It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
wiki.answers.com...
The age of rocks is usually determined by radioactive (or radiometric) dating. Some elements are radioactive and gradually convert from one isotope to another. For example, uranium 238 (238U) will gradually convert to lead (206Pb). It will do this at a constant rate. The rate is described as a half-life of the isotope in question. This is the period of time it takes for half the atoms of 238U to convert to lead. For this particular element, the half-life is 4.47 billion years and uranium/lead dating is useful for rocks between 1 million and 4.5 billion years (as luck would have it!).
Radiometric dating can only be performed on igneous rocks. The uranium/lead elements are most often used because igneous rocks often contain uranium and the half life is so long. The oldest rock found is around 4.54 billion years old. This is consistent with the age of rocks from the moon and from meteorites, which all point to an age around 4.54-4.56 billion years.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by golemina
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by golemina
Which part of the basis of Uranium-lead method didn't you understand?
I thought you were going to discuss the maths - which seem simple enough - and show us all why it is wrong.
The basis of the U-Pb method seems simple enough - there are 2 isotopes of lead formed from 2 isotopes of Uranium.
U235 decays into Pb207 with a half life of about 0.7 giga-years.
U238 decays to Pb206 with a half life of about 4.47 G-years.
there is also Pb204 - a non-radiogenic lead isotope.
the ratio of Pb207/Pb 204 to Pb206/Pb204 produces a curve in time, or, by recalling that the ratio of U235/U238 is a constant, by the ratio of the Pb isotopes depending upon the amount of U238 in the mineral at the time of crystalisation.
So what is wrong with it?
Dude... All you are doing is PARROTING what you read.
You have absolutely ZERO comprehension of what you are saying.
it seems perfectly clear to me at about a year 12 or 13 high school level of chemistry and physics - there's nothing particularly complicated about it at all really.
Let me show you guys the 'technical' curve that is apparently the source of ole Alyosius's smugness.
Chart
Alyosius... I'm CONVINCED!
That is part of the information that is around - so what is it that is actually wrong about it?
If someone could derive the information above solely from that graph they would certainly be a lot cleverer than me - I had to have a look at a whole bunch of text and formulae, and a similar but actually different graph that had more detail.
So - again - you have the mathematical basis for U-Pb radiometric dating, and apparently you are going to show us what the problem is with it?
How come you don't?
And how come you don't actually give us any evidence at all for your claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old?
You seem big on denigrating everyone else......but have no actual substance yourself despite your grand claims - is your inability to discuss any actual mathematics because, in fact, it is you that doesn't understand anty of it??
So - again - you have the mathematical basis for U-Pb radiometric dating, and apparently you are going to show us what the problem is with it?
Originally posted by Danbones
Im standing on Canadian shield rock that is 4 and a half billion years old
guess the bible is wrong again
this wouldn't be the same divine entity that says the earth is only a couple nano seconds old that also
told all the evangelicals to vote bush?edit on 7-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by bonsaihorn
reply to post by samlf3rd
OMG you people are SO close minded... the earth isn't 6,000 years old, it is 5,997 years 11 months and 14 days old, come on a little precision please!
The Earth is also flat remember???
theflatearthsociety.org...
Originally posted by golemina
Seriously dude! You get ALL of the above from this Chart?
That's a WHOLE lot of dogma... desperately seeking an url for yet more DETAILED 'evidence'!
Remember... we are still waiting a respectful amount of time... You know... For someone that actually HAS A CLUE about dating methodologies...
Not a sad sad comedy of reasoning and rigor.
Originally posted by AzraelBane
reply to post by golemina
what would you say if I told you that the old testament was written by those in service to a bloodline that later wrote the new testament and that the purpose of said books was nothing more than to enslave the masses
please give this a read, feel free to check it for accuracy,sources, genealogical info etc.
www.fargonasphere.com...
just given what you've already written I doubt you'll pull a complete 180 and abandon the fairy tale despite the evidence for it, the blind are led by faith after all
Originally posted by golemina
Originally posted by AzraelBane
reply to post by golemina
what would you say if I told you that the old testament was written by those in service to a bloodline that later wrote the new testament and that the purpose of said books was nothing more than to enslave the masses
please give this a read, feel free to check it for accuracy,sources, genealogical info etc.
www.fargonasphere.com...
just given what you've already written I doubt you'll pull a complete 180 and abandon the fairy tale despite the evidence for it, the blind are led by faith after all
Hey.
Interesting premise... but not really related.
I ain't exactly a Bible thumper...
But my statements with regards to the Old Testament... are fairly clear.
Despite repeated attempts to... at best... 'mis-characterize' them.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by golemina
Seriously dude! You get ALL of the above from this Chart?
no.
That's a WHOLE lot of dogma... desperately seeking an url for yet more DETAILED 'evidence'!
I thought you knew it already & were going to show us why radiometric dating that says the world is 4.5 billion years old (more or less) was wrong??
But all you ever do is avoid the question, fail to justify your position, and spout nonsense.
Of course that is what is expected on ATS - but I did have some hopes you were going to be different.
Remember... we are still waiting a respectful amount of time... You know... For someone that actually HAS A CLUE about dating methodologies...
Not a sad sad comedy of reasoning and rigor.
Originally posted by golemina
So do you ever plan on answering the question vis-a-vis the 'first sample' from the Enumclaw plateau?
.
Originally posted by AzraelBane
too funny I was saying to myself earlier I bet the first thing said would be that it isn't related.
it's completely related seeing as the 6000 year old earth theory comes from what they call "young earth creationism" which draws all of it's "proof" from the bible.
if it turns out that the people who were said to have written the bible didn't and the intention for creating those books was for control and not to pass on some divine knowledge given to them by a god then it would stand to reason that you or anyone else trying to cite the bible as a reference is like me going "hey check out this wiki link".
also I'm curious what your stake in this is, how can you not be a bible thumper if you are defending faulty theories crafted by Y.E.C's in the first place?
no legitimate scientist has ever suggested that the earth is at such a young age or that the multiple methods used for dating organic and inorganic material are all wrong.
i'd say if you had proof it would have been presented by now rather than dodging when people ask you questions.
Originally posted by golemina
Despite the attempts, by some , to turn it into a circus side show complete with Charts!
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by golemina
So do you ever plan on answering the question vis-a-vis the 'first sample' from the Enumclaw plateau?
No-one has asked any questions about any samples from the Enumclaw plateau - so no, I have no plans on answering any questions that have not been asked.
You have said you have some samples from there of course, but you haven't bothered to tell us anything about them other than that you have them. Do you ever plan to tell us any actual information about them? Or even to ask a question about them??
It seems to me you are going to claim that your ideas have never been debunked or something like that - which is of course kind of trivial since you have never actually bothered to provide any actual ideas or information.
I am thinking that perhaps your posts are just some of the output from the ol' 1000 monkeys in a room with 1000 typewriters!!
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by golemina
Despite the attempts, by some , to turn it into a circus side show complete with Charts!
Yes - god forbid that anyone would dare to introduce actual science into suggested discussion about radiometric dating
And you re certainly following that ban very well!!