Methods Of Dating Rock & Fossils

[Michael]

I do this stuff for a living, you do not. The distance is known. You can say otherwise but that is just you typing it on an internet forum.

Most of us that have spoken with dad feel your pain and frustration my friend.

 

[Michael]

And why do you think that you;d have to give up your soul if you accept scientific consensus that the earth has existed for billions of years?

What a great question.

He won't have to give up his soul, just his "dogma" about that particular topic. The problem is that most folks associate their various dogmatic beliefs with "God", and therefore it they give up the dogma, they're somehow losing their religion, and their soul. I think there is a fear based motive in there somewhere.

 

[dad]

Then I gather I have targeting the wrong level of information. Perhaps this link will be more helpful for you.

Spectroscopy for Kids


Once again:

"Even though Supernova 1987A resides in another galaxy, there is very little dust along the line of sight between Earth and the supernova remnant, allowing researchers a clear view."

Supernovae Seed Galaxies with Massive Amounts of Dust: Scientific American

Great, so what effect does the 'little have'? For your information, I wonder about the "dust" and if it really is that. But that is another issue.

The long series of fails and fibs that comprise the sn1987a fable are clear. Now you want to pick out some little bit of the whole picture, (gamma rays of a certain kind-which you won't tell us about in detail for some reason when asked) and claim that means some big thing!

No. Now if gamma rays after hundreds of days and not affected at all by 'dust' existed...so what? Again, tell us simply what you think it means. So far it seems you merely want to show decay?

Hey, decay would not be a problem if the thing was real close and your distance and size were wrong now would it!? But we haven't got that far yet, because you haven't been clear enough to even settle what should be a simple side issue!

 

[dad]

I do this stuff for a living, you do not.

There is a difference between stargazing and going there. You merely gaze and tell stories based on earth laws only, that you think apply everywhere. People that ignore the fact that God made it all and gave the earth and area to man are bound to miss the forest for the trees. Those that invoke unknown physical only law bound material as some 95% or whatever, of the universe, while rejecting a spiritual component are steeped in darkness. They cannot begin to light the way.

The distance is known. You can say otherwise but that is just you typing it on an internet forum.

Why say silly things? The distance depends on many things. Things like our space and time and laws existing in deep space. That is not known! All your sizes composition, and distances are wrong most likely. Almost all the assumptions about stellar evolution are wrong certainly. To know how fast, even a star 'spins' we need to know some of these things! You have nothing that relates the far away to the here and now but earth state theory and anti bible fables.


Now wouldn't you like to learn something?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Now wouldn't you like to learn something?

I think we've alll learned more than we need to know about you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most of us that have spoken with dad feel your pain and frustration my friend.

I don't.

I would say that most that feel pain from speaking with dad are experiencing cognitive dissonance, caused by being challenged to account for God in their equations.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I don't.

I would say that most that feel pain from speaking with dad are experiencing cognitive dissonance, caused by being challenged to account for God in their equations.

Brought to mind:

Would you consider accepting that that earth is 4.5 billion years old, but believing it's actual existence is 6,000 years old to be a classic case of cog. dis.?

 

[RickG]

Great, so what effect does the 'little have'? For your information, I wonder about the "dust" and if it really is that. But that is another issue.

Well, you are the one that complained that I was not communicating on your level. It is not easy to convey information that is useful pertaining to something that took me 4 years of undergraduate work, 4 additional years of graduate work and nearly 30 additional years of working with different applications of spectroscopy to someone who doesn't even have a basic education in first year chemistry or physics. Nevertheless, I have been entertaining the idea of starting a thread on the principles of spectroscopy. Perhaps later this week, the first part of the week is a bit to busy for me to spend much time on the CF.

The long series of fails and fibs that comprise the sn1987a fable are clear. Now you want to pick out some little bit of the whole picture, (gamma rays of a certain kind-which you won't tell us about in detail for some reason when asked) and claim that means some big thing!

"Fibs, fails and Fable"....Really? Why don't you try communicating like an adult instead of a child for once.

I guess it is your childish behavior that prevents you from understanding the information people patiently post for you. The whole point I have been trying to make is that isotope decay rates have been observed and measured in gamma ray bursts from supernovae hundreds of thousands of light years away, meaning those events occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago and that light is just now reaching us. That is conclusive proof that decay rates have not changed.

No. Now if gamma rays after hundreds of days and not affected at all by 'dust' existed...so what? Again, tell us simply what you think it means. So far it seems you merely want to show decay?

Stellar dust has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Not a single thing. Gamma rays are observed coming from SN1987A, that is a fact. How much or little dust there is does not change that fact.

Hey, decay would not be a problem if the thing was real close and your distance and size were wrong now would it!? But we haven't got that far yet, because you haven't been clear enough to even settle what should be a simple side issue!

There you go acting like a child again. Please try communicating on an adult level.

 

[Jazer]

It is not easy to convey information that is useful pertaining to something that took me 4 years of undergraduate work, 4 additional years of graduate work and nearly 30 additional years of working with different applications of spectroscopy to someone who doesn't even have a basic education in first year chemistry or physics.

So you understand how we feel then when someone spends about 5 min on an atheist web site and they think that makes them an expert on the Bible.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

So you understand how we feel then when someone spends about 5 min on an atheist web site and they think that makes them an expert on the Bible.

“No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means." G.B. Shaw

 

[AV1611VET]

G.B. Shaw

This G.B. Shaw?

Shaw's play Man and Superman (1903) has been said to be "invested with eugenic doctrines" and "an ironic reworking" of Nietzsche's concept of Übermensch.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

This G.B. Shaw?

The very same.

 

[AV1611VET]

The very same.

Well, no wonder he said it then.

The Bible probably had him under conviction.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Well, no wonder he said it then.

The Bible probably had him under conviction.

Believe what you need to, I guess.

 

[AV1611VET]

Believe what you need to, I guess.

Oh, I most-definitely will; and I'm sure you will too.

 

[Tiberius]

In other words, AV will continue to believe whatever he has to believe in order to believe that atheists are poor people who are missing out on the glorious truth that he believes in.

Nevermind the fact that lots of people have believed in many kinds of glorious truths, and they weren't right either.

 

[razeontherock]

There are techniques in Radiometric dating that don't necessarily need to take into account the "original" concentration directly or the assumption that daughter isotopes are not there at time zero.

So they avoid the problem with an assumption of how much was originally in the sample.

This technique is called ISOCHRON DATING.

You can see how the technique works generally speaking HERE

You're seeing the weakness here?

 

[dad]

Well, you are the one that complained that I was not communicating on your level. It is not easy to convey information that is useful pertaining to something that took me 4 years of undergraduate work, 4 additional years of graduate work and nearly 30 additional years of working with different applications of spectroscopy to someone who doesn't even have a basic education in first year chemistry or physics. Nevertheless, I have been entertaining the idea of starting a thread on the principles of spectroscopy. Perhaps later this week, the first part of the week is a bit to busy for me to spend much time on the CF.

Hey I am not too old to learn.

"Fibs, fails and Fable"....Really? Why don't you try communicating like an adult instead of a child for once.

Try and make me

I guess it is your childish behavior that prevents you from understanding the information people patiently post for you. The whole point I have been trying to make is that isotope decay rates have been observed and measured in gamma ray bursts from supernovae hundreds of thousands of light years away, meaning those events occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago and that light is just now reaching us. That is conclusive proof that decay rates have not changed.

Distance....not known. Decay...possibly an interior fishbowl feature that we see as the info comes our way? After all gamma rays are known to be caused by things other than decay! What if that includes different state space stuff?

Stellar dust has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Not a single thing. Gamma rays are observed coming from SN1987A, that is a fact. How much or little dust there is does not change that fact.

That in itself is not a winning hand.

There you go acting like a child again. Please try communicating on an adult level.

Actually I touched on some deep stuff there. It went over your head I guess.

 

[NGC 6712]

There is a difference between stargazing and going there. You merely gaze and tell stories based on earth laws only, that you think apply everywhere. People that ignore the fact that God made it all and gave the earth and area to man are bound to miss the forest for the trees. Those that invoke unknown physical only law bound material as some 95% or whatever, of the universe, while rejecting a spiritual component are steeped in darkness. They cannot begin to light the way.

Gibberish.

Why say silly things? The distance depends on many things. Things like our space and time and laws existing in deep space. That is not known! All your sizes composition, and distances are wrong most likely. Almost all the assumptions about stellar evolution are wrong certainly. To know how fast, even a star 'spins' we need to know some of these things! You have nothing that relates the far away to the here and now but earth state theory and anti bible fables.

Your only basis for saying that is some fantasy. There is absolutely no evidence for your suppositions. The sizes, distances and composition are known.

 

[RickG]

Originally Posted by thaumaturgy

There are techniques in Radiometric dating that don't necessarily need to take into account the "original" concentration directly or the assumption that daughter isotopes are not there at time zero.

So they avoid the problem with an assumption of how much was originally in the sample.

This technique is called ISOCHRON DATING.

You can see how the technique works generally speaking HERE
​

You're seeing the weakness here?

I gather the bold emphasis is yours. Proponents of a young earth are more than eager to cast doubt by throwing the the word "assume", totally ignoring that any assumption is based upon very solid physics and knowledge of that physics. The sun will rise each day, "I assume". Gravity won't stop working so I won't float off into space, "I assume".

At the formation of a mineral (rock) there is zero daughter and 100% parent. That is assumed because it is true in most cases. There are a few cases under specific conditions where outside contamination of the daughter isotope can contaminate a sample. Those conditions are well known and very well understood.

For example, contamination can occur in lava's where it comes in contact the atmospheric argon as it cools and solidifies. However, magma that does not come in contact with the atmosphere (intrusive) , which is most often the case, atmospheric argon cannot contaminate the sample. That's only a simple explanation, but something that radiometric dating skeptics are either completely unaware of or choose to ignore for ideological reasons, rather than scientific ones.

Thanks for bringing the topic up. God Bless.