Friday, March 8, 2019
Thursday, March 7, 2019
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Friday, February 22, 2019
Thursday, November 13, 2014
[GSMNL] ESA Probe Lands Comet
http://gscim.com/Science_News/11-14/ESA_probe_lands_comet.html
The Philae the lander of the European Space Agency (ESA) probe Rosetta has landed on the surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gera on November 12th, 201 becoming the first probe to land on a comet.
A look at the high resolution version of the first image shows a grainy surface that is consistent with being a loose arrogate of material held together mainly by gravity, while a portion does look melted from being melted by the sun. It seems to be a mixture of various materials making it most consistent with an exploded or shattered planet. However other possibilities can not be ruled out without an actual mineral analysis.
Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science Mission
Genesis Mission
Creation Science Talk
 | This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. |
Posted by: Charles Creager Jr <chuckpc@genesismission.4t.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
Thursday, November 6, 2014
[GSMNL] Radiometric dating - Erroneous Radiometric dates.
As stated before rocks are not dated by plugging them in to an ACME dating machine. Dating labs do not measure time but measure isotopes ratios. Are these ratios the result of radioactive decay over time or other processes that have taken place in the rock?
Uinkaret Plateau
Ages of Rocks in Millions of Years
| K-Ar | Rb-Sr | Rb-Sr Isochron | Pb-Pb Isochron |
| 0.01 | 1230 - 1310 | 1300 - 1380 | 2390 - 2810 |
| 1.0 - 1.4 | 1260 - 1380 | ||
| 2.63 | 1310 - 1370 | ||
| 3.6 | 1320 - 1440 | ||
| 3.67 | 1360 - 1420 |
Some times different methods used on the same rock, produce different ages. Further more the same method can produce different ages on different parts of the same rock. Some times these are close but other times they are vary different.
Anomalous dates
Some times radiometric dating produces impossible results.
Uranium-Thorium-Lead Method
Ages in Billions of Years
| Apollo Sample # | Low | High | Age Inconsistencies extremes in billions of Years |
| 14310 | 5.3 | 11.2 | 5.9 |
| 14053 | 5.4 | 28.1 | 22.7 |
| 15426 | 4.6 | 16.2 | 11.6 |
| 66095 | 5.6 | 14.1 | 8.5 |
Some soil from the Moon has been dated as more than a billion older than the uniformitarian age for the Moon. It was explained by processes of heating and cooling soil had been through.
Some rocks dated older than the
4.5 billion year evolutionary age for Earth.
| Description | Method | "Date" in billion years. |
| Diamonds from magma | K-Ar Isochron | 6.0 +- 0.3 |
| Rock | Rb-Sr Isochron | 8.75 |
| Rock | Rb-Sr | 8.3 |
| Rock | Re-Os | 11 |
Recent or young volcanic rocks producing excessively old K-Ar "ages":
| Name | Location | Real Date | K-Ar date |
| Kilauea Iki basalt | Hawaii | AD 1959 | 8.5±6.8 Ma |
| Mt. Etna basalt | Sicily | May 1964 | 0.7±0.01 Ma |
| Medicine Lake Highlands obsidian | Glass Mountains, California | <500 years | 12.6±4.5 Ma |
| Hualalai basalt | Hawaii | AD 1800-1801 | 22.8±16.5 Ma |
| East Pacific Rise basalt | Pacific Ocean | <1 Ma | 690±7 Ma |
| Olivine basalt | Nathan Hills,Victoria Land, Antarctica | <0.3 Ma | 18.0±0.7 Ma |
| Anorthoclase in volcanic bomb | Mt Erebus, Antarctica | 1984 | 0.64±0.03 Ma |
| Kilauea basalt | Hawaii | <200 years | 21±8 Ma |
| Kilauea basalt, | Hawaii | <1,000 years | 42.9±4.2 Ma; 30.3±3.3 Ma |
| Sea mount basalt | Near East Pacific Rise | <2.5 Ma | 580±10 Ma; 700±150 Ma |
| East Pacific Rise basalt | Pacific Ocean | <0.6 Ma | 24.2±1.0 Ma |
Examples of negative ages
| Name | Date | Ar-Ar age |
| Glass Mountain | AD 1579 - 1839 | -130,000 -30,000 years |
| Mt. Mihara | AD 1961 | - 70,000 years |
| Sakurajima | AD 1946 | -200,000 years |
G.B. Dalrymple, "40Ar/36Ar Analyses of Historic Lava Flows," Earth and Planetary Science Letters,6 (1969): pp. 47-55.
Some rocks have been measured with negative radiometric ages, in some case in terms of millions of years. Isochron dating can also produce negative ages, by producing a negative slope. K-Ar and Ar-Ar can result in negative ages when atmospheric argon is considered. So if these are real dates then you can hold a rock in your hand that wont form for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years yet.
Now in all fairness Ar-Ar dating can get the right age for a sample of known age, but it can also date samples as way too old, but without a known date there is no way of knowing when it is too old. One key factor is the fact that Ar-Ar dating need a standard of "known" age. If standard is of historically known age, such as would likely be used for testing Ar-Ar dating on sample of known age, then one would be more likely to get the correct age. For allegedly older samples K-Ar is used to "date" the standard and as such it still has the same problems as K-Ar dating.
Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science Mission
Genesis Mission
Creation Science Talk
| | This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. |
Posted by: Charles Creager Jr <chuckpc@genesismission.4t.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
Saturday, October 11, 2014
[GSMNL] Radiometric dating - The assumptions of Radiometric dating
http://genesismission.4t.com/Radiodating/methods.html
Some of the basic Dating Methods are as follows:
- Samarium - Neodymium. (Sm-Nd)
- Rhenium - Osmium (Re-Os)
- Uranium / Thorium - Lead. ( U/Th-Pb)
- Ribidium - Strontium (Rb-Sr)
- Potassium - Argon (K-Ar)
- Argon - Argon (Ar-Ar)
- Lutetium - Hafnium (Lu-Hf)
- Constant decay rate.
- No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope.
- Known amounts of daughter isotope at start.
A shift from contamination can take place in all of the data points, but such contamination does not affect all data points equally, so it can cause the data points to shift off the true Isochron completely. Given this when one looks at an Isochron plot how can one really tell where the true Isochron line should be. Sufficient contamination can produce any Isochron pattern regardless of the true Isochron. It is even possible to get a negative slope, this would be equivalent to a negative or future date.
When you look at actual isochron plots such as the ones at above link, there seems to be room for subjectivity. Some are better than others but there is often room for multiple plot lines. Even uniformitarian geologists recognize the existence of false isochron. So how do they distinguish good data from bad? The answer is where the sample fits in the Geologic Column.
The unique key assumption of Isochron dating is that the affect of contamination does on the Isochron can be determined. However the quality of an Isochron is still judged by where the sample fits in the Geologic Column. Also like all forms of radiometric dating it assumes that nuclear decay rates are constant, an assumption which will later be shown false.
Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science Mission
Genesis Mission
Creation Science Talk
| | This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. |
Posted by: Charles Creager Jr <chuckpc@genesismission.4t.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
