XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.god.timothy.sutter, talk.religion.misc   
   From: a202010@lycos.com-   
      
   > even neglecting this small amount -at- the boiling point,   
   > we cannot neglect the amounts -below- the boiling point.   
   > and so you can see, that below the boiling point   
   > of magmic rocks, some gases are likely to be present   
   > and well below such a temperature,   
   > complete degassing cannot possibly occur.   
      
   > and that is what Esser sees and this correlates   
   > well with the consideration that ash from volcanoes   
   > commonly have initial argon well above zero.   
      
   > this because the ash eruptions are at a   
   > lower temperature and well below that   
   > of boiling magma.   
      
   > not and never completely degassed.   
      
   > trouble is, the hottest volcanoes like those in   
   > hawaii reach temperatures of -less- than 1200° C   
   > and so, one may conclude that there is never   
   > a complete degassing even in the hottest volcanoes.   
      
   > therefore, initial argon = zero is always unwarranted.   
      
      
   it's my contention that the "excess argon" problem,   
      
   throws the entire chronometry into doubtful question.   
      
      
   you never get complete degrassing and so,   
      
   you never get a true 'zero' to that 'ages' gathered in.   
      
   there are subterranean gases which follow along   
      
   right up into the magmic chamber   
      
   and it never escapes completely.   
      
      
   one can pick and choose through a given sample   
      
   to skew the outcome in any direction you like.   
      
      
   contemporary eruptions can read to be very ancient,   
      
   and if you pick through the rubble,   
      
   very "ancient" deposits can be made   
      
   to show a recent deposition.   
      
      
   and there's considerable overlap of possible dates   
      
   between upper and lower shelving of such igneous intrusions.   
      
      
   a higher shelf can have samplings which   
   show a more 'ancient' date that a lower shelf,   
      
   and vicey versey, and, various artifacts   
   ere not usually recovered from -within- these   
   igneous intrusions anyway, but in and amongst   
   the -mobile- phases which are found   
   between igneous[volcanic] intruuions.   
      
      
   and so, being a much more -mobile- phase,   
   artifacts may be washed in and out of them   
   with very little relationship to when such   
   igneous volcanic intrusions are deposited.   
      
      
   meaning, so you find some animal bones in the   
   hardened mud between two layers of volcanic sheet,   
      
   this still tells you very little about -when-   
   such animal bones were deposited in the -wet-   
      
   muddy blobs inasmuch as a little flooding can   
   soften these muddy deposits right up again   
   and more anuimal detritus   
      
   can find its way into teh newly softened mud which   
   is then rehardened during prolonged dry spells.   
      
      
   all without ever being able to conclusively establish   
      
   that any animal detritus was deposited   
      
   in mud above a lower shelf before an upper   
   shelf of igneous [volcanic] matter   
   was then, deposited.   
      
   meaning, the animal detritus can get in between   
   the shelves of volcanic matter at any time,   
   even _after_ -both- shelves are deposited.   
      
   and so, the timelines are ambiguous   
      
   and remain doubtful.   
      
   reasonable doubt...   
      
      
      
      
      
      
   and so, the _real_ -contention- is   
   that animal detritus which is found   
   between layers of igneous intrusions,   
      
   -must- have been deposited in a manner   
   which places their deposition more recent   
   than a lower shelf and more ancient than   
   an upper shelf, which contention   
   is of a rather dubious nature.   
      
   these muddy layers between the igneous intrusions,   
   though they seem hard and rocky to a casual glance,   
   are really quite pliable and mobile under certain   
   -wet- conditions, and there is even concerns among   
   those that seek out such animal detritus   
      
   that they get to the detritus in a timely manner   
   before -further- 'erosion' takes place   
   so as to wash the detritus away.   
      
   so, a -contention- that the detritus was deposited   
   precisely -between- the time of deposition of the   
   two igneous volcanic layers is wholly unwarranted.   
      
   and so, my reasonable doubt as to time of deposition   
      
   of any animal detritus is kept.   
      
      
   and this without fully exploiting the considerable problems   
      
   in the chronometries associated with these igneous   
      
   intrusions themselves.   
      
      
   that's a different problem   
      
   and, inasmuch as we cannopt conclusively show   
   that the earth was ever fully molten,   
      
   things like a "uranium clock"   
      
   though clever, may not really   
   be able to tell us much,   
      
   but, without a doubt,   
      
   the finding of subterranean argon   
   seems to discredit any contention that   
   argon found in igneous intrusions,   
      
   can be conclusively resolved so as   
   to demonstrate a clear time of eruption   
   and therefore, deposit of such matter.   
      
   etc.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)