|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,907 Year: 4,164/9,624 Month: 1,035/974 Week: 362/286 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New helium retention work suggests young earth and accelerated decay | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by wehappyfew:
For more background, check out the rather technical discussion on T.O. Sign in - Google Accounts In the thread titled: helium in zircons means young earth? The message number 43 (currently) by Chris Ho-Stuart 11/09/02 has a lot of good references.[/B][/QUOTE] WeHappy... Thanks for the TO link. I think I can take consolation that at least some others were confused by Humphreys' byzantine logic and odd terminology. I really wasn't sure what he was saying. Now, perhaps, we can get down to the details.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Double posting deleted.
[This message has been edited by edge, 11-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Yep, proven!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Double (triple!!?)posting deleted.
[This message has been edited by edge, 11-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Why would you think this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Which would change the rate of diffusion. I cannot support this, but I have heard that there is a steady flux of He through the crust.
quote: I concur absolutely. The ability or inability to model actual, natural conditions has always bothered me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Could be. These strained assertions are so abundant that it is hard to keep them straight. I think it's a creationist conspiracy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Accelerated decay occurs CONTINUOUSLY DURING the catastropohic sedimentation -... Just what is the evidence for accelerated decay? Why did it start and why did it stop? And just what is your evidence for catastrophic sedimentation? Which strata are catastrophic and which are not? What is the source of catastrophic sediments during a global flood?
... whether it be 500 years (Recolonization model)... What evidence do you have for life before the mabul? In other words, how do you know it is 'recolonization'? Are you saying that the entire earth's fauna and flora reconstituted in 500 years? That entire major taxa came and went in 500 years?
... or 10 years (Ecological Zoning Model). What does the ecologiical zoning model say? This sounds like something we've heard before. How were the ecological zones separated?
So it's not all in one spike, but during the process of deposition. Right. So the entire phylum of dinosaurs arose evolved and died off during a spike? What are you saying? This is all so vague as to be unaddressable.
Remember we propose God did it to dynamically govern the Flood and continental break-up (via radio-heat generation) so it makes sense to occur during the process. Sure, God-did-it. That is your explanation? Won't cut it, TB.
That means - at a basic level - we have the same expectation as you. Early layers display large amounts of decay, later layers have less - in a completely continuous spectrum. So you guys can resolve less than ten years in age difference by radiometric methods. I hope you plan to publish.
I've always assumed this is implicit in the proposal but I'll admit it's not obvios to those who don't think about accelerated decay on a daily basis! That goes without question. But why would one want to think about something that is unsupported by evidence every day?
PS - As regards the different methods/decay modes we need to discuss that more. RATE has recently published a comparison of different methods on the same rocks and shown that the discrepencies match their expectations of how the different methods (due to differnt decay modes) track. In other woirds RATE is saying they can explain why radiodating methods give different dates. That's silly, also. THere are myriad reasons that different methods give different dates. The real problem you have is why there are many examples where the dates are congruent among methods. This should not happen. In fact, it would seem to me that if there is so much resolution caused by accelerated decay over a one year, or ten-year or 500-year period, that there should be virtually no agreement and rates should be completely random. They are not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Because we accept all of the data - both the radio data and the diffusion data - acceleration of decay is the only possiblity. It presumably started and stopped to dynamically govern the Flood and the break-up of Pangea via radio-heating of the crust/mantle. You have radiometric data showing that accelerated decay has actually occurred? Please publish this as soon as possible. And the diffusion data is nonsense. Do you realize that helium is produced constantly within the mantle and crust? Where do you suppose that He goes? Please explain the method of 'starting and stoppping' accelerated decay. Also I am curious about the secondary effects of this accelerated radiation. If we have several billions of years of equivalent radiation occurring within one year, what do you think would have happened to life in the sea and on any vessel navigating it?
Helium diffusion dating implies catastrophic sedimentation. How is that? What does He diffusion in zircons have to do with sedimentation?
However, as we discussed in numerous threads in hte past: * Most beds demonstrate rapidity: cross-bedding, pebble orientations, grading etc Wrong. I just looked at thousands of feet of a shale basin that covered a large portion of North America. How do you suppose this happenened? Care to change your statement? And why does cross-bedding, per se, indicated rapid deposition of an entire formation?
* Many formations are almost unconformity-free But not all are? What about the major inter-regional unconformities found throughout the geological record?
but this is not the place for this issue! There are other threads for rapid stratificaiton. I anxiously await your answers, wherever they may occur.
I have switched models - I'm a recolonizer now.p So, you agree that ecological zoning doesn't work?
In the Recolonization model we would be talking about 500 years. With accelerated decay we have the same signal-to-noise. There's plenty of time for radio resetting. No. You have to fit thousands of distinct dates, from billions of years equivalent radiation, into a 500 year time slot. The picture should be pure noise.
I agree with you that ther are lots of standard reasons for discordant dates. Accelerated decay gives one more. But if it explains the pattern of discordancy then it does more than that. You have completely avoided the argument that there are concordant dates by different techniques and that this should be impossible. THIS is what you need to explain. Discordance is not an issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Radioisotope ratios together with helium retention spells accelerated decay. There's no other possibility that I can think of other than de-accelerated diffusion! You mean: other than the possibility that the RATE study is completely out to lunch.
The surrounding He concentrations are taken into account in the work! Not really. They do not include the constant flux of He through the crust. Actually, how could they?
It couldn't be simpler. If diffuison dating dates Paleozoic rocks at 6000 +-2000 years old wouldn't that suggest that the rest of the geo-column was created rapidly? He diffusion dating is not some obscure fact - it's a new dating method!! Not at all. Particularly if the diffusion rates are as great as you seem to think. With older rocks this is an utterly useless method.
We're often talking cross-bedding for much of the way thorugh a formation - like through 12,000 feet: F.J. Pettijohn Sedimentary Rocks 3rd Ed Harper & Row (New York) 1974p520-521 "The stability or persistence of a particular paleocurrent system through time is indeed one of the most astonishing results of paleocurrent measurements. Cross-bedding in a 12,000 foot (3,660m) sequence in the Moine series of Scotland displays a uniformity of orientation throughout which was described by Sir Edward Bailey as "the most surprising single phenomenon" displayed by these strata (Wilson et al Geol Mag 90,377-387 (1953)). Pelletier (Pelletier et al Bull Geol Soc Amer 69, 1-33-1064 (1958)) has shown mean current direction to remain constant in strata ranging from Upper Devonian (Catskill) to Pennsylvanian (Pottsville) in age of Pennsylvania and Maryland. This means essentially stable paleoslope for a period of 150 to 200 milion years. And so? What does this say about the time to deposit the entire Moine Series? You do not understand the mechanism of cross-bedding. While one layer may occur rapidly, this says absolutely nothing about how long it takes to deposit and preserve an entire formation. It's like saying that a car that travels at 100 kph will cover 2400 km in a day. You don't account for refueling, rest for the driver, eating, etc. In this case it's much worse. Because of erosion in the fluviatile environment, many of the 'kilometers' are actually in a backward direction! To a geologist your statement is incredibly silly.
I would assign the major conformities to breaks between catastrophic layering. Why would there be breaks during a flood? How long are the breaks? Why do they have soils developed on some of these unconformities?
If the acceleration occurred over 500 years it's quite possible to exactly get what we see in the geo-col radioisotpoically. All you need is enough time for resetting. Resetting time is the issue your trying to address without saying it. Yes, where do you find the time to reset? According to your theory, there should be a batholith entirely cooling below the trapping temperature ever year or so. How do you tell thes apart with an accelerated decay scenario? By the time large bodies cool they have a number of ages, depending upon the depth of cooling and which phase of intrusion you are talking about. The record should be a completely random dates over 500 years.
My presumption for now is that the metods we use are the ones which are largely concordant. Myabe some of the other methods that have been discarded are disconcordant for precisely the reason we propose. No. You MUST explain concordant dates. They would be impossible according to your scenario. You may run from this fact, but anyone with scientific background will simply not take you seriously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
e: Please explain the method of 'starting and stoppping' accelerated decay. TB: See my comment to Mark24. Where?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024