In fact, we theorize/know that the materials of the solar system and of the earth itself all came from solar activity (super nova and nova) in some time before the creation of the universe. How then do they date to only the creation of the solar system? Must be some kind of reset unless the time between the creation of the meteorites and the creation of the solar system is negligible.
If I understand your question correctly, it has to do with the time that elements are incorporated into the materials that make up the earth, etc.
In other words, K40 begins decaying immediately after formation in some solar event. But only some of the remaining K40 can be incorporated into biotite at some later date. The biotite K40 clock did not start until that time. Does that make sense?
Isn't our acceptance that they do tied up in our theory of how the universe was created? And if we change that to some kind of more gentle supernatural means then why couldn't the solar system be much younger than the meteorite, since no change in decay rates is involved. Why does that not explain consillience?
I think it is argued that consilience cannot happen if decay constants changed in the past for all types of decay to result in concordant dates. I suppose it could be engineered somehow, but evidence for that is non-existent.
However, I also understand that there is very little radiometric evidence on earth of a 4+ billion year formation.
I'm not sure of the amount of data, but certainly, it is hard to find the oldest pieces of the solar system.
It is also the case that material on earth arrived from outside of the solar system and thus at least conceivable might predate the formation of the earth by a large margin. No changes in decay rates would be required.
The clock starts when the uranium enters the rock as a mineral. Until that mineral forms, there is no clock. And you cannot start a U238 clock with daughter products.
We don't date atoms. So, upon forming, a zircon crystal can only take in U238 that exists, not what has already gone down the decay chain.
Perhaps too pedantic, but the clock can be re-set to zero by sufficient heating. One of the many nice things about zircons is that they have to be heated pretty seriously to do that, 900-1100 C based on a quick Google. Maybe there's a more widely agreed number but any way you slice it it's hot.
It should always be remembered that, one way or another, what we see are cooling dates when working with magmatic rocks.
However, since Pb is relatively immobile, these dates are not as susceptible to resetting as would Ar. Partial melting would be a disaster in some cases.
The main point is that 238U is the most abundant isotope at over 99% of all uranium, whereas 235U is at about 0.72%, so the other isotopes are unimportant except possibly as some kind of calibration parameter.
The other point is that 238U decays to 100% 206Pb, and 235U decays to about 100% 207Pb, so in a mineral that has no place for Pb in its lattice, but measurable U, we can be pretty sure that all of the 206Pb present in the mineral came from 238U.
The relative abundance of 238U makes it more precise for measuring very old ages.
By the way. the tiniest percentage of all uranium outside of the two main isotopes is made up of the other 23 known isotopes of uranium.
What if the argon is being made in the molten state?
Actually, there is probably some argon dissolved in all magma. The question is, where does it go when minerals form. Some minerals, such as pyroxene will admit argon into its lattice, while others such as biotite and orthoclase do not. This is know empirically.
So, it doesn't really matter when the argon is generated, or where.
Ar is a noble gas; therefore it can't partcipiate in the chemical reactions resulting in the formation of the crystal lattices. Thus; Ar won't be present in the crystal lattices directly after formation of crystals. Basic chemistry.
Indeed, argon will not form chemical bonds within any mineral that I know of; however, it can be found as a contaminant depending on the space available and the time of formation of the mineral grain.
For instance, pyroxene is, for some reason, a known bad actor in that it does accommodate argon in its crystal lattice. That is why I never trust K-Ar dates on pyroxene crystals, or high-pyroxene rocks such as basalt. However, as a last resort, I believe some researchers have used it in past, the absence of other techniques. It just carries a very large caveat.
YECs, however, will gladly date pyroxene by K-Ar since it does provide erratic results. Not only does it accommodate argon, but it has a low [K], making measurement much more difficult.
On the other hand, biotite does not seem to have this problem unless it has been somehow altered, or contains some inclusions of other minerals. This is probably due to the available space in the crystal lattice, but also possibly because pyroxene would crystallize earlier in the cooling of a magma and scavenge the argon, or before the argon could partition into a gas phase and escape.
Keep in mind that this is an extremely simplified explanation from someone only peripherally associated with the process and only in decades past. In fact, there are now so many new and accurate radiometric techniques that you don't even hear as much about K-Ar any more; but it would still be very useful in high potassium rocks.
Trees in such stressed conditions are known to form additional rings. Sometimes these can be identified as such but where rings are thin, as in these BCPs , they are often indistinguishable from annual rings. Glock et al. demonstrated that in dry climates, not only are ‘false’ rings common in many species, but the bands of ‘false’ dark-wood can have outer boundaries that are every bit as distinct as the outer boundaries of a true annual ring. They found that multiplicity was more than twice as common as annularity, and conclude that probably very few annual increments, over the entire tree, consist of only one growth layer(bold added for emphasis)
If Glock actually said this, why does his colleague say the following:
Top Customer Reviews 4.0 out of 5 starsAmazing summary of research into sub-annual ring-growth patterns ByDavid M. Barkeron October 3, 2013 Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase
So often we hear of "annual tree-rings" yet few people are aware of sub-annual rings, and multiple rings. This is a scholarly research report of experiments and studies showing that under some circumstances trees can and do grow more than one ring within a year. Profound!
So, now we are back to using book reviews as evidence for the validity of YEC "science"?
Do you realize that David Barker is not a scientist of any kind?
Do you realize that the only books he heartily recommends are ones that espouse or (in his own opinion) support non-mainstream science?
Why do you think that is the case?
 So far I haven't been able to access a copy. Do you have a link I could use or perhaps I could borrow yours.
I do not have a copy. I can tell from the title that it may not be relevant to bristlecone pine dendrochronology. Do you understand why?
However, I'm pretty sure that Glock is a legit mainstream scientist. Your spin on the data comes from the site that quoted him. That is why we do not trust secondary sources.
By the time we get through with the European Oaks (Message 3) the issue of multiple rings in Bristlecone Pines will be moot -- they show that the Bristlecone Pines must be missing rings because they are ~37 years shy at 8000 years of common data. That's a 0.5% error and the other way from their proposed/assumed/wished 11% error (that was calculated to fit made up "biblical times").
Yah, I'd say it's not really a burning question and I don't really want to pursue it.
As far as Glock goes, he is cited by Ferguson (1969) several times and since they are/were contemporaries I would assume that they worked together at some point.
quote: Such multiple growth rings are extremely rare in bristlecone pine ...
And when you look at the title of Glock's primary article, it refers to tree branches rather than trunks, and I don't think that many studies rely on branch data. The fact that there is little further discussion in the literature tells me that there isn't really a conflict; except, of course, in the minds of ardent YECs grasping for an argument.
That is where this NephiCode stuff comes into play. It looked to me like CRR had cut and pasted directly from that blog.
I find it interesting because it could be that you are subconsciously avoiding the topic because you know that the facts are not on your side.
It's been awhile, but every so often we get warnings on the news that yet another of the man-made satellites orbiting the earth is coming in for a crash landing. I guess we don't hear about it when one loses its gravity grip and drifts away. What would happen if we had a NASA guy say, "uh folks, we have a little evolution problem - it seems that our data on satellites shows that it's not possible for a satellite, or a planet, to orbit something more than 10,000 or 20,000 times without drifting away or being drawn in. I only know one thing that would happen for sure - he'd lose the top two thirds of his head in an unfortunate shaving accident before his discovery would see the light of day. There really is politics involved in scientific study.
Hmm, I don't see a problem at all. We know that, especially in near-earth orbits, satellites are continuously declining. Just look at the altitude record of the ISS. It is repeatedly boosted back into a higher orbit. I think that most people know this. It certainly isn't hidden from public.
And there is at least one satellite that is receding from the earth and that is the moon.