Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
74 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 73 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radiometric Dating and the Geologic Column: A Critique
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3879
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 91 of 113 (168261)
12-14-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by crashfrog
12-14-2004 7:04 PM


Other isochrons?
Big disclaimer: NOT A RADIOMETRIC DATING EXPERT!

I think it is possible to have other isochrons produced, other than those that determine the age of a rock.

Example: I believe if you sample a number of different igneous rocks that are of different ages, but are of a common magmatic origin, you can produce a isochron. But the isochron will determine the age of when the different magmas fractionated from a parent magma.

I may be wrong - See above disclaimer again.

I now stand by to hear from a real expert.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 12-14-2004 7:04 PM crashfrog has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by JonF, posted 12-14-2004 9:17 PM Minnemooseus has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 92 of 113 (168268)
12-14-2004 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Anti-Climacus
12-14-2004 6:55 PM


Anti-Climacus wastes more bandwidth
Wow.

Several days of preparation, five posts, and no evidence or data. Just more unsupported assertions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Anti-Climacus, posted 12-14-2004 6:55 PM Anti-Climacus has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 93 of 113 (168273)
12-14-2004 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Anti-Climacus
12-14-2004 6:55 PM


quote:
Reply: Your argument loses all validity if the methodologies used to deem discordances as “erroneous” are themselves invalidated. This is precisely what I have done with my analysis of Borg et al.

Where have you done this? Are you saying that weathering or metamorphism will not alter the radiometric clock? This is silly.

quote:
But then again, when “discordant” is equated with “erroneous”, there is truly no way to debate with that kind of “logic”.

What is really illogical is for you to complain that geochronologists throw out dates that they disagree with and then turn around and throw out all of the precise dates to do you analysis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Anti-Climacus, posted 12-14-2004 6:55 PM Anti-Climacus has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 94 of 113 (168275)
12-14-2004 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Anti-Climacus
12-14-2004 6:44 PM


quote:
Reply: Nonsense. The overturning of paradigms is the product of scientific revolutions, not normal science. Normal science is simply the method of interpreting phenomena within the established parameters of the reigning paradigm.

Perhaps you should actually read our posts. Crashfrog did not say normal science, but simply 'science.'

quote:
And normal science is precisely where geochronology operates: the attempt to produce results consistent with orthodox theory.

Do you think you are the only one who has read Kuhn? Actually, you are partly right. Radiometric dating was a revolution and now it is operating in normal fashion. As yet, there is no crisis to precipitate another revolution (well perhaps in the minds of YECs there is). By the way, there is no limit on the amount of time that normal science may operate, so you may be waiting for a long time.

quote:
“Not so. A number of radiometric calibration studies have been performed, most famously the Lake Suigetsu calibration study. This study is exactly what you describe - a comparison of radiometric dates to known dates, going back about 45,000 years. When graphed, there's an amazing and obvious corellation between the radiodates and the actual dates, even including the discordinant dates.”

quote:
Reply: It is disturbing, although psychologically interesting, to keep hearing that isotopic-dating results are in “amazing and obvious corellation” with the predictions of geochronologists, when it is, in fact, the predictions of geochronologists themselves which are pervasively used as perhaps the only true reliability criterion in the assessment of isotopic dating, as my analysis of the Borg et al study adequately demonstrates.

Actually, it is only amazing in the context of the YEC mindset. In truth, it only makes sense. And no, your analysis did no such thing. Your analysis was a pathetic attempt to prop up your own viewpoint in the face of overwhelming evidence against it.

Or perhaps you could document for us an error analysis study where the good data was thrown out and only discordant data evaluated. I would really like to hear about this new statistical method you have discovered.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Anti-Climacus, posted 12-14-2004 6:44 PM Anti-Climacus has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 95 of 113 (168276)
12-14-2004 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Minnemooseus
12-14-2004 7:25 PM


Re: Other isochrons?
I think it is possible to have other isochrons produced, other than those that determine the age of a rock.

Yes.

One possibility is a "mixing isochron", where your samples are composed of mixtures of sources with different isotopic compositions. The slope of the line thus produced has no age significance. This is illustrated and discussed at Mixing of two sources. I would have stressed diagnosis somewhat differently. A straight line on a mixing plot is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a binary-mixing "isochron"; straight lines may appear on a mixing plot even when the isochron has age significance, because (due to the physics of mineral solidification) the 87Sr/86Sr ratio commonly is inversely correlated with the Sr content. However, it is IMHO immensely significant that mixing "isochrons" have random slopes and should therefore have negative or ridiculously large positive slopes around half the time .... but such slopes are very rare, indicating that mixing isochrons are rare. (And the fact of finding a mixing isochron is often publishable; e.g http://www.the-conference.com/JConfAbs/5/116.pdf). Of course, many isochrons do not plot as straight lines on a mixing plot, proving that they are not binary mixtures. (It's theoretically possible to generate a false isochron, that does not plot as a straight line on a mixing plot, with three or more components in the mixture, with one component being a very unlikely composition such as zero parent and zero daughter, but let's not bother with such obviously rare scenarios). Finally, mixing often leaves physical indicators in the rock.

Another, moderately common, scenario is a metamorphic event in which the minerals in the rock are isotopically homogenized relative to each other but the overall rock reamains closed. Then the "whole rock" isochron still reflects solidification, but the isochron based on sampling the individual minerals separately indicatess the age since metamorphosis. See Dating Using Sr Isotopes, and the PDF about the Martian meteorite to which Anti-Climacus linked appears to exhibit a similar structure.

I believe if you sample a number of different igneous rocks that are of different ages, but are of a common magmatic origin, you can produce a isochron. But the isochron will determine the age of when the different magmas fractionated from a parent magma.

Yup. The principle is similar to the metamorphic scenario I mentioned above. It's done more by isotope geochemists than geochronologists. Aint specialization grand?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-14-2004 7:25 PM Minnemooseus has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 96 of 113 (168277)
12-14-2004 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Anti-Climacus
12-14-2004 6:44 PM


It is disturbing, although psychologically interesting, to keep hearing that isotopic-dating results are in “amazing and obvious corellation” with the predictions of geochronologists, when it is, in fact, the predictions of geochronologists themselves which are pervasively used as perhaps the only true reliability criterion in the assessment of isotopic dating, as my analysis of the Borg et al study adequately demonstrates.

Your "analysis" of the Borg et al study, consisting as it did of no more than protestations of how little you believed it and unwarranted pejorative phrases, demonstrated nothing more than your abilities ... and painted a sad picture of those abilities.

Try looking at the evidence, and analyzing it with statistics and mathematics rather than belittling it based only on your prejudices.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Anti-Climacus, posted 12-14-2004 6:44 PM Anti-Climacus has taken no action

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8968
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 97 of 113 (168281)
12-14-2004 9:47 PM


Time to back up
I think we need to back up and revisit, more carefully, the martian meteorite paper.

AC doesn't see what is wrong with his look at it. We have noted a number of things about it but he seems to have not read them and thought them through.

He clearly doesn't think there is need to reconsider his initial position on it. Perhaps we can go back over it more carefully and simply.

It is, after all, the only evidence he has supplied for his claims.


Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Percy, posted 12-14-2004 10:07 PM NosyNed has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20749
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 98 of 113 (168287)
12-14-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by NosyNed
12-14-2004 9:47 PM


Re: Time to back up
I'd like to echo these sentiments. I briefly checked this thread earlier today and couldn't seem to find where Anti-Climacus had addressed the issues raised with his criticisms of the Martian meteorite paper. I still haven't been able to find the time to carefully read the posts to this thread since last Friday, but if its true this issue isn't being addressed then it needs to be raised again.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2004 9:47 PM NosyNed has taken no action

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 221 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 99 of 113 (168378)
12-15-2004 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Anti-Climacus
12-08-2004 11:53 PM


Roxrkool: “It can tell us about metamorphism, re-heating due to igneous events, etc.”

Reply: You must understand that discordant dates cannot “tell us about metamorphism, re-heating due to igneous events, etc.” unless we use reliability standards consistently. We do not. Instead, we equate “discordance” with “metamorphism”, and “concordance” with “closed system”, effectively solidifying the conclusions of our experiments before they are even conducted.


You accuse mainstream scientists of arbitrarily assigning various degrees and types of alteration or mineralogy to rocks in order to explain away any discordant dates, but you have not supplied us with evidence that this in fact is true. We just can't take you word for it.

Please show how mainstream scientists are being inconsistent with their assigning of some rocks as metamorphosed, re-heated, altered, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Anti-Climacus, posted 12-08-2004 11:53 PM Anti-Climacus has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20749
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 100 of 113 (168513)
12-15-2004 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Anti-Climacus
12-14-2004 6:55 PM


Hi Anti-Climacus,

I'd like to try to get this thread back on track. You provided an example of poor scientific practices in Message 60, and there were a number of replies:

Message 61
Message 62
Message 63
Message 64
Message 65
Message 66
Message 75

Beginning at Message 82 you posted five replies, not one of which was a reply to any of these messages. Specifically:

To bring this thread back on course I think you need to address the responses to your Message 60, which I again list:

Message 61
Message 62
Message 63
Message 64
Message 65
Message 66
Message 75

Thanks!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Anti-Climacus, posted 12-14-2004 6:55 PM Anti-Climacus has taken no action

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 113 (168535)
12-15-2004 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Anti-Climacus
12-14-2004 6:50 PM


Re: An Example
quote:
This is incorrect. There are, in fact, many instances where isochrons are produced subsequent to the “elimination” of scattered data points. But since every citation from scientific literature is ipso facto “out of context”, there is really no point of me summarizing such quotes here.

They are out of context because they are taken out of context. It is not our fault that Woodmorappe twists other people work and words to fit his presuppositions.

quote:
Reply: If geochronologists could predict “metamorphisis” objectively, they would surely be able to weed out most discordances prior to dating the materials. This is not so. Also, if “metamorphisis” is a true reliability criterion, then concordant dates that showed obvious disturbance would not be accepted. This is also not so.

They DETECT it objectively. The leaching experiments with the martian meteorites is a perfect example. Differences between the samples was detected OUTSIDE OF THE RADIOMETRIC DATING METHODOLOGY. Metamorphosis also results in specific mineral deposits and detectable rearrangements. Metamorphic rocks are not labelled so because they fail to produce concordant dates. They are labelled metamorphic rock because the show outward signs of reheating.

quote:
Reply: It is clear from admissions in the scientific literature that discordances are frequent and pervasive. From this, it logically follows that it is effectively impossible to perform an accurate survey.

There is not such admission that ALL dating procedures FREQUENTLY produce discordant dates with EVERY sample. Some samples do pose distinct problems due to their history, but this does nothing to dismiss solid dating techniques that are accurate the vast majority of the time. So are discordant dates frequent in EVERY dating assay, or are discordant dates confined to a small number of geologic features? Can you also please define "frequent". Is "frequent" 1%, 10%, 50% or 90% discordant dates? If you don't know, then it wouldn't be innacurate to claim that discordant dates occur 1% of the time, now would it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Anti-Climacus, posted 12-14-2004 6:50 PM Anti-Climacus has taken no action

  
Anti-Climacus
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 113 (172537)
12-31-2004 1:56 PM


My example of the Borg et al study convincingly demonstrates the following points:

(1) The very same “alteration”, “open system behavior”, “re-heating”, “secondary alteration”, “shock metamorphism”, etc. ad infinitum, that is used to disqualify the validity of discordant data somehow miraculously exempts concordant data from befalling the same fate, even if such concordances are contradictory to geochronological expectations (note: Borg et al found the concordances “surprising, given the ubiquitous nature of shock melts in this meteorite”). This state-of-affairs effectively destroys the concept of “open system behavior” as a reliability criterion, and instead establishes the concept as a convenient rationalization to be used by geochronologists.

If the ages computed are concordant with expectations, and signs of metamorphism are not apparent, the age is accepted. If the ages computed are concordant with expectations, and signs of metamorphism are apparent, the age is accepted anyways. If the ages computed are discordant with expectations, and signs of metamorphism are apparent, the age is rejected. If the ages computed are discordant with expectations, and signs of metamorphism are not apparent, the age is rejected anyways. Thus, signs of metamorphism are invoked to explain away discordances but completely ignored to preserve concordances. This isn’t science. It’s a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.

The uniformitarians on this “forum” would do themselves well in admitting to this obvious fact that FALSIFIES the radiometric reliability criteria for independent identification of “bad samples” based on “metamorphism”.

(2) The very “reliability criterion” – analytical precision – that is used to confirm the validity of concordant data is somehow magically transformed into a “fortuitous” event when applied to discordant data – even if such analytical precision is contradictory to geochronological expectations (note: Borg et al was able to develop an isochron despite their prediction of shock metamorphism) – for no other reason than the fact that it is discordant. This state-of-affairs effectively destroys the concept of “analytical precision (consistency)” as a reliability criterion, and instead establishes the concept as yet another convenient rationalization to be used by geochronologists.

If the age computed is concordant with expectations, and is also analytically precise, the age is accepted. If the age computed is concordant with expectations, and is not analytically precise, the age is accepted anyways. If the age computed is discordant with expectations, and is not analytically precise, the age is rejected. If the age computed is discordant with expectations, and is also analytically precise, the age is rejected anyways. Thus, analytical precision is invoked to preserve concordances but completely ignored when rejecting discordances. This isn’t science. It’s a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.

(3) The plastic definition of “concordancy” was exposed. Borg et al reference another study where U-Pb isotopic systematics yielded an isochron of 212+-62 (p. 2). This study increases the range of isochrons to over 58 million years (over 32% of the expected age), with the lowest isochron age at 154 and the highest at 212. If we take the wider range that results from taking the max (212+62) and min (154-6), we end up with a range of 126 million years (over 70% of the expected age). This is a generous gap to be claiming “agreement” between isochrons. When isochrons are developed that exceed analytical uncertainty – even ranging up to 70% of the alleged age to be confirmed – the geochronologist is free to designate “contemporaneous intrusions”, or simply claim that some isochrons were produced from a “slightly different mantle source”, which conveniently allows isochrons exhibiting significant age differences to be considered in “agreement” while safely bypassing the need for analytical precision. This isn’t science.

This specific example establishes, beyond any reasonable doubt, that geochronology studies are not allowed, under any circumstances, to conflict with geochronological expectations. Discordant dates are explained away (regardless of whether or not the supposed “reliability criteria” predict the opposite result), while concordant dates are accepted (regardless of whether or not the supposed “reliability criteria” predict the opposite result).

On a general note, it is effectively impossible for me to respond to 10 or more replies for every one of my posts, lest I wish to spend every waking moment of my personal life arguing with fundamentalist naturalists that deny irrefutable facts derived from specific studies from the scientific literature that falsify critical underlying foundations of geochronology.

Since the title of this thread includes a reference to the geologic column, I now provide an analysis of its essential nonexistence.

The Geologic Column

With regards to the geologic column, the study used in this post is John Woodmorappe’s compilation of studies which document the existence of periods in the geologic column all over the world [Studies in Flood Geology, p. 103-130]. The world was divided into 967 equal areas and the relevant data was compiled from the scientific literature. A summary of the results are as follows:

(Geologic Periods Present…….# of Areas On Earth…….%)

0…….107…….11.07%
1…….80……….8.27%
2…….123…….12.72%
3…….105…….10.86%
4…….99……...10.24%
5…….123…….12.72%
6…….90……….9.31%
7…….101…….10.44%
8…….82……….8.48%
9…….48……….4.96%
10…...9………...0.93%

A clear observation from this information is that over 11% of the earth has 0 geologic periods present, over 42% has 3 or less periods present, over 55% has 5 or less periods present, and less than 1% has all 10 periods present.

As an example of the difficulties this situation can cause, let us analyze the fact that 55% of the earth’s surface has 5 or less geologic periods present. Taking into consideration the alleged duration of the geologic time periods (see earlier in this article), there is a minimum total of absent geologic time equal to 208 million years (adding the 5 shortest periods – Silurian, Permian, Cambrian, Triassic and Devonian) out of 545 million years (adding together alleged geologic time from Tertiary through Cambrian), and there is a maximum total of absent geologic time equal to 337 million years (adding the 5 longest periods – Cretaceous, Jurassic, Ordovician, Tertiary, and Carboniferous) out of 545 million years.

In other words, those who wish to defend the geologic time scale must engage in special pleading and rationalizations to explain how 55% of the earth’s surface lost 208-337 million years of geologic time in the rocks. This data provides empirical evidence that as high as 61% of the earth’s supposed geologic time is completely absent in over 55% of the earth’s locations and over 80% of the geologic column is absent in 42% of the earth’s locations.

Yet another shocking finding in this analysis is that over 11% of the earth’s surface shows no evidence of any of the geologic periods from the Tertiary to the Cambrian. This means that the geochronologist must attempt to explain how all 545 millions years of sedimentation buildup is somehow missing. This evidence, in itself, greatly weakens the uniformitarian paradigm and the apparently ancient age of the earth.

This already unimpressive situation only becomes worse when one attempts to find successional periods of geologic time in the same location, for the reason that the confirming percentages become even less. For instance:

Complete Lower Paleozoic………………….21%
Complete Upper Paleozoic………………….17%
Complete Mesozoic…………………………16%
Complete Paleozoic (lower and upper)…….5.7%
Upper Paleozoic/Complete Mesozoic ……...4.0%

Even more convincing is the presence of young rock overlying directly upon Precambrian basement rock. Take these examples:

Tertiary found on Precambrian………………>4%
Cretaceous found on Precambrian…………...>9%
Jurassic found on Precambrian………………..4%
Triassic found on Precambrian……………..>11%

This means that those who support geologic time must again resort to special pleading and rationalizations to explain how, in cases where Tertiary is found lying directly upon Precambrian, 480 million years of geologic time just happened to disappear; or for the other three examples given above – 410 million, 340 million, and 295 million years of alleged geologic time just happened to vanish into thin air.

And it only gets worse for the apologists of an ancient earth, as the following statement adequately demonstrates:

quote:
“The column is supposed to represent a vertical cross-section through the earth’s crust, with the most recently deposited (therefore youngest) rocks at the surface and the oldest, earliest rocks deposited on the crystalline “basement” rocks at the bottom. If one wishes to check out this standard column (or standard geologic age system), where can he go to see it for himself? There is only one place in all the world to see the standard geologic column. That’s in the textbook! ... almost any textbook, in fact, that deals with evolution or earth history. A typical textbook rendering of the standard column is shown in Figure 44. This standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles thick (some writers say up to 200), representing the total sedimentary activity of all of the geologic ages. However, the average thickness of each local geologic column is about one mile (in some places, the column has essentially zero thickness, in a few places it may be up to 16 or so miles, but the worldwide average is about one mile).”
(Morris H. and Parker G., What Is Creation Science?, p. 230-232)

When confronted with the fact that only 8% (16/200) of the geologic column has ever been discovered and that only 0.5% (1/200) is pervasive around the world (i.e. 99.5% of the alleged sedimentation buildup is missing), one could be forgiven to conclude that the concept of geologic time reflects nothing more than artificial time partitions that have no basis in reality whatsoever.

Such facts, in and of themselves, are sufficient to completely invalidate the supposed ancient age of the earth.

Finally, with regards to the incessant rants about my “failure” to demonstrate my points made on my opening post, it is now time to revisit them:

(a) radiometric dating will frequently yield ages which are grossly discordant compared with the predictions of geochronology;
(b) such discordances will frequently exhibit poor precision;

These claims were demonstrated with the mutual application of numerous quotes from geochronologists admitting the frequency of discordances (both published and unpublished) that is a part of my full-length article, as well as the statistical analysis of over 400 discordant ages that typifies the range of dates obtained from geochronology.

(c) the reliability criteria used in the ascertainment of accuracy will frequently contradict geochronological expectations;

This claim was irrefutably proven as fact thru a specific analysis of the Borg et al study.

(d) the geologic column for strata between and including the Tertiary and Cambrian is virtually nonexistent.

This claim is irrefutably proven as fact thru the analysis presented earlier in this post.

The incessant preaching of “good intentions” by geochronologists that is uttered at every one of my claims is completely irrelevant when the application of the scientific method is itself perverted. Any studies to be referenced demonstrating high percentages of concordances are questionable for none other than the boatload of admissions from geochronologists themselves that discordances frequently “disappear in the lab datafile” and go unpublished. I suspect that the only discordances published are those that can be superficially rationalized.

In any case, I find the religious resolve of naturalists in the face of contradictory evidence to be more impressive than that of any YEC. Admissions of unpublished discordances in the scientific literature are explained away with accusations of quote-mining. Demands for evidence impossible to obtain are made to preserve a victory by definition (this is evident in the demand for my “proving” the existence of unpublished discordances thru means other than admissions from the scientific literature, which is effectively impossible). Application of the dogmatic sophism of arguments from authority to squelch dissent (which is eerily familiar to the tactics used by Organized Religions when their beliefs are threatened). Etc.

Well, the easiest person to fool is yourself, and the naturalists here have done a most remarkable job in their complete dismissal of the facts that I have demonstrated in this thread, which undermine some of the most critical foundations of geochronology.


This, that a man’s eye cannot see by the light by which the majority see could be because he is used to darkness; but it could also be because he is used to a still clearer light, and when this is so, it is no laughing matter.

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by edge, posted 12-31-2004 5:00 PM Anti-Climacus has taken no action
 Message 105 by JonF, posted 12-31-2004 5:41 PM Anti-Climacus has taken no action
 Message 106 by roxrkool, posted 01-01-2005 2:00 PM Anti-Climacus has taken no action
 Message 108 by Harlequin, posted 01-02-2005 3:04 PM Anti-Climacus has taken no action
 Message 110 by JonF, posted 01-03-2005 11:19 AM Anti-Climacus has taken no action
 Message 111 by Jazzns, posted 01-03-2005 12:04 PM Anti-Climacus has taken no action
 Message 112 by Admin, posted 01-03-2005 12:56 PM Anti-Climacus has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 938 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 103 of 113 (172566)
12-31-2004 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Anti-Climacus
12-31-2004 1:56 PM


(1) The very same “alteration”, “open system behavior”, “re-heating”, “secondary alteration”, “shock metamorphism”, etc. ad infinitum, that is used to disqualify the validity of discordant data somehow miraculously exempts concordant data from befalling the same fate, even if such concordances are contradictory to geochronological expectations (note: Borg et al found the concordances “surprising, given the ubiquitous nature of shock melts in this meteorite”). ...

Sorry, AC, but wrong. When alternate explanations are used for discordant dates there is evidence for those processes. When dates cannot be rationalized they are simply held for future interpretation, which is why the dates are not 'thrown out' as YECs claim.

...Thus, signs of metamorphism are invoked to explain away discordances but completely ignored to preserve concordances. This isn’t science. It’s a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.

Nonsense. The very existence of Ar/Ar dating tells you that multiple thermal events actually make sense and are predicted by geochronologists. Some clocks may time the origin of the rock while others might record a metamorphic event that did not affect other clocks.

Do you really think that no one noticed this lack of scientific reasoning before YECs came along to enlighten us? I'd say the vast majority of actual scientists disagree with you on this. The real issue here is that you and many other YECs do not understand the level of reasoning necessary to do radiometric dating, to you it's simply magic that is under the control of the geomagicians.

The uniformitarians on this “forum” would do themselves well in admitting to this obvious fact that FALSIFIES the radiometric reliability criteria for independent identification of “bad samples” based on “metamorphism”.

Not really. It only means that you simply don't understand the procedures involved. Getting your information from YEC websites is not the recommended method of inquiry for laymen.

(2) The very “reliability criterion” – analytical precision – that is used to confirm the validity of concordant data is somehow magically ...

Yes, in your own words: to you it is magic.

... transformed into a “fortuitous” event when applied to discordant data – even if such analytical precision is contradictory to geochronological expectations (note: Borg et al was able to develop an isochron despite their prediction of shock metamorphism) – for no other reason than the fact that it is discordant. This state-of-affairs effectively destroys the concept of “analytical precision (consistency)” as a reliability criterion, and instead establishes the concept as yet another convenient rationalization to be used by geochronologists.

Again, no. There are plenty of ways to get multiple dates from rocks, measuring different events in the history of a geological body. Modification of a technique might well obviate a problem with metamorphism. By the way, I am not convinced that I would expect a shock-metamorphosed rock to have reset radiometric clocks.

If the age computed is concordant with expectations, and is also analytically precise, the age is accepted. If the age computed is concordant with expectations, and is not analytically precise, the age is accepted anyways. If the age computed is discordant with expectations, and is not analytically precise, the age is rejected. If the age computed is discordant with expectations, and is also analytically precise, the age is rejected anyways.

This is not my experience. However, since you are so well informed on geochronology, I will have to accept your explanation...

Thus, analytical precision is invoked to preserve concordances but completely ignored when rejecting discordances. This isn’t science. It’s a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.

Wrong again. Only to those uneducated in radiometric dating see it this way. But then, that IS where you are getting your information, isn't it?

(3) The plastic definition of “concordancy” was exposed. Borg et al reference another study where U-Pb isotopic systematics yielded an isochron of 212+-62 (p. 2). This study increases the range of isochrons to over 58 million years (over 32% of the expected age), with the lowest isochron age at 154 and the highest at 212. If we take the wider range that results from taking the max (212+62) and min (154-6), we end up with a range of 126 million years (over 70% of the expected age). This is a generous gap to be claiming “agreement” between isochrons.

I would like to see this example documented. Do you have the data?

When isochrons are developed that exceed analytical uncertainty – even ranging up to 70% of the alleged age to be confirmed – the geochronologist is free to designate “contemporaneous intrusions”, or simply claim that some isochrons were produced from a “slightly different mantle source”, which conveniently allows isochrons exhibiting significant age differences to be considered in “agreement” while safely bypassing the need for analytical precision. This isn’t science.

I know of no study that has mad such interpretations on such bad data. Please document. However, if the data were that equivocal, I agree that the observer should make some kind of a guess as to what the age is and why the data are skewed.

This specific example establishes, ...

What specific example? As far as we know you made this up.

... beyond any reasonable doubt, that geochronology studies are not allowed, under any circumstances, to conflict with geochronological expectations.

That's funny, it's happened to me... I must be special.

Discordant dates are explained away (regardless of whether or not the supposed “reliability criteria” predict the opposite result), while concordant dates are accepted (regardless of whether or not the supposed “reliability criteria” predict the opposite result).

Nonsense. It is the job of a geologist to explain dates. Somehow, I don't think that there is any way you would be satisfied with any explanation that didn't agree with you. I think you are simply projecting through this entire post. You think we do this because it is what you would do.

On a general note, it is effectively impossible for me to respond to 10 or more replies for every one of my posts, lest I wish to spend every waking moment of my personal life arguing with fundamentalist naturalists that deny irrefutable facts derived from specific studies from the scientific literature that falsify critical underlying foundations of geochronology.

Well, I'm sure you won't selectively choose which post to respond to...

Since the title of this thread includes a reference to the geologic column, I now provide an analysis of its essential nonexistence.

The Geologic Column

With regards to the geologic column, the study used in this post is John Woodmorappe’s compilation of studies which document the existence of periods in the geologic column all over the world [Studies in Flood Geology, p. 103-130]. The world was divided into 967 equal areas and the relevant data was compiled from the scientific literature. A summary of the results are as follows:

(Geologic Periods Present…….# of Areas On Earth…….%)

0…….107…….11.07%
1…….80……….8.27%
2…….123…….12.72%
3…….105…….10.86%
4…….99……...10.24%
5…….123…….12.72%
6…….90……….9.31%
7…….101…….10.44%
8…….82……….8.48%
9…….48……….4.96%
10…...9………...0.93%

Wait... What about the places where there is a complete geological column? According to this analysis, it doesn't exist anywhere. Interesting way to do statistics with an agenda.

A clear observation from this information is that over 11% of the earth has 0 geologic periods present, over 42% has 3 or less periods present, over 55% has 5 or less periods present, and less than 1% has all 10 periods present.

Umm, did you ever take a geology course? Do you think there is ANYWHERE in geology that we say all geological periods must be represented in any single location? In other words, Woody is creating a strawman argument and bashing it to pieces, then thumping his chest. And guess who is out there cheering him on?

As an example of the difficulties this situation can cause, let us analyze the fact that 55% of the earth’s surface has 5 or less geologic periods present. Taking into consideration the alleged duration of the geologic time periods (see earlier in this article), there is a minimum total of absent geologic time equal to 208 million years (adding the 5 shortest periods – Silurian, Permian, Cambrian, Triassic and Devonian) out of 545 million years (adding together alleged geologic time from Tertiary through Cambrian), and there is a maximum total of absent geologic time equal to 337 million years (adding the 5 longest periods – Cretaceous, Jurassic, Ordovician, Tertiary, and Carboniferous) out of 545 million years.

Completely fals analysis. Your premise is wrong. Plain and simple.

In other words, those who wish to defend the geologic time scale must engage in special pleading and rationalizations to explain how 55% of the earth’s surface lost 208-337 million years of geologic time in the rocks. This data provides empirical evidence that as high as 61% of the earth’s supposed geologic time is completely absent in over 55% of the earth’s locations and over 80% of the geologic column is absent in 42% of the earth’s locations.

Wrong. I never expected the entire column to be present at any given location. In fact, I'm surprised that it is so complete in the places where it is present.

Yet another shocking finding ...

Another shocker! Must be magic all over again.

...in this analysis is that over 11% of the earth’s surface shows no evidence of any of the geologic periods from the Tertiary to the Cambrian. This means that the geochronologist must attempt to explain how all 545 millions years of sedimentation buildup is somehow missing. This evidence, in itself, greatly weakens the uniformitarian paradigm and the apparently ancient age of the earth.

Yes, it is called an unconformity. If you don't believe in those, then ask just what geological feature you are standing on.

This already unimpressive situation only becomes worse when one attempts to find successional periods of geologic time in the same location, for the reason that the confirming percentages become even less. For instance:

Complete Lower Paleozoic………………….21%
Complete Upper Paleozoic………………….17%
Complete Mesozoic…………………………16%
Complete Paleozoic (lower and upper)…….5.7%
Upper Paleozoic/Complete Mesozoic ……...4.0%

Even more convincing is the presence of young rock overlying directly upon Precambrian basement rock. Take these examples:

Tertiary found on Precambrian………………>4%
Cretaceous found on Precambrian…………...>9%
Jurassic found on Precambrian………………..4%
Triassic found on Precambrian……………..>11%

This means that those who support geologic time must again resort to special pleading and rationalizations to explain how, in cases where Tertiary is found lying directly upon Precambrian, 480 million years of geologic time just happened to disappear; or for the other three examples given above – 410 million, 340 million, and 295 million years of alleged geologic time just happened to vanish into thin air.

Yawn... Sorry but you have just wasted several epochs of your own precious lifetime in reviewing this false analysis.

And it only gets worse for the apologists of an ancient earth, as the following statement adequately demonstrates:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The column is supposed to represent a vertical cross-section through the earth’s crust, with the most recently deposited (therefore youngest) rocks at the surface and the oldest, earliest rocks deposited on the crystalline “basement” rocks at the bottom. If one wishes to check out this standard column (or standard geologic age system), where can he go to see it for himself? There is only one place in all the world to see the standard geologic column. That’s in the textbook! ... almost any textbook, in fact, that deals with evolution or earth history. A typical textbook rendering of the standard column is shown in Figure 44. This standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles thick (some writers say up to 200), representing the total sedimentary activity of all of the geologic ages. However, the average thickness of each local geologic column is about one mile (in some places, the column has essentially zero thickness, in a few places it may be up to 16 or so miles, but the worldwide average is about one mile).”
(Morris H. and Parker G., What Is Creation Science?, p. 230-232)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. Wrong from the beginning. The geological column that Morris discusses is actually the geological time scale which does not represent any locality on earth. He is confused and has passed that negative information on to you.

When confronted with the fact that only 8% (16/200) of the geologic column has ever been discovered and that only 0.5% (1/200) is pervasive around the world (i.e. 99.5% of the alleged sedimentation buildup is missing), one could be forgiven to conclude that the concept of geologic time reflects nothing more than artificial time partitions that have no basis in reality whatsoever.

In Morris' dreams, perhaps.

Such facts, in and of themselves, are sufficient to completely invalidate the supposed ancient age of the earth.

Except for one little detail: they are not facts.

Finally, with regards to the incessant rants about my “failure” to demonstrate my points made on my opening post, it is now time to revisit them: ...

Sorry, but you have still failed to make your points, as I have shown.

The incessant preaching of “good intentions” by geochronologists that is uttered at every one of my claims is completely irrelevant when the application of the scientific method is itself perverted.

It seems that YECs would know about this perversion.

Any studies to be referenced demonstrating high percentages of concordances are questionable for none other than the boatload of admissions from geochronologists themselves that discordances frequently “disappear in the lab datafile” and go unpublished. I suspect that the only discordances published are those that can be superficially rationalized.

THen how do you know about them?

In any case, I find the religious resolve of naturalists in the face of contradictory evidence to be more impressive than that of any YEC. Admissions of unpublished discordances in the scientific literature are explained away with accusations of quote-mining.

Well, then prove to us that they are not. You have not made any points here yet...

Demands for evidence impossible to obtain are made to preserve a victory by definition (this is evident in the demand for my “proving” the existence of unpublished discordances thru means other than admissions from the scientific literature, which is effectively impossible).

Or it could be that they don't exist... Nah!

Application of the dogmatic sophism of arguments from authority to squelch dissent (which is eerily familiar to the tactics used by Organized Religions when their beliefs are threatened). Etc.

Do you know how funny this sounds coming from a YEC?

Well, the easiest person to fool is yourself, ...

I'm glad you have admitted this.

...and the naturalists here have done a most remarkable job in their complete dismissal of the facts that I have demonstrated in this thread, which undermine some of the most critical foundations of geochronology.

And you managed to do this after just a few days surfing the net. You are GOOD! Why not publish now, before anyone else gets wind of this? Other than the fact that the only thing you have demostrated is a complete lack of understanding of the theory, practice and interpretation of geochronology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Anti-Climacus, posted 12-31-2004 1:56 PM Anti-Climacus has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by JonF, posted 12-31-2004 5:38 PM edge has taken no action
 Message 107 by Harlequin, posted 01-01-2005 11:53 PM edge has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 104 of 113 (172570)
12-31-2004 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by edge
12-31-2004 5:00 PM


The plastic definition of “concordancy” was exposed. Borg et al reference another study where U-Pb isotopic systematics yielded an isochron of 212+-62 (p. 2). This study increases the range of isochrons to over 58 million years (over 32% of the expected age), with the lowest isochron age at 154 and the highest at 212. If we take the wider range that results from taking the max (212+62) and min (154-6), we end up with a range of 126 million years (over 70% of the expected age). This is a generous gap to be claiming “agreement” between isochrons.
I would like to see this example documented. Do you have the data?

He's referring to Rb-Sr ISOTOPIC SYSTEMATICS OF THE LHERZOLITIC SHERGOTTITE LEW88516, to which he referred in message 60 on page 4 of this thread. That's the message that starts out "Before addressing your specific objections (which I will hopefully get to this weekend), I would like to provide an example of how geochronology is applied in practice.". Since then, of course, he's totally ignored our specific objections raised before and after that message, and just beat the Borg et al drum over and over again.

The text to which he refers is:

"Our age agrees well with the U-Pb analysis of LEW leachates and residues completed by [5] which intersect concordia at the lower intercept at ~170 Ma, as well as with the Rb-Sr age of 187 ± 12 determined on ALH by [6]. Although the U-Pb isotopic systematics of Y79 are complex, [11] have argued that their best data intersect concordia at 212 ± 62 Ma, and are therefore also in good agreement with the LEW Rb-Sr isochron. ...

[5] Chen, J. H. & Wasserburg, G. J. (1993) LPSC XXIV, 275-276
[6] Shih, C. -Y. et al. (1982) GCA 46, 2323-2344
[11] Misawa, K. et al. (1997) Antarctic Meteorites XXII
NIPR, 115-117"

So, he's demonstrated that he doesn't know the difference between concordia-discordia dating and isochron dating. Of course, he also doesn't have any idea about the significance of the upper intercept of a discordia line and the concordia curve, and he doesn't have any idea what they mean by the lower intercept, and why that value may or may not be significant, and why they feel it's significaant in this case. He probably doesn't even know what they mean by metamorphism, and what effects it might have on radioisotope analyses.

All in all, he doesn't understand anything that's presented in that paper. All he knows is that he doesn't like the results.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by edge, posted 12-31-2004 5:00 PM edge has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 105 of 113 (172571)
12-31-2004 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Anti-Climacus
12-31-2004 1:56 PM


You still have not responded to any of our points. Message 100, if you please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Anti-Climacus, posted 12-31-2004 1:56 PM Anti-Climacus has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022