Radioactive dating

[Loudmouth]

I don't care if you include time or not. Explain how you get from the first point to the very next one.

There is no movement from one point to the next point since time is not a part of the graph. What are you not understanding? The line in the graph represents an infinite number of points. There is no movement from one point to another.

Then no decay is represented, because that takes time.

Already taken care of with the decay constants which are part of the equations. The time units cancel out in the end, leaving us with just the ratios in the graph.

That doesn't say anything. The first point on the graph..what does it supposed to mean? The second point?

Already explained it to you multiple times. Each point represents a correlation between the Ar/K and Pb/U ratios. If you can't understand what a simple correlation is, it's not my problem.

http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/math/algebra/AD4/scatter.htm

. 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.

"The pattern"? What is "the pattern"? What should that pattern be for a different state past, and why?

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.

Here is a graph with three lines that fit your criteria. Which should we see with a different state past, and why?

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.

Do you have to believe a suspect is guilty before you can use DNA fingerprinting?

 

[dad]

There is no movement from one point to the next point since time is not a part of the graph. What are you not understanding? The line in the graph represents an infinite number of points. There is no movement from one point to another.

The line moves..obviously! Now that has to be based on something. Otherwise it is a doodle line.

Already taken care of with the decay constants which are part of the equations. The time units cancel out in the end, leaving us with just the ratios in the graph.

The so called constant is 100% belief in a constant or same state past. You are drawing a little religious line.

Already explained it to you multiple times. Each point represents a correlation between the Ar/K and Pb/U ratios.

The correlation must have some meaning or connection to the topic here. Namely radioactive decay. You getting this so far? Now if you claim the point on your doddle line art represents a connection between decay and the ratio supposedly represented, you need to connect the dots. Apparently the connection in your head is that the same stuff in a ratio exists in proportions equal to the great time you won't admit you are trying to preach.

"The pattern"? What is "the pattern"? What should that pattern be for a different state past, and why?

The pattern is that certain stuff exists and does something...depending on the state or nature or forces acting on that stuff. Let's say that stuff was grains of sand. In one of your points we might have say. 1000 grains of sand of material C and 14 grains of sand of material J. No matter what the nature was, we would have had the same grains of sand when this state started after Noah's flood sometime. (assuming that there was not enough time to produce even one grain of daughter sand since then). Your point on a graph loses meaning. Since neither the 1000 grains nor the 14 grains have changed significantly, the ratios do NOT tell us the state of the past. If one looks at the current forces acting on the grains of sand, one would see that the 14 grains of sand would become 15 in (depends on the half life..say another 2200 years).

Now, if we look back in time in other layers where the ratios were locked in, we would see perhaps, that the ratio at one point was, say, 1001 grains of C and 13 grains of J.

What that means totally depends on what forces were in place...what state or nature. If the nature was different than now, then whatever processes existed did whatever they did in however long it took then! So, if for example, there was some process at the time that tended to produce material C from material J, then we would have seen less material J as we check back in older layers! That is just what we do see and what your doodle graph shows. You just thought we HAD to impose your godless belief system on it all. No. Not at all.

Do you have to believe a suspect is guilty before you can use DNA fingerprinting?

Show us prints from anyone at all from say, the time these folks made some points to connect a lot bigger than your doodle art!?

"This isn't the oldest swastika symbol found. The earliest known object with swastika-motifs is a bird made from mammoth tusk from the paleolithic settlement of Mezine, Ukraine dated to 10,000 BCE."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...s-including-cross-swastika.html#ixzz3qMSYInPw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...able-structures-including-cross-swastika.html

 

[Loudmouth]

The line moves..obviously!

The line is stationary. Do you really not understand what a correlation is?

Now that has to be based on something. Otherwise it is a doodle line.

It is based on the ratios of Ar/K and Pb/U, as explained numerous times now.

The so called constant is 100% belief in a constant or same state past. You are drawing a little religious line.

If it wasn't constant then the ratios of Ar/K and Pb/U will not fall on that line. That is the test.

The correlation must have some meaning or connection to the topic here. Namely radioactive decay. You getting this so far? Now if you claim the point on your doddle line art represents a connection between decay and the ratio supposedly represented, you need to connect the dots. Apparently the connection in your head is that the same stuff in a ratio exists in proportions equal to the great time you won't admit you are trying to preach.

If decay was different in the past, then the observed ratios will not fall on that line. The line is the prediction of what the observations should be if there was a same state past. There is nothing in the measurement of the actual ratios that forces them to fall on that line, yet they do. This confirms a same state past.

The pattern is that certain stuff exists and does something...depending on the state or nature or forces acting on that stuff. Let's say that stuff was grains of sand. In one of your points we might have say. 1000 grains of sand of material C and 14 grains of sand of material J. No matter what the nature was, we would have had the same grains of sand when this state started after Noah's flood sometime. (assuming that there was not enough time to produce even one grain of daughter sand since then).

For C/J we have a ratio of 1000/14. There are two other elements, A and B. Why would you always find a proportional relationship between C/J and A/B? Why would that proportional correlation be tied to the currently measured decay constant for J and B?

I am comparing two ratios, not a single ratio. You need to incorporate that into your example.

If the nature was different than now, then whatever processes existed did whatever they did in however long it took then!

Then we shouldn't expect a different state past to produce the same relationships between ratios as would a same state past.

 

[dad]

The line is stationary. Do you really not understand what a correlation is?

In this case of the doodle lines you conjured up, it means that you use the glue of your religion to try to be a correlation of ratios. Poor excuse to deny creation.

It is based on the ratios of Ar/K and Pb/U, as explained numerous times now.

Then you have nothing, as explained.

If it wasn't constant then the ratios of Ar/K and Pb/U will not fall on that line. That is the test.

If the forces acting on the process was different of course they would. Stop preaching and doodling.

If decay was different in the past, then the observed ratios will not fall on that line.

Obviously you do not read posts and do not comprehend or respond to actual points. You are too busy preaching. Who says decay existed in the past? You? Not me. I would need to see proof for that. Stop claiming foolish things and offering no evidence.

The line is the prediction of what the observations should be if there was a same state past.

The ratios represent changes in any nature. To determine the process other than decay that existed, one would need to know the exact forces in place at that time. You don't. So you preach and doodle.

There is nothing in the measurement of the actual ratios that forces them to fall on that line, yet they do. This confirms a same state past.

There is nothing about that line that even addresses what nature existed, so your doodle is devoid of meaning. As explained the former state had processes also, that resulted in the forces and laws that existed. You cannot take credit for how the hourglass now affects the sand.

For C/J we have a ratio of 1000/14. There are two other elements, A and B.

You like to try to confuse issues eh? I had no A or B in my scenario. If I did, they would fall in line with how C and J worked!

Why would you always find a proportional relationship between C/J and A/B?

I explained what J and C was. Now you better explain where this A and B business came from and is supposed to represent! You can't just make up letters and act like you just invented the wheel!

Why would that proportional correlation be tied to the currently measured decay constant for J and B?

To guess at that you need to say where you pulled A and B from.

I am comparing two ratios, not a single ratio. You need to incorporate that into your example.

Just as I compared the 2 ratios of grains of sand in my example. Wow...you don't seem to comprehend all this. No wonder you preach and repeat and doodle.

 

[Loudmouth]

In this case of the doodle lines you conjured up, it means that you use the glue of your religion to try to be a correlation of ratios. Poor excuse to deny creation.

You are blabbering again. I already showed you what I used. They are all observations that can be made in the here and now. All of them. No religion needed.

Then you have nothing, as explained.

You don't even understand what I have. You can't tell the difference between a doodle and a correlation. You are like a baby trying to fix a car engine. You are too ignorant to know what you are looking at.

Obviously you do not read posts and do not comprehend or respond to actual points. You are too busy preaching. Who says decay existed in the past? You? Not me. I would need to see proof for that. Stop claiming foolish things and offering no evidence.

The ratios say that decay happened in the past because the observed ratios fall on that line.

The ratios represent changes in any nature. To determine the process other than decay that existed, one would need to know the exact forces in place at that time. You don't.

I do know what the same forces would produce, and that is exactly what we observe in the measured ratios of those isotopes.

There is nothing about that line that even addresses what nature existed,

The line directly addresses that topic, but you are too ignorant to understand it.

Do you want to cure that ignorance, or continue to wallow in it?

 

[dad]

You don't even understand what I have. You can't tell the difference between a doodle and a correlation. You are like a baby trying to fix a car engine. You are too ignorant to know what you are looking at.

A correlation is ratios has no bearing on what forces and laws existed. Your lines are refuted, debunked, and savaged.

The ratios say that decay happened in the past because the observed ratios fall on that line.

The ratios do not say there was decay, let alone present state decay. They say that stuff exists and existed.

I do know what the same forces would produce, and that is exactly what we observe in the measured ratios of those isotopes.

You do not know how much time is involved that is why you try to divest your doodle art of time. But when you claim decay you must talk time. You have NO way to prove that the ratios involve anything like the time involved in present state decay! The layers represent centuries or thousands of years ago. Having similar ratios in that context is of no use to your religion. There is a little more or less of certain isotopes. That does not help you. Whatever the past was like we had about the same ratios. The small differences frozen in layers in no way needs to have a cause that your religions fanatically espouses.

 

[Loudmouth]

A correlation is ratios has no bearing on what forces and laws existed.

Why not? If the correlation is exactly what we would expect from a same state past, then why isn't that evidence for a same state pat?

The ratios do not say there was decay, let alone present state decay. They say that stuff exists and existed.

Then all a DNA test can do is say that DNA exists, right? We can't compare DNA at a crime scene to the DNA of the suspect because we would need to witness the suspect leaving the DNA at the crime scene, right?

You do not know how much time is involved that is why you try to divest your doodle art of time.

Only your ignorance makes you call it doodle art time.

 

[Astrophile]

The so called constant is 100% belief in a constant or same state past.

Your insistence on a different state past reminds me of two lines in King Henry VI Part II, IV, 2, 147-8; did someone teach you this, or did you invent it yourself?

If you were taught it, can you provide a link to or a quotation from a Christian scientist (not a creationist) who shares your belief in a different state past?

 

[dad]

Why not? If the correlation is exactly what we would expect from a same state past, then why isn't that evidence for a same state pat?

What you expect is not really based on what is there! What you expect is that ratios got there from present state causes. Since we see that a pattern exists as we look back in time of more of one sort of isotope over another, that means whatever process existed had to result in that pattern. One cannot go into it believing in a certain set of laws that worked then. Any process in another nature could have resulted in that pattern.

For you to sit there imagining that it was a same state past that did it all doesn't fly. That is saying nothing more than...the present state processes could be used to try and also explain the pattern, IF there was a same state past. The ratios do not tell us there was any state. The do show us that it was not static, and whatever processes were at work involved using the stuff that is in the rocks.

Then all a DNA test can do is say that DNA exists, right?

DNA only exists in the present nature for all we know. You have none from, say the time that the mounds in a pattern I linked to.

We can't compare DNA at a crime scene to the DNA of the suspect because we would need to witness the suspect leaving the DNA at the crime scene, right?

No. We know that DNA now exists! So if we actually have some that is unique to an individual, we can use that.

Only your ignorance makes you call it doodle art time.

No. Your failure to clearly and concisely elucidate what your points really mean makes it more of a doodle than anything else. Yes it represents ratios, and decay...but you say no time is involved...yet half lives are involved...blah blah.

In the final analysis, the pattern we see the ratios in has diddly squat to do with proving any state in the past.

 

[dad]

Your insistence on a different state past reminds me of two lines in King Henry VI Part II, IV, 2, 147-8; did someone teach you this, or did you invent it yourself?

If you were taught it, can you provide a link to or a quotation from a Christian scientist (not a creationist) who shares your belief in a different state past?

Unless you can prove the state that was, then all we need from you is a declaration of ignorance! Science doesn't know. They would not be the ones to ask. We would ask someone who knew.

 

[Loudmouth]

What you expect is not really based on what is there! What you expect is that ratios got there from present state causes.

You still don't get it.

The line on the graph is a prediction of what ratios will look like if there was a same state past. We aren't assuming a same state past. If there was a different state past, then the data points will not fall on that line. That is the test.

Since we see that a pattern exists as we look back in time of more of one sort of isotope over another, that means whatever process existed had to result in that pattern. One cannot go into it believing in a certain set of laws that worked then. Any process in another nature could have resulted in that pattern.

Are all three lines on this graph a "pattern"? Yes/no?

For you to sit there imagining that it was a same state past that did it all doesn't fly.

I don't have to imagine anything. We OBSERVE that the ratios match the prediction.

DNA only exists in the present nature for all we know. You have none from, say the time that the mounds in a pattern I linked to.

So you wouldn't accept DNA evidence in a murder trial. Goes to show just how much you will deny in order to protect your religious beliefs.

 

[dad]

You still don't get it.

I do...you don't.

The line on the graph is a prediction of what ratios will look like if there was a same state past.

The same line can be used for any state past. The same isotopes and ratios are involved! The only difference is a small change over time found in layers. In any nature there will be some change, since the same God who is alive designed it all. Any change IN nature means a change in His nature. You absolutely cannot claim credit for those little teeny changes. Get over it. Now if you could prove a same state past existed, why, THEN you could. Meanwhile, back at the ranch...you cannot. The little bitsy changes do not prove any sameness of state, legacy of laws, or foreverness of forces of this temporary present state nature.

We aren't assuming a same state past.

Yes, and that is all you do. Believe. Blindly. Deeply. Intensely.

If there was a different state past, then the data points will not fall on that line. That is the test.

Yes they would,,,you fail the test! The only way you could prove they would fall on your doodle line is to first prove there was the state you claim. Otherwise you have no clue how the little changes came down. Simply declaring that there were some changes does not mean you know why. God created all things and any change in His nature here temporarily would involve (or did involve, based on observed evidences) using the same staring point. It was all here when any change in forces and laws happened. (except for the stuff that decayed since then etc)

Are all three lines on this graph a "pattern"? Yes/no?

Not a pattern you can claim credit for.

I don't have to imagine anything. We OBSERVE that the ratios match the prediction.

No. You observe small differences in what existed, and credit present state processes for it ALL. Gong!!

So you wouldn't accept DNA evidence in a murder trial.

As I said before you misrepresented my statements, DNA exists. If you get a person's DNA from the time of the mounds in a pattern (I gave the link, they claim it was 8 to 10,000 years ago) then we can bring it to court. Meanwhile, as usual you indulge in strawmen and fantasies only. Take some quality doodle time and relax. You lost.

 

[Loudmouth]

The same line can be used for any state past.

Let's focus on just this statement. Show me why this is so. Why would this line work for any state past? Why wouldn't the red or green plots on the graph below also work for a different state past?

 

[Astrophile]

Unless you can prove the state that was, then all we need from you is a declaration of ignorance! Science doesn't know. They would not be the ones to ask. We would ask someone who knew.

You have not answered my questions. I asked whether somebody taught you about the different state past or whether, like Jack Cade in 2 Henry VI, you invented it yourself. I also asked whether you could provide a link or a reference in support of the existence of the different state past. These should be easy enough questions to answer, since they refer to events in your past.

I was not trying to 'prove the state that was'; I was asking questions about the source of your ideas.

 

[Astrophile]

Radioactivity now exists. I have not seen proof it existed in the early history of earth. Has anyone else found proof or evidence for that? As it stands....I doubt it!

I can think of two types of evidence of radioactivity in the early history of the Earth.

First, there are pleochroic haloes in Precambrian rocks. These are 'rings of colour produced around a radioactive impurity included in a mineral by alpha particles emitted from the radioactive elements in the inclusion'. See http://www.brittanica.com/science/pleochroic-halo .

Second, there are anomalous abundances of certain isotopes (e.g. Mg-26, K-41, B-10, Ag-107, and Xe-129) in undifferentiated meteorites. These isotopes were produced by the radioactive decay of short-lived unstable isotopes (Al-26, Ca-41, Be-10, Pd-107, and I-129) that are now extinct. The existence of these isotopic anomalies shows that radioactive decay was taking place when the parent bodies of the meteorites were formed.

 

[Loudmouth]

I can think of two types of evidence of radioactivity in the early history of the Earth.

First, there are pleochroic haloes in Precambrian rocks. These are 'rings of colour produced around a radioactive impurity included in a mineral by alpha particles emitted from the radioactive elements in the inclusion'. See http://www.brittanica.com/science/pleochroic-halo .

Second, there are anomalous abundances of certain isotopes (e.g. Mg-26, K-41, B-10, Ag-107, and Xe-129) in undifferentiated meteorites. These isotopes were produced by the radioactive decay of short-lived unstable isotopes (Al-26, Ca-41, Be-10, Pd-107, and I-129) that are now extinct. The existence of these isotopic anomalies shows that radioactive decay was taking place when the parent bodies of the meteorites were formed.

You are forgetting that dad would not accept fingerprint evidence in a jury trial unless someone watched the defendant actually leave the fingerprint firsthand.

 

[dad]

Let's focus on just this statement. Show me why this is so. Why would this line work for any state past? Why wouldn't the red or green plots on the graph below also work for a different state past?

No offense but your graph is gibberish. If you have some clear point as to some reality of a data point, that relates or compares to some actual element on earth, get back to us. The pattern of less (what is now daughter material) as we go back in time in various layers is clear. Since the main issie..the elephant in the room here, is whether the ratios existed before this state did, the question becomes how long do we know this state existed? The answer is you do not know beyond 4500 real years. No way round this. Pick any actual example, and see. Enough nonsense.

How sweet it is.

 

[dad]

You are forgetting that dad would not accept fingerprint evidence in a jury trial unless someone watched the defendant actually leave the fingerprint firsthand.

You have not shown one print from the time when I used as an example of long ago. That was (in your so called science time) 8 to 10,000 years ago. Let's see the dna or fingerprint from a man. Until then you remain flapping in the breeze.

Ever consider getting out of the pretend debating game and into the actual debating game?

 

[dad]

You have not answered my questions. I asked whether somebody taught you about the different state past or whether, like Jack Cade in 2 Henry VI, you invented it yourself.

The idea is mine, and scripture based, as well as bulletproof to science. I used to call it the split/merge. It is often referred to as the different state past also.

I also asked whether you could provide a link or a reference in support of the existence of the different state past.

http://splitmerge.webs.com/

I was not trying to 'prove the state that was'; I was asking questions about the source of your ideas.

That would be God Almighty.

 

[dad]

I can think of two types of evidence of radioactivity in the early history of the Earth.

First, there are pleochroic haloes in Precambrian rocks. These are 'rings of colour produced around a radioactive impurity included in a mineral by alpha particles emitted from the radioactive elements in the inclusion'. See http://www.brittanica.com/science/pleochroic-halo .

Your link didn't work. The rings need not have been produced in this state. Nice try. The particles need not be from present state alpha decay.

Second, there are anomalous abundances of certain isotopes (e.g. Mg-26, K-41, B-10, Ag-107, and Xe-129) in undifferentiated meteorites. These isotopes were produced by the radioactive decay of short-lived unstable isotopes (Al-26, Ca-41, Be-10, Pd-107, and I-129) that are now extinct. The existence of these isotopic anomalies shows that radioactive decay was taking place when the parent bodies of the meteorites were formed.

Hey, pick a sample isotope found, and describe how the decay occurs..

Now if we look at something like Double beta decay, we see that exotic explanations are required.

"
In double beta decay, two neutrons in the nucleus are converted to protons, and two electrons and two electron antineutrinos are emitted. The process can be thought as a sum of two beta minus decays. In order for (double) beta decay to be possible, the final nucleus must have a larger binding energy than the original nucleus. For some nuclei, such asgermanium-76, the nucleus one atomic number higher has a smaller binding energy, preventing single beta decay. However, the nucleus with atomic number two higher, selenium-76, has a larger binding energy, so double beta decay is allowed.

For some nuclei, the process occurs as conversion of two protons to neutrons, emitting two electron neutrinos and absorbing two orbital electrons (double electron capture). If the mass difference between the parent and daughter atoms is more than 1.022 MeV/c2 (two electron masses), another decay is accessible, capture of one orbital electron and emission of one positron. When the mass difference is more than 2.044 MeV/c2 (four electron masses), emission of two positrons is possible. These theoretical decay branches have not been observed."

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

In other words, it is theoretically possible to get such decay, but it requires many things. The question arises if the same material could have required other things, or worked in some sort of reverse process other than decay..etc etc?

I'd say you have a hard road to travel to try to prove that an object from space represented the age you think, or origin, or that any reactions in it required a present state!

Let's take an example meteorite here. Say a meteorite shot up from earth in the flood year, from a fountain of the deep. It traveled through space, and a century or two later the state changed. Now we have decay in that meteorite! In either case, ...piece of cake!