Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9042 total)
101 online now:
nwr, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 99 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,022 Year: 3,668/14,102 Month: 288/321 Week: 104/44 Day: 20/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
edge
Member (Idle past 644 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 281 of 1486 (728260)
05-26-2014 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by NoNukes
05-26-2014 10:33 AM


Re: Snelling Concedes Old Age for Earth
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.

Is this what you are talking about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2014 10:33 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2014 11:52 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 644 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 286 of 1486 (728269)
05-26-2014 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by NoNukes
05-26-2014 12:04 PM


Re: consillience
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2014 12:04 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by JonF, posted 05-26-2014 2:20 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 644 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 287 of 1486 (728270)
05-26-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by NoNukes
05-26-2014 11:52 AM


Re: Snelling Concedes Old Age for Earth
Side issue: K40 dates don't really overlap with U238 dates do they? Do any radiometric dates overlap with U238 dates?

I'm not certain, but since the half life of K40 is 1/4th that of U238, I'd think there is some overlap. If it was less than a tenth, that might indicate otherwise.

I'm certain that other methods do overlap. There are a plethora of them that have cropped up since I studied this subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2014 11:52 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2014 2:40 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 294 by JonF, posted 05-26-2014 2:49 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 644 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 292 of 1486 (728286)
05-26-2014 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by JonF
05-26-2014 2:20 PM


Re: consillience
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by JonF, posted 05-26-2014 2:20 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 644 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 299 of 1486 (728349)
05-27-2014 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by JonF
05-26-2014 2:49 PM


Re: Snelling Concedes Old Age for Earth
quote:
Nobody call this "U238 dating".

Correct. That is why I referred to it as a U238 'clock'. I figure that gives me more poetic license.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by JonF, posted 05-26-2014 2:49 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 644 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 302 of 1486 (728448)
05-28-2014 9:53 PM


For the questions about uranium, here is a pretty good website that I just stumbled on to.

http://periodictable.com/Elements/092/data.html

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.

Hope this helps.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by JonF, posted 05-29-2014 9:29 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 644 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 426 of 1486 (733743)
07-20-2014 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by OS
07-20-2014 7:02 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 7:02 PM OS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 7:42 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 644 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 429 of 1486 (733746)
07-20-2014 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by OS
07-20-2014 8:05 PM


Yet it is produced in the magma state.

Yes, 40K probably decays to 40Ar within the magma. But that doesn't matter because we don't date the magma.

And looking at Zircon crystals, it looks as though the noble gases are formed very fast.

I'm not sure you you 'see' this.

I just wonder if the noble gas is in there bouncing, and not wanting to react to crystal rock.

It doesn't react. I can either be incorporated as a contaminant or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 8:05 PM OS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by OS, posted 07-20-2014 8:56 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 644 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 436 of 1486 (741447)
11-12-2014 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by Pressie
07-21-2014 3:15 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Pressie, posted 07-21-2014 3:15 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by OS, posted 04-09-2015 7:32 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 644 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 501 of 1486 (809767)
05-20-2017 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by CRR
05-20-2017 10:09 PM


Re: Bristlecone Pines
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:

quote:
". Such multiple growth rings are extremely rare in bristlecone pine, however, and they are especially infrequent at the elevation and latitude (37 °23'N) of the sites being studied." https://arizona.openrepository.com/...b-29-03-04-003-029.pdf (bold added for emphasis)

That's kind of weird, eh?

Actually, you are citing a secondary reference called NephiCode, a Christian blog site:

http://nephicode.blogspot.com/

Think they have an agenda?

If you have direct information that Glock actually said what they report, please document.

As it turns out the original article by Glock is:

quote:
Classification and multiplicity of growth layers in the branches of trees: At the extreme lower forest border (Smithsonian miscellaneous collections) Paperback – 1960
by Waldo S Glock (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/...owth-layers-branches/dp/B0007DTO02

Get the difference: This refers to branches of trees.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by CRR, posted 05-20-2017 10:09 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by CRR, posted 05-21-2017 12:24 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 644 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 504 of 1486 (809830)
05-21-2017 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by CRR
05-21-2017 12:24 AM


Re: Bristlecone Pines
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?

[edit] 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.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by CRR, posted 05-21-2017 12:24 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by RAZD, posted 05-21-2017 4:38 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 644 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 506 of 1486 (809848)
05-21-2017 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 505 by RAZD
05-21-2017 4:38 PM


Re: Bristlecone Pines
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.

Here is the reference to Ferguson:
https://arizona.openrepository.com/...b-29-03-04-003-029.pdf

... where he says on page 6:

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.

Ah, well, dead horse ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by RAZD, posted 05-21-2017 4:38 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member (Idle past 644 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 522 of 1486 (815070)
07-15-2017 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by marc9000
07-15-2017 12:53 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
Why is it fascinating?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by marc9000, posted 07-15-2017 12:53 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2017 4:55 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 525 by jar, posted 07-15-2017 5:10 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 644 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 547 of 1486 (815441)
07-20-2017 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 545 by jar
07-19-2017 9:25 PM


Re: Another falsehood
Yes DuPont uses the scientific method often but does not use the scientific method to prove things.

Exactly. Dupont is not in the business to 'do science'.

At some point, it becomes engineering. In this case, chemical engineering.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by jar, posted 07-19-2017 9:25 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 554 by marc9000, posted 07-21-2017 7:52 PM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 644 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 557 of 1486 (815631)
07-21-2017 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 554 by marc9000
07-21-2017 7:52 PM


Re: Another falsehood
It's not? With the slogan of "The Miracles of Science"

Sure, the application of science, also known as engineering.

"At some point", within DuPont's many methods, including science. (pure science) Not the atheist-promoting kind.

Dupont science is just as atheistic as any kind of real science.

One cannot do science in a field of gods. It must be atheistic in the sense that it has nothing to do with a supernatural agent who could muck things up at will.

(quote snipped)

You'll notice there was nothing there about wasting a lot of time and effort in agonizing over the age of the earth.


You will notice that they talk about the 'application of science', just as I did.

And why would they be concerned about the age of the earth? If they were developing models for resource development, it might be important. After that it becomes mining and oil extraction.

And who is agonizing over it? I mean, besides YECs?

Aren't you the least bit curious about the earth and the universe?

Some more from that link;

(snip quote)

(bolded mine) If you and others here don't think DuPont is in the business to do science, shouldn't the scientific community sue them for claiming they do?


And, once again they stress the development of markets, value-added solutions, etc. Science and technology are development to them. The business is selling goods.

Consequently, they are not trying to 'prove' anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by marc9000, posted 07-21-2017 7:52 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by marc9000, posted 07-23-2017 3:47 PM edge has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021