Radioactive dating

[dad]

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

That is not a prediction is is a molestation of evidence. You assault ratios with your beliefs trying to get your dates in there.

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.

Science existed a few hundred years or whatever. The agreement in imaginary time doesn't count. That is nothing more than a belief that the materials in the ratios were same state past deposited!

If zircons in the same layer had a 50/50 ratio of 238U/206Pb this would produce a date of 4.5 billion years.

False. That would merely produce more of some material that you try to impose weird beliefs on, and thus apply imaginary ages.

The ages wouldn't match and the same state model would be falsified.

There are no dates, there are ratios of materials. There is no need to falsify a fantasy either. You flatter yourself.

That is how it is testable. If the model is wrong then the data won't support it.

That tests whether you have beliefs. You do. Nothing more. But we knew that already.

The measured decay rates and ratios are not beliefs.

No, and those present state features cannot help you any more than any other present nature realities. You see, you only apply these to the past by your faith and faith alone...that the past was the same. There is nothing else. Nowhere. Nohow. Ever. You are the demo for this.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is not a prediction is is a molestation of evidence. You assault ratios with your beliefs trying to get your dates in there.

Using ratios to test a scientific model is not molesting nor assaulting them.

Science existed a few hundred years or whatever. The agreement in imaginary time doesn't count.

The agreement is evidence that it isn't imaginary. Observations that match predictions are evidence.

That is nothing more than a belief that the materials in the ratios were same state past deposited!

The measured decay rates and ratios are not beliefs.

False. That would merely produce more of some material that you try to impose weird beliefs on, and thus apply imaginary ages.

No beliefs were imposed on the measurement of ratios or decay rates.

There are no dates, there are ratios of materials. There is no need to falsify a fantasy either. You flatter yourself.

There are predictions that the same state model makes, and they are accurate.

No, and those present state features cannot help you any more than any other present nature realities. You see, you only apply these to the past by your faith and faith alone...that the past was the same. There is nothing else. Nowhere. Nohow. Ever. You are the demo for this.

Testing a hypothesis is the opposite of faith.

 

[dad]

Using ratios to test a scientific model is not molesting nor assaulting them.

Unless one first believed that the ratios came from a same state past, in other words represented a decay relationship in the ratio....your tests are in fantasy land only.

The agreement is evidence that it isn't imaginary. Observations that match predictions are evidence.

Agreement only in ratios which would have been here when this state started.

The measured decay rates and ratios are not beliefs.

Nor are the relevant to the former state, just now. Gongaroonie.

No beliefs were imposed on the measurement of ratios or decay rates.

No the ratios are real. How the stuff got there is the question. Your belief set assumes they all got here in the present state. End of story.

Testing a hypothesis is the opposite of faith.

You have no ability to test squat out of this state. Anyway...anyhow.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unless one first believed that the ratios came from a same state past, in other words represented a decay relationship in the ratio....your tests are in fantasy land only.

You don't have to believe a hypothesis is true in order to test it, just like you don't have to prove that a suspect is guilty to use DNA fingerprinting. If the ratios don't match the predictions of the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is rejected.

Apparently, you don't understand how evidence works.

Agreement only in ratios which would have been here when this state started.

It is entirely possible for ratios to falsify the hypothesis, as already shown. The simple existence of ratios is not enough to match the predictions, as already shown.

Nor are the relevant to the former state, just now. Gongaroonie.

I just showed you how they are relevant. They can be use to test the same state model.

No the ratios are real. How the stuff got there is the question. Your belief set assumes they all got here in the present state. End of story.

Do you have to assume that the DNA came from the suspect in order to get a positive DNA match? No.

In the very same way, you don't have to assume that ratios were produced by a same state past in order to get a match.

You have no ability to test squat out of this state. Anyway...anyhow.

I just showed you that I can test a same state past.

 

[dad]

You don't have to believe a hypothesis is true in order to test it, just like you don't have to prove that a suspect is guilty to use DNA fingerprinting. If the ratios don't match the predictions of the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is rejected.

You test squat out of this nature. You hypothesis are chained to this state.

Apparently, you don't understand how evidence works.

Yes, and it is not you pulpit pounding, either.

You talk about 'agreement'. Lurkers, have a gander at this agreement in science...they kicked around about a billion years as needed!



"Until recently, the conventional wisdom in geology held that oxygen was rare until the "great oxygenation event," 2.4 to 2.2 billion years ago."

"The rocks we studied are 3.23 billion years old, and quite well preserved, and we believe they show definite signs for oxygen in the oceans much earlier than previous discoveries."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151006192107.htm






It is entirely possible for ratios to falsify the hypothesis, as already shown. The simple existence of ratios is not enough to match the predictions, as already shown.

I just showed you how they are relevant. They can be use to test the same state model.

Not when you FIRST assume a same state past to give meaning and ages to stuff!

Do you have to assume that the DNA came from the suspect in order to get a positive DNA match? No.

You have no DNA from anyone in Noah's day. Focus.

In the very same way, you don't have to assume that ratios were produced by a same state past in order to get a match.

Yes you do. It is by decay that daughter material forms now. You assume the daughter stuff all came about by decay! You are absolutely busted.

 

[Loudmouth]

You test squat out of this nature. You hypothesis are chained to this state.

The hypothesis does not cause the ratios in rocks to change.

You talk about 'agreement'. Lurkers, have a gander at this agreement in science...they kicked around about a billion years as needed!

I just showed you how you can have a disagreement between the hypothesis and the ratios.

Not when you FIRST assume a same state past to give meaning and ages to stuff!

A hypothesis is not an assumption. Do you have to assume that a suspect is guilty in order to use dna testing?

You have no DNA from anyone in Noah's day. Focus.

I am not talking about DNA from Noah.

Yes you do. It is by decay that daughter material forms now. You assume the daughter stuff all came about by decay! You are absolutely busted.

A hypothesis is not an assumption.

 

[dad]

The hypothesis does not cause the ratios in rocks to change.

I do not claim they did change! YOU do! You also claim it is solely because of decay...a feature of the present state!

I just showed you how you can have a disagreement between the hypothesis and the ratios.

Not interested in your religion.

A hypothesis is not an assumption. Do you have to assume that a suspect is guilty in order to use dna testing?

Reality dictates that if Adam is the suspect you provide some DNA if you are going to accuse him of something involving DNA. You fail.

I am not talking about DNA from Noah.

So how about Adam? Or are you concerned with just Ironsides reruns?

A hypothesis is not an assumption.

Your so called hypothesis that involves a former state you know squat about does involve assumptions.

 

[Loudmouth]

I do not claim they did change! YOU do! You also claim it is solely because of decay...a feature of the present state!

It is a testable hypothesis, not a claim.

Not interested in your religion.

It is a scientific hypothesis, not a religion.

Reality dictates that if Adam is the suspect you provide some DNA if you are going to accuse him of something involving DNA. You fail.

I never said anything about Adam's DNA. I am talking about regular old criminals that are in murder trials.

Your so called hypothesis that involves a former state you know squat about does involve assumptions.

It is a hypothesis, not an assumption.

 

[dad]

It is a testable hypothesis, not a claim.

Believing ratios are same state past produced is belief.

It is a scientific hypothesis, not a religion.

Tomato, tomatoe.

I never said anything about Adam's DNA.

If you want to deal in the creation era, start anythime then, or remain in the irrelevant club!

I am talking about regular old criminals that are in murder trials.

They live in the present.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Loudmouth]

Believing ratios are same state past produced is belief.

A testable hypothesis is not a belief.

Tomato, tomatoe.

A testable hypothesis is neither a belief nor an assumption.

If you want to deal in the creation era, start anythime then, or remain in the irrelevant club!

Word salad.

They live in the present.

The DNA that is tested comes from the past.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

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!

Single zircon dating.

Radiocarbon calibration with annual sequenced events.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

For people able to read with comprehension,
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
The American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html

 

[dad]

Single zircon dating.

"
Originally formed by crystallization from a magma or in metamorphic rocks, zircons are so durable and resistant to chemical attack that they rarely go away. They may survive many geologic events, which can be recorded in rings of additional zircon that grow around the original crystal like tree rings. Like a tiny time capsule, the zircon records these events, each one of which may last hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile, the core of the zircon itself remains unchanged, and preserves the chemical characteristics of the rock in which it originally crystallized.

Zircon contains the radioactive element uranium, which Dr. Mueller calls “the clock within the zircon” because it converts to the element lead at a specific rate over a long span of time."

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/earth/cs_zircon_chronolgy.html

So, there are assumptions about how things form in relation to lava. What resets the clock..etc.

What we have to date with then, is the stuff that is NOW radioactive in the crystal. You see if the state changed, the forces and nature, and radioactivity ensued as a result of that change, then one cannot date anything using what is now radioactive material!

Radiocarbon calibration with annual sequenced events.

Nah, that is more radioactive decay that is supposed deep into the past. Also, the trees, if the grew fast would have rings long ago representing parts of a day, and or week, not years.

Let's see any calibration of decay material and rings beyond the 4500 level? Not some generalities of how it now works, but specs on actual rings pre flood (say 4500 years ago to use a simple round number)

 

[dad]

For people able to read with comprehension,
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
The American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html

If they comprehend, then the first thing we need to get is that your link deals in same state past religion..or belief.

Prove there was a same state past of there are no decay dates.

 

[dad]

A testable hypothesis is not a belief.

The bible was tested and is tested. Your dreamed up state of the past is not tested observed, repeated, or known.

The DNA that is tested comes from the past.

DNA in the past?? Proof? Or are you just looking at present DNA and believing the ancient life processes were identical?

 

[Loudmouth]

So, there are assumptions about how things form in relation to lava. What resets the clock..etc.

If there wasn't a same state past, then the U/Pb ratios for both U/Pb series would not match up like they do in this graph.

Why would a different state past produce the exact ratios of U and Pb isotopes that we would expect from a same state past? Why is all of the evidence consistent with a same state past?

http://www.colorado.edu/geolsci/courses/GEOL5690/U-PbNotes.pdf

What we have to date with then, is the stuff that is NOW radioactive in the crystal. You see if the state changed, the forces and nature, and radioactivity ensued as a result of that change, then one cannot date anything using what is now radioactive material!

4,000 years isn't enough time to produce these ratios.

 

[Loudmouth]

If they comprehend, then the first thing we need to get is that your link deals in same state past religion..or belief.

A testable scientific hypothesis is not a belief nor a religion.

Prove there was a same state past of there are no decay dates.

Already have. I have shown how the observed ratios of isotopes match the predictions made by the hypothesis of a same state past.

 

[dad]

..years isn't enough time to produce these ratios.

Creation produced the stuff that makes ratios, presumably. What that stuff does depends on the forces of nature. You want us to embrace the silly godless notion that the present state was responsible for all ratios. That my friend is religion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Creation produced the stuff that makes ratios, presumably.

Why would the ratios produced by "Creation" be exactly the ratios we would expect from 4.5 billion years of a same state past? Why couldn't the "Creation" produce zircons with the same 50/50 ratios for both U/Pb series (238U to 206Pb and 235U to 207Pb)?

What that stuff does depends on the forces of nature.

That means that if the forces were different then they wouldn't fall on a Concordia line for U/Pb dating, right? The only way that the two U/Pb series agree with each other is if there was a same state past.

You want us to embrace the silly godless notion that the present state was responsible for all ratios. That my friend is religion.

Since the ratios are consistent with a same state past, why shouldn't we conclude that?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

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!

This was the original question. I showed that entirely independent means of determining that an object was tens of thousands of years old were used, and that these objects categorically showed that radiation existed.

If you continue to "doubt" this, it is by dishonesty or psychosis because there is no possible rejection based in reality. Further, we have established that the physical constants controlling radioactive decay have been constant for over 6 billion years.