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 >  

Posts: 633
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,06:29   

[quote=afdave,Sep. 12 2006,08:40][quote]Those aren't counts of dating studies performed, Davie-doodles, they're counts of mentions of a dating technique {ABE: including references}.[/quote]If you look at the actual search results, you see that that many of the results are actual studies which include someone going out and dating the rocks. [/quote]
Some of them are; some of them are references to someone going out and dating the rocks; some of them are other things;  and many studies are missed. Your methodology is invalid.
[quote]It is true that some are not, but this applies to all the methods, so the COMPARISON is much more valid than your "personal communication" selecting at random only 164 articles, huge pretty graph notwithstanding.[/quote]
164 articles out of those journals is statistically significant.
[quote][quote]And they're terrifically biased by the facts that the older stuff isn't all indexed on the Web, you picked a particular set of keywords[/quote]
Oh is that so?  Old stuff isn't indexed, huh?[/quote]
Yes, it is ... but not nearly to the extent that newer stuff is.
     [quote]I would bet large money that 95% of all published studies back to the 40's have been indexed.[/quote]
On-line and text-searchable by Google Scholar? You're on. $100. Produce your proof.
     [quote]Let me ask you something, Jon.  You acted all arrogant and made some wild claim about how popular K-Ar Dating was in the 40's or something.  Now you are trying to weasel out of it.  Why don't you just provide support for your statements, or else be a man and retract them?[/quote]
I don't have proof of the popularity of dating methods back then, but I've read a lot of papers form back then and my opinion is that K-Ar was not the most popular.  Your stuff does not prove otherwise.
(Hint:  Pb-Pb dating is not U-Pb concordia-discordia dating, ignoramus),
Where did I ever say that it was? Are you trying to say that because I searched Pb-Pb that I think it's the same thing or something?  

Yup, you got it.  The claim to which you responded was "The most common method, by far, for dating rocks is U-Pb concordia-discordia on zircons (or sometimes other minerals).  All argon methods, including the widely used Ar-Ar, amount to about 30%.".  You attempted to refute that claim by searching for Pb-Pb and no other uranium-realated topic.  Obviously you didn't know the difference.
I just gave you U-Pb dates also above.

After I pointed out your error.
your claim is refuted.  Argon dating is the most popular, just like Snelling said in his paper.

Nope, with your particular choice of search terms you get more hits on argon. You have yet to establish a relationship between hits and nubmer of actual dating studies performed.

You keep yelling that Snelling is a fraud because of xenoliths.  REFUTED.

Nope, Davie-moron, you tried to claim that there were no xenoliths.  REFUTED. You tried to claim that everybody does whole-rock dating including xenoliths. REFUTED.  Sneling's a fraud.
 So what again is your point of saying Snelling is a fraudster?

Snelling is a fraudster.  Proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Frauds like Snelling cannot be trusted in any area.
The bottom line is that at least 60% (and maybe more) of the date-able formations were reliably dated,

Now, finally at the end of your post, you have said one thing I can agree with.  I was wrong for saying Dalrymple threw out 60 Argon dates.  I should have said he threw out "many of more than 60 Argon dates."

There were only 63 dates in the paper, Davie.  Exactly how many do you think he threw out? But he didn't throw out any dates, Davie-doodles. He published them all and noted which ones were reliable and why, providing objective reasons.
So I'll just take your word for it (since I don't have access to the paper right now) that 60% of the dates are "good," meaning that they agree with some other method (which we have not investigated yet) ...

Nope, that's not what's meant by "reliable". And you do have access to the paper, or would if you were clever enough to do a Google search.  I already posted one of several links to on-line copies.

Argonm dating is not wrong as much as 20% of the time ... but even is it is wrong 20 - 40% of the time, T H A T   R E M A I N I N G 6 0  -   8 0 %   F A L S I F I E S   Y O U R   C L A I M   O F   A   Y O U N G   E A R T H.
This study contradicts every claim you have made about radiometric dating!
Jon, you were doing so good at the end there, but this one is a real howler!  "Contradicts every claim I have made about radiometric dating!??" No.  Just the opposite.  It actually CONFIRMS the specific claims I have been making about radiometric dating which are currently ...


Less that 20% error is not discordant at all for our purposes here.


Exactly how many of the dates given to you by deadman (for far more than four of the layers of the Grand Staricase) are argon dates?
Geologists doing something you said they never do: publishing discordant dates.

Geologists doing another thing you said they never do: not accepting dates until they are verifiable, replicable, and cross-checked.

Geologists doing another thing you said they never do: discarding only dates that are proven to be wrong by multiple independent objective evaluations.
I didn't say they don't publish discordant dates.

Oh yes you did, Davie-pud.  Remember that you claimed that the reason for apparent concordance is that discordant dates never get published.  I pointed out that geologists don't have the money to do that, and you responded that you didn't see why they wouldn't. I suggested that you get information from the Menlo Park dating lab under the FOIA, and you said you might.  How ya doin' on that investigation, hum?
I said they "throw them out."

Even if that were true, you're still wrong. They don't throw anything out.  They publish the dates for all to see, and then decide which are reliable based on objective and repeatable experiments.
The KBS Tuff is a perfect example.  They explained away the ones they didn't like. All of this was published.  Just explained away.

Your fantasies notwithstanding, the KBS Tuff results were investigated and after some could be reproduced by many methods and many labs, and the reasons for the discordant dates were published and reproduced, then those dates were accepted as reliable.
Are you intending to break your promise to discuss why you think zircons don't refute Snelling's "By implication, the radioisotopic ratios in ancient lavas found throughout the geologic record are likely fundamental characteristics of their geochemistry. They therefore probably only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis, rather than any valid age information."

And I did ask nicely that you post your evidence that mixing affects K-Ar dating; I really need a good laugh.  I hope you don't disappoint me.

Explain to me why you think zircons refute Snelling's claim and I will be glad to discuss it.

Pretty obvious and basic, Davie-moron, and the required information has been ignored by you many times in this thread. It is widely known that the isotopic composition of zircons, when they form, do not reflect "the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis".  In particular, the U/Pb ratio is very very high, no mater what the U/Pb ratio of the source was.  (This sort of thing is comon for many relevant radioisotopes, but it's most extreme and obvious for zircons). Snelling has acknowledged this, in HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY: "The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth "at today's rates" of nuclear decay occurred."

Therefore the U/Pb radioisotope ratios in zircons found throughout the geologic record do not "only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis".  They reflect radioactive decay in-situ.  And, if Snelling wants to claim that this does not indicate age, it's up to him to provide far more evidence than a few zircons with complex thermal histories and some apparently anomolous helium.
As for mixing, why is it necessary to bother with this?  I've already clearly proven my point.  What more proof do I need?

You haven't proved any point .. but all I was asking for was a good laugh at your ignorance, thinking that mixing has any relevance to K-Ar dating.

  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]