Young Earth evidence (2)

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
where did they get the water in the universe? Thats my question.

also here is another young earth question:

oil bed pressures reduce as oil leaks away through the rock. Then how can petroleum be millions of years old and have such a high underground pressure?



here is a clip on the seepage of gas and oil:

ESCAPING NATURAL GAS—Oil and gas are usually located in a porous and permeable rock like sandstone or limestone, which is sealed by an impermeable rock like shale. Fluids and gas can easily travel through the containing rock, but more slowly pass out of the impermeable cap. Evolutionary theory postulates that tens or hundreds of millions of years ago, the oil and gas was trapped in there.

But in the case of natural gas, it can still get through the shale cap. A recent study analyzed the rate of escapement of gas through shale caps. It was found to be far too rapid for acceptance by evolutionary theory. If the world were billions of years old, all the natural gas would already have escaped.

"Based on the above calculated rate of destruction of commercial-size gas fields, the concept is proposed that gas accumulations in the subsurface have only a limited life in terms of geologic time scales. If this is true, known gas fields in older strata like lower Paleozoic reservoirs can be explained only by assumption of a relatively young accumulation age or by the assumption of a much longer duration of the hydrocarbon generation process than currently accepted."—*D. Leythaeuser, *R.G. Schaefer, and *A. Yukler, "Role of Diffusion in Primary Migration of Hydrocarbons," in American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 66(4):408-429 (1982).

35-OIL PRESSURE—Frequently, when oil well drillers first penetrate into oil, a geyser ("gusher") of oil spews forth. Studies of the permeability of the surrounding rock indicates that any pressure within the oil bed should have bled off within a few thousand years, but this obviously has not happened yet. The excessive pressures within these oil beds refutes the "old earth" theory, and provides strong evidence that these deep rock formations and the entrapped oil are less than 7-10,000 years old. The great pressures now existing in oil reserves could only have been sustained for a few thousand years.

These fluids are retained in the reservoirs under cap rock, but often the pressures are extremely high. Their containing rocks are porous enough that to retain these pressures for periods longer than a few thousand years would apparently be impossible. The fluids should long ago have leaked through their cap rocks to the surface.

Even more extreme are the high-pressure wells. The Lucas gusher oil well at Spindletop, Texas, blew its top in 1901 when it was first drilled. The well was 1,020 feet [3,109 dm] when it began to flow. The oil pressure was so great that it pushed 700 feet [2,134 dm] of drill pipe out of the hole, and the oil gushed up to a height of 200 feet [610 dm] in the air. The flow of Spindletop was 84,000 barrels [133,543 kl] of oil a day. Modern Saudi wells generally flow at about 10,000 to 12,000 barrels [15,898 to 19,078 kl] a day.

Because modern drilling techniques control underground oil pressures, gushers no longer occur and barrels-per-day are now predetermined. But the pressure is still down there! Oil pressure is the result of the pressure of the oil under the cap being greater than the weight of the overlying rocks. Gradually it seeps away and dissipates through the impermeable bed. A young earth is the only explanation for these high pressure oil wells which still exist today.

*Hubbert and *Rubey have worked out an exponential formula for the exhaustion of such fluid pressures in the earth. It is much too low for the demands of evolutionary theory on the age of the earth.

"Because of this continual leakage, abnormal water pressures are thus transient phenomena and require some dynamical activity to bring them into existence and to maintain them." —*M.K Hubbert and *W. W. Rubey, "Role of Fluid Pressure in Mechanics of Overthrust Faulting, " in Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 70(2):115-205 (1959).

36 - OIL SEEPAGE—A 1972 article by Max Blumer ("Submarine Seeps: Are They a Major Source of Open Ocean Oil Pollution?" in Science, vol.176, p. 1257) offers decided evidence that the earth's crust is not as old as evolutionary geologists had thought. Blumer says that oil seepage from the sea floor cannot be a source of oceanic oil pollution. He explains that if that much had been regularly seeping out of the ocean floor, all the oil in offshore wells would be gone long ago if the earth were older than 20,000 years.

In contrast, geologists have already located 630 billion barrels [1,002 billion kl] of oil that can be recovered from off-shore wells. Yet if our planet were older than 20,000 years, there would be no offshore oil of any kind to locate and recover through oil rigs.

37 - LACK OF ANCIENTLY DESTROYED RESERVOIRS—All of the oil in the world must have been placed there only in the recent past. We can know this because if long ages of time had elapsed for earth's history, then we should find evidence of anciently destroyed oil reservoirs. There would be places where all the oil had leaked out and left only residues which would show in drilling cores! But such locations are never found. Coal is found in various stages of decomposition, but —oil reservoirs are never found to have seeped away.

"However, regardless whether one proceeds from organic or inorganic theory, one should observe geologically indisputable cases of ancient destroyed oil accumulations from the late Proterozoic to the present. One sees progressively metamorphosed coal accumulations in the stratigraphic record, but never comparably altered or destroyed oil accumulations."—*V. B. Porfir'ev, "Inorganic Origin of Petroleum," in American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 58(1) (1974), p. 23.

from

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch06b.htm
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
inherited isochrons are when a prexisting deposit allows isochrons to transfer to the rock being texted.

Allows isochrons to transfer? Are you confusing isochron which is a method with isotope which is a particular form of an element? BTW, even if you meant isotope, isotopes don't transfer.

Look! Simply put, the isochron method is used in particular with Rb/Sr due to the nature in which those isotopes precipitate out of molten magma or rocks that undergo multiple metamorphic events.

However this is an invalid test non the less. Because how do you know which isochrons are the invalid ones, by the dates. But I thought the dates were unbiased? You see how this can be a problem and is a sort of orwellian double speak to cover up bad dates or whatever. Oh this rock is too young........it must have inherited isochrons from a younger mineral beside it (but it's no
w gone from the dig).

Might I suggest you look up isochron dating methods and try to learn something about them before criticizing them.

I also suggest you refrain from calling well understood and utilized scientific methods as "Orwellian double speak", suggesting cover ups and wrong doing without any evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Valkhorn

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist
Jun 15, 2004
3,009
198
43
Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟19,124.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
where did they get the water in the universe? Thats my question.

also here is another young earth question:

oil bed pressures reduce as oil leaks away through the rock. Then how can petroleum be millions of years old and have such a high underground pressure?


Then how can the sun be billions of years old if the gases at the center are at even greater pressures?!!?

(Have you tried to follow your logic?)
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Allows isochrons to transfer? Are you confusing isochron which is a method with isotope which is a particular form of an element? BTW, even if you meant isotope, isotopes don't transfer.

Look! Simply put, the isochron method is used in particular with Rb/Sr due to the nature in which those isotopes precipitate out of molten magma or rocks that undergo multiple metamorphic events.



Might I suggest you look up isochron dating methods and try to learn something about them before criticizing them.

I also suggest you refrain from calling well understood and utilized scientific methods as "Orwellian double speak", suggesting cover ups and wrong doing without any evidence.

I see you didn't understand. Isochrons can mix when hot, with others. This is inherited isochrons. But how can you tell at that point which is the isochron of value? You can't. But this whole thing is sort of an embarrassment so you can't find a lot on it on the internet. I would do a search for "mixing isochrons" or "inherited isochrons" if you need more info.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Then how can the sun be billions of years old if the gases at the center are at even greater pressures?!!?

(Have you tried to follow your logic?)

:confused:


lost me. gases are escaping from petroleum deposits. So they should be as pressurized after billions of years? The sun? different than a petroleum deposit.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I see you didn't understand. Isochrons can mix when hot, with others. This is inherited isochrons. But how can you tell at that point which is the isochron of value? You can't. But this whole thing is sort of an embarrassment so you can't find a lot on it on the internet. I would do a search for "mixing isochrons" or "inherited isochrons" if you need more info.

Jumping Jupiter! What part of isochron is "the" method, not an isotope, do you not understand. :confused:

One more time. Magma cools over a very long period of time. Different minerals precipitate out of the magma as it cools. This cooling process can be over thousands or millions of years. That is why different dates show up with the Rb/Sr method. Those isotopes can be constitutes of a number of minerals which precipitate out (solidify) at different temperatures. That is why different dates show up in intrusive igneous rocks and why the "isochron" method is used with Rb/Sr and a few other isotope sequences.

image002.jpg


The graph above shows a schematic of Rb/Sr bearing minerals which precipitate out of magma at different temperatures.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Jumping Jupiter! What part of isochron is "the" method, not an isotope, do you not understand. :confused:

One more time. Magma cools over a very long period of time. Different minerals precipitate out of the magma as it cools. This cooling process can be over thousands or millions of years. That is why different dates show up with the Rb/Sr method. Those isotopes can be constitutes of a number of minerals which precipitate out (solidify) at different temperatures. That is why different dates show up in intrusive igneous rocks and why the "isochron" method is used with Rb/Sr and a few other isotope sequences.

image002.jpg


The graph above shows a schematic of Rb/Sr bearing minerals which precipitate out of magma at different temperatures.

I never said they were isotopes. But isochrons can be positive or negative. They can be mixed and right now you don't believe they can be.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I see you didn't understand. Isochrons can mix when hot, with others.

Gradyll, you seem to be mixing up terms here. When one talks about "inherited" stuff they may be referring to the isotope, not the isochron.

Here's an ISOCHRON PLOT:

fig-01.gif

What this is measuring is:

X-Axis: ratio of parent to radiogenic daughter
Y-Axis; ratio of non-radiogenic isotope to the radiogenic daughter of the same element.

If you start off with a mineral forming in a rock you will see, perhaps, this point in terms of parent/radiogenic daughter and non-radiogenic isotope/radiogenic daughter:

fig-03.gif


Remember the Y-Axis is essentially the same element (for instance two isotopes of Sr in this example) which have approximately the same chemical features with small differentiations) but the x-axis is made up of two different elements, for instance Rb and Sr. They won't go into the same mineral structure the same way (or not as much as say two different isotopes of Sr).

As minerals form they will probably lie along a horizontal line which is made up of different fractionations of, say Rb and Sr but similar Sr-86 and Sr-87 values:

fig-04.gif


This is the "zero age" rock.

But as the rock ages the parent radioactive element decreases and the radiogenic daughter increase in population which causes the data points on that horizontal line to shift up and backwards as parent is removed and replaced by radiogenic daughter:

fig-05.gif


The reason the points on the right side of the graph move so much more is because there's more of the parent in those minerals to decay and the decay is proportional.

Here's an animation:

AnimatedIsochron.gif


This description was derived from the presentation HERE if you want to read about it with all the caveats and details.

This is inherited isochrons. But how can you tell at that point which is the isochron of value?

I think what you might be discussing here would be inherited isotopes, presumably of the daughter.

IF there has been some "contamination" by daughter isotopes this will likely show up as a problem with the fit of the line in the graph up there.

So it is a really nice way to try to limit the problems. I am doubtful that anything is perfect, and science is certainly not perfect. But isochron measurement is a really clever way to avoid some of the "generic dating" problems.

You can't. But this whole thing is sort of an embarrassment so you can't find a lot on it on the internet. I would do a search for "mixing isochrons" or "inherited isochrons" if you need more info.

"Mixing" of sources can produce a false isochron, but there are tests to determine if an isochron is real or mixed.

The scientists will plot the same Y-axis values as the isochron but instead of the original X-axis they will plot 1/(sum of the radiogenic and non-radiogenic daughter isotope content). If the points still fall on a line the isochron is suspect. (You can read more about it HERE)

Whenever Creationists feel they have "succeeded" (and by succeeded I mean "found a problem with a technique", since the only ever really produce "doubt" and not actual "findings") you can be reasonably certain that real scientists already knew about the problem and found ways to test for it.

It's kind of how science works. Creationism only has to find "doubt", science has to find answers.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I never said they were isotopes. But isochrons can be positive or negative. They can be mixed and right now you don't believe they can be.

Gradyll, you originally were talking about "inherited isochrons", now you are talking about "mixing". Mixing will result in a false isochron (I don't know as it would be proper to say the isochron is mixed since the isochron is plotted from the data). What most geologists are probably talking about is mixing of magmatic and mineralogical sources.

Rick is more than aware of that as that is pretty standard geology stuff. What he is questioning I believe is your loosey-goosey use of geologic terminology.

That is where the Creationist often slips up. They want to sound sciency, but then they meet real scientists like Rick and it doesn't quite work so well
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Gradyll, you originally were talking about "inherited isochrons", now you are talking about "mixing". Mixing will result in a false isochron (I don't know as it would be proper to say the isochron is mixed since the isochron is plotted from the data). What most geologists are probably talking about is mixing of magmatic and mineralogical sources.

Rick is more than aware of that as that is pretty standard geology stuff. What he is questioning I believe is your loosey-goosey use of geologic terminology.

That is where the Creationist often slips up. They want to sound sciency, but then they meet real scientists like Rick and it doesn't quite work so well

thats what I would say if I didn't have an answer for inherited isochrons either. Just admit you don't know what the phrase means, it's okay we are all learning here. I can actually tell that you don't have the foggiest. Rick thought that isochrons could not be mixed. However it's the isochrons that are tested not the elements after a mixing occurs. Try again sir.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Gradyll, you seem to be mixing up terms here. When one talks about "inherited" stuff they may be referring to the isotope, not the isochron.

Here's an ISOCHRON PLOT:

fig-01.gif

What this is measuring is:

X-Axis: ratio of parent to radiogenic daughter
Y-Axis; ratio of non-radiogenic isotope to the radiogenic daughter of the same element.

If you start off with a mineral forming in a rock you will see, perhaps, this point in terms of parent/radiogenic daughter and non-radiogenic isotope/radiogenic daughter:

fig-03.gif


Remember the Y-Axis is essentially the same element (for instance two isotopes of Sr in this example) which have approximately the same chemical features with small differentiations) but the x-axis is made up of two different elements, for instance Rb and Sr. They won't go into the same mineral structure the same way (or not as much as say two different isotopes of Sr).

As minerals form they will probably lie along a horizontal line which is made up of different fractionations of, say Rb and Sr but similar Sr-86 and Sr-87 values:

fig-04.gif


This is the "zero age" rock.

But as the rock ages the parent radioactive element decreases and the radiogenic daughter increase in population which causes the data points on that horizontal line to shift up and backwards as parent is removed and replaced by radiogenic daughter:

fig-05.gif


The reason the points on the right side of the graph move so much more is because there's more of the parent in those minerals to decay and the decay is proportional.

Here's an animation:

AnimatedIsochron.gif


This description was derived from the presentation HERE if you want to read about it with all the caveats and details.



I think what you might be discussing here would be inherited isotopes, presumably of the daughter.

IF there has been some "contamination" by daughter isotopes this will likely show up as a problem with the fit of the line in the graph up there.

So it is a really nice way to try to limit the problems. I am doubtful that anything is perfect, and science is certainly not perfect. But isochron measurement is a really clever way to avoid some of the "generic dating" problems.



"Mixing" of sources can produce a false isochron, but there are tests to determine if an isochron is real or mixed.

The scientists will plot the same Y-axis values as the isochron but instead of the original X-axis they will plot 1/(sum of the radiogenic and non-radiogenic daughter isotope content). If the points still fall on a line the isochron is suspect. (You can read more about it HERE)

Whenever Creationists feel they have "succeeded" (and by succeeded I mean "found a problem with a technique", since the only ever really produce "doubt" and not actual "findings") you can be reasonably certain that real scientists already knew about the problem and found ways to test for it.

It's kind of how science works. Creationism only has to find "doubt", science has to find answers.

yeah it's not the isocrons that get hot, that was a messup :doh:. Inherited isochrons are not common but they do happen, (for example, by partial melting)
This is when an ancient source is partially melted and the new rock when cooled inherited the old rock's isochron.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
yeah it's not the isocrons that get hot, that was a messup :doh:. Inherited isochrons are not common but they do happen, (for example, by partial melting)

I don't believe that the isochron is inherited. The isochron is the plot. I really don't understand what it means to "inherit" and "isochron". If some daughter isotopeis inherited I can understand what that would do to an isochron, but I don't see how one "inherits" an isochron.

This is when an ancient source is partially melted and the new rock when cooled inherited the old rock's isochron.

Hmmmm, I think what you might be thinking of here is when a new melt inherits and older rock's daughter isotopic composition which may throw off the isochron that is developed off of the analyses.

And, again, as noted earlier this can be tested for by treatment of either the plot or testing for amount of scatter around the fit line.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't believe that the isochron is inherited. The isochron is the plot. I really don't understand what it means to "inherit" and "isochron". If some daughter isotopeis inherited I can understand what that would do to an isochron, but I don't see how one "inherits" an isochron.



Hmmmm, I think what you might be thinking of here is when a new melt inherits and older rock's daughter isotopic composition which may throw off the isochron that is developed off of the analyses.

And, again, as noted earlier this can be tested for by treatment of either the plot or testing for amount of scatter around the fit line.

actually I meant what I meant, but thank you for the imput. What do you think of another term "cooling ages"? Or rejuvinated isochrons? "so-called "rejuvenated" isochrons are being invoked on an ad-hoc basis, as high-grade metamorphic events are no longer believed to be necessary to disturb the Rb-Sr isochron system"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
where did they get the water in the universe? Thats my question.

also here is another young earth question:

oil bed pressures reduce as oil leaks away through the rock. Then how can petroleum be millions of years old and have such a high underground pressure?



here is a clip on the seepage of gas and oil:

ESCAPING NATURAL GAS—Oil and gas are usually located in a porous and permeable rock like sandstone or limestone, which is sealed by an impermeable rock like shale. Fluids and gas can easily travel through the containing rock, but more slowly pass out of the impermeable cap. Evolutionary theory postulates that tens or hundreds of millions of years ago, the oil and gas was trapped in there.

But in the case of natural gas, it can still get through the shale cap. A recent study analyzed the rate of escapement of gas through shale caps. It was found to be far too rapid for acceptance by evolutionary theory. If the world were billions of years old, all the natural gas would already have escaped.

"Based on the above calculated rate of destruction of commercial-size gas fields, the concept is proposed that gas accumulations in the subsurface have only a limited life in terms of geologic time scales. If this is true, known gas fields in older strata like lower Paleozoic reservoirs can be explained only by assumption of a relatively young accumulation age or by the assumption of a much longer duration of the hydrocarbon generation process than currently accepted."—*D. Leythaeuser, *R.G. Schaefer, and *A. Yukler, "Role of Diffusion in Primary Migration of Hydrocarbons," in American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 66(4):408-429 (1982).

35-OIL PRESSURE—Frequently, when oil well drillers first penetrate into oil, a geyser ("gusher") of oil spews forth. Studies of the permeability of the surrounding rock indicates that any pressure within the oil bed should have bled off within a few thousand years, but this obviously has not happened yet. The excessive pressures within these oil beds refutes the "old earth" theory, and provides strong evidence that these deep rock formations and the entrapped oil are less than 7-10,000 years old. The great pressures now existing in oil reserves could only have been sustained for a few thousand years.

These fluids are retained in the reservoirs under cap rock, but often the pressures are extremely high. Their containing rocks are porous enough that to retain these pressures for periods longer than a few thousand years would apparently be impossible. The fluids should long ago have leaked through their cap rocks to the surface.

Even more extreme are the high-pressure wells. The Lucas gusher oil well at Spindletop, Texas, blew its top in 1901 when it was first drilled. The well was 1,020 feet [3,109 dm] when it began to flow. The oil pressure was so great that it pushed 700 feet [2,134 dm] of drill pipe out of the hole, and the oil gushed up to a height of 200 feet [610 dm] in the air. The flow of Spindletop was 84,000 barrels [133,543 kl] of oil a day. Modern Saudi wells generally flow at about 10,000 to 12,000 barrels [15,898 to 19,078 kl] a day.

Because modern drilling techniques control underground oil pressures, gushers no longer occur and barrels-per-day are now predetermined. But the pressure is still down there! Oil pressure is the result of the pressure of the oil under the cap being greater than the weight of the overlying rocks. Gradually it seeps away and dissipates through the impermeable bed. A young earth is the only explanation for these high pressure oil wells which still exist today.

*Hubbert and *Rubey have worked out an exponential formula for the exhaustion of such fluid pressures in the earth. It is much too low for the demands of evolutionary theory on the age of the earth.

"Because of this continual leakage, abnormal water pressures are thus transient phenomena and require some dynamical activity to bring them into existence and to maintain them." —*M.K Hubbert and *W. W. Rubey, "Role of Fluid Pressure in Mechanics of Overthrust Faulting, " in Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 70(2):115-205 (1959).

36 - OIL SEEPAGE—A 1972 article by Max Blumer ("Submarine Seeps: Are They a Major Source of Open Ocean Oil Pollution?" in Science, vol.176, p. 1257) offers decided evidence that the earth's crust is not as old as evolutionary geologists had thought. Blumer says that oil seepage from the sea floor cannot be a source of oceanic oil pollution. He explains that if that much had been regularly seeping out of the ocean floor, all the oil in offshore wells would be gone long ago if the earth were older than 20,000 years.

In contrast, geologists have already located 630 billion barrels [1,002 billion kl] of oil that can be recovered from off-shore wells. Yet if our planet were older than 20,000 years, there would be no offshore oil of any kind to locate and recover through oil rigs.

37 - LACK OF ANCIENTLY DESTROYED RESERVOIRS—All of the oil in the world must have been placed there only in the recent past. We can know this because if long ages of time had elapsed for earth's history, then we should find evidence of anciently destroyed oil reservoirs. There would be places where all the oil had leaked out and left only residues which would show in drilling cores! But such locations are never found. Coal is found in various stages of decomposition, but —oil reservoirs are never found to have seeped away.

"However, regardless whether one proceeds from organic or inorganic theory, one should observe geologically indisputable cases of ancient destroyed oil accumulations from the late Proterozoic to the present. One sees progressively metamorphosed coal accumulations in the stratigraphic record, but never comparably altered or destroyed oil accumulations."—*V. B. Porfir'ev, "Inorganic Origin of Petroleum," in American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 58(1) (1974), p. 23.

from

THE AGE OF THE EARTH Part 2

So I see, no replies to this one. Must be a winner.

comets have frozen water and gases right?

where did they get the water to freeze up like that?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Valkhorn

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist
Jun 15, 2004
3,009
198
43
Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟19,124.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So I see, no replies to this one. Must be a winner.

comets have frozen water and gases right?

where did they get the water to freeze up like that?

I replied to it. You must have ignored it.

I'm not surprised.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
thats what I would say if I didn't have an answer for inherited isochrons either. Just admit you don't know what the phrase means, it's okay we are all learning here. I can actually tell that you don't have the foggiest. Rick thought that isochrons could not be mixed. However it's the isochrons that are tested not the elements after a mixing occurs. Try again sir.

Gradyll, all inherited means is that the inherited isotope precipitated out of the magma before other did, therefore, the inherited part is older. The isochron method is designed to recognize this problem and account for those discrepancies. Also understand that the inherited part is only associated with a few particular isotopes.

As for thaumaturgy's background, he has a Phd in Geology. I only have a meager Masters.

Remember, you are the person who stated that radiocarbon dating is accurate because it doesn't use isotopes. That one statement tells everyone that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Stop pretending to be something you are not.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Gradyll, all inherited means is that the inherited isotope precipitated out of the magma before other did, therefore, the inherited part is older. The isochron method is designed to recognize this problem and account for those discrepancies. Also understand that the inherited part is only associated with a few particular isotopes.

As for thaumaturgy's background, he has a Phd in Geology. I only have a meager Masters.

Remember, you are the person who stated that radiocarbon dating is accurate because it doesn't use isotopes. That one statement tells everyone that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Stop pretending to be something you are not.

I didn't know you had your masters thats encouraging. But I don't believe the methods for accounting for the older ages is sufficient. I mean how could they possibly account for mixed magma? Thats like taking a swirly ice cream and measuring the amount of vanilla and the amount of chocolate. Somewhere they are going to blend and the lines become fuzzy. But who cares. I could be wrong, you could be. We don't know. so What do you think of another term "cooling ages"? Or rejuvinated isochrons? "so-called "rejuvenated" isochrons are being invoked on an ad-hoc basis, as high-grade metamorphic events are no longer believed to be necessary to disturb the Rb-Sr isochron system"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I replied to it. You must have ignored it.

I'm not surprised.

and I replied to your reply, (post 265)

you want to reply to this reply?

go ahead and reply.

cause I replied to your reply
;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yeah. That must be the reason. (A "real winner" is right.)


.

there must be a reason for awkward silence.

perhaps we are dismayed in utter confusion over the implications of this single young earth implication.


:cool:
 
Upvote 0