Radioactive dating

[dad]

Ah, there's that EVIDENCE thing though, isn't there?

He enters a man and makes Himself and His Father manifest when we sincerely ask Him into our life. That is evidence.

 

[SteveB28]

He enters a man and makes Himself and His Father manifest when we sincerely ask Him into our life. That is evidence.

No. That is delusion and wish-thinking. I understand, though, why you can't see the difference. You're driven by fear.

 

[dad]

No. That is delusion and wish-thinking. I understand, though, why you can't see the difference. You're driven by fear.

I can tell the difference because He is in me. I ran the test. I observed. I repeated.

 

[SteveB28]

I can tell the difference because He is in me. I ran the test. I observed. I repeated.

I, I, I. Me, me, me. It's a very selfish, arrogant and narcissistic worldview isn't it?

 

[dad]

I, I, I. Me, me, me. It's a very selfish, arrogant and narcissistic worldview isn't it?

No. The test for God is inside a man. You you you can run the test. No need to cry.

 

[SteveB28]

Gibberish.

 

[dad]

Gibberish.

Jo 7:17 - If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Any man can do the test.

 

[SteveB28]

Jo 7:17 - If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Any man can do the test.

Again, you are merely repeating the claims made by other men like yourself!

 

[dad]

Again, you are merely repeating the claims made by other men like yourself!

You are not qualified to say since you cannot see God inspire folks.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Science must show that the very basis of all it's far past claims is valid. God already showed the past was different.

You method of doubting the past makes your belief that God did something in the past completely unverifiable.

 

[Loudmouth]

It was addressed. Prove a same state past first or you can't use it to invent ages.

The consistent dates are the proof. If there was not a same state past then the dates would not agree with one another.

Think of Radioactive decay as a feature of this present state. We can call it 'R'. Now in the former state there was something else, not R. Let's call whatever it was 'S'. It was not R that was changed. You just talked about no changes to R. No one claims changes to R. --get over it.

You need more than "something". You need to explain why a different state past would produce isotope ratios that are consistent with a same state past.

All methods are the same in the underlying premise.
You only have one method.

False. I have three independent methods. That is what you refuse to address.

The forces and laws that existed. Like today, notice we have forces and laws? The universe cannot go merrily along without some forces and laws in place! The former laws produced the ratios.

Why would those former laws produce ratios that would end up giving the same ages using the current state?

If we consistently found geologic layers with a 50/50 K/Ar ratio and a 99/1 U/Pb ratio, then that would falsify a same state past. Why couldn't the former laws produce something like this?

 

[dad]

You method of doubting the past makes your belief that God did something in the past completely unverifiable.

Only to science. Don't blame me.

 

[dad]

The consistent dates are the proof.

Unless there was a same state past there are no dates.Whatever is consistent therefore is not dates.

If there was not a same state past then the dates would not agree with one another.

Being a broken record doesn't help your broken logic.

You need more than "something". You need to explain why a different state past would produce isotope ratios that are consistent with a same state past.

No. I don't. Science cannot know the former state. You only exist and deal in this nature.

False. I have three independent methods. That is what you refuse to address.

False. You have one method...preach a same state past and ignore all else. All your methods are the same religious content.

If we consistently found geologic layers with a 50/50 K/Ar ratio and a 99/1 U/Pb ratio, then that would falsify a same state past. Why couldn't the former laws produce something like this?

Your methods yielded a supposed age 380 times the age of earth itself. This you claimed was agreement in methods!

Admit that you merely misread the isotope patterns left here from the unknown state past.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unless there was a same state past there are no dates.Whatever is consistent therefore is not dates.

The consistent dates between independent methods demonstrates that there was a same state past.

Being a broken record doesn't help your broken logic.

I will keep repeating it until you address it.

No. I don't. Science cannot know the former state. You only exist and deal in this nature.

Once again, you refuse to address the evidence. Why would a former state produce ratios of isotopes that are consistent with a same state past? Why couldn't a former state produce rocks with a 50:50 mix of K and Ar and a 99:1 mix of U and Pb in the same geologic layer? This would produce inconsistent dates between methods and disprove a same state past. So why don't we see this?

False. You have one method...preach a same state past and ignore all else. All your methods are the same religious content.

The decay of K, U, and Rb are all independent of one another.

 

[dad]

The consistent dates between independent methods demonstrates that there was a same state past.

No more than it demonstrates a different state past! You simply molest evidence with a belief system. Ratios really do not tell the state, and your preferred meaning to the ratios...dates..that only are concocted because you claim decay existed also in the past. Ho hum.

We do not expect that Ar would only exist because of present state laws, such as when we now see molten rock might reset the ratios..etc. 100% of everything you posit is religion. Belief based. Unproven.

I would not expect more or less of a uranium isotope we find in a ratio. The difference would be what it represents. If the ratio in the former nature represented a process other than decay, than we cannot do as you do..assign decay based dates to the ratio! Simple.

 

[Loudmouth]

No more than it demonstrates a different state past!

If there were a different state past then the dates wouldn't be consistent between independent methods.

You simply molest evidence with a belief system. Ratios really do not tell the state, and your preferred meaning to the ratios...dates..that only are concocted because you claim decay existed also in the past. Ho hum.

If it is a belief system, then show us why a same state past would produce inconsistent dates between independent dating methods.

We do not expect that Ar would only exist because of present state laws, such as when we now see molten rock might reset the ratios..etc. 100% of everything you posit is religion. Belief based. Unproven.

I would not expect more or less of a uranium isotope we find in a ratio. The difference would be what it represents. If the ratio in the former nature represented a process other than decay, than we cannot do as you do..assign decay based dates to the ratio! Simple.

You have just confirmed that finding consistent dates between independent methods would confirm a same state past. Thank you.

 

[dad]

If there were a different state past then the dates wouldn't be consistent between independent methods.



If it is a belief system, then show us why a same state past would produce inconsistent dates between independent dating methods.



You have just confirmed that finding consistent dates between independent methods would confirm a same state past. Thank you.

Your idea of consistent means 380 times the bible age of the earth as an error margin. What is consistent is ratios, not ages. Ages are thereligious meaning you give to consistent creation ratios.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your idea of consistent means 380 times the bible age of the earth as an error margin.

No, it isn't. This is my idea of consistent.

"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

Notice that there is less than a 2% disagreement between methods.

What is consistent is ratios,

That is exactly what we should see if there was a same state past. As you have already said, there should be no such relationship between ratios in a different state past. We should only see this with a same state past.

 

[dad]

No, it isn't. This is my idea of consistent.

"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

Notice that there is less than a 2% disagreement between methods.



That is exactly what we should see if there was a same state past. As you have already said, there should be no such relationship between ratios in a different state past. We should only see this with a same state past.

Why would observed ratios not be from creation, in the former state? You have no answers just beliefs. Your error margin of what wasit..2.3 million years is ridiculous!

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would observed ratios not be from creation, in the former state?

Because there is no reason that a former state would produce those ratios. You even said so yourself.