Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Young Earth evidence (2)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RickG" data-source="post: 60471169" data-attributes="member: 293581"><p>You know gradyll, it is really difficult for me to believe that you are sincere in what you are posting. I really do get the feeling that you are doing nothing more than trying to pull everyone's string.</p><p></p><p>Really! Let's look at this.</p><p></p><p>You cite Woodmorappe's book on dating methods, and give two of his citations as proof that geochronologists discard the dates they don't want and keep the ones they want. I looked at both papers and what did I find?</p><p></p><p>I found that both papers describe specific problems with the potasium/argon (K/Ar) dating method. In their description they discussed in detail on what type of rocks the K/Ar method is reliable and what type of rocks it is not reliable. There is not discarding of said inconvenient dates. I also added my input to make specific points as follows:</p><p></p><p>1. Extrusive igneous (volcanic) rocks may not give reliable dates because they may come in contact with atmospheric argon (40Ar).</p><p></p><p>2. Intrusive igneous rocks, those that cool and solidify below the surface, do not come in contact with atmospheric argon and therefore are not contaminated by 40Ar. The K/Ar method is completely reliable with that class of rocks.</p><p></p><p>3. As described in those papers as well, there are two additional methods that can account of the excess 40Ar in extrusive rocks, thus give reliable dates. They are the 40Ar/39Ar method and the 40Ar/36Ar methods, where true daughter 40Ar is separated atmospheric 40Ar.</p><p></p><p>You also made the claim (via Woodmorappe) that the Rb/Sr method is unreliable as well. I responded by giving you two specific problems that can be encountered with that methods. Both problems are easily recognizable and avoid even before testing. (1) Metamorphic rocks are not reliable with the Rb/Sr method due to subsequent heat histories and (2) Magma that is not well mixed. Nevertheless, those dates can be verified or discounted by testing with other isotope methods.</p><p></p><p>You also made the "fantastic" statement that carbon dating is accurate because it doesn't use isotopes. By such a statement I gather all dating methods that don't use isotopes to arrive at a date are accurate by your summation.</p><p></p><p>Guess what? Radiocarbon dating uses the cosmogenic isotope 14-Carbon (14C). Carbon-14 is generated in the upper atmosphere through the reaction of high energy photons with 14-Nitrogen (14N). Radiocarbon dating also gives accurate dates up to 60,000 years, but is used to date organic material generally of much less age.</p><p></p><p>Now, a challenge for you if you honestly believe what Woodmorappe says in his book. Go back to the two papers cited, critique them thoroughly and tell me and all posters and lurkers in this thread where you find:</p><p></p><p><em><strong>"But what about when dates that are invalidated are often covered up and tagged with a special language to validate them. Orwellian language it is called. These include "<span style="color: Magenta">delayed uplift ages</span>, <span style="color: RoyalBlue">cooling ages</span>, <span style="color: DarkOrchid">thermochronologic information</span>, <span style="color: Magenta">rejuvenated dates</span>, <span style="color: DarkOrange">inherited isochrons</span>, and many other types of doublespeak."</strong></em></p><p></p><p>So you don't have to backtrack and search the thread here they are:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/105_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr105_47.pdf" target="_blank">http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/105_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr105_47.pdf</a></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/35/1/17.abstract" target="_blank">Dating young basalt eruptions by (U-Th)/He on xenolithic zircons</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RickG, post: 60471169, member: 293581"] You know gradyll, it is really difficult for me to believe that you are sincere in what you are posting. I really do get the feeling that you are doing nothing more than trying to pull everyone's string. Really! Let's look at this. You cite Woodmorappe's book on dating methods, and give two of his citations as proof that geochronologists discard the dates they don't want and keep the ones they want. I looked at both papers and what did I find? I found that both papers describe specific problems with the potasium/argon (K/Ar) dating method. In their description they discussed in detail on what type of rocks the K/Ar method is reliable and what type of rocks it is not reliable. There is not discarding of said inconvenient dates. I also added my input to make specific points as follows: 1. Extrusive igneous (volcanic) rocks may not give reliable dates because they may come in contact with atmospheric argon (40Ar). 2. Intrusive igneous rocks, those that cool and solidify below the surface, do not come in contact with atmospheric argon and therefore are not contaminated by 40Ar. The K/Ar method is completely reliable with that class of rocks. 3. As described in those papers as well, there are two additional methods that can account of the excess 40Ar in extrusive rocks, thus give reliable dates. They are the 40Ar/39Ar method and the 40Ar/36Ar methods, where true daughter 40Ar is separated atmospheric 40Ar. You also made the claim (via Woodmorappe) that the Rb/Sr method is unreliable as well. I responded by giving you two specific problems that can be encountered with that methods. Both problems are easily recognizable and avoid even before testing. (1) Metamorphic rocks are not reliable with the Rb/Sr method due to subsequent heat histories and (2) Magma that is not well mixed. Nevertheless, those dates can be verified or discounted by testing with other isotope methods. You also made the "fantastic" statement that carbon dating is accurate because it doesn't use isotopes. By such a statement I gather all dating methods that don't use isotopes to arrive at a date are accurate by your summation. Guess what? Radiocarbon dating uses the cosmogenic isotope 14-Carbon (14C). Carbon-14 is generated in the upper atmosphere through the reaction of high energy photons with 14-Nitrogen (14N). Radiocarbon dating also gives accurate dates up to 60,000 years, but is used to date organic material generally of much less age. Now, a challenge for you if you honestly believe what Woodmorappe says in his book. Go back to the two papers cited, critique them thoroughly and tell me and all posters and lurkers in this thread where you find: [I][B]"But what about when dates that are invalidated are often covered up and tagged with a special language to validate them. Orwellian language it is called. These include "[COLOR=Magenta]delayed uplift ages[/COLOR], [COLOR=RoyalBlue]cooling ages[/COLOR], [COLOR=DarkOrchid]thermochronologic information[/COLOR], [COLOR=Magenta]rejuvenated dates[/COLOR], [COLOR=DarkOrange]inherited isochrons[/COLOR], and many other types of doublespeak."[/B][/I] So you don't have to backtrack and search the thread here they are: [URL]http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/105_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr105_47.pdf[/URL] [URL="http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/35/1/17.abstract"]Dating young basalt eruptions by (U-Th)/He on xenolithic zircons[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Young Earth evidence (2)
Top
Bottom