Radioactive dating

[dad]

I determined that by comparing the radiometric age of rocks in the same geologic layer.



If the assumptions are wrong, why do different radiometric dating methods produce the same ages?

Broken record nonsense.

If it is misinterpreted, why do independent radiometric dating methods produce the same age for rocks in the same geologic layer?

You were told that the processes at work in the former nature likely were constantly changing just as now we see changes in this state. Just because laws are different doesn't mean nothing moves, works or does anything! You just zero in on a layer where we have a record of how it was then, and try to glue same state religion on it! Talk about that 'old time religion'!

Why would K/Ar ratios in tektites determine the U/Pb ratios in zircons in the same geologic layer in a different state past?

In other words there are ratios with more or less stuff in them and you try to apply ages to the stuff.

What are these forces of nature, and why would K/Ar ratios in tektites determine the U/Pb ratios in zircons in the same geologic layer in a different state past?

It was not one material determining other materials! That is asinine. Ratios are determined by the forces and laws in existence.

Why?

Things were doing something, there was change and processes at work. The only issue is what state existed, so we can determine what that was. You do not know! You know the state now and try to reverse extrapolate!

If they are arbitrary, why do completely independent methods produce the same ages?

The different methods simply tell us that a ratio exists in different materials. Your idea of bandying MILLIONS of imaginary years around at the drop of a hat, and then turning around and claiming 'agreement' is pathetic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Broken record nonsense.

I will keep repeating it until you address it.

You were told that the processes at work in the former nature likely were constantly changing just as now we see changes in this state.

What changes are those? We don't see changes to radioactive decay. We don't see changes that would allow zircons to include Pb in the crystal matrix. What you are trying to claim is just stuff you have made up.

Just because laws are different doesn't mean nothing moves, works or does anything! You just zero in on a layer where we have a record of how it was then, and try to glue same state religion on it! Talk about that 'old time religion'!

You still won't address it. Calling stuff names is not a way of addressing the argument.

In other words there are ratios with more or less stuff in them and you try to apply ages to the stuff.

If it is wrongly applied, why do independent radiometric dating methods produce the same age?

It was not one material determining other materials! That is asinine. Ratios are determined by the forces and laws in existence.

What forces and laws? Why would those laws produce those exact ratio and not others? Why would a different state past produce evidence that is identical to a same state past?

Things were doing something, there was change and processes at work.

Waving your hands about is not an explanation.

The only issue is what state existed, so we can determine what that was. You do not know! You know the state now and try to reverse extrapolate!

If the extrapolation is wrong, then why does it come up with the same dates between independent radiometric dating methods?

The different methods simply tell us that a ratio exists in different materials.

It does more than that. They aren't just ratios. They are the ONLY ratios that a same state past could produce. They are exactly what we would expect to see in a same state past.

 

[SteveB28]

There is no evidence to support a same state past. God tells how the past was, and a sane look at what He says will tell one it was different.

God tells you nothing. As Mr Loudmouth points out, all you have are other men like you CLAIMING to speak for your god.

By the way, where exactly do any of them specifically describe an altered past state? Show me the chapter and verse.

 

[dad]

I will keep repeating it until you address it.

It was addressed. Prove a same state past first or you can't use it to invent ages. You just wave the magic same state past wand over various materials and think that you can get away with it.

What changes are those? We don't see changes to radioactive decay.

Think of Radioactive decay as a feature of this present state. We can call it 'R'. Now in the former state there was something else, not R. Let's call whatever it was 'S'. It was not R that was changed. You just talked about no changes to R. No one claims changes to R. --get over it.

S changed and R is what was left.

We don't see changes that would allow zircons to include Pb in the crystal matrix. What you are trying to claim is just stuff you have made up.

There you go again looking for changes in what we have IN this state! No. get it? The way it was before in the FORMER state is the reason we would possibly expect Pb in the crystal. Your only point is that..'we don't see that now in this state, so that's the way it always was'.

If it is wrongly applied, why do independent radiometric dating methods produce the same age?

All methods are the same in the underlying premise. You only have one method. One snake with many heads. None of those heads lived in the former state. Get it? They only agree with themselves.

What forces and laws? Why would those laws produce those exact ratio and not others? Why would a different state past produce evidence that is identical to a same state past?

The forces and laws that existed. Like today, notice we have forces and laws? The universe cannot go merrily along without some forces and laws in place! The former laws produced the ratios. You only think it is 'identical' because you only ever saw this state! Here and now in this nature we see that things decay and produce daughter material. You assume all daughter material was produced that was..ergo..in this state!

If the extrapolation is wrong, then why does it come up with the same dates between independent radiometric dating methods?

Let it go man.

It does more than that. They aren't just ratios. They are the ONLY ratios that a same state past could produce.

Woulda coulda shoulda. IF there only ever WAS a same state past. You don't know that. You just assign ages to ratios of isotopes. If the state changed then the processes changed, so you cannot do that.

They are exactly what we would expect to see in a same state past.

Or a different state past. It is all a question of belief.

 

[dad]

God tells you nothing.

Yes He told mankind plenty. Unbelief won't make it go away.

As Mr Loudmouth points out, all you have are other men like you CLAIMING to speak for your god.

You can't see God. How would you be able to tell!!?

By the way, where exactly do any of them specifically describe an altered past state? Show me the chapter and verse.

Here is a bible case for a DSP..

http://splitmerge.webs.com/split.pdf


Look at the timeline...

 

[SteveB28]

Yes He told mankind plenty. Unbelief won't make it go away.

You can't see God. How would you be able to tell!!?


Here is a bible case for a DSP..

http://splitmerge.webs.com/split.pdf


Look at the timeline...

So what? Again, these are CLAIMS OF MEN, made to fit their own up interpretation of what OTHER MEN have claimed in the past!

Without any evidence!

It is fantasy built upon fantasy. What you can't/won't see is that your house of cards is lying scattered all over the floor.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Your so called ages are 100% ratios, and belief that all we see came from this present state and therefore took a long time to do so. Religion.

It doesn't even address it actually! Who cares about ratios in meteors? Have you some reason they should not be there? You do realize all things were created? Are you suggesting that meteors should somehow have no ratios or isotopes??

There you go again, asserting the past was in a different state without any evidence to back you up. Denying that the obvious explanation for what we see can possibly true. Asserting your mere ability to refuse evidence should convince the rest of us to refuse the evidence.

Yours is the mind set defense attorneys all over the nation long for in their jurors. Please, let them refuse to accept the evidence!

 

[dad]

So what? Again, these are CLAIMS OF MEN, made to fit their own up interpretation of what OTHER MEN have claimed in the past!

Without any evidence!

It is fantasy built upon fantasy. What you can't/won't see is that your house of cards is lying scattered all over the floor.

You cannot say that the spirit of God was not in the men that wrote the bible. You were not there! If you were you would see squat anyhow. Gong!

 

[dad]

There you go again, asserting the past was in a different state without any evidence to back you up. Denying that the obvious explanation for what we see can possibly true. Asserting your mere ability to refuse evidence should convince the rest of us to refuse the evidence.

Based on Scripture the past and future are different in nature. Based on science, noo one knows. The only ones who cannot claim any state past or future are science!

Yours is the mind set defense attorneys all over the nation long for in their jurors. Please, let them refuse to accept the evidence!

Yours is the accused's wildest dream come true....you have no evidence to accept or deny.

 

[SteveB28]

You cannot say that the spirit of God was not in the men that wrote the bible. You were not there! If you were you would see squat anyhow. Gong!

It is not up to me to show what DIDN'T occur. It is up to those men, and you, to provide evidence that it DID!

It's called the 'burden of proof' you knowledge? You and those ancient, anonymous men claim that a god gave you all this information, yet you have no evidence to support the 'information', nor do you have evidence that a god supposedly provided it.

Time to pick up those cards.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Based on Scripture the past and future are different in nature. Based on science, noo one knows. The only ones who cannot claim any state past or future are science!

Yours is the accused's wildest dream come true....you have no evidence to accept or deny.

The above assertion that there is no evidence for modern science findings of things like evolution and the age of the earth was written by a human with useless ear wiggling muscles, evidence of descent from a previous species that could move its ears to good effect.

 

[dad]

It is not up to me to show what DIDN'T occur. It is up to those men, and you, to provide evidence that it DID!

Science must show that the very basis of all it's far past claims is valid. God already showed the past was different.

 

[dad]

The above assertion that there is no evidence for modern science findings of things like evolution and the age of the earth ...

Is patently obvious in your failure to evidence it.

 

[SteveB28]

Science must show that the very basis of all it's far past claims is valid. God already showed the past was different.

It has, as Mr Loudmouth has patiently demonstrated to you. But you are deaf and blind to the evidence for one reason only - it interferes with your personal fantasy.

And I say "personal" quite deliberately - the vast, vast majority of your fellow religious-minded see no reason to engage in the same level of pretence and are quite comfortable with the reality of an ancient earth and universe.

I suppose this is what fear does to some people - some can face up to it; others need to comfort themselves with 'let's pretend'.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Is patently obvious in your failure to evidence it.

The above assertion that there is no evidence for evolution and the age of the earth was written by a human with canine teeth, although greatly diminished in size so that in our own species they no longer function to provide an initial puncture into the flesh as we bite. They remain, however, as evidence of descent from a previous species that could use them in that way.

 

[dad]

It has, as Mr Loudmouth has patiently demonstrated to you.al fantasy.

He showed that he wanted to believe for NO reason that ratios all represent ages because he wants us to believe that the daughter stuff got there by present state decay. He could not show any way that he could prove that a certain portion or all of a given sample of daughter material did get there by decay. If you missed this don't accuse others of being blind. We cannot use circular logic by claiming that a similar larger amount of parent isotopes in a rock means that there was a present state and decay! That should be obvious to unbiased minds.

And I say "personal" quite deliberately - the vast, vast majority of your fellow religious-minded see no reason to engage in the same level of pretence and are quite comfortable with the reality of an ancient earth and universe.

You seem to get back to that point a lot. You seem to think one gets a vote on what truth is. Just ask yourself whether the bible indicates that the past was different or the same. Do you see any believers here disagreeing?? Now let's ask if science can prove a same state past? Obviously not. You and LM demonstrate that all you have on offer is a fanatical disbelief, and a zealous belief in a godless foolish same state past. Is he your dad?

I suppose this is what fear does to some people - some can face up to it; others need to comfort themselves with 'let's pretend'.

Couldn't say. But watch out for that. We can comfort ourselves in the fact that Jesus created the world and us. It is also great to know science is truly unable to prove the same state past that they build all models of the past on.

 

[dad]

The above assertion that there is no evidence for evolution and the age of the earth was written by a human with canine teeth, although greatly diminished in size so that in our own species they no longer function to provide an initial puncture into the flesh as we bite. They remain, however, as evidence of descent from a previous species that could use them in that way.

Actually not all of us have teeth of dogs.

 

[SteveB28]

You and LM demonstrate that all you have on offer is a fanatical disbelief, and a zealous belief in a godless foolish same state past. Is he your dad?

Well, I celebrate my 87th birthday next month, so most rational thinkers would say that it would be most unlikely. However, given the childish manner in which your fantasies contort the concept of "age", I'm sure your imagination would encompass such a possibility!

Couldn't say. But watch out for that. We can comfort ourselves in the fact that Jesus created the world and us. It is also great to know science is truly unable to prove the same state past that they build all models of the past on.

No. You "comfort" yourself in the promises made by other men who have clung as desperately as you do to the promises made in mythology. Just as Muslims cling to the promises made by Mohammed. Just as Mormons cling to the promises made by Joseph Smith. But, encouragingly, your numbers dwindle.

 

[dad]

Well, I celebrate my 87th birthday next month, so most rational thinkers would say that it would be most unlikely. However, given the childish manner in which your fantasies contort the concept of "age", I'm sure your imagination would encompass such a possibility!

Congratulations.

No. You "comfort" yourself in the promises made by other men who have clung as desperately as you do to the promises made in mythology. Just as Muslims cling to the promises made by Mohammed. Just as Mormons cling to the promises made by Joseph Smith. But, encouragingly, your numbers dwindle.

Just as science clings to fairy tales. Why not cling to eternal life--only Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[SteveB28]

Congratulations.

Just as science clings to fairy tales. Why not cling to eternal life--only Jesus rose from the dead.

Ah, there's that EVIDENCE thing though, isn't there?