Dating of metals, precious metals and coal???

(1/3) > >>

Jane of the Jungle (August 19, 2009, 16:32:19 PM):
I don’t know if this subject has been discussed here before, I can’t seem to
Find anything on it here.

Would anyone be able to help me on accurate scientific dating being done on
Above mentioned. According to a website I found a few months ago (which
I didn’t save) coal wasn’t formed over millions years, but possibly only a
Few thousand years ago. (most possibly written by a theist) They also
Stated that diamonds could be made in a Lab in the form of cubic zirconia we know.
According to them, it could have been possible to form over a short time underground,
If under suitable conditions (I personally do not agree with any above)

But to disagree, I have to get my facts straight and would appreciate your input
And possible links you’ve got on dating of coal, gold, silver, diamonds, platinum etc

Thanx, I appreciate it

Take care
Mefiante (August 19, 2009, 20:45:39 PM):
Most scientific dating of materials takes the form of one or other radiometric dating technique. With certain materials like gold and platinum where radioactive isotopes are not naturally abundant, the dating involves associated materials. But it doesn’t begin and end with radiometric dating technique. Estimated ages are usually confirmed by a variety of other techniques, usually involving the provenance of the item in question. For example, if a lump of gold is found at an archaeological dig and it was worked by human hands then confirmatory information is clearly available. Similarly, if one knows from which geological horizon a sample of gold, etc. came from then one also has confirmatory information. In this context, the chemical composition, particularly the inclusion and levels of specific impurities can be helpful in identifying where the sample originated.

If this is about young earth creationists bending the facts to suit their sub-10,000-year age agenda then be warned: they have a stunning array of bizarrely contorted ideas that aim to undermine the reliability of radiometric dating.

'Luthon64
mdg (August 20, 2009, 13:36:25 PM):
Hi Jane,

Mefiante has given you a succinct answer about dating methods. There is also a very good handbook about how things are dated called "Bones, Rocks and Stars" by Chris Turney. I've just ordered a copy, it's aimed at the general public and is supposed to be easy to understand.

With regard to diamonds...
Synthetic diamonds are created under laboratory conditions,they are not of a poor quality like cubic zirconias. The latest technology produces synthetic diamonds of such a high standard that they have to be inscribed, thus identifying them as a synthetic diamonds. See here.

Quote from: Mefiante
If this is about young earth creationists bending the facts to suit their sub-10,000-year age agenda then be warned: they have a stunning array of bizarrely contorted ideas that aim to undermine the reliability of radiometric dating.


I agree, it's just not worth risking your sanity arguing with YEC's. ;D

mdg
Jane of the Jungle (August 22, 2009, 15:38:58 PM):
Thanx Luthon and Mdg,

I’ve visited the link you’ve provided and very interesting, :) but is there any definite test results anywhere available, which has not being done by young earth creationists? I do understand that the same metal could have different dating as to different locations being found, but what I would like to find out is an approximate formation time for them, could be very useful to archive. ;) I did find the following site how ever http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20071610-16457-3.html

If gold formed underground, under high pressure and temperature then surely something had to happen, to explore them on the surface and rinse them out in rivers. If YEC reason that this is because of groundwater rinsing gold out, then surely they must consider the fact that gold had to be pushed by the earth plates to a level where it was able to flow out when erosion took place.

Gold and other metals still couldn’t have drifted themselves upwards in solid ground. Considering the fact that earth plates move slower than a human nail can grow, surely they could make the calculation, to the time it would have taken to reach the surface and also reachable in mountains, where miners in the gold rush and still today can reach them by foot. If they admit earth plates move, then surely Pangea won’t seem so far fetched especially now that they’ve matched fresh water fossils from all different continent at the sides where they’ve split away? How do they explain the rupture in Mozabique and
also earth quakes which is evidence of earth plates moving?

Sorry have to ask you guys because you most definitely had more encounters with these guys and
Could give me an idea to what they consider facts
Rigil Kent (August 22, 2009, 16:02:10 PM):
Quote
If gold formed underground, under high pressure and temperature

Jane, as far as I know gold was not formed on earth per se, but was the result of one or more massive stars exploding, like many other higher elements. The gold and company got blown into space as dust where it eventually accreted (condensed), as the earth and other planets, asteroids, etc.

I don't see any reason why much of this gold could not have been positioned close to the planets surface from day one.

Mintaka

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page