Radioactive dating

[Loudmouth]

Totally false. All we observe is that the isotopes NOW decay and do so at a certain rate. That says nothing about how it was at all.

The ratios of isotopes in rocks do tell us how it was in the past.

Get real. It makes for a better debate.


I am saying the actual isotopes, no matter how we chose to graph them existed, except for the stuff that decayed in this state.

Since you refuse to answer the question, I will answer it for you. The answer is no. A different state past would not produce rocks that would fall on that line in the graph because there is no reason that different rates of decay would produce rocks with isotopes that fall on the line in that graph.

However, a same state past would produce rocks that have ratios of isotopes that do fall on that line.

Therefore, we can measure the ratio of isotopes in rocks and see if they fall on that line or not. When we do those measurements, we find that they do fall on that line, as shown by this figure.

Therefore, we can prove that there was a same state past. We have also disproven a different state past.

 

[dad]

The ratios of isotopes in rocks do tell us how it was in the past.

No. Sorry. The ratios tell us how much stuff now exists. Not why.

Since you refuse to answer the question, I will answer it for you. The answer is no. A different state past would not produce rocks that would fall on that line in the graph because there is no reason that different rates of decay would produce rocks with isotopes that fall on the line in that graph.

Strawman. Prove there was any decay? I never said a thing about different rates. That is asinine.

Therefore, we can prove that there was a same state past. We have also disproven a different state past.

You spam some pics and have not dealt with my response a while ago about the tektites etc. Debate honestly and stop preaching.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. Sorry. The ratios tell us how much stuff now exists. Not why.

I have just demonstrated otherwise.

Strawman. Prove there was any decay? I never said a thing about different rates. That is asinine.

Then if the rates of decay have always been the same, we should never see any rocks that date more than 6,000 years old by radiometric dating. Since we do, your former state is once again falsified.

You spam some pics and have not dealt with my response a while ago about the tektites etc. Debate honestly and stop preaching.

I have presented nothing but facts.

 

[[serious]]

Sure...empty posting really is a winner.

Especially in New Jersey!

 

[dad]

I have just demonstrated otherwise.



Then if the rates of decay have always been the same, we should never see any rocks that date more than 6,000 years old by radiometric dating. Since we do, your former state is once again falsified.



I have presented nothing but facts.

To review your facts, you want to credit our present state with all ratios of isotopes for no reason whatsoever.

Your apparent inability to grasp that we are talking about a DIFFERENT set of laws, rather than some fast decay with our present laws is astounding. No matter how many times I ask you not to cite any decay in the former state unless you can prove there was any....pitiful.

 

[dad]

Especially in New Jersey!

That really contributes some substantive content.

 

[Loudmouth]

To review your facts, you want to credit our present state with all ratios of isotopes for no reason whatsoever.

I gave you a reason. There are specific ratios of isotopes that a same state past would produce, and by your own admission would not be produced by a 6,000 year old Earth. Finding those ratios is proof for a same state past.

Your apparent inability to grasp that we are talking about a DIFFERENT set of laws,

You already said that the laws were the same.

"I never said a thing about different rates."--dad

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

"I never said a thing about different rates."--dad

I am fairly certain that "dad" is not capable of rational, or even consistent thinking. You are wasting your time.

 

[[serious]]

That really contributes some substantive content.

It was highly relevant in a different state past.

 

[dad]

I gave you a reason. There are specific ratios of isotopes that a same state past would produce, and by your own admission would not be produced by a 6,000 year old Earth.

How in the world would you know what creation and the former state would leave??! Admit your ignorance on the matter forthwith.

Finding those ratios is proof for a same state past.

90% of what you have done here is doodle graphs based on imagination, rather than the real world. In the real world the pattern of isotopes in past layers is clear, and absolutely not on your religious same state past side.

You already said that the laws were the same.

Say what??! Which part of the laws were not the same but different did you misunderstand??

"I never said a thing about different rates."--dad

Correct. I didn't. I do not know that any decay existed. Do you?

 

[dad]

I am fairly certain that "dad" is not capable of rational, or even consistent thinking. You are wasting your time.

He is. You are not. So there.

 

[dad]

It was highly relevant in a different state past.

Not as irrelevant as some posts here in this present world.

 

[[serious]]

Not as irrelevant as some posts here in this present world.

First off, you posted that in the past. How do we know the that past state had the same rules of relevance? If a different state past can be invoked for 6000 years ago, why not 5 minutes ago?

 

[dad]

First off, you posted that in the past. How do we know the that past state had the same rules of relevance? If a different state past can be invoked for 6000 years ago, why not 5 minutes ago?

Noah and Adam did not live when you last posted. Try to tune in to what timeframe the debate is all about.

 

[[serious]]

Noah and Adam did not live when you last posted. Try to tune in to what timeframe the debate is all about.

Several people were born since you last posted, so the same logic applies to all your posts. There are people alive now that were not alive then.

As far as moses and noah, did they have control over the natural laws? That would be some interesting theology.

 

[Loudmouth]

How in the world would you know what creation and the former state would leave??! Admit your ignorance on the matter forthwith.

You admitted it yourself. You never demonstrated how a past state would produce those ratios.

90% of what you have done here is doodle graphs based on imagination, rather than the real world.

And you admit it again. You claim that the relationship between those ratios is not real. It is real. Those are the ratios that we find.

Say what??! Which part of the laws were not the same but different did you misunderstand??

So which parts were different?

Correct. I didn't. I do not know that any decay existed. Do you?

Yes, I do know. I have the evidence for it.

 

[mickiio]

I am fairly certain that "dad" is not capable of rational, or even consistent thinking. You are wasting your time.

At least he is debating, you are only flaming. Btw you should read the rules because it is against them AND not a good debating method either. It only shows the incompetence of the poster.

OT It is tough to have a "ratio prediction" be accurate when more then one variable is inconsistent.

 

[dad]

Several people were born since you last posted, so the same logic applies to all your posts. There are people alive now that were not alive then.

As far as moses and noah, did they have control over the natural laws? That would be some interesting theology.

HAVE YOU ANY CLAIM OF WHAT STATE OR LAWS EXISTED IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF MAN? If so, then back it up. Science happens to assume a certain state existed, and uses that assumption for all models about origins. Deal with reality.

 

[dad]

You admitted it yourself. You never demonstrated how a past state would produce those ratios.

I MIGHT BE ABLE TO OFFER AS GOOD A SPECULATION AS ANYONE IN SCIENCE. hOWEVER, SINCE IT IS ABOVE OUR CURRENT ABILITIES TO KNOW, IT IS VAIN AND PRETENTIOUS TO PRETEND THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DETAIL HOW THE SPIRITUAL AND PHYSICAL WORK TOGETHER IN THE FUTURE OR PAST.

|That should be obvious to the intelligent honest thinker.

And you admit it again. You claim that the relationship between those ratios is not real. It is real. Those are the ratios that we find.

THE RELATIONSHIP IS REAL. |tHE REASONS FOR THAT REALITY HAVE ZERO TO DO WITH YOUR SAME STATE PAST GODLESS RELIGION, HOWEVER.

So which parts were different?

Good question. I often say that the future is the key to the past. (science has erred in assuming that the present is the key to the past) So, looking at the future in the bible..(and there is no other way to be able to look at it) we see that fundamental differences in nature will exist. Light, plants, biological life, the spiritual aspects of the universe existing on earth at that time, gravity, thermodynamics...etc etc etc)

Ask yourself the question, 'can science that is based on the physical only present nature have the ability to tell us the details of why and how it will be different??'!!

Yes, I do know. I have the evidence for it.

You have doodle art and fanatical beliefs.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

God shows us nothing with light that contradicts Jesus as creator.

Once in a while you finally manage to say something that is accurate.