Jump to content


Photo

Radiometric Dating


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
29 replies to this topic

#1 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 18 December 2010 - 01:22 PM

One form of radiometric dating is uranium/lead dating. To date when a rock solidified by uranium/lead dating you look for zircon crystals. The structure of molten zircon lets in uranium but not lead. When the crystal cools neither uranium nor lead can either enter or leave the crystal. Lead subsequently found in the crystal is thus degraded uranium. The proportion of uranium to lead and the observed decay rate of uranium gives an estimate of when the rock solidified.

The only presupposition in play here is that radioactive decay rates in the past were as is measured in the present. This is reasonable given that radioactive decay is a consequence of a fundamental force (the electroweak force) that must be the same universally if all matter and EM radiation is observed to behave in the same way (it is).

Radiometric dating has dated rocks at Pompei (the destruction of which by Vesuvius errupting is a historical record) to within a decade or so of the historically recorded erruption.

Radiometric dating such as uranium/lead dating often dates the solidification of a rock at millions of years ago (and is based on sound premises). Why would anyone claim that the Earth is 10,000 years old?

#2 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 18 December 2010 - 04:13 PM

Radioactive decay is a very very very young part of science. The only true studies of nuclear decay can only be attributed to Nuclear blast sites/Nuclear power plant disasters/Nuclear Waste control and how long they take to decacy/ no longer remain radioactive. Estimates based upon guesses such as Nuclear Radiation decay rates past the first nuclear test are not reliable because we are still in the process of studying nuclear blast sites/, that are actually testable, observable, and repeatable. Anything other than that is just faith based estimates. Simply because a start to finish Observation was not conducted, nor is the process repeatable at the ages you desire ( Millions).

So the question is better worded as why would anyone believe the Earth is over 10,000 years old when there isn't any real repeatable, observable, testable evidence that the earth is older than 10,000 years.

#3 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 19 December 2010 - 08:17 PM

One form of radiometric dating is uranium/lead dating.  To date when a rock solidified by uranium/lead dating you look for zircon crystals.  The structure of molten zircon lets in uranium but not lead.  When the crystal cools neither uranium nor lead can either enter or leave the crystal.  Lead subsequently found in the crystal is thus degraded uranium.  The proportion of uranium to lead and the observed decay rate of uranium gives an estimate of when the rock solidified.

The only presupposition in play here is that radioactive decay rates in the past were as is measured in the present.  This is reasonable given that radioactive decay is a consequence of a fundamental force (the electroweak force) that must be the same universally if all matter and EM radiation is observed to behave in the same way (it is).

Radiometric dating has dated rocks at Pompei (the destruction of which by Vesuvius errupting is a historical record) to within a decade or so of the historically recorded erruption.

Radiometric dating such as uranium/lead dating often dates the solidification of a rock at millions of years ago (and is based on sound premises).  Why would anyone claim that the Earth is 10,000 years old?

View Post


Hi WalterK,
This is an honest question which deserves an answer. I found that you are correct that zircon accepts both uranium and thorium into it's structure as substitutions, but rejects lead. So a reasonable assumption is that there is no lead in zircon crystals at crystallization.

Dr. Russell Humphries agrees with this and assumes this in his calculations. But he is a creationist. He received his PhD at LSU in Physics in the 70's. He worked for years at General Electric, and then Sandia National Labs, so he knows his stuff. He explains the "tale of two hour glasses." That is, two clocks. He has personally collected samples that were written about in papers he initially read by a "geotime" scientist.

He had read that zircons deep underground had significant amounts or helium atoms in them. You have to understand two things. Mainly that 8 helium atoms are produced per one nuclear decay in the uranium-lead decay chain, a measurable coefficient.

And

As a zircon crystal begins to form in cooling magma (molten rock), it absorbs uranium atoms from the magma. It rejects atoms of lead.3 After a zircon is fully formed and the magma cools some more, a crystal of black mica called biotite forms around it. Other minerals, such as quartz and feldspar, crystallize around the biotite to complete the rock. Humphries


I do not understand everything about it, but it has to do with the fact that helium has obviously leaked into the biotite around the zircon in proportional amounts to the loss in the zircon. I don't have the time to continue, nor the expertise that Humphhries has.

For more info, I will give you a couple of links. Humphries worked for years at General Electric, and Sandia National Labs, so he knows his stuff. He just believes the Bible. This "hourglass" does not agree with geologic deep time, but rather the Biblical model.

Layman level http://www.icr.org/a...wo-hourglasses/

Technical http://www.creationr...41_1/Helium.htm

#4 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 20 December 2010 - 01:10 PM

Radioactive decay is a very very very young part of science. The only true studies of nuclear decay can only be attributed to Nuclear blast sites/Nuclear power plant disasters/Nuclear Waste control and how long they take to decacy/ no longer remain radioactive. Estimates based upon guesses such as Nuclear Radiation decay rates past the first nuclear test are not reliable because we are still in the process of studying nuclear blast sites/, that are actually testable, observable, and repeatable. Anything other than that is just faith based estimates. Simply because a start to finish Observation was not conducted, nor is the process repeatable at the ages you desire ( Millions).


Uranium was dicovered in the eighteenth century, its radioactive properties in the nineteenth centruy and the half-life (decay rate) of Uranium-238 in the early twentieth century. You are incorrect to claim that knowledge of the decay rates followed atomic bombs or nuclear power. The validity of decay rates is shown by the accurate dating of Vesuvius larva at Pompei.


So the question is better worded as why would anyone believe the Earth is over 10,000 years old when there isn't any real repeatable, observable, testable evidence that the earth is older than 10,000 years.

View Post


This is simply incorrect. As I have shown in the OP radiometric dating is accurate, based on sound premises and shows the Earth is older than 10,000 years old.

AFJ: I shall have to research the helium issue. However, radiometric dating based on decay rates is observed to test accurately (the Vesuvius larva) and all the different methods (Argon-Argon, Potassium-Argon etc., some of which don't utilize zircons) all agree with each other where they overlap.

#5 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 December 2010 - 04:18 PM

Uranium was dicovered in the eighteenth century, its radioactive properties in the nineteenth centruy and the half-life (decay rate) of Uranium-238 in the early twentieth century. You are incorrect to claim that knowledge of the decay rates followed atomic bombs or nuclear power. The validity of decay rates is shown by the accurate dating of Vesuvius larva at Pompei. This is simply incorrect. As I have shown in the OP radiometric dating is accurate, based on sound premises and shows the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. AFJ: I shall have to research the helium issue. However, radiometric dating based on decay rates is observed to test accurately (the Vesuvius larva) and all the different methods (Argon-Argon, Potassium-Argon etc., some of which don't utilize zircons) all agree with each other where they overlap.

View Post


You don't understand. Actual Nuclear Decay has to be studied from start to finish. Pompei was not, and is not, nor ever will be that. You may have the dates correct, but you don't correctly understand the decay rates because they are an estimate based on what we currently know, which is far from enough to conclude the dating is accurate.

Also read part of your response that I bolded and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. It's a very young part of science, and testing things older than beyond that of Nuclear Blast sites/Nuclear Power plant disasters/Nuclear Waste is not going to be confirmed as solid truthful and honest evidence until we know for sure what the actual decay rates are.

These studies of Pompei might just be accurate, but until then, they are nothing more than estimates.

#6 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 20 December 2010 - 10:32 PM

What if the decay rates have been constant since 79 AD but were not before then?

People used to have very long life-spans. Dragonflies used to have 3 feet wing spans. I would think that these things would indicate a very different environment at some point... and that environment could affect the decay rates.

#7 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 20 December 2010 - 10:40 PM

Not knowing the leak rate, we reversed the calculation. We (essentially) divided the amount lost at each temperature by the Biblical age of the earth, 6,000 years. That gave us a prediction of what later experiments would show the loss rates to be if the Biblical age were correct. For contrast, we also calculated what the loss rates would be if the uranium-lead age of 1.5 billion years were correct. In 2000 we published both models.5

This doesn't seem right. :) I guess I need a layman's version of the layman's version. ;)

Then in 2001, we commissioned (through an intermediary who kept us anonymous) one of the world's best experimenters in this field to measure the leak rates of our particular zircons at various temperatures.

Oh, okay, okay, I only had to read it 10 times. I think I have it now. B)

I did a search on accelerated decay and bible. There is a lot out there disputing this.

#8 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 21 December 2010 - 12:41 PM

Why can the volcanic deposits from Pompeii have an accurate date from radioactive decay while the volcanic deposits at the Grand Canyon cannot?

#9 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 21 December 2010 - 12:57 PM

What if the decay rates have been constant since 79 AD but were not before then?

People used to have very long life-spans. Dragonflies used to have 3 feet wing spans. I would think that these things would indicate a very different environment at some point... and that environment could affect the decay rates.

View Post


Nuclear decay has been observed to increase 10,000 faster from pressure waves.


We show that cavitation of a solution of thorium-228 in water induces its transformation at a rate 10000 times faster than the natural radioactive decay would do. This result agrees with the alteration of the secular equilibrium of thorium-234 obtained by a Russian team via explosion of titanium foils in water and solutions. These evidences further support some preliminary clues for the possibility of piezonuclear reactions (namely nuclear reactions induced by pressure waves) obtained in the last ten years.


http://adsabs.harvar...arXiv0710.5177C


This is predicted if massive heat and pressure were produce during the fountains of the great deep bursting forth, as Humphries and other scientists have found too much helium in zircons.



Enjoy.

#10 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 21 December 2010 - 01:33 PM

Thanks Jason.

#11 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 21 December 2010 - 02:35 PM

You don't understand. Actual Nuclear Decay has to be studied from start to finish. Pompei was not, and is not, nor ever will be that. You may have the dates correct, but you don't correctly understand the decay rates because they are an estimate based on what we currently know, which is far from enough to conclude the dating is accurate.

Also read part of your response that I bolded and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. It's a very young part of science, and testing things older than beyond that of Nuclear Blast sites/Nuclear Power plant disasters/Nuclear Waste is not going to be confirmed as solid truthful and honest evidence until we know for sure what the actual decay rates are.

These studies of Pompei might just be accurate, but until then, they are nothing more than estimates.

View Post


What if the decay rates have been constant since 79 AD but were not before then?

View Post


Radioactive decay is a consequence of a fundamental force universally observed to be uniform. There is no more need to doubt the decay rates than there is to continually check the load-baring strength of a bridge. In almost a century since the half-life of Uranium was measured its decay rate has not been observed to vary and this is why it successfully dated rocks from the Vesuvius erruption in accordance with historical record.

#12 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 21 December 2010 - 02:40 PM

Jason: Is there any evidence of the decay rates of uranium, potassium or argon being accelerated by pressure?

AFJ: On reading up on helium diffusion in zircons I find the following. Humphrey's calculations are rejected by geologists on a number of fronts but the salient criticisms are that he assumes constant temperature and does not factor in helium contamination (if helium can diffuse out it can diffuse in (neither uranium nor lead, being heavier, can do this)). Humphrey and the RATE team took their zircon sample from a site with nearby trapped helium and evidence of nearby geological activity and so helium difussion cannot be relied upon as a dating mechanism.

Geochronologists do not just study the age of the Earth and often work in applications such as mineral exploration - if helium diffusion were a reliable dating mechanism geochronologists would embrace it.

So, if helium diffusion is an unreliable measure of when a zircon solidified but uranium/lead ratios are proven to be reliable and based on justified premises why would anyone doubt a radiometric dating that dated the solidification of a rock to more that 10,000 years ago?

#13 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 21 December 2010 - 02:56 PM

Here is a refutation of Cardone et al's claims of accelerated thorium decay: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.3501

"We conclude that the evidence presented by Cardone et al. is insufficient to justify their claims of accelerated thorium decay (by "piezonuclear reactions" or otherwise). "

#14 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 21 December 2010 - 04:09 PM

AFJ: I shall have to research the helium issue.  However, radiometric dating based on decay rates is observed to test accurately (the Vesuvius larva) and all the different methods (Argon-Argon, Potassium-Argon etc., some of which don't utilize zircons) all agree with each other where they overlap.

View Post


Why don't we do one thing at a time? The "shotgun approach" is often used, and it's not far from the majority rules approach. You can start another thread if you want on the other methods.

There are also other things that could imply a young earth, but I am not going to bring that up. You brought up the U-Pb method. It is still used and respected. I have read abstracts that are only using one means of dating, and/or index fossils, to date a fossil find. Although I'm sure if there is a debate, they'll use more.

I saw your other questions, and really have not had time to research. I do not know if lead can leech into a zircon by groundwater. I know it can leech into rocks.

I know from studying some minerology that if the lead is not part of the crystalline structure, it might be found in between the sheets if zircons crystallize in sheets. I will have to do a study on zirconium silicate to find the structure. If it does crystallize in sheets, theoretically it could leech in--we'll see.

I'm not putting you off, but I'm not a physicist. So I'll have to do some reading.

#15 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 21 December 2010 - 08:12 PM

Jason:  Is there any evidence of the decay rates of uranium, potassium or argon being accelerated by pressure?

AFJ: On reading up on helium diffusion in zircons I find the following.  Humphrey's calculations are rejected by geologists on a number of fronts but the salient criticisms are that he assumes constant temperature and does not factor in helium contamination (if helium can diffuse out it can diffuse in (neither uranium nor lead, being heavier, can do this)).

View Post

Just some preliminary comments, as dating is not something I have studied extensively. But I'm not really sure where you got this information. One of the links I gave has straight data from Gentry.

I don't know how he (Humphries) could assume, as you stated, a constant temperature when the table has depth and temperatures in C each sample had come from. I think a high school chemistry student would think to consider temp, and the diffusion rates were not obtained by them, but a third party by contract.

Posted Image

To say that the geologists reject the calculations based on an assumption of a constant temp is therefore incorrect, or intentionally misreporting. So there must be another reason for their rejection of it.

Humphrey and the RATE team took their zircon sample from a site with nearby trapped helium and evidence of nearby geological activity and so helium difussion cannot be relied upon as a dating mechanism.

View Post

Actually, according to the RATE paper, diffusion rates for biotite had never been done before. So how would anyone know if it was reliable, if there was no data on it? RATE cites two papers in which one could find the specifics on this.

In 2000, through an intermediary, we contracted with a well recognized expert (Humphreys et al., 2003a, § 5) to measure helium diffusion rates in biotite, the mineral we thought was the main restriction to helium loss from the zircons. We sent the experimenter biotite we had on hand, from the Beartooth Gneiss in Wyoming near Yellowstone National Park. In early 2001 he sent us data, the first ever reported on biotite. Also in 2001, we received a preprint of a paper reporting helium diffusion rates measured in zircons from Nevada (Reiners et al., 2002).



Geochronologists do not just study the age of the Earth and often work in applications such as mineral exploration - if helium diffusion were a reliable dating mechanism geochronologists would embrace it.

View Post

I refer to my previous point. There was no motivation to find helium diffusion rates. This is evident in the fact that no one had ever tested the helium diffusion rates in biotite.

And I disagree. Experiments were in fact set up to do so by contract of a third party. Biotite and zircons are crystalline which are set up by ratio. They are not variable conglomerate rocks. They have a geometrical pattern by ratio. http://en.wikipedia....licate_minerals

Helium production from alpha particles has a known coeficient for the U-Pb decay chain. U238 to Pb206, and U235 to Pb207 (Humphries et al 2004). http://www.creationr...41_1/Helium.htm

So experiments can be set up with biotite and zircons which could record helium diffusion at different temps, which is exactly what happened.


WalterK
So, if helium diffusion is an unreliable measure of when a zircon solidified but uranium/lead ratios are proven to be reliable and based on justified premises why would anyone doubt a radiometric dating that dated the solidification of a rock to more that 10,000 years ago?


RATE and Gentry together is a sum of 8 PhD's. Not Kmart degrees. They are legitimate. They do not agree with your statement.

The first statement of this paragraph is based on the faulty data of the previous paragraphs. You have yet to provide hard data as to why helium diffusion rates could not be established.

The only props I will give you is the possibility that helium could difffuse in. However why would Gentry, a physicist say the following.

From the amounts of radiogenic lead in the zircons, they estimated how much helium the nuclear decay should have deposited in the crystals. They found that "an almost phenomenal amount of He has been retained" in the zircons, despite them being small, hot, and allegedly old (Gentry et al., 1982a).

I will continue to read.

#16 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 21 December 2010 - 08:24 PM

does not factor in helium contamination (if helium can diffuse out it can diffuse in (neither uranium nor lead, being heavier, can do this)).

WalterK, you may want to have a look at the link for the technical again. They used diffusion rates but not just of Helium.

Lead also diffuses out of zircon, although much more slowly than helium does. In addition to studying helium, Gentry and his team (1982b) at Oak Ridge also studied lead retention in 50-75 µm zircons from the same rock unit.



#17 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 21 December 2010 - 08:30 PM

Radioactive decay is a consequence of a fundamental force universally observed to be uniform.  There is no more need to doubt the decay rates than there is to continually check the load-baring strength of a bridge.  In almost a century since the half-life of Uranium was measured its decay rate has not been observed to vary and this is why it successfully dated rocks from the Vesuvius erruption in accordance with historical record.

View Post

Obviously the environment was much different in the past... before the last century.

#18 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 21 December 2010 - 09:46 PM

Okay, WalterK,

Please read my preceeding post, as I documented some flaws in the information you obtained.

I am still researching. I can give you a few links. But basically I found two things concerning zircons. As usual, a cleaned up version given to most science laymen, and students, especially on how zirons are a source of reliability for U-Pb dating. And a real read between the lines version. It takes a bit of chemistry and minerology knowedge, as well as perserverance to decrypt this, which I assume you have.

The most suprising thing is that many zircons are metamict. Meaning the crystalline structure has been damaged or destroyed by the radioactivity. Zircons crystallize as zirconium silicate, but similar minerals, such as thorite and thorrogummite can maintain the same outward appearance, but have many substitutions of the zirconium with U and Th. Zircon becomes thorite, and because of metamictation, thorite becomes thorogummite.

On Thorogummite
This alteration  of thorite is caused by hydration facilitated by metamictation. Because thorite is highly radioactive, specimens are often metamict. This is a condition found in radioactive minerals and results from the destructive effects of its own radiation on its crystal lattice. The effect can destroy a crystal lattice completely while leaving the outward appearance unchanged. http://www.galleries...um/thorogum.htm



As a result of the U and Th, metamictation takes place. My question in the research was, if zircon rejects lead during crystallization, where is the lead in the zircon now, as it would not be in the matrix? The metamict zircon becomes partially amorphous (glassy), and so I'm assuming the lead is now mixed in with the non crystalline parts of the zircon. Though nothing directly stated this, this is a reasonable inference, I feel.

The interresting thing I found was that thorrogummite has complete tetrehedrons replaced by HYDROXIDES. This means leeching. Water has invaded the outer shell of the zircon and chemically altered the mineral. This makes the possibility of Pb entering the crystal a reality, or U and Th leaving.

This might account for the many variances in the hard data. The following site will attempt to calmly explain, because of their underlying assumptions, that geologic disturbances have "reset" some the U-Pb clocks to zero in the past. http://geology.about...uraniumlead.htm
http://www.answersin...oisotopes-earth

Another question I had was what caused the U and Th substitution in the first palce. They don't just float in by air, was the medium water? There is another term I found--"mylonitization"-- which is the...

Rock deformation produced by intense microbrecciation without appreciable chemical alteration of granulated materials.


Microbrieciation are micromixtures, so I would infer it's saying that there are mixtures of other elements and compounds. It is a fact that there are different colors of zircons because their are differing elements within it.

It was a nice study. And if you start with the abstracts, there are alot of variables. So where there are variables, there can easily be assumptions. This goes for both sides.

http://www.galleries...rcon/zircon.htm
http://www.galleries...um/thorogum.htm
http://www.galleries...ite/thorite.htm

http://www.springerl...5562557400t030/

#19 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 December 2010 - 10:13 AM

Uranium was dicovered in the eighteenth century, its radioactive properties in the nineteenth centruy and the half-life (decay rate) of Uranium-238 in the early twentieth century. You are incorrect to claim that knowledge of the decay rates followed atomic bombs or nuclear power. The validity of decay rates is shown by the accurate dating of Vesuvius larva at Pompei. This is simply incorrect. As I have shown in the OP radiometric dating is accurate, based on sound premises and shows the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. AFJ: I shall have to research the helium issue. However, radiometric dating based on decay rates is observed to test accurately (the Vesuvius larva) and all the different methods (Argon-Argon, Potassium-Argon etc., some of which don't utilize zircons) all agree with each other where they overlap.

View Post

You don't understand. Actual Nuclear Decay has to be studied from start to finish. Pompei was not, and is not, nor ever will be that. You may have the dates correct, but you don't correctly understand the decay rates because they are an estimate based on what we currently know, which is far from enough to conclude the dating is accurate.

Also read part of your response that I bolded and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. It's a very young part of science, and testing things older than beyond that of Nuclear Blast sites/Nuclear Power plant disasters/Nuclear Waste is not going to be confirmed as solid truthful and honest evidence until we know for sure what the actual decay rates are.

These studies of Pompei might just be accurate, but until then, they are nothing more than estimates.

View Post


Scott, you are attempting to argue with an “Uniformitarian”. The faith basis of an uniformitarian is that (for example) the same geologic processes occurred in the past as occur today, and that geologic formations and structures can be interpreted by observing present-day actions. Now, they come to this conclusion with “ABSOLUTELY NO” evidentiary foundation. It is an “a priori” assumption, not an “a posteriori” conclusion.

Other than that, the problem is that the uniformitarian’s have absolutely no idea what forces may have affected their theses (hypotheses, models etc…) prior to “recorded” history, but they will force their assumption as fact while having only the scantest of evidences.

What you seem to be dealing with here is a uniformitarian dogmatist. The level of his religious zeal will be dependent upon the reasoning/rational/reactions you get from him.





For example:

Radioactive decay is a consequence of a fundamental force universally observed to be uniform.  There is no more need to doubt the decay rates than there is to continually check the load-baring strength of a bridge.  In almost a century since the half-life of Uranium was measured its decay rate has not been observed to vary and this is why it successfully dated rocks from the Vesuvius erruption in accordance with historical record.

View Post


The fallacious analogy being used here is in the attempt to equate decay rates with measuring a “load bearing” bridge. At first glance, the lazy thinker, or irrational and non-skeptical thinker would fall for such religious-speak as perfectly rational. But as we look closer at it we suddenly see the flaw.

First - You can measure any bridge is the world for its load bearing strength. AND, this is a continuous process, if you do not, you don’t know when it will collapse! And, as you remember, that is exactly what happened a few years ago, and cause a wide spread panic and retesting of bridges across the USA.

Second –
Most ALL bridges have the date they were built right on them. There are absolutely NO dates built into items measured with the radioactive decay methods. Uniformitarians build the assumption of uniformity into their belief system. Just look at the first sentence in the quote above.

#20 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 23 December 2010 - 12:24 PM

Here is a study that attempted to replicate the Cardone findings and found them unreliable: http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.1387

WalterK, you may want to have a look at the link for the technical again. They used diffusion rates but not just of Helium.

View Post


"Lead also diffuses out of zircon, although much more slowly than helium does. In addition to studying helium, Gentry and his team (1982b) at Oak Ridge also studied lead retention in 50-75 µm zircons from the same rock unit."

If lead also diffuses out then we would be underestimating how much decay has taken place and thus the age of the rock!

Scott, you are attempting to argue with an “Uniformitarian”. The faith basis of an uniformitarian is that (for example) the same geologic processes occurred in the past as occur today, and that geologic formations and structures can be interpreted by observing present-day actions. Now, they come to this conclusion with “ABSOLUTELY NO” evidentiary foundation. It is an “a priori” assumption, not an “a posteriori” conclusion.


Geochronologists come to the conclusion that decay rates are stable based on their being a direct consequence of qunatum first principles and being a consequence of the electroweak fundamental force. If the electroweak force varied we would not observe the remarkable uniformity across the Universe. The following page explains possible factors affecting decay rates:

http://math.ucr.edu/...ecay_rates.html

The only real player is electron density: the magnitude of the effect is very small; for a few alpha emitters, the change has been estimated to be of the order of 1 part in 107. This would be unmeasurable and thus not effect radiometric dating.

Other than that, the problem is that the uniformitarian’s have absolutely no idea what forces may have affected their theses (hypotheses, models etc…) prior to “recorded” history, but they will force their assumption as fact while having only the scantest of evidences.


When we look out on a cloudless night we look beyond recorded history to the deep past. We observe the fundamental forces to be the same.

The bridge analogy is that both it and radiometric dating draw upon fundamental forces: gravity and the electroweak force. Engineering presupposes a uniform strength of gravity and there is no reason why geochronologists should not be so certain.

Radiometric dating has been shown to be accurate by succefully dating rocks from the Vesuvius erruption whose origin were historically recorded. Why then doubt that a rock dated to have solidified more than 10,000 years ago could be so old?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users