Radioactive dating

[Loudmouth]

Ar is just something that is in creation. Right now it can be produced a certain way. It also reacts a certain way to heat and etc. You are doing nothing in the world but trying to claim that the state was the same in the far past, so that all Ar reacted or came about the same way. Period. If for example Ar would not be destroyed in a molten rock in the former state because of less heat involved and/or different forces behaving in a different way, that govern atomic reactions...then we would not 'reset the clock' in dating! Your whole trip is nothing but blind belief based circular reasoning.

That doesn't explain why ages derived from K/Ar dating agree with dates derived from U/Pb Concordia dating and Rb/Sr isochron dating.

 

[dad]

If that belief was wrong then ages derived from different isotope pairs would not produce the same age. That is a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. Science.

No ages are derived. Just religious claims based on misreading the ratios. If one looks at existing ratios assuming that daughter material came about entirely by decay, then one invents imaginary ages. The only question is why is there a little more of one isotope over another? The answer is that whatever the reason was in the former nature, it was not something in our nature.

You claimed that there is consistency in rocks that has nothing to do with a same state past or radioactive decay. I showed that your claim is false. The Fe/Ni ratios are not consistent with the K/Ar ratios. How do you explain this?

I showed you that Ar would not be the age marker you believed it was.

 

[dad]

That doesn't explain why ages derived from K/Ar dating agree with dates derived from U/Pb Concordia dating and Rb/Sr isochron dating.

To discover that simply show something dated by those methods.

 

[dad]

And "religious drivel" is bad, off course.

Yes, I would agree. Especially when it is dishonestly presented as fact and science.

 

[dad]

It is easy to prove.
Below is some data from the present in a picture. Wuuldn't you agree it tells us something about the past?

Like "it snowed" and "someone walked through that snow"?

View attachment 163161

You think that was Noah?

 

[Loudmouth]

To discover that simply show something dated by those methods.

Why would a different state past produce ratios of K/Ar, Rb/Sr, and U/Pb that would produce the same ages as calculated by these equations?

http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm

The only things you plug into those equations are the ratios found in the rocks and the observed decay rate. One ratio does not affect the others. One decay rate does not affect the others. So why do they all produce the same dates?

 

[Loudmouth]

No ages are derived. Just religious claims based on misreading the ratios. If one looks at existing ratios assuming that daughter material came about entirely by decay, then one invents imaginary ages. The only question is why is there a little more of one isotope over another? The answer is that whatever the reason was in the former nature, it was not something in our nature.

Just calling it a religion does not make the evidence go away.

You still can't explain why the equations spit out the same ages. You can't explain the evidence.

I showed you that Ar would not be the age marker you believed it was.

Then why does K/Ar dating agree with Rb/Sr isochron dating and U/Pb Concordia dating?

 

[dad]

Why would a different state past produce ratios of K/Ar, Rb/Sr, and U/Pb that would produce the same ages as calculated by these equations?

http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm

http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm

I see this in your link..

"Now we can calculate the age if we know the number of daughter atoms produced by decay, D* and the number of parent atoms now present, N. The only problem is that we only know the number of daughter atoms now present, and some of those may have been present prior to the start of our clock."

So no, the problem is NOT just knowing what was there at the start of your clock! Bing and a bam and a boom!

The only things you plug into those equations are the ratios found in the rocks and the observed decay rate.

You just shot your case in the head then! As I said you are basing it upon present state decay and rates!!!!

Now admit defeat.

One ratio does not affect the others. One decay rate does not affect the others. So why do they all produce the same dates?

Why would one set of isotopes and the ratios of them affect others? Not sure what goes on inside your head.

 

[dad]

Just calling it a religion does not make the evidence go away.

The evidence is fine, all we need to go away is your imposed religious beliefs that are welded to the evidences.

 

[Loudmouth]

I see this in your link..

"Now we can calculate the age if we know the number of daughter atoms produced by decay, D* and the number of parent atoms now present, N. The only problem is that we only know the number of daughter atoms now present, and some of those may have been present prior to the start of our clock."

So no, the problem is NOT just knowing what was there at the start of your clock! Bing and a bam and a boom!

Did you miss part where they can determine the number of daughter atoms produced by decay?

If there were a different state past, why would K/Ar, Rb/Sr, and U/Pb dating all produce the same dates? You still can't answer this question.

You just shot your case in the head then! As I said you are basing it upon present state decay and rates!!!!

If the rates were different or absent in the past, then they wouldn't produce the same ages using the same state decay rates.

Why would one set of isotopes and the ratios of them affect others? Not sure what goes on inside your head.

If they don't affect one another, then how are they able to produce the same age?

Simple question. Could the different state past produce a rock with a K/Ar ratio of 50/50 and a U/Pb ratio of 99/1 (for either isotope)?

 

[dad]

Did you miss part where they can determine the number of daughter atoms produced by decay?

So let's see how you know what daughter material is produced by decay!? Let's see the juice LM. The sound of blanks being fired won't do.

If there were a different state past, why would K/Ar, Rb/Sr, and U/Pb dating all produce the same dates? You still can't answer this question.

You just can't get it through your head. Don't blame anyone else. You seem to love to kick dust and conflate issues and muddy waters. The simple problem that needs to be addressed by you is how you know that the daughter materials all were produced by decay. No fog needed, get to it. Not guilt by association either. Don't pile up a big blob of other ratios you think agree with you.

If the rates were different or absent in the past, then they wouldn't produce the same ages using the same state decay rates.

Nonsense. If the rations or materials were created ratios and materials, then they would be there in precisely the ratios we see. The only factor that would affect them is the recent decay since the decay state started!

Simple question. Could the different state past produce a rock with a K/Ar ratio of 50/50 and a U/Pb ratio of 99/1 (for either isotope)?

See above. The Ar ratio has no age meaning, because that is just assuming the Ar got there according to our nature and rules. The other ratio simple shows us that the pattern continues that there is (what is now) parent and daughter materials and ratios. Take away the religious meaning you seek to infer and all problems vanish.

 

[Loudmouth]

So let's see how you know what daughter material is produced by decay!? Let's see the juice LM. The sound of blanks being fired won't do.

First, we know the past was the same because K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating all produce the same dates.

Second, the y-intercept of the Rb/Sr isochron tells you how much Sr was present when the rock formed. By subtraction, the rest is from Rb decay.

The simple problem that needs to be addressed by you is how you know that the daughter materials all were produced by decay.

First, we know the past was the same because K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating all produce the same dates.

Nonsense. If the rations or materials were created ratios and materials, then they would be there in precisely the ratios we see.

Why couldn't there be any of rocks within the same geologic layer that have a 50/50 ratio of K/Ar and a 99/1 U/Pb ratio? Why couldn't they be created with those ratios?

The only factor that would affect them is the recent decay since the decay state started!

Then why do the dates from K/Ar, Rb/Sr, and U/Pb dating all agree with one another?

See above. The Ar ratio has no age meaning, because that is just assuming the Ar got there according to our nature and rules. The other ratio simple shows us that the pattern continues that there is (what is now) parent and daughter materials and ratios. Take away the religious meaning you seek to infer and all problems vanish.

If the assumptions are wrong, then how do they produce the same ages?

 

[dad]

First, we know the past was the same because K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating all produce the same dates.

So you don't know. OK.

Second, the y-intercept of the Rb/Sr isochron tells you how much Sr was present when the rock formed. By subtraction, the rest is from Rb decay.

Based on what? Based on the idea that all that was the daughter material came by decay...present state decay. Bingo. Gottcha. You best failed.

Why couldn't there be any of rocks within the same geologic layer that have a 50/50 ratio of K/Ar and a 99/1 U/Pb ratio? Why couldn't they be created with those ratios?

Doesn't matter why God created the way He did. The only issue is the belief based dream ages you have purposely sought to impose on the ratios!

If the assumptions are wrong, then how do they produce the same ages?

No way to check imaginary ages, sorry.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you don't know. OK.

I just showed you how we know.

First, we know the past was the same because K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating all produce the same dates.

Based on what? Based on the idea that all that was the daughter material came by decay...present state decay. Bingo. Gottcha. You best failed.

First, we know the past was the same because K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating all produce the same dates.

Doesn't matter why God created the way He did. The only issue is the belief based dream ages you have purposely sought to impose on the ratios!

First, we know the past was the same because K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating all produce the same dates.

No way to check imaginary ages, sorry.

Yes, there is. You can check them against each other. If they agree, then there was a same state past.

Nothing you have said even addresses how a different state past could produce ratios that result in the same age within those methods.

 

[dad]

I just showed you how we know.

First, we know the past was the same because K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating all produce the same dates.

Only are the dates dates IF the past was the same state. Your circular reasoning is showing again. Assigning phony dates to ratios based on nothing at all but a baseless belief in a same state past is neither here nor there.

Yes, there is. You can check them against each other. If they agree, then there was a same state past.

I notice you avoid the only issue that matters here...your claim you can prove how much daughter material was a result of present state decay! That is what you base dates on. Round and round you go.....

 

[Loudmouth]

Only are the dates dates IF the past was the same state. Your circular reasoning is showing again.

If there was a same state past, then the ages determined by these methods will agree with one another. There is nothing circular about it at all.

Assigning phony dates to ratios based on nothing at all but a baseless belief in a same state past is neither here nor there.

If the belief were false, then the different methods would not agree with one another.

I notice you avoid the only issue that matters here...your claim you can prove how much daughter material was a result of present state decay!

That proof is the agreement between multiple and independent radiometric dating methods.

 

[dad]

If there was a same state past, then the ages determined by these methods will agree with one another. There is nothing circular about it at all.

Hilarious..the standard broken record routine I get from the defeated. Ages represent ratios that you want to believe represent stuff that was produced in this present state. End of story.

If the belief were false, then the different methods would not agree with one another.

Belief indeed. The only issue is you here and now proving what part or all of daughter material was produced by decay as you alluded to. How do you look at daughter material and determine how much of it was produced by decay? Belief aside..?

 

[Loudmouth]

Hilarious..the standard broken record routine I get from the defeated. Ages represent ratios that you want to believe represent stuff that was produced in this present state. End of story.

If my beliefs are wrong, then the ages from those ratios will not agree between isotopes. That is the test. It is not circular.

Belief indeed. The only issue is you here and now proving what part or all of daughter material was produced by decay as you alluded to. How do you look at daughter material and determine how much of it was produced by decay? Belief aside..?

Just showed you how. Please address it.

In the different state past, could a geologic layer have rocks with a K/Ar ratio of 50/50 and rocks with a U/Pb ratio of 99/1? Such a thing could not occur in a same state past, so finding such a relationship would falsify a same state past. Why couldn't this occur in a different state past?

 

[dad]

If my beliefs are wrong, then the ages from those ratios will not agree between isotopes. That is the test. It is not circular.



Just showed you how. Please address it.

In the different state past, could a geologic layer have rocks with a K/Ar ratio of 50/50 and rocks with a U/Pb ratio of 99/1? Such a thing could not occur in a same state past, so finding such a relationship would falsify a same state past. Why couldn't this occur in a different state past?

You said this

"Second, the y-intercept of the Rb/Sr isochron tells you how much Sr was present when the rock formed. By subtraction, the rest is from Rb decay."
post 152

You also said this in post 150

"Did you miss part where they can determine the number of daughter atoms produced by decay?"


Tell us precisely HOW they can determine this!

 

[Loudmouth]

You said this

"Second, the y-intercept of the Rb/Sr isochron tells you how much Sr was present when the rock formed. By subtraction, the rest is from Rb decay."
post 152

You also said this in post 150

"Did you miss part where they can determine the number of daughter atoms produced by decay?"


Tell us precisely HOW they can determine this!

First, by the fact that the K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr methods all produce the same age from rocks within the same geologic layer.

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

It is consilience between independent evidence that demonstrates a same state past which includes how Rb and Sr behave in rocks. If you want to learn how isochrons work and why the y-intercept represents the amount of Sr that the rock started with, there are many references for you to look at:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/rbsrstep.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium-strontium_dating