I'm a YEC. Challenge me.

[Esquilax]

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.

What do you think early means, in terms of a celestial body? Like a week or two?

It might seem like a lot from your human perspective, but on a geologic timescale thousands of years, millions of years, are relatively short amounts of time.

Example. Please note, down in the section about the age of the moon, where Venus' "relatively recent" timescale is five hundred million years.

[Kayenneh]

Yep, that's the one... They claim the small amounts of the poison are actually good for you... -.-'

To be fair, to paraphrase Mathieu Orfila (if I remember correctly), it's not about the substance but the dose.

[John V]

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.

If the moon doesn't have zircons, then whiskey tango foxtrot does this have to do with the issue?

Here, let's switch gears a little.

No thanks, I'm not fond of red herring.

[TheBeardedDude]

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.

If the moon doesn't have zircons, then whiskey tango foxtrot does this have to do with the issue?

Here, let's switch gears a little.

No thanks, I'm not fond of red herring.

"If the moon doesn't have zircons, then whiskey tango foxtrot does this have to do with the issue?"

Because you said you were incapable of comprehending lead-loss

"No thanks, I'm not fond of red herring."

Could have fooled me.

[Brian37]

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.

If the moon doesn't have zircons, then whiskey tango foxtrot does this have to do with the issue?

Here, let's switch gears a little.

No thanks, I'm not fond of red herring.

No thanks, I'm not fond of facts

There, fixed that for you.

[John V]

What do you think early means, in terms of a celestial body? Like a week or two?

No, but some of the differences are two billion years. I don't consider that early on something that's 4.5 billion years old.

Example. Please note, down in the section about the age of the moon, where Venus' "relatively recent" timescale is five hundred million years.

First, sure, I'd give you 450 million as "early", as that's about 10% of total life.

Second, notice what the link says by the picture of lunar craters: "The large number of craters in this region indicates that this part of the Moon is quite ancient."

---

Because you said you were incapable of comprehending lead-loss

Lead-loss on the moon. But again, if you're correct that heating will reset any of those methods to zero, then you still have the problem of differing ages. You're actually hurting the cause with this argument, and it goes against the link which Exlax provided. I'm not saying that talkorigin's word is gold, but I'll take it over some guy on the internet.

[Brian37]

What do you think early means, in terms of a celestial body? Like a week or two?

No, but some of the differences are two billion years. I don't consider that early on something that's 4.5 billion years old.

Example. Please note, down in the section about the age of the moon, where Venus' "relatively recent" timescale is five hundred million years.

First, sure, I'd give you 450 million as "early", as that's about 10% of total life.

Second, notice what the link says by the picture of lunar craters: "The large number of craters in this region indicates that this part of the Moon is quite ancient."

Don't cherry pick science to prop up your imaginary sky daddy. You do realize Jews and Muslims also attempt the same crap? It doesn't work when they do it and it won't work when you do it.

The bible IS NOT nor ever was a scientific textbook, it is a comic book, nothing more.

[TheBeardedDude]

Difference in age within error, isn't a difference in age statistically.

[Esquilax]

No, but some of the differences are two billion years. I don't consider that early on something that's 4.5 billion years old.

Then isn't it lucky that you aren't the arbiter of either the term, nor the impacts on the moon?

Because, to be clear, you're arguing definitions again, and not the science: whether or not this classifies as early, the fact that it measures the last impact and not the age of the rock isn't in doubt. All this means is that the last impact was two billion years after the rock was formed. That's just what happened, and focusing in on the wording in a sentence will not change the actual physical process behind the science.

It might come as a shock to you John, but the moon doesn't care what you think of it.

First, sure, I'd give you 450 million as "early", as that's about 10% of total life.

I wasn't aware that I needed to haggle: the scientists said something, and little old not-scientist John disagrees because he doesn't like the use of the word "early."

I wonder who I should believe?

Second, notice what the link says by the picture of lunar craters: "The large number of craters in this region indicates that this part of the Moon is quite ancient."

Red herring: the actual physical observation of the craters does indicate that the area of the moon is old. Why? Because it has existed for longer, to present a target for impacts to occur on.

Does this change the fact that K-Ar dating measures the impacts and not the age of the rock? Why no, no it doesn't!

[Violet]

You know the funny thing is I never would have thought you'd want to be a moderator.

It's more a 'hey, i haz a voice in teh legal syztum!' than it is anything else.