Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,920 Year: 4,177/9,624 Month: 1,048/974 Week: 7/368 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 10 of 133 (37654)
04-23-2003 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Philip
04-23-2003 1:37 AM


Re: The Sacred Cow
I for one find it very much easier to believe earth's higher inorganic elements and their radiometric isotopes (if you will) were formed at or very nearly at the beginning of the creation.
But it's immaterial to dating when the elements were formed - only when they first froze out in rocks is of any consequence in dating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Philip, posted 04-23-2003 1:37 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Philip, posted 04-30-2003 1:32 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 37 of 133 (39633)
05-10-2003 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by manwhonu2little
05-10-2003 3:36 PM


Re: Right
Reactions with these cosmic rays produces radioactive isotopes of certain elements such as 10Be, 14C, 36Cl, 3He....
And exactly that technology is being used to date, for instance, how long the rocks around the Grand Canyon have been on the surface. 36Cl and 3He, at least, build up in near-surface (to a meter or two down) rock in a readily-modelled manner. Look up "cosmogenic isotopes."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-10-2003 3:36 PM manwhonu2little has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-10-2003 4:11 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 44 of 133 (39644)
05-10-2003 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by manwhonu2little
05-10-2003 3:36 PM


Re: Right
For example, our bodies contain enough radioactive potassium alone to cause us to create a false-positive test for Radon gas in one of those in-home canisters.
I think I'd have to call that an urban legend, too, in the absence of a cite: 40K decays by beta particles, which are pretty wimpy radiation...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-10-2003 3:36 PM manwhonu2little has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 49 of 133 (40822)
05-20-2003 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Kyle Shockley
05-20-2003 7:32 PM


Re: Superpositioning
Hi, Kyle! I've seen you around some board or the other in the past, but, as they say, the memory is the second thing to go.
Stratification can take up to next to no time to occur (uniformitarian-wise).
The word to watch out for there is "can." That is very likely true - strata can form quickly. But examples of them doing so are pretty rare - that's part of why sedimentologists and stratigraphers go to school for all those years, and go study the rocks in place all the time. You just plain can't get sediments like those in the Delaware Basin of Texas to form quickly, with submillimeter-thick alternating layers stacked up two kilometers thick. And you can't grow a 500 meter thick coral reef in just a millenium or two. And there are still the various radioisotope dating methods that can often be used to check on stratigraphy, and these are independent of both the stratigraphy and of each other.
So yes, Berthault might be right about what can happen, but that doesn't translate into what does happen 99.5% of the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-20-2003 7:32 PM Kyle Shockley has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-20-2003 11:05 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 71 of 133 (41320)
05-25-2003 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Kyle Shockley
05-25-2003 9:27 PM


Let us start with
Kitigawa and van der Plicht, Science, 279, pp 1187-1190, (1998), which correlates 250 14C dates with their corresponding annual varves in Lake Suigetsu, Japan. (free read with registration at Science | AAAS )
Reichow, et al, ibid., 296, pp 1846-1849, (2002) with about 25 Ar-Ar dates on basalts from the Siberian Traps and their underground eastward extensions - some of these dates are indeed "off" by as much as two million years, but that's out of 250 million. (maybe not free online till its one-year anniversary?)
and
Genty, et al., Nature 421. pp 833-837, (2003) with a twenty-page supplement of U-Th dates on stalagmites back to 83,000 years ago, each date ordered in the same sequence in which its rock sample occurred in the stalagmite. (abstract free at Nature , but the paper means a trip to the college library)
[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 05-25-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-25-2003 9:27 PM Kyle Shockley has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Kyle Shockley, posted 05-25-2003 10:13 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024