Radioactive dating

[Loudmouth]

If the suspect claims to be Noah...yes.

So we can't use DNA fingerprinting in a murder trial?

 

[dad]

Do we have to prove a suspect is guilty before we can use DNA fingerprinting?

If it is Noah, let's see the prints! That too much to ask??

Mass spectrometers are a belief system? How so?

No, they simply help determine ratios. Your system then swings into gear and goes nuts on the ratio meanings!

 

[dad]

So we can't use DNA fingerprinting in a murder trial?

? That is what you thought the creation debate was?

 

[Loudmouth]

If it is Noah, let's see the prints! That too much to ask??

I guess you aren't going to address the question?

No, they simply help determine ratios. Your system then swings into gear and goes nuts on the ratio meanings!

So we aren't allowed to determine what the ratios mean? We aren't even allowed to ask the question?

 

[Loudmouth]

? That is what you thought the creation debate was?

You apparently think that the debate is about proving something before we are even allowed to look at the evidence. How do you prove something without looking at the evidence?

 

[CabVet]

Quack quack....prove the same state past ot it will not be permitted to be used in models of the past. Period.

Quack quack, you are the one making the claim that it was different so the burden of proof is yours.

 

[CabVet]

You say you believe something then say it has nothing to do with belief! OK. Keep us posted on the hidden meanings of your queer utterances.

Can you quote the text I said I believe something? Probably not, because I never said it.

I think there may be a few slices missing in that pie.

Yeah, me too, one of them is honesty.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yay! Looks who's back!

 

[dad]

So we aren't allowed to determine what the ratios mean? We aren't even allowed to ask the question?

We all can play the belief game on what ratios mean. Some people used to think science had more, the way it mouthed off.

 

[dad]

Can you quote the text I said I believe something? Probably not, because I never said it.



Yeah, me too, one of them is honesty.

"No reason to believe it was any different in your imaginary past." --you

Now the other posted admitted he didn't know what state the past was. Get to it.

 

[dad]

Quack quack, you are the one making the claim that it was different so the burden of proof is yours.

Radioactive decay dating assumes the same laws existed. So does all branches of science modeling the past. Be honest.

 

[Loudmouth]

We all can play the belief game on what ratios mean. Some people used to think science had more, the way it mouthed off.

Testable predictions based on the scientific method are not beliefs.

 

[dad]

You apparently think that the debate is about proving something before we are even allowed to look at the evidence.

You apparently think that the debate is about claiming evidence without producing it. When pushed you feebly offer up same state past beliefs for evidence. Gong!

 

[Loudmouth]

Radioactive decay dating assumes the same laws existed.

No, it doesn't. I am showing you how to test for a same state past so you don't have to assume.

So does all branches of science modeling the past. Be honest.

Models that make accurate predictions are not beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

You apparently think that the debate is about claiming evidence without producing it. When pushed you feebly offer up same state past beliefs for evidence. Gong!

Evidence is a set of observations that are consistent with the scientific model. You refuse to accept the evidence.

 

[dad]

Testable predictions based on the scientific method are not beliefs.

Name a testable prediction based on the a same state in the past? I am not talking about some belief that ratios are a result of an unproven same state past either. Name a computer or plane or anything at all that exists because it was predicted by a same state nature in the far past?

 

[dad]

No, it doesn't. I am showing you how to test for a same state past so you don't have to assume.

Showing? Hilarious. Quacking is not showing.

Models that make accurate predictions are not beliefs.

Name a far past model based on a same set of forces and laws that made an accurate prediction?

 

[dad]

Evidence is a set of observations that are consistent with the scientific model. .

Not when there is only belief and no facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

Name a testable prediction based on the a same state in the past?

The prediction is that dates based on K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr ratios will produce the same dates using modern decay rates.

For example, if the K/Ar ratio is 50/50 then the calculated age is 1.25 billion years because the measured half life is 1.25 billion years. If zircons in the same layer had a 50/50 ratio of 238U/206Pb this would produce a date of 4.5 billion years. The ages wouldn't match and the same state model would be falsified. That is how it is testable. If the model is wrong then the data won't support it.

I am not talking about some belief that ratios are a result of an unproven same state past either.

The measured decay rates and ratios are not beliefs. They are empirical observations.

 

[Loudmouth]

Name a far past model based on a same set of forces and laws that made an accurate prediction?

See above.