General > Biology
Fluid
Endy:
--- Quote ---About the only thing it doesn't destroy is Zircon crystals
--- End quote ---
These weird things again, seems like talk about them is everywhere. I ran into an article recently about their stability and use as "time capsuls" to tell about ancient times on earth.
PurpleYouko:
Zircon crystals can be used in two different ways to date rocks that contain them The first works and confirms an old earth
The second is a load of old bollox perpetrated by Young Earth Creationists. It has bee thouroughly debunked by real scientists.
The science of this is that when Zircons form in cooling magma, their chemistry strongly rejects the inclusion of Lead atoms while simultaneously favoring the inclusion of Uranium atoms. No atoms of either can ever get in or out of the crystal once it has formed.
Method 1.
Many years later it is possible to measure the ratio of you/Pb, then by applying the known half life of Uranium, you can date the crystal.
Method 2.
During radiactive decay, Uranium undergoes fission which releases an alpha particle (which is basically a helium nucleus). This soon grabs up a few avalable electrons (which are able to freely enter the zircon) to become helium.
By measuring the concentration of He in the zircons, YECs have (wrongly) concluded that there isn't enough there for the Uranium to have been decaying for more than a few thousand years.
Their mistake?
Helium is so small in atomic cross section that it is able to freely travel in and out of the zircons and the surrounding rock so its concentration in the zircons is completely and utterly irrelevent.
They still use this pseudo science to push their religious agendas regardless of the fact that if they are truly scientists then they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are dead wrong.
To some people faith just trumps science, no matter how strong the evidence is. :blink:
Numsgil:
What is Zircon? Is it an element? It doesn't really ring a bell in my mind...
Griz:
--- Quote ---To some people faith just trumps science, no matter how strong the evidence is.
--- End quote ---
indeed.
we tend to find what we look for ...
whether or not we are aware of our perconceptions/assumptions.
the reason for blind/doubleblind studies.
PY ... are you a chemist and/or physics guy?
I was trained by the navy as a nuclear reactor operator ...
and have been working in nuke instumentation and control systems
for the last 32 years ... more the electronic side of it now days ...
so rarely use all that theory we were taught ...
well ... that includes electronic/transistor theory as well ...
who works on the compnent level anymore? ...
now it's isolate the problem to a chip or board and swap it out. ;)
and you know how it goes ... use it or lose it.
so I enjoy your sojourns into chem and physics.
Brwagur:
This is the best list I have found:
HF,NH3, HCl, HBr, HI, OF2, SeCl2, SCl2,PCl3, SO2, Ch3Cl, CH3Br, SeCl, CHCl3, CO(CH3)2, H2S,CH3Cl, KBr & H20(ion-dipole forces), H2O2, CH3OH(methanol),CH3COOH(acetic acid) , CH3NH2 methy amine, C2H5Oh ethyl alcohol, (C6H12O6 glucose), CH3CH2OH ethanol, 1- propanol CH3Ch2CH2OH, 2-propanol CH2CH2OHCH3, 1-butanol CH3CH2CH2CH2OH , acetone (CH3)2CO, H3O+, H202, CH20
Most of these are too large to plausible
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version