Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 3:42 PM
25 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Sarah Bellum, Tangle (5 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,179 Year: 12,215/19,786 Month: 1,996/2,641 Week: 505/708 Day: 64/135 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Introduction To Geology
JonF
Member
Posts: 5035
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 212 of 293 (683784)
12-13-2012 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Dr Adequate
12-13-2012 2:27 AM


Re: Rb-Sr Dating
Er, under Confounding Factors you might want to discuss mixing. Mixing isochrons have been found and published, e.g. Age and origin of the Årdal dike complex, SW Norway: False isochrons, incomplete mixing, and the origin of Caledonian granites in basement nappes

I assume you are familiar with the isochron page at talkorigins.org.

There is a test for two-factor mixing discussed there, which isn't 100% accurate. Of course we can be sure that few isochrons are mixing isochrons because, were many isochrons mixing isochrons, about half of them would have negative slope.

Some creationist came up with a three-factor mixing scenario which would be nearly impossible to detect. But it required one of the factors to have none of one of the isotopes, a very unlikely occurrence. I don't have a pointer to that one.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2012 2:27 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2012 10:19 AM JonF has not yet responded
 Message 217 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2012 11:03 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5035
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 218 of 293 (683896)
12-14-2012 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by morningstar2008
12-14-2012 10:30 AM


Re: Moderator Request
I wonder if you realize that most of us do not have the appropriate font on our computers and your messages do not appear to contain words in any language? C;lick the image for full size:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 10:30 AM morningstar2008 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5035
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 219 of 293 (683916)
12-14-2012 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Dr Adequate
12-14-2012 11:03 AM


Re: Rb-Sr Dating
Looks good to me...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2012 11:03 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5035
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 222 of 293 (684398)
12-17-2012 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2012 12:19 PM


Re: U-Pb, Pb-Pb, And Fission Track Dating
Picky-picky, but there are ways of correcting for "primordial lead" (AKA "common lead") without measuring 204Pb, e.g. Correction of common lead in U–Pb analyses that do not report 204Pb.

Are you going to cover discordia? (Whoopsie, I see you did, but didn't call it that). Although sample selection and preparation methods, along with analyzing incredibly tiny samples such as a spot 10 microns diameter and 1 micron deep from a zircon, have increased the number of concordant dates dramatically, there's still room for discordia. E.g. Evidence from Detrital Zircons for the Existence of Continental Crust and Oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr Ago which, as of the last time I looked, covers the oldest minerals found on Earth and has an incredibly clear discordia line:

Edited by JonF, : Add whoopsie

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2012 12:19 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5035
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 223 of 293 (684408)
12-17-2012 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2012 12:19 PM


Re: U-Pb, Pb-Pb, And Fission Track Dating
Hum. On reflection it looks as if you didn't cover discordia, you did a Pb-Pb isochron section. I suppose you don't want to go into the issue of anchoring the Pb-Pb isochron, which is fundamentally different from other isochrons, and the role of the Canyon Diablo meteorite in that anchoring?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2012 12:19 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2012 3:17 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5035
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 227 of 293 (684514)
12-17-2012 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2012 3:17 PM


Re: U-Pb, Pb-Pb, And Fission Track Dating
Does the math of the Pb-Pb isochron require that we know the initial Pb-Pb ratio of the solar system?

Yup. Or something equivalent. The X and Y intercepts of the Pb-Pb isochron are meaningless. "Standard" isochrons start at the initial parent / nonradiogenic daughter point on the Y axis and can be considered to start there or be "anchored" there, since that point doesn't change over time. The Pb-Pb isochron is anchored at a point that is initially unknown and cannot be extracted from samples of one rock or lava flow or whatever. That point is the primordial lead ratios of whatever the sample came from, and the isochron forms a straight line only if the items sampled align with the line between that point and modern lead ratios (which are difficult to sample averaged across the entire Earth). Dalrymple devotes his entire last chapter to it, so it's obviously difficult to condense to a portion of a message.

The Canyon Diablo meteorite (AKA Meteor Crater AKA Barringer Crater) has so little uranium and thorium in it today that it cannot have had any significant amount of uranium and thorium 4.5 Bya, and therefore its lead ratios today are primordial for the Solar system and are the anchor point for that Pb-Pb isochron. Since then similar meteorites have been found. The achievement of Patterson's classic paper of 1956, Age of meteorites and the earth, which established the currently accepted age of the Earth, was to produce an independent and believable tie between meteoric lead and terrestrial lead.

Stassen has some interesting stuff at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may03.html, about a quarter of the way down the page (search for isochron).

The math of how the points come to lie along the Pb-Pb isochron is considerably more complex than the "standard" isochron, because the points "move" on the graph over time in a significantly more complex manner. Points representing individual samples on a "standard" isochorn "move" over time in straight lines, as illustrated at http://www.talkorigins.org/...n-dating/AnimatedIsochron.html. Points on the Pb-Pb diagram "move" along growth curves, two of which are shown in the figure above.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2012 3:17 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2012 6:16 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5035
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 229 of 293 (684524)
12-17-2012 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2012 6:16 PM


Re: U-Pb, Pb-Pb, And Fission Track Dating
Yeah, I like that. It's accurate and informative.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2012 6:16 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2012 12:21 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5035
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 231 of 293 (684675)
12-18-2012 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Dr Adequate
12-18-2012 12:21 AM


Re: U-Pb, Pb-Pb, And Fission Track Dating
Looks good. I still think some mention of discordia, perhaps in another installment, would be worthwhile.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2012 12:21 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5035
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 236 of 293 (684930)
12-19-2012 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Dr Adequate
12-19-2012 3:05 AM


Re: Radiocarbon Dating
It might be nice to include U-Th disequilibrium dating of coral in the calibration section. Tree rings only get you to about 12,400 years BP. I happen to think that U-Th disequilibrium dating is a very clever method. It's been used to date corals, bones (exposed to groundwater containing U), a plaster stalactite in the Siloam tunnel in Jerusalem, and more. But you may not want to go into detail of how it works. Wikipedia has reasonably good and short article.

FWIW. the Marine Reservoir Correction Database covers the whole world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2012 3:05 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5035
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 238 of 293 (685109)
12-20-2012 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Dr Adequate
12-20-2012 2:18 AM


Re: Radiocarbon Etc
OK, I just suggest that when you do get to U-Th you refer back the the 14C calibration.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2012 2:18 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5035
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 241 of 293 (687611)
01-14-2013 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Dr Adequate
01-14-2013 6:49 AM


Re: U-Th, Th-Pa, And Ra-Pb
Some interesting applications of U-Th disequilibrium include Radio-dating backs up biblical text: Siloam Tunnel located and dated to 700 BC wherein they carbon dated a leaf in the plaster and a speleotherm growning from the plaster. Also The diffusion-adsorption model dating bone that's been exposed to groundwater.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2013 6:49 AM Dr Adequate has acknowledged this reply

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5035
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 274 of 293 (695443)
04-05-2013 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Dr Adequate
04-04-2013 1:58 PM


Re: Folds
I've seen some claims that folds in unconsolidated sediments can be distinguished from folds in lithified sediments by the existence of many radial cracks. Any comment?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-04-2013 1:58 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2013 4:23 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019