For whatever - your insult, and radioisotope dating

Two things:1. When the poster mentioned "lava" melting surrounding rocks (they really meant "magma"), this was a reference to false isochrons. What you need to get the poster to do is explain both why this isn't resolved with a mixing plot, and why negative slopes are so incredibly rare when they should be equally distributed.2. You should ask the poster to evidence proper sample selection, which covers the following that *every* competent geologist (but, seemingly, few creationists) do: a homogenous sample, no obvious signs of weathering, and no obvious signs of metamorphism (especially heat). All of these things are fairly easy to detect.3. Probably a better place to start these YECs off is to get them to address why all isotopes that aren't currently being created by natural processes on earth that have half-lives of a few tens of millions of years are absent on Earth, but ones with half lives of more than a hundred million years are still present. I.e., the "missing isotopes" problem. I've yet to see a YEC even give it a half-hearted shot.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Since whatever seems to be unaware of any dating methods other than K-Ar, which cannot yield a false isochron, it's far from obvious to me that the reference is to a mixing isochron.

---

Ah, I was confusing your discussion of Ar-Ar with whatever's discussion of K-Ar; almost every time I've run into creationists making the mixing argument, it's in reference to false isochrons.

quote:

---

You are, of course, indulging in some light-hearted frivolity when you suggest these courses of action in relation to whatever. ;-)

---

Well, it can't hurt to try and get them to actually learn about science before they argue against it

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

JonF, If Snellings wood fossil was actually 230 million years old it would not have any C-14, as C-14 has only been proven to be formed in the atmosphere(proven), though, I'm sure you all believe its being formed within the earth(not proven), because you have no other way to explain Snellings dated wood fossil, etc...

---

Please state why you are so confident that it is "proven" that C-14 forms in the atmosphere, but not "proven" in the earth. Go on, impress us with your knowledge of what is proven, and why! I'll be waiting.

quote:

---

P.S. Get over it, its a moot point, the fossils have been proven to be young, and the rocks old, etc...

---

You haven't read a thing, have you? He won't even let people see that what he was looking at was even *wood*, let alone actually date it. How disingenuous can you get?BTW.... do you have any answers to why multiple dating methods almost always match up, why isochron slopes are almost always positive, why mixing plots would be wrong regardless of this, or anything else? In short, can you *at all* show even a *weakness* in the methodology used to date samples? Likewise, can you explain the missing isotopes?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

You ignored the second half of the request: 'but not "proven" in the earth.'Why is the evidence that was posted somehow less compelling than Libby's?Will you not address the latter half of my post as well, or the many unanswered questions that everyone else has been posting to you?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

You say that you're an old-earther. Are you a young-lifer or old-lifer?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

I believe the earth is possibly 4.6 billion years old, however, believe the sun is only a star 13,000 years

---

And why did God make the sun appear as ancient as the Earth, from the isotopes which it contains to its stage in the main sequence, and a hundred other factors?

quote:

---

how does that make me a young earther, if I have no problem with the rocks being older than the fossils, etc...

---

You should. There are fossilized *footprints* buried under *many ancient basaltic flows*. Fossilized egg shells. Fossil bivalves, complete with their burrows. Fossilized plants. Soil horizons. Entire layers of deposited marine life. Etc. All underneath ancient basalt (often many layers of it). That would be quite the magic trick to get them down there.

quote:

---

they were able to date the pleistocene fossils found abundantly frozen in the Siberia, Alaska, etc...

---

They're not fossilized. Do you not know the difference between fossilization and preservation? Also, don't you know how recent the pleistocene is?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

It might well be that you don't need to prove C-14 is being formed within the sediment of the earth, water percolation, possible bacterial contribution drawing on water percolation, seeing how mineralized the fossil was, makes one question any rock dating,

---

No, it doesn't. You clearly have no clue what isochron dating and concordia/discordia dating are, and have refused our attempts to get you to learn what they are and the significance of them. If you refuse to even learn about the topic, why are you debating about it?

quote:

---

with argon rising up from the earth, and being recaptured by your cationic and anionic exchanges

---

Argon leeching out or in would show on an isochron or a concordia/discordia plot.

quote:

---

it should be obvious that the rocks are not as they were when they were laid down, even snellings fossil was mineralized,

---

If it even was a fossil, of course it was mineralized - it was in triassic sandstone. Do you not understand the difference in the timescale between Pliestocene and Triassic? Pliestocene, in permafrost is unlikely to mineralize much. Triassic in sandstone is essentially guaranteed to be mineralized. What is hard for you to grasp about this concept?

quote:

---

where only a little error can make a rock appear much older,

---

But only a *tiny percentage* difference. I.e., if you have a fossil that dates as 500 million years old, you can get a "little error" that will be a few million years off - but that doesn't change the fact that the fossil is "around" 500 million years old, and that almost always multiple dating methods (when done properly, and - key words here - In Cases Where It Is Expected To Not Be Unreliable (such as Snelling's case) - get the same result. Yes, I could go out and try to carbon-date, say, a clam, and get a date that is way off and say that this disproves carbon dating. But I would be attacking a straw man (in case you didn't know, you're not supposed to carbon date most marine fossils, because the ocean recycles old carbon). Snelling, too, is doing just that: attacking a straw man.There are cases where carbon dating has been tested to death, and it works every time; in these cases, it is acceptable to use. There are cases where carbon dating has been tested extensively, and it almost never works. These cases are *never acceptable* to use, except for to try and refine the method.You have yet to explain the following, despite many people asking you for it:Why, When Methods Are Done Properly, Do Dates Virtually Always Come Back As Concordant With Completely Different Methods?

quote:

---

leaching of C-14 out of pleistocene fossils at different rates

---

LAF!!! Pray tell, what is causing C-14 to leach out of Pliestocene fossils at a different rate than C-12?

quote:

---

making it appear that the pleistocene extinction happened at different times

---

You know, carbon dating is hardly the only thing that confirms this.

quote:

---

due to the low half life scale

---

... which makes it ideal for recent fossils, but worthless for ancient ones...

quote:

---

were not mineralized

---

Because They Were Encased In Ice, And From The Pliestocene! And They Were Not Found In Flood Sediments

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 01-06-2004]

quote:

---

but that our sun poofed into a star 13,000 years ago, when God said let there be light, is when it went nucleur, and became a light, and God said it was good kjv genesis 1:4, if one day is as a thousand years to God kjv 2 peter 3:8, then the sun went nucleur only 13,000 years ago.

---

First off, bodies don't just "poof into stars". The initial phase of energy release - gravitational collapse - provides plenty of radiative energy, and lasts for several million years. Then you start to get deuterium fusion in addition to the gravitational energy release. Deuterium fusion is what powers brown dwarfs; it is fairly weak. However, if gravitational collapse continues long enough, you get the first bit of regular hydrogen fusion. Over the next several hundred thousand years, the star progresses into becoming a main-sequence star as the fusing core expands and the convection belts establish themselves.Note that the star is releasing *tons* of light energy well before *any* fusion ever starts. Our star is currently halfway into the main sequence.If you had visited the Young Star thread as you were referred to earlier in this debate, you would have known this.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

whatever didn't specify K-Ar; seing as (s)he only mentioned Ar, I assumed Ar-Ar; although, you are still correct - Ar-Ar is suitable for isochron, but not concordia/discordia.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

If this was from a volcanic eruption that cooled underwater, where is the evidence of pillowing?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

kjv Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.

---

Do you know what a metaphor is? There's no reason to not read genesis literally, but then go and read a clearly metaphorical sentence (note the "as") literally.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

I believe the sun became a star on Gods first creation day

---

Once again, I have to ask you to define "became a star", since there is no moment when a star is born, it's a process stretched over millions of years. Furthermore, our sun shows all evidence of being a main sequence star about halfway through its fuel which would occur for a star like our sun at 4 1/2 billion years.

quote:

---

P.S. I'm not a theologian, but just feel that the first 3,000 years were for the melting of the waters, the separation of the waters, and for the stablishing of plant life, but on day 4 he positioned the lights in the sky, for the creatures he created on day 5 and day 6, and when God was done he saw that it was good, etc..

---

And the plants were growing using what energy source..... ?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

I think we get the gist of what you believe, it is what you can prove with actual evidence that is lacking

---

I personally don't care if Whatever proves it or not, I would just like to see *any* evidence at all, since we've been presenting piles and piles of counterevidence.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

you have your evidence, you have the Grand Canyon, Carved out of the earth,

---

Unfortunately, there is a kind of massive overland flood, and it doesn't care canyons - it smooths out regions. It *flattens* land, leaving a rippled terrain somewhat similar to glaciation. The same thing has happened many places on earth, including here in North America (the Missoula floods, which flattened parts of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon). Canyons are caused by water moving in a *small* area, not a large area. Furthermore, if you think that the Grand Canyon was carved by the flood, you have to think that it was both deposited *and* carved by the flood, since it contains fossils - even fossilized *footprints* that I suppose were somehow layed down in tact by your flood.

quote:

---

you have the redwood trees testifying they are alive, yet the fossil coal grave yards through out the world testify they once grew all over the earth

---

And...? We see species distributions changing *in our own lifetimes*. What's your explanation for them only growing here now?

quote:

---

fossils can not be preserved if particles are laid down a particle t a time over millions of years, the fossils would quickly decompose

---

That statement is just false. There are two things required to form a fossil: Preservation, and fossilization. Preservation can occur in numerous different ways, from ice to being buried in mud to living in a relatively non-corrosive environment. If an organism is suitably preserved, fossilization is quite likely.

quote:

---

millions of years to lay down the sediments

---

Not in landslides, mudslides, glaciation, volcanism, and a host of other events, both local and regional. You really haven't thought this through, have you?

quote:

---

reason they are all layered is that there was a flood

---

Floods leave utterly different layers. Floods do not lay down strata and rapidly alter their content. They do not sort fossils based on radioisotope content and lineages. They do not lay down water-soluable minerals. They do not preserve footprints. They are very distinct, and we've seen many types of floods (from huge overland flooding to seasonal river flooding and more); they're not even remotely close.

quote:

---

and the biblical flood has been the answer until the paleontolgists came up with rock dating

---

No, the biblical flood was the answer until scientists started looking at the rocks and the fossils, and were unable to explain it. However, they *still* refused to give up the creation-concept, and instead had to switch to the "multiple creations" theory, which was that God created and destroyed the world several times. They had to keep adding more and more "creation/destruction" pairs in, until they finally gave up on it. It just doesn't work out; the fossil layers are too consistantly sorted.

quote:

---

the particles stratified

---

Floods do not alter mineral content every couple milliseconds, nor are they good for laying down sheets of basalt. [quote]local catastrophies like mt st helens also contributed to local burials,

quote:

---

... which are not fossilized, but are preserved - exactly what I was telling you about earlier, how things can be preserved long before fozziliation.

​

quote:

---

the glaciers could of happened suddenly, explaining the lack of sediments in polar regions

---

​

Huh? We've got ice cores (whose layers match up with dendrochronology concerning carbon 14 content) which show that to be flat-out false. Multiple independent radioisotopes dating methods done thousands of times in the world all show the range of dates for glaciation, and how long the period lasted. What are you talking about?

​

quote:

---

the massive fossils islands found frozen in the Siberian seas

---

​

What are you referring to?

​

quote:

---

the massive coal grave yards in the rocky mountains more evidence they floated and were covered by the sediments of a world flood

---

​

Floods do not make coal. What sort of "evidence" is this?

​

quote:

---

the evidence is overwhelming

---

​

So overwhelming that the almost exclusively creationist scientific community was forced to very reluctantly give it up when they began analyzing the fossil record.

​

quote:

---

I've already explained your dating method is based on assumptions

---

​

Which you've refused to name. You've yet to address how isochron and concordia/discordia methods are based on assumptions, or even to point out a weakness in carbon dating itself that could make fossils that date as old actually be notably younger.

​

quote:

---

and then you say that in some cases you need to change the methodology to burn off excess argon

---

​

What are you talking about?

​

quote:

---

you also know that argon was found absorbed by diamonds placing diamonds older than 4.6 billion years (think it was shown by Dr. Snelling)(hope it was documented)

---

​

Yes. The dates from the Nature article were 6 billion years, or an error of 30%. While this is a very high error by scientific standards (probably the highest I've ever heard of), it is low by practical standards, and nowhere anywhere even remotely near the level of error needed produce a young earth.

​

Now, once again, we're asking you to explain:

​

Why Do Completely Different Methods Keep Getting Results That Are Very Close To Each Other When Done Properly, From Extraterrestrial to Earth Samples Of All Kinds?

​

Why can we date the average rock with multiple methods and get results that are *very* close to each other? Why is a 30% error the worst that we can find in a situation where the method should work (I mean, you can always use a method incorrectly, but what's the use of that?)? Can you explain *any* of this?

​

quote:

---

leaching

---

​

You clearly still have not read up on concordia/discordia or isochron dating methods.

​

quote:

---

we all know that sediments stratify in flood waters

---

​

Actually, sediments stratify in *calm* waters. Sediments mix in turbulent waters. In no waters do layers of sediment being deposited rapidly alternate back and forth every few milliseconds. Nowhere do they rapidly deposit layers of water soluable minerals.

​

quote:

---

yet you say no, every layer was laid down separately, separated by millions of years of time, even though you know that trees have been found laying upside down within layer's you believe are separated by 100's of millions of years

---

​

Your time scale is completely wrong, I can't think of a single case where you'll find a polystriate fossil over 100s of millions of years. Name such a case, and I'll bake you a dozen cookies.

​

We've witnessed polystriate organisms being layed down in real time, generally in places of rapid soil buildup and from volcanic eruptions. Now, can *you* explain the multiple soil horizons?

​

quote:

---

but then you seem to have a problem with the evidence

---

​

The "problem" is that you're refusing to learn about how things actually are dated, and ignoring the questions about the incredible consistancy of multiple dating methods, including the studies designed specifically to test for consistancy (such as the K/T tektites and meteorite dating studies). And questions about radioisotope sorting, and morphometry sorting, and everything else we've asked.

​

Why won't you answer these things???

​

quote:

---

If you questioned the viability of the evidence you would be branded a creationists, etc...

---

​

If you could back it up, you'd win a nobel prize. Look, who do you think published the article in Nature about the cubic diamonds with excess argon - a creationist?? Nope. Who initially threw aside the great flood theory, evolutionists? Nope, creationists (who *still* clung to creationism, but were forced to make there be multiple great creation/destruction events, and steadily increase the number). Scientists *live* to point out weaknesses in each other's theories - that's how they make a name for themselves. But they only do it with *evidence*; if they dodge questions (as you've been doing), they utterly fail. If they refuse to provide confirmation such as Snelling has done (refusing to let other people look at his sample), they utterly fail. Do you understand?

​

but think what you need to do is question the assumptions of the dating methods

---

Coming from one who hasn't even read about isochron and concordia discordia, and thus doesn't know what their assumptions are, this line is quite amusing.

quote:

---

it seems the only way you can date things accurately is if someone tells you how old the sediments are, then you throw out the bad test results and say its been proven

---

Ah. That's why the Nature article just threw away their error, right?Get a mit and catch a clue: Science Never Throws Away Figures That Don't Fit. Got it? I know that you, in your conspiratorial way probably don't believe it, but you're free to ignore reality all you want. When there's figures that don't fit, science's response is to *debate over them* and try and figure out what's wrong. When the results still don't fit, it leads to the revolutionizing of theories; this has happened many times, such as when Newton's laws were found to fail on the fringes and relativity was forced to enter the scene. You think people *wanted* to believe that there was an absolute speed in the universe, for example?

quote:

---

the argon potassium dating is believed to be only accurate when testing basalt rock, that melted and cooled solid without any impurities, what if it was cooled in ocean water

---

It would pillow. See the related thread about basalt and pillowing.

quote:

---

what if the pressures in the earth itself contributes to argon recapture as the argon rises

---

In what manner?

quote:

---

if a diamond which is carbon based, can absorb argon, what makes you believe it can not be absorbed in the basalt

---

Few believe that the diamonds *absorbed* argon. Such a thing has never been shown to be even close to possible - and we've subjected diamonds to all sorts of bizarre conditions, as synthesizing them is a very important industry. Consequently, the diamonds had to have been formed either with the small error producing, rare exceptional case compared to all diamonds in existance that have been studied, where the rest match up, amount of argon, or of an imbalance of an isotope which decays to argon.

quote:

---

you believe C-14 can contaminate underground fossils by water percolating throught the sediments,

---

We can tell when water has reached an area - since his fossil was hematite, that *requires* water. Likewise, in most cases, we can tell that there *wasn't* water there, by what water hasn't damaged or formed. You're talking about some sort of water that can sneak in and out without changing anything except carbon isotope levels, which is a ridiculous proposition. How would you suggest that happen?

quote:

---

The paleontologists are using you they rely on your faith that the sediments can be used to date the age of the fossil imprints, etc...

---

No. They rely on the fact that multiple independent methods of dating continue to keep producing incredibly close ages for everything that they test, and with the incredibly rare exceptions (which warrant their own articles in Nature, as you noticed, out of all of the dating done every year which is usually just listed as part of another study), something that you have *yet* to explain.Please, Please, Please, for the love of God, answer all of the questions you've been posed!

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

I think I figured out the problem with argon potassium dating,

---

Actually, your post makes precisely clear what the problem is: You don't know even a lick of chemistry, do you?

quote:

---

its obvious to me that argon compound are being generated,

---

Argon is not a compound, it is an element. Being a noble gas, it is almost impossible for argon to bond to anything else. It's an inherent property of noble gasses; their outermost electron shell is completely filled. It is possible, but *extremely difficult*, to create noble gas compounds (it wasn't even achieved until the 1960s). The resulting end products that they managed to create were *incredibly* unstable. The compounds that I'm aware of are xenon-based; it may be possible with argon as well, but it will be even more unstable.For all practical purposes, noble gasses do not bond.

quote:

---

so what is the nature of the basalt that would give a bogus inflated argon date making the rocks appear millions of year old

---

You've got it all wrong: first off, your line of "reasoning" only applies to K/Ar dating (not Ar/Ar which is isochron and not subject to most cases of leaking).

quote:

---

this appears to be all your questioning, given you put so much faith in the inert noble gas argon and the circular game

---

It's Not Circular When Multiple Independent Methods Return The Same Result, something that you keep refusing to address!!!

quote:

---

the sediments can be dated by a nucleur clock, here's the link's proving argon can be captured and by the very basalts your dating, etc...

---

The article discussed in the link refers to molecules of CUO *trapped inside solid noble gas matrices* that interact weakly with the matrix. I.e., they're not even stable enough to hold themselves together - and this is *at temperatures near absolute zero*. How exactly are you proposing that we get such frigid solid noble gas matrices in the earth?

quote:

---

Did a google search, and your answer lies in that basalt contain thorium an uranium energy enriched compound, its been proven that argon gas can be captured by uranium so what I believe is happening, is given thorium is part of the basalt that you place such faith in dating, its responsible for your inflated ages, and argon capture, etc...

---

You believe that individual CUO molecules are trapped inside noble gas matrices in basalt? Please tell me that's not the case Just to reiterate the point:In The Experiments That You're Referencing, Solid Argon Is Trapping CUO, Not The Other Way Around, And The Temperatures Are Near Absolute Zero.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."