|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
On the magma level, it does look like 40K is being forced to turn into 40Ar and 40Ca by neutrons and protons. Not even wrong. Calcium is irrelevant to radiometric dating. As I posted before and you denied, 40K decays to 40 Ar by capturing an electron from an inner shell to turn a neutron into a proton and emitting a 1.460 MeV (minimum) gamma ray and a neutrino. We know this stuff.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
"not wanting to react"? I wasn't clear. Is it unstable in its containment? Does it bounce around in the rock? It is somewhat to very mobile, depending very strongly on temperature. That's why dating using helium (produced as part of the decay or uranium and thorium) is very difficult and very rarely used. The very first radiometric date, in 1904 by Lord Rutherford, was based on helium. He wrote that almost certainly some helium had escaped and therefore his age was a lower bound. If you are referring to Humphreys' work with zircons as part of the RATE group, again you need to learn a lot before you can discuss it. Standard U-Pb dating of zircons does not use helium, how much helium there is or is not in the zircon doesn't matter.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
That's Aardsma. He's mostly honest and knows his stuff on 14C. Used to be with the ICR some time ago but left.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Most trees don't grow new rings. They have them at once and they become distinct and spread with age. Um, er, nope. Most trees form new rings each year. This is established by correlating rings with each other and other dating methods and with known historical events. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Why didn't you notice how the rings in the middle are getting bigger?
I don't see any pictures of rings in one tree getting larger over time.
Did you ever notice that I don't respond to much? Usually, when you post to me, it is unworthy.
RAZD mostly knows his stuff. You would do well to study and learn from his messages.
I am unfamiliar with other instruments that do what a Geiger counter does.
Irrelevant. Geiger counters have nothing to do with tree ring dating. When tree samples are dated with 14C the most usual instrument is a mass spectrometer counting the atoms individually by weight. Whether or not they are radioactive.
You thought I wanted to invalidate C14 dating? I know you are confused.
Well, it's certain you are horribly confused because pretty much everything you have said about tree rings is false, s has been pointed out at least twice. So what are you trying to do? Make up false stories about trees? What?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
I've posted this many times. From Call for an improved set of decay constants for geochronological use (I can supply the whole paper):
quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Are they provable? No. They can be, and are, established as true far beyond reasonable doubt. But the possibility of other explanations exists. E.g. the entire Universe could have been created last Thursday with a full complement of fake history and memories and whatever is required to make that creation undetectable. Or invisible magic space walruses could be affecting the results for their amusement. Go ahed, prove those impossible. There's an infinite number of other possibilities, none of which are worth serious consideration. But the existence of those possibilities requires that logically we cannot claim absolute proof such as we have in mathematics.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
And if trees grew faster in the distant past, ice cores would have to accumulate at exactly the same rate in the distant past, corals would have to grow at exactly the same rate in the distant past, and varves would have to be laid down at the same rate in the distant past. All over the world.
Because they all agree to an astonishing degree, which demands explanation. It's called "consilience". We have an explanation. Do you? As an incomplete example:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
We know. Past events leave traces.
.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Oklo.
SN1987A. And many more. Our knowledge ranges much farther than your pitiful ignorance.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Radioactive decay rates under terrestrial conditions are and have been constant.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct01.htmlThe Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: August 2006
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The existence of radioactive decay in the distant past at the same rates as today is solidly established. Radioactive decay is the product of the most fundamental properties of the Universe. Differences from today would leave many detectable events in an astonishing variety of places. We've looked long and hard for those traces.
They aren't there. Radioactive decay rates have been the same throughout the observable Universe for 99+ percent of its existence.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
How about that stuff indeed?
Got any evidence that those "issues" are real and real problems? Didn't think so.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Really? Walt Brown? At least he is not as pathetic as Kent Hovind. Oh he's getting more pathetic by the day. His latest thing is moving the asteroids from near-Earth Solar orbit to the asteroid belt by Solar sails consisting of water vapor clouds surrounding each asteroid. Doesn't take much smarts to realize gravitational coupling between water molecules and the asteroid is orders of magnitude too small, and the Solar wind would strip the water off.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
And what do tree rings have to do with deposition rates? They're completely independent of lake varves and ice layers - and lake varves are completely independent of ice layers. So why do they give the same answers?
Not to mention U-Th disequilibrium dating of speleothems. Obviously far beyond his comprehension.
Extremely Large Variations of Atmospheric 14C Concentration During the Last Glacial Period. It's part of the latest INTCAL calibration curve.
Uranium—thorium dating Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024