South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

August 24, 2019, 06:24:48 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Dating of metals, precious metals and coal???

 (Read 3542 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jane of the Jungle
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 235



« on: 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
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 09:10:47 AM by bluegray V » Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3749


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #1 on: 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
Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #2 on: 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.  Grin

mdg
Logged
Jane of the Jungle
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 235



« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2009, 15:38:58 PM »

Thanx Luthon and Mdg,

I’ve visited the link you’ve provided and very interesting, Smiley 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.  Wink  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
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #4 on: 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
Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2009, 16:47:25 PM »

Quote from: Mintaka
Jane, as far as I know gold was not formed on earth per se

Gold is formed here on Earth by geological processes.Ore minerals are formed as the result of molten rock, magma, being intruded into solid rock.  As the magma cools and solidifies, water and other volatile substances separate out from the magma under high pressure.  The high pressureof hot water and steam force open fissures in the surrounding solid rock, through which these hydrothermal solutions travel.  When the hydrothermal solutions cool, deposition of material occurs, especially quartz in the form of quartz veins.
It depends on the types of elements in the solution and how they react with each other and the type of rock surrounding it as to what type of ore is deposited.
Because gold has a relatively low melting temperature, it is sometimes carried by these hydrothermal solutions through the fissures in the rock and solidifies inside the quartz veins. 

Hope this helps you, Jane. There are 2 excellent South African books I can recommend:

Geological Journeys - Nick Norman and Gavin Whitfield
The Story of Earth and Life: A Southern African perspective on a 4.6 billion year journey.- Terence McCarthy and Bruce Rubidge

mdg Cheesy
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2009, 17:51:08 PM »

Gold is formed here on Earth by geological processes.

The process you relate describes the deposition of existing gold from a molten to a solid state, not so? To actually form gold by fusion of lighter atoms, you will require quite a bit more energy than is readily available in molten rock.

Mintaka
Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2009, 12:51:15 PM »

Quote from: Mintaka
The process you relate describes the deposition of existing gold from a molten to a solid state, not so?

Yes, you're right  Wink Cool

On the subject of synthetic diamonds....
You can have a synthetic diamond made with the ashes of a loved one or a favourite pet,
see here.
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2009, 13:40:17 PM »

Quote
You can have a synthetic diamond made with the ashes of a loved one

So you can have your dead spouse made into a diamond, have her set into a ring, and present it to your new girlfriend!

Sounds a bit like a Roald Dahl short story! Grin

Mintaka

Logged
Mandarb
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 258



« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2009, 14:17:17 PM »

Yeah, I think that would be the second thing on my list of what should happen to my body when I die. Just because it's cool.

First is donating to science though. Become a plastinated scuplture, or a forensic science experiment, or even just a cadaver for students to perform autopsies on.

It's not like I'd care.
Logged
Jane of the Jungle
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 235



« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2009, 13:35:38 PM »

Quote from: Mintaka
The process you relate describes the deposition of existing gold from a molten to a solid state, not so?

Yes, you're right  Wink Cool

On the subject of synthetic diamonds....
You can have a synthetic diamond made with the ashes of a loved one or a favourite pet,
see here.


Guess my Mother in laws ashes then wouldn’t make the grade!  I might consider making briquettes
and donate it to Lucifer, he might need it! Wink
Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2009, 16:59:50 PM »

Quote from: Mandarb
Yeah, I think that would be the second thing on my list of what should happen to my body when I die. Just because it's cool.

First is donating to science though. Become a plastinated scuplture, or a forensic science experiment, or even just a cadaver for students to perform autopsies on.
I've always wanted to be buried at sea - feed the fishies. I don't want to be cremated and have my ashes scattered, no, just tie a couple of weights to me and let the sea creatures do the rest.

Quote from: Jane of the Jungle
Guess my Mother in laws ashes then wouldn’t make the grade!  I might consider making briquettes
and donate it to Lucifer, he might need it!

 Grin  Grin  Grin LOL!

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.661 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 26, 2019, 10:46:54 AM
Privacy Policy