RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (46) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?, Anti science.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,09:59   

I came across this post on Premier Radio's discussion forum. A reply from a question, asking if the poster had any geology qualifications:

 
Quote
i have studied geology and my daughter has a masters degree in geology and currently doing a PhD in it we have both talked and i have read some of the books and modules.
matthew i wasnt interested in ages of rocks at all! i think the structures are very interesting and fascinating.and when you look at metamorphic rocks its fascinating when you think of them being remelted and flowing like toffee.
i never thought about faith and geology i suppose i just junk the bits that are opposed to Bible content.i felt sickened though when it came to the evolution parts and could not continue it seemed completely wrong and bad. i could not even do the coursework assignments. how strange now i think about it.


and further:

   
Quote
i also rejected the idea of evolution while a child and abandonded doing a degree because i was so unhappy with the evolution module.


I'm not sure if her daughter junked the "evolution parts" and still ended up with a masters. Is this possible ? I would have thought not since the evolution parts play quite an important part in the subject.

http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/forum....t234117

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,11:03   

There are people quite able to maintain logic walls between conflicting ideas. They tend to be conflict avoident in their social lives as well.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,12:56   

that's why it's fun to nail them to a position and flog them with it!

unless they are your cousins in which case the fun diminishes exponentially as a function of the number of times a year you see them at yer granmaws house.

had an interesting conversation, afloat, with a young earther recently.  riding over and through and between mississippian and pennsylvanian limestone bluffs, this person simply could not grasp the full import of her acknowledging the rocks as "sedimentary', i.e. that it made nonsense of her bible.  she was not a geologist but is smart enough to know better.  as gary alludes, the capacity to compartmentalize may well be the most powerful ability of the human species.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1009
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,18:27   

I don't know one could be a structural geologist or geophysicist without really needing evolutionary theory. Of course there is that whole age of the earth thing, but that is a separate issue.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,18:45   

I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology.  After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans.  He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,20:47   

I think that you could for almost any subject without compartmentalizing. You just need to remember by rote all of the stuff. I think that knowing how oil formed and why it is found is such and such a strata can certainly help, but a person could just as learn that oil is found in these conditions.

When I did mechanical engineering we had people who just remember the equations but wouldn't have the faintest idea on how to derive the equations which I think is a similar mindset.


What these people will never do is advance knowledge.

  
OWKtree



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2009,10:03   

I suspect that a lot would have to do with what the major disconnects were between your religious beliefs and your education on the subject.

If you were a literalist about the earth's creation then I expect geology in general would be an issue.  "Deep time" is simply too important in the study of rocks, and especially sedimentary deposits.  And more so if you're in the oil industry where you are not only concerned in finding the deposits, but also how long it was buried and at what sort of tempetures.

If you're issue is more of the "I ain't descended from no monkey" mode then I expect you can be much more in synch with the age of the Earth and geology in general while keeping evolution and biology in a separate compartment so to speak.  

Or possibly accepting general evolutionary principles and simply holding homo sapiens as a special creation.

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2009,21:12   

Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45)
I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology.  After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans.  He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.

Yes, I have an acquaintance who worked for an oil company for many years as a geologist.  He now holds a government position as he also had a degree in law--but his work still requires geological background.  He's YEC and has no problem.

He says it's really no big deal among his peers, because he could do the work.  It's mostly knowing the geology and not the debate about the origin or age when it comes to oil.

I guess origins has to do with the past and money has to do with the present! :D

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2009,21:24   

Quote (OWKtree @ Sep. 09 2009,10:03)
I suspect that a lot would have to do with what the major disconnects were between your religious beliefs and your education on the subject.

If you were a literalist about the earth's creation then I expect geology in general would be an issue.  "Deep time" is simply too important in the study of rocks, and especially sedimentary deposits.  And more so if you're in the oil industry where you are not only concerned in finding the deposits, but also how long it was buried and at what sort of tempetures.

If you're issue is more of the "I ain't descended from no monkey" mode then I expect you can be much more in synch with the age of the Earth and geology in general while keeping evolution and biology in a separate compartment so to speak.  

Or possibly accepting general evolutionary principles and simply holding homo sapiens as a special creation.

It seems like the major emphasis with my friend/ acquaintance (former) geologist was finding oil, not your personal interpretations.  He talks alot about the complexity of underground formations and the forminefera.  He had to know the equipment he used of course.  Seems like more of a technical job than all the debate.  Debate forums tend to have varying degrees of philosophical banter along with the operational science.

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,21:39   

Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45)
I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology.  After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans.  He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.

That's because for YECs, money is more important than science. Isn't that obvious? If money could not be made from promoting Creationism, no one would do it.

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,19:09   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 29 2009,21:39)
Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45)
I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology.  After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans.  He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.

That's because for YECs, money is more important than science. Isn't that obvious? If money could not be made from promoting Creationism, no one would do it.

What a prejudice statement.  That's like saying all evolutionists are liberal tree hugging socialists.

I thought this was a science forum!

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,19:16   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,20:09)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 29 2009,21:39)
 
Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45)
I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology.  After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans.  He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.

That's because for YECs, money is more important than science. Isn't that obvious? If money could not be made from promoting Creationism, no one would do it.

What a prejudice statement.  That's like saying all evolutionists are liberal tree hugging socialists.

I thought this was a science forum!


Well, you could offer some science to discuss instead of Creationism.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,22:36   

Or perhaps we might talk a bit about your  presumptive philosophy which thinks it lays claim to all operational science, by assuming that all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain.  This is entirely presumptive on your part.  And you ignore at the same time the helium inside, which most of it should have long dissipated if the earth is 4.6 billion.  So far I have heard alot of sarcasm and insults, making me wonder if this place is worth the headache.  

Where are the searchers for truth.  All I see is  a bunch of closed minded vultures swooning in the thought of a potential kill. You'll not find me so green and tender.

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,22:52   

I came on here and offered personal experience of knowing a geologist, in response to someone stating that there b-in-law was YEC for an oil company, so that's why I said what I said.  But if you think for one minute that I'll waste my time being insulted or that I'll overlook your inferences--then your wrong.  There are other debate sites.

I read one post where the person was whining how no YEC had come along who knew anything.  Well I do know a bit--not just the Bible--but why should I debate people who want to express their disdain towards YECs on me?  i don't have time for that!!!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,23:00   

hey scienthuse you seem to be a friendly chap.  i hope ya stick around

i don't know anything about lead isotopes etc etc etc.  there are entire libraries full of things that i don't know.  

but i do know enough about the distribution of plants and animals to know that the bible story about the flood never happened.

but i sure hope you get this thing about lead off of your chest (i hear it's heavy, for one thing).  i know there are folks around here that know much more about that sort of thing than the rest of us.  i wanna hear what you have to say.

if you have paid any attention to the antics of Floyd Lee perhaps you will understand why "innocent until proven guilty" is a difficult standard to live up to?  we've had some doozies drop by over the years, and some have stuck around (see that fellow Chatfield over there in the corner, wearing the latex penguin suit, shhh he's looking, anyway, just don't ask him why he's wearing a postit note mustachioe)

don't run off now, heeah?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Henry J



Posts: 4068
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,23:09   

Quote
So far I have heard alot of sarcasm and insults, making me wonder if this place is worth the headache.


Quote
by assuming that all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain.  This is entirely presumptive on your part.


So, how is "This is entirely presumptive on your part" not sarcasm and insult?

Henry

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,04:26   

I was being rather blunt and reactionary as a result of other posts and the comment made earlier that YECs are just about money.  I'm not here to make trouble--but I would ask that we be civil. Just because you don't agree with someone is no reason to get sarcastic.

What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge?

By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?

No one knows how much of either the parent or daughter element was there to start with, or how much parent/daughter element have come in/left the rock through ground water.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,04:34   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,04:26)
By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?

Are *any* radiometric dating methods, in your opinion, reliable then?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,05:07   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 01 2009,04:34)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,04:26)
By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?

Are *any* radiometric dating methods, in your opinion, reliable then?

Given the questions I posed I don't see how they could be.  If there were no doubts raised and there was a method that was as good as empirical, I would be forced to be an old earth creationist.

This is the entire problem with being dogmatic on many points in origins--it is historical science, and not completely empirical.

  
faded_Glory



Posts: 1
Joined: April 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,06:20   

First of all, hello, I'm a long time lurker here. I've contributed to other boards in the past, such as ARN, IIDB and even have a couple of posts on UncommonDescent, but I have never posted here before.

Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I have an Msc in geology and have worked for nearly 30 years in the oil industry. Here are some of my thoughts on the OP.

As narrow and specialised it may appear to outsiders, geology is actually quite a broad discipline that covers a wide field of natural phenomena and meshes with numerous other sciences, such as physics, chemistry, astronomy and of course biology. There are actually specialisms in geology that don't relate much to the age of the earth and the geological time scale, and I think it would be possible to be for instance a geochemist or geophysicist and strictly stick to the chemical and physical aspects of rocks and their development without worrying about evolution etc. at all. There are many questions worth investigating in those fields that are time-independent to a large degree.

However, the lingo and thinking of geology as a whole is permeated by the concept of deep time, and it would be very hard indeed to converse with peers without at least silently going along with the default position of an old earth and processes playing out over millions of years. The science of geology has over its lifetime of several hundreds of years managed to construct an amazing narrative of the planet's history, on scales ranging from the epic billion-year time line, to highly detailed fine-grained models of microscale processes. This narrative is the paradigm in which we work, the canvas on which we paint, the reality that makes sense of our observations and theories. For a professional like myself working with sedimentary rocks and models of their evolution over time, it is virtually unthinkable to have to cram all observations and thinking into a mere 6000 year window - almost nothing would make sense anymore. We would have lost the paradigm that allows us to place individual observations in a wider context, apply our familiar and well understood processes and ultimately make useful predictions.

I have had conversations with someone who claimed to be a YEC and take decisions on where to drill oil wells. It turned out that all he did was following existing trends without worrying too much about why the trend was there in the first place. This may work, sometimes and within limits, in established production areas but he would be incapable of proposing an exploration campaign in a new area justified by a sound, holistic model of the petroleum potential. I have never come across an oil or gas company that would accept investment proposals without the technical staff being able to present such a comprehensive view based on the accepted tenets of modern geological science.

Bottom line - in certain highly specialist and technical specialisms of geology one might get away with it, but nowhere else without completely losing one's professional foothold.

fG

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,08:25   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,05:26)
By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?

No one knows how much of either the parent or daughter element was there to start with, or how much parent/daughter element have come in/left the rock through ground water.

I'm not a geologist, but I do know that with radiometric dating they try to use multiple methods whenever possible to verify their data.  If they get consistent results from two different methods it is hard to see how the contamination would also be consistent.  You shouldn't presume that the experts in the field don't consider such questions.  They do.

As far as my YEC brother-in-law, he was married to the sister of my ex-wife, and I haven't kept close touch with him.  I do know he is no longer working for the oil company, but I'm not sure if he is still using his geology degree.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,09:37   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,02:26)
By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?

No one knows how much of either the parent or daughter element was there to start with, or how much parent/daughter element have come in/left the rock through ground water.

Actually, I am always surprised when a YEC assumes that we have not already grappled with, and resolved the problems regarding radiometric dates they find so difficult.  Their false satisfaction relies on two assumptions; we scientists are dumb, and that their misinterpretation of the Bible is itself infallible.

But don't take my word for anything. I am tired of explaining this to creationists.

Here is an article on radiometric dating written by a Christian for other Christians hosted on a Christian website: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

Edited by Dr.GH on Oct. 01 2009,07:37

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
OWKtree



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,10:31   

I also believe from my limited layman reading on the subject, plus the osmosis of concepts and data I pick up from my brother (A geosciences professor in the New York SUNY system) that radiometric measurments are simply one arrow in the quiver used by the geology establishment in their determination that the Earth is old.  So even if a flaw was found in one, or more, of the radiometric methods there are other avenues of evidence pointing to concept of deep time being correct.

The ediface does not hang by a single strand, but is connected to a web of supporting evidence that often reinforces each other.  Plate tectonics, stratifigraphy, indicator fossils, etc.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,10:40   

Quote (OWKtree @ Oct. 01 2009,08:31)
I also believe from my limited layman reading on the subject, plus the osmosis of concepts and data I pick up from my brother (A geosciences professor in the New York SUNY system) that radiometric measurments are simply one arrow in the quiver used by the geology establishment in their determination that the Earth is old.  So even if a flaw was found in one, or more, of the radiometric methods there are other avenues of evidence pointing to concept of deep time being correct.

The ediface does not hang by a single strand, but is connected to a web of supporting evidence that often reinforces each other.  Plate tectonics, stratifigraphy, indicator fossils, etc.

Exactly. The popularity of young earth arguments is always proportional to the obscurity of the argument. Most people know little to nothing about isotope measurement, or geochemistry. But, if they read some YEC website they can pick-up some terminology which they can toss around as if they understand it.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,11:01   

so it might help if scienthuse is going to address a specific claim, rather than "radiometric dating" in general.

perhaps he is not green and tender.    who knows, who cares.

if there are particulars to address then it's easy to focus on the topic.  otherwise, we have a vast repository of experience and observation from which to make hasty generalizations.  

i hold that it may, indeed, be possible to be intellectually honest and remain a YEC.  but i have not observed such a beast, yet.

but i'd rather not focus on my opinion, but on what it is exactly that Scienthuse is claiming that refutes radiometric dating estimates of the age of the earth.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,11:50   

When I worked as an exploration geologist in the 70s and 80s, we never had these discussions.  I just assumed all my peers believed in deep time and evolution just as I do, but now I'm curious.

Of course where we were working makes it hard to be a YEC.  I can't see 50000 feet of Stanley shale being deposited, lithified and then overthrust more than 100 miles in less than 5000 years without someone noticing.

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,12:25   

Deep time is also an integral part of astronomy.  Because light has a fixed, measurable speed, we know that the further out in the universe we look, the further back in time we are seeing.  Just to see across our own galaxy is looking back 100,000 years.  The universe itself is billions of lightyears in size.  We can look back and see the history of the entire universe, almost to the Big Bang itself.
 
Astronomy is another science that corroborates deep time and shows a literal reading of Genesis to be indefensible.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3560
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,12:52   

There's also SN1987a, which allows measurement of interstellar distance by trigonometry, independent of the speed of light.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
khan



Posts: 1482
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,13:05   

And all these many methods agree: conspiracy!

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,13:14   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,23:36)
Or perhaps we might talk a bit about your  presumptive philosophy which thinks it lays claim to all operational science, by assuming that all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain.  This is entirely presumptive on your part.  And you ignore at the same time the helium inside, which most of it should have long dissipated if the earth is 4.6 billion

Looks as if you don't know much about radiometric dating.

No real geologist presumes that all the 206Pb that we see is the result of the decay of 238U, at least after the solar system formed. Lead in troilite in the Canyon Diablo meteorite is thought to contain the primordial proportion of lead isotopes (and is thought to be so for good reason). The isotope relevant isotope ratios for this material are:

206Pb/204Pb 207Pb/204Pb 208Pb/204Pb 238U/204Pb
9.46 10.34 29.44 0.025

(Patterson, C., H. Brown, G. Tilton, and M. Inghram, 1953, Phys. Rev., v. 92, p. 1234; and Patterson, C., 1955, Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 7, p. 151.)

I'm sure you can see the significance of these ratios, being such an expert and all that.

There are actually quite a few studies of dating using helium daughter product, starting with the first radiometric date by Rutherford in 1905. For example, http://www.geotrack.com.au/uthhe/u-th-he-flier.htm, http://bgc.org/facilities/u_th_he_lab.html, and http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;196/4287/291.

I suppose that by "you ignore at the same time the helium inside" you are referring to the RATE group's study of zircons. That's been extensively discussed. My conclusion is that they may possibly have found an interesting anomaly, but they are far from having enough data to establish the validity of their methods and claims. They need to study a much wider variety of zircons, especially some with a simpler thermal history and no possible exposure to helium compared to the few zircon studies they published. They also need to justify their large extrapolations of diffusion data.

Since they have not published anything on this subject since 2004, and there's not even a hint of any further work going on, it looks to me as if they gathered enough data to provide a sciency-sounding reference for the sheeple and don't intend to go any further.

If you have any actual, you know, evidence that you know what you're talking about and you're not so "green and tender", especially any evidence that scientists assume that "all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain" or any evidence that the RATE group's claims are worth further investigation, trot it out.

  
  1350 replies since Sep. 08 2009,09:59 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (46) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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