Radioactive dating

[In situ]

Radioactivity needs to exist to have radioactive decay. To claim decay means using the present nature and laws, andthat depends on you proving ourlaws also existed then. Pretty basic stuff.

You seams to suggest that it is not enough to theorize only aboth that which has actually been observed, but we should also include that which we can imagine. Is that correct understood?

 

[In situ]

and the rate at which this happens is extrapolated (based on assuming the same laws existed) into the past.

Extrapolated based on good reason, yes. I presume you know these reason?

And if you do not want to disclose what is wrong with current understanding of basic physics can you at least be a little bit more specific than just asserting things might not have existed and/or been different. Do you perhaps have some evidence to support this assertion?

Or let me formulate myself this way; can you propose a mechanism on how the half time can be altered? If you cannot, I am fine, just for the sake of the argument, to grant you that it can happen.

 

[Black Dog]

Ah..excellent. I agree there is half time. Of course when you arrive at a game at half time you miss the first half of what went on.

Half time is a measure of how isotopes behave IN THIS STATE. Here, they decay, and the rate at which this happens is extrapolated (based on assuming the same laws existed) into the past. End of story. They never went back or were there for one significant half life even for carbon 14. It is 100% belief in a same state past.

By this analogy, you would never believe in the bible, because you are extrapolating into the past. You have to believe in a same state past, or the bible would make no sense.

 

[In situ]

By this analogy, you would never believe in the bible, because you are extrapolating into the past.

I am willing to grant dad to asserted any behavior he wants or wish to have postulated in the past, provided they are plausible. What he suggest so far is plausible. And then we gonna investigate what it might lead to in terms of physics. However, first I need to be clear on what conditions dad wants to set up, then we will play by dad's rules.

 

[dad]

You seams to suggest that it is not enough to theorize only aboth that which has actually been observed, but we should also include that which we can imagine. Is that correct understood?

Correct, observing the present state is in no way enough to model the former state.

 

[dad]

Extrapolated based on good reason, yes. I presume you know these reason?

Yes the reason is that you observe the present state and believe the past was the same for no reason.

And if you do not want to disclose what is wrong with current understanding of basic physics can you at least be a little bit more specific than just asserting things might not have existed and/or been different. Do you perhaps have some evidence to support this assertion?

Since science doesn't know, that takes it out of the little playpen of science. How the actual past was is a matter of belief only. I believe God's record, thank you very much.

Or let me formulate myself this way; can you propose a mechanism on how the half time can be altered?

I think you mean half life. We don't need to alter THAT! That was not what was altered, that is what was left after whatever was here was altered. Important distinction. You see we know that we can't just run around and alter existing laws or forces themselves as they are without dire consequences.

 

[dad]

By this analogy, you would never believe in the bible, because you are extrapolating into the past. You have to believe in a same state past, or the bible would make no sense.

No. I do not believe God because simple Simon science says so. God provided His Own set of proofs independent of science. Of course when we know what really went down, that has application for our scientific knowledge. But only if we are clued in.

 

[Black Dog]

No. I do not believe God because simple Simon science says so. God provided His Own set of proofs independent of science. Of course when we know what really went down, that has application for our scientific knowledge. But only if we are clued in.

If the past could have operated under a different set of physical laws, none of the proofs of God's existence would hold true. Give me your best proof and I will show you.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Maybe the wizards should go back and check again with their updated myopic equipment, eh?

Go ahead, suggest an experiment you think they should conduct.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Your claims are shown to be false this day by being just claims.

Not so. Even if a claim is merely a wild idea fetched from someone's sheer imagination, that fact alone does not make the claim false. The falseness of a claim is established by logic and evidence.

Let's take the claim that there is a teacup floating among the many little snowballs that make the rings of Saturn. We have no actual evidence there is not one. But we have logic that tells us it is not there.

See? Logic and evidence are your friends.

 

[dad]

If the past could have operated under a different set of physical laws, none of the proofs of God's existence would hold true.

False. What in tarnation are you even talking about? The near 1000 year lifespans of men at that time..how could that hold true under today's laws? You have it backwards.

Give me your best proof and I will show you.

Proof that science does not know the state that was, is that it doesn't know and cannot prove any state.

 

[dad]

Not so. Even if a claim is merely a wild idea fetched from someone's sheer imagination, that fact alone does not make the claim false.

I actually did not invent history or God or Scripture by any stretch of your imagination. I also do not invent the glaring fact that science cannot prove what nature and laws existed. You stand corrected somethin fierce.

The falseness of a claim is established by logic and evidence.

Not fairy tale claims that never had any evidence like a same state past claim.

Let's take the claim that there is a teacup floating among the many little snowballs that make the rings of Saturn. We have no actual evidence there is not one. But we have logic that tells us it is not there.

Here is a tip...that is not something sane people worry about in any way.

See? Logic and evidence are your friends.

I know, now to get you acquainted with them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Go ahead, suggest an experiment you think they should conduct.

I don't know what experiments they used 200 years ago, let alone be able to suggest one for today.

I'm sure as long as they "found" evidence against a global flood, they've done their job.

They probably don't want to check again today because they might find something.

Dunno.

 

[Black Dog]

False. What in tarnation are you even talking about? The near 1000 year lifespans of men at that time..how could that hold true under today's laws? You have it backwards.

Proof that science does not know the state that was, is that it doesn't know and cannot prove any state.

If the physical laws were different long ago, then people living to 1000 might be expected, and have nothing to do with God. If the physical laws could have been different, then perhaps Jesus resurrection was completely normal and expected, completely explained by the physical laws at that time. No need to introduce God at all, not a miracle at all.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

For 29 pages "dad" has denied, and ignored facts.

Why bother?

 

[dad]

For 29 pages "dad" has denied, and ignored facts.

Why bother?

Still pretending you had a fact? Just keep posting and never presenting it now.

 

[dad]

If the physical laws were different long ago, then people living to 1000 might be expected, and have nothing to do with God.

The way we know about is from God, no other way.

If the physical laws could have been different, then perhaps Jesus resurrection was completely normal and expected, completely explained by the physical laws at that time. No need to introduce God at all, not a miracle at all.

The nature change was long before Jesus came to earth. His miracles had nothing to do with our laws anyhow though. But the rest of the world still had our laws. Get a grip.

 

[Black Dog]

The way we know about is from God, no other way.

The nature change was long before Jesus came to earth. His miracles had nothing to do with our laws anyhow though. But the rest of the world still had our laws. Get a grip.

The way you know is from God. There is another way, the atheist way, and that is how I know the world, without a Jesus God. If nature changes can happen, how do you know there wasn't a brief nature change at the time of Christ's resurrection, making that resurrection a mundane event, requiring no miracle?

 

[dad]

The way you know is from God. There is another way, the atheist way, and that is how I know the world, without a Jesus God. If nature changes can happen, how do you know there wasn't a brief nature change at the time of Christ's resurrection, making that resurrection a mundane event, requiring no miracle?

Well, that could be debated but let's face it, we have history from many parts of the world, so there is no question nature was the same in the world generally.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not consistent? Why would there not also be a lot of daughter material in materials?

I specifically mentioned ratios. Why would you have a direct relationship between the U/Pb and K/Ar ratios in the same stratum? Why would we consistently get the the same K/Ar ratio for a given U/Pb ratio in a same state past? Why would the relationship between those ratios also match up with the same state decay rates?

I was creating an example out of thin air since you seem incapable of providing one.

I have already provided examples. Why don't you use them?

Here is the standard equation that I am using, but with one difference:

The difference is that we are going to take t out of the equation. Since you don't like it in there, let's take it out. Instead, let's replace t with scientific observations. Let's have the U/Pb equation on one side of the equal sign, and the K/Ar on the other side of the equal sign. Just for clarification, we are using 235U and 40K which have observed decay constants of 9.846E-10 year and 5.540E-10 respectively. Again, these are the OBSERVED decay constants. No assumptions of long time periods are being used.

The equation will look like this:

[ln[1+(Pb/U)]]/9.84E-10=[ln[1+(Ar/K)]]/5.540E-10

If you have the U/Pb ratio, all you do is solve for K/Ar. In fact, I even graphed it so you can see it:

I plugged in a few different ratios if Pb/U in Excel, used the equation above with the decay constants, and voila. I got that chart with a trendline for you to follow.

That is the prediction. That line represents the ratios we should see if there is a same state past. This is a prediction that is made before any ratios are measured, and it makes no assumptions of billions of years of decay.

Now, can you tell us why a different state past could not produce a 1.5 ratio for Pb/U and a 0.1 ratio for Ar/K? That would be far away from the line and would falsify a same state past. So why shouldn't we see data points from real world data that falls all over that graph instead of along that line connecting the points?

[btw, if anyone finds any math errors I have made, please speak up. I used a polynomial regression for the trendline, in case anyone is wondering. This is the Excel formula I used:

(EXP((LN(1+A2))*($F$2/$E$2))-1)

Where A2 is the Pb/U ratio, F2 is the 235U decay constant, and E2 is the 40K decay constant. The formula can be drag copied in column B with Pb/U ratios in column A.]