For whatever - your insult, and radioisotope dating

In message 12, whatever wrote:"Rei, Dr. Libby received a Nobel prize, he
proved C-14 is formed in the upper
atmosphere, now its up to you to prove
its been proven its formed within the
sediments, etc...Libby had proof, it wasn't
an hypothesis, or a theory, but proven,
the fossils are young, etc..."What Mr. whatever doesn't seem to understand here is that it doesn't matter whether C14 is formed within sediments or not as explained in Joe Meert's article "Andrew Snelling and the Iron Concretion?" The primary source of C14 is the atmosphere. Some of the atmospheric C14 is carried downward into porous subsurface strata, i.e. like sandstone enclosing the fossilized wood dated by Dr. Snelling, by circulating groundwater. As part of either carbon dioxide or soluble organic compounds, C14 is carried by groundwater deep into the subsurface. Younger carbon containing C14 in these compounds can contaminated the older carbon in fossilized wood as the result of chemical reaction and bacteria and fungi eating the fossilized wood in the subsurface. Therefore, there no need to prove that C14 forms within the sediments as groundwater transports sufficient amounts of it into the surface to cause contamination problems. Mr. Whatever and Dr. Snelling also ignore the fact that the piece of wood dated by Dr. Snelling was almost completely permineralized. Because of such alteration, it quite certain that what is left of the original carbon in the piece of wood has been contaminated by younger carbon in the groundwater.Interested lurkers can find a detailed discussion of all of this and many other problems with Dr. Snellings interpretations in:1. Claim CD011.5:" at:
CD011.5: C14 date of Triassic woodand "Meert, Joe, 2003. Andrew Snelling and the Iron Concretion?" at:
Frequently Asked Mr. whatever stated:"P.S. Until you prove to the scientific
community, how this unstable isotope can
be formed within the sediments, you can
not truthfully say the fossils are old,
or that evolution had millions of years
to evolve, this is the problem facing
the paleontologists, likely why they
have swept this issue under the rug, etc..."The fact of the matter is that the question whether C14 can form underground is more or less an irrelevant red herring in this discussion. Enough C14 being carried around in the subsurface by groundwater where it can create serious problems of contamination for badly preserve woody material such as the piece of wood dated by Dr. Snelling.One example of C14 being found in groundwater is discussed in "Dating the Moutere aquifer" at:http://icm.landcareresearch.co.nz/...the_moutere_aquifer.htmDocumented examples of the presence of C14 in dissolved organic matter within groundwater are:Davisson, M.L., 2000, Summary of Age-Dating
Analysis in the Fenner Basin, Eastern
Mojave Desert, California. UCRL-ID-139564.
U.S. Department of Energy, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory.http://www.desertwater.com/238187.pdf"One approach measured the radiocarbon age
of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in a
production (PW-1) in the Fenner Gap. The
DOC originated from the soil of the recharge
area(s) and flowed with the groundwater,
largely unaffected by reactions with other
carbon sources (Wassenaar et al., 1991).
Preliminary measurements indicate the
radiocarbon age of the DOC is between
1000 and 2800 years, with an estimate
mean of 1500 years."and"The radiocarbon was also measured on the
dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) from
groundwater in the Fenner Gap. Possible
ages estimated from the DIC radiocarbon
measurements range from less than 1000
up to 9000 years old."Also, C14 in dissolved organic matter in groundwater is documented by:Wassenaar, L., Aravena, R., Hendry, J.,
Fritz, P., 1991, Radiocarbon in dissolved
organic carbon, a possible groundwater
dating method: case studies from western
Canada. Water Resources Research. vol. 27,
pp. 1975-1986These and many other publications that can be found using GEOREF demonstrate that sufficient C14 exists within groundwater cause contamination problems with materials, i.e. coal and fossil wood that would otherwise be lacking in C14. However, that a little C14 can be formed underground provides even more reason for questioning the interpretations made by Young Earth creationists in dating material such as coal. Interested lurkers can learn more about this in "Carbon-14 Formation in Coal Deposits" at:Carbon-14 in Coal DepositsIt takes about one percent modern carbon contaminating a sample of wood that is free of C14 to create a bogus date of 35,000 BP. it takes only a very small amount of C14 contamination to create dates of 30,000 BP or older in material that otherwise would yield "dead" dates.The only mystery here is why someone would be so laughably foolish as to expect to get a valid date from a badly preserved and largely permineralized piece of wood. Even beginning students in geology and archaeology know that badly preserved and largely permineralized pieces of wood are completely useless for C14 dating.Yours,Bill Birkeland.

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, due to water movement, affecting parent elements constants, dating assumptions believed true for your dating methods, with argon rising up from the earth, and being recaptured by your cationic and anionic exchanges, responsible for mineralization of Snellings fossil, and these natural leaching problems, it should be obvious that the rocks are not as they were when they were laid down, even snellings fossil was mineralized, perhaps this is a root problem when dating rocks where only a little error can make a rock appear much older, due to the the great half life scale, and the leaching of C-14 out of pleistocene fossils at different rates making it appear that the pleistocene extinction happened at different times, due to the low half life scale, seems related to these factors, however, fossils like the famous Mammoth found frozen alive, were not mineralized, testify that the flood happened only thousands of years ago, and not millions of years ago.
P.S. Thanks though for bursting my bubble, I really liked Snellings wood fossil, but it is refreshing that you acknowledge that you can not assume that the dating methodologies are not affected by water transporting minerals, mineralization recapture caused by cationic and anionic exchanges, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-06-2004]

IrishRockhound, Whatever - the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, but the Sun is only 13,000 years? Please explain this a little further. Did the Sun just appear in the sky, poofed into being by a god with a truly bizarre sense of humour?I'm not a young earther, so I take the bible where it starts out kjv genesis 1:1 in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth to mean that God didn't just poof and the sun was there, he created the the sun, and the earth, and all the stars, even starlight testifies that God created the universe over billions, perhaps trillions of light years, God's eternal, etc...however, its possible that our solar system was created, only 4.6 billion years ago, 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. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Previously, detectors were able to pick up only electron neutrinos. But this new experiment at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) were able to detect the missing neutrino flavours, the mu and tau neutrinos that undergo ‘neutral current’ reactions. This is consistent with other lines of evidence that fusion is the primary source of energy, e.g. standard physical models indicate that the core temperature is high enough for fusion. This means that neutrinos must have a very tiny rest mass after allexperimental data must take precedence over the theories of particle physicists that neutrinos have zero rest mass. Therefore creationists should no longer invoke the missing neutrino problem to deny that fusion is the primary source of energy for the sun.So it cannot be used as a young-age indicatornor an old-age indicator for that matter.26P.S. Because this can not be used as a young age indicator nor an old age indicator there is no evidence that the sun is not 13,000 years a star, etc...

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."

Hi,I am confused at this, perhaps you could clear it up for me? Where do you get the 13,000 years from?Thanks.Brian.

You have no idea .. and you are really bad at making stuff up. Do you think you have any knowledge whatever on the subjects on which you potificate? Do you think your sources are telling you the truth?(The answers to both those questions are "no").Your claim is wrong.Isochron methods and concordia-discordia methods (the most widely used methods today) tell us when the rocks are not as they were when they were laid down. That's the "diagnostic" part of the "age-diagnostic" phrase that I mentioned in the first message of this thread. Isochron methods tell us when the rocks are or are not as they were when they were laid down, and discordia methods can often give us a good date for the rocks that are not as they were when they were laid down. And you have no idea of the range of half-lives that are used in radioisiotope dating. They range from 5.6 thousand years to 106 billion years.The errors possible in collection, measurement, and analysis have beeninvestigated and exhaustively tested and are well understood and reported with the ages. That's how science works, and yet another scientific thing that creationists don't do. Current equipment is so incredibly good that errors of less than 1% are routinely obtained. Sorry, there's no hope that the ages of the rocks are significatnly wrong, or that the fossils are younger than the rocks in which we find them. Thre was no mammoth frozen alive. Your sources are lying to you again. Don't swallow their lies; find out for yourself. From Mammoths: Were They Quick Frozen?:"William R. Farrand, writing in 1961, pointed out that only 39 mammoths had been found with some of their flesh preserved. Out of those only four were found more or less intact, including the Berezovka mammoth. All of them were rotten to some extent and the evidence showed that most were somewhat mutilated by predators prior to freezing. ... A more recent find, that of a calf dated at about 40,000 years, was retrieved whole in 1977 from a creek bed in eastern Siberia. Apparently it had fallen through a thin layer of frozen turf into a channel cut by melting water. Evidence, sorry to say, indicates that the animal starved to death. ... All of this evidence points to a routine scenario of life and death" Oh, we acknowledge that dating methods can be affected by such things; that's why we select samples and develop methods that avoid the problems. That's how science works. Scientists look for, anticipate, and solve problems. That's one of the many reasons why your sources aren't practicing science.

It appears the wood fossils of Snelling wasn't petrified, mineralized, it was preserved from waters because the sandstone was encapsulated in basalt, etc...quess were back to square one, the fossils can not be both young and old, meaning this proves the fossils are young, it was protected from mineralization, etc... Radioactive Dating in Conflict! | Answers in Genesis The wood was in three statesash, charred, and intact.1 Those on-site at the time speculated that there had been two distinct trees, partly standing, still organic in nature, and thus not petrified. The imprint of a leaf was also discovered within the basalt, which was also regarded as remarkable, remembering that the enclosing rock was once molten lava erupted at 1000—1200C (about 1800—2200F).So how could these tree trunks have survived being engulfed by molten lava? At approximately four metres (13 feet) thick, the basalt flow is relatively thin,1,3 and thus cooling would have been rapid (perhaps days, but a few weeks at most4). This is verified by the observed internal structure of the basalt flow.1,5 Since the tree trunks were engulfed at the bottom of the flow, cooling may have been immediate, with any water present in the wood aiding extremely rapid encapsulation and thus preservation.[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-06-2004]

Nitpick: you can't do a concordia-discordia plot for K-Ar; you need two radioactive parents that are isotopes of one element and two stable daughters that are also isotopes of another element. U-238 ->
Pb-206 and U-235 -> Pb-207 is the only system I know of that is suitable.

Simple. The samples are not tree trunks.

Oh, yes there is. Just because you aren't aware of it does not mean that it does not exist, especially given your demonstrated ignorance of matters scientific.The Sun could not have formed in 13,000 years, and the isotope ratios indicate an age of circa 4.5 billion years.Visit the thread I pointed to before. Lots of discussion and evidence and links there.

The last time I looked, argon was still among the so-called "noble gases." It doesn't get captured, in other words, by either your or my cationic OR anionic exchanges. Try again - say "zwitterionic" real fast about eight times while whirling on one foot. I don't think that will make it happen, but hey....

Whatever,Please respond to this post pls.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

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."

Brian, The bible always says that God made, created, etc...it doesn't say poof and it was, it says he said and then he made, created, etc...
People tell me that the earth and the entire universe happened in a blinking of an eye, however, the bible says God said then however, he made, created, etc...If a thousand years are but as a watch in the night to God, and the Apostle Peter explaining to the brethren, not to be ignorant that one day to God is as a thousand years, etc... The creation week man only came onto the scene on the sixth day, meaning that God is talking about a God day, that the creation week took 7,000 years, the creationists believe they were 24 hour days, making the earth by the genologies of man, to be 6,000 years old. When you add 6,000 years to the 7,000 years you come to the beginning of the creation week when God causes the sun to be a light to be 13,000 years ago, etc...
P.S. If you calculate from Adam to Noah Flood its likely happened closer to 5,000 years ago, if you factor in that Adam was created on the 6th day, and God rested on the seventh day. If your an young earther, it really doesn't matter, God did it, and the fossils are young, even if or if not the rocks are old, etc...This is how I see it, presently, etc...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.kjv 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-06-2004]