How, exactly, is dating done?

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]

Not at all. In order to support your thesis, that all the dates are wrong, you need to answer at least the following questions.Are there such pores in all the rocks that we measure? (hint: the answer in "no").Since not all rocks have such pores, what other effect is acting?Exactly what effect does water in the pores have?How does this effect change the interior of the rock away from the pores? Diffusion is too slow. Micropores or not, the interior of the rock is relatively far away from any pore in non-porous rocks,Why does this effect happen to all rocks?How does this effect act in such a way so as to fool so many different dating methods? Note that this effect must differentiate between isotopes of the same element, and diffusion/leaching does not do that. No known chemical process does that to the extent required. Gibberish about tidal forces and solute concentrations is meaningless. Why does this effect always change the concentration of different isotopes of the same element in exactly the way required to fool the age-diagnostic dating methods?How does this effect act so as deeper rocks measure as being older?

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]

Yes, it is in some rocks. There are lots of scientific facts in this world, and almost all of them are not relevant to radioisotope dating. You need to establish relevancy. And vague pronouncements about capillaries and roots and water are not relevant. Explaining observed facts is relevant, and you haven't tried to do that yet. Yes. So what? Why do you think this is relevant?First, inside solidified rocks (which is where we look when we do dating, micro-pores notwithstanding) the process is so slow that it takes longer than the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth to finish or even have a significant effect.Second, equalizing solute concentrations will not fool modern radioisotope methods.Let's start with an example: rubidium-strontium isochron dating. We take several (often 6 or 7) samples of rocks and/or minerals, sometimes from one rock the size of a baseball and sometimes from several rocks from an area several miles across (but obviously part of the same lava flow). We measure the amounts of Rubidium-87 (or 87Rb), Strontium-87 (or 87Sr) and Strontium-86 (or 86Sr) in each sample. For each sample, we plot a point on a graph where the ratio of 87Rb to 86Sr is the X-axis and the ratio of 87Sr to 86Sr is the Y-axis. The points lie on a straight line, the "isochron line". The slope of the line indicates the age of the rock.In order to fool this system , you need to show us a process that "knows" how much 87Rb, 87Sr, and 86Sr is in every bit of rock for several miles around and adjusts the amount of those species throughout the area so the straight line relationship is maintained but the slope is less. As if that's not enough, this process must "know" to adjust the ratios differntly in adjacent but different lava flows and operate on every lava flow in the world, exposed and buried.But wait, there's more, This process must operate in the same manner on four or five other triplets of elements and isotopes, because we do isochrons on them too.But it gets tougher! Different methods agree on the age of the same rock, so this process must reduce the slope of each of five or six different isochron lines to exactly the same amount.Now the next hurdle ... concordia-discordia. I'm not even going to try to describe that in this medium, but it requires a process that maintains more complex relationships among the quantities of two isotopes of uranium, one isotope of thorium, four isotopes of lead, and several intermediate decay products ... and maintains the consistency with all the isochron methods.Finally we need a process that maintains the consistency between radiometric methods and non-radiometric methods ...And this process has to operate on every igneous rock on Earth!Needless to say, diffusion and/or equalization of solute concentration and/or leaching cannot do this. There is no known process or combination of processes that can do this consistently enough to fool us. You are looking for a process or processes that have never been observed or conceived of by thousands of honest, intelligent, and educated people looking for just such a process over the last hundred years or so.Your babbling about capillaries and water and roots is like a two-year-old trying to tell Einstein that he was all wrong about relativity. You don't know enough about the subject to even start the conversation. Stop talking about sediments. As far as we are concerned in this discussion, we never date sedimentary rock by radioisotope methods. We date igneous rocks above, below, and intruding into sedimentnary rock. We are talking about igneous rocks above, below, and intruding into sedimentary rock. Not sediments We've demonstrated their lies, and pointed you to where more are demonstrated. We've give brief descriptions of the truth, and pointed you to where you can learn more and investigate for yourself. What you really mean is "it appears to me that the creationists make me feel warm and fuzzy by agreeing with my preconceptions".[This message has been edited by JonF, 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]

As I pointed out already, your scenario does not explain the what we see. In fact, it is contradicted by our observations. Therefore, it is not a meaningful scientific hypothesis.The mainstream scientific theories explain the evidence very well ... and there's a lot of evidence that they explain well.Please address the observations and evidence or don't bother posting. We've heard plenty of unrealistic fairy tales made up without reference to the real world, we don't need any more.

Whatever,I don't think you have any idea how confused you are about scientific terminology, radiometric dating, plain old geology and even the arguments of young earth creationists. Your posts read like a word-salad to anyone who has a modicum of training in the field. You confuse sediments with igneous rocks, granites with basalts, oceanic crust with continental crust, porosity with atomic level diffusion and marry all this confusion into a flood for which there is no evidence. JonF has been amazingly patient with you. I've concluded you're either a troll or a 13 year old. If you want to argue, at least get the terminology straight in your head and make your argument logically coherent. Tossing terms into random sentences is not a logical argument. I've asked you this question before, but it is worth asking again. How, according to your convoluted and confused model, do you account for vastly different ages from the same stratigraphic level? For example, in the St. Francois mountains there are dikes intruding volcanic rocks. These volcanic rocks, by definition, were erupted at the surface, collapsed into their own magma chamber and were later intruded by the dikes. According to you, these volcanic rocks (being surficial) should show younger ages than the dikes that intrude them, but we find exactly the opposite. Furthermore, the volcanic rocks are highly silicious and cemented (very low porosity) whereas the dikes and their margins show clear evidence for hydrothermal activity. This also is completely at odds with your model. Lastly, the volcanic rocks show unambiguous evidence for subareal eruption which is very difficult for a flood. Your assignment? Go look up some more words and mix them up so that you can explain these observations.CheersJoe Meert

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]

quote:

---

Joe, I'm not a scientists, so I hardly know what your talking about,

---

JM: We all realized that long ago.

quote:

---

but, when you said the basalt sank into its own magma chamber

---

JM: I never said that. The volcanic rocks in question are rhyolitic in composition.

quote:

---

, sounds to me, like the lava's and the magma chamber were pre-flood, the dikes sound like they would of been granite uplifts

---

JM: Nope, you've yet to show any evidence for a flood. The dikes are not granite, they are dolerite.

quote:

---

, if so then, it happened when the granites were being crushed under the continents(hydroplate theory)

---

JM: There is no deformation in these rocks to support the idea that they were crushed under the continents. There is no such thing as the 'hydoplate theory'. At best, it should be called a hypothesis at worst it should be called a total crock. What scientific journal did Walt Brown publish his idea in?

quote:

---

, which would of caused the magma chamber to collapse,

---

JM: You would do well to read why magma chambers collapse.

quote:

---

the reason the lava rocks have no water,

---

JM: These siliceous rocks are full of hydrated minerals. However, I bet you still don't understand the difference between porosity and lattice.

quote:

---

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,

---

JM: These magmas show every indication of eruption on land and no evidence of ever being submerged.

quote:

---

the heat instead responsible for cementing and searing the micropores the water steaming acting like a wick drawing the smelting ores

---

JM: What exactly is the relevance of smelting? Smelting ores has nothing to do with this at all. Smelting is a process invented by humans to concentrate ores. It has nothing whatsover to do with this issue.

quote:

---

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,

---

JM: You mean losing? Given that none of what you said so far is correct, it's hard to imagine that this has any meaning.

quote:

---

causing it to date older,

---

JM: A much simpler explanation and one that does not require word salad, global floods, a smelting plant operation in the middle of the flood and an incorrect description of the rocks, is that they date older because THEY ARE OLDER! Simple field relationships (even creationists agree with) tell us that the dikes are younger than the rocks they intrude (see photo below).

quote:

---

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,

---

JM: All wrong. The dikes are doleritic and they show absolutely no sign of ever being crushed or deformed.

quote:

---

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,

---

JM: This has nothing to do with dating of diamonds. Another non-sequiter.

quote:

---

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...

---

JM: You have no idea what you just said do you? How old are you? Since you admit that you are not a scientist, don't you think you should learn a bit about the science you want to criticize before criticizing it? Or am I just old fashioned when I think that a good critique comes from a knowledgeable source?

quote:

---

P.S. I'm sure Snelling or Austin would know what your talking about, hope you enjoyed my little word salad, etc...

---

JM: Yes, they would know what I was talking about, but I'll bet you dollars to donuts they would not understand a word you are saying! You just proved my point.CheersJoe MeertHere's a photo of the rocks. Ignimbrite is a volcanic rock. The dike intrudes and cuts through the ignimbrite and therefore MUST be younger than the ignimbrite. This part is not rocket science, it's a simple field observation that everybody (including Snelling and Austin) would agree upon. Not surprisingly, the dikes date younger than the rocks they intrude, but not by some non-existent and irrelevant 'smelting' process.[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 01-15-2004][This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 01-15-2004]{Scaled photo size down to 90%, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus (For some reason the relative scaling didn't take - switched to absolute. --Percy)}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-15-2004][This message has been edited by Admin, 01-15-2004]

It's also pretty likely that any "explanation" they could produce would be superficially more convincing but no more valid at its core than Mr. whatever's.

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]

quote:

---

Joe, I liked your picture, still feel the dikes pressed up because of the granites crushing under the continents,

---

JM: But of course, you've offered no evidence to support this. Remember NONE of the rocks, either the rocks intruded by the dikes nor the dikes themselves show any evidence for 'crushing' and much evidence for having remained very close to the surface from the time they formed. This is all published scientific work, not conjecture on a bulletin board.

quote:

---

the dikes are not the rocks crushing under, the crushing under pressed them up, containing the 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 the these rocks had hydrated minerals, etc...

---

JM: Could you repeat this explanation in geologic language so that it is coherent. It appears to be nothing more than word salad again. How old are you? It's a legit question because it's obvious from your posts that you have no idea what the terms mean. That's either due to the fact that you are extremely young or that you simply lack some rudimentary education in Earth Sciences. Both are correctable, but these word-salad conjectures of yours are not.

quote:

---

P.S. If you want to believe the dikes are younger,

---

JM: As I mentioned to you before and you ignored, even Austin and Snelling would agree the dikes are younger. We know this even without dating the dikes! It's basic geometric relationships. The fact that you can't grasp this indicates (once again) that you really don't know what you are saying.CheersJoe Meert

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]

The same book that made the point that the Earth is disk-shaped and immovable? The same one that tells how to cure leprosy in humans by killing pigeons over water? The same one that tells you how to diagnose leprosy in houses? The one with talking snakes?Yeah.

All of which, of course, is irrelevant to the subject under discussion.The subject under discussion is radioisotope dating and its accuracy, which you have totally failed to even discuss, much less criticize. Your irrelevant and meaningless pronouncements are extremely tiresome. Might be ... but is not.