Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
44 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,508 Year: 18,544/19,786 Month: 964/1,705 Week: 216/518 Day: 40/50 Hour: 2/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate?
JonF
Member
Posts: 5526
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 76 of 114 (77560)
01-10-2004 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by johnfolton
01-09-2004 9:12 PM


When are you going to discuss or apologize for your insulting claim that K-Ar dating is "rigged"?

Nobody ever claimed that all argon is tied up within rocks. Call back when you have some proof that argon actually does diffuse into rocks in significant amounts. And address the consistency of various radiometric dates; the ones listed at Consistent Radiometric dates will do for a start.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by johnfolton, posted 01-09-2004 9:12 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 1:19 PM JonF has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3876 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

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 78 of 114 (77584)
01-10-2004 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 1:19 PM


HMM
How do you explain different minerals collected from the same structural levels giving different ages according to your 'model'?

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 1:19 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 2:50 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

    
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3876 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

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5526
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 80 of 114 (77595)
01-10-2004 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 1:19 PM


JonF, So you agree that argon is not all tied up in the inner earth, and that argon can diffuse into the sediments

Yes, I agree that argon is not all tied up in the inner Earth. However, the diffusion rate of argon into the igneous rocks (not sediments) that we date with K-Ar and Ar-Ar is too low to significantly affect the results. Call back when you have some evidence that it actually happens.

The link I gave explains that there can be a problem with samples in which argon has diffused out, explains how to avoid the problem, and points out that the problem is rare.

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

How many times must I point out that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you are terrible at making stuff up?

The decay rates have been measured, pretty accurately, and they are measured over and over and over again at different times by different labs using different methods under different conditions. The decay rates don't change noticeably1. They are known precisely enough to induce at most a percent or two error into the dates. One of the reasons for the popularity of concordia-discordia dating is that the decay rate of uranium is known significantly more accurately than any other. I bet you're not smart enlugh to figure out why, although it should be obvious.

seems they are making an assumption about these changing decay rate

Yuo are making up fantasy. No assumptions. Measurements.

--------------

1Many creationists got all excited recently at the news that someone had ademonstrated an effect that was predicted in the 1940's, in which a particular type of decay (that is not present in almost all types of dating) was sped up several percent under conditions that would destroy the entire Earth instantaneously.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 1:19 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5526
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 81 of 114 (77597)
01-10-2004 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 2:50 PM


Re: HMM
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

That has no relationship to his question. He's pointing out that your "model", such as it is, predicts that different minerals (in which argon diffuses differently) from one level should yield different dates, and this is the oposite of what we observe. Your "model" does not correspond to what we see in the real world. Try answering the question that he asked.

Also address the consistent dates he has posted at Consistent Radiometric dates.

I was just thinking that argon doesn't dissolve into solution

Argon does dissolve in high-pressure magma. The solubility depends on a lot of factors.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 2:50 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 3:44 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3876 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

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3965 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 83 of 114 (77614)
01-10-2004 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 3:44 PM


Re: HMM
Whatever,

You are way off the wall with your answer. You're proposing wild scenarios rather than answering the question directly. The rocks in question are chemically identical granite. The minerals cooled at the same structural level and yet the minerals show different ages. Geologists have a very good, clear and consistent physical-chemical explanation for this observation. Do you? Why not admit you don't yet have the scientific training necessary to understand the nuances of the problem. As I mentioned before, it's no crime to admit needing to learn something. What's the old saying "It's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove that you are"? Learn, study and then come back here and debate. Right now, you are out of your league and beyond your intellectual abilities. Remember, all of that can be changed if you want. Try taking smaller bites instead of trying to disprove everything all at once. By the way, you've totally butchered the points contained in the lecture you cited.

Cheers

Joe Meert

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 3:44 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

    
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3876 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

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6802
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 85 of 114 (77626)
01-10-2004 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 4:31 PM


whatever,

there is no evidence whatsoever that solar radiation or any other factor will change the decay rates. There is no evidence whatsoever that decay rates have changed over time. If someone wants to seriously propose that decay rates can change or have changed, then that person has the responsibility to provide evidence of it. It is not scientific to propose a brand new physical theory just because the facts and evidence contradict the religious myths in which one wishes to believe.

quote:
God caused the sun to go nucleur(let there be light, etc...), which would of had a bearing on the rates of decay

This would have had no bearing whatsoever on the rates of decay. None.

quote:
how do you know the rates of decay have remained constant over 100's of millions of years

There is no evidence that it hasn't been constant. There is no scientific theory that proposes that it hasn't been constant. If there is evidence that our current theories are wrong, then it can be presented and evaluated; but no respectable scientist is going to accept a theory just because it is convenient to the beliefs of a certain religious sect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 4:31 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 5:13 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3876 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

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6802
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 87 of 114 (77633)
01-10-2004 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 5:13 PM


Temperature has no effect on decay rates. At absolute zero, the nuclear decay rates will essentially be the same as they are now.

If god created the world at absolute zero, then how could the interior of the earth be so hot? There is no way the sun could have warmed the interior of the earth to the current temperatures.

Did you read this somewhere? Or are you making all of this up as you go along?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 5:13 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5526
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 88 of 114 (77634)
01-10-2004 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by johnfolton
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

Because we understand the process very well, both theoretically and practically, and nothing affects radioactive decay rates noticeably wihtout destroying the Earth or leaving other such subtle traces.

would question that how do you know the rates of decay have remained constant over 100's of millions of years

If the radioactive decay rates had changed enough to make a 6000-year-old Earth look 4.5 billion years old, it would have released enought energy to melt the Earth several times over.

it was the scientists that made the assumption that the sun was a star for more than 12,000 years,

Not an assumption. A solidly founded conclusion based on measurements and evidence.

and created a forumla that the decay ratio has not changed, off this premise

The fact that decay rates do not change is supported by experimental and theoretical evidence from many fields. If they had changed, it would have left traces. We don't see those traces.

however, the creationists belief that the sun has only been shining 6,000 years

Yes, we know that. The creationists are wrong, and have no evidence for their fantasy.

I was kind of winging it

We know. It's obvious.

it will all come down to the sun, was it or wasn't it

Ws it or wasn't it what? The Sun has been shining for circa 4.5 billion years. That we know. Call back when you have some evidence instead of just unfounded fantasy.

is argon rising up from the inner earth

No. Call back when you have some evidence instead of just unfounded fantasy.

so the creationists will never agree that the isotope dating method has merit

We know. Denying reality and ignoring the evidence are creationist specialties, and you have demonstrated both abundantly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 4:31 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 5:37 PM JonF has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3876 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

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5526
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 90 of 114 (77638)
01-10-2004 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by johnfolton
01-10-2004 5:13 PM


Chiroptera, If the sun wasn't shining, how cold would the surface of the earth be

I don't know, but it would be noticeably above absolute zero, due largely to the heat released by radioactive decay.

I thought things moved a bit slower, at absolute zero, properties change, etc...

Many things change near absolute zero. Radioactive decay rates don't. This has been tested.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by johnfolton, posted 01-10-2004 5:13 PM johnfolton 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