Radioactive dating

[dad]

Why not?

Please show how those ratios are not consistent with a same state past.

Why don't actual ratios help a fabricated past? Well, if they did, we could talk. Since they don't...your attempts to hold up a fairy tale as the thing we need evidence against are defeated.

Is this a pattern? Yes or no?

What does the graph mean? You said there were no dates in it. You just like to draw?

What is religious about this graph?

Well, tell us what it is trying to say. Then if there is any belief attached, I'll let you know. I suspect there is a deep seated baseless belief in this present state laws having existed in the past. Let's shed some light on it.

 

[dad]

dad,

Here are three different patterns of ratios. Which of these patterns would a different state produce (if any), and why?

View attachment 164661

You do like drawing meaningless dots and lines I see. This may not be the place to show off your art and hobby. This is a place for actual ideas to be presented clearly and concisely.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

You do like drawing meaningless dots and lines I see. This may not be the place to show off your art and hobby. This is a place for actual ideas to be presented clearly and concisely.

 

[dad]

 

[Loudmouth]

Why don't actual ratios help a fabricated past? Well, if they did, we could talk. Since they don't...your attempts to hold up a fairy tale as the thing we need evidence against are defeated.

You are blabbering again.

What does the graph mean? You said there were no dates in it. You just like to draw?

This is perhaps the best example of you ignoring the evidence.

Well, tell us what it is trying to say. Then if there is any belief attached, I'll let you know. I suspect there is a deep seated baseless belief in this present state laws having existed in the past. Let's shed some light on it.

I have already told you what it says. Please address it.

 

[Loudmouth]

You do like drawing meaningless dots and lines I see. This may not be the place to show off your art and hobby. This is a place for actual ideas to be presented clearly and concisely.

Perfect example of dad in full denial mode.

 

[dad]

You are blabbering again.



This is perhaps the best example of you ignoring the evidence.



I have already told you what it says. Please address it.

Baloney. You can't even answer questions or make a cohesive case.

 

[dad]

Perfect example of dad in full denial mode.

Since you claim there was no dates, and either cannot or will not say what significance you are claiming for the ratios, what can anyone say?

 

[Loudmouth]

Baloney. You can't even answer questions or make a cohesive case.

Already answered the questions multiple times now. Are the labels on the axes too difficult for you to understand?

 

[Loudmouth]

Since you claim there was no dates, and either cannot or will not say what significance you are claiming for the ratios, what can anyone say?

I already explained the significance in post 580 and multiple posts after that. Every time I present it you start blabbering like an insane person, and never address the evidence.

 

[dad]

Already answered the questions multiple times now. Are the labels on the axes too difficult for you to understand?

Explain your pic or I don't look at it. You say there are no dates...so? There are ratios...this is news?!

Looking at post 580 we see the explanation of the numbers. T represented time. You 'took that out'. All that is left is daughter and parent material and decay, and some 'algorithm'. One assumes the algorithm is a way to place things on a graph? The darn thing is what you place there is simply unable to help you in any way whatsoever. No wonder you are sore, and snappy.

Ho hum.

 

[Loudmouth]

Explain your pic or I don't look at it.

Already explained in post 580.

Looking at post 580 we see the explanation of the numbers. T represented time. You 'took that out'. All that is left is daughter and parent material and decay, and some 'algorithm'. One assumes the algorithm is a way to place things on a graph? The darn thing is what you place there is simply unable to help you in any way whatsoever. No wonder you are sore, and snappy.

Ho hum.

And you run away from the evidence once again.

If there was a same state past then the ratios of isotopes will consistently fall on that line in the graph. No assumption of time. That is the prediction.

You have not been able to show that a different state past would produce those same exact relationship between Pb/U and Ar/K ratios. You simply stated that they would produce a "pattern". I am now asking if the other graphs count as patterns. Why can't you answer that question?

 

[dad]

Already explained in post 580.

If you can't step up to the ring, and want to play games pretending, fine. You should try to make a point about the ratios...as we saw they are just assumptions of decay. You want to claim that because many materials in the same times were also in decay, that this helps your religion. No. Obviously you have nothing more.

If there was a same state past then the ratios of isotopes will consistently fall on that line in the graph. No assumption of time. That is the prediction.

In other words, as I said above, many elements in a time frame also exhibited the pattern of creation that there was less daughter material. The issue is was there any decay at that time? It doesn't help conflating the issue by noting more than one thing has a pattern. The issue is why! You have lost.

I am now asking if the other graphs count as patterns. Why can't you answer that question?

You can't even cohesively explain your own made up graph which merely conflated and clouded the question. Of course no you want to talk about other graphs doing the same!!! Hilarious.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you can't step up to the ring,

Already did in post 580. You are too chicken to even get close to the ring.

You should try to make a point about the ratios...as we saw they are just assumptions of decay.

How so?

You want to claim that because many materials in the same times were also in decay, that this helps your religion. No. Obviously you have nothing more.

That is false. If materials were decaying but at different rates then they would not fall on that line. That is why I gave you this graph:

All of those lines represent decaying materials. I asked you which line is consistent with a different state past, if any. Are you going to step up into the ring and answer the question? Or are you going to chicken out again?

In other words, as I said above, many elements in a time frame also exhibited the pattern of creation that there was less daughter material.

All three lines above have more daughter element at some point on each line (past the 0.5 mark on each axis). So which one is consistent with a same state past, if any?

You can't even cohesively explain your own made up graph which merely conflated and clouded the question. Of course no you want to talk about other graphs doing the same!!! Hilarious.

You are blabbering again.

 

[mickiio]

And you run away from the evidence once again.

If there was a same state past then the ratios of isotopes will consistently fall on that line in the graph. No assumption of time. That is the prediction.

You have not been able to show that a different state past would produce those same exact relationship between Pb/U and Ar/K ratios. You simply stated that they would produce a "pattern". I am now asking if the other graphs count as patterns. Why can't you answer that question?

It can't be the same state, because the animals were bigger. Your fossils falsify that one. You ran away from the evidence my friend.

You can't even cohesively explain your own made up graph which merely conflated and clouded the question. Of course no you want to talk about other graphs doing the same!!! Hilarious.

No, because it is the typical cut and paste job these guys do to try to look smart.

The magnetic field of the earth is getting weaker. The stronger the field , the fewer the number of cosmic rays that are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of C14 in the atmosphere in the earth's past. The production rate of C14 is a function not only of solar activity but of also the magnetic movement of the earth. Your little chart works if those are the only variables, but they are not.

Now, I know currently macroevolutionists need millions and millions of years to prove their silly hypothesis, that goes against the scientific laws we see at work in nature, but really? And you say my belief is wrong? MY theory is on faith?

 

[Loudmouth]

It can't be the same state, because the animals were bigger.

Why would that require a complete change in the fundamental laws of the universe? Do elephants live by one set of laws and mice another?

No, because it is the typical cut and paste job these guys do to try to look smart.

I made those graphs myself using Excel.

 

[dad]

That is false. If materials were decaying but at different rates then they would not fall on that line. That is why I gave you this graph:

Run along. You know the issue was never changed decay rates.

All of those lines represent decaying materials. I asked you which line is consistent with a different state past, if any. Are you going to step up into the ring and answer the question? Or are you going to chicken out again?

They only represent decaying anything since this state started if decay is a feature of this state.

All three lines above have more daughter element at some point on each line (past the 0.5 mark on each axis). So which one is consistent with a same state past, if any?

First you said no dates were involved. Find a story and stick to it.

 

[dad]

It can't be the same state, because the animals were bigger. Your fossils falsify that one. You ran away from the evidence my friend.
No, because it is the typical cut and paste job these guys do to try to look smart.

The magnetic field of the earth is getting weaker. The stronger the field , the fewer the number of cosmic rays that are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of C14 in the atmosphere in the earth's past. The production rate of C14 is a function not only of solar activity but of also the magnetic movement of the earth. Your little chart works if those are the only variables, but they are not.

Now, I know currently macroevolutionists need millions and millions of years to prove their silly hypothesis, that goes against the scientific laws we see at work in nature, but really? And you say my belief is wrong? MY theory is on faith?

Good Points. However if there was a different nature and laws we don't need to worry about a 'smaller number of cosmic rays ' as the big cause...

 

[dad]

Why would that require a complete change in the fundamental laws of the universe? Do elephants live by one set of laws and mice another?



I made those graphs myself using Excel.

Why no 8 foot beavers now?

 

[mickiio]

Why would that require a complete change in the fundamental laws of the universe? Do elephants live by one set of laws and mice another?

1. Fossils of GIANT insects have been found like: 2′ grasshoppers, 18″ cockroaches, 3′ spiders, 50″ dragonflies etc.

2. Insect size is limited due to their surface area to volume ratio problem since they breathe through their skin. For example-a 1 inch cube has a volume of 1 cu. in. and a surface area (SA) of 6 sq. inches. 6/1 ratio. A 2 inch cube has a vol. of 8 cu. in. and a SA of 24 sq. in. 3/1 ratio. Hmmm? If the interior must be supplied with oxygen through the skin the bigger it is the more of a problem this becomes. They don’t have enough surface to supply the air for the volume. Giant insects would need greater air pressure or higher oxygen % or both.

3. Air bubbles trapped in amber are often found to have 30-35% oxygen rather than the 21% we breathe today. We can reasonably presume the air trapped is pre-flood air.

4. Fossils of giant dinosaurs indicate they had small nostrils and small lungs. This would be a problem in today’s atmosphere but if there was higher % of oxygen or higher pressure (or both) they could breathe just fine.

5. HUGE bird (and flying insect) fossils have been found. It would be difficult if not impossible for them to fly in today’s “thin” atmosphere.

6. Most reptiles never stop growing. If they could live long enough we would call them dinosaurs.

7. The earth’s magnetic field is getting weaker fast! NASA estimates it is losing half of its strength every 800-1400 years. 6,000 years ago it would have been up to 20 times stronger than it is today.

This is a major problem for your ratios. You have to factor in all aspects.