Creationists, polonium halos, and the young earth?

Question

Professional geologist Tom Bailleul takes a second look at Gentry's claimed polonium haloes, arguing that there is no good evidence they are the result of polonium decay as opposed to any other radioactive isotope, or even that they are caused by radioactivity at all. Gentry is taken to task for selective use of evidence, faulty experiment design, mistakes in geology and physics, and unscientific principles of investigation and argument style. Creationist web sites which is where you find this doggie doo pseudo science, are not subject to peer review. If Gentries article would have been submitted to any geological journal--the concept would have been debunked and never made it to print. Spreading false information--information that is debunked without difficulty is lying. Therefore aren't many of these creationist web sites really guilty of lying?

Answer 1

...and as usual, one single transitional fossil missing is enough to bring evolution down like a house of cards, but when a pseudoscientist's convoluted counter-argument is debunked by sound reasoning and general GLP, the boneheads ask for MOAR PR00F.

How dishonest can you get?

"any science journal that publishes anything that states evolution as a fact is spreading lies because evolution has not been proven,"

Ah, here's HOW.

Answer 2

<<Therefore aren't many of these creationist web sites really guilty of lying?>>

For that, and many other reasons, yes.  Some are innocently spreading many untruths based on other sources, but they're still spreading untruths.  And hardly any ever go as far as making corrections, should the untruths be pointed out.  I've known one exception to that, to be fair, but just one.

Answer 3

sounds interesting, but it takes more than one trial of any experiment to prove anything. Just because one guy has found problems, that doesn't mean anything until others have empirically proven that the radio-halos are false. as for the spreading of false information, any science journal that publishes anything that states evolution as a fact is spreading lies because evolution has not been proven, and there is not a single piece of direct evidence to support it; same for creation.

Just remember that neither theory has been proven, or even has any DIRECT evidence. Stating it as a fact would be lying.