Joined: Feb. 2005
|Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,10:33)|
|[Their literature reviews and their own studies have shown that "excess Argon" is a significant problem and has been well documented. "Excess Argon" violates the fundamental assumption of K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating which is that there is supposed to be ZERO Argon in the rocks when they are first formed. This is obviously not the case when testing historic lava flows so there is now no basis for believing it is true for ancient flows. JonF contends that Creationists have to show that ALL ancient flows contain excess Argon in order to invalidate the technique. Of course, this is ludicrous and shows just how desperate Deep Time Defenders are. For a technique to be trusted, it must be shown to be reliable 100% of the time.|
Wrong, Davie-doodles. For example, there is no medical test that is right 100% of the time. There is no medical treatment that works 100% of the time. Do you refuse all medical tests and treatments? Do you trust any medical tests or treatments?
If K-Ar dating, or any geological radiometric dating, is right once your entire crazy "theory " is blown out of the water. You acknowledged that fact. Therefore, in order to claim that your "theory" is correct, you must demonstrate that all radiometric dating is wrong all of the time. Basic logic, moron.
|This is also based upon the results of one of the leaders in the field, Dalrymple, who reported 20% (! of his tests on historic flows had excess Argon. Come on, guys, get a clue! |
And therefore 80% of historic lava flows had no excess argon, and dating on such flows yields correct answers, and therefore dating on at least some ancient lava flows yields correct answers, and your 6,000 year old Earth is falsified. You need to demonstrate 100% wrong answers, Davie-dork.
|JonF also complains about xenoliths in Snellings test. First of all, the xenoliths amounted to less than 5% in virtually identical flows. |
But we don't know how much of the argon in the samples was due to xenoliths.
|JonF must realize that his "xenolith horse" is dying, so he points out that the <5% xenolith figures apply to different flows than the ones Snelling tested. Well, go look at the two charts, Jon. They are virtually identical. |
What two charts, Davie-dip? But it's a minor, parenthetical point. You still need to deal with the zircons and demonstrate that the Ngauruhoe lavas are just like all other lavas.
|Secondly, Jon points out that anyone honestly trying to get an accurate date with Argon dating excludes xenoliths. Fine. Go tell that to all the geologists in the studies cited by Snelling. |
Not necessary. They know it already. They either deteremined that their samples did not contain xenoliths, or they separated the xenoliths.
I'm glad to see you acknowledge that honest K-Ar dating requires excluding xenoliths. Snelling knows it too. That's why his "dating" of the Ngauruhoe flows is fraudulent.
|You say they excluded xenoliths? OK. Fine. They still got "excess Argon" and thus bogus dates.|
Nope. Some percentage of the time they got excess argon, and in some percentage of those cases the excess argon was swamped by the radiogenic argon and was therefore insignificant. The near-universal corelation between different radiometric dating methods, the truth you dare not address, shows us that errors due to excess argon are rare.
But even if half the K-Ar dates had problems with excess argon, that's no consolation for you. You need all dating to be wrong all the time.
| Your "xenolith horse" is dead.|
You mean "Davie-doofus's excess-argon horse is dead". Excess argon does not affect all studies, and you need something that affects all studies.
|Remember also that Snelling was not trying to get an "accurate date" because he's smart enough to know this is not possible with Argon "dating." All he's trying to do is confirm with his own experiment what has been shown now for many years in the literature: that excess Argon is the "Achilles heel" of Argon dating. Do you understand what that means? It means that Argon "dating" is like a chain with at least one broken link.|
False analogy, Davie dootles. We use techniques and tests that do not get 100% correct results in all sorts of fields all the time. And the near-universal correlation between different radiometric dating methods, the truth you dare not address, shows us that errors due to excess argon are rare.
|Do you know how useful a chain with a broken link is? It's completely useless. For the method to be trusted, it needs to be shown that it is NEVER in error.|
Boy, Dave, you can always be trusted to serve up a healthy dose of stupendous stupidity. Excess argon occasionally leads to wrong answers, so almost all of the answers we get are correct. Deal with reality, Davie-poot, not your opium dreams.
|Add to this the fact that all the Argon dates out there have to be "confirmed" with other methods. |
Don't have to be, but often are.
|Why? Because of excess Argon, Argon loss, inheritance, mixing, etc. |
Nope. They are often confirmed because (1) real scientists always confirm everything as much as possible, and (2) we know that there are (rare) errors in K-Ar dating.
|JonF says that Argon loss doesn't help the creationists, but he is wrong again. Of course it does simply because it invalidates the technique in yet another way. Excess Argon invalidates the technique because it violates the fundamental assumption of ZERO Argon when the rock is formed. But Argon loss makes the rock appear younger than the "actual age." This also has been well documented in the literature and by the ICR RATE Group and even acknowledged by the late, great JonF himself (well, at least he acknowledged that Argon dating has to be cross-checked ... dunno if we'll ever get him to admit that Argon dating is therefore wrong). |
So, you acknowledge that there are rocks on the earth that are billions of years old, and our tests of them are realy underestimating their age. First you acknowledge that honest K-Ar dating requires excluding xenoliths (implicitly acknowledging Snelling's fraud), now you acknowledge that your 6,000 year age of the Earth is false. Not a good day for you, Davie-pud.
Oh, and I'm really looking forward to your mixing evidence against K-Ar dating. I really, really want you to post it. You don't have a prayer of figuring out why I want it so much; let it be a surprise. Please post your mixing evidence against K-Ar dating, Davie-pootles!!
|east, have satisfied myself that the most common method for dating rocks--Argon dating is ...|
The most common method, by far, for dating rocks is U-Pb concordia-discordia on zircons (or sometimes other minerals). All argon methods, including the widely used Ar-Ar, amount to about 30%. Gee, that reminds me; weren't you going to demonstrate how zircons, known (and acknowledged by Snelling) to contain only radiogenic lead, don't falsify Snelling's conclusion that "By implication, the radioisotopic ratios in ancient lavas found throughout the geologic record are likely fundamental characteristics of their geochemistry. They therefore probably only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis, rather than any valid age information." Why, yes, you wrote several times that you were going to do that... but there's no mention of zircons in your message! Why is that, Davie-diddles?