R. H. Brown, the main author of this article, prefers to have an ancient earth and a recent creation, with no life in between. Brown's later writings on this topic are much better. For example, in this article he states that Gentry calls for the change of U-238 decay rates but not the decay rates of Po-218. This is not true, and if he had carefully read Gentry's reports he would not have made this blunder. Second, Brown totally ignores in this article the absence of alpha-recoil tracks, which falsifies any hypothetical aqueous transport. Third, Brown totally misses the implications of the secondary Po halos in coalified wood. If under ideal conditions (soggy wood and a good U source), only Po-210 halos can form, then there really is no way that Po-218 halos can form in solid rock. Fluid transport in soggy wood could only get the longer half-life Po-210 and its precursor into position, but not Po-218. Thus fluid transport could not get Po-218 into solid rock, with or without the footprints of alpha-recoil tracks. Fourth, Brown totally avoids mentioning in this article that Po-218 halos in defect-free areas of fluorite crystals cannot be explained by the flow of fluids, for the simple reason that there is no way for fluids to flow through such crystals when there is nothing for them to flow through. And if he or anyone else disagrees, a simple laboratory experiment should be able to settle the matter: Take a fluorite crystal that has no cracks and try to force fluids to flow through it anyway. If some fluid does move through it in a short period of time (short enough so that the Po-218 the fluid would have carried has not all decayed), then Brown is right and conventional scientific thought is wrong.