Radioactive dating

[dad]

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

Looking at something that was already here and claiming it got here by present state processes is not observation!

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

I also asked you to insert the real world and show an actual data point and actual ratio. It is not I that ever pretended that radioactive decay does not involve time.

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.

So what? Let's see your line meet reality! Where does some actual dated rock and known ratio meet your doodle?

We are talking about the DNA we do have,

Then you have NO suspect, because you DO NOT have any DNA for the folks who made the mounds long ago. I gave a link to some ancient people and asked for DNA from them.

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.

That says nothing. Show some real layers that are dated with known ratios. It is easy to say..'see, the line meets the ratios billions of imaginary years ago'! Baloney.

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

Stop obsessing on your vague doodle art and get to real evidence.

How am I forcing the ratio of isotopes in rocks to fall on that line?

That depends what you claim the line represents and where it meets reality.

The ratios are what they are. They either fall on that line or they don't.

Get some real samples stop doodling. Is that clear?

Also, the ratios of isotopes in rocks are from the past, so they can be used to measure the past.

No, they can pretend that the stuff all came about as a result of only present state forces and laws. Phooey.

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.

That depends on what the geologic layer represents! Nice try. So far you have not even cited one! What a lark.

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

Look at an hourglass that was turned over somewhere mid point before all the grains fell. The grains of sand now falling do not tell us the time! Not unless we know when it was turned exactly.

Now get real, and stop this comic book behavior of doodle art and avoiding the issues, and pretending we have DNA suspects, and claiming no time is involved...yet it is...yet it isn't...etc!

 

[Loudmouth]

Looking at something that was already here and claiming it got here by present state processes is not observation!

Looking at something and comparing it to our hypothesis is how we determine if something is evidence.

I also asked you to insert the real world and show an actual data point and actual ratio.

First, the line is based on the observed decay rates for those parent isotopes. If the decay rates were the same in the past, then the measured ratios should fall on that line in the graph.

As soon as you agree that my predictions are valid, we will see if the measured ratios fall on that line . Are you saying that if the ratios in real rocks fall on that line you would accept it as evidence for a same state past?

Then you have NO suspect, because you DO NOT have any DNA for the folks who made the mounds long ago. I gave a link to some ancient people and asked for DNA from them.

We do have DNA from people in the past. That is exactly what is presented in court cases, DNA that was found from past events.

]That says nothing. Show some real layers that are dated with known ratios. It is easy to say..'see, the line meets the ratios billions of imaginary years ago'! Baloney.

Are you agreeing that data points that fall on that line would be evidence of a same state past?

No, they can pretend that the stuff all came about as a result of only present state forces and laws. Phooey.

"No, they can pretend that the DNA at the crime scene came from the suspect just because it matches his DNA. Phooey."

That's how your denial sounds to everyone here.

That depends on what the geologic layer represents! Nice try. So far you have not even cited one! What a lark.

If it represents rock laid down at the same time in a same state past, then the data points will fall on the line in the graph.

Look at an hourglass that was turned over somewhere mid point before all the grains fell. The grains of sand now falling do not tell us the time! Not unless we know when it was turned exactly.

Why would that starting point fall on the line in the graph?

 

[dad]

Looking at something and comparing it to our hypothesis is how we determine if something is evidence.

Enough games, let's look at something real now!

First, the line is based on the observed decay rates for those parent isotopes.

Ah, so it does take time after all.

If the decay rates were the same in the past, then the measured ratios should fall on that line in the graph.

That assumes that the stuff was not here already when decay started. Impossible dreaming!

As soon as you agree that my predictions are valid, we will see if the measured ratios fall on that line .

It matters not at all if the conjecture is valid in theory. What matters is where the rubber meets the road of reality.

Are you saying that if the ratios in real rocks fall on that line you would accept it as evidence for a same state past?

Of course not. By getting a real example we will see that the layer it was found in was only 'dated' by circular reasoning and belief based mind numbing notions.

We do have DNA from people in the past.

NOT from Noah's day, or the day of the scientific article I cited about ancient people building those mounds in a pattern. No one cares if you have Stalin's DNA.

Are you agreeing that data points that fall on that line would be evidence of a same state past?

No. I am saying that your line is a pipe dream and cannot meet reality and has not yet been backed up by real world data! Name the layer, the country, the rock!

Why would that starting point fall on the line in the graph?

Because you drew it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Enough games, let's look at something real now!

No reason to look at the data if we can't agree on what data would indicate a same state past.

If the data points fall on that line in the graph, would you agree that those data points would be evidence for a same state past?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Enough games, let's look at something real now!

So true. So instead of just playing your game of "the past must have been in some different state", please specify exactly how that other state differed from the present state. If you don't know, then you are playing a game.

For example, was the speed of light different? Was the strength of gravity different? When a uranium atom spontaneously decayed, did it emit more or less energy? When an object was heated to a white hot heat, did it radiate more or less white light? Did electrons orbit the nuclei of atoms at a greater or lessor distance?

And why do you think so?

 

[Astrophile]

Any that would look to you like it didn't?

I suppose that Loudmouth's example of isotopic ratios (e.g. 40-Ar/40-K versus 207-Pb/235-U) that were incompatible with the present radioactive decay constants would do it. Now will you answer my question?

Do you know the origin of the meteorite?

Most meteorites and near-Earth asteroids are collisional fragments of main-belt asteroids; these fragments have been perturbed into near-Earth orbits through the 3:1 resonance with Jupiter.

Do you know how granite formed in the early days of Earth?

Most granites have crystallised from magmas that had compositions at or near to a eutectic point. The magmas were produced by melting of high-grade metamorphic rocks deep in the roots of orogenic belts.

Do you know that time as we know it exists in deep space??

This is a difficult question. However, there is evidence for time existing in deep space. Observations of the orbital motion of binary stars, both direct observation of the movement of the components of visual binary stars and spectroscopic observations of the variations of the radial velocities of binary stars, when combined with Newton's laws of motion and gravitation, yield plausible stellar masses and a relationship between the masses and the luminosities of the stars. This wouldn't work if the orbital periods of binary stars didn't mean anything.

Also, astronomers have observed 'light echoes' from novae and supernovae as the light from the exploding star propagates through the interstellar medium. Again this appears to imply both that time exists and that the velocity of light is finite in deep space.

Do you even know what time is?! No. No. No. The question becomes 'what DO you know?'

"I have answered three questions and that is enough," said his father, "Don't give yourself airs."

Even if I don't know the origin of meteorites and granites or the evidence for time in deep space, there are scientists who know much more about these matters than I do. You should ask them these questions.

 

[Loudmouth]

I suppose that Loudmouth's example of isotopic ratios (e.g. 40-Ar/40-K versus 207-Pb/235-U) that were incompatible with the present radioactive decay constants would do it.

Someone else understands it. Why are you having a problem with it, dad?

 

[dad]

No reason to look at the data if we can't agree on what data would indicate a same state past.

Interesting, so if we can't first agree to your religious twaddle in advance you won't talk about actual facts. What a farce.

 

[dad]

I suppose that Loudmouth's example of isotopic ratios (e.g. 40-Ar/40-K versus 207-Pb/235-U) that were incompatible with the present radioactive decay constants would do it. Now will you answer my question.

Why would they be incompatible? They are based on the ratios! The issue is where the stuff came from, not just how it changed.

Most meteorites and near-Earth asteroids are collisional fragments of main-belt asteroids; these fragments have been perturbed into near-Earth orbits through the 3:1 resonance with Jupiter.

So? You say most? How would you know the difference?

Most granites have crystallised from magmas that had compositions at or near to a eutectic point

Nope! That is how granite is thought to have formed based on assuming a present state set of forces and laws in the past!!!

. The magmas were produced by melting of high-grade metamorphic rocks deep in the roots of orogenic belts.

Nope! If the 'melt' was in the former state, forget the way it melts now! There was no great heat recorded in Scripture for planetary movements of land and water! Thermodynamics is a present state thing as we know it!

This is a difficult question. However, there is evidence for time existing in deep space. Observations of the orbital motion of binary stars, both direct observation of the movement of the components of visual binary stars and spectroscopic observations of the variations of the radial velocities of binary stars, when combined with Newton's laws of motion and gravitation, yield plausible stellar masses and a relationship between the masses and the luminosities of the stars. This wouldn't work if the orbital periods of binary stars didn't mean anything.

That's a mouthful.

Motion without time does not mean time! You are pegged to think that motion is part of time or wedded to it or some such. No. No. No. Not in a deep space place where no time may exist as we know it!

You also cannot 'combine them with Newtons laws because that is totally trying too apply earth laws in the unknown! religious twaddle.

Also, astronomers have observed 'light echoes' from novae and supernovae as the light from the exploding star propagates through the interstellar medium. Again this appears to imply both that time exists and that the velocity of light is finite in deep space.

It implies that we here on and near earth see things in time because time exists HERE!

Even if I don't know the origin of meteorites and granites or the evidence for time in deep space, there are scientists who know much more about these matters than I do.

They are little jokers and do not know at all what you think they do. I'd eat them for breakfast.

You should ask them these questions.

You should, I am already many steps ahead of them.

 

[dad]

So true. So instead of just playing your game of "the past must have been in some different state", please specify exactly how that other state differed from the present state. If you don't know, then you are playing a game.

Christians should know what God's record says of the times. They also should know that His ways are above man's ways, as the heaven is higher than the earth. Just because science pretended to know about creation in some godless dream fables does not mean anything.

For example, was the speed of light different?

Starlight was seen in creation week. Does that require a different light speed? Or perhaps just less time or no time deep in space?! Who says little ol you needs to know??

Was the strength of gravity different?

Who knows? Was there another force that somehow counterbalanced gravity in the former state? Why pretend to know?

When a uranium atom spontaneously decayed, did it emit more or less energy?

You claim decay in the former state now!? Prove it?

When an object was heated to a white hot heat, did it radiate more or less white light?

Where was this object?

Did electrons orbit the nuclei of atoms at a greater or lessor distance?

That depends on the forces that existed then that governed atoms. We only know about the forces today in science.

Piece of cake..

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Christians should know what God's record says of the times. .

The difference between you and me is that I believe the light from the stars is God's record of the stars and you do not.

 

[dad]

The difference between you and me is that I believe the light from the stars is God's record of the stars and you do not.

False. Light does not need our time to move! You believed it did even when that contradicted God.

 

[Astrophile]

Why would they be incompatible? They are based on the ratios! The issue is where the stuff came from, not just how it changed.

I asked whether there was any conceivable evidence that would convince you that present state causes operated in the past. You asked me whether there is any evidence that would make me think that they didn't. I tried to answer the question, by offering an example of evidence (isotopic ratios that were incompatible with modern radioactive decay constants) that would make me think that present state causes didn't operate in the past. Now you are saying that that evidence would not be convincing evidence of a different state past!
It's as if you were to ask me whether any evidence would convince me that the Jesus of the Gospels was a real person, and, when I answered with the sort of evidence that I would find convincing, you were to say that that was not convincing evidence of the historicity of Jesus.

So? You say most? How would you know the difference?

There are some meteorites that come from Mars, and others that come from the Moon. It is also possible that some meteorites come from comets. Martian and lunar meteorites can be identified by their composition and mineralogy, and by the compositions of the trapped gases in Martian meteorites. What was the point of your question?

Nope! That is how granite is thought to have formed based on assuming a present state set of forces and laws in the past!!!
Nope! If the 'melt' was in the former state, forget the way it melts now! There was no great heat recorded in Scripture for planetary movements of land and water! Thermodynamics is a present state thing as we know it!
That's a mouthful.

This is mere denial without evidence.

Motion without time does not mean time! You are pegged to think that motion is part of time or wedded to it or some such. No. No. No. Not in a deep space place where no time may exist as we know it!

Spectroscopic measurements of stars (both single stars and binaries) yield their radial velocities in kilometres/second. Isn't that evidence of the existence of time?

You also cannot 'combine them with Newtons laws because that is totally trying too apply earth laws in the unknown! religious twaddle.

Again, this is mere denial without evidence.

It implies that we here on and near earth see things in time because time exists HERE!

No, it implies that light propagates at finite speed through interstellar space, and that it takes a measurable time to travel any observable distance.

They are little jokers and do not know at all what you think they do. I'd eat them for breakfast.
You should, I am already many steps ahead of them.

You over-estimate yourself.

 

[dad]

I asked whether there was any conceivable evidence that would convince you that present state causes operated in the past.

Well, when you get any we can stick it on the table and have a look at it, and see how it stacks up. meanwhile, you languish in an no evidence at all zone.

You asked me whether there is any evidence that would make me think that they didn't. I tried to answer the question, by offering an example of evidence (isotopic ratios that were incompatible with modern radioactive decay constants) that would make me think that present state causes didn't operate in the past. Now you are saying that that evidence would not be convincing evidence of a different state past!

The comets may have originated on earth and existed in the former nature. Or, they may have been far far away from earth when the state change occurred, so that could cause differences...etc etc. Just having little differences does not mean that your explanation of why is of any value whatsoever. You don't know where they came from, when, or in what state they used to exist in!!

It's as if you were to ask me whether any evidence would convince me that the Jesus of the Gospels was a real person, and, when I answered with the sort of evidence that I would find convincing, you were to say that that was not convincing evidence of the historicity of Jesus.

That is all a matter of belief. I see some folks try to deny Jesus existed here and all sorts of nonsense. Now if you had thousands of witnesses record that there was a same state past in Noah's day, that would be evidence. You have not a one! Yet I have ALL history and the Scriptures that record some differences in the far past here. I have it all, and you have nothing at all.

There are some meteorites that come from Mars, and others that come from the Moon. It is also possible that some meteorites come from comets. Martian and lunar meteorites can be identified by their composition and mineralogy, and by the compositions of the trapped gases in Martian meteorites. What was the point of your question?

4500 years ago the state likely changed. So a meteor here or there or somewhere in space before that time would have existed in the former state. Add to that any weirdness that being also in deep space might add to the mix...and presto...we have something far too unknown for you to try to pigeon hole into your same state past religion.

Spectroscopic measurements of stars (both single stars and binaries) yield their radial velocities in kilometres/second. Isn't that evidence of the existence of time?

You thought that!!?? Ha. Cute. Sorry, but to know how fast something moves around something else far far away, we first need to know some other things. We need size and distance for example. If what is moving is teensy, rather than, say the size of 4 suns as you might think (because you do not know how far away the star is) then the movements represent a lot less distance than you thought! Add to that the fact that we need time to exist and exist exactly as we know it here on earth, for any movements to represent speeds of any kind!! Etc etc. I have to give you a big..Gong!

No, it implies that light propagates at finite speed through interstellar space, and that it takes a measurable time to travel any observable distance.

Only within the circular fanatical belief set that astronomy today has devolved into. If there is no time, then forget your speed through space. That so called speed is 100% a measurement from earth and based on time here as we experience it! We assume it exists in deep space also, and that the time we associate with the movements here also exists there!

You over-estimate yourself.

No. I am too modest when it comes to the great truths God has revealed to man, and that I, in my own little way have tried to accept, and comprehend.

 

[Astrophile]

Well, when you get any we can stick it on the table and have a look at it, and see how it stacks up. Meanwhile, you languish in an no evidence at all zone.

Th light curves of Type Ia supernovae are attributed to the energy emitted by the radioactive decay of nickel-56 (half-life 6.077 days) into cobalt-56 (half-life 77.27 days), which in turn decays into iron-56. The light curves of the supernovae would be quite different if the half-lives of these two nuclides were different, or if they did not decay at all. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova .

The comets may have originated on earth and existed in the former nature. Or, they may have been far far away from earth when the state change occurred, so that could cause differences...etc etc. Just having little differences does not mean that your explanation of why is of any value whatsoever. You don't know where they came from, when, or in what state they used to exist in!!

What are you talking about? The section of my post that you appear to be replying to does not mention comets; in fact my only mention of comets in that post was to say that some meteorites may possibly come from comets. I was discussing a hypothetical observation that I would accept as evidence of a different state past.

That is all a matter of belief. I see some folks try to deny Jesus existed here and all sorts of nonsense. Now if you had thousands of witnesses record that there was a same state past in Noah's day, that would be evidence. You have not a one! Yet I have ALL history and the Scriptures that record some differences in the far past here. I have it all, and you have nothing at all.

At least I am willing to admit that there could be evidence that would convince me that physical processes in the past were different from present-day physical processes. You appear to deny even the possibility of there being evidence that past-state processes were the same as present-day processes. I am not sure what you mean by 'thousands of witnesses record that there was a same state past in Noah's day'; however, I think that the physical evidence from astronomy and geology is strongly in favour of a 'same state past'.

4500 years ago the state likely changed. So a meteor here or there or somewhere in space before that time would have existed in the former state. Add to that any weirdness that being also in deep space might add to the mix...and presto...we have something far too unknown for you to try to pigeon hole into your same state past religion.

This is merely assertion without evidence.

You thought that!!?? Ha. Cute. Sorry, but to know how fast something moves around something else far far away, we first need to know some other things. We need size and distance for example. If what is moving is teensy, rather than, say the size of 4 suns as you might think (because you do not know how far away the star is) then the movements represent a lot less distance than you thought! Add to that the fact that we need time to exist and exist exactly as we know it here on earth, for any movements to represent speeds of any kind!! Etc etc. I have to give you a big..Gong!

Radial velocities are determined from the change in wavelength of the absorption or emission lines in the spectrum of an astronomical object. They are direct real-time measurements of the speed of an object; they are not based on the angular movement of a star over a period of time.

The method is applicable to stars, galaxies, planets and comets; the same principle is used in radar speed guns, which are used to measure the speed of cricket balls, baseballs and tennis balls. Its validity doesn't depend on the assumed size of the object.

Only within the circular fanatical belief set that astronomy today has devolved into. If there is no time, then forget your speed through space. That so called speed is 100% a measurement from earth and based on time here as we experience it! We assume it exists in deep space also, and that the time we associate with the movements here also exists there!

What is your explanation for the observed light echoes of novae and supernovae?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

False. Light does not need our time to move! You believed it did even when that contradicted God.

God is not contradicted by what God shows us with the light God made.

 

[Loudmouth]

Looking at something that was already here and claiming it got here by present state processes is not observation!

I am doing more than claiming. I am demonstrating how the observations are consistent with a same state past.

I also asked you to insert the real world and show an actual data point and actual ratio.

I already did that earlier in the thread and you refused to address it. That's what got us here, defining what the evidence should look like if there was a same state past.

Then you have NO suspect, because you DO NOT have any DNA for the folks who made the mounds long ago. I gave a link to some ancient people and asked for DNA from them.

I am talking about the DNA we do have. Are you unaware that DNA fingerprinting is used in the court of law? What DNA do you think they are using?

That says nothing. Show some real layers that are dated with known ratios. It is easy to say..'see, the line meets the ratios billions of imaginary years ago'! Baloney.

I already showed you that very thing, and you refused to address it.

Stop obsessing on your vague doodle art and get to real evidence.

Already did that.

 

[dad]

Th light curves of Type Ia supernovae are attributed to the energy emitted by the radioactive decay of nickel-56 (half-life 6.077 days) into cobalt-56 (half-life 77.27 days), which in turn decays into iron-56. The light curves of the supernovae would be quite different if the half-lives of these two nuclides were different, or if they did not decay at all. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova .

Too bad that we need to know the distance to that SN for any of this to have meaning. Add to that the fact that time also needs to exist there. Add to that the fact that the days you speak of unfold here on earth. Not there that we know.

They never predicted rings would be there, yet there were rings, and they retroactively declared they rings had to have been here for tens of thousands of years, but that they just never saw them. The wrong kind of star exploded, so they re concocted their story using computer models as to how it was another type of star. They base the distance on triangulation, and the triangulation is based on space and time here near earth! Etc etc.

What are you talking about? The section of my post that you appear to be replying to does not mention comets; in fact my only mention of comets in that post was to say that some meteorites may possibly come from comets. I was discussing a hypothetical observation that I would accept as evidence of a different state past.

How about this, what would you do IF you never could show us any proof of any kind for your same state past? Since you can't. obviously, just deal with the reality of that fail.

At least I am willing to admit that there could be evidence that would convince me that physical processes in the past were different from present-day physical processes.

If I were you I would be willing to admit I may be wrong too!

You appear to deny even the possibility of there being evidence that past-state processes were the same as present-day processes.

Look, I have not yet seen any such proof. I do know Jesus created the world and stars. It is sane to work with what is known! To pretend something could prove Jesus was not the creator is unreal, and foolish.

I am not sure what you mean by 'thousands of witnesses record that there was a same state past in Noah's day'; however, I think that the physical evidence from astronomy and geology is strongly in favour of a 'same state past'.

No, the evidences only look that way to you after you drown them in your belief system.

As for the history of Egypt and Sumer, that agree with spirits having lived among men and the long lifespans in the days of old, yes, the history of those many thousands of folks concur with the different nature in the bible! Indeedy.

This is merely assertion without evidence.

No more than you claiming stuff about the meteor from space, when you do not KNOW it's history! I used solid Scriptural basis to speculate and posit possible issues that could have affected space objects. That is speculation based on solid evidence of Scripture, and sound reason.

Radial velocities are determined from the change in wavelength of the absorption or emission lines in the spectrum of an astronomical object. They are direct real-time measurements of the speed of an object; they are not based on the angular movement of a star over a period of time.

Waves come in to our space in our time and space! Wave lengths represent waves here. They only measure speed here where time is! To assume they measure speed in the far universe is religion. Your distances and sizes are wholly faith based comedy. Your conception of what is out there is based on physical only temporary state earth realities. Nothing else at all. You might as well, as Justatruthseeker says, be looking through a viewmaster!

The method is applicable to stars, galaxies, planets and comets; the same principle is used in radar speed guns, which are used to measure the speed of cricket balls, baseballs and tennis balls. Its validity doesn't depend on the assumed size of the object.

Gong! No, your method of imagining time exists where you do nor know it does is a pathetic exercise in futility. The scientists might as well stand out in the night and move their arms back and forth beating the air!

What is your explanation for the observed light echoes of novae and supernovae?

Show an example and I'll have a stab at it.

 

[dad]

God is not contradicted by what God shows us with the light God made.

God shows us nothing with light that contradicts Jesus as creator.

 

[dad]

I am doing more than claiming. I am demonstrating how the observations are consistent with a same state past.

You are blabbering. You doodled, and failed. You could not even post a real world example.

I am talking about the DNA we do have.

We have NONE from the early days of man.
Don't pretend.