🗑️ 🧵 Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 17:24:43 UTC No. 16251092

EVOLUTIONIST COWARD RELIGION DIES WITHOUT CENSORSHIP

tl;dr:
>scientific evidence for earth's instant creation and young age
>passes peer review
>still unrefuted decades later
https://www.halos.com/

-
Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.

The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.
-

Why is the lie of "billions of years" (a.k.a. "a long time ago in a galaxy far away" a fairy tale) still being taught as "Science™ fact" even though it's been scientifically refuted?