Joined: Feb. 2005
Got it straight on where the intial daugher ratio comes from now, Davie-doofus? You were wrong about us assuming it, weren't you!
Learned anything about chemistry and soldification kinetics?
|Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,07:23)|
|[img]Here is my guess of what we might have if we analyzed MANY meteorites. With this data set, you can have MANY lines with all different slopes ... if this is the real situation, then of course, there is no age significance at all.|
Your fantasies are not evidence. We have analyzed many meteorites. See Radioisotopic evidences for age of earth (and solar system) for a table of many meteorite analyses (at the end).
|One thing I am noting is that we are basing this 4.5 Ga age number on a really small range of data ... the daughter ratios range from about 0.71 to 0.81, which is well within the range of naturally occurring ratios in both young and "old" rocks.|
"Really small" is a relative term, meaningless without a referent. It's gigantic relative to the sensitivity, precision, and accuracy of the instrumentation, which arguably is the one realistic referent. It's not "really small" relative to the total range of observed values, being approximately 1/2 the range we see and much more than 1/2 of the most commonly encountered ranges. So, Davie-piddles, "really small" relative to what?
|Sorry, Jon ... I guess Google Scholar doesn't like you|
We've already pointed out the problems with Google Scholar searches for such counting, not the least of which is the choice of keywords. Boots on the ground, Davie-doodles. That's the only way.
Geez, Davie-moron, I just noticed your extreme dishonesty in your Google search. You almost slipped that one by!!
|Google Scholar All articles |
Recent articles Results 1 - 10 of about 11,300 for whole rock age. 1981-1990
Recent articles Results 1 - 10 of about 478 for mineral isochron 1981-1990
You searched for "whole rock age", picking up all sorts of dating methods, but "mineral isochron", trying to limit it to isochrons! Naughty, naughty, Davie-dork! Of course, I don't think that a Google Scholar search is particularly meaningful, but let's see why Davie did that:
Google Scholar, all articles, 1981-1990:
|Code Sample |
"whole rock isochron" (phrase) 145
whole rock isochron (all words) 443
"mineral isochron" (phrase) 41
mineral isochron (all words) 478
"whole rock age" (phrase) 103
whole rock age (all words) 11,600
"mineral age" (phrase) 69
mineral age (all words) 12,400
So, Davie-doodles, you didn't like that result, did you? If you believe in such Google Scholar searches, your (and Arndts and Overns' ) claim is refuted. No matter how you slice it, comparing comparable searches doesn't come close to 90% whole rock. So you had to do something fraudulent, didn't you? That explains your love for Snelling; frauds of a feather flock together.