Radioactive dating

[dad]

I will strive to be more respectful than him.

We'd all do better if we would hate evil and love good. Hate lies and love truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. That is just the pattern of creation.

That pattern is proof of a same state past.

Your beliefs must be separated with a crowbar if needed so that they are not confused with facts!

I have presented the facts. You ignore them.

 

[Loudmouth]

The real age is the issue.

The facts are the issue, and you continue to ignore them.

Why didn't He make squirrels that eat whales? It is what it is. The ratios are just that...ratios...not ages.

Once again, you refuse to address the evidence. You can't explain why the evidence is identical to what we should see with a same state past when there is no reason it should be that way with a different state past. You can't come up with a single reason that a different state past should produce evidence that is identical to a same state past.

You can't use ratios to prove a same state past.

I can, and have.

You could predict a certain amount of isotopes of certain kinds based on the patterns we see. But that is not ages in the way you claim at all. That just means that several thousand years ago there was a certain amount of isotopes already here!

Why would that process produce evidence that is identical to a same state past?

You want to claim they GOT here by decay and therefore claim great time. First you must prove a same state past, not go round and round a merry go round.

The agreement between independent dating methods is that proof.

Of course not, but it has to do with you assuming that the daughter all got here from the parent because you believe real hard in no creation and a same state past. There were both isotopes before the nature change I assume. They do not represent great age. (the only age would be the decay since the state change- very little)

Why would those ratios be exactly what we would expect from a same state past when there are millions of other combinations of isotopes that would falsify a same state past?

Wrong. That is evidence that you ascribe patterns of ratios to decay only..in other words a same state past. There was no 66 million years ago get over it. That is religion. Nothing really meets up and agrees there at all.

You need more than denial.

Easy. The fossils were from before the time the lava flowed! So, for example if lava flowed at the time of the rapid continental separation, naturally it would cover some pre flood fossils.

That lava should not contain any Ar because it escapes from liquid lava. This is a basic physical law. If this didn't happen, then even water wouldn't boil. Therefore, no lava sitting above fossils should date to millions of years old, according to your claim.

What do we find? Lava flows that sit above dinosaur fossils have tons of Ar in them. It falsifies your claims.

Who says there was any decay or decay rates? Prove it!

The agreement between independent dating methods does prove it.

By looking at what are now daughter isotopes and applying you belief in a same state past, and claiming all that daughter material came to exist by present state decay rather than having existed before this state started!

If those beliefs were wrong, then those dating methods would not agree with each other.

 

[dad]

That pattern is proof of a same state past.

The pattern is proof creation is not some random idiotic thing. The same state past meaning you desperately seek to paint onto the pattern of creation is proof you are not unbiased.

Think about it, apparently in the former nature the stuff was still here! It was not doing what it does under the forces and laws we now have of course. Your mistake is to assume it was not here except by grace and virtue of the present state. Very simple and easy to see.

 

[Loudmouth]

The pattern is proof creation is not some random idiotic thing.

Why would the pattern from creation in a different state past look identical to what we would expect from a same state past?

The same state past meaning you desperately seek to paint onto the pattern of creation is proof you are not unbiased.

Then tell me how the data should look different if there really were a same state past. Show that I am wrong.

Think about it, apparently in the former nature the stuff was still here! It was not doing what it does under the forces and laws we now have of course. Your mistake is to assume it was not here except by grace and virtue of the present state. Very simple and easy to see.

So why would the ratio of U/Pb be determined by the ratio of K/Ar in these rocks? Why do we see this correlation? How do you explain the pattern?

 

[dad]

The facts are the issue, and you continue to ignore them.

The facts are that creation happened and a Living God confirmed His power and truth of His word. The fact is that isotope patterns do not need to mean what your little godless belief system wants them to mean. Those are facts.

Once again, you refuse to address the evidence. You can't explain why the evidence is identical to what we should see with a same state past when there is no reason it should be that way with a different state past. You can't come up with a single reason that a different state past should produce evidence that is identical to a same state past.

Irrelevant. Who cares why someone thinks rocks look a lot like the spaghetti monster created them?? To you, it looks like the remnant isotopes and the pattern they came created in are the result of some unproven belief about the past!

The agreement between independent dating methods is that proof.

False, because I do not question the pattern of creation regardless what isotope pairs you want to compare!
They do not agree with a same state past. They just can be interpreted by fanatics to seem like they do. There is daughter and parent isotopes...of many different materials. The pattern is that as we look further back in time toward the flood era and beyond, that we see more parent isotopes in the ratios compared to daughter isotopes.

Nothing you have said addresses whether it was the same nature. You just run numbers as if it was and invent absurd ages that never existed. All because you cannot pry your belief system away from the evidences!

Why would those ratios be exactly what we would expect from a same state past when there are millions of other combinations of isotopes that would falsify a same state past?

because you based the same state past expectations on circular beliefs!

That lava should not contain any Ar because it escapes from liquid lava.

Just look at your tenses, they betray you! You said 'escapes'. In other words in this present state, that is how it works. Not in the former state that we know. In everything you utter nothing comes across but fanatical and blind faith in a godless state past that cannot be proven.

This is a basic physical law. If this didn't happen, then even water wouldn't boil. Therefore, no lava sitting above fossils should date to millions of years old, according to your claim.

There you go again talking about present laws! The lava in the former state did not form under our forces and laws. It cannot be held to them. There was for example no great killing heat with friction, when the land masses moved fast after the flood. Nor in creation week, when waters were separated from land. The bible record of the past is simply unlike this present state. Will you admit that much?

Then when you admit this, (because there is no choice) you can admit that science doesn't know what state existed, and cannot prove any state existed. In all ways I win.

What do we find? Lava flows that sit above dinosaur fossils have tons of Ar in them. It falsifies your claims.

No, that little strawman is unrelated to my claims! The present state would perhaps eliminate the AR...not the former one!

If those beliefs were wrong, then those dating methods would not agree with each other.

There is only one method...base everything on a same state past! The so called agreement is is fantasy land. Not in real time. There was more parent material yes...in Noah's day! There was likely not a decay going on because our laws were not here. You may not attribute the ratios to decay. You shall not pass.

 

[dad]

Why would the pattern from creation in a different state past look identical to what we would expect from a same state past?

Better question would be why do you misread the creation pattern? Simple, your beliefs confuse you. You cannot go back to 66 million imaginary years where you claim it agrees! You are preaching nonsense.

Then tell me how the data should look different if there really were a same state past. Show that I am wrong.

The data looks fine. The ratios change over time. How much time and why they change is the issue.

So why would the ratio of U/Pb be determined by the ratio of K/Ar in these rocks? Why do we see this correlation? How do you explain the pattern?

The things that now decay were here in the same ratios more or less before the state started. Therefore one cannot assign a meaning based on some fantasy unproven godless nature in the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

The facts are that creation happened and a Living God confirmed His power and truth of His word.

Those are religious beliefs. If you can't understand the difference between beliefs and facts, you are going to have a tough time with these threads.

The fact is that isotope patterns do not need to mean what your little godless belief system wants them to mean. Those are facts.

I am still waiting for you to explain why we see this correlation between different isotope ratios. Until you do, the evidence stands.

They do not agree with a same state past.

How do they not agree with a same state past? Why would we expect K/Ar dating and U/Pb dating to produce wildly different dates if there was a same state past?

There is daughter and parent isotopes...of many different materials. The pattern is that as we look further back in time toward the flood era and beyond, that we see more parent isotopes in the ratios compared to daughter isotopes.

That still wouldn't produce the pattern we see. You can have decreasing K/Ar and increasing U/Pb ratios and still not have correlations between K/Ar and U/Pb dates using modern dating methods.

Also, I think you meant to say increasing daughter isotope.

Nothing you have said addresses whether it was the same nature.

The correlation between independent dating methods does address it.

because you based the same state past expectations on circular beliefs!

False. The measurement of the isotope ratios within rocks is completely independent of any assumption of a same state past or the measurement of the decay rates of these isotopes in the present.

Just look at your tenses, they betray you! You said 'escapes'. In other words in this present state, that is how it works.

The changes that you require to the laws of physics would preclude the existence of life. You want to change physics so crazily that water wouldn't produce steam. Do you understand how this would make life impossible?

 

[Loudmouth]

Better question would be why do you misread the creation pattern?

Answer the question.

Why would the pattern from creation in a different state past look identical to what we would expect from a same state past?

The things that now decay were here in the same ratios more or less before the state started. Therefore one cannot assign a meaning based on some fantasy unproven godless nature in the past.

Why would the K/Ar ratio in a rock be determined by the U/Pb ratio in a rock in the same layer in a different state past, and why would that correlation be determined by the presently observed decay rate for K and U?

 

[SteveB28]

Dad, where is your EVIDENCE for a "changed state past"? Where is your EVIDENCE that it occurred WHEN you claim it did?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I can take bigger or smaller, but I can't take science making stuff up. Since it does NOT know any distance to any stars therefore any sizes of stars either, you are in no position to declare creation big or small.

Your denials don't stop us from gaining knowledge. It merely leaves you out of the loop.

 

[dad]

Your denials don't stop us from gaining knowledge. It merely leaves you out of the loop.

If you get some, let us know. Dream weaving is not knowledge.

 

[dad]

Those are religious beliefs. If you can't understand the difference between beliefs and facts, you are going to have a tough time with these threads.

Not at all, the time tested Scripture is fact. The first lifeform and evolution from slime, and the universe from a speck of soup are total speculation and religion. creation is not up for grabs or negotiable.

I am still waiting for you to explain why we see this correlation between different isotope ratios. Until you do, the evidence stands.

No correlation in the real world. Only in imaginary realms invented by you.

One example to sort of try to get the idea of how ratios could represent something different if the nature changed is as follows. Imagine some hourglasses each representing a different material such as uranium, etc. The sand if slowly flowing down. More sand in each hourglass is generally at the top section. In the former nature let's say that represents what will one day become daughter material. Right now it is the same basic isotope but the parent is not producing the daughter. The daughter is dripping to the parent. Now along comes a state change and voila...the glasses are all flipped. Now you come along in this state and see that daughter material is now flowing down (being produced from) from the parent side of the glass, now on top! You count how many little grains of sand fall each hour or month, and come up with a 'rate'. You try to claim that the daughter sand took a long long time for the parent sand to produce because we can 'observe' this! That is about what you do. The issue is not what rates the sand falls in all or on glass. The issue is what state the process is going on on!

The correlation between independent dating methods does address it.

No more than independent hourglasses addresses it above!

False. The measurement of the isotope ratios within rocks is completely independent of any assumption of a same state past or the measurement of the decay rates of these isotopes in the present.

Not the ages you pin on it!

The changes that you require to the laws of physics would preclude the existence of life.

Not again...really??? Try to get this through your head, NO change to our physics! Our physics didn't exist. What changed was what left physics we know.

 

[dad]

Dad, where is your EVIDENCE for a "changed state past"? Where is your EVIDENCE that it occurred WHEN you claim it did?

Where is your EVIDENCE for a "same state past"? Where is your EVIDENCE that it never occurred WHEN it did?

 

[SteveB28]

Where is your EVIDENCE for a "same state past"? Where is your EVIDENCE that it never occurred WHEN it did?

But I am NOT making a claim! You, on the other hand, not only claim that there was a "different state" in the past, you take a huge step further and nominate exactly when that change took place. Where is your evidence to support that claim?

Because, absent any evidence, you are in no more an authoritative a position than I am when I make the claim that "The sky used to be tangerine!

 

[SteveB28]

Not at all, the time tested Scripture is fact.

No it is not. It is a series of evidence-free claims, made by people writing well after the supposed events. People who cannot even identify themselves, in the majority of cases. Claims made that are unable to be supported by anyone else existing at the supposed times.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Radioactivity now exists. I have not seen proof it existed in the early history of earth. Has anyone else found proof or evidence for that? As it stands....I doubt it!

Radioactivity and radiation has always existed and it will until the universe goes cold.

Dad! do you ever intend to learn about anything other than myths, fables and miracles?

 

[Loudmouth]

Not at all, the time tested Scripture is fact.

Says the person who has to ignore all of the observations.

Still waiting for an explanation as to why all of those independent ratios produce the same ages.

One example to sort of try to get the idea of how ratios could represent something different if the nature changed is as follows. Imagine some hourglasses each representing a different material such as uranium, etc. The sand if slowly flowing down. More sand in each hourglass is generally at the top section. In the former nature let's say that represents what will one day become daughter material. Right now it is the same basic isotope but the parent is not producing the daughter. The daughter is dripping to the parent.

Why would this produce the same age for different isotope pairs that have differen half-lives? Let's see the math.

 

[Loudmouth]

Where is your EVIDENCE for a "same state past"?

The evidence is consistent ages derived from radiometric dating for at least 3 different and independent isotope series. You haven't refuted an ounce of this evidence.

 

[dad]

But I am NOT making a claim!

Science IS. That's what matters here. Need a bunch of links to show that science uses present laws and physics?
Because, absent any evidence for that state in the past that they claim, neither you, nor they are in no more an authoritative a position than I am when I make the claim that "The sky used to be tangerine!

What are you missing here? With absolute confidence can bible believers accept Genesis.