Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

The missing link


tazinib1
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And that is more along the lines of what I am speaking of. You are taking what I posted literally & it wasn't really intended to be, my mistake in trying to be brief. The scientist I gave an example of was exactly what I was speaking of. All the time we are hearing stories of scientists doing some sort of research or making some discovery that would seemingly undermine teachings of the Bible or our religion. Whether that is the intended purpose or not really makes no difference to the point I was trying to make.

 

 

:wacko:

 

Rajn had already been taken to task and corrected himself about saying that. I'm just bored at work and :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, that statement has basically now become, "some scientists will do everything in their power science to prove God is just a hoax explain observable data, even if the explanation contradicts a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.

I've never pretended to be a linguistic genius. You could probably take me to task with nearly everything I post in any given serious subject. My grammar for instance is atrocious even though I think I have capable vocabulary and use it in the correct context. Who knows, I may sound like an idiot to the rest of you. :wacko:

 

Like you said, I have no doubt that there are scientists that are out to disprove any notion of God, but I agree it was silly of me to not be clear that I didn't mean EVERY scientist was out to get God. I overstated what I meant, I openly admitted my mistake & clarified myself, so give me a break. :D

Edited by rajncajn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And FWIW - I think the issue of the arguement is in fact the problem: each side argues as if it's mutually exclusive. Who's not to say that 1 God Day is 12 million People Years? The fact is - no one.

 

this i definitely agree with as a possibility. at the same time, there are many issues with radiometric dating, which is the primary method for us coming up with these millions of years claims.

 

what doesn't seem disputable is that people capable of intelligent thought have seemed to only surface on a timeline that agrees with a biblical timeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he's done that twice now.

 

 

 

How by pointing out that in the billions of stars and planets it could actually be statistically impossible to avoid having a "life-creating matrix?" - for lack of a better term. If you want to argue the existence of that scenario, that's something that is mutually exclusive, as I don't believe the actuality of reality proves anything. If there are X quadrillions of chances, and this place is still only 1 in a million, well them there's a whoel United Feredation of Planets waiting out there to be formed is there not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How by pointing out that in the billions of stars and planets it could actually be statistically impossible to avoid having a "life-creating matrix?" - for lack of a better term. If you want to argue the existence of that scenario, that's something that is mutually exclusive, as I don't believe the actuality of reality proves anything. If there are X quadrillions of chances, and this place is still only 1 in a million, well them there's a whoel United Feredation of Planets waiting out there to be formed is there not?

 

really, now who is sounding like a moran. that life-creating matrix you talk about all starts with a single strand of DNA. you can't have evolution or natural selection without first having the replicating machine, which is DNA. no evolutionist can tell you where this first strand came from. if you believe in evolution, which essentially says that we are here via random chance, the odds of that strand of DNA coming together to form what we know as DNA are staggering. it ain't one in a million my friend, it's one in many, many, many trillions. look it up and you will find many people's theories on this, all resulting in odds so incredible it will make your head swim. let alone then factoring in the right conditions for this strand to randomly find it's way into the world and to have an environment suitable for it to survive and replicate over 60 million years (according to you) to finally just form us intelligent thinkers only a mere few thousand years ago.

 

yeah, walk around and act like you know what is going on ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this i definitely agree with as a possibility. at the same time, there are many issues with radiometric dating, which is the primary method for us coming up with these millions of years claims.

 

Decay rates for dating rocks are generally within 2%. And there are a ton of other ways to date material. So yea, I guess if saying a rock is 100 million years old instead of 98 to 102 million years old is an issue; you may have a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Decay rates for dating rocks are generally within 2%. And there are a ton of other ways to date material. So yea, I guess if saying a rock is 100 million years old instead of 98 to 102 million years old is an issue; you may have a point.

 

do some research. they dated 11 year old rock from mt. st. helens to be 1-2 million years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do some research.

 

:wacko:

 

There are indeed ways to "trick" radiometric dating if a single dating method is improperly used on a sample. Anyone can move the hands on a clock and get the wrong time. Likewise, people actively looking for incorrect radiometric dates can in fact get them. Geologists have known for over forty years that the potassium-argon method cannot be used on rocks only twenty to thirty years old. Publicizing this incorrect age as a completely new finding was inappropriate. Be assured that multiple dating methods used together on igneous rocks are almost always correct unless the sample is too difficult to date due to factors such as metamorphism or a large fraction of xenoliths.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wacko:

 

we could play that game for a long time ... :D

 

For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:

 

1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.

 

2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.

 

3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.

 

4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.

 

"But what about the radiometric dating methods? The earth is supposed to be nearly 5 billion years old, and some of these methods seem to verify ancient dates for many of earth's igneous rocks. The answer is that these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially)."

 

"All of the parent and daughter atoms can move through the rocks. Heating and deformation of rocks can cause these atoms to migrate, and water percolating through the rocks can transport these substances and redeposit them. These processes correspond to changing the setting of the clock hands. Not infrequently such resetting of the radiometric clocks is assumed in order to explain disagreements between different measurements of rock ages. The assumed resettings are referred to as `metamorphic events' or `second' or `third events.' "

 

And again,

 

"It is also possible that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could have greatly changed isotopic ratios or the rates at some time in the past."

 

It is known that neutrinos interact with atomic nucleii, so a larger density of neutrinos could have sped up radioactive decay and made matter look old in a hurry. Some more quotes from the same source:

 

a. In the lead-uranium systems both uranium and lead can migrate easily in some rocks, and lead volatilizes and escapes as a vapor at relatively low temperatures. It has been suggested that free neutrons could transform Pb-206 first to Pb-207 and then to Pb-208, thus tending to reset the clocks and throw thorium-lead and uranium-lead clocks completely off, even to the point of wiping out geological time. Furthermore, there is still disagreement of 15 percent between the two preferred values for the U-238 decay constant.

 

b. In the potassium/argon system argon is a gas which can escape from or migrate through the rocks. Potassium volatilizes easily, is easily leached by water, and can migrate through the rocks under certain conditions. Furthermore, the value of the decay constant is still disputed, although the scientific community seems to be approaching agreement. Historically, the decay constants used for the various radiometric dating systems have been adjusted to obtain agreement between the results obtained. In the potassium/argon system another adjustable "constant" called the branching ratio is also not accurately known and is adjusted to give acceptable results.

 

Argon-40, the daughter substance, makes up about one percent of the atmosphere, which is therefore a possible source of contamination. This is corrected for by comparing the ratio argon-40/argon-36 in the rock with that in the atmosphere. However, since it is possible for argon-36 to be formed in the rocks by cosmic radiation, the correction may also be in error. Argon from the environment may be trapped in magma by pressure and rapid cooling to give very high erroneous age results. In view of these and other problems it is hardly surprising that the potassium/argon method can yield highly variable results, even among different minerals in the same rock.

 

c. In the strontium/rubidium system the strontium-87 daughter atoms are very plentiful in the earth's crust. Rubidium-87 parent atoms can be leached out of the rock by water or volatilized by heat.

 

All of these special problems as well as others can produce contradictory and erroneous results for the various radiometric dating systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we could play that game for a long time ... :wacko:

 

:D

 

Yes, we could; but I'll almost always be quoting mainstream scientific opinions supported by facts and observations. There are certain ethical and competency guidelines involved in the field of Science. The stuff you just quoted appears to be from a Computer Science Teacher with a Creationist agenda, and is chock full of misinformation.

 

Back to the the rock in question. Does it matter at all that the rock was collected by a Creationist and sent to a lab where he requested a test that every scientist worth his salt knows doesn't work? All in an effort to prove a misguided point?

 

It sure should.

Edited by bushwacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wacko:

 

Yes, we could; but I'll almost always be quoting mainstream scientific opinions supported by facts and observations. There are certain ethical and competency guidelines involved in the field of Science. The stuff you just quoted appears to be from a Computer Science Teacher with a Creationist agenda, and is chock full of misinformation.

 

Back to the the rock in question. Does it matter at all that the rock was collected by a Creationist and sent to a lab where he requested a test that every scientist worth his salt knows doesn't work? All in an effort to prove a misguided point?

 

It sure should.

 

you are the missing link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified. Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.). With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples (Dalrymple, 1969, p. 48). That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples. For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects. Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer??? Contrary to Swenson's uninformed claim that ' Dr Austin carefully designed the research to counter all possible objections', Austin clearly demonstrated his inexperience in geochronology when he wasted a lot of money using the K-Ar method on the wrong type of samples.

 

that's the best you've got, ton? some creationist sends a new rock to a lab that says right up front they can't accurately date rocks younger than 2 million years, and when they get the predictably erroneous result, "ah ha! that proves it is all bunk!"

 

seriously, that's the best you've got?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's the best you've got, ton? some creationist sends a new rock to a lab that says right up front they can't accurately date rocks younger than 2 million years, and when they get the predictably erroneous result, "ah ha! that proves it is all bunk!"

 

seriously, that's the best you've got?

 

there's tons. some interesting quotes ... there are volumes of stuff that call these methods into question.

 

"Two important assumptions are implicit in this equation: First, that we are dealing with a closed system. And second, that no atoms of the daughter were present in the system when it formed. These assumptions furnish the most serious limitations on the accumulation clock. Rigorously closed systems probably do not exist in nature, but surprisingly, many minerals and rocks satisfy the requirement well enough to be useful for nuclear age determination. The problem is one of judicious geologic selection.", Henry Fall, "ASSUMPTIONS", AGES OF ROCKS, PLANETS & STARS, p.vi.

 

"Certain assumptions presupposes that the concentration of uranium in any specimen has remained constant over the specimen's life...groundwater percolation can leach away a proportion of the uranium present in the rock crystals. The mobility of the uranium is such that as one part of a rock formation is being improvised another part can become abnormally enriched. Such changes can also take place at relatively low temperatures." J.D. Macdougall, “SHIFTY URANIUM”, Scientific American, Vol.235(6):118

 

"What complicates things for the uranium-lead method is that nonradiogenic lead 204, 206, 207 and 208 also exist naturally, and scientists are not sure what the ratios of nonradiogenic to radiogenic lead were early in the moon's history...The problem of how much lead was around to begin with still remains...If all of the age-dating methods (rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead and potassium-argon) had yielded the same ages, the picture would be neat. But they haven't. The lead ages, for example, have been consistently older...Isotopic ages have been obtained for material from five landing sites on the moon--those of Apollo's 11, 12, 14, 15 and Luna 16; each site has a different age. But in a given site, the ages also vary...Ideally, however, any one basaltic rock from a given site should yield the same isotopic age, regardless of the method used.", Everly Driscoll, "DATING OF MOON SAMPLES: PITFALLS AND PARADOXES", Science News, Vol. 101, p. 12

 

"Studies of the helium method (2) have shown that low ages based on helium, obtained on common rockforming minerals, do not necessarily reflect diffusive loss of helium from the lattices of those minerals; under ideal conditions, some mineral lattices even appear to retain helium quantitatively for longer than 10 8years." Fanale & Schaeffer, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Science Vol.149, p.312

 

"There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man." Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC, Industrial Research & Development, p.21, Tune 1982

 

"It is now well known that KAr ages obtained from different minerals in a single rock may be strikingly discordant." Joan C. Engels, “DIFFERENT AGES FROM ONE ROCK”, Journal of Geology, ,Vol.79, p.609

 

"We suspect that the lack of concordance may result in some part, from the choice of isotope ratios from primitive lead, rather than from lead gain or Uranium loss. It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite, lead isotope data is in doubt and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the earth are placed in jeopardy." Gail, Arden, & Huchenson Oxford, FOUNDATION DECAYS, Nature, Vol.240, p.67.

 

"The radiogenic argon and helium contents of three basalts erupted into the deep ocean from an active volcano (Kilauea) have been measured. Ages calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22 million years for lavas deduced to be recent....it is possible to deduce that these lavas are very young, probably less than 200 years old. The samples, in fact, may be very recent...", C.S. Nobel & J.J. Naughton, RECENT LAVA @ 22M, Dept. of Chem, Hawaiian Inst. of Geophysics, Science, Vol.162, p.265

 

"In conventional interpretation of KAr age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon." A. HAYATSU, “ARBITRARY”, Dept. of Geophysics, U. of Western Ontario, Canadian Journal Of Earth Science, 16:974.

 

 

"In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are the discrepancies fully explained." R. L. MAUGER, E. Carolina U., DISSENTERS EJECTED, Contributions To Geology, Vol.15 (1): 17

 

 

"If we assume that (1) a rock contained no Pb206 when it was formed, (2) all Pb206 now in the rock was produced by radioactive decay of u238, (3) the rate of decay has been constant, (4) there has been no differential leaching by water of either element, and (5) no U238 has been transported into the rock from another source, then we might expect our estimate of age to be fairly accurate. Each assumption is a potential variable, the magnitude of which can seldom be ascertained. In cases where the daughter product is a gas, as in the decay of potassium (K40) to the gas argon (Ar 40) it is essential that none of the gas escapes from the rock over long periods of time...It is obvious that radiometric technique may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists...". W.D. Stansfield, Prof. Biological Science, Cal. Polyt. State U., THE SCIENCE OF EVOLUTION, 1977, p.84.

 

 

"The two principle problems have been the uncertainties in the radioactive decay constants of potassium and in the ability of minerals to retain the argon produced by this decay.” G.W. Wetherill, "Radioactivity of Potassium and Geologic Time," in Science, September 20, 1957, p. 545.

 

 

"The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite, which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986, gives a whole rock K-Ar 'age ' of 0.35 ± 0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from the dacite, which formed in 1986, give K-Ar 'ages 'from 0.34 ± 0.06 Ma (feldspar-glass concentrate) to 2.8 ± 0.6 Ma (pyroxene concentrate). These 'ages 'are, of course, preposterous. The fundamental dating assumption ('no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed ') is questioned by these data. Instead, data from this Mount St. Helens dacite argue that significant 'excess argon 'was present when the lava solidified in 1986." Steven A. Austin, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal Vol. 10 (Part 3) - ISSN 1036 CEN Tech. J, 1996.

 

"Processes of rock alteration may render a volcanic rock useless for potassium-argon dating . . We have analyzed several devitrified glasses of known age, and all have yielded ages that are too young. Some gave virtually zero ages, although the geologic evidence suggested that devitrification took place shortly after the formation of a deposit." J.F. Evernden, et. al., "K / A Dates and Cenozoic Mannalian Chronology of North America," in American Journal of Science, February 1964, p. 154.

 

"As much as 80 percent of the potassium in a small sample of an iron meteorite can be removed by distilled water in 4.5 hours." L.A. Rancitelli and D.E. Fisher, "Potassium-Argon Ages of Iron Meteorites," in Planetary Science Abstracts, 48th Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (1967), p. 167.

 

“Situations for which we have both the carbon-14 and potassium-argon ages for the same event usually indicate that the potassium-argon ‘clock’ did not get set back to zero. Trees buried in an eruption of Mount Rangotito in Auckland Bay area of New Zealand provide a prime example. The carbon-14 age of the buried trees is only 225 years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a 465,000-year potassium-argon age.” (Harold Coffin, Origin by Design, pp. 400.)

 

“Lunar soil collected by Apollo 11 gave discordant ages by different methods” Pb207/Pb206, 4.67 billion ; Pb206 / U238, 5.41 billion; Pb207 / U238, 5.41 billion; Pb207 / U235, 4.89 billion; and Pb208 / Th232, 8.2 billion years. Rocks from the same location yielded K / Ar ages of around 2.3 billion years.” (R.E. Kofahl and K.L. Segraves, Creation Explanation (1975), pp. 200, 201.)

 

"Actually, the method (of comparing lead isotopes to make specimen dating more accurate) is subject to several errors. [1] Loss of radon 222 raises the lead: lead ratio and the calculated age. [2] A rather large error may be introduced by the uncertainty in the composition of the original lead. This error may exceed the measured value when dealing with younger uranium minerals containing even small amounts of original lead, as clearly recognized by Holmes when the method was first proposed. [3] Presence of old radiogenic lead (formed in a prior site of the parent uranium) may cause great error. [4] Instrumental errors in mass spectrometry may yield consistently high apparent proportions of lead 204 and lead 207. [5] Re-distribution of elements by renewed hydrothermal activity may be a serious source of error in all-lead methods. Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology (1954), p. 295.

 

"And what essentially is this actual time scale? On what criteria does it rest? When all is winnowed out and the grain reclaimed from the chaff it is certain that the grain in the product is mainly the paleontologic record [strata dating based on index fossil theories] and highly likely that the physical record [radioactive dating] is the chaff "~*E.M. Spieker, "Mountain-Building Chronology and the Nature of the Geologic Time-Scale," in Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, August 1956, p 1806.

 

"The two uranium-lead ages often differ from each other markedly, and the thorium-lead age on the same mineral is almost always drastically lower than either of the others. " L.T. Aldrich, "Measurement of Radioactive Ages of Rocks," in Science, May 18, 1956, p.872.

 

"Most of the ages obtained by the lead:thorium method disagree with the ages of the same minerals computed by other lead methods. The reasons for this disagreement are largely unknown. Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology (1954), p.295.

 

"The most reasonable age (from among the many conflicting "dates" offered) can be selected only alter careful consideration of independent geochronologic data as well as field, stratigraphic and paleontologic evidence, and the petrographic and paragenetic relations.” L.R. Stief, T.W. Stem and R.N. Eichler, "Algebraic and Graphic Methods for Evaluating Discordant Lead-Isotope Ages," in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers, No. 414-E (1963).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information