Geologists and dating (India Basins Half a Billion Years Older Than Thought)

Ok, I've been involved in some research over the past few years wherein my group has been thinking about a 500 million year revision in the age of a basin in India. That's a big deal in geology, but we finally went ahead and published our data. Creationists tend to accuse geologists of being brainwashed into accepting the status quo. Had we accepted the status quo, we would have never gone ahead and published these data, but to me, they begged to be published and they begged to challenge the status quo. So, the next time someone accuses scientists of being set in their ways, tell 'em it ain't so:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...0710-india-basins.htmlCheersJoe MeertEdited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added "(India Basins Half a Billion Years Older Than Thought)" part to topic title.

The original ages were K-Ar ages on glauconite and Fission track ages on sedimentary rocks. Basically, you are talking about throwing something at the rocks and hoping something good comes out of it. It was also based on the assertion by Indian geologists that the basins were all of the same age and all were Neoproterozoic to Cambrian in age due to the lack of fossils. In short, it was a guess that became a 'firm age' in the minds of many people working in the area. The new estimates come from two lines of evidence (1) Samples of sedimentary rock yield zircons that are inherited into the rock. The oldest zircon can be sometimes used to infer the age of the rock (i.e. the sample should contain zircons of all older material). In this case, our samples came from a region next door to a huge (>50,000 sq km) granite-rhyolite terrane of 770-900 Ma age (well-dated). Our samples yielded no detrital zircons younger than 1020 Ma. So we could make an assumption that the lack of these 770-900 Ma zircons mean that the sediments are older than the granite rhyolite province. The second piece of evidence came from a study we made in 2006 on a kimberlite pipe that intruded the lower part of this basin. We obtained an age of 1073 Ma on the kimberlite, but more importantly the paleomagnetic data from the kimberlite was identical to some early studies on the sedimentary rock. We did a detailed paleomagnetic study and, sure enough, the kimberlite pmag directions and our sedimentary rock directions were identical. we concluded that the combination of (a) no young zircons and (b) the matching of pmag directions signified the basin was about 500 Ma older than originally thought.FYI: There has been much e-mail debating between Indian scientists, myself and several paleontologists regarding this find. One Indian paleontologist labeled me as 'anti-Darwin' for proposing that the metazoan record may extend well back into the Neoproterozoic! Me, anti-Darwin. well, now I've heard it all.CheersJoe Meert

Sure, no problem. I can link to the 'corrected proofs' on my website and you can get it therehttp://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/malone.pdfBy the way, the Natl. geo article lists me as first author, but it is actually my MS student (graduated and now working on a Ph.D in Iowa) who wrote the bulk of the paper (and did all the hard work)CheersJoe Meert

Yes, a common lead correction was made for the samples. You can read about the correction in the paper by Williams (1998, referenced in the paper). This correction is now integrated into our spreadsheet and coupled to Ludwig's isoplot program. Do you really want raw data for each of the 270 grains?CheersJoe MeertWilliams (1998)

These are fairly standard practice in radiometric dating and you can read about variations of this procedure in an elementary book on radiometric dating. While Williams (1998) procedure is used for these particular samples, it should be noted that most of our zircons contained only small amounts (or none at all) of common lead. If we had not applied the correction, the age profiles would have been slightly skewed towards the older end and would not really have altered our conclusions at all. So, I'm not sure exactly why you require all the raw data and the paper by Williams (I can probably get it scanned in the next few days, but I'm busy with some other writing at the moment). If you want to argue that our estimate of the age of the Vindhyan basin is wrong and think the Ediacaran-Cambrian ages are superior, we present those arguments for you in the paper. I'd be happy to discuss the alternative ages with you; however, you cannot get a lower age range by arguing that we incorrectly applied the common lead correction.CheersJoe Meert

The justification is standard and you don't really need the Williams paper to see the basis for it. The Williams paper is simply a method to correct for common Pb in the case of a particular instrumental procedure, it's not some radically strange method. I also think you missed the point that most of our zircons contained very little common lead so the notion that our 1000 Ma minima are closer to 500-600 million years is a moot point. Like I said, if you prefer the Ediacaran-Cambrian range there is still plenty to talk about, but the ages of our detrital zircons won't get you there.CheersJoe Meert

The degree of initial discordance and the lack of more concordance when the common Pb correction is applied. For the Rewa Group, you should note that the zircons were obtained from a supposed volcanic ash bed. You cannot get a concordant age with a high contamination of common Pb. Spikes in ²⁰⁶Pb during the analysis in the absence of other peaks is a pretty good indicator of excess common Pb. In general, we reject a priori any grains that show more than 10% discordance. That doesn't mean that they are useless, it's simply that at 10% or more discordance, the application of a common lead correction can also be complicated by open system behavior.
Still, like I said, if your preference is for an Ediacaran-Cambrian age for these units, the detrital zircon results are not the best way to go about making your argument.CheersJoe MeertEdited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.Edited by Joe Meert, : spelling

The 'conversation' whatever that means, can be started without the need to go through the common lead correction since there was minimal common Pb (if any) in the zircons we used for the analysis. I have to tell you that I'm a little leery of simply supplying raw data to someone who doesn't know what they are doing with those data since there is a chance they might be abused. Perhaps if you can tell me what 'conversation' you want to have, I can help you. Like I said, if you prefer the Ediacaran age, there are better arguments to be had.CheersJoe MEert

Peaceharris,I believe I mentioned (at least) twice, that the common Pb correction is very small (to non-existent) for many of the grains used in this study. Basically, it's application of the Stacey and Kramers (1975) model showing the evolution of common Pb on earth over time. It's incorporated into secure macros on the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet is not my intellectual property so I'm not free to distribute it. Furthermore, the article supplies all the data in an appendix which you are free to obtain through Precambrian Research. I think I understand what you are getting at. You basically think the earth is 6000 years old (or so) and wish to reject all geochronology. To answer some of your other questions:(1) The spike I was speaking of is observed in the display as the zircon is being ionized.
(2) Common lead corrections vary in zircon geochronology (a point I've made several times here). The reason we mentioned the high common lead in the Rewa was because the data were very wonky and made no sense (both in terms of their degree of discordance and in their elemental abundances). The consistency in the Bhander/Marwar data showed very little evidence of any common lead and the 'corrections' where applied, changed the ages by less than 2%. 2% won't get you to 6000 years.
(3) The estimate for the age of the Vindhyan basin was determined through 4 observations (a) The similarity in paleomagnetic directions between the Bhander-Rewa Group and the Majhgawan kimberlite (b) The Ar-Ar age of 1073 Ma determined for the Majhgawan kimberlite (c) the lack of any zircons younger than 1020 Ma in the Bhander-Rewa and (d) the presence of young zircons in the supposedly correlative Marwar supergroup.So let me ask you a question, you've apparently concluded that zircon geochronology is incredibly flawed and the age of the earth is far younger than modern science so why do you need any data at all? Is your faith so weak that you require experimental verification of your biblical interpretation? Doesn't requiring scientific verification put science ahead of faith? I can send you a word document of the raw data, you can put it into a spreadsheet and abuse it however you want. However, since you need data to verify your faith, why not do the research yourself?CheersJoe MeertEdited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I also don't know why JM doesn't just give you the spreadsheet and let you tie yourself in knots with it.

---

The spreadsheet is not my intellectual property. It represents the work of many here at UF and I am quite sure that they want to publish this at some point, so I'm afraid I can't give out the spreadsheet. Having said that, the corrections applied here follow pretty closely with (minor modification for the ICP method) the Stacey and Kramers (1975) models.For peaceharris:I've asked my MS student (now in Iowa) to send me the raw data. I will then compile that in MS word and send it to you per the following. Now, peaceharris since you've called my integrity into question, might I suspect that you will abuse and misrepresent the work of myself and 7 other colleagues for religious purposes? Two last things, originally you stated that you would be examining the data, now it's not just you. So here's the deal, I'll snail mail you the data. You give me your real name, your real address along with the names of the others who will be using these data (you already have all my contact information). I'm not going to blindly share data with someone who has already called me a liar. Furthermore, if you or your colleagues misuse or misrepresent these data (or misrepresent yourself in an attempt to get these data), we do have a University lawyer who would be interested. So, send me the information I request and I will post the data to you in short order.CheersJoe Meert Edited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Obviously creationists will look at the data differently using other assumptions to question evolution assumptions.

​

Joe not letting us all see the raw data or is Joe afraid of the powers that be? Ben Stein movie expelled, etc...

​

Being politically correct does not mean Joe's assumptions are correct from the raw data.

---

I think you missed the part where I said I would happily deliver the raw data provided I know who I am delivering it to. In fact, scientists often share data with each other, but they also don't hide behind a cloak of internet anonymity. All I asked of peaceharris was to tell me who he is and where to send the data.There are no '(biological) evolutionary assumptions' to geochronology. There is merely the assumption (verified in numerous ways) that the decay rates have been constant over time. If you are challenging that assumption, then you do not need my raw data.Furthermore (re: the lawyer), I was answering a comment regarding the assertion that I am deliberately making up these results. If peaceharris or any other person (creationist, evolutionist, buddhist or otherwise) wants to make such an assertion through the misuse of my data, you can bet that is actionable (especially if the accusation is made on the web or in public). You should also know that there are such things as intellectual property rights. Scientists take very seriously accusations about the invention of data.So, your garbage about lawyers protecting evolution is a nonsensical misdirection and has nothing at all to do with this. By the way, the legislation failed in Florida (several months ago).CheersJoe MeertEdited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.Edited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.

Very interesting read. So, basically peaceharris has some massive conspiracy in the minds of geochronologists around the world. Furthermore, it's interesting that peaceharris feels that only he truly understands the data. Reminds me of the 'quack identifying characteristics':1. Quack scientists will always claim 'the revolution is here' when in fact their quack science is either old and discredited or based on other quack science.2. Quack scientists will usually claim bias by the 'blind mainstream'. In fact, mainstream science is all about overturning bad ideas. Ideas are constantly challenged. Scientists question and are accepting of questions. Quack scientists largely whine about science.3. Quack supporters tend to hop from quack hypothesis to quack hypothesis or cling dogmatically to a single quack hypothesis even when shown to be wrong.4. Quack supporters often have a hidden agenda like proving the earth is young.I was particularly amused at his accusations regarding Tom Krogh who is very well known for his expertise in developing new techniques and rigorous testing of the U-Pb system. This borders on the ridiculous and since the goal is to demonstrate that the earth is really 6000 years old, it has nothing at all to do with the very real controversy generated by our paper. It's also quite apparent that peaceharris has trouble understanding the raw data, but I will of course still provide it if he/she is willing to provide me the information I requested.

quote:

---

Thats a biggie but more than that when was the earth created might well be different when those elements that your dating were created by the big bang, cosmic radiation? I suspect a lot of other assumptions heck you kind of sound like an uniformitists?

​

It seems you are talking about decay rates but how old are the elements since the big bang. Were they formed from a collapsing star, cosmic radiation, the big bang, etc...

​

If you believe the earth was created from the elements in space like space dust travelling at near the speed of light. If so then these elements including lead would of not have been aging before the earth itself was created from these elements.

​

If the space dust is not older than 6,000 years, just because their atomic clocks are wound up from the big bang means nothing as to the age of an element. The entire universe could be 13,000 years old but the space dust might not of aged at all, like a photon.

​

If a photon is ageless well then the earth elements might well be only 6,000 perhaps 13,000 years old since the big bang. It might well be about relativity the spaceship twin analogy but do we really know when the elements were created all we have is different decay ratios it seems uniformitists? assume an old earth.

​

But were the decay rates constant over time, before the earth was were the elements (space dust) aging since the big bang, before earth time was created through the creation of the earth from space dust 6,000 to 13,000 years ago, by our creator, etc...

​

If you believe the decay rates have been constant then you don't believe neutrons or alpha radiation affects or contributes to the decay rates of lead, C14 within the earth. If the elements did not form within the earth then scientists really are clueless as to the exact age of the earth all these uniformitists can do is assume an old earth and that the decay rates have been constant over time.

​

The space ship twin analogy kind of supports the young earthers, the decay rates were pretty much set in concrete before the earth was created. Does a photon age at the same rate as the earth presently ages, etc...

​

P.S. Because of relativity the elements and the earth could well be only 6,000 to 13,000 years old since our creator created present earth time, etc...

---

Hmm, the concept of 'desperate word salad' comes to mind. How about you make your arguments one at a time and in some coherent manner? Thanks in advance.CheersJoe Meert

I will need your snail mail address (I can send a CD with digital data) along with the names of others you will be sharing the data with. If you do that, I have no issues with sending you the raw data. I have reservations about sending data to some anonymous individual. What's the problem with revealing your identity? I don't have an issue sharing my contact information.CheersJoe MeertPS: You have indeed questioned my integrity and you're blind if you can't see that.Edited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.

Since you have e-mailed me your address and contact information, I am satisfied. My student who did the work has not responded (I suspect because he has just moved to Iowa and is settling in). I found a good bit of the data (not all, but enough to get you started). I posted only the raw data, no corrections just like it came out of the machine. You can download it at http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/rawvindhyan.xlsFC_samples are standards
cps=counts per second
V=voltsYou'll have to do the analyses yourself as you've already stated that anything other than raw data was manipulated in a malicious manner. By the way, you are really not accusing me, but my student who did the analysis. I checked over the figures, but he's the one you've really accused.CheersJoe Meert