Radioactive dating

[mickiio]

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

Show how they are false.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Show how they are false.

Obviously you did not bother,

Does it bother you at all to lie?

 

[mickiio]

Obviously you did not bother,

Does it bother you at all to lie?

Excuse me? Does it bother you???? You still did not show me how my science is flawed, or is flaming your only debating technique?

 

[lasthero]

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.

Why?

4. Fossils of giant dinosaurs indicate they had small nostrils and small lungs.

A) Not all dinosaurs are giant. Some are quite small.

B) There are, as I recall, about at thousand species of dinosaurs, and we're just talking about dinosaurs, not the other species that lived with them and often confused as dinosaurs, like pterodactyls. Where's the research for all of their lung sizes?

B) Which fossils were these?

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.

How did you come to that conclusion?

5. HUGE bird (and flying insect) fossils have been found.

Really? Tell me more of these HUGE birds?

It would be difficult if not impossible for them to fly in today’s “thin” atmosphere.

Based on what? Condors are pretty big, they fly just fine.

6. Most reptiles never stop growing.

That's just not true.

If they could live long enough we would call them dinosaurs.

You got this from Kent Hovind, didn't you?

It doesn't matter how long an inguena grows, it's never going to look like a triceratops. That's just ridiculous. Besides, not all dinosaurs are big, so...

7. The earth’s magnetic field is getting weaker fast!

The magnetic field oscillates. It's been weaker in the past, it's grown stronger. Up, down, up, down.

This is a major problem for your ratios.

I'd like to see that math.

 

[SkyWriting]

Radioactive dating

It that when your date is really Hot?

 

[Astrophile]

The earth’s magnetic field is getting weaker fast! NASA estimates it is losing half of its strength every 800-1400 years.

This is a very old creationist canard. Henry Morris used it in Scientific Creationism (1974), where he attributed it to the creationist Thomas G. Barnes (1973). It is not based on NASA estimates. In fact, over the past 3000 years the Earth's magnetic field has been fluctuating erratically rather than decreasing exponentially.

6,000 years ago it would have been up to 20 times stronger than it is today.

If the Earth's magnetic field had been decaying exponentially with a half-life of 1400 years, then 6,000 years ago it would have been 20 times as strong as it is today. If it had been decaying with a half-life of 800 years, then 6,000 years ago it would have been 180 times as strong as it is today. In fact, 3,000 years ago it was about 1.2-1.3 times as strong as it is now.

 

[dad]

It that when your date is really Hot?

No. My dates have different half lives, little connection to parent isotopes, and and are less predictable.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. My dates have different half lives, little connection to parent isotopes, and and are less predictable.

If they have different half lives, why would the ratios be consistent with the present day half lives?

 

[dad]

The relationship between ratios is based on their observed decay rates in the present state.

By admitting that you have totally lost. Only if the past was the same would that matter. The only issue is was the past the same state or not? Looking at and basing things on PRESENT decay does not even relate to that.

If the decay rates were different in the past then the relationships between ratios would be different.

That depends if there was any decay at all. Prove it or lose it. That is the test.

 

[dad]

If they have different half lives, why would the ratios be consistent with the present day half lives?

The poster was talking about women. Why are evos such literalists?

 

[Loudmouth]

By admitting that you have totally lost. Only if the past was the same would that matter. The only issue is was the past the same state or not? Looking at and basing things on PRESENT decay does not even relate to that.

If the past was the same as the present then the ratios should fall on the line in that graph. They do. This proves that the decay rates in the past were the same.

That depends if there was any decay at all. Prove it or lose it. That is the test.

I did prove it.

 

[dad]

If the past was the same as the present then the ratios should fall on the line in that graph.

Doesn't matter.
The WAY you map the graph is based on the present and present decay. You have no way to check if the ratios were the same in Noah's day.

You have no way to check if the nature changed or not. You sought to infer meaning to the ratios based solely on your unfounded beliefs that the present reflects how it was before.

 

[Loudmouth]

Doesn't matter.
The WAY you map the graph is based on the present and present decay. You have no way to check if the ratios were the same in Noah's day.

The ratios in rocks today are the product of decay in the past. Therefore, they can be used to check the decay rates in the past.

If the past was different, then the ratios will not fall on the line created by modern decay rates.

You have no way to check if the nature changed or not.

Yes, I do have a way of checking. I see if the ratios fall on the line in the graph that is consistent with a same state past.

 

[dad]

The ratios in rocks today are the product of decay in the past.

No. Prove it. They are merely ratios of stuff that is here. We have only information from the present state as to what said stuff now does. Based on that, and by your own admission only on that, you have made claims about the far past. That is ignorance talking.

If the past was different, then the ratios will not fall on the line created by modern decay rates.

Absurd. Modern decay and rates are nothing more than a recent adaptation of the stuff that make the ratios to the laws of this state probably!

Yes, I do have a way of checking. I see if the ratios fall on the line in the graph that is consistent with a same state past.

No, you sure do not. Tell us how you get from point A to point B on the graph! Nothing else is needed. If that way is present state decay and assuming the ratio got here that way, then your graph is utter rubbish.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. Prove it.

Already did. The measured ratios fall on the line in the graph that represents a same state past.

We have only information from the present state as to what said stuff now does.

We also have ratios in rocks which tell us what happened in the past.

Modern decay and rates are nothing more than a recent adaptation of the stuff that make the ratios to the laws of this state probably!

If that were true, then the ratios of Pb/U and Ar/K would not fall on the line in the graph, yet they do.

Tell us how you get from point A to point B on the graph!

Already did that in previous posts. The line on the graph represents the ratios we should see if the isotopes in rocks were produced by a same state past. A different state past would produce points that do not fall on that line.

If that way is present state decay and assuming the ratio got here that way, then your graph is utter rubbish.

That's like saying that we have to watch a criminal create a fingerprint at the crime scene in order to use it as evidence.

 

[dad]

Already did. The measured ratios fall on the line in the graph that represents a same state past

We shall see where they fall. Now simply explain in your words how you get from point A to point B on your little belief chart!

We also have ratios in rocks which tell us what happened in the past.

Problem is it does not tell us the same thing. It only tells you strange stuff because you foist starnge beliefs onto your graphs, and rocks, and everything else you see!

If that were true, then the ratios of Pb/U and Ar/K would not fall on the line in the graph, yet they do.

Show us how you get from point A to the next point in your tooth fairy doodle chart!?

The line on the graph represents the ratios we should see if the isotopes in rocks were produced by a same state past.

That says squat. Point A, is what we see now? So point B represents what? When did you observe point B??

A different state past would produce points that do not fall on that line.

Anyone can chart a foolish set of imaginary meaningless lines. Calm down.

That's like saying that we have to watch a criminal create a fingerprint at the crime scene in order to use it as evidence.

If you claim you have prints from a criminal in Adam's day, at the dawn of man, well, I have a bridge for sale...

 

[Loudmouth]

We shall see where they fall. Now simply explain in your words how you get from point A to point B on your little belief chart!

There is no point A to point B since time is not a part of the graph.

Problem is it does not tell us the same thing.

Prove it.

Show us how you get from point A to the next point in your tooth fairy doodle chart!?

Time is not on any of the axes.

That says squat. Point A, is what we see now? So point B represents what? When did you observe point B??

All of the points are what we see now. If we see a Pb/U ratio of 1, we see a Ar/K value of 0.47. If we see a Pb/U ratio of 0.5 right now, we also see a Ar/K value of about 0.25. If we see an Ar/K ratio of 0.8, we see a Pb/U ratio of about 1.8.

It isn't about going from one point to the next. Those are just sample values to produce the curve. The line itself represents the prediction, and it is the relationship between Ar/K and Pb/U that we should see right now if those ratios were produced by a same state past.

Anyone can chart a foolish set of imaginary meaningless lines. Calm down.

Any ignorant person can use insulting terms. Try to do better.

If you claim you have prints from a criminal in Adam's day, at the dawn of man, well, I have a bridge for sale...

And here you start with the blabbering all over again.

 

[dad]

There is no point A to point B since time is not a part of the graph.

I don't care if you include time or not. Explain how you get from the first point to the very next one. Otherwise you have wasted the time of lurkers who thought your posts serious.

Time is not on any of the axes.

Then no decay is represented, because that takes time.

All of the points are what we see now. If we see a Pb/U ratio of 1, we see a Ar/K value of 0.47. If we see a Pb/U ratio of 0.5 right now, we also see a Ar/K value of about 0.25. If we see an Ar/K ratio of 0.8, we see a Pb/U ratio of about 1.8.

That doesn't say anything. The first point on the graph..what does it supposed to mean? The second point? Precisely. Exactly. If you are simply trying to note that different isotopes exhibit the pattern of parent to daughter amounts, you have no real point at all.

It isn't about going from one point to the next. Those are just sample values to produce the curve. The line itself represents the prediction, and it is the relationship between Ar/K and Pb/U that we should see right now if those ratios were produced by a same state past.

That says nothing. In other words ratios of more than one material exhibit the pattern of relative abundance and/or smaller amounts of certain isotopes.
That has zero meaning without a belief based interpretation that a same state past did it all. We can say that any state would use those ratios! The issue is not the ratios or how daughter material now is produced. Not at all.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

dad said: ↑
By admitting that you have totally lost. Only if the past was the same would that matter. The only issue is was the past the same state or not? Looking at and basing things on PRESENT decay does not even relate to that.

If the past was the same as the present then the ratios should fall on the line in that graph. They do. This proves that the decay rates in the past were the same.

I did prove it.

Obviously there is no reason to expect a crazy person to learn. Your examples, and links do help people able to think rationally.

 

[dad]

Obviously there is no reason to expect a crazy person to learn. Your examples, and links do help people able to think rationally.

If there is something to learn, and you think you get it, prove a same state past. It doesn't matter how sane you think it is to deny God and the reality of Scripture and history. Making an idiotic graph of ratios that means nothing unless one first knew the nature or laws of the past is impishly inept. You can't debate and have displayed no understanding of the issues.

The creed of godless science seems to be something like this..

'I believe in no God, no creator of heaven and earth. I believe in a little hot soup from which the universe sprang forth. I believe I am close kin to chimps and related to flatworms and share a common ancestor. This I believe blindly and with all my being.'

The modis operendi of so called science devotees and groupies seems to be something like this....

'I will pretend that some other poster knew what they were talking about in expressing dark baseless doubts and stand as a witness that they are right, and God was wrong without feeling any need, or having any ability to say why.'