6000 year old earth

originally posted by: wisvol
Nothing thousands and thousands of years old should be construed as "young".

The rate of decay of isotopes being constant or inconstant isn't the only obstacle to dating rocks by radioactivity.

The date of formation of these isotopes is too, as well as the presumed decayed nature of the isotopes' stabler products:

A rock containing lead maybe never was containing uranium, a rock containing both may not have have contained only uranium at any point: not all lead is from uranium.

196Hg decays into gold, and not all gold mines were quicksilver in some remote past.

Not all the stable carbon used to be 14C either.

This isn't difficult to understand.

Understanding the formation process of uranium simplifies the debate substantially, and fortunately this science isn't accessible to the public, yet the principle that not all elements are slowly decayed from more complex elements shouldn't be that substantial an obstacle in the debate we're having.

Well considering Ar40 is the most popular tests, only comes from decay, and atmospheric Ar40 is miniscule and accounted for when the calculations are made makes your point irrelevant. You are regurgitating the same creationist claims made in the 70s and 80s, which were countered and shown to be false and have not advanced in the 30+ years since.

a reply to: Agartha

And you referenced Strahler who never mentioned something as ridiculous as calcium stalactites growing 25.4 mm per year.

It is far from ridiculous, you have videos and photos of indoor calcium stalactites growing at this and faster rates in this thread.

a reply to: Cypress

Well considering Ar40 is the most popular tests, only comes from decay, and atmospheric Ar40 is miniscule and accounted for when the calculations are made makes your point irrelevant. You are regurgitating the same creationist claims made in the 70s and 80s, which were countered and shown to be false and have not advanced in the 30+ years since.

Why is it that you smart people with knowledge that the earth has been here millions or billions of years resort to using such a peremptory tone when you could just provide evidence instead?

Argon is not only obtained from decay, no element is only obtained from decay, and the fact you mention that there is Argon in the atmosphere shows this, Argon is roughly % in volume of the atmosphere, making the amounts far from minuscule.

You say "when the calculations are made makes [my] point irrelevant."

What calculations?

a reply to: wisvol

yes - your argument is utterly ludicrous

you are ATTEMPTING to compare speleotherm growth in caves [ bedded limestones and dolomites ] to the mineral leeching oberved in concrete structures and brickwork [ where lime motars and similar cements are used ]

this is an utterly assanine

would you consider comparing tree groth rates to be valid id comparing :

white cedars [ reportedly one of the slowest growing trees ] in cliff side environments

to

` hybrid poplar ` - reportedly one of the fastest growth rates [ in well watered fertilised topsoil ]

well would you ?

originally posted by: wisvol

It is far from ridiculous, you have videos and photos of indoor calcium stalactites growing at this and faster rates in this thread.

Again: concrete stalactites grow faster than cave stalactites because they use different chemical processes. Concrete/cement has gypsum. Gypsum is a salt of calcium sulfate which is much more soluble than calcium carbonate (in cave stalactites). As it is more soluble transport and recrystallization happens a lot faster than with calcium carbonate. Very simple to understand (explained easily in my previous reference).

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Some trees grow faster than others, this is a good comparison.

Use a better tone.

When trees reach maturity, and even slightly before this, their rate of growth declines and stops.

Accumulation of calcite in water, when water drips constantly in location, does seem to accumulate and form calcite deposits.

Saying that the observed growth of these deposits or speleothems is somehow linearly regressive isn't scientifically acceptable because there are variables such as water flow and composition that do not stay constant for thousands of years.
And you don't have to take my word for it, this is how to properly model linear regression: nl.mathworks.com...

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Cypress

Well considering Ar40 is the most popular tests, only comes from decay, and atmospheric Ar40 is miniscule and accounted for when the calculations are made makes your point irrelevant. You are regurgitating the same creationist claims made in the 70s and 80s, which were countered and shown to be false and have not advanced in the 30+ years since.

Why is it that you smart people with knowledge that the earth has been here millions or billions of years resort to using such a peremptory tone when you could just provide evidence instead?

Argon is not only obtained from decay, no element is only obtained from decay, and the fact you mention that there is Argon in the atmosphere shows this, Argon is roughly % in volume of the atmosphere, making the amounts far from minuscule.

You say "when the calculations are made makes [my] point irrelevant."

What calculations?

The evidence is there. There same bs you keep throwing out there has been addressed since the 70's ad nauseam. The Ar 40 isotope is the byproduct of radioactive decay from K 40 isotope. That is the isotope used in dating.

Rates of leaching of Ar 40 into the atmospere is well known and does not have a noticable affect on the dates. It is accounted for in the degree of error.

a reply to: Cypress

Referring to my response as bs does not make yours more interesting.

40Ar is the most stable form of Argon. Radioactive potassium will decay into Argon as will any unstable isotope decay into different elements, and this is not a calculation that makes the earth billions or millions of years old.

Provide one if your claim is based on something.

a reply to: Agartha

The growth rate of speleothems is highly variable due to seasonal variations in the rate of flow, carbon dioxide content, and other factors.

www.britannica.com...

originally posted by: wisvol
The growth rate of speleothems is highly variable due to seasonal variations in the rate of flow, carbon dioxide content, and other factors.
www.britannica.com...

I am getting tired or re-posting the same stuff.

Yes, that's correct, there is a variation in growth rate, here is my post from pg 8 (reference is there):

There is a variation in limestone stalactites growth rate, with the average being 0.1 mm per year and the fastest 3 mm per year, but these are rare and only occurr where fast flowing water is rich in calcium carbonate and carbon dioxide.

Notice the rate: 0.1 mm to 3 mm.

So I have to repost this:

And you referenced Strahler who never mentioned something as ridiculous as calcium stalactites growing 25.4 mm per year.

Wisvol, you will not be able to find any reputable site that states caves limestone stalactites grow at the rate indicate in creationwiki, because it just doesn't happen. Sorry. Those stalactites are proof that the Earth is a lot older than 6000 years old.

a reply to: Agartha

The growth rate you quote as being in the range of 0.1 mm to 3 mm is the result of an observation I have no trouble believing.

Your assumption that this rate is constant is incorrect as demonstrated by faster formation of calcite speleothems, something that is observable and reproducible, and therefore does follow the scientific method.

It's great that your opinion of the earth's age is what ever you feel like thinking.
However, before I agree with you I'll need observable and reproducible proof that speleothems cannot grow faster than 3mm in a year, which would preclude all that do.

originally posted by: wisvol
Your assumption that this rate is constant is incorrect as demonstrated by faster formation of calcite speleothems, something that is observable and reproducible, and therefore does follow the scientific method.

Let me explain something to you: the experiment you posted does not reproduce the formation of stalactites in caves. Your experiment uses Epsom salt which is magnesium sulfate which is HIGHLY SOLUBLE. The cave stalactites are made of calcium carbonate which has a VERY LOW SOLUBILITY.

Therefore, it does NOT follow the scientific method.

Mine is not an assumption, mine is what science has demonstrated.

It's great that your opinion of the earth's age is what ever you feel like thinking.
However, before I agree with you I'll need observable and reproducible proof that speleothems cannot grow faster than 3mm in a year, which would preclude all that do.

I have already explained how the growth rate goes to a maximum of 3mm as OBSERVED and studied by scientists.
Not with one observation, but many: LINK 1 pg155 LINK 2 pg23 LINK 3 pg257

a reply to: Agartha

I also have posted a link that uses govt guidelines from a National Park site, yes, to show how growth is correlated with both time, the Bernouilli laws, and chemical composition of the drip, and yes this link does it with household chemicals to make it blue and cheap.

However, I have also posted photographic and videographic evidence of calcite speleothem formation that by its location alone proves a higher much higher rate of growth than that which you claim based on a paper by some dude who doesn't know his head from his ass.

Now quit your trite whining and know that caves don't prove ridiculous things.

a reply to: Agartha

How's your own medicine kewl now fam?

originally posted by: wisvol
I also have posted a link that uses govt guidelines from a National Park site, yes, to show how growth is correlated with both time, the Bernouilli laws, and chemical composition of the drip

You have not posted a link with specific growth ranges because it's not convenient to your view.

and yes this link does it with household chemicals to make it blue and cheap.

cheap and for children. Adults need better experiements that use the same chemical compositions.

However, I have also posted photographic and videographic evidence of calcite speleothem formation that by its location alone proves a higher much higher rate of growth than that which you claim based on a paper by some dude who doesn't know his head from his ass.

Your pics are not caves limestone stalactites: different chemical composition and chemical processes... again.

Now quit your trite whining and know that caves don't prove ridiculous things.

You quit posting bogus references and stop beating around the bush by comparing oranges with apples (cave stalactites with concrete ones).

How's your own medicine kewl now fam?

Really? Are you a teenager?

a reply to: Agartha

You have not posted a link with specific growth ranges because it's not convenient to your view.

OK: calcite speleothems as evidenced by those on the metropolitan rail system grow between one and ten cm a year. As demonstrated.

cheap and for children. Adults need better experiements that use the same chemical compositions.

Yes, started with that.

Your pics are not caves limestone stalactites: different chemical composition and chemical processes... again.

Caves are rock, subways are concrete, concrete doesn't have more calcite than rock in cave, as evidenced by the fact that the cave's surface is literally all calcite (and the subway isn't).

(cave stalactites with concrete ones).

Calcite speleothems are not concrete, they're calcite.

And it was observed in caves too, according to geological professional Dr Duane Gish, whom you have summarily dismissed.

Really? Are you a teenager?

Been one, not relevant to speleothem

originally posted by: wisvol
OK: calcite speleothems as evidenced by those on the metropolitan rail system grow between one and ten cm a year. As demonstrated.

Caves are rock, subways are concrete, concrete doesn't have more calcite than rock in cave, as evidenced by the fact that the cave's surface is literally all calcite (and the subway isn't).

I have explained the difference to you. Stop comparing apples with oranges or learn basic chemistry to understand it.

And it was observed in caves too, according to geological professional Dr Duane Gish, whom you have summarily dismissed.

You lie a lot. You have not posted any reference or link about Gish. You have simply said that the Sequoia quote 'may' be from him but no links, no references.

That quote is a lie from creationwiki, hence it has NO references.
If it's not a lie you would have provided me with a clear link just to shut me up. But you can't. Because the quote is a lie.

a reply to: Agartha

Stop comparing apples with oranges or learn basic chemistry to understand it.

Comparing calcite speleothem with calcite speleothem, chemistry has fewer secrets to me than to you.
Not apples and oranges, indoor apple so you know they didn't take zillion years to grow.

You lie a lot. You have not posted any reference or link about Gish. You have simply said that the Sequoia quote 'may' be from him but no links, no references.

I don't lie, fam, but saying so does make you free from my responding further or reading your accusations.

originally posted by: wisvol
Comparing calcite speleothem with calcite speleothem

Comparing calcium sulfate with calcium carbonate.... that's not real science, pal.

I don't lie, fam, but saying so does make you free from my responding further or reading your accusations.

And still no link to Gish backing up your statements. Just like creationwiki. You don't need people's accusations: your posts show how you have been dishonest.

a reply to: wisvol

And it was observed in caves too, according to geological professional Dr Duane Gish, whom you have summarily dismissed.

ROFLMAO

you have got to be taking the piss

gish is NOT a professional anything [ unless idiot is now a profession ] and certainly no geologist

if you want to give citations on cave morphology try john gunn or trevor ford