Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radiometric Dating Corroboration
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 2 of 41 (7442)
03-20-2002 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
03-20-2002 7:06 PM


quote:
A/ How do you account for four corroborating radiometric dating methods dating the tektites so closely at 65 m.y. old, in the light of the odds of it occurring by pure chance?
B/ IF you don’t accept that radiometric dating is valid as a dating method, how do you rationalise the four methods being over one million percent inaccurate, relative to a YEC assumed 6,000 year old earth?
C/ If you DO accept that half lives affect the resultant date, even to a small degree, what percentage would you be prepared to accept that radiometric dating is influenced by half lives, the rest being just plain chance? And how do you come by this figure, evidentially?
D/ How do you rationalise holding to a 6,000 year old earth when the odds of all four radiometric methods being wrong by a factor of AT LEAST 10,733 each is 13,272,064,019,753,086:1?
A. Conspiracy
B. Atheistic conspiracy
C. Speed of light slowing conspiracy
D. Lies, damned lies and statistics conspiracy
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 03-20-2002 7:06 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 03-21-2002 5:04 AM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 03-21-2002 8:15 AM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 6 by KingPenguin, posted 03-22-2002 12:09 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 12 of 41 (7797)
03-25-2002 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by joz
03-25-2002 9:22 AM


quote:
There is no need to reconfigure half-life, this very well may be consistant. Though if you take a sample and cut it in many pieces, and leave it as such for a time, and put it back together, it is going to appear many magnitudes older than is assumed if it were not mingled with in this way. (this was for the sake of example). A possible cause for the relative consistancy in given dates for radioisotopes is the same decintegration or effect contributed to increasing decay rate of radioisotopes.
JM: Rubbish! It does not matter how you slice, dice and pureee a sample, the radiometric age will not be affected. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's just use 2 pieces and you can sum the solution to an infinite number. Let's say that piece originally contained 5000 atoms of isotope X that decays to isotope Y. Let us further say that the half-life is 1000 years. Let us further say that this rock is then split into two pieces. The first piece gets 1000 atoms of X and the second piece gets 4000 atoms of X. Here is the decay scheme in both rocks:
Piece 1:
1/2 life Parents Daughters Age
0 1000 0 0
1 500 500 1000
2 250 750 2000
3 125 875 3000
Piece 2:
1/2 life Parents Daughters Age
0 4000 0 0
1 2000 2000 1000
2 1000 3000 2000
3 500 3500 3000
Now, further suppose that after 2000 years, these two pieces came back together. You would get the following result:
Parents= Parents in Piece 1 + parents in piece 2=1250
Daughters= daughters in piece 1 and daughters in piece 2= 3750
The age of the composite sample with these ratios= 2000 years. No change is seen. As I said, you can divide the sample up as much as you like and when you bring them all back together, the age of the composite would be the exact same as the parts.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by joz, posted 03-25-2002 9:22 AM joz has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 14 of 41 (7800)
03-25-2002 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
03-25-2002 9:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
Nice post. I have a question for you. What do you think of the more recent calculations (past year I believe) that concluded that the strike in Mexico was smaller than originally thought and that it may not have carried enough mass to kick up enough debris to account for the entire KT event? In other words, there may have been more than one event that lead to the death of the dinosaurs; maybe a combination of the strike and the lava flows in the Decan flats (sp?) area of India.

JM: Sure, why not? The Deccan volcanism spewed out a tremendous volume of lava (8 x 106 km3). We had a speaker here last week, Peter Olsen, who was making the claim that asteroid impacts may 'accelerate' volcanism. The links are extremely tenuous, but puzzling none the less. I suspect that the K-T extinction was due to a combination of events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-25-2002 9:44 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-26-2002 10:15 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 18 of 41 (7878)
03-26-2002 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
03-26-2002 11:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
I think that it (elevated iridium) is found in lava but not at the same quantities as found in the layer, making the iridium layer likely of extraterrestrial origen. At least that is what I remember from a book by the Alvereses (sp?) and from a few other sources.

JM: You are correct, extraterrestrial sources of iridium are more enriched than volcanic. The real clincher was the distribution of shocked quartz in that same layer. The only way to generate shocked quartz is via impact.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-26-2002 11:38 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by edge, posted 03-26-2002 2:24 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 39 of 41 (8764)
04-22-2002 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Lewissian
04-22-2002 12:18 AM


Actually, the definition of baramin (created kind) is hilarious. If you look at it carefully, it can be perfectly in line with the notion of bacteria to man. Creationists blew this one!
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Lewissian, posted 04-22-2002 12:18 AM Lewissian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Quetzal, posted 04-22-2002 4:46 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 41 of 41 (8771)
04-22-2002 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Quetzal
04-22-2002 4:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Au contraire, mon ami. I think you need to take another look at those definitions. It appears clear to me that the key word in all of the above is "discontinuity". The creationists (sorry, baraminologists
) are flat out denying common ancestry except within a particular holobaramin. IOW, members of the "cat holobaramin" can't by definition have shared a common ancestry with the "dog holobaramin", nor can either have shared a remote common ancestor with any other carnivore holobaramin. The "ape holobaramin" can't share a common ancestor with the "human holobaramin". And sure as taxes no mammal can possibly have shared a common ancestor with an amphibian, reptile, fish, etc. Even the definition of apobaramin indicates that bats are not mammals.
I guess all those biologists and cladists working from molecular phylogenies better get real jobs, since they are obviously completely wrong.

JM: Actually, somewhere on this board someone posted an expansion of these definitions. The defintions were quite compatible with bacteria to man.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Quetzal, posted 04-22-2002 4:46 AM Quetzal 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