Radioactive dating

[dad]

Do you accept observations made in the present as evidence of what happened in the past?

Depends on what you think youare seeing and in what way you try to connect it to the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

Depends on what you think youare seeing and in what way you try to connect it tothe past.

So how does it depend on those things?

 

[dad]

Typical misrepresentation of other peoples' statements. No, I don't "obsess" over it.

Ok, so what else do you read for years, start a profile and start taking about?

 

[dad]

So how does it depend on those things?

Radioactivity needs to exist to have radioactive decay. To claim decay means using the present nature and laws, andthat depends on you proving ourlaws also existed then. Pretty basic stuff.

 

[dad]

Typical misrepresentation of other peoples' statements. No, I don't "obsess" over it.

Calm down. Can we talk about something else other than your obsession. .. or persistent focus..or whatever you wantto call it..with the different state past here?

 

[Loudmouth]

Radioactivity needs to exist to have radioactive decay. To claim decay means using the present nature and laws, andthat depends on you proving ourlaws also existed then. Pretty basic stuff.

Why can't we use present nature and laws to predict what we should see in the present if there was radioactive decay in the past? If there was no radioactive decay in the past, then these predictions should not come true, right?

 

[dad]

Why can't we use present nature and laws to predict what we should see in the present if there was radioactive decay in the past? If there was no radioactive decay in the past, then these predictions should not come true, right?

Because you need to know what you are talking about, and deal with reality!

 

[Loudmouth]

Because you need to know what you are talking about, and deal with reality!

I do know what I am talking about. We should see specific ratios of U/Pb if there was a same state past. I already showed you why. You run away from this evidence.

 

[dad]

I do know what I am talking about. We should see specific ratios of U/Pb if there was a same state past.

--- Or not! Whooopee do! You merely claim agreement inside a fantasy realm of a non existent past and non existent time. Then you pat yourself on the shoulder and say 'gee it sure looks like it all made it's little self'.

I already showed you why. You run away from this evidence.

?? Run away from a religious vision?? If the ratios were here before this state started, then they did not get here by decay as you believe for no reason. Naturally, the degree of present state radioactive decay would be part of the ratios in an ordered way, because this state is ordered also!

 

[Loudmouth]

--- Or not! Whooopee do! You merely claim agreement inside a fantasy realm of a non existent past and non existent time.

I have demonstrated agreement. When observations are consistent with a same state past then it is evidence of a same state past. That's how evidence works.

?? Run away from a religious vision?? If the ratios were here before this state started, then they did not get here by decay as you believe for no reason.

If they didn't get here by decay, then they shouldn't have ratios consistent with decay. They do have ratios consistent with decay. You lose.

 

[dad]

I have demonstrated agreement. When observations are consistent with a same state past then it is evidence of a same state past. That's how evidence works.

False. The agreement is in your head. Show one example of this agreement!

'Gee, we dated a rock to 84 million years ago, and that is about the 'time' when we think rats evolved, and we found a rat tail fossil in it, so we have agreement'

The problem is that says NOTHING. It could mean the decay dates are insanely wrong, and that a rat got fossilized 4381 years ago in the former state.

 

[Loudmouth]

False. The agreement is in your head.

Then show me how the ratios in rocks are inconsistent with a same state past. Show us how the U/Pb ratios are not consistent with the K/Ar ratios.

'Gee, we dated a rock to 84 million years ago, and that is about the 'time' when we think rats evolved, and we found a rat tail fossil in it, so we have agreement'

Who are you quoting? It isn't me.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Maybe. So now they need to be right side up!?

Oh no, its that they are all right side up which would not be the case if they were uprooted and scattered about in the flood.

 

[dad]

Then show me how the ratios in rocks are inconsistent with a same state past. Show us how the U/Pb ratios are not consistent with the K/Ar ratios.

Not consistent? Why would there not also be a lot of daughter material in materials?

Who are you quoting? It isn't me.

I was creating an example out of thin air since you seem incapable of providing one.

 

[dad]

Oh no, its that they are all right side up which would not be the case if they were uprooted and scattered about in the flood.

They are all right side up on earth?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

They are all right side up on earth?

OK not ALL shells are found right side up. But lots of them are, including those on the mountain tops, which proves they weren't moved there by a flood. instead, they grew in situ and were later uplifted with the formation of the mountain. Its good ol plate tectonics . . . maybe you've heard of it?

 

[dad]

OK not ALL shells are found right side up. But lots of them are, including those on the mountain tops, which proves they weren't moved there by a flood. instead, they grew in situ and were later uplifted with the formation of the mountain. Its good ol plate tectonics . . . maybe you've heard of it?

No, most mountains uplifted post flood probably. Gongaroo

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, most mountains uplifted post flood probably. Gongaroo

Sorry, the worldwide flood was shown to be an incorrect concept over 200 years ago. Until you provide positive evidence for your beliefs you lose. No gongaroo will fix that for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Radioactivity needs to exist to have radioactive decay. To claim decay means using the present nature and laws, andthat depends on you proving ourlaws also existed then. Pretty basic stuff.

And once again, all evidence supports that radioactivity has existed for billions of years. Your side lost this one about 100 years ago. Without strong evidence supporting your claims you lose.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, the worldwide flood was shown to be an incorrect concept over 200 years ago.

Maybe the wizards should go back and check again with their updated myopic equipment, eh?