Granite disprov a 6000 year old Earth.

[pat34lee]

And please keep in mind that we are talking about the formation of granite.

"Given the abundance of granite, it's not surprising to learn that geologists still have many questions about how it forms. Sure, it comes from molten rock, but just where did all that magma come from? And how far below ground did the magma crystallize?"
http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-granite-definition-colors-quiz.html

From here we get multiple theories, but no answers.

 

[pat34lee]

Do show us any of these "facts" please?

Wrong thread.

 

[-57]

ref
A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.

Looks like the earth isn't~4 MY's old

 

[RickG]

"Given the abundance of granite, it's not surprising to learn that geologists still have many questions about how it forms. Sure, it comes from molten rock, but just where did all that magma come from? And how far below ground did the magma crystallize?"
http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-granite-definition-colors-quiz.html

From here we get multiple theories, but no answers.

No, we don't get multiple theories, differences are only in the "details". From your source: "But where that happens - whether in the mantle or in the lower lithosphere - remains unclear. Regardless of where the magma formed, it probably migrated upward before collecting in large magma chambers prior to cooling and solidifying."

There is no debate on the fact that it is intrusive cooling very slowly in magma chambers. Try this source for detailed information:
http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/6/1147.full

 

[RickG]

I saw a loaf of raisin bread once.

It always baffled me how those aged grapes got inside that freshly-baked dough.

That would not be the same analogy. You are also not considering the age of the flour before baking.

 

[pat34lee]

There is no debate on the fact that it is intrusive cooling very slowly in magma chambers. Try this source for detailed information:
http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/6/1147.full

Are you sure that isn't just another theory? If not, how have they proven it?
As far as I know, we still can't recreate it like we can coal or diamonds.

 

[mark kennedy]

What I'm asking you to explain is how do we have fossils in millions even billions of years old strata? How did they get there if they are only 6,000 years old at best?

No offense Rick but my thing has never been geology. The dating methods simply don't do much to persuade me either way. When it comes to genetics or comparative anatomy I think the subject is deep as the ocean. Radiometric dating on the other hand just leaves me cold.

Thanks for the exchange but I don't see this going any where.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[RickG]

Are you sure that isn't just another theory? If not, how have they proven it?
As far as I know, we still can't recreate it like we can coal or diamonds.

I gather you did not review the link I provided or compared it with your own link. They do not differ at all other than mine goes into quite a bit more detail. As for coal and diamonds, neither pertains to the topic of this thread.

With respect to granite, I think probably the biggest misunderstanding of what it actually is and how it forms, is due to its definition by different sources and level of understanding. I am providing another link below that is targeted toward the laymen and provides a brief description of definition of sources and the understanding of them. Please pay particular attention to the Petrologist's definition as it makes the point that there is more to granite than just granite. It is an extremely wide composition of minerals with specific chemistry's, and physical heat histories, where is probably where you are getting the idea that it is conversational among geologists how it forms. Again, it is not the manner in how it forms in general, only some of the specific details.

 

[RickG]

No offense Rick but my thing has never been geology. The dating methods simply don't do much to persuade me either way. When it comes to genetics or comparative anatomy I think the subject is deep as the ocean. Radiometric dating on the other hand just leaves me cold.

Thanks for the exchange but I don't see this going any where.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Thanks for the perspective, though I disagree with it, I understand your position much better now.

 

[Jimmy D]

ref
A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.

Looks like the earth isn't~4 MY's old

How does that demonstrate that the Earth "isn't ~4 MY's old"?

 

[-57]

How does that demonstrate that the Earth "isn't ~4 MY's old"?

It shows that the granites were formed rapidly. Like the bible says.

 

[Herman Hedning]

ref
A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

Looks like the earth isn't~4 MY's old

Well, I'm not an expert in these matters myself, but I do understand that mr. Gentry's ideas on Polonium haloes are not universally accepted. Rather the opposite, in fact.

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth.

From here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

 

[AV1611VET]

Gentry's ideas on Polonium haloes are not universally accepted. Rather the opposite, in fact.

Ditto for Pluto.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ditto for Pluto.

Nope. Not even comparable.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. Not even comparable.

Thalidomide?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thalidomide?

... NO!

 

[-57]

Well, I'm not an expert in these matters myself, but I do understand that mr. Gentry's ideas on Polonium haloes are not universally accepted. Rather the opposite, in fact.

Keep in mind it is where the facts lead. Bcause people believe differently doesn't automatically make the correct. Science is based upon facts..not consensus

 

[AV1611VET]

... NO!

I think you're right on this one ... because Thalidomide was universally accepted, with the exception of one lady: Frances Kelsey.

But the Pluto one, I'm going to disagree on, since the demotion of Pluto was not universally accepted.

There has been some resistance within the astronomical community toward the reclassification.

SOURCE

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think you're right on this one ... because Thalidomide was universally accepted, with the exception of one lady: Frances Kelsey.

But the Pluto one, I'm going to disagree on, since the demotion of Pluto was not universally accepted.

SOURCE

It's nowhere near comparable, because actual geologists have studied the polonium haloes in granite and not a single one has come to same conclusion as Gentry. That's not something not being not universally accepted, it's an unevidenced claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's nowhere near comparable, because actual geologists have studied the polonium haloes in granite and not a single one has come to same conclusion as Gentry. That's not something not being not universally accepted, it's an unevidenced claim.

And one person, Frances Kelsey, balked against Thalidomide.

And for the record, how do you know Mr. Gentry stands alone on this?