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.
Wow. There are still people fighting about radiometric dating? Why? Do you think that we are stupid enough to not know how atomic decay happens?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html
Regardless, for the sake of argument, I'll accept the hearsay you quoted as true. You still have not accounted for the sequential mammillary coatings found up and down the canyon walls. These cannot be ignored since they cannot form overnight in turbid waters.
Now to the "mamillary coatings" you mentioned. It appears these are uranium/lead isotope based and they measure this by the standard radiometric dating methods and ratios. The only thing new is these particular mamillary crystals and their uniqueness. I have already mentioned the questionability of radiometric dating in the past. There are just too many assumptions that have to be made for radiometric dating to be valid. When I first started to question these modalities in a serious way I was reading up on some dating samples taken from fresh magma just extruded from a volcano. They dated this stuff at several billions of years old. Anyway, to me the fact that there are little or no erosional features in the lateral stratas is much more indicative of very rapid deposition.
Zircon crystals chemically REJECT Pb. This property makes them an isolated system when doing U-Pb dating.1. What ever system produced the sample had to be essentially a closed system with no chance of contamination.
2. What ever system produced the sample had to initially contain no daughter products from the radioactive decay.
There are two isotopes of U and Pb that is used in U-Pb dating.3. The decay process has to be constant thru out time.
No, there just can’t be any Pb in the sample at the time of formation. Zircon crystals take care of that because it is impossible for Pb to enter the structure.4. The clock for the sample had to start at a beginning when no daughter products existed i.e. all of the U238 in the world had no Pb206 in or near it and no Pb 206 existed anywhere in the world.
Goodness! There's so much to this? Is there a book or website that offers Earth Dating 101? I'd like to know more but I need a glossary for Pb, etc. Hehe.
This USGS publication is primarily about plate tectonics, but contains a wealth of information about how the Earth is dated in very simple terms that the layman can understand.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/dynamic.html
Zircon crystals chemically REJECT Pb. This property makes them an isolated system when doing U-Pb dating.
Thanks, I've put the link in my gmail for future reference.
I don't think that you've done a good job of show that this assumptions are either large or wrong. If the assumptions were wrong then the different dating techniques would give conflicting answers.Independent tests of any sample can only test according to the assumptions already at work before the tests are made. It's the assumptions of things having to be a certain way and not knowing if that is the reality of it that are at the core of the validity of radiometric dating.
God Bless
Jim Larmore
I don't think that you've done a good job of show that this assumptions are either large or wrong. If the assumptions were wrong then the different dating techniques would give conflicting answers.
Isolated from the environment with radiometric dating simply means that parent and daughter atoms can no longer enter the sample. Zircon crystals fit this definition.Isolated from the environment? I don't think so.
Radiometric decays is a nuclear process, this means that it is influenced by the intra-molecular forces. The relative abundance of atoms outside of the sample is irrelevant because they simply can not influence the rate.Even large fluctuations in the relative saturation of H2O or large changes in pressure in the atmosphere could change the rate.
High energy bombardment does not influence U-Pb dating, it does influence C14 dating but that is rarely used to date anything but human artifacts and creatures that have died since the last Ice Age.For instance any change in high energy particle bombardment of neutrinos, mesons, or cosmic rays from the Van Allen belt would drastically change the rate.
These 'large assumptions' are usually "you know, maybe the stuff we see going on today can explain what happened yesterday." Until we see evidence that conflicts with this assumption, we might as well go on it.Without knowing what existed in times past we can't make these determinations without making some large assumptions.
Isolated from the environment with radiometric dating simply means that parent and daughter atoms can no longer enter the sample. Zircon crystals fit this definition.
Radiometric decays is a nuclear process, this means that it is influenced by the intra-molecular forces. The relative abundance of atoms outside of the sample is irrelevant because they simply can not influence the rate.
High energy bombardment does not influence U-Pb dating, it does influence C14 dating but that is rarely used to date anything but human artifacts and creatures that have died since the last Ice Age.
These 'large assumptions' are usually "you know, maybe the stuff we see going on today can explain what happened yesterday." Until we see evidence that conflicts with this assumption, we might as well go on it.
How do you explain the many examples of radiometric, dendrochronologic, and ice core dating yielding the same ages, Jim? Convenient coincidence? Conspiracy, maybe?
Having a degree in Biology/Chemistry/Engineering really helps you know. Since growth rings in trees are nothing more than the growth of the vascular cambium or outer lateral meristem. We know that certain things can effect it. The truth of the matter is this. Dendrochronology is not as accurate as you would think , i.e. making each ring count for a year and heres the reasons.
A. In some growing seasons ( depending on the conditions, rain, temperature and day light length , even insect investation) some trees (pines are a great example of this ) can show multiple growth rings in one year. How many times would that have to happen to a long lived tree like the "Bristlecone" to show a long age like 10,000 years?
B. Weather related flucuations caused by volcano eruptions have been known to cause multiple growing seasons in one year.
Varves? These are good examples of liquifaction during cyclic on off pressure not annual sedimentation. The reasons are these;
1. They for the most part are too uniform and show no evidence of erosion as you would expect from the dynamic forces of hydrology.
2. They are deposited over much wider areas than the streams that supposedly made them. Lakes and their feeding streams didn't produce most of the varves seen today.
God Bless
Jim Larmore
Zircon crystals are not isolated from near by radioactive sources or physical pressures that can change the rate of decay.
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?