Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How, exactly, is dating done?
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 46 of 58 (78715)
01-15-2004 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Coragyps
01-15-2004 5:45 PM


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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Coragyps, posted 01-15-2004 5:45 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by JonF, posted 01-15-2004 6:48 PM johnfolton has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 47 of 58 (78717)
01-15-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by johnfolton
01-15-2004 6:31 PM


Still totally irrelevant. But one thing is worth a response.
Should we not test all things, or do you change when it comes to testing you all, etc
Yes, we should test all things, and discard those that fail the tests. Your hypothesis about the age of life on Earth was tested long before radioisotope dating was invented ... and it failed the test. Life on Earth is old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by johnfolton, posted 01-15-2004 6:31 PM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 48 of 58 (78719)
01-15-2004 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by JonF
01-15-2004 6:27 PM


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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by JonF, posted 01-15-2004 6:27 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by JonF, posted 01-15-2004 7:27 PM johnfolton has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 49 of 58 (78726)
01-15-2004 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by johnfolton
01-15-2004 6:53 PM


It sure would be interesting if there is fractured rock and water under the magma chamber,
What magma chamber? And, of course, this is irrelevant to the subject of this thread.
Walts theory will likely remain a theory
Walt's "theory" is no such thing ... if he improved it significantly, he might be able to get it up to the level of an opium dream.
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
But the evidence and observations that we have do mean that the different ages we measure for rocks are not related to your imaginary argon rising up from any magma chamber, and are not related to your fantasy of argon concentrations 20,000 times greater in the inner earth compared to atmospheric concentrations, and are not related to any of the other fictions you have posted.
Until you have addressed the fact that so many totally different dating methods agree, you haven't addressed anything. Until you learn something about the subject, you will continue to be unable to make anything other than meaningless and irrelevant posts.
Mods, is this thread ready for euthanasia? Mr. whatever certainly appears to be incapable of and uninterested in addressing the subject of the accuracy of radioisotope dating.
[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-15-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by johnfolton, posted 01-15-2004 6:53 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by johnfolton, posted 01-15-2004 8:39 PM JonF has replied
 Message 55 by AdminAsgara, posted 01-15-2004 10:26 PM JonF has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 50 of 58 (78737)
01-15-2004 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by JonF
01-15-2004 7:27 PM


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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by JonF, posted 01-15-2004 7:27 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Joe Meert, posted 01-15-2004 9:47 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 52 by JonF, posted 01-15-2004 10:01 PM johnfolton has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 51 of 58 (78751)
01-15-2004 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by johnfolton
01-15-2004 8:39 PM


more misunderstanding?
quote:
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,
JM: The problem is your assumption that excess argon is ALWAYS a problem. It is not (the lecture also points this out as do many texts on argon-argon dating). You assume that this makes Ar-Ar useless when, in fact, the article at Cornell discusses how this information can be used to properly evaluate the age of a rock where excess argon is detected.
quote:
you assured me that your taking contamination into context whenever you take a sample,
JM: Indeed. This point was driven home by the article you cited. Every geochronologic investigation looks for problems and issues of contamination. What you've not discussed is why different methods conducted on the same rocks agree.
quote:
and why your dating not the sediments, etc...
JM: He may not be, but many others are dating sediments. In particular, U-Pb dating of carbonates is proving to be useful in a number of cases. Rb-Sr and K-Ar dating of glauconites is perhaps one of the oldest efforts at direct dating of sediments. Therefore it is not strictly correct to say that sediments are not being dated directly. Lastly, studies of detrital zircons in sandstones can give a limit to the age of the sedimentary rock by noting the age of the youngest zircon. The age of the sandstone must be younger than the age of the youngest zircon. Incidentally, your wild conjecture would suggest that all ages would be the same in this sandstone, but the zircons are quite diagnostic of source regions in the area.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by johnfolton, posted 01-15-2004 8:39 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by JonF, posted 01-15-2004 10:05 PM Joe Meert has not replied
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 01-15-2004 10:18 PM Joe Meert has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 52 of 58 (78757)
01-15-2004 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by johnfolton
01-15-2004 8:39 PM


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
It's not polite to make a claim like that without providing the reference in the message where you make the claim.
Of course and as usual, you are wrong. At http://www.geo.cornell.edu/...6notes03/656%2003Lecture06.pdf we find:
"Atmospheric argon has a constant 40Ar/36Ar ratio of 295.5 ... some samples can have "initial" 40Ar/36Ar ratios greatert than the atmospheric ratio; this can lead to too old an age if not properly accounted for {emphasis added - JRF} ... For example, mantle-derived basalts have been shown in some cases to have 40Ar/36Ar ratios in excess of 20,000. The 40Ar/36Ar ratio reflecs the production of 40Ar by decay of 40K within the mantle. Minerals crystallizing in the presence of this gas will trap some of this 40Ar, which will result in an anomolously old age upon analysis."
The rest of the lecture is concerned with how this problem is detected and accounted for.
So, some but not all basalts have a 40Ar/36Ar ratio that is 20000/295.5 = 67.7 times larger than the atmospheric ratio, not 20,00 times larger as you claimed, and more than two orders of magnitude less than you claimed. Your 20,000 times larger is a pipe dream that you made up, based on an incredible misreading of a plainly written paragraph..
The situation mentioned does not occur in all analyses and can be detected and corrected in the manners described in that paper and the literature. This is known because Ar-Ar dating results agree with so many other results that are not affected by high Ar40/Ar36 ratios. Until you have addressed the consistent results obtained by different dating methods, you have not done anything.
We are taking contamination into account.
We are not dating sediments, we are dating igneous rocks. If you don't understand this and understand why, you know nothing.
You have no idea of the realities of how diffusion works, or how mass transport works, or the theories or the realities of how dating is done, or the real-world data that has been collected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by johnfolton, posted 01-15-2004 8:39 PM johnfolton has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 53 of 58 (78759)
01-15-2004 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Joe Meert
01-15-2004 9:47 PM


Re: more misunderstanding?
it is not strictly correct to say that sediments are not being dated directly
Yes, I know. I was trying to avoid that complication, but you are correct. You didn't mention the SHRIMP results on xenotime, which I love because the mineral appears to be so aptly named ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Joe Meert, posted 01-15-2004 9:47 PM Joe Meert has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 54 of 58 (78765)
01-15-2004 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Joe Meert
01-15-2004 9:47 PM


Re: more misunderstanding?
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Joe Meert, posted 01-15-2004 9:47 PM Joe Meert has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 55 of 58 (78768)
01-15-2004 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by JonF
01-15-2004 7:27 PM


Mods, is this thread ready for euthanasia? Mr. whatever certainly appears to be incapable of and uninterested in addressing the subject of the accuracy of radioisotope dating.
Yes Jon, I agree. There seems to be two different threads going on here, one thread is Whatever talking to himself and the other thread is everyone else attempting to get Whatever to respond to what they are writing.
Closing comments anyone? Before I administer the lethal dose?

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by JonF, posted 01-15-2004 7:27 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Joe Meert, posted 01-15-2004 11:03 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 56 of 58 (78781)
01-15-2004 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by AdminAsgara
01-15-2004 10:26 PM


Put me out of this misery, PLEASE?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by AdminAsgara, posted 01-15-2004 10:26 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 57 of 58 (78790)
01-15-2004 11:38 PM


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]

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 58 of 58 (78800)
01-16-2004 12:12 AM


Closing it then, any questions can be sent to Moose

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024