Radioactive dating

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

We do know the distance, and if we see change there, time must exist there.

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.

Methinks you change the subject way too much.

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.

Rather than admit you are wrong you insist on altering all of space and time. Space and time will not accommodate you. Best you figure out how to accomodate to the reality of space and time.

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.

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

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!

Sheer babbling, based on nothing but intransigent denial.

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!

Waves can't come in from a place where time doesn't exist.

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

Here's a famous one.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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

Looking at something is observation by definition. There is something seriously amiss here.

 

[Loudmouth]

At least he is debating, you are only flaming. Btw you should read the rules because it is against them AND not a good debating method either. It only shows the incompetence of the poster.

OT It is tough to have a "ratio prediction" be accurate when more then one variable is inconsistent.

dad can only accuse things of being religious so that he feels he has a reason to ignore it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I MIGHT BE ABLE TO OFFER AS GOOD A SPECULATION AS ANYONE IN SCIENCE. hOWEVER, SINCE IT IS ABOVE OUR CURRENT ABILITIES TO KNOW, IT IS VAIN AND PRETENTIOUS TO PRETEND THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DETAIL HOW THE SPIRITUAL AND PHYSICAL WORK TOGETHER IN THE FUTURE OR PAST.

You admit it again. There is absolutely no reason that a different state past would produce the isotopes we see in rocks.

I have also shown that the ratio of isotopes we see in rocks is exactly what we would expect to see from a same state past.

Different state past falsified. Same state past proven.

THE RELATIONSHIP IS REAL. |tHE REASONS FOR THAT REALITY HAVE ZERO TO DO WITH YOUR SAME STATE PAST GODLESS RELIGION, HOWEVER.

Prove it.

Good question. I often say that the future is the key to the past. (science has erred in assuming that the present is the key to the past) So, looking at the future in the bible..(and there is no other way to be able to look at it) we see that fundamental differences in nature will exist. Light, plants, biological life, the spiritual aspects of the universe existing on earth at that time, gravity, thermodynamics...etc etc etc)

Ask yourself the question, 'can science that is based on the physical only present nature have the ability to tell us the details of why and how it will be different??'!!

How does any of this affect radioactive decay in rocks?

You have doodle art and fanatical beliefs.

I presented facts, which you still continue to ignore.

 

[[serious]]

HAVE YOU ANY CLAIM OF WHAT STATE OR LAWS EXISTED IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF MAN? If so, then back it up. Science happens to assume a certain state existed, and uses that assumption for all models about origins. Deal with reality.

Have you any claim of what state or laws existed yesterday? You back it up.

 

[seashale76]

This thread. I don't even.

 

[seashale76]

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!

Who ARE you? You're not for real.

 

[dad]

Looking at something is observation by definition. There is something seriously amiss here.

Absurd. Observation of an isotope is NOT observing how it worked in the past by definition.

 

[dad]

Who ARE you? You're not for real.

Real enough to llok at what science actually says and knows...or not. How real is your opinion...whatever it is!?

 

[dad]

This thread. I don't even.

 

[dad]

You admit it again. There is absolutely no reason that a different state past would produce the isotopes we see in rocks.

?? Have you some reason it shouldn't? In any event, the issue is not what unproven state 'woulda coulda shoulda' produce what we see. The issue is what state can you prove existed?

Different state past falsified. Same state past proven.

Saying those words actually proves nothing except that you or someone you hire can type.

How does any of this affect radioactive decay in rocks?

How would radioactive anything affect rocks unless there were radioactivity?? Can you prove there WAS?? Focus. It is not just all about your belief system here.

 

[Loudmouth]

?? Have you some reason it shouldn't?

Even you can't explain why a different state past would produce the ratios of isotopes we see in rocks.

In any event, the issue is not what unproven state 'woulda coulda shoulda' produce what we see. The issue is what state can you prove existed?

That's how you prove something, by predicting what it would produce and then seeing if that product exists.

How would radioactive anything affect rocks unless there were radioactivity?? Can you prove there WAS??

Yes, I can prove there was. If there was radioactivity in the past then we should see isotope ratios fall on the line in the graph I have shown you over and over and over. The isotopes do fall on that line. Same state proven.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Absurd. Observation of an isotope is NOT observing how it worked in the past by definition.

Observation of an isotope is observation. It shows that the isotope got here, somehow. And we're talking about those isotopes that arrive by means of radioactive decay.

 

[dad]

Even you can't explain why a different state past would produce the ratios of isotopes we see in rocks.

There would have been a starting amount when this state started, presumably. Therefore it is foolish to try to explain it all by this present state alone. There is also NO way to check how it actually got here. You merely look at the decay reality that exists now, and try to assume it is the big player in what caused the isotopes from the far past. That is religion.

That's how you prove something, by predicting what it would produce and then seeing if that product exists.

Not in this case. Look at the actual rocks or layers, and see how your predictions fare.

In this example, we see that fossils are 'dated' by the isotope ratios they find in layers. Circular.

"
The Burgess Shale itself cannot be dated directly. But its age can be determined indirectly by correlating it with other deposits that have been dated using geochronologic methods (such as radiometric decay analysis). These correlations are based on shared profiles of fossils contained within the strata (rock layers).

This method is known as biostratigraphic correlation and produces a relative rather than absolute age (see below). It relies on the stratigraphic principle of superposition: that the oldest sedimentary rock layers are always found at the base of a section (so long as the section has not been deformed or overturned by subsequent tectonic activity).

This means the further you dig down, the older the rocks should be. If two different sites contain the same set of fossils (e.g. Site B and C in figure below), it is likely that they were laid down at about the same time. The relative age of the youngest (Site A) and the oldest (Site E) sites can be determined by comparing their respective fossil compositions."

http://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/science/burgess-shale/02-geological-background.php#old

Yes, I can prove there was. If there was radioactivity in the past then we should see isotope ratios fall on the line in the graph I have shown you over and over and over. The isotopes do fall on that line. Same state proven.

What is proven is that you cannot even address the issues and incessantly preach religious belief.

 

[dad]

Observation of an isotope is observation.

Only of the present! The isotopes are here..now. You never observe any there or then! None.

It shows that the isotope got here, somehow.

Brilliant.

And we're talking about those isotopes that arrive by means of radioactive decay.

Absurd. They are NOW produced in this state BY radioactivity. That says nothing about the former state. Neither is it any indication that decay existed in the past at all.

 

[Loudmouth]

There would have been a starting amount when this state started, presumably.

You have failed to show how those starting amounts would fall on that line in the graph. Therefore, your proposition is falsified by the facts. A different state past is falsified.

Not in this case. Look at the actual rocks or layers, and see how your predictions fare.

I did. They fall on the line in that graph.

In this example, we see that fossils are 'dated' by the isotope ratios they find in layers. Circular.

In this example, we are only comparing the ratios of isotopes between two different isotope systems, U/Pb and K/Ar. We predict the relationship between them by using the observed half lives of each parent isotope. If there was a same state past, then the relationship between them should always be determined by the relative difference between their observed half lives, and that's what we see.

Notice that I never used the dates given to them.

The Burgess Shale itself cannot be dated directly. But its age can be determined indirectly by correlating it with other deposits that have been dated using geochronologic methods (such as radiometric decay analysis). These correlations are based on shared profiles of fossils contained within the strata (rock layers).

This method is known as biostratigraphic correlation and produces a relative rather than absolute age (see below). It relies on the stratigraphic principle of superposition: that the oldest sedimentary rock layers are always found at the base of a section (so long as the section has not been deformed or overturned by subsequent tectonic activity).

This means the further you dig down, the older the rocks should be. If two different sites contain the same set of fossils (e.g. Site B and C in figure below), it is likely that they were laid down at about the same time. The relative age of the youngest (Site A) and the oldest (Site E) sites can be determined by comparing their respective fossil compositions."

http://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/science/burgess-shale/02-geological-background.php#old

What is proven is that you cannot even address the issues and incessantly preach religious belief.

The Burgess shale is a sedimentary rock that can't be dated using radiometric dating. Igneous rocks above and below the Burgess shale can be dated with radiometric dating which give a minimum and maximum age for the Burgess shale.

After all this time, you still don't understand what radiometric dating is.

 

[dad]

You have failed to show how those starting amounts would fall on that line in the graph. ...

You have failed in making a silly graph, and ignoring the issues. Issues like where did the ratios come from? Issue like can you prove decay existed at all then? Issues like how you could prove your doodle graph represents any reality in the actual past and how we can check?!

In this example, we are only comparing the ratios of isotopes between two different isotope systems, U/Pb and K/Ar. We predict the relationship between them by using the observed half lives of each parent isotope. If there was a same state past, then the relationship between them should always be determined by the relative difference between their observed half lives, and that's what we see.

We also would see ratios of stuff id stuff existed when this state started, obviously. Your attempt to credit their existence by making a little graph..to present state decay is off topic!

Notice that I never used the dates given to them.

Ha, trying to deny time is involved again. Newsflash...all decay requires time. There is also no way to go back and check any material anywhere (despite religious doodle graphs) to see whether decay existed in the far past. Your graph therefore is a pure religious attempt to use present decay and chart different ratios to make it look like the ratios exist because of present decay.

The Burgess shale is a sedimentary rock that can't be dated using radiometric dating. Igneous rocks above and below the Burgess shale can be dated with radiometric dating which give a minimum and maximum age for the Burgess shale.

Obviously. So it is circular to claim dates for them based on decay of isotopes in rocks near them.

After all this time, you still don't understand what radiometric dating is.

If you are pretending I thought fossils were dated that way, let us know. I prefer honest debate myself.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have failed in making a silly graph, and ignoring the issues. Issues like where did the ratios come from?

As shown by the relationship between U/Pb, K/Ar, and their observed half lives, the ratios came from a same state past.

Issues like how you could prove your doodle graph represents any reality in the actual past and how we can check?!

You can check them by measuring the ratios of those isotopes in rocks, like I have explained over and over and over.

We also would see ratios of stuff id stuff existed when this state started, obviously.

You have already stated that those starting ratios would not fall on the line in that graph if there was a former state. The ratios do fall on that line. Therefore, a former state is falsified.

Ha, trying to deny time is involved again. Newsflash...all decay requires time. There is also no way to go back and check any material anywhere (despite religious doodle graphs) to see whether decay existed in the far past.

I just showed you how we can.

Your graph therefore is a pure religious attempt to use present decay and chart different ratios to make it look like the ratios exist because of present decay.

So you admit that the evidence looks like what we should see with a same state past?

Obviously. So it is circular to claim dates for them based on decay of isotopes in rocks near them.

There is no circle. We date rocks by the observed ratio of isotopes in them and their observed half lives. No circle involved.

 

[dad]

As shown by the relationship between U/Pb, K/Ar, and their observed half lives, the ratios came from a same state past.

You know NOTHING about the relationship of the ratios in the past. as far as what caused them. That is all that matters.

You can check them by measuring the ratios of those isotopes in rocks, like I have explained over and over and over.

You can check patterns of isotopes in the ratios. Why they got there you could never check, doodle art does not help.

You have already stated that those starting ratios would not fall on the line in that graph if there was a former state.

Rubbish, not sure what you misconstrued and contorted to get that claim. Tell us where in your line Noah was? Or is your line so useless that it does not deal in the real world or history? If you disbelieve in Noah then try getting some data point in the KT layer. Your religious pi in the sky is boring.

So you admit that the evidence looks like what we should see with a same state past?

I admit that you try to move heaven and earth to get an imaginary fit, and that we could never check out your imaginary points on the doodle art graph, or relate them to real layers or time.

There is no circle. We date rocks by the observed ratio of isotopes in them and their observed half lives. No circle involved.

The assumed same state past that you use for so called dates is religion. To date fossils BY that belief based system is circular and ridiculous.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You know NOTHING about the relationship of the ratios in the past. as far as what caused them. That is all that matters.
.

See? You're wrong again. Of course we know what radioactivity has done. We can compare rocks without radioactivity and those with radioactivity, and see the difference. Your objections are silly and will continue to be ignored.