Friday, February 9, 2024

Argon, Carbon, Magnetic Field

Creation vs. Evolution: Why is Carbon Dating More Important than Potassium Argon? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Argon, Carbon, Magnetic Field · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Ken Wolgemuth Understood the Argument · If Ken Wolgemuth Avoids Answering Me Directly, What Does That Say of Him? Update : he did some answering · He did some answering, though, to others ...

Why Science CANNOT Prove the Earth Is Billions of Years Old
Answers in Genesis | 9.II.2024

10:23 Here is my view on the dates:

27 500 BC
42 000 BC

The more recent date would be early post-Flood:

2935 B. Chr.
0.039541 pmC/100, so dated as 29 635 B. Chr.
2912 B. Chr.
0.066161 pmC/100, so dated as 25 362 B. Chr.

(2935 + 2912) / 2 = 2923~2924 BC (with Flood in 2957)
(3.9541 + 6.6161) / 2 = 5.2851 pmC
=> 24 300 extra years => 24 300 + 2924 = 27 224 BC

The older date would be pre-Flood, and arguably due to reservoir effect of some sort. Comparable to part of an animal being dated 400 years older than now.


Hans Georg Lundahl
11:37 Hawaii is wetter than New Zealand and New Zealand wetter than Sicily.

Do you know what exact year the weather was even wetter, globally, than 1959 Hawaii? It's described in Genesis 7.

Pardon, but what exactly do you mean by "wetter." Do you mean the humidity in the air? If so, that is in accordance to their place on the plane of latitude.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@Eunity286 I mean anything that will cool the lava quicker.

Flood waters, humidity, rains, whatever.

@hglundahl What lava? Yes, there are active volcanoes in some of these areas, but... What lava are attempting to cool? I'm not understanding your analogy.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@Eunity286 Do you know ANYTHING about K-Ar dating?

It's not an analogy, it's physical science, and it should be obvious to anyone actually versed in the matter what it was that I was saying.

Lava always cools. The question is how quick it cools. If it cools quickly, argon will be trapped. If argon is trapped, it will skew an argon dating by being interpreted as daughter isotope.

It will be interpreted as if there were more original potassium and as if more of the original potassium had been decayed radioactively. Get it this time?

@Eunity286 To be even more precise, lava that has cooled and has it's content of K (potassium) and Ar (argon) tested, is the routine, not an exceptional, but the routine source for potassium argon dating.

@hglundahl Interesting. I'm in college right now and have never heard the term "wetter" used to describe anything of the sort. Geology isn't my specialty, but I'm currently taking a class with a geology professor. I'll be sure to ask him about it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@Eunity286 Do.

He might tell you that K-Ar dates aren't supposed to be skewed by rapid cooling of the lava induced by water, and that it's bad practise to call such a thing a potassium argon date.

And you might ask him, how does he exclude this having happened with the potassium argon dates he studies?

@hglundahl I do know that we use the half-lives of potassium and argon to determine the age of each layer, which isn't exactly determinate of how deep and separated the layers are. We can determine that through layers around it as well.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@Eunity286 "I do know that we use the half-lives of potassium and argon to determine the age of each layer"

Yes. So, if you find 94 % potassium and 6 % argon, you routinely conclude that the halflife of potassium should be applied to finding out how ling the layer or igneous rock (a k a former lava) has been lying there.

But to do so, you assume the 6 % argon are from the 6 % potassium. That the potassium has gone down from 100 % to 94 %.

That's how you date the rock to sth like 110 million years in this case.

If you treated the potassium as 100 % of the original, and the argon as a separate entity, you wouldn't end up with that date.

That's what I do.

Btw, there is no "half-lives of potassium and argon" since argon 40 is stable. It's only the half-life of potassium 40 that you use.

Now, "layers around it" - well, if sediment and lava layers are alternating, each sediment layer is routinely dated by the lava layer above it.

However, it once was a little question for me, why do we in such cases find lava layers higher up are less old by dating than those further down. It's the case in Laetoli, for instance. My solution is, the lower lava layers were laid down earlier in the Flood and therefore trapped more argon. They were cooled by deeper and possibly cooler quantities of water.

@hglundahl interesting. I'm not sure if this is proof of the Earth's age exactly, especially if such a discrepancy was known, surely scientists would have accounted for this. How long have you worked in the field?

Hans Georg Lundahl
@Eunity286 The problem is, scientists who deny there was a Flood will also deny this discrepancy can account for very long ages.

So, they will use them.

I have not worked IN the field, I work as a writer, and I have OBSERVED the question of argon dates probably since I did a check-up on Laetoli.

As said, I was stumped that lava layers higher up were dated younger. Obviously they were laid down later, on some level, but if all radioactive dates (except carbon 14) were just random, wouldn't one expect the dates to come in no order.

The water depths during the Flood would be the response, I concluded.

I think there was a Med Doctor who became a Young Earth Creationist who alterted me to this by speaking about a Volcano on Hawaii. Looked it up, his name is Grady Mc Murtry.

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 1
Arne Karlsen | 15 mai 2016

Jock Young
Wouldn't it be easier to just accept the straightfoward logic that radioisotope decay is constant and the Earth is over 4 billion years old? Why are you trying so hard to imagine a scenario where the science MIGHT be wrong? And without testing such a scenario, you would still have nothing.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@jockyoung4491 A few remarks on your remark:

1) Where did I even mention decay rates NOT being constant?
2) Where does K-Ar (which above is about) touch on 4 billion years?
3) Where did I state the scientists just MIGHT be wrong?
4) Why would it not be THEIR responsibility to check they couldn't easily be so?
5) How does modern parallel to the case, in miniature, and historic fact referred to NOT constitute an actual test?

Jock Young
Yes, scientists test their assumptions and make sure they are right. Obviously.

Hans Georg Lundahl
How do you test an assumption about the past?

I see exactly two ways:
1) written records in the past
2) examples from more recent past, with parallel outcomes.

I have exactly both of them on my side.

14:03 Our magnetic field is not at its least strong now.

The centuries after the Flood, the carbon 14 production was c. 10 times faster.

It's influenced by three magnitudes:
  • directly, number of incoming particles (forget which ones, but can look it up)
  • directly, energy level of each particle
  • inversely, strength of magnetic field.

The same higher income of radioactivity back then also contributed to both lowering of human life spans (that nice curve studied by Dr. Robert Carter), and the ice age.

Jock Young

Hans Georg Lundahl
@jockyoung4491 Enjoy the laugh.

You may chuckle, smile etc as well.

When you are done, you tell me what you find strange?

TravisBickle Popsicle

Well, there really isn't any evidence demonstrating a global flood occurred, and there's much evidence demonstrating one most definitely did not, so there is that to consider. A global flood would have left geological evidence, biological/ genetic evidence, etc., but there simply isn't any.

@hglundahl I laughed as well.... As I find it absolutely hilarious to see that people actually believe in bronze age mythology.

Ray Gsbrelcik
@Jewonastick And you belief that LIFE not only existed in the Dark Vacuum of Dead Space....WITHOUT Oxygen, but actually Began to ASSEMBLE itself into Mathematically Complex, Thinking, breathing creatures!

Now THAT'S Fantasy!

You didn't even Watch this video, DID you?

@Jewonastick "HILARIOUS," my friend.....Hilarious!

@Jewonastick Did you even Watch his refutation of Current "DATING" Methods? Are you even paying ATTENTION here?

@raygsbrelcik5578 yeah, and I keep seeing these claims without any evidence… Like zero peer reviewed research for instance. Where did I wrote that life existed in space? Oh wait….. I didn’t.

Ray Gsbrelcik
@Jewonastick AND——About 90% of atheists I talk to say, or Think, that the STUFF of life Pre-existed, however....You say, No!

Okay——So then....just HOW did it begin to CREATE itself, then??

@Jewonastick You guys can't even Get your Stories Correct!!

@Jewonastick Furthermore; Until, or, unless, you can DISPROVE BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY, you have NO Platform whatsoever, in Defense of your, "Theory!"

Until, or, unless, you can DISPROVE....Conclusively, BIBLE PROPHECY——You have NO leg to Stand on, my friend!


@Jewonastick By the way——The evidence ( so called) that you Think You've provided, could barely cover the head of a Stick pen!

@raygsbrelcik5578 I don’t know what the origin of life is. I just don’t believe that it was a magical immaterial man that supposedly lives outside of our universe. Atheists don’t have any story to “get correct”. Atheism is the disbelief in a god and that’s it.

Biblical archaeology doesn’t prove anything other than that some places in the Bible actually existed. Biblical prophecy? You mean those stories that are either so vague, open to interpretation, bound to happen or only confirmed within the bible itself?

Ray Gsbrelcik
@Jewonastick By your own admission....You don't know what the Origin of life is, however, you're bound and determined to Blindly REJECT the One and Only Model of Origins that FITS all Criteria for the evidence of Flesh, Soul, and, Spirit.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@raygsbrelcik5578 Did you note the subject was the magnetic field?

Hans Georg Lundahl
@Jewonastick Did you note the subject was the magnetic field?

Hans Georg Lundahl
@travisbicklepopsicle Did you note the subject was the magnetic field?

TravisBickle Popsicle
@hglundahl yeah, I noted you mentioned the magnetic field. Among other things.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@travisbicklepopsicle Three things that all contribute to the production of C14.

No comments: