6,000 Years?

[FaithT]

It might have to do with where we are geographically. By local standards, some might still consider us conservative.

I’m in the Midwest.

 

[FaithT]

I’m in the Midwest.

Is that more conservative?

 

[River Jordan]

I’m in the Midwest.

We're in the northwest US, which is generally more liberal than the Midwest. But we're not a liberal church either, at least by local standards.

 

[truthpls]

All that is explained at the link I posted and the sections I copied and pasted.

No it isn't. Nor can you 'explain' it. It is what it is. I see in your posts about it you still talk about decay and how it came from the parent etc etc. No. No. No. It was created in some cases, depending on the age of the sample. Almost all material in the sample would have been there from the getgo. You simply are not comprehending the issue, yet speak as if you have authority. No.

 

[River Jordan]

No it isn't.

Yes it is. You asked how "we determine the initial concentration of the daughter and parent". That is very directly answered in the article.

Initial daughter product​

The amount of initial D is not required or assumed to be zero. The greater the initial D-to-Di ratio, the further the initial horizontal line sits above the X-axis. But the computed age is not affected.​

​

If one of the samples happened to contain no P (it would plot where the isochron line intercepts the Y-axis), then its quantity of D wouldn't change over time -- because it would have no parent atoms to produce daughter atoms. Whether there's a data point on the Y-axis or not, the Y-intercept of the line doesn't change as the slope of the isochron line does (as shown in Figure 5). Therefore, the Y-intercept of the isochron line gives the initial global ratio of D to Di.​

​

For each sample, it would be possible to measure the amount of the Di, and (using the ratio identified by the Y-intercept of the isochron plot) calculate the amount of D that was present when the sample formed. That quantity of D could be subtracted out of each sample, and it would then be possible to derive a simple age (by the equation introduced in the first section of this document) for each sample. Each such age would match the result given by the isochron.​

I see in your posts about it you still talk about decay and how it came from the parent etc etc. No. No. No. It was created in some cases, depending on the age of the sample. Almost all material in the sample would have been there from the getgo. You simply are not comprehending the issue, yet speak as if you have authority. No.

You and I talked about this before and it's the same situation. Your belief that God did all those things isn't in scripture and it doesn't come from science either, which means it's just something you made up.

Believe it all you want, but going around complaining about other Christians who don't go along with your personal made up beliefs is pretty bad form.

 

[truthpls]

Yes it is. You asked how "we determine the initial concentration of the daughter and parent". That is very directly answered in the article.

Initial daughter product​

The amount of initial D is not required or assumed to be zero. The greater the initial D-to-Di ratio, the further the initial horizontal line sits above the X-axis. But the computed age is not affected.​

Yes it is affected because the age depends on the ratios and if they all were there to start, the whole method is useless.

​

If one of the samples happened to contain no P (it would plot where the isochron line intercepts the Y-axis), then its quantity of D wouldn't change over time -- because it would have no parent atoms to produce daughter atoms.​

you just admitted you depend on the decay process. What are you missing here?? If the material was already there and not because of ANY process, then your premise is destroyed.

Whether there's a data point on the Y-axis or not, the Y-intercept of the line doesn't change as the slope of the isochron line does (as shown in Figure 5). Therefore, the Y-intercept of the isochron line gives the initial global ratio of D to Di.​

​

For each sample, it would be possible to measure the amount of the Di, and (using the ratio identified by the Y-intercept of the isochron plot) calculate the amount of D that was present when the sample formed.​

No, that is IF the materials got there by decay! That is your Achilles tendon. They would already be there is the sample was from the day after creation.

That quantity of D could be subtracted out of each sample, and it would then be possible to derive a simple age (by the equation introduced in the first section of this document) for each sample. Each such age would match the result given by the isochron.​

No, subtracting means because of the decay process.

You and I talked about this before and it's the same situation. Your belief that God did all those things isn't in scripture and it doesn't come from science either, which means it's just something you made up.

You assume that unless it comes from the cult of natural only science, it is made up. More faulty assumptions.

Believe it all you want, but going around complaining about other Christians who don't go along with your personal made up beliefs is pretty bad form.

Creation is not a made up belief. All Christians go along with creation. Look at the Niacine creed sometime and find out. Your belief that all daughter ratios must be from decay is made up belief. Pot, meet kettle.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes, it does cover that. I copied the part that does, twice. Here it is again.

The amount of initial D is not required or assumed to be zero. The greater the initial D-to-Di ratio, the further the initial horizontal line sits above the X-axis. But the computed age is not affected.​

If one of the samples happened to contain no P (it would plot where the isochron line intercepts the Y-axis), then its quantity of D wouldn't change over time -- because it would have no parent atoms to produce daughter atoms. Whether there's a data point on the Y-axis or not, the Y-intercept of the line doesn't change as the slope of the isochron line does (as shown in Figure 5). Therefore, the Y-intercept of the isochron line gives the initial global ratio of D to Di.​

For each sample, it would be possible to measure the amount of the Di, and (using the ratio identified by the Y-intercept of the isochron plot) calculate the amount of D that was present when the sample formed. That quantity of D could be subtracted out of each sample, and it would then be possible to derive a simple age (by the equation introduced in the first section of this document) for each sample. Each such age would match the result given by the isochron.​

It very much gives the impression that you think any scientist who doesn't share your belief that God manipulated parent/daughter elements and/or decay rates must be an atheist. But if that's not what you think, I'm glad.

Ok I apologize I’m not explaining myself clearly enough because I’m not differentiating between D (initial daughter elements resulted from contamination) & D1 (actual daughter elements as a result of isotopic decay of the parent element). What I’m referring to is D1 not D which is contamination because it’s referring to daughter elements that did not decay from the parent element in the material, instead it seeped in before the material crystallized and became trapped.

My position is this, they are assuming that the material didn’t contain any D1 elements (daughter elements that decayed from the trapped parent element) when the material was created because we don’t ever observe that happening in natural isotopic decay. So they have no reason to assume that the typical decay rate would’ve changed or that the material was created with D1 elements that had actually decayed from the parent. They don’t address this because in the science community it would be considered nonsensical because it’s never been observed in natural isotopic decay. That’s not how isotopes decay naturally, but we’re not talking about natural creation we’re talking about supernatural creation. My point is that the supernatural creation process could’ve been accelerated causing the P element to decay into D1 elements at a much faster rate that nobody has ever observed which would give the appearance of an older material.

 

[FaithT]

Ok I apologize I’m not explaining myself clearly enough because I’m not differentiating between D (initial daughter elements resulted from contamination) & D1 (actual daughter elements as a result of isotopic decay of the parent element). What I’m referring to is D1 not D which is contamination because it’s referring to daughter elements that did not decay from the parent element in the material, instead it seeped in before the material crystallized and became trapped.

My position is this, they are assuming that the material didn’t contain any D1 elements (daughter elements that decayed from the trapped parent element) when the material was created because we don’t ever observe that happening in natural isotopic decay. So they have no reason to assume that the typical decay rate would’ve changed or that the material was created with D1 elements that had actually decayed from the parent. They don’t address this because in the science community it would be considered nonsensical because it’s never been observed in natural isotopic decay. That’s not how isotopes decay naturally, but we’re not talking about natural creation we’re talking about supernatural creation. My point is that the supernatural creation process could’ve been accelerated causing the P element to decay into D1 elements at a much faster rate that nobody has ever observed which would give the appearance of an older material.

This is all still over my head but keep discussing. I’ll jump in at some point.

 

[River Jordan]

Yes it is affected because the age depends on the ratios and if they all were there to start, the whole method is useless.

you just admitted you depend on the decay process. What are you missing here?? If the material was already there and not because of ANY process, then your premise is destroyed.

No, that is IF the materials got there by decay! That is your Achilles tendon. They would already be there is the sample was from the day after creation.

No, subtracting means because of the decay process.

You assume that unless it comes from the cult of natural only science, it is made up. More faulty assumptions.

Creation is not a made up belief. All Christians go along with creation. Look at the Niacine creed sometime and find out. Your belief that all daughter ratios must be from decay is made up belief. Pot, meet kettle.

You're just repeating your personal made up belief that God manipulated parent/daughter ratios and/or decay rates. It's fine if you want to believe that but you seem to get so upset that other Christians don't. Also, disagreeing with your made up belief is not disagreeing with creation.

 

[River Jordan]

Ok I apologize I’m not explaining myself clearly enough because I’m not differentiating between D (initial daughter elements resulted from contamination) & D1 (actual daughter elements as a result of isotopic decay of the parent element). What I’m referring to is D1 not D which is contamination because it’s referring to daughter elements that did not decay from the parent element in the material, instead it seeped in before the material crystallized and became trapped.

My position is this, they are assuming that the material didn’t contain any D1 elements (daughter elements that decayed from the trapped parent element) when the material was created because we don’t ever observe that happening in natural isotopic decay. So they have no reason to assume that the typical decay rate would’ve changed or that the material was created with D1 elements that had actually decayed from the parent. They don’t address this because in the science community it would be considered nonsensical because it’s never been observed in natural isotopic decay. That’s not how isotopes decay naturally, but we’re not talking about natural creation we’re talking about supernatural creation. My point is that the supernatural creation process could’ve been accelerated causing the P element to decay into D1 elements at a much faster rate that nobody has ever observed which would give the appearance of an older material.

Yes I get it. You're making the same fundamental argument as truthpls: God manipulated parent/daughter ratios and/or decay rates. That scenario isn't in scripture and it doesn't come from science, which means it's just made up. You can believe it if you like of course, but I'd steer clear of griping and complaining about Christians and scientists who don't go along with it. It's not a good look.

 

[FaithT]

You're just repeating your personal made up belief that God manipulated parent/daughter ratios and/or decay rates. It's fine if you want to believe that but you seem to get so upset that other Christians don't. Also, disagreeing with your made up belief is not disagreeing with creation.

And I’d like to see Truthpls say WHY God would so something like that, unless s/he already has, which in case if it IS already answered can someone point me to It?

 

[BNR32FAN]

You and I talked about this before and it's the same situation. Your belief that God did all those things isn't in scripture and it doesn't come from science either, which means it's just something you made up.

Believe it all you want, but going around complaining about other Christians who don't go along with your personal made up beliefs is pretty bad form.

I never said it was scriptural, I presented it as a hypothetical possibility. It’s a plausible explanation for why scientific evidence points to an old earth yet the scriptures tell us it’s not. And I’m not complaining about other Christians who believe in an old earth I’m just participating in the topic of the thread. I mean this is a public forum, is it not? Am I not allowed to discuss alternative sides of the debate?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes I get it. You're making the same fundamental argument as truthpls: God manipulated parent/daughter ratios and/or decay rates. That scenario isn't in scripture and it doesn't come from science, which means it's just made up. You can believe it if you like of course, but I'd steer clear of griping and complaining about Christians and scientists who don't go along with it. It's not a good look.

If you don’t want to believe it that’s fine but it is a plausible explanation for why scientific evidence suggests the earth is older than what the Bible says it is. I’m not trying to claim that it’s scriptural or that it’s a fact, I’m merely saying that it’s a possibility.

 

[River Jordan]

I never said it was scriptural, I presented it as a hypothetical possibility.

God changing things to make them seem different than they actually are is always a possibility with everything, isn't it?

It’s a plausible explanation for why scientific evidence points to an old earth yet the scriptures tell us it’s not.

Then you can't complain about the methods scientists use or the conclusions they reach via those methods. You just acknowledged that the scientific evidence shows an old earth, so it makes sense for scientists to reach that conclusion, right?

And I’m not complaining about other Christians who believe in an old earth I’m just participating in the topic of the thread. I mean this is a public forum, is it not? Am I not allowed to discuss alternative sides of the debate?

Sure, but I would avoid accusing people of things like being atheists or not honestly conducting their work, just because they don't agree with your hypothetical possibility.

If you don’t want to believe it that’s fine but it is a plausible explanation for why scientific evidence suggests the earth is older than what the Bible says it is. I’m not trying to claim that it’s scriptural or that it’s a fact, I’m merely saying that it’s a possibility.

Okay.

 

[River Jordan]

And I’d like to see Truthpls say WHY God would so something like that, unless s/he already has, which in case if it IS already answered can someone point me to It?

Good question! I think it was covered in another thread in a different sub-forum, but I can't recall where.

 

[FaithT]

Good question! I think it was covered in another thread in a different sub-forum, but I can't recall where.

Could ANYONE explain why God do such a thing?

 

[FaithT]

If you repeat that the ratios must represent a process rather than a created ratio, you are repeating your own personal made up belief that there is no God or creation

Perhaps one could explain their beliefs then, such as why Jesus and the apostles were wrong? What the bible 'really' means when it says the first woman was taken out a a man's body?

There is noothing made up about the gospels or Genesis. Sorry. Your excuses for not believing are thin.

Can you answer my most recent question?

 

[truthpls]

Can you answer my most recent question?

Sure, what is it?

 

[River Jordan]

If you repeat that the ratios must represent a process rather than a created ratio, you are repeating your own personal made up belief that there is no God or creation

Perhaps one could explain their beliefs then, such as why Jesus and the apostles were wrong? What the bible 'really' means when it says the first woman was taken out a a man's body?

There is nothing made up about the gospels or Genesis. Sorry. Your excuses for not believing are thin.

You're just being ridiculous. You're actually arguing that everyone who doesn't agree with your made up beliefs about God manipulating radioactive elements and decay is an atheist and can't be a Christian.

Calling into question other peoples' faith like that is against forum rules.

 

[truthpls]

You're just being ridiculous. You're actually arguing that everyone who doesn't agree with your made up beliefs about God manipulating radioactive elements and decay is an atheist and can't be a Christian.

If God created rocks with intact ratios no one manipulated anything, that is ridiculous.

Calling into question other peoples' faith like that is against forum rules.

Calling creation into question is against God. And by the way I never questioned anyone's faith 'like that' I made a general statement that creation is part of the creed and not optional for us