|
Author
|
Topic: Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Re: You are not answering the question still
R: 1) How did marine water contaminate Lake Suigetsu? G: Creationist fountains of the deep biblical flood. It also next to the ocean begs saline varve contaminations. You have evidence for this? Please provide such.
R: What is its paragenesis? G: How minerals combine. No.
Talc is a secondary mineral formed by mineralization which occurs deep beneath the earth's crust. So, no one noticed all of this secondary mineralization? I suppose by your logic, that if it wasn't noticed, it must exist... And what is this 'deep beneath the earth's crust' business? Were Lake Suigetsu sediments deposited deep beneath the earth's crust?
It is generally found in metamorphic rocks where water charged with carbon dioxide has decomposed overlying minerals rich in magnesium, silicate, and calcium. Traces of the minerals aluminum and iron are often found in many talcs. And why has no one noticed this metamorphism of Lake Suigetsu sediments? This was funny for a while, Golfer, but you are beginning to waste our time.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Re: You are not answering the question still
roxrkool, Were talking in circles, because we simply need more evidence. No, Golfer, YOU need more evidence. You have presented none. And no amount of evidence we provide will dissuade you from your dogmatic viewpoint.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 149 by johnfolton, posted 12-22-2005 2:32 AM | | johnfolton has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Re: You are not answering the question still
The creationists interprete the sediment layerings to be proof of the biblical outpouring of sediments from deep within the earth. What does this have to do with the deposition of sediments? HOw often is talc found in undisturbed sedimentary rocks?
Lake Suietsu is located quite near the Pacific Ocean, this is a fact. Why would not the clays between varves undergo a metomorphisism if the leachate contains such minerals. And go unnoticed? This is silly, Golfer.
We really need a mineral profile of the leachate, clays, and the kerogen fossils that were dated. Nonsense. We have a pretty good idea what is in these sediments.
Given the right conditions, thinly-laminated muddy sediments can and do form by rapid sedimentation. Contrary to claims by old-earth proponents, long periods of time are not demanded. Again, nonsense. Thes experiments did not deal with sediments like those found in varved deposits. Read the artcle very closely. What kind of sediments were used?
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Re:
Where does the humics go after organics are digested. Does not liquefaction explain the clay varves were simply undergoing metomorphisisms by natural processes of anaerobic digestion. If the material is 'digested', 'liquified' or otherwise altered it is not supposed to be used in carbon dating. That is why we do not allow creationists to use this technique on their own.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Re:
Solution IR and NMR spectra of some fractionated humic acid derivatives were similar to those of kerogen, bitumen, petroleum, and coal. Hopefully this research will inspire new directions in a confused field. Irrelevant.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
edge, Humic acid Solution IR and NMR spectra of some fractionated humic acid derivatives were similar to those of kerogen. The research scientists talk of Kerogen also having huge molecular weights. Irrelevant.
Humic too can form huge molecular weights because of the derivitives of humic acids were similar to kerogen. In the humic research study it was found that humic acids bind to peptides and proteins and can bind 10 times their own weight of clay particles. Irrelevant.
This should raise flags given scientists are talking of kerogens huge molecular weights. This is relevant because it begs the question why would scientists date kerogen thats known to have huge molecular weights. Irrelevant.
Its kerogen that is C14 dated, so by your standards we can discount the Lake Suiestu varve study, because contaminated fossils are not supposed to be dated. Sure. Let's just ignore the fact of a very good correlation between the varve count and the dates determined. Oh yeah! That was the point of the study, wasn't it? So was the correlation just a coincidence? If there kerogen is altered, it should not be dated. Please provide evidence that it has been altered, mobilized or contaminated.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Re:
Lake Suietsu sediments pore spaces being fully saturated cause the sediments to liquify greater with increasing depth (water pressure separate the sediment particle). Golfer, the degree of saturation has no direct bearing on the pore pressures. You make no sense whatsoever.
Given, waters near incompressible the pore water pressures and anaerobic gases beneath Lake Suietsu are forces that explain the sorting of humic clay diatoms. Please explain how the anaerobic gasses have anything to do with sorting.
Engineers are concerned about Pore pressures including the presence of gas and concerned water pore pressures being greater below is pressing upwards. The anaerobic gasing is the presence of gas that is causing an additional bouyancy effect on the sediments. Liquefacation in fully saturated pores is simply greater with increasing depth due to greater water pore pressures. With humic clays being left behind and gases pressing upwards multiple humic clay, diatom varves are expressed. Golfer, liquifaction of the sediments has nothing to do with it. In fact, liquifaction would destroy varves. This is getting sillier by the day.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
Message 173 of 300 (272609)
12-25-2005 10:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 168 by NosyNed
12-25-2005 12:19 AM
|
|
Re: A small reminder as an Xmas present
I understand that Golfer is "whatever". He will never make any sense. I think I have reached my limit on this. I think Golfer should probably stick to golf.
You are wasting your time arguing with someone who has no more sense than a poorly constructed AI routine. Is that 'artificial ignorance'?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 168 by NosyNed, posted 12-25-2005 12:19 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Ned, I've seen no proof to support neutrons form C14 within the earth, meaning your point of view is without reason. So you deny that thermal neutrons in the presence of nitrogen will produce C14. And this is better evidence than the correlation of radiocarbon dates with varves. Okay, that's fine with me. Believe what you want. It's all coincidence.
Katheline Hunt said C14 presence needs to be addressed, yet no scientific evidence supporting your beliefs. It's probably not a burning question to anyone doing research. The point is: what is the best explanation of the data? You have no supportable explanation at all. We at least have something that makes sense.
The radiometric dating methods are not the age of the earth, but an appearance of age. Now this is pure silliness. Radiocarbon dating does not come close to demonstrating the age of the earth... Where do you get this stuff?
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Re: Where is the neutron?
Scientists... What scientists?
... have recently... How recently?
... shown that a very minute How minute?
... but unchanging amount of carbon-14 is present in the atmosphere Hunh? This is dead wrong.
...of the earth and that all living organisms assimilate traces of this isotope during their lifetime. Nonsense. Not 'all living things'. You are talking about the atmosphere. what about marine organisms? This is actually a good question for the professional YECs. Golfer, this is getting to be so tedious that I see little use in continuing this conversation. You cannot document your assertions, nor support them in any way. Many of your assertions are so completely off the wall, that it really is a waste of time responding.
After death this assimilation ceases and the radioactive carbon, constantly decaying, is no longer maintained at a steady concentration. Estimation of the ages of a number of objects, such as bones and mummies, of historical and archaeological interest have been made possible by carbon-14 measurements.
Thorium-234 emits beta particles, which are electrons. According to current theory, beta emission is accomplished by the transformation of a neutron into a proton, thus resulting in an increase in nuclear charge (or atomic number) of one unit. The mass of the electron is negligible, thus the isotope that results from thorium-234 decay has mass number 234 but atomic number 91 and is, therefore, a protactinium isotope. Irrelevant and off topic.
B. Gamma Radiation Gamma emission is usually found in association with alpha and beta emission. Gamma rays possess no charge or mass; thus emission of gamma rays by a nucleus does not result in a change in chemical properties of the nucleus but merely in the loss of a certain amount of radiant energy. The emission of gamma rays is a compensation by the atomic nucleus for the unstable state that follows alpha and beta processes in the nucleus. The primary alpha or beta particle and its consequent gamma ray are emitted almost simultaneously. A few cases are known of pure alpha and beta emission, however, that is, alpha and beta processes unaccompanied by gamma rays; a number of pure gamma-emitting isotopes are also known. Pure gamma emission occurs when an isotope exists in two different forms, called nuclear isomers, having identical atomic numbers and mass numbers, but different in nuclear-energy content. The emission of gamma rays accompanies the transition of the higher-energy isomer to the lower-energy form. An example of isomerism is the isotope protactinium-234, which exists in two distinct energy states with the emission of gamma rays signaling the transition from one to the other. http://encarta.msn.com/text_761569327__1/Radioactivity.html Irrelevant. Please stay on topic. What does this have to do with neutrons and C14 formation?
Radiocarbons presense shows the falicy of sandwich dating to date the fossil. You have not shown this.
e: Where do you get this stuff? G: Sandwich dating: Ummm, sure. A few more sandwiches and you'll have a picnic with your date.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Re:
Almost any reference will tell you that the interaction of N14 and thermal neutrons will yield C14. As this source will tell you, radon, among others, is a source of thermal neutrons. Not Found Now if nitrogen were extremely rare or if radon were not so mobile as well as being a part of the uranium decay chain, you might have a point. As it is, you have no point and no understanding of the process.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 196 by johnfolton, posted 12-27-2005 12:09 PM | | johnfolton has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Re:
Oil and Coal are commonly C14 dated ... Actually, it is not commonly dated by C14 methods. Only YECs do this. MOst real scientists understand that such materials are so far removed from the original atmospheric carbon that dating would be meaningless.
...30,000 to 40,000 years. Actually, the dates go to 60ky, if you read the RATE stuff.
Snelling mineral wood fossil dated 38,000 years well beneath the backround radiation thresh hold. Yes, isn't it a red flag, though, that all of these dates are approaching the limit of radiocarbon dating? Well, probably not to you or to any YECs out there, but to most of us it would indicate that the material is likely older and we are reading analytical noise.
The current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years. Under ideal conditions, yes.
This limit is encountered when the radioactivity of the residual 14C in a sample is too low to be distinguished from the background radiation. Yes, so the question is, what is the source of background C14. It also becomes a question as to why some materials actualy have NO C14. Your source does not support your point.
P.S. When they date the earth its based on to many assumptions. Yes, assumptions that are minimized, compensated or eliminated by the process. Do you think that YEC 'scientists' have ANY motivation to avoid contamination, etc.? No, of course not. They WANT contamination, don't you see? (Never mind, it was a rhetorical question. I know what you see and what you don't see).
No contamination over millions of years, no leachate contamination, and that they have to rule out contamination. More nonsense. Radiocarbon dating is not used to date the age of the earth.
The Creationists refering to liquefaction state of all fresh water aquifiers supports all sediments on the earth have been contaminated. (For the fifth time)That is why we go to such great lengths to avoid contamination. Do you not have the courtesy to read our posts on this? Your lack of a response is inconsiderate and unchristian.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Re:
edge, I know you are looking out for contaminations, ... No.
...however it appeared from my link that uranium decays into helium and then gives off gamma rays. No.
It goes on to say it doesn't travel far(a few centimenter in the air), its stopped by a layer of skin. This is not a nucleur reactor where your multipling reactions. Your own link said any practical portable neutron source will not provide you with thermal neutrons. To get thermal neutrons they refered you to buy a commercial source like 252Cf that has a half life of 2.65 years. Irrelevant.
First, any practical portable neutron source will not provide you with thermal neutrons.Commercially available sources of neutrons include 252Cf that normally undergoes an alpha decay, but has about 3% of its decays through spontaneous fission. Not Found Irrelevant.
Would not a fossils N14 have to be radiated by a neutron to be contaminated. If alpha rays are easily absorbed by materials how can it reach the N14 within the fossil. Irrelevant.
Because of their charge and large mass, alpha rays are easily absorbed by materials and can travel only a few centimeters in air. They can be absorbed by tissue paper or the outer layers of human skin (about 40 micrometres, equivalent to a few cells deep) and so are not generally dangerous to life unless the source is ingested or inhaled. Repetitious. This message has been edited by edge, 12-27-2005 08:06 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 203 by johnfolton, posted 12-27-2005 7:02 PM | | johnfolton has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Re: Carbon Dating Fossils?
How do you know its inner parts were not being mineralized, via humics. I don't think you have an appreciation for how carefully radiocarbon dates are acquired. Serious scientists go to great lenght to determine if there is alteration or contamination of the sample. The fact that consistent dates can be obtained is testament to the fact that it can work.
Really this is getting old, ... Yes, and there is a reason for that. Stubbornness is not always a virtue, G.
...without a complete mineral analysis testing for humics, cellose, clays, leachates complete mineral profiles its all circular. Probably not even necessary. If all of these were problems, the radiocarbon record should be a disaster of nonconcordance. It isn't.
A substantial fraction of the mass of the humic acids is in carboxylic acid functional groups, which endow these molecules with the ability to chelate positively charged multivalent ions (Mg++, Ca++, Fe++, most other "trace elements" of value to plants, as well as other ions that have no positive biological role, such as Cd++ and Pb++.) Humic Acids Irrelevant, for the reasons stated.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Re:
Humic acids present in a liquefaction anaerobic leachate "is relevant". It should raise flags in respect to leachate contamination of the humic mineral clays forming sediment glues by the processes of lithifaction. So the contaminated leachates removed and lithifaction sets, and the Evolutionists found something new to date. That is why we go to such great lengths to avoid contamination. Therefor your argument is irrelevant.
Creationists scientists have said to be wary of the evolutionists dating methods one reason given was leachate contamination. So have mainstream scientists. The point is that YEC scientists don't really care about contamination. Why should they? Their agenda is to 'prove' the technique does not work.
I'll agree that evolutionists are dating something, just not sure what. And I suppose it is just a coincidence that the dates correlate with varves and tree rings. If contamination is as problematic as you state there should be NO systematics to any dating system. And yet, there is.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 257 by johnfolton, posted 12-29-2005 9:28 PM | | johnfolton has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2