RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < ... 176 177 178 179 180 [181] 182 183 184 185 186 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2006,11:49   

This is hilarious--it seems BibleForums.org has their own AFDave.

OK, which one of you guys is Winterherz?

Take a look, just don't step in the stupid.

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,08:03   

AS EXPECTED, THE MORE I STUDY RADIOMETRIC "DATING", THE MORE I FIND THAT MOST OF THE "DATES" ARE MEANINGLESS

(I'm sorry for you if you don't come to the same conclusions ... I'm doing my best to help you come out from the fog of Darwinism and Deep Time, but I can only do so much.  While I hope that I can convince ATBCers of the truth, I am realisitic enough to know that I probably will not.  So my goal has to be to educate myself, then help in the larger effort of educating the public, so that pressure will be applied from below on our educational systems.)

On Sep 4, I started a new topic ... a study of Snelling's 2003 paper on "THE RELEVANCE OF Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd AND Pb-Pb ISOTOPE SYSTEMATICS TO ELUCIDATION OF THE GENESIS AND HISTORY OF RECENT ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR RADIOISOTOPIC DATING."

BACKGROUND TO THE PAPER
As soon as I posted the abstract and conclusions of this paper, JonF began yelling "Fraud, fraud" because Snelling did a whole rock analysis and did not separate the minerals for analysis.  Faid brought up an older (1998) paper of Snelling's that was essentially a confirmation of the fact that the whole system of Argon dating (K-Ar and Ar-Ar) is flawed because of excess Argon, Argon loss, mixing, inheritance, etc., etc.

So let's deal with these questions, then return to the Conclusions of Snelling's 2003 paper which have huge implications for attempted radiometric "dating" of lava flows and ash beds in the Grand Staircase and elsewhere.  

SNELLING'S 1998 PAPER -- ARGON "DATING" IS MEANINGLESS
Unless otherwise noted, all footnotes refer to Snellings 1998 paper found here

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_r01/

K-Ar "dating" of rocks used to be quite common because it is cheap and simple -- about US$350 for a test using the "model age" method.  K-Ar model ages are the most abundant dates published, but also are the most frequently questioned and discarded.  Dalrymple and Lanphere helped popularize this method in 1969.  They said in that year ...  
Quote
a silicate melt will not usually retain the 40Ar that is produced, and thus the potassium-argon clock is not "set" until the mineral solidifies and cools sufficiently to allow the 40Ar to accumulate in the mineral lattice. [18, p. 46]
Yet in their study of 26 historic lava flows that same year, 5 of them contained "excess" Argon. [18]  Many other whole rock K-Ar "age" studies have also found "excess Argon" including Krummenacher (1970) who reported 5 such instances, McDougall (1969), Fisher (1971), Armstrong (1978) and Esser et al (1997) just to name a few.  There are many more.  In spite of all this, Dalrymple as late as 1991 was still touting the K-Ar method ...  
Quote
The K-Ar method is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope. This is because 40Ar is an inert gas that does not combine chemically with any other element and so escapes easily from rocks when they are heated. Thus, while a rock is molten the 40Ar formed by decay of 40K escapes from the liquid. [17, p.91]
 And the problem of "excess" Argon extends to the 40Ar-39Ar method as well ...  
Quote
In a detailed 40Ar/39Ar dating study of high-grade metamorphic rocks in the Broken Hill region of New South Wales (Australia), Harrison and McDougall [48] found evidence of widely distributed excess 40Ar*. The minerals most affected were plagioclase and hornblende, with step heating 40Ar/39Ar "age" spectra yielding results of up to 9.588 Ga. Such unacceptable "ages" were produced by excess40Ar* release, usually at temperatures of 350-650C and/or 930-1380C, suggesting the excess 40Ar* is held in sites within the respective mineral lattices with different heating requirements for its release.
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_r01/
Snelling concludes in this paper as follows ...  
Quote
The fact that there is even some excess 40Ar* in these recent andesite flows, and that it appears to have ultimately come from the upper mantle geochemical reservoir, where it is regarded as leftover primordial argon not yet fully expelled by the process of outgassing that is supposed to have occurred since the initial formation of the Earth, has very significant implications.
First, this is clearly consistent with a young Earth, where the very short time-scale since the creation of the Earth has been insufficient for all the primordial argon to be released yet from the Earth?s deep interior. Furthermore, it would also seem that even the year-long global catastrophic Flood, when large-scale convection and turdecer occurred in the mantle [4], was insufficient to expel all the deep Earth?s primordial argon.
Second, this primordial argon is, in part, "excess" 40Ar not generated by radioactive decay of 40K, which has then been circulated up into crustal rocks where it may continue migrating and building up to partial pressure status regionally. Because the evidence clearly points to this being the case, then when samples of crustal rocks are analysed for K-Ar "dating" the investigators can never really be sure that whatever 40Ar* is in the samples is from in situ radioactive decay of 40K since the formation of the rocks, or whether some or all of it is from the "excess 40Ar*" geochemical reservoirs in the lower and upper mantles. This could even be the case when the K-Ar analyses yield "dates" compatible with other radioisotopic "dating" systems and/or with fossil "dating" based on evolutionary assumptions. And there would be no way of knowing because the 40Ar* from radioactive decay of 40K cannot be distinguished analytically from primordial 40Ar not from radioactive decay, except of course by external assumptions about the ages of the samples.
Therefore, these considerations call into question all K-Ar "dating", whether "model ages" or "isochron ages", and all 40Ar/39Ar "dating", as well as "fossil dating" that has been calibrated against K-Ar "dates". Although seemingly insignificant in themselves, the anomalous K-Ar "model ages" for these recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, lead to deeper questions. Why is there excess40Ar* in these rocks? From where did it come? Answers to these questions in turn point to significant implications that totally undermine such radioactive "dating" and that are instead compatible with a young Earth.

PLENTY OF ARGON TO MEASURE, FAID
Now Faid claims that Snelling is a fraudster because Snelling knew that Geochron labs cannot date young samples because there is not enough daughter products to detect (the instruments are sensitive, but not THAT sensitive).  Sorry, mister, that argument doesn't fly simply because there just "happened" to be plenty of daughter product to measure ... sorry to disappoint you ... Geochron labs had no problem at all detecting the daughter products because there was plenty there.  Remember, if the Argon dating system is sound, then young (historic) lava flows should not have any detectable levels of daughter.  Snelling did nothing different than all the other studies on historic flows cited which found excess Argon.  No fraud.  No foul.  Just a big, giant spotlight on the complete failure of the Argon methods of "dating" rocks.

JonF, TED KOPPEL, NEW ORLEANS AND HURRICANE KATRINA
Next we have JonF yelling "Fraud, fraud" about Snelling's next paper, the 2003 one which used the same samples as the 1998 paper, but focused, not on Argon "dating," but on the fact that the Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb signatures of these same lava flows have nothing to do with the dates of creation of the lava, but rather indicate their origin in the mantle.  JonF claims Snelling is a fraud in this case because he includes xenoliths.  But this is a little bit like saying that Ted Koppel was a fraud in reporting that "A million residents of New Orleans lost their homes today because of Hurricane Katrina."  I get this funny picture in my mind of JonF yelling, "Wait a minute, Mr. Koppel!  You're a fraud ... those aren't all residents of New Orleans!  Some of them are foreigners!  There's residents of Baton Rouge and Alexandria and Ruston and even residents from other states there in New Orleans!  How dare you say that a million residents of New Orleans lost their homes!  You're a fraud!"  JonF is technically correct ... there are many non-residents included in Koppel's statement ... but the point is ... "Who cares?"  To point this out misses the point entirely of Mr. Koppel's report which is to point out that a whole bunch of people lost their homes.  In the same way, it is ludicrous to complain about Snelling not separating out xenoliths and analyzing them separately simply because that would make very little difference in the actual numbers and would have exactly ZERO effect on the conclusion of the study.  Xenoliths only accounted for 2.6 and 4.5% respectively of the following flows: 1. Ngauruhoe VU 29250 [15], a 1954 flow. 2. Olivine-bearing low-Si andesite, June 30, 1954 Ngauruhoe flow [12].  

So Jon, yell all you want to about Snelling's "fraud" and while you are at it, why don't you mount a campaign to expose Mr. Koppel as well.

***************************************************

Now that we have silenced JonF and Faid (well, I am sure they won't stay silent, so a better term would be "refuted" or "exposed"), we return to the main points of our present study ...

1) Argon dating on recent (historic) lava flows is bogus because there is often lots of easily measureable "excess" Argon.
2) All Argon dating of ancient flows is bogus for the same reason.  Yes, I know it's sad that all those geologists were suckers for all those years, but then, so were the geocentrists and phlogiston people for many years, too.
3) Most of the "dates" for layers of the grand Staircase given by Deadman have been Argon dating and are thus irrelevant.  So Deadman has claimed that he gave me over 80 RM "dates" for the Grand Staircase, but the fact is that these 80 "dates" apply to around 4 layers of the Grand Staircase and most of them are Argon dates.

So what I am telling you, once again, is that ...

The layers of the Grand Staircase cannot be dated radiometrically.  Of the 4 or so layers that RM dates have been attempted, most of them have been shown to be bogus and we have not even begun looking at the other dating methods. Will we find that they are bogus too?

So the layers cannot be dated radiometrically and the only basis for saying they are as old as they are is, as I said in the beginning, because of the fossils they contain.  And of course, assuming a layer is old because of the fossils it contains is just circular reasoning.

A much better explanation for the layers of the Grand Staircase which consists primarily of water-laid sediment is ...

THE GREAT FLOOD OF NOAH.


Have a nice day!

(JonF ... I will also deal with your claim that zircons falsify Snellings conclusions in his 2003 paper.  But not today.  I'm going to lunch!;)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,08:13   

3) Most of the "dates" for layers of the grand Staircase given by Deadman have been Argon dating and are thus irrelevant.  So Deadman has claimed that he gave me over 80 RM "dates" for the Grand Staircase, but the fact is that these 80 "dates" apply to around 4 layers of the Grand Staircase and most of them are Argon dates

Let's see...a guy from AIG uses flawed and fraudulent claims to argue about K-Ar dating....and this invalidates somehow all the Ar-Ar dates on GrandStaircase layers. BWAHAHAHA

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

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,08:14   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,13:03)
A much better explanation for the layers of the Grand Staircase which consists primarily of water-laid sediment is ...

THE GREAT FLOOD OF NOAH.[/b]

a) not all the layers are water-laid; this immediately disproves an origin in a single flood;

b) the Great Fludde never happened.

Have fun in the 17th century. Maybe you'll catch up one day.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,08:21   

We'll see who's laughing 10 years from now ...

Deadman and friends?

Or the RATE Group ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,08:29   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,14:03)
In the same way, it is ludicrous to complain about Snelling not separating out xenoliths and analyzing them separately simply because that would make very little difference in the actual numbers and would have exactly ZERO effect on the conclusion of the study.

And how exactly do you arrive at that number?  Because it sure looks like you're just making it up.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,08:36   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,13:03)
AS EXPECTED, THE MORE I STUDY RADIOMETRIC "DATING", THE MORE I FIND THAT MOST OF THE "DATES" ARE MEANINGLESS

Dave, try to get this through your thick, brainless head: all we need is one (1) date in excess of 6,000 years to utterly disprove your young-earth "hypothesis." That's all it takes.

Do you honestly think you can somehow invalidate every single one of the hundreds of thousands of radiometric dates ever recorded that are in excess of 6,000 years? When you have neither the knowledge nor the training to do so?

So we're supposed to believe you, a layperson with an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, and disregard the sum total of the last hundred years of experience in radiometric dating, because why, exactly? Because you know the URL to AiG and ICR?

Dave, how can you possibly say that the presence of xenoliths has no effect at all on the dates derived from young lavas? How mentally retarded can you be? You mix up a bunch of rock that's millions of years old with rock that's a few decades old, and think that those old rocks will have no effect on the dates you get?

And in the meantime, for not the first and certainly not the last time, what method do you propose for dating the Grand Canyon sediments, Dave? It's your freaking hypothesis; are you ever going to present some evidence to support it?

Again, what's your explanation for all the strata that were not, despite your belief to the contrary (for which you never presented the tinest bit of evidence), laid by water?

And until you provide evidence of a source for your floodwaters, Dave, you cannot claim that Noah's flood is a "better" explanation for anything. A source of water is a condition precedent to any flood, and without it, you can't just "poof" a flood into existence.

And, when are you going to explain to us how a mile of water could lay down a mile of sediment, Dave? Are you every going to answer that question? I've been asking for two months, and you haven't even acknowledged the question, let alone attempted to answer it.

One more time, in all caps and bold so you won't miss it:

HOW DOES 5,000 FEET OF WATER LAY DOWN 5,000 FEET OF SEDIMENT, DAVE?

I'm heartily sick of your refusal to even acknowledge the existence of questions you cannot answer, and which expose fatal flaws to your argument. Every time you fail to answer one of these questions, Dave, it's another nail in the coffin of your credibility. These are simple, straightforward questions, and your failure to even attempt to answer them is conclusive evidence of your intellectual dishonesty. But don't worry, I'll never get tired of asking them.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
stevestory



Posts: 10272
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,08:46   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 08 2006,14:36)
Again, what's your explanation for all the strata that were not, despite your belief to the contrary (for which you never presented the tinest bit of evidence), laid by water?

Okay, see, what would happen was, Noah would be chilling out topside, when he'd see a massive lava tsunami caused by the continents screaming around at 100 mph. He'd yell "Jesus Christ!" and throw his Mai Tai overboard while running to the engine room. There, he'd fire up the Pratt & Whitney 4000, and away they'd go. Of course, that would create some kind of mean wake, which would rip trees and plants apart. The trees and plants would then float upright in clusters, get stuck on something, and then Noah's boat would drive over them and compress them into the rock. Then the lava would create a big huge non-water-deposited layer.

Ta-da!

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,08:46   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,13:21)
We'll see who's laughing 10 years from now ...

Deadman and friends?

Or the RATE Group ...

I can imagine William Jennings Bryant saying the same thing.




[very small font size]

Just before he laid down in his room that fateful day at the end of the movie.

[/very small font size]

DaveyDH, you are a very bad man.

Tell me about those beetle species. Five days per?
Or Monkeys?
Or Core samples?

The problem with the dating debate (and no you may not) is that you are simply too stupid to have this debate. There are too many part involved with Design of Experiments that you just don't get.

We need to take this a step back. Assume that RM dating cannot be held to be accurate. (C'mon guys, work with me here) Why does evry single scientific, independent method of dating ever devised come up with counts going back more than your 6500 years?

Why is the beetle and monkey thing so hard for you to do the math? How do kinds evolve and how fast do they do it.

Davey, you have no evidence. (Actually you have every bit of evidence ever collected but it's just pointing the wrong way.)

How can your brain be so small as to not recognize how wrong you are?

As Dawkins says in a movie he made, "It must be terribly lonely to suffer the delusion thqat you are napoleon because no one will help you to support it. But imagine the feeling of support you would have if you could walk in a group of several thousand people who all shared the same delusion."

You can't get past Core Samples DaveyDH. You will hit a brick wall there, I promise.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,08:47   

The Rb-Sr and Pb-Pb dates on Broken Hill were both 1680 Ma. The Ar-Ar date is 1573 Ma. Wow.

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,09:07   

Quote
all we need is one (1) date in excess of 6,000 years to utterly disprove your young-earth "hypothesis." That's all it takes.
And the sad thing for you, Eric, is that you do not have a single real date in excess of 6000 years.  Too bad!  So sad!

Ice cores, huh?  You really think you've got a humdinger for me now, do you?  OK.  BWE.  That's what everyone else said too.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,09:09   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,13:03)
Yet in their study of 26 historic lava flows that same year, 5 of them contained "excess" Argon. [18]  Many other whole rock K-Ar "age" studies have also found "excess Argon" including Krummenacher (1970) who reported 5 such instances, McDougall (1969), Fisher (1971), Armstrong (1978) and Esser et al (1997) just to name a few.  There are many more.  In spite of all this, Dalrymple as late as 1991 was still touting the K-Ar method ...

Yup, because it's pretty reliable, well-understood, and low-cost.  But it's common to verify the K-Ar results with other methods.

Note that all your references reported lots of instances without excess argon.  This proves that not all K-Ar dates are affected by excess argon ... but your theory requires that all radiometric dates be wrong.
 
Quote
And the problem of "excess" Argon extends to the 40Ar-39Ar method as well ...        
Quote
In a detailed 40Ar/39Ar dating study of high-grade metamorphic rocks in the Broken Hill region of New South Wales (Australia), Harrison and McDougall [48] found evidence of widely distributed excess 40Ar*. The minerals most affected were plagioclase and hornblende, with step heating 40Ar/39Ar "age" spectra yielding results of up to 9.588 Ga. Such unacceptable "ages" were produced by excess40Ar* release, usually at temperatures of 350-650C and/or 930-1380C, suggesting the excess 40Ar* is held in sites within the respective mineral lattices with different heating requirements for its release.
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_r01/

That proves that excess argon can be a problem in Ar-Ar dating when there is a lot of it and it totally swamps the radiogenic argon.  But it has been proved that, in most cases, excess argon does not affect the Ar-Ar method, e.g at 40Ar/39Ar Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger.
 
Quote
Snelling concludes in this paper as follows ...        
Quote
The fact that there is even some excess 40Ar* in these recent andesite flows, and that it appears to have ultimately come from the upper mantle geochemical reservoir, where it is regarded as leftover primordial argon not yet fully expelled by the process of outgassing that is supposed to have occurred since the initial formation of the Earth, has very significant implications.
First, this is clearly consistent with a young Earth, where the very short time-scale since the creation of the Earth has been insufficient for all the primordial argon to be released yet from the Earth's deep interior. Furthermore, it would also seem that even the year-long global catastrophic Flood, when large-scale convection and turdecer occurred in the mantle [4], was insufficient to expel all the deep Earth?s primordial argon.
Second, this primordial argon is, in part, "excess" 40Ar not generated by radioactive decay of 40K, which has then been circulated up into crustal rocks where it may continue migrating and building up to partial pressure status regionally. Because the evidence clearly points to this being the case, then when samples of crustal rocks are analysed for K-Ar "dating" the investigators can never really be sure that whatever 40Ar* is in the samples is from in situ radioactive decay of 40K since the formation of the rocks, or whether some or all of it is from the "excess 40Ar*" geochemical reservoirs in the lower and upper mantles. This could even be the case when the K-Ar analyses yield "dates" compatible with other radioisotopic "dating" systems and/or with fossil "dating" based on evolutionary assumptions. And there would be no way of knowing because the 40Ar* from radioactive decay of 40K cannot be distinguished analytically from primordial 40Ar not from radioactive decay, except of course by external assumptions about the ages of the samples.
Therefore, these considerations call into question all K-Ar "dating", whether "model ages" or "isochron ages", and all 40Ar/39Ar "dating", as well as "fossil dating" that has been calibrated against K-Ar "dates". Although seemingly insignificant in themselves, the anomalous K-Ar "model ages" for these recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, lead to deeper questions. Why is there excess40Ar* in these rocks? From where did it come? Answers to these questions in turn point to significant implications that totally undermine such radioactive "dating" and that are instead compatible with a young Earth.

Based on known-invalid samples, Davie-pootles.  Fraud.
 
Quote
PLENTY OF ARGON TO MEASURE, FAID[/b]
Now Faid claims that Snelling is a fraudster because Snelling knew that Geochron labs cannot date young samples because there is not enough daughter products to detect (the instruments are sensitive, but not THAT sensitive).  Sorry, mister, that argument doesn't fly simply because there just "happened" to be plenty of daughter product to measure ... sorry to disappoint you ... Geochron labs had no problem at all detecting the daughter products because there was plenty there.

Really?  Exactly how much argon was measured, Davie-pie?  How does that amount compare with Geochron's standard background, Davier-dork?  How much of the argon was due to the xenoliths, Davie-pud?
 
Quote
If the Argon dating system is sound, then young (historic) lava flows should not have any detectable levels of daughter.

Not quite true.  If the Argon dating system is sound, then most young (historic) lava flows should not have any detectable levels of daughter when rational sample selection is practiced.  The statistics, including the ones you quoted aove, show that by this criterion K-Ar dating is sound.
 
Quote
Snelling did nothing different than all the other studies on historic flows cited which found excess Argon.

He tested smaples with xenoliths.  Known to be invalid, and fraudulent.
 
Quote
In the same way, it is ludicrous to complain about Snelling not separating out xenoliths and analyzing them separately simply because that would make very little difference in the actual numbers and would have exactly ZERO effect on the conclusion of the study.  Xenoliths only accounted for 2.6 and 4.5% respectively of the following flows: 1. Ngauruhoe VU 29250 [15], a 1954 flow. 2. Olivine-bearing low-Si andesite, June 30, 1954 Ngauruhoe flow [12].

True, but that says nothing about the argon content of those xenoliths relative to the argon content of the rest of the sample.  It's well-known and widely documented that xenoliths  in even such low volumetric proportions can screw up K-Ar dating.

Let's see your calculations of the effect those xenoliths had on the dates. You can't do it, and nobody can, because we don't know the amount of argon in the xenoliths and in the non-xenolithic portion.
 
Quote
Now that we have silenced JonF and Faid (well, I am sure they won't stay silent, so a better term would be "refuted" or "exposed")

You haven't refuted or exposed anything.  Your claims about the xenoliths have been soundly refuted.  Remember when you wrote that maybe there weren't any xenoliths?  You haven't acknowledged that error ...

You haven't even discussed the message in which I pointed out that Snelling's conclusion in the 2003 paper is not supported or even relevant to the data and discussion.  He just pulled it in out of left field.

And, of course, the fact that the isotopic composition of a recent lava flow reflects its "parentage" is not at all surprising ... but doesn't tell us anything about what the isotopic composition will be after that lava has been around for many millions of years.  But you and Snelling are claiming that the isotopic composition will continue to reflect ther "parentage"  except isochrons that pass the validity test will magically show up, but be wrong.  Neither you nor Snelling has presented and evidence or argument for this claim.
 
Quote
1) Argon dating on recent (historic) lava flows is bogus because there is often lots of easily measureable "excess" Argon.

Nope.  Argon dating on some recent (historic) lava flows is bogus because there is sometimes lots of easily measureable "excess" Argon.  And even when there is excess argon, the Ar-Ar method often produces a valid result.  See the link above.

You need something that always invalidates radiometric dating, not something that sometimes invalidates radiometric dating.
 
Quote
2) All Argon dating of ancient flows is bogus for the same reason.

Nope.  Some argon dating of ancient flows is bogus (and it's often detected by comparison with other methods) but that doesn't help you at all.
Quote
3) Most of the "dates" for layers of the grand Staircase given by Deadman have been Argon dating and are thus irrelevant.

Really, Davie-doodles?  Let's see the statistics.  What percentage were K-Ar dates?  What percentage were K-Ar dates that were confirmed by other methods?
Quote
(JonF ... I will also deal with your claim that zircons falsify Snellings conclusions in his 2003 paper.  But not today.  I'm going to lunch!;)

Don't forget that Snelling has acknowledged, since his 2003 paper,  that the lead in zircons is not inherited from the "parent magma" but instead must be produced by in-situ radioactive decay.  (Reference provided several times already in this thread).

So, we know that the lead we measure in zircons is due to radioactive decay, and Snelling acknowledges this.  We know that the vast majority of isochron dates and K-Ar and Ar-Ar dates agree, Davie-poot's claims of a world-wide and incredibly expensive conspiracy for which he has no evidence notwithstanding.  We therefore know that the isotopic composition of purportedly-old lavas reflects the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred in the lava, not the composition of the "parent" magma.  Snelling's 2003 paper is irrelevant to radiometric dating.

(Did I post this link in this thread before?  The well-known {in certain circles} Steve Carlip recently posted a list of observations which would have been different if radioactive decay rates had changed, and it's a fascinating list: Re: Age dating question.)

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,09:20   

Quote
We'll see who's laughing 10 years from now ...Deadman and friends? Or the RATE Group ...


Oh, I'll still be laughing

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,09:36   

Quote
The Rb-Sr and Pb-Pb dates on Broken Hill were both 1680 Ma. The Ar-Ar date is 1573 Ma. Wow.
Wow.  It's like magic!  You just discard those samples over there that show 950 Ma and these samples over here that show 400 Ma and VOILA!  Concordant dates!  Ain't it great?

Quote
Note that all your references reported lots of instances without excess argon.  This proves that not all K-Ar dates are affected by excess argon ... but your theory requires that all radiometric dates be wrong.
No, it doesn't.  All I have mentioned is the 25% or so instances of excess Argon.  If you read the entire RATE Book, you would see there are many other reasons why all Argon methods are unreliable:  Argon loss, mixing, etc., etc.  The supposedly "correct" results are only deemed correct because they agree with your preconceptions about Deep Time.  The real reasons for the Argon concentration in rocks in reality has nothing to do with Deep Time at all.  Sorry, you lose.

Quote
That proves that excess argon can be a problem in Ar-Ar dating when there is a lot of it and it totally swamps the radiogenic argon.  But it has been proved that, in most cases, excess argon does not affect the Ar-Ar method,
Yeah, just like Dalrymple "proved" that the K-Ar method is just fine.  We saw how that worked out.

Quote
Based on known-invalid samples, Davie-pootles.  Fraud.
Yeah ... invalid because they were submitted by a creationist.  I understand.  What a joke.  When are you going to start your investigation of Ted Koppel also?

Quote
Quote  
If the Argon dating system is sound, then young (historic) lava flows should not have any detectable levels of daughter.  

Not quite true.  If the Argon dating system is sound, then most young (historic) lava flows should not have any detectable levels of daughter when rational sample selection is practiced.  The statistics, including the ones you quoted aove, show that by this criterion K-Ar dating is sound.
No. ALL.  If ANY of the young flows have detectable Argon, then your whole system fails.  Why do you think everybody's finally waking up to the fact that K-Ar is flawed?  It's only a matter of time before everyone also wakes up on Ar-Ar.  Again, the creationists are leading the way.


Quote
 Quote  
Snelling did nothing different than all the other studies on historic flows cited which found excess Argon.

He tested smaples with xenoliths.  Known to be invalid, and fraudulent.
Most of the others had xenoliths also.  Did you not notice that they were "whole rock " analyses?  You really are going to ride this lame horse of xenoliths aren't you? ... even though they were less than 5% of the weight of the samples ... Incredible!  Well, then ... I will just keep embarrassing you in front of God and everybody for being so stubborn and blind.

Quote
True, but that says nothing about the argon content of those xenoliths relative to the argon content of the rest of the sample.  It's well-known and widely documented that xenoliths  in even such low volumetric proportions can screw up K-Ar dating.

Let's see your calculations of the effect those xenoliths had on the dates. You can't do it, and nobody can, because we don't know the amount of argon in the xenoliths and in the non-xenolithic portion.
You should have stopped at the first word ... "True."  I'll tell you what JonF, let's go take some common Argon concentration numbers from some xenoliths ... take the highest ones you can find, then do the math allocating 5% to the xenoliths ... guess what you will come up with ...

VERY TINY CHANGE IN THE NUMBERS ...

And ZERO effect on the overall conclusion.  

I'll even let you come up with the Xenolith Argon number ... go ahead ... find the highest number you can find, then come back to me and we'll do the math.

Quote
You haven't even discussed the message in which I pointed out that Snelling's conclusion in the 2003 paper is not supported or even relevant to the data and discussion.  He just pulled it in out of left field.
Nonsense.  All you said was that his conclusion was invalidated because of zircons.  And you are wrong about zircons as I will show when I will deal with zircons separately.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,09:41   

Avoiding those ice cores eh? And dendro ( don't try to present the stupid claims of Don Batten who only cites farmed pine trees as an excuse) and varves that are over 10k old in layers.
What you will do, Dave, is the same thing that you said about light from distant stars, or from supernovae: you'll say something really stupid like "God made them with a false age built-in"
This "Omphalos" ( meaning belly-button) theory was posited by Phillip Henry Gosse way back in the 1800's. In it, he explained that the belly-button of Adam was due to god "making" things with an apparent age already "built" into the structure. This makes God a liar and fraud, stupid.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,09:47   

Quote
The Rb-Sr and Pb-Pb dates on Broken Hill were both 1680 Ma.


Yet those dates given by Rubidium and lead are uncontested here, except for the RATE group to say " in the past, radioactive decay rates were much greater, even though we don't see the effects today and it would melt the Earth"

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,09:51   

Help!  Help!  Dave is demolishing our arguments against the Snelling papers ...

Quick!  Bring up dendro and ice cores and belly buttons!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,09:53   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,13:21)
We'll see who's laughing 10 years from now ...

Sure Davey. See you in 2016.

LOL.  :D

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,09:55   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,14:51)
Help!  Help!  Dave is demolishing our arguments against the Snelling papers ...

Quick!  Bring up dendro and ice cores and belly buttons!

Do you seriously think that you are winning this argument?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,09:56   

Hey, guys ... just a reminder to start that investigation on Ted Koppel for fraudulent reporting of the Katrina disaster.  Don't forget now ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,10:02   

How did Noah manage to carry millions of animals in his arch, since marco-evo never happened?

What about the Atlantic basalts?

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,10:04   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,15:56)
Hey, guys ... just a reminder to start that investigation on Ted Koppel for fraudulent reporting of the Katrina disaster.  Don't forget now ...

Your analogy would only begin to make sense if Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jim Walton, and maybe a dozen or more other billionaires had homes in New Orleans, and if Koppel had mentioned that the average Katrina survivor would have no financial difficulites whatsoever.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,10:31   

Quote (Seven Popes @ July 24 2006,22:16)
Quote (Seven Popes @ July 24 2006,07:47)
Quote (afdave @ July 22 2006,08:00)
1.  I have not any part of the Bible which anyone has proven to be untrue.  Sometimes a statement appears untrue at first, but upon closer inspection, it proves true after all.
2.  I think the parts that Jesus said were true and the parts He commissioned to be written are the ones we accept as 'Inspired by God.'  Jesus confirmed the inspiration of the OT and he commissioned the apostles to write the NT.  So I take both to be true.
3.  Greek (NT) and Hebrew (OT) if you are highly motivated.  If not, try the New King James or the New American Standard.  I like them both.  Also get a Power Bible CD ROM from www.powerbible.com -- Adam Clarke's commentary and many others contained there are very good.
4.  I don't know of any 'obvious errors' -- we went through one supposed 'error' about Tyre here and it was equivocal at best.  Buy yourself a good book on Bible Difficulties.



How exactly is the Tyre prophecy equivocal?
It stated that Tyre will be bare, and it's not.

Care to explain dave?  How is a populated Tyre a bare rock?  I give you proof positive of a biblical mistake and you sadly call it equivocal?

I caught you in a lie, Mr. Dawkins, And I have been quite polite about it, and you have not been.  I hope you can finally clear this up.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,10:36   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,14:51)
Help!  Help!  Dave is demolishing our arguments against the Snelling papers ...

Quick!  Bring up dendro and ice cores and belly buttons!

Good gOd DaveyDH, You are simply too unaware of what constitutes rigor in science.

Ice cores and tree rings are good because the mechanics are easier for a guy like you. Remember, we don't need to prove 400k years, just more than 6500, right?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,10:40   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,14:07)
   
Quote
all we need is one (1) date in excess of 6,000 years to utterly disprove your young-earth "hypothesis." That's all it takes.
And the sad thing for you, Eric, is that you do not have a single real date in excess of 6000 years.  Too bad!  So sad!

No, Dave, we've got hundreds of thousands of dates far in excess, some almost six orders of magnitude in excess, of 6,000 years, and you have to disprove every single one of them. Think you're up to the task? Because I know you're not.

And one more time:

HOW DO YOU PROPOSE THAT THE GRAND CANYON STRATA BE DATED, AND WHAT DATES DO YOU COME UP WITH, GENIUS?
 
Quote
Ice cores, huh?  You really think you've got a humdinger for me now, do you?  OK.  BWE.  That's what everyone else said too.

And we're still saying it, Dave. No past tense required. If you think in your wildest dreams you've been able to refute a single piece of evidence you've been confronted with, you're nuts. And in the meantime, you haven't presented a single speck of evidence of your own.

And once more:

HOW DID 5,000 FEET OF WATER LAY DOWN 5,000 FEET OF SEDIMENT, GENIUS?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,10:52   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,14:07)
Quote
all we need is one (1) date in excess of 6,000 years to utterly disprove your young-earth "hypothesis." That's all it takes.
And the sad thing for you, Eric, is that you do not have a single real date in excess of 6000 years.  Too bad!  So sad!

Ice cores, huh?  You really think you've got a humdinger for me now, do you?  OK.  BWE.  That's what everyone else said too.

[sheepish grin]
Well, I wouldn't exactly call it a "humdinger" but...
Gawsh, thanks.
[/sheepish grin]

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,11:32   

[quote=afdave,Sep. 08 2006,14:36]
Quote
The Rb-Sr and Pb-Pb dates on Broken Hill were both 1680 Ma. The Ar-Ar date is 1573 Ma. Wow.
Wow.  It's like magic!  You just discard those samples over there that show 950 Ma and these samples over here that show 400 Ma and VOILA!  Concordant dates!  Ain't it great?[/quote]
Your fantasies are not evidence.  You want to claim there are discordant dates, produce the evidence.  Don't forget the many published discordant dates, such as those for the KBS Tuff; claiming that discordant dates are swept under the rug is untenable.
     
Quote
   
Quote
Note that all your references reported lots of instances without excess argon.  This proves that not all K-Ar dates are affected by excess argon ... but your theory requires that all radiometric dates be wrong.
No, it doesn't.  All I have mentioned is the 25% or so instances of excess Argon.  If you read the entire RATE Book, you would see there are many other reasons why all Argon methods are unreliable:  Argon loss, mixing, etc., etc.  The supposedly "correct" results are only deemed correct because they agree with your preconceptions about Deep Time.  The real reasons for the Argon concentration in rocks in reality has nothing to do with Deep Time at all.  Sorry, you lose.

Argon loss would cause the dates to be seen as younger than they really are.  No comfort for you there.  If you've got evidence that mixing is a problem, trot it out.

Also explain the observed concordance between methods.
     
Quote
     
Quote
That proves that excess argon can be a problem in Ar-Ar dating when there is a lot of it and it totally swamps the radiogenic argon.  But it has been proved that, in most cases, excess argon does not affect the Ar-Ar method,
Yeah, just like Dalrymple "proved" that the K-Ar method is just fine.  We saw how that worked out.

Yup, we saw exactly how that worked out ... and the result is that the Earth and life are ancient.
   
Quote
     
Quote
Based on known-invalid samples, Davie-pootles.  Fraud.
Yeah ... invalid because they were submitted by a creationist.  I understand.  What a joke.  When are you going to start your investigation of Ted Koppel also?

Not because they were submitted by a creationist, Dave-moron, but rather because they contained xenoliths.
   
Quote
   
Quote
     
Quote
 
If the Argon dating system is sound, then young (historic) lava flows should not have any detectable levels of daughter.

Not quite true.  If the Argon dating system is sound, then most young (historic) lava flows should not have any detectable levels of daughter when rational sample selection is practiced.  The statistics, including the ones you quoted aove, show that by this criterion K-Ar dating is sound.
No. ALL.  If ANY of the young flows have detectable Argon, then your whole system fails.  Why do you think everybody's finally waking up to the fact that K-Ar is flawed?  It's only a matter of time before everyone also wakes up on Ar-Ar.  Again, the creationists are leading the way.

Sorry, Davie-doodles, wrong as usual. You ain't so good at this fancy "logic" stuff, hum?  If any lava flow has no excess argon, or has excess argon that's insignificant relative to the radiogenic argon, then the K-Ar date of that sample is correct and the Earth and life are ancient.

Remember, you need something that always invalidates radiometric dating, not something that sometimes invalidates radiometric dating.  And excess argon, argon loss, mixing, whatever, don't invalidate all radiometric dating unless you can show that one or more of those things always happens. And then, your opium dreams nothwithstanding, you need to address the concordance between vastly different methods.
   
Quote
   
Quote
   
Quote
Snelling did nothing different than all the other studies on historic flows cited which found excess Argon.

He tested samples with xenoliths.  Known to be invalid, and fraudulent.
Most of the others had xenoliths also.  Did you not notice that they were "whole rock " analyses?

Yes.  But you don't know what that means. "Whole rock" analyses do not necessarily include xenoliths and in fact never do contain xenoliths when performed by honest scientists.  As I posted before, including a reference, it's standard practice to inspect very thoroughly for xenoliths.  Usually there are no xenoliths in the rock, and the analysis can continue; if there are xenoliths and they can be separated out, they are separated out before the analysis continues; if there are xenoliths and they can't be separated out, you don't do the analysis.

As I posted before but you ignored, from Tips for Sample Preparation:
   
Quote
Look at a thin section of your sample! Check for weathering or alteration, calcite veins, nature and size of phenocrysts and groundmass, presence of glass, presence of inclusions (xenoliths, or material entrained during movement of flow). Basaltic glass tends not to be a very reliable material for K-Ar dating. If your sample has more than a few percent glass, even if it is very fresh, dating may not be a good idea unless your sample(s) come from an excellent, ironclad stratigraphy, in which anomalous ages have some chance of being detected. Calcite produces CO2 in the extraction system and can cause serious analytical problems. Minor amounts can be treated; major amounts suggest that the sample has been too badly altered to be worth dating. In either case, the presence or absence of calcite must be noted. Phenocrysts, especially olivine and pyroxene, may contain trapped Ar components that do not have an atmospheric 40Ar/36Ar ratio of 295.5 (MORB can have elevated values). This can lead to massive errors when dating young and/or poorly radiogenic rocks. The freshness of mafic phenocrysts can also be a good indicator of the freshness of the specimen as a whole. Zeolites, when present in anything more than trivial amounts, suggest that your sample has been substantially altered. Finally, the minerals in xenoliths may contain significant amounts of trapped Ar (mantle xenoliths; see discussion under phenocrysts) or inherited Ar (e.g., incompletely outgassed feldspars in granitoid fragments).

{Emphasis added.}
   
Quote
You really are going to ride this lame horse of xenoliths aren't you? ... even though they were less than 5% of the weight of the samples ... Incredible!  Well, then ... I will just keep embarrassing you in front of God and everybody for being so stubborn and blind.

You're not embarassing me in the slightest.  What percentage of the argon in the whole-rock samples was in the xenoliths?  That's what counts, not the volumetric or weight percentage of the xenoliths themselves.
     
Quote
   
Quote
True, but that says nothing about the argon content of those xenoliths relative to the argon content of the rest of the sample.  It's well-known and widely documented that xenoliths  in even such low volumetric proportions can screw up K-Ar dating.

Let's see your calculations of the effect those xenoliths had on the dates. You can't do it, and nobody can, because we don't know the amount of argon in the xenoliths and in the non-xenolithic portion.
You should have stopped at the first word ... "True."  I'll tell you what JonF, let's go take some common Argon concentration numbers from some xenoliths ... take the highest ones you can find, then do the math allocating 5% to the xenoliths ... guess what you will come up with ...

VERY TINY CHANGE IN THE NUMBERS ...

OK show me the numbers, Davie-pootle.  It's standard practice to separate xenoliths, it's known that they affect analyses, let's see your evidence that they don't.

(BTW, did you notice that those concentrations of xenoliths are not for the samples that Snelling tested?)
   
Quote
     
Quote
You haven't even discussed the message in which I pointed out that Snelling's conclusion in the 2003 paper is not supported or even relevant to the data and discussion.  He just pulled it in out of left field.
Nonsense.  All you said was that his conclusion was invalidated because of zircons.  And you are wrong about zircons as I will show when I will deal with zircons separately.

Nope, Davie-dork, I pointed out exactly why his conclusion was irrelevant, and i noted the zircons are one of several ways to prove his error.  Another way is (as I posted already and you snipped without response):
   
Quote
And, of course, the fact that the isotopic composition of a recent lava flow reflects its "parentage" is not at all surprising ... but doesn't tell us anything about what the isotopic composition will be after that lava has been around for many millions of years.  But you and Snelling are claiming that the isotopic composition will continue to reflect their "parentage"  except isochrons that pass the validity test will magically show up, but be wrong.  Neither you nor Snelling has presented and evidence or argument for this claim.

Yet another problem is that Snelling hasn't provided any evidence that all or even many lava flows are similar to the Ngauruhoe flows; yet he claims that all dating of all flows is wrong because the Ngauruhoe flows have an isotopic concentration that currently matches the "parent" concentration.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1778
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,11:39   

ShitForBrainsDawkins lies again:
   
Quote
And the sad thing for you, Eric, is that you do not have a single real date in excess of 6000 years.  Too bad!  So sad!


Hey Shit For Brains - for the tenth or so time:

How do you explain the six independent calibration methods for C14 dating that all agree with each other, and all give a minimum age of 10,500 YBP?

Keep sinning by lying Davie, God hates liars.  - Remember that God is watching you, and he's keeping score.  :p

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Henry J



Posts: 4652
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,11:40   

Re "HOW DID 5,000 FEET OF WATER LAY DOWN 5,000 FEET OF SEDIMENT,"

Just wondering, has anybody mentioned "water cycle" in relation to that argument in the thread so far?

Henry

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,11:52   

Stephen Wells...
Quote
Do you seriously think that you are winning this argument?
Yes.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
  6047 replies since May 01 2006,03:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (202) < ... 176 177 178 179 180 [181] 182 183 184 185 186 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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