leO I surely did< So you have #u-lished conclusions in this field -efore which later have turned out to -e wrong< 3hich I later said that were wrong* yes< In August of this year did an attorney named 3endell +ird as you if you would -e willing to testify for the State in this case? =es* he did< 3e discussed that< =ou would concede* would you not* that a scientist can have o-servations in accord with a theory -ut that would not necessarily confirm the #roof of it< That is correct< &enderson:s theories do e,#lain the e,istence of $o8B4J halos even in the a-sence of uranium halos in coalified wood in a conventional* natural8law way* do they not? < < < @inaudi-leO no< There are uranium halos and #olonium halos in coalified wood< +ut not occurring e,actly in the same halo rings< There is migration* is that not correct? =es* the uranium halos and the #olonium8B4J halos are different< =es* that:s what I am as ing< =ou mentioned in your testimony some scientists* I -elieve you mentioned 3heeler. =es. And Anders< Is it not true that 3heeler and Anders and other scientists who have read your material thin that a conventional natural law e,#lanation will -e found for the e,istence of other #olonium halos in granites? =es* they do< I have no further 7uestions<

A !

A !

A ! A BBJ ! A !

A !

6ra(scri;ed fro5 a'dio tape recorded ;y P- /er+el, Official Co'rt Reporter, =-.- 0istrict Co'rt, @ittle Roc+, Ar+a(sas-

7!! Radioactive )alos: /(plications For Creation Robert "entry@ M?&? Repri(ted ;y Per5issio( of the Creatio( .cie(ce Fellowship, 4(c-, Pitts;'rgh, Pe((sylva(ia, =-.-A-, fro5 the Proceedings of the 130+ First /nternational Conference on Creationis(? G.ee CreditsH
NNote: The main te,t in this re#ort is identical with the first #art of my AAAS re#ort given on #ages BF58BLC of this A##endi,* and is not re#eated here< Instead we go directly to the 'iscussion and Closure sections<O NThe 'iscussion section features o-1ections and criticisms offered -y three scientists< The Closure section consists of our res#onses to these o-1ections and criticisms<O

0isc'ssio(
Attem#ts to find radiohalos in meteorites and moon roc s have -een unsuccessful* although -oth galactic cosmic ray and solar cosmic ray trac s have -een found in a##ro#riate crystals from each of these sources< The limitation of radiohalos to earth minerals of hydrothermal classification suggests that water may -e essential to the #rocess@esA -y which radiohalos are formed< The location of radiohalo centers in mica along conduit #aths and cleavage #lanes su##orts this inference< The e,istence of mature uranium halos in association with unsu##orted #olonium halos #resents a #ro-lem for a view that limits the real time ages of all minerals to less than 4J*JJJ years< A E micron radius s#here of #ure uraninite as a radiohalo center would re7uire in the order of C million years to #roduce sufficient al#ha #articles to develo# the minimum crystal disordering for a detecta-le CC micron radius radiohalo @$olonium8B4DA< A C micron radius s#here of monagite with one uranium im#urity atom #er unit monagite lattice element would re7uire a-out 45J million years to develo# a minimally detecta-le C micron radius radiohalo in mica< Thus the in situ creation of #olonium im#urity centers for unsu##orted #olonium radiohalos and uranium im#urity centers for mature uranium radiohalos at any time within the last million years also re7uires the uranium centers and are in every way indistinguisha-le from halos that would -e #roduced -y the uranium decay series as #resently o-served< For many individuals such a scenario re7uires the Creator to #roduce unnecessary ?evidence? for events that did not occur in reality< In #resenting to the #u-lic at large* or any segment thereof such as the scientific community* the +i-lical creationist inter#retations set forth in this #a#er* it is desira-le to recogni%e that $olonium halos are definitive evidence of instantaneous* in situ creation only if one has #erfect and com#lete nowledge concerning all other #ossi-ilities< Such nowledge may -e #ossessed only -y deity< The #resent limits to human nowledge do not 1ustify asserting that there are no #ossi-le circumstances under which the regular #rocesses maintained -y the Creator could have #rogressively de#osited $olonium within some sam#les of granite* com#ara-le to the much more readily understanda-le accumulation at $olonium centers in ?coalified? wood< If the #olonium for unsu##orted #olonium radiohalos in granite was an in situ #rimordial creation at halo center sites* it would -e the only nown #rimordial a##earance of an element with other than a com#lete s#ectrum of isoto#es< $olonium has BF isoto#es* all of which are radioactive< The E longest half8life mem-ers of this family* together with their half8lives and sta-le end #roducts are:

$olonium BJ5 $olonium BJL $olonium BJF $olonium BJ6 $olonium BJD $olonium BJE

4JC

years

Thallium BJE 0ead BJD 0ead BJF* (ercury BJB 0ead BJ6 0ead BJD Thallium BJE

B<5C years L<L days E<6 hours C<F hours 4<L hours

According to the well8esta-lished em#irical relationshi#s -etween isoto#e a-undance* half8life* and -inding energy #er nucleon* #rimordial #olonium would -e com#osed largely of its longer8lived isoto#es* and its residue would -e #rinci#ally thallium BJE and lead BJD< &owever thallium has never -een re#orted as a #olonium radiohalo center constituent* and lead BJD may -e a-sent also NRo-ert ;< )entry* Nature 7K7 @'ec< 4C* 456DA* ##< EFD8EFFK Annual =eview of Nuclear Science 70 @'ec< 456CA* ##< CD68CFB* s#ecifically #age CFJO< 3hy is only lead BJF featured* the end #roduct of uranium daughter #roducts #olonium B4L* B4D and B4J? The #resence in uranium and #olonium radiohalo centers of selenium* which would -e #reci#itated also under conditions favoring the #reci#itation of uranium and #olonium* favors e,#lanation of radiohalos with #rocesses involving solution trans#ort of uranium and its daughter #roducts* even though the details of such #rocesses cannot -e ela-orated at the #resent lac of nowledge concerning hydrothermal environments and crystal formation NNorman Feather* Communications to the =oyal Society of <dinburgh* No< 44* 456L* ##< 4D68 4ELO< Synthesis of a hand8si%ed #iece of granite would #rove that at least one la-oratory #rocedure may -e successfulK it would -e only suggestive* not definite* with res#ect to the actual #rocesses that have determined the characteristics of a s#ecific sam#le of natural granite< It is unsound to assert @#B* sCA* without firm theoretical or o-servational su##ort* that large variations in al#ha decay rate were associated with al#ha #articles of unvarying #enetration range< An e,#lanatory model that contains such a re7uirement suffers a severe loss in credi-ility< The suggestion attri-uted to )entry* et al.* in the 7uotation from Norman Feather @#E* s4* reference BDA accounts for unsu##orted $olonium halos -y radiation from daughters of hy#othetical* e,tremely long8lived* e,tinct isomers of $olonium #arents* not in terms of the fiat* in situ creation e,#lanation given in this #a#er< A critical reader of the #a#er may wonder why $- atoms are e,#ected to -e less tightly fitted into a ZrBSi"D lattice than 2 and Th atoms< Since the &e content of &e8#roducing gas wells increases with well de#th* it would -e desira-le to clarify the relationshi# -etween tem#erature* am-ient &e #ressure* and e,#ected &e retention in %ircons with 2 and Th im#urity< In conclusion* this reviewer wishes to e,#ress a##reciation for the discussion of $olonium halos in ?coalified? wood that is given in this #a#er< Ro-ert &< +rown* $h<'< 0oma 0inda* California

'r< )entry:s years of e,cellent e,#erimental wor and o-servations on radiohalos ma e him without dou-t the world:s leading authority on them< &owever* I have a #ro-lem with his view that the ?or#han? $olonium halos @the ones unaccom#anied -y halos from #arent nuclidesA must -e #rimordial< 3hy @as 'r< Ro-ert +rown has suggestedA are the only or#han halos from $olonium isoto#es in the 2ranium decay series? Shouldn:t there -e some halos or daughter #roducts from the other $olonium isoto#es as well? It seems to me that there are other #ossi-le creationist e,#lanations for the or#han halos< "ne which /ohn +aumgardner* myself* and others have discussed has the following features: 4< 2ranium decays at an early stage of earth history @for e,am#le* after the FallA* #roducing $olonium B4J* B4D* and B4L< B< 'ecay sto#s for a #eriod @say from the Fall to the FloodA* during which time the $olonium is #hysically or chemically se#arated from the 2ranium< C< 'ecay restarts @say during the FloodA* #roducing halos in already8e,isting granite crystals< This model is new and not well thought out yet< I cite it merely as a contrasting illustration< If someone rises to 'r< )entry:s famous challenge and synthesi%es granite* it might #rove that the halos are not #rimordial< +ut it would not #rove that the halos were formed -y natural #rocesses wor ing at #resent rates< '< Russell &um#hreys* $h<'< Al-u7uer7ue* New (e,ico (y essential criticisms of 'r< )entry:s halo inter#retations have -een #u-lished in more detail elsewhere @/hysics $oday* A#ril 45LC* 4484CA< The main #ro-lems with his thesis are: 4< The inclusion minerals at the centers of halos are nearly always minerals that are nown 2 or Th8-earing minerals li e %ircon or mona%ite< These minerals are not geochemically com#ati-le with )rou# ;I elements li e $o and there is no reason to -elieve they would have $o e,ce#t from decay of 2 or Th< B< The only isoto#es of $o that 'r< )entry re#orts finding are those that form -y al#ha decay of 2 and Th< There are BF isoto#es of $o* and the BB that are not al#ha decay #roducts of 2 and Th have not -een re#orted< These two #oints strongly indicate that the $o 'r< )entry finds is due to conventional 2 and Th decay and is not #rimordial* unresolved #ro-lems notwithstanding< C< 'r< )entry alternates -etween uniformitarianism and non8uniformitarianism as it suits his hy#othesis< &e accuses orthodo, geologists of circular reasoning for assuming that the halos im#ly constant nuclear decay rates without direct #roof* -ut he assumes @without direct #roofA that his halos are due to al#ha radiation in the #ast and @again without direct #roofA that he can identify the halos with s#ecific elements< I -elieve 'r< )entry is correct when he identifies his halos* -ut he is correct only -ecause uniformitarianism is valid< Finally* he gratuitously assumes that* if decay rates change* they must slow down with timeK couldn:t they 1ust as easily -e s#eeding u# so that roc s are older than radiometric ages indicate? Assuming uniformity of #hysical laws is neither ar-itrary nor circular: 3e live in a universe of #atterns* and once a #attern is nown to e,ist* the -urden of #roof is on someone who asserts that the #attern can change< 3hen our chec -oo s fail to -alance* we do not assume lightly that someone has tam#ered with our accountK we loo for errors in our accounting instead< Similarly* we

assume that unresolved #ro-lems in science will turn out to have a conventional e,#lanation and only when the evidence -ecomes incontroverti-le do we #ostulate changes in the laws of nature< As #oints @4A and @BA a-ove indicate* 'r< )entry:s halos do not come anywhere close to this level of urgency< There is every reason to -elieve the halos have a conventional origin< In addition* there is no o-servational evidence that decay rates can change as drastically as they must to accommodate the creationist time scaleK there is no theoretical -asis for -elieving that they can change @+arry Setterfield ma es a game try* -ut his treatment is full of errorsA< The #altry few #ercent change in electron8ca#ture decay rates that creationists cite fall far short* in degree and in ind* of the million or so times that all forms of decay would have to s#eed u# to reconcile creationist chronology and the radiometric time scale< 2ntil creationists can demonstrate such enormous accelerations of decay -eyond any dou-t* and that #ro-a-ly means in the la-oratory* most geologists will continue to -e unre#entant uniformitarians< Steven 'utch )reen +ay* 3isconsin

Clos're
Reviews of scientific #a#ers -y com#etent scientists are of inestima-le value in #ro-ing wea nesses and inconsistencies of a another scientists wor * and thus are essential in the determination of scientific truth< +y their very nature* reviews must -e critical* even to the #oint of -eing highly critical* so that the scientific community will not -e left in dou-t concerning #ossi-le flaws in the wor -eing reviewed< As many scientists can testify* the referee #rocess re7uired -y scientific 1ournals has saved many a re#utation -y e,#osing errors in technical #a#ers #rior to #u-lication< At other times* however* that same #rocess has also acted to #revent un#o#ular scientific truth from -eing #u-lished< Indeed* even these ICC /roceedings may contain things which would not #ass muster in the o#en literature* and it might -e said that in many cases the reason would -e #re1udice against the creation #ers#ective< "n the other hand* there is the #ossi-ility that some #a#ers may have genuine flaws which need to -e identified< This is all the more reason why creation scientists need to have their wor e,amined and scrutini%ed -y their #eers< The history of Christianity has am#ly demonstrated that much done in the name of )od -ears little or no resem-lance to the teachings of the +i-le* or to the #rogress of truth< 3ith this in mind I must.if I am really interested in the scientific truth as it relates to creation and evolution.have my findings* discoveries* and conclusions reviewed -y those scientists who would -e most critical of my wor < This I have endeavored to do over the #ast twenty years as I have su-mitted my results to the secular scientific community for review and #u-lication< The results of those endeavors have -een recounted in detail in my recent -oo Creation!s $iny %ystery. There I attem#ted to #rovide a -asis for laymen and scientists to arrive at an intelligent decision a-out the scientific validity of my discoveries of evidence for creation and a young age of the earth< As necessary as it has -een for my wor to go through the referee #rocedures mandated -y the secular scientific community* I consider it 1ust as necessary for it to -e scrutini%ed -y the reviewers chosen -y the organi%ing committee of the ICC< The article I su-mitted for these ICC /roceedings is #art of a #a#er originally #u-lished in 45LD in the /roceedings of the Si'ty+$hird Annual %eeting of the /acific Bivision of the AAAS. At that time I re7uested a vigorous res#onse to the evidences for creation and a young age of the earth summari%ed therein< None was forthcomingK so I am #leased

that critical reviews have now -een given -y three res#ected scientists and even more #leased that one is an evolutionist< (y intent in res#onding to those reviews is again to #rovide a -asis for laymen and scientists to evaluate the scientific validity of my discoveries of evidence for creation and a several8thousand8year age of the earth< At the outset I wish to em#hasi%e my #ersonal esteem for all the reviewers< This is needful -ecause in order to clarify matters it has -een necessary to ta e strong e,ce#tion to #arts of some reviews< In certain instances* ideas and assum#tions are introduced which differ considera-ly from my views and my creation model* and then these ideas are used to raise 7uestions a-out the scientific im#lications of my research for creation< Some -ac ground information on halos is given -elow so that the reader can intelligently evaluate ny res#onses to these ideas< E,#erimental results #u-lished over the last BJ years show that #olonium halos e,ist in $recam-rian granites inde#endently of any other ty#e of radioactivityK thus I have said they are evidence of #rimordial #olonium.meaning #olonium that was created inde#endent of* and se#arate from* any decay #roducts in the uranium decay chain< The e,istence of #rimordial #olonium halos in $recam-rian granites identifies these roc s as #art of the #rimordial )enesis roc s of our #lanet< In other words* #rimordial radioactivity and #rimordial roc s were created simultaneously when )od called the earth into e,istence during creation wee < In contrast* the evolutionary theory of the origin of the $recam-rian granites su##oses that these roc s crystalli%ed from a slowly cooling magma over eons of geological time< Fortunately* there is an e,#erimental test -y which the origin of the granites can -e settled< It is also a test which has devastating conse7uences for the theory of evolution< The -asic #remise of the entire theory of evolution is the uniformitarian #rinci#le* which is the assum#tion that the cosmos* including the earth* came to its current state solely through the action of nown and unchanging #hysical laws< @Some readers may -e more familiar with the term #rinci#le of naturalism<A The #ractical a##lication of the uniformitarian #rinci#le to evolutionary geology im#lies that the $recam-rian granites re#eatedly formed naturally throughout -illions of years of geologic time.and -y naturally I mean with nothing more than nown #hysical laws to govern their crystalli%ation< +ut if this theory of granite origin is actually true* then it should -e #ossi-le to re#roduce this ty#e of roc today -y melting a #iece of granite and allowing it to cool under suita-le la-oratory conditions< The end #roduct should -e another #iece of granite similar to the original< If this could -e done* evolutionists would -e a-le to claim that the -asic #remise of their theory has some -asis in fact* and I would withdraw my claim that the $recam-rian granites were the )enesis roc s of our #lanet< In addition* if #olonium halos could then -e #roduced in that synthesi%ed granite* I would also withdraw my claim that #olonium halos in granites are #rimordial< After waiting almost eight years for the scientific community to res#ond to this falsification test* there still has -een no demonstration of granite synthesis< It is certain that evolutionists would have #erformed this critical test long ago if it were #ossi-le for them to have done so< This im#ossi-ility can -e traced to the fact that the fundamental #remise of their theory.the uniformitarian #rinci#le .is not now* nor has it ever -een* a sufficient -asis for the $recam-rian granites to form< In other words* -oth the $recam-rian granites and the enclosed #rimordial halos re7uired su#ernatural #ower to -ring them into e,istence< Thus* irres#ective of how many #ieces seem to fit into the evolutionary scenario* the truth is that the uniformitarian #rinci#le is a false* hy#othetical assum#tion< This -ac ground information is essential -ecause #arts of the reviews of +rown and 'utch rely heavily* either directly or indirectly* on this erroneous #rinci#le< For e,am#le* #aragra#h 4 of +rown:s review im#licitly utili%es the uniformitarian #rinci#le in an

attem#t to su##ort a secondary origin of #olonium halos in earth roc s< +efore discussing how this is done* I note first that the mention of cosmic ray trac s in this #aragra#h is irrelevant to the to#ic under discussion* -ecause cosmic ray trac s have no connection whatsoever with halos< Second* +rown omits some #ertinent information when he refers to the a-sence of halos in meteorites and lunar roc s< For the -enefit of the non8scientist who may not understand what this is all a-out* I should e,#lain that in referring to meteorites and lunar roc s +rown is attem#ting to correlate the a-sence of halos with the a-sence of water< True* as far as we now* meteorites and the lunar roc s returned to earth do not contain water< 3hat +rown does not say* however* is that most of these lunar roc s are not #rimary roc s* -ut surface roc s which recrystalli%ed from molten material #roduced -y meteorite im#act< The a-sence of halos in lunar surface roc s is e,#ected -ecause any halos that might have e,isted in the original @#re8im#actA lunar roc would have -een destroyed -y melting< 0i ewise* -ecause of the vacuum on the moon* any water which might have e,isted in original lunar roc s#ecimens would certainly have -een lost during the high tem#erature #hase of the im#act #rocess< Thus the general a-sence of halos in recrystalli%ed lunar roc s is a natural conse7uence of the mode of formation of those roc s* and only incidentally related to the a-sence of water< In this conte,t I should add that there is reason to continue the search for halos in lunar roc s< I thin it is conceiva-le that halos may still e,ist in tiny* unmelted fragments of certain #rimary minerals contained within those roc s< 3hether such fragments do e,ist in the lunar roc s now on earth will not -e nown until all those roc s are sectioned and carefully e,amined< +efore discussing +rown:s assertion a-out minerals of hydrothermal classification* I will discuss his evaluation of halos in mica* a mineral that is generally considered to -e of this ty#e< In his first #aragra#h +rown suggests* without any su##orting evidence* that halo centers along conduits and cleavage #lanes in mica su##ort a hydrothermal origin of halos in this mineral< @In other words* halos which develo#ed from radioactivity ca#tured out of a solution containing significant concentrations of radioactive elements<A This suggestion was initially made -y some early investigators who wor ed on halos a-out a half a century ago< There were serious #ro-lems with this hy#othesis then* and even more difficulties with it now< First* to associate halos in mica with a hydrothermal origin -ecause their centers are along cleavage #lanes is meaningless -ecause the crystal structure of mica is such that every center is situated along some -asal cleavage #lane< Secondly* there are numerous uranium and thorium halo centers in mica* such as mona%ites and %ircons* which are not considered to -e of hydrothermal origin @in the conventional usage of that termA< Thirdly* +rown fails to say that the #erfect cleavage #ro#erties of mica #rovided me with the o##ortunity over BJ years ago of e,amining the microsco#ic distri-ution of al#ha radioactivity around #olonium halo centers* and those studies showed no evidence for a secondary origin of #olonium halos in this mineral< In fact* the re#ort descri-ing those results is cited in my ICC #a#er< I now turn attention to my res#ected colleague:s comment a-out halos -eing found in earth minerals of hydrothermal classification< This comment is a clear reference to the standard uniformitarian su##osition that many #rimary minerals formed over geological time -y very slow crystal growth either in a magma containing water* or in a7ueous solutions laden with the chemical elements of which the mineral is com#osed< 2niformitarian geologists ado#ted this -elief long ago mainly -ecause: @4A it is #ossi-le to use a7ueous solutions to slowly grow crystals of some minerals in the la-oratory* and @BA there was evidence that many secondary minerals in sedimentary de#osits had formed in this fashion< )eologists merged these two o-servations together with the uniformitarian #rinci#le and went on to assume that the vast num-er of #rimary minerals found in

the earth.here I refer to the minerals found in crystalline roc s such as the $recam-rian granites and #egmatites.achieved their large si%e through a slow growth #rocess< In my recent -oo * Creation!s $iny %ystery* I challenge the assum#tion that large crystals of #rimary minerals grew from small crystals over evolutionary time* and in #articular refer to the e,istence of #olonium halos as unam-iguous evidence that these minerals were created< I also note in my -oo that evolutionary geologists should long ago have seen the falsity of this su##osition -oth from the huge si%e of some natural crystals and from their ina-ility to synthesi%e even reasona-le si%e s#ecimens of certain minerals such as -iotite* an iron8rich mica which often contains radiohalos< Summari%ing* the term ?minerals of hydrothermal classification? does re#resent a correct descri#tion of origin when a##lied to secondary mineral formation in sedimentary de#osits< "n the other hand* it is incorrect when a##lied in the conventional geological sense to descri-e the origin of #rimary minerals< Thus* +rown:s argument for a water8related origin of halos in those minerals is invalid -ecause it is -ased on the erroneous assum#tion that #rimary @or #rimordialA minerals develo#ed through slow crystal growth over geological time< For further clarification of the #receding #aragra#h* I should em#hasi%e that* as might -e e,#ected* in the conte,t of my creation model certain terms have a different meaning< 3ith this new meaning there may -e a definite relation -etween #rimary minerals and ?minerals of hydrothermal classification<? In my -oo * Creation!s $iny %ystery* I referred to the creation of earth:s #rimordial roc s in the conte,t of an instantaneous crystalli%ation of a #rimordial li7uid< (ore #recisely* I envision there were a variety of #rimordial li7uids called into e,istence on 'ay 4 @and #erha#s 'ay CA which gave rise to various ty#es of #rimordial roc s< In my o#inion* B $eter C:E strongly suggests that these #rimordial li7uids must have included water at some instant in time within the creation #rocess< In this sense the #rimordial @#rimaryA minerals created on 'ay 4 @and #erha#s 'ay CA of creation wee could also -e viewed as ?minerals of hydrothermal classification<? S i##ing over #aragra#h B momentarily* #aragra#h C e,#resses some of my colleague:s #hiloso#hical views* and he is certainly entitled to those o#inions< (oreover* any scientist has a right to formulate any hy#othesis he chooses a-out creation* and he is entitled to use the data #u-lished in my re#orts in this endeavor< &owever* if my data are used* then that scientist should -e careful to state 1ust where his own assum#tions are introduced into his inter#retation of my data* and in addition* he should ma e it 7uite clear that the conclusions o-tained with these different assum#tions are se#arate and distinct from my views< 2nfortunately* that distinction is not clear in several #laces in +rown:s review of my ICC #a#er* hence the need for e,tensive clarification on my #art< $aragra#h B is one #lace where such clarification is essential< +rown introduces his second #aragra#h -y stating that the e,istence of well8develo#ed uranium halos in association with #olonium halos #resents a #ro-lem for a view that limits the age of all minerals.or e7uivalently* the age of the earth.to less than 4J*JJJ years< In Figure 4@aA and 4@-A I show two e,am#les of the s#ecific association of halos to which my colleague refers in the a-ove statement< @Readers desiring further information a-out these halos should refer to the #hotos in my ICC #a#er<A

Fig're 1- +oth @aA and @-A show a #olonium8B4L halo ad1acent to an overe,#osed uranium halo in the 3olsendorf fluorite< @Scale is a-out 4 cm R B5 micrometersA<

)iven the a-ove information* we need to understand why +rown asserts the association of uranium and #olonium halos #resents a #ro-lem for a young age of the earth* and then determine whether the reasons for that assertion are scientifically valid< The -asis for his assertion is found in the second sentence of #aragra#h B< There the claim is made that it would ta e from C million to 45J million years to #roduce well8develo#ed @matureA uranium halos< In other words* +rown attem#ts to call into 7uestion a young age of the earth -y saying that it must have ta en millions of years for uranium halos to form in the minerals in which they are found< &e fails to say* however* that the millions of years that he claims are needed for uranium halos to develo# is neither a scientific fact* nor a #art of my creation model* -ut is instead a deduction at which he arrives -y assuming a uniform radioactive decay #rocess throughout geological time< +ut as discussed in my -oo * the assum#tion of uniform decay is 1ust a corollary of the fallacious uniformitarian #rinci#le< In other words* the millions of years which +rown assigns to the develo#ment of uranium halos are imaginary -ecause they are com#uted on the -asis of a false assum#tion< $aragra#h B of +rown:s review concludes with a reference to the Creator #roducing unnecessary ?evidence? for events which did not occur in reality< 3ith all due res#ect* the reader should understand that here my colleague is arguing against a straw man of his own devising* for the scenario descri-ed in his second #aragra#h is com#letely foreign to my creation model< S#ecifically* he mentions the in situ creation* sometime within the #ast million years* of #olonium centers for #olonium halos* and uranium halo centers for well8develo#ed @matureA uranium halos< At first glance this statement may seem to fit into my creation model* -ut this is an illusion< "ne irreconcila-le difference -etween my creation model and the a-ove comment is the reference to the in+situ creation of uranium im#urity centers for well8develo#ed @matureA uranium halos< In +rown:s own words this ?re7uires the uranium centers and halos are in every way indistinguisha-le from halos that would -e #roduced -y the uranium decay series as #resently o-served<? +ut since the ?the uranium decay series as #resently o-served? is undergoing uniform radioactive decay* then it seems that +rown is referring to the creation of uranium centers with characteristics which he inter#rets as evidence of uniform radioactive decay over an e,tended #eriod of time< This whole idea is foreign to my creation model< Nowhere do I #ro#ose that uranium halo centers were created with the characteristics associated with uniform radioactive decay over an e,tended #eriod of time< Such a scenario im#lies* first* that the uranium centers were created with artificial characteristics* and second* that uranium halos in granites were not #roduced -y al#ha8#article interaction with those roc s* -ut instead are 1ust colorations which were directly im#rinted into them< This view is conce#tually* #hiloso#hically* and scientifically at variance with two ma1or tenets of my creation model.namely* @4A that #olonium halos are genuine evidence of an instantaneous creation of the $recam-rian granites #recisely -ecause al#ha #articles emitted from ra#idly decaying #rimordial #olonium atoms did #roduce #olonium halos in those roc s @in other words* #olonium halos are truly autogra#hs of radioactivity that had only a fleeting e,istenceA* and @BA that uranium and thorium halos li ewise resulted @via an accelerated decay #rocessA from the interaction of al#ha #articles from uranium and thorium centers that were created simultaneously with the granites< In my model uranium and thorium halos are #ost8creation entities which formed via an enhanced radioactive decay #rocess during one or more of the three -i-lically8-ased singularities descri-ed in my ICC #a#er< "n this -asis* I can easily account for the close association of uranium and #olonium halos** such as shown in Figure 4< I must conckude* therefore* that the #ro-lems cited in the second #aragra#h of +rowns review concerning the association of uranium and #olonium halos are due

#rimarily to his use of the errcneous uniformitarian #rinci#le and the associated uniform decay rate assum#tion* and secondarily to the introduction of an idea which is com#letely foreign to my creation model< In #aragra#h D +rown argues for a secondary rather than a #rimordial origin of #olonium halos in granites* -ut unfortunately he overloo s nearly all the scientific evidence which negates this hy#othesis< Through many e,#eriments over the #ast two decades I have shown the une7uivocal differences -etween the secondary #olonium8B4J halos in coalified wood.meaning those that resulted from water trans#ort of uranium daughter activity.and the several ty#es of #rimordial @inde#endently createdA #olonium halos in granites< +rown does not at all deal with the vast differences in uranium content and trans#ort rate -etween granites and gel8li e wood @the early stage of coalified woodA* nor in any way attem#t to #rovide e,#erimental evidence for a secondary origin of #olonium halos in granites< Instead* he argues against a #rimordial origin of #olonium halos in granites using arguments which a##ear to -e -ased on scientific fact< The following discussion #resents another view of those arguments< In the -eginning of #aragra#h D +rown argues against #rimordial #olonium halos using an idea initially #ro#osed several years ago -y one of the other reviewers @'utchA< &is main line of argument utili%es a #articular conce#t of the isoto#ic com#osition of #rimordial #olonium< 2sing this conce#t +rown arrives at what he feels should -e the com#osition of halo centers at #resent* and then notes that I have not re#orted such com#ositions< All this leaves the im#ression that something must -e wrong with my conclusion that #olonium halos in granites are #rimordial< 2nfortunately* some very im#ortant information was omitted from +rown:s discussion< 3e shall see that the #icture changes considera-ly when all the #ieces of the #u%%le are included< Readers should understand first that I have never said* or even remotely suggested* that #rimordial #olonium would -e com#osed of the isoto#es cited in #aragra#h D of +rown:s review< &is definition of #rimordial #olonium is 7uite different from mine* and the reader is entitled to now the reasons why the two are fundamentally different< 3hat my colleague has done.a##arently unwittingly.is to com-ine two results from e,#erimental #hysics together with a theoretical result of the evolutionary +ig +ang model* and then lum#ed everything together as if it is -ased on e,#erimental nuclear #hysics< In #articular* +rown claims ?well8esta-lished em#irical relationshi#s -etween isoto#e a-undance* half8life* and -inding energy #er nucleon < < <? esta-lish the com#osition of #rimordial #olonium as he states it< If all #arts of this statement were true* there would -e some scientific 1ustification for +rown:s version of #rimordial #olonium< The #ro-lem is* however* that one crucial #art of the a-ove statement is not true< S#ecifically* while nuclear #hysics has esta-lished em#irical relationshi#s -etween half8life and -inding energy #er nucleon* it definitely has not esta-lished a #attern of #rimordial isoto#e a-undances as +rown claims is the case< The #attern of isoto#e a-undances to which +rown refers. which also forms the -asis of his definition of #rimordial #olonium.is in reality the end result of theoretical calculations #ertaining to the +ig +ang theory of the evolution of the universe< To understand +rown:s version of #rimordial #olonium the reader needs to understand how cosmologists view the origin of matter< First* -ecause modern cosmologists -elieve only the two lightest elements.hydrogen and helium.were made in the +ig +ang* they must find some way to account for all the heavier elements in the universe.including those com#osing the earth* sun and #lanetary system< Their theory is that these heavier elements were formed -illions of years ago in fusion reactions dee# inside certain stars< As e,#lained in my -oo * they also -elieve interstellar

s#ace -ecame s#rin led with heavier elements as more and more stars e,#loded through eons of time< Then* through #rocesses which have never -een clearly defined* su##osedly the remnants of these violent e,#losions somehow reaccumulated to form other stars* one of which is assumed to have -een the #roto8sun* the forerunner of -oth our sun and the earth< &ere we must #ause to se#arate fact from assum#tion< It is dou-tless true that some chemical elements are #roduced in stellar fusion reactions.-y charged #article reactions* or -y slow neutron ca#ture @the s8#rocessA* or -y ra#id neutron ca#ture @the r8#rocessA.-ut it is 1ust sheer fiction to assume that all the heavier elements in the universe were #roduced -y such reactions< +ut this is what modern cosmologists do* and on this -asis they #roceed to theoretically calculate the #rimordial isoto#ic a-undances of all the heavier elements< Such #atterns of isoto#e a-undances are only theoretical #atterns -ecause they involve several unverified assum#tions a-out the e,act #ath -y which fusion -uild8u# of the heavier elements is thought to have occurred< I should add that what corres#ondence there is -etween the most commonly acce#ted theoretical a-undance #attern and the actual a-undance #attern as measured on earth is the result of varying the #arameters in the theoretical calculations to fit the measured a-undances< @Readers desiring more details on how isoto#e a-undance calculations are lin ed to various as#ects of the +ig +ang theory may consult an older #u-lication* Nuclear Astrophysics* authored -y No-el laureate 3illiam A< Fowler* and #u-lished -y the American $hiloso#hical Society* $hiladel#hia* 45F6* or a more recent one* ?Nucleosynthesis and its Im#lications on Nuclear and $article $hysics?* /roceedings of the NA$? Advanced =esearch 4or#shop on Nucleosynthesis and Its Implications on Nuclear and /article /hysics* 0es Arcs* France* (arch 468BC* 45LE* J< Reidel $u-lishing Com#any* 45LF<A The a-ove discussion shows that the theoretical isoto#e a-undance #attern used -y +rown to formulate his version of #rimordial #olonium and its most #rominent decay #roduct* thallium8BJE* is hinged on the assum#tion that the heavier chemical elements on earth.s#ecifically including #olonium.originated in stellar nucleosynthesis< 2sing that assum#tion +rown inter#rets the a-sence of thallium8BJE in halo centers as indicating the a-sence of #rimordial #olonium* hence im#lying that something is wrong with my identification of #rimordial #olonium halos< &ere a most im#ortant #oint needs to -e em#hasi%ed< There is another e,#lanation for the a-sence of thallium8BJE -esides the one +rown has mentioned* namely: Instead of the missing thallium8BJE indicating something is wrong with my identification of #rimordial #olonium halos* what it actually shows is that the +ig +ang version of #rimordial #olonium is without any scientific -asis< 3e should ever remem-er that the validity of a theory is determined on the -asis of whether it agrees with the relevant e,#erimental facts* and in this case it is a-undantly clear that the +ig +ang version of #rimordial #olonium does not agree with the e,#erimental facts< Therefore* I reaffirm that #olonium halos in granites did form from the decay of #rimordial #olonium8B4L* #olonium8B4D and #olonium8B4J* and this is why halo centers feature the decay #roduct lead8BJF< @&alos from -ismuth8B4B>#olonium8B4B also e,ist -ut are much rarer than those 1ust listed<A I -elieve these ty#es of #olonium halos are evidence that the true isoto#ic com#osition of #rimordial #olonium.meaning the #olonium )od created when &e called the earth into e,istence .was irreconcila-ly different from that e,#ected on the -asis of the +ig +ang model< In other words* when )od called the earth into e,istence &e left unam-iguous evidence of &is creative #ower which could never -e confused with the +ig +ang scenario< @Readers interested in nowing other reasons why the +ig +ang model is wrong should consult the more e,tended discussion given in my -oo <A

"n a different su-1ect in #aragra#h D* +rown refers to the #resence of selenium in -oth uranium and #olonium radiohalo centers* and the assertion is made that this is evidence for the e,#lanation of halos involving solution trans#ort of uranium daughters< The first #ro-lem 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 -e made< @In fact* one of the other reviewers* 'utch* correctly notes that )rou# ;I elements* which includes selenium* are not geochemically com#ati-le with the 28 and Th8-earing minerals that normally constitute 2 and Th halo centers<A Secondly* only in a very few cases have I o-served selenium in the centers of #olonium halos in granites< $ossi-ly +rown generali%ed the results given in my 456D Science re#ort and incorrectly inferred that selenium in #olonium halo centers in granites is the rule rather than the e,ce#tion< Thus* all the arguments cited in this #aragra#h in su##ort of a secondary origin of #olonium halos in granites are -ased either on ideas or su##ositions which are foreign to my views* or on incorrect inter#retations of my #u-lished data< In #aragra#h E* my res#ected colleague does not directly comment on the im#lications of the falsification test as I have defined them* -ut instead generates his own inter#retation #redicated on the assum#tion of a successful outcome of that test< +rown is entitled to his views* -ut he fails to mention the evidence which contradicts the assum#tion of a successful outcome.namely* that* according to conventional theory* the conditions for re#roducing granite from a granite melt have e,isted in nature countless times* yet the end result is rhyolite* a fine8grained* non8halo8containing roc that is 7uite different from granite* a coarse8grained roc which does contain halos< Additional e,#lanation is given in my -oo * Creation!s $iny %ystery @#age 4CJA< In #aragra#h F of his review* +rown claims my model of enhanced al#ha decay suffers a severe loss of credi-ility< +ut this conclusion is o-viously -ased on his acce#tance of uniform radioactive decay rates.a direct conse7uence of the uniformitarian #rinci#le< Thus* this #articular criticism results from his acce#tance and use of a fallacious assum#tion< $aragra#h 6 could easily -e inter#reted as a correction to an erroneous claim on my #art* -ut the fact is that my comments a-out Feather:s evaluation are correct as they stand< In answer to #aragra#h L* 2 and Th atoms are more tightly -ound -ecause they are #art of the %ircon lattice structure< The $- atoms* on the other hand* -eing the radiogenic end8#roducts of 2 and Th decay* are rather loosely -ound #rimarily -ecause they have -een dis#laced a-out 4JJ angstroms @-y recoil from a series of al#ha emissionsA from the original 2 and Th lattice sites into a region where lattice disru#tion has occurred< $aragra#h 5 refers to the helium content of helium8#roducing wells< These may have their source in secondary uranium de#osits* that is* uranium which has -een se#arated from #rimary uranium8 -earing minerals and widely dis#ersed via solution trans#ort< A #rime e,am#le of secondary uranium de#osits are those of the Colorado $lateau< &elium migration occurs without difficulty from such de#osits -ecause of the dis#ersed state of uranium and its daughters< There are two reasons why helium migration from %ircons in granites is much lower than from helium esca#e from these secondary de#osits< First* there is the difference in uranium content< Zircons* which may contain only a-out 4JJ ##m @#arts #er millionA of uranium* are encased within granites containing an even smaller concentration of uranium* usually a-out several ##m< These concentrations are generally much lower than the uranium concentrations found in many secondary uranium de#osits< Secondly* migration @or diffusionA from %ircons has -een found to -e relatively slow at am-ient tem#eratures* a fact which is attri-uta-le to the crystalline structure of this mineral< These two factors account for helium effusion from helium wells -eing significantly higher than helium diffusion from %ircons< Thus nothing in this #aragra#h contradicts my claim that helium in

%ircons ta en from dee# cores is very strong evidence for a several8thousand8year age of the earth< A-out #aragra#h 4J* I a##reciate the com#liments a-out my wor on halos in coalified wood< "f course* the analytical techni7ues that were used to investigate #olonium halos in coalified wood were the same as those used to investigate #rimordial #olonium halos in granites< In summary* I than 'r< +rown for #resenting his detailed o-1ections in #rint* thus ena-ling me to clarify to the scientific community some issues that have long -een misunderstood< And in closing my res#onse to his review* I again e,#ress my res#ect and admiration for him #ersonally< Turning to 'utch:s review* #art @4A reveals how easy it is to arrive at erroneous conclusions when reading someone else:s re#orts< It is true that 2 and Th halo radiocenters are generally nown 28 and Th8-earing minerals* -ut 'utch dis#lays a lac of nowledge of radiohalos -y erroneously assuming these minerals also form the centers of #olonium halos< The data I have #u-lished* es#ecially in my 456D Science and Nature re#orts* show that #olonium halo radiocenters in granites are 7uite distinct from the usual 28 and Th8-earing minerals found at the centers of 2 and Th halos< "ther un#u-lished results of mine are in agreement with these findings< Thus* when 'utch argues against #olonium -eing in 28 and Th8-earing minerals* he is arguing against a straw man of his own invention< $art @BA in essence dis#utes the conclusion that #olonium halos in granites are #rimordial on the -asis that halos from other #olonium isoto#es should also -e #resent if this were the case< 'utch has #roduced no scientific evidence to contradict the e,istence of #rimordial #olonium halos in granite< Instead he has introduced a hy#othetical #henomena into the discussion.namely* of what he thin s #rimordial #olonium should consist.and then claims that my model must -e wrong -ecause it doesn:t include his hy#othetical com#onent< This is* of course* e,actly the same argument that +rown used in #aragra#h D of his review< As I showed in my lengthy res#onse to +rown:s #aragra#h D* the fallacy in this whole idea is the assum#tion that the +ig +ang version of #rimordial #olonium is correct< Indeed* as I indicated in the conclusion of my res#onse to +rown:s #aragra#h D* the isoto#ic com#osition of lead in #olonium halos in granites #rovides unmista a-le evidence that the +ig +ang version of #rimordial #olonium is fictitious< As mentioned #reviously* I have #rovided a-undant scientific evidence that some #olonium halos in nature are secondary.referring to the #olonium8B4J halos found in uranium rich coalified wood s#ecimens from the Colorado $lateau.and have shown in detail how these halos differ from the #rimordial #olonium halos in granites< For some reason 'utch omits any mention of these differences from his review< In #art @CA 'utch attac s my creation model -ecause it includes elements of uniformity and nonuniformity< It should -e noted that his attac is -ased on #hiloso#hical rather than scientific grounds< I ma e no a#ologies for #ro#osing a model that includes -oth uniformity and nonuniformity -ecause this is what the scientific evidence dictates< 3hat 'utch avoids saying is that my model can account for -oth #rimordial #olonium halos in granites as well as secondary #olonium halos in coalified wood* which is something the standard evolutionary model can never do< 3hat is most interesting in this #aragra#h is the way 'utch first raises 7uestions a-out the identification of #olonium halos using the uniformitarian as#ect of my model* -ut then admits my identification of #olonium halos is correct after allS The last #oint in this #aragra#h concerns whether decay rates may have s#eeded u# or slowed down< (y res#onse is that the evidence from the 2>$- ratios in coalified wood* as well as the results from -oth the $- and helium retention in %ircons ta en from dee# cores* #rovides strong evidence that the earth:s age is very young< This im#lies an enhancement in the decay rate in the #ast<

The last #aragra#h of 'utch:s review starts out as a #hiloso#hical defense of the uniformitarian #rinci#le* with the im#lication that evolutionists have the truth< 3ith this mind8set 'utch then #roceeds to relegate all my discoveries for creation to the category of ?unresolved #ro-lems in science<? &e claims that scientists will only revise their -eliefs after they are confronted with incontroverti-le evidence to the contrary< +ut somehow he fails to see that evolutionists have -een confronted with 1ust that ind of evidence for a long time.the falsification test was #ro#osed almost eight years ago< Clearly* when the issue -etween creation and evolution was reduced to the outcome of an e,#erimental test* evolutionists signally failed.and are continuing to fail.to meet the challenge of creation< 'utch:s comments a-out varia-le decay rates reveal again* unfortunately* that he continues to utili%e the straw man a##roach.this time erecting two of them.as a means of attac ing my wor < As 1ust noted @two #aragra#hs agoA* the evidence cited for a change in the decay rate is -ased on the 2>$- ratios in coalified wood and the results of $- and &e retention in %ircons ta en from dee# granite cores< I also cite the e,istence of #rimordial #olonium halos in $recam-rian granites of #resuma-ly varying geological ages as #rime evidence that the different radiometric ages of those granites are fictitious< +ut I o##ose the idea that it is #ossi-le to #roduce significant decay rate changes at #resent< 'utch must surely reali%e that this is my #osition -ecause the creation model I have #ro#osed.and a-out which he comments.#ictures significant decay rate changes only in the conte,t of su#ernatural intervention into the affairs of this #lanet during such #eriods as creation wee and the time of the flood< From this it can -e seen that the whole Idea of inducing significant decay rate changes at #resent is diametrically o##osed to the -asic tenets of my creation model< Near the end of his review 'utch -egins to criti7ue other creationists: views of radiometric dating* including a reference to changes in electron8ca#ture decay rates< I do not understand why these remar s are included in his review -ecause all the views that 'utch comments on here are 7uite different from mine* and in fact are com#letely disassociated from my results< Finally* I again e,#ress my #ersonal esteem for 'utch< And in res#onse to his last sentence* I would ho#e that he.and for that matter all who hold a #urely uniformitarian view of earth history. would carefully consider that )od left scientific evidence of creation to hel# those who dou-t )enesis come to a full nowledge of the truth of &is 3ord< In considering Russ &um#hrey:s review* aside from the 7uestion a-out other #olonium halos.to which I have already res#onded in the #receding reviews.it a##ears to -e mainly an outline of a tentative model conceived -y Russ and /ohn +aumgardner< There are some similarities -etween their model and mine.we -oth incor#orate some form of change in the radioactive decay rate into our models< This means that we -oth recogni%e the uniformitarian #rinci#le is not a valid #remise for reconstructing earth history< The significant differences -etween our models* as I understand them* are as follows: 4< In their model radioactive decay doesn:t start until some time such as the Fall* whereas in mine it -egins during creation wee < The reason I include radioactive decay #rocesses within the #ristine framewor of creation wee is that* from my understanding* luminous stars were in e,istence during this time* which was of course -efore the Fall< It is my -elief those stars radiated energy through essentially the same nuclear reactions that are now o#erative* and that some of those reactions involved radioactive decay #rocesses as well as nuclear fusion< B< In their model radioactive decay ceases from the Fall to a-out the time of the Flood* whereu#on it -egins again< In my model* there are several s#ecial #eriods of decay rate enhancement such as creation wee * the Fall* and the Flood* to name the ma1or ones< (y

model includes the #ossi-ility of an enhanced decay rate during creation wee for the generation of heat* thus causing an e,#ansion or u#lift of land masses* resulting in the a##earance of dry land< At the time of the Flood I see the #ossi-ility that an enhanced decay rate was again o#erative* this time #erha#s for the #rimary #ur#ose of initiating violent u#heavals within the earth through ra#id melting< C< In their model radioactive decay restarts after the Flood* whereas in my model there is an enhancement in the decay rate during the #eriod of the Flood< 3ithout further discussion a-out the differences -etween our models* the most im#ortant 7uestion is whether their model can account for the e,istence of #olonium halos in granites< The first #ro-lem is of course to identify the source of uranium for the #olonium< For #olonium halos em-edded within a large granite formation it is in many cases difficult* if not im#ossi-le* to find a significant concentration of uranium near-y< Then comes the 7uestion of trans#orting #olonium through the solid roc < The movement of radioactivity via solution trans#ort is certainly valid for gel8li e wood* -ut 7uite difficult to 1ustify for movement through granite< "rdinarily this must -e done -y diffusion* an e,ceedingly slow #rocess* which when considering the time -etween the Fall and the Flood* would im#ly only small distances would -e traversed< $erha#s the most difficult o-stacle to the formation of #olonium halos in this tentative model seems to -e inherent in the model itself< That is* if decay sto#s after the Fall* then #olonium is a sta-le element with the ratios of the various #olonium isoto#es fi,ed in the #ro#ortion that e,isted at the time decay ceased< Thus all isoto#es of #olonium would move in unison @chemically s#ea ingA and there would -e no isoto#ic se#aration at all< The same is true for the lead and -ismuth -eta8 #recursors of #olonium< This means that* if decay restarted at the Flood* there would -e only one ty#e of #olonium halo @#olonium8B4JA from the uranium series rather than the three ty#es which actually e,ist< The reason for this -ecomes a##arent when it is reali%ed that during the #eriod of decay the isoto#ic a-undances of #olonium8B4L* 8B4D* and 8B4J* -ismuth8B4D and 8B4J* and lead8B4D and 8B4J* are determined -y the half8lives< For all three elements the B4J isoto#e has a half8life that is several hundred times greater than the B4D or B4L isoto#e< This means that in every case where #olonium* -ismuth* or lead may -e se#arated as an element in a radiocenter* the B4J isoto#e of that element will -e in vastly greater a-undance than the B4D or B4L isoto#e* and thus lead to the formation of #olonium8B4J halos in every instance< In other words* there would -e no #ossi-ility of halos originating solely with #olonium8B4L or #olonium8B4D to #roduce either a -alanced8coloration three8ring #olonium8B4L halo or a two8ring #olonium8B4D halo< E,am#les of these -alanced8 coloration #olonium8B4L and #olonium8B4D halos are shown in the radiohalo catalog in my -oo < Finally* since Russ ends his review with comments a-out the falsification test* it is a##ro#riate to relate two new items a-out this to#ic< In the first instance a friend recently informed me that a California geologist had claimed one of the geology films distri-uted -y 3ard:s Natural Scientific Esta-lishment* Inc< showed granite synthesis< Su-se7uently* I contacted the #roducer of the film* (r< Silas /ohnson* now retired* of Coronado* California< According to /ohnson this film is mainly an overview of geologic history e,#laining in general terms the conventional view of the origin of igneous roc s< The film was designed for the high school level and contains nothing relating to the e,#erimental synthesis of granite< Another re#ort is far more interesting< A Canadian evolutionist wrote me* and sent co#ies to a num-er of #rominent evolutionists* that the geology course* >nderstanding the <arth* offered on T;8

"ntario* features a film on igneous roc s that shows granite synthesis< I o-tained a videota#e of that film* which is #rogram C in the >nderstanding the <arth series< The #ur#ose of the series is to educate students in the conventional* uniformitarian view of earth history* including the idea that granites cooled slowly from a melt< As a means of accom#lishing that #ur#ose* #rogram C shows a la-oratory e,#eriment that claims to du#licate conditions under which granite is thought to have formed< In the film granite #owder is melted under #ressure and then allowed to cool< The resulting s#ecimen is said to show a resem-lance to granite< The film does not claim that the cooled s#ecimen is actually a granite< It states only that the e,#eriment can -e inter#reted as -eing suggestive of how granites formed< To say the s#ecimen resulting from a granite synthesis e,#eriment 1ust resem-les granite* instead of actually -eing a granite* is e,actly what the falsification test is all a-out< Thus* the Canadian evolutionist* who wrote to me a-out this T; #rogram illustrating granite synthesis* erroneously e7uated an imitation granite with the genuine article<[ From my view#oint the results of this e,#eriment have -een one of evolution:s -est e#t secrets. the e,#eriment itself was done over twenty years ago.and it is now time for this #articular secret to -e given the widest #ossi-le e,#osure< As this res#onse goes to #ress I am chec ing to see what* if any* additional details a-out this interesting e,#eriment may -e determined at this late date< In my o#inion creation science is a-out to move into a new era< There are e,citing #ossi-ilitiesS[ Ro-ert ;< )entry N[As the 2T #resentation showed @#ages 4558BJDA* I was successful in locating one of the roc s#ecimens here referred to* and it was not a granite< Creation science has moved into a new era<O

7!$ arth's 5eeply >'ried Fo'ndation Roc#s Revealed by &'per 5eep 5rill )ole in =ola Pennins'la
According to the article ?Inner S#ace*? &cience ,ews@ #< BF6 @4J>B4>L5A: ?< < < geologists are often interested in studying the hard crystalli(e roc+s that form the foundations of all continents< The Hola hole has warned scientists that they have much to learn a-out inter#reting seismic surveys of crystalline roc <? ?According to theory* the crust resem-les a layer ca e* with sedimentary roc layers on to#* acidic granite8ty#e roc s in the middle and thic sheets of -asaltic roc s on the -ottom<? ?=et when the drill actually reached a de#th of 6<E m* the scientists did not find -asaltic roc < The Soviets now -elieve that if the -asaltic layers e,ist* they must lie much dee#er<? ?Hola revealed how far from truth scientific theory can roam<? C"NC02SI"N: )ranite8ty#e roc s are the foundation roc s of the continents<

This conclusion is most im#ortant for it shows that the $o8halo evidence for creation e,ists in the very roc s. the foundations of the earth.that the +i-le s#ecifically lin s to )od:s act of creation @see #age CBCA<

7!% >iblical References to the Fo'ndations of the arth

4< The 0ord thundered from heaven* and the most &igh uttered his voice< And the channels of the sea a##eared* the foundations of the world were discovered< B Samuel BB:4D* 4F B< 3here wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth6 declare* if thou hast understanding< /o- CL:D C< "f old thou hast laid the foundations of the earth: and the heavens are the wor of thy hands< $salm 4JB:BE D< +less the 0ord* J my soul< J 0ord my )od* thou art very greatK thou art clothed with honour and ma1esty< 3ho laid the foundations of the earth" that it should not -e removed for ever< $salm 4JD:4* E E< &ave ye not nown? have ye not heard? hath it not -een told you from the -eginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth6 Isaiah DJ:B4 F< And forgettest the 0ord thy ma er* that hath stretched* forth the heavens* and laid the foundations of the earth- < < < that I may #lant the heavens* and lay the foundations of the earth" < < < Isaiah E4:4C* 4F 6< Thus saith the 0ordK If heaven a-ove can -e measured* and the foundations of the earth searched out -eneath* < < < /eremiah: C4:C6 L< And* Thou* 0ord* in the -eginning has laid the foundation of the earth- and the heavens are the wor s of thy hands: &e-rews 4:4J

7!* 1etter fro( Fran# Press ,AT/O,A1 ACA5 MA OF &C/ ,C &

B4J4 Constitution Avenue 3ashington* '<C< BJD4L "FFICE "F T&E $RESI'ENT

A#ril F* 45L6

(r< Ro-ert ;< )entry $<"< +o, 4BJF6 Hno,ville* Tennessee C654B 'ear (r< )entry: I am res#onding to your letter of (arch BD* 45L6< The -oo let SCIENCE AN' CREATI"NIS(: A ;IE3 FR"( T&E NATI"NA0 ACA'E(= "F SCIENCES #rovides in detail an answer to the main #oint of your letter88the reasons why this institution maintains that creationism should not -e taught in the schools< =our wor on radiohalos is a matter of record in 1ournals and can -e de-ated -y scientists< That is the way science wor s< I cannot agree with your contention that one small #iece of data invalidates the vast -ody of evidence from geology* astronomy* -iology* radiodating* the fossil record* genetics and other fields that ta en together irrefuta-ly show that the age of the earth is a-out D<E -illion years and that life on earth had its -eginnings -illions of years ago< There is a 7uote from Al-ert Einstein inscri-ed on his statue on the grounds of the Academy -uilding as follows: ?The right to search for truth im#lies also a dutyK one must not conceal any #art of what one has recogni%ed to -e true<? I would urge you to consider all the evidence< That too is the way science wor s< =ours sincerely*

Fran $ress $resident

7!+ A Tentative Creation Model

This model is -ased on my inter#retation of the -i-lical account and scientific evidenceK it does not re#resent the official #osition of any organi%ation< It elucidates only my views as a creation scientist< Scientists who differ with the assum#tions inherent in this model need to #u-lish their own model of earth history< In this way all ideas can -e critically tested -y the scientific method< I res#ect the right of any individual to choose that model which fulfills his #hiloso#hical and>or scientific view@sA of origins< Scientific +asis . If the earth was created* then created @#rimordialA roc s must now e,ist in a-undance on the earthK and if there was a worldwide flood* there must now also e,ist a vast amount of sedimentary roc s resulting from that event< The $recam-rian* and -y e,tension the similarly a##earing non8$recam-rian granites* are identified as #art of the #rimordial roc s of the earth< Evidence which su##orts the a-ove a,iom includes: 4< wides#read occurrence of $o halos in $recam-rian granites@)entry 45F6* 45FL* 4564-* 456D* 45LDK )entry et al<* 456C* 456DAK B< 2>$- ratios in coalified wood @)entry et al<* 456FaAK C< $o8B4J halos in coalified wood @)entry et al<* 456FaAK and D< $- and &e retention in %ircons @)entry* 45LBa*-A< $ostulates and Singularities . This model allows for considera-le latitude in the o#eration of #hysical laws -ecause I -elieve the -i-lical record strongly suggests that the earth came to its #resent condition through -oth natural and su#ernatural #rocesses< The s#ecial time #eriods when su#ernatural #rocesses were o#erating on a glo-al scale are called singularities< The )enesis account a##ears to encom#ass at least three ma1or singularities: 4< the first si, days of creation* consisting of literal BD8hour #eriods* when the earth was called into e,istence* B< the Fall of man* a time characteri%ed -y degenerative changes to the entire earth and life thereon* and C< the time of the flood* characteri%ed -y glo-al changes -oth on the surface and the interior of the earth< A #ossi-le fourth singularity would -e the division of the earth in the days of $eleg @)entry* 45LDA< Accelerated radioactive transformation rates are #ostulated as -eing #ossi-le within each of these singularities* and in addition is considered to -e a factor in the generation of intense heat within the earth at the time of the flood< In this model* creation wee is considered to have occurred a-out FJJJ years ago and the flood* a-out DCJJ years ago< The uniform action of #hysical laws -etween singularities is an integral #art of this creation model< &owever* a singularity does not im#ly a-andonment of natural laws* -ut only that an added factor was at wor < Creation 3ee Events . A continual series of creative events is envisioned to have occurred throughout the #eriod of 'ay 4* and 7uite #ossi-ly more throughout 'ay C< This scenario includes ra#id* se7uential creation>formation of different roc ty#es in close #ro,imity* and this certainly could have resulted in cross8cutting relationshi#s of either the same or different ty#es of #rimordial roc s< These different roc ty#es and te,tures result from ra#id crystalli%ation of se#arate #rimordial @createdA li7uids< The a##earance of dry land out of a watery environment on 'ay C may have -een accom#anied -y the ra#id formation of certain sedimentary roc s* in #articular those that geologists classify as $recam-rian* which initially would have -een free of fossils< Creation wee

may have included volcanism and the formation>creation of some roc s which geologists classify as intrusive< Conceiva-ly* there may also have -een mi,ing of different created8roc ty#es< Flood Events . The glo-al flood is assumed to have #roduced tremendous u#heavals of the earth:s crust< E,ce#ting only newly created matter @or roc sA* the #eriod of the flood was characteri%ed -y numerous occurrences of -oth natural and su#ernatural formation* cooling* de#osition* intrusion* u#lift* mi,ing* erosion* and volcanism< This model #ostulates that the -ul of fossil8-earing sedimentary roc s #ro-a-ly formed during the o#ening and closing stages of the flood* with lesser amounts -eing formed during the long #eriod of su-sidence* read1ustment* and run8off after the flood< Since the long8term geological effects of the flood may have lasted for centuries* we should e,#ect to find evidence of numerous com-inations of created roc s* the flood8related roc s* and the #ostflood roc s< To illustrate* e,tensive volcanism during the flood and #ostflood #eriods could have #reci#itated the intrusion of volcanic magma into sedimentary formations< This would #rovide a mechanism where-y #rimordial and other roc ty#es* formed during creation wee * could have mi,ed and interacted with flood8related volcanic and sedimentary material< Consider that* as magma moved u#ward toward the earth:s surface* it could have #assed through and melted* or alternatively enca#sulated* a variety of roc s* -eginning with those created on 'ay 4 or 'ay C* and e,tending through those formed -y volcanic and sedimentary activity during the flood< 3hen that magma finally solidified* it would have -een a com#osite of all those roc s< If the magma tem#erature was not too high* then the com#osite roc would have -een e,#ected to contain unmelted fragments of many roc s through which the magma had #assed< Summary . I #ro#ose most coarse8grained roc s* such as the $recam-rian granites and #egmatites* were created via ra#id crystalli%ation from #rimordial li7uids of differing com#ositions< +ut for reasons stated a-ove* not all roc s with coarse8grained characteristics are necessarily com#osed of only created roc material< Neither do I consider it im#ossi-le to du#licate every ty#e of created roc < The ty#es of created roc s are not restricted e,ce#t that they did not contain fossils at the time of creation< 0i ewise* granites with $o halos* regardless of their ?geological age*? are #rimordial roc s* created in such a way that they cannot -e du#licated -y natural #rocesses< @References are listed on #< CEC<A

7!- 1etter to the ditor of &cience

@(arch B5* 455JA (s< Christine )il-ert 0etters Editor Science 4CCC & Street N<3< 3ashington* '<C< BJJJE 'ear (s< )il-ert: I am su-mitting a revised re#ly to the comments of A< 0< "dom and 3< /< Rin concerning my wor on giant halos and $o halos in micas< As you may o-serve* this re#ly focuses on the technical as#ects of their comments< As we -oth now* Science regularly grants the o##ortunity for researchers to res#ond when incorrect evaluations are #u-lished concerning their results< I do ho#e that the same o##ortunity given to others is not denied me in this case< Sincerely* >s> Ro-ert ;< )entry ,c: A< 0< "dom

BBBBBBBB "iant )alos and Po )alos in Micas

+ased on their studies of three giant halos in 7uart%* A< 0< "dom and 3< /< Rin @Re#orts* 4J>F>L5* #< 4J6A #ro#ose -oth $o halos and giant halos in micas are artifacts of charge migration resulting from e,cess 2 or Th in the halo centers< Considera-le evidence negates this view< First* the hundred or more giant halos I found in a (adagascan mica s#ecimen @4A sometimes overla# the many normal Th halos< Such closeness means the region around giant and Th halos is identical in chemical com#osition* a fact confirmed -y ion8#ro-e analyses @BA< Clearly then* giant halos cannot arise from migration effects associated with some trace element enhancement around their centers< Closeness of -oth halo ty#es also rules out si%e variations due to differences in age and thermal history< 0astly* neither ion #ro-e nor synchrotron radiation e,#eriments @B*CA show any systematic 2>Th differences -etween giant8halo and Th8halo centers< )iant halos in (adagascan mica are not artifacts of e,cess 2>Th< Neither are $o halos in micas artifacts of this effect< If that were true* then as "dom and Rin admit* there would have to -e e,cess 2 in $o8halo centers to induce this effect< +ut this is dis#roved -y autoradiogra#hic* induced fission8trac * micro#ro-e* and scanning electron microsco#e ,8ray fluorescence @SE(MRFA studies @D8FA . all of which showed virtually no 2 in $o halo centers at #resent . and -y fossil fission8trac studies @DA* which showed no 2 was in them in the #ast< (oreover* what those micro#ro-e and SE(MRF studies did show was that $o8halo centers are highly enriched in $-8BJF* which is the e,#ected decay #roduct of the $o isoto#es whose al#ha energies e,actly match the res#ective ring si%es in the three most a-undant ty#es of $o halos @D8EA< Thus* $o halos in granites are confirmed -y e,actly the same techni7ues used to identify 2 and Th halos* and the evidence is that they originated with #rimordial $o @6A* not secondary $o from 2

decay @LA< Ro-ert ;< )entry $<"< +o, 4BJF6 Hno,ville* TN C654B

Refere(ces
4< R<;< )entry* Science 4F5* F6J @456JAK R<;< )entry* Annual =eview of Nuclear Science BC* CD6 @456CA< B< R<;< )entry* ?Are Any 2nusual Radiohalos Evidence of S&E?? in International Symposium on Superheavy <lements" 0u--oc * Te,as* (<A<H< 0odhi* Editor @$ergamon $ress* New =or * 456LA* ##< 4BC84ED< C< C</< S#ar s* /r<* S< Raman* E< Ricci* R<;< )entry* and (<"< Hrause* /hys. =ev. *ett. DJ* EJ6 @456LA< D< R<;< )entry* Science 4FJ* 4BBL @45FLA< E< R<;< )entry* Science 46C* 6B6 @4564AK R<;< )entry* Science 4LD* FB @456DA< F< R<;< )entry* et al<* Nature BDD* BLB @456CAK R<;< )entry* et al<* Nature BEB* EFD @456DA< 6< R<;< )entry* ?Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological $ers#ective*? in <volutionists Confront Creationists" /roceedings of the 10rd Annual %eeting of the /acific Bivision of the American Association for the Advancement of Science 4* CL @45LDA< L< R<;< )entry et al<* Science 46D* C4E @456FA<

7!0 1st letter fro( &cience

.cie(ce
'r< Ro-ert ;< )entry Earth Science Associates $ost "ffice +o, 4BJF6 Hno,ville* TN C654B8JJF6 'ear 'r< )entry:

$2+0IS&E' += T&E A(ERICAN ASS"CIATI"N F"R T&E A';ANCE(ENT "F SCIENCE 4CCC & STREET* N<3<* 3AS&IN)T"N* '<C< BJJJE @BJBA CBF8FEJJ CA+0E A''RESS: A';ANCESCI

6 (arch 455J

Than you for giving us the o##ortunity to consider your comment on a #a#er -y A< 0< "dom< I regret to say that we have decided not to #u-lish it< 3e receive many more comments than we can accommodate in the availa-le s#ace* and hence must re1ect most of those su-mitted< The manuscri#t and author:s re#ly are enclosed< Sincerely* Christine )il-ert 0etters Editor

7!3 !nd letter fro( &cience

.cie(ce
'r< Ro-ert ;< )entry $ost "ffice +o, 4BJF6 Hno,ville* TN C654B8JJF6 'ear 'r< )entry:

$2+0IS&E' += T&E A(ERICAN ASS"CIATI"N F"R T&E A';ANCE(ENT "F SCIENCE 4CCC & STREET* N<3<* 3AS&IN)T"N* '<C< BJJJE @BJBA CBF8FEJJ CA+0E A''RESS: A';ANCESCI

5 (ay 455J

Than you for su-mitting your revised comment on the #a#er -y "dom and Rin < I regret to say that our decision not to #u-lish it remains unchanged< =ours sincerely* Christine )il-ert 0etters Editor

C):cw

7$4 1etter fro( A? 1? Odo(

6he Florida .tate =(iversity Tallahassee* Florida CBCJF Bepartment of ;eology 'r< Ro-ert ;< )entry Earth Science Associates 'ear 'r< )entry* 4J>B6>L5

It was nice to hear from you< I am enclosing sam#les of the Adda-a and )ranitville granites< Enclosed also is a co#y of a note #u-lished in the /anuary issue of )eology which gives a -it more detail regarding the measurements of the halos< As I said over the tele#hone* such halos are 7uite rare in these sam#les< I might also mention that the three giant halos are the only halos we have seen @i<e< we have not found halos of what would seem to -e normal si%eA< I should also em#hasi%e that we were not searching for halos< /ac Rin found the first -y chance< Since we have only two com#lete halos* we feel o-liged to ee# them for documentation in case anyone wishes to o-serve them< All color centers are readily destroyed -y heat and #roduced -y ioni%ing radiation< 3e ho#e that you are successful in finding additional s#ecimens from the material we are sending< 3e will -e carefully loo ing for these in our future selections of 7uart% grains for ESR analyses* and would -e glad to send you ones we find< The Science #a#er was the result of an accidental findingK it is not something that we are really wor ing on< As is o-vious in the #a#er* we have #roven nothing . sim#ly offered an alternative e,#lanation< 3e had included a 7uestion mar at the end of our title of the #a#er* -ut it was removed a##arently -y the editor< /ac and I would -e very ha##y to see you investigate these halos* and if #ossi-le test our model< I told you that I would send you the editorial comments a-out our reference to an ?instaneous creation? as a suggested e,#lanation for the $o halos< I now recall that these comments were made on the edited manuscri#t which I had to return with our revision< The editor suggested that we leave this reference out of our #a#er* -ut we felt that a reader new to the su-1ect should -e aware of other e,#lanations that had -een offered< "ur original manuscri#t had to -e cut CJl< 3e had included a summary of the very detailed wor you have done on the su-1ect over the years< 3e had also included discussion on why we did not thin #reviously offered e,#lanations for giant halos in mica could account for those we have found in 7uart%< 3e could not do this for $o halos* for we actually do not have a $o halo<

If our inter#retation of the smo y halos is correct* I would e,#ect that giant halos in 7uart% would -e the most common ty#e< Accordingly* I would also e,#ect that these haloes would -e relatively common in those roc s in which mona%ite inclusions in 7uart% is relatively common< This is why I suggested you might consider the sam#les "wens studied -y cathodoluminescence @reference is given in our )eology noteA< "wens did not see the smo y halos* -ecause he was wor ing with thin sections of roc s< I do not -elieve that even our Adda-a s#ecimen would -e visi-le in thin section< =ou might try contacting "wen for a sam#le of the roc < =ou said you were #re#aring a #a#er on $o halos< I would -e very interested in having a co#y* when you have com#leted it< I ho#e that we can -e of some hel# to you< Than s for the #hone call* and let us now what you find< /ac and I are 7uite curious a-out these things< If you are ever in the vicinity* #lease sto# -y< Sincerely*

A< 0eroy "dom

7$1 Response to <ise's Co((ents Response to CRadioactive )alos: "eologic ConcernsC Robert 9? "entry
@Re#rinted from Creation =esearch Society Huarterly* ;ol< BE* (arch 45L5A This is a re#ly* on a #aragra#h -asis* to H< 3ise:s comments in CRS! BE* 464 @45L5A $ars< 4 and B<.In these two #aragra#hs 3ise mi,es some of his own views with mine< To clarify the issue* I have made a clear statement of my creation model in A Tentative Creation (odel in the a##endi,< $ars< C* D* and E<.There is no difficulty in studying #olonium halos for anyone who wishes to do so< /oly saw #olonium halos and he had no museum s#ecimens to study< &enderson studied #olonium halos at length and he had no museum s#ecimens< I have studied them at even greater length without museum num-ers with which to refer< The reason that #olonium halos have -een studied without museum num-ers is that they are of worldwide occurrenceK they are easy to find< I have re#orted #olonium halos in granites and #egmatites from several continents< Their occurrence is as wides#read and #ervasive as is the occurrence of those roc s all over the world< 2niversity geological museums contain countless thousands of roc s from such locationsK so there is no dearth of material to study #olonium halos< (oreover* #olonium halos do not change their characteristics from one continent to the other so that their study is not confined to a single site or location< If 3ise needs material to study #olonium halos* all he has to do is order -iotite s#ecimens from 3ard:s Natural Science Esta-lishment in Rochester* New =or < At any time during the #ast several years 3ise could have availed himself of this material and made as many #etrogra#hic sections as he wished to study the roc s< $ars< F and 6<.There is no 7uestion that #olonium halos in roc s raise some very distur-ing issues for conventional uniformitarian geology< &owever* 3ise:s assertion that I claim #olonium halos are ?always found in granites*? is #atently untrue* In fact* if 3ise had carefully read my scientific re#orts* he would have seen that I s#ecifically note the e,istence of #olonium halos in $recam-rian #egmatites @)entry et al." 456DA* fluorite @)entry* 456C* 456DA and cordierite @)entry* 456CA< 3hat 3ise a##arently has not understood is that the e,istence of #olonium halos in crystalline roc s served to identify these roc s as the created roc s of this world and that further research will identify even other varieties of roc s as -eing in this category< In #articular* the e,istence of #olonium halos in the -iotite at the Fission and Silver Crater (ines serves to identify the host ?vein di es? as also -eing created roc s* and as already noted* 4E years ago @)entry* 456CA I #u-lished information on the e,istence of #olonium halos in cordieriteK so there is no 7uestion that at that time I considered the cordierite and its host roc to -e among the created roc s< Contrary to 3ise:s evaluation* this information does not #resent a difficulty to my creation model< Neither does the inclusion of gneiss as a ty#e of created roc cause a #ro-lem as 3ise seems to im#ly< The -est that can -e said is that it #resents a #ro-lem for his understanding of my creation model< In addition* I must note that rhyolite is not granite< Rhyolite and granite have only one thing in common and that is elemental com#osition< &owever* granite and rhyolite differ somewhat in mineral com#osition* 7uite considera-ly in mineral grain si%e* and es#ecially in the #resence of #olonium halos in one and a-sence of them in the other< $ar< L<.In this #aragra#h 3ise first comments on the age se7uence of #olonium8halo8containing roc s -ut* interestingly* he does not discuss either the model or the dating method used to arrive at

his age se7uence< Rather* the entire -asis for his conclusions on age se7uences is the information in his Ta-le II< 3ithout any disclaimer or discussion of any alternative inter#retation of the geological terms in that ta-le* the ?acce#ted age? referred to there seems to -e 1ust the conventional geological age determined -y uniformitarian geology< In other words* 3ise is im#licitly using the results of uniformitarian radiometric dating to esta-lish an age se7uence of roc s containing #olonium halos< &owever* as I show several times in my -oo @)entry* 45LLA* there is no scientific -asis for acce#ting the crucial assum#tion of decay rate constancy and without that assum#tion the conventional ages determined -y radioactive methods are meaningless< (uch of the rest of the #aragra#h is given to various claims a-out the nature of #olonium8halo8 -earing roc s -ut no references are #rovided to su-stantiate the inter#retation given< 'o such references even e,ist? If so* why were they not #rovided? I would -e ha##y to res#ond in #rint to 3ise:s claims a-out #olonium8halo8containing roc s if and when he can #rovide valid documentation for them< $ar< 5.I have referred to $recam-rian granites as -asement roc s of the continents to convey the wides#read occurrence of #olonium halos and also as an illustration of the vast amount of roc which must -e identified with the roc s that were created< To say* as 3ise does* that some roc s -elow the earth are of more mafic com#osition than granites in no way detracts from the evidence #ointing to such granites -eing among Earth:s genesis roc s< In this #aragra#h 3ise again ma es claims a-out #olonium8halo8containing roc s -eing younger than ?volcanics and even sediments<? +ut I find no documentation for such claims< I would gladly have res#onded to them if references had -een su##lied< $ar< 4J<.Again 3ise erroneously asserts that I associate #olonium halos only with granites< And to clarify terminology* I used the term ?$recam-rian granites? to avoid any #ossi-le confusion with a variety of roc s that sometimes are associated with crystalline granite< &owever* an integral #art of my creation model is that granites with #olonium halos* of whatever #resumed geological age* are created granites< Thus* contrary to 3ise:s o#inion* #olonium halos in these other granites do not at all invalidate my creation model< $ar< 44<.3ise recogni%es that granite synthesis has not occurred -ecause he states* ?And truly* an artificial granite has not yet -een #roduced<? =et he attem#ts to leave the im#ression that synthesis is soon to come -y 7uoting various geological re#orts relating to the synthesis of various single crystals of minerals< The fact is* however* that single crystals of minerals are not #ieces of graniteK granite* as I have used the term* is a coarse8grained mi,ture mainly com#osed of felds#ar* 7uart%* and -iotite* and this has not -een re#roduced in a hand8si%ed s#ecimen< Thus 3ise -egs the 7uestion when he admits* ?though a true granite has not yet -een #roduced in the la-oratory* many granitic features have -een<? At the very -est* this is an overstatement -ecause* first* -iotite* one of the #rimary mineral com#onents of granite* has not -een synthesi%ed in macrosco#ic8si%ed crystals< Secondly* whatever minerals have -een synthesi%ed in the la-oratory do not contain the #olonium halos which are in natural granite* and 3ise ignores this tremendous dis#arity -etween la-oratory synthesis of single minerals and the actual occurrence of granite in nature< 3ise is entitled to his -elief that a true granite may soon -e synthesi%ed in the la-oratory* though such a -elief is inconsistent with the fact that* when a granite melt cools in the earth* it recrystalli%es to rhyolite* not granite< 3ise a##arently feels that granite studies over the #ast few decades -ear on the crucial issue concerning #olonium radiohalo evidence for creation< 'o they? For many years @)entry* 4565A I have #ro#osed that there is a test where-y it is #ossi-le to determine whether the creation or evolutionary view of earth history is correct< This falsification test ena-les the nonscientist to

distinguish real facts from what are sim#ly deductions -ased on un#roven uniformitarian assum#tions< Evolution:s -asic #remise is that the earth geologically evolved to its #resent state over -illions of years -y the action of nown #hysical laws< A conse7uence of this #remise.technically nown as the uniformitarian principle.is that all the roc s now on or within the earth formed -y natural #rocesses< The evolutionary scenario views granites.a widely distri-uted roc ty#e that contains #olonium halos.as having formed countless thousands of times during the course of earth history< If this is true* then it certainly should -e #ossi-le to synthesi%e a small* hand8si%ed #iece of granite or a 4J8cm8wide crystal of -iotite in a scientific la-oratory< Thus* I have invited @)entry* 4565* 45LD* 45LFA my scientific colleagues who -elieve these roc s formed naturally to confirm their view -y e,#erimental demonstration< +ut my nine8year8old invitation @)entry* 4565A for them to #roduce such s#ecimens has #roduced only silence< This is not sur#rising< $he parentless polonium halos in these roc#s provide uni ue evidence that they did not form by natural processes. $ar< 4B<.There are #laces where granites @or granodioritesA are surrounded -y metamor#hosed* fossiliferous8-earing* sedimentary roc < +ut contrary to 3ise:s view* such occurrences do not falsify my creation model< Conventional uniformitarian geology teaches that granitic melts have intruded into fossiliferous sedimentary roc s* there-y #roducing a metamor#hic %one< +ut my e,#lanation of such metamor#hism is 7uite different from that scenario and is -ased on the #reviously mentioned fact that* when granite is melted in the earth and su-se7uently cooled* it recrystalli%es to form rhyolite* not granite< (y model for e,#laining metamor#hosed* sedimentary roc s ad1acent to granites.such as those that occur in the Santa Rita mining district in southeastern New (e,ico.is as follows: Sometime during the Flood* movements within the earth could have -ro en o#en an underground a7ueous reservoir which then contacted an intensely hot magma at considera-le de#th< That contact could then have #roduced a su#erheated fluid loaded with volatile com#onents e,tracted from the magma< @In this scenario these volatile com#onents would su-se7uently -ecome the minerali%ing agents in #roducing the ore -odies<A This su#erheated fluid would in turn have generated tremendous su-terranean #ressures< (ovements within the earth also would have fractured the heretofore un-ro en granodiorite -asement roc < "nce that ha##ened* e,tremely high #ressure from -oth underground magma and the geothermal fluid would cause the u#lift of a huge section of the fractured granodiorite into the overlying sediments< The magma referred to here would cool to form rhyolite and other secondary roc s in the area* whereas the hot geothermal fluid is envisioned as the minerali%ing agent for -oth the u#lifted granodiorite as well as the surrounding sedimentary roc s< In such cases the metamor#hic %one in the surrounding sedimentary roc s would -e #roduced -y heat from the geothermal fluid rather than from a cooling granitic melt< $ar< 4C<.Again 3ise maintains that granites surrounded -y metamor#hosed* fossiliferous de#osits would invalidate my view that granites are created roc s< And he tacitly assumes the causative agent in #roducing such metamor#hism is heat from a cooling granitic melt* which is contrary to the e,#erimental evidence* namely* for the third time* that a granitic melt cools to form rhyolite* not granite< In res#onse to the #revious #aragra#h I have outlined a scenario where-y metamor#hosed* sedimentary roc s can -e #roduced around granites -y hot geothermal fluids at the time of granite u#lift< Thus* such occurrences are within the framewor of my creation model< $ar< 4D<.3ise ma es a clear* une7uivocal statement of fact when he says* ?No satisfactory* naturalistic theory has yet -een #ro#osed for the origin of the #olonium halos<? &e then rehashes a num-er of #lausi-ility arguments* all of which I have re-utted in the o#en scientific literature @)entry* 45FL* 4564* 456C* 456D* 45LD* 45LFK )entry et al." 456C* 456D* 456FA* in an attem#t to deny the validity of his own statement< For e,am#le* the insinuation that #olonium halos occur only along crac s or conduits is denied -y the #hotogra#hic evidence even in &enderson:s re#orts as well as in

my own re#orts @)entry* 45F6* 45FL* 4564* 456C* 456D* 45LDK )entry et al." 456DA and es#ecially in the color #hotogra#hs in my recent -oo * Creation!s $iny %ystery @)entry* 45LLA< In an effort to #romote a water8related origin of #olonium halos* 3ise cites someone else:s o#inion to the effect that all of the minerals containing #olonium halos can -e #roduced hydrothermally in the la-oratory< This idea is* of course* a widely held -elief of uniformitarian geology< +ut it lac s e,#erimental confirmation as far as re#roducing macrosco#ic8si%ed actual crystals are concerned< For e,am#le* for many years I have challenged geologists to #roduce a hand8si%ed s#ecimen of -iotite.one of the more #rominent halo8containing minerals that is #resumed to -e of hydrothermal origin.as a means of verifying that -iotite can -e #roduced hydrothermally according to the conventional evolutionary view @)entry* 4565A< Almost a decade has #assed* and no evidence e,ists to indicate such a synthesis has -een accom#lished< So there is no scientific -asis for claiming that natural crystals of -iotite are of hydrothermal origin* or more s#ecifically* that all #olonium8halo8containing minerals are of hydrothermal origin< $ar< 4E<."n another matter* 3ise:s contention that the search for #olonium halos has -een -iased toward areas where uranium halos are found is untrue< To -e sure* 3ise heard me descri-e the occurrence of #olonium halos in the distinctly uranium8#oor 3hite (ountain @New &am#shireA granites during my technical #resentation at the 45LF International Conference on Creationism< For some reason it a##ears he has overloo ed that information in his #resent evaluation< $ar< 4F<.&ere it is most im#ortant to understand that 3ise raises a 7uestion a-out what does not e'ist. "n the other hand* my e,#erimental wor on radioactive halos deals with what does e'ist and the #ro-lems that one encounters in trying to e,#lain these halos on a uniformitarian -asis< 3ise faults me for not e,#laining the halos that do not e,ist< In this case* I see no reason to attem#t to e,#lain something that does not e,ist< (oreover* 3ise:s association of the other #olonium isoto#es with #rimordial #olonium is something that is -ased on uniformitarian views of earth history and in no way discounts the creation of #rimordial #olonium in #rimordial roc s< In #articular* each chemical element in the chart of the nuclides lists -oth naturally occurring isoto#es as well as those which have -een identified in nuclear accelerator e,#eriments< (odern astro#hysics attri-utes -oth the naturally occurring sta-le and long8lived radioactive isoto#es.such as 28BCL and Th8BCB.in this chart with primordial nuclides #roduced in stellar nucleosynthesis. 'ou-tless some chemical elements in stars are #roduced -y nucleosynthetic reactions* -ut I have yet to see the scientific evidence which 1ustifies assuming that the origin of Earth:s chemical elements can -e traced to stellar nucleosynthesis< Thus* I find no rational -asis for acce#ting the modern astro#hysical conce#t of #rimordial isoto#es< $ar* 46<.Ion micro#ro-e analyses of #olonium halo centers have revealed scientific evidence su##orting an inde#endent origin for the #olonium res#onsi-le for halos @)entry* 4564K )entry et al."456DA< +y way of further e,#lanation* the isoto#ic com#osition of lead derived from uranium decay.meaning the $-8BJF>$-8BJ6 ratio.must always -e considera-ly less than the activity ratio for 28BCL>28BCE* which at the #resent time is B4<L< Since $o8B4J halos in coalified wood originated from uranium decay* it was e,#ected that their centers would e,hi-it $-8BJF>$-8BJ6 ratios consistent with uranium decay* and ion micro#ro-e analyses confirmed this was the case @)entry et al."456FA< +ut when the same techni7ue was a##lied to #olonium halos in minerals* I found ratios greater than BB* which is too high to associate with uranium decay @)entry* 4564A< Such isoto#e ratios identify a new ty#e of lead* which is distinct from the isoto#ic com#osition of any ty#e of common or radiogenic lead nown heretofore< This is the scientific evidence which uni7uely identifies #olonium halos in roc s as having originated with ?#arentless? #olonium.#olonium that originated inde#endent of uranium daughter #roducts<

These e,traordinary lead isoto#e ratios* when com-ined with the a-sence of evidence for secondary trans#ort of uranium daughters @)entry* 45F6K 45FLA as well as the evidence for geometric design in the s#ectacle halo @)entry et al."456DA* #rovide a valid scientific -asis for associating #olonium halos in granites and other roc s with #rimordial radioactivity< Conclusion<.A close e,amination of 3ise:s #a#er fails to reveal the ?serious geological #ro-lems? relative to my creation model and granites -eing created roc s< S#ecifically* #olonium halos can easily -e studied -y anyone who has the desire to o-tain the minerals containing them< Their wides#read and #ervasive occurrence in granitic roc s and #egmatites assures scientists all over the world easy access to study the geology in whatever country they are found< The claim that la-oratory studies in granitic te,ture have virtually falsified my theory of created granites is contradicted -y e,#erimental evidence from the la-oratory of nature which shows that a granite melt cools to form rhyolite* not granite< &ence the idea that granites ?metamor#hose fossiliferous sediments? is nothing more than a deduction -ased on the erroneous view that granites formed from a cooling melt< Finally* it is one thing to conclude* as 3ise does* that #olonium halos ?may -e uranium8 @and #ossi-ly thorium8A derived and hydrothermally trans#orted*? -ut it is another thing to virtually ignore* as 3ise also does* the #u-lished scientific evidence to the contrary< Readers genuinely desiring #ertinent information a-out my creation model.and not what others s#eculate a-out my model.should carefully study my #osition as stated in the a##endi, and the discussion of the su##orting scientific evidence in my -oo Creation!s $iny %ystery @)entry* 45LLA<

Refere(ces
)entry* Ro-ert ;< 456J< Time: measured res#onses< <?S $ransactions of the American ;eophysical >nion FJ:D6D< YYYYYYYYYY 45LL< Creation!s tiny mystery. Second edition< Earth Science Associates* Hno,ville* TN C654B8JJF6<

References cited in this res#onse are found on ##< CEC8CEF< Note also* the creation model referred to in the final #aragra#h is A Tentative Creation (odel< It is #rinted se#arately on #ages CBE8CBF of this -oo <

7$! Co((ents on "eological ObDections

2sing the assum#tion of uniformity* evolutionary geologists have #resumed to say that all roc s formed -y natural #rocesses over the duration of earth history< +ut three facts.the $o8halo evidence for creation* the failure to synthesi%e granite e,#erimentally* and melted granite cooling to rhyolite in the earth.show -eyond dou-t that this #resum#tion is false and that vast 7uantities of roc s were created and cannot -e du#licated -y natural #rocesses< Evolution is in a crisis< The #u-lication of Creation!s $iny %ystery has resurrected the $o8halo evidence for creation from the #ages of #remier scientific research 1ournals and -rought it to the attention of elected officials and the general #u-lic< /ust as significantly* this -oo also reveals the failure of scientists to #u-lish a refutation of that evidence in those same scientific 1ournals< In other words* evolutionists have nothing scientifically credi-le to counter this evidence for creation< This dilemma led them to disseminate a -iased* confused #icture of my results in two of their #u-lications< In the evolutionist maga%ines* CreationG<volution NMMII* L* no< 4* 4C @45LLAO and Cour. ;eol. <ducation NCF* 4 @45LLAO* an amateur geologist attem#ted to dis#rove a creation origin of Canadian $recam-rian roc s -y selectively 7uoting #rofessional evolutionary geologists on the su##osed geologic history of some $o8halo8containing roc s near +ancroft* "ntario< These 7uotes closely interweave the mineralogical descri#tions of the roc s with the uniformitarian inter#retation of their origin and thus leave the false im#ression that the #resumed evolutionary origin of those roc s is as scientifically valid as the mineralogical facts< This failure to se#arate fact from evolutionary theory is a #itfall that has* over the #ast century* led many sincere geologists to erroneously -elieve that evolution is valid< The $o8halo evidence for creation #oints the way out of this #it for it shows that evolution:s -asic #remise of the uniformitarian #rinci#le is false< "ne e,am#le of how this assum#tion leads to incorrect geological conclusions a-out the $o8halo evidence for creation is discussed on #ages CC48CCC< +ut the main focus here concerns the writings of this evolutionist who* -efore the 2T forum* widely claimed that granite had -een synthesi%ed on television< 2nfortunately* his advisers did not fully inform him of the scientific as#ects of $o halos* and conse7uently he failed to distinguish -etween scientific fact and conclusions -ased on evolutionary assum#tions< This is evident -y the com#lete de#endence on uniformitarian geology to critici%e the evidence for creation in the two #u-lications cited a-ove< To my nowledge the errors a-out my results contained in these #u-lications have not -een #u-licly retracted as of early 455B even though the errors in them were discussed at length in this -oo :s second @45LLA edition< I am thus o-liged to res#ond to them again in this edition* es#ecially in view of the fact that the same errors were re#eated at the Second ICC in 455J< @See ##< CC58CEB for additional comments a-out the Second ICC material<A In what follows the atheistic>evolutionist maga%ines cited a-ove are referred to as C>E and /)E* followed -y res#ective #age num-ers* which #ertain to the remar under discussion< In #articular* these articles: 4< claim @C>E 4LK /)E EA that I identified some halo8containing roc s as granites when in fact my re#ort @)entry et al< 456DA correctly states they were from a #egmatiteK B< im#ly @C>E 468B4* BCK /)E D86A that certain crystalline roc s which geologists classify as ?intrusive? discount a creation origin for those roc s* -ut actually my creation model @##< 4CC* 4LE* CBE8CBFA includes these among the roc ty#es that were createdK C< claim @C>E BJ8BFK /)E 4JA that cross8cutting relationshi#s show that halo8containing roc s were the last roc s to form in the +ancroft area* -ut they fail to recogni%e this too is #erfectly

in harmony with my creation model @##< 4CC* 4LD* CBE8CBFA* which envisions a continual series of geologically oriented creative events throughout the BD8hour #eriod of 'ay 4 @and #ossi-ly 'ay C as wellAK D< claim @C>E 4LK /)E 44A that regional metamor#hism had to -e ?e,#lained? to me* which is not only a #atroni%ing inaccuracy -ut also one that ignores metamor#hism -eing #art of my creation model @see ##< 4LD* 4LE in this and earlier editions of this -oo AK E< 7uote an evolutionary geologist as an authority on how certain roc s formed when* in fact* e,cer#ts from the 7uote @C>E 4LK /)E EA reveal that geologist is only s#eculating: ?The author -elieves that < < < has < < < -een largely derived < < <?* ?The author feels the that the de#osit is therefore -est classed as < < <? ?Its mode of origin is in dis#ute?K F< im#ly @C>E 45K /)E 6A that many of my mica sam#les have undergone metamor#hism -ut neglect to say that the writer has never seen any of my hundreds of s#ecimens< And for the record* the ones I do have from +ancroft are not metamor#hosedK 6< wrongly claim @C>E BEK /)E 5A my -oo has an error on the rate of lava coolingK also claim @/)E 44A that I e7uate di es and rhyolite with granite* which is o##osite of the view stated in this and earlier editions of this -oo @see ##< 4CJ84C4AK L< cite @/)E 4JA Eichel-erger @#< 4C4* in this -oo A to im#ly that granite can form at great de#th* -ut Eichel-erger never res#onded to my letter as to whether he had im#lied thisK 5< 7uestion @C>E BBK /)E 4JA why I chose the C8minute half8life of $o8B4L as the measure of time for creation when this has -een e,#lained many times in my re#orts and in this -oo @see ##< BC8C6AK 4J<show @C>E B5A a #icture of a road cut and im#ly that the e,#osed roc s could only have formed -y evolutionary #rocesses* when these roc ty#es were.and still are.e,#ressly included in my creation model as descri-ed herein and in earlier editions @##< 4CC84CDK CBE8 CBFAK 44<use @C>E BBK /)E LA the terms ?metasediments*? ?metavolcanics*? and ?metamor#hosed intrusive gneiss com#le,*? in an evolutionary conte,t in a futile attem#t to deny a creation origin of Canadian $recam-rian roc sK in a further effort to deny creation it is im#lied that these roc s contain fossils* first -y #arenthetically mentioning @C>E BBA ?fossil soil?.which in chec ing the cited reference I find is only an inference with no su-stantiated evidence whatsoever to suggest that the soil actually contains visi-le fossils.and then -y citing @C>E B6K /)E 44A a ?#ersonal communication? from an evolutionist to im#ly that ?stromatolites? @fossil algae matsA e,ist on certain roc s near +ancroft< The author fails to ac nowledge the re#ort N&< /< &offman* /recambrian )ossils" /seudofossils" and /roblematica in Canada" ;eological Survey of Canada" &ulletin 4L5* CJ8CD* @4564AO which 7uestions their authenticity* -ut does admit @C>E BLA that these structures do not contain any organic matter that authentic stromatolites always e,hi-it< This admission of none,istent organic matter is re#eated in the Second ICC material< Clearly* if the structures at +ancroft were genuine stromatolites* they would contain organic matter< NI digress to add a similar a-sence of crucial evidence occurs in the #resumed finding of fossil -rachio#ods in granite made -y two Soviet scientists @ >SS= Acad. of Sciences" Bo#lady" <arth Sciences" 4LL* CC* 456JA< (y written in7uiry to the Soviet 2nion and data-ase search at 2T in Hno,ville revealed nothing that would confirm this re#ort< This is not sur#rising considering that uncertainties in the authors: identification of their ?fossils? is readily a##arent from the

re#ort itself: ?Among the many ovoids e,tracted from granite we noticed com#aratively few that had any s#ecific sha#e*? and ?It is hard to identify altered -rachio#ods found in e7ually altered roc s<?O 4B<re#eatedly attem#t @C>E BJK /)E LA to esta-lish an age se7uence for $recam-rian roc s -ut fail to state that all the radiometric dates -eing cited are -ased on the fallacious uniformitarian #rinci#leK 4C<wrongly infer @C>E B4K /)E 6A that -etafite may -e res#onsi-le for $o halos* -ecause: i< -etafite li e all 2 minerals #roduces a 2 halo* not a $o halo* and ii< ,8ray and mass analyses show significant amounts of 2 in 28halo centers* -ut not in $o8 halo centersK 4D<im#ly @/)E CA that former museum curator 0ouis (oyd made detrimental remar s a-out my understanding of certain roc s* -ut my conversation with 0ouis in 'ecem-er 45L6 revealed this is untrueK 4E<e,#ress an uncertainty @/)E CA on where $o halos are found* which must -e identified as a straw8man issue -ecause the whole reason the author attem#ted to dis#rove a creation origin of the roc s at +ancroft was that I had re#orted $o halos are found thereK 4F<lament @/)E LA that I have disregarded what 'alrym#le and others have re#eatedly ?told me? a-out the age and origin of granitesK 46<wishfully claim @C>E 45* BJ* BE8B6K /)E 6* 4JA that geology can e,#lain large crystal si%es in #egmatites even though geologists cannot synthesi%e a hand8si%ed crystal of the commonly occurring -iotite* much less those mica crystals that weigh over 4JJ tons @which at the 2T forum I noted were clear evidence of creationA< These numerous inaccuracies and my res#onses to them are im#ortant -ecause this s#o esman for evolution freely ac nowledges having received considera-le assistance from #rofessional geologists< In fact* his colla-oration with one of those geologists resulted in the re#etition of many of the same inaccuracies at the Second ICC @see ##< CC58CEBA< These errors re#resent the -est collective effort that eminent evolutionists.and others o##osed to my results.can ma e against the $o8halo evidence for creation< +ut nowhere is their colla-orative failure to deal with this evidence more a##arent than in the material that admittedly was ?deli-erately omitted? @C>E C4A from the discussions in -oth the C>E and /)E articles< S#ecifically omitted from those articles @C>E* C4A is the discussion of coalified8wood halos* the young8earth im#lications of lead>helium retention in granite* and the failure to artificially synthesi%e granite< All these are said to -e left out ?-ecause of s#ace limitations<? @Similar omissions occurred at the Second ICC<A +ut if these #u-lications: i<do not refute the evidence for creation.the $o halos in granites* ii<omit the strongest evidences for a young age of the earth.the halos in coalified wood* and the lead>helium retention in granites* iii<fail to retract the claim of granite synthesis that was made #rior to the 2T forum* and iv<inter#ret field geology according to the fallacious uniformitarian #rinci#le* then how could it #ossi-ly -e concluded that the evidence for creation is invalid? The fact is* #erha#s without fully reali%ing it* the author was a##arently advised to ma e some ama%ing admissions in his concluding comments< The following are 7uotes from the CreationG<volution #u-lication: "Still" we must give ;entry his due. Nothing in geology fully e'plains the apparent occurrence of

the /o halos as described by ;entry. $hey do remain a minor mystery in the field of physics. &ut this does not mean that no e'planations are possible or that it is time to throw in the towel and invo#e the !god of the gaps.! $he generation" preservation and alteration of the radioactive halos involve comple' physical processes that are not yet understood" and it is uite possible that they are not primordial /o halos at all. ?ther e'planations include . . ." .CG< 083 &ere the author concedes the #ossi-ility of #rimordial $o halos.in other words* creation< The ?other e,#lanations? are those which 'alrym#le has #ro#osed* and these have all -een refuted in this -oo @##< B558CJCA< The ne,t 7uote is even more e,#licit regarding instant creation: "So the !basement roc#s! in which ;entry found his halos turn out not to be !basement roc#s! at all. In fact" they appear in roc#s that formed much later than <arth!s oldest roc#s. $his fact alone tells us that the roc#s bearing D/oE halos" even if instantly created" have no bearing on the origin and age of <arth." .CG< 0@3 First* it is true that the -asement crystalline roc s were created< +ut as I said -efore* not all created roc s are at ?-asement? level< Some* such as (t< Rushmore and El Ca#itan* are easily visi-le at the surface< Secondly* this evolutionist:s reference to the oldest roc s is -ased on his use of s#urious radioactive dates for those roc s< In my creation model the roc s at +ancroft are #art of the oldest roc s -ecause they are #art of those created on 'ay 4 of creation wee < 0astly* even though we see here the admission of the #ossi-ility of certain roc s -eing ?instantly created*? the o##osition to creation is so strong that it is also claimed this would have ?no -earing on the origin? of the earthS "ne final 7uote: ")urthermore" he D;entryE is forced to invo#e the supernatural to e'plain away physical evidence that points to a tremendous amount of geological activity over a long period of time in this region where he found the halos. Since ;entry!s ;od can do anything" he concludes that ;od created the region to have the features of age and activity that it e'hibits and that he made !;enesis roc#! loo# for all the world li#e a recent intrusion" thereby fooling thousands of geologists." .CG< 0@3 The Creator )od is the source of all truth< &e didn:t ma e the roc s to have the features of great age< )eologists come to the wrong conclusions a-out the age and origin of the earth -ecause of their acce#tance of uniformity as the -asis for inter#reting the #ast< )od made the roc s to a##ear as they are.the undenia-le result of a recent creation< Nevertheless* for confirmed evolutionists )od:s created wor s will ever remain 1ust a matter of dis#ute< For others* though* Creation!s $iny %ystery will -e the ey that reveals the consistency -etween the )enesis account and the record of creation etched within Earth:s #rimordial roc s<

References
Ager* '< 45L4< $he Nature of the Stratigraphical =ecord. New =or : 3iley< Aller* 0<&< and (c0aughlin* '<+< 45FE< Steller Structure. Chicago: 2niversity of Chicago $ress< American Association for the Advancement of Science 45LB< AAAS Resolution on Creation Science< Science B4E* 4J6B< American )eological Institute 45L4< ?A)I Statement on "rganic Evolution<? A)I News Release* Novem-er E< +attson* A< 45LB< ;ideota#e* Confrontation: CreationG<volution" /art IV. Santa +ar-ara* CA: 2CS+ Television Services< +reger* I<A< 456D< ?Formation of 2ranium "re 'e#osits<? /roceedings of a Symposium" Athens* (ay F8 4J* #< 55< ;ienna: International Atomic Energy Agency< Clar * S< 45LB< 0etter to '< +um#ers* 2<S< Senate* not dated< 0ittle Roc : State of Ar ansas* "ffice of the Attorney )eneral< Cochran* T< 45LB< Senate $roceedings Congressional =ecord 4BL* SDCJ6< Cole* &<$<* and Scott* E<C< 45LB< ?Creation8Science and Scientific Research<? /hi Belta Iappan" A#ril* EE6< 'alrym#le* )< +< 45LB< ?Radiometric 'ating and the Age of the EarthK A Re#ly to :Scientific: Creationism<? Tal #resented at the AAAS $acific 'ivision meeting* /une BB8BC< 'alrym#le* )<+< 45LD< ?&ow "ld Is the Earth? A Re#ly to :Scientific: Creationism<? /roceedings of the 10rd Annual %eeting of the /acific Bivision" American Association for the Advancement of Science 4* FF< 'alrym#le* )<+< 45LE< 0etter to H<&< 3irth dated (arch BF* 45LE< CreationG<volution Newsletter E* 4B< 'amon* $<E< 4565< ?Time: (easured Res#onses<? <?S $ransactions of the American ;eophysical >nion FJ* D6D< 'avies* $< 45L4< $he <dge of Infinity. New =or : Simon G Schuster< de Cam#* S< 45FL< $he ;reat %on#ey $rial. New =or : 'ou-leday< 'utch* S< 45LC< 0etters< /hysics $oday CF* No< D* 44< Earth Science Associates 45L6< ;ideota#e* Should Creation Science &e $aught at >$6 @To order send IBJ<JJ for each ta#e to ESA* +o, 4BJF6* Hno,ville* TN C654B8JJF6<A Eichel-erger* /<'< et al< 45LE< ?Research 'rilling at Inyo 'omes* CaliforniaK 45LD results<? <?S $ransactions of the American ;eophysical >nion FF* 4LF< Feather< N< 456L< ?The 2nsolved $ro-lem of the $o8haloes in $recam-rian +iotite and "ther "ld (inerals<? Communications to the =oyal Society of <dinburgh" No< 44* 4D6< Fe%er* HS< 45LE< ?)entry:s $leochroic &alos<? CreationG<volution Newsletter E* 4B< Fra%ier* H< 456L< ?Su#erheavy Elements<? Science News 44C* BCF< Fremlin* /<&< 456E< ?S#ectacle &aloes<? Nature BEL* BF5< )eisler* N<0< 45LB< $he Creator and the Courtroom. (ilford* (I: (ott (edia<

)entry* R<;< 45FFa< ?A-normally 0ong Al#ha8$article Trac s in +iotite @(icaA<? Applied /hysics *etters L* FE< )entry* R<;< 45FF-< ?Al#ha Radioactivity of 2n nown "rigin and the 'iscovery of a New $leochroic &alo<? <arth and /lanetary Science *etters 4* DEC< )entry* R<;< 45FFc< ?Anti8matter Content of the Tungus a (eteor<? Nature B44* 4J64< )entry* R<;< 45F6< ?E,tinct Radioactivity and the 'iscovery of a New $leochroic &alo<? Nature B4C* DL6< )entry* R<;< 45FL< ?Fossil Al#ha8Recoil Analysis of Certain ;ariant Radioactive &alos<? Science 4FJ* 4BBL< )entry* R<;< 456J< ?)iant Radioactive &alos: Indicators of 2n nown Al#ha8Radioactivity?? Science 4F5* F6J< )entry* R<;< 4564a< ?Radioactive &alos and the 0unar Environment<? /roceedings of the Second *unar Science Conference 4* 4F6< Cam-ridge: (IT $ress< )entry* R<;< 4564-< ?Radiohalos: Some 2ni7ue $- Isoto#e Ratios and 2n nown Al#ha Radioactivity<? Science 46C* 6B6< )entry* R<;< 456C< ?Radioactive &alos<? Annual =eview of Nuclear Science BC* CD6< )entry* R<;< 456D< ?Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological $ers#ective<? Science 4LD* FB< )entry* R<;< 456E< Res#onse to /<&< Fremlin:s Comments on ?S#ectacle &aloes<? Nature BEL* BF5< )entry* R<;< 456La< ?Are Any 2nusual Radiohalos Evidence for S&E?? International Symposium on Superheavy <lements" *ubboc#" $e'as. New =or : $ergamon $ress< )entry* R<;< 456L-< ?Im#lications on 2n nown Radioactivity of )iant and 'warf &aloes in Scandinavian Roc s<? Nature B6D* DE6< )entry* R<;< 4565< ?Time: (easured Res#onses<? <?S $ransactions of the American ;eophysical >nion FJ* D6D< )entry* R<;< 45LJ< ?$olonium &alos<? <?S $ransactions of the American ;eophysical >nion F4* E4D< )entry* R<;< 45LB< 0etters< /hysics $oday CE* No< 4J* 4C< )entry* R<;< 45LCa< 0etters< /hysics $oday CF* No< D* C< )entry* R<;< 45LC-< 0etters< /hysics $oday CF* No< 44* 4BD< )entry* R<;< 45LDa< ?Radioactive &alos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological $ers#ective<? /roceedings of the 10rd Annual %eeting of the /acific Bivision. American Association for the Advancement of Science 4* CL< )entry* R<;< 45LD-< ?0ead Retention in Zircons? @Technical CommentA< Science BBC* LCE< )entry* R<;< 45LDc< 0etters< /hysics $oday C6* No< D* 4JL< )entry* R<;< 45LDd< 0etters< /hysics $oday C6* No 4B* 5B< )entry* R<;< 45LF< ?)entry Res#onds to 'alrym#le:s 0etter to Hevin 3irth<? See A##endi, Contents of this -oo < )entry* R<;< 45L6a< ?Radioactive &alos: Im#lications for Creation<? /roceedings of the )irst

International Conference on Creationism ;ol< II* L5< )entry* R<;< 45L6-< 0etter to F< $ress* $resident* National Academy of Sciences* dated (arch BD* 45L6< )entry* R<;< 45L6c< 0etter to H<R< 3al er* &ead* 'e#t< of )eological Sciences* 2niversity of Tennessee* dated /uly 6* 45L6< )entry* R<;< et al< 456C< ?Ion (icro#ro-e Confirmation of $- Isoto#e Ratios and Search for Isomer $recursors in $olonium Radiohalos<? Nature BDD* BLB< )entry* R<;< et al< 456D< ? :S#ectacle: Array of BlJ$o &alo Radiocentres in +iotite: A Nuclear )eo#hysical Enigma<? Nature BEB* EFD< )entry* R<;< et al< 456Fa< ?Radiohalos and Coalified 3ood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of 2ranium Introduction and Coalification<? Science 45D* C4E< )entry* R<;< et al< 456F-< ?Evidence for $rimordial Su#erheavy Elements<? /hysical =eview *etters C6* 44< )entry* R<;< et al< 45LBa< ?'ifferential 0ead Retention in Zircons: Im#lications for Nuclear 3aste Containment<? Science B4F* B5F< )entry* R<;< et al< 45LB-< ?'ifferential &elium Retention in Zircons: Im#lications for Nuclear 3aste Containment<? ;eophysical =esearch *etters 5* 44B5< )il-ert* C< 45LB< 0etter to R<;< )entry dated (arch 5* 45LB< 3ashington* '<C<: Science. )il-ert* C< 45LE< 0etter to '<R< &um#hreys dated August CJ* 45LE< 3ashington* '<C<: Science. &ammond* A< and (argulis* 0< 45L4< ?Farewell to Newton* Einstein* 'arwin < < <? Science 98 B* No< 4J* EE< &arwit* (< 45LF< +oo Review< Science BC4* 4BJ4< &ashemi8Ne%had* S<R< et al< 4565< ?$olonium &aloes in (ica<? Nature B6L* CCC< &effelfinger* 3<S< 45LB< 0etter to 2<S< Senator /< Sasser dated /une 4D* 45LB< 3ashington '<C<: 'e#artment of Energy< &owe* R<A< 45LB< &ouse of Re#resentatives $roceedings< Congressional =ecord 4BL* &4FEC< &ower* /< 4566< 0etter to R<;< )entry dated /uly 44* 4566< 3ashington* '<C<: National Science Foundation< /edwa-* /< 45FF< ?Significance and 2se of "#tical $henomena in 2raniferous Causto-ioliths<? Coal Science @Editor* $< )ivenA< 3ashington* '<C<: American Chemical Society< /ohnson* F<S< 45LB< 0etter to R<S< 3al er* &ouse of Re#resentatives* dated /une 46* 45LB< 3ashington* '<C<: National Science Foundation< /ohnson* F<S< 45LC< 0etter to R</< 0agomarsino* &ouse of Re#resentatives* dated Fe-ruary 4D* 45LC< 3ashington* '<C<: National Science Foundation< /oly* /< 45BC< /roceedings of the =oyal Society" 0ondon* Series A 4JB* FLB< Ha%mann* R<)< 456L< ?It:s A-out Time: D<E +illion =ears<? ;eotimes BC* 4L< Ha%mann* R<)< 4565< ?Time: In Full (easure<? <?S $ransactions of the American ;eophysical >nion 1@" B4<

Hitcher* $< 45LB< Abusing Science" Cam-ridge: The (IT $ress< 0ane* /<3< 45LB< 0etters< /hysics $oday CE* No< 4J* 4E< 0a )rone* /< 45LD< 0etter to /<&< !uillen dated Se#tem-er D* 45LD< "a Ridge: 'e#artment of Energy< 0arsen* /< 45LE< ?From 0ignin to Coal in a =ear<? Nature C4D* C4F< 0ewin* R< 45L4< ?A Res#onse to Creationism Evolves<? Science B4D* FCE< 0ewin* R< 45LBa< ?Creationism on the 'efensive in Ar ansas<? Science B4E* CC< 0ewin* R< 45LB-< ?3here Is the Science in Creation Science?? Science B4E* 4DB< 0ewin* R< 45LBc< ?Recent Advances in "ur 2nderstanding of the (echanisms of Evolution<? &ulletin American /hysical Society B6* DFD< 0ewin* R< 45LBd< $hread of *ife" $he Smithsonian *oo#s at <volution. 3ashington* '<C<: Smithsonian +oo s< 0ewin* R< 45LE< ?Evidence for Scientific Creationism?? Science BBL* LC6< (eier* &<* and &ec er* 3< 456F< ?Radioactive &alos as $ossi-le Indicators of )eochemical $rocesses in (agmatites<? ;eochemical Cournal 4J* 4LE< (elnic * /< 45L4< ?$olonium Radiohalos G the Case of 'r< Ro-ert ;< )entry<? Christian Citi5en @August 45L4A EK Re#rinted as ?The Case of the $olonium Radiohalos*? in ?rigins =esearch E* No< 4 @45LBA< (enton* '<N< 45LE< ? :Inherit the 3ind:: A &ollywood &istory of the Sco#es Trial<? &ible+Science Newsletter BC* No< 4< (er el* $< 45L4< Audio Ta#e of Ro-ert ;< )entry:s Testimony< (c0ean vs< Ar ansas State +oard of Education< 0ittle Roc : "fficial Court Re#orter* 2<S< 'istrict Court< (oa%ed* C< et al< 456C< ?$olonium Radiohalos: an Alternate Inter#retation<? Science 4LJ* 4B6B< National Academy of Sciences 45LD< Science and Creationism. 3ashington* '<C<: National Academy $ress< "smon* $< 45LF< Commentary on ?)entry:s $leochroic &alos<? CreationG<volution Newsletter F* 46< "verton* 3< 45LB< %emorandum ?pinion. 0ittle Roc : 2<S< 'istrict Court< $ress* F< 45L6< 0etter to R<;< )entry dated A#ril F* 45L6< 3ashington* '<C<: National Academy of Sciences< Raloff* /< 45LBa< ?They Call It Creation Science<? Science News 4B4* DD< Raloff* /< 45LB-< ?Radwaste Solutions $ivot on $olitics<? Science News 4B4* B5F< Roth* A< 45LD< ?Is Creation Scientific?? ?rigins 44* FD< Sasser* /< 45LBa< 0etter to 3<S< &effelfinger* 'e#artment of Energy* dated (ay 4L* 45LB< 3ashington* '<C<: 2<S< Senate< Sasser* /< 45LB-< 0etter to R<;< )entry dated /une 4F* 45LB< 3ashington* '<C<: 2<S< Senate< Science News editorial 45L4< ?Evolution at the AAAS<? Science News 445* 45< Sco#es* /<T<* and $resley* /< 45F6< Center of the Storm. New =or : &olt* Rinehart and 3inston< Scott* E<C<* and Cole* &<$< 45LE< ?The Elusive Scientific +asis of Creation :Science<: ? $he Huarterly

=eview of &iology FJ* B4< Sinclair* R <(< 45L4< Creation8evolution 0etters< Science News 445* F6< S ow* /< 45L4< ?The )enesis of E7ual Time<? Science 98 B* No< 4J* ED< Smith* S< 45LBa< Testimony of &arold (orowit%< (c0ean vs< Ar ansas State +oard of Education< 0ittle Roc : "fficial Court Re#orter* 2<S< 'istrict Court< Smith* S< 45LB-< Testimony of )ary +< 'alrym#le< (c0ean vs< Ar ansas State +oard of Education< 0ittle Roc : "fficial Court Re#orter* 2<S< 'istrict Court< S#ar s* C</<* /r< et al< 4566< ?Search with Synchrotron Radiation for Su#erheavy Elements in )iant8 &alo Inclusions<? /hysical =eview *etters CL* BJE< S#ar s* C</<* /r< et al< 456L< ?Evidence against Su#erheavy Elements in )iant8&alo Inclusions Re8 e,amined with Synchrotron Radiation<? /hysical =eview *etters DJ* EJ6< Stieff* 0<R< et al< 45EC< ?A $reliminary 'etermination of the Age of Some 2ranium "res of the Colorado $lateaus -y the 0ead82ranium (ethod<? >.S. ;eological Survey Circular 7L8. Stut%er* "< 45DJ< ;eology of Coal" translated -y A<C< Noe< Chicago: 2niversity of Chicago $ress< Tal-ott* S<0< 4566< ?(ystery of the Radiohalos<? =esearch Communications Networ#" Newsletter Num-er B< Todd* E<$< 4566< 0etter to R<;< )entry dated Se#tem-er 4E* 4566< 3ashington* '<C<: National Science Foundation< =or * '< 4565< ?$olonium &alos and )eochronology<? <?S $ransactions of the American ;eophysical >nion FJ* F46<

Credits
American Association for the Advancement of Science @AAASA< ?Fossil Al#ha8Recoil Analysis of Certain ;ariant Radioactive &alos*? Science ;ol< 4FJ* ##< 4BBL84BCJ* /une 4D* 45FL* -y Ro-ert ;< )entry< Co#yright j 45FL -y the AAAS< ?)iant Radioactive &alos: Indicators of 2n nown Radioactivity??* Science ;ol< 4F5* ##< F6J8F6C* August 4D* 456J* -y Ro-ert ;< )entry< Co#yright j 456J -y AAAS< ?Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological $ers#ective*? Science ;ol< 4LD* ##< FB8FF* $hoto and Ta-le I* A#ril E* 456D* -y Ro-ert ;< )entry< Co#yright j 456D -y AAAS< ?Radiohalos in Coalified 3ood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of 2ranium Introduction and Coalification*? Science ;ol< 45D* ##< C4E8C46* $hotos* "cto-er 4E* 456F* -y Ro-ert ;< )entry et al< Co#yright 456F -y AAAS< ?A Res#onse to Creationism Evolves*? Science ;ol< B4D* ##< FCE8FCF* FCL* Novem-er F* 45L4* -y R< 0ewin< Co#yright j 45L4 -y AAAS< ?Creationism on the 'efensive in Ar ansas*? Science ;ol< B4E* ##< CC8CD* /anuary 4* 45LB* -y R< 0ewin< Co#yright j 45LB -y AAAS< ?3here Is the Science in Creation Science?*? Science ;ol< B4E* ##< 4DB84DD* 4DF* /anuary L* 45LB* -y R< 0ewin< Co#yright j 45LB -y AAAS< ?'ifferential 0ead Retention in Zircons: Im#lications for Nuclear 3aste Containment*? Science ;ol< B4F* ##< B5F8B5L* A#ril 4F* 45LB* -y Ro-ert ;< )entry et al< Co#yright j 45LB -y AAAS< All of the a-ove articles were e,cer#ted or re#rinted -y #ermission of the AAAS< American Association for the Advancement of Science. ?Farewell to Newton* Einstein* 'arwin < < <? -y Allen &ammond and 0ynn (argulis* and ?The )enesis of E7ual Time? -y /ohn S ow* Science 98" 'ecem-er* ##< ED8FJ< Co#yright j 45L4 -y the AAAS< E,cer#ted -y #ermission of Science 9J (aga%ine< /acific Bivision of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. ?Radioactive &alos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological $ers#ective*? $roceedings of the FCrd Annual (eeting of the $acific 'ivision* AAAS* <volutionists Confront Creationists" ;ol< 4* $art C* ##< CL8FE* A#ril CJ* 45LD* -y Ro-ert ;< )entry< Co#yright j 45LD -y the $acific 'ivision of the AAAS< Re#rinted -y #ermission of the $acific 'ivision of the AAAS< American ;eophysical >nion. ?'ifferential &elium Retention in Zircons: Im#lications for Nuclear 3aste Containment*? ;eophysical =esearch *etters" ;ol< 5* ##< 44B5844CJ* "cto-er 45LB* -y Ro-ert ;< )entry et al< Co#yright j 45LB -y the American )eo#hysical 2nion< 2sed -y #ermission of the American )eo#hysical 2nion< American Institute of /hysics. 0etters* /hysics $oday ;ol< CE* "cto-er 45LB* ##< 4E* 4JC -y /< 3illits 0ane< Co#yright j 45LB -y the American Institute of $hysics< Re#rinted -y #ermission of /< 3illits 0ane and the American Institute of $hysics< Annual =eviews" Inc. ?Radioactive &alos*? Annual =eview of Nuclear Science ;ol< BC* ##< CD68CFB* -y Ro-ert ;< )entry< Co#yright j 456C -y Annual Reviews* Inc< Re#roduced* with #ermission* from the Annual Review of Nuclear Science* Annual Reviews* Inc< Associates for &iblical =esearch" Inc. Su##lement to Archaeology and &iblical =esearch ;ol< C* No< C* Summer 455J* res#onse -y Ro-ert ;< )entry< Co#yright j 455J -y the Associates for &iblical =esearch" Inc. Re#rinted -y #ermission of Associates for &iblical =esearch. Creation =esearch Society. Res#onse to ?Radioactive &alos: )eological Concerns*? Creation =esearch Society Huarterly ;ol< BE* (arch 45L5* ##< 46F8465* -y Ro-ert ;< )entry< Re#ly to 0etters* ?)ranite Intrusions*? Creation =esearch Society Huarterly ;ol< BF* (arch 455J* ##< 4EC84ED* -y Ro-ert ;< )entry< ?Criti7ue of :Radiohalo Evidence Regarding Change in Natural $rocess Rates*: ? Creation =esearch

Society Huarterly ;ol< B6* 'ecem-er 455J* ##< 4JC84JE* -y Ro-ert ;< )entry< Co#yright j 45L5* 455J -y Creation Research Society< Re#rinted -y #ermission of the Creation =esearch Society. Creation Science )ellowship" Inc." $itts-urgh* $A< ?Radioactive &alos: Im#lications for Creation*? /roceedings of the 8291 )irst International Conference on Creationism ;ol< II* ##< L5844B* -y Ro-ert ;< )entry< Co#yright j 45LF8L6 -y Creation Science Fellowshi#* Inc< This section was re#rinted -y #ermission of the Creation Science Fellowshi#* Inc< Co#ies of the full $roceedings may -e o-tained -y writing to ICC* +o, 46E6L* $itts-urgh* $A 4EBCE< Boubleday G Company" Inc. $he ;reat %on#ey $rial" #< DCB* -y 0< S#rague de Cam#< Co#yright j 45FL -y 'ou-leday G Co<* Inc< 2sed -y #ermission of +arthold Fles 0iterary Agency* New =or < *oma *inda >niversity" >niversity =elations" 0oma 0inda* CA< ?Evolution (odel? gra#hic ada#ted from drawing -y )lenn Thomas< 2sed -y #ermission of 2niversity Relations* 0oma 0inda 2niversity< %acmillan Cournals *imited. ?Ion (icro#ro-e Confirmation of $- Isoto#e Ratios and Search for Isomer $recursors in $olonium Radiohalos*? Nature ;ol< BDD* No< ED4D* ##< BLB8BLC* August C* 456C* -y Ro-ert ;< )entry et al< Co#yright j 456C -y (acmillan /ournals 0td< ? :S#ectacle: Array of B4J$o &alo Radiocentres in +iotite: A Nuclear )eo#hysical Enigma<? Nature ;ol< BEB* No< EDLD* ##< EFD8 EFF* 'ecem-er 4C* 456D* -y Ro-ert ;< )entry et al< Co#yright j 456D -y (acmillan /ournals 0td< These articles were re#rinted -y #ermission from Nature. National Academy /ress. Science and Creation: A View from the National Academy of Sciences -y the Committee on Science and Creationism* National Academy of Sciences< Co#yright j 45LD -y the National Academy of Sciences< 2sed -y #ermission of the National Academy $ress< =esearch Communications Networ#. "%ystery of the =adiohalos"" =esearch Communications Networ# Newsletter tB* Fe-ruary 4J* 4566* -y Ste#hen 0< Tal-ott< Co#yright @4566A -y Research Communications Networ < 2sed -y #ermission of Ste#hen 0< Tal-ott< Science Service" Inc. ?Su#erheavy Elements*? Science News ;ol< 44C* ##< 4BF8BCL* A#ril 4E* 456L* -y Hendric Fra%ier< Co#yright j 456L -y Science Service* Inc< ?Evolution at the AAAS*? Science News ;ol< 445* #< 45* /anuary 4J* 45L4< Co#yright j 45L4 -y Science Service* Inc< ?They Call It Creation Science*? Science News ;ol 4B4* No< C* ##< DD8DE* /anuary 4F* 45LB* -y /anet Raloff< Co#yright j 45LB -y Science Service* Inc< The a-ove articles are e,cer#ted with #ermission from Science News" the wee ly news maga%ine of science< Stony &roo# )oundation" Inc. ?The Elusive Scientific +asis of :Creation: Science*? $he Huarterly =eview of &iology" ;ol< FJ* No< 4* ##< B48CJ* (arch 45LE* -y Eugenie C< Scott and &enry $< Cole< Co#yright j 45LE -y Stony +roo Foundation* Inc< E,cer#ted -y #ermission of $he Huarterly =eview of &iology. >niversity of California(Santa &arbara" $elevision Services. ?Creation (odel? gra#hic ada#ted from videota#e* Confrontation: CreationG<volution" $art I;< 2sed -y #ermission of Television Services* 2CS+<

?Ro-ert )entry is a gifted scientist who a-ly communicates in this -oo the significance of his discovery of #olonium halos in the earth:s granites< I have the highest res#ect for his often standing almost alone in #roclaiming this evidence in su##ort of a young earth +i-lical creation #osition< And I su##ort his BJ8year8old challenge* as yet unmet* to the scientific esta-lishment that it #roduce in the la-oratory even a fist8si%ed #iece of granite* and the su-se7uent #roduction of a $o8B4L halo in it<? Stanley A. %umma" /h.B. /rofessor of Architectural <ngingeering /enn State >niversity ?Considering the heightened interest in scientific evidence for creation and evolution* scientists and students need to ac7uaint themselves with Ro-ert )entry:s CR AT/O,'& T/,A MA&T RA which s#ea s to such evidence to evaluate it for themselves< )entry #resents evidence that cannot -e ignored -y those who wish to do honest research and e,amine all as#ects of the creation8evolution de-ate<? Cac# C. &lanco Bean of the School of =eligion .=et.3 Southern Adventist >niversity ?CR AT/O,'& T/,A MA&T RA is a fine documentation of the research of a tenacious* courageous scientist<? 4. Scot %orrow" /h.B. /rofessor of Chemistry <meritus 4offord College South Carolina

"et the entire #rinte$ version o% o&r 'oo( %or )1* + S,-.

To order our book and/or videos,

Call Us at (800) 467-6380, or use our order form.

Poloni&. -alos/ 0nre%&te$ Evi$ence %or Earth1s 2nstant 3reation4

Created fro5 the O(li(e Dersio( Copyright 2011, All Rights Reserved

&arth .cie(ce Associates P-O-*o) 120"# L(o)ville, 63 3#%12<00"#, =.A