Geologists and dating (India Basins Half a Billion Years Older Than Thought)

Yours is one of the odder approaches to refuting radiometric dating that we've seen here. Instead of making ambiguous unsupported claims that it doesn't work, the usual tack for creationists, you're claiming the data gathered by geologists since the inception of radiometric dating actually indicates a young age for the earth but has simply been analyzed improperly. Does this make sense or even seem possible, even to you, since the agreement among dates would require massive incompetence along with massive collusion (and dishonesty) stretching across many decades with not one geologist letting out the secret. Why don't you ask if he'd be willing to walk through the calculations with you?You might find this very short article interesting: "RATE" Leaders Abandon Geologic Fantasies and Admit that Extensive Radioactive Decay has Occurred. It reports the conclusions of creationist RATE group members Humphreys and Baumgardner that radiometric dating is indeed accurately measuring the byproducts of radioactive decay that take millions or billions of years to form, and that they're now exploring other avenues for explanations of the radiometric dating "puzzle".The success of an interpretive framework is measured by its successes. The creationist interpretive framework of radiometric dating data has zero successes while that of mainstream geology has at least thousands. The lack of success is telling you that your interpretive framework of a young earth is wrong. All aspects of creation science remain mired about where they were 50 years ago, while during the same period mainstream science has had unprecedented success on almost all fronts.But the important question is one that has already been asked several times: Why do you feel you need scientific support for articles of faith?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Boy, I'd love to see your reference for that claim! Of course you'll never supply one.You obviously don't understand the theory behind discordia dating. Nontetheless, everybody prefers concordant dates; that's why techniques have been developed for obtaining them, and the vast majority of dates obtained recently are concordant. Like Joe's concordant dates.You guys are all alike. Focus on one small individual topic, ignore the big picture and especaily ignore the elephant in the room … consilience Yes, for several reasons; the major one of which is that it's a second-order correction. Says Mr. meteorites-hit-these-zircons!

I already posted the money quote from the RATE article to which that refers. He ignored it.Lord only knows how he's convinced himself that the common lead correction is significant and not just a slight second-order effect.And like prety much all YECs, he ignores the consilience between radiometric and non-radiometric methods and between wildly different radiometric maethhods. He hopes that finding a problem in one little niche will bring the entire structure crashing down. The fact that the RATE boys realize that the only hope for YEC is total restructuring af all physics, and that they also realize that this requires massive non-Biblical miraculous interventions, is anathema to peaceharris' kind.

Oh, and a couple of points exposing your ignorance further:

• A world-wide average ²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴ value is not the only source for a ²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴ value for correction. Can you name some other sources?
• I haven't looked up the papers on Joe's particular method, but I think that he didn't use ²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴ because of an issue with the instrumentation. Can you name that issue?

An expert such as you should have no difficulty with those questions! Depends on your model. What's the physical basis for it and where's the mathematical exposition?

quote:

---

What geologists do when the data doesn't fit their Concordia curve, is start making speculative excuses such as meteorites bombarded these zircons, therefore Pb was removed.

---

LOL, reference please.CheersJoe Meert

peaceharris writes

quote:

---

In your opinion, if the measured data correlates better with my model, do you think any geologist will change his mind, or will they still resort to speculative ideas such as Pb removal, Pb addition, U removal and U addition?

---

Two points, you'll have to publish your model. From what I can tell, your model is a simple statistical test. It tells us nothing about the absolute ages of the rocks (does it?) and only casts aspersions on the methods of modern geochron. You bring up Aristotle, but fail to mention that Aristotle's world is very different than the one we live in. There are labs around the world trying to make the next big breakthrough (hence the development of ICP and SHRIMP for example). You have people who can test the ideas put forth by others in a transparent peer-reviewed method. You have people actively trying to find errors and ommissions in modern methods. You have people cross-checking results with other methods. In short, you have created a very false image of geology whereby everyone is hiding something in order to preserve an old earth. In truth, it was the fact that work came out into the open and that people challenged each other that the age of the earth was determined. You should read Cherry Lewis' book "The Dating Game" for a good history of geochron. That is after you read some of technical books so you understand geochron. Based on your statements here and the links given about your debate a few years ago, it seems you clung to your previous misunderstandings hoping to impress a new audience. If you want to impress, you'd be better off on a board where everyone wants to remain ignorant (there are plenty of religious boards where debate is not welcome and people pat each other on the back in beejesus agreement). Too many people on here are going to check your oil and, because you are so bold, are not going to be kind when they point out your mistakes.CheersJoe MeertEdited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.Edited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.

You understand me very well. I have just finished writing a report on a more accurate way of doing U-Pb dating. Since it involves equations, I don't know how to use html and dBCodes to compose it here. It is available at Google Sites: Sign-in Yes, it is a very simple statistical test. With the online data that I have come across, I don't think I can calculate the absolute age, but I think if someone measures all the relevant isotope data in the decay chain of Uranium, and if someone spends a lot of time thinking how to crunch that data, it may be possible to determine the true age.

I don't see exactly where your error is. I suspect it's in the integration. But the error is there.Since the half-life of the parent isotope (²³⁸U) is much longer than the half-life of any of the daughter isotopes in the decay chain, after about 10-20 half-lives of the longest-lived isotope in the chain (²³⁴U), a state called secular equilibrium is reached. In secular equilibrium, the rate of production of each intermediate daughter isotope is exactly equal to its rate of destruction, the rates of production and destruction of all intermediate daughter isotopes are equal, and the amount of each intermediate daughter isotope remains constant. Of course, the amount of the the isotope at the beginning of the chain decreases, and the amount of the isotope at the end of the chain increases, but the amount of each intermediate daughter isotope remains constant.This is what allows us to do U-Pb dating of samples that are old relative to the half-life of ²³⁴U without having to consider the set of coupled differential equations of the entire decay chain; the system acts as if ²³⁴U decays directly to ²⁰⁶Pb and we can ignore what's going on the the "black box".Of course a similar argument applies to the other decay chains in the U/Th group, with shorter times to reach secular equilibrium. And, of course, after many half-lives of the isotope at the top of the chain the amounts of intermediate daughter decline. But the Earth is not that old.Therefore, any model that predicts a decline in the amount of an intermediate daughter isotope over periods of a few half-lives of the isotope at the top of the chain is wrong. It is not necessary to show exactly where it is wrong; it is wrong.See Secular equilibrium (Wikipedia, in case you're a Wikipedia-disliker), Secular Equilibrium, and Secular Equilibrium.For the lurkers: there's a group of dating methods called "disequilibrium methods" in which:

• There's a situation in which one of the intermediate decay products is removed quickly from the system as it forms, so secular equilibrium is not achieved, but …
• At some point in time the situation changes so the intermediate daughter product is no longer removed, and it starts to build up towards secular equilibrium and …
• We can measure the time since that situation change by measuring how close the system is to secular equilibrium.

Probably the most common application of this technique is water-borne ²³⁸U (which is pretty water-soluble) decaying to ²³⁰Th (which is really really non-water soluble). So in water there's essentially no ²³⁰Th 'cause it precipitates out as soon as it form.. However, when the ²³⁸U is taken out of solution into a solid, the ²³⁰Th starts building up towards secular equilibrium.This technique has been applied to corals (and used in calibrating ¹⁴C dating), bones that have been soaked in groundwater, and stalactites (e.g the Siloam tunnel in Jerusalem … Radiometric dating of
the Siloam Tunnel, Jerusalem).Cool, huh?

The integration is correct. You can find a similar solution here: http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/staff/pmrp/GY309/Module6/m6.htmlBut I did make a mistake regarding the Sangeang Api volcano. The authors of that paper were talking about activity ratios, not isotope ratios. So I have corrected my reply at
Google Sites: Sign-in Shocked zircons from a K/T ejecta layer in Colorado preserve a primary source age of 545 Myr, with variable degrees of isotopic resetting consistent with partial lead loss at the time of impact (65 Myr ago) - quote from
U—Pb ages of single shocked zircons linking distal K/T ejecta to the Chicxulub crater | NatureFrom what I understand, the authors are saying that there was Pb loss in the shocked zircons at the time of impact.

Without checking, maybe so,But the error is there somewhere, as I demonstrated already. Finding the exact location of the error would be mildly interesting but is not necessary. Yup. But not due directly to the impact, as you claimed.Ever consider the fact that such impacts involve heat? Incredible amounts of heat? Heat activates chemical and mechanical prcesses? Such as diffusion of atoms that fit very poorly in the crystal lattice and are in radiation-damaged portions of the lattice?Still waiting for "meteorites bombarded these zircons, therefore Pb was removed". That was "Intense heat casued by meteorite impact caused lead volatalization".Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I have completed doing simple regression of measured data to my model. The correlation factor isn't good, but better than Concordia model.I have explained the model, and checked the measured data from samples of 2 volcanos to this model here:
http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/u238/index.html

Talk about seeing what you want! I think culling data from a paper without reading the paper is very dangerous. Your analysis shows (assuming you've done things correctly) that the zircons from La Virgen volcano to be indistinguishable from concordia or your 'model'. So, nothing can be said about favoring your model over that which was applied in this study. Zircons (cores and rims) were all plotted together for La Reforma and do not fit your 'concordia' or your model! I'm afraid you've assumed your model correct and can't see the forest for the trees. The data you used do not support your model in any convincing fashion. You even state this same fact and then tout your model as superior. It's not. I'm curious why you did not plot the Aguajito data. They fall on a straight line, but it does not regress through zero. So, for the 3 examples from this paper, your model performs as followsCase 1: Good line through origin fits your simple regression.Case 2: Poor line does not fit your model does not regress through zero.Case 3: Good line, does not regress through zero and therefore does not fit your model.Your comparison to concordia using these data has a fundamental flaw in logic (do you know what that is?). So, of the three analyses only one fits your model (but also fits your concordia curve, thus provides us with no hint that your model is superior). The other two do not fit. I'd say you are 0/3 or if I am being nice 1/3. Not a good start for your model.CheersJoe Meert

Of course, the well-known least-squares linear regression fit is not statistically valid for the data under consideration, although it will often produce results that are close to those produced by valid algorithms.Valid data for least squares regression requires that the errors are solely in the ordinate values (the abscissa vales are known "exactly" or, in reality. much more exactly than the ardinate values), the errors in the ordinate values are normally distributed, and the standard deviation of the errors is not a function of the abscissa values (= are all the same).So peaceharris' "model" is statistically invalid a priori. Try some more appropriate algorithm. See the classic "York, Derek, 1969, Least-squares fitting of a straight line with correlated errors: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 5, 320-324" and see also "Titterington, D.M., and Halliday, A.N., 1979, On the fitting of parallel isochrons and the method of maximum likelihood: Chem. Geol. 26 183-195".Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I was searching for data from a recent eruption (for example St Helen's volcano), since data from a recent eruption represents the initial U-Pb ratios more accurately than a historic eruption. I wasn't able to find U-Pb data of zircons from St Helen's volcano. Data from the La Virgen volcano, which erupted in 1746, might also possibly represent the initial ratio.After discovering that the La Virgen data fits my model, I proceeded to check whether the data from La Reforma also fits my model. Since it was a poor fit, I didn't see any reason why I should proceed to do further regresion on more data. The correlation factor may not be the best way to prove the superiority of my model, but I can't think of a better way to compare both models? Perhaps you know of a better method to compare 2 different models? With the data I have, I couldn't think of a better comparison method. (I don't think you believe that I would reach a very much different result if I used the other types of regression as Jonf suggests, and I don't think you see any purpose of doing that)Please enlighten me telling the flaw in logic, and if possible a better comparison method.

PH, I have looked at your paper "The True Age of Zircons" and would like to make the following comments.You claim to be able to make a more accurate estimation of the true age of zircons (presumably more accurate than that made by geochronologists) by determining the actual amounts of the Uranium isotopes ²³⁴U and ²³⁸U in a zircon sample. If the ratio of these two isotopes is greater than that which occurs at secular equilibrium in the ²³⁸U decay chain ie 0.00005494 then you claim the age of the zircon will be much less than that calculated by science.To prove your point you have used the results of analyses of zircons (S.Wilde et. al., NATURE 409, 175 (2001)) from the famous, Australian Jack Hills conglomerate, which contains the oldest documented zircon crystals on Earth at aprox. 4300 Myr.. By working back from the reported Pb and U isotopic data you claim that the ²³⁴U : ²³⁸U ratio is 1.301187 not the supposed 0.00005494 and that the age of the crystals must be much less than the claimed 4300 Myr.A number of questions immediately arise.1. How is it that you alone have been granted an incredible insight, which has been denied thousands of scientists over the last 70 years? Or are you suggesting a worldwide conspiracy among these scientists to hide this information from the rest of the world, or are they just incompetent?2. How has the ²³⁴U escaped detection?3. Where has this ²³⁴U come from?4. What is the true age of Wilde's zircon 74-36. He and his co-workers date it at 4383 ⁺/_- 4 Myr that's pretty accurate! But all you say is that it is "much younger than that" - hardly a "more accurate age estimation"! So what is it?5. Have you considered you might be mistaken?Let's look at your calculations.You first determine the amount of the individual Pb isotopes from the ratios wrt. ²⁰⁶Pb and the total amount of lead, Pb_Total. You state that the amount of ²⁰⁶Pb is equal to:-
Pb_Total*(1 - ²⁰⁴Pb/²⁰⁶Pb - ²⁰⁷Pb/²⁰⁶Pb - ²⁰⁸Pb/²⁰⁶Pb). Mistake no. 1 - this is wrong!Pb_Total = ²⁰⁴Pb + ²⁰⁶Pb + ²⁰⁷Pb + ²⁰⁸PbDividing by ²⁰⁶Pb gives:-Pb_Total/²⁰⁶Pb = ²⁰⁴Pb/²⁰⁶Pb + 1 + ²⁰⁷Pb/²⁰⁶Pb + ²⁰⁸Pb/²⁰⁶Pb and therefore:-²⁰⁶Pb = Pb_Total/(²⁰⁴Pb/²⁰⁶Pb + 1 + ²⁰⁷Pb/²⁰⁶Pb + ²⁰⁸Pb/²⁰⁶Pb) which is not the same as the formula that you derived.Substituting the values from Wilde - row 1 of Table 1 - which you used in your calculation gives:-²⁰⁶Pb = 355(0.00014 + 1 + 0.5432 + 0.1645) = 207.86 (not your value of 97.87)