How, exactly, is dating done?

I just read something about how all the water springs on the earth are showing contamination of MTBE, Its not like the rocks are not pourous, leaning that in some way elements are leaching, affecting not only the argon method but all the dating methods, in a proportional ratio, capillary osmosis, rain water causing bacterial gases, in the pourous rocks, when you factor in cationic and anionic forces in the soils, powered by the earth itself being an electon sink (earth ground), it should be obvious by the simple example in our day of all the spring waters thousands of feet into the ground, being contaminated by MTBE, and other pollutants in the surface waters, even the DNR is concerned about heavy metals in sewerage waste recycled back on farmers fields, because it will because of said forces it will become a part of the soils, etc...
P.S. Water is a solvent, it translocates minerals and redeposits them, in a proportional ratio, with capillary osmosis, bring these solutes into proximity with the mineral lattices, where the electon sink (earth ground) causes the very elements your dating to be drawn(anionic, cationic forces) into the mineral lattices over time in a proportional ratio, explaining how its possible to find instances where the dating methods appear to agree, it doesn't mean they are actually old, just that the leaching processes makes it appear to be, etc...

I thought black granite was the least porous rock, that basalts are porous, don't you date the basalt lava rocks, that they say are porous, I realize some elements were tied up when they were heated, however, if the rocks are porous then water can flow through by capillary osmosis, reverse osmosis, with the forces of cationic and anionic forces draw elements out of the solutes into the mineral lattices, how can I believe that the rocks they say are the most porous are not porous, etc...
P.S. I believe they even seal the granite tops so they won't stain, though black granite seems to be near impermeable, etc...If all the wells show contamination, likely the rock basalts are pretty permeable, etc...http://www.trinitysprings.com/why.htm
The most compelling evidence of TRINITY's pristine state is the absence of tritium, the pervasive radioactive byproduct of nuclear testing which is found in all surface environments. TRINITY is also free from all other manmade pollutants such as the MTBE gasoline additive which is found underground throughout the United States at an alarming rate.[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-13-2004]

Think your all thinking macro-pores not micro-pores, two things seem to be happening when water flows down by gravity, it flows primarily through the macro-pores, cracks in the basalt, etc... even pressing downward in some instances by reverse osmosis, whatever, but the soil due to surface tension and the forces of capillary osmosis binds water, which of course is the reason plants can grow, as its drawing this water, the minerals in solution, etc...basalt because it has micro-pores too, cause the water to diffuse solutes into the micro-pores, seems the greater the solute concentration it helps the hydralic factors, and on Dual Porosity page 12 Ground-Water Hydrology, Two links, the second link takes you through goggle to the same paper.http://www.hydrology.uga.edu/rasmussen/class/4120/ground.pdf.tidal influence on micropore diffusion - Google SearchIt says that water will tend to bypass the micro-pores but over time the micro-pores will have the same concentrations as the macro-pores, and as water percolates down, the micro-pores will leak into the fresher waters, etc...P.S. I realize you consider zircons, basalt, and the granites non porous, but when you consider micro-pores, it fits quite well with argon diffusion and other elemental solutes, as the hydraulics of the water table press upward through the forces of capillary osmosis, etc...If argon is a gas it will tend to rise up via the capillary processes, as the water presses down, and the tidal effects causing the waters in the ground waters to act like an hydraulic pump. I'm reaching a bit, but seems there is much more to osmosis and capillary water moving up into the nonporous basalts, zircons, granites, micro-pores than mets the eye, with the solutes leaking out of the micro-pores, would cause minerals to continue to be drawn up into the micro-pores of the zircons, basalts, granites, over time, in a proportional ratio, causing the other dating methods to agree, giving the illusion, the rocks are old, etc...It appears zircons are young, too.Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-14-2004]

JonF, I thought that "Dual Porosity" addresses this issue, with reverse osmosis priming the capillary pump with fresher water, the solutes pressing up via capillary osmosis, would be drawing from the greater solute concentrations below, into the basalt micro-pores above in a proportional ratio from the solute concentrations below, however the article explains in dual porosity the micro-pores will leak into the fresher waters flowing through the macro-pores back down into the water table below, etc...
P.S. Its in this way that the dating methods would agree, as its whats below thats being drawn up into the micro-pores in a proportional ratio, powered in part by the hydraulic tidal effect of the moon, and the leaking of higher solute concentrations above from the micro-pores into the fresher waters leaching through the macro-pores, like when you find basalt that shows its shows outer evidence of leaching, you can be assured that the micro-pores over time was leaking into these macro-pores causing the inner rock that appears to not be eroded to continue to be drawing up from the lower layers mineral solutes to create the illusion the rocks are old, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-14-2004]

I thought dual porosity is a scientific fact, and that solutes will move from greater solute concentrations to lesser solute concentrations(meaning if the water table goes through several sediment layers, it first equalizes laterally(as the micro-pore have greater solutes concentrations than the macro-pores), then as the higher lower macro-pore solutes will then start to equalize vertically, if the sediments were totally saturated via the macro-pores(The Creationist World Flood)(water table) etc..., then the micro-pores start to equalize over time, too, note, that the article said in the water table the micro-pores and the macro-pores solute concentrations equalize over time, this should explain how the solutes are being drawn up in a proportional ratio, showing older sediment ages the lower you go, and that this capillary bound water is different than free flowing water, that its this bound capillary water, that the plants roots draw from, like how many gallons of water does one tree draw from this capillary waters, for tree roots are not growing in the water table, yet if there is low rain it will actually draw down the water table, where if it draws it too low, your told to water your trees, etc...P.S. If you over water your garden the roots will rot, etc...It appears to me, that the different dating methods is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, etc...It appears to me that its the creationists that are being the more truthful.[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-14-2004]

JonF, It would of took a world flood, the flood waters pressing down(reverse osmosis, to saturate the micropores within the rock sediment layers(this bound water would probably make the rocks seem more impermeable)but would actually be the bound capillary solute waters, but more important the flood waters would of primed the capillary pump, and saturated the macro-pores(the water table), this is whats driving the capillary solute pump, greater solute concentrations seeping to lesser solute concentrations, continually(water table), for 4,300 years since the biblical flood, The link http://www.hydrology.uga.edu/rasmussen/class/4120/ground.pdf. explain's the greater the solute concentration the better the hydraulics(how will press into the micropores), and that the micropores are seeping, seeking to equalize, these very forces would also equalize upward , whatever, could very well be contributing in a proportion the very elements your dating over time, in that the solutes would be bound, increasing the minerals in the lattices by being uptaken via cationic, anionic exchange, creating the illusion the rocks are old, etc...P.S. Its this contribution from the sediment layers below that make the rocks appear older in the sediment layers above, etc...I'm not sure what the Creationist, like Steve Austin feel about this, though thought he was concerned about the effects of leaching affecting the accuracy of the different dating methods, with the solute thing we must not forget the hydroplate theory, likely there is a granite layer under the basalt lava on the ocean floor, if so, then Walt Brown's missing granites would explain the proportional inflated isotope ages, if 70% of the sediments were erupted out of the mid-ocean ridges was the granites, and 30 % the basalts, were talking about a whole lot of solutes coming from the basalt and the granite sediments, that inflated (contaminated) the ages of your igneous rocks that are above and below these sediments, etc...You have to accept the flood, since science is biased it can not, however Double Porosity answers the question how it could be possible for enough elements to leach into the micro-lattices to proportionally affect the age stratification of the very rocks your dating, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-14-2004]

Joe, I'm not a scientists, so I hardly know what your talking about, but, when you said the basalt sank into its own magma chamber, sounds to me, like the lava's and the magma chamber were pre-flood, the dikes sound like they would of been granite uplifts, if so then, it happened when the granites were being crushed under the continents(hydroplate theory), which would of caused the magma chamber to collapse, the reason the lava rocks have no water, was as the magma chamber collapsed, the heat was still present in the collapsed magma chambers, prevented these lava rock from absorbing the flood waters, the heat instead responsible for cementing and searing the micropores the water steaming acting like a wick drawing the smelting ores in the magma chamber sealing the micropores, giving it the low porosity, being above the water table, the flood waters didn't charge the micropores, so the lava's are not loosing any argon, causing it to date older, the uplifts if they were granite, because, there was hydrothermal evidence, probably was due to the lavas steaming, and sealing and cementing the lavas, perhaps the uplifts didn't get cemented because it lacked the necessary lava smelting ores from the magma chamber to press into the micropores, or whatever, to cement the pores, the uplifts didn't date as old, because, like the diamond Snelling mentioned that dated older than the earth, was believed to be caused by the magma chamber contributing excess argon, if the lavas were searing and the magma chambers were that hot, they could of been responsible for excess argon, or it could be that no argon was lost, because the micropores never leaked solutes out, etc...
P.S. I'm sure Snelling or Austin would know what your talking about, hope you enjoyed my little word salad, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-15-2004]

Joe, I liked your picture, still feel the dikes pressed up because of the granites crushing under the continents, the dikes are not the rocks crushing under, the crushing under pressed them up, might of actually formed from a liquid pressing up, cooling to form the dikes, does it totally surround the magma chamber, whatever, containing the magma chamber, that dated older, because the argon was rising up into this rock, the cementing preventing argon from escaping to the atmosphere, making them date older, good to hear these siliceaous rocks had hydrated minerals, thought that tin, bronze, etc... was responsible for cementing though its interesting these rocks had hydrated minerals, etc...
P.S. If you want to believe the dikes are younger, well I can understand, because thats what they date, think its all smoke and mirrors, etc...If the granites under the ocean, which of course no evidence they exists, crushed under the continents (hydroplate theory) it would of sealed the magma chamber, causing no explosive event, but the pressing up would of brought to the surface these materials which stratified vertically, cooling, etc...Just a theory, did your site show evidence of an explosive eruption, etc...ignimbrite ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gnm-brt)
n.
A volcanic rock formed by the welding together of tuff material from an explosive volcanic eruption.[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-15-2004]

Joe, The bible says that he fractured all the fountains of the deep, the bible even made this point thousands of years before anyone had drilled 7 miles into the earth, proving the bible was correct, there is fountains of the deep, the rock down there is fractured with water solutes, its a fact, the rocks are all fractured, more proof that the plates didn't subduct under the continents but crushed under the continents, etc...P.S. Perhaps you believe the tecktonic plates fractured under the continents, pressing up the lava's, whatever, seems biblical tektonics explains it, God set a bounds that the water would not again cover the whole earth psalm 104, the mountains pressed up the oceans settled, something you agree, even with tecktonics, the waters in the ocean are the evidence supporting the biblical flood, and if your lava's were pressed up, without evidence when this happened that it was an exposive eruption like Mt. St. Helens, it might actually be evidence supporting the hydroplate theory, and evidence against the tecktonic plate theory, etc...Geophysics University of Bonn
Page not found | Geophysical Institute[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-15-2004]

Coragyps, I don't remember seeing that it said it was disk shaped, thought it said that the Lord sits on the circle of the earth, not in the circle of the earth, it is interesting though, that Jesus said to the people you generation of vipers, other verses talk of the tongue, as to a viper, etc...
P.S. I kind of liked kjv deuteronomy 32:31-35 where it talks of their rock not being our Rock, their vine is of Sodom, and the fields of Gomarrah, their grapes are gall and bitter, their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps, and then he says is it not laid up in store with me and among my treasures. It then says that vengence belongs to the Lord, and the things that come upon them make haste.Hmmm..... poison of dragons, (komoto dragon) bacterial diseases, poison of asps, makes one wonder about STD's, Syphilis, etc...it might well be their lifestyle is the wine and the STD's (Gonorrhea, Syphilis, etc...), how the wine is the poisons of dragons and the cruel venom of asps, etc...There was another thread talking about if people believed you should test for things, perhaps everyone should get tested for STD's and have it noted, on their drivers license, if unclean state what STD's they have, so these people could be tried for assault, if they are infected with Aid's,herpes, etc...someone I knew said he didn't want to know, perhaps they need to know, and we need to know, etc...Should we not test all things, or do you change when it comes to testing you all, etc...

JonF, It sure would be interesting if there is fractured rock and water under the magma chamber, I realize we probably will never know, Walts theory will likely remain a theory, etc...but that doesn't mean that the reason the rocks differed in ages is not related to argon rising up from the magma chamber, argon concentrations 20,000 times greater in the inner earth compared to atmospheric concentrations, etc...

JonF, That wasn't my dream, it was Cornell Universities lecture that said that Ar40Ar36 is 20,000 times greater than is Ar40Ar36 in the atmosphere, you assured me that your taking contamination into context whenever you take a sample, and why your dating not the sediments, etc...

The granites themselves are testifing, that the earth is in fact young, perhaps as young as 6,000 years, something about the helium loss rate from the granite crystals is so high that all the helium would have escaped if the earth was 1.5 billion years, etc...P.S. Its like Snelling wood fossil that dated young by C-14 showing the wood fossil shouldn't have any C-14 (but it did) when the Argon dating method's said it was millions of years based off dating the basalt rocks, and what geologist determine the age of the sediment layers, above and below, etc... granite has too much helium to be as old as all your other dating methods indicate, in fact you have scientific proof, that the other dating methods are aging your rocks too old, but I'm sure this scientific proof won't stop you from continuing to date them old, interestingly zircons proves toe is not a viable theory, etc...Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-15-2004]

I tried explaining how the sediments erupted from the flood would of had high ages, because of Dual porosity, the high water solutes found in the super deep wells, the sediments, that erupted out of the earth, made all the sediments date old, because these sediments would of dated old before they erupted out of the earth, and how the waters would of been diffusing by dual porosity from these sediments into the rock layers they actually date, and because of earth ground, weak electric current, affecting the rate they age, like in mercury amalgam fillings, etc...Its like telling my dentists that mercury amalgams diffuse into the body, because of the bodies weak eletrical current, but they assure me mercury amalgams are safe and will not, they repeat will not, diffuse into the body, even though they need to replace amalgam filling because they age, etc...and when you listen to the DNR say mercury amalgams are safe, I kind of feel for Joe Meert and JonF because I think they actually believe the rocks are old, but if the flood happened then the sediments would of dated old the moment they erupted out of the earth, We now have the zircons helium levels proving conclusively that the granites are young, proving the other dating methods flawed, etc...P.S. I have no problem if you want to ax this thread, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-16-2004]