
Register  Sign In 

QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details 

Thread Info



Author  Topic: Geologists and dating (India Basins Half a Billion Years Older Than Thought)  
Percy Member Posts: 22607 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 
peaceharris writes: 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. Yours is one of the odder approaches to refuting radiometric dating that we've seen here. Instead of making ambiguous unsupported claims that it doesn't work, the usual tack for creationists, you're claiming the data gathered by geologists since the inception of radiometric dating actually indicates a young age for the earth but has simply been analyzed improperly. Does this make sense or even seem possible, even to you, since the agreement among dates would require massive incompetence along with massive collusion (and dishonesty) stretching across many decades with not one geologist letting out the secret.
This clearly implies that he wants me to do the calculation myself. Why don't you ask if he'd be willing to walk through the calculations with you? You might find this very short article interesting: "RATE" Leaders Abandon Geologic Fantasies and Admit that Extensive Radioactive Decay has Occurred. It reports the conclusions of creationist RATE group members Humphreys and Baumgardner that radiometric dating is indeed accurately measuring the byproducts of radioactive decay that take millions or billions of years to form, and that they're now exploring other avenues for explanations of the radiometric dating "puzzle". The success of an interpretive framework is measured by its successes. The creationist interpretive framework of radiometric dating data has zero successes while that of mainstream geology has at least thousands. The lack of success is telling you that your interpretive framework of a young earth is wrong. All aspects of creation science remain mired about where they were 50 years ago, while during the same period mainstream science has had unprecedented success on almost all fronts. But the important question is one that has already been asked several times: Why do you feel you need scientific support for articles of faith? Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


JonF Member (Idle past 249 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 
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.
Boy, I'd love to see your reference for that claim! Of course you'll never supply one. You obviously don't understand the theory behind discordia dating. Nontetheless, everybody prefers concordant dates; that's why techniques have been developed for obtaining them, and the vast majority of dates obtained recently are concordant. Like Joe's concordant dates. You guys are all alike. Focus on one small individual topic, ignore the big picture and especaily ignore the elephant in the room … consilience
Do you think that the correction model that geologists believe in can correct the differing ratios in different parts of the world?
Yes, for several reasons; the major one of which is that it's a secondorder correction.
You ignorance of the fundamentals of dating
You are the ignorant one who thinks that the correction model actually works.


JonF Member (Idle past 249 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 
You might find this very short article interesting: "RATE" Leaders Abandon Geologic Fantasies and Admit that Extensive Radioactive Decay has Occurred.
I already posted the money quote from the RATE article to which that refers. He ignored it. Lord only knows how he's convinced himself that the common lead correction is significant and not just a slight secondorder effect. And like prety much all YECs, he ignores the consilience between radiometric and nonradiometric methods and between wildly different radiometric maethhods. He hopes that finding a problem in one little niche will bring the entire structure crashing down. The fact that the RATE boys realize that the only hope for YEC is total restructuring af all physics, and that they also realize that this requires massive nonBiblical miraculous interventions, is anathema to peaceharris' kind.


JonF Member (Idle past 249 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 
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.
Oh, and a couple of points exposing your ignorance further:
n 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?
Depends on your model. What's the physical basis for it and where's the mathematical exposition?


Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5761 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: 
quote: LOL, reference please. Cheers Joe Meert


Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5761 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: 
peaceharris writes
quote: Two points, you'll have to publish your model. From what I can tell, your model is a simple statistical test. It tells us nothing about the absolute ages of the rocks (does it?) and only casts aspersions on the methods of modern geochron. You bring up Aristotle, but fail to mention that Aristotle's world is very different than the one we live in. There are labs around the world trying to make the next big breakthrough (hence the development of ICP and SHRIMP for example). You have people who can test the ideas put forth by others in a transparent peerreviewed method. You have people actively trying to find errors and ommissions in modern methods. You have people crosschecking results with other methods. In short, you have created a very false image of geology whereby everyone is hiding something in order to preserve an old earth. In truth, it was the fact that work came out into the open and that people challenged each other that the age of the earth was determined. You should read Cherry Lewis' book "The Dating Game" for a good history of geochron. That is after you read some of technical books so you understand geochron. Based on your statements here and the links given about your debate a few years ago, it seems you clung to your previous misunderstandings hoping to impress a new audience. If you want to impress, you'd be better off on a board where everyone wants to remain ignorant (there are plenty of religious boards where debate is not welcome and people pat each other on the back in beejesus agreement). Too many people on here are going to check your oil and, because you are so bold, are not going to be kind when they point out your mistakes. Cheers Joe Meert Edited by Joe Meert, : No reason given. Edited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.


peaceharris Member (Idle past 5677 days) Posts: 128 Joined: 
Percy writes: you're claiming the data gathered by geologists since the inception of radiometric dating actually indicates a young age for the earth but has simply been analyzed improperly You understand me very well. I have just finished writing a report on a more accurate way of doing UPb dating. Since it involves equations, I don't know how to use html and dBCodes to compose it here. It is available at Google Sites: Signin
Joe writes: From what I can tell, your model is a simple statistical test. It tells us nothing about the absolute ages of the rocks (does it?) Yes, it is a very simple statistical test. With the online data that I have come across, I don't think I can calculate the absolute age, but I think if someone measures all the relevant isotope data in the decay chain of Uranium, and if someone spends a lot of time thinking how to crunch that data, it may be possible to determine the true age.


JonF Member (Idle past 249 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 
I don't see exactly where your error is. I suspect it's in the integration. But the error is there.
Since the halflife of the parent isotope (^{238}U) is much longer than the halflife of any of the daughter isotopes in the decay chain, after about 1020 halflives of the longestlived isotope in the chain (^{234}U), a state called secular equilibrium is reached. In secular equilibrium, the rate of production of each intermediate daughter isotope is exactly equal to its rate of destruction, the rates of production and destruction of all intermediate daughter isotopes are equal, and the amount of each intermediate daughter isotope remains constant. Of course, the amount of the the isotope at the beginning of the chain decreases, and the amount of the isotope at the end of the chain increases, but the amount of each intermediate daughter isotope remains constant. This is what allows us to do UPb dating of samples that are old relative to the halflife of ^{234}U without having to consider the set of coupled differential equations of the entire decay chain; the system acts as if ^{234}U decays directly to ^{206}Pb and we can ignore what's going on the the "black box". Of course a similar argument applies to the other decay chains in the U/Th group, with shorter times to reach secular equilibrium. And, of course, after many halflives of the isotope at the top of the chain the amounts of intermediate daughter decline. But the Earth is not that old. Therefore, any model that predicts a decline in the amount of an intermediate daughter isotope over periods of a few halflives of the isotope at the top of the chain is wrong. It is not necessary to show exactly where it is wrong; it is wrong. See Secular equilibrium (Wikipedia, in case you're a Wikipediadisliker), Secular Equilibrium, and Secular Equilibrium. For the lurkers: there's a group of dating methods called "disequilibrium methods" in which:
Probably the most common application of this technique is waterborne ^{238}U (which is pretty watersoluble) decaying to ^{230}Th (which is really really nonwater soluble). So in water there's essentially no ^{230}Th 'cause it precipitates out as soon as it form.. However, when the ^{238}U is taken out of solution into a solid, the ^{230}Th starts building up towards secular equilibrium. This technique has been applied to corals (and used in calibrating ^{14}C dating), bones that have been soaked in groundwater, and stalactites (e.g the Siloam tunnel in Jerusalem … Radiometric dating ofthe Siloam Tunnel, Jerusalem). Cool, huh?


peaceharris Member (Idle past 5677 days) Posts: 128 Joined: 
JonF writes: I don't see exactly where your error is. I suspect it's in the integration. But the error is there. The integration is correct. You can find a similar solution here: http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/staff/pmrp/GY309/Module6/m6.html But I did make a mistake regarding the Sangeang Api volcano. The authors of that paper were talking about activity ratios, not isotope ratios. So I have corrected my reply atGoogle Sites: Signin Joe writes: LOL, reference please. Shocked zircons from a K/T ejecta layer in Colorado preserve a primary source age of 545 Myr, with variable degrees of isotopic resetting consistent with partial lead loss at the time of impact (65 Myr ago)  quote fromU—Pb ages of single shocked zircons linking distal K/T ejecta to the Chicxulub crater  Nature From what I understand, the authors are saying that there was Pb loss in the shocked zircons at the time of impact.


JonF Member (Idle past 249 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 
The integration is correct. You can find a similar solution here: http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/staff/pmrp/GY309/Module6/m6.html
Without checking, maybe so, But the error is there somewhere, as I demonstrated already. Finding the exact location of the error would be mildly interesting but is not necessary.
From what I understand, the authors are saying that there was Pb loss in the shocked zircons at the time of impact.
Yup. But not due directly to the impact, as you claimed. Ever consider the fact that such impacts involve heat? Incredible amounts of heat? Heat activates chemical and mechanical prcesses? Such as diffusion of atoms that fit very poorly in the crystal lattice and are in radiationdamaged portions of the lattice? Still waiting for "meteorites bombarded these zircons, therefore Pb was removed". That was "Intense heat casued by meteorite impact caused lead volatalization". Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


peaceharris Member (Idle past 5677 days) Posts: 128 Joined: 
Catholic Scientist writes: Well... how good is the model? What does it look like? I have completed doing simple regression of measured data to my model. The correlation factor isn't good, but better than Concordia model. I have explained the model, and checked the measured data from samples of 2 volcanos to this model here:http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/u238/index.html


Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5761 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: 
Talk about seeing what you want! I think culling data from a paper without reading the paper is very dangerous. Your analysis shows (assuming you've done things correctly) that the zircons from La Virgen volcano to be indistinguishable from concordia or your 'model'. So, nothing can be said about favoring your model over that which was applied in this study. Zircons (cores and rims) were all plotted together for La Reforma and do not fit your 'concordia' or your model! I'm afraid you've assumed your model correct and can't see the forest for the trees. The data you used do not support your model in any convincing fashion. You even state this same fact and then tout your model as superior. It's not. I'm curious why you did not plot the Aguajito data. They fall on a straight line, but it does not regress through zero. So, for the 3 examples from this paper, your model performs as follows
Case 1: Good line through origin fits your simple regression. Case 2: Poor line does not fit your model does not regress through zero. Case 3: Good line, does not regress through zero and therefore does not fit your model. Your comparison to concordia using these data has a fundamental flaw in logic (do you know what that is?). So, of the three analyses only one fits your model (but also fits your concordia curve, thus provides us with no hint that your model is superior). The other two do not fit. I'd say you are 0/3 or if I am being nice 1/3. Not a good start for your model. Cheers Joe Meert


JonF Member (Idle past 249 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: 
Of course, the wellknown leastsquares linear regression fit is not statistically valid for the data under consideration, although it will often produce results that are close to those produced by valid algorithms.
Valid data for least squares regression requires that the errors are solely in the ordinate values (the abscissa vales are known "exactly" or, in reality. much more exactly than the ardinate values), the errors in the ordinate values are normally distributed, and the standard deviation of the errors is not a function of the abscissa values (= are all the same). So peaceharris' "model" is statistically invalid a priori. Try some more appropriate algorithm. See the classic "York, Derek, 1969, Leastsquares fitting of a straight line with correlated errors: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 5, 320324" and see also "Titterington, D.M., and Halliday, A.N., 1979, On the fitting of parallel isochrons and the method of maximum likelihood: Chem. Geol. 26 183195". Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


peaceharris Member (Idle past 5677 days) Posts: 128 Joined: 
Joe writes: I'm curious why you did not plot the Aguajito data. I was searching for data from a recent eruption (for example St Helen's volcano), since data from a recent eruption represents the initial UPb ratios more accurately than a historic eruption. I wasn't able to find UPb data of zircons from St Helen's volcano. Data from the La Virgen volcano, which erupted in 1746, might also possibly represent the initial ratio. After discovering that the La Virgen data fits my model, I proceeded to check whether the data from La Reforma also fits my model. Since it was a poor fit, I didn't see any reason why I should proceed to do further regresion on more data.
Joe writes: The data you used do not support your model in any convincing fashion. You even state this same fact and then tout your model as superior. It's not. The correlation factor may not be the best way to prove the superiority of my model, but I can't think of a better way to compare both models? Perhaps you know of a better method to compare 2 different models?
Joe writes: Your comparison to concordia using these data has a fundamental flaw in logic (do you know what that is?) With the data I have, I couldn't think of a better comparison method. (I don't think you believe that I would reach a very much different result if I used the other types of regression as Jonf suggests, and I don't think you see any purpose of doing that) Please enlighten me telling the flaw in logic, and if possible a better comparison method.


ChrisS Junior Member (Idle past 5712 days) Posts: 5 From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Joined: 
PH, I have looked at your paper "The True Age of Zircons" and would like to make the following comments.
You claim to be able to make a more accurate estimation of the true age of zircons (presumably more accurate than that made by geochronologists) by determining the actual amounts of the Uranium isotopes ^{234}U and ^{238}U in a zircon sample. If the ratio of these two isotopes is greater than that which occurs at secular equilibrium in the ^{238}U decay chain ie 0.00005494 then you claim the age of the zircon will be much less than that calculated by science. To prove your point you have used the results of analyses of zircons (S.Wilde et. al., NATURE 409, 175 (2001)) from the famous, Australian Jack Hills conglomerate, which contains the oldest documented zircon crystals on Earth at aprox. 4300 Myr.. By working back from the reported Pb and U isotopic data you claim that the ^{234}U : ^{238}U ratio is 1.301187 not the supposed 0.00005494 and that the age of the crystals must be much less than the claimed 4300 Myr. A number of questions immediately arise. 1. How is it that you alone have been granted an incredible insight, which has been denied thousands of scientists over the last 70 years? Or are you suggesting a worldwide conspiracy among these scientists to hide this information from the rest of the world, or are they just incompetent? 2. How has the ^{234}U escaped detection? 3. Where has this ^{234}U come from? 4. What is the true age of Wilde's zircon 7436. He and his coworkers date it at 4383 ^{+}/_{} 4 Myr that's pretty accurate! But all you say is that it is "much younger than that"  hardly a "more accurate age estimation"! So what is it? 5. Have you considered you might be mistaken? Let's look at your calculations. You first determine the amount of the individual Pb isotopes from the ratios wrt. ^{206}Pb and the total amount of lead, Pb_{Total}. You state that the amount of ^{206}Pb is equal to:Pb_{Total}*(1  ^{204}Pb/^{206}Pb  ^{207}Pb/^{206}Pb  ^{208}Pb/^{206}Pb). Mistake no. 1  this is wrong! Pb_{Total} = ^{204}Pb + ^{206}Pb + ^{207}Pb + ^{208}Pb Dividing by ^{206}Pb gives: Pb_{Total}/^{206}Pb = ^{204}Pb/^{206}Pb + 1 + ^{207}Pb/^{206}Pb + ^{208}Pb/^{206}Pb and therefore: ^{206}Pb = Pb_{Total}/(^{204}Pb/^{206}Pb + 1 + ^{207}Pb/^{206}Pb + ^{208}Pb/^{206}Pb) which is not the same as the formula that you derived. Substituting the values from Wilde  row 1 of Table 1  which you used in your calculation gives: ^{206}Pb = 355(0.00014 + 1 + 0.5432 + 0.1645) = 207.86 (not your value of 97.87)



Do Nothing Button
Copyright 20012023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024