Hey, I just saw this 2long, (you're a regular comedian, aren't you?) My inner child thanks you though! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

{{{{{2long's inner child}}}}}

Right back at ya!

Can't stay away from this thread. First I hated it, now it's like I think I'm going to find some kind of answer here. LOL

Not to often one gets to read the convo's of scientists, religious men and seekers.

Fascinating for sure!

D:

Thanks for taking the time 2 reply 2 my 2uestion. Consider yourself one of the for2nate benefactors of thes forums - those who find the help they need before it's so late that an event like d-day is needed as an impetus for personal growth.

MM:

There was a little news blurb (and shameless plug for macintosh computers) on the Apple home page (I own mostly Macs, so that's where I "live") that pointed me 2 this site at the American Museum of Natural History:

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs/intro/

Very nicely done, like the exhibits at the museum must be. It 2k me about 2 hours 2 read it through, so you might want 2 check out the "abridged" version at apple's website under the article "Tyrannosaurus wren":

http://www.apple.com/startpage/

-ol' 2long

weaver:

"Hey, I just saw this 2long, (you're a regular comedian, aren't you?) My inner child thanks you though! "

Comedian?? Your post ac2ally brought tears 2 my eyes... ...:o(

-ol' 2long ....;^) (because the gremlins aren't working for some reason!

I didn't know that about your son. How sad. I don't know how people cope with the death of a child.

Your list of questions makes me think of another thing that bothers me-if we are going to talk about the low probability of life arising spontaneously from available chemicals, shouldn't we also talk about the the probability of any intelligent designer picking Earth as the planet to design life on? I mean, even sticking to our solar system, why not Jupiter? It's much bigger. Why our solar system? Why design a set of oxygen-breathing life forms, when other gases seem to be more plentiful? I can't imagine that the probability of an Intelligent designer designing us here is all that high. I agree with you, not a lot of intelligence went into the supposedly intelligent design.

I also finally figured out what's bothering me about the tornado making a 747 analogy-747's don't replicate themselves. We know that living things do-that's one of the ways we define living things. So there's just no comparison between a tornado building a 747 and living things replicating themselves and changing over time as they do so. It's not even like comparing apples and oranges-more like comparing bricks and oranges.

I was referring to what you said with the persecution thing, I thought it was funny, given my thoughts on this thread regarding persecution.

Oh never mind, guess you had to be there (in my mind that is) I thought you were joking because it was funny to me.

I'm usually laughing 2long, and I guess people don't don't that about me. I don't take very many things seriously, (well except for the obvious things)

I'm so sorry.

WAT, decay rates are not really the "bone of contention." Interpretation is the problem area. Assumptions are made that are NOT necessarily based upon reality.

WAT and 2Long - I thought you might find this article fascinating. I'd love your input and reactions to it.


TJ Archive > Volume 10 Issue 3 > Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano


First published:
TJ 10(3):335–343
December 1996
Subscribe to TJ

Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano
by Steven A. Austin

Summary
The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar ‘age’ of 0.35 ± 0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from the dacite which formed in 1986 give K-Ar ‘ages’ from 0.34 ± 0.06 Ma (feldspar-glass concentrate) to 2.8 ± 0.6 Ma (pyroxene concentrate). These ‘ages’ are, of course, preposterous. The fundamental dating assumption (‘no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed’) is questioned by these data. Instead, data from this Mount St Helens dacite argue that significant ‘excess argon’ was present when the lava solidified in 1986. Phenocrysts of orthopyroxene, hornblende and plagioclase are interpreted to have occluded argon within their mineral structures deep in the magma chamber and to have retained this argon after emplacement and solidification of the dacite. The amount of argon occluded is probably a function of the argon pressure when mineral crystallization occurred at depth and/or the tightness of the mineral structure. Orthopyroxene retains the most argon, followed by hornblende, and finally, plagioclase. The lava dome at Mount St Helens dates very much older than its true age because phenocryst minerals inherit argon from the magma. The study of this Mount St Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be asked—how accurate are K-Ar ‘ages’ from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide?


Figure 1. The newest lava dome within the horseshoe-shaped crater at Mount St Helens during its building process in August 1984 (photo by S.A. Austin).

Introduction
Dacite magma at Mount St Helens in Washington State expressed itself directly during six explosive magmatic eruptions in 1980 (18 May, 25 May, 12 June, 22 July, 7 August and 17 October 1980). This magma produced the distinctive plinian, explosive eruptions for which the volcano is famous. After three of these explosive eruptions (12 June, 7 August and 17 October), near-surface magma had low enough steam pressures so that viscous lava flows formed three consecutive, dome-shaped structures within the crater. The first two dacite lava domes built within the crater (late June and early August 1980) were destroyed by subsequent explosive eruptions (22 July and 17 October). The third dacite lava dome began to appear on 18 October 1980 above the lip of a 25-metre-diameter feeding conduit.

The new dacite lava dome
After 18 October 1980, this third and newest composite dome of dacite began to appear. By October 1986 this newest lava dome had grown within the horseshoe-shaped crater to be an immense structure up to 350 m high and up to 1,060 m in diameter (see Figures 1 and 2). The lava dome formed by a complex series of lava extrusions, supplemented occasionally by internal inflation of the dome by shallow intrusions of dacite magma into its molten core. Extrusions of lava produced short (200-400 m) and thick (20-40 m) flows piled on top of one another.2 Most dacite flows extended as lobes away from the top-centre of the dome, generally crumbling to very blocky talus on the flanks of the dome before reaching the crater floor (see Figure 3).


Figure 2. Mount St Helens’ new lava dome is composed of 74 million cubic meters of dacite flows and intrusions built up within the crater between 18 October 1980, and 26 October 1986 The view is toward the north looking over the lava dome into the 1980 blast zone (photo by Lyn Topinka of the US Geological Survey, after Pringle, Ref. 1).
Between 18 October 1980 and 26 October 1986, seventeen episodes of dome growth added 74 million cubic meters of dacite to this third and newest dome.3 During these eruptions magma viscosity was high and steam pressure was low so that the magma did not express itself explosively as it had during the six earlier events of 1980. The structure produced within the crater during the six-year period was an elliptical dome of dacite lava flows and intrusions 860 m (diameter east-west), by 1,060 m (diameter north-south), by 350 m (height above northern base). During the six-year period of building of the dacite dome, there was a steady decrease with time in the volume of magma extruded. On 26 October 1986, magma movement into the dome ceased and solidification of magma began within the neck of the volcano beneath the lava dome. Eruptions after 26 October 1986 were phreatic steam explosions, not direct expressions of magma. The stability of this third dome, along with decrease in the frequency of earthquakes and phreatic steam eruptions in the ten years after October 1986, indicate that the volcano, again, may be approaching a period of dormancy.

The SiO2 content of 69 samples of the 1980 to 1986 lava dome at Mount St Helens is 63.0 ± 0.4 percent.4 Called a ‘porphyritic dacite’,5 the rock averages about 55 percent fine-grained, grey groundmass and 45 percent phenocrysts and lithic inclusions (see Figure 4). The groundmass of the rock is composed of microphenocrysts of plagioclase, orthopyroxene, and Fe-Ti oxides within a glass matrix.6 Later flows on the lava dome showed a tendency toward higher crystallinity of the groundmass7 and about 1 percent greater SiO2.8 Phenocrysts of plagioclase (30–35 percent), orthopyroxene (5 percent), hornblende (1–2 percent), Fe-Ti oxides (1 to 2 percent), and clinopyroxene (less than 0.5 percent) together comprise almost half of the lava dome.9 Lithic inclusions of gabbro, quartz diorite, hornfelsic basalt, dacite, andesite and vein quartz together compose 3.5 percent of the dome dacite.10 Of the lithic inclusions 85 percent are medium grained gabbros with an average diameter of 6 cm.11 The high mafic mineral content of gabbroic inclusions makes a small but significant decrease in the overall SiO2 content of the dacite lava dome.12


Figure 3. Blocky surface texture of the east side of the dacite lava dome above prominent talus slope (helicopter photo by S.A. Austin, October 1989).
Geologists are in general agreement concerning the crustal source of the dacitic magma beneath Mount St Helens. Experimental data from the assemblage of minerals in the dacite indicate that just prior to the 18 May 1980 eruption the upper part of the magma chamber was at a temperature of 930°C and at a depth of about 7.2 km.13 That magma is believed to have contained about 4.6 weight% total volatiles, mostly H2O.14 The last dome-building intrusion event of 1986 delineated two aseismic zones (from 7–12 km and from 3–4.5 km depth) indicating that the deep magma chamber has a shallow magma-storage region.15 Fe-Ti oxide pairs indicated magmatic temperatures decreasing to about 870°C in 1986 when flows into the lava dome stopped.16

Sample collection and preparation
In June 1992, a seven-kilogram sample of dacite was collected from just above the talus apron on the farthest-north slope of the lava dome. Because the sample comes from the sloping surface of the dome, it most likely represents the upper surface of a flow lobe. The flow interpretation of the sample is corroborated by the ‘breadcrust appearance’ of dacite at the sample location, the blocky fracture pattern which suggests the toe of a lava flow, and the presence of dacite scoria just above the sample. The position on the dome suggests that the sample represents the surface of one of the last lava flows, probably from the year 1986.

Oxide or Element Abundance
SiO2 67.50%
Al2O3 16.10%
TiO2 0.61%
Fe2O3 3.97%
MnO 0.06%
CaO 4.18%
MgO 1.27%
K2O 1.69%
Na2O 4.78%
P2O5 0.17%
Cr2O3 < 0.01%
Rb 44 ppm
Sr 450 ppm
Y 13 ppm
Zr 190 ppm
Nb 30 ppm
Ba 411 ppm
Loss on Ignition 0.05%
TOTAL 100.5%

Table 1. Major-element and trace-element abundances in the 1986 dacite lava flow at Mount St Helens determined by X-ray fluorescence. The analysis was performed on dacite groundmass and phenocrysts without lithic inclusions.
The composition of the sample matches closely the published mineralogic, petrographic and chemical descriptions of ‘porphyritic dacite’.17 Phenocrysts of the sample are of the kind and abundance representative of the entire lava dome. The sample even has several gabbroic inclusions of the composition and size representative of the whole lava dome.18 The chemical analysis of the sample’s groundmass with phenocrysts (without gabbroic inclusions) gave 67.5 percent SiO2 by the X-ray fluorescence method (see Table 1). If the gabbroic inclusions were included in the whole rock analysis, the dacite would be about 64 percent SiO2, the average composition of the 1986 flows on the lava dome. Normative minerals were calculated in Table 2, with the assemblage representative of dacite. Thus, this seven-kilogram sample of dacite is representative of the whole lava dome.

One kilogram of dacite groundmass with phenocrysts (without gabbroic inclusions) was removed from the sample for potassium-argon analysis. The technique began by crushing and milling the dacite in an iron mortar. Particles were sieved through the 80 mesh (0.18 mm) screen and collected on top of the 200 mesh (0.075 mm) screen. The 80–200 mesh (0.18–0.075 mm) particles were specified by the argon lab to be the optimum for the argon analysis.

A second, one-kilogram sample of dacite groundmass was subsequently processed to concentrate more of the pyroxene. This separate preparation utilized crushed particles sieved through a 170 mesh (0.090 mm) screen and collected on a 270 mesh (0.053 mm) screen. These finer particles (0.053–0.090 mm) were found to allow more complete concentration of the mineral phases, even though these particles were finer than the optimum requested by the lab.

Because of the possibility of particles finer than 200 mesh absorbing or releasing a larger portion of argon, particles passing through the 200-mesh screen were rejected. The only exception was the single preparation made from particles passing through 170 mesh and collected on the 270-mesh screen.

Throughout the crushing, milling, sieving and separation processes, great care was taken to avoid contamination. The specific steps used to stop or discover contamination of the samples included:

Sawing of rock from the interior of the collected block of dacite (used to remove particles adhering to the sample),

Washing all surfaces and screens that were to contact directly the sample,

Final wet sieving of particles on the 200-mesh screen (or 270-mesh screen) to insure removal of finer particles (including possible contaminant lab dust introduced during milling),

Filtration of heavy liquids to remove contaminants,

Microscopic scanning of particle concentrates for foreign particles,

Preparation of the second concentrate from the raw dacite sample involving completely separate milling and screening (in order to discover if contamination had occurred in one of the concentrates), and

Sealing of samples in vials between preparation steps.

Five concentrates included one whole-rock powder and four mineral preparations. The concentrate names and descriptions are:

DOME-1 ‘Whole-rock preparation’ composed of representative particles from both the dacite groundmass and phenocrysts, without lithic inclusions; particles 80–200 mesh.

DOME-1L ‘Feldspar-glass concentrate’ from the groundmass and phenocrysts; particles 80–200 mesh; mostly plagioclase, but also contains fragments from the glassy matrix.

DOME-1M ‘Heavy-magnetic concentrate’ from the groundmass and phenocrysts; mostly hornblende with Fe-Ti oxides; particles 80–200 mesh.

DOME-1H ‘Heavy-nonmagnetic concentrate’ from the groundmass and phenocrysts; mostly orthopyroxene; particles 80–200 mesh.

DOME-1P ‘Pyroxene concentrate’ from the groundmass and phenocrysts; particles 170–270 mesh; prepared from separate dacite sample in fashion similar to DOME-1H, but with more complete concentration of orthopyroxene.

Normative Mineral (Formula) % by Weight
Quartz (SiO2) 23.02
Orthoclase (KAlSi3O8) 9.95
Albite (NaAISi3O8) 40.24
Anorthite (CaAI2Si2O8) 17.40
Diopside (CaMgSi2O6) 0.94
Hedenbergite (CaFeSi2O6) 0.82
Enstatite (MgSiO3) 1.53
Ferrosilite (FeSiO3) 1.52
Magnetite (Fe3O4) 3.04
Ilmenite (FeTiO3) 1.15
Apatite (Ca3P2O8) 0.39
TOTAL 100.0

Table 2. Idealized normative mineral assemblage for the Mount St Helens dacite calculated from the major-element abundances of Table 1.
The last four mineral concentrates were prepared from the whole rock by heavy liquid and magnetic separation. First, the representative particles from the groundmass and phenocrysts were dispersed in tribromomethane (CHBr3), a heavy liquid with a density of 2.85 g/cc at room temperature. These particles and heavy liquid were centrifuged in 250 ml bottles at 6,000 rpm. After ten minutes of centrifugation at 20°C, the float particles were collected, filtered, washed, dried and labeled. This float concentrate, ‘DOME-1L’, was more than 90 percent of the original and became the ‘feldspar-glass concentrate’. The heavy-mineral residue that sank in the heavy liquid was collected, filtered, washed and dried. It was discovered that the heavy concentrate could be separated into ‘strongly magnetic’ and ‘weakly magnetic’ fractions, with about one-third of the heavy residue being strongly magnetic. The heavy concentrate was divided by a very strong hand magnet on a large piece of filter paper at a 45° slope angle. The ‘heavy magnetic’ fraction, later labeled ‘DOME-1M’, was composed of heavy particles which climbed up the paper at 45° slope above the influence of the magnet which was moved under the paper. The residue that did not move up the filter paper was the ‘heavy-nonmagnetic’ fraction. It was labeled ‘DOME-1H’. A fourth mineral concentrate was prepared from a completely separate portion of the dacite sample and processed similar to DOME-1H except from finer particles (170–270 mesh). This finer, heavy-nonmagnetic fraction separated from the dacite was labeled ‘DOME-1P’.

Microscopic examination of the four mineral concentrates indicated the effectiveness of the separation technique. The ‘feldspar-glass concentrate’ (DOME-1L) was dominated by plagioclase and glass, with only occasional mafic microphenocrysts visible in the plagioclase and glass. Although not a complete separation of non-mafic minerals, this concentrate included plagioclase phenocrysts (andesine composition with a density of about 2.7 g/cc) and the major quantity of glass (density assumed to be about 2.4 g/cc). No attempt was made to separate plagioclase from glass, but further use of heavy liquids should be considered.

The ‘heavy-magnetic concentrate’ (DOME-1M) was dominated by amphibole minerals, with hornblende assumed to be the most abundant magnetic mineral within the dacite. However, there was also a significant amount of Fe-Ti oxide minerals, probably magnetite and ilmenite. The ‘heavy-magnetic concentrate’ also had glassy particles (more abundant than in the ‘heavy-nonmagnetic concentrate’). Mafic microphenocrysts within these glassy particles were probably dominated by the strongly magnetic Fe-Ti oxide minerals. The microscopic examination of the ‘heavy-magnetic concentrate’ also revealed a trace quantity of iron fragments, obviously the magnetic contaminant unavoidably introduced from the milling of the dacite in the iron mortar. No attempt was made to separate the hornblende from the Fe-Ti oxides, but further finer milling and use of heavy liquids should be considered.


Figure 4. Photomicrograph of Mount St Helens dacite flow of 1986. The most abundant phenocrysts are plagioclase which are embedded in a much finer-grained groundmass containing glass and microphenocrysts. Photographed in polarised light with 2 mm width of view (dacite sample ‘DOME-1’, photo by A.A. Snelling).
The ‘heavy-nonmagnetic concentrate’ (DOME-1H) was dominated by orthopyroxene with much less clinopyroxene, but had a significant quantity of glassy particles attached to mafic microphenocrysts and fragments of mafic phenocrysts along incompletely fractured grain boundaries. These mafic microphenocrysts and fragments of mafic phenocrysts evidently increased the density of the attached glass particles above the critical density of 2.85 g/cc, which allowed them to sink in the heavy liquid. This sample also had recognizable hornblende, evidently not completely isolated by magnetic separation.

The ‘pyroxene concentrate’ (DOME-1P) was dominated by orthopyroxene and much less clinopyroxene. Because it was composed of finer particles (170–270 mesh), it contained far fewer mafic particles with attached glass fragments than DOME-1H. This preparation is the purest mineral concentrate. Microscopic examination of the orthopyroxene showed it to be a high-magnesium variety, explaining why it was nonmagnetic or only weakly magnetic.

The first three mineral concentrates (DOME-1L, DOME-1M, and DOME-1H) are representative of three different assemblages within the dacite. Because only the finer than 200 mesh fraction was discarded during preparation, these three concentrates should approximately sum, according to their abundance, to make the whole rock. They may not exactly sum because of differences in grind ability of the minerals and their groundmass.

K-Ar analysis
Potassium and argon were measured in the five concentrates by Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, under the direction of Richard Reesman, the K-Ar laboratory manager. These preparations were submitted to Geochron Laboratories with the statement that they came from dacite, and that the lab should expect ‘low argon’. No information was given to the lab concerning where the dacite came from or that the rock has a historically known age (ten years old at the time of the argon analysis).

The analytic data are reported in Table 3. The concentration of K (%) was measured by the flame photometry method, the reported value being the average of two readings from each concentrate. The 40K concentration (ppm) was calculated from the terrestrial isotopic abundance using the concentration of K. The concentration in ppm of 40Ar*, the supposed ‘radiogenic argon-40’, was derived from isotope dilution measurements on a mass spectrometer by correcting for the presence of atmospheric argon whose isotopic composition is known. The reported concentration of 40Ar* is the average of two values. The ratio 40Ar/Total Ar is also derived from measurements on the mass spectrometer and is the average of two values.

The ‘age’ of each concentrate is calculated by making use of what Faure19 calls the ‘general model-age equation’:

(1)

where t is the ‘age’, &#955; is the decay constant of the parent isotope, Dt is the number of daughter atoms in the rock presently, Do is the number of daughter atoms initially in the rock, and Pt is the number of atoms presently in the rock. Equation (1) can be used to date the rocks if measurements of Dt and Pt are made from the rock, and if an assumption concerning the original quantity of daughter (Do) is made. For the specific application to K-Ar dating,20 equation (1) becomes equivalent to equation (2) when:

(2)

where t is the ‘age’ in millions of years, 5.543 x 10–10 yr–1 is the current estimate for the decay constant for 40K, 0.105 is the estimated fraction of 40K decays producing 40Ar, and 40Ar*/40K is the calculation by standard procedure of the mole ratio of radiogenic 40Ar to 40K in the concentrate. It should be noted that equation (1) becomes equivalent to collation (2) when

(3)

Thus, 40Ar* includes within it an assumption concerning the initial quantity of 40Ar in the rock. As a matter of practice, no radiogenic argon is supposed to have existed when the rock formed. That is, Do = 0 is supposed for equation (2) to give accurate ages. Thus, equation (2) yields a ‘model age’ assuming zero radiogenic argon in the rock when it formed. After the initial daughter assumption is made, 40Ar* is determined. Then, the mole ratio 40Ar*/40K is calculated in Table 3 from each concentrate’s 40Ar* (ppm) and 40K (ppm). Once the mole ratio is calculated (see Table 3), it is inserted into equation (2) to calculate the ‘model ages’ listed in Table 3.

K (%) 40K (ppm) Total Ar (ppm) 40Ar* (ppm) 40Ar*/Total 40Ar 40Ar*/40K ‘Age’ (Ma)
DOME-1
‘whole rock’ 0.924 1.102 0.0018 0.0000225 0.0125 0.000020 0.35 ± 0.05
DOME-1
feldspar, etc. 1.048 1.250 0.0024 0.000025 0.0105 0.000020 0.34 ± 0.06
DOME-1M
amphibole, etc. 0.581 0.693 0.0027 0.000037 0.0135 0.000053 0.9 ± 0.2
DOME-1H
pyroxene, etc. 0.466 0.555 0.0015 0.000054 0.0360 0.000096 1.7 ± 0.3
DOME-1P
pyroxene 0.447 0.533 0.0025 0.000087 0.0345 0.000163 2.8 ± 0.6

Constants used: 40K/K = 1.193 x 10–4 g/g Decay constant of 40K = 5.543 x 10–10 yr–1
Fraction of 40K decays to 40Ar = 0.1048 Atmospheric 40Ar/36Ar = 295.5

Table 3. Potassium-argon data from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens Volcano.

Discussion
The argon analyses of the dacite lava dome show, surprisingly, a non-zero concentration of ‘radiogenic argon’ (40Ar*) in all preparations from the dacite. K-Ar ‘ages’ using equation (2) range from 0.34 ± 0.06 Ma (million years) to 2.8 ± 0.6 Ma (see Table 3). Because the sampled dacite at the time of the analyses was only ten years old, there was no time for measurable quantities of 40Ar* to accumulate within the rock due to the slow, radioactive decay of 40K. The conclusion seems inescapable that measurable 40Ar* in the dacite is not from radiogenic accumulation, but must have been resident already within the different mineral assemblages when the rock cooled from the lava in the year 1986. The lab has not measured ‘radiogenic argon’ but some other type of argon.

Other historic lava flows have been recognized to have non-zero values for 40Ar*. Of 26 historic, subaerial lava flows studied by Dalrymple,21 five gave ‘excess argon’ and, therefore, yielded excessively old K-Ar ‘ages’:

Hualalai basalt (Hawaii, AD 1800–1801) 1.6 ± 0.16 Ma
1.41 ± 0.08 Ma
Mt Etna basalt (Sicily, 122 BC) 0.25 ± 0.08 Ma
Mt Etna basalt (Sicily, AD 1792) 0.35 ± 0.14 Ma
Mt Lassen plagioclase (California, AD 1915) 0.11 ± 0.3 Ma
Sunset Crater basalt (Arizona, AD 1064–1065) 0.27 ± 0.09 Ma
0.25 ± 0.15 Ma

Dalrymple22 recognized that these anomalous ‘ages’ could be caused by ‘excess radiogenic 40Ar’ from natural contamination, or caused by isotopic fractionation of argon. Krummenacher23 offered similar explanations for unexpected argon isotope ratios from several modern lava flows. Olivine, pyroxene and plagioclase from basalts of the Zuni-Bandera volcanic field (Quaternary of New Mexico) showed very significant quantities of excess argon inherited from the magmatic sources.24 The same conclusion applies to olivine and clinopyroxene phenocrysts from Quaternary volcanoes of New Zealand.25 Significant excess argon was also found in submarine basalts from two currently active Hawaiian volcanoes, Loihi Seamount and Kilauea.26

What caused the non-zero 40Ar* in the Mount St Helens dacite? Could contaminant 40Ar in the laboratory have been added to the Mount St Helens dacite giving the impression of great age? The possibility of contamination caused extreme care to be taken in cleaning the processing equipment, and the concentrates were sealed tightly in vials between preparation and analysis. Could the processing equipment itself be adding argon? For example, might the iron fragments produced during milling the sample in the mortar add argon? The heavy-liquid separation process strongly rejects heavy iron from the light feldspar-rich assemblage (preparation DOME-1L), but this concentrate also contains significant 40Ar. Other processes seem to exclude or isolate laboratory contamination. The wet sieving on the 200-mesh screen, for example, should remove any fine lab dust which could have fallen onto the concentrates. Because of these extraordinary considerations, laboratory contamination of the five concentrates is a very remote possibility.

Could the magmatic process beneath the lava dome be adding a contaminant to the molten dacite as it ascends from great depth? This is a possibility needing consideration. Might an argon-rich mineral (‘xenocryst’) be added to the magma and impart an excessive age to the ‘whole rock’ dacite? The data of Table 3 seem to argue that very different mineral phases of the dacite each contain significant 40Ar. Although the mineral concentrates are not pure, and all contain some glass, an argument can be made that both mafic and non-mafic minerals of the dacite contain significant 40Ar. The lithic inclusions in the lava dome might be thought to be the contaminant, in which case they might add ‘old’ mafic and non-mafic minerals to the young magma. It could be argued that gabbroic clumps in the magma disaggregated as the fluidity of the magma decreased with time, thereby adding an assortment of ‘old’ mineral grains. However, Heliker27 argues that the gabbroic inclusions are not xenoliths from the aged country rock adjacent to the pluton, but cumulates formed by crystal segregation within a compositionally layered pluton. These inclusions are, therefore, regarded as a unique association within the recent magmatic system.

Could the magmatic conditions at depth allow argon to be occluded within the minerals at the time of their formation? This last, and most interesting, explanation of the anomalous 40Ar suggests the different quantities of argon in different mineral assemblages are caused by variation in the partial pressure of the gas as crystallization progressed, or by different quantities of gas retained as pressure was released. Crystallization experiments by Karpinskaya28 show that muscovite retains up to 0.5 percent by weight argon at 640°C and vapour pressure of 4,000 atmospheres. Phenocryst studies by Poths, Healey and Laughlin29 showed that olivine and clinopyroxene separated from young basalts from New Mexico and Nevada have ‘ubiquitous excess argon’. A magmatic source was postulated for the argon in phenocrysts of olivine and clinopyroxene in Quaternary volcanics of New Zealand.30 Presumably other minerals occlude argon in relation to the partial pressure of the gas in the magma source.

Laboratory experiments have been conducted on the solubility of argon in synthetic basaltic melts and their associated minerals.31, 32 Minerals and melts were held near 1300°C at one atmosphere pressure in a gas stream containing argon. After the material was quenched, the researchers measured up to 0.34 ppm 40Ar within synthetic olivine. They noted, ‘The solubility of Ar in the minerals is surprisingly high’.33 Their conclusion is that argon is held primarily in lattice vacancy defects within the minerals.

Argon occlusion within mineral assemblages is supported by the data from the dacite at Mount St Helens. Table 3 indicates that although the mineral concentrates (rich in feldspar, amphibole or pyroxene) have about the same ‘Total Ar’ concentrations, the ‘pyroxene concentrate’ possesses the highest concentration of 40Ar* (over three times that of the ‘feldspar-glass concentrate’) and the highest proportion of 40Ar* (40Ar*/Total Ar is over three times that of the ‘feldspar-glass concentrate’). These data suggest that whereas the orthopyroxene mineral structure has about the same or slightly less gas retention sites as does the associated plagioclase, orthopyroxene has a tighter structure and is able to retain more of the magmatic 40Ar. Orthopyroxene retains the most argon, followed by hornblende, and finally, plagioclase. According to this interpretation, the concentration of 40Ar* of a mineral assemblage is a measure of its argon occlusion and retention characteristics. Therefore, the 2.8 Ma ‘age’ of the ‘pyroxene concentrate’ has nothing to do with the time of crystallization.

Where does the argon in the magma come from? Could it be from outgassing of the lower crust and upper mantle? More study is needed.

To test further the hypothesis of argon occlusion in mineral assemblages, higher purity mineral concentrates could be prepared from the dacite at Mount St Helens. Finer-grained concentrates should be processed more completely with heavy liquids and magnetic separation. The preparation of DOME-1P, a finer-grained and purer pyroxene concentrate than DOME-1H, has, as expected, a higher concentration of 40Ar* and lower concentration of 40K. Acid-solution techniques or further use of heavy liquids could also help to remove undesirable glass. The glass itself should be concentrated for analysis of argon.

Applications to other K-Ar ages
Do other volcanic rocks with phenocrysts have mineral assemblages with generally occluded argon? Phenocrysts are very common in volcanic rocks, so a general test of the hypothesis could be devised. In addition to testing other historic lava flows, phenocrysts from some ancient flows might be tested for phenocrysts which greatly exceed the ‘whole rock’ age. Three possible applications are suggested here.

Basalt of Devils Postpile (Devils Postpile National Monument, California)

Plagioclase separated from the Devils Postpile basalt gave a K-Ar ‘age’ of 0.94 ± 0.16 million years.34 The basalt has been reassigned recently an age of less than 100,000 years based on new geologic mapping and detailed stratigraphic study.35 What was the cause of the excessively old age? It could be argon occluded within the plagioclase.

Basalt of Toroweap Dam (western Grand Canyon, Arizona)

The basalt of Toroweap Dam lies at the bottom of Grand Canyon very near the present channel of the Colorado River. The basalt has been dated twice by the K-Ar method at 1.16 ± 0.18 Ma and 1.25 ± 0.2 Ma.36 The original researchers qualified their statements concerning the basalt date by saying, ‘There is the possibility that pre-eruption argon was retained in the basalt’.37 Many other basalts of western Grand Canyon have been shown to contain ‘excess argon’.38 Although the original researchers do not express certainty concerning the K-Ar age of the basalt at Toroweap Dam, other geologists have assigned much greater certainty and use the K-Ar age to argue that Grand Canyon has existed for a very long time (see especially D.A. Young39).

Keramim basalt (northern Golan Heights, Israel)

‘Stone Age’ artifacts occur beneath Keramim basalt dated at 0.25 Ma by the K-Ar method.40 However, human occupation is not thought to have occurred in Israel during the Lower Palaeolithic,40 so this and other K-Ar ‘ages’ should be checked. Because the K-Ar method has been used elsewhere to date Neanderthal Man, we might ask if other Neanderthal ‘ages’ need careful scrutiny.

Conclusion
Argon analyses of the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens raise more questions than answers. The primary assumption upon which K-Ar model-age dating is based assumes zero 40Ar* in the mineral phases of a rock when it solidifies. This assumption has been shown to be faulty. Argon occlusion in mineral phases of dacite at Mount St Helens is a reasonable alternate assumption. This study raises more fundamental questions—do other phenocryst-containing volcanic rocks give reliable K-Ar ages?

Acknowledgments
Financial support was provided by the Institute for Creation Research and Mr Guy Berthault. Dr Andrew Snelling provided helpful comments and reviews of the manuscript.

References and notes
Pringle, P.T., Roadside Geology of Mount St Helens National Volcanic Monument and Vicinity, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Information Circular 88, p. 120, 1993.
Swanson, D.A. and Holcomb, R.T., Regularities in growth of the Mount St Helens dacite dome, 1980–1986. In: Lava Flows and Domes, J. Fink (ed.), Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Vol. 2, pp. 3–24, 1990.
Swanson and Holcomb, Ref. 2.
Swanson and Holcomb, Ref. 2.
Cashman, K.V., Crystallization of Mount St Helens 1980–1986 dacite: a quantitative textural approach, Bulletin Volcanologique 50:194–209, 1988.
Cashman, K.V. and Taggart, J.E., Petrologic monitoring of 1981 and 1982 eruptive products from Mount St Helens, Science 221:1385–1387, 1983.
Cashman, K.V., Groundmass crystallization of Mount St Helens dacite, 1980–1986: a tool for interpreting shallow magmatic processes, Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 109:431–449, 1992.
Swanson and Holcomb, Ref. 2.
Cashman, Ref. 5
Heliker, C., Inclusions in Mount St Helens dacite erupted from 1980 through 1983, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 66:115–135, 1995.
Heliker, Ref. 10.
Heliker, Ref. 10.
Rutherford, M.J., Sigurdsson, H., Carey, S. and Davis, A., The May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens 1: melt composition and experimental phase equilibria, Journal of Geophysical Research 90:2929–2947, 1985.
Rutherford, M.J. and Devine, J.D., The May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St Helens 3: stability and chemistry of amphibole in the magma chamber, Journal of Geophysical Research 93:11949–11959, 1988.
Endo, E.T., Dzurisin, D. and Swanson, D.A., Geophysical and observational constraints for ascent rates of dacitic magma at Mount St Helens. In: Magma Transport and Storage, M.P. Ryan (ed.), John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 318–334, 1990.
Cashman, Ref. 7.
Cashman, Ref. 5.
Heliker, Ref. 10.
Faure, G., Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 42, 1986.
Dalrymple, G.B.and Lanphere, M.A., Potassium-Argon Dating: Principles, Techniques and Applications to Geochronology, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, p. 49, 1969.
Dalrymple, G.B., 40Ar/36Ar analyses of historic lava flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6:47–55, 1969.
Dalrymple, Ref. 21.
Krummenacher, D., Isotopic composition of argon in modern surface volcanic rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 8:109–117, 1970.
Laughlin, A.W., Poths, J., Healey, H.A., Reneau, S. and Wolde Gabriel, G., Dating of Quaternary basalts using the cosmogonic 3He and 14C methods with implications for excess 40Ar, Geology 22:135–138, 1994.
Patterson, D.B., Honda, M. and McDougall, I., Noble gases in mafic phenocrysts and xenoliths from New Zealand, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 58:4411–4427, 1994.
Honda, M., McDougall, I., Patterson, D.B., Doulgens, A. and Clague, D.A., Noble gases in submarine pillow basalt glasses from Loihi and Kilauea, Hawaii: a solar component in the Earth, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 57:859–874, 1993.
Heliker, Ref. 10.
Karpinskaya, T.B., Synthesis of argon muscovite, International Geology Review 9:1493–1495, 1967.
Poths, J., Healey, H. and Laughlin, A.W., Ubiquitous excess argon in very young basalts, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 25:A–462, 1993.
Patterson et al., Ref. 25.
Broadhurst, C.L., Drake, M.J., Hagee, B.E. and Benatowicz, T.J., Solubility and partitioning of Ar in anorthite, diopside, forsterite, spinel, and synthetic basaltic liquids, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 54:299–309, 1990.
Broadhurst, C.L., Drake, M.J., Hagee, B.E. and Benatowicz, T.J., Solubility and partitioning of Ne, Ar, Kr, and Xe in minerals and synthetic basaltic melts, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 56:709–723, 1992.
Broadhurst et al., Ref 31.
Dalrymple, G.B., Potassium-argon dates of three Pleistocene interglacial basalt flows from the Sierra Nevada, California, Geological Society of America Bulletin 75:753–758, 1964.
Huber, N.K. end Eckhardt, W.W., Devils Postpile Story, Sequoia Natural History Association, Three Rivers, California, p. 30, 1985.
Hamblin, W.K., Late Cenozoic Lava Dams in the Western Grand Canyon, Geological Society of America, Memoir 183, Boulder, Colorado, p. 139, 1994.
McKee, E.D., Hamblin, W.K. and Damon, P.E., K-Ar age of lava dam in Grand Canyon, Geological Society of America Bulletin 79:133–136, 1968.
Hamblin, Ref. 36.
Young, D.A., The discovery of terrestrial history. In: Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the World’s Formation, H.I. Van Till, R.E. Snow, J.H. Stek and D.A. Young (eds), William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 26–81, 1990.
Mor, D., Har Odem Geological Map, Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem, scale 1:50,000, one sheet, 1987.
Bar-Yosef, O., Geochronology of the Levantine Middle Palaeolithic. In: The Human Revolution, P. Mellars and C. Stringer (eds), Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pp. 589–610, 1989.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Steven A. Austin
Creationist

Geologist

Ph.D. from Pennsylvania State University, doctoral dissertation on coal formation

M.S. in geology from San Jose State University

B.S. in geology from the University of Washington

Consulting geologist for government and industry

Member: Geological Society of America

Member: American Association of Petroleum Geologists

Member: the Society for Sedimentary Geology

Member: the International Association of Sedimentologists

Author of numerous papers including publication in the peer-reviewed journal International Geology Review (1999)

Chairman of the Geology Department, Institute for Creation Research Graduate School

FH:

I see that you addressed this specifically to WAT and 2long, so if you don’t want me butting in here, just let me know and I won’t do so again.

If we limit ourselves to a discussion of scientific findings, as the article in question was not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, this is in itself is a sufficient reason to discard it entirely. However, broadening our consideration of findings beyond science, this is in fact a wonderful example of the deceptive ‘research’ that creationists practice.

It is well known that specific dating techniques are only valid for specific periods of time. A common creationist practice is to deliberately misuse a dating technique by applying it to a sample for which it is known to be invalid.

A detailed response to this specific article can be found at:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

In summary:

“Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's.”

“Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless.“

Which, of course, is one example of why creationist research is unpublishable in scientific journals.

D

I'm not sure what you meant by this.

Decay rates of isotopes was very much the bone of contention in my challenge to the info MM provided. The author of that info suggested that decay rates could vary over time - that they may have been much shorter in the past - and when coupled with the historical dating of Noah's flood as depicted in the Bible, this leads to a conclusion that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

As I said earlier, this is one of the most preposterous arguments I have ever heard. So, you are certainly correct to say "Assumptions are made that are NOT necessarily based upon reality." Thanks for that confirmation.

I didn't even bother to suggest that if decay rates DO vary over time, why didn't the author consider that they may have been longer in the past rather than shorter - thus REALLY blowing his conclusion out of the water - pun intended.

You guys are desperate - along with that author. Making or backing absurd assumptions like varying decay rates may sell to the uninformed - because they're very subtlely suggested and glossed over so quickly the uninformed are bamboozled. I suggest that if any person really believes the decay rate variation, he/she ought to publish an article and have it widely available outside of the creationist community so a broader audience can critique it. Let it stand on its own - as MM has suggested earlier regarding disputed conclusions. Perhaps it has been offered for publication - and rejected for good reason.

About the long info you provided above - I read it far enough to conclude that it appears that someone is making an argument that volcanic ejecta has been dated far older than seems reasonable - given we saw it "created." I am not a chemist nor a geologist nor a geophysisist - all their fun takes place in the electron shells - so I may not necessarily spot errors as subtle as the varying decay rate one I spotted earlier. But 2long may have a go at it, being a geologist. I'll read it more thoroughly later to see if it makes any errors in statements concerning the nucleus.

It'll be interesting to see if in this argument decay rates are assumed to be rock solid - pun again intended - in order to support the desired outcome.

Speaking of Noah - how DID he get two of each animal on a wooden boat? And did he make a stop in Australia to drop off the 'roos? - and the Koalas? How come no kangaroo fossils are found in the middle east - ostensibly where the Ark was constructed - to provide good reason to believe that Noah at least knew about the kangaroos in order to get two of them aboard? If the author of the "few thousand years old" conclusion is capable of defending his argument, questions like these are needing answers.

WAT

D - seems you beat 2long to the punch. I'll read your link later as well. Time to cut the grass.

Thanks for your contribution. I doubt FH was ruling you out - he's just more familiar with 2long and I.

WAT

dimpsasawa2 - No, I don't mind your chiming in at all. I am particularly interested in 2Long's comments because he is another Ph.D. Geologist and I would like to hear his comments.

However, I don't really have a 'dog in this fight.' I've been involved in "Evolution/Creation" discussions before and they can be "fun" and toss out tons of information, none of which is "relevant" in the long run. That's why I have said that I am trying to resist getting involved, or too involved, in the discussion.

There ARE only two viable causes of life (and for that matter all things in the universe). One is the active will of a "Creator," a "Supreme Being," "God." The second possible cause is "no god, just ordinary natural processes, random chance, and time."

Hence the two "models," Creation and Evolution (though in my humble opinion Evolution really only touches on living things...yes, yes, I know the term can be 'stretched' to apply to physical areas such as expansion and accretion). The key thing is where did "life" come from because, frankly, rocks could care less where they came from or where they might be going in the future.

I found your cited article fascinating and also very "telling" about the bias of the author. So I did chuckle a bit about his attacks on the YEC's, as he puts them, for "their" biases.

You see, it really is irrelevant one way or the other. HOW we got here is not anywhere near as relevant as WHO Jesus Christ is. But for the point of the exercise, here is the "rebuttal author's" plainly stated bias that colors all of his research and opinions....

"While YECs explain geology by invoking talking snakes, magical fruit, and a mythical 'Flood', Dalrymple (1969) discusses legitimate chemistry and fluid physics, which is hardly relying on flimsy 'rationalizations' or implausible excuses"

Once again, devoid of the answer to "who IS Jesus Christ," it is easy to belittle believers and to "dismiss out of hand" anything other than an Evolutionary point. I would suggest that if someone IS true to the hallowed "Scientific Method" that such a predisposed bias should disqualify such a person for just the same reason that he attempts to disqualify a "believer," because he bases his conclusions by "going in" eliminating the possibility that Creation could be correct. He attempts to arrive at a conclusion and then make the "facts" fit that predetermined conclusion. That is NOT the "scientific way" of "letting the facts speak for themselves.

So let's simply assume that the rebuttal author is accurate in ALL of his assumptions about the test, the materials used, etc. My question would be "what's the point?" To "siphon off" all material that could give anything other than a "present day" dating on the lava sample from Mount St. Helens negates the "assumption" by which most rocks are dated. That assumption is that we don't know when they were formed so we can't "manipulate" the samples to arrive at a "known" date. We take the sample "as is" and let the test(s) speak. The value of a known "young" sample is just to show that you have to be careful is "assigning" long dates to unknown samples simply because we were NOT present when they formed and base our conclusions on the "decay rates" and the "ratios" that may NOT be accurate.

But once again, the actual result is somewhat meaningless to the issue of "did things happen by chance" or by "design?"

Anyway, I am looking forward to 2Long's expertise weighing in on this one.

Now, an interesting thing that the author said in that same article was as follows:

" This is the old YEC 'only eyewitnesses can provide accurate histories' scam. Obviously, Swenson, like many YECs, fails to realize that scientists can successfully unravel past events without witnessing them. Forensic scientists frequently send criminals to prison without eyewitness testimony. To be exact, the recent hideous actions of the Washington DC area (USA) sniper(s) illustrate how unreliable eyewitnesses can be and how important forensic science is in solving crimes and stopping killers. "

I wonder how he would feel about applying his "proof without actually being there" and the idea that perhaps we should invalidate and toss out ALL eyewitness testimony to an examination about Jesus and the historical record about him? How about the historical record and eyewitness accounts of other historical figures and/or events?



Personally, I would welcome such an investigation. Then we could see the "scientific method" in action and see how someone reacts to the "facts" verses "personal bias."

I've read the cited articles and they were illuminating.

Just as I suspected, there is reference to "constant decay rates" in the creationist's article. Seems they want it both ways.

But there's also this excerpt in the article linked by D (note: "YEC" is "young earth creationist") :
Wow - there's a RATE committee? Do they meet and discuss how best to attack the constant decay rates of isotopes?

Desperate indeed.

I can see there's no giving up - all they need to do is pull out their "God card" for an easy explanation of things that can't be scientifically reconciled. I don't think He'd appreciate that.

FH said:


"HOW we got here is not anywhere near as relevant as WHO Jesus Christ is."

I struggled with this trying to figure out what this statement means and further, how it's relevant to the discussion at hand - radiometric dating.

I don't see any connection between who anybody is and whether or not radiometric dating is reliable or not.

In my earlier challenge to the variable decay rates, seems that I stumbled into an ongoing debate that for some reason rankles the creationists. I guess they are profoundly threatened by an "old earth" that for some reason equates to a threat upon their faith. Why?

But one thing is becoming more and more clear to me as this discussion continues - teaching creationism or ID in our schools as "science" is tantamont to lying to our children. The examples discussed so far just in this thread - claimed variability of isotropic decay rates and misapplication of testing mechanisms - is either grossly ignorant or a deliberate lie. To foist this folly upon our children - and their own - shows the depths to which some people will go to protect their turf. Very sad and very scary indeed.

WAT

radiometric dating.

I have never been on a radiometric date...

is it fun?

Do you bring your own radio...?

Is that how it works....?

do you sit around and measure who has the biggest radio ?

Is dinner included or optional that is the MOST important question

ARK^^

looks like things are going well here. I will jump back in soon. Stuck this weekend with a lot of baseball with my two sons. Gonna be "cooked" by the end of the weekend with so much sun!!

How about WHO wrote the Bible as being the most important question?

Now it would be something if religion were taught in upper level public schools, only not just religion but religion with an emphasis on critical thought. It would have to be all religions with a huge emphasis on open mindedness though, as part of social studies.

Demysitfy it, say de-superstitious it a bit. Then maybe we could even advance to another level of religious knowledge, or faith if you will.

Don't ya think?

Edited to add: open mindedness AND tolerance, along with critical thinking. Let's foster curiousity regarding ALL religions which would foster acceptance. I don't think that would lesson or devalue religion, but increase it. Of course it would take incredible, unbiased teachers without an agenda.

I'm not jumping in all the way, and maybe this question has been asked and answered. I saw above that there was a question from those who questioned intelligent design regarding why humans and other mammals would breath oxygen when other gasses were more plentiful. This was in a list of questions about why earth, why not jupiter, why oxygen.

Well, doesn't this same question lend itself to evolution? Why isn't there a mammal form that breaths uses nitrogen instead of oxygen? Since nitrogen is about 70% of our atmosphere here, wouldn't something other than plants use that, and return some other gas.

(Forgive me, I'm a computer scientist and electrical engineer, so my biology is a little rusty. Humans and other mammals breath in our atmosphere to get oxygen and breath out CO2. Plants convert CO2 back to oxygen via photosynthesis.)

Why doesn't the dominant life form use the dominant gas in the atmosphere for respiration. I don't recall a great need for humans to breath in nitrogen.

If we evolve, wouldn't we use the more plentiful gas?

T

Have you ever read "A Course in Miracles" FH?

It is the book that kept me Christian after I decided the Bible wasn't going to be enough for me anymore.

You might say a "A Course in Miracles" kept me believing when it really no longer made sense to me to believe.

Just curious.

ark:

"I have never been on a radiometric date...

is it fun?"

;oD

I once knew someone who was invited 2 a party, so long as she brought a date. She wasn't in a relationship at the time, so she brought a whole box of dates instead. She even offered 2 share them...

-ol' 2long
P.S. I've got lots of relevant thoughts. More later on!

ark:

"Is dinner included or optional that is the MOST important question"

No it's not. It's WHO CREATED dinner WHEN, and whether it's what the menu SAYS it is that's the most important 2uestions!

...sorry, couldn't resist.

-ol' 2long

FH:

I'm bummed, not at you in particular, but that nobody's said anything about the Dinosaur exhibit website I liked 2 above. Because more than just the excellent description of aspects of dinosaurs that people are interested in, the sheer enthusiasm of the scientists involved in dinosaur paleontology comes through on every page. Scientists aren't agenda-driven, they're curiosity-driven.

"There ARE only two viable causes of life (and for that matter all things in the universe). One is the active will of a "Creator," a "Supreme Being," "God." The second possible cause is "no god, just ordinary natural processes, random chance, and time.""

There's a third. A creator, supreme being, God, or Grand Poobah who's fond of na2ural processes and statistics, and likes "throwing the dice".

"Hence the two "models," Creation and Evolution (though in my humble opinion Evolution really only touches on living things...yes, yes, I know the term can be 'stretched' to apply to physical areas such as expansion and accretion)."

Evolutionists are interested in the changes in body forms over time (as Stephen J Gould said in my quotes of his above).

"The key thing is where did "life" come from because, frankly, rocks could care less where they came from or where they might be going in the future."

True, rocks don't care. Most life forms don't care either. And, as a geomorphologist, I don't care all that much either. Certainly not as much as I care how it evolved once it had originated.

"I found your cited article fascinating and also very "telling" about the bias of the author. So I did chuckle a bit about his attacks on the YEC's, as he puts them, for "their" biases."

That was an intersting article. YECs is a funny acronym, but I would hope the recipients of the moniker don't take offense. I've used funnier ones (when I've been clever enough 2 think of them) and NASA scientists in general are pretty good at them (instrument names on flight projects, for example).

"You see, it really is irrelevant one way or the other. HOW we got here is not anywhere near as relevant as WHO Jesus Christ is."

I'm sure you know that this is a matter of opinion. I don't see that the pursuits of either 2uestion have anything 2 do with one another, or conflict in any way.

"But for the point of the exercise, here is the "rebuttal author's" plainly stated bias that colors all of his research and opinions...."

I wouldn't call any of that article biased. He's clearly annoyed, though. I've had dealings with a 2ple of people like that (though not creationists, necessarily) in my work. When I am approached, I usually give them some of my time, while we each try 2 determine where the other is coming from on the subject we're discussing. This particular character 2rned out 2 be from the "Face on Mars" fringe group, but I didn't know that until some YEARS after I met him. He was, at the time, presenting abstracts on the same topic I was working on. I was coming from a gemorphology background, describing things I'd found in images of Mars, and he was coming from a strong desire 2 "make" Mars a habitable place, so human-like creatures could have fashioned stuff like pyramids and faces out of mountains in Acidalia. He was, and is, ac2ally a rather nice man, but I would have 2 admit that I think he's a 2ple of mangos shy of a chutney. He has had abstracts rejected from presentation at science conferences, and I am not aware of any publications of his (except in the fringe arena where it isn't peer reviewed).

Another guy was just a curious citizen who started emailing me questions about Mars. He started with claims of all kinds of artificial stuff at one of the landing sites, and I calmly refuted those claims by explaining the image processing techniques that were used that sometimes enhance artifacts of the imaging system or what have you. We corresponded for many months after that, and I found him 2 be an intelligent, interesting person. Best thing about the dialog was that we each shared things we were knowledgeable about, educating ourself in the process. And I never felt like I was holier than him or vice-versa.

Sadly, for every one of those "chutneys" and curious taxpayers, there's a few dangerous nutballs out there. I have colleagues who have received death threats for simply refuting the artificial orgin of the so-called "face" on Mars.


"Once again, devoid of the answer to "who IS Jesus Christ," it is easy to belittle believers and to "dismiss out of hand" anything other than an Evolutionary point."

I don't know, FH. I can assure you right here and now that in all of my fu2re Mars research, I will never address the 2uestion of who Jesus is/was. It's not relevant 2 the subject, whether Jesus is relevant 2 me or not. Even if Jesus were ON MARS, how he got there isn't my area, so I wouldn't be publishing papers about it.

"I would suggest that if someone IS true to the hallowed "Scientific Method" that such a predisposed bias should disqualify such a person for just the same reason that he attempts to disqualify a "believer," because he bases his conclusions by "going in" eliminating the possibility that Creation could be correct."

Remember the Sagan quote above? The scientific method is no more "hallowed" than my Crafstman hand tools, but no less useful when I need it 2 figure $h!+ out.

And no, this putative bias does not disqualify him anymore than the bias alone disqualifies the YECs. Their SCIENCE (or lack thereof) disqualifies them.

Here's a tip: When submitting a hypothesis for publication, always make a clear separation between your observations and your interpretations. That way, when the interpretations are proven wrong, the paper can still be of value if the observations were careful, thorough, and objective. Don't laugh, I was taught that 20 years ago, and it's proven good advice more than once. ;o)

"He attempts to arrive at a conclusion and then make the "facts" fit that predetermined conclusion. That is NOT the "scientific way" of "letting the facts speak for themselves."

Not the way I read it, but it was a rebuttal of other work, not a new publication.

Want 2 read about scientists butting heads and letting their emotions get the better of them? Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope, a couple of rather famous 19th century dinosaur hunters. Started out as friends, but ended up bitter enemies who even made fun of one another in their publications. Sad, but true.

"So let's simply assume that the rebuttal author is accurate in ALL of his assumptions about the test, the materials used, etc."

Well, I did read the 2 articles. One thing that strikes me and should clue EVERYONE cogitating about this YEC article is that they very clearly were trying 2 find a way 2 discredit the science community's use of radiometric dating. If they were really interested in learning something - either that radiometric dating is unreliable or that it is reliable - they could have done the following. Get a geologic map, find a distinct rock outcrop on the map, go out in the field, collect samples, and send them to 3 or more dating labs without telling any of them where they were collected. Compare the results from the labs with the age given on the geologic map and see how close they came.

There are new dating methods that I'm only periferally aware of that would have been more applicable 2 the samples they chose 2 investigate. Most techniques wouldn't give you a reliable date for something that young, though. I can't understand why they didn't collect samples from a historic, but older flow, like Mt Vesuvius, where historic records back 2 roman times are available. Then use something like C14 dating on plant material, or animals, buried by the flow.

"But once again, the actual result is somewhat meaningless to the issue of "did things happen by chance" or by "design?""

Did Mt St Helens erupt by chance or by design? ...what did they conclude?

"I wonder how he would feel about applying his "proof without actually being there" and the idea that perhaps we should invalidate and toss out ALL eyewitness testimony to an examination about Jesus and the historical record about him? How about the historical record and eyewitness accounts of other historical figures and/or events?

Biblical archaeologists would be delighted 2 find any artifacts that could be attributed 2 Jesus. Hence the recent flap over the burial urn that was supposed 2 have been Jesus' brother's urn, and mentioned that fact in an inscription on the outside. Even *I* would be excited if something like that could be validated, but it 2rned out 2 be one of many frauds by the collector who "discovered" it.

Besides the Bible, however, there is only one mention of Jesus in the historic record. And there are scholors who question whether that mention is authentic or a later addition.

"Personally, I would welcome such an investigation. Then we could see the "scientific method" in action and see how someone reacts to the "facts" verses "personal bias.""

Such investigations are going on all the time. Biblical archaeology. Not just for evidence of Jesus, but all of the biblical characters. And it is true, many of them and the places they lived have been verified via scientific examination.

-ol' 2long

Aren't posts where people try to prove that other peples firmly held beliefs are rubbish really really LONG ?

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />