Joined: Feb. 2005
|Quote (afdave @ Sep. 22 2006,10:41)|
Very impressive display, guys ... I see you have a good command of all the intricacies of how mineral crystals form.
And you still don't have the faintest idea.
| Now, why don't you face the fact that ...|
a) Whole Rock Isochrons were far more common that Mineral Isochrons for many years (at least up until the mid-90's,
Unsupported assertion ... in fact, if your test of it is valid, it's falsified:
Results 1 - 10 of about 385 for isochron "whole rock" 1981-1990
Results 1 - 10 of about 478 for isochron mineral 1981-1990
|Whole Rock Isochrons can easily be explained as Mixing Diagrams, thus rendering them unconvincing as proof of Deep Time|
Only if you ignore 99.99% of the evidence, including Arndts and Overns' own tests which showed several isochrons severely scattered on a mixing diagram. Repeating lies don't make 'em true, moron.
|JonF says that the samples above are widely spaced enough that they would be inhomogeneous WRT Rb content ...|
Oh really? OK, fine. Then guess what ... they are inhomogeneous WRT to intial 87Sr/86Sr content also. You cannot have it both ways.
Actually, I can and do have it both ways. I realize that this is very basic chemistry and therefore far above your capabilities, and we've only gone over it at least two times before, so it's unreasonable to expect you to have caught on yet. But I'll go over it again. I'm warning you, though, it's going to be difficult for you; you'll have to keep three ideas in your head at one time, and it's obvious you're not accustomed to have any ideas in your head at any time. But I'm here for you, and I'm confident that if you try hard and really concentrate you can handle it. Ready? Stoked? Here we go!
- Different isotopes of the same element are chemically and mechanically identical.
- Solidification is a chemical (and slightly mechanical) process.
- Therefore, solidification cannot and does not distinguish between isotopes of the same element.
Got that? I know you love wide-spaced caps, so to help you fix it in your mind: S O L I D I F I C A T I O N C A N N O T A N D D O E S N O T D I S T I N G U I S H B E T W E E N I S O T O P E S O F T H E S A M E E L E M E N T . Hold that thought if you can, we're going to the next stage:
- Different elements have different chemical and mechanical properties.
- Solidification is a chemical (and slightly mechanical) process.
- Therefore, solidification can and does distinguish between different elements.
Here it is again, in your favorite format to help you remember: S O L I D I F I C A T I O N C A N A N D D O E S D I S T I N G U I S H B E T W E E N D I F F E R E N T E L E M E N T S.
In particular, when we are talking about the 87Sr/86Sr ratio during solidification, we are talking about how solidification affects different isotopes of the same element, and we know it affects them identically; so, no matter how little or how much Sr is taken up in a particular crystal, we know that the 87Sr/86Sr ratio in that crystal will be the same as in the melt, and the 87Sr/86Sr ratio in the melt doesn't change. But when we are talking about how Rb is taken up into crystals (substituting for other elements or fitting mechanically in "nooks and crannies"), or what the Rb/Sr ratio is in a crystal, we are talking about how solidification affects different elements, and we know that it affects them differently. For example, if a particular type of crystal happens to take up a lot of Rb when it solidifies, that reduces the percentage of the local melt that is Rb; or, if a particular type of crystal happens to reject a lot of Rb when it solidifies, that increases the percentage of the local melt that is Rb. And different types of crystals are forming in different places in the melt, depending on temperature and cooling rate and dynamically changing concentrations of various elements and all sorts of stuff. Now add in the fact the all this is affecting the Sr concentration in crystals and we come to the final conclusion:
The 87Rb/86Sr ratio is going to vary between different minerals, and between the same minerals in different paces in the solidified melt, and different minerals are going to form in different places in the solidified melt, and therefore the rocks we take from that solidifed melt "shortly" after solidification are going to be made up of different minerals and/or the same minerals in different proportions ... the 87Rb/86Sr ratio is going to vary between rocks and the 87Sr/86Sr ratio is not going to vary between rocks.
It all follows directly from the facts that solidification cannot and does not distinguish between isotopes of the same element and solidification can and does distinguish between different elements.
Oh, and Davie-poo ... melt solidification has been extensively studied and tested. We know this happens 'cause we see it in the lab. Observations trump your pipe dreams.
|Think of it another way. Take 2 of those 23 meteorites we were discussing ... for example, take the ones with D and P equal to 0.708/0.18 and 0.81/1.7, the lower left data point and the upper right data point. |
Now melt them and mix them completely. What do you get?
After solidifying, a body with constant 87Sr/86Sr ratio and varying 87Rb/87Sr ratio. I.e., a multi-point horizontal isochron.
|Hmmm ... Jon, guess what this article says ... |
Now who's the liar?
|The K-Ar method is probably the most widely used radiometric dating technique available to geologists. |
You, Davie. I admitted I had no proof for popularity back then, it was just my opinion, but I posted three independent pieces of evidence, each of which proved that your claim that K-Ar is recently the most popular dating technique is wrong.
|I like this quote from Dalrymple's article also ... |
Yeah, a great deal of effort alright ... a great deal of effort to pick samples that will "date correctly" ... i.e. align with the "Deep Time Religion" ... can anyone say "Cherry Picking" ??
|One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. |
Nope. Can you say "don't make claims unless you have evidence for them"?
|I like this particular rebuttal of Dalrymple's Point 4 ... |
|4. If isochrons are due to mixing, roughly one-half should show a negative slope. It is probable that if all samples gathered from the field for testing by this method resulted in published curves, that a reasonably large percentage would be negative. However, since little significance is given to these "mixing lines", and because of the time and expense involved in obtaining the data, few negative-slope plots could be expected to be completed, and a much smaller number of those published. A significant sample does show up in the literature, however, which should be sufficient to satisfy a judgment that the field data satisfy this criterion.|
Actually, I like that a lot. It demonstrates the vacuity of your position very well. "A few negative-slope plots are published, therefore about half of the possible plots are negative-slope". Sure, Davie-dumbo. Yeah, right. Negative-slope isochrons are interesting and publishable, Davie-pootles. Academics like to publish, it helps their careers. A few published negative-slope isochrons are evidence that that's all there are, not evidence that a lot more exist.
|and this one ... |
Seems likes Snelling and AFD said something like this once ... now we have Dalrymple himself saying it. Hmmmm ... Jon ... fraudsters, huh?
|Unlike argon, which escapes easily and entirely from most molten rocks,|
Yup, analyzing rocks with xenoliths (which were not molten when the rest of the rock was) and claiming the results mean anything is fraud. Clear and simple.
You can't even keep your claims straight, Davie-dweeb. Real geologists know that argon escapes easily from molten rocks. Argon that does not escape from molten rocks is called "excess argon", and your claim is that argon does not easily escape from molten rocks, therefore giving rise to lots of excess argon. Do try to keep up, Davie-pie, there's a good lad.
|If you continue reading Dalrymple's rebuttal, it becomes clear that whoever said that Dalrymple wouldn't waste his time rebutting Overn and Arndts was wrong. He spends quite a bit of his paper on them ... |
971 words out of 30,969. 3%. "Quite a bit", hum? Wotta dork you are.
Oh, Davie, Davie, Davie, Davie, Davie. You're a classic. You post so much evidence that disproves your claims and you don't even notice.
The range of Snelling's 87Sr/86Sr values is 0.000507. The range of 87Sr/86Sr values found in real isochron analysis of old rocks is on the order of 1.0. E.g.:
Four orders of magnitude larger than Sneling's data range, Davie-dipsy. Hee hee hee hee hee ... gee, wonder what I'll get if I plot Snelling's data on a realistic scale instead of letting Excel choose the scale for me? Let's have the Y-axis range be 0.1, one-tenth the realistic range for an old rock:
Gosharootie, Davie-pud, it is a nice straight horizontal line, derived from whole-rock analysis of a young flow, showing significant variation in 87Rb/87Sr but negligible variation in 87Sr/86Sr. Snelling's data clearly shows what you and Arndts and Overn are claiming is impossible!!!!
|Hmmmm ... what would I find if I spent a lot of money and did an extensive literature search ...|
Probably the same thing.
Absolutely, Davie-dip. You'd find whole-rock isochrons from young flows plotting as nice horizontal lines with wide variations in 87Rb/87Sr and minuscule variations in 87Sr/86Sr.
Hee hee hee hee hee hee ...