Methods Of Dating Rock & Fossils

[RocksInMyHead]

I did, you really should be careful about posting short sighted replies. For any decay...gaining or losing elements to have occured as we nnow know and measure it, we need out laws in place. Point...meet Rocksinmyhead.

Ah...I figured out what you were trying to say, but it seems that you were the one who missed the point. Not a single person has claimed that decay rates aren't assumed constant. That said, we believe that it is a valid assumption because dates obtained using those assumed constant decay rates correlate with each other despite different rates of decay from each isotope and they also correlate with non-radiometric dating techniques. I agree that it's a flaw since no assumption can ever be 100% certain, but in my experience, this one is pretty darn close.

You also say that "present state" is assumed - not sure what you mean here since the present state is observable. If we can't observe the present, then what good is science at all?

 

[juvenissun]

Ah...I figured out what you were trying to say, but it seems that you were the one who missed the point. Not a single person has claimed that decay rates aren't assumed constant. That said, we believe that it is a valid assumption because dates obtained using those assumed constant decay rates correlate with each other despite different rates of decay from each isotope and they also correlate with non-radiometric dating techniques. I agree that it's a flaw since no assumption can ever be 100% certain, but in my experience, this one is pretty darn close.

You also say that "present state" is assumed - not sure what you mean here since the present state is observable. If we can't observe the present, then what good is science at all?

Hey, brother. Good reply.

What's new on your dike contact? Anything exciting?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

What's new on your dike contact? Anything exciting?

Nope, nothing new - still writing my proposal. I'll probably be out in the field this summer, and I may have a few dates from some old samples by the end of the semester (I'm picking zircons now), but no major progress yet.

 

[dad]

Ah...I figured out what you were trying to say, but it seems that you were the one who missed the point. Not a single person has claimed that decay rates aren't assumed constant. That said, we believe that it is a valid assumption because dates obtained using those assumed constant decay rates correlate with each other despite different rates of decay from each isotope and they also correlate with non-radiometric dating techniques. I agree that it's a flaw since no assumption can ever be 100% certain, but in my experience, this one is pretty darn close.

NO other validation or collaboration exists anywhere as a matter of absolute fact, that does not stem from the same exact root belief and assumption. Of course those that assume a past state that HAS decay at all, has constant rates. You miss the point. Who says that decay existed? If not, it can't be used to explain parent or daughter.

You also say that "present state" is assumed - not sure what you mean here since the present state is observable. If we can't observe the present, then what good is science at all?

It is good...in the present! However if forces and laws we know were not here, sciennce is NO good for dating the past.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

NO other validation or collaboration exists anywhere as a matter of absolute fact, that does not stem from the same exact root belief and assumption. Of course those that assume a past state that HAS decay at all, has constant rates. You miss the point. Who says that decay existed? If not, it can't be used to explain parent or daughter.

And I contend that unless you can show conclusively that the laws of physics were different in the past, you shouldn't assume that they were.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[dad]

And I contend that unless you can show conclusively that the laws of physics were different in the past, you shouldn't assume that they were.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Yes, unless you can show conclusively that the laws of physics were the same in the past, you shouldn't assume that they were. And if you do assume it, remember it is not real knowledge or science.

 

[keith99]

And I contend that unless you can show conclusively that the laws of physics were different in the past, you shouldn't assume that they were.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I'm thinking a bit along a different line. How can one measure time? The kind of changes creationists postulate in physical constants make any way of measuring time questionable. For example cesium beam atomic clocks depend on ht efrequence of emission crom cesium atoms. If fundamental constants change that will change. The questuion then becomes what is the correct measure of time?

 

[dad]

I'm thinking a bit along a different line. How can one measure time? The kind of changes creationists postulate in physical constants make any way of measuring time questionable. For example cesium beam atomic clocks depend on ht efrequence of emission crom cesium atoms. If fundamental constants change that will change. The questuion then becomes what is the correct measure of time?

Bible?

 

[Elendur]

Yes, unless you can show conclusively that the laws of physics were the same in the past, you shouldn't assume that they were. And if you do assume it, remember it is not real knowledge or science.

You're using this argument:

If you cannot show conclusively that something's true then you shouldn't assume it's true.

Then you're saying this:

Bible?

That doesn't seem contradictory?

 

[dad]

You're using this argument:

If you cannot show conclusively that something's true then you shouldn't assume it's true.

Not when God says otherwise. Why would we?? Either you know or not.

Then you're saying this:

That doesn't seem contradictory?

No. I know the bible is true. I do not know the dark and weird fantasies of so called science are true.

 

[Elendur]

Not when God says otherwise. Why would we?? Either you know or not.
No. I know the bible is true. I do not know the dark and weird fantasies of so called science are true.

Can you show that god said it?
Can you show that the bible is true?
How do you know that it's true?

I'm sorry, I don't feel like arguing if you're going to look down upon millions of peoples combined work. Work that time and time again have been functioning well and according to prediction.

 

[dad]

Can you show that god said it?

That depends on what the "it" is.

Can you show that the bible is true?
How do you know that it's true?

Jesus was seen killed then risen, as well as astounding prophesies fulfilled. Done deal.

I'm sorry, I don't feel like arguing if you're going to look down upon millions of peoples combined work. Work that time and time again have been functioning well and according to prediction.

The people that look down on the words of Christian martyrs and heroes and patriarchs as well as Jewish sacred records by putting forth fairy tales called science falsely that directly oppose said records are worthless fakes. No work ever proved that present laws existed pre flood. Really.

 

[juvenissun]

Nope, nothing new - still writing my proposal. I'll probably be out in the field this summer, and I may have a few dates from some old samples by the end of the semester (I'm picking zircons now), but no major progress yet.

Thanks. I wish I had more chance to understand what you are doing.

Give you an encouragement:
Zachariah 4:6 ... ‘Not by strength and not by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the sovereign LORD.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm thinking a bit along a different line. How can one measure time? The kind of changes creationists postulate in physical constants make any way of measuring time questionable. For example cesium beam atomic clocks depend on ht efrequence of emission crom cesium atoms. If fundamental constants change that will change. The questuion then becomes what is the correct measure of time?

You are right. We do not know.

But we do not have to worry so much either in a practical sense. The radiometric dating methods work on earth at the present time. Would that be good enough?

 

[Elendur]

Not when God says otherwise.

That depends on what the "it" is.

That's what it is. Can you prove god said it?

Jesus was seen killed then risen, as well as astounding prophesies fulfilled. Done deal.

Jesus was claimed to be seen risen. That is a big difference.

The people that look down on the words of Christian martyrs and heroes and patriarchs as well as Jewish sacred records by putting forth fairy tales called science falsely that directly oppose said records are worthless fakes. No work ever proved that present laws existed pre flood. Really.

Regarding the work before the flood:
If I'm not mistaken the flood would have occurred around 2350 BC.
What was the date of Noah's Flood?
We have mathematical records from 8000 BC. Towards the end of 3000 BC we have a lot of mathematical material from Uruk. They used if to measure volumes, areas, weight and time.
Around 2000 BC the written language started to develop and it seems suspicious that noone would write about the flood that occured 350 years earlier.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Jesus was seen killed then risen, as well as astounding prophesies fulfilled. Done deal.

You know, I've always wondered something in relation to this: some of Jesus' miracles were witnessed by thousands. Why is it that the only record we have of them is the Bible?

The people that look down on the words of Christian martyrs and heroes and patriarchs as well as Jewish sacred records by putting forth fairy tales called science falsely that directly oppose said records are worthless fakes.

No need to get insulting. Some of your "worthless fakes" are commenting in this thread.

No work ever proved that present laws existed pre flood. Really.

No, but it does suggest that they did. It's been proven about as well as anything ever is in science. More importantly, there is nothing that suggests that they have changed. That's just your interpretation. Plenty of other creationists see no need for changing the laws of physics.

Around 2000 BC the written language started to develop and it seems suspicious that noone would write about the flood that occured 350 years earlier.

To be fair, there are quite a few flood stories in the region. But regional flood != global flood.

 

[dad]

Not when God says otherwise.

That's what it is. Can you prove god said it?

Jesus was claimed to be seen risen. That is a big difference.

Last Thursday was claimed to exist by my people too. It is not reasonable to dismiss the records.

Regarding the work before the flood:
If I'm not mistaken the flood would have occurred around 2350 BC.
What was the date of Noah's Flood?
We have mathematical records from 8000 BC.

No. Not a one. Your dates are wrong. They cannot be supported.

Towards the end of 3000 BC we have a lot of mathematical material from Uruk.

No. But at least you are getting warm.

They used if to measure volumes, areas, weight and time.
Around 2000 BC the written language started to develop and it seems suspicious that noone would write about the flood that occured 350 years earlier.

Source? Which records are you on about now?

 

[dad]

You know, I've always wondered something in relation to this: some of Jesus' miracles were witnessed by thousands. Why is it that the only record we have of them is the Bible?

The enemies who had Him killed were the rulers of the land! Add to that, the fact that Israel was attacked and destroyed and the people scattered a little later. No wonder God had us keep such a good record.

No need to get insulting. Some of your "worthless fakes" are commenting in this thread.

They are? Should we break it to em gently?

No, but it does suggest that they did. It's been proven about as well as anything ever is in science. More importantly, there is nothing that suggests that they have changed. That's just your interpretation. Plenty of other creationists see no need for changing the laws of physics.

The records Of Sumer and Egypt and the bible suggest a different past. Nothing 'suggests' that the past was the same actually. It is ONLY the underlying assumption and belief that it was, that was used in building up all models that fool you there.

To be fair, there are quite a few flood stories in the region. But regional flood != global flood.

Any stories going back to the flood are not regional.

 

[Elendur]

Last Thursday was claimed to exist by my people too.

Yes, but we have a couple of billion more who would say that last thursday occurred as eyewitnesses.

It is not reasonable to dismiss the records.

Yet that's what you are doing, is it not?

No. Not a one. Your dates are wrong. They cannot be supported.

Your source for this? If you are going to prove me wrong present your evidence.

No. But at least you are getting warm.

Again, evidence.

Source? Which records are you on about now?

"Matematikens historia" by Bo Göran Johansson
He has a source collection several pages long but for these he lists:

Schmandt-Besserat 2000
Accounting with tokens in the ancient Near East.
www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/lrc/numerals/dsb1.html

Englund 2004
The State of Decipherment of Proto-Elamite.
In: Houston S. (ed): The first writing. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Friberg 1984
Numbers and Measures in the Earliest Written Records.
Scientific American. February 1984.

Friberg 1992
Mesopotamisk matematik 3200-2000 f.kr.
Preprint Series 1992:10 Dept of Math. Chalmers University of Technology, The University of Göteborg

Friberg 1999
Counting and accounting in the proto-literate Middle East.
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 51.

Nissen, Damerow & Englund 1993-1994
Archaic Bookkeeping. Early Writing and Techniques of Economic Administration in the Ancient Near East.
The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes. Except all proof man has supports the idea, and you cannot support any other same state business. Get over it. Done deal now.
Take fossils, they would be the same. Take decay, the elements would be the same...just in another state. No old ages are possible. That is absolute now. Anyone claiming otherwise is uninformed, misled, and oh so wrong, and could never begin to support their silly, godless claims.

My goodness. You misinterpret geology and physics, and then assume that it proves you right?