EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:45 pm
Any biological system is not an accurate measurement of age, because a change in the environment changes the growth rate of the system. Like for example, high precipitation can cause trees to produce 2 tree rings a year instead of one.
Cross dating has problems also because of the difference in the health of tree water movement.
Q: Do you understand that all these methods support each other?
If they would not be consistent they would not support each other.
Carbon dating tree match with biological dating-tree rings and varves:
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF6-18Davidson.pdf
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:45 pm
This has the assumption that all of the argon was released when the rock was in the molten state. This has been shown to be incorrect. Snelling, A. A. 1998. Andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the implications for potassium-argon ‘dating’, in: Walsh, R. E., Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, p. 503–525. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.
1.The fake problem of excess Argon.
'Thus while Snelling implied that Dalrymple [1969] found severe problems with K-Ar dating when the truth is quite the opposite. Dalrymple found that they are reliable. Two-thirds of the time there is no excess argon at all. And in 25 times out of 26 tests there is no excess argon or there is so little excess argon that it will make only a tiny error, if any, in the final date for rocks millions of years old. Thus Dalrymple’s data is not consistent with a young Earth whatsoever. Indeed, if Dalrymple’s data is representative, 3 times out of 26 the K-Ar method will give a too young date (though by only an extremely trivial amount for a rock that is really millions of years old). The one case that would have produced a significant error, the Hualalai flow in Hawaii, was expected (see the previous essay). Even that significant error is only 1.19 million years (and not the 1.60 million years that Snelling claimed). If the identical rock had been formed 50 million years ago, the K-Ar would give a "false" age of a little over 51 million years. Thus this data is strongly supportive of mainstream geology.' [author's emphasis]”
http://www.oldearth.org/blind.htm
2. We can analyze rock forming today. They don’t show for example high Sr ration. They are all Rb.
3. Isochron dating does not make assumptions about parent material in a sample.
4. 40 Ar/39 Ar dates of Sanidine rocks from Casti Amanti match with the historical records of the Vesuvius eruption in Ancient Italy.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:45 pm
This is dependent on the planet formation theory. Which has major problems.
Sir zircon has uranium in its structure. It rejects lead when forming.
So new zircon rocks will contain no lead. Therefore any lead found is from decay of uranium. Since we know the rate of decay of uranium we can use the ratio lead/uranium in a reliable manner to date the mineral.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:45 pm
Uranium 238 absorbs a neutron and can change into Plutonium into Pu-239 and then Pu-239 can absorb a neutron and turn into Pu-240. Pu-240 actually undergoes spontaneous fission very quickly.
In practice, 239 Pu will invariably contain a certain amount of 240 Pu
due to the tendency of 239Pu to absorb an additional neutron during production. 240 Pu's high rate of spontaneous fission events makes it an undesirable contaminant. Weapons-grade plutonium contains no more than 7.0% 240 Pu
Where do the neutrons come from the good old z-pinch. That gives of neutron when fusion takes place because of the Z-pinch. With the problems that stellar evolution has the accumulation of damaged zones, or tracks is more likely caused by z-pinch fusion than by the spontaneous fission of uranium 238.
same as above.
The fission tracks are very sensible to temperature.
Any hypothesis I have seen so far implied conditions that would lead to destruction of these tracks.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 3:45 pm
Any layering, in particular, you are speaking of here?
From today eruptions we know that volcanoes grow by ~ a meter every century. The highest altitude of the island of Hawaii is Mauna Kea 10,200 m above ocean floor.
100 years/m * 10,200 m = ~ 1,020,000 years old.
Thanks to continental drift Atlantic Ocean grows wider every year by 2.5 cm.
The ocean is 3,700 km wide.
(3,700 km * 100, 000 cm/km)/(2.5 cm/year) = 148, 000, 000 years ago American continent started to get away from African continent.
Continental drift supports radiometric dating.
Let's not avoid my main point: The myriad of methods of dating which all support each other.
We have biological clocks, radioactive decay clocks, magnetical clocks, geological clocks, ice accumulation clocks.
When one is positing the laws of the universe coincidently changed in such a way and that the all the clocks coincidently changed in such a way that they support each other showing a false answer: that the earth is young is leaving the real of possibility and getting in the realm of magical thinking which leads to the idea of God manipulating the earth or allowing Satan to manipulate the earth. Which leads to the obvious conclusion of trickery.
Let's not ignore:
3.
If we posit an accelerated process there is a problem. We have to 4 billions of radioactive and heat decay, 4 billions of years of plate tectonics and continental movements, 4 billions of years of geological mountain building and erosion, 4 billions of years of asteroid impacts, 4 billions of years of volcanic activity all cramped in a very short period of time.
All this would increase heat and radiation so much that would make it impossible for anything to survive or last. Rocks and earth crust would vaporize.
Here some calculations by Joe Meert showing the issue of heat:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm
4. Off course a huge number scientists from geology, biology, botany, zoology, genetic, neurobiology, medicine, psychiatry, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, physics, cosmology, chemistry, climatology and most historian scholars-new testament scholars who devoted all their lives to study, who most likely are/were more intelligent then you, are/were all wrong on so many subjects is baffling and you, a mere average human being, are right.
Q: How likely is that that belief which contradicts so many fields of study while considering we have functioning satellites, GPS, phones, PCs, internet, TVs, all kinds of transportations systems, vaccines, antibiotics, all kind of medicines, home heating systems, Electric Light, air conditioning, fridges, self driving cars all because of the above people from all those fields?