AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: JonF

form_srcid: JonF

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.211.231.221

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: JonF

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'JonF%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2005/02/17 06:49:59, Link
Author: JonF
Dembski has posted a reply: INTELLIGENT DESIGN'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEBATE OVER EVOLUTION: A REPLY TO HENRY MORRIS.  Seems to be rejecting YEC pretty decisively.

Date: 2006/02/09 02:41:24, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 08 2006,20:53)
Quote
Dembski's output has been treated by Mark Perakh, and by Shallitt and Elsberry. Those are well-known, so I'll assume you've seen them and were "not impressed." They're the best I've seen, so why don't you pick a point on which you feel Dembski comes out ahead and we can discuss it.
No, I'd be interested in where to find them.


Behe's Empty Box.

http://www.talkdesign.org/

http://www.talkreason.org/

Bill Dembski and the case of the unsupported assertion

The Evolution of Dembski's Mathematics

Dembski's Explanatory Filter Delivers a False Positive (which Dembski claimed never happens)

Search for "Dembski" at the Panda's Thumb

Search for "Behe" at the Panda's Thumb

Date: 2006/02/09 02:54:14, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 09 2006,00:10)
Quote
And conversely, photons ALWAYS go the speed of light.  You are correct that the speed of light is different in different media, but photons never go faster or slower than that.
 This seems like a contradiction, doesn't it?

Yup, it seems that way, but it ain't.  Quantum mechanics is weirder than a snake's suspenders.  The best treatment for the layperson is QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.  Or, if you want to spend a few hours and have a broadband connection, you can watch Feynman himself explain at Richard Feynman: The Douglas Robb Memorial Lectures.

Date: 2006/02/16 15:32:30, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 16 2006,18:25)
Quote
No, it does NOT cut both ways.  When the IDists actually present evidence (any evidence) then there might be a discussion.  Until then it will remain one sided, because ideas without evidence get no play.

Perhaps you ought to start looking for it. I am going to try to some extent, but I can't bring everybody up to speed.

We've been looking for it.  Haven't been able to find it.  Not in the writings of any of the IDists, not in the natural world, not anywhere.

Date: 2006/02/17 02:00:40, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (sir_toejam @ Feb. 17 2006,01:40)
Quote
No wonder Jon says they've been looking but haven't found it.


*sigh*

I assume you are referring to JAD?

More likely referring to me, the first post at the top of this page.

Date: 2006/02/17 02:05:40, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 17 2006,00:51)
No wonder Jon says they've been looking but haven't found {evidence for ID}.

I notice you haven't offered any.

Date: 2006/02/17 14:38:38, Link
Author: JonF
Quote
Jon and others seem to say that in all the ID writings, they have not found a good argument.

You need to work on that reading comprehension.  Arguments have not been mentioned.  Evidence has.  We have found none of the evidence for ID, which you claimed exists, and I note you still haven't proffered any evidence. Evidence.  "Something visible or evident that gives grounds for believing in the existence or presence of something else"

Of course, we haven't found a good argument for ID either, but that's another story.

Date: 2006/02/19 08:40:30, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 19 2006,14:10)
But what are we to do if evidence does point to design.

We'll look at that issue if and when someone comes up with some evidence that points to design.

Date: 2006/02/25 03:23:05, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (PuckSR @ Feb. 24 2006,17:54)

 Velikovsky thought gravity was wrong too?

Yup.  See COSMOS WITHOUT GRAVITATION.  Ol' V-man could give any present day creationist a run for his/her money in the utter ignorance category.   The list at the beginning, of things not explained by gravity, is worse than anything AIG's ever done.

Date: 2006/03/10 10:40:57, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Milly Henry @ Mar. 10 2006,01:53)
SirRamic asked for a minimum number of photons that can be given a temperature and how that minimum number is derived.  No one provided him a numerical answer.  It appears SirRamic won that point by default.

The answer is two.  If you try to determine a "temdperature" based on one photon, the error bounds are infinite, and you have determined nothing.

Of course, with only two photons, the error bounds are going to be so large as to render the estimate pointless.

Date: 2006/03/15 08:24:59, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,13:40)
actual, unadulterated Davetard:

Quote
I have received emails from biology PhDs identifying themselves as commenters here using pseudonyms because they’re afraid of what will happen if they attach their real names to ID sympathetic writing.
...
-ds

To the tune of "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean":

   The Lurkers support me in e-mail
   They all think I'm great don't you know.
   You posters just don't understand me
   But soon you will reap what you sow.


   Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
   Off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.

   The lurkers support me in e-mail
   "So why don't they post?" you all cry
   They're scared of your hostile intentions
   They just can't be as brave as I.

   Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
   Off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.

   One day I'll round up all my lurkers
   We'll have a newsgroup of our own
   Without all this flak from you morons
   My lurkers will post round my throne.

   Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
   Off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.

                                             Jo Walton

Date: 2006/05/08 08:39:32, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,10:36)
Norm said ...
Quote
Human Brain Is Still Evolving

Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers who have analyzed sequence variations in two genes that regulate brain size in human populations have found evidence that the human brain is still evolving.

They speculate that if the human species continues to survive, the human brain may continue to evolve, driven by the pressures of natural selection. Their data suggest that major variants in these genes arose at roughly the same times as the origin of culture in human populations as well as the advent of agriculture and written language.


and he also said this ...
Quote
You seem to think that human intelligence is some sort of goal in evolution. It's not. There is no goal except for an organism's instinct to survive and reproduce itself. Brains won't be of use to all. ... and ... The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.
There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.


These seem to be contradictory statements to me.  On the one hand you seem to be saying that the brain is evolving (I assume this means humans are getting smarter), then on the other hand you say that bacteria are the most 'evolved' ???

Let me just explain that MY conception is this:

MORE EVOLVED=More Intelligent and More Abilities.  For example, apes can walk, climb, eat, drink, sleep, communicate in a limited way, etc.  Humans can of course do all these things and much more including blow all the rest of life on Planet Earth to smithereens.  This is what I'M talking about.  

Your asumption is wrong, and reveals your fundamental ignorance about evolutionary processes.  The human brain is evolving to be different, not necessarily more intelligent.  If the environment is such that stupid humans out-reproduce more intelligent humans, natural selection will select for stupider humans and the human brain will evolve to be less intelligent.

Your concept is also wrong.  More evolved = better fitting an environmental niche.  That may mean fewer abilities (many abilities come at a cost which isn't worth it unless it affects reproduction).  Oh, and when you are contemplating what some organisms can do and some can't, consider a weightlifting contest or an arboreal travel contest between an average human and an average orangutan.  The human loses.  Big time.  And it doesn't matter what you or I think are important abilities; natural selection tells us what's important.

Date: 2006/05/08 13:10:57, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14<!--emo&:0)
When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes

Irrelevant.

What is relevant is how humans and apes are suited to their respective ecological niches.

Apes are stronger.  Many species of apes are better at nivigating through treetops than humans.  Apes have more and better abilities than humans ... in the area where it counts for them.

Date: 2006/05/09 02:06:10, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Henry J @ May 08 2006,22:12)
And when did geologists reach consensus about the Earth being old? I'm just wondering if Darwin had the geologists' conclusion as part of his background or not.

Darwin had the geologist's conclusion.  They realized the Earth was old and there was no global flood in the late 1700's - early 1800's.  Reasonably accurate estimates of how old were not available until long after Darwin.

A History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth.

Date: 2006/05/21 02:59:58, Link
Author: JonF
Abandoning your lingusitcs discussion? That's a shame; your pathetic efforts are really comical.

Quote (afdave @ May 21 2006,05:40)
You guys say there is no such thing as "upward evolution," right?  And I think I've heard someone say that the bacteria are winning.

"Winning" does not necessarily mean "eradicating all other life forms", and almost certainly doesn't mean that here.  In this case it probably means something like "there are more individual bacteria than any other organism" or "all the bacteria weigh more than any other group of organisms", both of which are true.

Quote
So presumably, a million years from now, there might be only bacteria ... no mammals, right?

A million years isn't all that long.  But there could be only bacteria, but it's incredibly unlikely; about as likely as it is that we're seriously wrong about the age of the Earth.

Quote
My question is ... why didn't the bacteria win before mammals appeared?  Weren't they evolving just as rapidly early in earth history as they are now?

In the senses listed above, they did win long before mammals appeared, and long before dinosaurs appeared. The reason why bacteria have not eradicated all other living organisms is that bacteria, successful as they are, cannot and do not fill all possible ecological niches.

Date: 2006/05/26 13:31:47, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (skeptic @ May 26 2006,18:10)
It should be ok for someone to stand up and say "I don't believe the current theory is right and I want to look at some other opotions", without being attacked ruthlessly.

That's OK.  However, what just about all antievolutionists are saying is "I don't believe the current theory is right and I don't want to ecplore any options ... I just want muy religion taught in public school science classes".

Date: 2006/05/27 10:34:14, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,10:47)
D)  The Global Flood
    (1) Huge water-laid sediments all over the earth
    (2) Volcanism and tectonics
    (3) The Grand Canyon and Mt. Saint Helens
    ... and more

Dave, "water-laid sediments" all over the Earth are interspersed with "wind-laid sediments", igneous rocks that were not formed underwataer, paleosols that take thousands of years to form and were not formed underwater, animal tracks, and all sorts of things that didn't happen in a flood.  There is no one global layer of sediment that a flood would have left.  That is, the water-laid sediments all over the Earth are evidence that there was no global flood.

Volcanism and tectonics are not evidence for or against a global flood.

The Grand Canyon was not formed by a global flood or runoff from one, of that we can be sure.  Incised meanders are only one of the most obvious reasons why:

.

Mt. St. Helens is irrelevant to the global flood.  The "little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River", formed shortly after the 1980's eruption, is also irrelevant to the the flood and the Grand Canyon.  As has been pointed out many times in many forums, the canyon of the North Fork of the Toutle River (and any other "canyons" in the area, such as Engineer's Canyon) was not cut in solid rock; it was cut in soft, unconsolidated ash. We can see this easily because the walls of the canyon are not near-vertical (as we see in the Grand Canyon), but instead are near 45 degrees:




See Re: Mt. St. Helens and Evidence for a young earth (note that the link referred to has moved to REPORT: Volcanic Debris Avalanches). And, from Volcanic Studies at the U.S. Geological Survey's David A. Johnston Cascades Volcano Observatory, Vancouver, Washington:

     
Quote
The debris avalanche that triggered the eruption slid north into Spirit Lake and west 25 kilometers down the North Fork Toutle River valley, covering the valley floor with unconsolidated debris to an average depth of 45 meters and as much as 180 meters in some places. Rapid erosion resulting from the breaching of numerous ponds and lakes on the deposit and surface runoff have produced a new drainage system on the avalanche. Streams following the initial drainage pattern quickly eroded narrow channels because of the generally steep slopes and the readily erodible character of the avalanche deposit.
{emphasis added - JonF}

Note the "generally steep slopes" ... the water that cut the "canyon" was moving a lot faster than the water that cut the Crand Canyon, 'cause the slope was steeper.

There's also the old and misleading "one-fortieth the size of" the Grand Canyon claim. It's more realistic to compare volume removed, which results in the Grand Canyon being over 100,000 times larger than this Toutle River "canyon".

Another typical claim is that the "canyon" was cut 140 feet deep. There's disagreement about this. There are topographic profiles measured February 24, 1982 and March 20, 1982 (before and after the mudslide) which indicate that the "canyon" was cut between 15 and 34 feet deep; see Science against Evolution - Mt. St. Helens Misinformation.

The "global flood" is a non-starter. It was obvious 200 years ago that no such flood occurred, and the evidence we have gathered since then only affirns that conclusion.

None of your claimed "evidence" is evidence for your position, and most of it isn't evidence at all.

Date: 2006/05/27 13:36:05, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ May 27 2006,16:30)
JonF--  Anxious aren't we?  We're not to the Flood yet.  Next topic is age of the earth.

Yup.  But that's one's so easy to refute it's like shooting fish in a barrel Bet you're going to spout the same ol' PRATTs; "assumptions", "helium in zircons", "14C in coal & diamonds", "recent lava dated as millions of years old", ... .  Don't bother until you can identify the one and only one premise upon which radiometric dating is based, and can identify the evidence for that premise.  But of course you won't. You'll just cut & paste the same crap we've all seen a thousand times.

The RATE group's "findings" can easily be torn apart, and have been, without reference to Henke.  It's a good, thing, too, 'cause you don't have a prayer of understanding what he wrote.  One question; why haven't they tested any more zircons?  The answer is obvious ...

Date: 2006/05/29 10:52:50, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 29 2006,14:53)
 See Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To "Scientific" Creationism, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110. 76 pp.

FYI, that's available on-line at Radiometric dating, geologic time, and the age of the Earth; a reply to "scientific" creationism; viewing it as a searchable version requires a free plug-in / standalone viewer.  There's an earlier version, in HTML, with a broader focus, at How Old is the Earth: A Response to "Scientific" Creationism.

Date: 2006/05/29 15:24:36, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Henry J @ May 29 2006,19:25)
Accelerated decay rates?

Claim CF210: Radiometric dating assumes that radioisotope decay rates are constant (Morris, 1985)

Henry

Actually, the RATE group has figured out that the only thing that can accelerate decay rates is a miracle, and the only explanation for (at least) the lead in zircons is radioactive decay, so they've admitted that they're just putting up a scientific facade to fool the choir. From HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY:


Quote
The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth &#8212; at today&#8217;s rates &#8212; of nuclear decay occurred.

{emphasis in original}

And from Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay :

Quote
From the start, several members of the steering committee were convinced that episodes of greatly accelerated nuclear decay rates had occurred within thousands of years ago. For the preservation of life, such episodes seem possible only under special circumstances: (1) before God created living things, (2) after the Fall but well beneath the biosphere, and (3) during the year of the Genesis Flood, when the occupants of Noah's ark would be safe from most radiation (Humphreys, 2000, pp. 340-341).

...

Thus our new diffusion data support the main hypothesis of the RATE research initiative: that God drastically accelerated the decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the earth's recent past. For a feasibility study of this hypothesisincluding God's possible purposes for such acceleration, Biblical passages hinting at it, disposal of excess heat, preserving life on earth, and effects on stars, see Humphreys (2000, pp. 333-379). The last three problems are not yet fully solved, but we expect to see progress on them in future papers.


I don't see why the last three are problems; if God can magic all decay rates up by a factor of a million or so, why can't He magic away the heat, magic away the radiation, and magic away all other effects?  What's a few more miracles among friends?

Date: 2006/06/01 13:17:39, Link
Author: JonF
Just in case a few lurkers don't know how full of it Dave is ...

 
Quote (afdave @ June 01 2006,11:29)
Now, I'm sure you all will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the major assumptions that are made with radioisotope dating are ...

1) The system being dated is a closed system

Wrong.  Standard ignorant fundy error.

 
Quote
2) The system must initially have contained none of its daughter component

Wrong.  Standard ignorant fundy error.

 
Quote
3) The process rate must always have been the same

Sort of right, but the word "assumption", with its connotation of "untested" is not a good choice.  I prefer "premise", becaue the constancy of radioactive decay has been tested six ways from Sunday.

Quote
There may be other assumptions as well, but these I think are the most important.  Now I will not get into the technical details of U/Th/Pb and Ar dating and so on, because it is not necessary.

It's pretty obvious that you have no idea of the details.

 
Quote
2) Even if radiometric dating were accurate and the earth was 5 billion years old, this would not give evolution enough time to occur.  The fact is that quadrillions or quintillions of years would not be enough to overcome the odds of the first simple life form coming into existenece.  

Please show your calculations.  You won't. We all know you're just making this up.

 
Quote
2003 -- Cal Tech confirms RATE Group's predictions giving major support to the 6000 year old earth hypothesis.  Three sets of data were received: 2001-data from another site, 2002-Initial data from RATE Group site, 2003-Add'l data from RATE Group site.  All three sets of data line up with Humphreys predictions published in 2000.

Sorry, they just don't line up.  It takes a lot of wishful thinking to pretend that they line up.

The RATE group may actually have come up with an interesting anomaly, but there's nowhere near enough evidence yet to call the mainstream age of the Earth into question.  When the RATE group has run tests on thousands of zircons from different formations and strata and come up with consistent results, when they have something other than hand-waving to establish the validity of their diffusion calculations, when they can demonstrate that they know the history of the zircons well enough to make valid diffusion calculations ... then and only then they'll have something worthy of investigation.

Of course they're not testing more zircons, and they're not doing any diffusion investigations, and they don't care about establishing validity.  They've achieved their goal, and they're done; they've fooled the gullible true beleivers like Davie-poo.

Date: 2006/06/02 10:57:07, Link
Author: JonF
{pushed "Post" too quickly}

Date: 2006/06/02 11:20:16, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 02 2006,12:34)
   
Quote
Quote (afdave @ June 01 2006,11:29)
1) The system being dated is a closed system
Wrong.  Standard ignorant fundy error.

No.  This is rather an example of tunnel vision long-ager geologists who won't consider the possibility that maybe the sample they are dating had some outside influence in the past that they have not considered.

Sorry, Dave, I'm right, you're wrong, and most (if not all) of the creationist web sites which fed you all you know about radiometric dating are wrong.  Isochron dating is virtually guaranteed to detect if the system has not been closed, and in that case no date is produced.  Concordia-Discordia dating and Ar-Ar dating are also essentially guaranteed to detect if the system has not been closed and, in many cases, produce a valid date anyway.
           
Quote
 
Quote

2) The system must initially have contained none of its daughter component
Wrong.  Standard ignorant fundy error.
No. To be accurate, the sample must contain NO daughter components. Of course this is highly unlikely, so the long-ager geologists have to make some sort of unwarranted assumptions about how much of the daughter component was initially present.  Despite their fancy charts, the truth is that this is impossible, so their dates are invalid.

Sorry, Dave, I'm right, you're wrong, and most (if not all) of the creationist web sites which fed you all you know about radiometric dating are wrong.  The amount of initial daughter product is a result of isochron and Ar-Ar methods, not an assumption of any kind.  You put in the data, turn the crank, and out comes the age and  the amount of initial daughter product.  No assumption involved.

For concordia-discordia dating, we apply the method to minerals (e.g. zircons) which so strongly reject lead at solidification that it is physically impossible for there to be any significicant lead in a fresh zircon.  Your pals the RATE group acknowledge this in HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY:

   
Quote
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth --at today's rates --of nuclear decay occurred.

{empasis in original}.  So, Davey-me-lad, the RATE group denies your claim, as does every exposition of how isochron, Ar-Ar, and concordia-discordia dating work.  The RATE group knows that zero-initial-daughter in zircons is not an assumption.
           
Quote
   
Quote

3) The process rate must always have been the same
Sort of right, but the word "assumption", with its connotation of "untested" is not a good choice.  I prefer "premise", becaue the constancy of radioactive decay has been tested six ways from Sunday.
O really?  What do you do with this quote then?   (non-fundy, non-YEC) (Don't tell me 'Well, look at the date-1982' because I will say 'Yes.  Look at the date.  Why do you not understand this when it was written 24 years ago?  The RATE Group is all over this and has been for years)        
Quote
Jueneman, Frederic B., &#8220;Secular Catastrophism,&#8221; Industrial Research and Development (June 1982), p. 21.
&#8220;The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such &#8216;confirmation&#8217; may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.
&#8220;The mechanism for resetting such nuclear clocks is not clear, but knowledge has never really stood in our way in the quest for ignorance. Meanwhile, such prehistoric &#8216;creatures&#8217; as Nessie from Loch Ness or Champ from Lake Champlain, as well as others, may not be avatars at all, but survivors from the last catastrophe.

Why, I notice that his column was entitled "Scientific Speculation" (do ya know what speculation is, Davie-poo?); I note that he produces no evidence that there is any mechanism that resets the nuclear clocks or changes the decay rates; and I note the mountains of evidence for constant nuclear decay rates ... and I conclude that his speculation is bootless and fruitless.

 
Quote

ATBCers like to say that no good scientist would ever be a creationist.  But as usual, they are wrong.  There are entire creationist groups that meet regularly at Los Alamos, Sandia and Oak Ridge, plus many major universities around the world.  Here's a link which list those willing to have their names listed on the ICR website, which is a very small sampling of the total number.  Creation Scientists

Science is decided by the evidence, not by majority or minority rule.

Date: 2006/06/02 11:32:02, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 02 2006,12:34)
It is nice to know that the only real opposition that I have heard of is that by Dr. Henke found here www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html


And, of course, the link that was posted yesterday:  Creation Science Commentary - RATE Project Turns to Deception.  Add the issues that I and others aised, which you mostly ignored.

 
Quote
I found it interesting that Norm had not heard of anyone using helium to date rocks.  That's because creation scientists are pioneers, Norm.

ROTFLMAO!  Davey-wavey, the very first radiometric date was obtained by Ernest Rutherford in 1905 ... using helium!  But scientists quickly realized that helium-based dates are not trustworthy, because helium escapes so easily and it's so difficult to calculate how much helium escaped; so they developed the much-more-robust methods in common use today.  But helium dating is still used in a few circumstances

Date: 2006/06/02 11:48:56, Link
Author: JonF
For those with any interest in real scientists using helium chronometry see Peter W. Reiners - Research, James Metcalf - (U-Th)/He Geochronology, and Sarah Aciego - U-Th/He Dating.  There's lots more if you Google ""(U-Th)/He"".

Date: 2006/06/02 11:57:03, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (normdoering @ June 02 2006,16:46)
 
Quote (JonF @ June 02 2006,16:32)
the very first radiometric date was obtained by Ernest Rutherford in 1905 ... using helium!  But scientists quickly realized that helium-based dates are not trustworthy, because helium escapes so easily and it's so difficult to calculate how much helium escaped; so they developed the much-more-robust methods in common use today.

If that's true (I assume it is) then the RATE group has to be a fraud and not just wrong.

Yup, it's true.  Should you want to check on me:  Rutherford, E., 1906. Radioactive Transformations, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, pp187-188.

Date: 2006/06/03 06:00:33, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,08:42)
JonF ...From your link ...      
Quote
Current Research:
(U-Th)/He chronometry
The decay of uranium and thorium to helium provides a versatile and robust way of dating a variety of geologic events. This technique can be used to constrain thermal histories of rocks through a range of temperatures, and is commonly used to figure out the timing and rate of orogenic events and the development of topography. Using (U-Th)/He thermochronology in this way I work with a wide range of geomorphologists, structural geologists, and tectonicists to address problems related to uplift, erosion, faulting, and other orogenic issues. He dating is also used in a wide range of other applications, including dating young volcanic rocks, establishing thermal histories of faults, and constraining histories of sedimentary basins. In the (U-Th)/He Chronometry Lab here at Yale we work on applications such as these all over the world. Much of the most exciting work however, comes in figuring out new ways to use He dating, such as how to date other types of minerals (e.g., garnet, zircon, etc.), using crystal-size-age relationships to elucidate extremely low-T (40-70° C) thermal histories of rocks, and applying He dating to novel problems.
Hmmm... figuring out new uses for He dates, huh ... like zircons, maybe ... hmmm, what an idea!  Evolutionists habitually miss 'elephants in the living room' and it seems that this is one of them.  This is a really big deal and you shouldn't miss it.

If yuo read all the links, you'd see that it's not unusual to date appropriate zircons with helium dating. You're just a typical creationist seizing on a mainstream idea without understanding it.  It's no big deal, just business as usual.

I didn't miss it, and real scientists didn't miss it.  In cases where we know the thermal and environmental history, and the properties of the material under the appropriate circumstances, we can use helium dating and have been doing so for decades.

 
Quote
The amazing thing about the Fenton Hill zircons is the incredibly high He retention.  Does that not make little lights go off in your heads for the very reasons that you all have been mentioning?  Namely, that if rocks get hot, they lose their He.  Here's the deal, guys.  I agree that if these rocks had gotten hot and there was only 1% retention or even 10%, you are right ... not a good candidate for dating.  But 58%??!! Come on!  These zircons should NOT have this much He!  And look at the three levels they sampled.  The lower you get, the more that is lost.  Why?  Because it's hotter.  Now, I'm not an expert on dating either (again, for those of you who think I am taking on scientists myself, I assure you, I am not ... I am merely 'sic-ing' Creo scientists on Evo scientists and watching the fireworks) , but this sure smells true to me. ... But even with my limited knowledge, it appears pretty obvious that there is only one explanation for so much He in these zircons: the rocks didn't get very hot and they have only been there about 6000 years.

There are several other explanations; we may not know the thermal and environmental history well enough, the extrapolation of the diffusion data may be invalid, all sorts of things.  I acknowledged  a possible interesting anomaly at Fenton Hill already.  When the RATE group comes up with more data, lots more data, and better justification for their assumptions in their analyses, then we'll pay some attention.

 
Quote
Face it ... not only do Creationists have a whole arsenal of evidences of a young earth from NON-radiometric processes,

Sorry, neither you nor any creationist have come up with any evidence of a young Earth from any processes.

 
Quote
and not only do they still have the negative evidence of bad assumptions of radiodating,

I note you have ignored my fisking of your ignorant (but standard) comments about those "assumptions".  Sorry, the premises of radiometeric dating are not negative evidence.  The only assumptions that need to be addressed are those of the RATE group.

 
Quote
but now they have powerful positive evidence of a young earth.  And for those of you who want Humphreys to do more experiments, I'm sure he will.  In fact, if you actually read the RATE Group's documents (instead of just the mudslinging papers ABOUT the RATE Group), you will see that more experiments are planned.

Great.  Get back to us when they have enough data to be interesting, and when they have provided better justification for their assumptions.  Until then, all you've got is a mildly interesting possible anomaly.

Quote
Quote
Against that we've got millions upon millions of samples that support radiometric dating. Finding a few samples here and there which give erroneous results does not, not not not justify tossing out an entire methodology. As the article points out, the RATE group should have wondered why their results were at odds with all the other results out there, and they should have tried to duplicate their results, which they failed to do. This is why the RATE group is not doing science, Dave. You don't just stop your research whenever you get a result or two that you like.
Here's the deal, Eric.  Some long agers say that Creos tried for years to discredit radiometric dating, but failed, so now they have to try the He-zircon gig.  The truth is that long agers make assumptions to fit the dates they had already decided they needed to make evolution work way back before radiometric dating was discovered.

I notice that you totally failed to address the point, which is the vast web hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of consistent radiometric and non-radiometric dates.  A scientific theory has to explain all the evidence.

And, of course, it was obvious that the Earth is old long before evolution was discovered. Nobody needed any assumptions.   History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth is a good reference.

 
Quote
No Creationist denies that decay has occurred, we just deny the long ages that are inferred from this decay because of arbitrary assumptions.

Wrong again.  Not arbitrary, not assumptions.  Well-established premises for which there is overwhelming evidence.

Quote
Of course there are also the 14 non-radiometric processes that Humphreys lists as well which pretty much dismantle the 4 billion year nonsense anyway.

Humphreys' recycling of long-discredited and obviously ludicrous arguments is hardly convincing.  See, e.g., "Creation Physicist" D. Russell Humphreys, and his Questionable "Evidence for a Young World"], [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....m CE401, Young-earth "proof" #3, Claim CD220, Salt in the Sea, ... there's plenty of information out there.

 
Quote
 
Quote
Why, I notice that his column was entitled "Scientific Speculation"
You have the whole article in soft copy?  Could you post it with title?  I don't think his statement is speculation though, just because it is titled this way.

No, I don't have it, but I  have seen several of his other columns, and they are all entitled "Scientific Speculation".  It was a regular series.  He came up with several other wacko ideas, for which there was no evidence, and which loony creationists seized on.  Such as neutrions affecting radioactive decay rates.

I notice that you skipped over the lack of evidence for his speculation, and the mountain of evidence against it.

   
Quote
 
Quote
Ernest Rutherford in 1905 ... using helium!  But scientists quickly realized that helium-based dates are not trustworthy, because helium escapes so easily and it's so difficult to calculate how much helium escaped; so they developed the much-more-robust methods in common use today.  But helium dating is still used in a few circumstances.
OK.  So the creos didn't discover it.  Too bad!  They are just RE-discovering it along with the Yale lab quoted above.

No re-discovery necessary.  Helium dating and its limitations are well understood.  All the RATE group needs is lots more data, and more justificatiion for their assumptions about environmental and thermal history, and their extrapolations of diffusion rates.  Oh, and an in-depth explanation of the millions of results obtained over the last 250 or so years that agree with each other and indicate a great age for the Earth.

{fixed tag error}

Date: 2006/06/03 11:45:28, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (normdoering @ June 03 2006,12:59)
The zircons in question may indeed never have gotten very hot, as Dave suggested. It doesn't take a young earth, however, to imagine scenarios where clumps of material can remain cool even in a molten lava flow.

Think of dumping some ice cubes into a pot of boiling water. The ice cubes still take awhile to melt (how long? I don't know - but half a minute later you'll probably still have some ice cube left) - the larger the ice cube, the longer it lasts.

I don't like your scenario much.  The zircons are eentsy-weentsy, ranging from about 25-75 micrometers long and around 15-20 micrometers wide.  A human hair is about 75 micrometers diameter. Without doing any calculations it seems likely to me that the zircons were always at or very near to thermal equilibrium with their surroundings,  even if the creationist time-frame is correct.

Pretty much everyone agrees that the zircons never approached their melting point of 2200-2500 C.  The current temperatures of the sample sites are all less than or equal to 313 C.  You may or may not call that "very hot".

But I think there are some temperature issues, even if they're not enough to completely explain the results.  Humphreys et al explicitly assumed that the temperatures were always today's temperatures, and "justified" that with a discussion claiming that the alternative was worse for "uniformitarians" and some discussion of temperature spikes.  They never discussed poossible lower temperatures, even though Henke brought up some studies that indicate temperatures were lower in the past.  Diffusion typically depends exponentially on temperature, and knowing the thermal history of the samples is key for accurate results.  Henke writes:

 
Quote
Harrison et al. (1986) and Sasada (1989) clearly refute another major assumption in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8), which states that subsurface temperatures at Fenton Hill have been constant over time.  Using 40Ar/39Ar dates from feldspars at depths of 1130, 2620, and 2900 meters in the Fenton Hill core samples, Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1899, 1901) concluded that the temperatures for these samples fell below approximately 200°C about 1030 million years ago and below about 130°C around 870 million years ago.  Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1899) also identified a noticeable thermal event in the Fenton Hill core samples within the past few tens of thousands of years.

Figure 9 in Sasada (1989, p. 264) shows the variable thermal history of the GT-2 well core at a depth of 2624 meters (compare with my Figure 5).  According to Sasada (1989, p. 262-265), a warm period occurred sometime ago. The warm period was followed by a cooler event, which included the emplacement of fluids (see my Figure 5).  In particular, Sasada (1989) argues that fluids were trapped in secondary inclusions within the granodiorite at depths of 2624 meters when temperatures were at least 26°C cooler than present (about 152°C rather than the current value of 178°C).


RATE has yet to address the issue of temperatures lower than their assumed value.

Personally, I think the most likely explanation is invalid extrapolation of lab results under vacuum to calculate diffusion rates under known subsurface pressures.  My second most likely scenario is a combination of relatively impervious surroundings combined with some retardation of diffusion, or even reversal of diffusion, by uncommonly high helium concentration in the surroundings.  Of course, both these could be partially true.

I think it's worth pointing out that Humphreys et al can't come up with any mechanism for accelerated decay other than magic; they obviously know more of the evidence and relevant physics than Davie-poo does. In Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay they write:

 
Quote
The charter for RATE was to make a focused investigation of the problem posed by two large bodies of geoscience evidence for (A) large amounts of nuclear decay having occurred, and (B) a young world. From the start, several members of the steering committee were convinced that episodes of greatly accelerated nuclear decay rates had occurred within thousands of years ago. For the preservation of life, such episodes seem possible only under special circumstances: (1) before God created living things, (2) after the Fall but well beneath the biosphere, and (3) during the year of the Genesis Flood, when the occupants of Noah's ark would be safe from most radiation (Humphreys, 2000, pp. 340-341).  ...

Figure 9 illustrates the contrast between this helium age and the radioisotopic age. It shows two different "hourglasses," representing helium diffusion and uranium-to-lead nuclear decay. These hourglasses give drastically different dates. ...

One way to reconcile these two hourglass readings is to suggest that one of them has a "valve" at its bottleneck controlling the trickling rate, a valve that was adjusted drastically in the past, possibly by direct intervention from God. ...

Thus our new diffusion data support the main hypothesis of the RATE research initiative: that God drastically accelerated the decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the earth's recent past. For a feasibility study of this hypothesisincluding God's possible purposes for such acceleration, Biblical passages hinting at it, disposal of excess heat, preserving life on earth, and effects on stars, see Humphreys (2000, pp. 333-379). The last three problems are not yet fully solved, but we expect to see progress on them in future papers.


I just don't understand that last sentence.  If God magicked alpha, beta, and electron capture decay processes so as to make the Earth appear billons of years old and correlate essentially perfectly each other and with stratigraphy and other indications, why couldn't He just magic away the radiation and heat too, and magic the spectra of stars while He's at it?  Maybe He's just absent-minded ... apparently He forgot to magic diffusion so as to keep it consistent with radiometric results.

Date: 2006/06/03 11:55:13, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,08:42)
In fact, if you actually read the RATE Group's documents (instead of just the mudslinging papers ABOUT the RATE Group), you will see that more experiments are planned.

In which document is that, Dave?  I just went over the news releases and "papers" available on the Web and none of them mention further experiments ... but several of them do mention a final report planned for 2005.

Date: 2006/06/03 11:59:56, Link
Author: JonF
I hate this board software.

Dave, I see you've abandoned discussion of your sily claims.  Wassamatter, getting tired of making stuff up?

Plese don't ignore my question about where the RATE group says further experiments are planned.

Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,14:56)
Quote
No, I don't have it, but I  have seen several of his other columns, and they are all entitled "Scientific Speculation".  It was a regular series.  He came up with several other wacko ideas, for which there was no evidence, and which loony creationists seized on.
So tell me about this guy.  Is he an Evo gone mad?  He's not a Creo himself?  Why would that publication let a loony write a column?

He didn't appear to be a creationist or "evolutionist", just a guy who liked to speculate about wild physics for which he had no evidence.  I don't know why the magazine gave him a column; maybe they thought he was entertaining, maybe some of his columns were worthwhile, maybe he had pictures of the publisher in bed with animals.

See Frederic Jueneman's Books.  The list of titles is fascinaating.

Date: 2006/06/03 12:25:46, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,17:01)
I was referring to this paper ...  
Quote
A theoretical creationist model, based on observed helium retention, of diffusion rates of helium over a period of 6,000 years was reported by Humphreys [8] and Humphreys et al. [9]. It compares well with laboratory measurements in Jemez zircons, as shown in Fig. 2. The solid dots show the diffusion coefficient as a function of inverse temperature for the measurements with the Jemez zircons and the solid lines through empty squares show the theoretical predictions from the theoretical model. There is a five-order-of-magnitude difference (100,000x) between the predictions of diffusion for the evolutionist and creationist models. The measured diffusion rates of He predict that helium would leak out of a zircon/biotite matrix in a period of time on the order of thousands of years, not hundreds of millions of years. This is consistent with the high concentrations of helium still found in the Jemez granodiorite. Additional laboratory measurements and modeling studies of helium diffusion in zircon are expected to lead to a further refinement of the creationist model. The data of Fig. 2 indicate an age between 4,000 and 14,000 years since the helium began to diffuse from the zircons. This is far short of the 1.5 billion year evolutionist age! We believe that the final results will resoundingly support our hypothesis concerning diffusion and radiogenic helium.
found here http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf

Dave, Dave, Dave.  You are so slow.

That does not explicitly say they are going to carry out more experiments, although it's possible to interpret it as such.  But the same paper includes:

Quote
This article summarizes the purpose, history, and intermediate findings of the RATE project five years into an eight-year effort. ...

The second and final book is planned to be published in 2005 and is expected to be titled Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Report. It will report on the findings of the five-year research phase.

Two remaining years in the research phase will be needed to complete the analysis of samples yet being processed and theoretical studies still being made. By the end of the research phase the final report should be based on a larger data set than was available for this paper. A few research projects within RATE such as Fission Tracks and Biblical Word Studies which have not been discussed in this paper are also expected to contribute to the final report. It is apparent that significant progress has been made in explaining the presence of large quantities of nuclear decay products in a young-earth timeframe. The evidence should be stronger and more convincing by the time the research project is completed in 2005. We also hope that by then a more detailed young-earth creationist model of the history of radioactive decay will also have been developed.

That's pretty clear; research ends in 2005.  It's 2006, Dave.  

But I find that they are planning RATE II.  From What Comes after RATE?:

Quote
RATE II is a continuation of research on selected subprojects from RATE which need additional documentation. For example, RATE studied only rocks from the earth, and yet some important estimates of the age of the universe come from meteorite analyses. RATE II will include meteorites and also expand the data set collected by RATE on helium diffusion, isochron discordance, carbon-14 in diamonds, radiohalos, fission tracks, and potassium-40 in pre-Flood insects.

So maybe they actually will do some more research!  I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a reasonable quantity of data and justification of their assumptions, though.

Get back to us when they come up with enough data to be interesting.

Date: 2006/06/03 14:26:27, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (normdoering @ June 03 2006,17:30)
 
Quote (JonF @ June 03 2006,16:45)
I don't like your scenario much.  The zircons are eentsy-weentsy, ranging from about 25-75 micrometers long and around 15-20 micrometers wide.  A human hair is about 75 micrometers diameter. Without doing any calculations it seems likely to me that the zircons were always at or very near to thermal equilibrium with their surroundings,  even if the creationist time-frame is correct.

The zircons may indeed be eentsy-weentsy, but the rocks they are in might not be.

Don't think of the zircons as the ice cubes, but as flakes of pepper or such inside the ice cubes. The zircons may always be at or very near to thermal equilibrium with their surroundings, but their surrondings could be cool rocks gradually melting in lava flows.

Still doesn't ring my bell.  The calculations were based on the measured temperature of the rocks immediately surrounding the zircons.  Maybe it's hotter farther away, but that's irrelevant.  As Henke pointed out, there's evidence for temperature variation, but it doesn't indicate a steady climb from a significantly low temperature.

 
Quote
By the way, doing a search on zircon and age of the earth turned up this interesting article:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0101/14earthwater/

Yeah, those are the oldest known terrestrial minerals.  Several primary papers available at Zircons are Forever.  Click links on the first page, a lot of the sub-page ones are broken.

Date: 2006/06/03 15:02:44, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (normdoering @ June 03 2006,19:36)
 
Quote (JonF @ June 03 2006,19:26)
The calculations were based on the measured temperature of the rocks immediately surrounding the zircons.

Who's calculations and from which link?

Humphreys et al.  Probably http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf is the best reference for the calculations.

 
Quote
I'm talking about the unknown history of the zircons, not the current temperature of the rocks. How can you have their measured temperature from a thousand or more years ago except from theoretical history? How can that actually be measured?

Of course, how well we really know the thermal history is a key element.  It depends on how indirect a measurement you are willing to accept.  Henke includes the following figure:


Figure 5.  Thermal history of a granodiorite at 2624 meters depth (Fenton Hill cores) and hypothetical relationships with extraneous helium (based on Figure 9 in Sasada, 1989).  Humphreys (2005) ignores the consequences of the thermal and fluid history in this diagram to his "models."

The reference is to Sasada, M., 1989, "Fluid Inclusion Evidence for Recent Temperature Increases at Fenton Hill Hot Dry Rock Test Site West of the Valles Caldera, New Mexico, U.S.A., J. Volc. and Geotherm. Res., v. 36, p. 257-266. I haven't looked it up.  According to Henke, Sasada does not provide any estimate of the number of years over which this temperature change occurred.

Henke also writes "Using 40Ar/39Ar dates from feldspars at depths of 1130, 2620, and 2900 meters in the Fenton Hill core samples, Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1899, 1901) concluded that the temperatures for these samples fell below approximately 200°C about 1030 million years ago and below about 130°C around 870 million years ago.  Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1899) also identified a noticeable thermal event in the Fenton Hill core samples within the past few tens of thousands of years."  The refernce is to Harrison, T. M.; P. Morgan and D. D. Blackwell, 1986, "Constraints on the Age of Heating at the Fenton Hill Site, Valles Caldera, New Mexico," J. Geophys. Res. v. 91, n. B2, p. 1899-1908, which I also have not looked up.

Date: 2006/06/04 03:42:59, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (normdoering @ June 03 2006,21:44)

Additional emplacement of helium is possible?

Possible, yes.

Quote
How? Where does it come from?

Can you get enough helium from other rocks leaking it?

Yes, you can.  There's helium throughout the Earth, in widely varying concentrations. The real question is, of course did you.

Diffusion consists of a species moving from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration.  If the helium concentration outside the zircon is higher than inside, helium flows in.  And, of course, the rate at which helium flows in or out depends on the concentrations in the two areas; if there was unaccounted-for helium outside the zircons the diffusion rate calculations are wrong, no matter which direction helium was moving.

We're dealing with very small amounts of helium ... it wouldn't take much "reverse diffusion" to totally bollix the results.  Helium is found in boreholes a few kilometers away.  Helium is a tiny molecule and moves through very small spaces very easily.

Today the helium concentration is higher in the zircons than in the surroundings, so Humphreys et al assume that has not changed.  (Notice how they assume uniformitarianism when it suits them, although their assumptions are not totally without basis).  There are tests that could indicate the helium source; Henke has suggested such tests; Humphreys et al have not performed them.

Humphreys has dismissed Henke's suggestions based almost exclusively on today's conditions, and Henke has pointed out how conditions in the past could have differed (and how there is some evidence that they did differ).  IMHO Henke wins that round.  "Excess helium" in these zircons is merely a hypothesis for which there is no direct evidence.  Nonetheless, it's a hypothesis that should be ruled out within the capabilities of today's technology before jumping to a wild conclusion that is dirctly contradicted by so much other evidence.

Date: 2006/06/04 03:52:34, Link
Author: JonF
Hi, Dave.  I see you've abandoned all discussion of RATE and the age of the Earth.  Having trouble finding sites to copy from, or making up stuff?
   
Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,22:07)
As for those who think I'm 'profiting off of lying to kids,' I have never made a dime of my Kids4Truth work and I never will.

It's good to know that you are not making money out of your lies.  But they're still lies.
 
Quote
As for Dembski, he is not lying when he says ID has nothing to do with religion.

W.A. Dembski:
   
Quote
Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

W.A. Dembski:
   
Quote
The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

Gee, wonder what agent fits that job description?

W.A. Dembski:
   
Quote
Intelligent design, as a scientific research program, attempts to determine whether certain features of the natural world exhibit signs of having been designed by an intelligence. Whether this intelligence is ET or a telic principle immanent in nature or a transcendent personal agent are all, at least initially, live options. The problem with ET, of course, is that it implies a regress -- where did ET come from? The same question doesn't apply, at least not in the same way, to telic principles or transcendent personal agents because the terms of the explanation are different. ET is an embodied intelligence, and that embodiment itself needs explanation

Sure doesn't sound like it could be ET.

Date: 2006/06/04 05:16:20, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Faid @ June 04 2006,09:22)
 
Quote (JonF @ June 04 2006,08:52)
W.A. Dembski:
       
Quote
Intelligent design, as a scientific research program, attempts to determine whether certain features of the natural world exhibit signs of having been designed by an intelligence. Whether this intelligence is ET or a telic principle immanent in nature or a transcendent personal agent are all, at least initially, live options. The problem with ET, of course, is that it implies a regress -- where did ET come from? The same question doesn't apply, at least not in the same way, to telic principles or transcendent personal agents because the terms of the explanation are different. ET is an embodied intelligence, and that embodiment itself needs explanation

Sure doesn't sound like it could be ET.

Wait wait- did Dembski actually say that?

http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/dembskivantill.htm

Date: 2006/06/04 09:06:57, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 04 2006,13:40)
No, we've got a little ways to go yet on RATE, then we are going to walk through Humphrey's 14 points on why the earth is young and see if they hold up.

They don't.  They're really pathetically wrong, almost as bad as your arguments.  Look at the links I already posted, and check talkorigins.org, before wasting bandwidth.

Date: 2006/06/04 13:20:11, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (ericmurphy @ June 04 2006,17:13)
But it seems to be that your problem is to explain the existence of parallax in the first place. If the sun, the stars, and everything else orbits the earth, where does the parallax come from in the first place?

IMHO "what causes aberration of starlight?" is an even better question.  I've had some good laughs watching geocentrists trying to duck or doubletalk that one.

Date: 2006/06/06 09:58:25, Link
Author: JonF
Boy, Dave, you really don't have a clue about aanyting, do you?  Geology, physics, chemistry, math ... all closed books to our Dave.  But you're ballsy enough to make it up as you go along.  Too bad you're so bad at making stuff up.

Quote (afdave @ June 05 2006,12:53)
JonF...    
Quote
But I think there are some temperature issues, even if they're not enough to completely explain the results.  Humphreys et al explicitly assumed that the temperatures were always today's temperatures, and "justified" that with a discussion claiming that the alternative was worse for "uniformitarians" and some discussion of temperature spikes.  They never discussed poossible lower temperatures, even though Henke brought up some studies that indicate temperatures were lower in the past.  Diffusion typically depends exponentially on temperature, and knowing the thermal history of the samples is key for accurate results.
I think he felt it was not important to investigate the lower temperatures.  You are correct that diffusion depends exponetially on temperature, but is this not true only for higher temps?

No, Daveie-poo you moron, it's true from absolute zero up to the point where all that's left is quark-gluon soup.

Quote
At the lower temps, it appears that there is not much effect.  How much would the lower temps affect the results?

Exponentially, Davie-poo.  That is, a lot.  The whole point is that lower temperatures would slow the diffusion rate terrifically.

Quote
And why could you not assume an average temp?

Because, you math-deficient moron, assuming an average temperature only works in processes that depend linearly on temperature.  Even if you could assume an average temperature, which you can't, there's no justification for assuming today's temperature is average.

Quote
Remember, for the long ager scenario to work, you guys need 5 orders of magnitude slower diffusion than what was measured by Farley.

Measured by Farley in vacuum and extrapolated by Humphreys et al.

There's good reason to believe that in the real world the diffusion rate is orders of magnitude lower, as Henke discussed.  We know that lower temperatures could also slow the diffusion rate noticably.  And high helium concentrations can also slow or even reverse the diffusion rate.

Quote
 How does Harrison and Sasada know that temps were lower in the past?

Look it up.  

Quote
This is opposite what we would expect from igneous rocks.  

What we would expect based on your extensive geologic knowledge and experience? Hint 1: the rocks are almost certainly not igneous, they are almost certainly metamorphic.  Humphreys insists they are, but Henke conclusively showed he's wrong. Hint 2:  no matter whether they are igneous or metamorphic, they've been subjected to significant temperature cycling.  What we expect depends on the history of the rocks, not their major type.  

Quote
And the bottom line is that even significantly lower temps for the entire history with NO spikes, doesn't help your billion + year scenario.  At best you can push Humphreys dates from 6000 back to 14,000, which he already allows for.

Nope, he didn't allow for significantly lower temperatures.  Nor did he justify his extrapolation of diffusion rates, nor did he justify his assumption that the environmental helium has not changed.

Quote
So what was your point again?  

Basically, that Humphreys et al conducted a slipshod investigation based on insufficient data and unjustified assumptions in an attempt to shore up their preconceived notions.  Get back to us when they have a few thousand data points and rigorous studies that justify their asumptions.

Quote
Quote
Personally, I think the most likely explanation is invalid extrapolation of lab results under vacuum to calculate diffusion rates under known subsurface pressures.  
Oh, come now.  We've been through this.  Have you asked any specialist in the field of zircon testing about this?  If you did, they would tell you that vacuum testing is done all the time with zircons because it doesn't matter.  Remember Humphreys easy rebuttal of Henke on this?  Henke was comparing soft mica, with water, and Argon which is entirely different than hard zircon, dry, and Helium.  Come on, JonF, you can do better than this.

No, I don't remember, nor can I find, any rebuttal from Humphreys.

Quote
Quote
My second most likely scenario is a combination of relatively impervious surroundings combined with some retardation of diffusion, or even reversal of diffusion, by uncommonly high helium concentration in the surroundings.
 Come on again.  Didn't you read that the measured He concentration in the surrounding biotite was something like 1/200th of the concentration in the zircons.  Now how is that helium going to diffuse INTO the zircons? 

I explained why and how it's possible and why there's reason to suspect it may have happened, doofus.  I acknowledged that it's an unsupported hypothesis, but it's also not a refuted hypothesis, and it's far more likely than Humphreys' fantasies.  It needs to be tested.

Quote
Quote
I just don't understand that last sentence.  If God magicked alpha, beta, and electron capture decay processes so as to make the Earth appear billons of years old and correlate essentially perfectly each other and with stratigraphy and other indications, why couldn't He just magic away the radiation and heat too, and magic the spectra of stars while He's at it?  Maybe He's just absent-minded ... apparently He forgot to magic diffusion so as to keep it consistent with radiometric results.
Oh brother.  Here we go again, accusing Creationists of invoking God's magic tricks at every turn.

No, I just accuse creationists of invoking magic tricks when they explicitely invoke magic tricks, and I quoted and referenced the exact passages in which Humphreys invoked magic tricks.  The RATE group's explanation for their conclusion is "it's magic", explicitly, and that ain't science.  Even if it's true, it ain't science.  But I'm betting it ain't true.

Date: 2006/06/06 12:46:02, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (normdoering @ June 06 2006,15:49)
Quote (JonF @ June 06 2006,14:58)
Quote
This is opposite what we would expect from igneous rocks.  

What we would expect based on your extensive geologic knowledge and experience? Hint 1: the rocks are almost certainly not igneous, they are almost certainly metamorphic.

I think Dave is picking up that mistake from me. I thought they were igneous too. It was implied in my ice cube melting analogy. I forget why I aassumed that.

More likely he's getting it from Humphreys.  The igneous/metamorphic question is a bone of contention between Humphreys and Henke.

Date: 2006/06/07 04:50:42, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 06 2006,22:48)
You are correct about the exponential scale ... I wasn't looking at the graph and forgot momentarily that it was not a linear scale ...But here's the important thing to know about temps ... COLD TEMPS DON'T MATTER (unless you are talking about sub-zero or something ... Surely you are not foolish enough to say that) ... Go on and pick some reasonably cool temperature ... It will help you very little ...

Dave, all temperatures matter, and time matters too.  Let's see your integration of temperature effects over time that shows "It will help you very little".  Of course, you are just making it up; you (and Humphreys) have no relevant calculations.

You seem stuck on the idea that we're looking for one and only one error in Humphreys' results, and that one error must explain all the anomaly.  Not so.  There are many possibilities for error, maybe some nobody's though of yet, and the goal should be to arrive at the truth rather than push anybody's ideological agenda (as Humphreys' explicitly admitted is the goial of the RATE project, in the quotes I posted already).  Maybe some of the anomaly is from incorrect temperature assumptions, some from incorrect diffusion rate assumptions, some from incorrect calcualtionso of Q/Q0, some from ... you should, but probably don't, get the idea.

 
Quote
You need 5 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE, and there is no way to get it

This betrays your ideological point of view.  What we need to do is figure out what's going on with those zircons, if it's at all possible given today's technology and abilities.  That means formulating hypotheses and testing them.  The hypothesis that the zircons and the Earth are circa 6,000 years old is incredibly far down on the list of possibilities and ... guess what ... as long as you're invoking magic in that hypothesis, it's not testable and doesn't even belong on the list.  I note you ignored my proof that Humphreys' explanation is "magic".

 
Quote
... Also, your sources report that there was volcanic activity and a large temp spike ... This negates any benefit your argument might have gained from low temps before this.

Show your calculations.  You need to integrate temperatures over times.  A long time at a relatively low temperature can more than offset a short time at a relatively high temperature.  I don't know the temperature history of the zircons to be able to do a meaningful calculation; but you claim to.  Let's see the numbers.

 
Quote
You need to read all the relevant documents of this debate ... You didn't even read Humphreys' rebuttal about the vacuum testing ... If you did, you should know that it is DOA.

I read it.  No data.  Just hand-waving.

 
Quote
As for reverse contamination of the zircons, I guess 'Davey-poo' the lowly engineer will have to point out AGAIN that helium doesn't diffuse from LOW pressure to HIGH pressure ... especially when you are talking about 1/200th of the pressure.

It's not pressure, Davey-poo, it's concentration.  And Davey-poo is still assuming today's conditions without justification.  And Davey-poo the illiterate engineer has failed yet again to read what I explitly wrote:

"Diffusion consists of a species moving from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration.  If the helium concentration outside the zircon is higher than inside, helium flows in.  And, of course, the rate at which helium flows in or out depends on the concentrations in the two areas; if there was unaccounted-for helium outside the zircons the diffusion rate calculations are wrong, no matter which direction helium was moving.

We're dealing with very small amounts of helium ... it wouldn't take much "reverse diffusion" to totally bollix the results.  Helium is found in boreholes a few kilometers away.  Helium is a tiny molecule and moves through very small spaces very easily."

I explicitly stated that it would take higher concentration of helium outside than inside for "reverse diffusion" to take place ... but any change in the amount of helium outside is going to change the diffusion.  Where's your data relevant to the concentraion of helium over time outside those zircons?

Gosharootie, Humphreys may be right on some of these items; but he needs to establish that he's right with data, not arm-waving.  Until and unless he does, errors in diffusion rates is a viable hypothesis for some if not all of the anomaly.

 
Quote
You are reaching and you should know it.  Henke's rebuttals didn't have a prayer against Humphreys.  I'd be willing to bet that very few here at ATBC even understand the issues here, much less have the ability to refute the results.  This explains why  some people  resort to mudslinging because they have very little of substance to say.

True. You obviously don't understand, and you haven't posted anything of substance.

 
Quote
Let me rehash the RATE Helium results.

1) Creationists have observed that the 4 leading methods of long age radioisotope dating almost never agree with each other.  They are generally VERY discordant. They should agree if they are reliable.

Not a RATE result .. in fact, not a result at all, but another blatant lie.  Different radiometric methods almost always yield concordant dates, so often so that there's no interest in mainstream science in quantifying the amount of agreeement; it would be like proposing a study to see how often Google Maps and Mapquest show the same street in the same place.  Discordant dates arouse interest, but there's mighty few of them.  Some creationists have come up with a very few individual instances in which one dating method gave supposedly wrong results; subtract the miscomprehensions (e.g. Austin's Grand Canyon isochron) and outright frauds (e.g. Snelling's Mt. Ngauruhoe study) and you've not even got a handful of results, none of which are about concordancy with other methods.  The closest creationists have come is Woodmorappe's list of 400 discordant dates, some of which are discordant with stratigraphy and not other radiometric methods, and which is discussed at Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look and Reply to Woodmorappe's Critique of My Web Page.  But, even if one takes all 400 dates as relevant to Davie's claim, 400 is a minuscule number; far, far les than 1% of all radiometric dates.  So, Davie-poo, let's see the statistcs to back up this claim that "the 4 leading methods of long age radioisotope dating almost never agree with each other".

For those few readers who might actually be interested in this subject, some discussion of concordant dates is at Radiometeric Dating Does Work! (the He11 Creek results are especially interesting, because that's where the Tyrannosaurous was found in which Schweitzer found interestly preserved structures inside the bone ... but I digress), and Consistent Radiometric dates.  Of course, there's lots more.

It is not unusual for radiometric dates to be very slightly discordant, because different methods are actually measuring slightly different things; the point at which the rock cooled enough to "freeze" the relevant atoms, and this point is different for different atoms.  This fact is commonly used in cooling of structures such as plutons that cooled slowl.

 
Quote
2) Many other non-radiometric indicators support a very young earth ... On the order of thousands, not billions of years

None of these alleged indicators have stood up to cursory investigation.

 
Quote
4) Science needs more reliable dating methods since radioisotope dating is unreliable.

Basically the same claim as #1, and wrong for the same reasons.

 
Quote
5) Helium diffusion from zircons is a good candidate if the rocks are relatively cool, because a high percentage of helium is retained.

Pretty  much true.  Now all you need to do is provide justification fer the assumptions in this particular case.

 
Quote
6) No one had measured He diffusion in zircons before (why? Afraid of the answer maybe?)

Another blatant lie, and one that's already been refuted in this thread.  Dave, do you think we so stupid we can't remember what's been written already?  The evidence suggests that you're that stupid ... I've already pointed out in this thread that mainstream scientists have been and are using helium dating in zircons.  From the very Yale page you supposedly read, 'cause you quoted it:

"Much of the most exciting work however, comes in figuring out new ways to use He dating, such as how to date other types of minerals (e.g., garnet, zircon, etc.), using crystal-size-age relationships to elucidate extremely low-T (40-70° C) thermal histories of rocks, and applying He dating to novel problems."

Note that at Zircon (U-Th)/He Chronometry there's links to presentations as early as 2001 (which 2001 presentation addresses the issue of diffusion in zircons directly).  So, nobody's afraid of the answer except creationists like Dave, who have nothing but lies.

Quote
7) Humphreys' group published predictions for the rates at various temps and were DEAD ON when the measured rates came back from the lab 3 years later, a TRULY REMARKABLE FEAT.

Yet, when someone else does the calculations, the results are WAY OFF.  Obviously, somebody's assumptions are wrong.  And it't the RATE group that defends their assumptions only with arm-waving.  There's not enough information available to charge anyone with dishonesty, but I note that RATE has not released the raw data as requested; it's standard practice to make raw data available after you've done your analysis and publication.  At Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates": Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data in the "UNRELIABLE DATA IN HUMPHREYS ET AL. (2003a, 2004)" section:

"Dr. Humphreys has yet to reveal how these "typographic errors" in Gentry et al. (1982a) were discovered, whether any of the original laboratory notes were consulted to properly correct the errors, and why the errors went publicly unnoticed for about 20 years. As discussed above, there are numerous incidences where Dr. Humphreys has unjustly manipulated (e.g., a graph in Magomedov, 1970) or sloppily handled data (e.g., the units of measure in Appendix C of Humphreys et al., 2003a).  Therefore, documenting the validity of the changes to the helium values from Gentry et al. (1982a) is even more urgent.  Dr. Humphreys needs to fully explain this issue and dispel any possible thoughts that the data from Gentry et al. (1982a) were altered (like the data in Magomedov, 1970) to comply with his results.  Finally, such poor documentation to justify changes in published data would never be tolerated in authentic scientific journals.  Any editor or peer-reviewer of a legitimate scientific journal would demand a thorough and complete explanation of why these changes are justified before any revisions would be allowed to appear in their journals.  Competent editors and reviewers would also insist that the original laboratory notes be consulted or that the results be discarded and the analyses redone. ...

Gentry et al. (1982a) does not contain adequate information on the lengths and widths of their zircons.  Humphreys et al. (2003a, 2004) also failed to provide suitable measurements of the lengths and widths of the zircons and biotites in their samples.  This information is needed to estimate the effective radii of zircons (a) and biotites (b), which are required for the "dating" equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a). ...

I need to remind Dr. Humphreys that his papers only contain one average b value (p. 8, Humphreys et al., 2003a). Contrary to the claims in Humphreys (2005), the necessary raw data to calculate a standard deviation for b are not present in any of his documents. How can anyone obtain a standard deviation from only one number?! Where are these raw data, Dr. Humphreys?"

Date: 2006/06/07 05:09:58, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 07 2006,05:44)

Can you give me a paper that shows non-ambiguous data on He diffusion in zircons prior to Humphreys et al?

Of course, Davie-poo, and it only takes a few seconds on Google.

He diffusion and (U-Th)/He thermochronometry of zircon: Initial results from Fish Canyon Tuff and Gold Butte, Nevada (In press, Tectonophysics, as of 4/4/01)
2001 AGU Fall Meeting poster summarizing progress in Zircon He dating
ZIRCON AND APATITE (U-TH)/HE THERMOCHRONOLOGY OF THE DABIE SHAN, CHINA (2001)
(U-TH)/HE THERMOCHRONOMETRY OF DETRITAL ZIRCON IN THE EOLIAN NAVAJO SANDSTONE, SOUTHWESTERN UTAH (2002)
Hourigan, J. K., Brandon, M. T., Garver, J. I., Soloviev, A. V., 2001, A Comparison of the detrital zircon grain-age distributions from the Ukelayat Group and the Shikhtinsk Complex: Implications for the origin of the Sredinnyi Range, Kamchatka, 7th Zonenshain International Conference on Plate Tectonics, p. 504.
(U-Th)/He geochronology of single zircon grains of known Tertiary eruption age (2/2003)

There's lots more, Davie-poo.

   
Quote
Can you back up your claim that RATE 'massaged' the data?  Have you not read the papers?  Humphreys has answered and disposed of the 'massaged' claim.  Why do you not accept it?

Henke has raised some questions that require the raw data to answer and lab notebooks to answer.  Humphreys has not provided the raw data or lab notebooks.

 
Quote
2) Humphreys et. al. measured the He in the biotite flakes surrounding the zircon and found it to be roughy equal to the amount of He lost fromt he zircons.  Notice that the biotite flakes are very small and relatively isolated.  This is pretty powerful evidence that the source of the He was the zircons and not some fluid circulation, is it not?

It is not.

Date: 2006/06/07 05:16:19, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 07 2006,09:37)
AFDave the Cowardly Lyin' sobs
     
Quote
They don't?  This was one of the points I was going to discuss regarding the RATE project.  Apparently, the RATE team thinks they support 6000 years.  But again, we shall see when we get there.  I won't make any firm statements until I examine the evidence myself.

No, they don't.  The RATE findings on C14 only say that coal and diamond can't be more than 58,000 years old.

Actually, they don't show that.  The RATE findings show that if the carbon is derived solely from a source that was in equilibrium with the atmosphere when the coal/diamond formed then they are circa 58K years old.  The unstated and unjustified assumption is the part in italics above.  We don't know exactly why those items show measurable C14/C12 ratios.  Real scientists are working on it.  "It's magic" is awfully low on the list of hypotheses that are being tested.

Date: 2006/06/08 05:26:13, Link
Author: JonF
Boy, Davie-poo, you're getting more incoherent by the day.  Better up the lithium dose.
   
Quote (afdave @ June 08 2006,07:40)
JONF's SMART SOUNDING ARGUMENTS HAVE GAPING HOLES

Why Humphreys' Assumptions Were Generous to 'Long-Agers'

JonF ...          
Quote
Dave, all temperatures matter, and time matters too.  Let's see your integration of temperature effects over time that shows "It will help you very little".  
OK.  You want to talk about temperature?  Then let's talk temperature and see if it helps you any.

Henke quotes Harrison and Sasada ...          
Quote
Figure 9 in Sasada (1989, p. 264) shows the variable thermal history of the GT-2 well core at a depth of 2624 meters (compare with my Figure 3). According to Sasada (1989, p. 262-265), a warm period occurred sometime ago. Even hotter earlier events could have removed much or even essentially all of the radiogenic helium from the zircons. The warm period was followed by a cooler event, which included the emplacement of fluids (see my Figure 3). In particular, Sasada (1989) argues that fluids were trapped in secondary inclusions within the Jemez Granodiorite at depths of 2624 meters when temperatures were at least 26°C cooler than present (about 152°C rather than the current value of 178°C).


And shows their historical temperature graph ...



You are making a big deal about cooler temps ... we're talking about a mere 26 degrees cooler!!!!!

26 degrees cooler won't begin to help you, especially when you consider the heat spike from the volcano that Harrison and Sasada also talk about.

Look at the following extrapolation.  Of course it's a guess, but there is no way you can argue that it is very far off.  And for it to come anywhere close to helping your case, you would have to make a huge "cliff" on the extrapolation.


Irrelevant. Davie-poo, you need to integrate the diffusivity as a function of temperature over time.  26 degrees cooler over a long time could make a huge difference.  Show us the calculations
 

   
Quote
As for the "Fluid Contamination Theory," here is what Humphreys says ... <snip>

Let me translate Humphrey's 'Sledge Hammer Blows' for you ...
BLOW #1:  How is Helium going to squeeze through 1 angstrom spaces? (size of a hydrogen atom)
BLOW #2:  Show that basalt conduits exist
BLOW #3:  Helium concentration in basalts is 40 times too small
BLOW #4:  If the extraneous He somehow got there, how would it stay with the considerably higher temps?

Still just hand-waving.  No data.  Everyone acknowledges that changing helium concentrations is a hypothesis that has neither been confirmed nor refuted,  But, unless and until it's refuted with data, it's a lot more likely than  magic.  You need to show that helium did not affect the results.  Henke has raised several possible mechanisms; we don't have to prove that those mechanisms applied, you need to prove that they didn't apply.  As of now, "excess helium" is a possible explanation no matter how much you and Humphrys wave your hands.

{ABE} I overlooked the size of the helium atom.  Thanks, incorygible.  Just another example of Dave firmly planting both feet in his mouth before speaking.

   
Quote
 
Quote
You need to read all the relevant documents of this debate ... You didn't even read Humphreys' rebuttal about the vacuum testing ... If you did, you should know that it is DOA.

quote]I read it.  No data.  Just hand-waving.
Pure baloney, JonF.  Here ... let me give it to you again ...          
Quote
Bait and Switch
Let's see how big Henke alleges the effect would be:

&#8220;Numerous researchers have shown that the diffusion of helium or argon in silicate minerals may vary by many orders of magnitude at a given temperature depending on whether the studies were conducted in a vacuum or under pressure.  For example, argon diffusion in phlogopite mica may be at least 3 to 6 orders of magnitude higher in a vacuum than under pressurized conditions (McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 154.)&#8221;[7]
Henke&#8217;s &#8220;at least 3 to 6 orders of magnitude&#8221; would be a factor ranging from 1,000 to 1,000,000.  That is enormously larger than the few percent effect the measurements on hard minerals I reported above.  What would make such a huge difference?

One factor is the mineral, &#8220;phlogopite mica&#8221;.  Micas are soft minerals.  Their true hardness is low (2-3), but they appear even softer than that.  The reason is that they consist of atom-thick sheets of silicates held together by very weak chemical bonds between the sheets.   The gap between a pair of sheets is relatively big, several atom diameters wide.  Most the helium or argon diffuses along the gaps between the sheets.  The weak bonding between the sheets allows pressure to compress the gaps easily.  So diffusion in micas is much more susceptible to pressure than hard minerals.  Instead of a steel ball bearing, here we have a sponge!

A second factor is water.  Water molecules can work their way into the gaps between the sheets and (lightly) bond chemically to them, thus hindering the diffusion of helium or argon.  The book that Henke quotes (p. 154, Figure 5-13) compares two experiments on phlogopite mica, one in a vacuum with no water present, the other under high pressure with water in the mica.

So pressure was not the only variable, but wetness also.  Try blowing air through a dry sponge and then through a wet sponge!  The large difference between the two experiments is probably more due to the presence or absence of water than it was to pressure.  Our samples, by the way, came from hot dry rock.  Any water that may have been in the rock unit previously has probably been mostly cooked out of it.

The adjacent figure in the same book (p. 154, Figure 5-14) reviews an experiment on a similar mica, biotite, without having water as a variable.  In that experiment[8] the effect of a rather large change of pressure, 14 kilobars, was only two orders of magnitude.  For a change of only 1 kilobar pressure, the change in diffusivity would probably be about one order of magnitude.  This is far less than Henke's desired six orders of magnitude.

That one-order-of-magnitude number is useful to me because it suggests that in my analysis of the helium data, I was correct to use a diffusivity for the biotite surrounding the zircons about one order of magnitude less than the vacuum measurements.  Our results are not very sensitive to the value of the biotite diffusivity, but it is comforting to know that my assumption was closer to reality than I thought.

The only other experiment on pressure that Henke reports is very similar:

&#8220;Argon diffusion in glauconite at 1,000 to 10,000 psi of water vapor is up to three orders of magnitude slower than under a vacuum (Dalrymple and Lanphere, 1969, p. 155).&#8221;[9]
Glauconite is another soft mica, and again the experiments compare dry and low-pressure samples with wet and high-pressure samples.

Last, notice that the experiments were with argon, not helium.  As I mentioned above, helium diffusion is less susceptible to pressure effects on the crystal than argon, because helium atoms are significantly smaller than argon atoms.

The upshot is that here Henke is playing the ancient merchant&#8217;s trick of &#8220;bait and switch&#8221;.  Having lured the customer in with an implied promise about one item (helium, zircon, dry), he then tries to sell the customer an item (argon, mica, wet) which will cost him more and benefit him less.  I hope you won't buy Henke's merchandise!


Now ... I challenge you to call Dr. Farley (Deadman says he's right down the street from him, maybe he could make the call) and ask him why they test for He diffusion in zircons in a vacuum.  Go ahead ... make my day!  You will find that the effect is negligible.

No data on helium diffusion in zircons.  Just hand-waving.  You're the one making the claim, you provide the data.  Call Dr. Farley yourself.

         
Quote
   
Quote
1) Creationists have observed that the 4 leading methods of long age radioisotope dating almost never agree with each other.  They are generally VERY discordant. They should agree if they are reliable.

Not a RATE result .. in fact, not a result at all, but another blatant lie.  Different radiometric methods almost always yield concordant dates, so often so that there's no interest in mainstream science in quantifying the amount of agreeement;
Oh really?  Why then did the RATE Group get wildly differing results on several of their samples?  They got everything from 500 my to 2.5 by in the same rock samples!!  (This was not a Creo lab, by the way ... it was one of the world's leading conventional labs) The difference, I think, is that the RATE Group does not have a Long Age Agenda, so they don't mind reporting discordant results.  I would bet you money that the reason most conventional dates agree is because the dates that don't agree are thrown out and are not reported.  I would like to speak with one of these labs (instead of the geologists) to see what THEY say about discordant dating results.  How many tests are thrown out?

I see you are admitting that your claim of "they are generally VERY discordant" is just something you made up (or unquestioningly copied from some other loon's web site), and you have no support.

Are you referring to Snelling's Mt. Ngauruhoe fraud?  Isolated incidents are irrelevent to your claim that "the 4 leading methods of long age radioisotope dating almost never agree with each other", but I'll just note that Snelling's results are obviously a result of contamination by xenoliths (literally "foreign rocks", un-melted pieces of older rocks intermixed with the fresh rocks).  Xenoliths are well-known to cause exactly the kind of problems Snelling described, and no competent and honest geologist would do whole-rock dating on a sample with xenoliths in it.  In ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POTASSIUM-ARGON "DATING" Snelling writes:

"Steiner [90] stressed that xenoliths are a common constituent of the 1954 Ngauruhoe lava, but also noted that Battey [7] reported the 1949 Ngauruhoe lava was rich in xenoliths. All samples in this study contained xenoliths, including those from the 1975 avalanche material."

And, of course, creationists pretty much criticise only the old-reliable-but-possibly-susceptible-to-error K-Ar method and don't look at the much more widely used and robust Ar-Ar, isochron, and concordia-discordia methods.

But, as I said, that's all irrelevant to your claim.

You're trying the old bait-and-switch combined with snipping the relevant portion of my post; a few, a very very few, inconsistent results (several of which are outright frauds and all of which are suspect) are not "they are generally VERY discordant".  You trot out the old and predictable "they must be discarding results 'cause the vast majority of the results that are published are concordant".  News flash, Davie-poo:  discordant results are where the real action (and promotion opportunities for young researchers) is.  They love a good discordant result that's not easily explainable, because that's a great opportunity.  The discordant results obtained by creationists are too easily explainable to be interesting. Of course, when real discordant results get published and scientists expend great effort in figuring out the cause of the discordance and the correct age, creationists accuse us of all sorts of frauds; sdee Claim CD031.

As for speaking to the labs about how many results get thrown out, go for it.  One of the major labs (Menlo Park, CA) is government-run, and if they won't give you the data if you ask nicely you can probably get it through FOIA.

         
Quote
   
Quote
5) Helium diffusion from zircons is a good candidate if the rocks are relatively cool, because a high percentage of helium is retained.

Pretty  much true.  Now all you need to do is provide justification fer the assumptions in this particular case.
Thank you for acknowledging what many here have previously tried to attack.  And Humphreys HAS provided justification for the assumptions.

Hand-waving with no data is not justifiction.

   
Quote
   
Quote
6) No one had measured He diffusion in zircons before (why? Afraid of the answer maybe?)

Another blatant lie, and one that's already been refuted in this thread.  Dave, do you think we so stupid we can't remember what's been written already?  The evidence suggests that you're that stupid ... I've already pointed out in this thread that mainstream scientists have been and are using helium dating in zircons.  From the very Yale page you supposedly read, 'cause you quoted it:

"Much of the most exciting work however, comes in figuring out new ways to use He dating, such as how to date other types of minerals (e.g., garnet, zircon, etc.), using crystal-size-age relationships to elucidate extremely low-T (40-70° C) thermal histories of rocks, and applying He dating to novel problems."

Note that at Zircon (U-Th)/He Chronometry there's links to presentations as early as 2001 (which 2001 presentation addresses the issue of diffusion in zircons directly).  So, nobody's afraid of the answer except creationists like Dave, who have nothing but lies.


Oh really, JonF?  As early as 2001, huh?  Do you know when Humphreys published his predictions?  Did you foget that little detail?  I thought so.  Here ... I'll help you.  It was 2000 in this publication ...          
Quote
[9]  Humphreys, D.R., Accelerated nuclear decay:  a viable hypothesis?, in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth:  A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, edited by L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, Chapter 7, pp. 333-379, Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, San Diego, CA, 2000. http


JonF ... The year 2000 comes BEFORE the year 2001.  At the time Humphreys PUBLISHED, there was no reliable data.

It's interesting that all this interest in Helium dating of rocks comes AFTER the Creationist experiment ... hmmmm ... I wonder why that is?

Sorry, Davie-poo, wrong again. Your goalpost-shifting is obvious. You asked for "Can you give me a paper that shows non-ambiguous data on He diffusion in zircons prior to Humphreys et al?".  Humphreys et al was published in 2003, Davie-poo.  After 2001, Davie-poo.

But nobody claimed that 2001 was the first mainstream publication on helium diffusion in zircons, it's just an example of exactly what you asked for.  Deadman has pointed out that Humphreys et al referred to a 1967 paper on the subject. And there's "Kohn, B.P., Farley, K.A. and Pillans, B., 1999. (U-Th)/He dating of zircon and apatite from the Pleistocene Rangitawa tephra, North Island, New Zealand, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80: 1169."  Is 1999 before 2000, Davie-poo?

If there was no reliable data when Humphreys published his original claims (which I haven'tr seen; how 'bout you scan and post them?), why did he refer to "Lippolt, H. J., and Weigel, E., 4He diffusion in 40Ar-retentive minerals, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 52:1449-1458, 1988." and "Magomedov, Sh. A., Migration of radiogenic products in zircon, Geokhimiya, 1970, No. 2, pp. 263-267 (in Russian). English abstract in Geochemistry International 7(1):203, 1970. English translation available from D. R. Humphreys." in Humphreys et al in 2003?

   
Quote
   
Quote
Yet, when someone else does the calculations, the results are WAY OFF.
Garbage in=Garbage out.

Ya got that one right.  Now we need more data to figure out whose results are garbage.

Date: 2006/06/08 07:43:40, Link
Author: JonF
[quote=carlsonjok,June 08 2006,10:31]
Quote
Quote
But, you know, actually having to show your work to other people who understand the topic is just an onerous hurdle to perpetuate the conspiracy, huh?    
Quote
The RATE Group presented at the American Geophysical Convention (correct name?) in San Francisco where there were 10,000 or so scientists present.  They were very well received.

From the various comments about the RATE results right here, it would seem that they haven't quite past the peer-review muster yet, so don't confuse politeness with acceptance ;)

The "very well received" bit is from a RATE publication.  What they "presented" was three posters at a gigantic poster session.  There's no review of those posters, and pretty much anything you want to throw up there is allowed.  Comments from the geologists attending the meeting indicate that the reception was polite bemusement at the fact that people were actually willing to stand in front of and defend such obvious garbage.

Date: 2006/06/08 08:08:03, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 08 2006,12:03)
JonF ...    
Quote
Boy, Davie-poo, you're getting more incoherent by the day.  Better up the lithium dose.
TRANSLATION:  Boy, this AFD guy is tireless ... what am I gonna say now? ... how about an insult ... yes, that's it ... Insult #42 ... the old "up the lithium dose" insult.  That'll work!

Oh and let's cut and paste BOTH CHARTS in their entirety so that I can fill up space and make people think I have a sensible rebuttal.

Sorry, Davey-wavey.  I didn't cut and past anything.  You're the one with the huge cut-and-paste.

I see you've given up on trying to claim that you know the temperature history of those zircons well enough to assess the temperature-dependent diffusion effects.

 
Quote
Quote
Henke has raised several possible mechanisms; we don't have to prove that those mechanisms applied, you need to prove that they didn't apply.
He has, as far as anyone can 'prove' anything.

He has, as far as anyone can "prove" anyting without actually having any data.

Quote
Henke's mechanisms are such an long shot that only an ideologically driven skeptic like you would grab onto them and try to use them to rebut Humprheys' good results.

Please show your probability calculations, Davey-wavey.

Quote
You are bankrupt, JonF.  My money says that Humphreys' results will be IRREFUTABLE as time goes on, and that they will find their way into conventional peer-reviewed publications.

My money says otherwise.  We'll see what happens.  Until then, all you've goit is the possibility of one anomaly.  Far from enough to question the age of the Earth.

Quote
Helium atom size ... got me on that one.  Fine.  Now how are you going to get around the other three sledge hammer blows??

We don't need to. It's Humphreys' calaim, it's up to him to support it.

Quote
Quote
No data on helium diffusion in zircons.  Just hand-waving.  You're the one making the claim, you provide the data.  Call Dr. Farley yourself.

Humphreys did talk to Dr. Farley numerous times and confirmed that vacuum testing of Helium is standard practice because it has negligible effect.

Let's see it in print. I don't trust Humphreys or you as far as I could throw the both of you, and with good reason. 

Quote
Quote
Oh really?  Why then did the RATE Group get wildly differing results on several of their samples?  They got everything from 500 my to 2.5 by in the same rock samples!!  (This was not a Creo lab, by the way ... it was one of the world's leading conventional labs) The difference, I think, is that the RATE Group does not have a Long Age Agenda, so they don't mind reporting discordant results.  I would bet you money that the reason most conventional dates agree is because the dates that don't agree are thrown out and are not reported.  I would like to speak with one of these labs (instead of the geologists) to see what THEY say about discordant dating results.  How many tests are thrown out?
I am not referring to Snelling's Mt. Ngauruhoe 'fraud' as you call it.  I am referring to the tests reported in the RATE books.

Then let's see the specifics of those tests, in detail; irrelevant though they are they are, it might be amusing to figure out how they cheated.  Location, strata, sample selection and gathering procedure, minerology,  sample treatment, raw lab results, and so on.

But the plain fact is that you have absolutely no support for your claim that "the 4 leading methods of long age radioisotope dating almost never agree with each other.  They are generally VERY discordant."  I see you have abandoned your feeble attempts to support that, and are trying to brush it under the rug.  Davey-wavey, a few, a very very few, inconsistent results (several of which are outright frauds and all of which are suspect) are not "they are generally VERY discordant"..

Quote
Quote
Your goalpost-shifting is obvious. You asked for "Can you give me a paper that shows non-ambiguous data on He diffusion in zircons prior to Humphreys et al?".
Anyone with any sense or any ethics at all would know that I meant before he PUBLISHED his predictions.  It doesn't make any sense to get data published in 2001 to try to make some predictions in 2000, now does it?  As for your other sources, the RATE Group looked at everything and nothing was relevant except for the ambiguous Soviet data mentioned.

Davey-wavey, you explicitly asked for "before Humphreys et al", which is 2003.  Let's see the RATE group's asessment of what was available before 2001, and details on why they decided most of it was not relevant. Let's also see why Humphrey's et all didn't use the results available in 2001 and 2002 when they published in 2003.

Quote
CARBON 14 IN COAL AND DIAMONDS

My guess is that Jon F will bow out and this will be an easy one.  We shall see.


You're a pretty poor predictor, Davey-wavey.  I already pointed out the refutation of that RATE silliness yesterday.

The RATE findings show that if the carbon is derived solely or essentially solely from a source that was in equilibrium with the atmosphere when the coal/diamond formed then they are circa 58K years old.  The unstated and unjustified assumption is the part in italics above.  We don't know exactly why those items show measurable C14/C12 ratios.  We do know that C14 can be produced in coal by particles given off by uranium decay, and the level of C14 in coal correlates well with the amount of uranium in the area. Real scientists are working on it.  "It's magic" is awfully low on the list of hypotheses that are being tested.

Date: 2006/06/09 09:44:13, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 09 2006,07:13)

Yesterday we saw that JonF had no answer to my question about the temperature history of the Fenton Hill zircons.

The only question you asked was "Surely you are not suggesting it was cooler than this?"  Correct, I did not answer that question, I assumed it was rhetorical.  Pretty small nit to pick, Dave -- obviously you're running out of steam.

It may have been cooler than that, but probably not much cooler.  Here's a question for you , Dave; how long was it that cool?  How long matters, Dave, it matters.

 
Quote
He is trying to use Harrison and Sasada's temperature chart as a weapon against Humphreys, but it is actually a weapon against him!!  Before I looked at their temp history graph, I assumed they were talking about significant temp differences.  It turns out, they are talking about a mere 26 degrees!!  Humphreys' error ranges easily cover this already.  This is not anywhere close to what long agers need to support their model.

Let's see the calculations, Dave.  Since you still haven't caught on, the point is that we don't know the duration of the temperature variations, and nobody can assess the importance of those temperature variations without that data.

 
Quote
Henke's "vacuum testing" objection is DOA because Farley and other experts in zircon testing use vacuum all the time.  Why?  Because they know it does not matter with zircons.

Says you and Humphreys.  Both proven liars. I notice that you haven't been able to supply a reference for your claim.  See below.

 
Quote
So the only hope for long agers is that maybe somehow some helium was transported to the zircons through some mechanism.  This was explored very thoroughly by Humphreys and it is extremely doubtful that this could have occurred.

Even if it is extremely doubtful (which is far from being established by Humphreys' hand-waving), it's still far more likely than your explanation -- magic.

 
Quote
Here is Humphreys' rebuttal again ...

We'se seen it, and read it, and assessed it, and dismissed it.  No matter how many times you post it, it's still just hand-waving.

 
Quote
 
Quote
Show us the data that there was as much as 100X more C-12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere. Or were you lying once again?
Short answer- the fossil record has massive quantities of fossilized organic material: coal, oil and chalk beds to name just 3.  This is evidence that there was far more organic matter prior to the Flood of Noah--ICR estimates 100X the present amount of organic matter.  If this was the case, the C-14/C-12 ratio would be much lower, resulting in much younger actual dates when using the C-14 dating method today.

Wrong answer, Davey-pie.  The amount of organic matter on Earth does not affect the C14/C12 ratio.

Of course, if there was 100x more organic matter on the Earth at any time than there is now, it would have been be piled several feet high.  And, of course, the vast amount of fossilizzed organic material is not evidence for your "thesis" until you manage to figure out some way of dating that organic matter that agrees with your fantasies.

 
Quote
 
Quote
I see you've given up on trying to claim that you know the temperature history of those zircons well enough to assess the temperature-dependent diffusion effects.
No.  I haven't given up anything.  Harrison and Sasada gave us their idea of the history--better than my guesses, and I can see that it gives you ZERO help--it's a mere 26 degrees!!. I see you totally dodged my extrapolation of the Diffusion/Temp chart.  Why?

I didn't dodge anything, your guess was irrelevant, and I stated so and why.  You need to integrate diffusivity as a function of temperature over time, and since you don't know the variation of temperature with time you can't do the integration.

 
Quote
   
Quote
My money says otherwise.  We'll see what happens.  Until then, all you've got is the possibility of one anomaly.  Far from enough to question the age of the Earth.
Yeah.  Pretty interesting 'anomaly.'  Newton and Einstein had their respective 'anomalies' too, remember?  So did Galileo and Copernicus.  Hmmm ... It's also interesting that suddenly Yale and other universities are interested in 'the exciting new possibilities of Helium dating.

Get back to us when and if you actually have enough results and data and justification to be interesting. Blondlot had a pretty interesting anomaly, too; the fact that some sciences grew out of interesting anomalies does not meant that all interesting anomalies are the foundation of new science. Most interesting anomalies are errors.

 
Quote
 
Quote
Let's see it in print. I don't trust Humphreys or you as far as I could throw the both of you, and with good reason.
It is in print.  Go buy the book.
http://shop5.gospelcom.net/epages....1

No relevant book at that URL.  I presume you mean "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth".  It should be obvious that I'm not interested in what Humphreys claims about helium diffusion in zircons under pressure, I'm interested in publicataions by those who have done such measurements.  If Humphreys refers to such measurements in his book, you post the references.  Until then we will assume they do not exist.

 
Quote
 
Quote
Then let's see the specifics of those tests, in detail; irrelevant though they are they are, it might be amusing to figure out how they cheated.
Go get the RATE books and you will see all the details.  Then if you still have a problem, let me know.  I will be making this a project of mine ... studying the age discordance question.  All I have is the Woodmorappe data as well, but it may be interesting what I find when I take the time to look elsewhere.

It's not necessary to keep repeating that you have no basis for your claim that "they are generally VERY discordant".  We knew when you first posted it that it was a lie.

Get back to us when and if you actually have enough results and data and justification to be interesting.

Quote
Quote
The RATE findings show that if the carbon is derived solely or essentially solely from a source that was in equilibrium with the atmosphere when the coal/diamond formed then they are circa 58K years old.  The unstated and unjustified assumption is the part in italics above.  We don't know exactly why those items show measurable C14/C12 ratios.  We do know that C14 can be produced in coal by particles given off by uranium decay, and the level of C14 in coal correlates well with the amount of uranium in the area. Real scientists are working on it.  "It's magic" is awfully low on the list of hypotheses that are being tested.
Again, YECs don't say 'it's magic.'  They just recognize that there is an Intelligent Designer that may have the ability to interact with His designs, just as a gardener would interact at times with his garden, but for the most part, lets nature take it's course.  You are too myopic to allow for this possibility, which in turn limits and sometimes stifles your scientific inquiry.

I see you ignored the substance of my comment.  But yours just boils down to "We don't say it's magic, we just say it's magic".  Most scientific of you.

Date: 2006/06/09 10:18:06, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 09 2006,14:56)
So basically Deadman has no idea how the 3He/4He ratio would rule out extraneous Helium, he was just parroting what Henke said.

That's what I thought.

Nope, Deadman and I understand exactly what Henke meant, and what both his proposed tests would reveal.  He's just looking for you to respond to his questions before responding to yours.  I won't step on his toes, but here's another hint for you, Davetard: "primordial helium".

Date: 2006/06/09 13:14:06, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (normdoering @ June 09 2006,17:46)
Did I just give afdave a bigger clue than you wanted to give him?

Well, that is an awfully big clue ... he might get halfway to the answer from that.

Answering your other questions would give the whole game away.

Date: 2006/06/10 03:41:01, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 10 2006,00:07)
That is why radiocarbon dating has been subjected to rigorous multiple independent calibration methods.  These methods include denrochronology (tree-ring dating), ice core samples from glaciers, ocean sediment core samples, varve core samples from freshwater lakes, and speleothems (cave deposits).

And U-Th dating of corals, that's a significant portion.

Here's a calibration curve:


(from CALPAL 2004 January).  The axes are unreadable but are each 60,000 years long.  See Calibration Data Sets for plots of the individual data sets.  Here's the lake Suigetsu varves:



And here's the Barbados corals:

Date: 2006/06/11 03:47:08, Link
Author: JonF
Geez, take a day or so off and the place goes crazy.
   
Quote (afdave @ June 10 2006,09:53)
Now we are well into 'Age of the Earth' and we have been through the RATE Group's Helium-Zircon experiment.  No 'long age' scientists can figure out how Humphreys and Co. managed to pull off such a remarkable prediction and publish one year before there were any reliable published data for Helium diffusion!  JonF has been trying his best to refute Humphreys mainly with the 'Unknown Temperature' argument (a whopping 26 degrees!;),

For which nothing but arm-waving explanations have been offered.

AFAIK there are no reliable under-pressure helium diffusion data.
       
Quote
but he also thinks the 'Vacuum Testing' and the 'Extraneous Helium' arguments have merit.  Deadman has joined the fray and says that if Humphreys would have tested for the 3He/4He ratio, he could have eliminated the possibility of extraneous Helium once and for all and been shooting off fireworks now.
       
Quote
Age determinations were also performed on Fish Canyon Tuff and Gold Butte zircons, the latter from a range of pre-exhumation paleodepths, from 4-16 km. Euhedral zircon crystals (~60-120 µm width and ~150-300 µm length) were picked from aliquots prepared by standard mineral separation techniques (crushing, sieving, magnetic and density separations).  He diffusion experiments were performed at Caltech and used approximately 10-15 crystals that were rinsed in cold 10% HNO3 to remove potential adhering phosphates.  One aliquot of Fish Canyon Tuff zircons was crushed and sieved to a size range of 44-74 µm to examine the effect of grain size on diffusivity. The second aliquot consisted of grains with typical radii and lengths of 60 µm and 150 µm, respectively. The experimental apparatus and procedures followed those described by Farley et al. (1999), involving cycled step-heating of the crystals in an ultra-high vacuum chamber by a lamp projected through a sapphire window.
Reiners, Farley & Hickes: Helium-Zircon Vacuum Testing

OK.  So there you have it.  JonF says Humphreys and I are liars and he wouldn't trust what we say about vacuum testing.  OK.  So don't trust me or Humphreys.  Trust Farley.

Now, that's interesting.  They don't say that helium diffusion under vacuum accurately models helium diffusion under pressure, but you have established that mainstream scientists are using helium diffusion data gathered under vacuum for application to real-world situations.  I note two things:

  • Reiners et al got a lot of spread in their diffusion data, and don't really know the explanation.
  • Deadman has posted references at around 3 AM EST which indicate that Reiners and Farley acknowledge that the validity of vacuum studies to model helium diffusioin under pressure:
     "Other important unresolved questions include ....the possible role of pressure in He diffusion and He solubility in zircon".
    "[zircon diffusion rates from] aboratory measurements may not apply under natural conditions."

So, I'm not sure what's going on here.  I'm going to get that 1999 Farley paper on the apparatus and see what's going on there. It'll take a few days; what with parking and whatnot, for one paper it's cheaper and certainly more convenient to pay the $12 to get a PDF from MIT than it is to drive into Cambridge to look it up.
       
Quote
Now, if we can get Deadman happy about 3He/4He ratios, we are home free and you should all be singing 'Amazing Grace,' right?

Not quite.  You still need to establish the amount of temperature effects, and the justification for vacuum diffusion measurements applying to Fenton Hill zircons under pressure.  Of course, there's always the "we don't know yet" explanation, which is far ahead of "it's magic" in the list of scientific explanations.

One interesting thing has not been mentioned; none of the mainstream scientists who are doing helium dating on zircons are getting dates anywhere in the vicinity of 6,000 years.  Why is this, Davie-poo?  We haven't gotten a good dose of YEC "all the scientists in the world are in a vast conspiracy" ranting from you recently ... maybe Humphreys et al are making some error or, horrors!, fakin' it?

Oh, and, Dave: you're still a liar.  Humphreys is still a liar.  You may be batting .001 after this information you dug up, but your batting average is pretty pathetic.

Date: 2006/06/12 13:04:36, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (normdoering @ June 12 2006,12:29)
Quote (afdave @ June 12 2006,12:09)
Norm...      
Quote
So you think that when Adam was in the Garden of Eden the decay rates for radioactive elements were faster ... and Adam and Eve lived in a couple thousand degrees of heat and high radiation?
No, no, no.  The best theory YECs have for this is that it may have happened before there was any life on earth (before Creation Day 3) or during the Flood where the water would have formed a shield, or both.  This is unclear without further RATE research, but no YEC postulates some sort of magic trick to shield Adam and Eve from the radiation.

So, no YEC postulates some sort of magic trick to shield Adam and Eve from the radiation, you just postulate a magic trick where the half-life of uranium drops from 4.5 billion years to one day before Adam and Eve were created.

And one wonders how does Noah get sheilded from the water boiling because of all the heat and high-energy particles dumped into it (creating more heat ...)

Date: 2006/06/12 13:09:19, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (deadman_932 @ June 12 2006,13:23)
Oh, to expand on the Pyrex glass/zircon thing, AFDave: Helium's diffusivity through Pyrex is 20 times greater than any other gas --hydrogen is the closest competitor. This has led to the suggestion that pyrex be used to filter out helium from natural gas. Pyrex is all of one point lower on the Mohs as Zircon's lower undamaged bound. High metamict Zircon has a much lower hardness value. Now go look at Titanite.

And makes even more of a mockery of Humphreys' claim  "So our crystals of very hard zircon should suffer less from pressure than glasses that are softer than quartz."

Date: 2006/06/12 13:23:34, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 12 2006,09:21)
The postulated sources of the water are the vapor canopy which precipitated and the underground reservoirs, which apparently were extensive.

Nobody except the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe still believes in any form of vapor canopy.  Keeping enough vapor in the air, or getting any form of water from a significant elevation to the earth, releases enough energy to kill 'em all except for some thermophilic bacteria.  Oh, and getting enough water from underneath the Earth's surface does the same thing again.  (I'm quite familiar with Walt Brown's stuff, and he leaves the most significant effects out of his calculations.  There's no excuse for an MIT ME to forget the steam tables.)

The Demise and Fall of the Water Vapor Canopy: A Fallen Creationist Idea

SENSITIVITY STUDIES ON VAPOR CANOPY TEMPERATURE PROFILES, wherein two creationists show that with the most favorable possible asumptions you might get a meter of water into a vapor canopy.

A Few Silly Flaws In Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory

Quote
 You are correct that there would not be anywhere close to enough time available to generate enough Heium assuming today's decay rates, but as the RATE Group has pointed out many times, this is an assumption, and there are beginning to be many indicators supporting the idea that this assumption may be grossly wrong.

Tain't an assumption, Davie-poo.  It's a conclusion based on mountains of evidence.  One or two claimed anomalies for which there are several other reasonable explanations is not "many indicators".  And you have yet to propose a non-magical mechanism for this alleged increase in decay rates.

Date: 2006/06/12 15:09:07, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 12 2006,11:21)
 
Quote
Why do you suppose the entire scientific community supports the accuracy of radiometric dating, Dave?
Because they want to believe in long ages to support the Theory of Evolution and they make assumptions which allow them to believe they are being scientific.

Ah, there's the ol' world-wide-conspiracy-of-scientists-claim without which no creationist loon would be complete.  Sorry, Davie-poo, it was obvious in the late 1700s and early 1800s that the Earth is far older than a few thousand years.  Reference provided previously, several times.  Your failure to acquaint yourself with the facts doesn't make them go away.
 
Quote
You misunderstand the YEC position if you think I am saying that God is some sort of 'cheap magician.'

I think the Hershey Collective said it best:

Quote
... all you are saying is that you are positing that some undetectable, invisible something acting by an undetectable mechanism at some unspecified time and unspecified place somehow managed to poof into existence whatever you want poofed into existence.  *That* is the essence of positing that something exists by "magic".

Date: 2006/06/13 11:51:11, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 13 2006,12:11)
Prior to Darwin, the majority of scientists were YECs and Catastrophists.

Wrong, Davie-me-boy.  Prior to Darwin, after the olate 1700's, the majority of scientiest were not YEC.

Quote
 I am not sure who came up with the number 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth.  I would like to find out.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

http://tinyurl.com/create.php

Quote
We can imagine that this 'planet formation event' necessarily involved some pretty intense processes which we should not pretend to understand yet.  Why is it irrational to propose that some sort of accelerated nuclear decay might have been a by-product of these intense processes?

Both theory and experiment tell us that the most intense processes that exist or have existed in the Universe do not change relevant radioactive decay rates to any noticable degree.

You can't change radioactive decay rates "in a vacuum"; other things must change too.

Quote
In the same way, the Flood was a massively intense event.  And it had purposes: destroy most of mankind, change the topography and the climate, shorten human lifespans, etc. etc.  If the Flood is recognized as a massive, hydraulic, tectonic and volcanic cataclysm, why is it unreasonable to again postulate an accelerated nuclear decay event during this intense period?

Because theory, experiment, and observation tell us that even if such a catastrophe happened, it would not cause any change in decay rates.

Date: 2006/06/14 05:18:23, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,10:02)
 
Quote
1.) I argued that pressure is an unresolved problem in regard to helium diffusion rates in zircon. Both Farley and Reiners acknowledge this (yes, both). This combined with the other objections raised in Henke and by Jon...give unreliable methods and results for the Fenton Hill Zircon.
Yes they do.  But two things...
1) They say nothing of the magnitude of the effect. It likely is very small.

Please show your calculations.
Quote
Why would they use vacuum testing on zircons themselves if it was a problem?  I understand that Farley does not have a pressure testing apparatus, but surely he could come up with one if it was important, no?

I don't know.  He did say, in 2005, that the issue of pressure effects on diffusion in zircons is not settled.
   
Quote
1) Helium concentration in basaltic magmatic fluids is much too small by a factor of 40 or so.

Reference, please  And why consider only basaltic magma?
   
Quote
2) Helium traveling through a conduit on its own or with CO2 could easily escape into the atmosphere

Maybe, depending on the geometry.  So what?
   
Quote
3) You have to account for the fact that the surrounding biotite contains very close to the amount of Helium produced by the calculated U-decay Helium.  Just a coincidence?

My opinion is that it's pretty likely it's coincidence.  Why would the biotite trap all the helum that diffused from the zircons?
   
Quote
4) How do you keep the Helium in the zircons when the temperature is elevated for so long?

Perhaps by high concentration of helium outside. 
   
Quote
5) Let's say you can keep the Helium in.  The zircon is 'open' at high temperature, right?  Why wouldn't the concentrations of Helium in the zircon and the surrounding biotite equalize?

"Open" isn't like opening a door, and "closed" is not like closign a door. They would equilibrate, if given enough time.  But then conditions can change and the equilibrium can be lost.
   
Quote
So to summarize, the pressure testing and temperature history objections seem to be DOA (Dead on Arrival), and the infiltration objection seems like an extreme long shot.

Still just hand-waving.  No data.
   
Quote
Here's a suggestion:  let's look at all the new zircons being tested using the Reiners/Farley method and let's test them using the Humphreys method.  Would they concur with the RATE results?  I bet they would!

Go for it.

Date: 2006/06/14 11:12:19, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,12:14)
You may not be on a crusade personally.  But the NCSE is and I think they run this forum, do they not?

They do not.
Quote
 If not, I think it is at least fair to say that you are probably supportive of the NCSE's agenda.  To me, they are crusaders on a 'religious mission to sanitize schools of any mention of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer or a God.'

Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
Quote
They apparently think that 'Separation of Church and State' is in the constitution...

And so does the Supreme Court, the final arbiter on what is and is not in the Constitution.
Quote
and they think that 'no establishment of religion' means no mention of a Creator or God in public settings.

Another lie, Davie-ol'-chap; they think that "no establishment of religion" means that the government may not promote one religion over any others.  Mentioning a Creator or God in public settings is fine (althouth it's inappropriate to do so in science class, for non-Constitutional reasons).
Quote
Quite false interpretation...

Yup, your interpretation is indeed quite false.

Date: 2006/06/14 11:35:03, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 14 2006,16:28)
Quote
My question for you is: when Humphreys was busy pioneering/discovering/re-discovering helium/zircon research, where did he find a "usual practice among helium/zircon researchers"?
 Ah, yes.  I should have been more specific.

In the RATE Books, Humphreys points out that ...

"Our diffusion dating method in Section 9 differs entirely from the "He dating" of (U-Th/He) Chronometry [Reiners, 2002].  Very crudely, the difference is this: (U-Th/He) Chronometry divides the number of He atoms in a crystal by nuclear decay rate.  Diffusion dating divides the number of He atoms lost from the crystal by the diffusion rate.  Some practitioners of (U-Th/He) Chronometry, in their unpublished comments about our work, have not yet understood this distinction.(RATE Book II, p. 94)

Apparently he is pioneering Helium Diffusion Dating.  Others were apparently beginning to do (or had been doing for some time ... not sure) (U-Th/He) Chronometry as differentiated above.

Perhaps you also should have answered the question.  Oops, forgot, that would expose your ignorance.

'...where did [Humpheys find a "usual practice among helium/zircon researchers"?'

Date: 2006/06/15 12:01:35, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 15 2006,11:27)

HUMPHREYS COMPARES THE HARDNESS OF VARIOUS MINERALS ONLY TO SHOW THAT PRESSURE HAS LITTLE EFFECT ON DIFFUSIVITIES OF OTHER HARD MATERIALS.

Yet he never establishes a connection between hardness and diffusivity.  Why is that? Because, as has been pointed out many times, hardness does not correlaate with diffusivity.  Humphreys is presenting a red herring.
Quote
But the real beauty of the experiment is that is soundly refutes the supposed 1.5 GY scenario.

The real beauty (if there is any) of the experiment is that, if (and that's a big if) it can be replicated in other studies and on other zircons, RATE may have come up with an interesting anomaly.  It's far from refuting anything.  "We don't know yet" is, albeit unsatisfying, is a scientific explanation that's way up on the list of explanations compared to your and Humphreys' "it's magic".

Date: 2006/06/15 12:45:45, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (ericmurphy @ June 15 2006,17:08)
Dave, if you have no way of knowing from He studies alone how old Humphreys' zircons are, and you don't, then how can those zircons possibly refute anything about the age of those zircons, let alone the age of the earth itself?

Well, to be fair, as far as we know if we knew all the relevant properties as functions of the relevant variables and if we knew the values of those variables during the "lifetime" of the zircons then we could calculate the age of the zircons from helium diffusion alone.  However, it's essentially certain that the aamount of helium left today is not a single-valued function of age; there are many different ages which (when combined with other environmental scenarios) would result in the same amount of helium present today.  So we do need more information than measurements of helium amounts, but I think everyone acknowledges that.

The argument is over whether or not Humphreys' assertions and arm-waving are sufficient evidence for knowing all the relevant values and discarding hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of independently obtained and cross-correlated and consistent evidence.  I don't think so.
Quote
How many times do we have to repeat the same thing over and over? I'm going to guess and say we could repeat it infinitely many times, and you still wouldn't get it.

Yup, I agree.

Date: 2006/06/16 02:22:03, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 16 2006,01:49)
Ehere in the 9 he11s did he get the idea that water would significantly modify radioactive decay rates in retained isotopes?

Humphreys didn't claim that water had any effect on decay rates.  He explicitly claimed it's magic.  I posted the relevant quotes a few pages ago in this thread, but I don't have time right now to dig them up again or figure out which page they're on.

Date: 2006/06/16 02:46:04, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 16 2006,06:23)
I have a simple solution to his dilemma:  become a YEC.

Or, for the same calming effect with less impact on the intellect, get a lobotomy.

Date: 2006/06/16 06:48:32, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 16 2006,10:02)
What's going on??!!

The simple answer is that, in these cases, the 14C/12C ratio has nothing to do with the age of the specimens.

RATE is making the unwarranted assumption that the 14C is derived from a source that was in equilibrium with the atmosphere when that carbon was last "trapped", and therefore has age significance.  We know there are other sources of 14C than the atmosphere.  The only issues are whether or not we know all of them and which one contributes in what proportion to each particular case.
 
Quote
 
Quote
Yet he never establishes a connection between hardness and diffusivity.  Why is that? Because, as has been pointed out many times, hardness does not correlaate with diffusivity.  Humphreys is presenting a red herring.
No. It is because this is irrelevant.  Henke objects to vacuum testing.  Humphreys responds by showing that vacuum testing is legitimate because it has very little effect on diffusivity in hard materials.

Yet Humphreys has not established that hardness is an appropriate parameter, and the evidence indicates that it is not.  IOW, hardness is irelevant.  Crystal structure, charge distribution, microcracking, dislocation density, ... are significant, but hardness is not.  IOW, hardness does not correlate with the effect of pressure on diffusion  and Humphreys has presented a red heering.

 
Quote
 
Quote
The real beauty (if there is any) of the experiment is that, if (and that's a big if) it can be replicated in other studies and on other zircons, RATE may have come up with an interesting anomaly.
But of course, very few will be motivated to do similar experiments other than the RATE team because most scientists don't want their idea of long ages dislodged.

Well, one could certainly argue over the reason that other labs will be motivated to do similar experiments, but they certainly won't be motivated as things stand now.  If RATE does a lot more experiments on a lot more zircons, especially those with a simpler history, and does more basic research on the assumptions they've made and come up with better justifications, then maybe they can get the attention of mainstream researchers. My bet is that they'll act just as they and other YEC "researchers" have in the past; they've come up with a nice story and fooled the choir, and no further work will be done.

 
Quote
Quote
The argument is over whether or not Humphreys' assertions and arm-waving are sufficient evidence for knowing all the relevant values and discarding hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of independently obtained and cross-correlated and consistent evidence.  I don't think so.
I agree that this one experiment should not by itself throw out long age dating.  But there are 2 other very good RATE experiments which I have not discussed which add to the case for a young earth.  What the RATE Group is really saying is 'Look, guys.  Long age theory has problems.  Here's 3 (or more) big problems.  Let's do more research in these areas.'  Then of course, you have many, many other non-radiometric indicators of a young earth (which the RATE project doesn't even address) and which I have only just barely touched upon.

I'm familiar with most of the RATE research, and I bet I'm very familiar with your non-radiometric young-Earth "evidence" (in fact, I bet I'm far more familiarr with it than you are).  The helium in zircons thing might be an interesting anomaly but is, so far, very far from being evidence for a young Earth. 14C in coal and diamonds is flat-out not evidence for a young Earth. Polonium halos ditto.  A very few, statistically insignificant,  erroneous or anomolous K-Ar measurements are not ipso facto evidence for a young Earth or problems with radiometric dating, especially when the studies are performed by people with a known history of fraud in this area.  The non-radiometric "evidence" for a young Earth is 100% bovine excrement.

Date: 2006/06/16 06:57:04, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 16 2006,11:19)
  The truth is if you would actually study this experiment, that they picked this because it had already been drilled.  Did you not read that it was drilled in the 1970s in search of geothermal energy?

Gentry was just astute enough to notice that there was a lot of Helium in these zircons, so they got the idea to test the duffusion.

Why don't you do a literature to see if zircons in other locations have a lot of retained Helium?

Not enough of a reason, Davie-poo. There are lots of rock samples available that could be tested. They picked samples from an area with a complex thermal history and known high helium concentrations in the zircons.  If they wanted to establish a valid dating method, they'd use lots of zircons from lots of different areas and lots of different mainstream ages.  We'll see if they do that; bet they don't.

Date: 2006/06/16 07:29:49, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (jeannot @ June 16 2006,11:47)
About 14C...
I'm note an expert, but you can't use 14C to date fossils that are more than 50 ky old. ...
When the level of 14C in a sample becomes close to zero, it just can't be measured with accuracy. The smallest error in the measure, or contamination, can completely alter the results. If one measures 0.00000000001% of 14C were one were supposed to detect 0, the error is indeed infinite. This is just obvious, but AIG takes this as an argument that the Earth is 6000 years old. They're pathetic.

The exact point at which radiocarbon dating (with today's extremely sensitive equipment) becomes unreliable is arguable; some would say 60K years, some would say noticably less.  But your accusation of the amounts being measured being too near the detection threshold or resolution limt of the equipment is incorrect.  There are levels of 14C in fossil fuels (and, I have no reason to doubt, in diamonds) that are not attributable to measurement errors or post-sample-selection-contamination.  From MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL:

 
Quote
The background standard of this AMS laboratory is CO2 from purified natural gas that provides their background level of 0.077±0.005 pmc. This same laboratory obtains values of 0.076±0.009 pmc and 0.071±0.009 pmc, respectively, for Carrara Marble (IAEA Standard Radiocarbon Reference Material C1) and optical-grade calcite from Island spar. They claim this is one of the lowest background levels quoted among AMS labs, and they attribute this low background to their special graphitization technique. They emphasize backgrounds this low cannot be realized with any statistical significance through only one or two measurements, but many measurements are required to obtain a robust determination.

....

The laboratory has carefully studied the sources of error within its AMS hardware, and regular tests are performed to ensure these remain small. According to these studies, errors in the spectrometer are very low and usually below the detection limit since the spectrometer is energy dispersive and identifies the ion species by energy loss. The detector electronic noise, the mass spectrometric inferences (the E/q and mE/q2 ambiguities), and the cross contamination all contribute less than 0.0004 pmc to the background. Ion source contamination as a result of previous samples (ion source memory) is a finite contribution because 50-80% of all sputtered carbon atoms are not extracted as carbon ions and are therefore dumped into the ion source region. To limit this ion source memory effect, the ion source is cleaned every two weeks and critical parts are thrown away. This keeps the ion source contamination at approximately 0.0025 pmc for the duration of a two-week run. Regular spot checks of these contributions are performed with a zone-refined, reactor-grade graphite sample (measuring 14C/12C ratios) and blank aluminum target pellets (measuring 14C only).

The laboratory claims most of their quoted system background arises from sample processing. This processing involves combustion (or hydrolysis in the case of carbonate samples), acetylene synthesis, and graphitization. Yet careful and repeated analysis of their methods over more than fifteen years have convinced them that very little contamination is associated with the combustion or hydrolysis procedures and almost none with their electrical dissociation graphitization process. By elimination they conclude that the acetylene synthesis must contribute almost all of the system background. But they can provide little tangible evidence it actually does. Our assessment from the information we have is that the system background arises primarily from 14C intrinsic to the background standards themselves. The values we report in Table 2 and Figure 3 nevertheless include the subtraction of the laboratory&#8217;s standard background. In any case, the measured 14C/C values are notably above
their background value.

And, from Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits:
Quote
It turns out that the origin and concentration of 14C in fossil fuels is important to the physics community because of its relevance for detection of solar neutrinos. Apparently one of the new neutrino detectors, the Borexino detector in Italy, works by detecting tiny flashes of visible light produced by neutrinos passing through a huge subterranean vat of "scintillation fluid". Scintillation fluid is made from fossil fuels such as methane or oil (plus some other ingredients), and it sparkles when struck by beta particles or certain other events such as neutrinos. The Borexino detector has 800 tons of scintillant. However, if there are any native beta emitters in the fluid itself, that natural radioactive decay will also produce scintillant flashes. ... So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating

So the stuff really is there.  But what's the source?  If all or almost all the 14C came from the atmosphere at the time the sample formed, then that sample is somewhat less than 60K years old.  But there are other known sources of 14C, such as groundwater-carried contamination and in-situ formation of 14C from 14N by high-energy particles from nearby radioactive decay.  The latter is discussed further at Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits, and both diamonds and fossil fuels contain 14N.  Humphreys dismisses the former source as "impossible"; I recall seeing him claim that it's impossible because diamond is such a hard material (I can't locate the source right now) but that's crap; dislocations and microcracks offer opportunities for just such contamination, and (as in the helium studies) we're talking about microscopic amounts of 14C.

So, as I pointed out in a slightly previous message, the creationist error lies in assuming the source of the 14C.  If you want to date samples with 14C, you need to have good reason to believe that all or almost all of the 14C came from the atmosphere when the sample formed.  Of course, that's a slam-dunk in obviously-organic well-"sealed" samples that measure as 30K years or less.

Date: 2006/06/16 07:38:10, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 16 2006,12:02)
 
Quote
RATE is making the unwarranted assumption that the 14C is derived from a source that was in equilibrium with the atmosphere when that carbon was last "trapped", and therefore has age significance.  We know there are other sources of 14C than the atmosphere.  The only issues are whether or not we know all of them and which one contributes in what proportion to each particular case.
Oh I see.  So now you get to accuse YECs of making unwarranted assumptions.  The difference is, I can defend RATE's assumptions.

Ok, then do so.  Let's see your defence of RATE's assumptions that the 14C has age significance.  Why did they ignore in-situ formation due to nearby radiation sources?  Why did they ignore the possibility of  groundwater contamination?
Quote
 I don't think you can defend your assumptions about radio-metric dating (when we get to that, and we will).

This is an area of my expertise, Davie-poo. I've been challenging creationist loons, some better informed than you, for years.  I saw your standard and erroneous parroting of the "assumptions" behind radiometric dating a few pages back; you don't know what you're talking about, and you don't stand a chance.
Quote
As for defending the RATE assumptions, you can't say we have not accounted for 'background 14C', because we have.  The numbers given already have that subtracted out by the lab.

And you should note that I didn't say RATE did not account for background.  I did say that they have not accounted for other known possibilities for the source of the 14C. 
Quote

Table, 2   page 22, Gold Butte data, column 5, bottom entry.

How much would they have found at 2000m or 1000m?  Am I doing my 'maths' right?  Did I overlook something here?

I haven't seen any of your maths.  Let's see your calculations of the age of the zircons.

Date: 2006/06/16 10:05:29, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 16 2006,14:51)
Now, JonF ... how can you say 'Oh, we can date this cave painting reliably or whatever, but we cannot date this coal reliably.'  Why is the coal subject to 'radioactive contamination' or whatever, and the cave painting is not?  They got many samples from widely varying loacales and depths.  It seems that if you always go about saying 'Oh, that's contaminated but this is not, how can anything be reliably dated by C14?'

I already explicitly answered your question, Davie-poo.  Go back and read my posts for comprehension.

Thinkk "cross-checking" and what level of contamination is required to change the calcluated date of a sample of, say, 30K years age.  Remember exponentials, Davie-wavey?

Date: 2006/06/17 02:28:55, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,07:14)
 But you could give a breeder a billion years and he could not breed a jellyfish from a bacterium.  Or a human from an ape.  Or a bird from a dinosaur.  Sorry!

Let's see your evidence and/or calculations.

You ain't got any.

Your inability to comprehend reality is not evidence.

Date: 2006/06/17 06:50:54, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,10:23)
[qquote]Interesting, isn't it, Eric, why C14 dating "doesn't work" on coal or diamonds.  There is no reason why it should not.

Yes, Davie-wavie, there is a reason why it should not.  It's the same reason C14 dating doesn't work on marine organisms; the C14 in the samples is not derived from the atmosphere or a source in equilibrium with the atmosphere when the sample formed.
   
Quote
There's plenty of measurable C14 there, 10X and 5X the AMS threshhold.

A necessary but not sufficient condition.
 
Quote
 
Quote
I already explicitly answered your question, Davie-poo.  Go back and read my posts for comprehension.
No you didn't.  You dodged it.  You have not answered my question of 'On what basis do you reject C14 dating of coal and diamonds, but you accept it for dating wooden artifacts and cave paintings?'  An answer of 'Well, everyone knows you can't date coal and diamonds with C14' won't do.

I never provided an answer anywhere near "everyone knows you can't date coal and diamonds with C14", and I did answer your question, but I suppose you're just too stupid to see what's in front of your face.

There are several sources of C14.  When we have good reason to believe that the overwhelmingly major source of C14 in a sample is the atmosphere at the time the sample was formed, that sample can be dated by the C14 method.  If dating by the C14 method agrees with other methods, so much the better. A same that has far too much C14 for it to be the result of in-situ formation due to radiation (there'd have to be enough radiation around to make us all sick), that on inspection shows to have been well-protected against groundwater-borne contamination, is valid.  A sample that has very little C14 and is not likely to have derived that C14 from the atmosphere is not valid.
   
Quote
   
Quote
Think "cross-checking" and what level of contamination is required to change the calculated date of a sample of, say, 30K years age.  Remember exponentials, Davie-wavey?
I think you are trying to say it doesn't take much.

Nope, wrong again.  It takes a lot.  Lots and lots more than we find in the coal and diamonds. You can't even understand your own numbers.

And you forgot to think about cross-correlations.  Corals, tree-rings, ice-cores, varves (me hearties! ), ... all demonstrate the validity of the method.
   
Quote
But I think you are mistaken.  Takes quite a bit, there Johnny-wonny. Going from 50k to 20k is .24% to almost 9%.  Here's the formula for you, Jonny-wonny.  It's logarithms, not exponentials, Jonny-wonny.  Remember logarithms?  A = [ ln (pMC) / (-0.693) ] x 5730  Your MIT arrogance is blinding you and now you are confusing logarithms with exponentials.

Logarithms and exponentials are two sides of the same coin, Davie-poo.  I know the numbers, and I know that 9% is 37 times larger than 0.24%.  Your own numbers are telling you that the amount of contamination that makes a contaminated diamond appear to be 50K years old is totally insignificant if it appears in an organic sample that was in equilibrium with the atmosphere 20K years ago; therefore the contamination won't affect the result significantly and dating the 20K year old sample gives the corect result. That's the power of exponentials and the reason why minuscule amounts of C14 in coal and diamonds is not a problem for the entire field of C14 dating.
 
Quote
And my C14 dates correlate extremely well with many other lines of evidence, 14 of them listed right here.

The only C14 dates you have presented are on the order of 60K years, which is far more than 10,000 years and does not correalte at all with the fantasies at AIG. 
 
Quote
* You have no explanation for why there is so much C14 in coal and diamonds.  These should be C14 'dead' according to mainstream science.  JonF's assertion of contamination is bogus because then you would have to throw out the whole method for wood artifacts, cave paintings, etc.

Wrong as usual, Davie-poo. The contamination is significant only for items that "date" to 50-60K years, and even then it's not always significant.  Because of the power of exponentials, younger dates are not affected.
 
Quote
My head just spins at some of the blindness on this thread!

Well, try opening your eyes to reality.  Nobody here but you is blind.

Date: 2006/06/17 07:05:57, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,11:22)
Eric...    
Quote
By the way, Dave. I probably shouldn't assume this: do you really understand the difference between 4,500 years and 3 billion years?
Yes.  And 3 billion years is not anywhere near enough to make a jellyfish from a bacteria (your example).  3 billion X 3 billion X 3 billion isn't enough.  New information simply does not arise by chance, Eric.

A common, and long-dubunked, loon claim.

Quote
Eric...    
Quote
There's not enough C14 left after 10 half-lives to stand out from background contamination! How much clearer can you get? As an electrical engineer, do you understand what signal-to-noise ratios are?
And you keep closing your eyes to the fact that there is MUCH more C14 in coal over and above the 'background C14' ... there is 0.24 pMC Eric.  The 'background C14' is 0.077 pMC.

You guys are talking about different meanings of "background", and Eric's is the more relevant meaning. The 0.077 pMC is the portion of the background noise that is due to inherent limitations in the lab's measuring equipment.  Eric's speaking of the total background noise relative to the signal (which signal is the atmospherically-derived C14 if there is any).  The 0.077 pMC is only a part of the overall background noise, which is due to equipment limitations, possibly groundwater contamination, possibly in-situ formation, possibly something else.
Quote
Well guess what.  The coal comes out to 50,000 using YOUR assumptions of C14 concentration.

Nope.  You need your assumption that the C14 is derived from the atmosphere.  Using our "assumptions", the age comes out to be un-measurable.
Quote
The problem is that if you go with contamination, you have to throw the whole dating method in the trash, because ANY sample could have contamination.  You cannot have it both ways.

Yup, any sample could have contamination; that's why we cross-check and look for possible contamiantion sources. The correlations with other methods and observations wouldn't come out as they do if we're just measuring contamination.  And, due to the power of exponentials, there's no way to get enough contamination into samples 30K years old and younger to mess up the results.

Date: 2006/06/17 07:54:22, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,12:42)
JonF...
Quote
Nope.  You need your assumption that the C14 is derived from the atmosphere.  Using our "assumptions", the age comes out to be un-measurable.
This one is going to be very easy, JonF.

As always, you ignore the evidence that sinks your fantasies. It's always easy to do that, Davie-poo.

Date: 2006/06/18 02:20:39, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 18 2006,06:54)
5) Aftershave and Eric are scratching their heads about how coal and diamonds could possibly have C14, and all they can say is "Well, we don't know where it came from, but look at tree rings, look at varves, look at these other things ..."

The Big Lie is especailly inappropriate today, Davesicle.

Date: 2006/06/18 05:21:21, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 18 2006,07:43)
 Multiple other lines of evidence are literally screaming out that the earth is young.  Here are some of them ...[/i]

All PRATTs, Dave-o-rama-and all debunked already several pages ago in this thread.  See also Index to Creationist Claims

Quote
So our next topic will be ...

EVOLUTIONISTS BELOVED RADIOMETRIC DATING IS UNRELIABLE

Subtitle:  The RATE Group is honest enough to show you that radiometric dating discordance is the rule, not the exception.  



Wow!  Look at that!  Lot's of discordance!

Er, no, Davie-ol'-dork, that's not a lot of discordance; it's an infinitesimal number of discordant dates obtained by people with a known history of fraud in this area.  Even if the results are correct (establishing which would take a lot more data than you have posted here, see below), it doesn't support "radiometric dating discordance is the rule, not the exception".

Quote
This table, of course, is from the 2nd RATE book and the team took samples from all over the place and had them tested in a leading lab (non-Creo, mind you).

Of course; there aren't any creationist labs.  There also aren't any honest creationist geologists.  We need third-party analyses of the sample selection and collection methods, location specifications, minerology and microscopic analyses, and the raw dating lab data.  Just a table like that, from a pack of known and proven liars, is meaningless.

I note that they did whole-rock analyses of samples from Mt. Ngauruhoe, which is automatically invalid unless they did a heroic job of separating the xenoliths
Quote
(Extra credit:  Is there a pattern to the discordance?

Yes.
Quote
What might this indicate?)

Fraud.

Date: 2006/06/19 01:45:16, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 18 2006,22:00)
I answer Occam's questions that are relevant.  But he's trying to get me off on tree rings and varves and God knows what.  I am somewhat flexible in my outline, but I cannot just go for every rabbit trail.

Occam's questions and postings (some of which I posted also) are directly relevant to the validity of C14 dating. You have ignored then because you have no answer.

 
Quote
I am not aware of how I ignored Eric on C14 and diamonds.  I think I have answered everything that is on topic and relevant.  JonF had the most salient points so I concentrated on him.

You have not even acknowledged the existence of the issues that are on-topic and relevant; the correlations between C14 dating and other independent methods; the formation of C14 in-situ by neutron capture; and the transport of C14 by groundwater.

{ABE} Oh, and you lied when you claimed Eric had not provided an explanation for the C14 contamination.

Date: 2006/06/19 02:29:05, Link
Author: JonF
[quote=ericmurphy]You know, Dave, you really need to do better than just cutting and pasting an entire webpage from AiG. It's not like we haven't seen these same, wearisome "arguments" presented a million times before, and seen them shot down as flaming ruins a million time as well. Fortunately, since all the hard (well, not hard, but time-consuming) work of refuting them has already done, I don't have to do much work either.[/quote]
Nicely done.  Dave'll ignore it.  A few comments:
Quote
Quote (afdave @ ]6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.[/quote)


Response:

             
Quote

The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history...

This does not acknowledge that Humphreys has a somewhat different model than Barnes. Creationists have made much of the claim that Humphreys' model "predicted" the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before they were measured. Humphrey's model is discussed at On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field, about 3/4 of the way down, under the heading "Current Creationist Status".  Humphreys' prediction is not very impressive.
Quote
[quote=afdave]7. Many strata are too tightly bent.

Response: I don't even need to do any research to rebut this argument, Dave. I heard the rebuttal on a tourist train ride in Campe Verde, AZ. The strata in question were deeply buried, where the temperature is much higher, and subsequently the strata in question were much more ductile than they are at the surface. Deeply buried rock at high temperatures bents much further without fracturing than cooler rock at the surface. Color me unimpressed.

I might add that hydorostatic compression (technically, equal diagonal terms in the stress matrix) are also key to the folding.
Quote
[quote=afdave]8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20

Of course, DNA experts have not insisted "that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years".  In re mitochondrial Eve:

Quote
1. The claim is founded primarily on the work of Parsons et al. (1997), who found that the substitution rate was about 25 times higher in the mitochondria control region, which is less than 7% of the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA). Revised studies of all of the mtDNA find that the control region varies greatly in substitution rates in different populations, but that the rest of the mtDNA shows no such variation (Ingman et al. 2000). Using mtDNA excluding the control region, they placed the age of the most recent common mitochondrial ancestor at 171,500 +/- 50,000 years ago.

Gibbons (1998) refers to mutations that cause heteroplasmy (inheritance of two or more mtDNA sequences). This does not apply to mitochondrial Eve research, which is based only on substitution mutation rates.

2. A study similar to the mtEve research was done on a region of the X chromosome which does not recombine with the smaller Y chromosome; it placed the most recent common ancestor 535,000 +/- 119,000 years ago (Kaessmann et al. 1999). Since the population size of X chromosomes is effectively three times larger than mitochondria (two X chromosomes from women and one from men can get inherited), the most recent common ancestor should be about three times older than that of the Mitochondrial Eve, and it is.

Links:
MacAndrew, Alec. n.d. Misconceptions around Mitochondrial Eve. http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitocho....e> id='postcolor'>

Date: 2006/06/19 02:29:21, Link
Author: JonF
OK, this stupid system will not preview or post my next reply, as a standalone message or an edit to an existing message, so I'lkl just jave to post it unformatted

ericmurphy: "You know, Dave, you really need to do better than just cutting and pasting an entire webpage from AiG. It's not like we haven't seen these same, wearisome "arguments" presented a million times before, and seen them shot down as flaming ruins a million time as well. Fortunately, since all the hard (well, not hard, but time-consuming) work of refuting them has already done, I don't have to do much work either."

Nicely done.  Dave'll ignore it.  A few comments:

"6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast."

"The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history.  ..."

This does not acknowledge that Humphreys has a somewhat different model than Barnes. Creationists have made much of the claim that Humphreys' model "predicted" the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune before they were measured. Humphrey's model is discussed at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html , about 3/4 of the way down, under the heading "Current Creationist Status":

"It is for this reason that I am not impressed by Humphreys' confidence in his theory's ability to predict the magnetic dipole moments for Uranus and Neptune, before the Voyager spacecraft observed them. Humphreys' predictions for Uranus {20, page 146} and Neptune {20, page 147} both state that the dipole strength should be "on the order of 10^24 J/T". He connects these predictions to his theory by selecting a value for k = 0.25 in both cases, computing a dipole strength at creation, and then estimating a characteristic decay time assuming a core conductivity similar to the terrestrial planets. This brings on the estimate of 10^24 J/T, but remember that the dipole at creation is an entirely free parameter. A peek at Humphreys' table II {20, page 147} shows that the dipole for Jupiter is 1.6 × 10^27, for Saturn 4.3 × 10^25, and for Earth 7.9 × 10^22. From these values alone, with reference to no theory at all, one can immediately see that the dipole values for Uranus and Neptune must be larger that Earth's 10^22 and smaller than Saturn's 10^25, so that anything in the 10^23 to 10^24 range is an obvious guess anyway. All Humphreys has to do is come up with a dipole at creation that is about the same as Saturn's is now, and the result is going to be very nearly right. We now know the dipole values for Uranus {3.7 × 10^24 J/T} and Neptune {2.1 × 10^24 J/T}, which do indeed agree with Humphreys' order of magnitude predictions. But to hail this as a confirmation of his theory is not very rewarding. Indeed, it is my position that Humphreys' theory cannot be confirmed, since it predicts at once every possible observed field, and is therefore useless for predicting anything.

Eventually the Humphreys theory has become distinct from the Barnes theory. Humphreys decided that the evidence in support of the hypothesis that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed its polarity a number of times is too convincing, and that such reversals must have occurred. In doing so, Humphreys also rejects Barnes' idea that the Earth's field has been decaying exponentially ever since creation, and has instead postulated a more complex history for the magnetic field, built around the presumption that the field reversals happened very rapidly, taking perhaps no more than a few days to a few weeks {23, 24}. Humphreys had already postulated this idea, when he found support from a paper by Coe & Prevot in 1989 {25}, which showed evidence of a rapid change in the angle of the dipole moment of the Earth's magnetic field during the cooling time of a lava flow. Coe & Prevot have expanded on the observations and theory since then {26, 27a} (and so has Humphreys {28}), and the effect certainly appears to be real, or at least credible. Humphreys has interpreted these results as an implication that all field reversals are very rapid, and this allows him to concentrate all of them into the single year of the Genesis Flood. However, one must remember that the results reported by Coe & Prevot include only a few out of hundreds or thousands of examples of field reversal measurements. The vast majority of the known examples would have required the entire reversal to take place while the lava flows were still hotter than the Curie temperature, or worse yet, argue against rapid reversal by recording what appear to be the intermediate stages of a single reversal event. Finally, others have shown that the evident rapid reversals described by Coe & Prevot may be explained by processes not related directly to those in the Earth's core {27b}, but rather by magnetic storm effects that may become significant at the surface of the Earth during a reversal, when the dipole field is relatively weak."

"7. Many strata are too tightly bent."

"Response: I don't even need to do any research to rebut this argument, Dave. I heard the rebuttal on a tourist train ride in Campe Verde, AZ. The strata in question were deeply buried, where the temperature is much higher, and subsequently the strata in question were much more ductile than they are at the surface. Deeply buried rock at high temperatures bents much further without fracturing than cooler rock at the surface. Color me unimpressed."

I might add that hydorostatic compression (technically, equal diagonal terms in the stress matrix) are also key to the folding.

"8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts."

Of course, DNA experts have not insisted "that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years".  In re mitochondrial Eve:

"1. The claim is founded primarily on the work of Parsons et al. (1997), who found that the substitution rate was about 25 times higher in the mitochondria control region, which is less than 7% of the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA). Revised studies of all of the mtDNA find that the control region varies greatly in substitution rates in different populations, but that the rest of the mtDNA shows no such variation (Ingman et al. 2000). Using mtDNA excluding the control region, they placed the age of the most recent common mitochondrial ancestor at 171,500 +/- 50,000 years ago.

Gibbons (1998) refers to mutations that cause heteroplasmy (inheritance of two or more mtDNA sequences). This does not apply to mitochondrial Eve research, which is based only on substitution mutation rates.

2. A study similar to the mtEve research was done on a region of the X chromosome which does not recombine with the smaller Y chromosome; it placed the most recent common ancestor 535,000 +/- 119,000 years ago (Kaessmann et al. 1999). Since the population size of X chromosomes is effectively three times larger than mitochondria (two X chromosomes from women and one from men can get inherited), the most recent common ancestor should be about three times older than that of the Mitochondrial Eve, and it is. "

Date: 2006/06/19 05:28:54, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 19 2006,08:28)
if we assume similar C14 levels and we assume that] the total amount of biospheric C were, for example, 500 times that of today's world, the resulting C14/C ratio would be 1/500 of today's level, or about 0.2 pMC.

See, there's the lie.  There's no reason to assume similar C14 levels (one could even call it a "begging the question fallacy"), but there is plenty of reason to assume similar C14/C12 ratios (because the biomass would be in equilibrium with the atmosphere)  ... of course that blows their argument right out of the water. One doesn't even have to consider other relevant questions like "where did all this biomass live?"

[qiuote]They admit that this estimate is not certain, but it's a good guess, and certainly a great deal better than the Long Ager estimates simply because Long Agers don't even account for the Flood at all. [/quote]
It's a horrible guess.  There's no flood to account for.  If their scenario were corect, we'd see a step in the C14 calibration curves and results. 

Quote
Do you have any idea how much C14 is generated in situ by subsurface neutrons?  It's about 9 X 10^(-6) pMC.  Do you know how small that is?  It's 13,000 times smaller than the mean value of 0.12 pMC measured by the RATE Group in their diamond samples.  Not a factor Eric.  Probably this is why JonF did not bring this up.  He knows that the only hope for long agers is Contamination from somewhere.  But he doesn't know where from and neither do the AMS people.

Actually, Davie-wavie, I brought it up several times. And it appears to be the most likely explanation, especially for diamonds.  Post the RATE group calculations and we'll critique them.  Bet they made some assumptions as silly as the "same levels of 14C" one above.

Oh, and somebody's mixing up the units or something ... 9x10^-6 isn't pmc (percent modern carbon), it's 12C/14C.

Quote
Quote
You're the only one who doesn't have an explanation for C14.
Quite the opposite.  You don't have an explanation.  I do.

"It's magic" is not a scientific explanation.
Quote
Quote
Er, no, Davie-ol'-dork, that's not a lot of discordance; it's an infinitesimal number of discordant dates obtained by people with a known history of fraud in this area.  Even if the results are correct (establishing which would take a lot more data than you have posted here, see below), it doesn't support "radiometric dating discordance is the rule, not the exception".

Of course; there aren't any creationist labs.  There also aren't any honest creationist geologists.  We need third-party analyses of the sample selection and collection methods, location specifications, minerology and microscopic analyses, and the raw dating lab data.  Just a table like that, from a pack of known and proven liars, is meaningless.

I note that they did whole-rock analyses of samples from Mt. Ngauruhoe, which is automatically invalid unless they did a heroic job of separating the xenoliths
Quote  
(Extra credit:  Is there a pattern to the discordance? Yes. What might this indicate?) Fraud.
There is truly no hope for you. ...

AFD:  Isochron discordance is the rule, not the exception
JonF:  No it's not
AFD:  I have heard that geologists obtain many discordant results, but simply don't publish them -- they trash them with the explanation that they are an 'anomaly.'
JonF:  Nonsense.  Go prove it to me.
AFD:  Well, I'll work on it, but it will take time.  In the mean time, here's some results from the RATE Group that show the discordance.
JonF:  Yeah, well everyone knows they are Fraudsters.
AFD:  Why do you say so?  They are highly qualified scientists in their fields.  One on the team is from Los Alamos and another from Sandia.
JonF:  It's proven that they are fraudsters.
AFD:  By what?
JonF:  They say the earth is 6000 years old, for cryin' out loud.  That's fraud!  Just like you.  You're a fraud.  It's obvious!
AFD:  Oh, I see.  Thanks for showing me your cards.  We'll move on now.

Cute scenation, Davesicle, but irrelevant.  Given that you have produced an infinitesimal number of discordant results, produced by known frauds (not because they say the Earth is 6,000 years old ... that's stupidity, not fraud ... but because they have committed frauds such as dating samples from Mt. Ngauruhoe [loaded with xenoliths] without admitting the effect xenoliths have, and purposefully faking isochrons (which might even be valid in a way they didn't expect); see ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project), and these known frauds have not made the relevant information easily available as they have the zircon-helium, 14C, and halo results (are they hiding something?) ... the most parsimonious hypothesis is that the results are somehow fraudulent.  But they might not be frauds. Of course, you have ignored the fact that right or wrong, the number of results presented is several orders of magnitude too few to support a claim of common dicscordance in radiometric results.  If and when you have a few tens of thousands of discordant resuslts, then you may have something to say.
Quote
WHich means that they probably discarded about 500,000 of them which didn't agree with 'Standard Geologic Time.'

Unsupported assertion.  You think geologists have enough money to pay for all those alleged discarded tests?

Quote
He compares the EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY with other materials.

He compares the EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY with other materials USING INVALID PARAMETERS ...HARDNESS DOESN'T CORRELATE WITH EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY.
He compares the EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY with other materials USING INVALID PARAMETERS ...HARDNESS DOESN'T CORRELATE WITH EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY.
He compares the EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY with other materials USING INVALID PARAMETERS ...HARDNESS DOESN'T CORRELATE WITH EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY.
He compares the EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY with other materials USING INVALID PARAMETERS ...HARDNESS DOESN'T CORRELATE WITH EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY.
He compares the EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY with other materials USING INVALID PARAMETERS ...HARDNESS DOESN'T CORRELATE WITH EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY.

There.  Got it now?
Quote
Quote
You have not even acknowledged the existence of the issues that are on-topic and relevant; the correlations between C14 dating and other independent methods; the formation of C14 in-situ by neutron capture; and the transport of C14 by groundwater.
Show me how the RATE Group is incorrect in showing that neutron capture is infinitesimally small.  Show me some papers that study C14 transport by groundwater.  I showed you one of researchers that have absolutely no idea where the C14 came from.  Also show me why groundwater would not be a problem for other specimens dated by C14.  If you throw out my coal and diamonds, you have to throw out many of your things.

I was correct, this is your first acknowledgment of the issues, and you still havene't addressed all the relevant issues.

Show us the RATE calculations (why aren't they on the Web?  Something to hide?) and we'll comment.

I don't claim to know enough about the source of the 14C; you and the RATE group do;  you need to support your assertions and you have not yet done so.

I have already discussed why groundwater cointamination and in-situ formation are not a problem for relatively small (30K years or so) 24C ages.  Go back and read for comprehension.

Date: 2006/06/19 07:00:53, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Drew Headley @ June 19 2006,11:18)
When you say that random mutation causes the genome to lose information, it does not square with the definition of information used in the relevant fields. A mutation that results in the probability of a certain symbol increasing when its probability is less than 1/n will increase the information content of a signal. The opposite is also true

Of course, in the incredibly unlikely event that someone can get Davie to come up with his definition of information, it'll likely reduce to "that which is decreased by mutation".

There's also the rare but observed occurrence or a mutation happening, then the reverse mutation happening, leaving that portion of the genome in its original state.  If all mutations lose information, what is the information content of that portion of the genome after those two mutations?

Date: 2006/06/19 11:17:56, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (ericmurphy @ June 19 2006,13:44)
cosmologists ... know the oldest galaxies are a few hundred million years older than the universe itself is.

Erk????

Date: 2006/06/19 12:59:49, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (ericmurphy @ June 19 2006,17:17)
Any orbital specialists out there?

Not here, but Google is your friend.  From Orbits for Inner Planets of Binary Stars:
Quote
This was started by the question on sci.astro, is it possible for a planet to be in a stable figure-8 orbit around the two stars in a binary system? As near as I can tell, the answer is no. But there are some interesting orbits to be had.

Some cool traces of wacky orbits there.

Date: 2006/06/20 07:39:19, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 20 2006,08:18)
THREE MAJOR EVIDENCES FOR A YOUNG EARTH AND COUNTING

I see you've given up on the rest of the Humphreys list your posted.
 
Quote
 
Quote
See, there's the lie.  There's no reason to assume similar C14 levels (one could even call it a "begging the question fallacy"), but there is plenty of reason to assume similar C14/C12 ratios (because the biomass would be in equilibrium with the atmosphere)  ... of course that blows their argument right out of the water. One doesn't even have to consider other relevant questions like "where did all this biomass live?"
Well, you wouldn't believe me if I told you there is a very good case made for this in the RATE Book, so I won't bother telling you.  I've accomplished my goal of convincing myself that there is a good explanation.  Maybe you could buy the book!  As for your question of "where did all this biomass live" the answer is quite easy.  On the earth.  YECs think there was a large "super-continent" prior to Flood and the rest of the earth was covered with a relatively shallow sea.  We're not talking about 500X the number of land animals, here, Jonny.  Is that what you thought?  We are talking about the organisms that formed coal, oil and chalk, for example.

Well, since you don't have an argument, you lose this one.  BTW,"there's a great argument but I can't be bothered to provide it" equals "I ain't got an argument".  And 100X the biomass don't fit on the Earth no matter how the land and water are distributed.
 
Quote
 
Quote
It's a horrible guess.  There's no flood to account for.  If their scenario were corect, we'd see a step in the C14 calibration curves and results.
No.  There's no Flood.  There's only Millions and millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth  But there's no Flood!  There's only marine fossils on mountain tops, but no Flood!  Wink, wink.  That's right, JonF, no Flood!

Yup, Davie-doodles, no flood.  None of what you said is evidence for a flood.  Cripes, Leonardo da Vinci figured out in the 15th century that the marine fossils on mountains did not result from a flood!  You're a lot of centuries behind.
 
Quote
 
Quote
And it appears to be the most likely explanation, especially for diamonds.  Post the RATE group calculations and we'll critique them.  Bet they made some assumptions as silly as the "same levels of 14C" one above.  Oh, and somebody's mixing up the units or something ... 9x10^-6 isn't pmc (percent modern carbon), it's 12C/14C.
If your explanation is so likely, show me a paper that agrees with you.  No, the units are pMC.  No one talks about 12C/14C.  The relevant ratio is 14C/12C.

OK, I made a typo, I meant 14C/12C.  The burden of proof is on you, Davie-pie, you're the one who claims to know wheree the C14 is coming from.  SHow us the dccalculations that "prove" it can''t be in-situ formation.

 
Quote
 
Quote
"It's magic" is not a scientific explanation.
That's not my explanation.  My explanation is simple:  coal and diamonds were formed rapidly during the Flood.  And they still have easily detectable levels of C14 because the Flood was recent -- only about 4500 years ago.

Like I said. Magic.

 
Quote
 
Quote
Given that you have produced an infinitesimal number of discordant results, produced by known frauds (not because they say the Earth is 6,000 years old ... that's stupidity, not fraud ...
So your "truth meter" is kinda like voting?  If enough scientists "vote" for a particular explanation, you'll vote with them so you can continue to be popular and be in the "in" crowd?  So no one will ridicule you for having a novel thought?  This reveals that you are not really interested in searching for the truth, JonF.  Many great advances in science have come as a result of a small minority of non-mainstream researchers being gutsy enough to speak the truth in spite of ridicule.  Don't be a lemming!  Open your mind!  I can speak from personal experience that in many areas, it is better to think for yourself than to follow the crowd.  It was my independent thinking in spite of the naysayers that made me so successful in business that I have as much time as I want now to argue with you guys.

Not al all,  You still haven't caught on.  You've established that radiometric dating can be wrong when performed by YECs  Even if we stipulate, just for the sake of this argument, that the YEC results may be right, all you've established is that it's possible for some particular results of radiometric dating to be wrong.  Big whoop, Davie-plop, everyone knows that.  To establish that we should distrust radiometric dating, you need to establish that discordance is common.  10 discordant results is "once in a very, very, very, great while".  1,000 discordant results is "once in a very great while".  100,000 discordant resutls is "once in  a while". 500,000 discordant results is "Gee, maybe there is a problem here".

You lose again, Davie-poo. "There's a great argument but I can't be bothered to provide it" equals "I ain't got an argument".
 
Quote
 
Quote
Unsupported assertion.  You think geologists have enough money to pay for all those alleged discarded tests?
Sure.  Why would they not?  Other scientists have plenty of money to waste on other fruitless enterprises, like 'How the Immune System Evolved' and the like.

Yuh, right, Davie-doodles.  Big bucks in geology.  Donald Trump is a piker compared to an academic geologist.  Wotta maroon you are.
 
Quote
 
Quote
Show us the RATE calculations (why aren't they on the Web?  Something to hide?) and we'll comment.
They are on pp. 614-616 of the RATE II Book.  They cite about 5 studies and make a convincing case.  Why are they not on the web?  Same reason most scientific papers are not on the web.  They want you to PAY for them.  I don't feel like typing it all out for you.  Sorry!

You lose again, Davie-poo. "There's a great argument but I can't be bothered to provide it" equals "I ain't got an argument"
 
Quote
 
Quote
I have already discussed why groundwater cointamination and in-situ formation are not a problem for relatively small (30K years or so) 24C ages.  Go back and read for comprehension.
In situ is dead.  RATE demolishes it easily.  Contamination is your only chance.  But you have not given me jack squat about it.

My reply is in my reply to your silly mesage claiming that logs are different from exponentials, Davie-ol'-dork. Page 71 of the thread.  You lose again, Davie-poo. "There's a great argument but I can't be bothered to provide it" equals "I ain't got an argument
[quote]Why is it such a difficulty for you guys to imagine a star or a galaxy being formed with it's light field being in place?  A mature creation? [/q uote]
I choose not to believe in a trickster, liar God.
 
Quote
There is another theory out there as well ... have you never read "Starlight and Time?"  Go buy the book and get back to me.

Old news, Davie-doodles.  Long debunked.

Date: 2006/06/20 07:54:38, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Drew Headley @ June 20 2006,11:28)
Edit: If anybody wants to jump in and refute AFDave's, wait sorry I mean AIG's and Dr. Spetner's claims, feel free.

Of course, Spetner and Biological Information is very good including several demonstrations of information increasing by his metrics.  At The Nylon Bug Spetner admits that the "nylon bug" mutation is an increase in information, and is reduced to speculating that maybe it was not random with regard to fitness.  Discusssion at Lee Spetner, author of "Not By Chance" comments on "The Nylon Bug" on Arthur S. Lodge's website

Date: 2006/06/21 07:07:21, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 21 2006,09:05)
   
Quote
Well, since you don't have an argument, you lose this one.  BTW,"there's a great argument but I can't be bothered to provide it" equals "I ain't got an argument".  
OK, fine.  But I won't type it for you ... how about a scan?  How good are your eyes?

My eyes are reasonably good.  I see they used an world-wide average neutron flux, when it is known that the neutron flux varies widely over geography and depth, and exposure to which certainly can vary over time.  Those calculations are worthless.
 
Quote
   
Quote
And 100X the biomass don't fit on the Earth no matter how the land and water are distributed.
 Don't argue with me.  Argue with Brown, 1979; Morton, 1984; Scharpenseel and Becker-Heidmann, 1992; and Giem, 2001.  Baumgardner didn't just pull this out of thin air.  I think you are tripping over the idea of 100X the biomass on TODAY's land area.  But you are overlooking the fact that there is much evidence that the pre-Flood land area was much, much larger than it is today.  Have you never studied submarine geology?  Much of the sea floor was undoubtedly ABOVE WATER at some point in history.  Things were different before the Flood, Jon, much, much different.

There is no evidence that the exposed surface area of the Earth has ever been significantly larger than it is today.  There's lots of evidence that it's always been roughly the same while life's been around. Brown and the others did pull it out, but "thin air" is not what I'd characterize as the source. You obviously haven't studied submarine geology; the vast majority of the ocean floors are new material, extruded from oceanic ridges, that has never been above water since solidification.

But, Davie-kins, I'll be glad to listen.  Show us the calculations of the amount of exposed surface area, the density of biomass per unit area, and the reasons why assuming the same amount of C14 is reasonable before this alleged flood.
   
Quote
   
Quote
None of what you said is evidence for a flood.
Right.  And a wreckage of twisted metal with 18 wheels lodged in the middle of my living room is not evidence that a truck jumped the interstate and ran into my house!

I see all you have left is irrelevancies.
   
Quote
   
Quote
To establish that we should distrust radiometric dating, you need to establish that discordance is common.
I have satisfied myself that it is quite common.  I can't help it if you have no interest in this.  Your loss.  Go ahead and wallow in your ignorance.  It is only my responsibility to lead you to the water.  I cannot make you drink.

Yeah, but you'll obviously fall for any twaddle that appears to support your preconceptions.  You want to think that 0.00001% is "quite common", that's your right, but nobody with any breain funciuton is going to agree with you.
Quote
Eric, the Global Flood scenario is really not hard to imagine ... think about it.  God intervenes (remember the gardener analogy?) for a short time and does something to set off massive tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic action.  This causes a chain reaction which breaks up the "fountains of the deep."  This, combined with massive rainfall inundates the (then low elevation) land surface with water.  The super-continent splits apart, the sea floor begins to lower and mountain ranges are uplifted.  As this happens, water begins to run off in torrents forming the Grand Canyon and other features, much as we saw with Mt. Saint Helens in the 1980's.  But I cannot spend much time on these details now.  Soon, I will give you excerpts from "The Genesis Flood" which is really the book that has started the creationist revolution you are seeing now.  If you have never read this book I think you are in for a surprise.

It's realy hard to imagine how any life could survive that.  When you start covering such things, don't forget to calculate the amount of heat released.  And, of course, you'll show us how water runoff created the Goosenecks and the other features of the Grand Canyon that are totally unlike what we saw at Mr. St. Helens

Date: 2006/06/22 01:41:49, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Bing @ June 21 2006,17:07)
I've read some whoppers in my days, but this super-continent one of yours, it's the winner.

Walt Brown has been pushing the "catastrophic plate tectonics" bit for years; http://www.creationscience.com/ .

For some reason, nobody's calculated the heat released by inefficiency in the transport system, or the heat released by stopping the continents after they've rushed around the globe like drunken ballerinas.  That kinetic enegy's gotta go somewhere.

Waltie's calculations of the energy in the water erupting from below are especially ludicrous; an MIT ME should know better than to consider only the energy involved in releasing the compression of the (almost incompressible) water.

Some amusing calculations at A Few Silly Flaws In Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory, pointing out one of the many ways in which creationist "flood theories" cook everyone, and the fact that Waltie's erupting water would be well on its way out of the solar system by now.

Date: 2006/06/23 04:03:34, Link
Author: JonF
[quote=afdave,June 22 2006,13:53][/quote]
[
Quote
JonF...  
Quote
My eyes are reasonably good.  I see they used an world-wide average neutron flux, when it is known that the neutron flux varies widely over geography and depth, and exposure to which certainly can vary over time.  Those calculations are worthless.
They don't vary so much as to make a difference in this context JonF.  We're talking about 1/13,000 of the mean pMC value for diamond!  Show me evidence that what you say makes a difference.  I'm betting you cannot.

I'm not saying that I have evidence of it making a difference, I'm saying that your support for your claim of it not making a diference is inadequate.  I don't know where the 14C is coming from.  I do know that the `4C level in coal correlates very well with the uranium content of teh surroundings, and that means something that any hypothesis you propose is going to have tro explain. I know of some possibilities, and as I've written many times, "we don't know is a possible scientific answer and is way ahead of your "it's magic".
Quote
JonF...  
Quote
There is no evidence that the exposed surface area of the Earth has ever been significantly larger than it is today.  There's lots of evidence that it's always been roughly the same while life's been around. Brown and the others did pull it out, but "thin air" is not what I'd characterize as the source. You obviously haven't studied submarine geology;
JonF ... just one example for you ... this was known way back in 1948 when you were but a wee chap (or maybe just a thought?) ... try Francis P. Shepard: Submarine Geology, (New York, Harper's, 1948), pp. 231-233.  Talks about great submarine canyons which exist in great numbers around every continent of the world, the Hudson River Canyon being a great example.  Or how about the Head of the Geology Dept. at Michigan Univ. way back in 1959 saying "Can we as seekers of truth, shut our eyes any longer to the obvious fact that large areas of sea floor have sunk vertical distances measured in miles?"  (Kenneth Landes, "Illogical Geology," Geotimes, VOl. III, No. 6, Mar 1959. p. 19)   You really are missing out, JonF, by not reading the "Genesis Flood" by Whitcomb and Morris.  Come on.  Spend the 20 bucks.  It won't kill you.

None of those are evidence for those submarine canyons ever having been exposed to the air, nor are vertical motions evidence for such. Those canyons formed underwater ("crack" canyons are very different from erosion canyons), and those vertical motions started and finished underwater.

{ABE} I note that your references are from before plate tectonics was widely accepted or understood, and are therefore ipso facto obsolete on any questions of the motion of the Earth's surface.  We know a lot more about such motions today than we did 50-60 years ago.
Quote
JonF..  
Quote
Right.  [Referring to Evo blindness to Flood evidence] And a wreckage of twisted metal with 18 wheels lodged in the middle of my living room is not evidence that a truck jumped the interstate and ran into my house!  I see all you have left is irrelevancies.
No.  It's actually quite relevant.

Really.  Explain exactly how.
Quote
JonF...  
Quote
Yeah, but you'll obviously fall for any twaddle that appears to support your preconceptions.  You want to think that 0.00001% is "quite common", that's your right, but nobody with any breain funciuton is going to agree with you.
Galileo had a minority viewpoint too, my friend.

Yup, Davie-doodles, and they lauged at Bozo the Clown.  Being laughed at is not evidence for correctness.
Quote
OA...  
Quote
If I had never heard of the Bible but had unlimited time, money, and scientific resources to determine those ages, how would I do it?
I'd go all over the world searching for mounds that I could excavate.  This has been done in the 20th century.  Guess what they found?  The earliest written records have been found in the Mesopotamian plain and they are dated at around 5500 BC.

Wrong agIn, Davie-poo.  Look into the Chinese records.
Quote
Quote
Now we just have to figure out how a flood could (1) produce water heated to 250 degrees C in the first stage; (2) produce high concentrations of lime or carbon monoxide; (4) produce dry regions greater than 500 degrees C for the second stage; (4) transport the organic materials (100X the current biomass, right?) between superheated limed regions; (5) not boil, bake, dissolve or poison all those created kinds that didn't "need" the ark in the process (not to mention Noah and his bioboat); and (6) not superheat the very planet itself.
Now you guys are getting somewhere!  Keep asking these smart questions and you too will find the truth about the Flood!  Maybe I won't even have to explain it to you!

We asked these smart questions years ago. We answered those smart questions years ago.  We found the truth about the flood.  It didn't happen.

Date: 2006/06/24 03:16:18, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 23 2006,12:58)

JonF...    
Quote
I don't know where the 14C is coming from.  I do know that the `4C level in coal correlates very well with the uranium content of the surroundings, and that means something that any hypothesis you propose is going to have tro explain. I know of some possibilities, and as I've written many times, "we don't know is a possible scientific answer and is way ahead of your "it's magic".
Well, at least you acknowledge that you do not know where it is coming from.  Good.  I of course cannot say decisively either, but saying that maybe it came from the pre-Flood atmosphere is not appealing to magic.  It's appealing to a hypothesis which has much support from the 'millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.'  I'm sorry if you do not think that is good evidence for a Global Flood.  I do.

It's not evidence; it's speculation.  Your claim that the coal and oil formed during the flood is an ad-hoc appeal to magic (if there were any mechanism for it, we'd be using it to make coal and oil righit hnow). Your claim of 100x more biomass before the Flood is an appeal to magic. And your speculation of "coming from a pre-flood atmosphere" doesn't stand up to cursory examination.  If your claim were true, we would see steps in the calibration curves that you have refused to address. If your claim were true it wouldn't fit with your claim that radioactive decay was accelerated during the alleged flood.  You make the commmon mistake of treating science as millions of unconnected and independent facts, when in reality it's one connected whole.  Your claims are a mish-mash of physically impossible and mutually contradictory fantasies.
Quote
jonF...    
Quote
None of those are evidence for those submarine canyons ever having been exposed to the air, nor are vertical motions evidence for such. Those canyons formed underwater ("crack" canyons are very different from erosion canyons), and those vertical motions started and finished underwater.
 And your support for this idea is?

Read up on plate tectonics, Davie-poo. I notice you failed to address the problem that your quotes say nothing about more land area having been exposed to the air.
Quote
 
Quote
{ABE} I note that your references are from before plate tectonics was widely accepted or understood, and are therefore ipso facto obsolete on any questions of the motion of the Earth's surface.  We know a lot more about such motions today than we did 50-60 years ago.
Probably uniformitarians such as yourself did not understand plate tectonics well until later, but Morris and Whitcomb understood it somewhat and talked about in "The Genesis Flood" (p. 271)

Morris and Whitcomb's fantasies are physically impossible (unless you want to invoke magic), were stolen from Price without attribution, are contradicted by the evidence, and bear no resemblance to the theory of plate tectonics.
 
Quote
 
Quote
Being laughed at is not evidence for correctness.
You are correct, but NOT being laughed at is also not evidence for correctness.  Laughing or not laughing is irrelevant, but some people here seem to think that it is.  They try to say 'Dave, look how many people laugh at you and what a minority viewpoint you have.  Therefore, you are wrong.'  This is faulty reasoning and Galileo is a good example of this faulty reasoning.

Yes, but I certainly haven't claimed that your ideas are wrong because you're a laughable and gullible moron.  And I don't recall anyone else doing so in this thread or any other.  You were the one that brought up laughing at Galileo in an obvious attempt to imply that your ideas are right because we're laughing at you ... remember this?:
Quote
 
Quote
JonF...
Yeah, but you'll obviously fall for any twaddle that appears to support your preconceptions.  You want to think that 0.00001% is "quite common", that's your right, but nobody with any brain funciton is going to agree with you.

Galileo had a minority viewpoint too, my friend.

Quote
 
Quote
JonF...    Wrong again, Davie-poo.  Look into the Chinese records.

No, Jonny-poo.  China was not founded until AFTER the Tower of Babel.  Long chronology - 4000 BC or so maybe.  Short chronolgy - 2100 BC or so.

Look at those goalposts fly, Davie-doodles!  We're talking about written records and you suddenly switch the subject to founding of dynasties.  Not too bright, Davie-dido.  Your errors on this subject have already been addressed in detail by others, so I won't bother to repeat.
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Now we just have to figure out how a flood could (1) produce water heated to 250 degrees C in the first stage; (2) produce high concentrations of lime or carbon monoxide; (4) produce dry regions greater than 500 degrees C for the second stage; (4) transport the organic materials (100X the current biomass, right?) between superheated limed regions; (5) not boil, bake, dissolve or poison all those created kinds that didn't "need" the ark in the process (not to mention Noah and his bioboat); and (6) not superheat the very planet itself.

Now you guys are getting somewhere!  Keep asking these smart questions and you too will find the truth about the Flood!  Maybe I won't even have to explain it to you!
We asked these smart questions years ago. We answered those smart questions years ago.  We found the truth about the flood.  It didn't happen.

Your eyes are closed.

Nope, Davie-pootles, wide open.  But you will have to explain it to us.  In detail.  Using thermodynamics and physics and chemistry and geology.  No magic.  Show us your answers to those smart questions.

Date: 2006/06/24 03:28:28, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 23 2006,17:22)
Eric...  
Quote
Okay, Dave, put your money where your mouth is. Show me your argument that it's impossible for a bacterium to evolve into anything else.  
Show me the mechanism that prevents it. You can't, because there isn't one. Your entire argument on this point boils down to your personal incredulity.
It's theoretically possible, but the odds against it are so staggering that it is more reasonable to believe that it will not.  The burden of proof is on YOU to show that it can.

No, Davesicle, you are the one that claimed that the odss against abiogenesis are staggering. It's your claim, let's see the calculations.

Date: 2006/06/27 11:04:39, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Chris Hyland @ June 27 2006,13:07)
The point is that the Genesis flood is basically an updated version of Price's "the new geology" from 1923. I don't think that this was common knowledge when the book was first released because the mainstream Christian denominations would be less accepting of an idea that had its roots in Adventism.

It was certainly common knowledge among the "leaders" of the creationist movement.  There was a lot of un-acknowledged Velikovsky in there, too. From "The Creationists", Ronald Numbers, University of California Press, 1992, pp 198-199:
Quote
By early 1959 Morris had completed a draft of his chapters and sent them to Whitcomb for criticism. Whitcomb, still smarting from having his knuckles rapped by Morris for invoking Price and Velikovsky so much, caught Morris engaging in the same practice. "Even the references to Velikovsky should be thought through carefully, because his name. like that of G. M. Price, waves a red flag immediately before some people's eyes," advised the highly sensitized Whitcomb, who worried that his own material still contained too many allusions to Price and the Adventist tradition:
Quote
I am becoming more and more persuaded that my chapter on "Flood Geology in the Twentieth Century" will hinder rather than help our book, at least in its present form. Here is what I mean. For many people, our position would he somewhat discredited by the fact that "Price and Seventh-Day Adventism" (the title of one of the sections in that chapter) play such a prominent role in its support. My suggestion would he to supply for the book a fairly complete annotated bibliography of twentieth-century works advocating Flood-geology, without so much as a mention of the denominational affiliation of the various authors. After all, what real difference does the denominational aspect make?

Morris, who fully shared Whitcomb's concerns, suggested going even further and discarding the Pricean tag: "The very term 'Flood Geology' seems to have unpleasant connotations to many people," he wrote, "and it might be better to use such terms as 'creationist geology,' 'Biblical geology,' and the like instead, "both in order to try to avoid the S.D.A. label and also to point up the fact that we don't try to account for all the geologic data by the Flood." But the old description proved too useful to abandon completely.

Their concern about appearances prompted Whitcomb and Morris to sanitize their manuscript by deleting all but a few incidental references to Price and any mention of his Adventist connections. When Morris sent Price a copy of his chapters for comment, he self-consciously apologized for saying so little about Price's pioneering contributions to flood geology. "This of course is not because of lack of appreciation for them," he explained awkwardly, "because I still regard them as masterpieces, but rather in order to gain perhaps a better hearing by taking a somewhat fresh start on the problem." He expressed the hope that a new approach might finally stir up some interest in the subject. Price, grateful at his age for any belated recognition, gave no indication of feeling betrayed; indeed, he praised the book and its authors effusively. Some friends of Price's, however, found the slight offensive. The Old Testament scholar Oswald T. Allis (1880-1973), who as editor of the Princeton Theological Renew in the 1920s had published three of Price's articles, chided the young men for inadequately acknowledging their intellectual debts. In response to his criticism, Whitcomb grudgingly agreed to mention Price in a footnote, so long as it did not draw attention to the old man's peculiar religious beliefs.

And, from page 202:
Quote
And to replace what they were giving up, he offered "a new scheme of historical geology," true to God's revelation in both the Bible and nature. Actually, his scheme consisted of little more than Price's shelf-worn flood geology, neatly repackaged for the discerning evangelical of the 1960s. In the opening chapters of The Genesis Flood Whitcomb had answered Hamm; Morris now defended Price.

Although Morris had deleted all but a few direct references to Price, his section read like an updated version of The New Geology. in arguing for a worldwide flood that deposited most of the fossil-hearing rocks, he followed Price in discarding the principle of uniformity, in questioning the notion of multiple ice ages, and in rejecting the so-called geological column. The apparent order of the column he attributed to such factors as the early death of marine creatures, buried by sediments deposited during the first stages of the flood; the hydrodynamic selectivity of moving water, which sorted out particles of similar sizes and shapes; and the superior mobility of vertebrates, which allowed them to escape early destruction. In dismissing the mechanism of thrust faulting, he, too, appealed to Chief Mountain in Glacier National Park, where "old" Precambrian limestone rested in apparent conformity on "young" Cretaceous strata. .As authority, he cited the horticulturist Lammerts, who, after personally inspecting the mountain, came away convinced that Price was "even more right than he thought.

Date: 2006/06/28 12:57:30, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (ericmurphy @ June 28 2006,17:36)
But still no evidence of a flood, already!

On the other hand, Dave hasn't mentioned his flood in a while, so maybe, not being able to put up, he has instead shut up.

No chance of that; bet Dave can't hold himself back.  Absolutely guaranteed that he's going to claim that the "Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River" proves that the Grand Canyon could have been carved quickly.

Date: 2006/06/29 11:56:35, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ June 29 2006,13:50)
All writing, Shirley ... not just the writing in the Bible.  The Bible is one of many historical records.

So Shirley, should we put greater weight on Carbon 14 dating of the bones of a deceased person of history?  Or on the written records about that person?

The 14C dating.  Unquestionably. Much more difficult to fake or make errors in 14C dating.

Date: 2006/07/11 14:20:58, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 03 2006,07:02)
"Much study has been devoted to the subject of the mechanics of meandering rivers, since it inbolbes engineering problems of considerable importance.  In particular, extensive model tests have demonstrated that the phenomenon of meandering is associated only with non-resistant banks." [***** Did you hear that?  NON-RESISTANT BANKS *****] (Joseph F. Friedkin: [i]"A Laboratory Study of the Meanderings of Alluvial Rivers," Vicksburg, U.S. Waterways Experiment Station, Mississippi River Commission, 1945.) (Quoted in TGF, p.154)  

Bottom line here:  DEEP CUT MEANDERS = SOFT RIVER BEDS = GLOBAL FLOOD RUNOFF.  You simply don't get this type of incised meanders in solid rock eroded over millions of years.  Sorry!  Long Agers lose!

"Meanders", Davie-doodles.  Not "incised meanders".  Whiffed agin.  Deep cut meanders with steep sides = erosion of hard rock = long age.

Date: 2006/07/11 14:27:32, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 05 2006,07:15)
You asked me about incised meanders IN ROCK and I gave you a study about incised meanders IN SOFT MUD.  

Here's the deal ... I assumed (wrongly) that you guys understand that the Grand Canyon WAS SOFT MUD during the Flood Period ... silly me ... of course you don't understand that ... you don't believe the Flood happened.

OK, so let's try this again ...

1) Creationist theory says that the sedimentary layers of the Canyon were formed during the Inundation Phase of the Flood.
2) The canyons were cut during the Receding Phase of the Flood, upon breakage of natural dams and the subsequent release of large volumes of water
3) The canyons were cut very rapidly because the sediments were still soft

Nope, Davie-pie.  The walls are too steep.  Erosion of soft rock yields approximately 45 degree wals.  Erosion of hard rock yields 80-90 degree walls.  The Grand Canyon walls are 80-90 degrees.  The Grand Canyon and its meanders were not cut in soft sediments

Date: 2006/07/11 14:33:00, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 05 2006,10:17)
Quote
How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them?
I would guess it happened much the same way as the Toutle River canyon at Mt Saint Helens.

Nope, Davie-dido.  The Toutle River "canyon" never hardened, and looks nothing like the Grand Canyon.  SonClad: Here's your place for Grand Canyon talk.

Date: 2006/07/11 14:38:25, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 05 2006,10:55)
Schizophrenia ... gimme a break ...

Let me walk you through this ...

1) Lyell (a lawyer) comes up with Uniformitarianism
2) All the geologists buy into it ... God only knows why!
3) Now all the geologists are jumping the Uniformitarian ship
4) They have to come up with another paradigm, but they CANNOT BEAR THE THOUGHT of being associated with those "YEC Fundies"
5) So they come up with "Catastrophism" and "Episodicity" being very careful to make sure they say that they think there were MANY events like this, so as not to sound like Bible Thumpers.
6) Uniformitarianism has been rejected just as Creos predicted
7) What makes you think the MULTIPLE EVENTS will not also be rejected ??

This is what Creationists predict ... !!!

You have the typical erroneous creationist caricature idea of "uniformitarianism'.  From Why is uniformitarianim still taught?:

Quote
As a matter of fact, uniformitarianism as defined by Lyell is no longer practiced by geologists and other scientists and, in reality, ***not*** what is being taught in textbooks. Uniformitarianism, as defined by Lyell, consists of four principles:

1. uniformity of law

2. uniformity of process (actualism)

3. uniformity of rate (gradualism)

4. uniformity of state (steady-statism)

Darwin's theory of evolution directly contradicts Charles Lyell's principle 4. In the Tenth edition of his "Principles" in 1866, Lyell began to waver in his support of principle number 4 and by 1872, in the 11th edition of "Principles", Lyell had completely abandoned it. Thus, by 1872, Lyell had ceased to be a strict " uniformitarianist" as he originally defined it and conceded that uniformitarianism, as originally defined by all 4 principles wasn't a workable concept.

Since then, the major fight has been over whether principle number 3, "uniformity of rate" (gradualism), as a valid principle. This discussion was and continues to be muddied by many people, including geologists, who have repeatedly confuse gradualism with uniformitarianism as originally defined by Lyell and also confuse actualism with gradualism. Episodic geologic processes, such as meteorite impacts, eruptions of flood basalts, periods of rapid sea floor spreading as during the Cretaceous, and so forth have shown principle of gradualism to be invalid. In fact, the recognition of mass extinctions within the geologic record refuted the application of principle no. 3, gradualism, to evolutionary processes, even before Lyell died. Charles Darwin didn't accept uniformitarianism, as strictly defined by Lyell, because Darwin disputed both uniformity of rate (no. 3) and uniformity of state (no. 4) as it applied to evolution. At this point in time, the vast majority of geologists only accept 1.) uniformity of law and 2.) uniformity of process (actualism) out of Lyell's four original principles of uniformitarianism. Given that conventional geologists have currently abandoned half of the principles of uniformitarianism as propose by Lyell, it is unscientific to claim that conventional geologists of being dogmatic supporters of uniformitarianism as originally defined by Lyell. (A fun book on this topic to read is "Catastrophism" by Richard Huggett.)

There's more, that's well worth reading.

Date: 2006/07/16 05:46:49, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 16 2006,09:23)
I KNEW THERE HAD TO BE SOMEBODY OUT THERE WHO HAD A NICE FLOOD MODEL ...

HERE HE IS --  DR. WALT BROWN

Incredible as it may seem, Davie-diddles, Waltie Brown has less credibility than you, only 'cause he's been denying the truth for much longer.  His calculations of the temperature and velocity of the "fountains of the deep" are inexcusably and trivially fallacious, given his educational background.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resourc....003.asp
http://www.ncseweb.org/resourc....003.asp
http://www.geol.lsu.edu/Faculty....faction
http://www.shadowin.com/index.p....ru.html
http://www.kcfs.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000306;p=1
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html

Date: 2006/07/16 10:27:18, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 16 2006,11:11)
Quote
inexcusably and trivially fallacious

Hilarious!

I notice you have no substantive comment.  Walt's failure to apply the incredibly well-known thermodynamic properties of water is indeed inexcusable (nobody gets any kind of ME degree from MIT without passing thermo) and trivially fallacious.  No hilarity involved.  The calculations are at http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html.

Date: 2006/07/16 10:32:39, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (argystokes @ July 16 2006,13:07)
Whoa!  Did I read that right?  One day of continental drift?  VROOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Yup.  And no consideration of the heat released by inefficiency in the magical power source that set 'em moving, nor the heat released by the whatever magic stopped 'em.  Proof that Waltie's one of a very few dishonest morons to have walked the infinite corridor. It's incredible that he graduated.

Date: 2006/07/17 07:40:12, Link
Author: JonF
Thought I'd answer a few questions.  Not that Davie's gonna pay any attention, but others may be interested.
 
Quote (afdave @ July 16 2006,07:16)
1) First, we have Circular Reasoning ... i.e. Fossil Age = Age of Rock in the "Fossil" article, and Age of Rock = Age of Fossil in the "Paleontology" article.

This is a common canard, and is totally false.  Relative dates of many rocks were worked out from fossils and stratigraphy long before radioactivity was discovered.  The relationships discovered in that effort are still useful and used, e.g. in exploring potential new oilfields.

The discovery of radioactivity led to the ability to derive absolute dates for many formations for which we only had relative dates before, and to date many formations for which relative dates could not be derived.

The date of a formation can often be derived in two ways, radiometrically or from stratigraphy or index fossils.  These are independent determinations.  They often agree.  When they do not agree, scientists investigate until they figure out the source of the disagreement.

Much more detail at Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?.
 
Quote
2) I thought sedimentary rocks could not be dated radiometrically ... Deadman told me that this is true of the GC layers that contain fossils.  But this article says  you CAN date sedimentary layers radiometrically.  What's up with that?

Yes and no.

Most sedimentary layers cannot be dated radiometrically today, but stay tuned.  Typical sedimentary layers consist of accretions of the remains of rocks that are much older than the sedimentary formation.  If you blindly take a large chunk of sedimentary rock and date it, you are going to get an age that is pretty close to the average age of the rocks (weighted by percentage composition) that eroded to form the sediment which then lithified to form the sedimentary rock.  IOW, not a particularly useful or meaningful result.

However, advances have been made in reducing sample size (SHRIMP systems regularly sample a disk about 10 micrometers diameter and 1 micrometer thick:
) and in studying the materials that form between grains when the rock lithifies.  If we can reliably date the material that formed between grains when the rock became rock, we can date the rock.  One very promising such material is xenotime, which can be dated by U-PB concordia-discordia analysis in SHRIMP instrumentation.  See SHRIMP Uranium-Lead Dating of Diagenetic Xenotime in Siliciclastic Sedimentary Rocks (requires free subscription, or see BugMeNot).

There are other techniques of dating sedimentary rocks, such as K-Ar dating of glauconite (which forms as part ot the "cement" in some environments) and fission track dating of any of several other minerals found in the "cement" such as apatite.  These are difficult to apply to tiny samples and are constrained by some other technical issues, and are not widely used.

Date: 2006/07/18 14:48:52, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 18 2006,10:06)
JonF, OUR EXPERT FROM MIT, SPEAKS WITH AUTHORITY

JonF ...      
Quote
Nope, Davie-pie.  The walls are too steep.  Erosion of soft rock yields approximately 45 degree wals.  Erosion of hard rock yields 80-90 degree walls.  The Grand Canyon walls are 80-90 degrees.  The Grand Canyon and its meanders were not cut in soft sediments




But, JonF ... those sure look like 45 degree walls to me ...

Well, Davie-poodles, you are mistaken.  They ain't 45-degree walls.  There are some 45-degree rubble piles from the collapse of the steep eroded walls, but those are easily discerned from eroded walls.  Try this one:



Quote
There you have it folks ... the MIT Expert has spoken ...

 
Quote
[b]Erosion of SOFT ROCK yields 45 degree walls ...


The Grand Canyon has LOTS of 45 degree walls (see picture above) ...

Sorry, Davie-fiddle, the GC does not have lots of 45 degree walls.  It has some 45 degree rubble piles:





 
Quote
CONCLUSION:  The Grand Canyon was formed by erosion of SOFT SEDIMENTS

Wrong conclusion, Davie-poo. The steep walls of the GC demonstrate conclusively that it was carved from hard rock.

Date: 2006/07/18 14:53:37, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 18 2006,14:00)
DEADMAN ASKS FOR A STEEP CANYON WALL IN THE TOUTLE RIVER CANYON

Matthew 7:7 ¶ "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.



DEADMAN RECEIVES A STEEP CANYON WALL IN THE TOUTLE RIVER CANYON

Looks like about 80 degrees to me ... whaddya think??!!

(Can you guys see this picture?)

Nope.  Not even if I copy the address and past it into a new window.  Try photobucket.com.

ABE: Oh, and one steep wall wouldn't prove a lot, even if it does exist (which I doubt).  Plenty of photographs such as


establish the character of the walls of the Toutle "canyon"

Date: 2006/07/19 02:37:03, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (improvius @ July 18 2006,14:26)
If you copy and paste the source URLs of his pics into a new browser window, they should show up.

Sometimes yes, mostly no.  In my experience.

Date: 2006/07/19 02:43:33, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 18 2006,21:16)
GRAND CANYON PICTURE ANNOTATED TO DENOTE ANGLES >= 45 DEGREES

Those ain't eroded walls, Davie-darlin', they're rubble piles (AKA talus) from collapsed steep eroded walls.

The eroded walls above them and shown in the many other pictures of the GC in this thread are 80-90 degree eroded walls, not rubble piles.

Pointing to rubble piles and claming they are evidence of shallow eroded walls is stupid even for you.

Date: 2006/07/19 02:48:39, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 19 2006,05:40)
WAY MORE THAN A COUPLE METERS TALL, FAID



I see some significant layering in that picture.  Let's see a formal geological description on the formations shown and a specification of exactly where that picture was taken.  I really doubt all or even much of that is the Mt. St. Helens lahar; at best, maybe the top layer (a few meters tall) is.  Maybe none of it is

Date: 2006/07/19 07:35:13, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 19 2006,10:16)


Pretty steep canyon walls, there, Deadman ... not 90 degrees, but pretty steep ...

Nowhere near as steep as the GC walls.
Quote
Certainly steep enough to show that a volcanic, hydraulic catastrophe can produce features that look like the Grand Canyon ...

The Big Lie doesn't go over well when your audience knows more than you.  The angles of the walls are certainly so shallow as to show that their formation is in no way comparable to the Grand Canyon.  The steep walls of the GC demonstrate that it was cut through hard rock, and took hundreds of thousands of years to cut.  Your flood is, once again, a non-starter.


.

Date: 2006/07/20 10:26:49, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Glen Davidson @ July 19 2006,13:38)
We know that significant vertical walls are possible in soft sediments, at least for a short while.  This is especially true when rivers continue to undercut clay riverbanks.

So I'm not sure that verticality is the more crucial issue, even though you're not going to get the verticality of the Grand Canyon by cutting through soft sediments.  The meanders in various canyons are a better indication that the rivers started out relatively placid, only later cutting deeply into the rock.  AirFuc' Dave has never answered how the meanders got there.  Amusingly, he selectively notes all of the 45 slopes (ignoring the many near-verticals) on a photo having exactly the sorts of bends that would not be produced by raging torrents in soft sediments.

Then too, the Colorado manages to cut through a dome of rock.  How would it do this, except via relatively slow uplift of the rocks of the Grand Canyon?  Did water flow uphill during, or shortly after, the flood?

Btw, Airhead Dave, how did the river cut rapidly into the Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Canyon?  It isn't all sedimentary rocks, you know.

We need a reasonable explanation for the tilting and the unconformity below the Tapeats Sandstone Layer, as well.  How could masses of rock be laid down, tilted, eroded down to a flat surface, and then have limestones, sandstones, and shales all deposited on top?  How could the limestones and shales (clays) even precipitate out of the "flood waters"?  

When and how did the sediments harden?  How can there be footprints of animals within some of the sediments which purportedly were produced by the flood?  Where, for God's sake, did all of the huge numbers of organisms come from in the limestone layers, in the Grand Canyon, and all over the world?  Did the pre-Flood world have hundreds to thousands of times more plankton than we have today?

It should be noted as well, though, that gorges can be carved in basalt in a relatively short time.  In the channeled scabland area exist gorges that are said to have been made within a few hours, to at most a few days, in basalt, a hard volcanic rock.  It's not an explanation for the Grand Canyon cutting into the Vishnu Schist, however, since any flood on the order of the Missoula Flood coursing through the Grand Canyon would cut severely into the sides of the gorge.  The Vishnu Schist is cut like the rest of the canyon, into a V-shape.

Of course this isn't really for Aardvark Dave, since he only 'understands' what supports the Bible (well, the fundy interpretation of that work).  But I thought I'd add to the strikes against his inane claims.

Glen D

You're both right and wrong.  All those questions and more must be answered by any reasonable explanation of the formation of the GC.  But Davie's not offering a reasonable explanation of anything.  He's offering a yarn that he tells himself so he can believe that his peculiar interpretation of the Bible is all scientifickal-like.  Any such yarn obviously has to rely on ignoring 99.9% of the evidence.  That's why Davie won't even address the vitally important questons you and others have raised.

Date: 2006/07/20 10:39:49, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 20 2006,07:16)
PALOUSE RIVER CANYONS -- FORMED RAPIDLY (2 DAYS OR SO) BY THE MISSOULA FLOOD



See all those 90 degree faces, Deadman and JonF?  Am I to assume you guys didn't know about these?

I know about the channeled scablands, which look nothing like the GC, and have no meanders:

http://maps.google.com/maps?t=....26&om=1
http://googlesightseeing.com/maps?p=....k&hl=en

Sorry, Davie-darlin', the channeled scablands demonstrate what's caused by catastrophic flood runoff, and it ain't anything like the Grand Canyon

Date: 2006/07/20 11:31:08, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 20 2006,08:16)
LINK FOR PALOUSE CANYON PICS

http://users.bentonrea.com/~tinear/hike3.htm

Davie-poo, you should be looking up information rather than pretty pictures.  From THE MISSOULA FLOOD (PDF), page 6:
 
Quote
FLOOD EROSION

The geology of the flood area is usefully very simple. Lake Missoula lies primarily in Precambrian Belt Series metasedimentary rocks with minor outcrops of Mesozoic granitic rocks. Miocene Columbia River Basalt is the primary bedrock throughout the flooded area. Wisconsin Bull Lake Palouse Loess forms a 160-ft thick [50 m] blanket over the basalt [this is an ideal medium for mollisol development and grain cultivation, so the extent of loess is readily apparent as large wheat fields]. Floodwaters pouring over Palouse Loess sculpted it in places and completely removed it in others. Loess islands -- streamlined hills with upstream prows and downstream tails -- are surrounded by scablands. Much of the loessal soil was carried to the Willamette Valley south of Portland, where it created that valley's fertile farmland.

Scablands refer to those areas of denuded basalt, so named by early farmers because they lack tillable soil. Kolks were the dominant agents that eroded the scablands, so these basalt areas show extensive evidence of plucking and very little evidence of abrasion. The dark basalt contrasts strongly with the light Palouse Loess, so scablands stand out clearly on space images [Fig. 16], and the extent of anastomosing channels across the plateau demonstrates to any casual observer the full scale of the Missoula flood.

{emphasis added}

Loess is pretty soft stuff, Davie-diddles. From Wikipedia's article on loess:
 
Quote
Loess grains are angular, with little polishing or rounding, composed of crystals of quartz, feldspar, mica and other minerals. Because the grains are angular, loess will often stand in banks for many years without slumping. This soil has a characteristic called "vertical cleavage", which makes it easily excavated to form cave dwellings; this is still a popular method of making human habitations in some parts of China.

But it is also highly erodible by water or wind, and soils underlain by loess tend to be excessively drained (droughty). ...

Though in geological time loess has an incredible rate of erosion, in a more human time scale loess is very durable and resistant to maltreatment.

{emphasis added}

Date: 2006/07/20 11:35:30, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Glen Davidson @ July 20 2006,10:46)
You have made assertions, but you haven't shown how a steep v-shaped canyon could be produced in hardened sediments, soft sediments, or in the Vishnu Schist (I implied that it is igneous, but I'm pretty sure it's metamorphic--quite hard in any event) within a short period of time.

It's metamorphic.  Some interesting discussion, with some good references, at Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.

Date: 2006/07/21 06:16:56, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 21 2006,09:00)
JonF...    
Quote
I know about the channeled scablands, which look nothing like the GC, and have no meanders:

I'll take your word for it that there are no meanders in the Missoula area.  The probable explanation for this is that with the Missoula Flood, the water was flowing through already hardened sediments.

Wrong as usual, Davie-poo.

Meanders = slow flowing water

Incised meanders = slow flowing water over hundreds of thousands of years.
Quote
Remember, class ... INCISED MEANDERS = SOFT SEDIMENTS

Sorry, Davie-piddles, both fluid mechanics theiory and observations of the real world contradict your unsupported assertion. We know you want it ot be true, but reality doesn't catre.

   
Quote
FLOOD EROSION

Quote
The geology of the flood area is usefully very simple. Lake Missoula lies primarily in Precambrian Belt Series metasedimentary rocks with minor outcrops of Mesozoic granitic rocks. Miocene Columbia River Basalt is the primary bedrock throughout the flooded area. Wisconsin Bull Lake Palouse Loess forms a 160-ft thick [50 m] blanket over the basalt

True, the loess was eroded and it was 160 feet thick, but the Grand Coulee canyon is 900 feet thick.  Are you telling me it is 900 feet of loess?  I don't think so.  The Missoula Flood carved hard basalt and made vertical canyon walls.

It didn't carve much basalt.  It carved a lot of soft, unlithified sediments and left the vertical basalt walls behind.

Date: 2006/07/21 06:23:20, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 21 2006,09:35)
 I simply wanted to establish the reasonableness for a catastrophic cause of the Grand Canyon FIRST.

As usual, you failed miserably.
Quote
Now we have all these ASSERTIONS by Long Agers about how old these rocks are.  Could someone please list the METHOD of determining these ages?  Just start at the top and list the layers for me and tell me if it is dated by Index Fossils or Radiometric Dating or what ... I think Deadman said that the layers ABOVE the Great Unconformity are NOT dated radiometrically, correct?  Are ALL the layers below dated radiometrically?  Do they come out in proper order?  Are there any inversions?  Are there any gaps in dating?

Someone fill me in a little on this, please ...

You claim to be the expert.  Do your own research and tell us the results.

Date: 2006/07/21 08:13:31, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 21 2006,11:57)
JonF...  
Quote
Meanders = slow flowing water

Incised meanders = slow flowing water over hundreds of thousands of years.
Quote  
Remember, class ... INCISED MEANDERS = SOFT SEDIMENTS  

Sorry, Davie-piddles, both fluid mechanics theiory and observations of the real world contradict your unsupported assertion. We know you want it to be true, but reality doesn't care.


My "INCISED MEANDERS = SOFT SEDIMENTS" assertion is actually well supported and it didn't take anything close to hundreds of thousands of years.  Remember the study I cited a while back?

Yup, I remember that study.  It didn't support your claim.  Nor did it address the observations and fluid mechanics calculations.

Date: 2006/07/21 14:49:04, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 21 2006,14:51)
The Grand Canyon was probably carved in much the same way as the Grand Coulee Canyon.

Below is a very good explanation of how it could have happened.  Of course we cannot prove it, but it is very plausible given what we know of the Missoula Flood.

That would have produced something that looks rougly like the Channeled Scablands, not the Grand Canyon.

Date: 2006/07/22 06:08:10, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 22 2006,08:00)
IT'S TIME FOR A REVIEW

1.  Millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth ...

is excellent evidence for a Global Water Catastrophe ...    
Quote
Ager, Derek V., The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1993), 151 pp. Ager was Professor and Head of the Department of Geology and Oceanography, University College of Swansea. He had also served as president of the British Geological Association.
pp 68, 69
&#8220;Uniformitarianism triumphed because it provided a general theory that was at once logical and seemingly &#8216;scientific.&#8217; Catastrophism became a joke and no geologist would dare postulate anything that might be termed a &#8216;catastrophe&#8217; for fear of being laughed at or (in recent years) linked with a lunatic fringe of Velikovsky and Californian fundamentalists. But I would like to suggest that, in the first half of the last century, the &#8216;catastrophists&#8217; were better geologists than the &#8216;uniformitarians.&#8217;&#8221;

The entire quote is irrelevant.  You've presented no evidence supporting your claims, and you've ignored 99.999% of the available observations.

Quote
2. The Grand Canyon is screaming out 'Catastrophe!  Catastrophe!'

... yet most scientists ears are plugged.  We see similar phenomena at Mt. Saint Helens and in the canyons formed by the Great Missoula Flood.

We see wildly and obvious different phenomena at Mt. Saint Helens and in the canyons formed by the Great Missoula Flood.
Quote
In the case of the Missoula, we even have a geologist--Harlan Bretz--who, like today's catastrophists, persistently advanced his Missoula Flood Theory against all odds ... was laughed at and scorned, yet his theory won out in the end.    
Quote
The uniformitarian orthodoxy could not ignore the work of J Harlen Bretz, so a series of rebuttal papers were issued by some of the world&#8217;s foremost glacial geologists. A bitter debate among geologists occurred, spanning four decades. Bretz was the solitary champion of the flood hypothesis.

The persistence of Bretz throughout the decades of debate paid off. Geologists did begin to see that the &#8220;approved&#8221; uniformitarian agents were incapable of accounting for the size, position, and actual existence of landforms of eastern Washington. A turning point in the debate came in the 1960s, when the International Association for Quaternary Research did an extensive tour of the Channeled Scabland and Lake Missoula. In 1965, a busload of geologists sent J Harlen Bretz a telegram: &#8220;Greetings and salutations&#8230;.We are now all catastrophists.&#8221;

The entire quote is irrelevant.  You've presented no evidence supporting your claims, and you've ignored 99.999% of the available observations. Remember, they lauged at Bozo the Clown.
Quote
3. The layers in the Grand Canyon are just what one would expect from a Global Catastrophe such as that described by Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory or John Baumgardner's Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Theory.

Unsupported and oft-refuted assertion.

Date: 2006/07/23 03:15:56, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 23 2006,06:26)
Jeannot and Eric ... water came from underground and shot up into the atmosphere forming rain ... easy isn't it?

No, it's not easy, because the characteristics and properties of water are so well known. You need to explain how any life other than a few(1) thermophilic bacteria survived.  You need to calculate the thermodynamic state of the water before it "erupted" and the thermodynamic state after it landed on the Earth, and account for the incomprehensibly vast amount of heat released by the transition between the two states.

Oh, and don't forget to calculate the velocity of the water as it "erupts".  If it's over Earth's escape velocity, it's never coming back.  A Few Silly Flaws In Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory has some example calculations (using Waltie's silly version of how low the temperature of the water would be).

You can't wrap text around pictures in this forum.

--

(1)There's some speculation that most of the biomass on the Earth may be thermophilic bacteria living in thy lower crust and upper mantle.

Date: 2006/07/23 03:20:06, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (jeannot @ July 23 2006,07:03)
Quote
Jeannot and Eric ... water came from underground and shot up into the atmosphere forming rain ... easy isn't it?


Sure, so let's say 4 km of rain in 40 days, that's 40'000 mm per day, approximately 40 times a hurricane.  :O

Some people have been playing with calculations recently at How Hard Was it Raining During the Flood? Could the Ark Survive?

Date: 2006/07/23 05:07:30, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 23 2006,08:42)
Much (maybe most) of it came from directly underground.

And how fast, and how hot, and in what state did it come out, Davie-poo?  

The thermodynamics of water are well understood, and there are lots of steam table calculators on-line.  It's easy to figure out the implications of condensing a vapor canopy, or water coming from an ice canopy, or water coming from outer space, or water coming from underground.  Creationists can't handle the results without invoking magic.

Date: 2006/07/24 09:30:18, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 24 2006,13:21)
So THE FACT OF A GLOBAL FLOOD is very well established.

Nope, Davie-piddles, the fact that many (not all) cultures have flood myths (which differ wildly) does not a flood make.

Quote
Now if we postulate the pre-Flood land surface to have shallower seas and lower mountains, we can see how the total amount of water could cover the entire earth during the Inundation Phase of the Global Flood.

We don't postulate that.  You might take it as a hypothesis, but then we need a mechanism for the changes and calculations of how much energy was expended, and how much was wasted as heat, in creating the present topography.

Date: 2006/07/25 07:39:55, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 25 2006,09:56)
 
Quote
3. Everybody will cook.
No they won't ... again, did you read the book, Glenn?  This objection is handled thoroughly.

I've read the book, Davie-pie.  This objection is ignored. Note that Waltie does not account for the phase change of his supposed fountains of the deep as trhey erupt, nor does he calculate the temperature increase due to the many releases of energy that he proposes.  He doesn't even account for the kinetic energy of the water as it allegedly erupts!!

 
Quote
JonF ... you need better allies than Glenn and Joyce.

A feeble attempt to evade the issue Davie-doodoo.  Formally known as argument [ad hominem.

When Waltie's supposed fountains of the deep erupt, they would flash into steam.  Deal with it.

Oh, and if there are pillars supporting the outer surface, what mechanism forced these supposed fountains of the deep to the surface?  If the pillars support the outer surface, the water wouldn't be under pressure.

 
Quote
SevenPopes ... I'm done with Tyre ... go back about 15 pages or so.  Deadman could probably tell you the exact pages.

Ah, I see you acknowledge that the Bible is 100% wrong about Tyre, and you can't come up with any more excuses on the subject.

Date: 2006/07/26 02:48:59, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 26 2006,06:00)
BASIC ASSUMPTION - There is only one.

Can't count too good, can you?
 
Quote
The Hydroplate Theory: Key Assumption
Starting assumptions, as explained above, are always required to explain ancient, unrepeatable events. One starting assumption underlies the hydroplate theory. All else follows from that assumption and the laws of physics. Theories of past events always have some initial conditions.  Usually they are not mentioned.

Assumption: Subterranean Water.  About half the water now in the oceans

Assumption #1
 
Quote
was once in interconnected chambers

Asumption #2
 
Quote
about 10 miles below the earth's surface.

Assumption #3.
 
Quote
Excluding the extensive solid structure of these chambers, which will be called pillars

Assumption #4
 
Quote
, the subterranean water was like a thin, spherical shell,

Assumption #5
Quote
averaging about 3/4 of a mile in thickness.

Assumption #6
 
Quote
Above the subterranean water was a granite crust;

Assumption #7
 
Quote
beneath the water was a layer of basaltic rock.  [See Figure 53.]

Assumption #8
 
Quote
Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas were generally in the positions shown in Figure 51 on page 109,

Assumption #9
 
Quote
but were joined across what is now the Atlantic Ocean.

Assumption #10
 
Quote
On the preflood crust were seas, both deep and shallow,

Assumption #11
 
Quote
and mountains, generally smaller than those of today,

Assumption #12
 
Quote
but some perhaps 5,000 feet high.

Assumption #13.

All unsupported by any evidence.

And, of course, many more unsupported assumptions to come.  Don't forget, Davie-tutu, I've read the book.
 
Quote
Did I mention that this is an ASSUMPTION?

Oh, wait, did I mention that this is an ASSUMPTION?

OK, they're assumptions.  So you cannot claim that your "theory" has anything to do with reality until you provide evidence that these assumptions are true. Feel free to develop the "theory" as an intellectual exercise in following a set of assumptions to a conclusion (pay special attention to the thermodyamics of your underground water eupting), but until you provide evidence for your assumptions being true it's just a fairy tale.

Date: 2006/07/26 02:56:31, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 26 2006,06:00)
THOUGHT QUESTION:  HOW DID THESE LAYERS GET FOLDED IF YOUR LONG AGE SCENARIO IS TRUE?


Heat, pressure, and time.  Usually but not always lots of time.  Plastic deformation of solid rock is well-established and observed in the lab.  Truth In Creation Science - The Truth About Plastic Deformation  (folded rock layers).

Date: 2006/07/26 07:49:55, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 25 2006,21:41)
To make it to second base, just open your mind and start reading some Creationist literature ...

You mean "get a lobotomy and start reading some creationist literature".  Reading creationsist "literature" with an open mind leads to rejecting all of creationism's claims.  HTH.  HAND.

Date: 2006/07/26 08:00:58, Link
Author: JonF
FWIW, Henke has replied to Humphreys' reply to Henke's reply to Humpreys' reply to Henke's critique:  Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates": Appendix C: Dr. Humphreys Feels the Pressure.

Date: 2006/07/26 12:35:39, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 26 2006,16:33)
(Oh, yeah, I forgot ... the mountains took the "Disney Down Elevator" to a magical place deep underground, then took the elevator back up ... silly me ... I forgot about that)

It's called plate tectonics, Davie-dork, and there's an incredible amount of evidence for it.  We've even taken tomographic pictures of subducting plates (e.g. http://eesc.ldeo.columbia.edu/courses....7.htm).  Your inability to comprehend that evidence does not affect its validity.

Date: 2006/07/26 12:44:33, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 26 2006,17:25)
[quote]I did read your Tulane article and I read JonF's article and I found ONE KEY WORD ...

HYPOTHETICAL

(In other words ... pulled out of an ... er ... orifice)

Lyin' again, Davie-dip.  The word "hypothetical" does not appear in the article to which I linked, nor does any reasonably close cognate. The word "hypothetical" does appear in Occam's article, but not in relation to any processes; it refers to a schematic an idealized picture that maqkes complex concepts clear.  IOW, the processes that mainstream science knows form metamorphic rocks and folded rocks are not hypothetical.

Date: 2006/07/27 10:22:34, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 27 2006,11:14)
     
Quote
Obviously, rocks are folded much more than 25 percent in the real world.  That is where time, temperature, and solution come into play.  In the laboratory experiments, only pressure was measured, and that was done over a brief period of time.  In the field, obviously we have millions of years to work with, not just hours.

Abracadabradoo!  ....  MILLIONSOFYEARSIANISM !!  Never observed it myself.  No one else ever has either.  Can't figger quite how it could happen.  But I'm REAL SURE it did.  After all, I'm a real scientist!  I have to be right!!  There's thousands of other scientists who agree with me!!

Actually, as I pointed out already, we have observed it happening in the lab, and we understand very well how it happens in the wild.

How many observations of a global flood ya got, Davie-diddle!
   
Quote
   
Quote
It's called plate tectonics, Davie-dork, and there's an incredible amount of evidence for it.
Oh, so you think the "1 inch per year" movement (or whatever it is) would fold those mountains? Oh wait, next you talk about subducting plates ... so you think those mountains used to be on the bottom of the sea and got subducted, then uplifted to their present position?  Oh, yeah, right!

Yup, you got it, right, the mountains used to be on the bottom of the sea.  (BTW, Davie-pie, Leonardo da Vinci figured out in the 15th century that the marine fossils on top of mountains were not laid down by a global flood; you're still 600-ish years out of date). They may or may not have gotten subducted, depends on which mountains you're talking about, and then the observed  tectonic movements craised the mountains.

Your inability to understand the evidence doesn't affect reality, nor does your lame attempts at ridicule signify as refutation.  Oh, Davie, did you observe those sediments getting folded while they were soft?  Or is direct observation not necessary?
   
Quote
   
Quote
Yes, and it was describing 1 single figure used as an example - NOT the entire article.  God, you're dumb.
Yes, a single figure which just happened to be the very picture that would illustrate his point ... but, alas, it doesn't because it's HYPOTHETICAL, just like everything else in your Darwinian Millionsofyearsianism Religion.

Nope, that figure illustrated an ancillary point.  You obviously haven't comprehended the article.  Nor have you apologized for your lie about the article I posted.
 
Quote
I like your pretty colored picture of the Mid-Atlantic ridge with the nice, orderly ages denoted.  You say I'm afraid to investigate?  Wrong.  Let's take a look.  How did you come up with those ages?  Sorta like Incorygible came up with his ages for ape ancestors, perhaps?  Or possibly like Aftershave came up with his ages for upper strata in the Grand Canyon.

Doesn't matter, Davie-pie, what matters is your explanation for those measurements.  Feel free to interpret the data as indicating something other than age ... but you then need to come up with a coherent explanation of what the data does indicate and why, accounting for all the data.  Don't forget to include the reversed magnetic strips (Waltie's "explanation" of these is particularly a risible lie; he writes "There are no magnetic reversals on the ocean floor, and no compass would reverse direction if brought near an alleged 'reversed' band. However, as one moves across the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, magnetic intensities fluctuate, as shown in Figure 46." Of course, there are magnetic reversals:


or see, to pick one of many, Direct measurement of magnetic reversal polarity boundaries in a cross-section of oceanic crust. They are not fluctuations in intensity, and the fact that the frozen reversed magnets are not powerful enough to overcome the effect of today's magnetic field on a compass is irrelevant.)

But you're afraid to present an explanation of the data, 'cause you got nothing in the way of explanation.
   
Quote
   
Quote
Please present evidence for the existence of large underground reservoirs of water prior to the flood.
Eric, this is Brown's ASSUMPTION as I stated before.  He attempts to show that this is a reasonable assumption by showing it's explanatory power for various phenomena.  We will look at this in detail.  But I did already give you some direct evidence for the existence of this subterranean water.

No, you provided some evidence for the existence of a small amount of subteranean water today.  You provided no connection between that and the vast amount of water Brown assumes.  Hey, Davie, did you observe this water directly?  Or, perhaps, is it not necessarily for a human to observe something directly for it to be true?
   
Quote
   
Quote
How will you prove God exists?
Did you miss the first 50 or so pages of this thread?

Nope.  No proof of God anywhere in this thread, on any pages.

Date: 2006/07/27 10:51:50, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (improvius @ July 27 2006,15:30)
Just out of curiosity, if they were soft at the time, wouldn't those sediments have slumped and concentrated towards the valleys of those folds?

Maybe, maybe not.  What is typical (but not omnipresent) of soft-sediment folding is cracks on the upper surface of layers (perpendicular to the layer surfaces), often penetrating through the entire layer.  Another common morphology is wildly folded layers with undisturbed layers above and below.




Some good discussion and links (some, alas, broken) at Bent strata.

Some pictures of non-sedimentary folding: first, folded aplite dike in Cretaceous augen gneiss, Koolen gneiss dome, Chukotka Peninsula, NE Russia:



And stretched pebbles in the Raft River metamorphic core complex, Idaho:

Date: 2006/07/27 15:06:07, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 27 2006,19:35)
It's not surprising that the anti-ID crowd should be calling for direct government intervention to prop up their ideas.

ITYM "pro-ID crowd".

Date: 2006/07/28 05:44:39, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ July 27 2006,22:09)
The truth most likely is that it happened VERY QUICKLY--like weeks!.  No one can ever really know for sure how exactly ... sorry, Deadman, you cannot either ... but a likely scenario is that the strata was laid during the Inundation Phase of the Great Flood of Noah.  Then as the continents shifted the layers were folded, heated (and metamorphosed) and uplifted, all in a very short time span.  These are all very well-understood processes and this is a very plausible scenario.

Time, Davie-doodles.  Metamorphism isn't instantaneous, the reactions take time.  nad yuor claim that it's plausible is belied by all the evidence.
Quote
What is NOT a plausible scenario is that it happened very gradually--almost, ahem, imperceptibly--over millions and millions of years.

Your incredulity does not affect reality.
Quote
Oh ... and here's some folding in the Tapeats Sandstone ... what say you about that?

It's folded. We know that some formations were folded before lithification (I even posted some pictures), just as we know that most formations were folded over many many years after lithification.  I like Michael's Virgina saprolite ... how did that happen in weeks?  Details, Davie, details.

Date: 2006/07/28 05:48:25, Link
Author: JonF
Quote
I like your pretty colored picture of the Mid-Atlantic ridge with the nice, orderly ages denoted.  You say I'm afraid to investigate?  Wrong.

Still waiting for your explanation of the data, Davie-diddle.

Date: 2006/07/28 08:17:00, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Diogenes @ July 28 2006,11:57)
I came late to the party so I'm a bit confused as too the history of this thread, but why exactly are we talking about rock formations?  Let's say that dave is correct (rock formations and massive tectonic activity is possible in a matter of days, all caused by catastrophic events, most likely a flood).  Now, how do we know these events happened 4500 years ago and not 45 million years ago?  If you want to prove a young earth don't you need to start with the dating methods that show an old earth?

We've discussed that some.  Dave thinks that microscopic amounts of 14C in coal and diamonds, and some interesting but preliminary and obviously incomplete results on measurement of helium in a few zircons, disprove the whole shebang.  He's ignored 14C calibration, varves, U-Th dating, physics in general, chemistry in general, dendrochronology, SN1987A, fission-track datin, the Oklo reactor, and pulled the standard claim that the tens of thousands of concordant dates are the result of discarding hundreds of hundreds of thousands of discordant dates (and has stated explicitly that he thinks geologists would have no problem paying  for all those resutls that get discarded).

He's quite a few bricks short of a hod.

Date: 2006/07/30 13:56:03, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 28 2006,04:30)
All he has left is " the trickster"  and " the hit-and-run insult comic "  trying to be buddies with the enemy,  alternating with "righteous teacher" as he lies his ass off daily.

I think his current tactic is the "5-year-old tantrum".

"The flood is too the best explanation, and I'm going to hold my breath and beat my fists on the floor until you agree with me!"

Date: 2006/08/02 05:46:09, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (BWE @ Aug. 02 2006,08:21)
did anyone mention the magnetic reversals?

A couple of pages back I pointed out how ridiculous Walt Brown's lies about the reversals are.

Date: 2006/08/02 08:36:11, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (ericmurphy @ Aug. 02 2006,10:55)
Quote (JonF @ Aug. 02 2006,10:46)
   
Quote (BWE @ Aug. 02 2006,08:21)
did anyone mention the magnetic reversals?

A couple of pages back I pointed out how ridiculous Walt Brown's lies about the reversals are.

I might have missed it, but I read the link, Jon, and I didn't see any "explanation" at all for the magnetic reversals. Dr. Brown claims he has an explanation, but then unaccountably fails to present it. Are we just supposed to take him at his word?

I suppose that's pretty much it.

What I was referring to was his "there are no reversals" lie and his Hovind-esque "a compass wouldn't change direction" claim.  Obviously he's counting on his audience to be too stupid to realize that a large constant signal (the present magnetic field) plus a smaller signal that varies from positive to negative (the recording in the rocks of the paleomagnetic field) adds up to a varying but always positive overall signal (what's measured by the magnetomoter as it moves along the ocean floor).

Date: 2006/08/04 13:03:26, Link
Author: JonF
Hey, Davie-diddles, you neglected to explain the measurements of age and magnetic striping in the floor of the Atlantic.  Feel free to interpret the data as something other than age, but your "theory" is dead in the insufficient-for-a-global-flood water until you have a coherent explanation for all the evidence..
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 04 2006,17:43)
Interesting, isn't it?  Looks like both of the North and South American continents might have "slammed on the brakes" quite suddenly, wouldn't you say?  Possibly after a little "westward safari" originating at the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, perhaps?

Nope, Davie-poo.  The strain rate would be way too high; you'd get rubble rather than folded mountains.
Quote
Hmmmmm ...

Wasn't there some guy named Walt Brown that proposed something like this?

Oh, yes!  Something like a Hydroplate Theory, wasn't it, now?

Hydroplate fantasy.  Long debunked.  References already provided.

Date: 2006/08/04 14:25:43, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 04 2006,19:11)
JonF ...  
Quote
The strain rate would be way too high; you'd get rubble rather than folded mountains.


Oh, puleeezz!  This from JonF's Orogeny Lab at MIT no doubt.  

What's YOUR explanation for 6000(?) miles of folded mountains along the western side of BOTH Americas?  Let me guess ... it includes something about "millions and millions of years" ?  Perhaps?  What mechanism, JonF?

Puerile attempts at ridicule don't make a case, Davie-pie.

Yes, millions of years, plus plate tectonics.  Extremely low strain rates.  Well known to be required to produce the results we see.

Date: 2006/08/05 03:21:21, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 04 2006,22:15)
JonF...    
Quote
Yes, millions of years, plus plate tectonics.  Extremely low strain rates.  Well known to be required to produce the results we see.
Well known HOW?  From the famous MIT Orogeny Lab?

No, but from laboratory and field experiments and observations.
Quote
Eric, about your wood vise scenario ... the difference with mountains is that in your scenario, they would CRACK and SHATTER and GET CRUSHED, not bend.  ... You have no proposed mechanism to SOFTEN your sediments.

Heat, pressure, and time.  That's the mechanism. Observed in the lab and the field; sediments bent while soft are different from sediments bent while lithified. Lots of pictures and references supplied previously.

Date: 2006/08/05 03:43:23, Link
Author: JonF
Still afraid to discuss the magnetic stripes and dates of the Atlantic seafloor, hum, Davie-doodles?
   
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 05 2006,06:37)

1) The Mid-Ocean Ridge which appears to be a massive "rip" in the earth's surface.
2) Folded mountain ranges which extend almost the full length of North and South America -- it appears that the entire landmass took a westward ride away from the MAR and then had a very sudden stop while sediments were still soft

Consistent with hydroplate theory, with the exception of "had a very sudden stop while sediments were still soft"; the energy expended would have melted the rocks, and we don't see that; the folded rocks would appear very different, and we don't see that.  So that part is  actually evidence against your "theory". But the remainder is also consistent with plate tectonics.  Sorry, Davie-kid, evidence for hydroplate theory has to be something that is not consistent with plate tectonics.

Of course, you have ignored the erosion of the Appalachians and the fascinating recent work that has traced the products of that erosion way into the midwest; it's certain they didn't erode while they were soft!
[/quote]Massive quantities of sedimentary rock -- this indicates massive quantities of WATER, does it not? [/quote]
It does not.  Much sedimentary rock is subaerial.  And the massive quantities of sedimentary rock, separated by formations that could not form wet, and the lack of a world-wide single layer of sedimentary rock are strong evidence against hydroplate "theory", Davie-dumpling.
   
Quote
Tons of marine fossils on mountain tops indicating they used to be underwater

Consistent with plate tectonics.
   
Quote
The fact of billions of fossils all over the earth argues strongly for CATASTROPHIC burial ... not slow burial

The vast majority of the fossils argue for extremely slow burial.  Archaeopteryx has been mentioned; cf. the White Cliffs of Dover.
   
Quote
Saltwater found in deep holes in Bavaria and Russia

In miniscule quantities compared to what you need.

   
Quote
...and these are just some of the evidences I have covered

Ones I have not covered yet include plateaus, ocean trenches, frozen mammoths, limestone, salt domes, and many, many more ...

You have ignored all the details of the evidence you have presented thus far, because the details contradict your claims, and you have ignored the evidence others have posted that also contradicts your claims.

   
Quote
Quote
So in what way does that amount to "no proposed mechanism for softening those sediments?
Quite simple.  Anyone can quote a temperature and pressure requirement to form gniess, Eric.  It is quite another matter to propose a MECHANISM for how this pressure and temperature was achieved.

Subduction.  Driven by convection in the mantle. Observed.

   
Quote
And you still haven't answered the question of why there's nothing implausible about continents rushing around at hundreds of miles an hour, but it's ludicrous that they could be moving inches a year over millions of years.
Two things.  "Rushing around" is not what I say.  I say they moved away from the Mid-Ocean Ridge, then stopped rather suddenly.[quote]
And what pushed 'em in the first place, Davie-lump?  And how much kinetic energy did they have, which would be expended as heat when they stopped?  And what would that much heat do to the rocks, Davie-dork?

Date: 2006/08/06 02:50:27, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2006,20:07)
Honestly. I sat here for a few minutes trying to think of who the last gay celebrity to announce was. George Takai is the only recent one I can think of, and that was in 2005.

Lance Bass of 'N Sync, July 27, 2006.

Lance Bass: I'm gay

Date: 2006/08/06 02:56:37, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 06 2006,06:45)
HERE'S ANOTHER REALLY GOOD ONE FOR YOU TO CHEW ON DURING YOUR SUNDAY AFTERNOON SIESTA!

R. H. Rastall, &#8220;Geology,&#8221; Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 10, 1954, p. 168.
 
Quote
&#8220;It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.&#8221;

That article is wrong, Davie-poo, just as you are wrong, as has been pointed out many times already in this thread, with lots of details.  Repeating your debunked falsehoods doesn't make 'em true.  Stratigraphy and radiometric dating are independent ways of dating strata; the fact that they essentially always agree is not circularity.

Date: 2006/08/06 03:34:53, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 06 2006,06:05)
THIS IS BACK-TRACKING, BUT I COULDN'T RESIST ... I STUMBLED ON TO THIS QUOTE AND I THOUGHT JONF WOULD ESPECIALLY APPRECIATE IT BECAUSE HE SAYS THERE ARE NO INCONSISTENCIES IN RADIO-METRIC DATING

Faure, G., and J. L. Powell, Strontium Isotope Geology (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1972).
         
Quote
p 102
"It is readily apparent that these rocks [i.e., the Pahrump diabase from the Panamint Mountains in California] scatter widely on the isochron diagram. Dates ranging from 1.09 to 34 billion years could be calculated for individual specimens. Dates in excess of the age of the earth (4.6 x 109 years) are obviously not acceptable. [Obviously!  Of course!  Then our theory would be wrong!!] A possible explanation for the scatter of points on the isochron diagram is that these rocks may have been variously enriched in radiogenic 87Sr which might have been derived from the adjacent granite and gneiss during Mesozoic metamorphism. These results indicate that even total-rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age."
p 102
"All of the above conclusions regarding the suitability for dating of rocks and minerals apply only when the rocks or their minerals have not been altered by chemical weathering at or near the surface of the Earth. Because most rocks that are used for dating are usually collected from outcrops, the effects of chemical weathering on the 87Rb-87Sr decay scheme may be important."

Oh, I bet I know how this one will be explained ... "This is 35 years old, Davey-wavy!  We've fixed all those inconsistencies now, you silly boy!!"

Yeah, by "fixed" do you mean "began discarding results you don't like?"

Nice try, Davie-pie.  No, actually not a nice try.  Just pathetic.  And, of course, you're wrong about the explanation.

I never claimed that there are no inconsistencies in radiometric dating; there are a very, very few, and those inconsistencies lead to interesting science.  You haven't come up with any evidence of significant inconsistencies.  How's your inquiry to the Menlo Park dating lab (about discarded results) going?

Your first quote is part of a discussion of how robust and self-checking isochron methods are.  When a test system has been "opened" (that is, relevant isotopes have been added to or removed from the samples after solidification), it is virtually certain that this will be indicated by the lack of a straight line on the isochron diagram.  Faure and Powell illustrated this by an extreme example and discussed the reasons that might lead to such incredible discordance; but the bottom line is that the data showed conclusively, back then and now, that no valid date could be derived from those samples.  The discussion at that point was actually about how valid dates that are not the date of solidification can be sometimes be derived from open systems.  Here's the relevant isochron diagram reproduced from Dalrymple's discussion of it in 1984:



Note that the lines on the graph are not isochrons, as Woodmorappe thought; they are merely reference lines drawn to indicate how extreme the data scatter is.  It's pretty obvious that only a moron would try to draw one straight line through those data points! A diagram like that would never be taken as an age indicator by a trained geologist.  The data would be discarded as an age indicator because there are objective and obvious indications in the data that no age can be derived; the data is not discarded because of any subjective reason such as not agreeing with current theory.

As Henke writes at Woodmorappe Can't Read Rb-Sr Diagrams, including a very relevant further quote from Faure & Powell that closes their discussion of how robust and accurate isochron methods are:
   
Quote
Finally, Faure and Powell (1972, p. 102) state the following conclusions that should be important lessons to anyone that is interested in reliable radiometric dates:
   
Quote
In summary, meaningful dates can be derived from altered rocks under the following conditions: (1) if isotopic homogenization has occurred among the minerals of a rock, the mineral isochron indicates the time elapsed since re-equilibration (2) if total-rock samples remained closed systems during the re-equilibration of the minerals, the total-rock isochron gives the time elapsed since crystallization and thus the "age" of the rocks; (3) if the total rocks were open to rubidium and strontium, but the minerals were isotopically homogenized, the mineral isochron indicates the time of last closure of the minerals, but the age of the rocks cannot be determined by the Rb-Sr method.

Clearly, the Pahrump diagram fails to meet these requirements and Woodmorappe (1979, p. 122; 1999, p. 2) has no basis for slandering Rb-Sr dating by trying to derive a date from the Pahrump data.


Your second quote is pointing out a rather obvious fact, but one that should be stated in a textbook like Faure & Powell; the surfaces of weathered rocks are very likeley to have been "opened", and therefore samples should be collected from the interior.  This is standard and universal practice, and no problem for radiometric dating.

So, you lose again, Davie-gorp.  Your example clearly illustrates that isochron methods are very difficult to fool, and the obvious straight lines that appear on them are valid and true ages of the tested rocks.

Date: 2006/08/06 03:43:48, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 05 2006,21:57)
you should know me well enough by now to know that I will answer questions when I get good and ready and if it serves my purpose ...

So, you admit that you won't answer questions if the answers don't serve your purpose.  That's called ignoring the data, Davie-diddles, and is dishonest.

Like that data on dating and magnetic stripes on the Atlantic seafloor, that you're terified of 'cause it destroys your "theory".  And ocean-floor sediment thickness; thinnest near the mid-oceanic ridges, thickest at the continental boundaries, smoothly varying in between.  Waiting with bated breath for your explanation of the data, Davie-poo.

Date: 2006/08/06 04:44:13, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 06 2006,08:21)
Just for the edification of the audience, I'd like to say WHY H.S. Gladwin was published in the Anthropological Journal of Canada back in 1976.

Interesting.  I didn't know that; I suspected somethng along those general lines, but not quite so dishonest.

Would you be interested in submitting a bowdlerized version of that to the Index of Creationist Claims?

Date: 2006/08/07 02:39:27, Link
Author: JonF
No comment on my fisking of your radiometric dating quote, hum, Dabvie-pooper?

Quote (afdave @ Aug. 07 2006,05:50)

WORLD BOOK AUTHORS ARE INCOMPETENT (cough cough, especially if they make us look bad) So, I guess the History professor at Oxford that I quoted is incompetent.  And probably all those other specialists in their fields that write all those other articles are too.

Wrong.  The World Book is a simplified source for young children who are not prepared for the real complexities.  It also has some errors.  It's not a pprorpaite as a refernce for a discussion like this.
Quote
EVO-BOTS USED CIRCULAR REASONING ON DATING FOSSILS ONLY UNTIL 1993. During this landmark year, they suddenly saw the light and realized how foolish they had been looking all those years prior to 1993.  They quickly sent out an Official Evobot Memo to all encyclopedia companies (including World Book) and fixed this embarrassing problem.

Circular reasoning was never used on dating fossils.

Quote
Check the latest version of World Book at the library today and see what I find.  Let me guess ... I'll find the same thing.  What will your explanation be?  That World Book is a Creo publication?  You've already implied the authors are incompetent because it was designed for kids.

No, the authors are competent, although that particular quote appears to be a mistake.

Quote
JonF...  
Quote
That article is wrong, Davie-poo, just as you are wrong, as has been pointed out many times already in this thread, with lots of details.  Repeating your debunked falsehoods doesn't make 'em true.  Stratigraphy and radiometric dating are independent ways of dating strata; the fact that they essentially always agree is not circularity.
You say it is wrong and yet you cannot explain how the dates at the upper layers in the GC are determined.  Sorry, Jonny ... World Book is right.

Whether or not I have any idea on how some particular set of layers is dated has nothing to do with the issue.
Quote
The Mount St Helens eruption in Washington State produced eight metres (25 feet) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!

Looking nothing like varves.
Quote
And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit about a metre (3&#8211;4 feet) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field (cross-section shown on the right: normal silica sand grains are separated by darker layers of denser mineral grains like rutile).

Looking nothing like varves.
Quote
When sedimentation was studied in the laboratory, it was discovered that fine bands form automatically as the moving water transports the different sized particles sideways into position.12 Surprisingly, the thickness of each band was found to depend on the relative particle sizes rather than on the flow conditions.13 A layered rock (diatomite) was separated into its particles, and when redeposited in flowing fluid, identical layers formed.

All looking nothing like varves.
Quote
Much is often made of the Green River varves,9 in Wyoming, USA. But these bands cannot possibly be annual deposits because well-preserved fish and birds are found all through the sediments.

It is unthinkable that these dead animals could have rested on the bottom of the lake for decades, being slowly covered by sediment.

Argument from incredulity.  Logical fallacy.
Quote
Their presence indicates catastrophic burial. It is often claimed that the fish and birds remained in prime condition at the bottom of the lake because the water was highly alkaline and this preserved their carcasses.15 Yet highly alkaline water causes organic material to disintegrate, and that is why alkaline powder is used in dishwashers!

Gee, laden with references throughout, except here ... the only reference for alkaline water decomposing organic material is Cascade Detergent!  Looks as if they just made that one up.

Date: 2006/08/09 03:52:17, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Aug. 09 2006,02:21)
I cain't find no purty pitchers that show the Chinle Formation in the Grand Canyon stratigraphy but it's there DDTTD.



From Stratigraphy of Grand Canyon National Park at a USGS web site.

Date: 2006/08/09 07:47:08, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 09 2006,10:55)
BEAUTIFUL PICTURES, JONF AND DEADMAN

Er ... uh ...

How are those supposed to show me that the layers in the GC are dated correctly?

Missed that ...

Go back and read the text.  It's there.

Date: 2006/08/09 09:58:54, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 09 2006,13:58)
STILL NOTHING, GUYS

OK.  I read the text on one of the formations.

Still nothing about how they come up with 250 million years old for the Kaibab Limestone.

Ah, that wasn't the question you asked.
Quote
Now what?

Assuming you want to find out how the Kaibab limestone is dated, continue your research by reading the references cited in the extract you posted.  The following look especially promising:

McKee, E.D., 1938, The environment and history of the Toroweap and Kaibab formations of northern Arizona and southern Utah: Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication, no. 492.

Welsh, J.E., Stokes, W.L. and Wardlaw, B.R., 1979, Regional stratigraphic relationships of the Permian "Kaibab" or Black Box Dolomite of the Emery high, central Utah, IN Baars, D.L., ed., Permianland: Four Corners Geological Society Field Conference Guidebook, 9th Field Conference, Moab, UT, September 27-30, 1979, p. 143-149.

Hopkins, R. L., 1990, Kaibab Formation. In: Beus, S.S., Morales, M. (eds), Grand Canyon Geology, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 225-245.

Sorauf, J.E. and Billingsley, G.H., 1991, Members of the Toroweap and Kaibab Formations, Lower Permian, northern Arizona and southwestern Utah: The Mountain Geologist, v. 28, no. 1, p. 9-24.

Condon, Steven M, 1997, Geology of the Pennsylvanian and Permian Culter Group and Permian Kaibab Limestone in the Paradox Basin, southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado: U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin, Report: B 2000-P, pp.P1-P46.

Thompson, Kelcy Louise, 1995, Paleoecology and biostratigraphy of the Fossil Mountain Member, Kaibab Formation in northwestern Arizona: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, masters thesis, 108 p.

Date: 2006/08/09 11:45:39, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 09 2006,16:22)
What will I find if I go read those references?

I will most likely find ...

The rocks are dated by the index fossils in them and ... The fossils are dated by the rocks which contain them ... CLASSIC CIRCULARITY

Prove it.

Date: 2006/08/10 03:31:00, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 10 2006,07:55)
what gets me is that why does AFD feel the need to say/prove that the flood water was all underground 1st off and the Gawd made it erupt and flood the earth. If Gawd can do that, cant he just make the water appear from no-where instantly? Why does it have to be underground 1st off, what's the reasoning there?

He's trying to pretend that it's scientific.  Miracles remove his "hypothesis" instantly from the purview of science and plop it back into religion.  Can't be taught in science class in U.S. public schools.

Date: 2006/08/10 07:38:32, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 10 2006,10:56)
MY ASSERTION OF EVO-BOT CIRCULAR REASONING IS AS SOUND AS EVER

Well, yah  ... but what you're missing is that's not good news for you.
 
Quote
No one yet has come up with anything to show why those detailed dates on the Grand Canyon layers are valid ...

Oh, we've come up with a lot ... you've just refused to look at them, or try to understand the methods.

However, it's not our responsibility to show why those detailed dates on the Grand Canyon layers are valid.  We'll be glad to supply information that we have or can easily obtain, but the claim and the burden of proof are yours.
 
Quote
 
Quote
And besides, Dave, I don't know what you read, but I read in Deadman's post that the Coconino sandstone at Berringer's crater can be dated radiometrically. You do understand, do you not, that Coconino sandstone is going to be the same date everywhere it's found, because it was all formed at the same time, right? You aren't restricted to just the Grand Canyon to determine the ages of its various strata if you can find the same strata elsewhere.
I have not understood anyone's point with the meteor crater.  To me it looks like a meteor happened to land on some stratified rock.

Well, you've totally misunderstood.  The Kaibab and Coconino are part of those strata.

  • The lake in the crater is younger than the crater
  • The crater is younger than the formations the meteor crashed into
  • Since the Kaibab and Coconino are some of the strata in which the meteor crashed, therefore the Kaibab and Coconino are older than the lake
  • The lake dates to about 49 Mya
  • Therefore the Kaibab and Coconino are older than about 49 Mya.

 
Quote
Here's the logic flow that I see ...

Rock A contains a trilobite.  
Rock A is dated RM to 500my.  
Rock B has a trilobite.  
But Rock B cannot be dated RM.
But Rock A and B both contain trilobites.
MACRO-EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED.

Nope, wrong there Davie-diddles.  You should have written:

NO TRILOBITE HAS EVER BEEN FOUND IN A ROCK DATED AS YOUNGER THEN 500 MY, BUT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TRILOBITES HAVE BEEN FOUND IN ROCKS DATED TO 500 MY (or thereabouts)
 
Quote
Therefore, Rock B is also 500my.

Yup. When you use the correct premises, the conclusion follows.
 
Quote
So what you are doing is assuming that the appearance of a 500my RM date on Rock A really means the rock is actually that old. (a big assumption) Then you are assuming that the trilobite is also that old. (another big assumption)  Then you are assuming that all strata that contain trilobites are also that old, whether they are "RMable" or not. (another big assumption)

So you've got all these huge assumptions that everyone just assumes are OK.

As we pointed out many times, but you've ignored, nobody just assumes that these premises are OK.  (I don't like calling them assumptions precisely because of the false connotation of "un-checked").  These premises have been checked six ways from Sunday, and passed every test (the RATE group results aren't good enough yet to call that a failed test; we need lots of replication and analysis and elimination of other hypotheses).  Even now scientists are looking for new and different ways to test them
 
Quote
Macro-evolution has occurred.

True, but not a required premise here.
 
Quote
Evolution requires millions of years.

True, but not a required premise here.
 
Quote
Trilobites are dated at 500myo--had to be--look how "simple" they are.

False.  Trilobites are dated by other means; they're not particularly simple.
 
Quote
Rock B has a trilobite.
Therefore, Rock B is 500 myo.
How do you know it's that old??
Because it has a trilobite.
How do you know trilobites are that old?
Because Evolution has occured.

The last one is wrong:

  • How do you know trilobites are that old?
  • Because the rocks in which they are found consistently are dated, by a wide variety of methods and investigators, to 500 Mya.  These dating methods are based on premises and procedures which are checked, cross-checked, double-checked, and triple-checked in many interesting and clever ways.  But every test indicates the accuracy of the methods.

Date: 2006/08/10 12:50:56, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 10 2006,17:38)
Here's the deal ... the meteor thing doesn't say anything about those layers ...

It says the layers were there when the meteor hit.

 
Quote
You guys say that the layers were laid over millions of years ... then this meteor hits 49,000 years ago ... God only knows what fantasy dating method you used to get that ...

Details and references were supplied earlier in the thread.  Ignoring 'em ain't going to make 'em go away.

 
Quote
and how does this help your claim that the GC layers are 245 my old and older in that nice ordered succession?

It's one brick in a gigantic wall of interlocking and consistent bricks that make up the whole picture (to mix my metaphors)
 
Quote
It doesn't ...

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, Davie-pie.
 
Quote
So ... if no one has anything convincing, I'm moving on to another Flood topic ...

I've got lots more to say about the Flood ...

Running away again.

Waiting for your explanation of the dating of the seafloor, the sediment thickness on the seafloor, and the magnetic reversal stripes on the seafloor.  But you can't handle it, can ya, Davie-doodles?  You're terrified of adddressing the actual evidence, just like you can't handle the truth about Meteor Crater.

Date: 2006/08/10 14:14:31, Link
Author: JonF
[quote=afdave,Aug. 10 2006,18:03][/quote]
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 10 2006,18:03)
JonF ... so the layers were there when the meteor hit ... what does that prove?

It proves that the layers are older than the meteor strike.

You're awfully slow-witted, Davie-moron.
Quote
You have given me nothing on why the meteor is 49,000 years old and ...

Deadman provided a detailed description, with references, on exactly how the date was determined.  He provided a brief summary in another message.  You are lyin' again, Davie-dip.
Quote
If you did, this would not have any bearing on why the GC layers are dated as they are ...

More lies, Davie-dork.  The layers at the crater are the same layers as at the GC.  The dates of the layers at the crater are the dates of the layers at the GC.
Quote
So until someone comes up with something, I'm assuming I am correct that the layers are just dated arbitrarily ...

Just like I suspected ...

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Denying facts ain't gonna change reality, Davie-fool.
Quote
Quote
Waiting for your explanation of the dating of the seafloor, the sediment thickness on the seafloor, and the magnetic reversal stripes on the seafloor.  
Might get into this ... we'll see ...

Preparing to go back on your pledge to do so, hum, Davie-liar?  Adding another item to the list of truths that terrify you so much you can't acknowledge they exist? I understand ... addressing real data would cause your "hypothesis" to implode; you can't stand the light of truth.

Date: 2006/08/10 14:25:27, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 10 2006,18:23)
Quote
You'll notice a few things. First, the Kaibab is overlain by the Moenkopi...which extends into Utah, too. Those layers you see on the Utah stratigraphic columns USED to exist in the Grand Canyon, too. 5000 or so more feet of layers were washed away in the Grand Canyon, but not the Moenkopi...
5000 feet of layers washed away ... hmmmm ... did a dinky little river do that over millions of years?

Yup.
Quote
Or perhaps was it a Global Flood?  

Nope.
 
Quote
Quote
Now remember, the Morrison sits on top of the Chinle (radiometrically dated, remember?)
 So the Chinle is the only one dated RM?  How old supposedly?  What method?

You should at least pretend you're trying to keep, up, Davie-doodles.  Specifics were posted.

 
Quote
   
Quote
40Ar/39 Ar on sanidine in the Brushy Basin Member in Utah and Colorado yields ages of 148 to 150 million years old.
Isn't the Argon method even more wildly discordant than all the other methods?


  • No.
  • Davie-ignoramus, 40Ar/39Ar is not the same as the K-Ar method that creo-dorks love to criticise because error is more possible than in other methods (although the observed concordance with other methods shows that error is rare).  40Ar/39Ar is self-checking, like isochron methods, and often can prodce a valid date even if the system has been opened/disturbed.

Quote
I have no idea how they dated the meteor impact ...

There's no excuse for not knowing.  Read the messages.

Date: 2006/08/10 14:30:16, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 10 2006,18:47)
seriously AssHatDave, what the F%@ck is wrong with you? I had posted that before...i can post 100 different things that all tie in with the  kaibab...but you're MENTAL , meaning you have some form of mental disease that keeps you from seeing what is put in front of your face....what IS wrong with you?

I have NO reason but to conclude at this point , that given what you have done...that you are mentally ill.

He's got he worst case of Morton's Demon I've ever seen.  The combination of that, extreme ignorance, no intellectual capability, and compulsive lying gives us ... our Davie!

Date: 2006/08/11 02:32:48, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 10 2006,21:50)
 No one has told me the age of the Chinle layer (did I miss it?).

Not only did you miss it, you were told that you had missed it.
 
Quote
Are we really basing the nice dating scheme throughout the entire staircase on just TWO LAYERS which can be dated radiometrically?

No.  There's gobs more data which has not been mentioned in this thread.  First you wanterd to talk about the entier canyon, then you wanted to talk about one layer and now (when a small amount of the data on that one layer has been presented) you assume that there's nothing available on the other layers.  Pathetic and transparent goalpost-shifting, Davie-dork.
Quote
JonF...    
Quote
It proves that the layers are older than the meteor strike.

You're awfully slow-witted, Davie-moron.
Oh really?  You're kidding!!  JonF ... you must be from MIT or something.  Let me try you again ... my question is actually "what does a meteor have to do with the supposed ages of the GC layers?"

Answered immediately below.  You even quoted it.  
Quote
JonF..    
Quote
More lies, Davie-dork.  The layers at the crater are the same layers as at the GC.  The dates of the layers at the crater are the dates of the layers at the GC.
Yes. The dates of the layers at the GC = the dates of the layers at the Crater = the dates of the layers at the GC.  Very informative.

Yup, you finally got it, except you forgot one word:

Dates of the layers at the GC = the known dates of the layers at the Crater = the dates of the layers at the GC

.That's the truth. The minimum-age dates of the layers at the crater give us a minimum age for the dates of the same layers at the GC.
Quote
JonF...    
Quote
Davie-ignoramus, 40Ar/39Ar is not the same as the K-Ar method that creo-dorks love to criticise because error is more possible than in other methods (although the observed concordance with other methods shows that error is rare).  40Ar/39Ar is self-checking, like isochron methods, and often can prodce a valid date even if the system has been opened/disturbed.
Oh I see. The new improved dating method.  OK.  What do you want to bet that Evos and Creos were arguing about K-Ar back when it was hot and new.  I bet there weren't any Evos admitting K-Ar had problems then, now were there?  Probably the same situation here.

There were lots of "evos" admitting problems with K-Ar when it was first introduced; the literature was full of ppaers on the problems.  Creos, always being 50+ years behind the times, weren't heard from.  Then the "evos" got to work and solved the problems.

Yup, same situation here, except the knowledge we've gained refining other methods allowed us to solve the problems with 40Ar/39Ar much quicker, and the problem-solving phase is over. Now it's one of a large suite of tested and reliable dating tools.

Your argument from ignorance is not effective, Davie-diddles; evidence of problems is what you need.

Date: 2006/08/11 07:42:43, Link
Author: JonF
Got no response to any of the points I made, I see.
 
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 11 2006,11:46)
Incorygible ...      
Quote
So you're saying we should see a perfect linear relationship between deposition and time?  As measured by depth, with no consideration of pressure, erosion, source of the rock, etc.?  Why Davey, how stupendously UNIFORMITARIAN of you.
Not perfectly linear, but close is what one would expect

Why?  Be specific, with data.
 
Quote
Deadman has gone to a lot of work ... what did he come up with?  Here's what I glean from it ...

ONE RADIOMETRIC DATE (Yellow) ... HOW WERE ALL THE OTHER DATES DETERMINED?

Well you've gleaned wrong; a lot more than one radiometric date has been presented.  And several non-radiopmetric but absolute dates have been presented.

There are a he11 of a lot more radiometric dates that are available but have not been presented.  Going over it all would require at least a full-semester college course, if not several, and that course would have prerequisites which you obviously don't have.  And lots of reading assignments.  We can give you the flavor and the highlights, but if you want all the details, hie thee to the library and/or your local college's registrar's office.

Date: 2006/08/11 10:36:47, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 11 2006,13:09)
I agree it was a river.  A MIGHTY RUSHING river, which flowed for a very brief period (3 or 4 days maybe?) when a debris dam burst.

It would have produced something looking like the Channeled Scablands.  It would not have produced a canyon with meanders.
Quote
As for you, JonF ... I was very specific about the layer dating being non-linear ...

But you were not specific about why you think the dates should be linear.  Current mainstream geological thinking is (and has been for well over a century) that all the processes we see operated in the past but not necessarily at the same rate and at the same time.  You are presuming steady and uniform deposition without considering the observed processes of uplift, erosion, subduction, submersion, and volcanism, and probably a few others.

If you want to say that is should be uniform because that's your model, well, that's just another falsification of your model.
Quote
As for more RM dates, why would Deadman only give me ONE if he had more available?  He gave me 5, but only ONE of them is radio-metric.

WHY???

I presume that he gave you the best evidence he had reasonbaly quickly available that answered your question.  Why should all the dates be radiometric? Radiometric dating is not the only method that yields absolute dates. You are trying to avoid the fact that your question has been answered by changing questions. If you now want a ccomplete listing of all the evidence for all the dates of all the GC strata, Awell, as I wrote earlier today, and you ignored:  there are a he11 of a lot more radiometric dates that are available but have not been presented.  Going over it all would require at least a full-semester college course, if not several, and that course would have prerequisites which you obviously don't have.  And lots of reading assignments.  We can give you the flavor and the highlights, but if you want all the details, hie thee to the library and/or your local college's registrar's office.

Date: 2006/08/11 10:52:29, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 11 2006,13:18)
HOW, HOW, HOW, HOW ... WERE THOSE RED DATES DETERMINED, BOYS?



Picking just one at random, I quickly find via Google:

40Ar/39Ar geochronology of the Eocene Green River Formation, Wyoming

Green River: "Mike Smith is working on 40Ar/39Ar age determinations for tuff horizons interbedded in the Green River Formation, in collaboration with Brad Singer of the UW Rare Gas Geochronology Laboratory. He is currently completing an M.S.. His Ph.D. dissertation will continue with this work, with a goal of documenting the uplift timing of Laramide basin-bounding uplifts by dating synorogenic coarase clastic deposits that interfinger with the Green River Formation."

10 k.y. depositional cyclicity in the early Eocene: Stratigraphic and 40Ar/39Ar evidence from the lacustrine Green River Formation

Orbital forcing of continental Eocene climate: Detailed stratigraphy and argon-40/argon-39 dating of the Green River Formation in Wyoming

40AR/39AR AGES OF SELECTED TUFFS OF THE GREEN RIVER FORMATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERBASIN AND INTRABASIN CORRELATIONS

Radiometric dating of ash partings in coal of the Eocene Puget Group, Washington: Implications for paleobotanical stages

So we conclude:

  • There's lots of relevant radiometric dates out there.
  • Davie's an idiot who can't find them.

We're not going to do all your research for you, Davie-doodles.  You've gotten a reasonable number of answers for free.  For the rest, dig 'em up yourself.  They're easily found.
Quote
 However, I am not at all convinced that all dates are concordant and have not had time to investigate this myself with the labs.

Take some time off from your fantasies and do some real research.

Date: 2006/08/11 10:59:08, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 11 2006,14:38)
I don't know anything about Geology (well, more than AFDave, but anybody could say that) but I would expect, as a first guess, the layer dates would be exponential, rather than linear, for the same reason the atmosphere is exponential.

You mean asds the atmosphere's density is exponential?  No, the two cases aren't at all analogous; the atmosphere's density is exponential becasue the density is set by what's above.  The dates of a cross-section of strata are almost always monotonically increasing but don't follow any reasonable functional rule because of the many processes that affect the presence or absence of layers.

Date: 2006/08/11 11:20:17, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 11 2006,15:55)
JonF...      
Quote
You are presuming steady and uniform deposition without considering the observed processes of uplift, erosion, subduction, submersion, and volcanism, and probably a few others.
No.  I have considered those as well.

It should be approximately linear deposition rates ...

Nope, Davie, deposition rates vary widely in different environments, and your simplistic mind can't conceive of the fact that deposition is not the only process. Let's consider a simple example.

Igneous layer A is deposited.  Subsidence moves it underwater to a river delta, where sedimentary layer B is deposited quickly.  Further subsidence moves it to the deep ocean, where sedimentary layer C is deposited very slowly.  Uplift moves it to the near-surface near-shore, where sedimentary layer D is deposited at "medium" speed.  Uplift moves it above the surface, where erosion completely removes layer D and much of layer C. Volcanism caps this with thick igneous layer E.  Erosion very slowly erodes layer E.  Before it's totally gone, subsidence again submerges the surface and sedimentary layer F is deposited.  After a few more cycles of this and that, we see the following strata

 .
 .
 .
 F
 E
 C
 B
 A
 .
 .
 .

Now,even if deposition were linear with time, we'd see a large discontinuity between C and E, because a large chunk of time has been removed.  Wee'd also see a large discontinutiy between E and F, because E's resistance to erosion means that there was a long time between when it was laid down and when F got deposited.  Of course, deposition is not linear with time, it varies widely in different environments, so even A-B-C wouldn't look linear (asuming we can date them somehow).

Now that's just an illustrative example.  But it's a possible example, and one such example is enough to blow your linearity claim out of the water. Davie-doodles, you can't get away with "well, golly gosh all hemlock, I really think it should be linear".  We need a detailed discussion of all the relevant processes and their rates and the derivation of why you think it should be linear.
 
Quote
 
Quote
Why should all the dates be radiometric? Radiometric dating is not the only method that yields absolute dates.
Fine.  Show me some different absolute dating for these layers.  I'm not picky.

Already provided, Davie-doodles, in conjunction with Barringer Crater.

See also the long list of references on the Green River that I just posted.
 
Quote
I SAY THAT THE DATING OF THE LAYERS OF THE GRAND CANYON IS PRIMARILY SMOKE AND MIRRORS -- ARBITRARILY ASSIGNED DATES BASED ON THE HUGE EVO-BOT FANTASY OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

Unsupported asserion, Davie-piddles.  Let's see the evidence.  You dig up the information, you analyze it, you formally present it with references and quotes and footnotes, and we'll evaluate it.

Date: 2006/08/12 03:35:58, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 11 2006,20:56)
Deadman was only able to provide ONE radiometric date for the entire staircase ... if he knew of others, I think he would have given them.

He did give them. Your claim of one is a lie.  A repeated and deliberate lie.
Quote
If it is so obvious what the dates are, why are the dating methods not more readily available?

They are readily available.  See below.
Quote
JonF referred to a guy who is apparently trying to get a radiometric date for the Green River formation ... that would make TWO if he is successful ...

I also referred and linked to five dates that have been obtained for the Green River formation, and Those only took me a few minutes on Google.  Readily available, Davie-doodles. That's five from me.  And from Deadman:
Quote
Reynolds, S.J., Florence, F.P., Welty, J.W., Roddy, M.S., Currier, D.A., Anderson, A.V., and Keith, S.B., 1986, Compilation of radiometric Age Determinations in Arizona: Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology, Geological Survey Branch, Bulletin 197, 258 p.  

(contains data on  Fission-Track, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb dates and correlations. 258 pages worth of it).

{emphasis added}.   That's at least three, since they mentioned three different methods.  Now, do you think they wrote 258 pages and didn't mention more than three dates?

Quote
J. Palfy, P.L. Smith, and J.K. Mortensen (2000) A U-Pb and 40Ar/39Ar time scale for the Jurassic. Can. J. Earth Sci./Rev. can. sci. Terre 37(6): 923-944

"A radiometric age database consisting of fifty U-Pb and 40Ar/39Ar ages was compiled to construct a revised Jurassic time scale. Accepted ages have a precision of +/- 5 Ma...or better. The majority of these calibration points  [are from] the western North American Cordillera and have not been previously used in time scales."

{emphasis added}
Quote
Kowallis, B.J., Christiansen, E.H., Deino, A.L., Peterson, F., Turner, C.E., Kunk, M.J., and Obradovich, J.D., 1998, The age of the Morrison Formation: Modern Geology, v. 22, nos. 1-4, p. 235-260. 40Ar/39 Ar on sanidine in the Brushy Basin Member in Utah and Colorado yields ages of 148 to 150 million years old.

Quote
Two radiometric ages have been published for the the reworked tuff deposits found in the highest member of the Chinle, a K-Ar date of 239±9 Ma, and a U-Pb date of 207±2 Ma (Riggs, N. R., S. R. Ash, and J. M. Mattinson. 1994. Isotopic dating of a non-volcanic continental sequence, Chinle Formation, Arizona. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 26(6):61).

Quote
Ash beds within the Carmel have yielded dates between 166.3 and 168.0 ± 0.5 Ma (Kowallis, et al. 2001. The record of Middle Jurassic volcanism in the Carmel and Temple Cap Formations of southwestern Utah. GSA Bulletin, Vol. 113, No. 3, pp. 373-387).

Quote
Igneous sills on top of the Cretaceous Mancos Shale have been dated at 66 million years ago, and ash layers in the Green River Shale have been dated at 50.2 +/- 1.9 mya (Buchheim, H. P., and Eugster. 1998. The Green River Formation of Fossil Basin, southwestern Wyoming. In J. Pitman, and A. Carroll, (eds.), Modern and Ancient Lacustrine Depositional Systems: Utah Geological Association. )

Quote
The Upper Prospect basalt flow, which is the major middle-late Quaternary slip evident along the river: Joel Pederson, Karl Karlstrom, Warren Sharp and William McIntosh. 2002: Differential incision of the Grand Canyon related to Quaternary faulting-Constraints from U-series and Ar/Ar dating. Geology: Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 739-742.

(note two methods)
Quote
N.R. Riggs, S.R. Ash, A.P. Barth, G.E. Gehrels and J.L. Wooden. 2003: Isotopic age of the Black Forest Bed, Petrified Forest Member, Chinle Formation, Arizona: An example of dating a continental sandstone. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 115, No. 11, pp. 1315-1323

That's an absolute minimum of sixty-one dates, and certainly many more if we actually dove into the first reference and also looked up the references that don't make radiometric dating obvious in the titles.

Absolute minimum sixty-six radiometric dates posted in the past few days, Davie-dip.  With a minimal amount of effort.  Think of what someone who was reaslly researching the field could find!

The phrase you are looking for, Dave, is "radiometric dates for the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase are incredibly readily available and numerous".

Date: 2006/08/12 03:38:12, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 11 2006,21:29)
Two radiometric ages have been published for the the reworked tuff deposits found in the highest member of the Chinle, a K-Ar date of 239±9 Ma, and a U-Pb date of 207±2 Ma RADIOMETRIC DATE ... THE ONLY ONE I CAN FIND THAT YOU SUPPLIED(Riggs, N. R., S. R. Ash, and J. M. Mattinson. 1994. Isotopic dating of a non-volcanic continental sequence, Chinle Formation, Arizona. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 26(6):61).

Didn't look very hard, did you, Davie-diddles?  There's several more in the very list you quoted.

Oh, and that paper is two radiometric dates; one K-Ar and one U-Pb.
Quote
Ash beds within the Carmel have yielded dates between 166.3 and 168.0 ± 0.5 Ma HOW DATED ...??(Kowallis, et al. 2001. The record of Middle Jurassic volcanism in the Carmel and Temple Cap Formations of southwestern Utah. GSA Bulletin, Vol. 113, No. 3, pp. 373-387).

Tuff from the Jurassic Morrison Formation is dated to 155-148 mya HOW DATED ...?(Peterson, F., and Turner, C.E., 1998. Stratigraphy of the Ralston Creek and Morrison Formations [Upper Jurassic] near Denver, Colorado: Modern Geology, v. 22, nos. 1-4, p. 3-38).

Igneous sills on top of the Cretaceous Mancos Shale have been dated at 66 million years ago, and ash layers in the Green River Shale have been dated at 50.2 +/- 1.9 mya HOW DATED ...??(Buchheim, H. P., and Eugster. 1998. The Green River Formation of Fossil Basin, southwestern Wyoming. In J. Pitman, and A. Carroll, (eds.), Modern and Ancient Lacustrine Depositional Systems: Utah Geological Association. )

Tuffs, ash, and igneous rock are always dated radiometrically.
Quote
The Upper Prospect basalt flow, which is the major middle-late Quaternary slip evident along the river: Joel Pederson, Karl Karlstrom, Warren Sharp and William McIntosh. 2002: Differential incision of the Grand Canyon related to Quaternary faulting-Constraints from U-series and Ar/Ar dating. Geology: Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 739-742.

Missed those two, didn't you, Davie-dorkie?  {emphasis added}
Quote
N.R. Riggs, S.R. Ash, A.P. Barth, G.E. Gehrels and J.L. Wooden. 2003: Isotopic age of the Black Forest Bed, Petrified Forest Member, Chinle Formation, Arizona: An example of dating a continental sandstone. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 115, No. 11, pp. 1315-1323

{emphasis added} Of course, Davie-ignoramus, you don't know that isotopic age means radiometric age, do you?  Of course, you could have easily checked using Google:  Isotopic age of the Black Forest Bed, Petrified Forest Member, Chinle Formation, Arizona: An example of dating a continental sandstone:

"Twelve grains analyzed by SHRIMP provide 206Pb/238U ages from 214 ± 2 Ma to 200 ± 4 Ma.".

Quote
Joel Pederson, Karl Karlstrom, Warren Sharp and William McIntosh. 2002: Differential incision of the Grand Canyon related to Quaternary faulting-Constraints from U-series and Ar/Ar dating. Geology: Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 739-742
" We hypothesize that this differential incision is due to west-down slip on the Toroweap fault of 94 ± 6 m/m.y.HOW DATED ... ?? based on measured offset of the newly dated Upper Prospect basalt flow, which is the major middle-late Quaternary slip evident along the river."

U-series and Ar/Ar radiometric dating, Davie-pooples.  As they said in the title.  Or you could look at Differential incision of the Grand Canyon related to Quaternary faulting&#8212;Constraints from U-series and Ar/Ar dating, which I found in a few minutes of Googling.

While looking that one up,  I found:

McIntosh, W.C., Peters, L., Karlstrom, K.E., and Pederson, J.L., 2002. New 40Ar-39Ar dates on basalts in Grand Canyon: Constraints on rates of Quaternary river incision and slip on the Toroweap fault and implications for lava dams: Geological Society of America Abstracts with. Programs, Rocky Mountain Section.

{Note "dates", Davie; that's more than one}.

K-Ar ages of Pleistocene lava dams in the Grand Canyon in ArizonaDalrymple, G.B., and Hamblin, W.K., 1998. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 95, p. 9,744-9,749.

{Note "ages", Davie; that's more than one}.

There's at least four more on the pile, Davie.  Those radiometric dates sure are easily and widely available, aren't they?

Date: 2006/08/12 04:08:07, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 12 2006,08:52)
JonF...
Quote
Absolute minimum sixty-six radiometric dates posted in the past few days, Davie-dip.  With a minimal amount of effort.  Think of what someone who was reaslly researching the field could find!
I'm not looking for mass quantities of dates for the same layers ...

I want to know HOW MANY OF THE 25 LAYERS have been dated radiometrically?

I count THREE so far ... the Chinle, the Carmel and the Morrison ...

Well, then get to work, Davie-piddles. Hie thee to the library and start reading.  We're here to discuss, not to chase down every piece of information you can think of asking about.  We've posted plenty of information answering your questions, and given plenty of pointers to where you can go to answer the questions you came up with to avoid admitting your previous questions have been answered

Date: 2006/08/12 04:11:27, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 12 2006,08:44)
Incidentally ... does anyone have a time scale for the supposed canyon cutting of the imagined dinky river?  How many millions of years did it take to carve what we see today?

Yup.  Readily available.  Look it up and get back to us to discuss it.

Date: 2006/08/12 04:30:07, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 12 2006,08:52)
JonF...  
Quote
Absolute minimum sixty-six radiometric dates posted in the past few days, Davie-dip.  With a minimal amount of effort.  Think of what someone who was reaslly researching the field could find!
I'm not looking for mass quantities of dates for the same layers ...

I want to know HOW MANY OF THE 25 LAYERS have been dated radiometrically?

I count THREE so far ... the Chinle, the Carmel and the Morrison ...

Byt, Davie-liar, you posted:

Quote
Deadman was only able to provide ONE radiometric date for the entire staircase ... if he knew of others, I think he would have given them.  If it is so obvious what the dates are, why are the dating methods not more readily available?

JonF referred to a guy who is apparently trying to get a radiometric date for the Green River formation ... that would make TWO if he is successful ...

Those were both lies, Davie.  Now you admit there's "mass quantities" of readily available radiometric dates.  

Also, you brought up deposition rates.  Still waiting for a response to:
Quote
Quote
Quote
You are presuming steady and uniform deposition without considering the observed processes of uplift, erosion, subduction, submersion, and volcanism, and probably a few others.

No.  I have considered those as well.

It should be approximately linear deposition rates ...

Nope, Davie, deposition rates vary widely in different environments, and your simplistic mind can't conceive of the fact that deposition is not the only process. Let's consider a simple example.

Igneous layer A is deposited.  Subsidence moves it underwater to a river delta, where sedimentary layer B is deposited quickly.  Further subsidence moves it to the deep ocean, where sedimentary layer C is deposited very slowly.  Uplift moves it to the near-surface near-shore, where sedimentary layer D is deposited at "medium" speed.  Uplift moves it above the surface, where erosion completely removes layer D and much of layer C. Volcanism caps this with thick igneous layer E.  Erosion very slowly erodes layer E.  Before it's totally gone, subsidence again submerges the surface and sedimentary layer F is deposited.  After a few more cycles of this and that, we see the following strata

.
.
.
F
E
C
B
A
.
.
.

Now,even if deposition were linear with time, we'd see a large discontinuity between C and E, because a large chunk of time has been removed.  Wee'd also see a large discontinutiy between E and F, because E's resistance to erosion means that there was a long time between when it was laid down and when F got deposited.  Of course, deposition is not linear with time, it varies widely in different environments, so even A-B-C wouldn't look linear (asuming we can date them somehow).

Now that's just an illustrative example.  But it's a possible example, and one such example is enough to blow your linearity claim out of the water. Davie-doodles, you can't get away with "well, golly gosh all hemlock, I really think it should be linear".  We need a detailed discussion of all the relevant processes and their rates and the derivation of why you think it should be linear.

So, Davie, giving up on your idea that the ages should be linear??

Date: 2006/08/12 04:35:36, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 12 2006,09:25)
My point is this ...

How many of the 25 layers have actually been dated radiometrically?

Maybe 5?

Went from one, to two, to three, to five ...

Davie-dork, all of them have been dated radiometrically (or with other absolute dating methods)

We've given you plenty of examples, with the readily available mass quantities of radimetric dates.  But this is a discusion group, not a college course in geology.  You want the entirety of the information, you go dig it up and get back to us when you're done.

Date: 2006/08/12 07:48:54, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 12 2006,10:37)
 
Quote
No, dave. Your initial point (that you have too much of an arrogant ego to admit) was that we couldn't provide details for the methods of all these datings,
No.  I'm quite sure you can provide details for the methods.

What I'm not sure you can do is show me that very many of these layers have actually been dated radiometrically.  

I don't think many of them have been ...

I have been given 3 so far ... are there more?

There are something like 25 layers there, guys.

Yes.  Look 'em up and get back to us when you have.  We've given you a representative sample and lots of pointers to further data, which is all you can expect in a discussion.  You want more, dig up the info yourself or sign up for a course in the geology of the American Southwest.

Got any evidence, other than your uninformed opinion, for circularity in dating, Davie-widdles?

Got any evidence, or analysis, other than your uninformed opinion, for expecting linear decrease in age as we move up the layers of the GC?

Post your evidence, Davie-piddle.  Reality doesn't care whether you [i]think[/b] many of the layers have been dated absolutely.

Date: 2006/08/12 08:53:03, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 12 2006,12:54)
If there were no massive water catastrophe, there would be no massive layers of sedimentary rock which have no subsequent erosion and deposition -- all over the whole earth!!  The sheer quantity of sedimentary layers is enormous evidence for a water cataclysm.

As has been pointed out before, the sheer quantity of different sedimentary layers, deposited underwater and under air, interspersed with igneous and metamoprphic layers that did not form underwater, is conclusive evidence that there was no single water catastrophe responsible for even a tiny portion of the geologic column.

There is no evidence of any large amount of water from anywhere, there is lots of evidence contradicting your claims.  Your flood is a non-starter.

But you've forgotten to post your evidence for circularity in dating, and your evidence or analysis for your hypothesis that the dates of the GC layers should increase linearly.

And the seafloor dating, magnetic reversals, and sediment thickness is still lurking in the wings, Davie-pie; we're not going to let you forget that.

Date: 2006/08/12 09:08:56, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 12 2006,13:06)
What is the global trend of sedimentation over the last periods that anyone has observed it?  I have no idea how long ago people began observing this ... do we have data from 200 years ago?  500 years ago?  I don't know.

But let's look as far back as we can look and ask what the trend is ... are new layers being formed overall considering the whole earth?  Do we see any evidence historically of layers being added?  Or even a small section of layers being added?

Sedimentary layers are being formed as we watch (e.g the Mississippi delta and it's extension into the Gulf of Mexico, or the deep sea floor sediment, or the Sahara desert), and have been traced historically (e.g. recently sandstone in the Midwest was traced to material eroded from the Adirondacks).

Quote
Or is there in fact the opposite trend?  Layers being eroded away into the ocean, but no building up of layers?

Nope.

 
Quote
My guess is that the answer is the latter ...

Your guess is obviously based onyour incredible ignorance and is useless.  What data or evidence or analysis ya got?

But you've forgotten to post your evidence for circularity in dating (whether or not we can come up with references for radiometric dates of all the GC layers is not evidence for your claim), and your evidence or analysis for your hypothesis that the dates of the GC layers should increase linearly.

And the seafloor dating, magnetic reversals, and sediment thickness is still lurking in the wings, Davie-pie; we're not going to let you forget that.

Date: 2006/08/12 09:33:52, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 12 2006,13:58)
My evidence for circularity in dating strata is moving along quite nicely partly because only 3 of 25 layers have been dated radiometrically as far as I can tell ...

Irrelevant, Davie-poozle.  To support your claim you need to show actual circular references.
   
Quote
       
Quote
As has been pointed out before, the sheer quantity of different sedimentary layers, deposited underwater and under air, interspersed with igneous and metamoprphic layers that did not form underwater, is conclusive evidence that there was no single water catastrophe responsible for even a tiny portion of the geologic column.
Oh really, now.  So you deny that a majority of the "staircase" is sedimentary (i.e. water laid) rock?

Davie, Davie, Davie.  You are so stupid.  So incredibly stupid.

"sed·i·men·ta·ry  also sed·i·men·tal
adj.
1. Of, containing, resembling, or derived from sediment.
2. Geology. Of or relating to rocks formed by the deposition of sediment."

See any mention of water there, Davie?  Sedimentary rock is often "subaerial", meaning that it did not form under water (and it's easy to tell; e.g the cross-bedding angles are very different).  The Coconino Sandstone (that's a GClayer) is an example of such (Paleozoic Strata, Coconino Sandstone deposition environment), and the Sahara Desert will probably be such a layer one day.

Most of the Grand Staircase is sedimentary (but lots of it was not formed underwater), but it's still interspersed with igneous and volcanic layers that did not form underwater (such layers are even more easily distinguishable from layers formed underwater).  Ignoring those layers ain't gonna make 'em disappear.

There is no possibility that even a significant portion of the Grand Staircase formed in one event.

{ABE} There's also plenty of paleosols, fossil soils, in the Grand Staircase.  How many soils have you seen formed underwater, Davie-pie?  Something like zero?

Date: 2006/08/13 05:03:08, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 12 2006,15:32)

From Wikipedia (and probably anyplace else I might happen to look) ...
     
Quote
Formation [of sedimentary rocks]
Sedimentary rocks are formed from overburden pressure as particles of sediment are deposited out of air, ice, or water
[Shameful of you pretending that I'm stupid for saying sedimentation usually involves water]

You are stupid, Davie.  You did not say sedimentation usually involves water. You wrote:

"sedimentary (i.e. water laid) rock".

I know that you have reading comprehension difficulties, but what you wrote means that all sedimentary rock is water-laid.  And it's wrong.
 
Quote
Now, JonF, my opinion is that MOST sedimentary rocks we see in the Grand Staircase appear to be water laid.

True.  But the ones to concentrate on are the ones that are not water-laid; those are the ones that your theory must address and explain satisfactorily.  And the paleosols, tuffs, ash layers, dikes, sills, hardgrounds, dessication cracks, terrestrial animal tracks, buried rivers and streams, ...

Any idiot (viz.: you) can claim that a flood laid down some water-borne sediment.  A viable theory must explain all the data.

 
Quote
Secondly, of course sediments are accumulating at the Mississippi delta and other similar deltas ...

I was talking about ABOVE WATER ...

You didn't mention ABOVE WATER.  You asked for "are new layers being formed overall considering the whole earth?  Do we see any evidence historically of layers being added?  Or even a small section of layers being added?"  "Considering the whole Earth" certainly includes under water.

But I've already mentioned the Sahara Desert.  And let's add the Namib.

Date: 2006/08/13 05:10:37, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 12 2006,19:07)
It's as I suspected.  There are radiometric dates available for the Chinle, the Morrison, and the Carmel ...

Did I miss any?

Yes.
Quote
Apparently all the other layers cannot be dated radiometrically ...

RIGHT?

Wrong.
Quote
What if we took a close look at those dates?

What might we find?

Some discordance perhaps?

Maybe some WILDLY discordant dates that may have been discarded because they did not "fit" the standard sequence?

Perhaps?

Nope.
Quote
(Oh ... and did I mention that you gave me RM dates for 3 out of TWENTY FIVE or so layers?)

Yup.  And I mentioned, many times, that we're not here to do your research for you.  We've given you representative samples and plenty of leads to further information. You want to claim that discordant dates are discarded? Fine, come up with the evidence.  You want to know how all the layer in the GC are diated?  Fine, get to the library and start reading the many references we've provided. You want me to provide the specifics of how the GC layers are dated?  Fine, my standard consulting rate for this is $125 per hour; but it'll be a lot of hours, and I'll give you a discount. PM me if you're interested.

Date: 2006/08/13 05:16:07, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Aug. 13 2006,01:25)
Above water?, a single word DDTTD, loess.

Interesting thread on loess and YEC at 600 kyr of not sweeping the floors.  Note that Glen had to revise his intiial estimate of the size of the loess deposit significantly upward.

The Loess Plateau

Date: 2006/08/13 10:50:08, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 12 2006,17:45)
I will answer one of Eric's questions that are not simply a tiresome repeat of already answered questions ...    
Quote
His (JonF's) point is, if the Grand Canyon were created from a single catastrophic flood event, you would expect every single layer, from top to bottom, to be composed of water-laid sediment.
Well most of it IS water-laid sediment judging from the fossils contained in the layers.  You have a case for the Coconino not being water laid, but in my opinion it's a weak case.  But all the others above the GU appear to me to be water laid

Wrong, Davie-doodles.
 
Quote
(I think the Coconino also is)
And your evidence for this is?

Oh, I forgot, this is just your fantasy we're discussing here.  There's no evidence for any of your claims, and the evidence against them you ignore.
 
Quote
There is no reason to doubt that there were waves of water-borne sediment laid, followed by lava flows, in turn was followed by more sediment laying, followed by heating of previously laid sediments which metamorphised the layers.

We're talking about a MASSIVE catastrophe, Eric.

Paleosols. Davie-dork.  Were there multiple waves of paleosol deposition in the middle of this catastrophe?

Date: 2006/08/14 10:59:59, Link
Author: JonF
Don't think I've posted this here before, but even if I have it's just been updated; Claims of Accelerated Radioactive Decay by a PhD in physics (specializing in astrophysics).  Covers Humphreys' "model" of accelerated decay and some of AIG's claims.
Quote
{In re Humphreys}  In this graph, we plot the ratio of decay rates for different parent isotopes (Sm-147, Th-232, U-235, U-238) with a changing pion mass. The vertical line at a pion mass 0.749325 times the current value accelerates the U-238 decay rate by a factor of 750,000.0, the amount of acceleration Humphreys requires. We see that with this pion mass, Sm-147 experiences a rate increase of only 28,200, less than 4 percent of the required value. This means that for a given sample, the Sm-147 ages should be significantly less than U-238 ages. ....

{several other errors and problems listed and explained}

The interesting thing about this analysis is that these flaws in Humphreys model were immediately apparent. I identified them on my first reading of the RATE document. The fact that Z and/or A appeared in the rate equations was a dead giveaway that these rates would vary by element and isotope. It took me an evening to estimate these values, an additional few days to explore other implications and generate nice graphics.

This error was trivial to find. It could be recognized by a bright high-school student, yet none of the Ph.D.s at the ICR, including Humphreys, noticed it before it made it into print. This points to a very serious failure in their peer-review process (though it is far from the first...).

Date: 2006/08/15 08:00:47, Link
Author: JonF
The quoting facility has gone wonkers, and I can't figure where the problem is, so the he11 with it.

[quote]Hmmm ... all it takes is sufficient heating to change the Parent/Daughter ratios, eh?  Seems like that could have happened quite a bit in the past, doesn't it now?[/quote]
Yup.  And it's easy to detect.

[quote]Let's look at the assumptions of radiometric dating a little closer now ...     [quote]Many radioactive dating methods are based on minute additions of daughter products to a rock or mineral in which a considerable amount of daughter-type isotopes already exists. These isotopes did not come from radioactive decay in the system but rather formed during the original creation of the elements. [/quote]
Wow ... that's revealing!  So the amount of daughter we are using to date the rock is MINUTE.  And the initial amount is CONSIDERABLE.  How much is "considerable"?  How is this considerable amount estimated?[/quote]
No estimates involved, Davie-dork.  Measurements.   The "considerable amount" is measured.

[quote]But there is no mention of HOW initial amounts of daughter products are determined.[/quote]
You're looking in the wrong places, Davie-pie.  Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.  Isochron Dating.  Radiometric Dating, especially the section on The U, Th, Pb System. Radiogenic Isotope Geology

[quote]Consider also this quote ...

MOST ROCKS CANNOT BE DATED ISOTOPICALLY
   [quote]Relative geologic ages can be deduced in rock sequences consisting of sedimentary, metamorphic, or igneous rock units. In fact, they constitute an essential part in any precise isotopic, or absolute, dating program. Such is the case because most rocks simply cannot be isotopically dated. Therefore, a geologist must first determine relative ages and then locate the most favourable units for absolute dating. It is also important to note that relative ages are inherently more precise, since two or more units deposited minutes or years apart would have identical absolute ages but precisely defined relative ages. While absolute ages require expensive, complex analytical equipment, relative ages can be deduced from simple visual observations. dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69751[/quote][/quote]
So?  Many rocks can be and are dated isotopically.

[quote]CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR ISOTOPIC DATING[/b]
   [quote]Likewise, the conditions that must be met to make the calculated age precise and meaningful are in themselves simple: [/quote]
Gee, I'm really disappointed in the Britannica.  That's really bad.  It's about 60-ish years out off date.

[quote]1. The rock or mineral must have remained closed to the addition or escape of parent and daughter atoms since the time that the rock or mineral (system) formed.[PRETTY TOUGH TO TELL THIS I THINK] [/quote]
Actually, in most cases, pretty easy to tell.  Like in the isochron diagram I posted earlier, or as described in the references above, or on a concordia-discordia diagram (the most widely used method of dating).  And the Ar-Ar method and the concordia-discordia method can often provide a valid age even if the system has not remained closed ... as has been pointed out several times before in this thread.

[quote]2. It must be possible to correct for other atoms identical to daughter atoms already present when the rock or mineral formed. [HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU DO THAT?][/quote]
Easy.   In the case of isochron dating and Ar-ar dating, the correction is automatic.  In the case of concordia-discordia dating, there are no significant number of other atoms identical to daughter atoms already present, because zircons so strongly reject lead at solidification (and, as has been pointed out before, even the RATE group acknowledges this; from HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY:

    [quote]Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth &#8212; at today&#8217;s rates &#8212; of nuclear decay occurred.[/quote]
{emphasis in original}

 Read the references for details.
     
Quote
3. The decay constant must be known. [OK ... PRETTY EASY, AT LEAST UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS]

Yup, and pretty easy under past conditions too.
     
Quote
4. The measurement of the daughter-to-parent ratio must be accurate because uncertainty in this ratio contributes directly to uncertainty in the age. [OK. WE HAVE BETTER INSTRUMENTS NOW.]dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69756

     
Quote
1) The Grand Staircase has 80 or so layers of sedimentary rock (mostly water-laid, JonF, Coconino probably was too--studies I cited long ago)

Prove it.  Address the issues in Coconino Sandstone
     
Quote
2) The layers were dated by the fossils contained FIRST (see articles above)
3) Very few of these rocks can be dated radiometrically (same article)
4) Certain rocks were chosen for RM dating because they were "favorable" (??)
5) I have been given 4 such RM dates for the 80 or so layers of the Grand Staircase
6) In these 4 cases, why were the selected rocks chosen?  Ostensibly because they contained the desired minerals like Zircons or some other "suitable" mineral, but my guess is that if you looked at each individual case, you would find that the "Art of Selecting Datable Rocks" has been tailored to correlate with the Primary Dating System - Index Fossils (remember the article above? Fossils yield Primary Dates)

Nobody cares about your guesses, Davie-pootles.  What matters is the data and evidence you can muster in favor of your claims ... so far, zilch.
     
Quote
7) OK. More questions, then.  In these "suitable" minerals, how do you know how much daughter was initially present?

See references above.
     
Quote
And why should we think that the "suitable mineral" has any relation to the sedimentary layer?

Principle of superposition.
     
Quote
 Remember, the "RM dateable minerals" were formed by melting rock (see EB article) which somehow got into the sedimentary layer in question.  How did it get there?

Liquid flow.
     
Quote
And why is it's supposed date of creation (EB's terminology, not mine) the same as the sedimentary layer's date of depostion? If you look at the Grand Staircase picture above, you can see the lava flow which comes up through all the layers on the left side of the picture.  It is obvious that some of this lava has entered many of the layers.  Considering the info given in the EB article, what "date" are you going to get if you take a sample of this (or similar) lava from any one of the many layers it intrudes into?

For an intrusive formation like that, a date that is younger than any of the formations into which it intrudes.  Duh.
     
Quote
The date of the original creation of the rock which later melted to make the lava flow?

No.
     
Quote
Or the "heating date" corresponding to the time when the lava flow occurred?

Close.

Technically, you get the date at which the lava/magma cooled enough to "freeze" the relevant isotopes into position.  This is usually close enough to the solidification time as makes no difference here, but in the case of plutons it can be tens of thousands of years after the magma flow.

     
Quote
  You see ... there are many questions.  And there can be no good answers to any of them because no one was there to really determine if the assumptions are even in the right ballpark.

All questions easily answered, your ignoring of the answers notwithstanding.  Personal observation is not necessary.
Quote
So given the above discussion, what we are back to is that the whole Grand Staircase is dated by FOSSILS.  END OF STORY.

Wrong as usual.  Some layers are dated by fossils, some are dated by absolute mehtods, and the absolute dates bracket the possible dates for the sedimentary layers.
     
Quote
How do we determine the dates based on fossils?  Because Evolution has occurred and we know the favorable mutation rates. (Yeah, right)

No, this is totally irrelevant to biostratigraphy.
     
Quote
THIS IS CIRCULARITY AT IT FINEST, FOLKS!
1) The rocks are dated by the fossils.
2) Then other fossils are dated by the rocks just dated by fossils.
3) Sprinkle some fake RM dating onto the whole mess to help it not stink so bad!!
4) Feed it to the public and then pat each other on the back about what great scientists we are!!

What you describe in this list, even with the unsupported claims of fakery, is not circularity.
     
Quote

Just in case you didn't catch this point, EB clearly states that it is FOSSILS that are used to determine date in the past 600my, here it is again ...
         
Quote
FOSSILS ARE USED TO DATE THE PAST 600 MY. Just as the use of the fossil record has allowed a precise definition of geologic processes in approximately the past 600 million years, absolute ages allow correlations back to the Earth's oldest known rocks formed almost 4 billion years ago.  ... Unlike ages derived from fossils, which occur only in sedimentary rocks, absolute ages are obtained from minerals that grow as liquid rock bodies cool at or below the surface. dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69749

Davie-diddles, that doesn't say what you claim it does.
     
Quote
And here's a quote that explains Index Fossils ...
         
Quote
CORRELATION TOOL=INDEX FOSSILS. The basic conceptual tool for correlation by fossils is the index, or guide, fossil. Ideally, an index fossil should be such as to guarantee that its presence in two separated rocks indicates their synchroneity. This requires that the lifespan of the fossil species be but a moment of time relative to the immensity of geologic history. In other words, the fossil species must have had a short temporal range. On the practical side, an index fossil should be distinctive in appearance so as to prevent misidentification, and it should be cosmopolitan both as to geography and as to rock type. In addition, its fossilized population should be sufficiently abundant for discovery to be highly probable. Such an array of attributes represents an ideal, and much stratigraphic geology is rendered difficult because of departure of the natural fossil assemblage from this ideal.
dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69753

That's a pretty good description.  If only you understood what it's saying ...
     
Quote
and I like this one ...

THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN IS A "MENTAL ABSTRACTION" (OR SHOULD WE SAY A MENTAL "ABERRATION"?)
         
Quote
The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geologic column. dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69754

Geez, EB falls down again.  That's very disappointing.  The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood.

Date: 2006/08/15 08:04:50, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 15 2006,11:54)
Bottom line ... the more I learn about RM dating, the more fishy it smells.

Davie-prat, your posts today make it cleaar that you haven't learned anything about radiometric dating yet.

Date: 2006/08/15 08:16:55, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 15 2006,12:51)
1) Evolution has occurred.  (Really?  How do you know?)
2) Because the rocks are old.  (How do you know this?)
3) See they contain trilobites.  (Why does that make them old?)
4) They are old because evolution has occurred and takes millions of years.  (Wait ... I thought that's what you were trying to show by the age of the rocks.)
5) No.  Evolution is a fact.  It stands alone. (I thought you said it is proven by old rocks)
6) I did.  (Then how again are the rocks shown to be old?)
7) I told you ... they contain trilobites.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

Davie-dip, that pathetic strawman bears no resemblance to the real dating arguments.  Re-read the Britannica quote you posted, and read Index fossil and Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?: Biostratigraphy.  (It would do you some good to read and comprehend that entire last article, but I'm betting you won't even glance at the biostratigraphy section).
Quote
Quote
AfDave,

You asked "How in the world do you determine the amount of initial daughter product?  The initial daughter product is MUCH greater than the decayed product that you are supposed to be measuring (according to the article). "

One method is Accelerator Mass Spectrometry.  It is extraordinarily precise and can determine "single atoms in the presence of 10^15 stable atoms."  It is not appropriate for every situation, but works well in general.  Look here for further info... [URL=http://tesla.physics.purdue.edu/primelab/introduction/ams.html
Thanks.  I do understand that AMS is great for determining small quantities.  However, if you read the article closely, you will see that determining small quantities is not the challenge.  Determining the INITIAL daughter quantity is the challenge.  No AMS equipment can help you look into the past and determine this.  All it can do is measure the present minute quantity.

But, if you knew anything about radiometric dating, you'd understand how isochron methods and the Ar-Ar method produce the initial daughter quantity automatically as part of the method, and why the initial daughter quantity is not a problem or issue in concordia-discordia dating (acknowledged by the RATE group in the quote I posted a couple of mesages up).

Date: 2006/08/16 02:24:00, Link
Author: JonF
Still trying to peddle that strawman, Davie-dingleberry.  Sory, no sale.

Quote (afdave @ Aug. 15 2006,20:55)
(Start of Circle) How do we know the rocks are old? Because of the fossils in them.

No.  We know the rocks are old because it takes lots of time to form the many diverse structures we see.  That fact was obvious to the great Christian geologists of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, creationists to a man ... but, unlike you, honest creationists.  When they faced the obvious fact that the Earth is far older than a few thousand years, they tried to figure out how to reconcile that with Ussher's chronology.  When that proved impossible, they chose reality over fantasy and discarded Ussher's chronology.

A History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth:
Quote
In the end, the old diluvial cosmogonies fell victim to their own success. The genuine spirit of scientific inquiry that they engendered and stimulated gradually produced a wealth of geological discoveries that undercut the premises of diluvialism. All manner of different field observations indicated that geological strata could not be the remains of layers of soft sediments deposited together at the same time. Furthermore, the plethora of exegeses of the deluge account raised doubts in many scholarly minds about whether the Bible was being properly used in trying to settle questions of geological history. By the middle of the eighteenth century, few competent proponents of diluvialism remained.

The basic pattern of the attempts to accommodate extrabiblical information during this period is by now familiar. Scholars began with the assumption that the biblical flood narrative describes a literal universal deluge and then sought evidence of that event using the best scientific tools and evidence available to them. As evidence accumulated, however, their theories became increasingly untenable, and when that happened, all those who were dedicated to the truth of the matter -- scientists and theologians alike -- abandoned the discredited hypotheses and began to look elsewhere.

Date: 2006/08/16 04:03:12, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 15 2006,22:07)
You didn't read the EB article ... you should read it.  It says FOSSIL DATING IS PRIMARY. Even today.  As in 2006.  Hard to believe ... but that's what it says.  I know this comes as a shock to your system.

Davie, Davie, Davie-doodles.  Wotta maroon.  Even though your error has been pointed out multiple times, you still cling to it.

From answers.com:

"Primary ... 5. Geology. Characteristic of or existing in a rock at the time of its formation."

Therefore, the passage you quoted could be accurately paraphrased as:

"Fossils record the initial, or time-of-formation, age of a rock unit. Isotopic systems, on the other hand, can yield either the time-of-formation age or the time of a later event, ..."

That is, fossils always record when a rock formed, but radiometric dates can sometimes indicate a different point in time (and, just to forestall you, we can tell when they do).  The quote does not say that fossils are the first way of dating a rock, nor does it say that fossils are the most important way of dating a rock.

In geologic context, "primary" does not mean what you unthinkingly assumed it does (even though it's pretty easy for anyone with reasonable reading comprehension to figure out what "primary" means in this context from the quote you provided, without looking it up).  Moron.

Date: 2006/08/16 06:11:07, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 16 2006,10:10)
ALRIGHT ... YOU STILL DON'T GET IT ... LET'S DRIVE IT HOME A LITTLE DEEPER

Here we go again with Encyclopedia Britannica ...

FOSSILS ARE USED FOR DATING TO A LARGE DEGREE
     
Quote
dating
Encyclopædia Britannica Article      

  Page  1  of  32    
   
in geology, determining a chronology or calendar of events in the history of the Earth, using to a large degree the evidence of organic evolution in the sedimentary rocks accumulated through geologic time in marine and continental environments.
dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69749
Got that?  "TO A LARGE DEGREE"  ... that's why they use the word "PRIMARY" for Index Fossil Dating later on in the article.

Nope, Davie, they use "primary" later on in its geological meaning: "Characteristic of or existing in a rock at the time of its formation".  It's obvious.
 
Quote
GEOLOGISTS USED FOSSILS TO PIECE TOGETHER 600 MY OF EARTH HISTORY
     
Quote
In addition, because sediment deposition is not continuous and much rock material has been removed by erosion, the fossil record from many localities has to be integrated before a complete picture of the evolution of life on Earth can be assembled. Using this established record, geologists have been able to piece together events over the past 600 million years, or about one-eighth of Earth history, during which time useful fossils have been abundant.
dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69749
Got it?  They used the FOSSIL RECORD to piece together 600 my of earth history.

Originally, they did.  But we didn't know it was 600 my until radiometric dating gave us the absolute time scale.  Before that, they used just the fossil record and knew the time was millionsof years, but didn't know exactly how many millions.
 
Quote
 BTW, they would have used the fossil record to piece together the rest, but IT'S NOT THERE!  Kind of strange that it SHOULD be there, but it's not, don't you think?

Nope.  It's there, from the very beginnings of life circa 3.5 billion years ago.
 
Quote
DATABLE MINERALS GROW AND RE-GROW, SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN THEY WERE CREATED?

Already answered.  But read the references I gave, and learn a litle something about radiometric dating while you're at it.
 
Quote
Just gotta throw this one out there again ... love it!
THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN IS A MENTAL ABERRATION ... er, sorry ... ABSTRACTION
     
Quote
The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geologic column.
dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69754

Refuted yesterday, Davy.  Ignoring evidence don't make it disappear.
 
Quote
ISOTOPIC AGES CAN BE RESET BY HIGH TEMPERATURES
     
Quote
It will become apparent, for example, that isotopic ages can be reset by high temperatures; however, this seeming disadvantage can be turned to one's favour in determining the cooling history of a rock.
dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69755

Davie-dork, this shows that in some cases the date we get for rocks may actually be less than the actual age of the rock.  Contradicting your young Earth arguments
 
Quote

Fine ... we can determine the cooling history, but how do we determine the Age of Creation, the Age of Sedimentation, etc.??  You say that rocks are recycled into the crust, right?  How do we know how many times they were recycled?  I understand that apparently zircons, for example, have no daughter products in them when they are formed.  So presumably the daughter products that ARE there represent radioactive decay.  So in theory, these zircons are really 1.5 Byo or whatever the number is.  But this appears to have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Date of Sedimentation for a water-laid sedimentary layer.  Why?  

Duh.  Because the zircons are remnants of the rock which eroded to fomr the sedimentary layer.  When ypu date the zircons, you get the age of the rocks that eroded to form the sedimentary layer, not the age of the sedimentary laayer.  Duh.  That's why nobody ever tries to date sedimentary rocks that way.

However, it is sometimes possible to date sedimentary layers directly by dating something that formed when the layer lithified (turned into rock).  This has been made easier by advances in instrumentation sensitivity and consequent reductions in sample size.  One example is dating of diagenic xenotime that forms in zircons when a sedimentary layer containing them lithifies. For examaple, SHRIMP Uranium-Lead Dating of Diagenetic Xenotime in Siliciclastic Sedimentary Rocks (requires freee registration).

I know that you don't have a chance of comprehending that, Davesicle, but the lurkers may be interested.

 
Quote
AN EXAMPLE TO KEEP EVERYONE'S BRAINS CLEAR

Dave, your extreme ignorance of radiometric dating is shining through the layer of sh*t you are covered with. Making up unrealistic scenarios isn't an argument; addressing realistic scenarios, of which you obviously know nothing, is approriate.

If you stopped making up stupiod and unrealistic scenarios and learned something about real scenariuos, maybe you could carry on a discussion.
 
Quote
Well, let's just take a typical sandstone layer, OK?  Let's say it contains some zircon grains and we'll assume for the moment that the daughter product measured representS the age of the last cooling event. With me?  So this means that those zircon grains got real hot (>700C or so) 1.5 By ago (I'll give you this for the moment, OK?).  Now, does this mean the WATER-LAID SEDIMENT which contains the zircons is ALSO 1.5 Byo?  Of course not!  The sediment was laid by WATER!  You can't tell me for certain that the zircon grains were created at the same time as the sediment was laid.  MAYBE they were, but no one can really tell.  The most likely situation is that they were ERODED from some granite (formed by some super hot process) and mixed with the sand and water.  Then they were transported by water and deposited.

Dave-dingleberry, you're actually correct.  That's why nobody tries to date sediemtnary rocks that way.
 
Quote
Now how in the world do you know WHEN this deposition took place?  You cannot tell me by dating the zircons radiometrically.  That's impossible.

Yup.  But that doesn't mean you can't find the date of the sediment by other means.  The creationis throws up his hands and gives up, the scientist looks for further information.  By dating igneous intrusions, sills, dikes, overlayers, and underlayers (all of which can be dated radiometrically), and by cross-correlating with index fossils, we can get darned small ranges of ages for the sedimentary layers.
 
Quote
Another way those zircons could have got there is by a volcanic eruption and the lava intruded into the layer.  Again, you may be able to tell something about the age of the lava (if you accept the assumptions), but again, there is no way that this will tell you anything about the WATER-LAID sedimentary layer which contains some lava intrusion.

Er, dork-face, it does tell you something. As I wrote yesterday, it tells you that the WATER LAID sedimentary layer is older than the intrusive lava.  (Actually, it's intrusive magma, but we can't expect you to know anyting about correct trerminology).
 
Quote
You cannot tell me that you know the dates of depostion of those layers by dating zircon grains or lava contained in the sediment.

Nobody has tried to claim that.  You made it up.
 
Quote

The way those layers are dated is .... [DRUM ROLL] ... FOSSILS!  

Sort of. Let's take a realistic example.

We find a sedimentary layer with a certain index fossil in it.  We also find an igneous intrusion in it that dates to 300 my.  We find, in another place, another sedimentary layer with the same index fossil in it. Below that sedimentary layer we find an igneous layer that dates to 320 my.  Knowing that the index fossil we are using wasn't around for long, because the thousands of such fossils we find are always confined to very very thin layers, we know that the two sedimentary layers are the same age (plus or minus a few million years), that both are more than 300 million years old (because of the intrusion in the first layer) and both are more than 320 million years old (because of the ingeous rock underlying the second layer).  No circularity, just calibration and correlation.

Of course, sometimes we find sedimentary layers that have igneous intrusions and surroundings that allow us to closely bracket the date of the layer with no reference to fossils at all.

Address that realistic scenario, Davie-pie.
Quote
I DON'T EVEN NEED TO QUESTION RM DATING ACCURACY TO BLOW AWAY YOUR CLAIM THAT THE GRAND STAIRCASE IS DATED (OR EVEN BRACKETED) RADIOMETRICALLY!

THE GRAND STAIRCASE IS DATED BY FOSSILS, THEN SAMPLES ARE FOUND WHICH MATCH THE ALREADY-DETERMINED-AGE.  PERIOD.  

Wrong, Davie-doodles.  The sedimentary layers are dated indirectly by radiometric dating, often (but not always) involving fossils as (non-circular) calibrators and correlators.  No circularity, Davie-pie.
 
Quote
Prove me wrong.  I dare you.

Done.
 
Quote
BUT YOU ARE WRONG if you do not recognize that this article clearly states that Fossil Dating comes FIRST and one could easily argue that it is considered to be MOST IMPORTANT.

Be careful who you call a moron!

Fossil dating is important.  It does not always come first; if the article says so, and it seems to, the article is wrong.  Fossil dating is never used for igneous rocks and seldom used for metamorphic rocks.  And, in dating, fossils are not ever used to establish absolute dates, except insofar as they are used to cross-correlate radiometric dates that bracket the ages of the fossiliferous layers.

Moron.

Date: 2006/08/16 06:29:08, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 16 2006,10:36)
LET'S TRY TO FIND ROCKS THAT CAN FIT OUR PRE-DETERMINED TIMESCALE
     
Quote
An ideal mineral is one that has sufficient parent and daughter isotopes to measure precisely, is chemically inert, contains little or no significant initial daughter isotopes, and retains daughter products at the highest possible temperatures.
dating. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69760
"Sufficient parent and daughter isotopes to measure precisely?"  What if it has NO daughter isotopes?  Doesn't that mean it was formed VERY RECENTLY?  i.e. not much time for daughter products to be formed?  I mean, in theory, couldn't we go to a lab with a really hot furnace and make a zircon TODAY?  in 2006? I don't know how hot the furnace has to be and how much pressure is required.  Maybe beyond our capabilities.  But if we could, the zircon should have ZERO daughter products, right?

Pretty much.
 
Quote
Is this article snippet telling me that there are plenty of samples with little to no daughter products ... and we are rejecting them as "undatable" because they don't have the right amounts of parent and daughter?

No, it's not telling you anything at all like that.  There's no mention of undateable samples, rejection of samples, or any "right" amount of parent or daughter.  You're just projecting your preconceptions.  In the rare cases when samples are rejected, they are rejected for clearly stated and objective reasons, not vague excuses.

In practice, there's no such thing as a sample with absolutely dead-nuts zero, unmeasurable, daughter product; there are eentsy weentsy (technical term) trace amounts of daughter product (lead) in all zircons at solidification, enough to throw off the dating results by a percent or two.  That's not enough to give you any consolation; if we date a rock at 300 million years but it's really 295 million years old, it's still not young enough for you by a long shot.  But it bothers geochronologists, so they develop correction factors for "common lead" (AKA "primordial lead"), to get the answers a little more precise.  Most, but not all, of these techniques rely on measuring the amount of lead-204, which is not produced by radioactive decay, and therefore any lead-204 in the zircon was there at solidification. Knowing the amount of lead-204 and knowing the average ratio of lead-206 to lead-204 and of lead-207 to lead-204 allows us to calculate a very good approximation to the amounts of lead-207 and lead-206, which are produced by radioactrive decay, in the zircon at soldification.  Since the correction is very small, the error involved in introducing it is also very small, well under 1% of the reported age.

Again obviously far over Davie's head, but the lurkers may be interested.  
 
Quote
Am I reading that right?

Of course not, Dave, you should take that as given.

Date: 2006/08/16 09:01:59, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 16 2006,13:27)
HERE, JONF, 13% IS ALL WE HAVE, READ IT FOR YOURSELF
     
Quote
As has been seen, the geologic time scale is based on stratified rock assemblages that contain a fossil record. For the most part, these fossils allow various forms of information from the rock succession to be viewed in terms of their relative position in the sequence. Approximately the first 87 percent of Earth history occurred before the evolutionary development of shell-bearing organisms. The result of this mineralogic control on the preservability of organic remains in the rock record is that the geologic time scale&#8212;essentially a measure of biologic changes through time&#8212;takes in only the last 13 percent of Earth history. Although the span of time preceding the Cambrian period&#8212;the Precambrian&#8212;is nearly devoid of characteristic fossil remains and coincides with some of the primary rocks of certain early workers, it must, nevertheless, be evaluated in its temporal context.
geochronology. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-70055

Doesn't mean what you think it does, Davie-poodles.  The geologic time scale is based on fossils, rock strata, and radiometric dating.  It covers the entire 4.55 billion years of Earth's existence.
Quote
EVOLUTION REQUIRES MILLIONS OF YEARS, SO THE GEOLOGIC TIME-SCALE OF MILLIONS OF YEARS (how many millions doesn't really matter) FOR THE GRAND STAIRCASE WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED BEFORE RM DATING HAPPENED ON ANY OF THE LAYERS

You got it wrong, Davie-doodles. Ignoring the refutations of your fantasies ain't going to make your fantasies true.

The geological time scale of millions of years was well established, in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, before evolution even came on the scene.  It still didn't seem long enough for evolution, until the discovery of radioactivity showed how the Sun could last so long and accurately quantified exactly how many millions of years.
 
Quote
So my point is established.  Geologists believed the Grand Staircase represented millions of years long before anyone dated any lava--OK magma--in any of the layers.

Yup. But not because of evolution; because of investigation and knowledge of physical processes.  Long before Darwin the geologists knew formations like the Grand Staircase represented millions of years.  They didn't like it much -- they were all creationists -- but they were honest, and they coudl see what was plainly written in the rocks.

God wrote the rocks, Davie, Man wrote the Bible.  I choose to believe what God wrote.  You worship your idol, a book.

 
Quote
And I have already established that if you think a series of rock layers is old because it has such and such fossils, you are reasoning in a circle.  This is what was done for many years.

You've posted some reallyu ludicrous claims of circular reasoning; but those claims have been thoroughly debunked, and you have not produced any evidence of circular reasoning.

Date: 2006/08/17 04:54:16, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 17 2006,08:55)
Today I will give you an inside look into attempts to date a layer radiometrically ... this is a particularly relevant example because it involves sedimentary layers and, volcanic deposits and fossils -- just like the situation we have with the Grand Staircase.

Here is a summary of the surprising things I learned from this story ... (actually I was not surprised, but YOU should be) ...

* Richard Leakey found a very modern looking human fossil (KNM-ER 1470) - the oldest yet he hoped.
* Initial dating attempts of the KBS Tuff (a layer containing ash just above skull 1470 gave an incredible 212 - 230 my! Yeah, Richard that would be pretty old!  Of course, this would never do ... everyone knows humans didn't exist 230 mya!!
* So ... the ones who came up with this date, Fitch and Miller, requested new samples and came up with 2.61 my.  This was later confirmed with around 4 additional "independent" studies
* This caused a great ruckus because the Paleos wanted Skull 1470 to be younger.  Why? Because 2.61 my didn't fit their Human Evolution Fairy Tale--the date was too old.  Also because they considered Richard Leakey to be a 2nd rate Paleo since he didn't go to college and learned his trade from his parents.  They didn't want him getting all the recognition that comes with being the discoverer of the world's oldest human fossil.
* So there was a 10 year controversy and finally a whole new round of samples were dated.  What date they come up with?  1.87 my.  800,000 years younger!!  That's like 30 - 40 % different results depending on how you calculate your % !!!
* During all this, Ian McDougall in Nature reported "a distressingly large range of ages" when considering previous dating.  He reported Fitch and Miller got everything from 0.52 to 2.64my on one set of concentrates and 8.43 to 17.5my on another clast before settling on the 2.62 my figure.  He also accused Curtis et. al. of disregarding results of 2.01-6.9my before settling on 1.6my - 1.8my.
* After "calling the other kettles black" then, the "pot" -- Ian McDougall--then stated how remarkably concordant his own dates were at 1.9 Myr after removing from consideration samples that gave ages of 4.11 and 7.46 Myr. !!!!!!!!!!!!!
* With this clear victory of philosophy over observation, they then used the concordance of their results and agreement with the results of the study by Gleadow to give validity to their date for the KBS Tuff.

Now you can go read ALL of Marvin Lubenow's excellent article explaining this hilarious "Evobot Story" here ...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp

Jeez, Davie-doodles, you'll fall for anything.

When biostratigraphic and radiometric dating conflict, one or both is wrong, and real scientists dig in and find the error(s). That's not circular reasoning, it's the scientific method.

The KBS Tuff story is a fascinating one, illustrating how scientists continually cross-check results, require replication, don't give up on problems, and won't accept anything without strong evidence.  Lubenow's presentation is eroneous and misleading.

Skull KNM-ER 1470 wasn't a real problem; 2.61 million years (not 2.3 million years, Davie-pie) was just barely possible with what we knew then, although it seemed unlikely.  Pigs were the problem.  We had (and have) lots and lots of East African pig fossils, correlated with each other and strata and radiometric dates.  And the pig fossils below the KBS Tuff didn't fit.  Yet, when multiple labs performed the dating, they mostlykept coming out with 2.61 million years (one lab came up with 1.8 or 1.6 million years).  Creationists would give up; scientists didn't.

Scientist continued investigations, and discovered that the tuff was mixture of material that is older than the formation of the tuff and material that was formed when the tuff formed.  They worked out repeatable and verifiable procedures for separating out the latter material, and dated it wih multiple independent methods in multiple labs, and found that the tuff was indeed about 1.8 million years old.  They figured out and explained the errors that caused the 1.6 and 2.6 million year dates. Oh, and incidentally but not very important, skull KNM-ER 1470 was around 1.8 million years old, not 2.61 million years.  All in all a triumph of science and the scientific method.

KBS Tuff controversy illustrates many of the problems with radiometric dating, but it equally illustrates that the problems are not insurmountable.
Specific Examples: When Radiometric Dating "Just Works" (or not): A poor example.
40Ar/39Ar age spectra from the KBS Tuff, Koobi Fora Formation
KBS Tuff dating and geochronology of tuffaceous sediments in the Koobi Fora and Shungura Formations, East Africa.
K&#8722;Ar age estimate for the KBS Tuff, East Turkana, Kenya.
Fission track age of the KBS Tuff and associated hominid remains in northern Kenya

Quote
[b]Now my question to you all ... would I discover a similar story if I dug into Deadman's supposed radiometric dates of various layers of the Grand Staircase?

Nope.
 
Quote
 I bet I would! I bet I would find, first of all, that MANY discordant dates have been obtained for those layers and the ones that were not "right" (defined as fitting in with the currently accepted evolutionary fossil sequence) were simply rejected with some scientific sounding explanation.

Nope.  Nobody cares what  you bet. Let's see what evidence and data you can present.
 
Quote
Where are we in My Hypothesis?  We are on The Flood and I am in the process of showing that the conventional explanation for rock layers like the Grand Staircase is woefully wrong.  The better explanation is ...

THE GREAT FLOOD OF NOAH

Stay tuned for more!!

Make sure you include your explanation of the paleosols, hardgrounds, dessication cracks, and animal trracks found throughout the Grand Staircase.

Date: 2006/08/17 10:29:30, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 17 2006,11:01)
 
Quote
1. The volcanic ash (tuff) in question contains volcanic sediments of several different ages.
Really, how do you know?

Real scientists identified the components and showed how they could be identified and distinguished and separated, and published the results, and other real scientists replicated the results.  Tha's how.
 
Quote
 
Quote
This makes it particularly difficult to date via RM.
Hmmmm ... and other sites AREN'T difficult?

Most aren't.  That's the meaning of "particularly".
Quote
Oh really?  Then you tell ME how the Paleos came up with 1.0 or 1.5 or 1.8my or whatever it was they came up with!!  And why the uproar with the 2.61 date??

Already answered, Davie. Pigs.  Details at the first link I posted.
Quote
 
Quote
and, when discrepancies were found, tracking down the source of these discordant results. This search uncovered mis-calibrated balances, contamination with other materials (exact sources identified), and analytical errors that needed to be corrected. Now, Dave will have you believe that, if you think you've discovered something new about the world, but if, after checking your results against what is already known about the world and finding them in conflict, you immediately look for what you might have gotten wrong, is a sign of weakness. This is why he never does anything of the sort.
Actually it is EXACTLY what I am doing right this minute.  I'm questioning results.

But you are going no further than questioning and then flaunting ignorance.  Unlike the real scientists who investigated the KBS Tuff.
 
Quote
 
Quote
The idea that one result against a million established contrary observations strongly suggests that the single result is anomalous would obviously make Dave's worldview explode, so he takes the exact opposite strategy (just read through the thread).
You're trying to tell me that this is an isolated case?  I doubt it.  I'm going to keep looking.

Cool.  Let us know when you have some data and evidence.  Until then, admit you know nothing and have no reason to suspect such difficulties are common.
Quote
 
Quote
Also note that if errors in the tuff dating could not be readily identified, the controversy would probably still be continuing.
No.  It ended when the Paleos got happy.  And the Paleos got happy when the date was 1.8, not 2.6, thank you.

No. It ended when the reasons for the disagreeing dates were found and verified, and when concordant dates were obtained with different methods in different labs and were replicated.
 
Quote
 
Quote
Something has to give, and it's normally the anomaly that proves to be exceptional or erroneous. Sure, science is most fun when the reverse is true. But that's rare, and doesn't tend to emerge from an encyclopedia article.
Yeah.  Something gave, alright.  They gave all those wildly discordant results to the TRASH CAN ... that's what gave!!

Discarded results are discussed, and are only discarded when there are objective and verifiable reaons for discarding them. The KBS Tuff controversy proves that. You have no evidence of anything else.
Quote
Yeah.  There's EVERYTHING wrong with it.  How can you say RM dating is objective if you only select the dates that correspond to your theory?  In this case Evolutionary theory?

First you need to establish, with data, that anyone "only selects the dates that correspond to your theory".  So far you're just blowing smoke.  The KBS Tuff is evidence against your claim.  No date was discarded without objective, verified, and replicated reasons; and the reasons were explicitly stated.

Date: 2006/08/21 12:33:25, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 20 2006,06:59)
2) the fact that the non water-laid sediments can be explained as short duration volcanic/tectonic processes during and after the Flood

Sorry, Davie-poo --- wrong.  Hardgrounds, paleosols, dessication cracks, and many more cannot be explained thusly.

"A well-developed gleyed oxisol, similar in nature to the paleosol described in section 3.1.1, marks the base of the Monitor Butte Member immediately above the coarse-grained deposits of the Shinarump Member in White Canyon, at Jacob&#8217;s Chair (MS 19), and in Red Canyon (MS 21). At Jacob&#8217;s Chair, the paleosol is fine-grained and nearly 6 meters thick. Color mottles found in this paleosol range from dark purple, red, grey, gold, white, green, to dark black in color (Figure AI.59).

Figure AI.59.  Well-developed paleosol below lacustrine deltal facies near the base of the Monitor Butte Member at MS19."
From SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY OF FLUVIAL AND LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS IN THE LOWER PART OF THE CHINLE FORMATION, SOUTH CENTRAL UTAH, UNITED STATES: PALEOCLIMATIC AND TECTONIC IMPLICATIONS.

"The top of the Monitor Butte is a sequence boundary, marked either by an erosional surface at the base of the discontinuous Moss Back Member sandstone where it is present, or a well-developed paleosol characterized by distinctive red coloration and carbonate nodules (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Interfluve paleosol near edge of Moss Back incised valley. Note well-developed pedogenic carbonate horizon. At Jacob's Chair (JAC1 on Figure 3)."
From SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY OF A FLUVIAL-LACUSTRINE SUCCESSION IN THE TRIASSIC LOWER CHINLE FORMATION, CENTRAL UTAH, USA

And there's lots more of 'em that you haven't explained, Davie-doodles.

Date: 2006/08/21 12:46:25, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 21 2006,10:05)
But to say that Layer 3 is 150 myo because it contains ash from a volcano that erupted 150 myo seems wrong.  

And, as has been pointed out many times, it is is wrong.  It is correct to say that layer 3 is greater than 150 myo.  Then we go and look for some other information that tells us what age layer 3 is less than

Date: 2006/08/21 16:31:54, Link
Author: JonF
This is, of course, far beyond the intellectual capabilities of Davie-dip ... but it may be of interest to others.  The well-known physicist Steve Carlip recently posted a very interesting message about how we know that radioactive decay rates are and were constant [or so close to constant as makes no difference to the YECs).  Re: Age dating question.

Date: 2006/08/22 09:40:32, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 22 2006,12:07)
So my first question is "How does this relate to my questioning of radiometric dating of the layers in the Grand Staircase?"

Nothing, Davie-dork.  I know you're slow, but make some effort to keep up. I was responding to your claim:
   
Quote
2) the fact that the non water-laid sediments can be explained as short duration volcanic/tectonic processes during and after the Flood

Paleosols can't be explained that way, and paleosols aren't "water laid".  There's a good explanation of paleosols and their implications for your fantasies at  PALAEOSOLS.  You brought up the claim that "non water-laid sediments can be explained as short duration volcanic/tectonic processes during and after the Flood".  I know that it's embarassing to have to admit that you were so wrong, and you'd like to duck the issue, but your brought it up ... now you need to justify it.
   
Quote
So there are some PALEOSOLS.  IOW, there are ancient, buried soils whose composition may reflect a climate significantly different from the climate now prevalent in the area where the soil is found.

I already knew that.  I have been saying for a long time that the climate was different prior to the Great Flood of Noah.

Prior to your fludde is irrelevant, Davie-pie, your hypothesis is that the paleosols were laid down during the fludde. Try to keep track of your own fantasies.  The paleosols are in between "water-laid" sedimentary layers that you claim were laid down by a fludde, so they were laid down in your fludde time. I have been saying for some time that paleosols in between sedimentary layers that you claim were laid down by your alleged fludde cannot be explained as flood layers (because they are not "water-laid") and cannot be explained as "short duration volcanic/tectonic processes during and after the Flood".  So how do you explain the many distinct paleosol layers in between layers in the Grand Staircase? ???

Until you have an explanation for how the paleosols came to be there, you got nothing.  (Of course, even with such an explanation you'd have nothing; there's so much that needs to be explained that you've ignored).

Date: 2006/08/22 09:47:38, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 22 2006,13:17)
DM can you post that link to the ex fundy geologists paper that talked about the worm holes in various layers of sediment again?

Probably Burrows cause problems for the Flood.  Home page at Glenn Morton's Creation/Evolution  Home Page.

Loads of burrows in the Coconino.  Many different levels.

Date: 2006/08/23 07:50:38, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 22 2006,21:57)
PALEOSOLS:  MORE ERRONEOUS THINKING BY LONG AGERS



   
Quote
Paleosols: digging deeper buries &#8216;challenge&#8217; to Flood geology
by Tas Walker

Summary
Paleosols are a favourite objection used against the global Flood and the 6,000-year biblical age of the earth. Uniformitarians believe that paleosols (ancient soil horizons) are common throughout the stratigraphic record. Soils are believed to take hundreds to thousands of years or more to form and represent periods of earth history when the area was not covered with water. Thus, it is argued, paleosols could not have formed in the midst of a global flood. However, when two examples of alleged paleosols are examined, one in Missouri, USA and the other in Queensland, Australia, they do not stand up to scrutiny. The loose, friable horizons do not have the diagnostic characteristics of soils and the interpretation of a paleosol is inconsistent with the sequence of geological events required. Instead, the field evidence fits the biblical framework much better than the uniformitarian one. The soils examined did not form by subaerial weathering over a long time but by in situ &#8216;weathering&#8217; during and after the global Flood.

See the remainder of the article here.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosols.asp


Hey JonF--  Do me a favor and do a search in the Creatonist Tech Journals before you spout non-sensical long ager blather, ok?  Save me some time.  Thanks!

Here's the link for it ...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/archive/

**************************

Also, Deadman, how on earth do you suppose that spider tracks could possibly be preserved in dry sand?

Hey, Davey, I'm not interested in Taz's fantasies.  I'm interested in what you've got evidence for.  EVIDENCE, Davie-doodles.

You should note that Taz's criticism of Meert's example is totally invalid;  Geology at 200 d.p.i.: Remote Sensing from the Antipodes.

Let's see your detailed, step-by-step analysis of how each of the many palelosols in the Grand Staircase formed.  Don't forget that they must be formed sequentially, and there's lots of root traces in 'em!  Taz's claims of root traces being from plants trransported by the fludde is especially amusing ... love to see you try to replicate that in the lab!

Date: 2006/08/23 08:09:08, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 23 2006,09:04)

3) This article by Walker pertain to Paleosols in GENERAL.  Go ahead and show me one of your "paleosols" from the GC.  I'll be glad to look at it.  But please show the 3 required characteristics in any picture you post.  Thanks in advance!

Ah, so now we're shifting the goalposts from the Grand Staircase to the Grand Canyon only, hum?  Won't work, Davie-doodles, we're discussing the entirety of Southwestern geology.

Pictures, and links to lots more, were posted at Paleosols, a mere two days ago.  Do make some effort to keep up, Davie-pie, there's a good lad.

If you don't think the pictures show appropriate details, do your own research to come up with appropriate data.  Remember, you're the one who claimed to have explanations for all the Grand Staircase layers, and that those explanations are better than those of conventional geology.  (Of course, you don't have an explanation for the paleosols and root traces and what-not, but you're frantically trying to make one up). It's your responsibility to produce those explanations, with requisite SUPPORTING EVIDENCE (unsupported fantasies need not apply), and explain in detail why your explanation is better than that of mainstream geology.
Quote
You still have not been able to refute my objections to the supposed RM dating of the layers of the Grand Staircase.  My belief is that they CANNOT be dated radiometrically.  I showed you why.  Refute me if you can.

Already done.  Your pathetic misunderstandings of how dating is done, puerile insults substituted for substantive discussion, and refusal to acknowledge your ignorance don't change reality.

Tell you what.  You prove you have some idea what you're talking about by coming up with an accurate description of how mainstream geologists date sedimentary layers in the Grand Canyon, and I'll be glad to discuss it further with you.  BTW, accurate descriptions have already been posted by me and others in this thread.  You don't have to go far to learn ...

Date: 2006/08/23 11:35:57, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 23 2006,13:34)
JonF brought up paleosols and now I have shown why most of the formations he THINKS are paleosols ...

ACTUALLY ARE NOT.

Nope, Davie-dork, you posted a a link to a paper in which Taz Walker indulged in some fantasies.  No data, no evidence.

Let's start by you explaining the many paleosols in the Grand Saircase using Taz Walker's "model".

And don't forget the details of how those root trails were actually plants deposited by a fludde that just happened to drop 'em all right side up with their roots in growing position!

Hee hee hee ...

Date: 2006/08/24 02:28:50, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 23 2006,16:32)
improv:

   
Quote
Were Gentry's observations ever submitted for review?  I thought he just put them in a book.  But please correct me if I'm wrong about that.  Your statement would seem very misleading if his model were never "in the scientific literature" to begin with.


It's my recollection that they were -- that's part of the reason for his notoriety in the evo community. CreoWiki lists his publications, and this list supports my memory:

   
Quote
Publication in secular journals

Gentry, Robert V. 1968. Fossil Alpha Recoil Analysis of Variant Radioactive Halos. Science 160, pp. 1228-1230.
Gentry. Robert V. 1971. Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radio Activity. Science 173, pp. 727-31.
Gentry, Robert V. 1973. Radioactive Halos. Ann. Rev. Nuc. Sci, 23, pp. 347-362.
Gentry, Robert V. 1974. Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective. Science 184, pp. 64-66.
Gentry, Robert V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlin&#8217;s Comments on "Spectacle Haloes." Nature 258, p. 269.
Gentry, Robert V. 1979. Time: Measured Responses. Eos 60, p. 474.
Gentry, Robert V. 1984. Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective. Proceedings of the Sixty Third Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Volume 1. Part 3. pp. 38-65.
Gentry, Robert V. et al.. 1973. Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohaloes. Nature 244, pp. 282-283.
Gentry, Robert V. et al.. 1974. "Spectacle" Array of 210Po Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma. Nature 252, p. 564.
Gentry, Robert V. et al.. 1976. Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification. Science 194, pp. 315-318.
Gentry, Robert V. et al.., 1982a. Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment. Science 2l6, pp. 296-298.
Gentry, Robert V., Clish, Gary L., and McBay, Eddie H. 1982b. Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment. Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, pp. 1129-1130.

Which of those publications argue that the Earth is young because of radiohalos?  Gentry has several mainstream publications, that's well known, but I am not aware of any that argue for a young Earth.

Date: 2006/08/24 09:40:25, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,08:48)
Where are we with Paleosols?  JonF brought them up because I said that the layers in the Grand Staircase are either water laid or volcanic in their origin.  JonF responded by saying "Oh no that's not right.  How about paleosols? (And evaporites)."  My answer then, as we have seen is that the "paleosols" I have been shown are not paleosols at all.

A Taz Walker speculation about some photographs of paleosols is not evidence that any or all paleosols were "water laid", Davie-doodles.  What evidence you got for your speculation?
Quote
You might call them "pseudo-paleosols" because they in fact are simply water laid sediments which Long Agers ASSUME are paleosols, but cannot truly be this for the reasons given by the Tas Walker article.

Er, there's no reasons in the Taz Walker article other than "Da Bible tol' me so".
Quote
JonF also had an objection about Tas Walker's view of root traces which I did not follow.  Here is Walker's quote ...    
Quote
The first point about the alleged paleosol in Figure 1, which Meert described as an &#8216;excellent example of a well developed paleosol&#8217;, is that there is no reference to any root traces. The photo is too distant to distinguish them and their existence or otherwise is not mentioned in the text. In other words, the first and &#8216;most diagnostic feature&#8217;25 of a paleosol is not addressed. However, even when root traces are described for claimed paleosols (ones clearly from Flood deposits) the roots are often simply interpreted from plant fragments, or even from empty tubular cavities interpreted as root trace fossils.26 These features can be just as easily interpreted as the product of processes consistent with the Flood framework, such as plant material being transported into place, or water escape cavities.
What was your objection?

The root traces are nothing like "water escape cavities"; they're obviously palces whre roots grew.  I also highlighted the funniest part; are you seriously proposing that your fludde transported plants and carefully placed them upright in growing position with the roots exactly as they grew into the original soil?  And did this over and over and over again, repeatedly, every time the same?  Come on, Dave, I want to see you agree to that crazy idea of Taz's.  Or do you have a different explanation for 'em?  If so, trot it out.
 
Quote
Going back to the Grand Staircase shown above, we have seen that some of you have already agreed with me previously that MOST of the layers were laid down by water.  Before paleosols were brought up, I was under the impression that you meant what you said.  If you are now changing this, feel free to point out which layers are supposedly paleosols and I will be happy to analyze them.

Alrady done, twice, Davie-dido, and waiting for your analysis.
 
Quote
 You simply can't tell me that a 10 myo grain in a water-laid sediment means that layer was deposited 10 mya.

And nobody does. That's only a product of your fevered imagination.
 
Quote
only mean one of two things ... (a) the grain was deposited AFTER the layer was deposited or (b) the grain was deposited WITH the layer.  In case (a) we know that the layer is OLDER than the grain.  How much older?  We haven't a clue.  In case (b) we still only know about the supposed "RM date" of the GRAIN, not the date of deposition of the "datable" grain and the other particles.  So what do we really know?  Only that MAYBE the layer is older than the grain, but we cannot be sure.

Obviously, Davie-diddles, and that's why nobody tries to date sediments by dating the grains in them.  This has been explained umpteen times.  Are you ever going to get it?
Quote
Now I cannot answer conclusively WHERE the water came from.  Walt Brown and John Baumgardner have some educated guesses, and there is some good evidence supporting their guesses, but the FACT that there was a Global Flood is indisputable, regardless of the source of the water.

There's no evidence that is consistent with or for a global flood.
Quote
BTW ... Has anyone tried to explain to me why the layers pictured above are curved, but there is no cracking?

Yes, many times, dumbo-Davie.
 
Quote
My explanation is that they were still soft when they were bent by continental movements.  How do you explain it?

As has been explained many times, but you're too stupid to remember: subduction, heat, pressure, time.  All observed and all but subduction demonstrated in the lab.

Sediments bent while soft don't look like that.  Evidence provided already, and ignored by you.

Date: 2006/08/24 09:54:43, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,10:38)
Quote
I have no trouble believing that most layers anywhere were laid down by water. The majority of the earth is covered with the stuff. That doesn't mean there aren't layers NOT laid down by water interspersed throughout the "staircase" where they could never be if all those layers came from the FLUD.
Can you name one that is NOT

Off the top of my head, the many paleosol layers (a couple of which I posted pictures of, and posted links to more).  You keep offering to analyze those layers, Davie-piddle-poo, but you never do it.
Quote
(besides the Coconino, which I think IS)??

We know you think it is, but you have never posted any reasons why or explanations of the Coconino features. I know you claimed to have posted explanation, but you didn't.  If you want to claim that you did, include a link to the post in which you did so.

Here's a list of most (not all) of the features you need to explain, from Claim CC365.1:

  • The extent and homogeneity of the sand body.
  • The tabular-planar and wedge-planar type and large scale of cross-stratification. The common high-angle deposits are interpreted as slipfaces on the lee sides of dunes, and the relatively rare low-angle cross-strata that dip toward the opposite quadrant apparently represent deposits of windward slopes.
  • Slump marks of several varieties preserved on the steeply dipping surfaces of lee-side deposits. These are distinctive of dry sand avalanching.
  • Ripple marks which are common on surfaces of high-angle crossbedding suggest eolian deposition both by their high indexes (above 15) and by their orientation with axes parallel to dip slope.
  • The local preservation of a distinctive type of rain pit. Such pits illustrate the cohesion of sand grains with added moisture and a reorientation of the crater axes with respect to bedding slopes.
  • Successions of miniature rises or steps ascending dip slopes of crossbeds.
  • The preservation in fine sand of reptile footprints and probable millipede trails with sharp definition and clear impression.
  • The consistent orientation of reptilian tracks up (not down) the steep foreset slopes.
  • The presence of grain-fall bedding and lamination.
  • Additional types of terrestrial trace fossils, paleosols, and other distinctive eolian sedimentary structures.

Quote
Why do you guys spell the Flood "FLUD" or "fludde" ... is there some insult in there that I am supposed to get?

Yes, Davie-pootles.  Medieval spelling.  Think about it.
Quote
 
Quote
You cited one article by an engineer --who looked at pictures of paleosols and made an uninformed pronouncement...that was devastated by the response of an actual geologist.
I showed you in detail with pictures and commentary why Meert's case is a poor one.  You have not explained to me how this is rebutted.

Nope, Davie, you posted no pictures or commentaary, just a link to Taz's article and picture.

Date: 2006/08/24 10:46:26, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,15:27)
 
Quote
Further, even if it were true that you can't date sediments radiometrically,
... which it is ... you cannot, thus burying Deadman's and your claim that you can.  Cha-ching!!

Dating sedimentary rocks (This is from one of the two major reference works on radiometric dating).
SHRIMP Uranium-Lead Dating of Diagenetic Xenotime in Siliciclastic Sedimentary Rocks
SHRIMP U/Pb geochronology of authigenic xenotime and its potential for dating sedimentary basins
New dating technique with sand grains
On the evaluation of glauconite and illite for dating sedimentary rocks by the potassium-argon method
The potential for U-Pb Dating of Coprolites, Hartford Basin, Connecticut
Fission-track dating of volcanically derived sedimentary rocks


Moron.  Cha-ching!!!!

Date: 2006/08/25 03:11:05, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,22:13)
JonF...        
Quote
Dating sedimentary rocks (This is from one of the two major reference works on radiometric dating).
SHRIMP Uranium-Lead Dating of Diagenetic Xenotime in Siliciclastic Sedimentary Rocks
SHRIMP U/Pb geochronology of authigenic xenotime and its potential for dating sedimentary basins
New dating technique with sand grains
On the evaluation of glauconite and illite for dating sedimentary rocks by the potassium-argon method
The potential for U-Pb Dating of Coprolites, Hartford Basin, Connecticut
Fission-track dating of volcanically derived sedimentary rocks  Moron.  Cha-ching!!!!


Nice links Jon.  They show how to date grains of IGNEOUS origin, Jon.  Let me say this really slow, Jon ...

S C I E N T I S T S         A T T E M P T         T O        D A T E      W A T E R        L A I D           S E D I M E N T A R Y        L A Y E R S       B Y      D A T I N G      G R A I N S     O F     I G N E O U S     O R I G I N         ...      However, the Creation Date of these grains has NOTHING to do with the Deposition Date of these layers.

Oh, Davie, Davie, Davie, Davie.  You are such a moron.  You didn't even read the freakin' titles!!!!  And, Lord knows, you didn't actually read the links, especially the first one; all the links refute your claim.  Maybe a few BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS with W I D E   S P A C I N G will succeed in penetrating the incredible thickness of your skull.

No, Davie, they do not show how to date grains of igneous origin.  I told you already, several times, they don't do that (at least, they don't do that to date the sedimentary rock; they may do it for other reasons).  If you would stop trying to pretend you have even some vague idea of how dating works, and pay attention to what I and others write, you might actualy learn somthing.

AS I said, they show how to date "WATER LAID" SEDIMENTARY ROCKS. They did this, NOT BY DATING THE IGNEOUS-ORIGIN GRAINS IN THE ROCKS, but rather by D A T I N G   P A R T S   O F   T H E   R O C K S   T H A T   F O R M E D   O R   H O M O G E N I Z E D   W H E N   T H E   R O C K S   L I T H I F I E D.  (I know "lithified" is an awfully big word for one as stupid as you, so I'll explain that it means "changed from loose sediments into solid rock"; that is, when the layer of sediment became a sedimentary rock).  Mostly they dated things in the "cement" that formed between the igneous-origin grains and held the rock togehter as a rock. In some cases they dated xenotime that grew on the outside of igneous-origin zircons when the sedimentary rock lithified such as in the second and third links.  And I haven't completely figured out what they did in the second-to-last link, but it appears to be dating whale poop, so I threw it in for grins.

Davie-pootles, we know that the creation date of those grains has nothing to do with when the sediment was laid down (except that the grains were created before the sediment was laid down).  We have stated many times that the creation date of those grains has nothing to do with when the sediment was laid down.  You keep claiming that the direct radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks involves finding the creation date of the grains of the rock.  D I R E C T   R A D I O M E T R I C   D A T I N G   O F   S E D I M E N T A R Y   R O C K S   D O E S   N O T  I N V O L V E   D A T I N G   T H E   G R A I N S   T H A T   M A K E   U P   T H E   R O C K.  Direct radiometric dating of rocks does involve dating structures that formed or homogenized when the rock lithified and the date of these structures is the date of the sedimentary rock layer.

Moron.  Cha-ching, Cha-ching!!!!!!!!

Date: 2006/08/25 03:13:36, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 24 2006,22:59)
did anybody ever answer Dave's incredibly important question as to why many of us refer to the noachian flood fairytale as "the flud" or fludde, or what have you?

Yes.  At the end of this message.  But it probably was too obscure for the moron to figure out.

Date: 2006/08/25 03:28:12, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 24 2006,17:35)
JonF:

     
Quote
Which of those publications argue that the Earth is young because of radiohalos?  Gentry has several mainstream publications, that's well known, but I am not aware of any that argue for a young Earth.


I got held up today so I'll be here for another hour or so. Lucky you! Anyhoo, I wasn't claiming that his scientific publications were specifically advocating for a young Earth, but I do remember that his heterodox data and observations did get published, and that the geologists at the time considered his work a more serious challenge because of it. If memory serves, those publications were pinpointed to the mid-to-late 70's, so my best guess is:

         
Quote
Gentry, Robert V. 1974. Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective. Science 184, pp. 64-66.

Gentry, Robert V. 1984. Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective. Proceedings of the Sixty Third Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Volume 1. Part 3. pp. 38-65.

Gentry, Robert V. et al.. 1974. "Spectacle" Array of 210Po Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma. Nature 252, p. 564.

Gentry, Robert V. et al.. 1976. Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification. Science 194, pp. 315-318.


The second source may not have been peer reviewed, but that leaves three good candidates.

So, IOW, he did not argue that the Earth is young in those publications.  Only in creationist tracts did he argue thus.
 
Quote
Here are some excerpts from Brent Dalrymple's testimony in McLean  v. Arkansas:

...

This testimony is very old, of course, and since then evos claim to have made substantial progress in explaining this "tiny mystery", but even in 1981 a leading geologist could not refute Gentry's work.

Of course, since then "evos" have made substantial progress; The Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery" is from 1988, and was published in a peer-reviewed journal (now the Journal of Geoscience Education). Polonium Haloes" Refuted is from 2001. Evolution's Tiny Violences: The Po-Halo Mystery is from 1992.  The latter two are not from peer-reviewed journals, but do raise issues and questions which Gentry has not explained.
 
Quote
In fact, I suspect his testimony still holds today, although alternative expectations have been proposed since the trial.

Obviously his testimony does not hold today; if he were testifying today he would discuss the information in the above links.

Date: 2006/08/25 14:11:14, Link
Author: JonF
Dave, you promised an explanation for root traces in paleosols today.  In fact, you wrote:
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,22:20)
Oh and Jonnny ... I'll explain the root thing to you tomorrow.  It's pretty simple.

Pretty simple, hum, Davie-diddles?  Why haven't you posted your explanation yet?  I'm really looking forward to it.  Do you agree with Taz that the root traces may be due to plants transported by the fludde and carefully stuck into the sediments rightside-up with the roots carefully fanned out into growing position?

And remember your offer:
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,08:48)
feel free to point out which layers are supposedly paleosols and I will be happy to analyze them

This is the third time I've asked you to analysze these paleosols; where's your analysis?
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 25 2006,09:37)
EXCELLENT!!!  I SEE THAT I'VE KILLED THIS ERRONEOUS NOTION ONCE AND FOR ALL.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

Here below, we have JonF admitting that you cannot date water-laid sedimentary rocks by dating the igneous grains.  Whew!  That was tiring!

Davey-moron, we killed your erroneous notion.  We only had to tell you a few dozen times before you figured it out.  It was indeed tiring trying to shove that notion into your thick  moronic skull.  

However, you neglected to acknowledge and apologize for your major error, repeated so many times:
 
Quote
S C I E N T I S T S         A T T E M P T         T O        D A T E      W A T E R        L A I D           S E D I M E N T A R Y        L A Y E R S       B Y      D A T I N G      G R A I N S     O F     I G N E O U S     O R I G I N


Scientists do not attempt to date water laid sedimentary layers by dating grains of igneous origins and you, Afdavie-poo, were wrong each and every time you claimed they did, and each and every time you ignored us telling you they don't.

And, of course, another error you didn't acknowledge:
   
Quote
They show how to date grains of IGNEOUS origin, Jon

They {my links} don't show how to date grains of IGNEOUS origin, Davie-piddles.  You were wrong again.
   
Quote

But now he's on a new track ...  (Deadman?  Are you with him on this new track?)

DATING THE "CEMENT" THAT BINDS THE GRAINS TOGETHER

Or, as I wrote, dating other materials that formed when the rock lithified, such as xenotime that grew on the outside of igneous-origin zircons when the sedimentary rock lithified.  Or materials that were isotopically homogenized when the just before the rock formed, such as the illite deadman has already discussed.
   
Quote
(May this humble "macaque brain" be so bold as to point out that the "dating" of the KBS Tuff apparently violated this latest statement by JonF?  Didn't they date the grains of igneous material and keep the dates they liked, thus coming up with 1.87my ultimately?  N  n n n n n no!  Don't mention that.)

Go ahead, mention it, doofus.  It's just another example of yur ignorance and stupidity.

Tuffs are not sedimentary, moron.  Tuffs are igneous, idiot.

And, no, they didn't keep the dates they liked. They figured out what was going on and kept the dates that were replicable by several methods at several labs, whether they liked the dates or not.

My statements were explicitly relevant only to sedimentary rocks, so obviously they don't apply to dating tuffs.  Dolt.

Date: 2006/08/26 05:26:16, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 26 2006,07:25)
JONF SAYS THAT THE NOTION OF DATING SEDIMENTARY ROCK LAYERS BY DATING IGNEOUS MATERIAL WAS NEVER BELIEVED BY ANYBODY EXCEPT "DAVIE-POOTLES."

Well, then I guess we have a disagreement between JonF and Deadman.  Also, Eric apprently thinks JonF didn't say that.  He thinks I am "reading challenged."

You are reading-challenged, Davie-pootles, but in this particular case a misunderstanding is understandable.

Deadman and I are using "dating" in slightly different meanings.  I tried to make my writing more clear by using "direct dating".  And some of what I wrote could easily be misunderstood if you ignore (or can't understand) context.

My statements apply to dating the layer using only measurements of the layer itself. Deadman's statements apply to dating the layer using measurements of the layer itself and/or other information.  All our statements are correct and do not conflict; nobody tries to date a layer measuring only the date of igneous grains in the layer and using no other information.  Nonetheless, dating of sedimentary layers is possible (despite your claim that it is not) and some of those dating methods involve measuring only things that formed when the layer lithified and are unquestionably the same age as the layer.
 
Quote
And last but not least ... AFD ...      
Quote
(May this humble "macaque brain" be so bold as to point out that the "dating" of the KBS Tuff apparently violated this latest statement by JonF?  Didn't they date the grains of igneous material and keep the dates they liked, thus coming up with 1.87my ultimately?  N  n n n n n no!  Don't mention that.)


and JonF responds with ...      
Quote
Go ahead, mention it, doofus.  It's just another example of yur ignorance and stupidity.  Tuffs are not sedimentary, moron.  Tuffs are igneous, idiot.
Where did I say that a tuff was sedimentary?  I don't think I have EVER said that anywhere ... certainly not in this quote.  Actually, I recall YOU saying something like "tuffs are sedimentary" when you tried to chastise me for referring to water-laid sedimentary rock simply as sedimentary rock.  You said something like "hey, doofus, lava is a sediment."  So, I guess if someone is a doofus for thinking tuffs are sedimentary, that would be you, not me.  But nice try.  Keep trying.  Maybe you will show me up yet.

Davie, moron, you brought up tuffs in the context of dating sedimentary rocks in the middle of a discussion of dating sedimentary rocks and no other kinds of rocks; you obviously thought they were sedimentary. And I did point out once that not all sediments are water-laid, and included some examples such as loess, but I never wrote anything that even an idiot like you could take as meaning that lava or tuffs are sedimentary.

Sorry, Davie-doodles, whimper all you want but you didn't even know what class of rock tuffs are!
 
Quote
So you see, many trees got deposited right side up with the roots down ...

We're not talking "many" here, davie-dork, we're talking "all".  ALL, Davie-poo.  And we're talking about all kinds of plants, most of which do not have the structural integrity or density of trees.
 
Quote
Not so silly after all is it now, Jon?

Getting sillier by the minute.
 
Quote
Not very difficult to imagine many of these plants getting "planted" in an upright position.

I'm having a really difficult time with that.  Try dropping your plant into any moving water and let us know whether it floats upright or sideways.  Sideways is my bet.  I can't see anything but maybe a few plants getting deposited upright .... but we're talking about all the plants getting deposited upright.  Millions of 'em.  Trees, bushes, tumbleweeds, dandelions, lilies, marigolds, all kinds of plants.
Quote
I'm sure they were deposited in many orientations.

Then why are they always found upright, with roots in growing position, in paleosols, Davie-diddles?  You are supposed to be explaining this observed fact.  If "they were deposited in many orientations" then you are admitting the your fludde cannot explain the observed facts.

Date: 2006/08/26 06:08:32, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 26 2006,07:25)
Maybe you will show me up yet.

We've shown you up many times, Davie-pie.  Such as when you wrote:

Quote
S C I E N T I S T S         A T T E M P T         T O        D A T E      W A T E R        L A I D           S E D I M E N T A R Y        L A Y E R S       B Y      D A T I N G      G R A I N S     O F     I G N E O U S     O R I G I N


W R O N G, Davie -pootie.  And one of my favorites:

Quote
They show how to date grains of IGNEOUS origin, Jon


You didn't even read the freakin' titles of the links I posted Davie-lad, and do you know what, Davie-dork?  You were W R O N G, Davie-dip.  THe links I posted did not "show how to date grains of IGNEOUS origin", as anyone who even read the titles could tell.

Date: 2006/08/27 09:34:41, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 27 2006,07:45)
Faid...        
Quote
A. You assume that the ash was first hardened, THEN "eroded, turned into mud and deposited" and you conclude that that was impossible, because of the extent of the formation, and because of the time it would take... But you completely neglect to think of the other option: that the ash bed actually FELL and was embedded onto the soft sediment.

Er, Davie-moron, that's the conventional geologist's viewpoint.  The "hardened, THEN eroded, turned into mud and deposited" idea is your fantasy.
   
Quote
Now you guys seem to have some example in mind where ALL the roots are in the right direction.  Would someone care to show me an example?

That's what we've been saying all along, Davie-doodles. Don't have one from the Grand Staircase handy, but here's a great one:


Root traces in paleosols: calcareous rhizoconcretions from an Aquept of the late Eocene Birket Qarun Formation, Egypt (Bown & Kraus, 1988).  From Geology 435/535 Paleopedology.

In this one, look at figures 4 and 5:

Fig. 4. 1, Outcrop of the Ligorio Márquez Formation at LM01 ("Mina Ligorio Márquez"); 2, An example of
lithofacies in the middle unit. Pebbly sandstone with cross-stratification overlies plant-bearing mudstone (equals to plant megafossil locality 03) with erosional surface. Middle unit. LM01; 3, Plant megafossil locality 04, showing dark gray mudstone frequently intercalated with white fine- to very fine-grained sandstone. Middle unit. LM01. Hammer for scale has a handle 30 cm long; 4, Plant megafossil locality 05, showing carbonaceous root traces (arrows). Middle unit. LM01; 5, Paleosol at middle unit of LM02, showing irregular joining and scattering organic matters. Handle of hammer is 3 cm wide; 6, Paleosol with abundant root traces. The bed probably corresponds with that reported by Suárez et al. (2000: fig. 2). Middle unit. LM04. A pen for scale is 14 cm long; 7, Upper unit of the Ligorio Márquez Formation (LM) and overlying basalt (B) at LM05; 8, Locality of a sample for K-Ar dating.LM05. Hammer handle is 30 cm long.  From GEOLOGICAL NOTES ON PLANT FOSSIL LOCALITIES OF THE LIGORIO MÁRQUEZ FORMATION, CENTRAL PATAGONIA, CHILE.

Your turn, Davie, show us some photos of paleosols with upside-down and sidweways and randomly oriented root traces.  You're the one with the better explanation, remember?
   
Quote
JonF...        
Quote
Davie, moron, you brought up tuffs in the context of dating sedimentary rocks in the middle of a discussion of dating sedimentary rocks and no other kinds of rocks; you obviously thought they were sedimentary.
Sorry, mister, but I have NEVER, EVER thought that a tuff was sedimentary.

Ah, sure, of course, Davie-lad, we believe you, you had a real good reason for bringing up the KBS tuff in the middle of a discussion of dating sedimentary rocks, and only sedimentary rocks. If it wasn't because you thought tuffs were sedimentary, what the f**k WAS your reason for bringing up something that was and is totally irrelevant to the discussion?  Huh, Davie-pie?
   
Quote
YOU are the one who was trying to make fun of me for referring to water-laid sedimentary rocks simply as "sedimentary" ... you laughed and said something like "Hey, Davie-pootles lava is a sediment too!  Ha ha ha ha!  You're a dolt!"  Try to get me with facts, not insults based on your erroneous ideas of me.

Getting you with facts is like shooting fish in a barrel, Davie-pootsie; it's too easy.  I need to do the insults to keep things interesting  I have indeed made fun of you for claiming that all sedimentary rocks were "water-laid", but I never wrote anything that even an idiot like you could interpret as claiming that lava or tuffs are sedimentary.  Don't make claims like that without linking to the message in which you think I made that statement.

Date: 2006/08/27 14:26:18, Link
Author: JonF
You neglected to tell us why you brought up the KBS Tuff in the middle of a discussion of dating sedimentary rocks ... looks like an admission that you thought tuffs are sedimentary.  Moron.

And, of course, you have not acknowledged your egregious errors in your claims about how sedimentary rocks are dated ("S C I E N T I S T S         A T T E M P T         T O        D A T E      W A T E R        L A I D           S E D I M E N T A R Y        L A Y E R S       B Y      D A T I N G      G R A I N S     O F     I G N E O U S     O R I G I N") and your claim about the links I posted ("They show how to date grains of IGNEOUS origin, Jon") that was refuted by the titles of the links.
 
Quote
Faid...I think you are still confused on who said what.  Maybe you should tell me clearly ... do YOU agree with this?      
Quote
The sediments that comprise the Morrison Formation are believed to have been deposited about 150 million years ago, during Late Jurassic time. They were carried by streams and rivers from ancient highlands (sometimes called the "Ancestral Rockies") far to the west and deposited here in swampy lowland environments. [URL]http://town.morrison.co.us/geology/morrform.html

Wotta maroon.  That's a fairly good one-sentence description of a complex formation; as with all such, it leaves out a lot that is important when you start looking at details.  IOW, that does not mean that all of the Morrison was fomed in that manner, just most of it.
Quote
JonF ... looks like you want to discuss paleosols ... very good.  I'll oblige you.

You just caught on that I want to discuss paleosols, hum?  You're awfully slow, Davie-dork.  Don't forget to include your evaluations of the particular ones for which I've posted pictures three times now, in response to your promise to discuss any particular paleosols we wanted.  And, of course, the evidence for your interpretations.

AIG speculations without any evidence are not appropriate.

Date: 2006/08/27 15:04:15, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 27 2006,18:47)
You switched that to "I don't believe the dates are valid because radiometric dating is only good for igneous grains " (implying that the grains could be imported in and giving false dates.)

I thought he was pretty explicit in writing that the dates of the igneous rocks, from which the sediment was derived that eventually became sedimentary rocks, were not the dates of the sedimentary rocks.  In that he's close to correct; as we all know, all you learn from the date of an igneous-origin grain in a sedimentary rock is that the grain is older than the sedimentary rock, unless there's more information available for a particular case such as the Morrison ashfall that you discussed.  Of course, his error was in assuming that all that we can do is date igneous grains, and that there's never any other information available.  I find that this is common among creationists.  E.g., they assert that we can't know the amount of initial daughter in radiometric dating, or that we can't detect open-system behavior.  Davie's done that in this very thread.  But they make the unstated assumption that all we can do is measure the amount of daugher and parent products in one sample and never bother to look into the real story where knowledge of crystallization restrictions, other isotopes, and multiple samples allow us to regularly do what they claim is impossible.

I found it particularly amusing when he finally realized how stupid his claim about igneous grains was, and proudly announced that "I SEE THAT I'VE KILLED THIS ERRONEOUS NOTION ONCE AND FOR ALL."

Date: 2006/08/28 09:31:39, Link
Author: JonF
I see you haven't got any explanation of why you brought the KBS Tuff up in a discussion of sedimentary rocks.  The evidence on the table is pretty conclusive that you thought the KBS Tuff is sedimentary; got any more evidence to place on the table?

And you neglected to admit your errors about dating sedimentary rocks, and the links I posted about them.  Guess you just can't stand to admit when you're wrong, Davie-pootles.
 
Quote (af "Sedimentary Tuffs" dave @ Aug. 28 2006,09:40)

1) Most importantly, we have learned that almost all the layers of the Grand Staircase consist of WATER-LAID SEDIMENTS.  Moreover, the layers have the characterisitcs of being deposited by RAPIDLY-MOVING WATER.

Flat-out lie, Davie-doodles. Most of the "water-laid" layers have the characteristincs of being deposited by SLOW-MOVING OR NEARLY STILL WATER.
 
Quote
 2) Secondly, it is obvious that these layers are bent and that they were BENT WHILE THEY WERE STILL SOFT.

Fllat-out lie, Davie-doodles. They do not have the characteristics of layers bent while still soft.
 
Quote
3) I have learned that the geologic column (of which the Grand Staircase is a good example) is PRIMARILY DATED BY FOSSILS.  We argued a bit over the meaning of "Primary Dating" and that is all well and good, but the bottom line is that apparently Primary Dates = Fossil Dates.  My EB article stated that the dating is first done with bio-stratigraphy, then layers are dated radiometrically if this is possible.  This was illustrated clearly with the KBS Tuff example.
Flat-out lies, several of 'em, Davie-doodles.  The layers are dated by a combination of index fossils to correlate layers and radiometric dating to date layers.  Primary dates equal radiometric dates.  Your reading of the EB article is wrong (although the article is very poorly written and flat-out wrong in many places).
 
Quote
4) Now people like Deadman claim that you CAN date layers radiometrically and has given the Brushy Basin member of the Morrison Formation as an example.  He has given me around 3 other examples out of some 80 or so identifiable layers, but we have focused on this one to make a point.  And my point is that even if you can date volcanic material radiometrically, how can you then say that this date--the "Ash Creation Date" is anywhere close to the "Deposition Date" of the mudstone layer?  Much of that ash must have lain around for millions of years before getting gradually deposited in the Brushy Basin area by "streams and rivers" if the Long Age scenario is true.

Nope, as has been pointed out repeatedly the ash did not lie around for milions of years.  It was deposited in one swell foop by a volcanic eruption.
 
Quote
5) JonF believes the "stream and river" theory in spite of the fact that this seems to defy all logic.  Note that he says MOST of the Morrison Formation was formed slowly over millions of years by stream and river deposition.

But JonF has already explicitly stated that the particular deposit we are discussing was not formed slowly over millions of years by stream and river deposition.
 
Quote
Now ... take a look at the Morrison Formation ... I think the numbers on the side are meters ...



http://www.wvup.edu/ecrisp/fieldstudiesinutah.html

Remember how extensive it is ... something like 8 states or so ...

Can you honestly look yourself in the mirror and say with a straight face that this massive formation was laid down gradually over millions of years by dinky little streams and rivers?  Come on, guys.  We've seen this type of formation at Mt. Saint Helens.  We now know how this type of formation is deposited.  This stuff didn't get deposited over million of years.  

We can say, and do say, that the Morrison formation was laid down in a vast inland sea and swampy area, fed by all sorts of sources from small streams to mighty rivers, with parts of it laid down in short periods by gigantic volcanic eruptions.  We've seen nothing like the Morrison formation at Mt. St. Helens.
Quote
Quote


Looks to me like a big clump of plants that got uprooted by the rising, rushing water of Noah's Flood, floated around for a while, then came to rest and was buried with a bunch of water-borne sediment.  As the water receded, the sediment got eroded so we can now see it.  I've seen bunches of plants like this floating in an upright position.  It's simply a matter of center of gravity and buoyancy.

Not detailed enough, Davie-doodles.  I haven't seen bunches of plants floating upright; let's see your evidence for it.  You're the one who says the layers have "the characteristics of being deposited by RAPIDLY-MOVING WATER"; do plants float upright and get deposited upright in rapidly-moving water?  Let's see your evidence for plants being buried upright by sediment in rapidly-moving water. Don't forget you've got hundreds of paleosol layers in the Grand Staircase to explain; did the fludde recede every day or two so as to deposit those paleosols?.  

Let's also see your detialed discussion (that you offered to supply) of the paleosols I linked to three times now, including how your fludde formed soil horizons and characteristic microstructures that look nothing like water-deposited sediment.
 
Quote
What's YOUR explanation?  In detail.

Pathetic attempt to shift the burden of proof, Davie-dork This is where you present your "better explanation" in detail, Davie-diddles. Paleosols look nothing like water-borne sediments. You are the one explaining how the characteristic horizons formed, how the characteristic microstructures formed, how the root traces always wind up in growing position.  If you need to know more about the mainstream explanation in order to present yours, you look it up; start with Paleosols and A Paleosol Bibliography and move on from there as you need to.
 
Quote
I'm squinting really hard and I'm not seeing anything in Figures 4 & 5.  Can I borrow your magnifying glass?

So, look up some photographs of your own, Davie-poo.  Especially photographs of randomly-oriented root traces.
 
Quote
As for showing you some trees in other-than-upright positions, how about this ... didn't someone say "ALL PLANTS ARE DEPOSITED UPRIGHT"  ??  Well, if you said that, I think you are sadly mistaken ..

Nobody said any such thing, Davie-moron, I wrote that all paleosol root traces are found in positions indistinguishable from their growing position.  You're the only one talking about plants being deposited ... and you just posted a photo that disproves your thesis.
 
Quote
Apparently I should not confuse all these with my fantasy about your supposed fantasy that you at one point said that lava was a sedimentary rock.

I never wrote anyting that even an idiot like you could interpret as claiming that lava is a sedimentary rock, Davie-me-lad. You can't link to where I did so 'cause it don't exist.  Moron.
 
Quote
VERTICAL CLIFFS CUT IN HARD BASALTIC ROCK -- MILLIONS OF YEARS?  NO ... TRY LESS THAN 3 YEARS!!


Er, Davie-dumbass, that "vertical cliff at lake's edge" is about a 45-degree-or-less cliff.  You're totally blowing your own claims away with these postings.  Do you ever actually look at what you post?
 
Quote
Oh, you want my evidence again?
MILLIONS OF DEAD THINGS
BURIED IN ROCK LAYERS
LAID DOWN BY WATER
ALL OVER THE EARTH

You forgot IN MANNERS THAT ARE COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH A SINGLE EVENT OR EVEN A FEW EVENTS, OR DEPOSITION IN ANYTHING LESS THAN MANY MILLIONS OF YEARS.

Date: 2006/08/29 02:32:14, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (af "Sedimentary Tuffs" dave @ Aug. 29 2006,07:03)
DEADMAN CHANGES HIS APPROACH ... AND TAKES THE LOW ROAD

Deadman-- I see that my latest round has forced you into the sad position of "I'm Out of Answers So Let's Highlight Dave's Unanswered Questions" ... rather than take the high ethical road of "I Am Honest Enough to Admit that I Don't Have Answers to Many of Your Biggest Questions, Dave", you simply avoid the questions and publish a big list of your own questions ... many of which HAVE BEEN answered, some of which WILL BE answered in due course, and some of which CANNOT be answered at this time or I may CHOOSE not to answer some of them simply because I have learned enough of that particular topic.

The open questions are for you, Davie-dork, not us. See the title of this thread?

None of the questions Deadman listed have been answered.
 
Quote
 As I have now conclusively shown, these can in no way be taken as reliable Dates of Deposition of layers.

You have only claimed that, Davie-doodles, and you have not yet acknowledged the many errors in your claims, such as:

 
Quote
S C I E N T I S T S         A T T E M P T         T O        D A T E      W A T E R        L A I D           S E D I M E N T A R Y        L A Y E R S       B Y      D A T I N G      G R A I N S     O F     I G N E O U S     O R I G I N

and
 
Quote
Nice links Jon.  They show how to date grains of IGNEOUS origin, Jon

Those statements were both wrong, Davie-clod, and you can't bring yourself to admit it.
 
Quote
Can they even be considered to be reliable dates of the "creation" of igneous material?  I doubt it and I would like to investigate this further.  I have read one Snelling paper that is quite convincing that standard assumptions of conventional RM "ages" have nothing at all to do with the "Age of Crystal Creation" (or whatever you want to call it) but simply indicate the ancestry of the magma.

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/ICCMt_Ngauruhoe-AAS.pdf

Sorry, Davie-poozle, Snelling's article is bull.  100% fully organic bovine excrement.  He even provides the "smoking gun" proof himself:

   
Quote
A representative set (50-100 g from each sample) was also sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge (Boston), Massachusetts, for whole-rock potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating [60]. ...

Steiner [63] stressed that xenoliths are a common constituent of the 1954 Ngauruhoe lavas, but also noted that Battey [3] reported the 1949 Ngauruhoe lava was rich in xenoliths. All samples in this study contained xenoliths, including those from the 1975 avalanche material. However, many of these aggregates are more accurately described as glomerocrysts and mafic (gabbro, websterite) nodules [36]. They are 3-5 mm across, generally have hypidiomorphic-granular textures, and consist of plagioclase, orthopyroxene and clinopyroxene in varying proportions, and very occasionally olivine. The true xenoliths are often rounded and invariably consist of fine quartzose material. Steiner [63] also described much larger xenoliths of quartzo-feldspathic composition and relic gneissic structure.

{emphasis added}

Davie-moron, xenoliths (literally "foreign rocks") are pieces of older, unmelted material embedded in the relatively new lava.  You cannot get accurate dates from a mixture of materials of different ages. Since Snelling asked for a whole-rock analysis (instead of a mineral analysis with the xenoliths removed), he got an analysis of all of each sample ground up together ... and the resultant date was an average of the date of the lava and the date of the xenoliths, weighted by how much of the sample was xenoliths. Snelling knows all this ... that's how he perpetrated this deliberate fraud, Davie-pootles.

Date: 2006/08/29 09:02:09, Link
Author: JonF
Waiting for you to continue your exposition on paleosols, Davie.  I've been thinking about your fantasies. How deep was the water when these paleosols were laid down?  Seems to me it would have to be a foot or a few feet deep to have deposited sediment cover the roots of the floating plants, 'cause the roots only go down a few feet.  But a few feet of water can't carry enough sediment to cover the roots a few feet deep; all it could do is deposit a few inches of sediment. So, where'd the rest of the sediment come from, without disturbing the roots?  Why would the water level be changing so dramatically up and down and back, over and over and over again, pausing so as to be still enough to drop its load of sediment, every time you need a paleosol in the Grand Staircase?  Inquiring minds are eagerly awaiting your in-depth explanation, Davie-poo.
Quote (af "Tuffs are sedimentary" dave @ Aug. 29 2006,09:00)
 
Quote
Now so far you have four things to cite actual data on:
(1)You claim that you have already answered questions from the list i presented...show it
(2)You claim you have shown that radiometric dating of sediments dates only igneous materials...contrary to what JonF posted, eh?  
(3)You claim that the ash dates for the Morrison ( which ICR confirms as isotopically identical with "california" sources)....are what? wrong? can you SHOW this?
(4)You claim you have shown RM dates on the Grand Staircase are "bogus" yet offer no evidence of that...show it.

(1) Not going to rehash for you, sorry.

Translation: Dave knows he hasn't answered any of the questions.
Quote
(2) Yes.  This was my understanding prior to JonF's claim.  I have not yet had time to investigate "Cement Dating" but my guess is that it no more supports millionsofyearsianism than dating of igneous materials in sediments does

Translation: Radiometric dating does not date only igneous materials.  Whether or not Dave thinks radiometric dating of sedimentary matrixes supports mainstream science,  no matter whether or not Davie-dip has had time to review the papers and misunderstand them, radiometric dating does not date only igneous materials.  Davie-dork can't admit his error.

Remember, Davie:  "S C I E N T I S T S         A T T E M P T         T O        D A T E      W A T E R        L A I D           S E D I M E N T A R Y        L A Y E R S       B Y      D A T I N G      G R A I N S     O F     I G N E O U S     O R I G I N" and "Nice links Jon.  They show how to date grains of IGNEOUS origin, Jon".  Both flat-out lies, Davie-doofus.
Quote
3) Again, I'm not going to rehash this one.  I made a very clear case over many days with detailed explanations and pictures

But no evidence.  Translation: Dave knows he hasn't presented any evidence so there's nothing to point ot.
Quote
.(4) The whole discussion which ended up at the Morrison formation is representative of how other layers in the GS are dated.

Translation:  All the layers in the GC are dated as well as the Morison, and the Morrison is extremely well and convincingly dated, but Davie ahsd his fingers in his ears and is despeartly shouting "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!".
Quote
JonF...    
Quote
A representative set (50-100 g from each sample) was also sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge (Boston), Massachusetts, for whole-rock potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating [60]. ...

Steiner [63] stressed that xenoliths are a common constituent of the 1954 Ngauruhoe lavas, but also noted that Battey [3] reported the 1949 Ngauruhoe lava was rich in xenoliths. All samples in this study contained xenoliths, including those from the 1975 avalanche material. However, many of these aggregates are more accurately described as glomerocrysts and mafic (gabbro, websterite) nodules [36]. They are 3-5 mm across, generally have hypidiomorphic-granular textures, and consist of plagioclase, orthopyroxene and clinopyroxene in varying proportions, and very occasionally olivine. The true xenoliths are often rounded and invariably consist of fine quartzose material. Steiner [63] also described much larger xenoliths of quartzo-feldspathic composition and relic gneissic structure.

Davie-moron, xenoliths (literally "foreign rocks") are pieces of older, unmelted material embedded in the relatively new lava.  You cannot get accurate dates from a mixture of materials of different ages. Since Snelling asked for a whole-rock analysis (instead of a mineral analysis with the xenoliths removed), he got an analysis of all of each sample ground up together ... and the resultant date was an average of the date of the lava and the date of the xenoliths, weighted by how much of the sample was xenoliths. Snelling knows all this ... that's how he perpetrated this deliberate fraud, Davie-pootles.
Considered.  As I said, I have not analyzed this thoroughly.  But I will.

It's fraud, Davie-doodles,  Outright and deliberate fraud.

Date: 2006/08/29 11:48:13, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (af "Tuffs are too sedimentary!" dave @ Aug. 29 2006,15:31)
I'll take a look at my outline and see what I want to cover next since you guys seem to be out of gas on the GS and paleosols

We're not out of gas on the Grand Staircase and paleosols, but you and your bankrupt fantasies obviously are.  You haven't even attempted an explanation of paleosols.  Remember this post, Davie-doodles, where you wrote:

   
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,08:48)
feel free to point out which layers are supposedly paleosols and I will be happy to analyze them

In response, I pointed out this message, and this is the third time I've posted a link to it ... you offered an analysis, Davie-dip, let's see you r analysis of those layers.  Include the depth of water and amount of sediment deposited in each step, and don't forget to account for soil horizons and characteristic microstructures.

You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the many lies and errors you've committed on radiometric dating.  Pathetic.

Date: 2006/08/29 13:39:55, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Aug. 29 2006,17:58)
Lest too much gets said that shouldn't about vertically-floating dead plants, they are relatively well known:

We're talking about all kinds of plants; trees are a subset.  Most paleosol root traces are from bushes and deciduous plants and ferns.

Date: 2006/08/29 13:43:06, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (af "SedTuffs" dave @ Aug. 29 2006,17:38)
Wow, you guys are entertaining.  Please.  Keep going.

Anything to avoid you posting something substantive, eh, moron?

Date: 2006/09/03 04:37:53, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 02 2006,19:06)
Nice organized fossils, huh?  Wanna show me an example?

Sure, Davie-poodles, I'll show you more than one; they're easy enough to find if you get up off your duff and look ... after all, there's so many of 'em

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Foraminifera is especially interesting because foram fossils and their change over time are so well known that forams are one of the major markers used in interpreting oil well drilling cores (Foraminifera: Fossil Record) ... and those guys don't use techniques that aren't proven to work.  Glenn Morton provides a list of foram fossil names by age and by correlation between locations at Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood.  Over 216,000 foram fossils in The National Collection of Foraminifera, 16,000 of them catalogued in an on-line database with on-line SEM photographs.  Knock yourself out.

A few more examples of smooth transitions at Smooth Change in the Fossil Record.

Good stuff on ammonoids at Species and Genus Level Evolution in the Fossil Record.

And, of course, we're interested in ourselves; the record of hominid evolution is well presented at Hominid Species, with lots more information at Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution.  I find it especially amusing that the changes in hominid evolution are so gradual that creationists who insist that each fossil is wholly ape or wholly human are all over the map on which fossils are ape and which fossils are human: Comparison of all skulls.

Date: 2006/09/03 05:22:30, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 03 2006,06:26)
 
Quote
";Cope's Rule" describes the tendency of fossils (e.g. shellfish) to get bigger as you trace them upward through the geological strata. But why should evolution make things generally bigger? Indeed, living forms of fossils tend to be smaller than their fossil ancestors. A better explanation may be the sorting action of water.16
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp


I like that last question ... "But why should evolution make things generally bigger?"  I thought there was no such thing as "Upward Evolution?"

Yup, Davie-pie, there is no such thing as "upward evolution" in the sense of a teleological goal, or "aiming towards mankind", or any kind of goal other than short-term reproductive success.  But if you can actually take a moment to think about it, the observed pattern is strong evidence for evolution and pretty strong evidence against creationism.

The ToE predicts that organisms start small, because they can't just poof into existence fully formed, and that individual changes will be small because evolution can only modify pre-existing structures, and that populations respond to their environment (e.g. you can't have big organisms until there's enough for them to eat).  From these predictons it immediately follows that we should see an overall increase in complexity and size in the early parts of the fossil record (starting from small and simple there's only one direction in which to change), reaching a plateau when size and complexity get to a point beyond which the returns diminish. That's exactly what we see; another success for the ToE!

OTOH, creationism predicts that anything is possible, and has no explanation for the observed facts of tehj fossil record other than magic; the so-called "creationist explanations" for the order in the fossil record (differential escape, hydrodynamic sorting, and ecological zonation) fall apart when examined.

Let's look at grass and fern pollen.  Grass and ferns grow pretty much everywhere that any plant grows on land.  Grass doesn't run very fast, and ferns are famed for their lack of running ability.  Grass pollen has the same hydrodynamic properties as fern pollen.  

But fern pollen is found in abundance in strata from circa 400 million years ago to the present, and grass pollen is only found in strata from circa 70 million years ago to the present.

How did that grasss pollen get sorted out, Davie-diddles?

Or take plesiosaurs and dolphins.   They live (or lived) in the same environment, moved the same way, and have the same hydrodynamic properties.  Plesiosaur fossils are found in strata from 200-65 million years old and no more recent, dolphin fossils are found in strata from 13 million years old to the present.  How did that happen, Davie-poot?
 
Quote
And I want to write accurately

Don't bother with your pathetic lies, Davie-dork.  You've made it painfully clear that your purpose is to promulgate your flawed ideology, no matter how many lies it takes or how much reality you have to deny.
 
Quote
So I investigate the claims of Evolutionists and the claims of Creationists.  ... because that is really my goal -- to weigh the claims of the Evos against the claims of the Creos.

Then you should start weighing the claims of the "evos" against the claims of the "creos". So far you haven't engaged the claims of the "evos" at all; you've just weighed the claims of the "creos" agains creationist strawmen of the "evo" positions.

Date: 2006/09/03 13:11:17, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 03 2006,14:39)
We will be examining the recent article by Andrew Snelling about the volcano at Mt Ngauruhoe which JonF claims is a fraud.

Pretty strong words!  Is it a really a fraud?  Why?  Or why not?

My bet is that you won't engage the issue of xenoliths at all.

Date: 2006/09/03 14:20:12, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 03 2006,16:57)
 I do answer many of your questions.  I have actually answered the sorting question twice now.

Sorry, Davie-moron, what you've posted are not answers.  They're feeble attempts to avoid and obfuscate the questions.
Quote
Remember also ... I'm only one guy.  And can really only thoroughly research about one topic at a time.

You obviously can't research any topic at all, much less thoroughly.  Your ignorance is appalling.

Date: 2006/09/04 04:23:50, Link
Author: JonF
Davie, Davie, Davie.  You moron. My prediction is fulfilled.  You didn't engage the issue of xenoliths at all.  You just regurgitated Snelling's handwaving.  Facts:

  • Xenoliths are older pieces of rock embedded in younger rock.
  • Dating a rock containing containing xenoliths with a whole-rock method gives a meaningless result, a weighted average of the ages of the components.
  • Snelling knows this.
  • Snelling did not mention this effect in his paper on Ngauruhoe.
  • This effect is the obvious reason for the results obtained.

Conclusion: fraud.

The entire quote of Snelling with your added emphasis is irrelevant to these facts and conclusion.

Deal with these facts, Davie-diddles.

(There are other problems with the study, but the fraud is the major problem).

Now for your ignorance-generated comments:
 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 04 2006,07:23)
However, I think Jon is missing the point of the study and thus missing the reason for why xenoliths were included.

The reason is obvious: to fraudulently skew the results.
 
Quote
This topic is still very new to me ...

IOW you're just blowing smoke about another topic on which you are totally ignorant.
 
Quote
... but my understanding is that there are basically two general methods of dating igneous rock:  the Whole Rock Isochron method and the Mineral Isochron method.  I also understand that the majority of published RM dates involve the Whole Rock method.

There are isochron methods and simple-accumulation methods (such as the K-Ar method Snelling used; he did not use an isochron method, you ignoramus) and the argon-argon method and the concordia-discordia method and a whole host of others.  There is whole-rock sample selection and mineral sample selection. Most methods can be performed on either whole-rock samples or mineral samples, but the most widely used method (concordia-discordia) can only be performed on mineral samples; there is no such thing as a whole-rock concordia-discordia analysis.

The majority of the dates in the literature, and the vast majority of the dates published in the last fifteen years or so, are mineral analyses.
 
Quote
Jon said Snelling was being deceptive by not doing a mineral isochron analysis.  Are all those published Whole Rock results frauds also?

No, they are not.  There are two valid ways of performing whole-rock analysis:

  • (The most common) examine multiple thin-sections of the rock to determine that there are no xenoliths present or, if there are xenoliths present:
  • Separate the xenoliths, usually manually (a grad student with a microscope and tweezers), from the material that is to be analyzed.

(See, for example, instructions and tips for sample preparation.)

Snelling's work is invalid because he did neither of these; it is fraudulent because anyone who is competent to conduct such a study knows how to do whole-rock analyses properly, and Snelling didn't do it properly.
 
Quote
 What Jon is failing to see is that Snelling isn't trying to get an exact creation date for particular minerals.  Had he done so, his conclusions would have been the same ... he just would have spent more money!  The exact "age" of the samples is irrelevant.  He was simply showing that ANY "RM ages" determined on recent flows is irrelevant to the true age of the sample--it simply indicates its origin.

But the only way he could come to that conclusion was through fraud. 
 
Quote
I'm not sure what JonF thinks Snelling was trying to do, but it looks like he did not read the paper very well.

I read it and understood it. You may have done the former, but you failed miserably at the latter.
 
Quote
RADIOMETRIC "DATING" ON RECENT (AND BY IMPLICATION, ANCIENT) LAVA FLOWS IS MEANINGLESS

Radiometric dating on such recent lava flows is meaningless because the instrumentation is incapable of resolving such small amounts of daughter product; this has no implication for dating ancient lava flows.  The only way to obtain results such as Snelling's is through fraud.

(It is possible, by dint of heroic effort and very careful analysis, to accurately date lava flows as recent as 2,000 years old; Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years and 40Ar/39Ar Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger.)
 
Quote
So now could we please stop lying to all the kids in public schools and universities by telling them that layers like the Grand Staircase can be dated radiometrically?

No lies involved, Davie-dork.  Layers like the Grand Staircase can be dated radiometrically.

Date: 2006/09/04 08:27:23, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 04 2006,12:08)
Snelling and friends have recognized that recent and historic lavas, particularly on oceanic islands, yield incredibly old radioisotopic &#8220;ages&#8221;. They cite 17 studies in the RATE Book 2000, including one as late as 1997 by Esser, et. al.)  (0.7 Ma to 700 Ma on historic flows!;) They recognized it and confirmed it with their own samples.  

17 studies is essentially zero compared to the number of studies that were done and agree with other methods that are not susceptible to a problem of excess initial daughter.
Quote
There is no fraud here, JonF.  Why are you quibbling about xenoliths?  Would the "ages" have come out younger if xenoliths were excluded?

Yes, and the error bars probably would have included zero age.  (Of course, you have no idea what that means or its significance).
 
Quote
(BTW--is is not even conclusive that the supposed xenoliths are actually xenoliths at all)  Maybe.  Maybe not.

It's conclusive, Davie-poo.  All the literature on the volcanos of NewZealand acknowledges the xenoliths.  And, of course, Snelling does too:

"Two modal analyses are listed in Table 3 which very closely resemble the samples collected for this study.

Component 1 2
Plagioclase 22.6 21.6
Augite 2.6 2.6
Orthopyroxene 6.0 5.8
Olivine 0.2 0.2
Iron Oxide - g*
Xenoliths 2.6 4.5
Groundmass 66.0 65.3

...

Steiner [63] stressed that xenoliths are a common constituent of the 1954 Ngauruhoe lavas, but also noted that Battey [3] reported the 1949 Ngauruhoe lava was rich in xenoliths. All samples in this study contained xenoliths, including those from the 1975 avalanche material.

Go tell Snelling there weren't any xenoliths, Davie-pie!
Quote
Do we care in this case?  No.

Yes. We care.  Fraud is fraud, Davie-pie.
 
Quote
Because we are not trying to get a precise "date" of creation of the lava.

Doesn't matter what you are trying to get, Davie-poots, doesn't matter at all.  Snelling purposefullly used invalid laboratory techniques, and the only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that Snelling is a fraud.
 
Quote
But you want to exclude the xeonliths?  OK Fine.  Exclude the xenoliths.  What would they have gotten then?  Answer:  Probably not much different.  Why?  Well look at the 17 other studies cited in the RATE 2000 Book.  Most of them are from historic lava flows and they report everything from 0.7 Ma to 700 Ma!!

And look at Dalrymple's table reproduced at Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There Is No Excess Argon?; 26 recent lava flows and 18 of them did not have excess argon.  We know that the K-Ar method is susceptible to excess argon; that's why it's applied to carefully selected samples and cross-checked with methods that are not susceptible to such problems when possible.  But K-Ar dating is well understood and low cost, so it's still useful.
 
Quote
Did they exclude xenoliths?  Some did.  Some did not.

Prove it, Davie-poodles.  Let's see your evidence that some did not exclude xenoliths.  Many lavas do not contain xenoliths.
 
Quote
Look here.  JonF is just trying to confuse people.  The truth is that there probably ARE NO xenoliths in the Snelling samples.  It's debatable.

You're starting to foam at the mouth, Davie-dip; see above.  There were xenoliths in the samples.
 
Quote
 If they are, so what?  All this means is that instead of the samples being dated at 724.5 to 1453.3 Ma, the numbers would have been somewhat different.

Yup, that's the point. 

 
Quote
But the thing is ... Millionsofyearianism is shown once again to be a joke ... either way!!  Fine.  Let's give you a really long rope and say the samples would have been dated at 10 Ma with the "xenoliths" excluded.  You still hang yourself by the neck!

Your fantasies about what the results of excluding xenoliths might have been are not evidence.
 
Quote
Of course Geochron says they cannot reliably date young samples!  Why?  Because they have excess argon, of course.

No, Geochron cannot date young samples because their instruments can't resolve the tiny amount of radiogenic argon in such samples.  Many young samples do not have excess argon; see Dalrymple's table linked above.  Of course, nobody's instruments today can resolve the amount of radiogenic argon in Snelling's samples.  But this has no implications for dating ancient flows.

You still haven't addressed the facts:

  • Xenoliths are older pieces of rock embedded in younger rock.
  • There were xenoliths in all of Snelling's samples, your rabid opium dreams notwithstanding.
  • Dating a rock containing containing xenoliths with a whole-rock method gives a meaningless result, a weighted average of the ages of the components.
  • Snelling knows this.
  • Snelling did not mention this effect in his paper on Ngauruhoe.
  • This effect is the obvious reason for the results obtained.

Conclusion: fraud.

Date: 2006/09/05 10:30:21, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 05 2006,10:35)
JonF is still yelling "Fraud, fraud" while failing to see how completely irrelevant and silly his fraud claim is.  But alas ... what's a Darwinist to do?  Honest dealing with facts is impossible for many of them ... so that leaves goofy techniques such as yelling "Fraud" just for the fun of it.

Actually, and incredibly, Dave has somewhat of a point; there's more to the paper than Snelling's fraud.  But not much more ... I'm going to reproduce the entire conclusions section so everyone can see exactly how bizarre it is:
   
Quote
The Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb radioisotopic ratios in these samples of the recent (1949-1975) andesite lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, as anticipated, do not yield any meaningful "age"; information, even with selective manipulation of the data. Instead, these data provide evidence of the mantle source of the lavas, of magma genesis, and of crustal contamination of the parental basalt magmas. Subduction of the Pacific Plate beneath the Taupo Volcanic Arc has carried trench sediments with it -- sediments identical in composition to the Torlesse metasediment basement underlying, and outcropping adjacent to, these volcanoes. Scraped off the subducting slab, the sediments have contaminated the basalt magmas generated by partial melting of the peridotitic mantle wedge at the mantle-slab interface. The resultant andesite magmas rose in the melt column through the mantle wedge, and then ascended through fracture conduits in the overlying crust into magma chambers below the volcanoes that erupted when full.

The Sr-Nd-Pb radioisotopic systematics are thus characteristic of the depleted mantle source, modified by mixing with the crustal contaminant. Variations in the depleted mantle Nd "model ages", which range from 724.5 to 1453.3 Ma, and which are meaningless in this recent (even in conventional terms) tectonic and petrogenetic framework, and the Pb isotopic linear arrays, indicate geochemical heterogeneity in the mantle wedge. Thus the radioisotopic ratios in these recent Ngauruhoe andesite lava flows were inherited from both the peridotitic mantle wedge and the subducted trench sediments, and are fundamental characteristics of their geochemistry. They therefore only reflect the origin and history of the mantle and crustal sources from which the magma was generated, and therefore have no age significance.

By implication, the radioisotopic ratios in ancient lavas found throughout the geologic record are likely fundamental characteristics of their geochemistry. They therefore probably only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis, rather than any valid age information. Even though radioisotopic decay has undoubtedly occurred during the earth's history, conventional radioisotopic dating of these rocks therefore does not necessarily provide valid absolute "ages" for them. This is especially so if accelerated nuclear decay accompanied the catastrophic operation of those geologic and tectonic processes responsible for the mixing of the radioisotopic decay products during magma genesis.

Now, we know that Davie-doodles (the one in the corner with the dunce cap) can't see how incredibly disjointed this is, but can anyone else in the class see it?  Anyone?  OK, you in the back with your hand up, Maurice?

...

Absolutely correct, Maurice!  The last paragraph is not supported by the data and discussions in the paper.  It's actually even worse than that; the last paragraph, claiming that all radiometric dating is wrong, has absolutely  no relationship to the rest of the paper!.  Here, I'll summarize the paper on the blackboard so we can all see the disconnect:

  • A K-Ar dating test on samples known to be invalid produced incorrect results.  Duh.  Fraud.
  • Isochron analyses produced no valid age and the data clearly and objectively indicated that no valid age could be obtained.
  • Nd model age calculations are also meaningless since the data clearly and objectively indicates that the samples contain Nd derived from other sources than in-situ radioactive decay.
  • Analyses of isotope concentrations produced results consistent with those of nearby volcanoes.
  • The isotope concentrations are also consistent with mainstream theories of mantle-generated lava and subduction of plates.
  • The existing isotopic profiles of this young lava are inherited from the parent lava. (Since it's too young to have developed an age-determining isotopic profile -- jonf)
  • Therefore all isotopic profiles are inherited from the parent lava and all radiometric dating is wrong.


Yes, Sarah?

...

True, Sarah, it's difficult to see how anyone could fall for that, but they do.  Af "sedimentary tuffs" dave swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.  The major problem is that they don't understand how age-diagnostic radiometric methods work (although Snelling does, and knows that his last paragraph is bovine excrement).  The secondary problem is that they immediately and unquestioningly accept anything that agrees with their preconceptions; they can't handle the easy questions, much less the tough ones.  Sad, really, and kind of pathetic.

Date: 2006/09/06 05:57:07, Link
Author: JonF
[quote=Crabby Appleton,Sep. 06 2006,01:45]
Quote (JonF @ Sep. 05 2006,15:30)

Got dang it Jon I had my hand up but you completely ignored me (no doubt because I'm a member of of devolved race).

The last paragraph MAKES EVERYTHING CLEAR WITH THIS STATEMENT!

 
Quote
Even though radioisotopic decay has undoubtedly occurred during the earth's history, conventional radioisotopic dating of these rocks therefore does not necessarily provide valid absolute "ages" for them. This is especially so if accelerated nuclear decay accompanied the catastrophic operation of those geologic and tectonic processes responsible for the mixing of the radioisotopic decay products during magma genesis.

Of course, one of the many things that immediately and easily falsifies Snelling's claim that "[the radioisotopic ratios] therefore probably only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis, rather than any valid age information" is zircons; their radioisotopic ratios (which are measured in the most widely used method of radiometric dating) reflect only radioactive decay after solidification because zircons so strongly reject lead at solidification, a fact acknowledged by Humphreys et. al. (and the et. al. includes Snelling) in an excerpt I've posted several times already in this thread.  But af "scientists date only igneous grains" dave is following the creationist maxim of "never, ever, look at the big picture or relationships between things; consider each item as a totally new item and consider it only in isolation".

Date: 2006/09/08 09:09:52, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,13:03)
Yet in their study of 26 historic lava flows that same year, 5 of them contained "excess" Argon. [18]  Many other whole rock K-Ar "age" studies have also found "excess Argon" including Krummenacher (1970) who reported 5 such instances, McDougall (1969), Fisher (1971), Armstrong (1978) and Esser et al (1997) just to name a few.  There are many more.  In spite of all this, Dalrymple as late as 1991 was still touting the K-Ar method ...

Yup, because it's pretty reliable, well-understood, and low-cost.  But it's common to verify the K-Ar results with other methods.

Note that all your references reported lots of instances without excess argon.  This proves that not all K-Ar dates are affected by excess argon ... but your theory requires that all radiometric dates be wrong.
 
Quote
And the problem of "excess" Argon extends to the 40Ar-39Ar method as well ...        
Quote
In a detailed 40Ar/39Ar dating study of high-grade metamorphic rocks in the Broken Hill region of New South Wales (Australia), Harrison and McDougall [48] found evidence of widely distributed excess 40Ar*. The minerals most affected were plagioclase and hornblende, with step heating 40Ar/39Ar "age" spectra yielding results of up to 9.588 Ga. Such unacceptable "ages" were produced by excess40Ar* release, usually at temperatures of 350-650C and/or 930-1380C, suggesting the excess 40Ar* is held in sites within the respective mineral lattices with different heating requirements for its release.
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_r01/

That proves that excess argon can be a problem in Ar-Ar dating when there is a lot of it and it totally swamps the radiogenic argon.  But it has been proved that, in most cases, excess argon does not affect the Ar-Ar method, e.g at 40Ar/39Ar Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger.
 
Quote
Snelling concludes in this paper as follows ...        
Quote
The fact that there is even some excess 40Ar* in these recent andesite flows, and that it appears to have ultimately come from the upper mantle geochemical reservoir, where it is regarded as leftover primordial argon not yet fully expelled by the process of outgassing that is supposed to have occurred since the initial formation of the Earth, has very significant implications.
First, this is clearly consistent with a young Earth, where the very short time-scale since the creation of the Earth has been insufficient for all the primordial argon to be released yet from the Earth's deep interior. Furthermore, it would also seem that even the year-long global catastrophic Flood, when large-scale convection and turdecer occurred in the mantle [4], was insufficient to expel all the deep Earth?s primordial argon.
Second, this primordial argon is, in part, "excess" 40Ar not generated by radioactive decay of 40K, which has then been circulated up into crustal rocks where it may continue migrating and building up to partial pressure status regionally. Because the evidence clearly points to this being the case, then when samples of crustal rocks are analysed for K-Ar "dating" the investigators can never really be sure that whatever 40Ar* is in the samples is from in situ radioactive decay of 40K since the formation of the rocks, or whether some or all of it is from the "excess 40Ar*" geochemical reservoirs in the lower and upper mantles. This could even be the case when the K-Ar analyses yield "dates" compatible with other radioisotopic "dating" systems and/or with fossil "dating" based on evolutionary assumptions. And there would be no way of knowing because the 40Ar* from radioactive decay of 40K cannot be distinguished analytically from primordial 40Ar not from radioactive decay, except of course by external assumptions about the ages of the samples.
Therefore, these considerations call into question all K-Ar "dating", whether "model ages" or "isochron ages", and all 40Ar/39Ar "dating", as well as "fossil dating" that has been calibrated against K-Ar "dates". Although seemingly insignificant in themselves, the anomalous K-Ar "model ages" for these recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, lead to deeper questions. Why is there excess40Ar* in these rocks? From where did it come? Answers to these questions in turn point to significant implications that totally undermine such radioactive "dating" and that are instead compatible with a young Earth.

Based on known-invalid samples, Davie-pootles.  Fraud.
 
Quote
PLENTY OF ARGON TO MEASURE, FAID[/b]
Now Faid claims that Snelling is a fraudster because Snelling knew that Geochron labs cannot date young samples because there is not enough daughter products to detect (the instruments are sensitive, but not THAT sensitive).  Sorry, mister, that argument doesn't fly simply because there just "happened" to be plenty of daughter product to measure ... sorry to disappoint you ... Geochron labs had no problem at all detecting the daughter products because there was plenty there.

Really?  Exactly how much argon was measured, Davie-pie?  How does that amount compare with Geochron's standard background, Davier-dork?  How much of the argon was due to the xenoliths, Davie-pud?
 
Quote
If the Argon dating system is sound, then young (historic) lava flows should not have any detectable levels of daughter.

Not quite true.  If the Argon dating system is sound, then most young (historic) lava flows should not have any detectable levels of daughter when rational sample selection is practiced.  The statistics, including the ones you quoted aove, show that by this criterion K-Ar dating is sound.
 
Quote
Snelling did nothing different than all the other studies on historic flows cited which found excess Argon.

He tested smaples with xenoliths.  Known to be invalid, and fraudulent.
 
Quote
In the same way, it is ludicrous to complain about Snelling not separating out xenoliths and analyzing them separately simply because that would make very little difference in the actual numbers and would have exactly ZERO effect on the conclusion of the study.  Xenoliths only accounted for 2.6 and 4.5% respectively of the following flows: 1. Ngauruhoe VU 29250 [15], a 1954 flow. 2. Olivine-bearing low-Si andesite, June 30, 1954 Ngauruhoe flow [12].

True, but that says nothing about the argon content of those xenoliths relative to the argon content of the rest of the sample.  It's well-known and widely documented that xenoliths  in even such low volumetric proportions can screw up K-Ar dating.

Let's see your calculations of the effect those xenoliths had on the dates. You can't do it, and nobody can, because we don't know the amount of argon in the xenoliths and in the non-xenolithic portion.
 
Quote
Now that we have silenced JonF and Faid (well, I am sure they won't stay silent, so a better term would be "refuted" or "exposed")

You haven't refuted or exposed anything.  Your claims about the xenoliths have been soundly refuted.  Remember when you wrote that maybe there weren't any xenoliths?  You haven't acknowledged that error ...

You haven't even discussed the message in which I pointed out that Snelling's conclusion in the 2003 paper is not supported or even relevant to the data and discussion.  He just pulled it in out of left field.

And, of course, the fact that the isotopic composition of a recent lava flow reflects its "parentage" is not at all surprising ... but doesn't tell us anything about what the isotopic composition will be after that lava has been around for many millions of years.  But you and Snelling are claiming that the isotopic composition will continue to reflect ther "parentage"  except isochrons that pass the validity test will magically show up, but be wrong.  Neither you nor Snelling has presented and evidence or argument for this claim.
 
Quote
1) Argon dating on recent (historic) lava flows is bogus because there is often lots of easily measureable "excess" Argon.

Nope.  Argon dating on some recent (historic) lava flows is bogus because there is sometimes lots of easily measureable "excess" Argon.  And even when there is excess argon, the Ar-Ar method often produces a valid result.  See the link above.

You need something that always invalidates radiometric dating, not something that sometimes invalidates radiometric dating.
 
Quote
2) All Argon dating of ancient flows is bogus for the same reason.

Nope.  Some argon dating of ancient flows is bogus (and it's often detected by comparison with other methods) but that doesn't help you at all.
Quote
3) Most of the "dates" for layers of the grand Staircase given by Deadman have been Argon dating and are thus irrelevant.

Really, Davie-doodles?  Let's see the statistics.  What percentage were K-Ar dates?  What percentage were K-Ar dates that were confirmed by other methods?
Quote
(JonF ... I will also deal with your claim that zircons falsify Snellings conclusions in his 2003 paper.  But not today.  I'm going to lunch!;)

Don't forget that Snelling has acknowledged, since his 2003 paper,  that the lead in zircons is not inherited from the "parent magma" but instead must be produced by in-situ radioactive decay.  (Reference provided several times already in this thread).

So, we know that the lead we measure in zircons is due to radioactive decay, and Snelling acknowledges this.  We know that the vast majority of isochron dates and K-Ar and Ar-Ar dates agree, Davie-poot's claims of a world-wide and incredibly expensive conspiracy for which he has no evidence notwithstanding.  We therefore know that the isotopic composition of purportedly-old lavas reflects the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred in the lava, not the composition of the "parent" magma.  Snelling's 2003 paper is irrelevant to radiometric dating.

(Did I post this link in this thread before?  The well-known {in certain circles} Steve Carlip recently posted a list of observations which would have been different if radioactive decay rates had changed, and it's a fascinating list: Re: Age dating question.)

Date: 2006/09/08 11:32:21, Link
Author: JonF
[quote=afdave,Sep. 08 2006,14:36]
Quote
The Rb-Sr and Pb-Pb dates on Broken Hill were both 1680 Ma. The Ar-Ar date is 1573 Ma. Wow.
Wow.  It's like magic!  You just discard those samples over there that show 950 Ma and these samples over here that show 400 Ma and VOILA!  Concordant dates!  Ain't it great?[/quote]
Your fantasies are not evidence.  You want to claim there are discordant dates, produce the evidence.  Don't forget the many published discordant dates, such as those for the KBS Tuff; claiming that discordant dates are swept under the rug is untenable.
     
Quote
   
Quote
Note that all your references reported lots of instances without excess argon.  This proves that not all K-Ar dates are affected by excess argon ... but your theory requires that all radiometric dates be wrong.
No, it doesn't.  All I have mentioned is the 25% or so instances of excess Argon.  If you read the entire RATE Book, you would see there are many other reasons why all Argon methods are unreliable:  Argon loss, mixing, etc., etc.  The supposedly "correct" results are only deemed correct because they agree with your preconceptions about Deep Time.  The real reasons for the Argon concentration in rocks in reality has nothing to do with Deep Time at all.  Sorry, you lose.

Argon loss would cause the dates to be seen as younger than they really are.  No comfort for you there.  If you've got evidence that mixing is a problem, trot it out.

Also explain the observed concordance between methods.
     
Quote
     
Quote
That proves that excess argon can be a problem in Ar-Ar dating when there is a lot of it and it totally swamps the radiogenic argon.  But it has been proved that, in most cases, excess argon does not affect the Ar-Ar method,
Yeah, just like Dalrymple "proved" that the K-Ar method is just fine.  We saw how that worked out.

Yup, we saw exactly how that worked out ... and the result is that the Earth and life are ancient.
   
Quote
     
Quote
Based on known-invalid samples, Davie-pootles.  Fraud.
Yeah ... invalid because they were submitted by a creationist.  I understand.  What a joke.  When are you going to start your investigation of Ted Koppel also?

Not because they were submitted by a creationist, Dave-moron, but rather because they contained xenoliths.
   
Quote
   
Quote
     
Quote
 
If the Argon dating system is sound, then young (historic) lava flows should not have any detectable levels of daughter.

Not quite true.  If the Argon dating system is sound, then most young (historic) lava flows should not have any detectable levels of daughter when rational sample selection is practiced.  The statistics, including the ones you quoted aove, show that by this criterion K-Ar dating is sound.
No. ALL.  If ANY of the young flows have detectable Argon, then your whole system fails.  Why do you think everybody's finally waking up to the fact that K-Ar is flawed?  It's only a matter of time before everyone also wakes up on Ar-Ar.  Again, the creationists are leading the way.

Sorry, Davie-doodles, wrong as usual. You ain't so good at this fancy "logic" stuff, hum?  If any lava flow has no excess argon, or has excess argon that's insignificant relative to the radiogenic argon, then the K-Ar date of that sample is correct and the Earth and life are ancient.

Remember, you need something that always invalidates radiometric dating, not something that sometimes invalidates radiometric dating.  And excess argon, argon loss, mixing, whatever, don't invalidate all radiometric dating unless you can show that one or more of those things always happens. And then, your opium dreams nothwithstanding, you need to address the concordance between vastly different methods.
   
Quote
   
Quote
   
Quote
Snelling did nothing different than all the other studies on historic flows cited which found excess Argon.

He tested samples with xenoliths.  Known to be invalid, and fraudulent.
Most of the others had xenoliths also.  Did you not notice that they were "whole rock " analyses?

Yes.  But you don't know what that means. "Whole rock" analyses do not necessarily include xenoliths and in fact never do contain xenoliths when performed by honest scientists.  As I posted before, including a reference, it's standard practice to inspect very thoroughly for xenoliths.  Usually there are no xenoliths in the rock, and the analysis can continue; if there are xenoliths and they can be separated out, they are separated out before the analysis continues; if there are xenoliths and they can't be separated out, you don't do the analysis.

As I posted before but you ignored, from Tips for Sample Preparation:
   
Quote
Look at a thin section of your sample! Check for weathering or alteration, calcite veins, nature and size of phenocrysts and groundmass, presence of glass, presence of inclusions (xenoliths, or material entrained during movement of flow). Basaltic glass tends not to be a very reliable material for K-Ar dating. If your sample has more than a few percent glass, even if it is very fresh, dating may not be a good idea unless your sample(s) come from an excellent, ironclad stratigraphy, in which anomalous ages have some chance of being detected. Calcite produces CO2 in the extraction system and can cause serious analytical problems. Minor amounts can be treated; major amounts suggest that the sample has been too badly altered to be worth dating. In either case, the presence or absence of calcite must be noted. Phenocrysts, especially olivine and pyroxene, may contain trapped Ar components that do not have an atmospheric 40Ar/36Ar ratio of 295.5 (MORB can have elevated values). This can lead to massive errors when dating young and/or poorly radiogenic rocks. The freshness of mafic phenocrysts can also be a good indicator of the freshness of the specimen as a whole. Zeolites, when present in anything more than trivial amounts, suggest that your sample has been substantially altered. Finally, the minerals in xenoliths may contain significant amounts of trapped Ar (mantle xenoliths; see discussion under phenocrysts) or inherited Ar (e.g., incompletely outgassed feldspars in granitoid fragments).

{Emphasis added.}
   
Quote
You really are going to ride this lame horse of xenoliths aren't you? ... even though they were less than 5% of the weight of the samples ... Incredible!  Well, then ... I will just keep embarrassing you in front of God and everybody for being so stubborn and blind.

You're not embarassing me in the slightest.  What percentage of the argon in the whole-rock samples was in the xenoliths?  That's what counts, not the volumetric or weight percentage of the xenoliths themselves.
     
Quote
   
Quote
True, but that says nothing about the argon content of those xenoliths relative to the argon content of the rest of the sample.  It's well-known and widely documented that xenoliths  in even such low volumetric proportions can screw up K-Ar dating.

Let's see your calculations of the effect those xenoliths had on the dates. You can't do it, and nobody can, because we don't know the amount of argon in the xenoliths and in the non-xenolithic portion.
You should have stopped at the first word ... "True."  I'll tell you what JonF, let's go take some common Argon concentration numbers from some xenoliths ... take the highest ones you can find, then do the math allocating 5% to the xenoliths ... guess what you will come up with ...

VERY TINY CHANGE IN THE NUMBERS ...

OK show me the numbers, Davie-pootle.  It's standard practice to separate xenoliths, it's known that they affect analyses, let's see your evidence that they don't.

(BTW, did you notice that those concentrations of xenoliths are not for the samples that Snelling tested?)
   
Quote
     
Quote
You haven't even discussed the message in which I pointed out that Snelling's conclusion in the 2003 paper is not supported or even relevant to the data and discussion.  He just pulled it in out of left field.
Nonsense.  All you said was that his conclusion was invalidated because of zircons.  And you are wrong about zircons as I will show when I will deal with zircons separately.

Nope, Davie-dork, I pointed out exactly why his conclusion was irrelevant, and i noted the zircons are one of several ways to prove his error.  Another way is (as I posted already and you snipped without response):
   
Quote
And, of course, the fact that the isotopic composition of a recent lava flow reflects its "parentage" is not at all surprising ... but doesn't tell us anything about what the isotopic composition will be after that lava has been around for many millions of years.  But you and Snelling are claiming that the isotopic composition will continue to reflect their "parentage"  except isochrons that pass the validity test will magically show up, but be wrong.  Neither you nor Snelling has presented and evidence or argument for this claim.

Yet another problem is that Snelling hasn't provided any evidence that all or even many lava flows are similar to the Ngauruhoe flows; yet he claims that all dating of all flows is wrong because the Ngauruhoe flows have an isotopic concentration that currently matches the "parent" concentration.

Date: 2006/09/09 02:44:28, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,22:22)
Quote

As Dr Lee Spetner has pointed out in his book (above, right) and refutations of sceptics, no one has yet found a mutation that adds new complex coded heritable information to any organism. If mutations are really responsible for all the information added to a microbe to make a man, there should be plenty happening today that could be observed.[/i]

Spetner's nonsense has been thoroughly debunked, e.g. at Information Theory and Creationism: Spetner and Biological Information.  But Spetner has also admitted that he was wrong.  From The Nylon BUg:

"The short answer is, the mutation does yield an increase of information, but was it random?)"

He's reduced to an unsubstantiated assertion that the mutation was non-random with regard to fitness.

Date: 2006/09/09 06:41:51, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,10:33)
[Their literature reviews and their own studies have shown that "excess Argon" is a significant problem and has been well documented.  "Excess Argon" violates the fundamental assumption of K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating which is that there is supposed to be ZERO Argon in the rocks when they are first formed.  This is obviously not the case when testing historic lava flows so there is now no basis for believing it is true for ancient flows.  JonF contends that Creationists have to show that ALL ancient flows contain excess Argon in order to invalidate the technique.  Of course, this is ludicrous and shows just how desperate Deep Time Defenders are.  For a technique to be trusted, it must be shown to be reliable 100% of the time.

Wrong, Davie-doodles.  For example, there is no medical test that is right 100% of the time.  There is no medical treatment that works 100% of the time.  Do you refuse all medical tests and treatments?  Do you trust any medical tests or treatments?

Wotta maroon.

If K-Ar dating, or any geological radiometric dating, is right once your entire crazy "theory " is blown out of the water.  You acknowledged that fact. Therefore, in order to claim that your "theory" is correct, you must demonstrate that all radiometric dating is wrong all of the time.  Basic logic, moron.
 
Quote
This is also based upon the results of one of the leaders in the field, Dalrymple, who reported 20% (!;) of his  tests on historic flows had excess Argon.  Come on, guys, get a clue!

And therefore 80% of historic lava flows had no excess argon, and dating on such flows yields correct answers, and therefore dating on at least some ancient lava flows yields correct answers, and your 6,000 year old Earth is falsified.  You need to demonstrate 100% wrong answers, Davie-dork.
 
Quote
JonF also complains about xenoliths in Snellings test.  First of all, the xenoliths amounted to less than 5% in virtually identical flows.

But we don't know how much of the argon in the samples was due to xenoliths.
 
Quote
JonF must realize that his "xenolith horse" is dying, so he points out that the <5% xenolith figures apply to different flows than the ones Snelling tested.  Well, go look at the two charts, Jon.  They are virtually identical.

What two charts, Davie-dip?  But it's a minor, parenthetical point.  You still need to deal with the zircons and demonstrate that the Ngauruhoe lavas are just like all other lavas.
 
Quote
Secondly, Jon points out that anyone honestly trying to get an accurate date with Argon dating excludes xenoliths.  Fine.  Go tell that to all the geologists in the studies cited by Snelling.

Not necessary. They know it already.  They either deteremined that their samples did not contain xenoliths, or they separated the xenoliths.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that honest K-Ar dating requires excluding xenoliths. Snelling knows it too.  That's why his "dating" of the Ngauruhoe flows is fraudulent.
 
Quote
You say they excluded xenoliths?  OK.  Fine.  They still got "excess Argon" and thus bogus dates.

Nope.  Some percentage of the time they got excess argon, and in some percentage of those cases the excess argon was swamped by the radiogenic argon and was therefore insignificant.  The near-universal corelation between different radiometric dating methods, the truth you dare not address, shows us that errors due to excess argon are rare.

But even if half the K-Ar dates had problems with excess argon, that's no consolation for you. You need all dating to be wrong all the time.
Quote
 Your "xenolith horse" is dead.

You mean "Davie-doofus's excess-argon horse is dead".  Excess argon does not affect all studies, and you need something that affects all studies.
 
Quote
Remember also that Snelling was not trying to get an "accurate date" because he's smart enough to know this is not possible with Argon "dating."  All he's trying to do is confirm with his own experiment what has been shown now for many years in the literature:  that excess Argon is the "Achilles heel" of Argon dating.  Do you understand what that means?  It means that Argon "dating" is like a chain with at least one broken link.

False analogy, Davie dootles.  We use techniques and tests that do not get 100% correct results in all sorts of fields all the time.  And the near-universal correlation between different radiometric dating methods, the truth you dare not address, shows us that errors due to excess argon are rare.
 
Quote
Do you know how useful a chain with a broken link is?  It's completely useless.  For the method to be trusted, it needs to be shown that it is NEVER in error.

Boy, Dave, you can always be trusted to serve up a healthy dose of stupendous stupidity.  Excess argon occasionally leads to wrong answers, so almost all of the answers we get are correct.  Deal with reality, Davie-poot, not your opium dreams.
 
Quote
Add to this the fact that all the Argon dates out there have to be "confirmed" with other methods.

Don't have to be, but often are.
 
Quote
Why?  Because of excess Argon, Argon loss, inheritance, mixing, etc.

Nope.  They are often confirmed because (1) real scientists always confirm everything as much as possible, and (2) we know that there are (rare) errors in K-Ar dating.
 
Quote
JonF says that Argon loss doesn't help the creationists, but he is wrong again.  Of course it does simply because it invalidates the technique in yet another way.  Excess Argon invalidates the technique because it violates the fundamental assumption of ZERO Argon when the rock is formed.  But Argon loss makes the rock appear younger than the "actual age."  This also has been well documented in the literature and by the ICR RATE Group and even acknowledged by the late, great JonF himself (well, at least he acknowledged that Argon dating has to be cross-checked ... dunno if we'll ever get him to admit that Argon dating is therefore wrong).

So, you acknowledge that there are rocks on the earth that are billions of years old, and our tests of them are realy underestimating their age.  First you acknowledge that honest K-Ar dating requires excluding xenoliths (implicitly acknowledging Snelling's fraud), now you acknowledge that your 6,000 year age of the Earth is false. Not a good day for you, Davie-pud.

Oh, and I'm really looking forward to your mixing evidence against K-Ar dating.  I really, really want you to post it.  You don't have a prayer of figuring out why I want it so much; let it be a surprise.  Please post your mixing evidence against K-Ar dating, Davie-pootles!!
 
Quote
east, have satisfied myself that the most common method for dating rocks--Argon dating is ...

The most common method, by far, for dating rocks is U-Pb concordia-discordia on zircons (or sometimes other minerals).  All argon methods, including the widely used Ar-Ar, amount to about 30%. Gee, that reminds me; weren't you going to demonstrate how zircons, known (and acknowledged by Snelling) to contain only radiogenic lead, don't falsify Snelling's conclusion that "By implication, the radioisotopic ratios in ancient lavas found throughout the geologic record are likely fundamental characteristics of their geochemistry. They therefore probably only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis, rather than any valid age information." Why, yes, you wrote several times that you were going to do that... but there's no mention of zircons in your message!  Why is that, Davie-diddles?

Date: 2006/09/10 02:41:55, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,14:31)
     
Quote
The most common method, by far, for dating rocks is U-Pb concordia-discordia on zircons (or sometimes other minerals).  All argon methods, including the widely used Ar-Ar, amount to about 30%.
Yeah, that's probably true if you consider the last 15 years or so.

Nope, it's true if you consider the entire history of radiometric dating.
     
Quote
Wanna guess why?

I know why.  You, Davie the ignoramus, don't.
     
Quote
Think, Jon, think.  Could it be that people don't trust Argon anymore?

Nope.  If people didn't trust K-Ar anymore they wouldn't do it. There's several reasons why U-Pb dating is the most widely used. K-Ar is only good to about 2-3%, and geochronologists are looking for better and better resolution.  U-Pb dating can get sub-1% errors, partly because the half-life of uranium is known better than for any other isotope (bombs and reactors, you know).
     
Quote
Hmmmm ... Bercause prior to that it was massively popular and was the most common method for many years.

It may have been the most popular for a few years in the late-1940's, but it was surpassed by isochrons and U-Pb in the fifties.
   
Quote
   
Quote
Wrong, Davie-doodles.  For example, there is no medical test that is right 100% of the time.  There is no medical treatment that works 100% of the time.  Do you refuse all medical tests and treatments?  Do you trust any medical tests or treatments?
Not even a close analogy.  My analogy of the bridge is perfect.  You would never drive on a bridge that was known to have broken 4 out 20 times it was tested.  That's nothing but Russian Roulette.  This is exactly what you have with Argon dating ... complete BOGOSITY (that is ... failure ... the bridge broke) in 20% of Dalrymple's tests plus many many other documented cases in the literature.

Your analogy of the bridge sucks; it's a single made thing, while K-Ar dating is a process that is performed over and over, and human life is involved in bridges (which automatically brings in a whole different set of standards) but not in K-Ar dating.  {ABE: we also have far more control over the reliability of a bridge than we have over the reliability of K-Ar dating.}

But that all pales in comparison to the fact that you are arguing by analogy ... that's a fallacy.  If you want to argue that K-Ar dating has to be perfect to be useful, or that K-Ar dating is not good enough to ever be used, you need to establish that claim independenly of how reliable any other thing or process is.  The fact that bridges are very reliable (but not 100% reliable) does not mean that K-Ar dating, with an error rate somewhere under 10% (the excess argon rate in young rocks is not the overall error rate because excess argon is insignificant in older rocks) and those errors definitely not are large enough to be compatible with a 6,00 year old Earth, is not sufficiently reliable for our purposes.  We know that no technique, from the technique of desgning a bridge to the techniques of testing for cancer to the technique of K-Ar dating, is 100% reliable; we decide whether or not any particular technique is reliable enough by considering the purposes to which it is put, not the reliability of unrelated items.
     
Quote
     
Quote
If K-Ar dating, or any geological radiometric dating, is right once your entire crazy "theory " is blown out of the water.  You acknowledged that fact.
No I did not acknowledge it and I will not ever. You cannot ever tell if this technique is "right" because you have nothing to measure it against except other bogus "dating" techniques which I will show in the coming days are equally vapid.  Or maybe you are talking about fossil dating?  That is even more aughable.  Argon dating is all over the map -- "too old" because of "excess Argon", "too young" because of Argon loss or mixing or what have you.  The only time it's "right on" is because it happens by some sheer stroke of luck to coincide with some other system like Pb-Pb or Sm-Nd or whatever.

Your entire rant is irrelevant. The fact remians that if O N E   R A D I O M E T R I C   D A T E   I S   C O R R E C T   T H E N   T H E   E A R T H   I S   A   L O T   M O R E   T H A N   6 , 0 0 0   Y E A R S   O L D.  Does the wide spacing and bolding help that fact penetrate your pointy litle head, Davie-moron?

We know that we want a low error rate in general in radiometric dating, but when it comes to testing the "hypothesis" that the Earth is 6,000 years off, a technique that is wrong 99.999999999% of the time would suffice to falsify a young earth.  
     
Quote
     
Quote
I'm glad to see you acknowledge that honest K-Ar dating requires excluding xenoliths. Snelling knows it too.  That's why his "dating" of the Ngauruhoe flows is fraudulent.
Don't twist my meaning.  ...   I said ...        
Quote
Remember also that Snelling was not trying to get an "accurate date" because he's smart enough to know this is not possible with Argon "dating."
Do you see the quotes around "accurate date"?  The deal is that Snelling knows that Argon techniques are wildly in error.  Why should he then care if the sample comes back as 1 Ma or 2 Ma?  It simply does not matter because the point is:  there is excess Argon and the results have no age significance whether they are 2 Ma or 1 Ma.  There are a thousand results that could have come back and shown the invalidity of the Argon method.  There's only ONE result that could have validated the method.  ZERO excess Argon.  Why spend extra money when you don't have to.  If Snelling really was stupid enough (as many geologists are) to believe you could get a valid date from the test, then, yes, he should have excluded xenoliths.

Gee, Davie-doodle, you're too stupid to detect what I'm replying to when it's in front of your face.  I quoted what I was reponding to:
     
Quote
Secondly, Jon points out that anyone honestly trying to get an accurate date with Argon dating excludes xenoliths.  Fine.  Go tell that to all the geologists in the studies cited by Snelling.


But you're still way off base.  The result could have been zero excess argon if Snelling hadn't cheated.  We don't know.  It doesn't matter whether or not he thought he could get a valid date; he couldn't stand the possibility that he might actualy get a valid date, so he rigged the test so it was impossible to get a valid date.  That's fraud.

Date: 2006/09/10 03:23:16, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 10 2006,07:11)
We have the rule of law here in America and it has its basis in a written document--the Christian Scriptures.

American law is based on the Constitution and subsequent legislation, and very definitley not on the Christian scriptures.

Date: 2006/09/10 07:17:37, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 10 2006,08:42)
Hmmm ... not only are you ignorant about the failure of Argon dating, you also have not read much of the writings of the Founders of America.

Too bad for you!

I know far more about radiometric dating and its proven usefulness and reliability than you ever will.  I've also read quite a bit of American history, including a lot of the Federalist papers, and the various lies of the Christian Nationalsim movement ... and I stand by my statement.

Try Many Orthodox Christians Understand America isn&#8217;t a &#8220;Christian Nation&#8221;, just for a sample.

Date: 2006/09/10 14:52:31, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 10 2006,17:02)
Hmmm ... here's another good one for you ...

Dalrymple and Hamblin [1998] ... concluded that most of more than 60 (!!;) published K-Ar model ages on Pleistocene basalts in western Grand Canyon are in error ... [RATE Book 2000, p. 117] ... but you all are scientists so you can look up the original paper, right? :-)

You obviously hope we can't, because reading the paper refutes your claims.  But see K-Ar ages of Pleistocene lava dams in the Grand Canyon in Arizona, which doesn't have any such conclusion.  Let's see your evidence for your claim.

Oh, and when you looked up the paper, no doubt you read this part:

"Many of the basalts contain xenoliths (primarily dunite) and carbonate and as much care as possible was taken during sample preparation to avoid incorporating either of these into the sample analyzed."

Oooh, let's see that one again, with the full paragraph and some emphasis:

"Many of the basalts contain xenoliths (primarily dunite) and carbonate and as much care as possible was taken during sample preparation to avoid incorporating either of these into the sample analyzed. Both the carbonate, which interferes with the clean-up process during Ar extraction and whose results are unpredictable, and the older inclusions, which contribute unknown and varying amounts of inherited 40Ar, would be expected to result in calculated ages that are inconsistent and, where inherited 40Ar is present, too old. Despite our precautions, the inconsistency of the results for several of the samples suggests that we were not entirely successful for several of the flows."

What was that you said about telling geologists that they need to exclude xenoliths, Davie-poodles?  Seems as if Dalrymple knows already, doesn't it, Davie-dumbo?  Snelling's xenolith fraud is pretty solidly established now; is Snelling a Christian?

{ABE:  There certainly are a few discordant results identified and published in that paper.  Weren't you claining that discordant results are discarded?  Both this paper and the KBS Tuff papers thoroughly refute that silly claim.}
   
Quote
And don't forget about the 20% (!;) of the results Dalrymple did himself on historic flows contained excess Argon ...

Oh ... and don't forget the wild discordance that the RATE Group themselves got with K-Ar dating.

Oh and one more thing before I head off to church ...

A thought question for you ...

If 80% of the Argon dates are "right," what exactly is your criteria for determine "right"??

First; more than 80% of K-Ar dates are correct within identified error bars; excess argon is insignificant in older rocks.

Second: depends on your definition of "right".  If you mean "refutes the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old", then we don't need to determine which ones are right, so the question is irrelevant; we know that all of them contradict the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old, some of them are right, and we don't need to know which ones are right.

If you mean "are correct within error bars", we determine that by cross-checking with stratigraphy, index fossils, and other radiometric dates.

Don't forget your promise to discuss why you think zircons don't refute Snelling's "By implication, the radioisotopic ratios in ancient lavas found throughout the geologic record are likely fundamental characteristics of their geochemistry. They therefore probably only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis, rather than any valid age information."

And I did ask nicely that you post your evidence that mixing affects K-Ar dating; I really need a good laugh.  I hope you don't disappoint me.

Date: 2006/09/11 07:23:33, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 11 2006,10:18)
JonF wants to make a big deal out of xenoliths ... fine ... make a big deal out of them ...

Fine, Davie-doodles.  Admit that Snelling committed fraud.  Your pathetic attempts to excuse him have all failed miserably.
   
Quote
It is interesting to note the increase in popularity of the method beginning in the 50's and continuing to the present from the Google Scholar searches below.  I suppose this confirms Snelling's statement that continues to remain the most popular dating method. [RATE Book 1, p.37] Why?  Because it's cheap I guess.  I think JonF says Snelling is wrong about this too, but I'm not seeing that, Jon.  From the data below, I see 2600 search returns for K-Ar vs. 391, 299, and 1150 for Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb respectively.  Maybe you could back up your statements with data?
       
Quote
Results 1 - 10 of about 45 for potassium argon dates 1941-1950
Results 1 - 10 of about 164 for potassium argon dates 1951-1960
Results 1 - 10 of about 578 for potassium argon dates 1961-1970
Results 1 - 10 of about 840 for potassium argon dates 1971-1980
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,260 for potassium argon dates 1981-1990
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,600 for potassium argon dates 1991-2000
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,930 for potassium argon dates 2001-2006

Results 1 - 10 of about 391 for rubidium strontium dates 1991-2000
Results 1 - 10 of about 299 for samarium neodymium dates 1991-2000
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,150 for Pb-Pb dates 1991-2000

Those aren't counts of dating studies performed, Davie-doodles, they're counts of mentions of a dating technique {ABE: including references}. And they're terifically biased by the facts that the older stuff isn't all indexed on the Web, you picked a particular set of keywords (Hint:  Pb-Pb dating is not U-Pb concordia-discordia dating, ignoramus), and you quite probably picked up a lot of Ar-Ar dates. I give you Ludwig, K.E., personal communication, March 3, 2003:

"... for a review of an article a few months ago I did a quick literature search of articles presenting new geochronology (excluding rocks of Pleistocene age. for which methods such as radiocarbon, uranium series, optical luminescence.... are important) in a variety of different journals (Geology, Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., Canadian Jour. Earth Sci., Contrib. Mineralogy & Petrology) for the past 5 years. Of the 164 articles I selected at random, more than 80% were done by either U-Pb (54%) or Ar-Ar/ K-Ar (30%). with less than 5% each were done by Rb-Sr or Sm -Nd."



   
Quote
Then of course, we have Mr. Bird-in-the-Cage man himself throwing out 60 published K-Ar dates in the western Grand Canyon [Dalrymple and Hamblin, 1998].  JonF waves his hands wildly and says "Look!  He excluded xenoliths!"  OK. Great.  What's your point?

Several points, already explicitly made, but I'll repeat them:

  • Honest geologists do not test samples with xenoliths:  they take "as much care as possible ... during sample preparation to avoid incorporating [xenoliths] into the sample analyzed".  Doing otherwise, as Snelling did, is F R A U D, Davie-moron.
  • Real geologists do not, as you claimed they do, seize upon any radiometric date that meets their preconceptions and discard others.
  • Real geologists do not, as you claimed they do, sweep discordant results under the rug; they publish them and expose any problems (of which there aren't many) for the world to see.

   
Quote
So he excluded xenoliths and threw out 60 dates anyway.

Nope, Davie-moron.  First you claimed that "most" of the dates were "in error", now you claim he "threw out 60".  Both bovine excrement. Here's the reality.  Of 13 formations tested:

  • Six gave repeatable and consistent results and were considered reliable.
  • Two gave scattered and inconsistent results and were considered unreliable because of that. (For one formation, another researcher had reported a result consistent with Dalrymple's, but Dalrymple didn't consider that sufficient for claiming reliability).
  • Two were single-sample age determinations, and were not considered reliable because of insufficient replication on differnt flows (they didn't have the opportunity).
  • Three were un-datable by the K-Ar method and no result was obtained.

Of 63 total age tests, slightly less than half fell into the "not reliable" or "single-sample" categories; the rest fell into the "reliable" category.  Of the slightly less than half that fell into those first two categories, 14 were on one of the formations that produced scattered results and 11 were for the other (and both were more tests than were run on any other formation).  That's 40% of all the tests, Davie-dork.  Obviously they ran extra tests on the problematic formations in an attempt to figure out where the problem was.

The bottom line is that at least 60% (and maybe more) of the date-able formations were reliably dated, 20% of the date-able formations yielded excessive scatter, and the reliability is unknown for 20% of the formations.  This study contradicts every claim you have made about radiometric dating!

I know there's no chance you'll understand or acknowledge the above, but it's just one more demonstration of your ignorance and dishonesty, and maybe someone else will learn something interesting.
 
Quote
Then the question arises ... "How do we determine if a particluar Argon "date" is "right?"

Asked and answered already, Davie-dork.  The main point that you are trying to ignore is:

  • We know that all K-Ar dates contradict a young Earth.
  • We know that some those K-Ar dates are correct.
  • Therefore, a young Earth is falsified even if we don't know which K-Ar dates are correct.

   
Quote
Don't think they throw out dates they don't like?

Nope.
   
Quote
 Well you are mistaken as I have now shown you on the KBS Tuff and the example of Dalrymple and Hamblin [1998].  I'm sure I could spend a great deal of time and show you many, many more.

You haven't shown any such thing, Dave-pootles; all you've shown is:
 

  • Geologists doing something you said they never do: publishing discordant dates.
  • Geologists doing another thing you said they never do: not accepting dates until they are verifiable, replicable, and cross-checked.
  • Geologists doing another thing you said they never do: discarding only dates that are proven to be wrong by multiple independent objective evaluations.
       
    Quote
    So, my friends, I have now done a thorough job of giving you a glimpse into the "rest of the story" about Argon dating.

    Are you intending to break your promise to discuss why you think zircons don't refute Snelling's "By implication, the radioisotopic ratios in ancient lavas found throughout the geologic record are likely fundamental characteristics of their geochemistry. They therefore probably only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis, rather than any valid age information."

    And I did ask nicely that you post your evidence that mixing affects K-Ar dating; I really need a good laugh.  I hope you don't disappoint me.

    Oh, and Davie-poopie, I'm an MIT graduate.

Date: 2006/09/11 11:11:51, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 11 2006,11:30)
Quote
if you step away from the koolaid

Has anyone noticed that I have never yet characterized evolution supporters as "evilutionists" or "conspirators" in any way, yet I am constantly characterized as some kind of cultist?  What's up with that?  Are you so insecure in your belief system that you have to try and portray people with differing views as monsters?

I haven't portrayed you as a cultist.  Ignorant, yes; dishonest; yes; stupid; yes; seriously deluded, yes; but those are the only possible conclusions from the data.

Date: 2006/09/12 06:29:53, Link
Author: JonF
[quote=afdave,Sep. 12 2006,08:40][quote]Those aren't counts of dating studies performed, Davie-doodles, they're counts of mentions of a dating technique {ABE: including references}.[/quote]If you look at the actual search results, you see that that many of the results are actual studies which include someone going out and dating the rocks. [/quote]
Some of them are; some of them are references to someone going out and dating the rocks; some of them are other things;  and many studies are missed. Your methodology is invalid.
[quote]It is true that some are not, but this applies to all the methods, so the COMPARISON is much more valid than your "personal communication" selecting at random only 164 articles, huge pretty graph notwithstanding.[/quote]
164 articles out of those journals is statistically significant.
[quote][quote]And they're terrifically biased by the facts that the older stuff isn't all indexed on the Web, you picked a particular set of keywords[/quote]
Oh is that so?  Old stuff isn't indexed, huh?[/quote]
Yes, it is ... but not nearly to the extent that newer stuff is.
     [quote]I would bet large money that 95% of all published studies back to the 40's have been indexed.[/quote]
On-line and text-searchable by Google Scholar? You're on. $100. Produce your proof.
     [quote]Let me ask you something, Jon.  You acted all arrogant and made some wild claim about how popular K-Ar Dating was in the 40's or something.  Now you are trying to weasel out of it.  Why don't you just provide support for your statements, or else be a man and retract them?[/quote]
I don't have proof of the popularity of dating methods back then, but I've read a lot of papers form back then and my opinion is that K-Ar was not the most popular.  Your stuff does not prove otherwise.
     
Quote
   
Quote
(Hint:  Pb-Pb dating is not U-Pb concordia-discordia dating, ignoramus),
Where did I ever say that it was? Are you trying to say that because I searched Pb-Pb that I think it's the same thing or something?  

Yup, you got it.  The claim to which you responded was "The most common method, by far, for dating rocks is U-Pb concordia-discordia on zircons (or sometimes other minerals).  All argon methods, including the widely used Ar-Ar, amount to about 30%.".  You attempted to refute that claim by searching for Pb-Pb and no other uranium-realated topic.  Obviously you didn't know the difference.
     
Quote
I just gave you U-Pb dates also above.

After I pointed out your error.
     
Quote
your claim is refuted.  Argon dating is the most popular, just like Snelling said in his paper.

Nope, with your particular choice of search terms you get more hits on argon. You have yet to establish a relationship between hits and nubmer of actual dating studies performed.
     
Quote

You keep yelling that Snelling is a fraud because of xenoliths.  REFUTED.

Nope, Davie-moron, you tried to claim that there were no xenoliths.  REFUTED. You tried to claim that everybody does whole-rock dating including xenoliths. REFUTED.  Sneling's a fraud.
     
Quote
 So what again is your point of saying Snelling is a fraudster?

Snelling is a fraudster.  Proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Frauds like Snelling cannot be trusted in any area.
     
Quote
     
Quote
The bottom line is that at least 60% (and maybe more) of the date-able formations were reliably dated,

Now, finally at the end of your post, you have said one thing I can agree with.  I was wrong for saying Dalrymple threw out 60 Argon dates.  I should have said he threw out "many of more than 60 Argon dates."

There were only 63 dates in the paper, Davie.  Exactly how many do you think he threw out? But he didn't throw out any dates, Davie-doodles. He published them all and noted which ones were reliable and why, providing objective reasons.
     
Quote
So I'll just take your word for it (since I don't have access to the paper right now) that 60% of the dates are "good," meaning that they agree with some other method (which we have not investigated yet) ...

Nope, that's not what's meant by "reliable". And you do have access to the paper, or would if you were clever enough to do a Google search.  I already posted one of several links to on-line copies.
     
Quote
my point remains ... ARGON DATING CANNOT BE TRUSTED IF IT IS "WRONG" 20 - 40% OF THE TIME

Argonm dating is not wrong as much as 20% of the time ... but even is it is wrong 20 - 40% of the time, T H A T   R E M A I N I N G 6 0  -   8 0 %   F A L S I F I E S   Y O U R   C L A I M   O F   A   Y O U N G   E A R T H.
     
Quote
This study contradicts every claim you have made about radiometric dating!
Jon, you were doing so good at the end there, but this one is a real howler!  "Contradicts every claim I have made about radiometric dating!??" No.  Just the opposite.  It actually CONFIRMS the specific claims I have been making about radiometric dating which are currently ...

 
Quote
1) ARGON DATING IS WILDLY POPULAR BECAUSE IT IS CHEAP, BUT IT IS ALSO WILDLY DISCORDANT

Less that 20% error is not discordant at all for our purposes here.
     
Quote

2) MOST OF THE "DATES" GIVEN TO ME BY DEADMAN FOR 4 OF THE LAYERS OF THE GRAND STAIRCASE ARE ARGON DATES

Exactly how many of the dates given to you by deadman (for far more than four of the layers of the Grand Staricase) are argon dates?
Quote
Quote
Geologists doing something you said they never do: publishing discordant dates.

Geologists doing another thing you said they never do: not accepting dates until they are verifiable, replicable, and cross-checked.

Geologists doing another thing you said they never do: discarding only dates that are proven to be wrong by multiple independent objective evaluations.
I didn't say they don't publish discordant dates.

Oh yes you did, Davie-pud.  Remember that you claimed that the reason for apparent concordance is that discordant dates never get published.  I pointed out that geologists don't have the money to do that, and you responded that you didn't see why they wouldn't. I suggested that you get information from the Menlo Park dating lab under the FOIA, and you said you might.  How ya doin' on that investigation, hum?
     
Quote
I said they "throw them out."

Even if that were true, you're still wrong. They don't throw anything out.  They publish the dates for all to see, and then decide which are reliable based on objective and repeatable experiments.
     
Quote
The KBS Tuff is a perfect example.  They explained away the ones they didn't like. All of this was published.  Just explained away.

Your fantasies notwithstanding, the KBS Tuff results were investigated and after some could be reproduced by many methods and many labs, and the reasons for the discordant dates were published and reproduced, then those dates were accepted as reliable.
     
Quote
     
Quote
Are you intending to break your promise to discuss why you think zircons don't refute Snelling's "By implication, the radioisotopic ratios in ancient lavas found throughout the geologic record are likely fundamental characteristics of their geochemistry. They therefore probably only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis, rather than any valid age information."

And I did ask nicely that you post your evidence that mixing affects K-Ar dating; I really need a good laugh.  I hope you don't disappoint me.

Explain to me why you think zircons refute Snelling's claim and I will be glad to discuss it.

Pretty obvious and basic, Davie-moron, and the required information has been ignored by you many times in this thread. It is widely known that the isotopic composition of zircons, when they form, do not reflect "the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis".  In particular, the U/Pb ratio is very very high, no mater what the U/Pb ratio of the source was.  (This sort of thing is comon for many relevant radioisotopes, but it's most extreme and obvious for zircons). Snelling has acknowledged this, in HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY: "The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth "at today's rates" of nuclear decay occurred."

Therefore the U/Pb radioisotope ratios in zircons found throughout the geologic record do not "only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis".  They reflect radioactive decay in-situ.  And, if Snelling wants to claim that this does not indicate age, it's up to him to provide far more evidence than a few zircons with complex thermal histories and some apparently anomolous helium.
     
Quote
As for mixing, why is it necessary to bother with this?  I've already clearly proven my point.  What more proof do I need?

You haven't proved any point .. but all I was asking for was a good laugh at your ignorance, thinking that mixing has any relevance to K-Ar dating.

Date: 2006/09/12 09:24:21, Link
Author: JonF
Hey, Davie-doodles, how many dates did Dalrymple "throw out" in his GC paper?

Are discordant dates published, or is the observed concordance between methods an artifact of hiding all the discordant dates?  If the discordant dates are hidden, how come the program managers and accountants haven't noticed?

How's that inquiry to the Menlo Park dating lab coming along?

Setting aside for the moment the issue of how many K-Ar dates are correct, how many correct K-Ar dates are required to disprove a young Earth?  Does one correct K-Ar date disprove a 6,000 year old Earth?  If not, why not?

Exactly how many of the dates given to you by deadman (for far more than four of the layers of the Grand Staircase) are argon dates?

   
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 12 2006,13:43)
   
Quote
On-line and text-searchable by Google Scholar? You're on. $100. Produce your proof.
Not so easy, big guy.  YOU made the statement.  YOU prove to me that you are right and I am wrong and I will gladly pay you $100.

Your statement:
   
Quote
I would bet large money that 95% of all published studies back to the 40's have been indexed.

You offered a bet, I accepted:
 
Quote
On-line and text-searchable by Google Scholar? You're on. $100. Produce your proof.

Weaseling out?
   
Quote
   
Quote
You attempted to refute that claim by searching for Pb-Pb and no other uranium-realated topic.  Obviously you didn't know the difference.
I DO know the difference ... wanna go another $100 to prove me wrong?  I searched Pb-Pb because I know it is an important method and was one of the methods used in the Snelling 2003 paper.  I did fail to notice that your claim was about U-Pb, not Pb-Pb.  I obviously had Pb-Pb on the brain since reading Snelling's paper.  In any case, what's your point?  I think you just try to jump on any little thing you can think of to try to somehow show that I am stupid.

Maybe you do know the difference.  The evidence to date indicates pretty strongly that you don't.  Your assertions are obviously untrustworthy.
   
Quote
You tried to do that with the KBS Tuff also, trying to somehow say that I think volcanic tuffs are sedimentary, when the truth is that if ANYONE said anything close to that it was you.

Funny, you brought up the KBS Tuff in a discussion of dating sedimentary rocks (and nothing else); why was that again?  Oh, yeah, you've never even tried to produce a reason.  You have accused me of saying that lava and/or tuffs are sedimentary several times .. but no evidence, just assertions.
Quote
Quote
Snelling is a fraudster.  Proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Frauds like Snelling cannot be trusted in any area.
So let's pretend Snelling's a fraud (since most ATBCers live in a pretend world anyway, why not step into that world for a moment?)  How does this help you trust Argon dating?

Well, for one thing, it totally discredits his Ngauruhoe studies, decreasing by at least one the number of studies that show errors.  But it says far more about YECs than it says about K-Ar.  All his "publications" should be reviewed for fraud (and many of them have been; guess what's been found?). It also demonstrates the lack of appropriate review in YEC "publications"; that fraud should have been detected before publication. Finally, it illustrates lack of integrity in the entire YEC movement; if someone got caught doing that in a real university or research group, his career would be over.  Then and there, no questions asked, out on the street with no reference.
Quote
 Do you discount all the other studies?  Is it not a problem for you that only 20 - 40% of the Argon dates are "right"?

You have not demonstrated 20-40% errors.  You have demonstrated around 20% excess argon in a few studies; 20% excess argon does not translate to 20% error, since in older rocks excess argon is swamped by radiogenic argon.

The error rate in Dalrymple's paper is not necessarily typical; rocks as young as those in the GC, and with such a fairly complex history, are notoriously difficult to date. But Dalrymple's GC paper does not demonstrate an error rate of 20-40%. I demonstrated that 20% of Dalrymple's dates in the GC paper were not considered reliable, but that's not the same as error; some of the tests in those dates may well be correct, but the scatter hides them.  I demonstrated that 20% of the dates in Dalrymple's paper were not considered reliable because of insufficient confirmation; "we don't know how reliable this date is" is not the same as "this date is an error".

But all that pales in regard to the major point, which you don't dare even acknowledge: even if the error rate is 20-40%, no, I have no problem with that when the question is "Is the Earth 6,000 years old?". He11, when asking if the Earth is 6,000 years old I wouldn't have a problem with an error rate of 99%. All K-Ar dates contradict your claim about the age of the Earth ... if just one out of the many thousands is correct yuour claim is falsified.  We don't even need to know whcih one is right!
   
Quote
Have you ever investigated the other methods critically to see if they serve as a good yardstick for verifying Argon dating accuracy?

Yes.  Extensively.  I've been writing a FAQ on concordia-discordia dating for years, on and off, and maybe one day I'll put it on the Web.  I'm very conversant with the major methods and their pitfalls and limitations.  I've corresponded with leaders in the field and discussed these issues with them.

One of the reasons that YECs love Ar-Ar dating so much is that it is more susceptible to error than pretty much all the other methods.  That doesn't mean that a lot of the dates are in error; with rational sample selection (e.g. excluding xenoliths) and appropriate procedures and cross-checking, K-Ar dating is very reliable.
   
Quote
   
Quote
Pretty obvious and basic, Davie-moron, and the required information has been ignored by you many times in this thread. It is widely known that the isotopic composition of zircons, when they form, do not reflect "the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis".  In particular, the U/Pb ratio is very very high, no mater what the U/Pb ratio of the source was.  (This sort of thing is comon for many relevant radioisotopes, but it's most extreme and obvious for zircons). Snelling has acknowledged this, in HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY: "The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth "at today's rates" of nuclear decay occurred."

Therefore the U/Pb radioisotope ratios in zircons found throughout the geologic record do not "only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis".  They reflect radioactive decay in-situ.  And, if Snelling wants to claim that this does not indicate age, it's up to him to provide far more evidence than a few zircons with complex thermal histories and some apparently anomolous helium.

You are correct that Humphreys and Co. acknowledge significant radioactive decay has occurred.  But this has nothing to do with Snelling's conclusion.  Snelling was not focusing on zircons in the 2003 study.  He simply points out that the overall geochemistry of recent lava flows is merely an indication of their origin--it is not reliable date indicator.  He proposes that this is quite likely for ancient flows as well.  Real simple.  This does not negate what you are pointing out about zircons, and what you are saying does not negate Snelling's conclusion.

Of course, it's not likely at all for ancient flows, because we know that radioactive decay changes the isotopic ratios; unless you assume your conclusion that the Earth is young.

But zircons negate his conclusion. He may not have been focusing on them, but he made a universal claim that includes them; if it's false for zircons, his entire claim is false.  Same logic as "if one K-Ar date is correct, the Earth is olderr than 6,000 years", and pretty basic logic at that.  One counterexample disproves any universal claim.

He didn't say overall geochemistry, and he's not talking about overall geochemisty; nobody uses overall geochemistry of lava flows as an age indicator, and often we use chemistry of tiny components of lava flows as an age indicator.  If indeed he's talking about overall geochemistry; then his conclusion is vacuous and there's no point to the paper.
   
Quote
As for the mixing issue, I merely mentioned that in passing because Snelling did.  I do not know what his specific claim is and I'm not sure it warrants my time to investigate it, since I have thoroughly established (if no other place than in my own mind :-)  ) the unreliability of Argon dating.  I am only interested in investigating things which are central to my purpose.  You probably know better than I do what Snelling said in regard to this ... go ahead and refute him if you would like to and you need a good laugh.

Ah, Davie, you looked up mixing and realized that not even you could try to carry that one off.  I'm disappointed.

Date: 2006/09/12 09:28:51, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 12 2006,14:17)
95%? No way. It doesn't even get Reed Elsevier. Google scholar is not very accurate yet. It is popular mostly with undergrads.

And those of us who don't have academic access (at least don't have it without a 25 mile drive into Cambridge and city parking fees).

I doubt that any database system can produce an answer to the question, unless it's got an incredibly powerful query language and there's a query guru available.  "Boots on the ground" reading and counting seems to be the only way.

Date: 2006/09/12 15:12:02, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 12 2006,20:21)
the new "All" feature (thanks Wes)

Ooooh, I hadn't noticd that.  Great ... especially since the search function on this board appears to have been designed by afdave, and Google can't index it.  So now I can contrast statements like today's:
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 12 2006,09:40)
I didn't say they don't publish discordant dates.  I said they "throw them out."  KBS Tuff is a perfect example.  They explained away the ones they didn't like. All of this was published.  Just explained away.

with:
Quote (afdave @ June 08 2006,08:40)
I would bet you money that the reason most conventional dates agree is because the dates that don't agree are thrown out and are not reported.  I would like to speak with one of these labs (instead of the geologists) to see what THEY say about discordant dating results.  How many tests are thrown out?

Hey, Dave, it's be much easier for you to stay consistent if you didn't lie so much.

Date: 2006/09/13 02:04:35, Link
Author: JonF
Hey, Davie-doodles, how many dates did Dalrymple "throw out" in his GC paper?

Are discordant dates published, or is the observed concordance between methods an artifact of hiding all the discordant dates?  If the discordant dates are hidden, how come the program managers and accountants haven't noticed?

How's that inquiry to the Menlo Park dating lab coming along?

Exactly how many of the dates given to you by deadman (for far more than four of the layers of the Grand Staircase) are argon dates?

 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 12 2006,23:16)
JonF...      
Quote
Does one correct K-Ar date disprove a 6,000 year old Earth?
Just ONE, friend.  Just one.
 And the sad thing for you ... you don't even have ONE.

That's not what the evidence shows.  It's up to you to produce evidence that all are wrong.  Oh, and 40Ar/39Ar Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger is known correct (although it's not beyond 6,000 years), so the methods do work in at least one case.
 
Quote
   
Quote
You offered a bet, I accepted:
Yup.  Produce and I'll pay.

OK, bet's on.  But no shifting the burden of proof, the claim is yours to support:    "I would bet large money that 95% of all published studies back to the 40's have been indexed."  You produce your proof that 95% of all published studies back to the 40's are indexed anbd text-searchable on Google Scholar, as I specified, and I'll pay up.  Otherwise, pay me.
 
Quote
 
Quote
Well, for one thing, it totally discredits his Ngauruhoe studies,
Hmmm ... I guess you WOULD be correct that it discredits the study IF the study was intended to date the layers.  But this was not the intent of the study.

Doesn't matter what the intent of the study was.  The results are meaningless.  The tests are a fraud.
 
Quote
Radiometric dating is bogus and there are right now about 8 PhD's criss-crossing the country doing RATE Seminars and telling huge crowds how mistaken you all are.  The next one is in Dallas on Sept 30.  Maybe you could go and heckle the speakers :-)

Instead of actually doing research.  I understand completely.
 
Quote
 
Quote
One of the reasons that YECs love Ar-Ar dating so much is that it is more susceptible to error than pretty much all the other methods.  
Thank you. Thank you.

"Susceptible to error" is not "is garbage."  Far from it. No comfort for you there.
 
Quote
And you shall see that the other ones are garbage as well.  In fact, maybe I'll take you through a history of the dating methods and show you how new ones pop up only to be discarded later because they don't work.

Oh, I'd L O V E to see that!  Pretty pretty pretty please do it, Davie-doodles!!!!  That might even make up for my disappointment in not seeing you explain how mixing affects K-Ar dating!
Quote
But again, why the fascination with Tyre?  There are more interesting Bible prophecies than this one.

But that's one that is incredibly clearly and unequvocably not fulfilled.

Date: 2006/09/13 02:12:46, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 13 2006,00:03)
You have not the slightest clue what you're talking about, and you're trying to argue with someone who studies this stuff for a living.

I don't do it for a living; I'm an enthusiastic and knowledgable amateur.  IIRC Deadman's an archeologist, which is related to but not directly geochronology.

Of course, Davie is incredibly ignorant, and his sources are dishonest and don't care, 'cause they're preaching only to the choir and don't care that scientists see through them immediately. So it doesn't take much knowledge to shoot those fish in that teeny barrel.  It does help to be familiar with the literature and be able to pull up papers that contradict Davie's calims easily.

Date: 2006/09/13 02:19:27, Link
Author: JonF
Oh, and Davie-dipple: you neglected to respond to what's below.  You said you'd be happy to discuss zircons in relation to Snelling's paper. Discuss.
Quote
Quote
Pretty obvious and basic, Davie-moron, and the required information has been ignored by you many times in this thread. It is widely known that the isotopic composition of zircons, when they form, do not reflect "the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis".  In particular, the U/Pb ratio is very very high, no mater what the U/Pb ratio of the source was.  (This sort of thing is comon for many relevant radioisotopes, but it's most extreme and obvious for zircons). Snelling has acknowledged this, in HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY: "The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth "at today's rates" of nuclear decay occurred."

Therefore the U/Pb radioisotope ratios in zircons found throughout the geologic record do not "only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis".  They reflect radioactive decay in-situ.  And, if Snelling wants to claim that this does not indicate age, it's up to him to provide far more evidence than a few zircons with complex thermal histories and some apparently anomolous helium.

You are correct that Humphreys and Co. acknowledge significant radioactive decay has occurred.  But this has nothing to do with Snelling's conclusion.  Snelling was not focusing on zircons in the 2003 study.  He simply points out that the overall geochemistry of recent lava flows is merely an indication of their origin--it is not reliable date indicator.  He proposes that this is quite likely for ancient flows as well.  Real simple.  This does not negate what you are pointing out about zircons, and what you are saying does not negate Snelling's conclusion.

Of course, it's not likely at all for ancient flows, because we know that radioactive decay changes the isotopic ratios; unless you assume your conclusion that the Earth is young.

But zircons negate his conclusion. He may not have been focusing on them, but he made a universal claim that includes them; if it's false for zircons, his entire claim is false.  Same logic as "if one K-Ar date is correct, the Earth is olderr than 6,000 years", and pretty basic logic at that.  One counterexample disproves any universal claim.

He didn't say overall geochemistry, and he's not talking about overall geochemisty; nobody uses overall geochemistry of lava flows as an age indicator, and often we use chemistry of tiny components of lava flows as an age indicator.  If indeed he's talking about overall geochemistry; then his conclusion is vacuous and there's no point to the paper.

Date: 2006/09/13 13:40:55, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (BWE @ Sep. 13 2006,00:54)
Quote
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 12 2006,20:21)
the new "All" feature (thanks Wes)

How does that work?

On the page displaying the topics, http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....SF;f=14 , after each topic title the word "All" appears.  Click it.  This thread's about 28 MB after subtracting images..

Date: 2006/09/14 01:42:54, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 14 2006,07:33)
Cedric...  
Quote
But how do numbers of people believing in something make that something true?

Ding ding ding ding!  Thank you! Thank you!  Thank you!

Go do a search of this thread and count the number of times that someone on this thread besides me has said something to the effect of ...

"Dave, 95% of the scientists believe in evolution ... how can it not be true ...?"

"Dave, 95% of all the world's scientists representing all the countries of the world believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old ... how can this not be true ...?"

I never have.  I don't recall anyone posting such a thing.  Except, of course, you.  Several times.

So, Davie, how many times has someone on this thread besides you written something along those lines?  Evidence, Davie-doodles, not vague impressions or unsupported assertions.

Date: 2006/09/14 10:51:39, Link
Author: JonF
Hey, Davie-dipper, how many dates did Dalrymple "throw out" in his GC paper?

Are discordant dates published, or is the observed concordance between methods an artifact of hiding all the discordant dates?  If the discordant dates are hidden, how come the program managers and accountants haven't noticed?

How's that inquiry to the Menlo Park dating lab coming along?

Exactly how many of the dates given to you by deadman (for far more than four of the layers of the Grand Staircase) are argon dates?

Is Snelling's inclusion of xenoliths in his Ngauruhoe dating study fraud?  If not, would it have been fraud to inject argon into the samples?  Is there any difference between the two scenarios?

I guess you've finally caught on how stupid your attempt to shift the burden of proof on that bet was.  Personally, I'm amazed that, when I accepted the bet, you didn't just respond "Don't be silly, I was speaking figuratively".  Ah well, it was mildly amusing proving once more that you can't expect rational or reasonable behavior from our Davie.
 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 14 2006,09:37)
There is no objective means by which we can know if the radiometric "clocks" are even in the right ballpark.

Oh, there's lots of ways, Davie-doodles. There's the 80% of Dalrymples' surveyed recent lavas in which the right answer came out. There's the BGC Ar-Ar dating of Pompeii, which you've ignored several times.  And here's another.  Dating of King Hezekiah's Tunnel verified by scientists or the Nature article at Radiometric dating of the Siloam Tunnel, Jerusalem. They dated a leaf in the plaster of the Siloam tunnel by 14C at 700-800 BCE and a stalactite by U-Th disequilibrium dating at 400 BCE, confirming the Biblical chronology (but that doesn't mean that all Biblical chronology is correct).  Gosharootie, Davie-doodles, when we exclude creationist frauds all the evidence indicates that radiometric dating is spot-on!!
 
Quote
 
Quote
And you shall see that the other ones are garbage as well.  In fact, maybe I'll take you through a history of the dating methods and show you how new ones pop up only to be discarded later because they don't work.

Oh, I'd L O V E to see that!  Pretty pretty pretty please do it, Davie-doodles!!!!  That might even make up for my disappointment in not seeing you explain how mixing affects K-Ar dating!

Still waiting, Davie-dip ...  
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 14 2006,13:21)



Given the 3 charts above, what would be the most obvious and most defensible conclusions we can make about the 6 hypothetical samples represented in the graph on the far right?

That there's insufficient information to draw any defensible conclusion, Davie-doofus. Isochron graphs are fine for presenting an overview, but we need to know the details of how good the straight line fit is and the method for fitting the line.  Especially since sample 3 is far off the line, and the axis units appear to be non-standard.  No geochronologist would draw any conclusion from that graph alone.

Of course, many of us know that on the standard graph of a valid isochron study with good line-fitting the slope indicates the time elapsed since the samples were last isotopically homogenized (usually but not always the time of solidification) and the Y-intercept indicates the ratio of radiogenic daughter isotope to non-radiogenic daughter isotope when that homogenization was "broken" (Again usually but not always the time of solidification).

Date: 2006/09/15 03:44:00, Link
Author: JonF
Geez, Davie-doodles, the loose ends are really piling up ...

Hey, Davie-doodles, how many dates did Dalrymple "throw out" in his GC paper?

Are discordant dates published, or is the observed concordance between methods an artifact of hiding all the discordant dates?  If the discordant dates are hidden, how come the program managers and accountants haven't noticed?

How's that inquiry to the Menlo Park dating lab coming along?

Exactly how many of the dates given to you by deadman (for far more than four of the layers of the Grand Staircase) are argon dates?

You said you'd be happy to discuss zircons in relation to Snelling's paper. Discuss:
 
Quote
 
Quote
Pretty obvious and basic, Davie-moron, and the required information has been ignored by you many times in this thread. It is widely known that the isotopic composition of zircons, when they form, do not reflect "the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis".  In particular, the U/Pb ratio is very very high, no mater what the U/Pb ratio of the source was.  (This sort of thing is comon for many relevant radioisotopes, but it's most extreme and obvious for zircons). Snelling has acknowledged this, in HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY: "The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth "at today's rates" of nuclear decay occurred."

Therefore the U/Pb radioisotope ratios in zircons found throughout the geologic record do not "only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis".  They reflect radioactive decay in-situ.  And, if Snelling wants to claim that this does not indicate age, it's up to him to provide far more evidence than a few zircons with complex thermal histories and some apparently anomolous helium.

You are correct that Humphreys and Co. acknowledge significant radioactive decay has occurred.  But this has nothing to do with Snelling's conclusion.  Snelling was not focusing on zircons in the 2003 study.  He simply points out that the overall geochemistry of recent lava flows is merely an indication of their origin--it is not reliable date indicator.  He proposes that this is quite likely for ancient flows as well.  Real simple.  This does not negate what you are pointing out about zircons, and what you are saying does not negate Snelling's conclusion.

Of course, it's not likely at all for ancient flows, because we know that radioactive decay changes the isotopic ratios; unless you assume your conclusion that the Earth is young.

But zircons negate his conclusion. He may not have been focusing on them, but he made a universal claim that includes them; if it's false for zircons, his entire claim is false.  Same logic as "if one K-Ar date is correct, the Earth is olderr than 6,000 years", and pretty basic logic at that.  One counterexample disproves any universal claim.

He didn't say overall geochemistry, and he's not talking about overall geochemisty; nobody uses overall geochemistry of lava flows as an age indicator, and often we use chemistry of tiny components of lava flows as an age indicator.  If indeed he's talking about overall geochemistry; then his conclusion is vacuous and there's no point to the paper.
 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 14 2006,22:09)
Now I am not too clear about the criteria for "cogenetic" (maybe JonF can help me here), but I would assume it means, for example, that you might have a 1 meter thick layer of igneous rock and you take 6 samples that are fairly close to one another in the same layer.

"Cogenetic" means "were isotopically homogeneous at some time in the past".  Multiple samples that are obviously from the same magma source are a common way of making cogeneticiy likely.
 
Quote
 
Quote
And here's another.  Dating of King Hezekiah's Tunnel verified by scientists or the Nature article at Radiometric dating of the Siloam Tunnel, Jerusalem. They dated a leaf in the plaster of the Siloam tunnel by 14C at 700-800 BCE and a stalactite by U-Th disequilibrium dating at 400 BCE, confirming the Biblical chronology (but that doesn't mean that all Biblical chronology is correct).
Are you not aware that creationists have no problem with C14 dating for post Flood events?  I think I have said that several times before.  The problem with pre-Flood C14 dating is the uniformitarian assumptions of  carbon levels.  Deep Timers dismiss the Global Flood and thus render their assumptions invalid for any "dates" older than the Flood.

As has already been pointed out many times, there are no uniformitarian assumptions about carbon levels.  But you missed the point; what about the U-Th dating of the stalactite?  Yet another chance to compare geological dating techniques to history ... and the geolocal technique is correct!  (Unless, of course, the Bible is wrong).  The evidence that geological dating techniques give correct answers keeps piling up, and all you've come up with so far is:


  • Some but nowhere near all samples contain excess argon.
  • Dating samples known to contain xenoliths gives meaningless results

Quote
Tearing down all of modern science" ...  You have a more active imagination than me!  No I'm just tearing down Deep Time and Evolution

And chemistry and physics and geology and ...
 
Quote
Whooppee!  20% huh?  I thought your "calibration curves" were supposed to validate you 20,000 year old cave paintings and such, thereby refuting by 6000 year old earth.  I never heard you mention this 20%.

I think it's more like 10%, but we know there is variation.  10%, 20%, 50%, whatever; it doesn't matter.  14C dating and calibration curves refute your claims about the age of the Earth and "pre-flood carbon".

---------------

In reference to Davie-morons' long-ago claim that he sees no reason why geologists can't pay for at least twice as many dates as they publish and discard the ones they don't like, I found this post by a person who really uses 14C dating interesting:
 
Quote
Now, my PhD site is a place in the east of England called Hoxne. On stratigraphic grounds, it is believed that this site dates to MIS11. Radiometric dating tends to cost quite a bit of money and we'd rather spend our cash on other things, but every so often people crib together for funding for a few radiometric dates. The Hoxne site was dated using U-series dating. Guess what the age was.......MIS11.

{emphasis added}

Date: 2006/09/16 02:14:04, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 16 2006,07:56)
YECs do not invoke miracles willy nilly, contrary to the active imaginations of some skeptics ...

Of course, YECs invoke miracles far more often than they explicitly invoke miracles.  Such as explaining paleosols.
Quote
they simply acknowledge the infinite power of the Creator and realize that a Being with infinite power can do some pretty amazing things! (to make an understatement)

Absolutely. That is why such a Being is also outside the scope of science; science cannot study such a Being, have any comment on whether or not such a Being exists, or use such a Being as explanation for any observations.  So when YEcs do invoke miracles, as the RATE group does for accelerated radioactive decay and the many miracles that takes, they immediately remove themselves from the scientific arena and firmly plant themselves in the religious arena.

Date: 2006/09/16 03:20:53, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 16 2006,08:51)
1) SAME DAUGHTER AMOUNT / DIFFERENT PARENT AMOUNT.  The Deep Time crowd ASSUMES that these samples all had the same amount of daughter isotope, but different amounts of parent isotope.  This is illutrated by the middle figure in the horizontal (bottom) line.

Now right off the bat, a thoughtful person would ask "Why different amounts of parent?" ... "Why shouldn't they have the same amounts of parent? They were formed at the same time, right?  And if they had different amounts of parent when formed, why shouldn't they have different amounts of daughter also when formed?"

So before we go any further, I want someone to have a shot at answering these questions, because it appears to me that there is no good reason at all to assume the same amounts of daughter initially, yet different amounts of parent.

Am I missing something here?

Yes, Davie-doodles, you are missing something.  Of course. It goes without saying.

You are missing even the most tenuous understanding of isochron dating. You don't know what "isotopically homogeneous" means, you don't know what the units of the axes are on an isochron diagram, you don't know why an isochron is initially horizontal, and you don't know why an isochron remains a line as time passes.  You know nothing about isochrons.

We know that the samples all had different amounts of daughter and different amounts of parent when the samples formed.  Moron.  The clever part of isochron dating is normalizing the axis units by the amount of a non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter in each sample.  How this works the "magic" is more than I'm going to try to type out in a limited medium such as this, but there are several good treatments on the Web such as Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective and Isochron Dating.  You don't have to believe them, but if you are going to discuss isochron dating you have to understand the material presented in those links.
Quote
Quote
Of course, YECs invoke miracles far more often than they explicitly invoke miracles.  Such as explaining paleosols.
I already easily explained the very few pseudo-paleosols that I was shown.

Right.  Sure, Davie-pord.  You called 'em  pseudo-paleosols ... but never gave any reason why they were psuedo.  And your "explanation" was ... tada ... miraculously upright roots!
Quote
And no one ever showed me any from the Grand Staircase.  Still waiting on that.

Posted and linked to many times. Always ignored by you.  Here it is for at least the sixth time.  Don't forget to be really specific about your mechanism for how roots always appear in growing position ("it just happened" doesn't cut it), how soil horizons formed, and how the characteristic microstructures of paleosols formed and look just like the microstructures of soils.

And I'm still waiting on you to discuss why zircons don't falsify Snelling's conclusions (your one attempt was pathetic, as I pointed out).  And what about U-Th dating of Hezekiah's tunnel?  how many dates did Dalrymple "throw out" in his GC paper? Are discordant dates published, or is the observed concordance between methods an artifact of hiding all the discordant dates?  If the discordant dates are hidden, how come the program managers and accountants haven't noticed? How's that inquiry to the Menlo Park dating lab coming along? Exactly how many of the dates given to you by deadman (for far more than four of the layers of the Grand Staircase) are argon dates?

Still waiting on those, Davie ...
Quote
 
Quote
Absolutely. That is why such a Being is also outside the scope of science;
Why should Something we don't understand yet be outside the scope of science?  Is not this what science is supposed to be about?  Observing the universe and trying to figure out things were are hitherto unknown?

Yup, that's what science is about.  But such a Being cannot be repeatably observed, cannot be controlled for in any experiment, and introducing such a concept into science destroys the possibility of doing any science.  So science is silent on the question of the existence of God, and science perforce does not and can not include God in its explanations and conclusions.  Maybe that leads to an error; maybe God did create the universe 6,000 years ago and purposefully made it so all the evidence points to a much older universe and life (although most Christians don't like the "God the liar" scenario).  But that's the facts of what science is.

Date: 2006/09/16 05:51:40, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 16 2006,10:19)
It seemed logical to me to look closely at radiometric dating since we just finished looking at the Grand Staircase in some detail and it is claimed that the layers of the Grand Staircase can be dated (or at least bracketed) radiometrically.

Is this such an unreasonable approach?

Your approach to it is unreasonable.  You looked at those isochron diagrams and you assumed without warrant that the "evilutionists" based that diagram on a stupid and obviously untrue assumption.  It never occurred to you that you are totally ignorant of isochron dating and you should learn the basics before opening your mouth.  You are the only one making foolish assumptions.

Date: 2006/09/16 07:33:44, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 16 2006,13:23)

Sorry if this sounds obtuse but how could a Global flood create a canyon? Any canyon. If the whole World was under water, how would it move in a way to carve rock like that?

Open to anyone.

The typical creationist response is that a temporary dam trapped some of the water, and after the rest of the flood receded the dam broke and released the water; that scenario could indeed create something that looks like the Channeled Scablands or the Toutle River "canyon".  Alas, neither of those resemble the Grand Canyon, with it's plethora of near-vertical walls, incised meanders, side canyons, and characteristics like that which are not formed by fast water in soft sediments.

Date: 2006/09/16 08:05:21, Link
Author: JonF
I did neglect to answer a few of your questions ...
 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 16 2006,08:51)
Now right off the bat, a thoughtful person would ask "Why different amounts of parent?" ... "Why shouldn't they have the same amounts of parent? They were formed at the same time, right?

They were not formed at exactly the same time.  Some solidified a few minutes/days/years/centuries/millennia after the others.  Also certain minerals take up certain atoms and reject others;  e.g. Rubidium substitutes well for Potassium and Strontium substitutes well for Calcium, so you'll find more Rb in minerals that include K in their chemical formulas, and more Sr in minerals that include Ca in their chemical formulas.  (Few minerals explicitly contain radioactive elements in their basic chemical formulas; the radioactive elements are trace elements substituted in the crystal lattice). Finally, the melt from which they solidified often is enriched or depleted in relevant elements by extraction or rejection by previously solidified parts. Different whole-rock samples never contain exactly the same minerals in exactly the same proportions as other samples, and often solidified at significantlly different times (be the difference seconds or be it millenia).  So they contain different amounts of parent and daughter. But in an isotopically homogeneous source the ratio of isotopes of the same element is constant throughout the relevant volume, and at solidification all minerals that solidify from that source contain the same ratio of isotopes of the same element as the parent melt did.  That's the extra information that allows us to get the original amount of daughter at solidification, because the amount of the non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter in the samples doesn't change over time.
 
Quote
 And if they had different amounts of parent when formed, why shouldn't they have different amounts of daughter also when formed?

They did.  It's only your penchant for making things up and ignoring your abysmal ignorance and lack of success in making things up that leads you to believe that.

--------------------

Typical Concentrations in Minerals & Rocks
                              Rb (ppm)                        Sr (ppm)
Biotite-Phlogopite      100-1000                         @ 1
K-feldspar                 100-1000                         <2000
Muscovite                  500-2000                         <30
Ultramafic Rx            @ 0.1- 0.3                        @ 1
Basalt                      20-50                              400-600
Granodiorite              10-200                            400-2000
Granite                     100-200                          50-100
Carbonate                 1-5                                 500-1000

Date: 2006/09/17 03:12:05, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 16 2006,16:51)
The plots are goofy.  Isochron plots plot isotope ratios.

Yup.  Wonder where he got 'em.  There are lots of good illustrative plots on the Web, our Davie managed to dig up a lousy and misleading set.
Quote
Doing multiple whole-rock isochrons can be used to derive the age of source material instead of solidification of the igneous rock.

Davie-doo doesn't even know the uints of the axes, he doesn't have a prayer of understanding how that works.
Quote
Particularly instructive would be isochrons from individual minerals within the same sample.

Do you mean a mineral isochron, in which each sample is an individual mineral, or something else?  Davie did mention mineral isochrons, but he seems to think that theer's a mineral isochron method and a whole-rock isochron method, while in reality there's an isochron method that is applied to different types of samples.  But that's nothing compared to his other misunderstandings.
Quote
Proximity is not enough to guarantee cogenetic origin.. Are these the same lava flow, or not?

Are you thinking Austin?  I considered the possibility. Davie-diddles stated that they are hypothetical samples.  He may be lying.

Date: 2006/09/17 04:07:20, Link
Author: JonF
{Sigh}  You really need to learn about this stuff, Davie, you can't just make it up as you go along.  Oh, and how 'bout them Grand Staircase paleosols?  Waiting for your explanation, especially what possible mechanism held the plants in place with their roots in growing position and packed sediment around them.  Gee, isn't that kind of like your "what possible mechanism" question below?  Of course, there's an answer for your question, but no answer for mine!
 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 17 2006,07:05)
I guess I'm just not seeing how you can say that this was definitely an isotopically homogeneous source."  I understand that it was "cogenetic" ... no problem with that.  But how can we say that the 87Sr/86Sr ratio was the same for all samples when formed?

That's pretty much the definition of cogenetic; isotopically homogeneous. We know that there's a very very very good chance that the ratio was the same for all samples because the data plots on a straight line today. (The example you picked doesn't plot on a good-enough straight line, but that's a minor point).  Straight lines can be caused by identical initial ratios, mixing in sources with different isotopic ratios (but we have very good evidence that such lines are rare) or random chance (but that's not going to happen often).  It's faintly possible that a very few of the tens of thousands of isochron dates are in error because of mixing or random chance; it's not possible that they are all in error, or even that a lot of our dates are in error.
 
Quote
Why should there be ANY 87Sr at all when formed?

It's everywhere, Davie-doodles.  About 0.0005% of you is strontium, and the isotopic ratio in you is at least close to today's average world-wide isotopic ratio.  (And about 0.001% of you is Rb).
 
Quote
Or if there is some, why couldn't there be a lot so that the ratio is 1.5 or 2.0 initially?

You are confusing [i]quantities with ratios.  Having a lot means nothing about the isotopic ratio.

The initial ratio is wherever the Y-intercept is; either whoever made up the samples you chose either arbitrarily decided to make the Y-intercept 1 or they normalized the initial ratio to 1.  In reality, there's an average 87Sr/86Sr concentration over the entire Earth (actually, there's a mantle average and a slightly different crustal average).  Of course, this overall average changes over time as 87Rb decays to 87Sr.  In most cases, the Y-intercept of an isochron turns out to be very close to the overall average concentration at the time indicated by the slope of the isochron ... samples that we measure as younger tend to have a higher initial 87Sr/86Sr concentration ... how do you like them kumquats!  E.g. real initial 87Sr/86Sr concentrations (as measured by the Y-intercept of the isochron) run in the vicinity of 0.70, real initial 143Nd/144Nd ratios run in the vicinity of 0.51, both for rocks measured as a few billion years old.  Any theory of the meaning of isochrons has to explain this fact ... you won't forget that as the discussion continues, will you, Davie-diddles?
 
Quote
I mean ... the parent ratio, 87Rb/86Sr sure isn't the same for all the samples.  Why should the daughter ratio be the same?  Are you telling me that if I go buy a furnace and melt some rock and then let it cool, that my 87Sr/86Sr ratio will be the same for any sample, but my 87Rb/86Sr ratio will NOT be the same?  What mechanism could possibly be operating on the initial 87Rb that would not also be operating on the initial 87Sr to distribute it variously and thus yield different ratios for BOTH parent and daughter ratios?

Your ignorance is showing again, Dave.  You really should read the links I gave, you need to learn a lot more before you're ready to discuss.

You bet your bippy that, if you go buy a furnace and melt some rock and then let it cool, your 87Sr/86Sr ratio will be the same for any sample and your 87Rb/86Sr ratio will NOT be the same between samples.  Absolutely guaranteed.

The "possible mechanism" is basic chemistry and statistics.  87Sr and 86Sr atoms are chemically identical and near-as-dammit mechanically identical; they're the same size (insofar as the size of an atom has any meaning) and almost the same mass (it takes some serious and large and high-tech equipment to separate them based on mass).  So, when a crystal is forming from an isotopically homogeneous melt and for one reason or another a strontium atom gets incorporated in the crystal, the probability that the atom is an 86Sr atom is the same as the ratio of 86Sr atoms to all Sr atoms in the melt and so on for all the four isotopes.  And, since we are working with untold megazillions of atoms in even small samples, the law of large numbers takes over. This immediately leads to two facts: the ratio of any two strontium isotopes in the solidified crystal is the same as it was in the melt, and the ratio of any two strontium isotopes in the melt does not change as crystals solidify from it (although the amount of strontium in the melt can and does change).

But Rb atoms are chemically and mechanically very different from Sr atoms.  Rb has one electron in its outer shell, Sr has two.  Rb+ is 1.48 Angstroms "diameter", Sr++ is 1.13 Angstroms "diameter".  So Rb doesn't get incorporated where Sr gets incorporated, and there's no probability that connects the Rb isotopic uptake with the Sr isotopic concentrations.  Of course, the initial proportion of 87Rb to 85Rb in the crystal will be the same as it was in the melt, and for the same reasons as for strontium, but that's not relevant to dating.
 
Quote
The Missoula Flood story is one worth reading and gives a very good explanation of how the Grand Canyon and many others were formed

The features formed by the Missoula flood bear no resemblance to the Grand Canyon features.

Date: 2006/09/17 12:57:30, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 17 2006,14:04)
 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 17 2006,06:05)
OK. So let's say our hypothetical example in the chart above are from the same lava flow so Tracy will be happy.

Then there should be only one point, not a line!

Er, maybe, maybe not.  In a message to AfDave I pointed out that samples from different parts of one lava flow commonly have different makeups of minerals, and therefore whole-rock methods can and do give rise to different points on an isochron plot.  E.g. Rb-Sr whole-rock isochron ages of late Precambrian to Cambrian igneous rocks from southern Britain.

==================

Oh, Davie-doodles, while looking for the above reference I stumbled across Age determination of Precambrian rocks from Greenland: past and present.  He's speaking of dating in Greenland, and he doesn't totally support my claims about the history of radiometric dating, but he sure rebuts your claim that K-Ar is the most common method of dating:
 
Quote
The history of geochronology can be roughly divided into three periods:

1) a period of single-sample K-Ar and Rb-Sr mineral or whole-rock age determinations;
2) a time when most ages were determined with the help of Rb-Sr and Pb-Pb whole-rock isochrons and multi-grain zircon U-Pb isotope data;
3) the present, where 'single' zircon U-Pb data are the preferred method to obtain rock ages.
...

The first results of K-Ar and Rb-Sr single-sample dating for Greenland rocks were published around 1960. ...

By the beginning of the 1970s, dating of whole rocks with the help of Rb-Sr isochrons had come into general use. ...

Among the first to report modern U-Pb zircon data for Greenland rocks was Baadsgaard (1973), ...

{emphasis added}

Date: 2006/09/18 07:18:22, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 18 2006,11:17)
 
Quote (JonF @ Sep. 17 2006,17:57)

Er, maybe, maybe not.  In a message to AfDave I pointed out that samples from different parts of one lava flow commonly have different makeups of minerals, and therefore whole-rock methods can and do give rise to different points on an isochron plot.

If the magma was not completely melted.

Not necessarily.  Since solidification is not instantaneous throughout the magma/lava (leading to enhancement or depletion in various elements) and since temperature is not uniform throughout the solidifying magma/lava (leading to inhomogeneity in the amounts of various mineral types), whole-rock tests on single-source igneous rocks do work and are done.

From Dickin's Radiogenic Isotope Geology, 2nd edition, section 3.2.2:

"Another development of the Rb-Sr method (Schreiner, 1958), was the analysis of co-genetic whole-rock sample suites, as an alternative to separate minerals. To be effective, a whole-rock suite must display variation in modal mineral content, such that samples display a range of Rb/Sr ratios, without introducing any variation in initial Sr isotope ratio. In actual fact, perfect initial ratio homogeneity may not be achieved, especially in rocks with a mixed magmatic parentage. However, if the spread in Rb/Sr ratios is sufficient, then any initial ratio variations are swamped, and an accurate age can be determined. Initial ratio heterogeneity is a greater problem in Sm-Nd isochrons, and is therefore discussed under that heading (section 4.1.2). Schreiner's proposal actually preceded the invention of the Rb-Sr isochron diagram, but some of his data are presented on an isochron diagram in Fig. 3.4 to demonstrate the method.


Fig. 3.4. Rb-Sr whole-rock isochron for the "red granite" of the Bushveld complex, using the data of Schreiner (1958). ...

Schreiner, G. D. L. (1958). Comparison of the Rb-87/Sr-87 ages of the Red granite of the Bushveld complex from measurements on the total rock and separated mineral fractions. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A. 245, 112-7"

(By a stroke of luck, the Royal Society Archives are open now, but that link won't work after December).

Note "especially in rocks with a mixed magmatic parentage", clearly meaning that the method applies to rocks with single magmatic parentage.

And, from section 4.1:

"This equation has the same form as that for Rb-Sr (section 3.2) and can be plotted as an isochron diagram. However, because Sm and Nd have very similar chemical properties (unlike Rb and Sr), large ranges of Sm/Nd in whole-rock systems are rare, and in particular, low Sm/Nd ratios near the y axis are very rare. Therefore, because of the difficulty of obtaining a wide range of Sm/Nd ratios from a single rock body, and because of the greater technical demands of Nd isotope analysis, the Sm-Nd isochron method was generally applied to problems where Rb-Sr isochrons had proved unsatisfactory. Many of these applications were also made before the U/Pb zircon method had reached its present level of development (section 5.2.2). Therefore some of these units have subsequently been dated to greater accuracy and precision by the U/Pb method. However, it is important to review a few case studies to show the development of the method."

 
Quote
You have to put it in very simple terms for AFDave.

Oh, yes.
 
Quote
One wonders if he will acknowledge the clear statement of the history of which method was most popular in radiometric dating.  Maybe AFDave will get Tyred of it.

 :p

My bet is that he won't acknowledge it.

Date: 2006/09/18 07:24:08, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Ved @ Sep. 18 2006,12:53)
RM doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Oh, Davie can't even conceive of considering the interconnections and correlations among all branches of science.  His only hope, futile though it is, is to consider each teeny subset in isolation.

Date: 2006/09/18 14:24:51, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 18 2006,13:34)
Jon is correct that (at least from this real world example) the assumed ...

Not assumed.  Calculated.  Big difference.

{ABE: Dave, that meanss that the initial ratio is an output of the procedure, not an input to it.}
   
Quote
Initial Daughter Ratio is closer to 0.7 for the Rb/Sr analyses.

   
Quote
If a mass of lava is thoroughly mixed, then the atomic size difference does not matter.  Everything is mixed thoroughly and Sample 1 should have the same composition as Sample 2, and Sample 3, etc.  Yes, the Rb will be emplaced into the various mineral crystal structures differently than the Sr is emplaced, but the different emplacement should operate the same in all samples.

Nope, you still don't have a clue. This is high-school chemistry, Davie-doofus. There is no connection between the number of Rb atoms picked up by a crystal and the number of Sr atoms picked up by a crystal.  There is a solid connection between the number of 87Sr atoms picked up by a crystal and the number 0f 86Sr atoms picked up by that crystal.

Here's an analogy.  A good one.  There's a big hat.  Really big. It contains 1,000,000,000 white balls and 500,000,000 black balls, all mixed up and randomized really well.  You can't tell any of the black balls apart, and you can't tell any of the white balls apart.  But 75% of the white balls have red centers and 25% have green centers.  The red-center balls are 87Sr atoms, the green-center balls are 86Sr atoms.  The black balls are 87Rb atoms.

You are a growing crystal with some room for strontium.  Your job is to pick 10,000,000 white balls from the hat.  After you have done so, without opening any balls, what is your ratio of red-center balls to white-center balls (your 87Sr/86Sr ratio)?  Answer: dam close to 75%/25% or 3.0.

Unknown to you, at the same time that you were picking white balls, someone else who is part of your crystal was picking black balls.  You didn't notice this in any way.  What is the ratio of the number of black balls he picked to the number of green-center white balls you picked (your 87Rb/86Sr ratio)?  Answer:  Could be anything.  No way to tell.

Rewal crystal growth is like that.  There's an incredibly tight correlation between 87Sr and 86Sr, there's no such correlation between 87Rb and 86Sr.  (In fact, crystals that pick up a lot of Sr tend to have very little Rb and vice-versa.  But they all get some of each.)
   
Quote
And I think Tracy is right.  If this is the case, you will have single point on your isochron diagram which of course is meaningless WRT an age calculation.

Sorry, both of you are wrong. Reasons and references already shown.
 
Quote
The following article sums up the fatal flaw with Whole Rock Isochron dating ...

I figured you'd dig that one up sooner or later.  It's the kind of total arm-waving BE article you love.

I point out that your reference includes:

"The assumed uniform strontium ratios should certainly be valid when applied to a rock system solidifying from a uniform homogenized melt. We must emphasize, however, that this enabling assumption must fail in the absence of an initial homogenized melt."

Except for the "assumed" part he's totally correct in those two sentences.  Guess he'd have a good laugh at your claims about 87Sr/86Sr and 87Rb/86Sr, hum? Alas, he's not right about much else.  In particular, no calculations or evidence, just assertions.

Mixing isochrons would have a random set of slopes; especially negative slopes would be as common as positive.  Observed isochrons almost universally have positive slopes, and rather small positive slopes at that.  (Occasional negative slopes turn up, and get published, 'cause they're so rare and interesting).

Mixing isochrons would have random Y-intercepts. The vast majority of intercepts are in the range expected for a true isochron.

There's a "mixing test" that is a necessary but not sufficient condition for two-component mixing; if it forms a line the isochron may be a result of mixing, but if it does not form a line the isochron is not the result of two-component mixing.  Many isochrons do not form a line in the mixing test and are not the result of two-component mixing. Three+ component mixing is possible but unlikely; we know of a source for two components but not for a widely-spread third, and the scenarios that creationists have proposed for three-component mixing are frankly silly (e.g. absolutely zero 86Sr).

{ABE: And, I almost forgot, the truth that Davie can't face:  correlation!  I suppose that all whole-rock isochrons are mixing lines and always have just enough excess argon for K-Ar dating to agree with the isochron dating ... but then what about the concordant U-Pb dates?  What incredible but omnipresent coincidence is responsible for the U-Pb dates that are concordant with the isochron dates that are concordant with the model-age dates?  (See the table that Deadman just posted). No matter what you think of the individual methods, Davie-doodles, there's a pattern there that you need to explain.}

More detail at the references I've already posted and at Isochrons and Mixing Lines.
   
Quote
Wow ... 90% of all the isochron "dates" published are whole rock

Gee, where's the evidence for that?  How old is that claim?  Was it true when written?  Has anything changed?
   
Quote
This would explain why the 2006 Encyclopedia Britannica has this to say ...

Hey, you brought up whole-rock isochron dating. Your creationist pals' unsupported claims notwithstanding, it's valid but faiiry expensive and not as accurate as lower-cost methods that can be applied to many of the same roicks.  Remember  that graph I posted?

(There's still a lot of use of Rb-Sr isochrons in isotope geochemistry, and a lot of use of the Rb-Sr system in archeological dating).

Date: 2006/09/18 14:27:43, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 18 2006,19:31)
Apparently, Dalrymple's original response is only available here:
   
Quote
4. Dalrymple, G.B. 1984. How Old is the Earth? A Reply to "Scientific Creationism". Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division AAAS 1(3) : 84-86.


Does he ever address W. M. Overn and Russell T. Arndts online?

Not that I know of.  No further response was necessary.

Date: 2006/09/18 14:46:42, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 18 2006,20:30)
I have learned that you will merely avoid it if you are given multiple responses.

And, of course, he'll avoid if he's given one response.

Date: 2006/09/19 02:29:04, Link
Author: JonF
I see you can't address the issues with Arndts and Overns' "all isochrons are mixing" theory.  They came up with a hypothesis, it almost (but not quite) passed one easy test on a small set of samples; but until they can explain the observed pattern of isochron slopes, the observed pattern of isochron intercepts, and the observed pattern of concordance between whole-rock isochrons, mineral isochrons, and other methods that are not susceptible to mixing ... they're just blowing smoke.
 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 18 2006,22:15)
 
Quote
 
Quote
Jon is correct that (at least from this real world example) the assumed ...

Not assumed.  Calculated.  Big difference.
Oh really?  How?

Still no clue, hum?  Read the references.  The data points define a line.  The calculated Y-intercept of the line is the initial ratio.
 
Quote
     
Quote
Nope, you still don't have a clue.
No I do have a clue.  You just cannot read.  Here is what I said ...      
Quote
Yes, the Rb will be emplaced into the various mineral crystal structures differently than the Sr is emplaced, but the different emplacement should operate the same in all samples.
Now, Jon, read it again very slowly and you will see that I understand that Sr and Rb is emplaced differently.

But you did not acknowledge the point; there is a connection between isotopes of the same element which forces the initial 87Sr/86Sr to be the same for all samples, but there is no connection between different elements that forces anything about the initial 87Rb/87Sr ratio.  Do you understand that now, Davie-pie? Of course, that would mean you would have to admit your error, and you never do that.
 
Quote
 
Quote
Here's an analogy.  A good one.  There's a big hat.  Really big. It contains 1,000,000,000 white balls and 500,000,000 black balls, all mixed up and randomized really well. (Blah blah blah for several paragraphs because he thinks I don't understand the difference in crystal uptake)
 Very good, Jon.  We all understood this already.

Ah, so you do acknowledge you were wrong to claim that the 87Rb/87Sr ratio should be the same for all samples.
 
Quote
You are arguing about individual crystals and we are still talking about whole rock isochrons.  I just touched on mineral (individual crystal) isochron "dating" but the main point of the article is that whole rock isochron dating has a fundamentally flawed assumption.  Maybe this explains why 90% of the dates WERE whole rock isochrons when this article was written (mid-90's I think), but now they are not.  Interesting isn't it?  Again, notice the Overn article ...

The claim that 90% of isochrons (not dates, as you wrote) were whole-rock isochrons is an unsupported assertion.  Isochron dating in general has declined in popularity because it is expensive and not as accurate as other methods, many of which can be used on the same rocks.  Isochron dating can only get you to an accuracy of 1-3%; sub-1% accuracy is where it's at.
 
Quote
 
Quote
In the dialog with Dalrymple [4] it was noted that he is unwilling to defend the whole-rock isochron. In his latest book [7] on the age of the earth he has included a section that describes the elegant process with which crystals (minerals) give the necessary heterogeneity to make the system work.
See?  Overn understands about your little black and white balls and I do also.  BUt again, you are missing his point which is that WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRONS are either (a) homogeneous and meaningless (single point), or (b) heterogeneous and invalid (no way to determine initial daughter ratio ... remember, Jon, we are not talking about single crystals yet, we're talking about big samples containing all kinds of crystals)

Actually, the problem is that you're not talking about big samples containing all kinds of crystals. I'll restore something you wrote:
 
Quote
The issue is this:  If a mass of lava is thoroughly mixed, then the atomic size difference does not matter.  Everything is mixed thoroughly and Sample 1 should have the same composition as Sample 2, and Sample 3, etc.  Yes, the Rb will be emplaced into the various mineral crystal structures differently than the Sr is emplaced, but the different emplacement should operate the same in all samples.  And I think Tracy is right.  If this is the case, you will have single point on your isochron diagram which of course is meaningless WRT an age calculation.

I've already pointed out why you don't get a single point on the isochron diagram, with several references.  I notice you have no response.

But your real problem is "Everything is mixed thoroughly and Sample 1 should have the same composition as Sample 2".  This is true of the lava or magma before it starts to solidify but it changes as soon as solidification starts.  Different crystals form at different temperatures, and the temperature varies with postion in the melt (e.g. a surface underwater is a lot cooler than a point few feet to the interior of the flow from that surface).  Also, as crystals form, they remove or reject particular chemical elements, changing the relative concentrations of different elements in the remaining melt (but not the relative concentrations of isotopes of the same element, as we have seen).  The upshot is that the relative proportions of different types of crystals in a sample rock varies as a function of where in the solidified mass the rock came from and the amount of chemical species in a sample rock varies as a function of when the rock solidified relative to the rest of the cogenetic rocks.  (Remember, Rb and Sr are trace elements in these cryustals, substituting for particular other atoms). And these facts lead to varying 87Rb/86Sr ratios in (rationally chosen) different rocks from the same source.  And, finally, that leads to a valid whole-rock isochron in which we can calculate the initial 87Sr/86Sr ratio and the number of half-lives since solidification.

Date: 2006/09/19 03:01:14, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 18 2006,21:35)
If this data was from whole rock Isochron analysis, why do we get a linear relationship instead of a scatter of single points?

Why are there no data points between the Rb/Sr ratios of (approx.) 1.0 to 1.3? ???

This graph doesn't seem to jive with what Overn and Arndts are arguing.

The data in that graph may be consistent with Arndts and Overn's hypothesis; it isn't prima facie inconsistent.

They hypothesize that all whole-rock isochrons are the result of mixing of two isotopically inhomogeneous sources, which is physically possible.  Imagine that there's a mass of well-mixed magma, magma A, that happens to have an 87Sr/86Sr ratio of 0.81 and an 87Rb/86Sr ratio of 1.7.  Imagine another mass of well-mixed magma, magma B, that happens to have an 87Sr/86Sr ratio of 0.708 and an 87Rb/86Sr ratio of 0.15.  Now imagine that magmas A and B come together, mix somewhat but don't mix thoroughly, and erupt and solidify.  Your friendly local geologist comes along a few thousand years later (before any significant amount of Rb has decayed in the rocks) and collects samples for an isochron analysis.  One of his samples just happens to be all from magma A, and plots as the upper right data point on the graph.  Another one of his samples happens to be all from magma B, and plots as the lower left data point on the graph. The other samples are made up of varying proportions of the two magmas, and plot as points between the two extremes but on a straight line connecting the extremes.  This is as expected, and this sort of thing does happen occasionally.

There's a test for such a "mixing line".  You plot the data points again, but this time with 1/(87Sr + 86Sr) on the X-axis and 87Sr/86Sr on  the Y-axis.  If the result is near a straight line, the isochron may be a mixing isochron; if the result is scattered all over the graph, as it often is, the result is not a mixing isochron of two sources.  (It might possibly be a mixing isochron of three or more sources, but I touched on the problems with that already).

But the mixing test gives lots of false positives for mixing lines.  The reason is a consequence of the chemical properties of Rb and Sr, and is discussed a little more in Isochrons and Mixing Lines.

Arndts and Overn ran mixing tests on 18 whole-rock isochrons.  They used a least-squares straight-line fit (which is technically invalid, you need a more complex line-fitting algorithm, but that's not the major issue). They found correlation coefficients ranging from less than 0.5 (two tests) to over 0.9 (8 tests).  In this kind of work, a correlation coefficient over 0.9 is significant, a correlation coefficient over 0.99 is a lock.  So less than half of their tests were reasonably close to forming a straight line on a mixing plot, and many of them were far away from forming a straight line.  (Remember that forming a straight line on a mixing plot is a necessary but not sufficient test for two-component mixing.)  So, the correct conclusion is that some of the isochrons might be mixing lines and some of them definitely are not two-component mixing lines.

With this data, and lots of arm-waving and ignoring of the observed pattern of isochron slopes, the observed pattern of isochron intercepts, and the observed pattern of concordance between whole-rock isochrons, mineral isochrons, and other methods that are not susceptible to mixing, they concluded that all whole-rock isochrons are the result of mixing.  Well you may cry "WTF?!?!?!".  Yes, their conclusions are invalid and unsupported.

But that graph doesn't disprove their claims.  Lots of other things do, but not that graph.

Date: 2006/09/19 07:18:16, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 19 2006,11:30)
The latest TO post of the month talks about constancy of radioactive decay.

The Constancy of Constants, Part 2

Yeah, I posted a link to the Google Groups version of that earlier.  Davie ignored it, of course; too close to reality for his taste.

Date: 2006/09/20 03:46:16, Link
Author: JonF
Got it straight on where the intial daugher ratio comes from now, Davie-doofus?  You were wrong about us assuming it, weren't you!

Learned anything about chemistry and soldification kinetics?
 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,07:23)
[img]Here is my guess of what we might have if we analyzed MANY meteorites.  With this data set, you can have MANY lines with all different slopes ... if this is the real situation, then of course, there is no age significance at all.

Your fantasies are not evidence.  We have analyzed many meteorites.  See Radioisotopic evidences for age of earth (and solar system) for a table of many meteorite analyses (at the end).
 
Quote
One thing I am noting is that we are basing this 4.5 Ga age number on a really small range of data ... the daughter ratios range from about 0.71 to 0.81, which is well within the range of naturally occurring ratios in both young and "old" rocks.

"Really small" is a relative term, meaningless without a referent. It's gigantic relative to the sensitivity, precision, and accuracy of the instrumentation, which arguably is the one realistic referent.  It's not "really small" relative to the total range of observed values, being approximately 1/2 the range we see and much more than 1/2 of the most commonly encountered ranges.  So, Davie-piddles, "really small" relative to what?
 
Quote
Sorry, Jon ... I guess Google Scholar doesn't like you

We've already pointed out the problems with Google Scholar searches for such counting, not the least of which is the choice of keywords.  Boots on the ground, Davie-doodles.  That's the only way.

{ABE:}
 Geez, Davie-moron, I just noticed your extreme dishonesty in your Google search. You almost slipped that one by!!
Quote
Google Scholar  All articles  
Recent articles  Results 1 - 10 of about 11,300 for whole rock age.  1981-1990
Recent articles  Results 1 - 10 of about 478 for mineral isochron 1981-1990

You searched for "whole rock age", picking up all sorts of dating methods, but "mineral isochron", trying to limit it to isochrons!  Naughty, naughty, Davie-dork!  Of course, I don't think that a Google Scholar search is particularly meaningful, but let's see why Davie did that:

Google Scholar, all articles, 1981-1990:

Code Sample

"whole rock isochron" (phrase)      145
whole rock isochron (all words)      443
"mineral isochron" (phrase)             41
mineral isochron (all words)           478

"whole rock age" (phrase)              103
whole rock age (all words)            11,600
"mineral age" (phrase)                     69
mineral age (all words)                 12,400

So, Davie-doodles, you didn't like that result, did you?  If you believe in such Google Scholar searches, your (and Arndts and Overns' ) claim is refuted.  No matter how you slice it, comparing comparable searches doesn't come close to 90% whole rock. So you had to do something fraudulent, didn't you?  That explains your love for Snelling; frauds of a feather flock together.
{end ABE}

Date: 2006/09/20 03:57:40, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 20 2006,08:36)
you don't dick about statistics, do you dumbass?

do you know what a linear regression is?

do you even know what a standard deviation is?

I'm sure he doesn't know any of that, nor what r^2 is or means, or why Arndts and Overn's data don't support their hypothesis (not even counting the mountains of evidence that they've ignored that refute their hypothesis).

I just want to note that line-fitting to geochronological data is a very advanced subject, and few of us (including myself) are really knowledgable in that field.  Ordinary least-squares regression comes fairly close to an optimum line, but not close enough for the accuracy and significance we want, and similarly r^2 is a very crude measure of significance.  The major problem is that least-squares fitting assumes that the X-axis values are all known exactly and all the errors are in the Y-axis values.  This is known false in the case of geochronological data; in fact, usually the errors in X and Y dat are correlated.  Mean Sum of Weighted Deviates (MSWD) is the appropriate measure of goodness-of-fit and linearity of the data.  The canonical reference is  York, D., 1969, Least squares fitting of a straight line with correlated errors, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 5, 320-324.

Date: 2006/09/20 06:08:07, Link
Author: JonF
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,11:21)
My chart above shows the probable situation that we really have if we considered many more meteorites.  As you can see, there is no need to do any fancy linear regressions to know that there is no age significance whatsoever to the data.  You can fit lines every which way with both positive and negative slope and with no slope at all.

Your ability to draw imaginary lines through imaginary points is not evidence. (ANd none of those lines fit any set of points nearly as well as the real line fits the real points). "Probable situation", hum?  Any evidence or calculations for that claim?  Of course not.
 
Quote
I can tell you this ... the more I get into real papers that do real analyses of rocks, the more I see that much data is simply discarded because it does not fit pre-conceived ideas about the age of the earth.

Then why haven't you posted any references to such papers?  The KBS Tuff dates and Dalrymple's GC dates that were rejected were rejected not because they didn't fit preconceived ideas .. many of them did ... but for objective and repeatable and valid reasons.  Your ability to repeat unsupported claims is not evidence.
 
Quote
Jon--  I'm glad to see you've decided Google Scholar is not so bad after all ...

I stated explicitly that I still think Google scholar searches are meaningless for this kind of investigation.
Quote
My search terms ARE appropriate and are better than yours ...

Nope, Davie-doodles, your search terms are not appropriate at all.  Overn's claim is that "All whole-rock "isochrons" are mixing, and they are approximately 90% of all published.".  All published what? Not dates, that's ridiculous on the face of it, and he's only discussing isochrons, and the referent must be to something that appeared just previously; the referent is clear, and it's isochrons.  The only possible reading is that he's claiming they are approximately 90% of all published isochrons are whole-rock.  And therefore "whole rock age", a ridiculous term no matter what Overn claimed, is totally out of the ballpark.  "Whole rock isochron" and "mineral isochron" are the only ones that might be valid, but there's so many things that hit both and/or aren't dating studies that those are meaningless too.
 
Quote
 
Quote
Got it straight on where the intial daugher ratio comes from now, Davie-doofus?  You were wrong about us assuming it, weren't you!
I have always understood that the Y-intercept is the initial daughter ratio ... you are just quite desperate to portray me as stupid so you jump on anything (sort of like Icthy jumping up and down about linear regression)

Sure, Davie-doofus.  I believe you, really really I do. The fact that there's lots of evidence that you're lying shouldn't led me to suspect you're lying.
 
Quote
(sort of like your fantasy that I said lava was sedimentary when actually YOU were the one that said that)

Never said any such thing, Davie-moron.  You keep claiming I said it, but you can't point to where.  The whole thread is downloadable and easily searchable ... let's see the reference.
 
Quote
my question of how do you calculate it came because something you said made me think that you were saying that the OTHER values (not on the Y-intercept) were also calculated, not measured.  I see now that you do not think that.  Whew!

Oh, yeah, sure, Davie-doofus.  Exactly what did I write that made you think that?  And why did you label the inital daughter ratio as "assumed"?
 
Quote