Jump to content


Photo

Volcanic Island Chains


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#21 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 25 February 2017 - 03:15 PM

As for the science, some basic reading I have done on your proposed example has already led me to several errors you have made.

One of those errors is an ad hominem attack that CMI isn't honest. The chances are the examples they speak of are either common knowledge to science or are linked at the bottoms of the page. You can contact CMI about this and I am satisfied they will be able to show you.


Is that your only example of an “error” I have made ? It wasn’t an ad hominem anyway, the dishonesty I refer to isn’t principally the vague mention of erroneous dates, it is the failure to mention anything about the age gradient graph, the measured GPS rate, the coral evidence, the sediment, the erosional evidence. Quite a lot there that they’ve “forgotten” to mention.
 

Your example of an atoll for example, logically unless you can prove the reef itself is the same long age your propose the island is, then it isn't evidence of the island's age, which is an example of your poor understanding of logic, for if the atoll is thousands of years old, that doesn't prove an island is millions of years old.

All you have said here is, "I believe in this rate, that it can only be old", but that changes nothing I have said, because as with the corals, sometimes it can even be shown things happen quickly but evolutionists can't wait for examples of things happening quickly, so they argue from ignorance;


No it is you that constantly argues from ignorance. An example of the branches of a specific coral species growing more rapidly than all other corals does not mean that the mass of the reef as a whole can grow vertically that fast. This is an example of you falling on your own logical sword again, you are guilty here of isolated induction because a reef is comprised of many different corals and you haven’t even shown that any examples are relevant to Hawaiian reefs. Trawling through the literature looking for extreme cases purely to bolster an a priori belief is pretty lame. Like in the case of the claimed 414mm/year growth rate in an obscure 1932 paper referenced in that AiG article to explain away the 1400m drilled depth of solid reef for the Eniwetok atoll in the Marshall Islands, they take the most extreme maximum per annum value listed in the paper and posit this figure as the average rate every year for thousands of years since the flood. Is that logical ?

Anyway I digress somewhat because the main significance of the atoll is that it forms as the island subsides (more of that below)
 

Poor reasoning again. You are asking me to accept the dates given which indicate 70 million years, in objecting to me not accepting a date of 70 million years. THINK about it Wibble - use your brain for once since you are so rational and we a bunch of crystal healers. You are saying this; "if you think this dating method is wrong because it dated a new rock we know is new to be a million years old or whatever, then how come these other rocks we say are 70 million years old because of the dating method, are dated older?"


This is a non answer. If you think there is contamination, you need to explain how the contamination occurs in such an exactly prescribed way in increasing doses that results in that straight line gradient which just so happens to match the GPS rate.
 

So stop attacking me and creationists personally, and relying on insults.


I’m doing no such thing. How exactly am I relying on insults ?
 

as plates accelerated during the Flood and then decelerated, so radioactive decay rates accelerated, apparently in lockstep, and then decelerated. Thus the volcanic rocks that formed earlier as the Pacific plate moved over the “hot spot” yield exaggerated radioactive dates due to quickly ticking radioactive clocks. As the Flood ended, both plate motions and radioactive decay rates slowed. These are not true absolute dates because the “clock” was ticking faster than it does today


Apart from the obvious problems that this arbitrary decay rate increase melts the planet, this is just an ad hoc argument because there is no reason to invent this idea of rapid plate movement except to shoehorn the known amount of drift into a biblical timescale. Why did the totally separate physics of plate movement and radioactive decay vary in lockstep with each other to give the illusion of millions of years ?
 

So Wibble - I've "done the science", seems the size of the island favours the catastrophic plate tectonics, because as the snail's pace of movement kicked in, the lava would have more time to knife through.


If it happened over millions of years of uniformity then we would expect the size of the islands to be similar, meaning that is one correlation which does not correlate to old age.


No, as I’ve mentioned several times the islands reduce in size due to subsidence (the weight of the island pressing down on the mantle) and erosion. We know these volcanic islands have subsided due to the presence of coral atolls, which you don’t seem to have considered, even though I showed you the graphic of how they form. The ring of the atoll can only form as a fringing reef grows upwards while the central island sinks. Plus subsidence is directly measured, using tide gauges, the Big Island of Hawaii is subsiding at 3mm a year, 30 cm a century. Radiometric dating* (234U/238U isotopes) of drowned reef terraces off north western Hawaii indicate that subsidence has been occurring at a roughly uniform rate of 2.6/mm a year for the last 475 thousand years. (yet more convergence of data)

*source

I will also point out that these reefs, being associated with the youngest end of the island chain would (according to the YEC model) have formed well after the Flood had ended, therefore you can’t arbitrarily invoke accelerated decay.

The older seamounts have drowned coral reefs and atolls at the inky black depths of more than a kilometre. This by itself falsifies the catastrophic plate story for the formation of seamounts, as it states that they are low and didn’t break the surface because the plate moved too quickly during or shortly after the Flood despite large volumes of lava. Please explain the presence of these drowned reefs considering reefs need sunlight to form and considering that atolls can only progress from reefs fringing islands.
 

CONCLUSION: This is why I don't "do" the details of the science any more, and argue minutia Wibble, because guess what happens every time I do that? I find the creationist explanation is better than the long age one to the point where I basically predict to myself that the evolutionist is either deceived into thinking the evidence can only mean long ages, or has basically lied or omitted information or is just plain ignorant of the creationist explanations which at the very least, make more sense than the long age ones.


A good smattering of insults in that paragraph Mike, careful you are not accused of hypocrisy.

As you can see, I haven’t omitted any information (unlike CMI, and indeed AiG) and I read both those sites before I started this thread.

You don’t do the details of science because you prefer to remain in ignorance so that you are then able to uncritically lap up the powder puff explanations on CMI that omit to mention swathes of relevant information.



#22 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 26 February 2017 - 12:56 AM

Is that your only example of an “error” I have made ? It wasn’t an ad hominem anyway, the dishonesty I refer to isn’t principally the vague mention of erroneous dates, it is the failure to mention anything about the age gradient graph, the measured GPS rate, the coral evidence, the sediment, the erosional evidence. Quite a lot there that they’ve “forgotten” to mention.

 

Mike mentions quite a few other errors as well. But if CMI does mention some of the above (like the coral evidence) then what you are saying is simple false and it is you who is dishonest rather than CMI. And CMI does just that, for example they mention that the cyclone Bebe in 1972 ‘constructed’ a rampart of coral rubble 3.5 metres high, 37 metres wide and 18 kilometres long in a few hours (J.E. Maragos, G.B.K. Baines, and P.J. Beveridge, ‘Tropical Cyclone Bebe Creates a New Land Formation on Funafuti Atoll’, Science 181:1161–1164, 1973.). And if those things could happen, how do we know that large coral reef is just due to an annual growth of 0.8 - 80 millimetres per year?
 
The big question I think is whether correlation necessarily implies causation. You have a lot of correlations, but it might be something else entirely that causes these correlations. It does not need to be long ages and slow continuous processes that are the cause. Why not read about it on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia...imply_causation) for example.

  • mike the wiz likes this

#23 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,615 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 February 2017 - 04:01 AM

 

Wibble: A good smattering of insults in that paragraph Mike, careful you are not accused of hypocrisy.


As you can see, I haven’t omitted any information (unlike CMI, and indeed AiG) and I read both those sites before I started this thread.

You don’t do the details of science because you prefer to remain in ignorance so that you are then able to uncritically lap up the powder puff explanations on CMI that omit to mention swathes of relevant information.

 

An ad hominem is when the person argues the person instead of the argument.

 

For example you are trying to place the focus of debate on my "ignorance", of science but the chances are I probably know a fair but more about science in some areas than you do. So unless you have some qualifications, amateur qualifications in radiometric dating or better qualifications, really it is a rhetorical trick you're playing to put the focus on me, but in a debate you have to prove my reasoning is wrong and I have provided many reasonings in this thread which count as part of the science that deals with critical thinking. That is to say, I can take the information I do read, and come to correct conclusions. You yourself have read very little more into this topic than me, unless you can show us your scientific qualifications.

 

So stop using the most common diversionary-fallacy as a way of ignoring all of my unrefuted explanations.

 

Not pretending I have more scientific knowledge that I do have, doesn't mean you are scientific and I am not, for I don't believe you would count as even having an amateur knowledge of this issue. Reading a few articles doesn't make you a scientists and me an ignoramus.

 

 

 

Wibble: An example of the branches of a specific coral species growing more rapidly than all other corals does not mean that the mass of the reef as a whole can grow vertically that fast. This is an example of you falling on your own logical sword again, you are guilty here of isolated induction because a reef is comprised of many different corals and you haven’t even shown that any examples are relevant to Hawaiian reefs. Trawling through the literature looking for extreme cases purely to bolster an a priori belief is pretty lame. 

 

No, I haven't fallen on my "logical sword" because as proven hundreds of times over at this forum, I know a lot more than you do about such things. Your simplistic comparison, is genuinely ignorant. (not as an insult, but genuinely you lack knowledge by making such a simplistic comparison.)

 

In this example you have confused a percentage-sample with an induction. But even so you have made a mistake because there are no examples at all of long age corals, since we have never sampled any. We can logically sample a living coral, we can provably, scientifically, show they can happen quickly, but we can't show they happen slowly, as we don't have the time to, so there is no reason to assume the whole coral can't grow fast if there are no physical causes you know of that could stop that from happening. For example, are there any special evidences you have as to why a smaller portion can grow fast but a large one can't?

 

That is to say, if we have presented to us a car, and we don't know what cars can do (we shall pretend), then that percentage sample of data, may represent all data. So for example if a car can steer, brake, go relatively fast, etc..from this sample, because the sample represents the characteristics of all cars, it is reasonable to infer that all cars may be able to do these things by design, if the one can.

 

In the same way if one coral can grow, unless there is some special reason why others can't then it's safe to assume they all can grow fast if subjected to environmental change, and a flood would wreak all types of environmental post-changes on earth for some time, one of them being faster rates for continental drift, etc.. causing that pattern of island sizes, otherwise you are special pleading. It may cause corals to grow faster to. From a flood-model perspective, it makes sense that the rates of change post flood after the violence, may happen quicker. For example if you cut yourself at first the clotting may be fast, but the scab and the full healing will happen more slowly. After a violent process effecting the whole earth, to assume all things would remain stable is MOST ABSURD. There could be all manner of strange effects, and highly likely it is too. Like Tirian said, if a cyclone can make it happen, what about a mega cyclone? 

 

But with an isolated piece of exclusive evidence where it is the induction of evidence which supports a notion, it's not the same thing because there are many types of evidence for an isolated event, which will not rely on the type of evidence which is a sample which can apply to the whole.

 

So with my example of exclusive evidence, that is an entirely different type of case.

 

I am satisfied at this stage of debate, that basically you are ignoring all of my salient points in order to bolster an attack mainly directed at me and CMI, which are personal attacks because you can't refute the arguments. The fact is if something can happen quickly, provably, this counts much more than mere evidence it might happen slowly. Deductive proof is much more powerful than an inference of circumstantial evidence taken from dodgy uniform rates. Another factor is how much argon is boosted in the sample rate from that type of rock which is volcanic. 

 

I am now bored with your rhetoric and vitriol, all you do is DODGE the main points. It's good bye to you.



#24 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 26 February 2017 - 03:08 PM

Mike mentions quite a few other errors as well. But if CMI does mention some of the above (like the coral evidence) then what you are saying is simple false and it is you who is dishonest rather than CMI.


The CMI article about the Hawaiian chain does not mention any of the things I listed, including the coral so what I said is simply true actually, it is very easy to check. So will you withdraw the dishonesty accusation ?
 

And CMI does just that, for example they mention that the cyclone Bebe in 1972 ‘constructed’ a rampart of coral rubble 3.5 metres high, 37 metres wide and 18 kilometres long in a few hours (J.E. Maragos, G.B.K. Baines, and P.J. Beveridge, ‘Tropical Cyclone Bebe Creates a New Land Formation on Funafuti Atoll’, Science 181:1161–1164, 1973.). And if those things could happen, how do we know that large coral reef is just due to an annual growth of 0.8 - 80 millimetres per year?


So you find this from a different webpage on the CMI site which isn’t about the Hawaiian chain and this is your basis for your dishonesty accusation ?

I assume you know what an atoll is ? How does a cyclone deposit a ring of coral rubble ?
 

The big question I think is whether correlation necessarily implies causation. You have a lot of correlations, but it might be something else entirely that causes these correlations. It does not need to be long ages and slow continuous processes that are the cause. Why not read about it on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia...imply_causation) for example.


I’m quite aware of that but when you have several independent lines of evidence (measured GPS rate, K-Ar dates, measured subsidence rate, inferred subsidence rate from reef terraces, erosional sequence of the islands, sediment depths on old seamounts, drowned reefs at great depths all converging on the same picture of great age then its hard to draw any other conclusion don’t you think ?

Any positive evidence of youth (Mike wheels in dino tissue like its some kind of get out of jail free card) to counter this is conspicuously absent from this thread, only ad hoc claims that it was just different in the past somehow.

The evidence speaks for itself and the only reason you won’t accept it is because you are not permitted to because of your faith.

What's the point in debating if it's impossible for your mind to be changed by evidence ?
 



#25 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 27 February 2017 - 04:32 PM

An ad hominem is when the person argues the person instead of the argument.

For example you are trying to place the focus of debate on my "ignorance", of science but the chances are I probably know a fair but more about science in some areas than you do. So unless you have some qualifications, amateur qualifications in radiometric dating or better qualifications, really it is a rhetorical trick you're playing to put the focus on me, but in a debate you have to prove my reasoning is wrong and I have provided many reasonings in this thread which count as part of the science that deals with critical thinking. That is to say, I can take the information I do read, and come to correct conclusions. You yourself have read very little more into this topic than me, unless you can show us your scientific qualifications.

So stop using the most common diversionary-fallacy as a way of ignoring all of my unrefuted explanations.

Not pretending I have more scientific knowledge that I do have, doesn't mean you are scientific and I am not, for I don't believe you would count as even having an amateur knowledge of this issue. Reading a few articles doesn't make you a scientists and me an ignoramus.


Firstly, you admit your own ignorance of science because you have stated more than once on this forum that you don’t read secular sources and your attempts of a scientific rebuttal generally consist of copy pastes from CMI, a propaganda website.

Secondly, it is actually you who are trying to place the focus on a single line out of my post and diverting attention from all the facts I have presented.

Thirdly, why on earth should I need qualifications in radiometric dating, I only need to present the evidence as gathered by the scientific community. Are you saying that no one can discuss anything on this forum unless we have formal training in a particular subject ?
 

In the same way if one coral can grow, unless there is some special reason why others can't then it's safe to assume they all can grow fast if subjected to environmental change, and a flood would wreak all types of environmental post-changes on earth for some time, one of them being faster rates for continental drift, etc.. causing that pattern of island sizes, otherwise you are special pleading. It may cause corals to grow faster to. From a flood-model perspective, it makes sense that the rates of change post flood after the violence, may happen quicker. For example if you cut yourself at first the clotting may be fast, but the scab and the full healing will happen more slowly. After a violent process effecting the whole earth, to assume all things would remain stable is MOST ABSURD.


Surely its special pleading if you take an extreme, misleading or isolated case of a specific coral and then extrapolate that this must have happened to all coral continuously for thousands of years just so that it can be fitted into a biblical timescale ? Or maybe it’s the cherry picking fallacy, you’re the logical expert, you tell me.

It’s like you’re just swinging in the dark. Sure, this global Flood (for which there is no evidence ever happened) would have wreaked environmental change, indeed environmental havoc (an assertion a causal link to super rapid continental drift is baseless though). You can’t just assert it may have caused coral to grow faster, you need to give reasons and evidence. How does it make sense, as you assert ? What has clotting blood got to do with it ?
 

all you do is DODGE the main points


That’s rich coming from you (and which points have I dodged ?). What have you said about the existence of drowned reefs ? The deep sediment on the northernmost seamounts ? Nothing. The correlations I’ve mentioned ? It just coincidentally happened that way. You should have left it at admitting that the evidence looked compelling, because you were right, it most certainly is.

You can pretend that I have only served up vitriol and rhetoric as your parting shot as you run away but that is just nonsense and you know it.
 



#26 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 28 February 2017 - 12:05 AM

The CMI article about the Hawaiian chain does not mention any of the things I listed, including the coral so what I said is simply true actually, it is very easy to check. So will you withdraw the dishonesty accusation ?

 

When you withdraw the dishonesty accusation against CMI, I might. But in the original context the following was written:
 

 

One of those errors is an ad hominem attack that CMI isn't honest. The chances are the examples they speak of are either common knowledge to science or are linked at the bottoms of the page. You can contact CMI about this and I am satisfied they will be able to show you.

Is that your only example of an “error” I have made ? It wasn’t an ad hominem anyway, the dishonesty I refer to isn’t principally the vague mention of erroneous dates, it is the failure to mention anything about the age gradient graph, the measured GPS rate, the coral evidence, the sediment, the erosional evidence. Quite a lot there that they’ve “forgotten” to mention.

 

 
It's crystal clear that Mike actually means that it could be located elsewhere on CMI, he even says you could contact them if you don't find it yourself. And it is in that context that you talk about the failure to mention the coral evidence. If CMI are dishonest as you claim they are, it shouldn't be mentioned on their website at all. And if they do, who is the one being dishonest?
 

So you find this from a different webpage on the CMI site which isn’t about the Hawaiian chain and this is your basis for your dishonesty accusation ? I assume you know what an atoll is ? How does a cyclone deposit a ring of coral rubble ?

 
It really doesn't matter if a cyclone can deposit a ring of coral rubble. Because that's not my endgame here. The thing I'm doing is to scientifically falsify the notion that coral growth only can happen by a uniform process with an average of a few millimeters per year. If we know that coral reef can be formed both faster than the suggested rates and that catastrophic events may build it much faster, then the notion of it being formed by a uniform process is just a falsified speculations that no serious scientist ought to entertain. Three questions for you to think about:
 
Is it impossible for coral reefs to grow more than 80 mm in one year?
Is it possible for catastrophic events to influence the size of a coral reef?
How do you know at what rate a certain coral reef has been formed?
 

I’m quite aware of that but when you have several independent lines of evidence (measured GPS rate, K-Ar dates, measured subsidence rate, inferred subsidence rate from reef terraces, erosional sequence of the islands, sediment depths on old seamounts, drowned reefs at great depths all converging on the same picture of great age then its hard to draw any other conclusion don’t you think ?

 

No I don't think that. I think you are doing unwarranted extrapolations from a limited source of possible causes. The whole thing seems to be viewed with uniformitarianism in mind, i.e. the present is the key to the past. But haven't we just showed that in the coral case that viewpoint doesn't hold? So are K-Ar residue or the size of coral reefs (the facts) really caused by slow processes over a long time. Or are they caused by something else? How do we know?
 

Any positive evidence of youth (Mike wheels in dino tissue like its some kind of get out of jail free card) to counter this is conspicuously absent from this thread, only ad hoc claims that it was just different in the past somehow.

The evidence speaks for itself and the only reason you won’t accept it is because you are not permitted to because of your faith.

What's the point in debating if it's impossible for your mind to be changed by evidence ?

 

You are simply wrong here. The facts are at best inconclusive, they are just interpreted to say things. And it is YOUR faith that is a hinderance when talking ages, rather than the other way around. From a Christian point of view the earth could be young or old (even though I myself might lean more towards believing in a young earth). But how about yourself. If God does not exist, is a young earth even an option?



#27 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 February 2017 - 01:16 AM

Quote

https://answersingen...stant-paradise/

 

Dr snelling: Excess argon rises with the lavas from beneath the earth’s crust, contaminating them so that they yield excessively old dates.6 This volcanic argon gas does not arise from radioactive decay of the potassium in the rocks, but instead it is trapped in the basalts, making them “read” older. Furthermore, potassium-argon dates of volcanic rocks on seamounts can increase with depth underwater, regardless of actual age.7

This type of faulty assumption behind radioactive dating leads to exaggerated dates.8 Another crucial, unverifiable assumption made by evolutionary scientists is that the decay rate has been constant throughout time—that is, the radioactive “clocks” have always ticked at the same rate. But creation research has demonstrated that all the decay rates were grossly accelerated in the recent past, during the global Flood cataclysm.9

This finding indicates that, just as plates accelerated during the Flood and then decelerated, so radioactive decay rates accelerated, apparently in lockstep, and then decelerated. Thus the volcanic rocks that formed earlier as the Pacific plate moved over the “hot spot” yield exaggerated radioactive dates due to quickly ticking radioactive clocks. As the Flood ended, both plate motions and radioactive decay rates slowed. These are not true absolute dates because the “clock” was ticking faster than it does today

 

https://answersingen...stant-paradise/

 

This following quote confirms my reasoning is correct as a prediction. In my previous post I suggested that the same pattern may well have occurred if the islands were created relatively quickly;

 It has already been pointed out.... by none other than the leader of ICR's "R.A.T.E." project.... that the proposed accelerated nuclear decay would have melted the surface of the planet   (The majority of the project members are on record as confirming this problem.)

 

By the way .... what was it that accelerated decay rates a billion-fold or so then slowed them back down?

 

Snelling's article was written in 2014.  He should have been aware that non-radiogenic argon has long been recognized as a problem for K-Ar.  It creates an offset to the age, not a challenge to the rate of decay.  Further, it is only significant for fairly "new" samples.  In other words, an offset of even 2 million years isn't a big deal when we're talking ages in the tens of millions of years.

 

Here is some of what those doing the research on K-Ar. dating had to say in 2002:

K-Ar and Ar-Ar have long been used to date young (Pre-historic) volcanic eruptions

(cf. Curtis in Schaeffer and Zähringer 1966) but in recent years, the advent of low blank

furnaces and laser extraction techniques, particularly the CO2 laser, have pushed the

boundaries. ..... In a study of zero age samples

Esser et al. (1997) showed that anorthoclase samples suffered small amount of excess

argon which were better discriminated using the furnace extraction technique. There are

particular analytical challenges offered by dating young volcanic samples, including

precise calibration of the mass spectrometer since many samples contain only small

amounts of radiogenic argon. Contamination and control of the sample quality is also

particularly difficult since sample sizes are often 0.1-1 g. Finally, melting large quantities

of sample also produces large quantities of H2O, CO2 and other gases released from

minerals, and requires larger getters to clean the gas prior to mass spectrometric

measurement of isotope ratios.

The ages of the youngest volcanic rocks dated by the Ar-Ar technique have now

reached the historic realm. For example, Renne et al. (1997) have measured the age of the

Vesuvius eruption observed and recorded by Pliny in 79 AD.

http://www.geo.arizo.../Kelley2002.pdf

 

Notice that "young" samples require considerable special processing. 

 

That paper discusses extensively all of the issues with K-Ar. and Ar-Ar. dating you and Snelling have brought up.

 

 

... I've "done the science", seems the size of the island favours the catastrophic plate tectonics, because as the snail's pace of movement kicked in, the lava would have more time to knife through;

If you're "done the science" you'd be aware that CPT releases enough energy to vaporize every drop of water on the planet three times over.  Of course, you don't have any problem with heat melting the planet, why would I think boiling off the oceans would matter?

 

 This is why I don't "do" the details of the science any more, and argue minutia Wibble, because guess what happens every time I do that? I find the creationist explanation is better than the long age one to the point where I basically predict to myself that the evolutionist is either deceived into thinking the evidence can only mean long ages, or has basically lied or omitted information or is just plain ignorant of the creationist explanations which at the very least, make more sense than the long age ones. If it happened over millions of years of uniformity then we would expect the size of the islands to be similar, meaning that is one correlation which does not correlate to old age.

It escapes me how explanations that boil off the oceans or melt the planet are, in any way, better than the "long age one."

 

So that is the fallacy of exclusion, which occurs when a vital piece of evidence is ignored so as to bolster your case.

Yeah... nothing at all vital about boiling oceans or melting planets.



#28 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 28 February 2017 - 01:31 AM

Piasan, CMI states that the Hawaiian island - seamount chain are all post flood (due to lack of sedimentary rock). So I'm wondering why Snelling argues this accelerated decay reasoning, wasn't that supposed to have happened during the Flood year, so actually can't even be applied to the sequence under the YEC story ? Or have I got myself confused somewhere ?



#29 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 28 February 2017 - 09:07 PM

He should have been aware that non-radiogenic argon has long been recognized as a problem for K-Ar.  It creates an offset to the age, not a challenge to the rate of decay.  Further, it is only significant for fairly "new" samples.  In other words, an offset of even 2 million years isn't a big deal when we're talking ages in the tens of millions of years.

 

Here is some of what those doing the research on K-Ar. dating had to say in 2002:

...

Esser et al. (1997) showed that anorthoclase samples suffered small amount of excess

argon which were better discriminated using the furnace extraction technique.

...

 

Notice that "young" samples require considerable special processing. 

 
I don't understand your logic here Piasan. If a method is known to be unreliable for samples with known ages, how is it logical to believe it would be reliable for samples with old ages. Where is the logic in that. Or put in another way. If I wish to falsify for example the K-Ar method, how would I do that? I can't test against anything with a known age, since those samples are "to young" according to your writing. Any suggestions?
 
The problem here is how much argon did exist at the creation of the rock. Previously scientist thought that all argon did vanish when the rock melted. But now scientist know that is not true. So if we know that samples with known ages suffered small amount of excess argon, how do we know that samples with unknown ages does not suffer from a large amount of excess argon? Perhaps the methods doesn't really measure time, but rather the amount of excess argon that was part of the rock when it was created.
 
How do you know?


#30 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 01 March 2017 - 01:16 AM

I don't understand your logic here Piasan. If a method is known to be unreliable for samples with known ages, how is it logical to believe it would be reliable for samples with old ages.  Where is the logic in that.

Radioisotope dating is extremely difficult to perform accurately for a variety of reasons.  Contamination (including inclusions) is always a potential serious problem.  So is the suitability of the sample for the method chosen.  Often the parent and daughter isotopes are present in only parts per trillion.  The sensitivity of the process can cause significant variation in the results.  For that reason, I'm not all that warm and fuzzy with a single radioisotope date.

 

My position is that radioisotope dating when properly performed on an appropriate sample will produce statistically valid results.  Like I said, I'm not too warm and fuzzy with a single test.  My preference is for multiple blind tests performed by different labs using a variety of isotopes.

 

What you call "unreliable" I see as a known limitation of the process.  Remember the point I made about sample selection.... if you test something outside the known limitations of the process you should expect erroneous results.  I've seen a lot of creationists go on about erroneous dates from things like recently killed polar bears to samples from Mount St. Helens as demonstrating the "unreliability" of various radioisotope dating methods.  

 

The logic is that I have some understanding of the processes; how the methodology is validated; and the general limitations involved.  Like I said, when properly done on an appropriate sample radioisotope dating will produce statistically valid results.

 

Or put in another way. If I wish to falsify for example the K-Ar method, how would I do that? I can't test against anything with a known age, since those samples are "to young" according to your writing. Any suggestions?

Well, you could show that the decay rate of the isotope is unstable.  A process that would accelerate decay a millionfold would be good.  But I think a reasonable prerequisite is that it not melt the planet.

 

In post #27 I documented the technology has improved to the point that in 1997 (20 years ago)  Ar.-Ar, which has largely replaced K-Ar, was able to accurately date material from the 79AD eruption of Mt. Vesuvius.  I think that would qualify as something with a known age.

 

The point is that "recent" samples require extensive special handling to produce accurate results.

 

The problem here is how much argon did exist at the creation of the rock. Previously scientist thought that all argon did vanish when the rock melted. But now scientist know that is not true.

Scientists expected from the time the method was developed that excess argon could be trapped in the rock.  That expectation was confirmed when pillow lavas of known age from Hawaii were tested.  For that reason, certain kinds of rock (that cooled quickly) are considered unsuitable for K-Ar testing .... though they might possibly be tested by Ar-Ar  (I'm not too sure)

 

The paper I cited in post #27 spent a lot of time explaining how the amount of non-radiogenic argon is determined and/or corrected for.

 

So if we know that samples with known ages suffered small amount of excess argon, how do we know that samples with unknown ages does not suffer from a large amount of excess argon? Perhaps the methods doesn't really measure time, but rather the amount of excess argon that was part of the rock when it was created.

Again, the paper explains how excess argon is dealt with.  Actually, it isn't a major problem for Ar-Ar dating.

 

How do you know?

Read the paper at http://www.geo.arizo.../Kelley2002.pdf .  Skip past the equations and focus on the discussion.   Fair warning, the paper runs 34 pages. 

 

Of course, that's only one paper.  There are hundreds.






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users