Dual Porosity, A Problem For Dating? (for Whatever, etc...)

You do, of course, realize that all that is complete drivel and incredibly far off topic.Here, I'll get you started. Answer the following, and do not just repeat the asseritons that you have already repeated so many times:1. What EVIDENCE do you have for "argon bubbling up out of the Earth"?2. What MECHANISM gets this alleged argon into the crystal lattice of the rocks, well beyond any pores (micro or otherwise)?3. In Argon-Argon dating, there is a linear relationship observed between the proportions of Argon-40, Argon-39, and Potassium-40:⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar = C₁*(⁴⁰K/³⁹Ar) + C₂where C₁ and C₂ are constants depending on the age of the samples and the initial conditions at solidification.What MECHANISM ensures that this linear relationship is maintained?4. Since most radioisotope dating methods do not involve argon, why does K-Ar dating agree with so many other dating methods used on the same rock? (For example, see Consistent Radiometric dates).

I notice that you are bending all your efforts to talk about argon and K-Ar dating. Don't. Spend your time figure out why does K-Ar dating agree with so many other dating methods used on the same rock? No. Absolutely not. Electron capture decay and electric current are two totally different and completely independent things that do not affect each other. No, I explained the ratio of 40Ar to 39Ar, which is the amount of 40Ar divided by the amount of 39Ar, can in a few rare cases be up to 650 times the ratio that we see in the atmosphere. This says absolutely nothing about the amount of argon that is in either place. Some made-up numbers may make it clear:

Atmosphere       Inner Earth
40Ar          1,000 tons       0.065 tons
39Ar          10 tons          0.000001 tons

Ratio
  40Ar/38Ar   100              65,000

Total Ar      1,100 tons        0.065001 tons

In this made-up example, we can see that the ratio of 40Ar/39Ar is 650 times greater in the inner Earth than it is in the atmosphere, yet the amount of argon in the inner Earth is 0.006 percent of the amount in the atmosphere!Any ratio of Ar40/Ar39 is not evidence that any significant amount of Ar40 or Ar 39 is found deep in the Earth. Try again. Not quite. I agreed that excess argon is occcasionally found in rocks, and I explained the vast amount of strong evidence that we have showing why "occasionally found" is the correct term.However, the term "excess argon" means a amount of argon that was trapped inside a rock when that rock solidified. It does not mean gaseous argon bubbling up through the Earth. Try again. That's dissolved argon coming out of solution as the pressure is relieved. It is not gaseous argon bubbling up through the Earth. Try again. Meaningless gibberish. Right. You have no idea what an "orbital electron" is. Electron capture occurs when an electron that is bound to an atom and way inside that atom gets captured by the nucleus. Electric current occurs when a potential difference cause free electrons that are not tightly bound to an atom to move. They are two totally different and independent processes, and one does not affect the other.

Address the questions in http://EvC Forum: Dual Porosity, A Problem For Dating? (for Whatever, etc...) -->EvC Forum: Dual Porosity, A Problem For Dating? (for Whatever, etc...), please. No, and Snelling doesn't believe that either. Nobody has ever written or said anything remothely like that. We believe that the rocks were contaminated by "excess argon" trapped inside the rock when it solidified, or by fragments of older rocks that did not melt completely and were included in the rocks when they solidifed (Snelling doesn't believe the latter). Gibberish. No, it wouldn't. First, there is no "excess" argon gas coming out of the oil wells, there's just argon gas coming out of the oil wells. It's not excess, and it's just dissolved argon coming out of solution as the pressure drops. No need to make up new, unsupported, and exotic mechanism.[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-25-2004]

Address the questions in http://EvC Forum: Dual Porosity, A Problem For Dating? (for Whatever, etc...) -->EvC Forum: Dual Porosity, A Problem For Dating? (for Whatever, etc...), please. It could, and does on some occasions. This does not fool modern dating methods. Ar-Ar dating of such rocks will produce no date, and K-Ar dating of such rocks will be fooled but checks with other methods will reveal the problem. It is essentially impossible for argon to leach out of the rocks and for us to get a date wrong, because the majority of techniques used today tell us when such things have occurred. It might happen one in a million times. It doesn't happen all the time, which is what you are looking for.Nonetheless, in the rare case that argon does leach out of a rock in just the right manner so as to fool Ar-Ar dating, we would get a date that is younger than the rock really is. This doesn't help your claim that the rocks are really much younger than we think. Capillary forces do not operate inside crystal lattices.The same comments apply. Argon could possible diffuse into rocks under certain rare circumstances, but Ar-Ar dating of such rocks will produce no date, and K-Ar dating of such rocks will be fooled but checks with other methods will reveal the problem. It is essentially impossible for argon to diffuse into the rocks and for us to get a date wrong, because the majority of techniques used today tell us when such things have occurred. It might happen one in a million times. It doesn't happen all the time, which is what you are looking for. I note that every time you start a sentence with "I thought that ...", what you thought is ludicrously wrong. This is no exception. The lattice sizes of the component minerals of igneous rocks are comparable with other types of rocks ... not surprising, since many other rocks are made up of the same or similar minerals. Crystal sizes of igneous rocks vary all over the lot, depending mostly on coolding conditions.[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-25-2004]

Address the questions in http://EvC Forum: Dual Porosity, A Problem For Dating? (for Whatever, etc...) -->EvC Forum: Dual Porosity, A Problem For Dating? (for Whatever, etc...), please.Your latest message is totally irrelevant. Argon in solution is not an electrolyte. It's a noble gas.[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-26-2004]

You have not addressed any of my questions. You have made feeble attempts to address the first and second, but all you've posted is assertions. No EVIDENCE, as was specifically requested.Snellings's diamonds prove nothing except that a few diaminds were found with excess argon. You and he are looking for something thata screws up all instances of all dating methods. A few isolated instances of problems prove nothing. Of course, Snelling hopes that you don't noticed that all his alleged problems are fundamentally irrelevant. Even if 50% of our dates were wrong (which we know is not so), the Earth would still be old, the Universe would still be older, and life would still be almost as old as the Earth.Individaul examples are menaingless. You need to address the totality of all the methods. Why? Please show your calculations. Quite the contrary. We apply several different dating methods to the same rock and get the same answers, even though 20-odd different elements and isotopes are involved, with wildly different characteristics and decay rates and decay types. If your "litle theory" does not address and explain this issue, your "little theory" is not even a hypothesis; it's just meaningless fantasy. There is no point in your babbling until you have addressed this fundamental problem with your claims. Wrong, as I explained already. The ratio of 40Ar/39Ar tells us absolutely nothing about with the quantity or concentration of argon present. Probably, except for the capillary bit which is utter nonsense, but so freakin' what? The conditions also increase the solubility of argon. You are claiming "argon bubbling up out of the earth" and finding its way into solid rocks that are pretty close to or at the surface. Where is your evidence?

No, I have said no such thing. Argon does diffuse in rocks from higehr concentration to lower concentration ... but this happens very very very very slowly under realistic conditions. The concentration of argon gas below the surface of the Earth is much less than in the atmosphere!!!!!! The number 650 does NOT have any connection to the concentration of argon!!!!! STOP POSTING THIS LIE!!!!!!!
{Cut back the font size, from 10 to 3 - Calm down, a little overkill goes a long ways - Adminnemooseus} From being dissolved in various liquids and released when the pressure was relieved. No, it does not. Your babbling of ions and electrolytes is meaningless gobbledygook. No, it does not. Not really; as I've pointed out many times before, discordia dating often gives good and valid dates when the elements have been "translocated".However, most modern dating methods just detect when the elements have been "translocated" and do not produce a date. The fact that we get so many straight lines on isochron diagrams and so many points on concordia curves indicates that the elements in those samples have not "translocated". You've explained nothing. You have posted a lot of psuedoscientific jargon consisting of random collections of irrelevant scientific terms. You have not once attempted to address the issue. Look at the first table at Consistent Radiometric dates. There is only one known physical process that can produce those results ... the rocks actually are the ages indicated. Diffusion can't explain those results, capillary action can't explain those results, electrolytic action can't explain those results, nothing but age can explain those results.Address the consistency of ages.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-26-2004]

Neither. It's dissolved in various liquids, and comes out of solution when the pressure is relieved. Another random collection of scientific terms. The question is meaningless and can't be answered. Because there is no such thing as "dual porosity diffusion".. The relevant rocks are not porous enough, and diffusion is too slow, to get you the result you want. Even if the argon did diffuse into the rocks modern dating methods would not be fooled. More gobbledygook. Because, as I've pointed out, proportional effects don't do what you want them to do ... they don't fool modern dating methods. Since you obviously don't have the slightest idea of how dating methods work, you keep babblling of argon and porosity and diffusion. the effects you have proposed, nonexistent and ludicrous though they are, would not fool modern dating methods even if your effects did exist.All you are doing is making yourself look more foolish and ignorant.

Oh yes, that's occurred to me. I've noticed the occasional use of words that seem to indicate more education than exhibited in the posts (e.g. "solute". "allele").I am also considering the possiblity that whatever is one of those sad souls who relishes attention of any kind and can't think of any way to attract attention.But I just don't know.

ADDRESS HOW THE CONSISTENT RADIOISOTOPE DATES, LISTED AT THE SITE I POSTED, CAME OUT THAT WAY! Forget the blather about cations and anions and porosity and proportionality ... NONE of those things explain the results. No, it does not, and I already explained at great length exactly how you are misunderstanding that document. The closest I can find to such a link is Page not found | Texas Memorial Museum, which does not mention any such thing. Assuming that's not the right page, I guarantee that the page you refer to will not support your claim: post the link again. Yes, in spite of the many times you claimed that argon did not dissolve in anything. Gee, did you ever admit that you were wrong about that? "Close proximity" has not been established. Significant porosity of any kind has not been established. No, it's quite difficult, seeing how slowly diffusion acts at the relevant temperatures. Exactly how does argon press into the lattice crystal? Nope. Anybody who had any idea about how dating methods actually work couldn't make such a claim. Nope. Proportional elemental diffusion won't fool us. A site selling spring water is not a scientific source. An unsupported claim that "The water that enters this aquifer has been filtered through thousands of feet of volcanic basalt giving it the natural purity that cannot be found in a shallow spring water and has no need for reverse osmosis treatment" is not evidence for significant flow through the samples chosen for radioisotope dating, nor is it evidence for reverse osmosis happening in baslat. It isn't even a claim that reverse osmosis occurs in basalt!The second site does not mention osmosis at all. It is about flows in the near vicinity of fractures. Samples for dating are never taken fom the near vicinity of fractures. In other words, as usual, your reference is irrelevant. Because it's utter balderdash .[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-26-2004]

{grin}

That site is even kookier than Walt's.You really do believe any kook that comes down the pike with an isdea you like, don't you? You haven't even fallen off the turnip truck yet.Needless to say to anyone but you, the claims on that site are more balderdash unsupported by any evidence and directly contradicted by the observed evidence.The Earth has no overall electric charge, and there are no electric currents like the ones you claim are runing through it.

In other words, the only evidence you have that dating mehtods are wrong is that you want them to be wrong. That's been obvious for quite some time, but it's nice to see you admit it.Sorry, reality doesn't bend to your wishes. The Earth is old, the Universe is older, and life is almost as old as the Earth.

That's not quite the proper terminology but it doesn't look wrong. It may be the only thing whatever's gotten right about dating.40K decays to 40Ar (10.5% of all decays) and 40Ca (89.5% of all decays). The decay to 40Ar is by one of three different routes, two (99.99% of decays to 40Ar) involving "electron capture" in which an orbital electron (usually from an inner shell) is captured by the nucleus, converting a proton to a neutron and emitting a neutrino. An electron moves from a higher orbit into the vacated orbit, emitting an X-ray.The remainder of the decays to 40Ar are by positron emission from the nucleus, again converting a proton to a neutron.

No, but maybe I'm not too smart ...