Faulty Basalt Dates PROVE YEC!!!!!

[EecoErin]

Haha, YEC is proved foreverrrrrrrrr!

Ok, so I just thought I'd put an inflammatory title in order to get more people to jump on here. I'm having trouble understanding the differences in rubidium-strontium, potassium-argon, and samarium-neodymium dating methods reported on this site: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating

I'd really like to understand it so I can rebut it on another site.

Appreciation to all who help.

 

[EecoErin]

Oh, and I was under the impression that basalt was mostly found on ocean shelves, and rarely creeps up through the continents. Maybe someone can add to my mental model of this, or amend my model.

Thank you.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Oh, and I was under the impression that basalt was mostly found on ocean shelves, and rarely creeps up through the continents. Maybe someone can add to my mental model of this, or amend my model.

Thank you.

I will get back to you on radiogenic dating, but your second post is easier to answer.

The largest volumes of basaltic magma is erupted and emplaced at oceanic ridges.

Next would come oceanic plateaus (the oceanic equivalent of large igneous provinces on continents)

Then continental large igneous provinces.

Probably the next geological setting would be subjection zones

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Haha, YEC is proved foreverrrrrrrrr!

Ok, so I just thought I'd put an inflammatory title in order to get more people to jump on here. I'm having trouble understanding the differences in rubidium-strontium, potassium-argon, and samarium-neodymium dating methods reported on this site: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating

I'd really like to understand it so I can rebut it on another site.

Appreciation to all who help.

Here’s a link to a talk origins critique of Creationist work on Grand Canyon basalts, not the ones that are Precambrian, but it does highlight the failings, sometimes purposely to deceive their creationist flock into thinking they are doing good science, WHICH THEY ARE NOT,

LINK

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Haha, YEC is proved foreverrrrrrrrr!

Ok, so I just thought I'd put an inflammatory title in order to get more people to jump on here. I'm having trouble understanding the differences in rubidium-strontium, potassium-argon, and samarium-neodymium dating methods reported on this site: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating

I'd really like to understand it so I can rebut it on another site.

Appreciation to all who help.

Reading the linked article; they have used the same crap as always. That is radiogenic decay changes through time, this of course is complete magical mysticism and they know it.

If it could be proved and/or show that decay rates in the past were billions of times (yes we are talking billion) faster than now, the person/s would be more famous than Albert and be standing in Stockholm receiving their piece of history.

Anyway it is just not radiometric data they have to change, it is also geology, biology, chemistry “well it’s easier to say “they need to change everything we know about the natural sciences”.

If want they proposed was true, the earth would look like this.

 

[EecoErin]

I'm about to read the article you listed, but in regards to the pic of the molten mass, I think this article http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/wiens.html#page%2019 indicates the same thing: that the earth would have melted if all the radiometric decay sped up at various times.

will get to reading now...

 

[DuckPhup]

Haha, YEC is proved foreverrrrrrrrr!

Ok, so I just thought I'd put an inflammatory title in order to get more people to jump on here. I'm having trouble understanding the differences in rubidium-strontium, potassium-argon, and samarium-neodymium dating methods reported on this site: ...

I'd really like to understand it so I can rebut it on another site.

Appreciation to all who help.

AIG if the world's foremost LFJ™ (Liars For Jesus) website... and not a single thing that they say is trustworthy, or can be taken at face-value. To understand why, go to the AIG web site and search for 'Statement of Faith'. Look at the last item on the page.