Radioactive dating

[Dr GS Hurd]

Here are some photos of nice regular annual events that we use to calibrate the C14 dating method:

Tree Rings:

Ice Cores:

Lake Varves:

Spelotherm Cross Sections:

Coral Growth Rings:

When put the data together, we get an entirely consistent calibration:

 

[dad]

There is no law that life cannot originate from non-living materials.

Life originates with Life. Christians ought to know that much.

On the other hand, there may well be other ways laws of physics could be tuned to make life possible.

Better hurry up and start tuning, physics is on the clock now, set to expire.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi_webp/JK-keX7-nSw/mqdefault.webp

If one parameter alone is changed a bit making life impossible, another parameter might be tunable to compensate and make it possible again. But ultimately this is not an argument against evolution or any other findings of science.

God is the Parameter that gave Adam life.

Actually, there are random chance events.

To your very limited comprehension..no doubt!

Take a given unstable radioactive atom and try, just try, to determine exactly when it will decay. You cannot. Its time of decay is . . . . random.

Nope. It ain't! No more than the quantum weirdness is random. Creation has to be able to be flexible to do what WE chose or God chooses!

 

[dad]

Here are some photos of nice regular annual events that we use to calibrate the C14 dating method:

Tree Rings:

Trees grew fast in the former state. Gong.

Ice Cores:

Layers could form real fast in the former nature.

Lake Varves:

Layers could form real fast in the former nature.

Spelotherm Cross Sections:

Calcareous speleothems form via carbonate dissolution reactions. Reactions depend on the state. You cannot claim any nature existed without proof, and use that to determine ancient reactions!

Coral Growth Rings:

Light and life in the former state cannot be held to the limits of the present nature.

When put the data together, we get an entirely consistent calibration:

I agree..of religious rubbish with zero merit!

Ho hum

 

[dad]

I do know that the extra-biblical mythologies of the jews are generally nonsense. Thinks like, for example, asserting that Adam had a wife before Eve, Lillith, who turned into a demon because she didn't want to be subordinate to Adam, insisting on being his equal.

The link I posted was Jewish tradition. Records sacred, and handed down by word of mouth. You cannot say yay or nay to them. I say maybe. In fact I say for the most part, possibly even likely.

 

[dad]

How do you determine if a DNA sample came from the present state?

Now you are asking the right questions!

How do you determine that the time and space that the murder occurred within was in the present state, given that no one was there to witness it?

You are up against it eh?!

 

[Loudmouth]

Now you are asking the right questions!
You are up against it eh?!

So you are saying that we can't use DNA evidence in an investigation of a murder that happened yesterday?

All I am showing is how ridiculous your argument is. You are the one up against it.

 

[mickiio]

Oh dear Loudmouth, nice quip. Just reverse it on him, maybe nobody will notice.

Humans and chimps evolving from a common ancestor does not break this law. The common ancestor would be living.

Excuse me? Where is this said monkey man? Even your sample of mutations had specifically a man and chimp. Not a combination.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh dear Loudmouth, nice quip. Just reverse it on him, maybe nobody will notice. Excuse me? Where is this said monkey man? Even your sample of mutations had specifically a man and chimp. Not a combination.

Now you are shifting the goal posts. You are claiming that evolution requires life to come from non-life. It doesn't. You are wrong. When you admit you are wrong, we can move to your other misunderstandings.

 

[dad]

So you are saying that we can't use DNA evidence in an investigation of a murder that happened yesterday?.

The creation debate is not last week. You need to be up to a certain baby level to debate here.

 

[Loudmouth]

The creation debate is not last week. You need to be up to a certain baby level to debate here.

Answer the question.

Are you saying that we can't use DNA evidence in an investigation of a murder that happened yesterday?

 

[dad]

Answer the question.

Are you saying that we can't use DNA evidence in an investigation of a murder that happened yesterday?

Answer the question what has that got to do with the days of Adam or Genesis??

 

[Loudmouth]

Answer the question what has that got to do with the days of Adam or Genesis??

Answer the question.

Are you saying that we can't use DNA evidence in an investigation of a murder that happened yesterday?

 

[dad]

Answer the question.

Are you saying that we can't use DNA evidence in an investigation of a murder that happened yesterday?

Answer the question what has that got to do with the days of Adam or Genesis?? The admit that you don't know what laws existed in the past. You see, if nature WAS different, then forget all dating by present nature. Elementary.

 

[Loudmouth]

Answer the question what has that got to do with the days of Adam or Genesis?? The admit that you don't know what laws existed in the past. You see, if nature WAS different, then forget all dating by present nature. Elementary.

I asked first.

Are you saying that we can't use DNA evidence in an investigation of a murder that happened yesterday?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Ho hum

In short, you would rather just lie.

 

[dad]

In short, you would rather just lie.

If you claim Scripture is lying in the record of the beginning, then prove it. Don't offer tree rings and such as evidence that trees grew slow as they do today. It all depends on the state that existed how things worked! I simply won't allow people to lie about knowing when we can see they have squat.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you claim Scripture is lying in the record of the beginning, then prove it.

It isn't up to us to disprove your claims. It is up to you to prove them.

Don't offer tree rings and such as evidence that trees grew slow as they do today. It all depends on the state that existed how things worked! I simply won't allow people to lie about knowing when we can see they have squat.

If it depends on the past state, then why can't we use it as evidence? If modern observations are dependent on how the state was in the past, then observations consistent with a same state past would be evidence for a same state past.

You have just disproven your own thesis.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Trees grew fast in the former state. Gong.

Okay. So what? Are you claiming that this would change how many tree rings they formed? If so, how much would they change? Where is your evidence?

Layers could form real fast in the former nature.

Okay. How fast? Where is your evidence?

Layers could form real fast in the former nature

How fast? Where is your evidence?

 

[dad]

Okay. So what? Are you claiming that this would change how many tree rings they formed? If so, how much would they change? Where is your evidence?

If a tree could grow in weeks, who cares how many rings it had?

Okay. How fast? Where is your evidence?

Exactly! If you want to claim science knows that layers were formed very slow in the beginning eras, then show evidence. I don't need to you made the claim. I accept God's claim and that means a timetable that we can fit actual evidence into. Is there a lot of layers after the flood? Well, they HAD to be put down fast. Stop making claims you have no clue about.

 

[dad]

It isn't up to us to disprove your claims. It is up to you to prove them.

It isn't up to us to disprove your claims. It is up to you to prove them.

If it depends on the past state, then why can't we use it as evidence?

You can if you know the past state. Since you obviously don't, you can't. Simple.

If modern observations are dependent on how the state was in the past, then observations consistent with a same state past would be evidence for a same state past.

No. One could say that of any foolish belief. 'If modern observations are dependent on how the state was in the past, then observations consistent with a cookie monster state past would be evidence for a same state past.'

You have just disproven your own thesis.

You have just barked up the wrong tree.