My Igneous Challenge

[AV1611VET]

You find an igneous rock that dates to the year 10,484,570 BC.

Question: How old was the magma or lava that formed it?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You find an igneous rock that dates to the year 10,484,570 BC.

Question: How old was the magma or lava that formed it?

Unknowable in the slightest.

http://www.pbslearningmedia.org/res...ng-lava-flows-on-mauna-loa-volcano-hawai699i/

"Scientists search for carbonized remains of plants preserved in lava flows to find out how long it has taken rain forests on Hawaiʻi to regenerate after a volcanic eruption in this NOVA video. For hundreds of thousands of years, lava flows have created intricate patterns on the slopes of Hawaiʻi's Mauna Loa volcano. Until the mid-1970s, it was impossible to know when each of the flows occurred."

We can't even tell how old ones that are a mere 7500 years old are without plant remains.

 

[Loudmouth]

You find an igneous rock that dates to the year 10,484,570 BC.

Question: How old was the magma or lava that formed it?

Radiometric dating measures the history of radioactive decay in the rock since it solidified. It is not a measure of the age of the liquid lava that produced it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unknowable in the slightest.

http://www.pbslearningmedia.org/res...ng-lava-flows-on-mauna-loa-volcano-hawai699i/

"Scientists search for carbonized remains of plants preserved in lava flows to find out how long it has taken rain forests on Hawaiʻi to regenerate after a volcanic eruption in this NOVA video. For hundreds of thousands of years, lava flows have created intricate patterns on the slopes of Hawaiʻi's Mauna Loa volcano. Until the mid-1970s, it was impossible to know when each of the flows occurred."

We can't even tell how old ones that are a mere 7500 years old without plant remains.

If we can't weigh a feather on scales meant to weigh semi-trucks, does that mean those scales are not accurate?

 

[AV1611VET]

Radiometric dating measures the history of radioactive decay in the rock since it solidified.

I already gave you the date: 10,484,570 BC.

It is not a measure of the age of the liquid lava that produced it.

Whether it is or isn't, how old is the magma or lava that produced it?

 

[Loudmouth]

I already gave you the date: 10,484,570 BC.

Right. That would indicate that it has been 10,484,570+2015 years since that rock solidified from liquid lava.

Whether it is or isn't, how old is the magma or lava that produced it?

>10,484,570 + 2015 years old.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because frankly that dating is subject to error upon error.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871101414000168

 

[Loudmouth]

Because frankly that dating is subject to error upon error.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871101414000168

Igneous rock that is millions of years old isn't dated with 14C.

 

[AV1611VET]

Right. That would indicate that it has been 10,484,570+2015 years since that rock solidified from liquid lava.

Unless the lava that produced it was 10,484,570+2015 years old.

>10,484,570 + 2015 years old.

Correct.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unless the lava that produced it was 10,484,570+2015 years old.

That isn't how it works. Newly solidified rocks date young. In K/Ar dating, the hot, liquid magma allows argon to escape out of it. It isn't until the lava solidifies that argon can be trapped. By measuring the amount of argon and comparing it to the amount of radioactive potassium that produced it, you can measure the time since the rock solidified and started capturing argon.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Igneous rock that is millions of years old isn't dated with 14C.

And yet you can't date lava that is thousands of years old, but can if its millions? I fail to see your reliance on dating old lava flows that can't even date recent lava flows.

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet you can't date lava that is thousands of years old, but can if its millions? I fail to see your reliance on dating old lava flows that can't even date recent lava flows.

From a previous post . . .

If we can't weigh a feather on scales meant to weigh semi-trucks, does that mean those scales are not accurate?

If you can't weight nanograms, how can you weigh tons?

 

[AV1611VET]

That isn't how it works. Newly solidified rocks date young. In K/Ar dating, the hot, liquid magma allows argon to escape out of it. It isn't until the lava solidifies that argon can be trapped. By measuring the amount of argon and comparing it to the amount of radioactive potassium that produced it, you can measure the time since the rock solidified and started capturing argon.

 

[AV1611VET]

That isn't how it works.

Then why did you say both the lava and the rock dated to 10,484,570+2015 years?

 

[juvenissun]

You find an igneous rock that dates to the year 10,484,570 BC.

Question: How old was the magma or lava that formed it?

Hey, brother. Do you know this is a graduate level geochronology question?
There IS a way to evaluate it. But I don't think anyone in this forum can appreciate it. The "story" could be a little bit long.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, brother. Do you know this is a graduate level geochronology question?

I believe it!

There IS a way to evaluate it. But I don't think anyone in this forum can appreciate it. The "story" could be a little bit long.

Well, Loudmouth thinks he can pwn embedded age creation with igneous rocks, so I'm giving him a chance.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Unless the lava that produced it was 10,484,570+2015 years old.

Magma flows up from the earth's mantle, released onto the surface by volcanic activity. The magma that cooled and became solid rock would be much older than the rock itself. So a rock that was 10,486,586 years old would not be produced from magma that was only 10,486,586 years old. That magma would have been in the mantle for millions, even billions, of years before it erupted upon the surface and cooled.

So the answer >10,484,570 + 2015 is the correct answer.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

That magma would have been in the mantle for millions, even billions, of years before it erupted upon the surface and cooled.

You're assuming the earth has gone around the sun that many times, and adjusting your description accordingly.

I didn't mention anything about the passage of time in my OP.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You're assuming the earth has gone around the sun that many times

Because it has.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Loudmouth]

Then why did you say both the lava and the rock dated to 10,484,570+2015 years?

I didn't. I said that the rock dates to 10,484,570+2015 and the lava is >10,484,570+2015. Notice the greater than sign.