Radioactive dating

[Loudmouth]

The ratio is not an issue. Strawman. Obviously creation would have had some stuff there even before the current nature started to do what it does with atoms. A big gong for you.

By some stuff, would that include rocks with both a 0.5 U/Pb ratio and a 0.5 K/Ar ratio in the same geologic layer? Is there any reason why this wouldn't happen?

 

[Loudmouth]

Just for clarification, if a geologic layer had a 0.5 Ar/K ratio and a 0.5 Pb/U ratio, where would that fall on this graph? Would it be on the line or off the line?

 

[dad]

By some stuff, would that include rocks with both a 0.5 U/Pb ratio and a 0.5 K/Ar ratio in the same geologic layer? Is there any reason why this wouldn't happen?

It includes whatever stuff actually exists! Of course the former nature was doing what it did to the stuff first, before our present nature came along and started doing what it does with the same stuff. Do not expect one sided, half informed, belief based so called science to be able to sort it all out! You guys are all muddled up something fierce.

 

[Loudmouth]

It includes whatever stuff actually exists! Of course the former nature was doing what it did to the stuff first, before our present nature came along and started doing what it does with the same stuff. Do not expect one sided, half informed, belief based so called science to be able to sort it all out! You guys are all muddled up something fierce.

Since you can't say that there wouldn't be such ratios, you are admitting that there is no expectation of any relationship between any isotope ratios. Therefore, with a former state we would never expect isotope ratios to fall on the line in this graph.

However, we would expect isotope ratios to fall on the line in that graph if there was a same state past.

Our test is all set up. Ready to see the results?

 

[dad]

Just for clarification, if a geologic layer had a 0.5 Ar/K ratio and a 0.5 Pb/U ratio, where would that fall on this graph? Would it be on the line or off the line?

Try making a line that represents reality. The isotopes found in real materials in real rocks may increase or decrease over time in layers, and that is expected with creation and the former state. Sorry your religion has no monopoly on facts! Hoo ha

 

[Loudmouth]

Try making a line that represents reality. The isotopes found in real materials in real rocks may increase or decrease over time in layers, and that is expected with creation and the former state. Sorry your religion has no monopoly on facts! Hoo ha

So you are saying that with a former state, the isotope ratios should not fall on that line?

 

[dad]

Since you can't say that there wouldn't be such ratios, you are admitting that there is no expectation of any relationship between any isotope ratios.

I can say there would be such ratios. In either case, a same or different state past.

Therefore, with a former state we would never expect isotope ratios to fall on the line in this graph.

atherefore your logic is faith based and absurd and faulty. You seek to claim credit for created materials and all that happened in the former state to them also. Heck no.

However, we would expect isotope ratios to fall on the line in that graph if there was a same state past.

Our test is all set up. Ready to see the results?

The results are not something you can use for your belief set. Not at all. Nice try. Get back down to earth, and fact.

 

[dad]

So you are saying that with a former state, the isotope ratios should not fall on that line?

I assume that line merely represents changing isotope ratios over time. There is NO way you can claim credit for the ratios for the present state. You can't go back and check, observe, test or anything else! You just believe real hard, and try to hammer all the pegs into your belief set. Gong!

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's also get some basic algebra out of the way.

If A=B and C=B, then A=C.

For radiometric dating:

This was the basis for the equation I used before.

halflife of U * log2(1+Pb/U) = age
halflife of K * log2(1+Ar/K)= age

If the ages are the same with the two techniques, then that means I can create this equation:

halflife U * log2(1+Pb/U)=halflife of K * log2(1+Ar/K)

The line on that graph represents that equation, the ratios at which both sides of that equation produce the same number.

 

[Loudmouth]

I assume that line merely represents changing isotope ratios over time. There is NO way you can claim credit for the ratios for the present state. You can't go back and check, observe, test or anything else! You just believe real hard, and try to hammer all the pegs into your belief set. Gong!

You didn't answer my question.

So you are saying that with a former state, the isotope ratios should not fall on that line?

 

[dad]

Let's also get some basic algebra out of the way.

If A=B and C=B, then A=C.

For radiometric dating:

This was the basis for the equation I used before.

Try to remember that symbols and numbers have to represent something! You have half life which represents time. To have that and that alone be responsible
for the ratios is simply not possible unless you first proved that our laws existed. Until then you offer smoke and mirrors.

halflife of U * log2(1+Pb/U) = age
halflife of K * log2(1+Ar/K)= age

If the ages are the same with the two techniques, then that means I can create this equation:

halflife U * log2(1+Pb/U)=halflife of K * log2(1+Ar/K)

The line on that graph represents that equation, the ratios at which both sides of that equation produce the same number.

That means nothing. IF there were a same state and IF there were no creation or former nature at one time, and IF there were all the required imaginary time under this state, then the isotopes could be produced in theory there..blah blah..

 

[dad]

You didn't answer my question.

So you are saying that with a former state, the isotope ratios should not fall on that line?

I was saying I do not respect vague imaginary lines you draw. The real life stuff is expected from the former nature and creation, and several thousand years of this state...end of story.

 

[Loudmouth]

Try to remember that symbols and numbers have to represent something! You have half life which represents time.

We can measure the half life of isotopes. It is a direct observation.

To have that and that alone be responsible
for the ratios is simply not possible unless you first proved that our laws existed. Until then you offer smoke and mirrors.

That's exactly what I am proving.

That means nothing. IF there were a same state and IF there were no creation or former nature at one time, and IF there were all the required imaginary time under this state, then the isotopes could be produced in theory there..blah blah..

Still waiting for an answer. If you refuse to answer this time, I will answer it for you.

So you are saying that with a former state, the isotope ratios should not fall on that line?

 

[Loudmouth]

I was saying I do not respect vague imaginary lines you draw. The real life stuff is expected from the former nature and creation, and several thousand years of this state...end of story.

Would the real life stuff fall on that line in the graph?

 

[farout]

Radioactivity now exists. I have not seen proof it existed in the early history of earth. Has anyone else found proof or evidence for that? As it stands....I doubt it!

Radioactive dating can only go so far. At William Jewell University, in Liberty MO. a professor there proved that past a certain date, and even in some materials this dating can give inaccurate results. For those trying to date the earth as billions of years or even millions of years may well be far off. But as long as Evolution is the religion that higher education teaches no one dares bring this in serious question.

 

[Loudmouth]

Radioactive dating can only go so far. At William Jewell University, in Liberty MO. a professor there proved that past a certain date, and even in some materials this dating can give inaccurate results. For those trying to date the earth as billions of years or even millions of years may well be far off. But as long as Evolution is the religion that higher education teaches no one dares bring this in serious question.

Reference?

 

[JackRT]

Radioactive dating can only go so far. At William Jewell University, in Liberty MO. a professor there proved that past a certain date, and even in some materials this dating can give inaccurate results. For those trying to date the earth as billions of years or even millions of years may well be far off. But as long as Evolution is the religion that higher education teaches no one dares bring this in serious question.

As a retired scientist I would be most interested in following up on that. Do you have a citation to his paper on that? By the way, the concept of "proof" has no place in science although "disproof" does. Proof does apply in mathematics and in the distillation of whiskey.

 

[Hoghead1]

I read your comments, Farout, and I am not sure they really hit the mark. In fact, I have the distinct impression you really don't know much about higher education at all. I base my conclusion on my own experience, which consists of earning a mater's degree in a major scientific field at a Big 10 school. I'm not bragging, I'm just saying I had long exposure to science, from the inside. I had exposure to scientists profession evolution, their evidence, their methods, even their spirituality. And I can say with a doubt that you have presented a complete caricature of them and also higher education. For example, you claim that science refuses to hear evidence against evolution. Not so. What I found and find in many cases today is that someone in creation science has presented a totally bogus argument, which science has addressed and shot down, and then tries to defend his creation science o n the basis there is undue prejudice against him in the academic community. Take creation scientist Barry Setterfield. He argues for the YE (Young Earth) position. His claim is that c, the speed of light, was infinite at the beginning of creation and has been slowing down ever since. If science wised up and realized this, it would be apparent that we have a YE. OK, but where is Setterfield's real evidence. He claims this resides in the fact that the measurements of c, presented historically, get slower and slower. HIs position has been addressed by scientists and found wrong. If you look at the data, estimates of c have been getting faster. And I don't know of any other claims made by creation-science people that have not also had their day in court, been heard by science, and appropriately responded to. I have spent considerable time studying creation science online. And I find many so-called authorities here sport false credentials, bogus degrees, in the first place. So whenever people start taking issue with evolution or methods of dating or anything like that, I immediately carefully check out what the source is and I generally find it is bogus. You have to remember it is a big fad today to criticize science and academia. Many TV shows are devoted to programs attacking science. It's a real fad to proclaim the theory of alien astronauts and denounce academic archaeology as false. You couldn't prove it by me. I have a solid education in archaeology and I know I'm getting a con job here. I know it's a fad to claim science "brainwashes" students. Baloney. Try graduate school sometime. It is anything but. It's all about what you can get away with, provided your are big enough to back it with solid evidence.

 

[dad]

We can measure the half life of isotopes. It is a direct observation.

Totally false. All we observe is that the isotopes NOW decay and do so at a certain rate. That says nothing about how it was at all.

Still waiting for an answer. If you refuse to answer this time, I will answer it for you.

Get real. It makes for a better debate.

So you are saying that with a former state, the isotope ratios should not fall on that line?

I am saying the actual isotopes, no matter how we chose to graph them existed, except for the stuff that decayed in this state.

 

[dad]

Radioactive dating can only go so far. At William Jewell University, in Liberty MO. a professor there proved that past a certain date, and even in some materials this dating can give inaccurate results. For those trying to date the earth as billions of years or even millions of years may well be far off. But as long as Evolution is the religion that higher education teaches no one dares bring this in serious question.

The issue is why it only goes so far. You probably think that even if our present laws existed, it could not go far. That is weak.