We have a saying; "If you speak well for one that is a wolf, you should speak against him too."
Past events leave evidence, true; and we can interpret that evidence based on paradigm we chose, correct.... But, simple fact is that we construct paradigms to interpret evidence; the evidence does not speak for itself. If amount of much argon in sample is interpreted as result of decay, then I will read it as being millions of years old; if inclusion is what I see, then it will read something else. We can interpret something as inclusion, and we can make best guesses as to when and where things happen; but the bottom line is that we have man-made constructed ideas which to frame this together.
You say:
"'Samples less than 5 M.Y. old, or containing less than 0.1%K will incur a 50% surcharge, reflecting the special care and additional analyses required. We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y.' The reasons for this warning are very simple. You need to have sufficient potassium in the sample to make the potassium-argon method work,..”
Sufficient is fine; but potassium is not question, it is argon content in example given.
“ . and you have to have had enough time for measureable amounts of argon to have been produced by the slow decay of 40K.”
Here is assumption and problem. How does one know that measurable amounts of argon (which there was in Austin example) are due to “slow decay” that you state? There isn’t any way to know, you assume it by super powers of magic eyesight, apparently. you have to yell about how inclusion from old rock was made in sample (even though you assume this, you were not there), and call researcher a liar. What I find strange: You are angry at me for saying that your side does so, even when evidence given here seems to agree with that in this example. So, example given shows that sample had argon when content was supposed to be nothing. All you can do is call research a lie. Sounds very much of faithful want from you, agreed?
And yes I do have to be a psychologist in your case, since you are avoiding some evidence which calls into question your “profession”.. which is funny; if you are geologist, then why so much time on internet? I posted for first time, to see if intelligent conversation can be had; but you make full time career of this! Are you still in schooling? Because if you speak like this in workplace, I cannot imagine you keeping your job for very long time. ;
To other commentators-
Geologists interpret oil deposits and such things based on association of certain strata, of certain features (same as how fossil hunting is looked for by certain markers or features); interpreted age has nothing to do with it. If ecological zones were buried over a years time, with later geologic processes occurring, certain associations of strata or features will be made, same as how uniform ideas would expect. Problem is that we were not there to see it, either forming, moving, or how quickly or slowly it happened. But, we have circumstantial evidence, both of us. It is a case of some evidence potential in leaning both ways at times; you choose however to interpret it in your own way, without any thought to other possibilities. I can at least say; “Yes, uniform erosion happens -now- in certain instances But not in every case (such as sedimentation being ”gradual’; it is not always)”.
Americans speak about open minds and freedom of speech. When dealing with the past, we should be open minded about how uniform processes might or might not have played a part in any of it; same as with catastrophes. And, we should have ability to speak openly about this, and not be shouted down when the question is asked, and carefully documented examples, experiments, and results are given. None of this would be a problem I believe if you weren’t all, along with establishment, so much of the zealots in defending millions of years and Darwin. But then again, all of your words here tell me that you have a deep love and faith for what you call “science”, even when it isn’t strictly science. (again you believe that rocks or isotope content means millions of years; you did not observe it forming or decaying, yes?)
If earth was covered today, and oil was produced in rich vegetated environments, would we expect to find oil in areas in what was (at time of burial) not vegetated? We would look for geologic markers that may clue us in to oil deposit, areas that may have been vegetated once; and we would make notes of it, and look for same things again. Sometimes it works, sometimes no. Catastrophes aren’t always uniform..
I recall cases in Russia where oil deposits, mineral veins, and so on, were expected, but strata did not line up. call this thing an anomaly, or as missing strata, or as unconformity, but it happens, and more often than normally; enough so to call in question the uniform idea you are advocating. (as a footnote, geologists in this case could not cover up by simply saying the age of a rock was less or more, or that unconformity was real; they came up empty handed with the ore they were expected to find. They were punished by state for not meeting their deadline . . in other words, they went to prison. Remember, Russia was once ruled by Marxism, which if I am not mistaken, advocates the idea that earth is an accidental millions of year old thing, with no God . )
So, the main question is still there: if age is assumed (older or younger), then isn't one begging question in assuming that certain isotope numbers mean only age? And, how does one determine if argon content is due to decay or inclusion? In the end, one cannot You are having to assume it.
Reading through previous thread, there is the example of Austin pulling different ages from sample that was made -several years- previous: same parts of rock had different features that would be expected otherwise to be similar when closed. Argon content showed that degassing did not happen fully at time of making. So, if we can time surely the making of a geologic feature or sample, and it is telling us something very wrong, why is it trustworthy in cases we cannot have seen?
. I have heard similar things regarding zircon crystal samples having too much helium; which over time, should have degassed if it were so old. But it looks as if they are younger than you would want. The fact that the zircon is not degassed causes you all to state; “Well, anomaly. It means that the normal method of physical chemistry did not happen, but something external happened to have zircons with so much helium..” Exactly what your opponents have said! Yet, when it suits you, you call into question normal expected chemistry, and say that something strange, unobserved, happened. Why is it ok for you to say so, but not your opponents? You cannot have it both ways.
Your attitude speaks quite clearly to me, as do rest of you. You call idea of catastrophe on global scale, which produced many signposts of geologic featuring, a "fantasy". Could it be that, despite all evidence for catastrophe, an old lawyer has given you your own fantasy of these millions of years? You can yell all you like, but these questions and realities will remain. The same as Marxism and Bolshevism, your model and protection of it will not last. It never will; no lie does.
Edited by Oleg, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2