RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (167) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2006,17:16   

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 09 2006,14:57)
AFDAVE DEFINES A 'CREATED KIND'
{big, mondo snip}
Mike PSS...          
Quote
Dave, your claim that whole rock Isochrons are not merely mixing diagrams is false because a verified co-genetic sample of rock will have various minerals formed from the homogenous melt where each mineral has a different uptake of Rb so that testing a whole rock sample will give a statistically different set of minerals contained within the whole rock sample so that testing for Rb from each sample will give different Rb values from each whole rock sample.  AND, selective extraction of specific minerals from the same co-genetic source will add usable data on the existing sample data set.  A verified co-genetic source will result in a data set in a linear relation when plotted on an Rb/Sr vs. Sr/Sr graph with both the whole rock and mineral data points on the linear line.

Therefore a properly tested whole rock Isochron is not merely a mixing line but a data set of various Rb/Sr concentrations that originated from a homogenous source.
Mike, first of all, you got my claim wrong.  Please go back and read my claim again and kindly requote me correctly.  Next, how do I know that a co-genetic source is the result of mixing?  Easy.  In order to obtain homogeneity, it HAS to be mixed.  Think about it.  Of course you will get a data spread if you do a MINERAL isochron test of minerals in this rock for the reasons you have so ably given.  But this has nothing to do with Arndts and Overn's claims.  Their claim is regarding the whole rock sample.

Dave,
Here's your original question that I answered in my response you quoted above.  Compare the bolded statements and tell me where I got your claim wrong WHEN I RETYPED YOUR RESPONSE QUESTION ALMOST WORD FOR WORD.  The only words missing are "Deep Timers cannot prove" and I've told you time and again that I'm not discussing time.  I've also avoided the words "prove/proven" and "truth/truthiness" because in my eyes they are loaded statements.    
Quote (afdave @ (Oct. 06 2006 @ 23:40))

Mike PSS-- Let me help you out.  If you want a response from me, try this ...

"Dave, your claim that Deep Timers cannot prove that Whole Rock Isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams is false because _."  

You fill in the blank.

Or ...

"Dave, mineral isochrons and concordia-discordia methods are much better than Whole Rock isochrons because __."


Moving on from another Portuguese moment.....

Before I made my summary on page 7 of this thread, I read ALL the references you cited with Arndts and Overn.  I then read Dalrymples five point rebuttal.  Then I read Arndts and Overns reply to Dalrymples rebuttal.  I then searched my textbooks, the web, and one other source (which I shall remain quite about for now) to find cross-referenced sources for both sides of the claim.  I then prepared my summary after researching ALL (both sides) of the information.

I answered Arndts and Overns mixing claim in my summary and expanded on this information with a reply to clarify some questions you had.  My summary and reply (click on those underlined words for the Permalink) are a DIRECT REFUTATION of Arndts and Overns WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRON CLAIMS.

Dave, I know this whole Isochron thing is WAYYYYYY in the past (started at least two weeks ago, long time on this thread) but the only response I've got from you is sidestep and obfuscation when I meet your stated format.

If you don't understand the material in my summary and replies then please ask directly.  I am answerring the claims of Arndts and Overn dealing with whole rock Isochrons, you just may not recognize it if you don't understand all the material I presented.

At least we are making progress and your positon with Mineral Isochrons is clear.  I think I can work with this, but give me a day or so.

Mike PSS

  
  4989 replies since Sep. 22 2006,12:37 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (167) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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