Radioactive dating

[dad]

Let's review, shall we?

If there was a same state past, then we would expect to see the same patterns of ratios from the past as we see in the present. Those patterns are predicted from the measured decay rates of the isotopes under question. For example, if the decay of isotope A into B is twice as fast as that of the decay of isotope C into D, then you would expect to find that the ratio of B/A is twice that of D/C on a logarithmic scale. This is like looking at the pattern of a suspect's DNA and then comparing it to DNA found at a crime scene. If the patterns match, then it is evidence for a same state past. For the decay of K into Ar and the decay of U into Pb, this is what the graph looks like.

View attachment 169117

If a rock has a Pb/U ratio of 0.6 along the x axis, then rocks in that same geologic layer should have an Ar/K ratio of approximately 0.3. That is the relationship we should see if there was a same state past, and it is EXACTLY what we observe in the rocks as discussed here:

http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

The U/Pb and K/Ar dates are the same meaning that they have the predicted ratios that we would see with a same state past.

Let's compare that to dad's different state past. As he has shown, all the same state past will do is put some random amount of daughter isotope into rocks. dad has been given every chance to show that there would be some sort of relationship between B/A and D/C as discussed above, but at every turn has made it painfully obvious that no such relationship should exist in a different state past. Therefore, a sample from a different state past could as well have these measured amounts of the 4 isotopes listed above.

Ar/K------Pb/U
0.4--------1.6
0.1-------0.8
0.7-------0.2

When we graph those data points on the graph, this is what they look like.

View attachment 169118

As anyone can see, dad's different state past would not produce the same data points as a same state past, and they don't match what we actually see in rocks.

Therefore, a same state past is supported and a different state past is falsified.

Your pic has ages in it....gong!

 

[Loudmouth]

Your pic has ages in it....gong!

The ages come from isotope ratios . . . gong! If the U/Pb and K/Ar ages are the same then the measured isotope ratios fall on the line in the graph . . . gong! I already explained this at length in a previous post . . . gong!

 

[dad]

The ages come from isotope ratios . .

No they come from religious ideas about the state of the past that you know nothing at all about. The so called ages are just artificial concepts foisted onto ratios.

If the U/Pb and K/Ar ages are the same then the measured isotope ratios fall on the line in the graph .

You measure stuff that was here at the onset of our present state and try to invoke imaginary ages as the cause for them. Once we get your game you have no hope.

Look at a sample from around the KT layer era. Now assign an age based on how much (what is now) daughter material now exists. Now prove that the state was the same so that daughter material was even produced in the far past. You can't. You merely want to claim all the daughter material, and extend the present state process of decay into the unknown. Period. Gong Gong Gong.

 

[Loudmouth]

No

Yes.

http://facweb.bhc.edu/academics/science/harwoodr/Geol101/labs/radiometric/index.htm

Nd is the daughter isotope and Np is the parent isotope. Lambda is the decay constant which is the same for all age determinations. It is the ratio of the isotopes that determines the age. If someone lists an age, we can back calculate and determine the ratios they measured to arrive at that age. That equation looks like this:

Nd/Np = e^(t*lambda) - 1

Nd/Np is exactly what my graphs are charting.

Lambdas for K and U are 5.54E-10 and 9.85E-10 respectively.

Let's go back to the figure you keep wanting to run away from.

http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

Let's look at the Hell Creek data towards the middle. We get a K/Ar date of 64.6 million years and a U/Pb date of 63.9 million years. Using the equation above, the K/Ar ratio was 0.0364 and the U/Pb ratio is 0.0657. If we zoom in on the graph and plot those points, we get:

The data point is within instrument error of being right on the line.

As we have already shown, a different state past would not produce data points that fall on that line.

they come from religious ideas about the state of the past . . .

They come from measurements of isotopes. Period. If the past were different, then the data points would not fall on that line.

You measure stuff that was here at the onset of our present state . . .

If there was a different state past that put random amounts of daughter isotope into rocks, then they would not fall on that line. As we see, the data does fall on that line, so a different state past is falsified.

Look at a sample from around the KT layer era. Now assign an age based on how much (what is now) daughter material now exists. Now prove that the state was the same so that daughter material was even produced in the far past.

Just did. The data points fall on the line in the graph which marks the predicted ratios produced by a same state past. The ratios that a different state past would produce is the entire rest of the graph outside of that diagonal line. As you can see, the data falls on the line indicating a same state past.

You merely want to claim all the daughter material, and extend the present state process of decay into the unknown. Period. Gong Gong Gong.

That is a lie, gong gong gong. I have shown you why this isn't true multiple times now.

 

[dad]

Yes.

http://facweb.bhc.edu/academics/science/harwoodr/Geol101/labs/radiometric/index.htm

Nd is the daughter isotope and Np is the parent isotope. Lambda is the decay constant which is the same for all age determinations. It is the ratio of the isotopes that determines the age. If someone lists an age, we can back calculate and determine the ratios they measured to arrive at that age. That equation looks like this:

Nd/Np = e^(t*lambda) - 1

Nd/Np is exactly what my graphs are charting.

Lambdas for K and U are 5.54E-10 and 9.85E-10 respectively.

Let's go back to the figure you keep wanting to run away from.

http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

Let's look at the Hell Creek data towards the middle. We get a K/Ar date of 64.6 million years and a U/Pb date of 63.9 million years. Using the equation above, the K/Ar ratio was 0.0364 and the U/Pb ratio is 0.0657. If we zoom in on the graph and plot those points, we get:

View attachment 169226

The data point is within instrument error of being right on the line.

As we have already shown, a different state past would not produce data points that fall on that line.



They come from measurements of isotopes. Period. If the past were different, then the data points would not fall on that line.



If there was a different state past that put random amounts of daughter isotope into rocks, then they would not fall on that line. As we see, the data does fall on that line, so a different state past is falsified.



Just did. The data points fall on the line in the graph which marks the predicted ratios produced by a same state past. The ratios that a different state past would produce is the entire rest of the graph outside of that diagonal line. As you can see, the data falls on the line indicating a same state past.



That is a lie, gong gong gong. I have shown you why this isn't true multiple times now.

There is no way to look at a sample from say the kt layer, and check how the daughter material got there. Your graphs assume it was not there, but all came about as a result of this state. Extrapolating present decay rates is totally useless unless you first know our state existed. Anything else is circular, small minded, and foolish. One could say that the kt was so many million years ago...find a sample with daughter isotopes from that layer, then try to claim the present state decay rate extrapolated backward also gives this date. Total fantasy, no way to check anything but the amount of isotope...not time!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There is no way to look at a sample from say the kt layer, and check how the daughter material got there. Your graphs assume it was not there, but all came about as a result of this state. Extrapolating present decay rates is totally useless unless you first know our state existed. Anything else is circular, small minded, and foolish. One could say that the kt was so many million years ago...find a sample with daughter isotopes from that layer, then try to claim the present state decay rate extrapolated backward also gives this date. Total fantasy, no way to check anything but the amount of isotope...not time!

There you go again, just denying plain evidence because you want to, not because you have any real reason to do that.

 

[dad]

There you go again, just denying plain evidence because you want to, not because you have any real reason to do that.

No one dnies the daughter material is there. I suspect it was there when this state started. Nothing to deny but the antigod religious nonsense that name only believers love to support and embrace in their heart.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No one dnies the daughter material is there. I suspect it was there when this state started. Nothing to deny but the antigod religious nonsense that name only believers love to support and embrace in their heart.

And there you go again, continuing to dismiss evidence. You write "I suspect it was there when this state started" without any evidence whatsoever for your postulated alternate state of reality. So you dismiss the strong evidence science brings to the table; the rest of us can equally dismiss your complete lack of evidence for anything you have ever proposed.

 

[dad]

And there you go again, continuing to dismiss evidence. You write "I suspect it was there when this state started" without any evidence whatsoever for your postulated alternate state of reality. So you dismiss the strong evidence science brings to the table; the rest of us can equally dismiss your complete lack of evidence for anything you have ever proposed.

Show evidence the daughter material was here already in the KT layer era. You can't..you lose. Picked the wrong side buddy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Show evidence the daughter material was here already in the KT layer era. You can't..you lose. Picked the wrong side buddy.

You have it backwards. And we can prove that there was no daughter product, for the K/Ar method at the time of formation. You lose again. We all know who picked the wrong side.

 

[dad]

You have it backwards. And we can prove that there was no daughter product, for the K/Ar method at the time of formation. You lose again. We all know who picked the wrong side.

Show us that method and how it does what you claim. Or blather on without ever providing any substance to your posts as usual if you like. No one cares.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Show us that method and how it does what you claim. Or blather on without ever providing any substance to your posts as usual if you like. No one cares.

I doubt if you could understand it.

How much chemistry have you taken? I could provide the argument and links for you but do you seriously believe that you have the intellect to understand it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is a simple explanation of the K/Ar method for you dad. Tell me if you have any questions:

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no way to look at a sample from say the kt layer, and check how the daughter material got there.

I just showed you how to do it.

Your graphs assume it was not there,

My graphs make no such assumption. If there was a different state past then the data points would not fall on the line in the graph.

Extrapolating present decay rates is totally useless unless you first know our state existed.

That's like saying that you can't use DNA evidence until you know the suspect put the DNA at the crime scene.

One could say that the kt was so many million years ago...find a sample with daughter isotopes from that layer, then try to claim the present state decay rate extrapolated backward also gives this date.

That's not what I am doing. Notice that there are no dates on the graph.

 

[Loudmouth]

Show evidence the daughter material was here already in the KT layer era. You can't..you lose. Picked the wrong side buddy.

What you need to show us is how a present state past would produce isotope ratios so that they fall on the line in the graph.

 

[dad]

I just showed you how to do it.

I showed you that you may not assume almost all daughter material was here and made in the present state without proof. Looking at rates of the present state, and trying to say they are ages is a fool's game.

My graphs make no such assumption. If there was a different state past then the data points would not fall on the line in the graph.

That line is imaginary and nothing really falls on it. The real stuff that your pic claimed represented ages is nothing but belief that all the ratios got there via the present state. So much of X or Y together hows us nothing unless we know how it got there! Since we now measure rates of decay we can know that the daughter materials since we have been looking and since our laws existed got here by decay. That has no bearing on the creation debate since the flood of Noah's day was something like 4500 years ago, and the nature change probably after that.

No one questions present decay or rates. Be honest.

That's like saying that you can't use DNA evidence until you know the suspect put the DNA at the crime scene.

You HAVE no DNA from before the KT do you? You don't even have fossils of men and most animals of that time since they likely could not leave remains in the former state. Some creatures could for whatever reason. Most life on earth including plant life simply probably could never make it into the fossil record. Therefore the fossil record IS NOT A RECORD OF LIFE ON EARTH. IT IS A VERY PARTIAL RECORD OF SOME OF THE LIFE ON EARTH!

That's not what I am doing. Notice that there are no dates on the graph.

I don't even look at your silly religious meaningless doodle graphs. The pic you posted with them of the various isotopes found does claim ages. Ha ha

 

[dad]

What you need to show us is how a present state past would produce isotope ratios so that they fall on the line in the graph.

Easy. Name one real sample at or before the KT layer. Don't try to spam several samples to try and confuse the issue.

If the tektites for example came up from deep under the earth in a violent eruption of a fountain of the deep, then they would have had a certain amount of daughter material in them. That was say about 4500 years ago. If we used just present state decay rates to try and determine how long it now would take IN this state to decay and produce the daughter material that was here...we get long imaginary ages!

 

[Loudmouth]

Easy. Name one real sample at or before the KT layer. Don't try to spam several samples to try and confuse the issue.

You claim. Your evidence. Show us what ratios of isotopes a past state would produce, and why.

 

[Loudmouth]

I showed you that you may not assume almost all daughter material was here and made in the present state without proof.

I didn't assume that. GONG!!!!!

Looking at rates of the present state, and trying to say they are ages is a fool's game.

I didn't say that they are ages. GONG!!!!!

That line is imaginary and nothing really falls on it.

I just showed how real world rocks fall on that line. GONG!!!!!

The real stuff that your pic claimed represented ages is nothing but belief that all the ratios got there via the present state.

No such belief was made in measuring the ratios of those isotopes. GONG!!!!!

So much of X or Y together hows us nothing unless we know how it got there! Since we now measure rates of decay we can know that the daughter materials since we have been looking and since our laws existed got here by decay. That has no bearing on the creation debate since the flood of Noah's day was something like 4500 years ago, and the nature change probably after that.

You are assuming a different state past. GONG!!!!!

You HAVE no DNA from before the KT do you?

Once again, you avoid the analogy because you know it destroys your argument.

Do we have to prove that a suspect is guilty BEFORE we can use DNA evidence? Yes or no?

Do you have to assume that a suspect is guilty in order to get a DNA match?

You don't even have fossils of men and most animals of that time since they likely could not leave remains in the former state. Some creatures could for whatever reason. Most life on earth including plant life simply probably could never make it into the fossil record. Therefore the fossil record IS NOT A RECORD OF LIFE ON EARTH. IT IS A VERY PARTIAL RECORD OF SOME OF THE LIFE ON EARTH!

You are assuming a different state past. GONG!!!!

I don't even look at your silly religious meaningless doodle graphs.

Then you are avoiding the evidence. GONG!!!!

 

[dad]

You claim. Your evidence. Show us what ratios of isotopes a past state would produce, and why.

What would have been produced depends on what started out at creation as well as the nature and laws of the day. Science doesn't know anything about either. That is why they have merely tried to impose dates on rocks based on present state decay. They are hopelessly limited. They are in a fishbowl intellectually. They cannot think outside their little box. Their lobotomized reality is a self imposed prison that resulted from not including God in their knowledge.