For whatever - your insult, and radioisotope dating

What he feels is irrelevant to science. What he can demonstrate is relevant. Call back when he's demonstrated that excess argon would affect argon-argon dating. No, it would not seem at all. Call back when you have some evidence of argon compounds formed under natural conditions.But you are arguing that the rocks are much older than we measure! And why do other dating methods agree with K-Ar and Ar-Ar? Garbage. Melvin Cook was wrong. I'll cut to the chase and then discuss: "Cook's proposition and calculations, enthusiastically endorsed by Morris and Slusher, are based on data that do not exist and are, in addition, fatally flawed by demonstrably false assumptions" (Dalrymple, 1984).First, Melvin Cook was a Mormon and creationist and an expert in explosives. He published his critique in a creationist house organ, not a peer-reviewed journal (and, you can see below, it wouldn't have made it through peer review). He is not necessarily qualified to comment on radioisotope dating. Note that whenever you see "Nobel Prize nominee" you should be immediately suspicious; the Nobel comittee does not release the names of nominees.Second, when you see a reference to something so old, alarm bells should go off in your head. Not because you suspect the scientists are covering up, but because you should know your pals are hiding part of the story; something's happened since then. Creationists are famous for telling only the portion of the story that they like, and for continuing to promulgate errors and lies long after the errors and lies are demonstrated. From "Science and Earth History", Arthur N. Strahler, Prometheus Books, 1999 (first published 1987), pp 137-138:

quote:

---

Yet another line of attack used by creationists to undermine radiometric age determinations centers on the third assumption, that at the outset (time-zero) none of the final decay product (daughter isotope) was present and that none of that product was lost from the system. Slusher points out that not all lead isotopes in rocks are formed by radioactive decay (1981, p. 27). There may be present a supply of lead isotopes of nonradiogenic origin, and there is no way to distinguish them chemically from those produced in the decay system. Here, the creationists claim, is a possible source of major error in uranium/lead ages. A particular fly in the ointment seems to be the idea that nonradiogenic lead isotopes can be produced by "neutron reactions." Slusher states: "Neutron reaction corrections in the U-Th-Pb series reduce 'ages' of billions of years to a few thousand years because most of the Pb can be attributed to neutron reactions rather than to radioactive decay" (1981, p. 54).

​

Dalrymple analyzes this argument, showing where the idea came from and showing that it has no substance (1984, pp. 92-94). The discussion is highly technical, with mathematical equations awesome to the average person; I attempt only to state the gist of the matter. It seems that creationist Melvin A. Cook published several articles criticizing conventional radiometric dates (references cited by Dalrymple). The thrust of his argument appears to be that lead-208 (Pb-208) got into particular ore masses through neutron reactions upon lead-207 (Pb-207), and that the latter came into existence through neutron reactions with lead-206 (Pb-206). This neutron activity was supposed to have taken place in bodies of uranium ore at various localities on several continents. It would, therefore, have seriously altered results of the usual uranium-lead age determinations on samples of those ores. Cook's suggestion is that, with a large amount of lead of nonradioactive origin being mistaken for the daughter product of the decay series, great age was arrived at, whereas the actual amount of true radiogenic lead is very small, and if correctly evaluated would yield a very young age.

​

Dalrymple finds several serious fundamental flaws in Cook's argument and calculations. In a specific instance, Cook seems to have misread a dash in a data table to mean "zero," when, in fact, it meant "not measured." Even if the data were not flawed, there remains the problem that there were far too few free neutrons available at the ore body sites of the supposed neutron activity to have been responsible for the alleged magnitude of the effect. This problem of free neutron deficiency was acknowledged by Cook himself (1966, p. 54). Dalrymple's conclusion is: "Cook's proposition and calculations, enthusiastically endorsed by Morris and Slusher, are based on data that do not exist and are, in addition, fatally flawed by demonstrably false assumptions" (1984, p. 94).

​

----------------

​

Slusher, Harold S., 1981, "Critique of Radiometric Dating", 2nd ed. ICR Technical Monograph #2, Institute for Creation Research

​

Dazlrymple, G. Brent, 1984, "How Old is the Earth? A Reply to 'Scientific' Creationism", in Awbrey and Thwaites, "Evolution vs Creation", Aztec Lecture Notes, San Diego State University, pp 66-131

---

Finally, the most widely used dating method, concordia-discordia, would detect if this isotopic shuffling had happened. No. Call back when you have some evidence. Ah, I see that you still refuse to read the real references we've provided. That's been covered.Snelling's pulling the wool over your eyes yet again. Only one of the cases he lists would have produced a significant error in any but the very youngest rocks, and that one case was expected. From Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There Is No Excess Argon?

quote:

---

I take severe exception of Snelling’s characterization of Dalrymple’s writings. In first work which Snelling quoted, Dalrymple did briefly mention, in the same paragraph quoted, the problem of excess argon. Far more importantly lets look at that 1969 paper of 26 historic lava flows that Snelling quoted. Dalrymple concluded in it:

​

With the exception of the Hualalai flow, the amounts of excess 40Ar and 36Ar found in the flows with anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios were too small to cause serious errors in potassium-argon dating of rocks a few million years or older. However, these anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios could be a problem in dating very young rocks. If the present data are representative, argon of slightly anomalous composition can be expected in approximately one out of three volcanic rocks.

​

Thus while Snelling implied that Dalrymple found severe problems with K-Ar dating when the truth is quite the opposite. Dalrymple found that they are reliable. Two-thirds of the time there is no excess argon at all. And in 25 times out of 26 tests there is no excess argon or there is so little excess argon that it will make only a tiny error, if any, in the final date for rocks millions of years old. Thus Dalrymple’s data is not consistent with a young Earth whatsoever. Indeed, if Dalrymple’s data is representative, 3 times out of 26 the K-Ar method will give a too young date (though by only an extremely trivial amount for a rock that is really millions of years old). The one case that would have produced a significant error, the Hualalai flow in Hawaii, was expected (see the previous essay).

---

[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-08-2004]

My personal favorite is grasses and their pollen. They live in all ecological zones, they can't out-run anything, and their pollen sorts hydrodynamically just like fern pollen. Yet they are only found at the very top of the fossil record ...

Sorry I didn't spot this sooner... Whatever, I'm not sure what exactly you want to know here. Perhaps you'd better elaborate.

quote:

---

the K-T boundaries probably were formed above the dinosaurs fossils through this mechanical principle of flood sediment fossils sorting, etc...

---

A flood would sort fossils by size. This is not seen in the fossil record. How more clear can we be?By the way, I'm not sure how liquefaction is relevent here - isn't it a result of earthquake activity? Somebody correct me if I've mistaken it for something else...The Rock Hound

Oooh, good one!

The fossil records concur that the fossils came unto the scene suddenly, the sediments preflood, the cambrian age, show no bigger fossils, and liquification explains how the dinosaurs are below the iridium layer, like quick sand causing animals to sink, actually float to a certain level by the up rising waters causing liquification, etc...think the pleisosaurous, likely survived longer than the dinosaur, explaining their being found in the upper sediment layers only, only God knows, but perhaps their eye socket being oversized with bony structures couldn't handle the pressure of the increased depth during the flood, granted they were reptiles that ate their young, but they should of been able to swim out the flood, something related to natural selection did them in, suspect it was the eye socket, it was not designed for greater depths, like the ocean creatures that survived like the squids eye, etc...P.S. I'm going to agree to disagree, about the dating methods, in that I've shown its possible for argon to be captured via uranium compounds, quoted people that had PhD's in this field that believe argon was formed in temps much higher than thought possible, showing that the diamond formed in crustal lavas supporting that carbon is likely responsible for argon combining forming uranium compounds, and explained how carbon dioxide, are in the waters percolating through the sediments, water table, etc...you have all the ingrediants for the CUA to form, naturally in the very rock your dating, etc...Melvin Cook brought out believed abnormalities in the U/Pb dating, though thought it was the absense of thorium 232 as a precurser, that made one question U/Pb dating, if thorium 232 was absent where uranium 208 is found, and if its a precurser to uranium 208, is thorium being swept under the rug, is it a precurser to uranium 206 & 207, thought Cook was saying its absense in the presence of U 208 makes one question, the U/Pb, for thorium 232 is supposed to have too great a half life to not be present, and is a precurser to uranium, etc...I suppose you have to make assumptions, so that U/pb would date the same age as argon argon, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-08-2004]

quote:

---

The fossil records concur that the fossils came unto the scene suddenly, the sediments preflood, the cambrian age, show no bigger fossils

---

And this has to do with that exactly? This is called the Cambrian explosion. Do you think that all sediments post-Cambrian were caused by the Flood? If so, do you realise that this is impossible?If "liquification" caused the dinosaurs to sink below the iridium layer, why didn't any mammals sink as well? Size has nothing to do with it; there were tiny dinosaurs as well as large ones. Why did some species sink all the way to the beginning of the Triassic, but others only sank a little way into the Cretaceous? Why were they so precisely sorted as they sank? Why didn't any dinosaur manage NOT to sink below the iridium layer? Do you have any idea what the hell you are talking about?I say again: THERE IS NO GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE BIBLICAL FLOOD.Whatever - I think you are getting fixated on the radioisotope dating side of things. Bear in mind that geologists had dated the Earth as being old long before these methods were ever invented - they simply confirmed what was already known.The Rock Hound

IrishRockhound, It might be that animals bloated delaying their settling rates, that the dinosaurs had greater density(bones, scales, less fat, etc...), than mammals, settled immediately within the liquefaction of the pre-flood sediments, etc...Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Floodon walts google search engine type: A Closer Look at Liquefaction[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-08-2004]

Whatever, So why do mammals coexist with dinosaurs? Bit of a blunder, wouldn't you say? Why do large reptiles post date the dinosaurs, & er, co-exist with mammals? Another blunder?Any gases/bloating in dead animals would be lost loooooong before the flood ended, rendering it a non-explanation, & even if it were, it would still be falsified by most of the gc being an exception.But since you consider density of bones a factor, why are pterosaurs buried with the dinosaurs in the Mesozoic rather than at the top of the Cenozoic? Why are basal birds found in the same layers as the mighty sauropods? This is why liquifaction etc are non-explanations, the moment you make a prediction with it you also present a falsification that I can instantly satisfy.Here's one I allude to in a previous post, why aren't ALL trees found at the top of the GC? Why do seed ferns (trees) become extinct in the Jurassic? As you might have noticed, trees float, but gastropods & bivalve molluscs literally sink like stones, so why are there shelled molluscs above trees?You see, Whatever, the only consistent explanation that includes all the facts is that life is millions of years old & has evolved. The notion that a global flood occurred is a fairytale nonsense that possesses no evidence of its own & is directly falsified by FACTS.Please respond to THIS POST.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-08-2004]

mark24, You might want to check out the liquefaction on Walts site, hes talking about the sediments liquefacation, causing the fossils to settle float differently within the settling sediments, however, local catastrophies would rearrange the sediments a bit, like Mt. St. Helens did, etc...the crack that went around the earth was what caused the mid-ocean ridges to come forth, however it appears your asteroid happened pre-flood, and the forces of liquefaction answers how the dinosaurs & pterosaurs are found under the iridium layer, the greater surface area of clams causing them to settle higher than some trees, by the water pressing up causing the liquefaction of the sediments, so the fossils were actually floating at different levels within the sediments, until they compressed preserving where they floated in the liquified sediments, like if you drowned in quick sand you would only sink to a certain level, think this is what Walt is implying in how the sediment record of the flood happened suddenly, fossils seeking different levels in the sediments, like the currents on the bottom went around the world, as no continents to stop the tidal effect of these underwater currents, causing the sediments to remain suspended, allowing different fossil stratification, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-08-2004]

Whatever, I did check it out & I presented a couple of examples of why it is a false explanation. Interestingly, like you always do, you declined to address them.Why do birds with hollow bones appear in the same strata as the mighty sauropods? How does liquefaction explain this?Why do small mammals co-exist with the mighty sauropods? How does liquefaction explain this?Why do various clades of tree bearing plants appear & disappear at different times? The seed ferns haven't been seen since the Jurassic, where they coexisted with the mighty sauropods. How does liquefaction explain this?Answer to all three; Liquefaction cannot explain it. In fact there is no evidence that liquefaction was ever a property of the sediments that fossils were found in.Here's an experiment for you, get a snail shell (preferably already vacated) & throw it in a bucket, fill the bucket with sand, mud, or whatever takes your fancy. Observe how the shell doesn't a bloody inchmove from the bottom of the bucket. Liquefaction is rare, & NOT associated with floods. It didn't rearrange sediments, it layered more down. I ask again, what global crack around the world. There isn't one, & outside of your imagination, there is no evidence of one. No it doesn't, didn't you read Walts site? If you threw a dinosaur into quicksand it would float, as would you. It may sink a few feet deeper than you, but that's basically it. All dinosaurs should be found at the same layer with the Iridium layer, not beneath it, except for the ones that get scooped up by the flood waters & deposited ABOVE the K-T boundary.There is absolutely no reason a shrew & a dinosaur, in the unbelievably unlikely event that they were buried in liquefaction sediments would end up in entirely different layers. And as point of FACT, they are not! Sauropods & tiny mammals co-exist in the same sediments. I think you will find Walt Brown was rather hoping that his audience exhibit the same level of ignorance that you are displaying as regards the fossil record.Furthermore, you really have shot yourself in the foot by claiming that the K-T boundary is the level of flood onset. Where do the sediments & fossils below this come from? The dinosaurs appeared about 225 mya, the fossil record goes back THREE BILLION YEARS! The flood now has failed to explain the origins & stratigraphic ordering of 11/12th of the fossil record!!! Let me put it another way, the flood only explains the Cenozoic sediments, everything before that was not layed down by the flood, yet the same pattern of rocks & fossil trends occurs during a flood as when a flood isn't occurring. The same passing of radiometric time manages to continue uninterrupted that explains 1/12th of the fossil record that dates the previous 11/12ths. A bit strange, don't you think?Please respond to THIS POST.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-08-2004]

mark24, It all depend lots of things, how quickly the fossils were settling, it would seem dinosaurs, sank quicker than some other creatures, with the sediment continually settling with the currents keeping them dispersed it would cause all sorts of different stratification, likely animals were sinking at different rates in the waters above, normal settling, then when these fossil layers sank into the sediments they then seeked a certain level, the dinosaurs settling quicker had too much sediments above so these fossils settling above seeked a different floatation point, etc...
P.S. It is interesting you believe there is no crack around the world, thought you all believed the mid-ocean ridges are expanding, etc...

Whatever,I'll try to be as polite as I can here. In reading through this thread, it appears you are hopelessly confused and unable to grasp the basics of radiometric dating. You've repeated (and still managed to mess it up) claims made by creationists about radiometric dating. Fortunately, your situation is not terminal, but you'd be better to actually spend some time trying to understand the science involved before criticizing it. For the most part, people have been polite trying to correct your errors. Instead of admitting you have no idea what you are talking about (for which there is no shame) you simply muddle the issue further by snatching irrelevant information from other creationist sites. This precludes any sort of intelligent discussion regarding problems in radiometric dating. Anyway, hang in there, but be careful spouting off information which you do not yet grasp (i.e. nearly everything radiometric from what I am reading). There's no shame in asking for clarification.CheersJoe Meert

You have not even attempted to show that it's possible. You have just made assertions.You have not quoted anybody claiming that argon compounds could be formed under natural conditions on earth. If somebody actually claimed that, PhD or not, that person is wrong.If argon compunds are being formed, dating methoids would disagree, Dating methods do not disagree. Therefore your thesis is false. No, thorium is not being swept under the rug. Melvin Cook was wrong. No, it just happens ... all the dating methods, including the non-radioisotopic ones, agree.

Joe Meert, I explained I'm not a scientist, but am grateful for this little thread, for I never understood that argon could combine with uranium, the scientists that discovered this truth didn't believe it possible, so can understand you would feel as you do, but how did the diamond absorb excess argon, too me, looking at it all from outside the box, it was compressed within crustal basalts, proving that argon exists in the inner earth, but hopefully, if your a scientist you have the means to research this, did the diamond have CUA, wouldn't the argon the diamond have to be radioactive argon, suggesting uranium, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-08-2004]

Whatever, I'm sorry mate, this is utter unadulterated bullshit. At this stage there's simply no nice way of putting it. What you are trying to absolve the flood of is any kind of hydrodynamic sorting whatsoever. Cobblers, utter & absolute nonsense. A global flood that doesn't hydrodynamically sort anything, well whoopy fuckin' doo!? You heard it here first. The only massive turbulent body of water that calms to a mill pond that doesn't, I suppose it wasn't wet, either?May I remind you that you claimed that the Alvarez event occurred pre-flood, & this was why differently sized particles were found together in such close harmony (at the K-T boundary), presumably why they weren't mixed up & sorted hydrodynamically by a global flood. This means that ALL dinosaurs escaped the flood, not a single one is found above the K-T boundary, not one. Given this is the case, why do flood deposits look exactly like non-flood deposits of the previous 11/12ths of the fossil record? And how do you explain the pattern of fossil deposition (particularly that of ALL OF THE DINOSAURS) that covers most of the gc, that you claim wasn't deposited by a flood? Uniformatarianism? Dirty word, but I see no other choice, you've been hoist by your own petard. Again you completely ignore your own argument. Why are their small mammals & hollow boned birds alongside colossal sauropods? If there was too much sediment for the dinosaurs to rise back through that sediment how come the smaller stuff made it down? Magic? Or a poorly thought out argument?Clearly you didn't attempt the experiment with a snail shell.Furthermore, can you associate any instances of liquefaction with flooding? If not then it is simply wishful thinking that liquefaction occurred globally during a flood, when you can't even manage to simulate what must be such a common occurrence in a bucket.Particles will not settle out of suspension untill waters are sufficiently calm, & then do so at a particular rate, this is different for different sized particles. So we go from a raging torrent to a mill pond through various stages & should still expect organisms & inorganic particles to be hydrodynamically sorted. Even if this took place at different times in different parts of the world it utterly fails to explain the extinction events that you have clammed up about. Why does the Permian mass extinction occur precisely at the Permo-Triassic boundary globally if different things are settling differently? Interestingly it doesn't seem to matter what method you date this event it seems to pan out at ~250 million years old, wherever it is dated, yet another amazing corroboration for you to ignore. The same goes for the rest of the extinctions. Why does the entire geologic column get sorted radiometrically & not hydrodynamically?Please also address this:"Furthermore, you really have shot yourself in the foot by claiming that the K-T boundary is the level of flood onset. Where do the sediments & fossils below this come from? The dinosaurs appeared about 225 mya, the fossil record goes back THREE BILLION YEARS! The flood now has failed to explain the origins & stratigraphic ordering of 11/12th of the fossil record!!! Let me put it another way, the flood only explains the Cenozoic sediments, everything before that was not layed down by the flood, yet the same pattern of rocks & fossil trends occurs during a flood as when a flood isn't occurring. The same passing of radiometric time manages to continue uninterrupted that explains 1/12th of the fossil record that dates the previous 11/12ths. A bit strange, don't you think?"You also fail to address the issues with "liquefaction sorting" (why am I surprised at this stage?), point by point, please. Here they are again:"Why do birds with hollow bones appear in the same strata as the mighty sauropods? How does liquefaction explain this?Why do small mammals co-exist with the mighty sauropods? How does liquefaction explain this?Why do various clades of tree bearing plants appear & disappear at different times? The seed ferns haven't been seen since the Jurassic, where they coexisted with the mighty sauropods. How does liquefaction explain this?Answer to all three; Liquefaction cannot explain it. In fact there is no evidence that liquefaction was ever a property of the sediments that fossils were found in."You are becoming an evasive pain in the arse. ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS FOR A CHANGE. With every evasion, & every trumped up wishful-thinking scenario you just bury yourself deeper & deeper, & liquefaction won't return you to the surface. YOU STILL HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS THIS POST. Please do so, point by point, in addition to the relevant points in this post, it highlights some of the many direct contradictions to your worldview. You are basically ignoring facts that are to difficult for your POV. I know what a mid ocean ridge is, but I also know what it isn't as well, & that is a "crack" that circumnavigates the world. You said: I ask again what crack that caused the mid ocean ridges?Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall