Radioactive dating

[Loudmouth]

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

Are you saying that the decay rates never changed?

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

They represent decay in a same state if they fall on the predicted line since you have failed at every turn to show that a different state past would produce those same relationships between ratios of different isotope pairs.

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

No dates are involved in the analysis.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Why are any of these a problem? For example, why would higher oxygen in the atmosphere change the decay rate of isotopes? Why would larger insects change the fact that zircons exclude Pb when they form?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why no 8 foot beavers now?

Why no 12 inch trilobites?

You have heard of extinction, have you not?

 

[dad]

Why no 12 inch trilobites?

You have heard of extinction, have you not?

What does extinction have to do with huge creatures that once lived, and could not live now probably? Of course the kinds changed, and adapted to this nature.

 

[Loudmouth]

What does extinction have to do with huge creatures that once lived, and could not live now probably?

Why couldn't huge mammals live now? The largest animal to ever live is a living species. It is the Blue Whale. Elephants are huge land animals, and they seem to get along just fine.

 

[dad]

Are you saying that the decay rates never changed?

Hey, I am saying that if you claim our laws that cause decay existed, prove it. Otherwise why claim such things??

They represent decay in a same state if they fall on the predicted line since you have failed at every turn to show that a different state past would produce those same relationships between ratios of different isotope pairs.

No. They represent stuff that is now in decay here. Show us how you connect the first data point to the start of your little graph? What does the line represent and the start and the first point? I hate to ask someone to play when the game is already over and they just missed the whole thing.

No dates are involved in the analysis.

Right, we know, you erased the 't' in the formula. Now we wait to see how you made your first data point.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hey, I am saying that if you claim our laws that cause decay existed, prove it. Otherwise why claim such things??

Already proved it in post 580. When we find the predicted ratios of Ar/K and Pb/U it proves that they were the product of a same state past.

No. They represent stuff that is now in decay here. Show us how you connect the first data point to the start of your little graph? What does the line represent and the start and the first point? I hate to ask someone to play when the game is already over and they just missed the whole thing.

Already explained in post 580. I even included the Excel formulas at the end of the post. I explained where the equations come from, and why I used them.

Here is the standard equation that I am using, but with one difference:

The difference is that we are going to take t out of the equation. Since you don't like it in there, let's take it out. Instead, let's replace t with scientific observations. Let's have the U/Pb equation on one side of the equal sign, and the K/Ar on the other side of the equal sign. Just for clarification, we are using 235U and 40K which have observed decay constants of 9.846E-10 year and 5.540E-10 respectively. Again, these are the OBSERVED decay constants. No assumptions of long time periods are being used.

The equation will look like this:

[ln[1+(Pb/U)]]/9.84E-10=[ln[1+(Ar/K)]]/5.540E-10

If you have the U/Pb ratio, all you do is solve for K/Ar. In fact, I even graphed it so you can see it:

I plugged in a few different ratios if Pb/U in Excel, used the equation above with the decay constants, and voila. I got that chart with a trendline for you to follow.

That is the prediction. That line represents the ratios we should see if there is a same state past. This is a prediction that is made before any ratios are measured, and it makes no assumptions of billions of years of decay.

Now, can you tell us why a different state past could not produce a 1.5 ratio for Pb/U and a 0.1 ratio for Ar/K? That would be far away from the line and would falsify a same state past. So why shouldn't we see data points from real world data that falls all over that graph instead of along that line connecting the points?

[btw, if anyone finds any math errors I have made, please speak up. I used a polynomial regression for the trendline, in case anyone is wondering. This is the Excel formula I used:

(EXP((LN(1+A2))*($F$2/$E$2))-1)

Where A2 is the Pb/U ratio, F2 is the 235U decay constant, and E2 is the 40K decay constant. The formula can be drag copied in column B with Pb/U ratios in column A.]

 

[dad]

Why couldn't huge mammals live now? The largest animal to ever live is a living species. It is the Blue Whale. Elephants are huge land animals, and they seem to get along just fine.

They don't fly. Neither are beavers 8 feet anymore and they once were. Why is that? Coincidence? Look at some of these creatures. A different nature seems to be the best explanation.

"This creature would have looked like a seagull on steroids - its wingspan was between 6.1 and 7.4m (20-24ft).
"The long wings would have been cumbersome and it would have probably spent as little time as possible walking around," Dr Ksepka explained.

Taking off would also have been an ungainly affair.

Computer models reveal that the bird could not have taken off by simply standing still and flapping its wings."
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28164063

"The ability to fly is not a simple question of weight ratios, except in extreme cases. Size and structure of the wing must also be taken into account. As a rule of thumb, a wing loading of 25 kg/m2 is considered the limit for avian flight.[4]...
"the wings were simply too long to flap effectively until the bird was some height off the ground.[2] However, skeletal evidence suggests that its breast muscles were not powerful enough for wing flapping for extended periods.[10]Argentavis may have used mountain slopes and headwinds to take off, and probably could manage to do so from even gently sloping terrain with little effort."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentavis

 

[Loudmouth]

They don't fly. Neither are beavers 8 feet anymore and they once were.

Beavers don't fly, either.

Why is that? Coincidence? Look at some of these creatures. A different nature seems to be the best explanation.

A different atmosphere is not a different nature. It is the same state past with a different amount of air in the atmosphere. Do you really think the laws of physics change when you get to the top of Mt. Everest simply because the air is thinner? Do you think the gravity is weaker on the Moon because the laws of physics change after you leave Earth?

 

[dad]

Already proved it in post 580. When we find the predicted ratios of Ar/K and Pb/U it proves that they were the product of a same state past.

Now you say there are no dates. So tell us how the first data point on your pic got there? What is the prediction based on? How do we confirm it?

Already explained in post 580. I even included the Excel formulas at the end of the post. I explained where the equations come from, and why I used them.

What you showed assumed same state decay.

Here is the standard equation that I am using, but with one difference:

The difference is that we are going to take t out of the equation. Since you don't like it in there, let's take it out. Instead, let's replace t with scientific observations. Let's have the U/Pb equation on one side of the equal sign, and the K/Ar on the other side of the equal sign. Just for clarification, we are using 235U and 40K which have observed decay constants of 9.846E-10 year and 5.540E-10 respectively. Again, these are the OBSERVED decay constants. No assumptions of long time periods are being used.

Explain in your own words how the first data point is a 'constant'? How was this constant observed?

The equation will look like this:

[ln[1+(Pb/U)]]/9.84E-10=[ln[1+(Ar/K)]]/5.540E-10

If you have the U/Pb ratio, all you do is solve for K/Ar.

? Solve for K/Ar?

In the real world what does that mean? Where is the first data point from? How do we find this in reality? Example? In what way is the data point real?

I plugged in a few different ratios if Pb/U in Excel, used the equation above with the decay constants, and voila. I got that chart with a trendline for you to follow.

Trendline? In other words the trend of there being more or less of certain isotopes? How would that help you or relate to the far past? You need some reason to draw pics and claim trends.

That is the prediction. That line represents the ratios we should see if there is a same state past. This is a prediction that is made before any ratios are measured, and it makes no assumptions of billions of years of decay.

In other words the present state decay produces ratios also. Inverse ones perhaps. We don't know. One cannot say though, that the trend of decaying existed before this state did! Only the ratios.

Also, you have no way to place time to your data points! Boy are you hooped!

So why shouldn't we see data points from real world data that falls all over that graph instead of along that line connecting the points?

Show us two data points in the real world that do fall in your non time line!

Where A2 is the Pb/U ratio, F2 is the 235U decay constant,

You mean the present state decay constant!

So much ado about nothing.

 

[dad]

Beavers don't fly, either.

No, but they are not that size now. A different nature is the simple explanation. It was also the point, if you are familiar with one of those.

A different atmosphere is not a different nature.

Who says it was?

It is the same state past with a different amount of air in the atmosphere.

Ha.
Well so you say. I suggest it is a combination of factors that could even include smaller or less food to eat...all due to a changing world.

Do you really think the laws of physics change when you get to the top of Mt. Everest simply because the air is thinner?

I frankly think it is lame to try to credit the atmosphere alone for birds as big as Cessna's almost, or 18 inch dragonflies.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now you say there are no dates. So tell us how the first data point on your pic got there?

Here is the standard equation that I am using, but with one difference:

The difference is that we are going to take t out of the equation. Since you don't like it in there, let's take it out. Instead, let's replace t with scientific observations. Let's have the U/Pb equation on one side of the equal sign, and the K/Ar on the other side of the equal sign. Just for clarification, we are using 235U and 40K which have observed decay constants of 9.846E-10 year and 5.540E-10 respectively. Again, these are the OBSERVED decay constants. No assumptions of long time periods are being used.

The equation will look like this:

[ln[1+(Pb/U)]]/9.84E-10=[ln[1+(Ar/K)]]/5.540E-10

What is the prediction based on? How do we confirm it?

This is the prediction:

[ln[1+(Pb/U)]]/9.84E-10=[ln[1+(Ar/K)]]/5.540E-10

It is based on the observed decay rate of both U and K. In a geologic stratum, if you are able to measure the Pb/U ratio in an appropriate sample, you can predict what the Ar/K ratio should be in a matching appropriate sample. All you have to do is plug the Pb/U ratio into the equation and solve for Ar/K. All I did was plug several different Pb/U ratios in, and solved for Ar/K for each of those Pb/U ratios. That's what those points on the graph are. That's were all of the points should land if the rocks were formed in a same state past. I even gave you the equation where it is solved for Ar/K

(EXP((LN(1+A2))*($F$2/$E$2))-1)

Where A2 is the Pb/U ratio, F2 is the 235U decay constant, and E2 is the 40K decay constant. The formula can be drag copied in column B with Pb/U ratios in column A

What you showed assumed same state decay.

Predictions aren't assumptions. If the measured ratios in these rocks do not match the line on that graph, then they did not form in a same state past. That's the test.

Explain in your own words how the first data point is a 'constant'? How was this constant observed?

K decays directly to Ar. What you do is take a known amount of K and count how many disintegrations occur per second in something like a scintillation counter. That gives you the decay constant. It is something that undergradutate physics students do in college.

http://www.chymist.com/Half life of potassium 40.pdf

? Solve for K/Ar?

Ever heard of algebra? Think "solve for x", except you are solving the equation for Ar/K.

In the real world what does that mean? Where is the first data point from? How do we find this in reality? Example? In what way is the data point real?

In reality, we find this in the rocks. Let's say we find a sedimentary layer that has both zircons and sanidine crystals from a volcanic eruption. You measure the ratio of Pb/U in the zircons, and it is 1 (equal amounts of Pb/U). I find 1.0 on the x-axis of my graph and follow it up until it intersects with my line at about 0.45 on the y-axis. I predict that when you measure the sanidine samples they will have a Ar/K ratio of about 0.45. Not 3.0. Not 0.1. It will be consistently at 0.45 within the margin of error of measurement.

That is the prediction.

Trendline? In other words the trend of there being more or less of certain isotopes? How would that help you or relate to the far past? You need some reason to draw pics and claim trends.

The reason is that we should see a 0.45 Ar/K ratio if the Pb/U ratio is 1.0 if that layer of rock formed in a same state past. That is what the math tells us.

In other words the present state decay produces ratios also. Inverse ones perhaps. We don't know. One cannot say though, that the trend of decaying existed before this state did! Only the ratios.

You are blabbering again. You are making zero sense.

Also, you have no way to place time to your data points! Boy are you hooped!
Show us two data points in the real world that do fall in your non time line!

Are you saying that I have to include millions of years into the equations before you will accept them as evidence?

You mean the present state decay constant!

If there was a different state past then the decay constant would be different, and the trendline would be different. Therefore, rocks that form in a different state past will not fall on the trendline created by using the same state decay constants. That is the test. If there was a different state past then the ratios will not fall on that trendline.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, but they are not that size now. A different nature is the simple explanation.

How so? Why would we have to change the laws of nature in order for beavers to be bigger?

(could we pick a different animal, I can't stop giggling)

Who says it was?

Ha.
Well so you say. I suggest it is a combination of factors that could even include smaller or less food to eat...all due to a changing world.

You can have less or more food without changing the laws of physics.

I frankly think it is lame to try to credit the atmosphere alone for birds as big as Cessna's almost, or 18 inch dragonflies.

Calling something lame is how elementary school kids argue. Try to do better.

 

[dad]

How so? Why would we have to change the laws of nature in order for beavers to be bigger?

(could we pick a different animal, I can't stop giggling)

Why would so many creatures need to adapt in a way that saw a size reduction? Occam says nature change.

You can have less or more food without changing the laws of physics.

Faster reproduction means more food. Hence, a nature change affects the food supply.

Calling something lame is how elementary school kids argue. Try to do better.

Rather than argue, try dealing with the issues. You need to be showing, for example how the first data point on your graph got there, and what the start point means.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would so many creatures need to adapt in a way that saw a size reduction? Occam says nature change.

Why does a change in their environment require a change in the fundamental laws of physics?

Faster reproduction means more food. Hence, a nature change affects the food supply.

Rabbits reproduce faster than humans. Are they using a different set of fundamental physical laws?

Rather than argue, try dealing with the issues. You need to be showing, for example how the first data point on your graph got there, and what the start point means.

Already did that.

 

[dad]

Already did that.

No. Stop drawing and explain your doodles.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. Stop drawing and explain your doodles.

Already did. Read post 632.

 

[dad]

Already did. Read post 632.

Not true. From that post

"In reality, we find this in the rocks. Let's say we find a sedimentary layer that has both zircons and sanidine crystals from a volcanic eruption. You measure the ratio of Pb/U in the zircons, and it is 1 (equal amounts of Pb/U). I find 1.0 on the x-axis of my graph and follow it up until it intersects with my line at about 0.45 on the y-axis. I predict that when you measure the sanidine samples they will have a Ar/K ratio of about 0.45. Not 3.0. Not 0.1. It will be consistently at 0.45 within the margin of error of measurement.

That is the prediction."

It is not a prediction to observe that in different time eras, a similar isotopic pattern will exist. That is an observation. The only issue is why!

 

[Loudmouth]

Not true. From that post

"In reality, we find this in the rocks. Let's say we find a sedimentary layer that has both zircons and sanidine crystals from a volcanic eruption. You measure the ratio of Pb/U in the zircons, and it is 1 (equal amounts of Pb/U). I find 1.0 on the x-axis of my graph and follow it up until it intersects with my line at about 0.45 on the y-axis. I predict that when you measure the sanidine samples they will have a Ar/K ratio of about 0.45. Not 3.0. Not 0.1. It will be consistently at 0.45 within the margin of error of measurement.

That is the prediction."

It is not a prediction to observe that in different time eras, a similar isotopic pattern will exist. That is an observation. The only issue is why!

The relationship between ratios is based on their observed decay rates in the present state. If the decay rates were different in the past then the relationships between ratios would be different. That is the test.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

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.

Did you bother to review these mostly false assertions" Even a little?