Customer Reviews

Creation's Tiny Mystery

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

After reading his book, I met and later briefly corresponded with Dr. Gentry when he visited Southern California some years ago. I found him to be a serious researcher, methodical scientist, with projects planned years in advance. His weighty results on Polonium halos cannot be so lightly dismissed as those stuck on the old earth paradigm would like to do, nor should they be first, ignored ("they're so tiny, after all"), and then, suppressed ("we'll lose our funding"), as establishment, big science has done.

All the criticisms I have seen leveled against Dr. Gentry's findings are beside the point, straw men, or "evidence" of "old age" which has been roundly refuted in many other publications. If you care for the truth, read the book. If you can't handle the vast detail and correspondence reproduced in the book, get his video.

Although I had the honor, as a student, to briefly meet the late, great, Drs. Richard Feynman and Fred Hoyle at Caltech, standing beside Dr. Gentry was a bigger honor! I went over everything in the book with a fine-toothed comb. There was no logical flaw. No point of fact I could dispute. The implications of his work are truly profound.

Let me first say Creation's Tiny Mystery is a book that demands careful reading. If you just whip through it you'll miss critical detail.

This seems to be the case with Burrowing Owl who appears to have skimmed through the book and certainly skimmed the copies of all the published, peer reviewed reports in the appendix. The report writing is dry and quite technical, but at least read it before posting overly negative comments.

The only Radon halo that could possibly be confused w/ polonium is Radon 222. Radon 222's halflife is only 3.8 days so this is a moot point .... so the granites solidified in 4 days instead of 3 minutes. This still indicates severe flaws with the account of earth evolution.

Inspite of this, Gentry's book thoroughly addresses the radon issue in some detail showing the differences between the two halos. Gentry even did alpha partical penetration experiments at set energies in order to show that known decay energies correspont to measurable penetration into the surrounding crystaline materials.

Interesting that the Owl uses some fancy sounding verbal bluster to establish the image of subject "knowledge" then reverts to going off on the stubborn crazy creationists who refuse to allow their work to be checked. I'm a weapons engineer and know verbo-technic smoke & mirrors when I see it. Let me explain...

The Owl either didn't read or ignores the fact that Gentry's work WAS repeatedly peer reviewed by fellow scientists as well as being literaly put on trial in 1981. The Owl only talks about "Gentry's book" as if he just sat down one day and decided to write a book to make his claim. It is one thing to write a book, quite another to publish your work in scientific journals. Notice the Owl says Gentry has been corrected hundreds of times, yet gives no names or references to published, peer reviewed articles that refute the data.

If Gentry mis-identified the halos - How on earth did his reports (notice plural) make it through scientific peer review multiple times? At the Arkansas trial, why was this gross misidentification of Gentry's never brought up? (Gentry provides copies of the court transcripts) Why did the ACLU's expert witness still admit Gentry's findings were "a tiny mystery"?

The Owl then says that the particles moved along pathways in the rock matrix - again ignoring Gentry's explanation and published findings that show halos found in the midst of mica cristals where no pathways exist. On top of this, the book has a whole chapter on Gentry's work with uranium rich coalified wood specimens which allow much higher partical flow rates through pathways than granite. Gentry shows that even under the best possible circumstances with greatly increased partical flow, the decay of polonium 218 and 214 (3min & .164ms respectively) is simply too rapid to form halos. All that results in these pathways is single-halo polonium 210 halos. If anything, this shows Gentry was following scientific methods -allowing the data to speak before finalizing his conclusions.

Gentry also details the extensive maticulous steps (alpha-recoil experiments) taken to show that the halos he found were not the result of a uranium decay chain. These findings too were peer reviewed and published in Science 160, 1228 (see Gentry, R.V. 1968). By all accounts (even amoung candid evolutionists) Gentry has been extremely careful in coming to his conclusions - going to great effort to ensure that things like uranium parent material was not the cause of the polonium halos.

The Owl again shows that he/she didn't carefully read the book when suggesting Gentry should have had a physicist review his work. Gentry has a masters degree in physics and was working among physicists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory when he published his findings. He was denied pursuing a Ph.d by the Georga Tech. physics department because he wanted to look into earth's age as a topic of study.

One last point, scientific journals will certainly publish retractions if the data they publish is found to be bad in order to maintain respect in the community. If Gentry's data is truely bad, why have they not done this - allowing it to stand for over 30 years? Especially when doing so would certainly be in their favor since they are heavily pro-evolution and this data is a thorn in their side?

I would encourage Owl and all other readers to keep burrowing in Gentry's book....don't just fly over w/o reading and understanding the details.

1/29/11 update: For more info on Po218 halo formation, I'd also recommend reading Walt Brown's online book "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidance for Creation and the Flood" - chapter titled "The Origin of Earth's Radioactivity". GOTO: [...]

Chemical evolution of elements based on supernovas can only explain isotopes upto atomic weights of around 60 (iron). Walt's evaluation of many recent discoveries as to how elements heavier than iron are formed are showing that radiometeric dating of rocks based on assumed parent/daughter ratios are completely unreliable. Walt takes a different view than Gentry of how these Po218 halos formed in granite, however his well thought out ideas reveal even bigger flaws in uniformitarian theories. Walt shows that only unique conditions encountered during a global flood can explain these unique halos.

This book is an interesting nonfiction work based on the experiences of the author (a geologist) after publicly espousing creationism. The scientific work he describes was published in Phys Rev Letters - a highly respected journal of the APS. Gentry claims the work is evidence for a creationist view of the earth. Leaving aside questions of whether any postulated properties of a creator are subject to exploration through the scientific principle, this is a telling story of scientists' prejudices and insecurities, and the unhappy balance between government funds for research and government's desire to maintain a status quo.

This book makes it harder to justify an incontrovertible theory of evolution. The author provides a first-hand account of his own primary research into the geochemistry of Pollonium radiohaloes in primordial granite bedrock, and convincingly argues his conclusion that such evidence supports the biblical viewpoint that the earth was created suddenly some few thousand years ago. Of course this flies in the face of evolutionary science, which claims a billions of years old earth, but that is his point. If you believe in the biblical creation view, read this book! If you believe the evolutionary theory, read this book. Regardless of your beliefs, you will be impressed by Dr. Gentry's thorough scientific evidence.

Gentry's personal integrity and dedication to scientific principles shines through his work for all to see. After more than 2 decades his findings still stand firm and his evolutionist opponents can only obfuscate or ignore the implications of his work since refutation is simply not possible.

This is absolutely the BEST creationist book ever written and is a must read for those investigating creationist claims. Evolutionists stumble all over themselves in trying to negate the impact of Gentry's findings and are reduced to personal attacks and viewpoint marginalization rather than engaging in an honest evaluation of the facts.

Gentry has truly landed a blow to the very foundation of the evolutionary paradigm. Read it.

As far as I know, Mr. Gentry (who should have a Ph.D.) was refused the doctorate because his research into radiohalos would "embarass" Georgia Tech. Interesting how peer pressure rules among eggheads. Jesus said "How can ye, that receive honour among yourselves, receive the honor that cometh from God only?"

I read this book when it was first published. I just bought an "extra" copy from Amazon because my original is always "on loan" to others. I reference it frequently when speaking on Creation vs. Evolution.

I have always believed that the Bible is right. Since 1970, when I was faced with a barrage of "evidence" to prove that the earth is old, I have wondered if there was something in the Bible that I was missing. Some biblical authority figures were pushing the "GAP" theory. That is, a long time span right after Genesis 1:1. They presented it much better than most other theories available at the time, so I tentatively accepted it.

Mr. Gentry's findings prove that the base layer of rock cooled rapidly. It may just be possible that other events during Earth's formation occurred at an astronomically fast pace. I hope that we discover more evidence like this, and that the intellectual community will have the integrity NOT TO SUPPRESS IT.

Even though it is only one little piece of evidence, it is VERY IMPORTANT. Because of this book, I am comfortable that there's no hole in the Bible. The Genesis account is correct at 6 literal days, where GOD created the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them. (And it was probably much more amazing than it is nowadays.) I would love to see Robert Gentry have a part in discovering more scientific proof, because if the Bible really is true, there will be enough evidence available to prove it conclusively.

Thank you, Robert Gentry, for helping me to confidently believe my Bible again, and to be in awe of my Creator!

I rank this book as one of the most significant works I have ever read.

The book is terribly detailed and hard to read because Robert Gentry is out to prove a point - not just make it. Because he is a detail oriented scientist, he burries you in all the facts that describe polonium halos ad nausium.

But if you dig through, and it helps if you know a little nuclear physics, you will finally come up with the astounding point of this book - The Earth was made in a very short time - in a matter of hours! This blows many preconceptions out the window.

Gentry was published in such prestigeous publications as Science and Nature - until the inescapable conclusions of his facts were discovered by the establishment.

He also goes into how he was suppressed from further research and his part in the infamous Scopes trial.

If you can handle technical reading and really want to know the truth - this book is for you!

I very much wanted to like this book. Unfortunately Gentry's basic assumptions are wrong, therefore his conclusion is wrong.... and grossly so.

What Gentry calls "polonium halos" are not polonium halos: they are radon halos, constructed as the result of alpha particle cascades following inculted pathways in the rock matrix of assorted minerals. He should have known this fact, since at least one of his samples was collected at a uranium mine.

Gentry has been corrected on this subject many hundreds of times after his book was published. Gentry should have had a physicist check his hypothesis first, before publishing the book. But of course Gentry is a Creationist, and the last thing a Creationist will ever do is have a scientist or two check his cherished and much hoped for beliefs.

Which is a shame: Gentry is a good person. It is sad to see him making a fool of himself over such a simple and basic error.

I thought that this book was a good read about the life story about a solid scientist. Gentry uses his evidence to combat the uniformitarian principle, but I was disappointed (especially as a fellow Christian) to find that he does set the premise with some misleading techniques. For example on page 33 he suggests that if the uniformitarian principle can be falsified, then there "is no basis for assuming that radioactive decay rates have been constant and thus no basis for believing the earth is billions of years old"; thus giving the false idea that radioactive decay rates are our only determinant that the earth is very old, not mentioning other astronomical evidences (there are a lot of very convincing ones), things such as magnetite layering in sediment, annual layers in ice cores, and even dendrochronology, which gives an age of the earth older than he does. Not that it's the responsibility of the book to explain away all of these (and many many more) evidences for an old earth, but he does set the main premise in a misleading (some would even say dishonest) way, more than just what I can mention here. He also gives such high respect to his own work and his own interpretation of his work that he claims that when confronted with evidence for instantaneous creation, (such as he claimes to have), then the billions of years of earths history "simply evaporates". I think that it would be more honest to say that all good, solid evidence for the age of the earth must be taken into account, especially in this area where fallable humans make the interpretations. (although honest, I realize that this technique obviously would'nt make for a very compelling book)

Also, to a person just introduced to the subject of polonium halos for the first time, one is lead to believe throughout the book by Gentry that no other explaination for them exists aside from his own, that may be considered valid.

I was also disappointed that his report of his evidence makes up only a small portion of the book, the rest of which is compromised of his life struggles relating to his research, and his court trial.

Although this is an interesting read, I would not recommend it for someone who is new to the topic of the age of the earth.