Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 6:57 AM
23 online now:
(23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate?
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 70 of 114 (77440)
01-09-2004 7:58 PM


Did any evolutionists test the basalt adnormality that Austin found proving the rubidium-strontium method flawed, or do they just sweep it under the rug, I would think the basalt layers Austin brought in question could easily be tested, and could be re-tested against A/A, K/A, U/Pb methods, to verify if these other methods agree or disagree with rubidium-strontium, or is the basalt above really that much older than the basalt layer below, etc...

P.S. It would appear that the dating methods do not all agree, with each other, etc...


Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by JonF, posted 01-09-2004 8:20 PM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 72 of 114 (77464)
01-09-2004 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by JonF
01-09-2004 8:20 PM


JonF, No, had nothing else to contribute, other than they are finding that argon gas is part of the off gases coming out of oil wells, finding argon gas in coal mines, proving Snelling correct in that not all argon is tied up within the rocks, though likely argon is rising up from the inner earth, etc...
P.S. Its interesting that the evolutionist didn't retest the basalts in question, would seem it would of been a feather in your cap, to prove the accuracy, between all your dating methods, wasn't this the real issue, etc...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by JonF, posted 01-09-2004 8:20 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by JonF, posted 01-10-2004 9:41 AM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 75 of 114 (77502)
01-09-2004 11:33 PM


[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-10-2004]


  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 77 of 114 (77578)
01-10-2004 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by JonF
01-10-2004 9:41 AM


JonF, So you agree that argon is not all tied up in the inner earth, and that argon can diffuse into the sediments, explaining Snellings diamond aging older than your believed age of the earth, but don't believe its a problem, however, this article says they correct samples for atmospheric diffusion contamination, they said what they were concerned with was those instances where the inner earth contributed ratio's greater than the atmospheric ratio, but would think Snelling is infering to over time argon's diffusing into the basalt grains, similar to where argon had diffused into the young lava rock, that dated millions of years, because of atmospheric diffusion of argon, causing it to appear that the rocks were old, too, etc...

http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo656/656notes03/656%2003Lecture06.pdf.

if, argon is rising up from the inner earth, would be one explanation why they are finding argon gas as a part of the off gases released from oil wells, it would also explain how the lower sediments would date older than the upper sediments, factor in leaching, and daughter element gases rising would only increase the age abnormalilty, if argon gas is actually diffusing up through the crustal plates, slowly diffusing into the sediment layers, and some actually finding their way into the atmosphere, explaining why the atmoshpere is Ar40Ar36, etc...

P.S. It is interesting that your link, agrees that there is a problem with contamination, or source parent materials required for the select dating methods to agree, one to the other, etc...this all makes me wonder about how do they know its a fact, that the isotopes are decaying at the rates they say, if they were off a bit, this too would affect the dating accuracy, or if it these scientists made a proportional mistake, for changing decay rates, for less reactant, etc...seems they are making an assumption about these changing decay rates, decaying at a constant changing rate, off the amount of parent material, etc...

[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-10-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by JonF, posted 01-10-2004 9:41 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Joe Meert, posted 01-10-2004 2:13 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 80 by JonF, posted 01-10-2004 2:55 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 79 of 114 (77593)
01-10-2004 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Joe Meert
01-10-2004 2:13 PM


Re: HMM
Joe Meerts, Thought they try to date basalt that has no impurities, like minerals like granite, or other sedimentary rock melding with the basalt, that would cause age abnormalities, etc...

P.S. I was just thinking that argon doesn't dissolve into solution, so if argon is a gas, it would tend when leached off the rock to continue to rise upward, and that some argon is rising out of the sediments to be a part of the atmosphere, like radon gas in the granites, etc...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Joe Meert, posted 01-10-2004 2:13 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by JonF, posted 01-10-2004 3:00 PM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 82 of 114 (77611)
01-10-2004 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by JonF
01-10-2004 3:00 PM


Re: HMM
JonF, Heres a link showing how water naturally, through reverse osmosis naturally purified an aquifier, if water can flow through by reverse osmosis, through microscopic pores, it shouldn't be to hard imagine argon gas rising up through, etc...

http://www.earth2o.com/source.htm

P.S. As far as Joe's Question, perhaps some of the rocks were erupted out of the earth, in some volcanic expulsion, meaning, they were already old before the basalts melded with them, and the fractures, and microscopic pores in all the the different types of mineral rock's allowed argon gas to diffuse into these rocks, to maintain the age differences, etc...

[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-10-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by JonF, posted 01-10-2004 3:00 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Joe Meert, posted 01-10-2004 3:58 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 84 of 114 (77621)
01-10-2004 4:31 PM


JonF, How do we know if solar energy of the sun isn't affecting the rate of the decay of the isotopes, explaining Joe Meert's showing that he found if you have the right parent materials the different isotope methods agree, however, it may well be that the scientist's errored in the isotope rates of decay, or we might just have to go back to Genesis, kjv genesis 1:3 when God caused the sun to go nucleur(let there be light, etc...), which would of had a bearing on the rates of decay, but can understand you will believe what you believe, and I can respect that, but think the creationist, would question that how do you know the rates of decay have remained constant over 100's of millions of years, etc...

P.S. I guess you guys didn't rig it after all, it was the scientists that made the assumption that the sun was a star for more than 12,000 years, and created a forumla that the decay ratio has not changed, off this premise, however, the creationists belief that the sun has only been shining 6,000 years.

Joe Meert, I kind of hear you, I was kind of winging it, hope Snelling and company give you all a run for the money, etc...but think it will all come down to the sun, was it or wasn't it, is argon rising up from the inner earth, so the creationists will never agree that the isotope dating method has merit, though it does appear to date things consistently old, and might have some merit in dating known young volcanic rocks, after factoring out the contaminants, etc...

[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-10-2004]


Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Chiroptera, posted 01-10-2004 4:44 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 88 by JonF, posted 01-10-2004 5:26 PM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 86 of 114 (77632)
01-10-2004 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Chiroptera
01-10-2004 4:44 PM


Chiroptera, If the sun wasn't shining, how cold would the surface of the earth be, thought things moved a bit slower, at absolute zero, properties change, etc...

P.S. Though argon would of been a solid, with all the water under the mantle, kind of shows the earth was not formed from a molten piece of rock, but was formed by the very fingers of God, explaining all the argon, and other gases in the inner earth, etc...

[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-10-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Chiroptera, posted 01-10-2004 4:44 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Chiroptera, posted 01-10-2004 5:26 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 90 by JonF, posted 01-10-2004 5:39 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 89 of 114 (77637)
01-10-2004 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by JonF
01-10-2004 5:26 PM


JonF, Thought the only evidence you had that the sun was old, was a moon rock, which brings us back to the theory of evolution based off the age of a rock, but that doesn't mean the sun was shining, 4.6 billion years ago, or that things decayed at the same rate, for all I know things decay faster when cold, look at how argon combined with uranium, in super cold, etc...

P.S. I guess I'm just going to agree to disagree, you have your fantasy, and I have mine, etc...so lets just end it, that we agree to disagree, etc...

[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-10-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by JonF, posted 01-10-2004 5:26 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by JonF, posted 01-10-2004 5:45 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 94 by Joe Meert, posted 01-10-2004 6:52 PM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 95 of 114 (77656)
01-10-2004 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Joe Meert
01-10-2004 6:52 PM


Joe Meert, Its that simple, actually, argon 40 could be rising up through the fractured metamorphic rocks evidenced in all the super deep wells, up through the microscopic cracks in rocks, its not a soluable gas, it would tend to rise up, they are finding it in the off gases on oil wells, in coal mines, etc...Its not like you need heat for it to penetrate into the microscopic pores of rocks, etc...

P.S. I don't really know much about how the isotopes decay, but if the sun wasn't a star, like would the iron in the earth create super magnetic fields, I was just questioning something thats apparently been etched in stone, even though I believe argon is rising up causing problems in the argon dating methods, don't put as much faith as you that the istope decay has been constant for all them millions of years, etc...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Joe Meert, posted 01-10-2004 6:52 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Chiroptera, posted 01-10-2004 8:47 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 98 by JonF, posted 01-11-2004 9:47 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 97 of 114 (77664)
01-10-2004 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Chiroptera
01-10-2004 8:47 PM


Chiroptera, I've seen on the Grand Canyon special, probably over 5 years ago, on Sky angel, they mention that this does not always hold true, they said the dating methods conflicted when dating rocks in the Grand Canyon, though suppose you could find a site where it wouldn't, but whatever, they said it didn't work in the Grand Canyon. I just thought it interesting that the evolutionists didn't date Austins rock with the other dating methods, suspecting had the wrong parent materials for the other dating methods, etc...
P.S. I mentioned the diamond Snelling said had excess argon, quoted a lecture that they were concerned about excess argon, mentioned that off gases from oil wells have argon gas, as do coal mines, though I can't prove beyond this, its enough for me to believe it is penetrating (diffusing) into the pores of the very basalts your dating, because it insoluable it would tend to not be dissolved thus staying diffused within the rock microstructure, etc...I believe Dr. Andrew Snelling wrote the article about believing argon gas is causing the rocks to give false ages(its really not my idea), the diamond is proof it can even age things excessively, though think its happening more uniform, as the argon rises over thousands of years, though pockets of off gases with argon should explain its there, its not soluable, its not going away, etc...

[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-11-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Chiroptera, posted 01-10-2004 8:47 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by JonF, posted 01-11-2004 10:04 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 102 of 114 (77735)
01-11-2004 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by JonF
01-11-2004 10:04 AM


For whatever its worth, here's Snelling's impact article's,

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-307.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-309.htm

You have the right to believe whatever makes sense to you, but there are scientists that have Phd's in this field that are honestly questioning the very basis of the argon dating methods, etc...

http://www.earth2o.com/source.htm

If water can move by reverse osmosis through basalt rock, it might well be how argon penetrates into the mineral lattices, if JonF is right that nobel gases dissolve in water, or why once it lodge within, stay lodged within, etc... Think all the talk is getting pretty circular, perhaps in time scientists will work it all out, etc...

[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-11-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by JonF, posted 01-11-2004 10:04 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Joe Meert, posted 01-11-2004 12:03 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 104 by JonF, posted 01-11-2004 12:34 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 105 of 114 (77745)
01-11-2004 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Joe Meert
01-11-2004 12:03 PM


Re: more misinformation
I thought the reverse osmosis machines actually put water through a plastic to remove complex molecules, was more pure than distilled water, filtering out phenoms, and other molecules that only vaporize, where these particles would be a part of distilled water, though would think the same principles would of allowed the argon gas to not be filtered out below the basalt layers, but to be drawn into the very basalt by capillary osmosis, depositing argon and other molecules in the very mineral lattices, including Rd, in a proportional ratio, etc...with water leaching, translocating minerals, etc,,, as it filtered up through the basalts, etc...If it would of been true reverse osmosis it would need a more impermeable layer of plastic, to filter it out before being absorbed into the mineral lattices, don't think there is enough water pressures in the sediments to cause capillary osmosis through an impermeable plastic, but thats not what we find in basalt, capillary osmosis should work fine, with cationic, anionic charges in the mineral lattices powered by the electron sink(earth ground) to draw the argon out of solution, or even if not in solution into the mineral lattices, etc...
P.S. I just don't buy that the argon isn't being absorbed into the basalts, but yes my circle in this subject are not as circular as yours, etc...perhaps in time, science will move forward and you will flip your circle a 180 and spin in the same direction as Snelling, etc...

[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-12-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Joe Meert, posted 01-11-2004 12:03 PM Joe Meert has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Chiroptera, posted 01-11-2004 12:56 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 108 by Joe Meert, posted 01-11-2004 1:07 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 107 of 114 (77752)
01-11-2004 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Chiroptera
01-11-2004 12:56 PM


Re: more misinformation
Chiroptera, Acutally the bible says he sits on the circle of the earth, and heaven is his throne, sound more like a satellight in a circular orbit, where the inhabitant's are as grasshoppers, etc...

[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-11-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Chiroptera, posted 01-11-2004 12:56 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Coragyps, posted 01-11-2004 1:11 PM johnfolton has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Chiroptera, posted 01-11-2004 1:19 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3765 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 111 of 114 (77758)
01-11-2004 1:19 PM


Coragyps, It says they looked as grasshoppers, sound more like an inference that the earth is round, and heaven is his throne, etc...
P.S. Its time to sit back and watch football!!!!!!!
Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 01-11-2004 2:11 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019