Where does the number 4.5 billion come from?

[he_who_is_nobody]

That age came about from Ca-Al dating, not U-Pb dating.

I'm not very knowledgeable about this subject so correct me if I'm wrong, but I am not familiar with Ca-Al dating. I think you got a wrong idea when you read "Ca-Al-rich inclusions" on Wikipedia.

Now just to be clear, the only Calcium isotope that has a long enough half life is Ca-48, but that half-life is long enough that "for all practical purposes it can be considered stable". All other isotopes have a half-life of mere seconds at most, only one has a half-life of over a hundred thousand years. None of these is suitable for radiometric dating. However, even if we consider that there might be one that has a suitable half-life (only Ca-48 remains), it immediately stops at Se-76 after double-beta decay. During no point does an isotope of Calcium with a long enough half-life to consider it for dating actually decay into aluminium.

So that being said, what are these Ca-Al-rich inclusions we're talking about and how can they be measured? They are inclusions in the actual meteor, so both elements are available in their stable form. It's the atoms of lead (Pb) inside them that are dated.

Paper 1[/url]"]The lead-lead isochron age of chondrules in the CR chondrite Acfer 059 is 4564.7 +/- 0.6 million years ago (Ma), whereas the lead isotopic age of calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions (CAIs) in the CV chondrite Efremovka is 4567.2 +/- 0.6 Ma.

However, you're still correct that they can be dated differently, though not by this invented Ca-Al method.

Looking at either Paper 2 or the Wikipedia page, we can see that the alternative ways are either Magnesium-Chromium or Magnesium-Aluminium dating.

So since I'm a complete and utter n00b at this: Am I correct or not?

You are correct. I am in-error.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

You are correct. I am in-error.

This is why I love being a moderator here.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

You are correct. I am in-error.

This is why I love being a moderator here.

Are you trying to make a correlation between rationality and/or reason and having the ability to admit error? Very interesting premise, if that's what you are trying to equate.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Are you trying to make a correlation between rationality and/or reason and having the ability to admit error? Very interesting premise, if that's what you are trying to equate.

I'm trying to make a correlation between sanity and the ability to admit error. Rationality is just a admirable byproduct.

 

[Isotelus]

Good news!

I got a hold of the paper. What's the best way I can make this accessible to everyone here?

 

[Inferno]

Good news!

I got a hold of the paper. What's the best way I can make this accessible to everyone here?

Send it to them by mail.

 

[Isotelus]

Send it to them by

Could I post images of it as long as its legible? It's only 2 pages

 

[australopithecus]

Megaupload. Oh, wait...

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Yes, Wikipedia's claim that the age comes from dating meteorite material would be Patterson, no?

Patterson was one of the first to do it, but he was not by any means the only person to do so. Science differs from religion in a fundamental way; it does not operate by taking revealed truth from a single source and then arguing over little nuances of what they said. After Patterson did his work it was repeated and verified by numerous others. One of the most influential was a scientist named Tera who did a lot of work on radiometric dating in the 80s and 90s.

http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/190/1/205.abstract

Here she is talking about how to get better numbers by removing contamination from terrestrial sources:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4066.pdf

But the creationist material is so good!

Hmmm? What exactly do you mean by "good" here? It's convenient and easy to only read things that you agree with, certainly - but this is not the path to wisdom. Unchallenged or unexamined beliefs are worth exactly nothing.

 

[Inferno]

Send it to them by

Could I post images of it as long as its legible? It's only 2 pages

I wouldn't try it, copyright and all that... I'd suggest http://www.mediafire.com/ and post the link, but... "DO NOT post links to or discuss illegal downloads." <-- RULES

E-Mail is my suggestion.

 

[Isotelus]

I wouldn't try it, copyright and all that... I'd suggest http://www.mediafire.com/ and post the link, but... "DO NOT post links to or discuss illegal downloads." <-- RULES

E-Mail is my suggestion.

Yes, that was my concern. I have to be able to send attachments, so if anyone wants to read it pm me with their email address. It's a PDF file.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Could I post images of it as long as its legible? It's only 2 pages

Could you just read it and sum it up for us. It should be easy; YesYouNeedJesus said that the refutation is on page 57.

 

[Inferno]

Well as Isoletus said, it's only two pages long. I don't understand half of what is said in the article, but I'll try to dredge up the important quotes.

The previous suspected lack of concordance between uranium and lead is therefore real in at least some stony meteorites. We suspect that this lack of concordance may result in some part from the choice of isotope ratios for primitive lead, rather than from lead gain or uranium loss. It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy. Further work is in progress in order to attempt to find a solution to this problem.

And so on and so forth. So what is the new age for the meteorites, the age calculated by Gale and Harden? 4.78 GY, 4.68 GY, 4.53 GY and 4.61 GY respectively, if I understood the paper correctly, which I freely admit is unlikely at best. So if I understood the paper correctly, they propose a difference at most 230 million years, which I grant you would not fall in the 1% margin but is still extremely accurate.

This paper written a year after the 1972 paper suggests that the difference might only be as much as 40-70 million years. The next paper corrects for another meteorite and revises the age toward 4.55GY again. The third paper also seems to hone in on 4.565GY. Paper number 4 suggests 4.551GY, with one outlying point of data at 4.590GY, although with the caveat that "this older age may be an artifact of the correction procedure, and that some of the discordancy of the Bjurbà¶le data is the result of either a recent geologic disturbance to the UThPb system or to terrestrial U loss." This complete paper suggests that many of the samples were contaminated and/or have undergone change that had not yet been proposed. The next paper again suggests ages that are compatible with Patterson, as does this one.

Now if I've understood everything correctly, and again I must stress that this is far, far, far away from my area of expertise, then this does not pose a problem at all. Now I take it, YesYouNeedJesus, that all of this stems from this paper from Dr. (creation) Jonathan F. Henry, at least in one form or another, correct?
Far from the above posing a problem to the age of the Earth being 4.55GY, it seems that the Gale/Harden paper of 1972 proposed a problem and scientists went to fixing it. And in the end, they did. It seems Patterson made some faulty assumptions, which in the end turned out to be fairly correct, and then other scientists came and corrected these assumptions. The age of the Earth of 4.55GY still stands.

 

[Isotelus]

And so on and so forth. So what is the new age for the meteorites, the age calculated by Gale and Harden? 4.78 GY, 4.68 GY, 4.53 GY and 4.61 GY respectively, if I understood the paper correctly, which I freely admit is unlikely at best. So if I understood the paper correctly, they propose a difference at most 230 million years, which I grant you would not fall in the 1% margin but is still extremely accurate

I think you have it right, because this is exactly the way I understood it when I read it. This part in particular must have been what the YEC's homed in on: "It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy". It seems very damning, but only when taken out of the context from the rest of the paper.

Far from the above posing a problem to the age of the Earth being 4.55GY, it seems that the Gale/Harden paper of 1972 proposed a problem and scientists went to fixing it. And in the end, they did. It seems Patterson made some faulty assumptions, which in the end turned out to be fairly correct, and then other scientists came and corrected these assumptions. The age of the Earth of 4.55GY still stands.

Agreed. I saw no evidence of Patterson being discredited for bad science or anything of that sort.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Here's the first paragraph of the paper:

MODERN radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are at
present inseparably bound up with the classic works of Patterson
and his colleagues on the isotopic composition of lead in
the triolite phase of iron meteorites and in bulk samples of
chondritic meteorites. But it is not widely appreciated, outside
the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or
meteoritics, that, judged by modern standards, the meteorite
lead~lead isochron is very poorly established. Anders, has
pointed out many times (see for example ref. 4) that the
available evidence on uranium, thorium and lead abundances
in meteorites shows that for the majority of measured
chondrites there is insufà®à¬cient uranium and thorium to explain
the observed development of radiogenic lead. This fact was
recognized by Murthy and Pattersong who, in constructing the
meteoritic lead-lead isochron, rejected most of the available
data on this ground. Only for three meteorites (Beardsley,
Nuevo Laredo and Richardton) are the lead and uranium
data known to be in tolerable agreement.

How does everyone here interpret that part?

 

[australopithecus]

Here's the first paragraph of the paper:

MODERN radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are at
present inseparably bound up with the classic works of Patterson
and his colleagues on the isotopic composition of lead in
the triolite phase of iron meteorites and in bulk samples of
chondritic meteorites. But it is not widely appreciated, outside
the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or
meteoritics, that, judged by modern standards, the meteorite
lead~lead isochron is very poorly established. Anders, has
pointed out many times (see for example ref. 4) that the
available evidence on uranium, thorium and lead abundances
in meteorites shows that for the majority of measured
chondrites there is insufà®à¬cient uranium and thorium to explain
the observed development of radiogenic lead. This fact was
recognized by Murthy and Pattersong who, in constructing the
meteoritic lead-lead isochron, rejected most of the available
data on this ground. Only for three meteorites (Beardsley,
Nuevo Laredo and Richardton) are the lead and uranium
data known to be in tolerable agreement.

How does everyone here interpret that part?

I interpret that as an abstract to a paper that we have now found, read, and understood to not have done that which you claimed it did. Your claim that Patterson was discredited was wrong, now it just looks like you're grasping at straws. Be man enough to admit when you are shown to be at error.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Here's the first paragraph of the paper:

MODERN radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are at
present inseparably bound up with the classic works of Patterson
and his colleagues on the isotopic composition of lead in
the triolite phase of iron meteorites and in bulk samples of
chondritic meteorites. But it is not widely appreciated, outside
the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or
meteoritics, that, judged by modern standards, the meteorite
lead~lead isochron is very poorly established. Anders, has
pointed out many times (see for example ref. 4) that the
available evidence on uranium, thorium and lead abundances
in meteorites shows that for the majority of measured
chondrites there is insufà®à¬cient uranium and thorium to explain
the observed development of radiogenic lead. This fact was
recognized by Murthy and Pattersong who, in constructing the
meteoritic lead-lead isochron, rejected most of the available
data on this ground. Only for three meteorites (Beardsley,
Nuevo Laredo and Richardton) are the lead and uranium
data known to be in tolerable agreement.

How does everyone here interpret that part?

Interpret? What is there to interpret?

Have you read the posts from Inferno and Isotelus yet? (Are you reading any of the posts on this forum?) They have both read the whole paper and given a summery of it. One cannot draw conclusions from one paragraph of a paper, which I know is opposite from what you have learned from your creationist mentors.

 

[Inferno]

How does everyone here interpret that part?

Given that I sent you the paper, what do you say now that both Isoletus and I have furnished you with an answer? What do you say about the paper? I'm currently at another computer, but I believe it's figure 2 where the newly dated ages are. Now that you know that they propose a maximum difference of 230 million years and now that you know that later papers corrected for that and again honed in on 4.55GY, what do you say about the age of the earth? How old is the earth?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Is your Talk Origins link peer-reviewed?

This is an interesting turn of phrase from somebody 'completely new to science', I must say. The spidey-sense is tingling.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

The spidey-sense is tingling.

My mother used to call it the Bullshit Flag is Flying.

YYNJ,
You can't determine what the paper says by the abstract. I had a nice discussion with NephilimFree in a debate chatroom, and nailed him when he tried that. The Abstract itself is just an overview of what topic they are adressing, but does not necessarily derive the conclusion that they are coming to or their final statements on the matter.
Likewise it does not present the data that led them to that conclusion.

And, finally - just because it's a published article doesn't mean it's passed peer review. That's the reason that the article is published in the first place.

--------------------------

As for Copywrite vs. Fair Use - it's not against Fair Use to publish a portion of the whole as long as it's used for education, critique, criticism, teaching, education, etc.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. ,§ 106 and 17 U.S.C. ,§ 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

So, yeah. As long as you're not producing the entire product as a fully-unbound whole for critique, criticism, education, and teaching you can put it up here. Just make sure to cite where it came from and makea few comments about it in the same post.
Common sense prevails.
I reccomend page 57 (the page YYNJ cited), the Last 3 pages for summary, and a listing of data for us to review for critique and reference purposes.