|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
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: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3374 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1406 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Please note the Message 100 reference to the topic of this thread.
Stick to it please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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: |
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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024