RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (46) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?, Anti science.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,13:30   

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?

Oh boy, you're just another ignorant creo. No fun at all.

FYI, there are radiometric dating methods which produce the original parent/daughter ratio as a side effect of the dating analysis. 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. U-Pb concordia-discordia dating is by far the most widely used dating technique, 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:

 
Quote
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth — at today’s rates — of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, 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.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf. Emphasis in original.)

There are also many methods that indicate when the system has not been closed. Not all of them indicate how much relevant material has been lost or gained; but many of them, including the Ar-Ar method and the aforementioned and widely used U-Pb concordia-discordia method, often produce a valid age even when the system has been opened.

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective is a good resource for learning the basics and some of the subtleties. I heartily recommend it to you if yuo hope to discuss the subject.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,13:35   

I suppose it's been mentioned that the only way the RATE project found to rescue a young earth interpretation was to assume variable rates of decay (without any of the annoying side effects caused by the energy released).

In other words, Last Thursdayism.

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

Pat Robertson

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,14:09   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2009,14:35)
I suppose it's been mentioned that the only way the RATE project found to rescue a young earth interpretation was to assume variable rates of decay (without any of the annoying side effects caused by the energy released).

Hasn't been mentioned here, but it sure has been mentioned. They did off-handedly acknowledge that accelerated decay rates had a few minor problems such as releasing enough heat to melt the Earth, releasing enough radiation to sterilize the Earth, and being incompatible with astronomical observations of stars obstinately shining.

Personally, since they seem to be presuming multiple miracles to implement their accelerated decay, they didn't just tell God to majick away the heat and radiation, and fake the starlight. What's a few more miracles among friends?

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,19:51   

First, I don't think any scientist is stupid or dumb, just because I don't accept an old earth or believe evolution.  They are more highly educated than myself.  However there are credentialed scientists--not just Austin--who would and could disagree with you much better than I.

I am aware of potassium/argon, strontium/rhubidium, the Uranium 238/lead 206 decay process, and I believe there are a couple of newer radioisotope methods that they use to date rocks.  

My statement about lead 206 presumption is simply an attention getter.  I don't actually believe scientists think that all lead 206 is from decay--but why then do they treat all dated rocks as such??  

If you date a rock, by obtaining the ratio of potassium to argon then you are assuming that all the argon is a result of nuclear decay. However is there anyone here who could prove how much argon was in the rock to begin with?  Or how much potassium was in the rock to begin with?  Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water?

AND I'm fully aware that argon is supposed to dissipate when rock is molten. This is questioned by RATE in the dating of the lava dome at ST HELENS.

The assumption that argon should not be in molten lava is put in doubt by this data. Argon in lava dome

I already know you'll rebut with contamination claims, and that the lab can't date rocks under a certain age.  My question is why did they then??  Why would they send the data back to the group if they knew it could be contaminated, or that they couldn't do it.  Sounds a bit political to me.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,20:08   

You think Austin is a reliable source?

Then explain why he deliberately sent the wrong sorts of rocks to the laboratories specifically in order to get inaccurate readings.  If Austin is correct about his claims, then why did he have to resort to using underhanded methods to support himself?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,20:53   

I feel a bit slighted that you've taken the time to respond to Jon without addressing the questions I posed here twice already, Scienthuse. I'm sure you're a busy person and all, but responses of "yes," "no" or "I don't know" would have sufficed.

As for "other experts" that agree with the likes of Austin , you may want to read John Baumgardner attempting to respond to criticisms of his claims during a Theology Web discussion. Eventually, Baumgardner is reduced to inane "threats" like :
Quote
" they face a judgment before a terrible Judge who will not look upon their mockings and blasphemies lightly [on p.10 of the "discussion"]

Merely because people disagreed wth Baumgardner and spelled out his errors, Baumgardner chose to issue statements like that and then cut and run. Rather than address the scientific questions.

P.S. Have fun, Jon! Bwahaha.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,20:59   

Ya know, your unthinkingly repetition of creofraud lies is really boring. Don't you guys ever think?

 
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,20:51)

My statement about lead 206 presumption is simply an attention getter.  I don't actually believe scientists think that all lead 206 is from decay--but why then do they treat all dated rocks as such??

They don't. Of course, in zircons essentially all the 206Pb is from decay after solidification, as the RATE group acknowledged in the quote I posted above. That's the way the world works, because lead is too big to fit in the crystal lattice and has a totally unsuitable valence. But you've never heard of common lead correction, of course.

 
Quote
If you date a rock, by obtaining the ratio of potassium to argon  then you are assuming that all the argon is a result of nuclear decay. However is there anyone here who could prove how much argon was in the rock to begin with?

Yes. Using Ar-Ar.

 
Quote
 Or how much potassium was in the rock to begin with?

Doesn't matter.

 
Quote
 Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water?

See my previous reply. Ar-Ar dating can (and does) often produce a valid date even if the system has not been closed.

 
Quote
AND I'm fully aware that argon is supposed to dissipate when rock is molten. This is questioned by RATE in the dating of the lava dome at ST HELENS.

That was long before RATE.

 
Quote
The assumption that argon should not be in molten lava is put in doubt by this data. Argon in lava dome

But the fact that argon is seldom found in molten lava was confirmed by Dalrymple's study of 26 recent lava flows. See Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There Is No Excess Argon?. Bet it never occurred to you that creationists always cite "studies" of single samples whereas real scientists work with studies of as many samples as possible, which is the only valid way to assess the validity and limitations of a technique.

Like the RATE group tested so many different zircons form different sits . Oh, wait ...

 
Quote
I already know you'll rebut with contamination claims, and that the lab can't date rocks under a certain age.  My question is why did they then??  Why would they send the data back to the group if they knew it could be contaminated, or that they couldn't do it.  Sounds a bit political to me.

Dating labs get paid to run stuff through the equipment. You send 'em stuff, they run it through the equipment, they send you the results, they get paid. They don't care whether or not the results mean anything. They're not in business to second-guess the customers. That's about as far from being "political" as you can get.

Austin deliberately chose samples that would give the results he wanted because they were a mixture of old and new material. That's not contamination, that's fraud.

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,21:24   

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.
           
Quote
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.
       
Quote
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?  
       
Quote
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.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,21:40   

Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous?

And why would we expect your arguments to get better when you insist on repeating lies and distortions from known liars?

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,22:16   

JonF,
Don't forget to read the previous post I wrote to you.  I won't fail to mention that you are rather arrogant.  Why don't you shut down the rhetoric and just stick to the facts.  Read this:

"Relative dating only

The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.[1]"  Wikipedia

Do you see what this is saying?  They have to have a another sample of "known age"--and they are going to use a traditional K-Ar as the standard.  Well how do they know the age?  They know there can be argon in the rocks when they form--but they don't know how much.  But they use it as a standard for something that is supposed to remove assumption!!

"There's a problem with argon being in the lava guys--we aren't sure of the K-Ar.  Lets use Ar-Ar--it's more accurate and removes assumption--but we have to use a K-Ar sample as a standard because we know the age."

Is anyone getting dizzy?

  
afarensis



Posts: 1002
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,22:21   

Quote
If you date a rock, by obtaining the ratio of potassium to argon then you are assuming that all the argon is a result of nuclear decay. However is there anyone here who could prove how much argon was in the rock to begin with?  Or how much potassium was in the rock to begin with?  Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water?


Um, the isochron method was developed to address that problem

--------------
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.

   
Henry J



Posts: 4039
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,22:28   

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

Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.

Henry

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,22:29   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2009,23:28)
Quote
What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge?

Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.

Henry

oh henry, gods can do anything

--------------
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

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,22:32   

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,21:40)
Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous?

Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom.  Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere.

This is from talkorigins:"Helium is a very light atom...When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements"talk  
"radioactive elements" would be radioactive decay--particularly uranium decay.  It produces helium.

 
Quote
And why would we expect your arguments to get better when you insist on repeating lies and distortions from known liars?

Common debate technique on this forum in particular--slander.  Its easy to accuse someone you don't know.  It's called hearsay.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,22:45   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:32)
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,21:40)
Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous?

Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom.  Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere.

This is from talkorigins:"Helium is a very light atom...When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements"talk  
"radioactive elements" would be radioactive decay--particularly uranium decay.  It produces helium.
You fail refuse to realize that helium can not traverse substances like rubber, ceramic, metal, or the rocks that they are trapped in.  If helium escapes from the radioactive rocks that form them as soon as they are formed, then how would anyone expect to know that they are formed from radioactive decay in the first place?

If helium atoms are so small that they can pass through any substance, how come we have helium-filled balloons (not to mention the tanks of helium that are used to fill them in the first place)?  I mean, are you that stupid to assume that I'm that stupid to not know what helium-filled balloons are filled with?

That, and if all the helium that's produced on Earth automatically escapes into the atmosphere upon creation, then how come we have a relatively burgeoning helium gas industry?

Quote
Quote
And why would we expect your arguments to get better when you insist on repeating lies and distortions from known liars?

Common debate technique on this forum in particular--slander.  Its easy to accuse someone you don't know.  It's called hearsay.

I'm slandering: I'm stating the obvious.  So, explain to me why I should not point out that Austin isn't a liar if he had to resort to blatant manipulation to support his claims, and explain to me why I should not call you a liar because you not only insist on claiming that Austin is a reliable source, but resort to distortion, and repeating Creationist lies?

I mean, if anything, according to your moronic attempt at snarky smarminess with your comments about helium, I would suspect that you're not only extraordinarily dishonest, but rather dim and an incompetent judge of intelligence, too.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,22:47   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2009,22:28)
Quote
What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge?

Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.

Henry

Not to mention that biogeography would point to all terrestrial life originating from Mount Ararat.  Of course, creationists routinely [fail to bother to explain why biogeography actually does not suggest that all terrestrial life originated from Mount Ararat.

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,03:51   

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,22:47)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2009,22:28)
Quote
What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge?

Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.

Henry

Not to mention that biogeography would point to all terrestrial life originating from Mount Ararat.  Of course, creationists routinely [fail to bother to explain why biogeography actually does not suggest that all terrestrial life originated from Mount Ararat.

When I have more time--I heard bottlenecks.  Been a while since I debated that one, but I got something for you.  Remember it's like 5 against one here.  You'll have to be patient--sorry.  Gotta busy life too.  Off to work.

  
snorkild



Posts: 30
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,06:09   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:32)
Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom.  Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere.


From Wikipedia's entry on Helium:

"[H]elium is trapped in a similar way by non-permeable layer of rock like natural gas the greatest concentrations on the planet are found in natural gas, from which most commercial helium is derived."

Just because some helium escapes to the atmosphere doesn't mean nothing is retained in minerals.

--------------
wimp

  
1of63



Posts: 126
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,06:38   

Quote (snorkild @ Oct. 02 2009,06:09)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:32)
Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom.  Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere.


From Wikipedia's entry on Helium:

"[H]elium is trapped in a similar way by non-permeable layer of rock like natural gas the greatest concentrations on the planet are found in natural gas, from which most commercial helium is derived."

Just because some helium escapes to the atmosphere doesn't mean nothing is retained in minerals.

To put it even more simply, in terms even IDiots can understand.

We are made up of atoms like everything else.  Atoms are mostly empty space

So how come my hand doesn't just slide through this keyboard?

D'uh?

--------------
I set expectations at zero, and FL limbos right under them. - Tracy P. Hamilton

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,07:50   

yah but have you ever really LOOKED at your hand?

--------------
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

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,08:13   

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.
             
Quote
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.
         
Quote
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?  
         
Quote
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?  

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,08:17   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,23:16)
JonF,
Don't forget to read the previous post I wrote to you.  I won't fail to mention that you are rather arrogant.  Why don't you shut down the rhetoric and just stick to the facts.  Read this:

"Relative dating only

The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.[1]"  Wikipedia

Do you see what this is saying?  They have to have a another sample of "known age"--and they are going to use a traditional K-Ar as the standard.  Well how do they know the age?  They know there can be argon in the rocks when they form--but they don't know how much.  But they use it as a standard for something that is supposed to remove assumption!!

"There's a problem with argon being in the lava guys--we aren't sure of the K-Ar.  Lets use Ar-Ar--it's more accurate and removes assumption--but we have to use a K-Ar sample as a standard because we know the age."

Is anyone getting dizzy?

Yes. I'm arrogant. I've been following and studying and participating in discussions like this fort many a moon, and I've proved that my arrogance is justified.

Read the links, especially "Excess argon and excess lies".

Ponder the phrase "most commonly" in your Wikipedia article.

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,08:31   

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,22:40)
Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous?

Helium is a small molecule, and diffuses relatively easily through "solid" rock. We definitely do expect helium loss over geologic time.

But calculating how much should diffuse requires detailed knowledge of the thermal history of the rock and the difference in concentration between helium in the interior and the exterior of the rock over the time between formation and measurement, plus detailed knowledge of how helium diffuses in the relevant material at the temperatures and pressures the rock experienced. The few zircons that the RATE group measured come from a borehole in Fenton Hill, an area with a long and complex thermal history, and an area near which high concentrations of helium have been found (raising the possibility that helium may have actually diffused into the zircons). The model they used to calculate the expected diffusion requires extrapolating measurements made in vacuum to real-world conditions.

There are other problems with the "study", but in my mind those are the major ones. The only way to address them is to study far more zircons, from several places, with simpler thermal histories, and with no reasonable possibility of being in an area of high helium concentration, and couple this with further (perhaps long-term) diffusion studies.

Humphreys has "responded" to criticisms, and I'll bet Scienthuse has the link close by. I've got links too. But the only way to establish the validity of their claims and method is lots more and better data.

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,09:15   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,23:16)
JonF,
Don't forget to read the previous post I wrote to you.  I won't fail to mention that you are rather arrogant.  Why don't you shut down the rhetoric and just stick to the facts.  Read this:

"Relative dating only

The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.[1]"  Wikipedia

Do you see what this is saying?  They have to have a another sample of "known age"--and they are going to use a traditional K-Ar as the standard.  Well how do they know the age?  They know there can be argon in the rocks when they form--but they don't know how much.  But they use it as a standard for something that is supposed to remove assumption!!

"There's a problem with argon being in the lava guys--we aren't sure of the K-Ar.  Lets use Ar-Ar--it's more accurate and removes assumption--but we have to use a K-Ar sample as a standard because we know the age."

Is anyone getting dizzy?

Why is it that the sum total of IDCers' interest in science manifests itself in strenuous attempts to throw doubt on the research and conclusions of science, and absolutely no interest is ever shown in performing any of their own research to support their own hypotheses (which as far as I've seen do not exist)?  Rhetorical question.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,09:21   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 02 2009,09:15)
Why is it that the sum total of IDCers' interest in science manifests itself in strenuous attempts to throw doubt on the research and conclusions of science, and absolutely no interest is ever shown in performing any of their own research to support their own hypotheses (which as far as I've seen do not exist)?  Rhetorical question.

That's because the ultimate purpose of Intelligent Design is a convoluted plot to illegitimately obtain a veneer of scientific legitimacy for the Bible, so it can become and remain the science textbook, as well as the law and history textbook of the land, forever and ever, until Judgment Day.

You'd know that if you read the Wedge Document.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,09:57   

This new friend is a GoP style "creationist"*, not an AFDave style creationist.

Claims like "it's going to get more interesting", whines about slander (and it's libel, not slander. Slander is spoken, libel is written. It's also libel/slander ONLY if it's untrue), and making claims "just to get attention" (notice they are just to get attention after they've been exposed as simplistic crap) are dead giveaways.



When the best this new friend has is "responding to tone", with maybe a touch of "contradiction", then he/she can be written off as being not worth the effort of serious response.**

Louis

* I.e. He/she is here to troll.

** Mind you I currently feel this way about the vast majority of internet "arguments", so bear that bias in mind. The bulk of internet argument, in my experience, has been reduced to wiki-link trading gainsaying ego-fests as protagonists desperately struggle not to be wrong. I see no great utility/pleasure in engaging in such time wasting with obviously deluded/dishonest individuals. Infantile dick jokes and pointless banter are, amazingly, an intellectual step up.

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,11:41   

Ah, Fenton Hill. Valles Caldera, with lots of helium moving through fractures with a complex hydro-therm history. None of which the RATE group was capable of handling very well at all.

See, AFDave was good for some things. There's still a lot of the Fenton Hill posts here that could be used

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,11:58   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 01 2009,20:53)
I feel a bit slighted that you've taken the time to respond to Jon without addressing the questions I posed here twice already, Scienthuse. I'm sure you're a busy person and all, but responses of "yes," "no" or "I don't know" would have sufficed.

Again, just to remind you, Scienthuse.

Of course, you can also try to arrive at some conclusions regarding the Fenton Hill zircons (or apatite or titanite crystals, which show the same kind of permeability to helium moving in and out ). But RATE never followed up with their "studies" that were intended merely to have a talking point casting doubt on radiometrics.

What you'll find today is that geologists continued to do the work that the RATE group should have done and DID claim to want to do, but never does -- despite having lots of money available for other things.

I'd suggest you look at helium isotope ratios and what it means for the RATE claims, scienthuse...and how the RATE group never even bothered (to this day) to do a proper analysis of that in the Fenton Hill materials.

Hell, in the years since the RATE group, Ken Farley at Caltech has published more papers by himself on the subject(s) than the entire RATE group combined, and he has a tiny budget by comparison:  http://www.gps.caltech.edu/people/farley/publications

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,15:43   

Hey, Dead, wasn't there a discussion of Austin and Santa Cruz somewhere?  I thought yo might be interested in http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=977.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,15:54   

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 02 2009,15:43)
Hey, Dead, wasn't there a discussion of Austin and Santa Cruz somewhere?  I thought yo might be interested in http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=977.

There WAS a discussion that Scienthuse seems to have abandoned, leaving me feeling all lonely and sad, so I came here to say hi!! Thanx for teh linkys!!!

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

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

Pages: (46) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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