I'm a YEC. Challenge me.

[John V]

you gave a link, but you didn't show what you claim. Here's what your link says:
Because of the severe impact history of the early Moon and the consequent heating and metamorphism of lunar samples, the conventional K-Ar method is not particularly useful in the study of lunar rock formation because it tends to date the latest heating and impact events rather than original rock ages.

It doesn't say regular meteor hits, it says the impacts occurred to "the early moon," which would not cause argon dating to be much more recent than other methods.

So when one uses K-Ar dating on lunar rocks, it shows that they are younger because what is being shown is the date of the last heat and impact event, not the age of the actual rocks, which would fit in with the other brackets, presumably. I don't get what you're missing, here.

Again, heating events "early" in the moon's history would give ages not much more recent than other methods. you know that - that's why you didn't quote it yourself, but claimed "regular meteor hits" without support.

[TheBeardedDude]

So when one uses K-Ar dating on lunar rocks, it shows that they are younger because what is being shown is the date of the last heat and impact event, not the age of the actual rocks, which would fit in with the other brackets, presumably. I don't get what you're missing, here.

Again, heating events "early" in the moon's history would give ages not much more recent than other methods. you know that - that's why you didn't quote it yourself, but claimed "regular meteor hits" without support.

What?

If I have a rock that has K40 in it, and it cools forming a feldspar (KAl3Si3O8), it will then begin to spontaneously decay its K40 to Ar40.

If that rock remains undisturbed, then I could measure the ratio of K40 to Ar40 and use the rate of decay to get an age.

If however that rock is heated up and the crystal lattice expands due to a change in density, the Ar40 generated from the decay will escape as it does not fit into the structure of the feldspar crystal lattice. Resetting the age to 0. Then you close that system again and it starts over.

Meaning that you measure the heating event and not the original age.

[pocaracas]

Again, heating events "early" in the moon's history would give ages not much more recent than other methods. you know that - that's why you didn't quote it yourself, but claimed "regular meteor hits" without support.

What?

If I have a rock that has K40 in it, and it cools forming a feldspar (KAl3Si3O8), it will then begin to spontaneously decay its K40 to Ar40.

If that rock remains undisturbed, then I could measure the ratio of K40 to Ar40 and use the rate of decay to get an age.

If however that rock is heated up and the crystal lattice expands due to a change in density, the Ar40 generated from the decay will escape as it does not fit into the structure of the feldspar crystal lattice. Resetting the age to 0. Then you close that system again and it starts over.

Meaning that you measure the heating event and not the original age.

That was awesome... but I'm afraid it may be wasted on these guys.

[TheBeardedDude]

What?

If I have a rock that has K40 in it, and it cools forming a feldspar (KAl3Si3O8), it will then begin to spontaneously decay its K40 to Ar40.

If that rock remains undisturbed, then I could measure the ratio of K40 to Ar40 and use the rate of decay to get an age.

If however that rock is heated up and the crystal lattice expands due to a change in density, the Ar40 generated from the decay will escape as it does not fit into the structure of the feldspar crystal lattice. Resetting the age to 0. Then you close that system again and it starts over.

Meaning that you measure the heating event and not the original age.

That was awesome... but I'm afraid it may be wasted on these guys.

Usually is.

[John V]

What?

If I have a rock that has K40 in it, and it cools forming a feldspar (KAl3Si3O8), it will then begin to spontaneously decay its K40 to Ar40.

If that rock remains undisturbed, then I could measure the ratio of K40 to Ar40 and use the rate of decay to get an age.

If however that rock is heated up and the crystal lattice expands due to a change in density, the Ar40 generated from the decay will escape as it does not fit into the structure of the feldspar crystal lattice. Resetting the age to 0. Then you close that system again and it starts over.

Meaning that you measure the heating event and not the original age.

NSS. And if this heating occurs early in the existence of the rock, then there won't be much of a difference from other methods.

[TheBeardedDude]

What?

If I have a rock that has K40 in it, and it cools forming a feldspar (KAl3Si3O8), it will then begin to spontaneously decay its K40 to Ar40.

If that rock remains undisturbed, then I could measure the ratio of K40 to Ar40 and use the rate of decay to get an age.

If however that rock is heated up and the crystal lattice expands due to a change in density, the Ar40 generated from the decay will escape as it does not fit into the structure of the feldspar crystal lattice. Resetting the age to 0. Then you close that system again and it starts over.

Meaning that you measure the heating event and not the original age.

NSS. And if this heating occurs early in the existence of the rock, then there won't be much of a difference from other methods.

Other methods? You mean other radiometric clocks?

If so, then A) there are not many options for lunar material because of its mineral composition. Making the K-Ar system the best suited and
B) the other radiometric clocks are reset by heat too. Meaning that if I have a rock with the K-Ar system and the U-Th-Pb system and I heat them up, they will all 3 reset (there are 2 isotopes of U with different decay rates and this act as 2 different systems). Pb-loss for U-Th-Pb and Ar40 loss for K-Ar.

[Angrboda]

Arguing the science when you don't understand the science just makes you look like a dishonest twat. (Not mentioning any names...)

[Bucky Ball]

I'm not going to read through all the posts here, but in case no one mentioned it,

All dating methods agree, generally. Ice cores, dendritic dating, all the isotopic methods. The probability that they are ALL independently wrong,
and STILL come out with the same wrong number, is zero. They would have had to be engineered to come out with all the same wrong dates.
Jebus was a tricky guy, I guess. Why would Jebus do that ?

[John V]

Other methods? You mean other radiometric clocks?

For the most part, yes. Did you see the chart? It gives a few based on "cosmic ray" method which I'm not familiar with, but aside from that the other ages are radiometric using other elements.

If so, then A) there are not many options for lunar material because of its mineral composition. Making the K-Ar system the best suited and

Funny, the link Exlax gave says that K-Ar is less suitable than the other methods.

B) the other radiometric clocks are reset by heat too. Meaning that if I have a rock with the K-Ar system and the U-Th-Pb system and I heat them up, they will all 3 reset (there are 2 isotopes of U with different decay rates and this act as 2 different systems). Pb-loss for U-Th-Pb and Ar40 loss for K-Ar.

I understand Ar, as a gas, escaping when heated, but don't see it for the others. But, if you're right, then all methods should give the same date - that of the last heating. They give different dates.

[TheBeardedDude]

Other methods? You mean other radiometric clocks?

For the most part, yes. Did you see the chart? It gives a few based on "cosmic ray" method which I'm not familiar with, but aside from that the other ages are radiometric using other elements.

If so, then A) there are not many options for lunar material because of its mineral composition. Making the K-Ar system the best suited and

Funny, the link Exlax gave says that K-Ar is less suitable than the other methods.

B) the other radiometric clocks are reset by heat too. Meaning that if I have a rock with the K-Ar system and the U-Th-Pb system and I heat them up, they will all 3 reset (there are 2 isotopes of U with different decay rates and this act as 2 different systems). Pb-loss for U-Th-Pb and Ar40 loss for K-Ar.

I understand Ar, as a gas, escaping when heated, but don't see it for the others. But, if you're right, then all methods should give the same date - that of the last heating. They give different dates.

They are using cosmogenically generated isotopes for dating. The error associated with their problems is related to the production rate of the isotopes in question.

K-Ar is less preferred than Ar-Ar dating. Same system, different method (I was trying to keep it simple).

Let's say you have a zircon crystal, it readily incorporates Uranium 238 and U235 into its crustal lattice because U has similar properties to the other elements in its formula. When U238 decays, it produces Pb207 and when U235 decays, it produces Pb206. Pb is not suitable in the crystal lattice and will be expelled from the crystal if the lattice is opened during heating.


That is the reason we love using zircons, because it takes a lot of heat to get rid of the Pb. So it is a great system. You don't get lunar zircons due to the mineralogy of the rocks.

---

Here, let's switch gears a little.

A common interpretation about what the stratigraphic record and the fossil record actually tell us. Creationist/intelligent design enthusiasts suggest that each record is evidence for Noah's Flood. Whereas scientists (geologists, paleontologists, physicists, biologists, etc) suggest that both are in fact records of billions of years of time and a record of the evolutionary history of life on Earth. So, who is correct? You can probably guess which side I am on, but let's make some general assumptions about each hypothesis and then look at the record itself and see which it supports (and if you have any additional evidence I would love to see it).

If, the stratigraphic record is evidence of a single flooding event, that would suggest that every bit of sediment (we will consider only the stratigraphic section from the Cambrian to present) was deposited during the 40 days and 40 nights of the flood, plus any remaining number of months it took for the water to recede back to its normal levels. If this is the case, then we should see a clear succession of deepening water throughout the section and then a subsequent lowering of sea level towards the upper sections. The raising of sea level is known as a transgression and the dropping of sea level would be a regression. Areas at high elevation would show essentially none of either. Mainly because they are at such high elevation they would have experienced the least amount of time underwater, and erosion after the sediment was exposed from the regression would have removed most of the evidence. Hypothesis 1) Higher elevations should record little to no information, and would record much shallower depths. Hypothesis 2) The rock record at lower elevations should show 2 clear trends. A massive transgression, followed by a massive regression. The second part of this hypothesis is reliant upon the fossil record. The hypothesis is that the succession of fossils throughout the geologic record is evidence of the animals on Earth fleeing from the rising waters. The implication is that the slower, dumber organisms are concentrated in the lower sections because they were unable to outrun it or not intelligent enough to run away. The upper sections would therefore be hypothesized to have more of the terrestrial vertebrates and more intelligent organisms. Hypothesis 3) Slow and dumb organisms should be concentrated in lower sections and at lower elevations. Hypothesis 4) Since the fossil record is evidence of the mass migration of organisms we can also assume that the old and/or sick would have been as slow as some of the lower organisms, so we should see the occasional higher organism in lower portions of the section.

The other side of the coin would be the interpretation that the scientific community is on. That is, if the stratigraphic record is the accumulation of sediments through time and the fossil record is evidence for evolution, then we should be able to make similar hypotheses as to what we should see. Hypothesis 1) Higher elevations have been uplifted through orogenic (mountain-building) events, and could therefore be much older than the surrounding low-lying sediments. Hypothesis 2) We should not see evidence of only 1 major transgression and regression but evidence for multiple events as well as multiple times of exposure to subaerial processes. Hypothesis 3) Organisms lower in the section should represent early forms of life and as organisms go extinct they will disappear from the rock record and never show up again. Hypothesis 4) Organisms who have not yet originated will not appear in the fossil record until they originate and are populace enough to become buried. Therefore we should not see any organisms from the Eocene in any stratigraphic layers older than that.

Now, let's evaluate the evidence for hypotheses 1-4.
Hypothesis 1 (YEC) Higher elevations should record little to no information, and would record much shallower depths.
Hypothesis 1 (Sci) Higher elevations have been uplifted through orogenic (mountain-building) events, and could therefore be much older than the surrounding low-lying sediments.

Let's take Mt. Everest. What is the rock at the very top? Limestone. In particular it seems to be a deeper water sedimentary rock and is Ordovician in age. This means that the crinoids (VERY slow organisms), trilobites and ostracods within it should be at a much lower elevation in the creationist opinion, because they correspond to lower organisms in other sections around the world. In the Science side, these rocks were once between India and Asia on the seafloor, until India collided with Asia bringing these marine sedimentary rocks from below sea level to the highest point on Earth. Hypothesis 1 goes to the Scientific community.

Hypothesis 2 (YEC) The rock record at lower elevations should show 2 clear trends. A massive transgression, followed by a massive regression.
Hypothesis 2 (Sci) We should not see evidence of only 1 major transgression and regression but evidence for multiple events as well as multiple times of exposure to subaerial processes

What do we see in the stratigraphic record? Evidence of multiple major transgressions and regressions. We also see periods of no sedimentation at all. These are points in time where the rocks became exposed and erosion removed some of the material, erasing that portion of time. So, we see multiple periods of elevated sea level, multiple Ice ages, and periods of time where the rocks were exposed to the air, eroded, and then covered with new sediments after they were covered again with water. Hypothesis 2 goes to the Scientific community.

Hypothesis 3 (YEC) Slow and dumb organisms should be concentrated in lower sections and at lower elevations.
Hypothesis 4 (Sci) Organisms lower in the section should represent early forms of life and as organisms go extinct they will disappear from the rock record and never show up again.

And the verdict is...we see the progression of more complex organisms through time , but the persistence of some organisms throughout geologic time. For instance, I do not believe anyone would call a clam fast, and since they have no brain they are not smart either, yet we find them throughout the fossil record, from bottom to top. And organisms who disappear early in the fossil record never return. Hypothesis 3 goes to the scientific community.

Hypothesis 4 (YEC) Since the fossil record is evidence of the mass migration of organisms we can also assume that the old and/or sick would have been as slow as some of the lower organisms, so we should see the occasional higher organism in lower portions of the section.
Hypothesis 4 (Sci) Organisms who have not yet originated will not appear in the fossil record until they originate and are populace enough to become buried. Therefore we should not see any organisms from the Eocene in any stratigraphic layers older than that.

Guess what? There are no Cambrian T-rex fossils, nor any mammal earlier than the Mesozoic. Some organisms alive today are very primitive, but they have changed compared to their fossil counterparts. Even the horseshoe crab, long called a living fossil is morphologically different today from his fossil ancestors. Hypothesis 4 goes to the Scientific community.

By my tally that is YEC:0 and Scientific community: 4. In closing allow me to say this, any idea or hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable in order to be demonstrated as plausible. The YEC concept of the stratigraphic record and fossil record recording the flood is erroneous, in multiple ways that I have hopefully demonstrated. I assume most of my atheist colleagues here will look at this and not read it, but perhaps anyone who comes to this forum trying to say that it is all flood evidence, can be directed here for why it is incorrect.