RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2006,06:11   

Quote (afdave @ Aug. 16 2006,10:10)
ALRIGHT ... YOU STILL DON'T GET IT ... LET'S DRIVE IT HOME A LITTLE DEEPER

Here we go again with Encyclopedia Britannica ...

FOSSILS ARE USED FOR DATING TO A LARGE DEGREE
     
Quote
dating
Encyclopædia Britannica Article      

  Page  1  of  32    
   
in geology, determining a chronology or calendar of events in the history of the Earth, using to a large degree the evidence of organic evolution in the sedimentary rocks accumulated through geologic time in marine and continental environments.
dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69749
Got that?  "TO A LARGE DEGREE"  ... that's why they use the word "PRIMARY" for Index Fossil Dating later on in the article.

Nope, Davie, they use "primary" later on in its geological meaning: "Characteristic of or existing in a rock at the time of its formation".  It's obvious.
 
Quote
GEOLOGISTS USED FOSSILS TO PIECE TOGETHER 600 MY OF EARTH HISTORY
     
Quote
In addition, because sediment deposition is not continuous and much rock material has been removed by erosion, the fossil record from many localities has to be integrated before a complete picture of the evolution of life on Earth can be assembled. Using this established record, geologists have been able to piece together events over the past 600 million years, or about one-eighth of Earth history, during which time useful fossils have been abundant.
dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69749
Got it?  They used the FOSSIL RECORD to piece together 600 my of earth history.

Originally, they did.  But we didn't know it was 600 my until radiometric dating gave us the absolute time scale.  Before that, they used just the fossil record and knew the time was millionsof years, but didn't know exactly how many millions.
 
Quote
 BTW, they would have used the fossil record to piece together the rest, but IT'S NOT THERE!  Kind of strange that it SHOULD be there, but it's not, don't you think?

Nope.  It's there, from the very beginnings of life circa 3.5 billion years ago.
 
Quote
DATABLE MINERALS GROW AND RE-GROW, SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN THEY WERE CREATED?

Already answered.  But read the references I gave, and learn a litle something about radiometric dating while you're at it.
 
Quote
Just gotta throw this one out there again ... love it!
THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN IS A MENTAL ABERRATION ... er, sorry ... ABSTRACTION
     
Quote
The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geologic column.
dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69754

Refuted yesterday, Davy.  Ignoring evidence don't make it disappear.
 
Quote
ISOTOPIC AGES CAN BE RESET BY HIGH TEMPERATURES
     
Quote
It will become apparent, for example, that isotopic ages can be reset by high temperatures; however, this seeming disadvantage can be turned to one's favour in determining the cooling history of a rock.
dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69755

Davie-dork, this shows that in some cases the date we get for rocks may actually be less than the actual age of the rock.  Contradicting your young Earth arguments
 
Quote

Fine ... we can determine the cooling history, but how do we determine the Age of Creation, the Age of Sedimentation, etc.??  You say that rocks are recycled into the crust, right?  How do we know how many times they were recycled?  I understand that apparently zircons, for example, have no daughter products in them when they are formed.  So presumably the daughter products that ARE there represent radioactive decay.  So in theory, these zircons are really 1.5 Byo or whatever the number is.  But this appears to have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Date of Sedimentation for a water-laid sedimentary layer.  Why?  

Duh.  Because the zircons are remnants of the rock which eroded to fomr the sedimentary layer.  When ypu date the zircons, you get the age of the rocks that eroded to form the sedimentary layer, not the age of the sedimentary laayer.  Duh.  That's why nobody ever tries to date sedimentary rocks that way.

However, it is sometimes possible to date sedimentary layers directly by dating something that formed when the layer lithified (turned into rock).  This has been made easier by advances in instrumentation sensitivity and consequent reductions in sample size.  One example is dating of diagenic xenotime that forms in zircons when a sedimentary layer containing them lithifies. For examaple, SHRIMP Uranium-Lead Dating of Diagenetic Xenotime in Siliciclastic Sedimentary Rocks (requires freee registration).

I know that you don't have a chance of comprehending that, Davesicle, but the lurkers may be interested.

 
Quote
AN EXAMPLE TO KEEP EVERYONE'S BRAINS CLEAR

Dave, your extreme ignorance of radiometric dating is shining through the layer of sh*t you are covered with. Making up unrealistic scenarios isn't an argument; addressing realistic scenarios, of which you obviously know nothing, is approriate.

If you stopped making up stupiod and unrealistic scenarios and learned something about real scenariuos, maybe you could carry on a discussion.
 
Quote
Well, let's just take a typical sandstone layer, OK?  Let's say it contains some zircon grains and we'll assume for the moment that the daughter product measured representS the age of the last cooling event. With me?  So this means that those zircon grains got real hot (>700C or so) 1.5 By ago (I'll give you this for the moment, OK?).  Now, does this mean the WATER-LAID SEDIMENT which contains the zircons is ALSO 1.5 Byo?  Of course not!  The sediment was laid by WATER!  You can't tell me for certain that the zircon grains were created at the same time as the sediment was laid.  MAYBE they were, but no one can really tell.  The most likely situation is that they were ERODED from some granite (formed by some super hot process) and mixed with the sand and water.  Then they were transported by water and deposited.

Dave-dingleberry, you're actually correct.  That's why nobody tries to date sediemtnary rocks that way.
 
Quote
Now how in the world do you know WHEN this deposition took place?  You cannot tell me by dating the zircons radiometrically.  That's impossible.

Yup.  But that doesn't mean you can't find the date of the sediment by other means.  The creationis throws up his hands and gives up, the scientist looks for further information.  By dating igneous intrusions, sills, dikes, overlayers, and underlayers (all of which can be dated radiometrically), and by cross-correlating with index fossils, we can get darned small ranges of ages for the sedimentary layers.
 
Quote
Another way those zircons could have got there is by a volcanic eruption and the lava intruded into the layer.  Again, you may be able to tell something about the age of the lava (if you accept the assumptions), but again, there is no way that this will tell you anything about the WATER-LAID sedimentary layer which contains some lava intrusion.

Er, dork-face, it does tell you something. As I wrote yesterday, it tells you that the WATER LAID sedimentary layer is older than the intrusive lava.  (Actually, it's intrusive magma, but we can't expect you to know anyting about correct trerminology).
 
Quote
You cannot tell me that you know the dates of depostion of those layers by dating zircon grains or lava contained in the sediment.

Nobody has tried to claim that.  You made it up.
 
Quote

The way those layers are dated is .... [DRUM ROLL] ... FOSSILS!  

Sort of. Let's take a realistic example.

We find a sedimentary layer with a certain index fossil in it.  We also find an igneous intrusion in it that dates to 300 my.  We find, in another place, another sedimentary layer with the same index fossil in it. Below that sedimentary layer we find an igneous layer that dates to 320 my.  Knowing that the index fossil we are using wasn't around for long, because the thousands of such fossils we find are always confined to very very thin layers, we know that the two sedimentary layers are the same age (plus or minus a few million years), that both are more than 300 million years old (because of the intrusion in the first layer) and both are more than 320 million years old (because of the ingeous rock underlying the second layer).  No circularity, just calibration and correlation.

Of course, sometimes we find sedimentary layers that have igneous intrusions and surroundings that allow us to closely bracket the date of the layer with no reference to fossils at all.

Address that realistic scenario, Davie-pie.
Quote
I DON'T EVEN NEED TO QUESTION RM DATING ACCURACY TO BLOW AWAY YOUR CLAIM THAT THE GRAND STAIRCASE IS DATED (OR EVEN BRACKETED) RADIOMETRICALLY!

THE GRAND STAIRCASE IS DATED BY FOSSILS, THEN SAMPLES ARE FOUND WHICH MATCH THE ALREADY-DETERMINED-AGE.  PERIOD.  

Wrong, Davie-doodles.  The sedimentary layers are dated indirectly by radiometric dating, often (but not always) involving fossils as (non-circular) calibrators and correlators.  No circularity, Davie-pie.
 
Quote
Prove me wrong.  I dare you.

Done.
 
Quote
BUT YOU ARE WRONG if you do not recognize that this article clearly states that Fossil Dating comes FIRST and one could easily argue that it is considered to be MOST IMPORTANT.

Be careful who you call a moron!

Fossil dating is important.  It does not always come first; if the article says so, and it seems to, the article is wrong.  Fossil dating is never used for igneous rocks and seldom used for metamorphic rocks.  And, in dating, fossils are not ever used to establish absolute dates, except insofar as they are used to cross-correlate radiometric dates that bracket the ages of the fossiliferous layers.

Moron.

  
  6047 replies since May 01 2006,03:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (202) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]