A Calculating Age

[dad]

The dates are directly tied to the ratios. You take the ratios and plug them into a mathematical formula, and that is how you get the dates.

Try plugging them into reality.

So why would ratios of different isotope pairs produce the same date? You simply can not explain that.

Yes I can. There is a pattern of more of one sort of isotope than the other that was left in place as our nature began. You desire to interpret that as having resulted from old ages and a same state past and nature. That is why you assign so called dates to the ratios. This you do with more than one material, so naturally you would misrepresent the pattern similarly in many materials.

Why would they have any daughter material?

Because that material was here presumably and in action doing something in the former nature. I wouldn't think it all magically appeared. Maybe one way an evo could relate to it would be to think of it sort of like 'vestigial remains'! No longer doing what it used to.

Why would that cause already formed zircons to have Pb in them?

Who says it wasn't there already?

Why would this cause the K/Ar and U/Pb dates to match each other?

Because you cause ratios to mean dates, naturally the patterns would render 'older' dates since there is more (what is now) parent material!

 

[Loudmouth]

Try plugging them into reality.

Try answering the question.

Why do the U/Pb and K/Ar dates match up? Please explain it.

There is a pattern of more of one sort of isotope than the other that was left in place as our nature began.

That doesn't explain why U/Pb and K/Ar dates agree with each other.

A ratio of 51:49 K to Ar will give a different date than 99:1 K to Ar. Just having more of one than the other does not explain it. Also, having 51:49 K to Ar will give a different date than 51:49 U to Pb.

Nothing you have given us explains why K/Ar and U/Pb dates match for a given stratum.

You desire to interpret that as having resulted from old ages and a same state past and nature.

Show me a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with an old age. If you think my interpretation is wrong, then show how it is wrong.

This you do with more than one material, so naturally you would misrepresent the pattern similarly in many materials.

Why would this produce the SAME AGE? You still haven't expalined that.

Because that material was here presumably and in action doing something in the former nature.

I need facts, not your made up fantasies.

Who says it wasn't there already?

We need facts, not your made up fantasies.

Because you cause ratios to mean dates, naturally the patterns would render 'older' dates since there is more (what is now) parent material!

Why would they render the SAME DATE?

 

[dad]

Why do the U/Pb and K/Ar dates match up? Please explain it.

Because you view them inside your belief view master.

A ratio of 51:49 K to Ar will give a different date than 99:1 K to Ar. Just having more of one than the other does not explain it. Also, having 51:49 K to Ar will give a different date than 51:49 U to Pb.

Inside your belief system dates may seem real. Outside they are bunk. You merely ascribe godless beliefs TO the ratios.

Nothing you have given us explains why K/Ar and U/Pb dates match for a given stratum.

Give an example of a stratum dated by other means and maybe it will gel into something we can get our teeth into. Where's the beef?

Show me a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with an old age.

Show me a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with an young age.

If you think my interpretation is wrong, then show how it is wrong.

Be clear in a specific example, and we can sting it up accordingly.

Why would this produce the SAME AGE? You still haven't expalined that.

Yes I have, remember the viewfinder? Anything can be mutilated and sprayed with beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because you view them inside your belief view master.

They are based on facts. Once again, you run away from the facts.

You still have no explanation for why K/Ar dates match up to U/Pb dates.

Inside your belief system dates may seem real. Outside they are bunk. You merely ascribe godless beliefs TO the ratios.

Please point to what is not real, and back it up with evidence.

Please explain how the decay rates of isotopes are not real.

Give an example of a stratum dated by other means and maybe it will gel into something we can get our teeth into. Where's the beef?

K/Ar and U/Pb are different means.

Show me a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with an young age.

Rocks that date to millions of years old with radiometric dating.

Notice that you can't show us a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with an old Earth. Never.

Be clear in a specific example, and we can sting it up accordingly.

I already gave you a specific example. Rocks date the same by a multitude of different methods: K/Ar dating, U/Pb dating, and Rb/Sr dating.

http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

That's 180 measurements of the same rocks using three different means of determining age, and they ALL return the same age within the limits of accuracy.

 

[dad]

They are based on facts. Once again, you run away from the facts.

You are incapable of comprehending the explanation given betimes. Don't blame others.

Please point to what is not real, and back it up with evidence.

Look one ought to have a grasp of what is real before commencing debating! You need to ask for it?

Please explain how the decay rates of isotopes are not real.

Decay is real, but the decay in the unknown past is speculation. You failed to explain why it was real.

K/Ar and U/Pb are different means.

Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Hansel and Gretel. One can shine a projector light on whatever part of the wall one wants.

Rocks that date to millions of years old with radiometric dating.

No such thing. The dates are bogus and belief based.

Notice that you can't show us a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with an old Earth. Never.

Notice that you can't show us a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with a young Earth. Never.

I already gave you a specific example. Rocks date the same by a multitude of different methods:

Same mistake foisted on different rocks. Whoopee do.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So, if these sedimentary layers took millions of years to form - then why are there no evidence of weathering between the layers????

 

[Loudmouth]

So, if these sedimentary layers took millions of years to form - then why are there no evidence of weathering between the layers????

First, not all layers take millions of years to form.

Second, there is evidence for weathering between layers. For example, you can see weathering from a river in this geologic layer:

 

[Loudmouth]

You are incapable of comprehending the explanation given betimes. Don't blame others.

You are talking nonsense. Show me a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with an old Earth and a same state past. Just one. No more ducking.

 

[dad]

First, not all layers take millions of years to form.

Second, there is evidence for weathering between layers. For example, you can see weathering from a river in this geologic layer:

Nasty weather in the area you colored?

 

[dad]

You are talking nonsense. Show me a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with an old Earth and a same state past. Just one. No more ducking.

The issue is not what is inconsistent with a strawman you set up.

 

[Loudmouth]

The issue is not what is inconsistent with a strawman you set up.

Show me a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with a same state past.

 

[dad]

Show me a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with a same state past.

The bible. Since there is NO evidence for a same state past, it remains an invention of man.

 

[Loudmouth]

The bible. Since there is NO evidence for a same state past, it remains an invention of man.

I aksed for evidence, not claims.

It would appear that all of the evidence points to a same state past since you can't find a single piece of evidence that does not. The debate is now settled. You lost.

 

[dad]

I aksed for evidence, not claims.

So did I. Get in line, pal.

It would appear that all of the evidence points to a same state past

None does in any way anywhere ever to be precise. Stop spamming the forum.

since you can't find a single piece of evidence that does not.

I do not seek any that you would agree is evidence, since you have proven beyons all doubt that you reject the evidence of God and only accept beliefs you want to call evidence.

You have left any debate long ago, and all we get from you is religious belief thumping.

 

[Loudmouth]

So did I. Get in line, pal.

I have given you real evidence time and time and time again. You run away from it.

None does in any way anywhere ever to be precise. Stop spamming the forum.

How does the evidence not point to a same state past? Please explain.

I do not seek any that you would agree is evidence, since you have proven beyons all doubt that you reject the evidence of God and only accept beliefs you want to call evidence.

Stories in books are not evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

The bible. Since there is NO evidence for a same state past, it remains an invention of man.

Why aren't the observations of distant stars evidence?

 

[dad]

Why aren't the observations of distant stars evidence?

Of what, that there are stars? Or do you claim they are evidence that time exists there and exists as it does here? Why would you claim something so foolish, if you do?

 

[Loudmouth]

Of what, that there are stars? Or do you claim they are evidence that time exists there and exists as it does here? Why would you claim something so foolish, if you do?

We observe that there is time there. Why do you run away from those observations?

 

[RickG]

No such thing. The dates are bogus and belief based.

Please describe how, in your own words.

 

[dad]

We observe that there is time there. Why do you run away from those observations?

I don't believe you. You observe here where the3re is time. Any movements in stars are seen in our time. Why do you run away from those observations?