Radioactive dating

[SteveB28]

You are all wasting your time. He has to maintain his myth at all costs, so any evidence to the contrary will simply be ignored or denied or replaced with his own fantasy.

 

[Aijalon]

I guess so, you just made a statement what more could we ask for?

No. The question is about isotopes that happen to now be in a state of decay, and which some think came to exist because of this. A simple nature change that affecyed already existing isotopes would account for them also.
? Who claims this...source?

Maybe you didn't understand what I meant. The fact is that no one knows how much isotope was in the material at the beginning of creation. An assumption must be made based on no facts, about whether there was any level of decay in the material at the moment it was created. In other words, if you assume that decayed isotope means that the material has aged, you could be wrong, it could be that the material started out "aged". No one was there to measure isotopes at the early stages of the universe, so, no one can make any sure claims about radiodating.

Nice try, but don't quit your day job.
The redshifted light could be something other than what we are assuming it is. Be careful about claiming an expanding universe based on that, or have you something else?

Yes, it could be. The point though is that nobody disagrees that the universe is exmpanding, and no one knows how large the universe was when it started out. Hence, the stretching of space is a problem that has to be accounted for. That's all.

and what's with all the jabby comments?! Why don't you explain to us your credentials again?

 

[dad]

Maybe you didn't understand what I meant. The fact is that no one knows how much isotope was in the material at the beginning of creation. An assumption must be made based on no facts, about whether there was any level of decay in the material at the moment it was created. In other words, if you assume that decayed isotope means that the material has aged, you could be wrong, it could be that the material started out "aged". No one was there to measure isotopes at the early stages of the universe, so, no one can make any sure claims about radiodating.

True. The way they determine a lot of daughter stuff was there is by looking at how daughter stuff is now produced in this state. Then they assume that it was all made that way because they assume this state was always here.

Yes, it could be. The point though is that nobody disagrees that the universe is exmpanding,

False. I do. Based on what?? The redshift? That could be something else. So what else do you base expansion on?

and no one knows how large the universe was when it started out. Hence, the stretching of space is a problem that has to be accounted for. That's all.

Only if you assume it is stretched. God did stretch out the universe but that need not mean it is still stretching!

and what's with all the jabby comments?! Why don't you explain to us your credentials again?

Be clear and maybe I won't assume you are peddling the standard so called science garbage.

 

[crjmurray]

You are all wasting your time. He has to maintain his myth at all costs, so any evidence to the contrary will simply be ignored or denied or replaced with his own fantasy.

Yeah we're all familiar with dad.

 

[dad]

Yeah we're all familiar with dad.

Heehee

 

[SnowyMacie]

You are all wasting your time. He has to maintain his myth at all costs, so any evidence to the contrary will simply be ignored or denied or replaced with his own fantasy.

I think you're right at this point. Some people just like the universe small.

 

[Loudmouth]

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!

The problem is that there is no evidence that you would accept. As everyone can see in the other posts, any evidence that is given is automatically called a fable or a myth and completely ignored out of hand.

 

[Loudmouth]

Radioactivity surely existed. The question about dating is the assumptions that are made about the amount of decayed isotope in the material before the dating is conducted.

That is false. With isochron dating, you can measure the amount of daughter isotope that was present when the rock cooled and became a closed system. For U/Pb dating, Pb is excluded from the crystal because of the charge of Pb. We can observe that occurring in the present by watching zircons form. It isn't assumed. It is observed.

First, the assumption is that all the matter in the universe started in an undecayed state.

No such assumption is made in radiometric dating.

Secondly, the time of decay is predicated on the notion that the speed of light was constant, or, that the speed at which the universe aged was constant. However, cosmologists don't know what is the maximum speed at the fabric of space can expand, and, in this light (no pun intended) the speed of matter going across the universe was traveling much greater than the speed of light since the universe was compressed. In other words, the speed of light should be pro rated to account for the fact that the universe and all matter in was compressed into a small space.

In order for the decay rates to be different you would have to change all of the basic fundamental atomic forces. If those changed enough for YEC to be true, then life would not be possible. The only reason you try to claim that decay rates were different in the past is because that is the only way to make YEC true. All of the evidence we have supports a universe with constant laws and billions of years of history.

 

[dad]

The problem is that there is no evidence that you would accept.

The problem is that there is no evidence that you have.

As everyone can see in the other posts, any evidence that is given is automatically called a fable or a myth and completely ignored out of hand.

If it is not solid and factual and real, then of course we need to expose religious drivel for what it truly is.

 

[dad]

That is false. With isochron dating, you can measure the amount of daughter isotope that was present when the rock cooled and became a closed system.

Correction, you mean that in this present state the way something becomes a closed system is by cooling. Obviously in the actual past nature that was not the case. You seek to impose today's physics on unknown yesterday.

For U/Pb dating, Pb is excluded from the crystal because of the charge of Pb. We can observe that occurring in the present by watching zircons form. It isn't assumed. It is observed.

Exactly. It works a certain way now and you want to slide one by on us that it used to also work that way in the different past nature.

In order for the decay rates to be different you would have to change all of the basic fundamental atomic forces.

So? Either that or who says there was ant decay at all? Prove it?

If those changed enough for YEC to be true, then life would not be possible.

What changed was NOT the way it IS. What changed was the state and nature that WAS. That change was big, but smooth. However we can see many basic differences in life then as compared to now.

 

[dad]

I think you're right at this point. Some people just like the universe small.

I can take bigger or smaller, but I can't take science making stuff up. Since it does NOT know any distance to any stars therefore any sizes of stars either, you are in no position to declare creation big or small.

 

[SteveB28]

I can take bigger or smaller, but I can't take science making stuff up. Since it does NOT know any distance to any stars therefore any sizes of stars either, you are in no position to declare creation big or small.

What a hide! Everything you represent is "made up"!

You have not a skerrick of evidence for your so-called 'different state'. You make it up out of whole cloth.

Watch, I can do it as well:

The sky has not always been blue. In the past it was tangerine.

There. It's every bit as valid a claim as yours!

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is that there is no evidence that you have.

I have already presented the evidence, and you were never able to refute it.

"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

If it is not solid and factual and real, then of course we need to expose religious drivel for what it truly is.

The ratios of isotopes in those rocks and their correlation with fossil species is very very real.

 

[Loudmouth]

Correction, you mean that in this present state the way something becomes a closed system is by cooling. Obviously in the actual past nature that was not the case.

Sorry, but you don't get to invent fantasies to refute real observations.

Exactly. It works a certain way now and you want to slide one by on us that it used to also work that way in the different past nature.

If it worked differently in the past then multiple radiometric dating methods using different parent/daughter pairs would not produce the same age. They do. Your claims are refuted.

So? Either that or who says there was ant decay at all? Prove it?

Already proven by supernova 1987a where we observed decay from about 170,000 years ago. We directly observe it.

What changed was NOT the way it IS. What changed was the state and nature that WAS. That change was big, but smooth. However we can see many basic differences in life then as compared to now.

Your claims require changes to the fundamental laws of physics which would make every chemical reaction in your cells impossible.

 

[dad]

What a hide! Everything you represent is "made up"!

You have not a skerrick of evidence for your so-called 'different state'. You make it up out of whole cloth.

Great so prove the state was the same and we can all move on. Either that of face the defeat that is before you.

 

[dad]

Sorry, but you don't get to invent fantasies to refute real observations.

Observing decay now does not mean there was decay in the far past. You don't get to slide that by us!

If it worked differently in the past then multiple radiometric dating methods using different parent/daughter pairs would not produce the same age. They do. Your claims are refuted.

Totally false and ridiculous. The ratios would be there. The only age involved is religious nonsense that you try to impose on the isotopes and ratios to tell us they have to be interpreted in light of your silly unproven same state past!

Already proven by supernova 1987a where we observed decay from about 170,000 years ago. We directly observe it.

False. You don't even know how far away or big it is. What you observe is also HERE. You are trying to push your faith on us..no facts no reason, no evidence.

Your claims require changes to the fundamental laws of physics which would make every chemical reaction in your cells impossible.

You were told many times that is false and not anything remotely close to what I say. It was not our physics that changed. Therefore your doom and gloom scenario is a total strawman.

 

[dad]

I have already presented the evidence, and you were never able to refute it.

Ratios are not evidence for what you try to preach here at all. That is merely evidence that God made stuff in a proportionate way! You seek to look at the present nature and how we have decay here now, and then try to attribute that as the cause of all the stuff in the former nature. No can do.

"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

That tells us that the ratios are in a pattern. That pattern involves parent and daughter isotopes. (now in a daughter parent relationship because they exist here in this present state). If we look back to the time of the flood or thereabouts (which I currently assume was somewhere near the KT layer) we see the pattern of a certain proportion of isotopes. You want to assign meaning (ages) to these ratios based on looking at current decay half lives. That cannot work since the flood likely was not IN this present state or nature! Therefore the isotopes that existed THEN probably had no relation to decay as we know it. Your silly so called ages are religious nonsense that is far far far removed from the actual times involved. The flood was something like 4500 years ago, not tens of millions of years ago.

The ratios of isotopes in those rocks and their correlation with fossil species is very very real.

True and has no relation to your religion as you thought it did.

 

[SteveB28]

Great so prove the state was the same and we can all move on. Either that of face the defeat that is before you.

Prove that the sky wasn't tangerine!

 

[SteveB28]

Great so prove the state was the same and we can all move on. Either that of face the defeat that is before you.

You seem to miss the very important element that the burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim!

 

[dad]

Prove that the sky wasn't tangerine!

Your inability to prove the basic foundational bedrock beliefs used by science cannot be masked, excused, covered up, or belittled.