Radioactive dating

[essentialsaltes]

It is seen here and only here and never anywhere else. You cannot get out of checkmate.

Yeah, well when you think you're reading the bible, that light is in your eyes and interacting with your brain. It doesn't come from the bible at all! It's all in your head!

 

[Zosimus]

Yeah, well when you think you're reading the bible, that light is in your eyes and interacting with your brain. It doesn't come from the bible at all! It's all in your head!

All he has said is that he does not believe in the uniformity of nature. If the uniformity of nature is unquestionable, you surely should be able to prove that it is so. The fact that you cannot suggests that there is room for doubt. Perhaps you do not share his doubt. I understand and appreciate that. However, there is no reason to presume that the laws that seem to work for us now have worked in the same way forever.

In short, there is no reason to believe that unobserved instances will be the same or similar to observed instances.

 

[[serious]]

Stop preaching. Many of us have our own beliefs, such as Scripture. You would need to prove time exists where far stars are exactly as it does on and near earth for starters. Then you would need to solidly evidence that this exact time was merged in with space (timespace) exactly the same way! If you could do that, we could roll up the sleeves, and start to contest earnestly. You ain't even at the starting gate. I kid you not.

The way we determine decay is wrapped around seeing light here on and near earth. That also involves time.

Explain with an example (why do I get the feeling it might be sn1987a?) how we determine that decay exists.

Remember, if you want to claim distance based on parallax, then we must have time and space equal in all parts of the triangle we use for the measure. In other words we cannot take a little slice of space, and time from earth and area and use it as a baseline!!
You see that would be a measure NOT of distance, but a statement of faith that space and time exist the same all the way to the star. You must admit you do not know. When you do admit that, all s lost for you. Checkmate.
Hilarious. Hopefully lurkers see that you are definitely peddling belief.

Wax and wane? Explain exactly what this is supposed to mean?

Everything we see every day is based on the assumption that time and space between the object and observer are constant. If we cannot assume that, then how can we determine what the computer screen says? You are trying to have it both ways. Some distances and times you treat as constant, others not.

 

[dad]

It is assumed for the very reason that nothing has been observed.

Nothing was observed? That doesn't help you.

 

[dad]

Everything we see every day is based on the assumption that time and space between the object and observer are constant.

That means nothing at all unless we know. We see water in the ocean we do not really assume that time was always anything at all does it? You are getting too high falutin for your own good here.

If we cannot assume that, then how can we determine what the computer screen says?

The creation debate, and what early man and life was like simply has nothing to do with computer screens. I have to tell you this??

You are trying to have it both ways. Some distances and times you treat as constant, others not.

As it should be! Some things we eat, other things we do not. Some things we treat as temporary, such as a storm, other things we think of as more enduring, such as a mountain. I assume things were the same more or less for a good long while on earth, but don't get silly about it.

 

[dad]

Yeah, well when you think you're reading the bible, that light is in your eyes and interacting with your brain. It doesn't come from the bible at all! It's all in your head!

What is in Scripture is actually out there for all to see. God arranged it that way, guess He knew folks like you would crop up one day.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Too bad for you nothing nothing nothing has ever been observed to suggest any state in the past, it is as you admitted, assumed!!! You lose.

Again, simple denial regardless of the evidence. Such ideas will continue to be ignored.

 

[[serious]]

That means nothing at all unless we know. We see water in the ocean we do not really assume that time was always anything at all does it? You are getting too high falutin for your own good here.
The creation debate, and what early man and life was like simply has nothing to do with computer screens. I have to tell you this??

As it should be! Some things we eat, other things we do not. Some things we treat as temporary, such as a storm, other things we think of as more enduring, such as a mountain. I assume things were the same more or less for a good long while on earth, but don't get silly about it.

Light coming from stats and light coming from computer screens, both take time to cross the distance to your eye. You are saying time and distance are constant for one, but not the other.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What is in Scripture is actually out there for all to see. God arranged it that way, guess He knew folks like you would crop up one day.

What is out there in the galaxies is there for anyone to see who can afford to buy a telescope. God arranged it that way, and He made it plain and simple so that when as He knew folks like you would crop up one day, the rest of us can see through your nonsense.

 

[Loudmouth]

Talk is cheap. You believe real hard.

I have the evidence. No belief necessary.

Not unless you prove there was radioactive decay at that time in that former nature. No graph assuming there was has the smallest value.

I already did prove that there was decay. The ratios fall on the line in the graph, which is where the isotopes should fall if there was the same radioactive decay in the past.

Don't make stuff up. It is one thing to offer fantasy doodle graphs based on beliefs with no merit,

The line on the graph is based on the observed decay rate for those isotopes, not beliefs. The data points come from the observed ratios of isotopes in the rocks. All observed. No beliefs.

but another to claim I said what you claim. Creation and the former state would be responsible for ratios (as well as this state for a minute part of them). Be honest.

You have never shown that a different past state would produce those specific ratios. In fact, you went so far as to argue that those specific ratios don't exist. You have made this claim every time you call the line in that graph "imaginary".

As desperate and shrill as you might be to prop up your exposed and flat as a flounder belief system, you get your usual here...GONG!

All I have presented are observations. GONG!

 

[Loudmouth]

It is seen here

And it comes from there.

You observe here

We observe light from there.

 

[dad]

Light coming from stats and light coming from computer screens, both take time to cross the distance to your eye. You are saying time and distance are constant for one, but not the other.

Exactly. My eyes are...where..? Here. Time exists here in the way God ordained, and the way it must for us here. The issue is whether you know it also exists at all, or as we know it here...far far far far far beyond where you have been or will go.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly. My eyes are...where..? Here. Time exists here in the way God ordained, and the way it must for us here. The issue is whether you know it also exists at all, or as we know it here...far far far far far beyond where you have been or will go.

Time existed there, otherwise there would be no light production there.

 

[dad]

What is out there in the galaxies is there for anyone to see who can afford to buy a telescope. God arranged it that way, and He made it plain and simple so that when as He knew folks like you would crop up one day, the rest of us can see through your nonsense.

Yes, galaxies are out there. Whether they are closer to the size of airports or billions of our suns, is another issue.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, galaxies are out there. Whether they are closer to the size of airports or billions of our suns, is another issue.

How do you get billions of Suns into the area of an airport?

 

[dad]

I have the evidence. No belief necessary.

Call your religious doodle graphing anything you like.

I already did prove that there was decay. The ratios fall on the line in the graph, which is where the isotopes should fall if there was the same radioactive decay in the past.

No. You take the total amount of daughter isotope, and then graph out some wacky chart that deals in increasing or decreasing amounts of the daughter stuff, then you want to pretend it all got here by present state processes. That involves a LOT of religious beliefs, imaginary time, and godless fantasy. No wonder you try to pretend no time in involved in your fantasy charts.

The line on the graph is based on the observed decay rate for those isotopes, not beliefs.

There IS no observed decay rates beyond hundreds of years, maybe less, correct? You are peddling beliefs.

The data points come from the observed ratios of isotopes in the rocks. All observed. No beliefs.

In other words, for the lurkers, you base it all on the present state laws and how it now works. All. End of story. Not a class act, that.

You have never shown that a different past state would produce those specific ratios.

The former nature would have started with creation. Then the stuff presumably would have done what stuff must do under the forces and laws in place at the time. Later, maybe about 1800 years after creation and existing in the former nature, doing whatever the stuff did then, our present state comes into being. Then, we start having radioactive decay and etc. That takes over. Things must obey the forces and laws in place whatever they are.

In fact, you went so far as to argue that those specific ratios don't exist.

Correction...I ask you to prove there was ANY radioactive decay...since you claim it existed. I never claimed there was decay at some weird different rate!

You have made this claim every time you call the line in that graph "imaginary".

Unless and until you prove decay existed in the former nature, it is absolute fantasy. Of course. Wouldn't it be wonderful is knowledge was prominent in science and godless fantasy and religion were relegated to a minor role in it!?

 

[dad]

How do you get billions of Suns into the area of an airport?

The so called suns might be tiny for all we know. How do electrons get around an atom? The point is that you do not know size or distance and that destroys your whole godless model of the created universe. The kaboom factor is in play.

 

[dad]

Time existed there, otherwise there would be no light production there.

Light production? The only time we see light is here! What we see according to science...is in the past. Then it moves through space, they say, till it finally gets here. That means we can say little about the light before it got into our fishbowl.

 

[Loudmouth]

Call your religious doodle graphing anything you like.

There is nothing religious about it.

No. You take the total amount of daughter isotope, and then graph out some wacky chart that deals in increasing or decreasing amounts of the daughter stuff, then you want to pretend it all got here by present state processes. That involves a LOT of religious beliefs, imaginary time, and godless fantasy. No wonder you try to pretend no time in involved in your fantasy charts.

All it takes is the observed decay rate of the isotope. Nothing imaginary about it at all.

There IS no observed decay rates beyond hundreds of years, maybe less, correct?

There is the process that produced the ratios of isotopes in those rocks. If it matches the current rate of decay, then it is proof that the current rate of decay produced them.

The former nature would have started with creation. Then the stuff presumably would have done what stuff must do under the forces and laws in place at the time.

You have already stated that those different laws would not produce rocks with isotope ratios that fall on the line in the graph. The measured isotope ratios do fall on that line in the graph. Therefore, your different state past is falsified. A same state past is proven because a same state past would produce rocks with exactly the ratios of isotopes that fall on the line in that graph.

Correction...I ask you to prove there was ANY radioactive decay...since you claim it existed. I never claimed there was decay at some weird different rate!

You already stated that a different state past would not produce ratios that fall on the line in that graph.

Unless and until you prove decay existed in the former nature, it is absolute fantasy.

I have already proven it.

 

[Loudmouth]

The so called suns might be tiny for all we know.

Please produce evidence that they are tiny.

How do electrons get around an atom? The point is that you do not know size or distance and that destroys your whole godless model of the created universe. The kaboom factor is in play.

We know both the size and the distance. You just refuse to look at the facts.