How are Radiohalos Evidence for a Young Earth? - Dr. Andrew Snelling (Conf Lecture)
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 11. 2020
- This lecture is from our 2017 'Is Genesis History?' conference. We invited a number of scientists and scholars to teach in-depth on the Creation/Flood model. You can buy, download and watch 70+ more at 👉 bit.ly/2WsUHx1.
In this video, geologist Andrew Snelling explains his work on radiohalos granite as evidence of young ages.
Dr. Snelling completed a BS in applied geology at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, graduating with first-class honors in 1975. His PhD in geology was awarded in 1982 by The University of Sydney for his research thesis titled “A Geochemical Study of the Koongarra Uranium Deposit, Northern Territory, Australia.” Dr. Snelling worked for six years in the exploration and mining industries in Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory, variously as a field, mine, and research geologist. For over ten years, Dr. Snelling was a research consultant to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization for an international collaborative research project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy which involved university and government research scientists from the USA, UK, Australia, Japan, Korea, Sweden, Austria and Belgium. He is currently Director of Research for Answers in Genesis.
For more information about Dr. Snelling, please visit: bit.ly/2zIzOFZ.
----------------------------------------------------
✨ Looking to learn more about Genesis and Creation?
🦕 Visit our blog for helpful articles: bit.ly/3d306R1
🍃 Free Videos: bit.ly/3e1HRgc
🌌 Questions & Answers: bit.ly/3d0EG6T
Surely this presentation is worth re-doing, with quality audio and video.
No
Dr. Snelling, I'm really disappointed that your screen was to light for me to see. Hopefully in future lectures this can be rectified, God Bless you!!! I am a YEC!
Probably to do with your display. I have no problem reading and seeing everything. Maybe adjust your settings to get more contrast? Nevermind. Lol... Now I see what you're saying.
Thanks Cyn! I ordered a new screen. For the last month or so, I've tried to adjust it, to no avail.@@CynHicks
hi, thank you do much for this! it would be so much better if the powerpoint slides were imbedded into the video, we cant see!
Thanks, Andrew. I have really enjoyed catching up with your most recent work on this and look forward to more.
I remember quite well you presenting this in its infancy at Rochedale Baptist church years ago… late 1980’s.
Good video. Fyi. A paper from a university in california, addressed the natural uranium reactor in africa. Analyizing the fission decay products indicated that the fundamental constant of physic was changing over time, which results in changing decay rates.
hi, please please direct me to the article or some reference to it or something, id like to read it thx!
www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently/
Initially got the information from woodwardtv youtube video. Could not find the video. Google the item and got something like the reference above. There are quite a few papers on the subject so for so against.
As someone who was schooled in nuclear engineering in the '70s, a natural uranium reactor can not be moderated by water as in ground water. The moderator has to be heavy water as in the Canadian Candu Reactor and or pure graphite in some earlier UK reactors. There is very little margin for a natural uranium reactor to make a positive chain reaction. Something happened in Africa that does not make sense today.
I'm always impressed by Andrew's presentations. My concern is that secular scientists might be convinced, and then might rush straight into the open, welcoming arms of Babylon. Believing they're forsaking one system for another, they'd merely be switching from one part, of the same system, to another. In short, you're missing a critically important, life or death part of the message, which is the Reformation message-- Sola Gratia, Sola Christos, Sola Scriptura.
Very true... Mystery Babylon, the mother of all harlots and all her whorish children...
I just got a weird idea... What if the speed of cause (the speed of light) was actually a lot faster before the the flood? Speed of light in a vacuum is the speed of cause. Then that would explain why the rate of decay was much faster before the flood. Also, that would explain why there were no rainbows before the flood. Refraction is because of the change in the speed of light. If light was much faster or infinite, then light wouldn't bend enough or at all in the water in the air. This also would explain why the light from the stars billions of light years away are here already.
Well gravity was different before the flood, due to the fact the bones of dinosaurs could not support their weight with present high gravity
@@ankhenaten2 That's interesting. How does a planetary cataclysmic event cause gravity to increase? In another video Dr. Snelling was talking about the expansion of the sea bed as the deep earth magma contacted the ocean water during the splitting of the continents. Could that be it?
I've watched this video several times, and I'm thinking that Dr. Snelling is contesting Robert Gentry's assumption that the radiohalos he found weren't produced at creation, but during the flood?
The problem I have is, Dr. Snelling doesn't seem to clarify this by comparing locations of where each scientist collected their respective samples from which is what I would expect him do to do explain his "problem" he says he has with Dr. Gentry's work. If this is indeed the case, Dr. Snelling doesn't do a very good job in this aspect.
In the end though, the only thing that matters is that polonium radiohalos are in fact indisputable evidence of instantaneous creation of radiohalos debunking the secularists' claim that the granite took billions of years to cool.
It also debunks the billions of years they claim it takes for uranium to decay since Dr. Snelling verified my own suspicions of the polonium needed to produce the halos originating from the parent uranium.
To me, this evidence single-handedly debunks evolution, effectively killing it on the vine, and stopping it in its tracks!
Audio is terrible. Any way to clean it up?
Can this be remade with just slides, animations added maybe? Could be an amazing video with a few hours of effort
wooow thanx for all you do and praying
Would be good to get some reference to material covering the issue of heat from accelerated decay.
It's discussed in the Answers Research Journal at Answers in Genesis.
@@truthisbeautiful7492
My OP was from about 2 years ago.
I've since then come to understand quite a bit more about the subject.
I've also come to the firm conclusion that there is no real accelerated nuclear decay in any rocks on earth: helium and radio halos notwithstanding.
If there is no real accelerated nuclear decay, there can be no heat problem from it to deal with.
@@mmaimmortals have you read any books on the subject?
@@truthisbeautiful7492
Books on the subject of heat as it relates to accelerated nuclear decay (AND)?
No. But I'm not contesting this point. I am aware that there would be a real heat issue to deal with if there is AND.
And I do understand why that would be so.
Books on the subject of whether AND has actually occurred in earth's history?
No. But I have listened to many lectures and read many articles on the evidence and hypothesis.
My reason for rejecting the notion - specifically as it pertains to the Flood - is that the evidence comes from granite in the earth's crust.
But Snelling et al are using AND to explain how the Flood started and progressed.
The problem should be obvious to those who are informed on the subject.
They require heat to kickstart subduction. But subduction (allegedly) starts in the ocean floor and mantle, not in continental crust.
Granite has only ever been through one heat cycle, otherwise it would be riolite or some other mineral.
But they don't need heat in the continental crust anyway.
So they are effectively arguing that granite in which they find their evidence was not heated more than once, thereby not affected by the heat from AND, yet the oceanic crust where they need the heat is not where they get the evidence.
The earth's crust has much more radiogenic material in it than the mantle. But they need the mantle to also experience an increase in heat.
They usually fail to mention that the mantle is solid rock. For that, they need the mantle to be liquified to a significant depth in order for cold slabs to sink into it.
Now there is a different, very significant problem not directly related to AND.
That is that basalt does not have sufficient material properties to be of any use in pushing or puling a continent.
It's much worse due to the very irregular shape of the ocean floor and the physical interference it creates interrupting any continental movement.
Basalt is not much stronger than concrete, and no one would ever conceive to push or pull a massive object using concrete slabs. Not even if they had steel rebar in them.
Concrete slabs crack and break apart when not supported properly. Basalt would do the same thing.
They have effectively put the cart before the horse in a very literal sense. The continents have moved the oceanic plates, not the other way around.
Well we have some real science being practiced here thanks
Is Genesis History????? What a laugh. NO!!! IT IS FACT. The God of the universe has pronounced the end from the beginning. I love these guys.
Good video. The viking lander on mars in the 70's detected xeon isotopes which were only associated with fission. Some one made comment that some one nuked mars. A lot of nukes
1970 mars lander??? you honestly believe that? nothing in your bone that makes you question they just lied about getting there? c'mon
@@supragolgotha6920 prove they lied.
Is there a summary anyone knows of? The audio on this is killin me
I think if you Incorporated the cataclysmic events of The Exodus and the 10 plagues of Egypt it might begin to make even more sense.
I believe there was at least two maybe three events in history where there was a dramatic increase in radioactive decay rates. The lava cooled just after the flood. And then during The Exodus more radioactive decay occurred in the rocks.
Here's a good question to generate discussion in a Bible study group:
How long did creation stay in the condition described in Gen 1:2?
After God created the heavens and earth, how long was the earth void, formless and dark before he created light?
Interesting discussion question, although it's clear from scripture that there was no death in the world before Adam (Rom 15:12), so even if you decided it was a long time that the earth was "formless and void," it wouldn't imply that people could be descended from other ape-like creatures (which would necessitate generation upon generation dead before creation was pronounced "very good" by God).
It only seems one could argue that it's evidence of accelerated decay within YEC paradigm.
I've debated with evolutionists that believe the radon migrated through the crystal lattice, and then decayed to polonium to form the polonium radiohalos. Of course, the probability of inert radon migrating to the same spot to form a polonium halo is unlikely as it lacks a possible mechanism to explain the concentration of polonium over time, but they deny accelerated nuclear decay nonetheless.
Perhaps the only direct evidence of accelerated decay would be the excess helium in zircon crystals given the known diffusion rates.
Don't have to convince me. God can do anything. He made seeds that live off dirt water and sun. That's a miracle.
I know right. As a kid I was always amazed at how plants just casually turn dirt into food
What about the binary star I'm seeing?
You have good eye sight.
Redo this if the information is important. If you do it right a child should be able to explain the concept. THIS would indicate the instruction was good.
Thanks for the research and your long history in this study. I understand the decay process of the U238 and its 8-ring signature and it make perfect since. The release of Rn222 into the biotite and subsequent 3 Po decay signatures based on hydrothermal flow seem reasonable. However, I struggle with the 2 ring Po214 and single ring Po210 halo formations. As I understand it, the Rn222 flows some distance from the zircon crystal containing the parent U238 and when it decays from Rn222 into Po218 it is chemically attracted to a compatible material (i.e sulfur I think was one). But this is my confusion. Why would the Po214 and Po210 then move from the original site that bound the Po218? The chemical characteristics of the different Isotopes of Po are the same and I do not see why millions of Po atoms would suddenly just up and migrate from the point where the parent Po218 combined, to another point where the Po214 (2 rings) and then the Po210 (1 ring) combined at another separate site(s).
I believe all “observable” science points to God. He gave us this universe to reveal His Glory. However, Christian Scientist and Secular “Scientism” also use science in a “Historical” way to not just observe the universe but explain the observations of things that can’t be verified and where there is no way to go back to check if their “Story” (Theory) is correct. The difference is Bible believing Christian scientist have to match up their observations with the Bible and the creation account. Because we have a firsthand written account of creation (6000 years ago). Scientism has no such constraints. I am grateful to the scientist at the RATE project for their alignment of their observations with scripture. However, their theories are just theories also and we should hold loosely to them.
Regardless of how you might feel about this evidence you must admit that it's extremely damaging to naturalistic assumptions concerning the age of the planet, since polonium radiohalos blow "deep time" clean out of the water. They also prove, with little room for doubt, that uranium at one time DID NOT take "billions of years" to form, or cool, period.
This simple fact, that cannot be denied, single-handedly debunks any and all methods of so-called "radiometric dating" while proving it to be the immense scientific scam that it is.
Add radiohalos to the already huge body of evidence for creation and intelligent design, and then couple that with over 161 years of fraud, fakes, forgeries, and all the lies needed to maintain them, there can be no doubt in any honest thinking person's mind that evolution is nothing but a worthless fairy fable, that is in effect, ruining science, and holding all of humanity back as a result.
We are on the right track my friend!
Thank you for having a bigger brain than mine. lol
Have these findings been peer reviewed, published? Or, is there a concern that his "discovery" would be rejected and hidden through conspiracy?
“Peer Reviewed?” You’re joking right? Everything this man says is geared towards justifying biblical writ. There is SO much wrong with this presentation that NO credentialed scientist (you know, those folks who utilize the ‘Scientific Method’) would bother. Science and Faith are not good bedfellows - insomuch as one trying to prove a biblical text has the problem of “disproving magic.” Separate your FAITH (belief in something without evidence) from WHAT YOU KNOW. You may just find you’ve been lied to by a zealot, fooled by someone of like mind equally as interested in “Bibleproofing”. God gave you the power of discernment...use it.
@@simpleiowan3123 what did he say wrong?
@@simpleiowan3123 you can't scientifically rebuke anything he said
@@simpleiowan3123 Simple indeed! *All* of the *credentialed scientists* in the IGH? project have many published journal articles and papers in their respective fields, all of which have to be peer reviewed prior to publication. Religious beliefs do not interfere with the ability to do science. Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the most brilliant man in modern history, and a devout Christian didn't seem to have a problem when inventing what we know as Newtonian physics as well writing his Principia. Neither did all of the other founders of modern science during the 19th century who were almost entirely Christians (there were a few Muslims and jews in there too). It's due to public schooling that people believe that Christians can't do science when it was in fact Christians who developed the scientific method. The info is all historically recorded but it requires actually reading a few books.
@@simpleiowan3123 Bigot.
Stupid editors....show the slide when he's talking about it. Don't keep the camera on him. Its a VISUAL presentation...not an oral one. You're ruining it....making it pointless to watch.
Ill recorded but well presented.
Observable and 100% true, that’s real science. My opinion ,true , honest and without buts , maybe or any other excuse.
Thankyou so much for explaining complicated information simpler.
God's works are 'multimagnificant' :)
Buenos días soy de Argentina, quería saber si hay en español ,?
tenes que activar el botón de abajo , que esta a la derecha del visor de youtube , que dice ¨CC ¨ese es de subtítulos . se tiene que poner en rojo . traduce no muy bien , pero traduce... salen los subtítulos normalmente en la lengua que esta el video . si tocas el botón y después la ruedita de opciones , sale english auto generated , ahi tocas esa opción y te salen las otras lenguas abajo . no sale como español sino como spanish
So sad - the audio reverb is so bad we finally gave up listening. 9/22/23
Do a TED talk style presentation. There is too much fluff in this. Truth is simple, so simplify so we can explain it to others. Einstein said if you understand something well then you can simplify it.
rocks don't lie
😄
Terrible sound quality. Ruining an extremely interesting talk.
14th minutes content starts. if i was government then coverup this paper
Audio, and visuals makes this look unprofessional and lacking credibility. Please update with industry standard equipment. This research is foundational to young earth creationists claims and it looks worse than a 4 year olds tic-tac video.
It's very strange how dr andrew snelling can come to the conclusion that he does , considering he received his qualifications studying rocks
BILLIONS of years old at a
university in Sydney Australia.
The "billions" is speculation you weren't there 6 thousand or 4 billion years ago to see, we just see rocks and measurements on computers and we trust the conclusions of "experts". seems like faith either
@@supragolgotha6920 no, it is undeniable and common knowledge there appears to be two Dr Andrew Snellings, one has published many acedemic papers on young earth geology, and at the same time the other has published papers that discuss geological formations being millions of years old, this Dr Andrew Snelling is also critical of young earth geology theories and point out the impossibilities with regards to age of rocks.
The remarkable thing is, both these Dr Andrew Snellings had the same address in Australia when these papers were published, and both gained identical qualifications from the same universities at the same time.
This can all be confirmed with a little searching.
Selling books to gullible religious devotees is very lucrative, so much so that it's worth selling out your own profession apparently.
@@ats-3693 that’s rubbish. I’ve known this man my whole adult life - so for nearly forty years. He is no fraud.
@@kymdickman8910 👍 whatever you say.
@@ats-3693and you have stated you are aware of his written response.
appears he need big lab and team to get Nobel prize
just think if science would free its self from incorrect theories. just the provable facts. not pre conceived fairy tales.
I’m disappointed that no credit was given to Robert Gentry
He does mention Gentry multiple times. Sometimes also calls him Bob. They are on the same research team.
@@galenstevenson918 I tried to remove the comment but you tube wouldn’t let me do it. Thanks
So you believe gold is made on earth, a lie is still a lie, so if found out stop lying to people who just do not know better
What are you saying about the origin of gold?
Genesis doesn't match up with the observations and evidence the developed the model of how the solar system and universe evolved. What is your goal here?
Thanks for giving your opinion . You know the old saying you're allowed to your own opinions but not your own facts. It is my opinion that the Earth we observe 100% matches Genesis. Thanks again
@Paul Beduhn you may be astonished to learn of Michelson and Morley's experiments late 19th century and many other's (Sagnac, Airey's "failure" to mention only a few) that have demonstrated earth has no motion to it whatsoever. And more recently the 3 Satellites that mapped the entire observable universe which showed earth is located in a "favoured position" ie. at or very close to the very centre of the observable universe, a concrpt so troubling to the humaniat/atheist cosmologists that they came to call this fact "The Axis of Evil"; Evil because it disproved the 500 year old Capernican paradigm and reasserted the Tychonian/Biblical Geocentric model. Be careful though when researching as the geocentric/heliocentric discussion on the Internet has become muddied by "Flat earth" - the very reason for it's rise in search engine algorithms since around 2014ish. I urge you yo research this matter so as not to be found on the wrong side of history snd to appreciate more fully the wonderous beauty and complexity of God's earth and universe and the accuracy and wisdom of His preserved words in the Bible and ultimateky that you would come to a saving knowledge of God's redempyion plan in His Son, Our Only Lord and Saviour, Jesus Xhrist who is returning soon.
This touches on Geocentric evidences:
czcams.com/video/IueYDixeMc8/video.html
Check this out for what I believe is a more scientific look at Genesis. Remember Genesis doesn't give a timeline for the creation event. 4.5 billion year old Earth fits with the Bible.
czcams.com/video/mj4p_NLIzhI/video.html
@Paul Beduhn So are the current models. How many times have you read "scientists baffled that X--" about a discovery in the solar system. I have. A lot. If you're interested, explore the whole channel of Is genesis history. There are also other possible explanations for current observations - like the Electric Universe theory. It's most probably imperfect and have a lot of holes, but based on it a lot of predictions were made correct, while the current models could only stand in disbelief of reality. As it's not a mainstream theory it surely needs lots of work, but it does sound pretty promising.