Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: More Sillyscience from ?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 12:13 AM
Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: More Sillyscience from ?
> For those who understand the need for a closed system in any
> isochron test, the deeper in the water a sample is, the more
> chance it has of external pollution, and will read older and
> older. If there was a flood, the depth of water, leaving wet (and
> contaminating) sediment would make the lower layers read
> progressively older from the surface of the flood. On top of that,
Which is why isochrons are normally done or crystals that formed from melted
rock or vapour and that are impervious to contamination from ground water.
Besides, any such contamination that would affect the outcome would have a
very HIGH chance of destroying the isochron altogether. Contamination that
does NOT destroy the isochron must be contamination from radiogenic isotopes
generated deep within the earth well before the rock formed and this can
only occur in K-Ar under certain very conspicuous circumstances, none of
which involve water to any degree.
> strata are greatly compressed as they end up in deeper sediments,
> adding to this contamination. Thus, if there was a flood, there is
> no such thing as a closed system, and we would see older isochron
> dates, the deeper we went. This is also true of carbon dates.
Uh you clearly seem to miss the fact that there is a large gap between
carbon dates and other radiometric methods. Carbon, you see is produced
continually in the atmosphere. K40 was produced in a supernova before the
earth was formed (or perhaps some arrives by meteor). Regardless, the
radiometric effort is to measure the date of some specific event in the
geochemical history of the rock. Such events occur all the time in nature
and when they do, they "reset" the clock. So, if you are claiming
contamination for any particular date, you must show that argon entered a
rock crystal from the outside, that it did so evenly in all the crystals in
the sample and that somehow, argon-36 was excluded from the contamination by
some isotope specific factor.
> Does that answer the great base ages? No; it only eludes to the
> depth vs. age. But when you bring home money, you have to subtract
> from your gross taxes etc, and the net is the only money available
> to you. Wouldn't it be silly to not subtract the original
> composition chemestry from the isotope ratio before figuring the
> final age? And yet this is not done. The ages are gross, not net.
But the "original composition chemistry" is actually irrelevant if an
isochron is formed geochemically. What is of interest is the isotope ratio
at the time the clock is "reset" and any subsequent changes.
> Quesion: Was there any LEAD 206 in the original parent rocks?
Question: Why do you not know by now that this is irrelevant?
Tim, it is abundantly clear that you still do not understand isochron dating
methods (and that you probably have not read up on them EXCEPT in
creationist sources which happen to be lousy because they are completely
unable to explain the method without tipping you off that the authors are
lying). What I'm saying is that if the authors of these creationist claims
know what they claim to know about isochron dating methods, they are liars.
If they do not know, then they are lying about their qualifications to tell
you about it. Reflect on that. There are only two possibilities here.
They are liars in both of them! Yet you refuse to go to a library and read
any of the standard science on the subject, getting ALL your information
from these liars. It shows.
> (or whichever final lead is the result of the oldest series; 206
> sticks in my mind, but books are not open). For those who don't
> understand the question, if the rocks had this kind of lead
> commonly and already in the rocks from the start, then the earth
> looks old to these tests from the start, and the ancient ages
> are incorrect, by failing to subtract starting chemestry.
Nope. We look for geochemical events that alter the lead-uranium ratio and
then look at isotope ratios, not only of lead and uranium but also
non-daughter lead. See, this is the neat part. As long as the samples have
VARIABLE amounts of uranium, we can assume that the ORIGINAL lead content
had a fixed isotope ratio (of lead isotopes). Newly-formed rocks all do.
Now, if there is a perfect relationship between the amount of uranium and,
say lead-206 (the final daughter product in U-238 decay) vs amounts of lead
207, 208 and 209 (stable isotopes not produced by uranium decay), then we
can deduce how long the uranium has been in association with THIS lead. The
original amount of lead-206 is factored out in the isochron and we are not
concerned about it except to know that it is still there.
> RUNNING OAK TREES
> [> Tim, your claims mean that Oak Trees can run up hill faster than
> > Dinosaurs. ]
> No no. My claim was that lowland creatures would have trouble
> in a flood getting to higher ground. I offered an exact present
> day example of that exact claim. It seems silly to add oak trees
Yes, but why no pteranodons up on top. Some of these could migrate
thousands of miles like today's birds, yet they are not found above the
> to my answer. If there was a flood, angiosperms like oak trees
> were just not a major part of lowland ecosystems, as things like
> extinct seed ferns dominated these places. I have demonstrated
> at least from paleobotany links prior to this post that even
> evolutionary theory places angiosperms (including oaks) as mountain
> top plants in the early earth. In a flooding situation as described
> in the Bible, lowland creatures just would have trouble getting
> to them. It seems silly to me that folks can't see that?
Yes, but the very forces you invoke to move mangroves to the top (and
believe me, mangroves were never mountaintop trees) would stir up the fossil
record to the point where it SHOULD be impossible to deduce a phylogeny from
> PARADIGM BLINDNESS
> [> Tim, you dig your own grave by engaging in sillyscience, ignoring
> > evidence, making things up and plain dishonest behaviour.]
> I have not intentionally ignored your rebuttals. Unless I have
> been unqualified to speak to it, I have not ignored evidence, and
> if there is any that you specifically would like me to admit
> lack of knowledge, or take a shot at, list it as you have today by
> cross posting to me. And Dave I certainly have not tried to be
> dishonest. I think I have accepted a supernatural model, that is
I don't think you have either. But you do trust some people who I think are
VERY dishonest. And you are SO trusting of them that you fail to check
their work at all. I would say that this amounts to being dishonest to
yourself, in that you trust them only because they are telling you what you
want to hear. They have helped you build a fence around yourself and part
of that fence is the claim that, if you do not treat the Bible as a literal,
scientifically accurate oracle of God, then you are damned. Of course, this
claim, in and of itself, is an ad baculum fallacy. Personally, I would
rather be damned for being honest than be rewarded with some saccharine
facsimile of a heaven for lying. Sooner or later the illusion would drop
Besides, I DO have faith and I do not believe God rewards intellectual
dishonesty at any level...
It may not keep you out of heaven, but it may make getting there a longer
and tougher proposition.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Cogan" <ccogan@...>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 11:01 PM
Subject: RE: [creationevolutiondebate] Isochrons & An Experiment
> > <snip>
> > > Chris
> > > I wondered how this was done. Clever and cute.
> > >
> > > Are you beginning to understand, Tim? Do you see that the
> > > *original* amount of Argon in the rock becomes mathematically
> > > filtered out of the results? Even if the rock was *saturated*
> > > Argon (extremely unlikely) when it was formed, this method
> > > *still* isolate the decay argon from the original argon
> > > (mathematically), thus leaving only the ratio of K40 to it's
> > > product (Ar36), and thereby enabling us to calculate the age
> > > reliably.
> > Dave
> > Uh, Chris, you're four neutrons out. Ar40 is the decay product
> (and also
> > the common isotope). Ar36 is the less common isotope. In Ar36
> is actually
> > produced by beta decay of Cl36, but this is not apt to enter
> into a crystal
> > and, in any case would upset the isochron if significant Cl36
> > incorporated in a crystal in any but a completely even fashion
> (in which
> > case it would not affect the isochron's accuracy). Besides, if
> there is
> > doubt, Ar38 can be used to cross-check the isochron. Ar38 is
> > non-radiogenic.
> Oh well.
> My real point was that this way of measuring would enable us to
> isolate the temporal effects from the contaminant effects. You're
> right, though: I don't know my isotopes.
S'all right. None of us knows everything. Physics was always my strong