Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,651 Year: 4,908/9,624 Month: 256/427 Week: 2/64 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Geologists and dating (India Basins Half a Billion Years Older Than Thought)
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5767 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 61 of 93 (478271)
08-13-2008 1:08 PM


data
Since you have e-mailed me your address and contact information, I am satisfied. My student who did the work has not responded (I suspect because he has just moved to Iowa and is settling in). I found a good bit of the data (not all, but enough to get you started). I posted only the raw data, no corrections just like it came out of the machine. You can download it at http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/rawvindhyan.xls
FC_samples are standards
cps=counts per second
V=volts
You'll have to do the analyses yourself as you've already stated that anything other than raw data was manipulated in a malicious manner. By the way, you are really not accusing me, but my student who did the analysis. I checked over the figures, but he's the one you've really accused.
Cheers
Joe Meert

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by peaceharris, posted 08-13-2008 9:57 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5767 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 62 of 93 (478283)
08-13-2008 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Adminnemooseus
08-13-2008 5:09 AM


Re: Would you please keep your off-topic blather out of topics
After reading through his stuff, I'm convinced he's a troll.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-13-2008 5:09 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by johnfolton, posted 08-14-2008 1:24 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5683 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 63 of 93 (478299)
08-13-2008 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Joe Meert
08-13-2008 1:08 PM


Re: data
Joe,
I do understand how radiometry works, but I don’t know how to interpret your data. If I know the measured amount of Pb206 (in ppm), and the amount of U238 (in ppm), as well as other isotopes of U and Pb, I can start doing the calculations.
In a previous post you mentioned, “
Having said that, the corrections applied here follow pretty closely with (minor modification for the ICP method) the Stacey and Kramers (1975) models.”
This is the kind of data I don’t want. Basically I want to do the calculations and check whether the raw data fits my model or the Concordia model. I don’t know how the Stacey and Kramers model does common Pb correction, and at this point I do not want to discuss whether the Stacey and Kramers model is correct.
I am fully aware that you have told me several times already that the common Pb correction is negligible in many of your samples, so its really not necessary for us to discuss the Stacey and Kramers model.
So can you teach me how to obtain all the U and Pb isotope data in ppm.
The format I am looking for is something like the format given in table 1 of http://www.geology.wisc.edu/...y/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf
The kind of data I don’t accept in table 1 of this paper by Wilde is the ratio of 206Pb*/238U. This is because the 206Pb* is ”corrected’ using some correction algorithm.
The kind of data I accept is the ratio of 204Pb/206Pb in table 1. This is measured raw data. They have also mentioned their 1 sigma error level. I also accept measurement errors.
This is what I accept and what I don’t. Basically what I want is the raw data without the assumed common Pb during crystallization being corrected.
If you want me to accept the Stacey and Kramers model, please point me to lab experiment where someone was able to theoretically predict the amount of common Pb that could be incorporated into zircon during crystallization. I don’t know whether zircon can be crystallized in the lab from some aqueous solution. The researcher can always add a small amount Pb impurity in the solution, and then predict the amount of impurity that will be incorporated into the zircon after crystallization. Or point me to a researcher who was able to predict how much of Pb would be there in a zircon from a volcano that erupted during the past few years.
If researchers are unable to predict the amount of Pb that could be incorporated into a newly formed zircon, it also follows that they are unable to correct the common Pb in a zircon that formed long ago. This is why I want to check ”uncorrected’ data against my model.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Joe Meert, posted 08-13-2008 1:08 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-13-2008 11:57 PM peaceharris has replied
 Message 67 by JonF, posted 08-14-2008 8:22 AM peaceharris has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 93 (478300)
08-13-2008 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by peaceharris
08-13-2008 9:57 PM


Re: data
Couldn't you give him your model and let him do the calculations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by peaceharris, posted 08-13-2008 9:57 PM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by peaceharris, posted 08-14-2008 6:05 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5678 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 65 of 93 (478302)
08-14-2008 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Joe Meert
08-13-2008 3:43 PM


Would you please keep your off-topic blather out of topics
Given the new age assessments, the basins would have been filled with sediment 500 million years ago, which explains the lack of glacial evidence, Bickford said.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...10-india-basins_2.html
Your fossils the Word says were destroyed in the world flood by the earth the sediments according to the creationists models happened approximately 5,400 years ago, which explains the lack of glacial evidence.
P.S. This evidence can be spinned to support a young earth from the creationists models. Evidence for a Young World | Answers in Genesis
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Joe Meert, posted 08-13-2008 3:43 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Admin, posted 08-14-2008 9:02 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5683 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 66 of 93 (478310)
08-14-2008 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by New Cat's Eye
08-13-2008 11:57 PM


Re: data
Is JM my student or something? Who am I to ask JM to do the calculations for me? I prefer to do it myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-13-2008 11:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-14-2008 9:43 AM peaceharris has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 255 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 67 of 93 (478316)
08-14-2008 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by peaceharris
08-13-2008 9:57 PM


Re: data
I do understand how radiometry works, but I don’t know how to interpret your data. If I know the measured amount of Pb206 (in ppm), and the amount of U238 (in ppm), as well as other isotopes of U and Pb, I can start doing the calculations.
You certainly don't understand how radiometric dating is carried out.
If researchers are unable to predict the amount of Pb that could be incorporated into a newly formed zircon, it also follows that they are unable to correct the common Pb in a zircon that formed long ago.
They probably can predict, at lease roughly; I don't know.
However, even if they cannot your "it also follows" is false. Common Pb corrections are not based on any calculations of the amount of Pb incorporated under any conditions at any time. They are based on the isotopic composition of the Pb that was incorporated, no matter what its amount, and a model for how that evolved over time. Common Pb corrections are applied to minerals (e.g. Apatite, Allanite, Anatase, Epidote, Garnet, Rutile, Titanite/Sphene, Thorite, Tritomite, and Pitchblende/Coffinite/Uraninite) in which much higher proportions of common lead are found than are found in zircons. It isn't done all that often because the results have large uncertanties because a large common lead correction introduces possible errors of its own.
You ignorance of the fundamentals of dating reveals that you do not understand how radiometric dating works and are incapable of analyzing the data. But you could fix that … yourself. You are asking Joe to teach you a graduate student course for free in an unsuitable medium. IMHO he'd be totally justified in telling you to go pound sand.
You want to do the calculations, learn to do the calculations. Register as a student in geosciences at your local university. Or teach yourself from the many materials available on the Web and in libraries.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by peaceharris, posted 08-13-2008 9:57 PM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by peaceharris, posted 08-15-2008 5:32 AM JonF has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5767 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 68 of 93 (478317)
08-14-2008 8:25 AM


Hmmm
Peaceharris has stated in several posts, the following:
quote:
My faith in your word is weak.
Let's put it this way: I'm not questioning your integrity, but your method.
What if I can find statistical tests that prove that the raw data (not the common Pb corrected data) fits my model better than yours? Will you then admit that I am the only one who understands the data?
I believe JM has not manipulated the raw data.
I believe that if JM gives me the raw data, he will not give me manipulated data.
I have doubts on your methods and calculation, so I want the raw measured data.
Who am I to ask JM to do the calculations for me? I prefer to do it myself.
Then I give him what he asks for and what happens? He asks for a little more. Here's where it stands, you have the raw data you need to do everything you want. You claim to 'understand radiometry' (why radiometry is important here I cannot fathom), but then go on to ask me to calculate the first step for you. I won't do that because if the data don't work in your favor, you will accuse me of manipulating that step. You have the raw data, you claimed to be knowledgeable about what you are doing, so stop asking and show me how these limited data demonstrate the earth is 6000 years old. Then explain to me why you you need statistics to verify your faith.
Cheers
Joe Meert

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 255 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 69 of 93 (478318)
08-14-2008 8:27 AM


Hey, Joe: is there a technical advantage to using LA-MC-ICP-MS rather than SHRIMP or some variation thereof, or did you use that mostly because it was in the lab around the corner?

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Joe Meert, posted 08-14-2008 8:40 AM JonF has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5767 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 70 of 93 (478319)
08-14-2008 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by JonF
08-14-2008 8:27 AM


SHRIMP, TIMS and ICP
ICP is basically the poor mans SHRIMP. SHRIMP analysis uses a smaller beam and therefore you can actually map zones within a single zircon. The size of the beam in the ICP is slightly larger so you can still map zones (just not on as fine a level). Errors in measurement on the SHRIMP and ICP are nearly comparable (SHRIMP gives slightly smaller analytical errors) while TIMS claims the most precision. For detrital zircon work TIMS is tedious because it requires wet chemistry for each zircon and would take years to finish. Given that we want populations of zircon ages, either ICP or SHRIMP is fine and given that we have an ICP and the nearest SHRIMP is in Stanford, we chose to use our machine. We are getting some pretty good results for standard zircon dating with the ICP though the 2 sigma errors are slightly larger than TIMS measurements.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by JonF, posted 08-14-2008 8:27 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by JonF, posted 08-14-2008 8:49 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 255 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 71 of 93 (478320)
08-14-2008 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Joe Meert
08-14-2008 8:40 AM


Re: SHRIMP, TIMS and ICP
Thanks, interesting.
I've been writing a web page explaining this stuff to the layman … been doing it for years, and have no idea when it'll be done … and I'd like to inbclude a few paragaphs on instrumentation. Any suggestions for further reading?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Joe Meert, posted 08-14-2008 8:40 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 72 of 93 (478322)
08-14-2008 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by johnfolton
08-14-2008 1:24 AM


Re: Would you please keep your off-topic blather out of topics
Hi Johnfolton,
Please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.
No replies, please.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by johnfolton, posted 08-14-2008 1:24 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 93 (478326)
08-14-2008 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by peaceharris
08-14-2008 6:05 AM


Re: data
Is JM my student or something?
No, he's the one who has the data.
Who am I to ask JM to do the calculations for me?
Well... how good is the model? What does it look like? How much calculations is he really going to have to do?
I prefer to do it myself.
Why?
Do you not trust him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by peaceharris, posted 08-14-2008 6:05 AM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by peaceharris, posted 08-14-2008 9:51 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 86 by peaceharris, posted 08-29-2008 2:28 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5683 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 74 of 93 (478392)
08-14-2008 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by New Cat's Eye
08-14-2008 9:43 AM


Re: data
Catholic Scientist writes:
Well... how good is the model?
I don't know. If I have the raw data I could check the correlation factor of the measured data and my model. If the correlation factor is higher when the measured data is fitted to the Concordia curve, then my model is not good. If the data fits my model with better correlation, then I would think that my model is better.
What geologists do when the data doesn't fit their Concordia curve, is start making speculative excuses such as meteorites bombarded these zircons, therefore Pb was removed. If measured data doesn’t fit the model, and if speculative ideas such as Pb removal, Pb addition, U removal, U addition are allowed to creep in, then the science is not objective science, but just attempts to defend the U-Pb dating method. If such speculative ideas are allowed, then nothing will ever disprove the theory.
There have been experiments that have proven zircon is resistant to wear and tear. What is the probability of a meteorite hitting the earth? Even when they hit the earth, isn’t it more likely that the zircon would be under the surface, so the top layers of the earth protect them from such bombardment? What is the probability that geologists would find a zircon that was shocked by a meteorite?
JM and his team are better than other geologists. In their paper on page 13 he states: “From 23 grains analyzed, only 3 yielded concordant ages. Two grains yield an age of 1555 Ma, and a single grain yielded an age of 1053 Ma. Because of the limited sample size, these results are not considered further.”
They did not resort to speculative ideas, and just said, “these results are not considered further”. If these data which do no fit the Concordia model fit my model, I would think that my model is good, and should be published. I publish to a personal website.
One of the reasons why Aristotelian physics survived 2000 years, even after Galileo’s time because human beings have never been objective in their thinking when comparing different models. If they want to defend a particular model, they will be able to find excuses.
In your opinion, if the measured data correlates better with my model, do you think any geologist will change his mind, or will they still resort to speculative ideas such as Pb removal, Pb addition, U removal and U addition?
Catholic Scientist writes:
Do you not trust him?
It is the normal practice of any researcher to do his own calculation to prove his model. If I want to prove my model, I should be the one trying to prove it.
In message 68 he has asked me to stop asking questions and has asked to show him how his data proves that the earth is 6000 years old. This clearly implies that he wants me to do the calculation myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-14-2008 9:43 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 08-15-2008 7:34 AM peaceharris has replied
 Message 80 by Joe Meert, posted 08-15-2008 8:58 AM peaceharris has not replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5683 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 75 of 93 (478418)
08-15-2008 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by JonF
08-14-2008 8:22 AM


Re: data
Jonf writes:
They are based on the isotopic composition of the Pb that was incorporated, no matter what its amount, and a model for how that evolved over time.
I know that. Do you know that geologists have measured the Pb206/Pb204 in magma today, and lavas in different parts of the world have very different Pb206/Pb204 ratios? A quick google search I performed shows me that this ratio is ~15 in some parts of the world, and ~19 in other parts.
Do you think that the correction model that geologists believe in can correct the differing ratios in different parts of the world? Or do you think that only now the Pb206/Pb204 ratio differs in different parts of the world? Perhaps you think that 1 billion years ago this ratio was a constant in all magma all over the world?
JonF writes:
You ignorance of the fundamentals of dating
You are the ignorant one who thinks that the correction model actually works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by JonF, posted 08-14-2008 8:22 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by JonF, posted 08-15-2008 7:51 AM peaceharris has not replied
 Message 79 by JonF, posted 08-15-2008 8:07 AM peaceharris 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