Age of the Earth 2

[Bread_of_Life]

My next question would be, have there ever been unexplained Isochrons that charted straight lines and yet were divergent?

I don't know of any that are unexplained, but I do know that there are ways in which isochrons can be straight lines, but not representative of actual age.

Mixing Isochrons

The main way that this can happen is through mixing. If two rocks are mixed (I know this sounds silly - but it can happen if they are melted) then they will immediately given an isochron line (although if they are left for a long time after being mixed, they won't).

On the face of it, mixing would seem to present a real problem. What if a lot of rocks have been mixed very recently (say in creation week, or the flood) - they would all give apparant isochrons right, that could be of *any* age right?

Tests for mixing isochrons

Well, firstly, there are tests for mixing that work in most cases. Firstly, we can plot what is called the "reciprocal daughter element" graph (it would take too long to explain what this is, but if you're a real enthusiast and you want me to, start a new topic on "problems with isochron dating, and I'll explain in mathematical detail). Anyway, in mixed samples, the reciprocal daughter element graph is a straight line - in non-mixed (true isochron) samples, it is not a straight line.

We can also plot a "mixing hyperbola" graph (again, I can explain in more detail if you want). Only mixed samples conform to the mixing hyperbola, and unmixed samples do not. These two tests take care of the majority of possible mixed samples.

What age should mixing isochrons give?

Secondly, mixed samples can give literally **any** age. And I mean, positive OR negative ages. In fact, they should give almost equal ammounts of positive and negative ages. However, the number of negative isochrons we find (which must be mixing isochrons, they cannot be created any other way) are negligable compared to the number of positive. That means that the vast majority of positive isochrons are not mixing isochrons (in that a roughly equal number of positive and negative mixing isochrons should be created through mixing).

Agreement with other dating methods

Finally, if all else fails, we can see if the isochron age agrees with other radiometric ages of the rock. For example, if we compare a non-isochron method (like K-Ar) with an isochron method (like Rb-Sr), it is vanishingly unlikely that a mixing isochron would randomly give the same age as a K-Ar test.

Actually, we can also compare one isochron method to another. If the rock has been mixed, all isochron methods will give mixing plots - but all should give different mixing "ages" (some positive, some negative). Therefore, if we have, say, two different isochron methods of age determination, if they are both in agreement, then this all but rules out mixing other than in the case of extreme chance.

Are there any other ways in which Isochrons can be formed but not give real age?

There are a couple, but (bad news for young earthers), one requires 10 million years of cooling and the effect on the age estimation is only small, and one requires an ancient sample to being with. Those are:

Protracted fractional crystallization

Requires a slow cooling period on order of ten million years, which is not possible on a young Earth. Also, the effect is very slight: in the only example which Zheng (1989. "Influences of the nature of the initial Rb-Sr system on isochron validity" in Chemical Geology) produces (first entry in Table II on p. 14), the "incorrect" age (437

[Guest mscoville]

Yeah I think it does answer it. My only objection still revolves around the idea that there is no way to calibrate any of these techniques on anything that we know to be of great age. Which I know you feel is not a problem given your last post, and it was well stated, but to a laymen like me (I assume this is your field of study) it goes against what seems like common sense.

Secondly, mixed samples can give literally **any** age. And I mean, positive OR negative ages. In fact, they should give almost equal ammounts of positive and negative ages. However, the number of negative isochrons we find (which must be mixing isochrons, they cannot be created any other way) are negligable compared to the number of positive. That means that the vast majority of positive isochrons are not mixing isochrons (in that a roughly equal number of positive and negative mixing isochrons should be created through mixing).

What exactly makes them negative? Ages that aren't compatible with known or expected ideas about rock ages?

I recently read an book showing supposed divergent Isochrons in Basalts in the Grand Canyon (Yes in a creationist book, ha). Where a lBasalt flow on the surface plotted a straight Isochron giving an age older than Basalts found in the Precambrian (is that right?) strata deep below the surface. Since it was melted, do you think that implies mixing?

~ Martin

[Guest mscoville]

I was thinking about starting the Ethics thread, but I think I get the gist of your Ethical stance, the denial of Absolute truth is enough of an answer for me to hypothesize the rest.

[Bread_of_Life]

My only objection still revolves around the idea that there is no way to calibrate any of these techniques on anything that we know to be of great age.

However, isochron techniques self-calibrate. That's because if we follow the isochron to where it hits the y-axis, we can find out how much parent and daughter there were to start off with.

As you say of course, this isn't direct calibration, but indirect calibration. Unless we've actually be watching a rock for 3 billion years, and then test it, then there is no way of direct calibration. However, if all our methods agree on an age - this is good enough for me!

What exactly makes them negative? Ages that aren't compatible with known or expected ideas about rock ages?

No, I mean negative, as in minus, as in -100,000 years. Yes, that's right, if the slope (otherwise known as the gradient) of the isochron is negative, then we come out with a negative age - as in minus however many years. Negative isochrons, those that come out with negative ages, can only be created through mixing.

Also, the number of negative mixing isochrons should be the same as the number of positive mixing isochrons - that is, the number of mixing isochrons with a positive slope that come out with a positive age should be the same number that come out with a negative slope, and negative age. Since we find very few with a negative slope, we can infer that there are very few positive slope mixing isochrons masquerading as ordinary positive slope isochrons.

I recently read an book showing supposed divergent Isochrons in Basalts in the Grand Canyon (Yes in a creationist book, ha). Where a lBasalt flow on the surface plotted a straight Isochron giving an age older than Basalts found in the Precambrian (is that right?) strata deep below the surface. Since it was melted, do you think that implies mixing?

It may be, yes, although it could also be metamorphism (otherwise known as partial melting).

The fact is, if you select your sample carefully, and have enough time and money, it's easy to come up with an isochron that doesn't fit. For example, if you select rocks at the boundary of two volcanic eruptions, that is, rocks at the top of one eruption and bottom of the next, you will eventually find some sort of anomalous isochron, especially if the last volcanic eruption was fairly recent. From their funding report it turns out that the ICR spent tens of thousands of dollars on their isochron investigations (source: talkorigins.org), and only came up with one anomalous isochron - and they didn't report whether it fitted with other dating methods such as K-Ar etc (because it almost certainly didn't). Scientists don't have this sort of money, and therefore select rocks where they believe there is the least chance of getting anomalous isochrons, rather than the most. We still find some of course, and they are often published because they can give important information about the geo-thermal history of the area etc

It's also easy to come up with false K-Ar dates. Just take almost any rock from new volcanic eruption, and you'll come up with a date between 0 and a million years - depending on how much trace non-radiogenic argon got trapped when the rock solidified, and how accurate your readings are. That's why K-Ar is better for dating rocks that are 4 billion years old, rather than 4 million years old. 1 million years worth of trapped argon is nothing compared to 4 billion years of radiogenic argon - but compared to only 4 million years of radiogenic argon, it's too big a source of error.

However, what really isn't easy is to come up with a rock in which two or more anomalous readings match. In fact, it's almost impossible. The chances that a bad isochron, a bad K-Ar reading, a bad Uranium reading, a bad Uranium decay chain etc etc could happen in the same rock at the same time AND come up with the same results at random - well, it's so unlikely that there's probably no single rock on earth where it's actually happened, or actually will if we test every rock from now til the heat death of the universe.

Yet, scientists have found many rocks where 2 or more independents dating methods agree on the age. Here is a result, printed by a scientist and evangelical Christian on his page entitled "Radiometric Dating, a Christian Perspective"

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2010

As you can see the sample was taken from Western Greenland. Different parts of the sample were tested 12 times, using no less than 5 different sorts of radiometric dating, some isochron, some non-isochron. All methods are in agreement within boundaries of error, that the rock is between 3.62 and 3.65 billion years old. 6 of the samples were tested with Rb-Sr isochron dating - what is the likelyhood that all six of these were mixing isochrons, and that they all happened to agree on the same date, the same date as the Uranium-lead and lead-lead methods agreed upon? The answer is, no chance at all.

That's just one sample, and one example. I could cite hundreds of papers where such agreement occurs. This is impossible to explain unless the rocks really are old, or were created to look old. The appearance of age is dealt with in another thread started by txpaleo on this forum.

I was thinking about starting the Ethics thread, but I think I get the gist of your Ethical stance, the denial of Absolute truth is enough of an answer for me to hypothesize the rest.

I do not deny the existence of truth per se. I don't deny that evolution either did or didn't happen. I don't deny that the earth either is or isn't 5 billion years old.

I only deny that there is ethical truth. (actually, I also deny that there is aesthetic truth, but that's a different topic).

[artsylady]

You got these quotes from a creationist website didn't you? Because, I can't believe you've actually read the whole article - otherwise you'd know what Mr Walker was really talking about.

Sigh!

This gets rather tiresome.

I post something, knowing full-well how you'll respond, so I add a 'disclaimer' to refute what I know full well will be your response.

I knew you didn't actually contemplate anything I write. You simply want to make your case so you shoot back an answer as quickly as you can. But I at least thought you read what I write.

I've been wondering over the past few days exactly how to respond to this but to be honest, I think I'll leave it at this. I just don't have time to keep asking or saying the same things over and over again.

[Guest A Stone]

A Stone

QUOTE

Beginning at Gen. 1:2a, I believe is the RESTORATION of the earth and not the original creation of it. At that point is where 'creationists' are correct in that, man made in God's image, was created. The earth was restored; man was created.

Then why do we find human remains and settlements that are many tens of thousands of years older than the Gen 1 account? Also, what about all those pesky intermediates to humans that we find in the fossil record, were they part of the old creation?

You are not reading my quote carefuly. I am saying, yes, there is a possiblility of some kind of life on earth before Gen. 1:2a. But not the life that God created 'in His image' after Gen. 1:2b.

[salt and light]

Scientific Athiest,

I expected you to make comments about my pastor being wrong. My pastor was a scientist for many years,and is a very intelligent man,and relies on the Holy Spirit to help him say the right things when he preaches,and the Holy Spirit certainly isn't wrong. I've asked you this,and I ask you again, give me one example of an animal that evolved from another one. Also, you said something about taste being a function of the brain,well, that's right,BUT, is it by accident? Plus, there is just the right amount of oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere in order for us to live and breath,and the sun is not too close or too far that we can't live on this earth,and rivers and lakes don't freeze all the way down to the bottom,for the surface acts as a insulator. It doesn't matter if you have some kind of an explanation for all of this or not, you are forgetting one important thing, it is NOT by accident. It is not by accident that we have the right amount of oxygen and nitrogen in order to survive and it is not by accident that the sun isn't too close or too far away,and so on. I don't mean to sound harsh,but how can any person be foolish enough to believe that the earth and people and plants and animals just happened by an accident? My 11 and 8 year old children even know better than to believe in something so foolish. When my daughter was only 6, she was standing by a tree,and she asked me how did God make this tree,and I just joked with her and said, "oh it just got there by accident", and she looked at me kind of strange as if she knew better,and she did. Are you an accident SA? I'm not, I was created by a creator God who designed EVERYTHING the way it was and is,and I believe without question that this earth is not billions or millions of years old.

[Guest yod]

I was created by a creator God who designed EVERYTHING the way it was and is,

and I believe without question that this earth is not billions or millions of years old.

those are not necessarily the same things.

I also believe that everything was created by God because the Bible tells us...

I just think the "new earth" theory is a forced contradiction to what the Bible actually tells us.

And I also find that "new earthers" don't listen.

[Guest arkon]

First, I noticed it was said above, that the dating method that stared this thread, suffers from the same flaw as all the other dating methods.

Assumptions

1.) The half life cannot be observed over the amount of time required, and has not been observed under all conditions that could affect it.

2.) Because of 1.) , the original amounts of parent and daughter products are ASSUMED.

3.) Because someone calls their self a 'born again christian" , it does not mean that he is. Therefore his website the contradicts Gods own word accounts for very little in the way of evidence.

----

"New earthers" , would probobly be better served under its own thread.

People who believe in a pre-adam world, are calling God a liar.

Think about this. Why do 'new earthers" / Gap theorists arrive at the conclusion they do?

They need to make their religion agree with the so called 'scientific' theory of the day. More exactly, they want to comprimise with evolution by saying , YES the earth is old, but God created it two times and thats why we have fossils.

New earthers get snared in their own lie. Why? By 'creating' a pre adam race/world, they now have their old earth. BUT............. By having that OLD world destroyed by some catastrophic event..thus all life is wiped out and many fossils are made....they NO LONGER NEED AN OLD EARTH. A Global catastrophy AT ANY TIME would create the fossil record.

So why not Noah and Babel-Peleg?

[Bread_of_Life]

Arkon

You claim that:

First, I noticed it was said above, that the dating method that stared this thread, suffers from the same flaw as all the other dating methods.

This claim implies that you have actually bothered to read this thread, and especially the original post that started it, describing in detail the isochronic dating method.

This claim is, I would venture, untrue. You havn't read the original thread at all. How do I know this? Because you went onto say:

2.) Because of 1.) , the original amounts of parent and daughter products are ASSUMED.

Actually, the original ammounts of daughter and parent element do not need to be known for an isochron dating method to work. Not only that, they can be found out directly from the data, by finding the Y-axis intercept of an isochron graph - so even if they were needed, we wouldn't have to assume them. If you had read my original post, you would know this.

It would also help if you read other related threads before coming straight onto this one, as they contain more information. For example, they contain information which would make this comment:

1.) The half life cannot be observed over the amount of time required, and has not been observed under all conditions that could affect it.

Look rather naive and out of place. In fact, there are several methods by which scientists can infer half lives in the long past. They can use time machines (http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8796) for example. Funny you didn't spot this one, as you've actually posted on this thread.

They can also use Uranium decay chains (http://www.worthyboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8179).

Also, scientists know that half-lives havn't changed that dramatically because, if they did, the heat given off from the decay would melt both the rocks that the isotopes exist in, but also the earth as a whole.

New earthers get snared in their own lie. Why? By 'creating' a pre adam race/world, they now have their old earth. BUT............. By having that OLD world destroyed by some catastrophic event..thus all life is wiped out and many fossils are made....they NO LONGER NEED AN OLD EARTH. A Global catastrophy AT ANY TIME would create the fossil record.

It certainly wouldn't create the fossil record we actually have though, as I have shown in other threads. Again though, I invite you to start a thread on this and share your evidence.