|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How, exactly, is dating done? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Whatever,
I don't think you have any idea how confused you are about scientific terminology, radiometric dating, plain old geology and even the arguments of young earth creationists. Your posts read like a word-salad to anyone who has a modicum of training in the field. You confuse sediments with igneous rocks, granites with basalts, oceanic crust with continental crust, porosity with atomic level diffusion and marry all this confusion into a flood for which there is no evidence. JonF has been amazingly patient with you. I've concluded you're either a troll or a 13 year old. If you want to argue, at least get the terminology straight in your head and make your argument logically coherent. Tossing terms into random sentences is not a logical argument. I've asked you this question before, but it is worth asking again. How, according to your convoluted and confused model, do you account for vastly different ages from the same stratigraphic level? For example, in the St. Francois mountains there are dikes intruding volcanic rocks. These volcanic rocks, by definition, were erupted at the surface, collapsed into their own magma chamber and were later intruded by the dikes. According to you, these volcanic rocks (being surficial) should show younger ages than the dikes that intrude them, but we find exactly the opposite. Furthermore, the volcanic rocks are highly silicious and cemented (very low porosity) whereas the dikes and their margins show clear evidence for hydrothermal activity. This also is completely at odds with your model. Lastly, the volcanic rocks show unambiguous evidence for subareal eruption which is very difficult for a flood. Your assignment? Go look up some more words and mix them up so that you can explain these observations. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: We all realized that long ago.
quote: JM: I never said that. The volcanic rocks in question are rhyolitic in composition.
quote: JM: Nope, you've yet to show any evidence for a flood. The dikes are not granite, they are dolerite.
quote: JM: There is no deformation in these rocks to support the idea that they were crushed under the continents. There is no such thing as the 'hydoplate theory'. At best, it should be called a hypothesis at worst it should be called a total crock. What scientific journal did Walt Brown publish his idea in?
quote: JM: You would do well to read why magma chambers collapse.
quote: JM: These siliceous rocks are full of hydrated minerals. However, I bet you still don't understand the difference between porosity and lattice.
quote: JM: These magmas show every indication of eruption on land and no evidence of ever being submerged.
quote: JM: What exactly is the relevance of smelting? Smelting ores has nothing to do with this at all. Smelting is a process invented by humans to concentrate ores. It has nothing whatsover to do with this issue.
quote: JM: You mean losing? Given that none of what you said so far is correct, it's hard to imagine that this has any meaning.
quote: JM: A much simpler explanation and one that does not require word salad, global floods, a smelting plant operation in the middle of the flood and an incorrect description of the rocks, is that they date older because THEY ARE OLDER! Simple field relationships (even creationists agree with) tell us that the dikes are younger than the rocks they intrude (see photo below).
quote: JM: All wrong. The dikes are doleritic and they show absolutely no sign of ever being crushed or deformed.
quote: JM: This has nothing to do with dating of diamonds. Another non-sequiter.
quote: JM: You have no idea what you just said do you? How old are you? Since you admit that you are not a scientist, don't you think you should learn a bit about the science you want to criticize before criticizing it? Or am I just old fashioned when I think that a good critique comes from a knowledgeable source?
quote: JM: Yes, they would know what I was talking about, but I'll bet you dollars to donuts they would not understand a word you are saying! You just proved my point. Cheers Joe Meert Here's a photo of the rocks. Ignimbrite is a volcanic rock. The dike intrudes and cuts through the ignimbrite and therefore MUST be younger than the ignimbrite. This part is not rocket science, it's a simple field observation that everybody (including Snelling and Austin) would agree upon. Not surprisingly, the dikes date younger than the rocks they intrude, but not by some non-existent and irrelevant 'smelting' process. [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 01-15-2004] [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 01-15-2004] {Scaled photo size down to 90%, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus (For some reason the relative scaling didn't take - switched to absolute. --Percy)} [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-15-2004] [This message has been edited by Admin, 01-15-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: But of course, you've offered no evidence to support this. Remember NONE of the rocks, either the rocks intruded by the dikes nor the dikes themselves show any evidence for 'crushing' and much evidence for having remained very close to the surface from the time they formed. This is all published scientific work, not conjecture on a bulletin board.
quote: JM: Could you repeat this explanation in geologic language so that it is coherent. It appears to be nothing more than word salad again. How old are you? It's a legit question because it's obvious from your posts that you have no idea what the terms mean. That's either due to the fact that you are extremely young or that you simply lack some rudimentary education in Earth Sciences. Both are correctable, but these word-salad conjectures of yours are not.
quote: JM: As I mentioned to you before and you ignored, even Austin and Snelling would agree the dikes are younger. We know this even without dating the dikes! It's basic geometric relationships. The fact that you can't grasp this indicates (once again) that you really don't know what you are saying. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: The problem is your assumption that excess argon is ALWAYS a problem. It is not (the lecture also points this out as do many texts on argon-argon dating). You assume that this makes Ar-Ar useless when, in fact, the article at Cornell discusses how this information can be used to properly evaluate the age of a rock where excess argon is detected.
quote: JM: Indeed. This point was driven home by the article you cited. Every geochronologic investigation looks for problems and issues of contamination. What you've not discussed is why different methods conducted on the same rocks agree.
quote: JM: He may not be, but many others are dating sediments. In particular, U-Pb dating of carbonates is proving to be useful in a number of cases. Rb-Sr and K-Ar dating of glauconites is perhaps one of the oldest efforts at direct dating of sediments. Therefore it is not strictly correct to say that sediments are not being dated directly. Lastly, studies of detrital zircons in sandstones can give a limit to the age of the sedimentary rock by noting the age of the youngest zircon. The age of the sandstone must be younger than the age of the youngest zircon. Incidentally, your wild conjecture would suggest that all ages would be the same in this sandstone, but the zircons are quite diagnostic of source regions in the area. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Put me out of this misery, PLEASE?
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024