Radioactive dating

[mickiio]

You are forgetting that dad would not accept fingerprint evidence in a jury trial unless someone watched the defendant actually leave the fingerprint firsthand.

I beg to differ. Fingerprints are testable & verifiable, which is good science. Your chart consists of predictions that EXTRAPOLATE over HUGE periods of time. You need huge periods of time to make your theory viable. You cannot make predictions like that without knowing what the environment was like. Your assumptions are laughable.

 

[Astrophile]

Your link didn't work.

Try clicking on the link, and then going to 'Search Britannica' in the top right-hand corner and entering 'pleochroic halo'.

The rings need
not have been produced in this state. Nice try. The particles need not be from present state alpha decay.

You asked for evidence that radioactive decay occurred during the early history of the Earth. Are you saying that pleochroic haloes were produced by some other process than radioactive decay, or are you admitting that radioactive decay occurred during some past state?

Hey, pick a sample isotope found, and describe how the decay occurs..

Aluminium-26 decays into Mg-26 by positron (beta+) decay; that is, a proton turns into a neutron and a positron is ejected. Be-10, Pd-107 and I-129 experience ordinary beta-decay; a neutron turns into a proton, and an electron is ejected. Ca-41 decays by capturing an electron from the K-shell, which turns a proton into a neutron, so producing K-41.

Now if we look at something like Double beta decay, we see that exotic explanations are required.

None of the short-lived (and now extinct) radioisotopes in meteorites experience double beta decay, and I don't see how this digression is relevant to your original question about radioactive decay during the Earth's early history.

I'd say you have a hard road to travel to try to prove that an object from space represented the age you think, or origin, or that any reactions in it required a present state!

Perhaps so, but your original question was whether radioactive decay occurred during the early history of the Earth. That was the question that I was trying to answer.

Let's take an example meteorite here. Say a meteorite shot up from earth in the flood year, from a fountain of the deep. It traveled through space, and a century or two later the state changed. Now we have decay in that meteorite! In either case, ...piece of cake!

Meteorites are quite different from terrestrial material, both in their lithology (e.g. the presence of chondrules and the presence of nickel-iron), their isotopic compositions, their radiometric ages, and the almost complete absence of water and hydrated minerals. Also, terrestrial rocks don't show the anomalous abundances of B-10, Mg-26, K-41, Ag-107 and I-129 that I originally cited as evidence for the former existence of short-lived radioisotopes in meteorites. The absence of these isotopic anomalies in terrestrial rocks shows that the short-lived isotopes were already extinct when the terrestrial rocks formed, and therefore they cannot be the source of meteorites.

 

[lasthero]

I beg to differ. Fingerprints are testable & verifiable, which is good science.

Fingerprints can be faked and placed.

Your chart consists of predictions that EXTRAPOLATE over HUGE periods of time. You need huge periods of time to make your theory viable. You cannot make predictions like that without knowing what the environment was like.

Why can't we know what the environment was like?

 

[dad]

Try clicking on the link, and then going to 'Search Britannica' in the top right-hand corner and entering 'pleochroic halo'.

Rather than spam a page with a lot of links and stories in it, use the address of the actual article. Then, post the appropriate sentences or paragraph, using the link it comes from just for reference if we need it.

It is not absolutely known that halos came from present state decay. In no way would making a colored area be a problem in a different state. Protons and neutrons make up most of the atomic mass of atoms. The forces like the strong and weak nuclear forces and others, determine the arrangement and number of these protons and neutrons. It is not rational to assume that only the current arrangement and mass and other aspects of atoms represent the full picture of how atoms worked in the far past. To do so is to merely express belief in a same state past! A belief that you cannot prove. Expressing a belief is not proof, FYI.

Then there is the issue of when the halos actually formed. Granite in large measure is a thing of this state....how you think it formed again is an expression of faith in your unproven same state past!

Aluminium-26 decays into Mg-26 by positron (beta+) decay; that is, a proton turns into a neutron and a positron is ejected. Be-10, Pd-107 and I-129 experience ordinary beta-decay; a neutron turns into a proton, and an electron is ejected. Ca-41 decays by capturing an electron from the K-shell, which turns a proton into a neutron, so producing K-41.

Yes that is now the way things work. However, what if we had such parent materials already here before this nature started? That would mean that some other process used to be at work when the former state and former forces were in place. You seek to go by the way things NOW are. You can do that for the here and now. You cannot do that for the there and then. Science needs to give it's little head a shake.

None of the short-lived (and now extinct) radioisotopes in meteorites experience double beta decay, and I don't see how this digression is relevant to your original question about radioactive decay during the Earth's early history.

That was an example of how science requires things to have happened in our state as an explanation of how they got here.

Perhaps so, but your original question was whether radioactive decay occurred during the early history of the Earth. That was the question that I was trying to answer.

Perhaps so, but meteors need not be from the early history. How can we know? You need to know the facts before making some grand diagnosis of the origin of all things!

Meteorites are quite different from terrestrial material, both in their lithology (e.g. the presence of chondrules and the presence of nickel-iron), their isotopic compositions, their radiometric ages, and the almost complete absence of water and hydrated minerals.

So what? If a rock or debris shot up in the former state, in the flood year, I would expect that it would have been different too!

Also, terrestrial rocks don't show the anomalous abundances of B-10, Mg-26, K-41, Ag-107 and I-129 that I originally cited as evidence for the former existence of short-lived radioisotopes in meteorites. The absence of these isotopic anomalies in terrestrial rocks shows that the short-lived isotopes were already extinct when the terrestrial rocks formed, and therefore they cannot be the source of meteorites.

Hey, if you rocketed into far space before this state started, we might expect some differences between you and modern man if you returned!

 

[Astrophile]

Rather than spam a page with a lot of links and stories in it, use the address of the actual article. Then, post the appropriate sentences or paragraph, using the link it comes from just for reference if we need it.

That is what I did in my original communication. Have you tried following my advice, clicking on the link and then typing 'pleochroic halo' in 'Search Britannica' at the top right-hand corner? Alternatively, you could simply Google 'pleochroic halo', and click on the www.britannica.com site, which is at the top of the first page.

 

[dad]

That is what I did in my original communication. Have you tried following my advice, clicking on the link and then typing 'pleochroic halo' in 'Search Britannica' at the top right-hand corner? Alternatively, you could simply Google 'pleochroic halo', and click on the www.britannica.com site, which is at the top of the first page.

From your link...here is the actual link by the way...not sure why this was too hard for you to find...http://www.britannica.com/science/pleochroic-halo



"Giant halos have been observed and cited as possible evidence for superheavy elements that emit very energetic alpha particles. It is generally believed that the giant halos result from some diffusion of the radioactivity and not from superheavy elements. "

The do not know. The believe. They imagine a present state cause...then simply believe that must have dunnit. No proof at all. Hilarious.

 

[Astrophile]

From your link...here is the actual link by the way...not sure why this was too hard for you to find...http://www.britannica.com/science/pleochroic-halo

It was you who complained that my link didn't work. I didn't have any difficulty finding it.

"Giant halos have been observed and cited as possible evidence for superheavy elements that emit very energetic alpha particles. It is generally believed that the giant halos result from some diffusion of the radioactivity and not from superheavy elements. "

They do not know. They believe. They imagine a present state cause...then simply believe that must have dunnit. No proof at all. Hilarious.

Is there any conceivable evidence that would convince you that causes that operate in the present state also operated in the past?

 

[dad]

It was you who complained that my link didn't work. I didn't have any difficulty finding it.


Is there any conceivable evidence that would convince you that causes that operate in the present state also operated in the past?

Any that would look to you like it didn't? Let's face it all evidence is subjected to a religious bombardment of assumptions and presuppositions by science at a basic level.

Do you know the origin of the meteorite? Do you know how granite formed in the early days of earth? Do you know that time as we know it exists in deep space?? Do you even know what time is!? No. No. No. The question becomes 'what DO you know'?

 

[Loudmouth]

I beg to differ. Fingerprints are testable & verifiable, which is good science.

Radioactive decay is testable and verifiable, which is good science.

Your chart consists of predictions that EXTRAPOLATE over HUGE periods of time. You need huge periods of time to make your theory viable. You cannot make predictions like that without knowing what the environment was like. Your assumptions are laughable.

You need huge periods of time to produce those data points. Therefore, if the data falls on those points then there had to be huge periods of time. That's now scientific hypotheses work.

 

[Loudmouth]

No offense but your graph is gibberish. If you have some clear point as to some reality of a data point, that relates or compares to some actual element on earth, get back to us. The pattern of less (what is now daughter material) as we go back in time in various layers is clear. Since the main issie..the elephant in the room here, is whether the ratios existed before this state did, the question becomes how long do we know this state existed? The answer is you do not know beyond 4500 real years. No way round this. Pick any actual example, and see. Enough nonsense.

How sweet it is.

Here is what you said:

"The same line can be used for any state past."--post 672

Are you withdrawing that statement? Are you saying that only a same state past would produce that specific line on the graphy?

 

[dad]

Here is what you said:

"The same line can be used for any state past."--post 672

Are you withdrawing that statement? Are you saying that only a same state past would produce that specific line on the graphy?

In other words, what we see can be explained by creation and the former state, and later also this state. There is no reason or need to try to do the godless mental gymnastics of explaining all things only by the present nature and laws. Therein lies your mistake.

 

[dad]

Radioactive decay is testable and verifiable, which is good science.

Only inasmuch as we now observe decay exists and can measure it now.

You need huge periods of time to produce those data points.

No...just a pencil.

The existence of stuff that is NOW formed by decay does not mean that all such stuff had to form by decay. Elementary.

 

[Loudmouth]

In other words, what we see can be explained by creation and the former state, and later also this state.

How? Why would a different state past produce the blue line on this graph, and not the red or green line? Why would a different state past produce relationships between isotope ratios that fall on any of those three lines?

There is no reason or need to try to do the godless mental gymnastics of explaining all things only by the present nature and laws. Therein lies your mistake.

Then show me how the data is inconsistent with a same state past.

 

[Loudmouth]

Only inasmuch as we now observe decay exists and can measure it now.

What we measure now was a product of the past. Therefore, we can use the observations now to determine what happened in the past.

The existence of stuff that is NOW formed by decay does not mean that all such stuff had to form by decay. Elementary.

However, if the ratios of isotopes are exactly what a same state past would produce, then it is proof that there was a same state past.

 

[dad]

How? Why would a different state past produce the blue line on this graph, and not the red or green line?

You are the one who colored your doodle art. You failed to explain what the first data point was based on. Despite you claiming over and over time was not involved, it seems that decay was involved, and that takes time, FYI.

Then show me how the data is inconsistent with a same state past.

One cannot hold up a belief and ask others to show where it is inconsistent with anything, and try to pretend that is science. This is news?

 

[Loudmouth]

You are the one who colored your doodle art. You failed to explain what the first data point was based on.

There is no "first data point". Please learn how to read graphs.

Despite you claiming over and over time was not involved, it seems that decay was involved, and that takes time, FYI.

Thank you for admitting that there was a long same state past.

One cannot hold up a belief and ask others to show where it is inconsistent with anything, and try to pretend that is science.

I didn't give you a belief. I gave you specific mathematical equations that make very specific predictions.

Sorry, but these facts don't go away just because you ignore them.

 

[dad]

There is no "first data point". Please learn how to read graphs.

The little squares and triangles and diamond points must represent something. If not data then what...overactive imagination??

Thank you for admitting that there was a long same state past.

Of course this state was here a long time. Noah lived a long time ago, and I suspect it changed in his lifetime.

I didn't give you a belief.

Correction, you say you did not, but it is what it is.

I gave you specific mathematical equations that make very specific predictions.

You fail to say specifically what the first little squares or whatnots on your colored made up graph are supposed to mean. Then you claim it has no relation to data, or even time itself!!! How could you be any more vague?

 

[Loudmouth]

The little squares and triangles and diamond points must represent something. If not data then what...overactive imagination??

They represent the predicted relationships between Ar/K and Pb/U. If you want, I can get rid of the squares if they are distracting you.

Of course this state was here a long time. Noah lived a long time ago, and I suspect it changed in his lifetime.

If that is the case, then why do the ratios of Ar/K and Pb/U fall on that line for rocks that date to billions of years old?

Correction, you say you did not, but it is what it is.

Is it a belief when we compare the DNA from a crime scene to a suspect's DNA, and see if there is a match? How is it a belief to see if the data matches what we would expect from a same state past? Isn't that how evidence works, seeing if the data matches the predictions?

You fail to say specifically what the first little squares or whatnots on your colored made up graph are supposed to mean. Then you claim it has no relation to data, or even time itself!!! How could you be any more vague?

I EXPLAINED IT SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY!!!!!

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:

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?

 

[dad]

They represent the predicted relationships between Ar/K and Pb/U. If you want, I can get rid of the squares if they are distracting you.

View attachment 165690

Predicted relationships involve mostly material that was already here. Some prediction! There is NO way to check your so called predictions beyond when this present state started anyhow. Some predictions! But I like your new doodle better, just one silly line rather than all sorts of shapes and colors and lines

If that is the case, then why do the ratios of Ar/K and Pb/U fall on that line for rocks that date to billions of years old?

Now you are trying to invoke TIME again after swearing it was not involved. How can we take you seriously?? All we really have is a pattern of slightly more or less in the ratios of isotopes. Any great time is neutered, and nixed and not possible because all that time you can no longer pretend to avoid DEPENDS on there having been nothing before this state that was created and in use some other way!!!! Religion in full glory.

Is it a belief when we compare the DNA from a crime scene to a suspect's DNA, and see if there is a match?

Is it honest to avoid addressing the folks I asked for ANY DNA from?? They are not suspect until you get some! Good luck with that.

How is it a belief to see if the data matches what we would expect from a same state past?

As explained you merely tried to hijack the created stuff already here when this state started, and tried to claim it all came about by your unproven godless fantasy state!

Isn't that how evidence works, seeing if the data matches the predictions?

Only when you have the wherewithal to verify that it does and does for the reasons you claim.

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.

There you go again!! You keep bringing time back because it cannot be taken out of the picture. Also forget daughter product and parent isotope!!! That is ONLY true here in THIS state where such a relationship exists because of OUR forces and laws here! That leaves your lograithm and supposed decay constant in limbo. In every part of your religious equation, you fail.

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.

Better still get out of the Twilight Zone of the pretend world, and get an actual example in real life of some rock! Stop pretending time is not involved in the decay processes and any doodles you make about them! Then stop trying to reinsert time as it fits your religious needs!

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:

View attachment 165690

The doodle graph does not allow for creation, or anything but present state decay. There is no way to put that in the real world past! You need reality to meet your imaginary line SOMEWHERE in the real past world!

Show us where that is. Also, what do the numbers on the left side of your graph represent, and on the bottom?

.. This is a prediction that is made before any ratios are measured, and it makes no assumptions of billions of years of decay.

That so called prediction needs to be placed on some observed evidence. Whatever rock you pick will have stuff in it that was either created and already here when this state started in Noah's lifetime, or was caused only by present state decay!
There is no way to know which, and your graph merely posits present state decay as the raison d'etre

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?

Easy. Creation made the stuff and the former nature affected the stuff.

 

[Loudmouth]

Predicted relationships involve mostly material that was already here. Some prediction! There is NO way to check your so called predictions beyond when this present state started anyhow. Some predictions!

What do you think evidence is? Isn't it observations made in the present that are consistent with your hypothesis?

Now you are trying to invoke TIME again after swearing it was not involved.

You are the one who told me to insert time. Make up your mind.

All we really have is a pattern of slightly more or less in the ratios of isotopes. Any great time is neutered, and nixed and not possible because all that time you can no longer pretend to avoid DEPENDS on there having been nothing before this state that was created and in use some other way!!!! Religion in full glory.

We have way more than that. An Ar/K ratio of 1.5 and a Pb/U ratio of 10 would be a pattern of slightly more or less in the ratio of isotopes. It also wouldn't fall on the line in the graph.

Is it honest to avoid addressing the folks I asked for ANY DNA from?? They are not suspect until you get some! Good luck with that.

We are talking about the DNA we do have, just as we do have the isotope ratios from those rocks.

As explained you merely tried to hijack the created stuff already here when this state started, and tried to claim it all came about by your unproven godless fantasy state!

I did way more than that. I gave you predictions of what the ratios would be based on what a same state past would produce. If the observations match those predictions, then it is proof of a same state past.

There you go again!! You keep bringing time back because it cannot be taken out of the picture. Also forget daughter product and parent isotope!!! That is ONLY true here in THIS state where such a relationship exists because of OUR forces and laws here! That leaves your lograithm and supposed decay constant in limbo. In every part of your religious equation, you fail.

I am not going to ignore the evidence, no matter how much you want me to.

If all you can do is invent excuses to ignore what I have presented, then I have won the debate.

The doodle graph does not allow for creation, or anything but present state decay. There is no way to put that in the real world past! You need reality to meet your imaginary line SOMEWHERE in the real past world!

How am I forcing the ratio of isotopes in rocks to fall on that line? The ratios are what they are. They either fall on that line or they don't.

Also, the ratios of isotopes in rocks are from the past, so they can be used to measure the past. If the Ar/K and Pb/U ratios fall on that line then it is proof that the ratios were created by a same state past. If they don't fall on that line, then it is evidence against a same state past.

. Also, what do the numbers on the left side of your graph represent, and on the bottom?

Exactly what they say they represent, the ratios of Ar/K (on the left) and Pb/U (on the bottom). If I measure a Pb/U ratio of 1.0 in a zircon, then I should also see a 0.48 Ar/K ratio for a tektite in the same geologic layer. A same state past predicts those relationships between those rocks and those isotopes.

Can you please explain why a different state past would produce those exact same ratios and nothing different?

That so called prediction needs to be placed on some observed evidence. Whatever rock you pick will have stuff in it that was either created and already here when this state started in Noah's lifetime, or was caused only by present state decay!
There is no way to know which, and your graph merely posits present state decay as the raison d'etre

There is a way to know. If the measured ratios of isotopes fall on the line in the graph then they were created by a same state past.