Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New helium retention work suggests young earth and accelerated decay
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 107 (217314)
06-16-2005 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by PaulK
06-16-2005 2:37 AM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
PaulK
The reference in message 88 above covers new data on discordant dates. In more than one study the alpha-emitters are giving significantly older ages than the beta-emitters.
Creationists are presently working on the likely pattern of expected accelerations:
Error | The Institute for Creation Research
Yes it's hard to tell whether the Deccan Traps could be formed as quick as we require. I agree. But we can't rule it out a priori.
[Re your acceleratoion calc: in 500 years we would need to achieve about 500-700 million years of decay becasue the layers below that I would assign to the origin of land on creation day 3].

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2005 2:37 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2005 3:03 AM Tranquility Base has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 92 of 107 (217315)
06-16-2005 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Tranquility Base
06-15-2005 6:48 PM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
Well I've compared a few points from Henke's critique and Humphreys reply. I find that in general Humphreys does not adequately deal with Henke's points.
To take a simple one, Henke states:
Nevertheless, a review of the subsurface geology of the Fenton Hill borehole site as described in Sasada (1989, Figure 2, p. 258 - NOT "Sakada" as listed in the references of Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 16 and Humphreys et al., 2004, p. 16) indicates that a granodiorite is not encountered at the site until depths of more than 2500 meters. According to Sasada (1989, p. 258), Precambrian gneisses and mafic schists occur between depths of 722 meters and to slightly below 2500 meters. In particular, at depths of 750 and 1490 meters
Humphreys quotes Baumgardner as claiming that :
...there are occasional veins of material other than the coarse-grained granodiorite that forms the majority of the core...
No explanation is offered for the disagreement between Henke's reading of Sasada and Baumgardner's statement.
Or to take another obvious - and very serious - issue, Humphreys reply stops BEFORE getting to Henke's section titled:
"MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS, INCONSISTENCIES AND OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE HUMPHREYS ET AL. "MODELS"
Major parts of Henke's criticism are not addressed at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-15-2005 6:48 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-16-2005 3:21 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 93 of 107 (217318)
06-16-2005 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Tranquility Base
06-16-2005 2:58 AM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
quote:
[Re your acceleratoion calc: in 500 years we would need to achieve about 500-700 million years of decay becasue the layers below that I would assign to the origin of land on creation day 3].
Then you have another problem - explaining the range of radiometric dates from the entire Precambrian. The naive assumption would be that all Precambrian rocks would show the same age and that would represent the full effect of the accelerated decay. If you have a range of over 3 billion years just for terrestrial rocks (and more when meteorites are considered) then I don't see a scientific alternative to assuming that the ages shown by the Precambrian rocks are largely real age.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-16-2005 2:58 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-16-2005 3:09 AM PaulK has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 107 (217320)
06-16-2005 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by PaulK
06-16-2005 3:03 AM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
We of course expect that accelerated decay was the geophysical trigger for the creaiton day 3 event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2005 3:03 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2005 3:15 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 95 of 107 (217323)
06-16-2005 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Tranquility Base
06-16-2005 3:09 AM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
quote:
We of course expect that accelerated decay was the geophysical trigger for the creaiton day 3 event.
There's no "of course" about it. But lets get this clear, you are now arguing for 3 billion years worth of decay in a single day ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-16-2005 3:09 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 107 (217324)
06-16-2005 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by PaulK
06-16-2005 2:59 AM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
Humphrey's clearly states that
What he doesn’t realize is that Jemez Granodiorite is a name I invented (since the literature had not previously named it) to apply to the whole unit from about 700 meters depth down to below 4,310 meters.
indicating that the confusion is simply a terminology issue.
And Humphreys does address the Assumptions section. For example, 'Constant Temperatures over Time' is addressed under the heading
12. deriving ‘models’ that are based on several invalid assumptions (including constant temperature conditions over time, Q0 of 15 ncc STP/g, and isotropic diffusion in biotite)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2005 2:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2005 3:43 AM Tranquility Base has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 97 of 107 (217328)
06-16-2005 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Tranquility Base
06-16-2005 3:21 AM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
I guess you didn't read the quotes I provided:
Baumgardner claims that the samples were granodiorite and that there are only occasional veins of other rock.
Henke's reading of Sasada claims that the rocks at that depth are not granodiorites.
It is absolutely obvious that Humphrey's naming of the formation is not part of the issue I raised at all.
Anbd surely you can't think that the Humphrey's simple assertion is an adequate answer to a major section. Humphreys claims that one of the assumptions mentioned can't account for the entire difference. And that's it.
There is no doubt that Humphrey's reply is entirely inadequate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-16-2005 3:21 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-16-2005 7:40 PM PaulK has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 98 of 107 (217453)
06-16-2005 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Tranquility Base
06-15-2005 7:18 PM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
Hi TB,
Accelerated decay occurs CONTINUOUSLY DURING the catastropohic sedimentation
As expected, an ad hoc explanation.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-15-2005 7:18 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-16-2005 7:45 PM mark24 has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 107 (217467)
06-16-2005 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by PaulK
06-16-2005 3:43 AM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
I did read the quotes. Humphreys empatically states that the geophysicist Baumgardner claims they are grandiorite!
Yes, there are occasional veins of material other than the coarse-grained granodiorite that forms the vast majority of the core. In making the selections I made of what samples to use, I purposely avoided these occasional veins. In fact I tried to select sections of the core well removed from such veins. So at least from my vantage point, the samples of core we used for the helium diffusion measurements were indeed coarse-grained granodiorite, not gneiss.
All Henke does in his re-rebuttal is say:
Dr. Humphreys' reply raises even more questions about the quality and accuracy of his work, including his ability to distinguish an intrusive igneous rock (biotite granodiorite) from a partially veined strongly foliated (metamorphic) gneiss. The chemistry of the light and dark layers of this gneiss do not even resemble a granodiorite. By sampling zircons from multiple lithologies, Dr. Humphreys has undermined the veracity of his creationist "model."
Baumgardner says he specifically chose gradniorite over gniess, and physically removed as well!!
You need to read Humphreys rebuttal because he covers all of Henke's 'assumption' points.
You quite seriously need to realise that Buamgardner, Snelling and Humphreys - who all had ultra-successful careers outsdie creaiton sciencce - are serious scientists and not pretend that they would make stuff up.
[Minor edit to be more respectful to Henke]
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-16-2005 08:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2005 3:43 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2005 2:46 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 107 (217468)
06-16-2005 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by mark24
06-16-2005 4:48 PM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
Mark - If we have evidence of a drifting 'constant' it behoves us to study its consequences whether we understand the origin for its dynamics or not.
The evidence itself speaks that the acceleration must have occurred continuously during Paleozoic/Mesozoic sedimentaiton.
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-16-2005 08:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by mark24, posted 06-16-2005 4:48 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by mark24, posted 06-17-2005 3:25 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 101 of 107 (217527)
06-17-2005 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Tranquility Base
06-15-2005 10:39 PM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-15-2005 10:39 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-17-2005 1:48 AM edge has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 107 (217536)
06-17-2005 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by edge
06-17-2005 12:44 AM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
You have radiometric data showing that accelerated decay has actually occurred? Please publish this as soon as possible.
Radioisotope ratios together with helium retention spells accelerated decay. There's no other possibility that I can think of other than de-accelerated diffusion!
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?
The surrounding He concentrations are taken into account in the work!
Please explain the method of 'starting and stoppping' accelerated decay.
See my comment to Mark24.
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?
With the Recolonizatoion Model we're talking a factor 500 differnet.
How is that? What does He diffusion in zircons have to do with sedimentation?
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!!
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?
Shales may be problematic for us - I don't know enough about it.
And why does cross-bedding, per se, indicated rapid deposition of an entire formation?
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) 1974
p520-521 "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.
But not all are? What about the major inter-regional unconformities found throughout the geological record?
I would assign the major conformities to breaks between catastrophic layering.
So, you agree that ecological zoning doesn't work?
I agree that it is a big ask. When I was a Ecological-zoner I did seriously toy with the idea of post-Flood catastrophic innundations (due to my reading and your and other's posts) especailly since I prefer a post-Flood Pangea break-up for theological reasons.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-17-2005 01:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by edge, posted 06-17-2005 12:44 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by edge, posted 06-17-2005 6:48 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 106 by edge, posted 06-17-2005 6:50 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 103 of 107 (217546)
06-17-2005 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Tranquility Base
06-16-2005 7:40 PM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
quote:
I did read the quotes. Humphreys empatically states that the geophysicist Baumgardner claims they are grandiorite!
That's an interesting response. Are you admitting that you knowingly tried to brush me off with an answer that didn't address the point, or are you just unwilling to admit that you didn't read the quotes.
Be that as it may you still don't rebut the point - that the disagreement between the paper and Sakada is unexplained.
And since I don't expect a geophysicist to be an expert in identifying rocks I have no reason to assume that Baumgardner is correct.
quote:
You need to read Humphreys rebuttal because he covers all of Henke's 'assumption' points.
So basically you admit that you were wrong to claim that the section I referred to was dealt with in the place you said it was - and now insist that the points raised are dealt with somewhere else. Well that shows serious carelesssness on your part (any sensible person would have realised that the small section of text you referred to was unlikely to be an adequate reply to a major section of Henke's critique). It also happens not to be true.
As for the people working on the project none of them are "ultra-successful". And Snelling in the least has a history of making dubious claims. Both Baumgardner and Humphreys have produced low-quality work to support their YEC beliefs - and in Humphreys case we have his inadequate "rebuttal" to Henke to consider as well. So if the authors reputation is an issue, it is one which weighs against you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-16-2005 7:40 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 104 of 107 (217550)
06-17-2005 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Tranquility Base
06-16-2005 7:45 PM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
TB,
If we have evidence of a drifting 'constant' it behoves us to study its consequences whether we understand the origin for its dynamics or not.
What "drifting constant" are you referring to?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-16-2005 7:45 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 105 of 107 (217748)
06-17-2005 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Tranquility Base
06-17-2005 1:48 AM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
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) 1974
p520-521 "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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-17-2005 1:48 AM Tranquility Base 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