Augustine's apologetic on faith.
1. Think with Assent
2. Hypothetical acceptance
3. Trusting credible authority
4. compulsion of the truth
5. Surrender the will

I doubt
if there is doubt, then there must be knowledge-  truth outside mind
if there is knowledge, then there must be God



norman malcolm
If God doesn't exist, he can't come into existence, his existence would be impossible. If God does exist He can't cease to exist or he would not be God. God's existence is necessary or impossible.
God's existence is not impossible since it is not self contradictory. so God's existence is necessary.

leibniz
Anything that exists has an explanation of it's existence, either in the necessity of it's own nature or in an external explanation

The universe has an explanation for it's existence, and that explanation is grounded in a necessary being.

The universe exists.   Therefore the universe has an explanation for it's existence

Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is grounded in a necessary being.

Therefore God, a necessary being exists

Is the Scientific Establishment Objective? Matt Singleton vs. Jordan Karim

Originally Jordan Karim debated Kent Hovind.

here is the link

https://youtu.be/BDDwMBRp5FI

Then I made a response video, linked here:https://youtu.be/G_f7XRw8u2k

 

Jordan Karim is a mechanical & nuclear engineer host of a podcast Reason2doubt and is an ex-Christian atheist.
    This exchange took place on my (Matt Singleton) youtube channel after my response to his original debate with Kent Hovind.

Jordan Karim It's been very common, since my deconversion, for theists (particularly Christians) to assume that I deconverted because I was looking to belong. I essentially decided I didn't want to believe, then found evidence to fit that. There's no way for me to refute that, but as the only person privy to my own thoughts I can tell you it was not like that. I wasn't "angry at God" or anything like that. I was extremely hesitant to give up my faith, and it took a lot of evidence & research to convince me I had been wrong. I am sure that my divorce and changing life put me in a place where I was more open to further changes, but it was the evidence that persuaded me and nothing else. You can choose to believe I'm lying or deluded if you wish.

My personal life aside, I'll refute a couple points:

- Using induction is not fallacious, so long as we don't pretend certainty (which I don't). If I scoop from the pool once, I can use induction to make a probabilistic assessment of how likely it is that the pool is 90% red. As I gain more data, my certainty can increase on my 90% red model. Unless and until I examine every single marble in the pool, I cannot be completely sure that the ratios I measure are accurate. But after enough observations, I can have high confidence.

- It is impossible for anyone to be an expert in everything. At some point it is necessary to trust in the expertise of others. All we can do it ensure that those people are in fact experts, and rely on the entire body of scholarship in a field (not choosing someone who happens to agree with us, but looking at the field as a whole). I make no apologies for not being a universal expert; in fact, I think NOT admitting that is dishonest.

I think you're committing the fallacy of equivocation when you use the word "faith" here, but since you don't define it I can't say. I only trust the experts so long as their predictions continue to be verified by testing against reality. If the models they proposed stopped doing that, they would be abandoned.

- Your analogy of a drippy faucet doesn't work physically. It just...doesn't. "Turning the faucet on harder" would change the half-life which has other implications (I mentioned the excessively radioactive environment that would result). Pithy analogies sound cool, but you actually have to analyze the ENTIRE model. I deal with the reason why we can infer initial conditions in the debate. Read the textbook I cited.

- I know about alpha decay (alpha particles are bare helium nuclei) because I'm a nuclear engineer. I am not a radiogeologist, but I am reasonably well informed on how radioactive decay works. Your assertion that the dating only equates to about 5,000 years is simply false. I gave examples in the debate, and a textbook where you can read more.

Haven't finished the whole video yet, but just wanted to point out that I didn't say that all scientists hold to a uniformitarian view. That would have been false. I said that virtually all scientists held to the view. Hope that clears that up. (By virtually all, I mean "the vast and overwhelming majority") Matt Singleton

First of all Mr. Karim I want to Say I truly appreciate a thoughtful response especially given that this a promptly response.
Now forgive me as I am trying reform my ways and leave the cage stage approach to apologetics.
I do not bring up issues of a psychological nature to either alienate or belittle you or your position.

The intent is concerning the certainty of the uniformitarian and atheist position.  Now when dealing with uniformitarian geology, the acceptance of biological evolution is implied however the denial of the existence of God is not. I agree with you that if you only stay on that one train of thought that atheism is the solution.
However there are other faculties involved with faith that would have nothing to do with that conclusion and thus you would have to have another objection in those categories to object to the existence of God.

Now here is where I apologize for my absent mindedness because I intended to define faith and that is really essential to this point.
Faith is belief.  It is rational and not divorced from reason and yet it has a personal dimension.
We see it in the scriptures in these two places.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. "
or Geneva Hebrews 11:Now [a]faith is the grounds of things which are hoped for, and the evidence of things which are not seen."
Romans 10:9 [l]For if thou shalt [m]confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, that [n]God raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved:"
In this personal aspect there is also a relational aspect.
1John 5:10  He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

So faith is rational and it also has a subjective place.  This subjective place is not on the chopping block in an evolutionary debate.  Also the subjective faith is in a relationship interactively with God.
      If I am right then you have a relationship with God that at some point went wrong.  Even if you have not experienced regeneration you will naturally experience spiritual things.
         Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, "
Now if you are correct in your assumption that by following the evidence there is no God. And that you were devout in your religious faith.  Then your decision would involve the realization That you have been praying in your darkest hours to absolutely nothing and have nothing but an echo in return.  That you have been spending untold hours worshipping and honoring absolutely nothing and wasting away so much time of a life that is too short.
The decision to leave faith is naturally it's own trauma.
      So the idea that being devoutly religious and simply slipping out due to logic is not natural and begs for psychological inquiry.
  Now you are not alone in your experiences we are seeing trends in these categories and so that is why this is relevant. Once again this is about the relevance of psychology, not to place this all upon you as an individual. So I hope not to delve too deeply into you personally for the rest of public dialogue.
         
    Now, when we deal with the inductive fallacy you said
" Unless and until I examine every single marble in the pool, I cannot be completely sure that the ratios I measure are accurate. But after enough observations, I can have high confidence."
  The problem is that you are not Actually getting more observations.  At least not the ones you need. You are learning more about today. But you do not have observations from millions to billions of years ago.  you are making more calculations and observations today and then imposing them.  When you decide to reconcile these, you are then organizing them not by observation but reconciling them to your presupposed system.
  I personally don't get how these observations are getting

"At some point it is necessary to trust in the expertise of others."
trust is another word for faith. you might have heard the phrase fiduciary funds or trust funds.  fide is latin for faith so these are synonymous. You having faith in models is not simply wrong, but it is not categorically different.
So the issue is not faith vs. Science but which faith with science.

"Your analogy of a drippy faucet doesn't work physically. It just...doesn't. "Turning the faucet on harder" would change the half-life which has other implications (I mentioned the excessively radioactive environment that would result)"
  Now when we think of the relativity of reactions within physics, we have to be careful of over generalizing as many reactions are not uniform. You can have a reflection in the mirror that is identical but many reflections are distorted like a fun house.
Now if you increase the energy you have to balance with decreasing time.
  So the catastrophic model is different from a hydroplate theory in the sense that the speeding up of plate tectonics is what is causing so much heat. The hydroplate theory is not demanding drifting tectonic plates.  The hydroplates are much deeper and are stationary until the ignition of the great flood.
Hovind's model is ignited by asteroids.  Walt Brown's original model is ignited by a timed gravitational pressure as well as lunar gravity.
My model (fall of lucifer) is ignited by a gamma ray burster.
A gamma ray burster takes only seconds or less to take place.  So there is not a great deal of time for the earths deterioration, at least by the burster.  Most of the energy escapes in jet streams into space much of the heat because it is mile sunder the earth and because the time of it's damage is so quick is then sustained even though the deterioration is massive.
So the parent element of uranium is more like a daughter, because the lead experiences fusion level heat/radiation collecting electrons.  Thus lead turns into uranium{instead of gold! :p } and then the electrons fall back off into lead over long periods of time.

When you say "virtually all", your being hyperballic your not even being statistical and on top of that you are doing this in hopes of committing a bandwagon fallacy!!
Why do you encourage a fallacy, agreement never equals truth, especially in light of corrupt politics! Most of the world believes in God, so most of the world thinks science is wrong about believing in God and thus science is wrong. If you deny this logic you agree with the bandwagon fallacy being a fallacy and need to stop using this argument for evolution.
If it is essential for you to employ a fallacy in your thought to maintain a presupposition then there is something off in your thought pattern and the more earnest this is the more psychology becomes relevant as a topic.
Let me preface that statement, not that you have a fallacy but as much are dependent upon it or make it essential

my pressupositions of Judeo-Christian theism has 3 forms of evidence which lead to a presupposition of science
1. Experience
2. History
3. Logic
1. I know God personally
2. We observe God historically
3. I comprehend God logically.
Thus I comprehend science within this framework.

If we are fair to uniformitarian measurements.  The assertion of an old earth seems preposterous. I show my research here..
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2015/10/a-mature-look-at-age.html
Because there are so many many contradictions of the time spans of natural processes.  But history has to be organically connected.  Contradictions damage the credibility of the story on a critical level. Jordan Karim

@Matt Singleton I agree, evolution != atheism. There are plenty of faithful Christians who accept the evidence that the Earth is billions of years old and that humans evolved from simpler organisms. The evidence that led me away from faith was more than just evolution, though that began the journey. It is also true that I came to believe that my prayers had been to no one, that my songs in church had been to no one, etc. I don't think it was a complete waste, since it did give me comfort at the time & helped build some relationships. But I still don't follow why it's impossible for me to change my mind on that question because of evidence.

//The problem is that you are not Actually getting more observations.  At least not the ones you need. You are learning more about today. But you do not have observations from millions to billions of years ago.//

We can observe conditions today to make inferences about conditions in the past. Think of a detective; he comes to a crime scene. He finds fingerprints, a bloody weapon, some DNA, etc. He does not need to have witnessed the crime to make inferences about who committed it. Likewise, while it sure would be handy to be able to be present millions of years ago, I can observe what I see today and make inferences about the past.

For radiometric dating, we observe that half-lives do not change due to environmental pressures (except for electron capture & that only in extreme circumstances), we observe the half-life of certain isotopes, etc. With those observations we can infer things about the past. We may never be *certain*, but we can have a high degree of confidence.

//trust is another word for faith...So the issue is not faith vs. Science but which faith with science.//

I think this is equivocation. Trust is a synonym for faith, but the English language is tricky and faith has multiple meanings. When someone says "Faith vs. Science" what they typically mean is "Belief in a deity vs. Science". In order to clarify things, let's avoid the loaded word "faith" that is unclear and comes with baggage. Let's be more specific.

You have belief in a deity, which I lack. The scientific evidence I have seen indicates to me that no deity is required to explain our observations. I get much of that evidence from scientists, whom I trust because of a long history of producing accurate results. They have peer checking mechanisms, and their models can be checked against reality to determine truth. For example, for radiometric dating, we can observe whether uranium actually does decay to lead & how long it takes by measuring the half-lives of its various daughters. This is confirmed by quantum physics, which tell us why the decay would happen in the first place.

So yes, I "trust" peer reviewed experts. At some point, you have no choice but to do so. We just don't live long enough to be experts in every field. All you can do is make sure you're getting your data from reputable, reliable sources (ideally, peer reviewed journals). There are a lot of predatory journals out there, though, so make sure you check that your journal is on the Master Journals List.

//Now if you increase the energy you have to balance with decreasing time...[gamma ray burster leading to fusion]//

It's not a matter of a balance of energy. We observe ratios of parent/daughter isotopes, and that infers a time needed to achieve that ratio. If you change the half-life to get shorter times, you necessarily increase the radioactivity.

Your "model" of a "gamma ray burster" that somehow causes fusion...I don't think that will work. First of all, fusion is extremely difficult to cause in elements heavier than lead. You require not just a great deal of energy, but also a great deal of pressure in order to overcome the repulsion of proton to proton (called the Coulombic barrier). The amount of energy your gamma rays would need to put out would be astronomical. It would also have to be universal, and highly selective; in order to get the isotopes in their locations within crystals, the gamma rays would have to be bursting right next door, so to speak. But if that were the case, we would tend to see a pattern of fusion that centers on the burster. Any radiation follows the inverse square law, so you would see more fusion up close and less fusion further away.

If any of this is happening while life is present, it will very quickly NOT be present. The intensity of gamma radiation, which is notoriously hard to shield since it is extremely high energy light with a very short wave length, would kill everything on Earth. If your answer is "This happened before creation, and God directed the gamma rays where they needed to go" then the model is essentially "God did God magic and made it happen". Which is fine, but I wonder why bother with a physical mechanism at all at that point.

//When you say "virtually all", your being hyperballic your not even being statistical and on top of that you are doing this in hopes of committing a bandwagon fallacy!!//

Allow me to be statistical: 97% of scientists surveyed by Pew (https://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/) accept that humans evolved over time. This was not presented as an argument. It's merely a fact. That fact does not, in itself, make the model correct.

It should, however, give pause to a layman who wants to object. Why is it that 97% of experts in the field agree on this topic? Is it more likely that all of them are wrong, but I (a layman, with no expertise) is right? Or is it more likely that they know something I don't, that they understand something I'm missing? I would submit that the latter is far and away more likely. It is possible that you're right and they are all wrong, but you should be very certain and have extremely good evidence to support that position. Matt Singleton

@Jordan Karim " But I still don't follow why it's impossible for me to change my mind on that question because of evidence."
Because you are not an objective interpreter of the evidence.
Now for that matter I don't know if anyone can be an objective interpretor of the evidence.
The scientific method can debunk some things, but it does not prove anything. You can do an experiment that works in your favor but not have it debunk all the competing hypothesis'.
Also the hypothesis is your presupposition.

"We can observe conditions today to make inferences about conditions in the past. Think of a detective; he comes to a crime scene. He finds fingerprints, a bloody weapon, some DNA, etc. He does not need to have witnessed the crime to make inferences about who committed it. Likewise, while it sure would be handy to be able to be present millions of years ago, I can observe what I see today and make inferences about the past."
This is why your assertion is completely fallacious!
The detective needs a witness to know when the crime occurred!!!!
You collect DNA evidence which is say.. blood.  The blood is fresh, but the body is a dusty set of bones! Obviously there is a difference in the timing of the event and the evidence!

So for instance when we find fossils I the wrong layer
https://coolinterestingstuff.com/the-mystery-of-the-guadeloupe-woman
This woman's fossil being found in a layer 28million years old has consequences. Either  it debunks the old earth method or it debunks human evolution. Is it mentioned in the famous scopes trial?  Well, no. Apparently Piltdown man was considered valid evidence, but this was not worth mentioning by the objective "experts".

When we find stars that are theoretically older than the big bang
https://www.space.com/20112-oldest-known-star-universe.html
or that big bang is accidentally 2 billion yrs earlier
https://news.yahoo.com/study-finds-universe-might-2-181342412.html
We should either conclude that star formation does not work or the big bang did not happen.
   Yet unlike a scientific hypothesis the big bang and evolution are not debunked.
So the hypothesis is in reality a presupposition.

Meanwhile....
"They have peer checking mechanisms, and their models can be checked against reality to determine truth. "
Now I believe you have used the line famous amongst evolutionist that if they could prove otherwise they would have a nobel prize on their hands.

Oh ok so when a creationist successfully makes a peer reviewed document debunking the conclusion of modern science which is what the scientist are supposedly looking for did they had them Nobel prizes?
Did Barry Setterfield get one when he showed that the speed of light was slowing down?
http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html
Did Robert gentry get a nobel prize when he wrote half a dozen peer review essays showing polonium halos found in granite? debunking the formation of granite theory? No, in fact he got fired.
www.halos.com
Then when Mark Armitage found the world's largest triceratops horn and ONLY USED WATER SOLUTION to discover dinosaur soft tissue in the horn and put in a peer review journal, he was fired.  But at least he found a good lawyer and humbled UC to the tune of $400,000!
Kent Hovind whom you debated was arrested alongside his wife for structuring.  His wife deposited money in the bank and went to jail for a year.  kent went to Jail for 8-9yrs.
  I spoke to Hovind while he was in prison. I have a couple recordings of it for the public on this channel.  But I had also spoken with him privately. I had to pay 30$ a call and I am poor!
One call he was just finishing a bible study and he was ok, but another call he was freaking out and murmuring about how he missed wife and just wanted to go home.  It is utterly painful to hear somebody as out going as Kent is to utterly break down.
   So then Young Earth Creationist do their own peer review process and so do ID guys. Because they were not up for the reward of such persecution. To which they are supposedly debunked.
But if they use the peer review process and the peer review process is objective then why would their evidence be rejected?
    So let's look at your research
"Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public."
Evolving over time is a phrase most young earth creation scientists would not object to!  Because that fits the definition of micro evolution and thus it is a non-sequiter!
The Question as Kent repeated often is not over whether animals change but over whether one kind will change into another kind. SO I can guarantee there are many who are not endorsing the evolution as defined by most atheists
Being that You claim to be educated in creationism you should know this is common view.  Thus you really do come off deceiving when you use such a tactic.  In fact it is extremely infuriating and offensive to Christians.
But I am attempting to be more charitable. I believe you are a sincere person.  Therefore I believe that you are a sincere person presenting an insincere argument out of a subconscious bias as opposed to malice.

You have belief in a evolution, which I lack. The scientific evidence I have seen indicates to me that most definitions of evolution is not required to explain our observations. I get much of that evidence from scientists, and history and philosophy and most importantly revelation, I trust because of a long history of producing accurate results.

I will comment separately regarding my model.

Jordon Karim

This is not accurate; forensic evidence can provide an approximate time of death in many situations as well. But the analogy is limited, but we do not need to have observed something happening 100 million years ago to be reasonably confident that it happened about 100 million years ago.

//This woman's fossil being found in a layer 28million years old has consequences//

It appears that the rock which the woman (not fossilized) was found in has accreted into a crack in much older, surrounding rock. This isn't peer reviewed, so take it with salt, but I think it's fair to use a blog refute a blog. (https://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/the-lady-of-guadeloupe-a-miocene-homo-sapiens/)

//When we find stars that are theoretically older than the big bang or that big bang is accidentally 2 billion yrs earlier//

The star source literally refutes your statement in the very first sentence. Did you read it? The other source doesn't say the Big Bang didn't happen, but (may, possibly) change the date.

What you're doing is trying to find a single outlier in a whole wealth of knowledge, pointing to it excitedly without actually reading the research involved, and ignoring the rest of the evidence.

//Oh ok so when a creationist successfully makes a peer reviewed document debunking the conclusion of modern science which is what the scientist are supposedly looking for did they had them Nobel prizes?//

If they actually did publish peer reviewed research that did that, they very well might.

//Did Barry Setterfield get one when he showed that the speed of light was slowing down?//

Source not peer reviewed.

//Did Robert gentry get a nobel prize when he wrote half a dozen peer review essays showing polonium halos found in granite?//

Source not peer reviewed.

//Then when Mark Armitage found the world's largest triceratops horn and ONLY USED WATER SOLUTION to discover dinosaur soft tissue in the horn and put in a peer review journal, he was fired.//

No source provided...so not peer reviewed? This wouldn't have been earth shattering, however; see the research of Mary Higby Schweitzer.

//So then Young Earth Creationist do their own peer review process and so do ID guys.//

Not actually peer reviewed. The journals clearly have an agenda; it's not "peer review" if you limit your "peers" to the ones who already have committed not to disagree with you.

//Thus you really do come off deceiving when you use such a tactic.//

If I could direct your attention one inch up and to the right of the paragraph you skimmed before you copy and pasted it (from the same source):

"Humans and other living things have...existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Scientists: 2%"

That is the creationist position summed up neatly, and the percentage could not be more clear. It coincides neatly with the one I quoted. Not deceptive or insincere; merely more thorough than you were.

​@Matt Singleton I strive to be as objective as I can when I examine the evidence. I consciously set aside my bias to the greatest extent I'm able and make a concerted effort to examine the evidence I'm presented in good faith. I am as charitable as I can be to evidence that contradicts my current views, and extra skeptical of evidence that confirms it. I have been deeply, thoroughly wrong before; I could be wrong now.

All that is to say that it really, truly was the evidence that changed my mind. You may not believe me; you may believe that I was in a troubled state, desperately looking for any excuse to change my beliefs to something more comfortable and have merely convinced myself that it was evidence that swayed me. There's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise, but as the sole witness to my own thoughts I can only give you my testimony that this is not the case. It was evidence that changed my mind, and if I honestly thought the evidence indicated I was again wrong, I would change my mind again. Matt Singleton

@Jordan Karim I believe you are honest.  But you are honestly not processing your information correctly and the facts are alluding you and others in this echo chamber, you are suffering from "cognitive dissonance".

"In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance occurs when a person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, or participates in an action that goes against one of these three, and experiences psychological stress because of that. When two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people will do all in their power to change them until they become consistent.[1] The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new evidence (facts) perceived, wherein they will try to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort." Wikipedia
You place faith in your under standing here:

"I strive to be as objective as I can when I examine the evidence. I consciously set aside my bias to the greatest extent I'm able and make a concerted effort to examine the evidence I'm presented in good faith. I am as charitable as I can be to evidence that contradicts my current views, and extra skeptical of evidence that confirms it. I have been deeply, thoroughly wrong before; I could be wrong now." Now while it is commendable that you recognize at the end your fallibility.  You assume objectivity in the process.  Now that can be seen as you predicting your objectivity in process. However, let's see how you "examine the evidence" "//Did Robert gentry get a nobel prize when he wrote half a dozen peer review essays showing polonium halos found in granite?// Source not peer reviewed." So if Robert Gentry's work is peer reviewed then apparently you gave an objectively poor examination of the evidence.Why is this apparent?  You have publicly claimed to have been a creationist and a student of Kent Hovind's Work as well as the work of Answers in Genesis, in their rate project. Kent Hovind displays Robert Gentry's work in the creation seminar, While Answers in Genesis did their R.A.T.E. project after studying Dr. Gentry's work. So without anything provided by me you should be aware of whether Dr. Gentry published peer reviewed material as he publicly claimed. I gave you his website. www.halos.com If you went on there and clicked on "reports" you would have found this: Reports Dealing with Radiohalos

Gentry, R.V. 1968. "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos." Science 160, 1228. HTML  PDF

Gentry, R.V. 1970. "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?" Science 169, 670. HTML  PDF

Gentry, R.V. 1971. "Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science 173, 727. PDF

Gentry, R.V. 1973. "Radioactive Halos." Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347. PDF

Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62. HTML  PDF

Gentry, R.V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlin's Comments on "Spectacle Halos." Nature 258, 269.

Gentry, R.V. 1977. "Mystery of the Radiohalos." Research Communications NETWORK, Breakthrough Report, February 10, 1977. HTML  PDF

Gentry, R.V. 1978a. "Are Any Unusual Radiohalos Evidence for SHE?" International Symposium on Superheavy Elements, Lubbock, Texas. New York: Pergamon Press. PDF

Gentry, R.V. 1978b. "Implications on Unknown Radioactivity of Giant and Dwarf Haloes in Scandinavian Rocks." Nature 274, 457. HTML  PDF

Gentry, R.V. 1978c. "Reinvestigation of the α Activity of Conway Granite." Nature 273, 217. HTML  PDF

Gentry, R.V. 1979. "Time: Measured Responses." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 60, 474. PDF  RTF

Gentry, R.V. 1980. "Polonium Halos." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 61, 514. HTML  PDF

Gentry, R.V. 1982. Letters. Physics Today 35, No. 10, 13.

Gentry, R.V. 1983a. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 4, 3.

Gentry, R.V. 1983b. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 11, 124.

Gentry, R.V. 1984a. "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38. HTML  PDF

Gentry, R.V. 1984c. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 4, 108.

Gentry, R.V. 1984d. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 12, 92.

Gentry, R.V. 1987a. "Radioactive Halos: Implications for Creation." Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, 89. HTML

Gentry, R.V. 1998. "Fingerprints of Creation." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12, 287. HTML

Gentry, R.V. et al. 1973. "Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohalos." Nature 244, 282. HTML  PDF

Gentry, R.V. et al. 1974. "'Spectacle' Array of Po-210 Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma." Nature 252, 564. HTML  PDF

Gentry, R.V. et al. 1976a. "Radiohalos and Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification." Science 194, 315. HTML  PDF At that point you could have simply looked the papers up separately. For instance:

his 10th peer review

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978Natur.273..217G/abstract

Reinvestigation of the α-activity of Conway granite

Gentry, R. V.; Halperin, J. H.; Ketelle, B. H.; O'Kelley, G. D.; Stoughton, R. W.

Abstract

ADAMS et al.1,2 reported evidence for an unidentified 4.4 MeV α-activity in certain core sections taken from Conway granite in New Hampshire. A similar α-activity has also been reported by Cherdyntsev et al.3 and by Brukl et al.4 in different materials, but in neither case was it ever confirmed. We report here our reinvestigation of this phenomenon, and that we were unable to confirm the evidence of a 4.4 MeV α-activity in the Conway granite. Publication:

Nature, Volume 273, Issue 5659, pp. 217-218 (1978).

Pub Date:

May 1978

DOI:

10.1038/273217a0

Bibcode:

1978Natur.273..217G

or #3

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17798722

Science. 1971 Aug 20;173(3998):727-31.

Radiohalos: some unique lead isotope ratios and unknown alpha radioactivity.

Gentry RV.

Abstract

Previously unreported lead isotope ratios, that is, values for the lead-206/lead-207 ratio ranging from about 20 to 60, primarily radiogenic in origin but unsupported by uranium decay, have been determined in the inclusions of certain polonium halos by means of ion microprobe techniques. Evidence for radiogenic lead-208 unsupported by thorium decay may also be inferred from the existence of a composite polonium halo type with rings from the radioactive precursors of lead-208. Several new dwarf halo sizes, seem to indicate the existence of unknown, very low-energy alpha-emitters. Furthermore, the three-ring "X halo" also provides evidence for an unknown series of genetically related alpha-emitters with energies in the range from 3 to 7 million electron volts.

   You could have done some research on Mark Armitage.

Abstract

Soft fibrillar bone tissues were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA. Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix. This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching. Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length. Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft. This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020 Now in both cases the scientific establishment they were not treated well. Both were fired. Armitage however won a court case and ended up settling with $400,000 reward for his ordeal.
   But you could not process this. However, you developed a different standard in your answers.

"It appears that the rock which the woman (not fossilized) was found in has accreted into a crack in much older, surrounding rock. This isn't peer reviewed, so take it with salt, but I think it's fair to use a blog refute a blog. (https://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/the-lady-of-guadeloupe-a-miocene-homo-sapiens/)"
Perhaps this would be ok, if you treated your opponents with the same objectivity, BUT YOU DO NOT OBVIOUSLY.

YOU WOULD NOT DARE RECIEVE A SOURCE THAT WAS NOT PEER REVIEWED. HOWEVER, EVEN IF THE SOURCE WAS PEER REVIEWED YOU DENIED IT UNTIL YOU WERE FORCED TO ADMIT IT.

         You did this claiming a desire for objectivity, So long as you were honest, You were factually a victim of cognitive dissonance.
   Now in response, these guys doubting the age of the limestone layer simply legitamizes catastrophism and defeats the uniformitarian method.   But your standard in using this is affirming an obvious biased anticreationism group. "What you're doing is trying to find a single outlier in a whole wealth of knowledge, pointing to it excitedly without actually reading the research involved, and ignoring the rest of the evidence."
You are obviously guilty of your own words. he earth does not display billions of years to us even by uniformitarian standards.
"Whatever the method or approach, the geologist must take cognizance of the following facts... There is no
place on earth where a complete record of the rocks is present....  To reconstruct the history of the earth,
scattered bits of information from thousands of locations all over the world must be placed together.  The
results will be at best only a very incomplete record.  If the complete history of the earth is
compared
to an encyclopedia of 30 volumes, then we can seldom hope to find even one comeplete volume in a given area. Sometimes only a few chapters, perhaps only a paragraph or two, will be the total geological contribution of a region; indeed, we are often reduced to studying scattering bits of information more nearly comparable to a few words of letters."  Brown Monnet and Stovel  Introduction to Geology Here is the dirt, so to speak.  We do not have the layers to form billions of years. Your evidence of uranium dating is the outlier you warn against.
"This is not accurate; forensic evidence can provide an approximate time of death in many situations as well. But the analogy is limited, but we do not need to have observed something happening 100 million years ago to be reasonably confident that it happened about 100 million years ago." Bologna! You need a witness to a crime or else the crime is not reported. There was no 100 million years ago, so you can not be confident of something happening back then. It's comepletely unreasonable to be confident(fid=faith) of something you have 0% evidence for! We have 5,000 yrs of historically verified human history.that is 1/2000 the amount of time you are claiming to be accurate with. "Civilization, as historians identify it,  first emerged between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago when people began to live in organized communities with distinct political, military economic and social structures.  Religious, intellectual, and artistic activities also assumed important functions in these early societies." "Although Historians use documents to create their pictures of the past, such written records do not exist for the prehistory of humankind.  Consequently, the story of early humanity depends on archaeological and more recently biological information, which anthropologists use t create theories about our early past. Although modern science has fostered the development of more precise methods, much of our understanding of early humans relies upon considerable conjecture."Comprehensive Volume WORLD HISTORY by William Duiker and Jackson J. Spielvogel 
Your logic is causal. You are trying to find causes because of the law of cause and effect.  The problem is that you have to have 1st cause or otherwise there is no said effect. Atheism has no 1st cause.  The big bang has absolutely no cause. So you are really stuck in an infinite regress.  But if you have no causes for your fantasy causes, then you have doubled up on your fallacies. Inductive Fallacies Inductive reasoning consists of inferring from the properties of a sample to the properties of a population as a whole.

For example, suppose we have a barrel containing of 1,000 beans. Some of the beans are black and some of the beans are white. Suppose now we take a sample of 100 beans from the barrel and that 50 of them are white and 50 of them are black. Then we could infer inductively that half the beans in the barrel (that is, 500 of them) are black and half are white.

All inductive reasoning depends on the similarity of the sample and the population. The more similar the same is to the population as a whole, the more reliable will be the inductive inference. On the other hand, if the sample is relevantly dissimilar to the population, then the inductive inference will be unreliable.

No inductive inference is perfect. That means that any inductive inference can sometimes fail. Even though the premises are true, the conclusion might be false. Nonetheless, a good inductive inference gives us a reason to believe that the conclusion is probably true.

The following inductive fallacies are described in this section: "http://fallacies.ca/induct.htm "The star source literally refutes your statement in the very first sentence. Did you read it? The other source doesn't say the Big Bang didn't happen, but (may, possibly) change the date."
   So here is another example of epistemic failure. I do not search evidence for the sake of opinions but for the sake of facts.  I often find sources with disagreeing opinions because if they agree with me as to facts, then I have a less or unbias testimony to my case.

  Now I am having trouble figuring how my source "literally" refutes my statement.

Here is my statement,"When we find stars that are theoretically older than the big bang"

here is what the source says....

"Put all of those ingredients together, and you get an age of 14.5 billion years, with a residual uncertainty that makes the star's age compatible with the age of the universe," study lead author Howard Bond, of Pennsylvania State University and the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, said in a statement."  I think it is pretty rational to assume that the putting all the "ingredients" is an effort to make the observations fit the big bang.YET if we stay charitable we still have a star 700,000,000 yrs older!

Now we find out new information is making the set age of the big bang 2 billion yrs younger than that!

"The generally accepted age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, based on a Hubble Constant of 70."

"In 2013, a team of European scientists looked at leftover radiation from the Big Bang and pronounced the expansion rate a slower 67, while earlier this year Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute used NASA's super telescope and came up with a number of 74. And another team earlier this year came up with 73.3."

"Jee's team came up with a Hubble Constant of 82.4, which would put the age of the universe at around 11.4 billion years."

      So once again, your struggles cognitive dissonance seem to have re-appeared.

   btw, the point is simply the fact that your model has obvious epistemic uncertainties.

"Humans and other living things have...existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Scientists: 2%"

That is the creationist position summed up neatly, and the percentage could not be more clear. It coincides neatly with the one I quoted. Not deceptive or insincere; merely more thorough than you were. "

   Sorry, but there still plenty of deceptions here and you are really not stable to hang on to fallacious argument like this.

1. There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution.  So a scientist maybe thinking about the slight changes with a kind.

2. The "beginning of time" clause cuts off all Intelligent design advocates.

3. Statistical analyses is based on committing inductive fallacies we have no Idea how many scientists believe what.

4. Most importantly the bandwagon fallacy.  This has no application to finding the truth.

   But when you say "virtually all" anyone who would understand that there are over a thousand scientists who reject Darwinism would agree that your statement is deceptive.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-11/over-1000-scientists-sign-dissent-darwinism-statement

"There are 1,043 scientists on the "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list. It passed the 1,000 mark this month, " said Sarah Chaffey

All PHD Scientists.

"The journals clearly have an agenda; it's not "peer review" if you limit your "peers" to the ones who already have committed not to disagree with you."Jordan

Exactly!  If your peer review journals are not skeptical of evolution and the other pet theories then they are not qualified to be real science.  Because obviously they are trying to get the ingrediants to fit.

Now, if peer review is objective beyond that, because lets say "math is math".  Then the Journals could acquire some respect.  however, if the process is objective then it does not matter the presuppositions of the participants whether creationists or evolutionists.

You can not have it both ways and until you realize that you will never be cured of cognitive dissonance.

Jordan Karim

@Matt Singleton I don't think it's an example of cognitive dissonance to recognize that I could be wrong, be aware of my biases, and at the same time to strive to be as objective as I can in examining thee evidence. Admitting that you could be wrong is a necessary step to honest evaluation, imo. I'm not sure what alternative there is?

//Source not peer reviewed."

So if Robert Gentry's work is peer reviewed then apparently you gave an objectively poor examination of the evidence.//

What I meant was that the source you actually posted was not a peer reviewed source...which is wasn't. Experience has taught me that in these discussions, attempting to go down the rabbit hole on every blog made by every creationist is a fool's errand; there is always another blog, no matter how many I refute. It takes me time and effort to refute something; it takes almost no effort to just copy pasta a blog.

BUT papers published in actual peer reviewed journals are another matter entirely! I was really excited at your list of citations, because most of the sources you posted were great! Though you did sneak a few bad sources in there (Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal is not a peer reviewed journal on the Master Journal List, neither are the proceedings from a creationist conference). But I won't hold that against you, Nature & Science are both hihgly respected journals.

Now, your original point was something about them not receiving a Nobel Prize...Which is a strange standard...But their research was published in a peer reviewed journal. Evidently nobody was interested in shutting down their perspective. They got published! Good for them.

Gentry maintains that since polonium decays very quickly, if we find halos (he claims indicative of alpha particle decay) in granite that aren't associated with uranium or thorium, that means that the uranium & thorium had to decay very fast in the past in order to make enough polonium to produce the halo.

There are issues with this model. For example, from the 1971 paper he writes "The chart of the nuclides reveals no genetically related alpha sequence corresponding to these energies, and it is extremely difficult to concoct a mixture of alpha emitters that would fit the above pattern without additional rings also being present." In other words, his model requires that a cocktail of alpha emitting radioisotopes exist that have not yet been discovered. This may have been a more reasonable flaw back in 1971, but we have made great advances in particle physics since then. The likelihood of finding his missing radioisotopes is very low at this point, which kills his model completely.

Additionally, there are alternative explanations which do not require upending nuclear physics to allow for rapid decay rates. Rn-222 (radon) diffuses much more readily through crystal structures, and it decays with an energy very similar to that of Po-210. (C. Moazed, R. Spector, R. Ward "Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternate Interpretation", Science 1973; note this was behind a pay wall, so I could not access the paper. I'm relying on secondary sources for what the paper says, which isn't ideal...but I'm willing to bet you didn't actually read the papers by Gentry either. ;)  )

These issues and more explain why, evidently, his papers have made no impact in the scientific community.

For Armitage, if he was fired inappropriately that's terrible & I'm glad he was able to get recompense. I'm not sure what his paper is supposed to tell me other than that he found some cool stuff inside a triceratops horn. You might say "It's impossible that could have lasted that long!" but of course that's a claim, not evidence, and you'd need to provide evidence that it is, indeed impossible (or at the very least unlikely enough that we should never see it).

I will say I commend you for actually looking up the peer reviewed research and posting good citations here, though. Great job! (Text can be hard to interpret and this might come off as me being sarcastic, but I'm really not. Solid citations from actual peer reviewed journals are rare to find, so, genuinely, good work in grabbing them)

Matt Singleton: Let me just start off by saying that it is a pain that creationists are rarely published in secular peer review journals, at least on the subject of creation

But then again, what is a creationist really allowed to publish?  You can't simply talk about spiritual experiences or spiritual revelations or even sightings of spiritual things regardless of their truth. Here is an example. " After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District So basically a creationist has to imitate an atheist to demonstrate creationism and prove a fact he is not allowed to admit!!!! Now does atheism even have to play by this rule? Let's take a closer look.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html  from the memorandom of Judge William R. Overton ""The religious movement known as Fundamentalism began in nineteenth century America as part of evangelical Protestantism's response to social changes, new religious thought and Darwinism. Fundamentalists viewed these developments as attacks on the Bible and as responsible for a decline in traditional values." "a) "Creation-science" means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds." "Both the concepts and wording of Section 4(a) convey an inescapable religiosity. Section 4(a)(1) describes "sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing." Every theologian who testified, including defense witnesses, expressed the opinion that the statement referred to a supernatural creation which was performed by God." Does not the big bang theory imply creationism the same way? "If we live in a universe full of stuff, how did it get here? And many people think that very question implies the need for a creator. But what's truly been amazing, and what the book's about is the revolutionary developments in both cosmology and particle physics over the past 30 or 40 years that have not only changed completely the way we think about the universe but made it clear that there's a plausible case for understanding precisely how a universe full of stuff, like the universe we live in, could result literally from nothing by natural processes."http://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing Lawrence Krauss Here the famous atheist physicist admits that the big bang theory is something that came from nothing. Also if we examine closely we will see that Lawrence admits that his atheistic view of the big bang is "truly...amazing" "to many".  Krauss' language is weak when he only contends that his view is "plausible".

So, the idea of nothing creating everything is acceptable as compared to God? The system is rigged!

" In other words, his model requires that a cocktail of alpha emitting radioisotopes exist that have not yet been discovered."
I'm sorry you have that backwards. Gentry does not believe there was an original uranium at the time and the standard orthodoxy presupposed that all halos came from a radioactive substance instead of Granite.  The lack of such substance proved his point.

"This isn't peer reviewed, so take it with salt, but I think it's fair to use a blog refute a blog."
"Though you did sneak a few bad sources in there" "I'm relying on secondary sources for what the paper says"
"is not a peer reviewed journal on the Master Journal List"

So you have committed the fallacy of appeal to authority here.  You assume an objectivity to secular journals as the authority.  But I have demonstrated that these sources beg the question regarding naturalism.  Yet, you have allowed yourself more liberty in your argumentation than you give creationists.
I sympathize with your plight how creationists may be overly dependent upon blogs or less scholarly material.  However, you can not judge a book by it's cover. truth is truth.
It would be charitable if you were to start getting subscription to the Creation Research Journal and analyzed it and shown why it is not scientific, perhaps where it is getting the math wrong for instance.
   But nevertheless at the point I have become convinced of my hypothesis.  Consciously you are an honest person and yet your presuppositions subconsciously control your thought patter to where you experience cognitive dissonance when confronted by opposing evidence.
  Just as you argue a fossil is a population, I believe many atheists today are struggling with this as we see new evidence.  While creationists have their flaws, it is not a solution to the inability receiving new information.  Now I believe this topic is exhausted and further argument would simply boil down to a battle of wills.
   However, I think it is worthy to look at our presuppositions and consider which ones are more rationale.

   I believe the naturalistic presuppositions fails science on the following levels.
1. The inductive fallacy) I am diabetic and sometimes I want to look for any lowcarb candybars. So I was looking at Walmart and saw a display of health candy bars.  I look and there was way to much sugar on the first.  I kept looking and they said too much until the last one. I felt stupid even looking at the last one and yet when I did I discovered that it only had 5grams compared to the 30 of the others. If I had not looked I would have done so because I committed the inductive fallacy. By rejecting the fallacious logic I found the candy bar.
Science assumes a past on naturalistic assumptions instead of pure knowledge and commiting the fallacy multitudes of times leads to gross error.
2. Causation.  We know science works, through experience and the logic which works is a system of cause and effect.   We know the system working is indeed in and of itself and effect. Thus there must be a 1st cause to these effects. Nothing is not an appropriate cause for these effects. Because nothing accomplishes nothing.  Assuming the 1st cause has to wait for a theoretical natural causation by a theoretical reality is frivolous. If the universe needs a first cause the first cause can cause it.

3.  Design.
Plato understood a dog, not by it's mass.  Because a dog is eating and defecating mass constantly.  he understood that there was a form of the dog. the form of that dog is an idea that implies a mind.
Now though scientific discover, we understand that dog to be made of organs, then tissue, then cells, then chromosomes, then dna.  We have discovered that the DNA has a code and that this code contain more information than most of our biggest libraries.  Yet the complexities of this are minimal compared to humans and specifically the human brain.  Thus the magnitude of necessary ideas in the universal order are staggering.
4.  Cosmology
We demand a chaotic universe,  yet we find a pattern from the universe that demands our little blue planet be special.  In it's relation to the "axis of evil"  and it's properties which allow life, as the universe grows more empty day by day. 
5. metaphysics
Now many throughout history have noticed man's need for morality, religion and the need to transcend himself.  From Neitzche we learn that a materialistic worldview values power as opposed to truth. Because there is no logical need for honesty. And so life values power more.
But metaphysical reality has other evidence.  In neurology, our brains receive information, yet physically we see no place where information is processed and this is called "The connecting problem"
We have further evidence from near death experiences where people report great mental experiences while in the near death state they have 0% brain activity.

6. logic
The idea of God is rational and upon definition God can not cease to exist in order to to be the topic of God.
The great mathematician Kurt Gode"l came up with a rendition of the ontological argument to prove the existence of God.  Computer scientists have ran through the math to prove his formula is correct.
I developed my own ontotogical argument to complete a logic of creationism.
https://youtu.be/PHVxURns5WU

7. History we do have a historical record and a source of empiral knowledge through history.  History is observed while historical science is theoretical.  An observation is superior to a hypothesis in accuracy.
  The period of pre-socratic philosophy was a secular odysee that led philosophers to the understanding of mythology as an inaccurate presentation of history.
The Jewish historian Josephus prepared a presentation of Jewish History for the Roman government, validating biblical history as an authentic witness of facts.
The English Historian Archbishop James Usher successfully reconciled world history in line with the Jewish history.
Since that time we have discovered through history, religion, and archaeology a consenus concering the idea of a creator God, a consensus regarding a judgement of a world wide flood. A consensus of anticipation in waiting for a messianic figure.
Finally the historical impact of Jesus Christ the man, is second to none and history was divided upon his existence.

Thus the superior presuppositions are judeo Christian as compared to atheistic.

"Your "model" of a "gamma ray burster" that somehow causes fusion...I don't think that will work. First of all, fusion is extremely difficult to cause in elements heavier than lead. You require not just a great deal of energy, but also a great deal of pressure in order to overcome the repulsion of proton to proton (called the Coulombic barrier). The amount of energy your gamma rays would need to put out would be astronomical. It would also have to be universal, and highly selective; in order to get the isotopes in their locations within crystals, the gamma rays would have to be bursting right next door, so to speak. But if that were the case, we would tend to see a pattern of fusion that centers on the burster. Any radiation follows the inverse square law, so you would see more fusion up close and less fusion further away.
If any of this is happening while life is present, it will very quickly NOT be present. The intensity of gamma radiation, which is notoriously hard to shield since it is extremely high energy light with a very short wave length, would kill everything on Earth. If your answer is "This happened before creation, and God directed the gamma rays where they needed to go" then the model is essentially "God did God magic and made it happen". Which is fine, but I wonder why bother with a physical mechanism at all at that point." So, I am at a stage where, I can not focus enough energy by myself to finish the work need to prove this hypothesis, I have a busy life and this needs the work of a willing physicist. But I will give a defense of why this is a quite rational hypothesis. "First of all, fusion is extremely difficult to cause in elements heavier than lead" First of all, your cosmology is dependent upon fusion to eventually create heavy elements. "This allowed the STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE (strong force) to bind these smaller nuclei together, forming a more massive nucleus. This process is called FUSION. In the process of fusing nuclei together, tremendous amounts of energy are released, and this energy is what causes the star to "shine." The flash point conditions vary depending on what types of nuclei are fusing. The lighter the nuclei (and therefore the smaller the electric charge), the lower the flash point temperature and density are because there is less energy needed to bring the nuclei close enough for the strong force to bind them (this will become more important later). So, with the original mixture of H and He, the flash point that was reached first is that for H. When H undergoes fusion, the overall process involves four H nuclei (protons) coming together to form a He nucleus, two positrons, and two neutrinos, with the release of energy. This energy takes the form of gamma rays, and the kinetic energy of the products."http://aether.lbl.gov/www/tour/elements/stellar/stellar_a.html?fbclid=IwAR0v211hMvtMKDh5cRQe-wXXVoaolOhTtMVuG7MHDob-68ZgW4vnWxbaHxQ
 My hypothesis is not demanding a fusion of gases, but a fusion of the already heavy element of lead.
The energy is stellar from a gamma ray burster from a pulsar located in Polaris, the nearby North Star. The gravity and pressure required is much easier to compensate as the process takes place miles below the earths surface under megatons of gravitational pressure and kinetic force. btw, the element would be fused starting as lead so that would fit in your parameters.
   An important video was put out by bryan Nickel who holds to the hydroplate theory.  His model does not use a gamma ray burster but relies simply on gravitational pressures and subterranean radiactive water.https://youtu.be/Xq6kUbLzYCc
    Gamma Ray Bursters can produce astronomical power.  We might not be able to know exactly how much the burst had.  But if we have evidence that the burst happened then we can budget the proper amount of energy which was definitely available.
  if you looked at my model in my "New Year's cosmology class"   You would know that the earth was covered in an ice canopy composed of about 10-15% of the earth's water.  This would provide some shielding as the burst would be pretty direct and taking place only seconds or less.  Of course it would leave an ethereal flame as a residue.  But impact could be seen on the arctic seabed as several layers are caved in.  Being that this is not a lively environment the chaos is not inconceivable.  The north pole is magnetically attractive and so the energy is conducted straight down into the earths subterranean core.
  Polaris is always directly above the nort pole so the direction is rather easy.
   The earth has a seasonal tilt that is growing and yet if we go back in time the tilt shrinks until it disappears about 2345bc.  We also know the north star shifted from the constellation draco to Ursa Minor. Thus there was an obvious opportunity for instability and the pulsar was capable of the burst.  The Vikings have legends of Jormungandr a giant serpent whom thor (god of thunder) hurled down to the arctic, and eventually to hel.
Now when we look at mythology.  Many scholars have noted how the gods parallel with astrology and many myths are therefore connected to astrological phenomena.
The constellation draco is symbolic of a serpent or dragon. Biblical symbolism counts this as lucifer/the snake who was cast down from the throne of God in the north down to Hell or the abyss.
The blast coming out of the earth would be the "fountains of the great deep" at which point we do see massive catastrophies.  For instance,  the blast creating modern day Iceland and the mid atlantic ridge were obviously so catastrophic as evidenced from the chalks beds on the coasts of England and Nova Scotia.   Much of the Seas would have evaporate leaving the excess salt you complained about in your debate with Hovind, along the Mediterranean.
 The reason that these models for the flood are presented is because the flood was not a creative miracle, it had natural phenomena. It was providential and prophetic, but it is presented as historical and scientific truth.

All of this can be observed in my "New Years Cosmology class"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3v-8ib8j_c&list=PLr4zHIDphGjQhba6EkMxdTEgRsyqTdOJwI encourage you to watch classes 15-20 especially 16,18, & 19 to understand the "Fall of lucifer" flood model. You may also read.... 1. http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2014/12/a-summary-of-new-years-cosmology.html
2. http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-scientific-exposition-of-literal.html
3. http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-purpose-of-general-revelation.html
4.  http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2014/09/singletons-new-years-cosmology.html
5. http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2014/12/further-study-in-new-years-cosmology.html
6.  http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-fall-of-lucifer-nyc-pt6.html
7.http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2015/06/4c-plan-crush-common-core-through.html
8.http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2017/06/basic-facts-supporting-fall-of-lucifer.html