Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 91 of 357 (369895)
12-15-2006 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-15-2005 8:24 PM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Here is another source to add to your collection.
The ANDRILL Project

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2005 8:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by iceage, posted 12-15-2006 1:19 PM jar has not replied
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2006 9:49 PM jar has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 92 of 357 (369897)
12-15-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by johnfolton
12-15-2006 11:43 AM


Creation of elements
Charley writes:
If the elements only undergo radioactive decay then they were all created pre-earth and has nothing to do with Humphreys helium diffusion out of granite.
Could you explain what you mean by this? It appears that you think that because only fission occurs that there can not be the creation of any new atoms of a given element. Is that what you mean?
(You are correct that no fusion occurs. However, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this issue.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2006 11:43 AM johnfolton has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 93 of 357 (369918)
12-15-2006 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by johnfolton
12-15-2006 11:43 AM


Radioactive decay and dating
Your post is really just gibberish. Where on earth do you get this ridiculous stuff?
Helium is, in fact, produced in radioactive decay; in alpha decay the emitted particle is a nucleus of helium. Granite is notorious for containing radioactive elements that undergo alpha decay.
When some minerals, including zircons, are formed, the chemistry of the process excludes some elements and includes others. In some useful cases, the parent in a decay is included but the progeny is not; thus any progeny found later are due to decay since the mineral formed.
Regards,
your neighbourhood radiochemist
Edited by Woodsy, : minor pedanticism
Edited by Woodsy, : title changed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2006 11:43 AM johnfolton has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 94 of 357 (369923)
12-15-2006 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by jar
12-15-2006 11:58 AM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Interesting link.
andrill writes:
The sediments shown here are made almost entirely of the remains of diatoms single-celled plants (algae) that lived in the surface waters of the ocean, where there was enough light to grow. When these plants died, the hard parts of their tiny bodies settled through the water to the ocean floor. Because each diatom is about the size of a grain of sand, the sediments you see here are made of the tiny shells of millions and millions of individual diatoms.
This sample was taken 540 ft below the ocean floor. At first blush forget about the issue if the layers represent years or "storms" as YEC would have it; just the sheer number of the diatoms are impossible to form in within the boundaries of a young earth. In addition there are huge deposits of diatomacious chert and shale throughout the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 12-15-2006 11:58 AM jar has not replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 95 of 357 (369925)
12-15-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by johnfolton
12-15-2006 11:43 AM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
Dr. Roger C. Wiens never mentioned that the elements in the natural within the earth never undergo fusion.
What does fusion have to do with this?
Fusion is when particles are slammed together so hard that their nuclei become one with each other, noramally resulting in a short lived unstable isotope. How does this relate in any way to Helium difusion?
The helium diffusion out of granite is like sand flowing through an hour glass and has nothing to do with radioactive decay.
Except that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, through theoretical and laboratory observed data, that elements such as Uranium produce Helium as part of their natural radioactive decay. Every alpha particle ever released in such a reaction eventually becomes Helium. An Alpha particle is, after all, simply a helium nucleus.
Your analogy with an hour glass works fine as long as you accept that there is a big hole in the top of it through which more sand is being poured almost as fast as it leaves.
Oh and just out of interest, it isn't even possible to make Helium from Fusion without a particle accelerator to smash protons and neutrons together at near light speed.
Dating is all about run-of-the-mill decay and a little bit of fission. (I think we covered spontaneous fision and subsequent neutron reactions pretty well before) Fusion has absolutely nothing to do with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2006 11:43 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2006 2:39 PM PurpleYouko has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 96 of 357 (369939)
12-15-2006 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by PurpleYouko
12-15-2006 1:22 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
Dr. Roger C. Wiens never mentioned that the elements in the natural within the earth never undergo fusion.
What does fusion have to do with this?
Fusion is when particles are slammed together so hard that their nuclei become one with each other, noramally resulting in a short lived unstable isotope. How does this relate in any way to Helium difusion?
RAzd link from Roger Wiens was in respect to Humphreys helium diffusion. I agree with you Roger Wiens belief in radioactive dating has nothing to do with helium diffusion. The elements decaying were formed when the particles likely slammed together increasing their radioactive ages pre-earth (before the earth was), etc...
Oh and just out of interest, it isn't even possible to make Helium from Fusion without a particle accelerator to smash protons and neutrons together at near light speed.
I agree, the bigger issue appears for the uniformitarianists to run various pressure related experiments in respect to zircon diffusion of helium to prove it decreases helium diffusion. Why has not the uniformitarians run this test? will helium diffusion be proved to be increased or will Humphreys be vindicated that it will prove that pressure has no relationship of diffusion of helium from the granites.
Personally too me it would appear that increases in pressure would increase the diffusion rate not the other way around. I've not found anything showing the uniformitarians have proven anything, etc...
Dating is all about run-of-the-mill decay and a little bit of fission. (I think we covered spontaneous fision and subsequent neutron reactions pretty well before) Fusion has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I agree Dating is all about run-of-the-mill decay since the elements formed. We really are clueless to the original parent elements when the earth was formed but the helium trapped when the granites formed is one of the methods creationists use to date not the age of the elements but the age of the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-15-2006 1:22 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-15-2006 4:00 PM johnfolton has replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 97 of 357 (369960)
12-15-2006 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by johnfolton
12-15-2006 2:39 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
I agree Dating is all about run-of-the-mill decay since the elements formed. We really are clueless to the original parent elements when the earth was formed but the helium trapped when the granites formed is one of the methods creationists use to date not the age of the elements but the age of the earth.
Except that Helium isn't trapped when the granite forms. It is free to move in and out since there will not be any pressure differential between "in" and "out" of any given crystal.
The argument, as far as I can tell, (please correct me if i have this wrong. I haven'r followed it in great detail)is that the RATE project stated that the rate of helium diffusion from an individual Zircon crystal could be used to date it and that it is more reliable than the U/Pb ratio in the same crystal.
Since we know (from laboratory experiments) that zircon crystals chemically reject the presence of Pb and actively accept Uranium while they are crystalizing, that means that at the time of formation of the crystal there was zero lead in it so any lead now in it must have gotten there later. The only possible source is the decay of the Uranium, which is also known (from laboratory experiments) to happen. The pathway is exceedingly well documented.
I agree with you that we don't know the chemical makeup of much of anything at the time the earth was first formed but we certainly do know with total certainty that when that Zircon crystal formed, it contained zero lead. there are no correction equations here. No assumptions. just the absolute fact that Zircon formation utterly rejects Lead.
What we don't know is how much Helium it had at that time. How much was dissolved in the liquid magma?
What we don't know is how much Helium got into it afterward or moved out later or any number of other details.
What we do also know is that Helium does form (in quite high quantities) as a by-product of the uranium decay series.
Oh and one more thing we DO know pretty well is the way that gas diffusion behaves at different pressures. It is Chemistry 101 gas laws.
We also know that you cannot compress the inter-atomic distances between the atoms in rock and since those are the pathways that very light gasses travel, it means that we know that the rate of diffusion is independent of pressure under these conditions since there literally isn't any pressure of the type that would effect gasses in the rock.
remember we aren't talking about gas pressures here. That would effect diffusion rates for sure. We are talking about compression pressures which are a different thing entirely.
The experiment that you say hasn't been done, hasn't been done for a reason. We already know the answer from myriads of other similar experiments and observations. Doing an experiment to measure diffusion rates of helium through underground rock would be a little akin to holding your head underwater and seeing if you can breathe still. Pointless and a complete waste of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2006 2:39 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2006 7:20 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 98 of 357 (370025)
12-15-2006 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by PurpleYouko
12-15-2006 4:00 PM


Re: Nothing Older Than 16,500 Years in Ice Cores?
Except that Helium isn't trapped when the granite forms. It is free to move in and out since there will not be any pressure differential between "in" and "out" of any given crystal.
Its believed the granites formed quickly due to the radiohalos images within the granites. If granite formed more slowly and the magma cooled slowly there would be no radiohalos.
I agree with you and Humphreys (Chemistry 101 gas laws) that the helium is not trapped when the granites formed. If they were trapped they would not be diffusing to indicate the earth is 6,000 to 12,000 years old. The uniformitarians believe that they are trapped by pressure is simply as we agree an untruth, etc...
Humphreys premise is that helium is diffusing out at certain rate (minus alpha ejections) taking into account helium contributions from (lead forming) supports his calculations of a young earth. The helium should of all nearly diffused out if the earth was an old earth.
--------------------------------------------------
A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock; since, in a liquid or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen.
Page not found – Evolution-Facts
Since we know (from laboratory experiments) that zircon crystals chemically reject the presence of Pb and actively accept Uranium while they are crystalizing, that means that at the time of formation of the crystal there was zero lead in it so any lead now in it must have gotten there later.
I'll agree the helium diffusion not based on pressure and however lead melts at relativly low temps. With higher pressures and adequate temps within the earth couldn't lead of contaminated the Zircons after they had formed?
-------------------------------------------------
I don't see the Zircons being totally destroyed from from alpha decay from within, if alpha decay had been happening for billions of years, wouldn't the zircon particle be near destroyed from within.
-------------------------------------------------
Minerals containing uranium and thorium are crystalline initially, but may eventually lose a long-range ordered arrangement of atoms in their structure because of progressive damage from radioactive decay and alpha-particle emission. In effect, these minerals are destroying themselves from within! Zircon (ZrSiO4),
University of Manitoba - University of Manitoba - Contact Information
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.
Edited by Charley, : If they were trapped they would not be diffusing indicate the earth is 6,000 to 12,000 years old. The uniformitarians believe that they are trapped by pressure is simply as we agree an untruth, etc...
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-15-2006 4:00 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2006 8:05 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2006 9:22 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 101 by AdminNosy, posted 12-15-2006 9:27 PM johnfolton has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 99 of 357 (370040)
12-15-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by johnfolton
12-15-2006 7:20 PM


contradictions?
charley writes:
I agree with you and Humphreys (Chemistry 101 gas laws) that the helium is not trapped when the granites formed.
charley - msg 84 writes:
The granites were created at the time the helium became trapped within the granites.
So now you agree that Humphrey is wrong about helium indicating a young Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2006 7:20 PM johnfolton has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 100 of 357 (370055)
12-15-2006 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by johnfolton
12-15-2006 7:20 PM


NOW Back to the FUTURE thread: CORRELATIONS!
I agree with you and Humphreys (Chemistry 101 gas laws) that the helium is not trapped when the granites formed.
From Wiens: "Helium is also produced from the decay of uranium and thorium."
So we have a new source of Helium atoms AND a general diffusion of Helium through a rock that normally contains a lot of radioactive material.
A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock; since, in a liquid or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen.
And Wiens addresses this not uncommon feature:
quote:
13. "Radiation halos" in rocks prove that the Earth was young.
This refers to tiny halos of crystal damage surrounding spots where radioactive elements are concentrated in certain rocks. Halos thought to be from polonium, a short-lived element produced from the decay of uranium, have been found in some rocks. A plausible explanation for a halo from such a short-lived element is that these were not produced by an initial concentration of the radioactive element. Rather, as water seeped through cracks in the minerals, a chemical change caused newly-formed polonium to drop out of solution at a certain place and almost immediately decay there. A halo would build up over a long period of time even though the center of the halo never contained more than a few atoms of polonium at one time. "Hydrothermal" effects can act in ways that at first seem strange, such as the well-known fact that gold--a chemically un-reactive metal with very low solubilities--is concentrated along quartz veins by the action of water over long periods of time. Other researchers have found halos produced by an indirect radioactive decay effect called hole diffusion, which is an electrical effect in a crystal. These results suggest that the halos in question are not from short-lived isotopes after all.
At any rate, halos from uranium inclusions are far more common. Because of uranium's long half-lives, these halos take at least several hundred million years to form. Because of this, most people agree that halos provide compelling evidence for a very old Earth.
Yellow for emPHAsis: evidence of an OLD earth.
You've had your fun with this little diversion (your normal tactic)
And Humphries is once more exposed as a quack, a hack, a dillusionist of the gullibles, a snake oil salesman.
Remember this the next time you feel compelled to cite Humphries for anything.
Now can we get back to the topic of CORRELATIONS?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2006 7:20 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by johnfolton, posted 12-16-2006 12:08 AM RAZD has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 101 of 357 (370057)
12-15-2006 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by johnfolton
12-15-2006 7:20 PM


Topic
Please note the Message 100 reference to the topic of this thread.
Stick to it please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2006 7:20 PM johnfolton has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 102 of 357 (370059)
12-15-2006 9:43 PM


Correlations in Graphic Form
Individuals interested in this topic may want to check out this website -- Figures for Sean Mewhinney's Minds in Ablation at Figures for Sean Mewhinney's Minds in Ablation which has many of the correlations examined in this thread presented in graphic form.
I would have preferred posting the actual graphs but am unsure of copyright as they would be third generation. Better to err on the side of caution in such matters.

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 103 of 357 (370060)
12-15-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by jar
12-15-2006 11:58 AM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Pretty neat picture.
You can certainly see some discontinuities in these layers and places where it looks like the previous layers were eroded before subsequent deposition.
Possible marine life interaction?
This is also similar to the layers of the foraminifera found in marine sediments (similar sized amoeboid protists that also leave a shell)
Wonder if Palmer and Arnold can use their equipment on these diatoma as well, and generate another picture of evolution over long periods of time.
Not sure how this fits correlations though. Thoughts?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 12-15-2006 11:58 AM jar has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 104 of 357 (370112)
12-16-2006 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
12-15-2006 9:22 PM


Re: NOW Back to the FUTURE thread: CORRELATIONS!
So we have a new source of Helium atoms AND a general diffusion of Helium through a rock that normally contains a lot of radioactive material.
You forget the zircon crystal is more dense than the more porous granites they are found within. Even at that it takes thousands of years to diffuse out of the zircons into the granites.
Radiation halos" in rocks prove that the Earth was young.
It appears the Radiohalo's correlate to the biblical flood and the helium diffusion rate to the age of the earth.
One focus of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project was radiohalos research.1 It was concluded that the uranium (238U) and polonium (Po) radiohalos frequently found in granitic rocks had to have formed simultaneously.2 This implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today's rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days! There needs to have been that much decay of 238U to produce both the visible physical damage (the radiohalos) and the required Po, but that much Po would then have decayed within a few days (because of its short half-lives, that is, very rapid decay rates). So radioisotope "ages" for such granitic rocks of hundreds of millions of years, calculated on the assumption that radioactive decay has always occurred at today's rates, are grossly in error, and these rocks would thus have formed during the Flood year only 4500 years ago. A hydrothermal fluid (hot water) transport model was thus proposed which explained how the Po was separated from its parent 238U and then concentrated in radiocenters close by to form the Po radiohalos.3-5
Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified | The Institute for Creation Research
I noticed no one addressed the ice varve chart adequately(temperature swings Figure 1 ) nothing of substance anyway.
Wild Ice-Core Interpretations by Uniformitarian Scientists | Answers in Genesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2006 9:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by iceage, posted 12-16-2006 12:18 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2006 3:58 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 109 by anglagard, posted 12-16-2006 3:52 PM johnfolton has replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 105 of 357 (370115)
12-16-2006 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by johnfolton
12-16-2006 12:08 AM


Re: NOW Back to the FUTURE thread: CORRELATIONS!
This implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today's rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days!
Well now that neatly solves the mystery of where all of the flood water went. It was turned into plasm and ejected into space as the energy release in such a short time would have been enormous! I sense a AiG paper here somewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by johnfolton, posted 12-16-2006 12:08 AM johnfolton has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024