The Big Bang

[ted]

SA,

Do you realize how powerful of a witness you could be for God? With your education, you could lead so many more to Christ.

Think on this; God simply needs people to spread his word. It doesn't matter the education, status, wealth, color, or genger of the individual. Just the willingness.

In Him,

t.

[Bread_of_Life]

Ted,

That's very kind, but I'm afraid I don't believe in God right now. Sorry!

Nik

[ted]

Well, keep your heart open, friend.

I believe science, in many ways, simply explains what God has created.

Science gives the how, but God gives the why!

Take care.

t.

[truseek]

Hello, all, I'm new here and this is my first post, so if I am duplicating a statement already made or if I am ignorant due to not thouroughly reading this thread, my apologies. I will read it all later, but it is late, and I wanted to post this.

SA, you seem to be a proponent of radiometric dating. There are a few possible flaws with this method.

Radiometric rock dating (forgive me if you are referring to somethnig else, but I nkow of no other type of radiometric dating) is the methodology of determining the date of formation of a rock sample by the well-established rate of decay of the isotopes contained. The method is completely dependant upon knowing the starting points, the original concentration od isotopes.

Many methods of figuring out these starting points have been proposed, however, all rest on shaky assumptions.

Thanks mainly to the fact that they appear to be so constant, the decay rates of radioactive materials have become the primary mechanism for attempting to discover the age of rocks. In addition to a constant rate of variation, however, any timing mechanism must also have a calibrated beginning point. A number of methods have been tried to calibrate the "radiometric clock". But they have all required unprovable and apparently unwarranted assumptions. Faure, in his textbook refers to all of them as "assumed values" except for those obtained by the "isochron", or similar linear method.

The linear methods are several, and have in common the reduction of the data to a set which can yield a straight-line plot. Many detailed descriptions of these methods are available. A summary description of the Rb-Sr isochron is included below.

Arndts and Overn alerted the creationist community to the fact that in spite of the mathematical rigor of the isochron, it also has unwarranted assumptions, and the data carefully gathered and processed to indicate immense ages can more appropriately be dismissed as indicating the recent mixing of two or more magmas. Dalrymple challenged this analysis with five points, all of which were promptly and thoroughly refuted.

In Dalrymple's latest book he ignores the entire issue of the whole-rock isochron, only defending the mineral isochron. There is sound logic supporting the mineral isochron, but another fatal flaw. Individual mineral crystals are not closed systems. Even over the few thousands of years available in the young-earth paradigm, they are insufficiently stable to give acceptable data to the geochronologists.

Rubidium and strontium occur as trace elements in many common rock types. Rubidium has two isotopes. 85Rb (stable, abundance 72%) and 87Rb (radioactive). 87Rb decays to 87Sr with a half-life of (approximately) 48.8 billion years. Strontium is stable in all natural forms, and in addition to the radiogenic 87Sr (7%), has isotopes 88Sr (82%), 86Sr (10%), and 84Sr (<1%).

The general method of dating is to take several samples of the rock, to determine the ratios of the Rb-Sr isotopes in each, and by simultaneous equations determine the probable beginning points for each, from which the age may be determined.

For the sake of compatibility with the available laboratory instruments, the specific ratios chosen are 87Rb-86Sr and 87Sr-86Sr. The algebra is equivalent to a simple straight-line diagram.

The amount of daughter isotope increases as the amount of parent increases in the sample. The magnitude of that increase depends on the time allowed for the decay process to transpire, or the age of the rock. If we extrapolate down the line to the zero intercept, we have a representation of a sample with no parent isotope to contribute to the daughter concentration. This must represent the initial daughter concentration.

The scheme is mathematically sound. We must examine the assumptions.

For a problem to be solvable by simultaneous equations there must be as many independent equations as there are unknowns. The unknowns are the original 87Sr-86Sr ratio for each sample and the age of each sample. Each sample gives one equation, but introduces two additional unknowns. Regardless of the number of samples, there are never enough equations to cover all the unknowns. These problems must be resolved by the assumptions.

It is assumed that all samples analyzed together are the same age. The word "isochron" (from the Greek "same time") symbolizes that. I do not dispute this assumption.

If all initial 87Sr-86Sr ratios in the system are assumed to be the same, the scheme can be made to work, as the unknowns are reduced to two, the common age, and the common strontium ratio. Any two samples may now introduce the required two equations, and any more beyond that will simply improve the accuracy and the confidence level. This assumption is outside the experience based on field data, however, where the general case is that every sample has its own unique ratio. However, it can be rationally assumed that each sample we find has its own age and its particular rubidium concentration, which over time may have imparted a unique portion of daughter isotope. The assumed uniform strontium ratios should certainly be valid when applied to a rock system solidifying from a uniform homogenized melt. I must emphasize, however, that this enabling assumption must fail in the absence of an initial homogenized melt.

If isotopes have migrated in or out of the sample during the aging period, the resulting data have no time significance. Isochrons are thought to be self checking in this regard, since with several samples an open system with random migration should scatter the points off of the straight line. Indeed, it often happens that there is a scatter of data, rendering the isochron worthless. But there are many occurrences of isochrons having acceptably straight-line form that are also rejected. Often "metamorphism" is cited as the probable cause, the system having opened, either partially or completely resetting the clock. In order to assure an acceptably closed system, samples as large as 1 meter cubes have been suggested. The assumption of a closed system for many of the isochrons, if they have not been questioned by the geochronologists, will not be challenged here. I will note that these are generally obtained on the samples of larger dimensions, that is the whole-rock isochrons.

If the equations are not independent, the problem cannot be solved. This would be the case where all samples on the diagram plot on a single point. Although the single point on the diagram is valid, there is no way of finding a slope or intercept. If the melt were initially homogeneous and remained closed, it could be expected still to be homogeneous, and yield that single-point isochron. This should be the general case of the whole-rock isochron.

The need is to find samples with a variety of initial rubidium content but still having initial strontium ratios that are known to be uniform. The assumed initial homogeneous melt cannot be expected to give whole-rock samples with variable rubidium, but the assumed uniform 87Sr-86Sr ratios demand such an initial homogeneous melt.

The mineral isochron solves the dilemma. The mineral crystals have done the job in an elegant way. Crystals naturally form around a specific chemical composition, each atom occupying its naturally-assigned site. Foreign atoms just don't fit, either electrochemically or physically, and are strongly rejected. Depending on its concentration in the melt, a foreign element may have more or less acceptance in a crystal, based on its chemical and physical resemblance to one or another of the normal host elements. As the crystals form, each different mineral type accepts a different trace level of rubidium and of strontium. Because of their individual unique chemistry they each extract a different amount of rubidium and of strontium from the melt. The crystals of the individual minerals are used as the rock samples in the mineral isochrons.

Often an isochron yields an unacceptable slope, indicating an age much too young or much too old to be compatible with the accepted model. Frequently the slope is negative. A common explanation for these cases is "mixing". It has always been recognized that the same straight-line plot as the isochron can be achieved if the original melt were a mixture of two original homogenized pools. If points a and c are the compositions of the two original pools that partially merged to form the melt, any sample from the melt will occupy a place on a straight line between them, such as point b. No sample will be found above a or below c. Such a "mixing line" has no time significance, and the textbook warns to be wary of accepting such mixing as a true isochron.

Faure's text also proposes a test for mixing. If a plot of 87Sr-86Sr vs 1/Sr (the concentration of strontium) shows a linear relationship, then mixing is indicated. A brief study conducted in 1981 showed a high degree of correlation to this mixing test in the isochrons being published. A subsequent public dialog between Dalrymple and Arndts & Overn concluded that although the mixing test is strongly indicative of mixing, there are circumstances under which mixing would not be detected by such a test, and others wherein the test could give a false indication of mixing. The caution for the geochronologist would be to suspect any isochron, since there is no way to rule out mixing.

It is now clear, however, that there is at least one positive test for mixing. It is the whole-rock isochron itself. If the whole rock yields samples that give a linear plot, whether the slope is positive or negative, or whether the slope signifies an age that fits a preconceived model or not, there is no other known mechanism outside of mixing to which the data may be rationally ascribed.

Mixing is an unfortunate misnomer that has become popular for describing rocks formed from two or more original melts, or from a melt becoming contaminated by isolated incorporation of local rock. Understand it to mean partial mixing, with resulting heterogeneity. Complete mixing would result in homogeneity, and would give only a single point to plot. No curve of any kind, nor even a scattering of points would occur.

This homogeneity is the assumed starting point in the history of the rock being dated. It then solidifies. But now, years later, we dig up 6 adjacent meter cubes of the rock, and discover that the normalized ratio of the parent (and incidentally of the daughter) is different in each cube, sufficient to plot as an "isochron". How can we rationally accept the assumed initial homogeneity? We can not.

What is needed but missing in the whole rock isochron is a mechanism to establish initial homogeneity, and then to extract heterogeneous samples. The mineral crystals do the job in an elegant way. Each type accepts a different level of contamination of the parent isotope, chemically determined. One cannot rationally extend this process back to the whole rock. It has been tried, but there is a fallacy

The whole-rock isochron is justified on the basis that migration of the isotopes in a metamorphic event may be confined to distances of perhaps 1 cm. This is much larger than the average crystal size. Thus the original constituents of each crystal will lie nearby. By taking samples of 100-cm dimensions, one could assure that the entire content of the original crystals are well represented by the sample, with very small error. However, this matrix is the original melt that was theorized to be homogeneous. The ability to find differences in the rubidium content among the samples violates the assumption of original homogeneity. Original inhomogeneity is the only possible explanation: in other words, mixing.

This method of justifying the whole-rock isochron on the basis of the mineral is logically unsound. Within the larger matrix the tiny crystals may incorporate discrete trace elements and return them over time. But they are powerless to alter the composition of the whole-rock matrix.

It is claimed that fractional crystallization of magmas and separation of crystals from the remaining liquid result in suites of comagmatic rocks of differing composition. . This may be true, but there is no experimental evidence that this can generally be applied to trace elements that are foreign to the crystals. Add the fact that trace elements are not securely held by crystals until temperatures are well below the melting points, and this postulate falls far short of explaining the variation in rubidium in whole-rock isochrons. Mixing is much preferred, particularly when it is noted that many data sets have negative slope, where mixing is always the accepted explanation. Often the negative-slope data pertain to large formations that particularly fit the hypothesis of slow cooling from a melt.

In the case of the mineral isochrons the scheme postulates an initial homogeneous melt, represented by a single point on the diagram. As the crystals form, their differential solubility will move their individual points on the diagram horizontally , different distances. (Only horizontally, since the vertical is a ratio of two isotopes of the same element). The large volume of whole-rock isochrons, however, shows the general case to be an initial heterogeneous melt represented by the kind of diagram published as an isochron, and which we conclude is actually a mixing line. Any point in the melt can be represented as a point on the straight line. When mineral crystals form, each crystal will move its point off the straight line in one or the other horizontal directions. The result is a scattering of the points. The geochronologist discards it as one of the following:

A three or more part mixture,

Subsequent metamorphosis,

Not a closed system: In this case he recognizes that crystals really cannot be expected to be a closed system. They tend to continue to reject contaminants long after formation, the mobilities of foreign elements in crystals being a whole school of scientific study. The retention of trace elements in crystals is so inadequate that it has been possible to construct "Isochrons" from various parts of the same crystal. It is common that when the mineral isochron fails, the geochronologist then produces a whole-rock isochron from the same formation.

The ability to obtain a whole-rock diagram, straight-line or not, can be considered proof that the data represent a "mixing line" rather than an "isochron". If mixing has not occurred, and the system has remained closed, then the whole-rock data must all lie on a single point. In fact, even if the whole-rock data show scatter, either mixing is indicated -- but of a complex nature, with more than two components -- or there have been subsequent alterations described as the system being open, or both.

Has any legitimate isochron ever been formed? It is improbable. There is ample evidence for mixing. Any "isochron" could be mixing. There is no way to rule it out. All whole-rock "isochrons" are mixing, and they are approximately 90% of all published. Many of the remaining (mineral) "isochrons" have a whole-rock point located close enough to the straight line to discredit them. Why should we expect any of the others to be "true isochrons", since mixing has the strongest probability?

If one possesses a strong faith in the antiquity of the rocks, one could rationally expect that an occasional mineral isochron is legitimate. But it would also require the whole-rock diagram to be concentrated in a single point. (Neither a straight line or scattered). Often a whole rock point is put on a mineral diagram. That does not meet the criterion. Several whole-rock samples must be obtained, using the same techniques required for the whole-rock method. Their individual data points must be identical, i.e. superimposed on the diagram. At that point mixing would not have been ruled out, but all available tests requiring mixing would have been eliminated.

And on that, for now, the defence shall rest.

Yours in Christ

Truseek

Edited June 29, 2004 by truseek

[stevehut]

I have no problem whatsoever with a Big Bang. I just believe that God shot the gun.

The account of creation in Genesis is very sketchy, and does not give a lot of details. This could in fact explain why our solar system has so many various bodies orbiting around each other. IMHO

[truseek]

Stevehut, it does not, however, account for the retrograde rotation of certain planets.

Yours in Christ

Truseek

[Steff]

Actually it does Truseek.

The retrograde spin question has been answered several times on these boards. Basically it tells us that total angular momentum is conserved for a system. Planets can spin opposite ways as long as the total angular momentum of the group is what it started out as.

IE if you had one big mass spinning at a value of 100 and it broke into 4 chunks the chunks could have different rotations as long as they all added up to 100.

[truseek]

Hrm, interesting. Could you give me an example of this retrograde spin happening with other systems, preferably with something smaller than a planet sos mebbe I can see it happening? I am not terribly well studied on angular and linear momemtum. Though the law of conservation od angular momentum would seem not to contradict this point, I am not certain that it supports it.

Yours in Christ

Truseek

[stevehut]

it does not, however, account for the retrograde rotation of certain planets.

Agreed.

Still, God invented the laws of nature. He can speak things into being, or he can use physical processes to accomplish the same things. God could have "poofed" me into existence with a wave of his finger, but instead he chose to use the physical process of my mother's womb.

Either way, God did it.

I don't think any Christian should spend a lot of time worrying about something like this. When we get to heaven, we can ask all the questions we want.

[Steff]

The effect can be observed with objects that shatter into different pieces. Basically what happens is you have a item with a spin of 100 clockwise direction and a mass of say 40. If the large object were to break into 4 pieces of 10 mass and 3 were spinning clockwise and 1 counterclockwise that the total energy of the spin of the objects would have to add up to 100 in the clockwise direction.

The spins could look like this:

Object 1 - Mass 10, Spin 25 CW

Object 2 - Mass 10, Spin 25 CW

Object 3 - Mass 10, Spin 75 CW

Object 4 - Mass 10, Spin 25 CCW

The total spin adds up to a mass of 40 and a spin of 100 in the CW direction. Hence angular momentum is conserved.

Retrograde spin is just the planets not all spinning in the same direction which doesn't by any means violate the law of conservation of momentum like the above example shows.