Radioactive dating

[dad]

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

Science claims the present is the key to the past.

 

[crjmurray]

Science claims the present is the key to the past.

And you absolutely make stuff up

 

[dad]

And you absolutely make stuff up

Well if the present really is the key to the past it should be easy to prove it...or you make stuff up.

 

[crjmurray]

Well if the present really is the key to the past it should be easy to prove it...or you make stuff up.

No, no, no. You make stuff up.

 

[Larniavc]

Irrelevant. leaving aside you are really clueless what the core really is

You are very rude.

 

[SteveB28]

Science claims the present is the key to the past.

Science makes no claims about there being any need to envisage a 'different past'. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST SUCH A THING!

If you have evidence that there WAS a different "past state", then you should SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM WITH THAT EVIDENCE!

But you can't can you? Instead, you take the intellectually lazy coward's way out - you pretend that you have no responsibility and that it is the OTHER person's burden to prove you wrong!

 

[Loudmouth]

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!

Why, out of all the proportions that God could have created, did he create the exact proportions that are consistent with a same state past?

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, I don't. I predict what the ratios should be, and then see if those ratios fit the prediction. It's called science. You should look into it.

Out of the trillions of possible combinations of K, Ar, U, Pb, Rb, and Sr, the one combination we get over and over and over is the select few combinations that are consistent with a same state past. How do you explain that?

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.

What is stopping those patterns from being different such that K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating methodologies do not produce the same dates? Why can't we have a K/Ar ratio that is nearly 0, and a U/Pb ratio that is nearly 50/50?

You want to assign meaning (ages) to these ratios based on looking at current decay half lives.

If decay rates were different in the past, then doing so would produce different dates for each method. They don't.

 

[dad]

No, no, no. You make stuff up.

I didn't make up either the bible, or what science uses as a basis for it's methodology. Having denial issues eh?

 

[crjmurray]

You are very rude.

Experiment.

Act like dad for the next three days. See how long you last.

 

[dad]

You are very rude.

It is not rude at all actually to point out what should be obvious, that science does not really KNOW what the core of the sun is.

 

[dad]

Why, out of all the proportions that God could have created, did he create the exact proportions that are consistent with a same state past?

Internal consistency in a fantasy only shows that the fantasy was constructed around some reality. There are ratios for example....now if one constructs a new past reality to be wrapped around the belief that the ratios represent ages, because of something that happens in this state ... they will end up with a fantasy that seems good to the deluded mind. Naturally.

No, I don't. I predict what the ratios should be, and then see if those ratios fit the prediction. It's called science. You should look into it.

Whoopee do. You look at the patterns that exist, and can 'predict' that the patterns will continue. The issue is not the patterns or ratios but what they really mean and how they got there. You want to force your belief system on us.

Out of the trillions of possible combinations of K, Ar, U, Pb, Rb, and Sr, the one combination we get over and over and over is the select few combinations that are consistent with a same state past. How do you explain that?

The pattern clearly is that parent material increased further into the past. So? The issue is how much of that material was here when our state started? You want to insist our state is all that ever was. Get over it.

What is stopping those patterns from being different such that K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating methodologies do not produce the same dates? Why can't we have a K/Ar ratio that is nearly 0, and a U/Pb ratio that is nearly 50/50?

Patterns of creation cannot be stopped. They can adapt to the current nature though...and then some folks will try to explain all those patterns only by this nature!! This is where you are. Come on up to the rational side.

If decay rates were different in the past, then doing so would produce different dates for each method. They don't.

It would be funny that you totally don't get it the first time or two. After years however of impenetrable fogginess on the concept that it was NOT OUR DECAY RATES that changed, it gets ridiculous.

What changed would be the former nature, and what we now have...decay at any rate and etc...is a feature of this state!

Someone help me explain this simple concept to him!

 

[dad]

Science makes no claims about there being any need to envisage a 'different past'. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST SUCH A THING!

Science suggests only one thing and that is the thing it preaches and assumes and believes, that there was the same state in the past as now. Total fairy tale since it can't be proven.

If you have evidence that there WAS a different "past state", then you should SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM WITH THAT EVIDENCE!

The bible is clear enough on that. Science doesn't know either way. I simply prevent some over zealous supposed reps from science from pretending that they do know! They don't. I do. How sweet it is.

But you can't can you? Instead, you take the intellectually lazy coward's way out - you pretend that you have no responsibility and that it is the OTHER person's burden to prove you wrong!

Those who model godless alternate creations and past nightmare dreamscapes must show us that what they use to model them is true. What they use is a same state past! They must be exposed as little fraudsters.

 

[Loudmouth]

Internal consistency in a fantasy only shows that the fantasy was constructed around some reality. There are ratios for example....now if one constructs a new past reality to be wrapped around the belief that the ratios represent ages, because of something that happens in this state ... they will end up with a fantasy that seems good to the deluded mind. Naturally.

That doesn't explain why different isotope pairs produce the same age.

Can you tell us why God couldn't create a rock with a K/Ar ratio near zero and a U/Pb ratio near 50/50?

Whoopee do. You look at the patterns that exist, and can 'predict' that the patterns will continue. The issue is not the patterns or ratios but what they really mean and how they got there. You want to force your belief system on us.

You still can't explain why my supposed belief system is able to make such accurate and repeatable predictions. If there wasn't a same state past, then how am I able to make such accurate predictions about the ratio of isotopes in rocks based on a same state past?

The pattern clearly is that parent material increased further into the past.

It has nothing to do with the amount of parent material all by itself.

So? The issue is how much of that material was here when our state started? You want to insist our state is all that ever was. Get over it.

It has to do with the ratio between the parent and daughter isotopes. A zircon with 1 mg of both U and Pb is quite old. A zircon with 50 mg of U and no Pb is quite young. It has nothing to do with the amount of parent isotope. It has to do with the ratio between the parent and daughter isotope.

Patterns of creation cannot be stopped. They can adapt to the current nature though...and then some folks will try to explain all those patterns only by this nature!! This is where you are. Come on up to the rational side.

Why are those patterns exactly what we should see with a same state past? When we find patterns that fit exactly what our model says they should be, that is evidence for that model.

It would be funny that you totally don't get it the first time or two. After years however of impenetrable fogginess on the concept that it was NOT OUR DECAY RATES that changed, it gets ridiculous.

Then how do we find very old lava flows that solidified in place above sediments that have fossils in them? If the decay rates were the same, then none of them should have minerals that have high levels of daughter isotope.

What changed would be the former nature, and what we now have...decay at any rate and etc...is a feature of this state!

Then why do we find daughter isotopes that are the product of decay?

 

[Loudmouth]

It is not rude at all actually to point out what should be obvious, that science does not really KNOW what the core of the sun is.

Changing the subject, are we?

We can directly observe U decaying into lighter elements, ending with Pb. You won't accept it.

 

[dad]

Changing the subject, are we?

We can directly observe U decaying into lighter elements, ending with Pb. You won't accept it.

You are not the only poster here. Ansewring someone else's question is not changing the subject. Get over yourself!

We observe decay now. No one questions that. Prove there was the forces snd laws in the far past thatcause this!? Talk about hiding from the issue!

 

[Loudmouth]

Prove there was the forces snd laws in the far past thatcause this!?

I already did. The agreement between independent isotope pairs proves that they were the same in the past.

 

[SteveB28]

Science suggests only one thing and that is the thing it preaches and assumes and believes, that there was the same state in the past as now. Total fairy tale since it can't be proven.

Totally false - but why should that surprise? 'Science' makes a number of assumptions and then tests these assumptions against the available evidence. We work on the assumption that the physical laws which operate now are as they have been in the past. We do this because such an assumption fits all available evidence. Moreover, it's an assumption that works for us!

It's similar to our assumption that there will be a sunrise and sunset tomorrow, at particular times we can predict. Why? Because we have observed these things happening in the past in that manner, so our assumption is reasonably secure.

If, however, some evidence could be produced to show that such an assumption is faulty, then we would test that evidence and, if necessary we would adjust our assumption and our understanding to encompass that evidence.

So, here is your golden moment! Present YOUR evidence that shows a "different state past"!

The bible is clear enough on that.

Aha! Finally we flush you out! Your 'evidence' is found in a book of myths! You have two clear problems with that as your foundation:

1. There is no difference in the quality of evidence found in your mythology with, say, the 'evidence' that instructs us that it is possible to fly to the sun on wings held together with wax, as Icarus did! Or, speaking of flying, that it is possibe to fly on a horse to heaven, as Mohammed did!

2. A much larger problem. Your preferred mythology makes no mention at all of a "different state past", in which the physical laws operate in radically changed forms! You have chosen to make up such a 'message' to suit your own beliefs.

Those who model godless alternate creations and past nightmare dreamscapes must show us that what they use to model them is true. What they use is a same state past! They must be exposed as little fraudsters.

Yet you seem so reluctant to present your evidence that would dash that "fraud" - how strange, yet how revealing!

 

[dad]

I already did. The agreement between independent isotope pairs proves that they were the same in the past.

No. That is just the pattern of creation. Your beliefs must be separated with a crowbar if needed so that they are not confused with facts!

 

[Larniavc]

Experiment.

Act like dad for the next three days. See how long you last.

I will strive to be more respectful than him.

 

[dad]

That doesn't explain why different isotope pairs produce the same age.

The real age is the issue. In the case of the KT layer for example the real age is probably about 4500 years ago. What is your age..66 million?!

Can you tell us why God couldn't create a rock with a K/Ar ratio near zero and a U/Pb ratio near 50/50?

Why didn't He make squirrels that eat whales? It is what it is. The ratios are just that...ratios...not ages. The only way we could get the ages you cite would be IF there was a same state past. You can't use ratios to prove a same state past. You are engaging in totally circular logic.

You still can't explain why my supposed belief system is able to make such accurate and repeatable predictions.

Totally inaccurate, and absolutely bogus years. Nice try. Now if you want a pat on the back for having imaginary years meet up somewhat cohesively in an imaginary same state past fantasy, well, I suggest you grow up.

If there wasn't a same state past, then how am I able to make such accurate predictions about the ratio of isotopes in rocks based on a same state past?

You can't. You could predict a certain amount of isotopes of certain kinds based on the patterns we see. But that is not ages in the way you claim at all. That just means that several thousand years ago there was a certain amount of isotopes already here! You want to claim they GOT here by decay and therefore claim great time. First you must prove a same state past, not go round and round a merry go round.

It has nothing to do with the amount of parent material all by itself.

Of course not, but it has to do with you assuming that the daughter all got here from the parent because you believe real hard in no creation and a same state past. There were both isotopes before the nature change I assume. They do not represent great age. (the only age would be the decay since the state change- very little)

A zircon with 1 mg of both U and Pb is quite old.

Nope. Young.

A zircon with 50 mg of U and no Pb is quite young.

Both are under 6000 years old so I guess it is young.

Why are those patterns exactly what we should see with a same state past? When we find patterns that fit exactly what our model says they should be, that is evidence for that model.

Wrong. That is evidence that you ascribe patterns of ratios to decay only..in other words a same state past. There was no 66 million years ago get over it. That is religion. Nothing really meets up and agrees there at all.

Then how do we find very old lava flows that solidified in place above sediments that have fossils in them?

Easy. The fossils were from before the time the lava flowed! So, for example if lava flowed at the time of the rapid continental separation, naturally it would cover some pre flood fossils.

If the decay rates were the same, then none of them should have minerals that have high levels of daughter isotope.

Who says there was any decay or decay rates? Prove it! How would you know? By looking at what are now daughter isotopes and applying you belief in a same state past, and claiming all that daughter material came to exist by present state decay rather than having existed before this state started!

Then why do we find daughter isotopes that are the product of decay?

Because they now ARE a product of decay! Not before this state started though I assume!