Joined: Feb. 2005
|Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:24)|
|Quote (JonF @ Oct. 01 2009,13:30)|
|Oh boy, you're just another ignorant creo. No fun at all.|
Don't worry it'll get better--but be patient.
|JonF...there are radiometric dating methods which produce the original parent/daughter ratio as a side effect of the dating analysis.|
Can you elaborate? I would hesitate to seriously believe this. Just like isochron dating, which attempts to remove assumption by making a distinction between the parent, the daughter (radiogenic) and the daughter (non-radiogenic) which in plain English means they (admittedly--they have to) assume that at crystallization there was originally the parent, the daughter element which was not a product of decay, and some daughter that was a product of decay. How do you distinguish the difference between daughter isotopes that are products of decay and those that are not?
Now you've not only got two original unknowns but three. Perhaps there was no radiogenic daughter in the first place. Just because you can do equations does not give you a true answer if you don't have the correct original variables.
|JonF...There are also lots of methods based on the physical impossibility of there being any significant amount of daughter product present when the sample formed, such as U-Th disequilibrium dating and U-Pb concordia-discordia dating.|
And there is argon in the lava dome at St Helens. That's not supposed to be there. What are the so-called physical impossibilities and how are they proved?
|JonF...and those few creationists (the RATE group) who have some idea of how it works acknowledge the fact that essentially all of the lead in a zircon must be the result of radioactive decay after solidification: |
Yes and they also acknowledge the huge amount of helium that is retained within--this simply should not be in an ancient rock. So it is a stand-off--you have no more weight of argument than I do. Thanks for leaving us the quote so I did not have to do a search.
"sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead."(Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003a, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.)
Science says helium should have escaped with an atomic weight of 4.00260. Perhaps you should give us a lesson on how over half the helium does not escape a rock after 1.5 billion of years of decay.
I can explain all that. (I've already briefly explained the Mt. St Helens results and the impossibility of significant initial lead in zircons, and listed some of the problems with the RATE helium-in-zircons results). I won't. I tire of explaining simple physics to ignoramuses in fora that are not designed for writing a textbook, when there are exquisitely written, researched, and illustrated essays free on the Internet for the price of one click. You claim you're not "green and tender". Well, you obviously are. Read the links I already provided, study them until you understand them, and then maybe you'll be qualified to offer an opinion on radiometric dating and discuss it. Unless and until you do that, you're just another green, tender, and ignorant creationist who's unquestionably swallowed the crap on creo websites and hasn't had a thought of your own.
A question on your last line. How do you distinguish the difference between daughter isotopes that are products of decay and those that are not?