Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
10 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Repeats his lie about the age of diamonds (they are measured to be billion of years old) and argument by insult.Agreed. And that is more than should be there, and it shows it is not a lie but confirms young age of diamonds. Also it shows you have no idea what your saying here.
10 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Lies with links to the same old ignorant and lying YEC articles (ignorance about coastal snowfall, lies about ice sheet ages, etc.)Thanks and great question. Due to time I will link you some articles.
10 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Turns granite ignorance into a lie about the ages of the inclusions (zircon) in granite.In a supposed 20 million year old granite received a uranium thorium lead date 97 million years and a zircon dat of 1,483 million years
- r.r parish 1990 u-pb dating of monazite and its applications to geological problems Canadian journal of earth sciences 27 1431-1450
...
10 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Lies by quoting Snellings lies on the dating of tree growth rings.Not my area and is the reason i linked. They all use each other and are calibrated based on the standard of each other its circular reasoning. From Snellings layers of assumptions
Thanks for all of the YEC ignorance and lies, Tolkien R.R.J. I had seen a good part of it before and was appalled by the level of gullibility needed to believe in their obvious ignorance and lies. Now I am even more appalled, e.g. I had not seen the idiocy that inclusions in rocks have to be the same age as the parent rock before, the abysmal (literally - diamonds are formed hundreds of kilometers under the surface away from C14 in the atmospere) stupidity of C14 in diamonds, etc.Look like i am done as page 20 looks finished. Sorry I really lost interest the last week or so. I will be doing a future thread and this subject will be brought up once more as part of a larger topic.
Yes i am saying c-14 has been found in diamonds and fossils millions of years old. I gave the other references here is some for diamonds.
J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630.
You have since the beginning misunderstood 90% of my arguments and this is not a surprise as you showed recently, you have yet to read my op.
You cant explain why your formation needs millions of years as has been show and thus i have nothing to respond to. It was based on your false assumptions of the floods ability to produce hard rocks and your false assumptions from old earth training. That is why despite being asked multiple times, you wont point to anything in your formation that needs long time to form since it is built on assumptions and not observation. Further i linked you to an article from a flood geologist exspaling it in layman's terms as you are well aware.
I said c-14 has been found in diamonds that should have long ago decayed away if they were as old as the evolutionist believe.
The problem with this is it is true. Sources have been provided above.
I have heard evolutionist geologist call inclusion contamination in pert review. So dont get to excited about my choice of words. Had one read my op it would be clear what i meant by contamination. Wrong choice of words? ok maybe, i can accept that. To a lay audience, i dont think its a big deal especially had they read my op unlike you who chose to not do that.
only hundreds of thousands of years.
That is why I said the argument applied to those areas that folded while wet with multiple examples when you asked for them.
I know, only an issue for evolutionist. So no depistion or erosion or any sighs of millions of years and you see no issue? at best the millions of years is based on pure fantasy, at least creationist stick to the rocks and observation.
“A puzzling characteristic of the erathem boundaries and of other major stratigraphic boundaries is the general lack of physical evidence of subaerial exposure. Traces of deep leaching, scour, channeling, and residual gravels tend to be lacking, even when the underlying rocks are cherty limestones … these boundaries are paraconformities that are identifiable only by paleontological evidence.”-paleontologist Norman Newell -Newell, N.D., Mass extinction: unique or recurrent causes? in: Berggren, W.A., Van Couvering, J.A., (Eds.), Catastrophes and Earth History: The New Uniformitarianism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 115–127
In a supposed 20 million year old granite received a uranium thorium lead date 97 million years and a zircon dat of 1,483 million years
- r.r parish 1990 u-pb dating of monazite and its applications to geological problems Canadian journal of earth sciences 27 1431-1450
And what of the various ages given to the granite? I am not sure how you are getting this. If the zircon is dated at that age what of the other two methods? This is what happens and often, I gave many examples of the same rock being dated by various methods and producing different results. Had you read my op you would have known that.
Where in this research paper do you see anything about a granite being dated to 97 million years? Do you have a page number or a paragraph?
I can already see this turning out just like your carbon 14 in diamonds source, where you arent even basing your understanding of the topic off of what the research article actually says.
The article isnt even about discrepancies in dating granite.
Right there in the introduction you have discussion about the accuracy of methods described
"Only the two isotopically coupled U-Pb chronometers, 235~-207Pb and 238~-206~b have the analytical potential to resolve detailed events with high precision throughout the Earth's history. Though zircon has been the favored mineral for precise age determination, monazite U-Pb geochronology is an established but underutilized tool which can complement the more familiar U-Pb zircon method.
The objective of this paper is to provide a detailed outline of the types of U-Pb behavior in monazite, using natural examples, and to show the power and importance of this mineral in unraveling age relations of geologic, metamorphic, and thermal events."
View attachment 237426 Tolkien you seen to think mountains form from soft sediments . This is what actually happens to rapidly occurring soft sediment folds . This is a seismite which occurs during earthquakes to soft sediments . And as you can see the sediment continued to form flat layers after the quake was over. As usual this is a screenshot ( sigh)
-paleontologist Norman Newell -Newell, N.D., Mass extinction: unique or recurrent causes? in: Berggren, W.A., Van Couvering, J.A., (Eds.), Catastrophes and Earth History: The New Uniformitarianism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 115–127
Out of curiosity, how do they date the matrix rock as opposed to the inclusions like zircons and monazite? It was my understanding that they need to test something with a crystal lattice which both traps decay byproduct and excludes parent isotopes.
I believe you are correct there, I misspoke earlier in my post regarding the dating of homogenous rocks. There would need to be a crystal lattice in play for the reasons you have mentioned. Please pardon my wordings or statements that appear to run contrary to this.
I have the article in question up on my computer now. I dont see anything in there that suggests that something was dated to various ages in which there was no real understanding of why. I see a paragraph that i will quote here,
"In an important study of Miocene leucogranitic rocks of the Himalayas, Schiirer (1984) documented reverse discordance where monazite analyses plotted above concordia. These monazites had strongly negative (future) 207~b/206~b ages, some being as low as -400 Ma. This type of isotopic behavior in monazite has since been documented in a number of other instances including rocks older than 150 Ma (Fig. 3) (Schiirer et al. 1986; Parrish and Armstrong 1987; Parrish et al. 1988), and it seems to be a common feature. The best explanation for this behavior is that of Schiirer (1984), who, following a line of reasoning developed earlier by Mattinson (1973), suggested that monazite, a Th-bearing mineral, incorporates significant amounts of relatively shortlived 23@Th into its structure upon crystallization. 23?h is an intermediate daughter in the 238U decay chain, with a half-life of 75 200 years, which decays to 206~b. Because of the large amounts of Th incorporated into monazite, large numbers of atoms of initially incorporated 23@Th decay to 206~b, SO a closed U-Pb system would produce a 206~b/238~ ratio that plots above concordia. Mattinson (1973) and Schiirer (1984) pointed out that in contrast with monazite, minerals that have very low TWU, such as zircon, baddeleyite, or xenotime, will show a deficit of 206~b."
This is about all i could gather that Tolkein was referring to. But right there in the same section you have multiple sourced research papers discussing the practice.
Its not like some researchers published something and came to the conclusion that they had no idea what they were doing. Rather the research paper really just demonstrates an understanding of the science behind this particular form of dating, what to look out for, and how to keep accuracy and precision in the methods. And it also describes how the discordance was visibly apparent in the results, which ultimately allowed researchers to dig deeper into the situation to understand why the discordance was present. Its not like people were just completely blind and just pumping out conflicting data without any awareness as to what was going on. Rather people were...really just being scientists and uncovering the nuances of U-Pb and U-Th dating.
The institute of creation research has this article:
http://www.icr.org/article/dubious-radiogenic-places-u-th-pb-mineral-dating-d/
Which states : "While monazite grains can yield negative "ages," such as -97 Ma in a 20 Ma Himalayan granite that also contains zircons yielding "ages" up to 1483 Ma.24"
But again, this is irrelevant because the article is describing how precision is acquired through dating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be like, someone writing a research paper on how to hit a baseball. If you swing too soon you will miss. If you swing too late, you might end up hitting a foul ball.
Then some heckler comes along and says "look! theyre describing how they swung too soon and hit a foul ball".
But, the heckler misses the purpose in the discussion, in that the discussion actually demonstrates knowledge of the practice and is describing how to swing accurately (and in that it is also describing how to swing inaccurately to inform the reader).
But ultimately as I noted before,
"Only the two isotopically coupled U-Pb chronometers, 235~-207Pb and 238~-206~b have the analytical potential to resolve detailed events with high precision throughout the Earth's history. Though zircon has been the favored mineral for precise age determination, monazite U-Pb geochronology is an established but underutilized tool which can complement the more familiar U-Pb zircon method.
The objective of this paper is to provide a detailed outline of the types of U-Pb behavior in monazite, using natural examples, and to show the power and importance of this mineral in unraveling age relations of geologic, metamorphic, and thermal events."
The authors see the value in practical application of these dating methods, and that is what the paper is ultimately centered around describing.
Yet again its just young earth creationists quote mining, taking things out of context and being dishonest. Just like with the C14 dating discussion that tolkein presented. He misquoted a paper, he lied about its conclusions, he then proceeded to act like he meant to quote a different paper when he realized he was wrong. Rather than just admitting that he didnt know what he was talking about.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?