YECs Explain Dating Methods

[shinbits]

When your site is talking about more massive stars burning hydrogen faster is talking about difference between stars ranging from 0.4 solar masses to 9 or even more solar masses. It is NOT talking about the difference between a star with 1.0000000 solar masses as the sun has now and a star with 1.000000001 solar masses as the sun had 50,000 years ago.

That makes complete sense. You've already shown yourself to be reliable with such information, so I'll believe you.

Mostly correct. The red giant thing is in error. It is not helium burning it is the core being helium (and isothermal and degenerate in a low mass star - higher mass stars are somewhat different) and the hydrogen burning being in a shell around the core that the red giant stage begins.

okay. I don't doubt you.

 

[KerrMetric]

So why does it take so many posts?

 

[shinbits]

The statement that a more massive star produces more energy is correct for the birth of stars. When stars are born, they consist almost entirely of Hydrogen. In this, stars are essentially all the same, and thus the more massive a star is, the more energy it puts out.

However, this does not stay correct over time. Yes, the star is losing mass, and thus it does produce less and less energy from its hydrogen reactions. However, it is not losing all the mass of the hydrogen involved in fusion.

Okay. But concerning the last sentence, I know it isn't losing all the mass of the hydrogen invovled.

Fusion is what powers the sun. 2 hydrogen atoms under immense pressure and heat fuse into a single Helium atom , 2 alpha particles, and electro magnetic radiation. This energy is then felt here on earth in the form of heat, visible light, and the solar wind.

Okay. I know that nuclear fusion occurs in the sun, but I thought it was the burning of helium that accounted for most heat from the sun.

Over time, the amount of hydrogen decreases, and the amount of Helium increases.

I think I almost understand this. One question; how is the amount of Helium increasing? I think if I get this part, the rest will just fall into place.

So yes Shin, in one respect you are correct. A more massive star does emit more energy than a less massive star. However, trying to aply this to the entire life of a star is a fallacious method. It is much like trying to apply Newtonian Mechanics to sub-atomic particles, it just doesn't apply at these levels.

okay.

Shin, you know the surface level information on most of these subjects. However, instead of following through with your studies to get to the deeper, more advanced understanding, you are taking these simple beginings and trying to solve problems for which they are inadequete.

Someone wanted me to come here and explain my view. So I did. The worst that could happen is that I learn something.

 

[shinbits]

So why does it take so many posts?

I don't think you knew where I was coming from with some of my thoughts. I wanted to know that you guys understood what I was trying to first (like with the scale being measured on an asending slope). If you could answer my questions with a full understand of my view, then I could accept your answers.

 

[KerrMetric]

I don't think you knew where I was coming from with some of my thoughts. I wanted to know that you guys understood what I was trying to first (like with the scale being measured on an asending slope). If you could answer my questions with a full understand of my view, then I could accept your answers.

I knew right away where you were coming from. I thought I explained why promptly your errors.

 

[Abongil]

I think I almost understand this. One question; how is the amount of Helium increasing? I think if I get this part, the rest will just fall into place.

.

Our star is about (these are estimates pulled out of my butt) 70% hydrogen, 28% heliuma nd 2% heavier elements. The hydrogen fuses into helium, and the helium fuses into lithium or beryllium, and so on and so forth. The reason there is more helium is that the levels of hydrogen is decreasing, and only 2 hydrogen atoms fuse for every 8 helium atoms... I think... sorry, this is not really my expertise.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't think you knew where I was coming from with some of my thoughts. I wanted to know that you guys understood what I was trying to first (like with the scale being measured on an asending slope). If you could answer my questions with a full understand of my view, then I could accept your answers.

Your argument about luminosity and cosmic rays is made moot by the direct measurement of historic C14 content in lake varves, ice cores, and tree rings. These annual records are spread out over almost every continent with lake varves in Japan and Poland, ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica, and tree rings in the US and Europe. All of these records correlate with each other. The only other factor is the quality of the sample being dated which can be affected by environmental factors.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

By the way, thank you, Mocca.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Okay. But concerning the last sentence, I know it isn't losing all the mass of the hydrogen invovled.


Okay. I know that nuclear fusion occurs in the sun, but I thought it was the burning of helium that accounted for most heat from the sun.

I think I almost understand this. One question; how is the amount of Helium increasing? I think if I get this part, the rest will just fall into place.

Helium is the product of the Nucelar reaction occuring in the sun.

Hydrogen has 1 proton. Helium has two.

2 atoms of Hydrogen collide, fusing together to form 1 atom of Helium and 2 alpha particles. Thus over time the hydrogen is getting replaced by helium.

Kerrs post right after mine was actually a correction to this part of my post. Read there for how the Red giant cycle works and then switches to helium fussion.

okay.

Someone wanted me to come here and explain my view. So I did. The worst that could happen is that I learn something.

Thats cool that you learned something.

You know honestly Shin, if you could just admit at times that what you are saying is your opinion based on the information you have seen, and not the undeniable fact that you usually try to pass it off as, we would all respond much more positively. Much like you see here.

You seem to fall into the habit of the diletante. You read something. you get excited about it. And instead of following thru, you rush out and try to present this new information. Science can be very exiting. It's a rush when you think you've discovered soemthing fresh and new. But science relies on self examination to work. You need to spend a little extra time verifing the accuracy of claims, and from non biased sources, before speaking them as truth.

 

[shinbits]

Helium is the product of the Nucelar reaction occuring in the sun.

Hydrogen has 1 proton. Helium has two.

2 atoms of Hydrogen collide, fusing together to form 1 atom of Helium and 2 alpha particles. Thus over time the hydrogen is getting replaced by helium.

Kerrs post right after mine was actually a correction to this part of my post. Read there for how the Red giant cycle works and then switches to helium fussion.

Okay. Thank you for taking the time to explain that.

Thats cool that you learned something.
you've discovered soemthing fresh and new. But science relies on self examination to work. You need to spend a little extra time verifing the accuracy of claims, and from non biased sources, before speaking them as truth.

Well said. I'll make sure all future posts are as such.

When I first started to post on this forum, I thought everyone who believed in evolution were satan worshipping Bible haters. But dannager was the first to change my view on that. He and someone else actually took time to explain some concepts, answer questions, and talk for a while. That was nice.

Your seem to be the same way, as long all facts discussed are lined up. That's cool too.


I have a thread that I'll post a little while from now, and I'd like you all to join me. I'll do all necessary work and research before hand, I PROMISE.


The Bits.

 

[TheBear]

bump

 

[food4thought]

I didn't really want to spend all night reading this, hoping to find the answer to my question, so I'll simply ask my question and also ask forgiveness if it has already been discussed here.

My question is: How is the starting ratio of parent element to daughter element on any given sample determined? It would seem to me that we would have to make some assumption regarding the starting ratio in order to come up with a date... am I wrong?

 

[grimbly]

Short answer since I am too new to post links.

Google asa3.org Wiens. Probably the best description of radiometric dating I have seen on the web and he frequently updates it with new material.

Long read but well worth your time if you are really interested.

If anybody knows a better site, I would appreciate you posting a link

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Short answer since I am too new to post links.

Google asa3.org Wiens. Probably the best description of radiometric dating I have seen on the web and he frequently updates it with new material.

Long read but well worth your time if you are really interested.

If anybody knows a better site, I would appreciate you posting a link

nope that is the best single link on the net.

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective

Dr. Roger C. Wiens

 

[XTE]

Good for Shinbits.......

Nothing should make you feel better than to admit you're wrong and take in. That's religious to me.

The more you admit you're wrong, the wiser you become!

Great Thread, Great Job!

 

[food4thought]

Hi guys. I read that article while waitning for an answer last night, and I couldn't find an answer to this question in it. Any other links?

 

[grimbly]

Ok, I got another one for you. It's a little more technical but does address your question.

Once again because I don't have enough posts I can't give you the link but here is the site URL sans HTTP:

onafarawayday.com/radiogenic/

 

[dlamberth]

nope that is the best single link on the net.

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective

Dr. Roger C. Wiens

I agree. That is a GREAT link and one I've gone to many times.

.

 

[OC1]

Hi guys. I read that article while waitning for an answer last night, and I couldn't find an answer to this question in it. Any other links?

here's a good link about isochrons:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isowrong

 

[food4thought]

hi rmwilliamsII;
\I read the wrong article, but your first link gave me alot to chew on. I have printed it out and am going over it as I have time. Thanks. I still haven't quite figured out how they arrive at their starting point in argon dating... it says what they do, but I am not fluent in scientese yet (working on it

In the argon-argon method the rock is placed near the center of a nuclear reactor for a period of hours. A nuclear reactor emits a very large number of neutrons, which are capable of changing a small amount of the potassium-39 into argon-39. Argon-39 is not found in nature because it has only a 269-year half-life. (This half-life doesn't affect the argon-argon dating method as long as the measurements are made within about five years of the neutron dose). The rock is then heated in a furnace to release both the argon-40 and the argon-39 (representing the potassium) for analysis. The heating is done at incrementally higher temperatures and at each step the ratio of argon-40 to argon-39 is measured. If the argon-40 is from decay of potassium within the rock, it will come out at the same temperatures as the potassium-derived argon-39 and in a constant proportion. On the other hand, if there is some excess argon-40 in the rock it will cause a different ratio of argon-40 to argon-39 for some or many of the heating steps, so the different heating steps will not agree with each other.

Can some one elaborate on this for me? Why does the argon get released in this way?
This is the part I'm trying to understand, and it seems to be at the heart of my question (particularly the bold/underlined section)... am I on the right track?