Embedded Age and Meteor Craters

[46AND2]

Then if metamorphic rock date to millions of years, I have to believe that when they "reset the clock" as they metamorph, they don't reset to zero.

As far as why they coincidentally agree with the age of the tektites, I'd say that's because scientists fudge the numbers to align their age.

I'd venture to say that if someone replaced the tektites from one site with a few tektites from another, they would all end up the same age somehow.

Just speculation though.

Yes, speculation and accusations of academic dishonesty (and conspiracy, for that matter).

They can tell if metamorphic rock only partially resets.

 

[AV1611VET]

They can tell if metamorphic rock only partially resets.

I'll bet they can.

Probably if they can't get the dates to corroborate.

If three independent lines say something happened 50 million years ago, but metamorphic rock in the area says it was 100 million years ago, I assume they would claim partial resetting.

But again, it's speculation on my part.

 

[46AND2]

I'll bet they can.

Probably if they can't get the dates to corroborate.

If three independent lines say something happened 50 million years ago, but metamorphic rock in the area says it was 100 million years ago, I assume they would claim partial resetting.

But again, it's speculation on my part.

Because speculation and accusations of dishonesty is all you have left.

They don't CLAIM partial resetting, they SHOW partial resetting. It's easily identifiable in the data.

 

[Elendur]

Then if metamorphic rock date to millions of years, I have to believe that when they "reset the clock" as they metamorph, they don't reset to zero.

As far as why they coincidentally agree with the age of the tektites, I'd say that's because scientists fudge the numbers to align their age.

I'd venture to say that if someone replaced the tektites from one site with a few tektites from another, they would all end up the same age somehow.

Just speculation though.

When you can't strengthen your own argument, accuse the others of conspiracies. Great tactic.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you can't strengthen your own argument, accuse the others of conspiracies. Great tactic.

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

Perhaps it's done systematically?

When it comes to crunching numbers systematically, have you ever heard of mean, mode, range and median?

Just pick the one that gives you what you're looking for, and bingo, there you are.

 

[46AND2]

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

Perhaps it's done systematically?

When it comes to crunching numbers systematically, have you ever heard of mean, mode, range and median?

Just pick the one that gives you what you're looking for, and bingo, there you are.

Mmm, no. Sorry. Not how it works. That would be a colossal waste of money.

If you live near a college, you should contact the geology department and see if they have a radiometric dating lab. Talk to some of the people who work there and ask them how consistent the dating is or if they have to cherrypick the good results.

 

[Elendur]

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

Perhaps it's done systematically?

So not a conspiracy, just a huge "all those guys are doing it wrong the same way all the time"?

When it comes to crunching numbers systematically, have you ever heard of mean, mode, range and median?

Heard of it? Not only that. You're talking to a math student (and yes, statistics and probability theory is a subset of mathematics).

Just pick the one that gives you what you're looking for, and bingo, there you are.

That's not how it works though, so you can calm down. It has strict rules of how it's applied and the theory behind it is solid.

 

[AV1611VET]

So not a conspiracy, just a huge "all those guys are doing it wrong the same way all the time"?

When it comes to science, "wrong" is a relative term.

Heard of it? Not only that. You're talking to a math student (and yes, statistics and probability theory is a subset of mathematics).

I was hoping a mathematician would pipe in.

That's not how it works though, so you can calm down.

So a mathematician is going to tell us how dating craters doesn't work?

It has strict rules of how it's applied and the theory behind it is solid.

I'm all ears.

I'm mainly concerned with why one set of metamorphic rocks are considered to have "reset to zero", and another set are considered to have only partially reset.

What determines "partial" or "total"?

I'll say this again:

In my opinion, for what it's worth, if you have a meteor crater with 10 million year old tektites, coupled with 10 million year old metamorphic rock; then the metamorphic rock is considered to have reset to zero.

But if you have a meteor crater with 10 million year old tektites, coupled with 15 million year old metamorphic rock, then the metamorphic rock is considered to have partially reset.

In ... my ... opinion.

 

[46AND2]

When it comes to science, "wrong" is a relative term.

I was hoping a mathematician would pipe in.

So a mathematician is going to tell us how dating craters doesn't work?

I'm all ears.

I'm mainly concerned with why one set of metamorphic rocks are considered to have "reset to zero", and another set are considered to have only partially reset.

What determines "partial" or "total"?

I'll say this again:

In my opinion, for what it's worth, if you have a meteor crater with 10 million year old tektites, coupled with 10 million year old metamorphic rock; then the metamorphic rock is considered to have reset to zero.

But if you have a meteor crater with 10 million year old tektites, coupled with 15 million year old metamorphic rock, then the metamorphic rock is considered to have partially reset.

In ... my ... opinion.

Partial resetting has to do with how hot the rock gets. If it gets somewhere close to the closure temperature for the mineral you are testing, then some of the Argon, for example, can escape, but not necessarily all of it. If it gets way hotter than the closure temperature, then all the Argon will escape and the clock is totally reset. Also, different minerals have different closing temperatures, so scientists have to be aware of this when selecting which ones to date.

Partial resetting of the K/Ar clock is not very common, because Argon is an inert gas that escapes easily, so if there is a heating event, it usually loses most or all of it. The fact that Argon is lost easily with heating, though, can be a problem. So scientists have to be careful with which minerals they use and be aware of possible metamorphic events. That's why it is mostly used on igneous rock.

However, it is often used on metamorphic rock in conjunction with other methods, like Rb/Sr, in order to get an idea of when there may have been some kind of heating event, since the Rb/Sr clock is not reset so easily.

But the example that you gave of the tektites dating to 10 million and the metamorphic rock dating to 15 generally doesn't happen. There are plenty of examples where the tektites and metamorphic rock come up with the same date. Some of them were given in the links that Rick provided on the first page. By and large, rocks dated with multiple methods come up with congruent results; approximately 90% of the time according to some of the books I've read.

If they do come up different, they don't just say "oh well, better luck on the next test." They try to figure out WHY they don't agree, because they are the exception, not the rule.

Also, if they use the K/Ar on both the tektites and the metamorphic rock, it is easy to see if there was only a partial reset of the metamorphic rock, because they can determine the initial amounts of Argon in each, and if the metamorphic was only partially reset, there would be more initial Argon in the metamorphic rock than there was in the tektites.

 

[SkyWriting]

Says what is impossible? meteorite craters? I'll repeat myself ... anything you guys find, happened within a 6015 year timeframe. On the other hand, if you meant, dating meteorite craters as having formed tens of thousands of years ago, then yes, that isn't possible.

It's not that the results don't come out in favor of more ancient dates, it that those years may not have played out in the way people assume they did. Simply put, God has told us a better story for a good reason. Its a matter of faith over humanist reasoning.

 

[RickG]

Then if metamorphic rock date to millions of years, I have to believe that when they "reset the clock" as they metamorph, they don't reset to zero.

The use of isochron dating specifically applies itself to metamorphic rocks and in particular meteorite impact areas.

As far as why they coincidentally agree with the age of the tektites, I'd say that's because scientists fudge the numbers to align their age.

AV, be perfectly honest with me, Christian to Christian. Do you really believe that the mainstream scientific community fudges numbers to get the results they want?

I'd venture to say that if someone replaced the tektites from one site with a few tektites from another, they would all end up the same age somehow.

Depending upon the magnitude of the impact, tektites can be spread over hundreds of miles. Nevertheless that is not a problem with identification as each tektite will contain chemical markers unique to each particular impact.

Just speculation though.

I can guide you to published research that can correct your speculation. Just let me know.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, be perfectly honest with me, Christian to Christian. Do you really believe that the mainstream scientific community fudges numbers to get the results they want?

Maybe "fudge" was a bit strong.

What I meant by that was, maybe they have a way of systematically adjusting the ages up or down.

Perhaps by averaging them ... or whatever.

 

[true2theword]

[sic]


.

what does (sic) mean..............My explanation makes the most sense, and puts me at a place where I don't have to argue with anything science can dig up.............find something 300 billlion years old and all I say is "yep could be!...........we do not have conclusive evidence of what material God used when He created the earth

 

[46AND2]

what does (sic) mean..............My explanation makes the most sense, and puts me at a place where I don't have to argue with anything science can dig up.............find something 300 billlion years old and all I say is "yep could be!...........we do not have conclusive evidence of what material God used when He created the earth

The Hawaiian islands are slowly moving due to plate tectonics. They are formed as the plate moves over a 'hot spot' which forces magma up to the surface.

Kilauea has been erupting for the last 25 years or so. This is the youngest of the Hawaiian volcanoes.

Radiometric dating has been performed on each of the major islands, and what we find is that as we go farther west away from Kilauea, the islands get sequentially older, as we would expect.

Why would God use pieces of aged lava rock in such a manner that would deceive us into thinking that the Hawaiian islands grew slowly over a long period of time?

 

[46AND2]

Maybe "fudge" was a bit strong.

What I meant by that was, maybe they have a way of systematically adjusting the ages up or down.

Perhaps by averaging them ... or whatever.

How is that not fudging?

 

[true2theword]

The Hawaiian islands are slowly moving due to plate tectonics. They are formed as the plate moves over a 'hot spot' which forces magma up to the surface.

Kilauea has been erupting for the last 25 years or so. This is the youngest of the Hawaiian volcanoes.

Radiometric dating has been performed on each of the major islands, and what we find is that as we go farther west away from Kilauea, the islands get sequentially older, as we would expect.

Why would God use pieces of aged lava rock in such a manner that would deceive us into thinking that the Hawaiian islands grew slowly over a long period of time?

who is saying that they didn't? and God isn't trying to deceive anyone, Its simply a matter of how you approach the original matter God used to create the earth, there is no data if earth was used as a planet before God created it as the one we now live on. which is a possibility in light of many strange finds. things that don't fit either explanation

before creation the earth was without void and form, it was covered in water, who knows how long the earth spent in this condition, who knows if prior to this massive formless void, which now stands completely flooded if God did not use it as a planet for a prior creation, that maybe the angels once lived on as we are now living


again there is no basis to determine just what God used to create the earth so all arguement is really futile, and I'm sorry but the earth embedded with time is a plausible theory, it doesn't work with what is found

 

[46AND2]

who is saying that they didn't? and God isn't trying to deceive anyone, Its simply a matter of how you approach the original matter God used to create the earth, there is no data if earth was used as a planet before God created it as the one we now live on. which is a possibility in light of many strange finds. things that don't fit either explanation

before creation the earth was without void and form, it was covered in water, who knows how long the earth spent in this condition, who knows if prior to this massive formless void, which now stands completely flooded if God did not use it as a planet for a prior creation, that maybe the angels once lived on as we are now living


again there is no basis to determine just what God used to create the earth so all arguement is really futile, and I'm sorry but the earth embedded with time is a plausible theory, it doesn't work with what is found

What things that don't fit either explanation are you talking about? You have an example of one of these strange finds?

You seem to have a whole lot of "what ifs" that you're pulling out of your imagination. Why should we consider such wild explanations, when a rather simple one makes perfect sense?

If you are willing to allow for a long passage of time for the first day of creation, why not go the next step and accept science's observations for the age of the earth?

 

[Elendur]

When it comes to science, "wrong" is a relative term.

Could you tell me where it isn't, outside of mathematics?

I was hoping a mathematician would pipe in.

Well, you're partly in luck then I'm still working on the degree.

So a mathematician is going to tell us how dating craters doesn't work?

Nope. It's the student who'll tell you that each value that you get from utilizing statistics has its special application and interpretation.

I'm all ears.

I'm mainly concerned with why one set of metamorphic rocks are considered to have "reset to zero", and another set are considered to have only partially reset.

What determines "partial" or "total"?

I'll say this again:

In my opinion, for what it's worth, if you have a meteor crater with 10 million year old tektites, coupled with 10 million year old metamorphic rock; then the metamorphic rock is considered to have reset to zero.

But if you have a meteor crater with 10 million year old tektites, coupled with 15 million year old metamorphic rock, then the metamorphic rock is considered to have partially reset.

In ... my ... opinion.

I can't tell you how it's applied, that's up to the people who actually does the applying. I can inform you of the basic mathematical theory behind it all, if you'd like.

If they're producing consistent numbers they're either:
1. Applying the theoretical mathematics correctly.
2. Applying the theoretical mathematics systematically incorrectly (through stupidity).
3. Applying the theoretical mathematics systematically incorrectly (through deception).

Point two and three are limited with peer review.

 

[true2theword]

What things that don't fit either explanation are you talking about? You have an example of one of these strange finds?

You seem to have a whole lot of "what ifs" that you're pulling out of your imagination. Why should we consider such wild explanations, when a rather simple one makes perfect sense?

If you are willing to allow for a long passage of time for the first day of creation, why not go the next step and accept science's observations for the age of the earth?

who said I allowed for a long passage of time for the first day, absolutely not the bible is perfectly clear on the subject, God created the earth as we see it in 6 days, there was evening and morning...


my arguement is we have no data or evidence that conclusively tells us what God used to create the earth, and how long it was in existance prior to His 6 day creation, or what it was used for 10,000 zillion years prior to creation


you are aware God existed prior to earths creation, considering many of the strange beings we see in the scriptures, It is very likely God has in the past created earlier works, as He was not alone at creation

 

[true2theword]

What things that don't fit either explanation are you talking about? You have an example of one of these strange finds?

You seem to have a whole lot of "what ifs" that you're pulling out of your imagination. Why should we consider such wild explanations, when a rather simple one makes perfect sense?

If you are willing to allow for a long passage of time for the first day of creation, why not go the next step and accept science's observations for the age of the earth?

what don't fit, the notion of two humanoids with the ability to reproduce, even a couple of million years ago would bury us in bodies, we would be climbing over corpse just to find a place to sit down