Sciencescience

Mon Jul 23, 2018, 07:50 PM

D.T.L., Part 2. Mount Saint Helens Chicanery.

The loons love Mt. Saint Helens. They use it for several claims.
My favorite is the Little Grand Canyon, or whatever the fuck they call it, but for now I'm going to focus on the testing of the dacite Dr. Austin was allowed to grab a sample of for testing.
You see, Dr. Austin is a pretty big loon. He has good credentials and actually did some stuff but eventually tarnished his credibility by coming out of the closet as a loon.
Well, he went up and grabbed some 10 year-old dacite, which is an igneous rock and sent it off to be tested.
He knew what needed to be done to be done. He knew the age, the knew the proper testing that should be performed.
He chose Potassium - Argon and had the samples tested.
Now is where it is easily determined to see if Dr. Austin was being dishonest.
He could have not even bothered, since the sample was known or he could have used other methods that produce accurate results.
But he wanted to get false results, he knew he easily could, then use it to prove K-Ar dating is way the fuck off.

K-Ar dating.
K-Ar is the decay from Potassium to Argon. Potassium, like C14 is beta decay, it doesn't only decay to Argon it also decays to Calcium at a higher rate than it does to Ar. Both have to be measured to ensure accurate results. If the rate of decay to Argon is 11%, there should also be the right amount of Ca as well.
Carbon14 has a half life of about 5750 years. Potassium has a half-life of about 1,251,000,000 years.
BIG DIFFERENCE!!
The reason Ar is good is because it is an inert gas, it won't bond/react under most circumstances so when a new molten rock forms so it should be free of Ar. If it has K in it, the K will start to decay to Ca and Ar. Beta decay.
If 1,000,000 atoms of K was present, to use round numbers, after 1,251,000,000 years there should be 500,000 K atoms, 450,000 Ca atoms and 50,000 Ar atoms present in the sample. The numbers are more precise, but roughly 89% Ca to 11% Ar.
Potassium is good because it is abundant in the earth. Also, for every 10,000 K atoms there is 1 radioactive K40 atom, which is also good.
A spectrometer is used to detect the Ar present. The sample is forced to release the gas to be able to see how many Ar atoms are present and that determines how much time has passed since K40 started decaying.
A ten year old sample probably wouldn't even detect enough Ar to even give a proper idea. The rate of decay is so long that barely any K would have decayed to Ar.
So, why does it give a reading of about 300,000 years old because of the Ar in the sample?
Well, it goes back to dishonesty. There are margins of error in everything. These margins of error are only good after it is applicable to use a certain method. Nobody would use K-Ar for anything less than probably around 100,000 years. Even then that would be at the bottom of the spectrum for applicable use. There simply isn't enough Ar to give accurate results. It should give no results at 10 years old, but at this threshold any Argon present in the spectrometer prior to the testing that remained from past tests will put the margin of error through the roof.
That's why honest people do not use K-Ar to date 10 year old rocks.
At a billion years old, the amount of Ar left behind as a contaminant wouldn't change the margin of error enough to be significant.

When you hand a lab a 10 year old rock to test with K-Ar you are probably going to get results that are way off.
It's OK if you don't know better, but the loons know better. Dr. Austin certainly knows better.
Then he posts an article that says they sent a 10 year old rock to be tested, without explaining anything else and claim that radiometric testing is way off.
Complete and utter dishonesty and absolutely no respect for science or the people working hard every day to figure out as much as they can about our natural world.

10 replies, 448 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply D.T.L., Part 2. Mount Saint Helens Chicanery. (Original post)
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 OP
nolidad Jul 2018 #1
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #2
nolidad Jul 2018 #6
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #8
Cold Warrior Jul 2018 #3
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #4
Cold Warrior Jul 2018 #7
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #9
nolidad Jul 2018 #5
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #10

Response to SatansSon666 (Original post)

Tue Jul 24, 2018, 06:55 AM

1. See now you are just showing foolishness!

If there is Ar. present in the spectrometer- then any dating is way off! and no date from that spectrometer cannot be trusted.

And if trhey did not know the date of that rock- the Old Earth crowd would have had no problem with that date!

That is just like they had no problems with the ages of 25-40K years using C-14 on bones tested until they found out they were testing many different dino bones!

Every isotope dating method yields massive ages! there is no radio dating method to determine the age of a young rock. They cannot measure the decay until at least several hundred thousand years! And you know there was AR present in the spectrometer how??????

How do you explain all teh discordant ages produced by8 non YEC scientists? They also dishonest??

I suppose these results were part of your paranoid conspiracy thinking as well?

http://www.icr.org/article/whole-rock-model-isochron

http://www.icr.org/article/radioisotopes-diabase-grand-canyon-isochron-dating

Once again bearing false witness and deliberately lying ion a post is poor form!

They prove using multiple isotope dating methods how dating is false!

All you can come up with is a fairy tale of might bes, could be, may have, suggests,......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 24, 2018, 07:05 AM

2. Wrong.

Last edited Tue Jul 24, 2018, 08:05 AM - Edit history (1)

There will be Ar present as a contaminant. It isn't a problem and doesn't change the reliability if it is being used on the right type of rock. 10 year old rock isn't the right type of rock.
If you have a billion atoms of Ar and there were 5000 present from contamination.. that's not that much..
But if you aren't supposed to have any argon at all and there are 5000 atoms present.. that's a big discrepancy and margin of error, that's simple math.
Even if they didn't know the age of the rock, it would have been cross referenced with other dating methods used for that time frame. The error would have been found. That's what scientists do. Dr. Austin didn't have mutiple tests performed, he only needed one because he didn't want accurate results.

Dr. Austin knows this.
He deliberately did it to try to fool people that don't know better.
Well, I know better, his fellow loons know better, but they count on you not knowing better.
Now that you do know better, how can you say he was being honest in sending the dacite for K-Ar testing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 24, 2018, 05:11 PM

6. Well as you posted a thread to slander Dr. Austin,

I am going to create a thread to expose your lies!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 25, 2018, 03:58 AM

8. It's cute that you feel you need to defend him.

You won't acknowledge it's dishonest to do that though.
Because it is and you can never admit it.

Pointing out blatant dishonesty isn't slander.
You fell for it though. You fell for his scam.
Kinda makes one wonder what else he lied about that you believe without question.
Doesn't it?
Nah who am I kidding. You are programmed to reject anything that goes against your beloved Dr. Austin, the dishonest scammer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Original post)

Tue Jul 24, 2018, 07:29 AM

3. These people waste valuable resources and in some cases specimens playing these games

I remember one who sent dinosaur fossils to be Carbon dated. Of course, the fossils contained no Carbon but they had been shellacked in the museum from which the loon got them. So they did return a relatively recent date when tested. Wasted the lab's time. Destroyed the specimen.

The labs need to review the credentials of those who send in specimens to be tested and, if they are Creationist AND are specifically requesting an inappropriate test, send the specimen back untested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 24, 2018, 07:49 AM

4. That was going to be my next thread. lol

I guess I can skip it.
The worst part is, the museum told the loon that the bones had been covered with shellac.
Shellac is organic as in, contains carbon.
Didn't stop this loon though.
Then he tries to use it as evidence that carbon dating is wrong.
Deliberately dishonest behaviour.
Lying to the people that trust them.
It's all they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 25, 2018, 02:25 AM

7. Heres an interesting article about it in an NCSE publication dedicated to exposing

Creation “scientists” dishonesty. Amusing read.

“CRSEF obtained several fragments of fossilized dinosaur bone from the paleontological collections of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History "by disguising the nature of the creationist science group" (Lafferty 1991:2B) and by misrepresenting the nature of their proposed research. James King, Director of the Carnegie Museum, says Hugh Miller and his party identified themselves as chemists who wanted to do some analyses of the chemical composition of the fossils. King says that small "bits and pieces" which had spalled off the surfaces of various specimens were offered to Miller with the explicit warning that the fossil bones had been "covered heavily in shellac" and other "unknown preservatives." Miller accepted the fragments and indicated that the coatings posed no problems for the analyses they were considering. Subsequently, several of the bone fragments were submitted to the University of Arizona's Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry for radiocarbon dating. CRSEF "also arranged the Arizona testing by not revealing its origins" (Lafferty 1991:2B). Austin Long, professor of geochemistry at the University of Arizona, informed Miller that there was no collagen (a protein which is the source of most of the carbon in bones) in the samples and that large amounts of shellac and other contaminants were present. Miller indicated that he wanted the samples dated regardless.

CRSEF's misrepresention of their intentions, although ethically ques- tionable, may have been necessary in order for them to obtain the specimens they required. No responsible curator would have approved of sacrificing valuable dinosaur fossils for unsuitable tests. Radiocarbon dating techniques cannot date samples which are older than about 50,000 years. There simply is not enough carbon 14 remaining in the sample to measure reliably. It is a firmly established geological fact that dinosaurs lived between 248 and 65 million years ago. Indeed, the age of the rock layers which contained the fossil specimens CRSEF obtained from the Camegie Museum has been established by numerous independent dating methods. These age determina- tions range from 130 to 150 million years before the present (Kowallis et al. 1991). Therefore, these fossils are outside the range of radiocarbon dating methods.”
https://ncse.com/files/pub/CEJ/pdfs/CEJ_30.pdf

And of course you’re aware of potholer54’s fantastic “THAT’S BECAUSE THERE’S NO F**KING CARBON IN IT” video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #7)

Wed Jul 25, 2018, 04:23 AM

9. Stop it.

Pointing out the truth and calling out scammers is considered slander now.
Just ask our friend. .


No fuckin' carbon in it. .
Indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 24, 2018, 05:10 PM

5. Lying is unbecoming of you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #5)

Wed Jul 25, 2018, 04:41 AM

10. No. That really happened.

And like Mr. Austin, he purposely used the results he knew would be wrong to lie and claim it as evidence.
He knew there was shellac and had it tested anyway. He knew the results would be wrong, he didn't care.
You should care, but you don't.
For some reason you seem to think it's OK what he did and call people liars for showing you the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience