Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

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? 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?

I'm not sure of the amount of data, but certainly, it is hard to find the oldest pieces of the solar system. 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.

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.

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.

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.

For the questions about uranium, here is a pretty good website that I just stumbled on to.Technical data for the element Uranium in the Periodic TableThe 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.

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.

Yes, 40K probably decays to 40Ar within the magma. But that doesn't matter because we don't date the magma. I'm not sure you you 'see' this. It doesn't react. I can either be incorporated as a contaminant or not.

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.

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:NephiCodeThink 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.

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? 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.

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 ...

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. 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.

Exactly. Dupont is not in the business to 'do science'.At some point, it becomes engineering. In this case, chemical engineering.

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