Methods Of Dating Rock & Fossils

[RickG]

Wow. OK.

Yeah wow, the same thing I described, only I used more specific terms.

You see to get to the stars they need a ladder. If any rung fails in that ladder they can't go!

No, that is not true, you misinterpret what they mean by cosmic ladder.

Space as we know it is absolutely inferred.

No, there are precise measurements directly observed that are well documented in the scientific literature.

Well, maybe, maybe not. That remains to be determined. So far all you have is gamma rays popping up on the scene hundreds of days after the fact that match cobalt, right? In a place that we can't know how far. A place where a star that you say could not do something, apparently did it anyhow! Then we have rings you think were already there for tens of thousands of years...gee we just never saw em. Then you have a predicted neutron star that is missing in action! Not there. The whole model is fatally flawed.

I see you are reverting back to absurd childish comments.

Now if you want to show us the gamma ray info simply and clearly...when it appeared, how long it lasted...etc....we can look at that. It seems that they calibrate gamma ray spectrometers to cobalt and certsian materials when they are looking at something unknown....possibly that needs looking at.

I have explained to you more than once in my own words and cited the scientific literature with links. When are you going to stop acting like a child and communicate on adult terms by discussing the science instead of misrepresenting and ridiculing it?

Very well, then so be it.

So, in other words, you are going to continue ridiculing the science instead of engaging in honest discourse.

Now, looking at the title of the thread I see that the emphasis should be on radioactive decay dating. Here is a thought experiment you can run.

We take 4 tennis balls, with water in them. All connected by little tubes, some thin, some wider. We put the balls on a long board, maybe 7 feet long. The board is tilted, so that we see water flow down from the highest ball, and work it's way down. The angle of the board is only slightly tilted the one way. The top ball is the 'parent' ball. The next one down is connected by a very very thin straw like tube, representing slow decay to the next tennis ball. If the present decay rate is faster, then we have a wider 'straw'. Like isotopes in Uranium, then, or some rock, we have a 'chain' representing parent to daughter decay.


This is a simplified illustration.

Is that your description of the uranium series?

 

[dad]

You know I do but I am too lazy to type out things I know have been mentioned to you many times before - only to have the same delusional dodge you pull trotted out for the umpteenth time.

You were empty all those years ago on EvC forum - and the same applies today. To be honest I think you probably might be close to setting the record for an internet parody persona but that's about it.

Your opinion might loom large in your own world. Fact is that the dating of rocks really does depend on certain things. The issue is not how much someone unquestioningly believes in this present state and laws having always existed. Really.

 

[NGC 6712]

Your opinion might loom large in your own world. Fact is that the dating of rocks really does depend on certain things. The issue is not how much someone unquestioningly believes in this present state and laws having always existed. Really.

Except it is not a case of unquestioning belief. It is demonstrated fact and only appeals to the ridiculous and inane ad hockery can be presented against it.

 

[dad]

Yeah wow, the same thing I described, only I used more specific terms.

The first rung in the ladder is parallax. That needs space as we know it. For example, we see in a spiritual place, a physical object had a different pi, apparently that would be normally expected. So, the measures apparently are not exactly interchangable twixt a spiritual also state and the normal present state we know. How then would you expect to draw a line to a star?

No, there are precise measurements directly observed that are well documented in the scientific literature.

No. Time is required and space and our earth state space. That should be obvious.

I see you are reverting back to absurd childish comments.

No true comments. If you can't comprehend that, or dispute it, then how can you debate it?

"Well, maybe, maybe not. That remains to be determined. So far all you have is gamma rays popping up on the scene hundreds of days after the fact that match cobalt, right? In a place that we can't know how far. A place where a star that you say could not do something, apparently did it anyhow! Then we have rings you think were already there for tens of thousands of years...gee we just never saw em. Then you have a predicted neutron star that is missing in action! Not there. The whole model is fatally flawed."

I have explained to you more than once in my own words and cited the scientific literature with links. When are you going to stop acting like a child and communicate on adult terms by discussing the science instead of misrepresenting and ridiculing it?

The lit you mention is religious. It doesn't do anything but rattle on without stopping to look at the premises. Can't you talk simple details without alluding to big links? Pick something from a link at least.

So, in other words, you are going to continue ridiculing the science instead of engaging in honest discourse.

The only honest discourse is to call a spade a spade.

Is that your description of the uranium series?

As relates to the two states, yes. Care to tweak it?

 

[AV1611VET]

You meant Proxima Centauri.

-- That too!

 

[dad]

Except it is not a case of unquestioning belief. It is demonstrated fact and only appeals to the ridiculous and inane ad hockery can be presented against it.

They believed in a neutron star appearing, it did not. They believe a present state set of laws and forces existed for the rocks history...they do not know. Admit it. Name calling cannot help you. A same state past is 100% belief and absolutely nothing else.

 

[NGC 6712]

They believed in a neutron star appearing, it did not. They believe a present state set of laws and forces existed for the rocks history...they do not know. Admit it. Name calling cannot help you. A same state past is 100% belief and absolutely nothing else.

The neutron star is very likely there (or a slim chance of a black hole). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - it can at best be inference of absence.

But the same physics operating over time and distance can be shown - has been shown and is a known fact. All your protestations are those of someone with an axe to grind based in foolishness.

 

[dad]

The neutron star is very likely there (or a slim chance of a black hole).

Ha. Pink elephants too?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - it can at best be inference of absence.

Well it is either there or not. You see it depends on who is inferring and why!

But the same physics operating over time and distance can be shown - has been shown and is a known fact. All your protestations are those of someone with an axe to grind based in foolishness.

Well, I have not decided about space yet. But on the earth, the laws were clearly different in the past. So the records indicate.

As for space, when one follows the 'logic' of the star gazers, they end up in a universe so small that it could fit on the head of a pin! They also have it doing stuff for no reason. They also bend and mutilate all laws as required to uphold the sacred speck story! Aren't you glad at least a few folks don't believe you!? I mean do you have a twinkle in the eye and held back smile when in the presence of another stargazer, and spinning these whoppers, to poor laymen?

 

[NGC 6712]

But on the earth, the laws were clearly different in the past. So the records indicate.

The records indicate that the same physics did operate. There is not a single shred of evidence to the contrary.

As for space, when one follows the 'logic' of the star gazers, they end up in a universe so small that it could fit on the head of a pin! They also have it doing stuff for no reason. They also bend and mutilate all laws as required to uphold the sacred speck story! Aren't you glad at least a few folks don't believe you!? I mean do you have a twinkle in the eye and held back smile when in the presence of another stargazer, and spinning these whoppers, to poor laymen?

Since you struggle to follow even the most rudimentary of explanations I am not surprised this is all beyond your skill set.

 

[dad]

The records indicate that the same physics did operate. There is not a single shred of evidence to the contrary.

No records indicate that. No evidence exists for the claim.

Since you struggle to follow even the most rudimentary of explanations I am not surprised this is all beyond your skill set.

The magic creator speck then, you don't contest. OK.

 

[NGC 6712]

No records indicate that. No evidence exists for the claim..

Evidence does indicate that. It is your claims bereft of wit, wisdom or evidence. Sorry, the jury is in and delivered the verdict upon the evidence. The same physics was operating.

 

[dad]

Evidence does indicate that. It is your claims bereft of wit, wisdom or evidence. Sorry, the jury is in and delivered the verdict upon the evidence. The same physics was operating.

Empty non supported idle boasting. Come down to earth.

 

[NGC 6712]

Empty non supported idle boasting. Come down to earth.

It isn't boasting it is a fact. And as I said earlier you have had much evidence posted at you going back years ago. You just retort with gobbledygook.

 

[dad]

It isn't boasting it is a fact. And as I said earlier you have had much evidence posted at you going back years ago. You just retort with gobbledygook.

No the fact is that deep space is unknown as to what sort of space it is and whether or not it also contains the spiritual elements. You must confess that. Now if that spiritual is in fact what is causing the effects we see that have been attributed to gravity, or...etc...then your whole model is dead. I merely bear the honors of driving nail after nail after nail after nail into the coffin.

 

[NGC 6712]

No the fact is that deep space is unknown as to what sort of space it is and whether or not it also contains the spiritual elements. You must confess that. Now if that spiritual is in fact what is causing the effects we see that have been attributed to gravity, or...etc...then your whole model is dead. I merely bear the honors of driving nail after nail after nail after nail into the coffin.

No it's not unknown. This appeal to spiritual is just a term for bull you know what.

 

[razeontherock]

And this differs from dark energy and dark matter how, exactly?

 

[NGC 6712]

And this differs from dark energy and dark matter how, exactly?

There is observational evidence for those two - dads nonsense is evidentiary only in dads mind.

 

[dad]

No it's not unknown. This appeal to spiritual is just a term for bull you know what.

Hilarious. So you can prove that no spiritual is involved in either the future the far past, or deep space!!!? Ha. It would not be funny if you were not supposed to know what you are talking about. Man, have I been over rating my enemies. I need to relax and be happy more. Thanks for that.

 

[dad]

And this differs from dark energy and dark matter how, exactly?

Bingo. It differs in one way....dark made up unknown stuff is needed to oppose the truth of God that marches on.

 

[dad]

There is observational evidence for those two - dads nonsense is evidentiary only in dads mind.

Absurd. In other words you want to use your spirit neutered belief system to to explain what we observe, even though you must declare almost all the universe totally unknown dark stuff. I prefer the light stuff thanks.