Radioactive dating

[Loudmouth]

All right. Educate me on the math.

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

 

[dad]

How does one know that the laws were the same in the recent past? Why would the principles we use to determine that the laws were the same last week not apply to longer time frames? Both are the past after all.

If you don't know then do not claim it was any state

 

[Loudmouth]

If you don't know then do not claim it was any state

We do know what the decay rates were in the past because we have the evidence for a same state past in the here and now. That evidence is the predicted ratios of isotopes that a same state past would produce.

 

[dad]

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more.

Maybe this was the flood layer? Once we lose your dream dating, hey, why not!?

Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made ....

Making the same mistake many times does not make it right, in fact it makes it crazy.

 

[dad]

We do know what the decay rates were in the past because we have the evidence for a same state past in the here and now. That evidence is the predicted ratios of isotopes that a same state past would produce.

The predicted ratios have zero meaning since you cannot check how the isotopes GOT there. You want us to buy your belief system whole of cloth, that the stuff all got here because of and only because of present state decay. I call this deception.

 

[[serious]]

If you don't know then do not claim it was any state

That's my point. You say one past period has the same laws, but another does not but have no way to explain why one is obviously the same and the other is not.

Our approach applies the same principles to the near past and distant past to determine if they are consistant. If the laws of the past are consistant, they would leave predictable evidence behind. Whether a week ago or an eon ago, we see what we would expect to see for a consistant set of natural laws.

 

[dad]

That's my point. You say one past period has the same laws, but another does not but have no way to explain why one is obviously the same and the other is not.

Sorry, but if science was not claiming one state in the past and basing ALL things on that and that alone and nothing else..ever..then you could talk. I have merely rose to point out that those who darkly forecast things against the creation of God as told by God in Scripture have no clue, no authority, no fact, and no credibility at all.

Our approach applies the same principles to the near past and distant past to determine if they are consistant.

In other words you assume one state and measure consistency with that alone. Circular.

If the laws of the past are consistant, they would leave predictable evidence behind.

False. The evidence left behind was hijacked by the same state past, godless so called science belief system. Their whole trip is to smear the evidence with that indoctrinated opinionated unsubstantiated, outdated, overrated belief system that is a large part of what is called science today.

Whether a week ago or an eon ago, we see what we would expect to see for a consistant set of natural laws.

Who made that rule??! Why would I expect things to go on the same when God brings heaven here? Why would I expect the garden of Eden was the same? You need a reason to 'expect'!

 

[[serious]]

Why would I expect things to go on the same when God brings heaven here? Why would I expect the garden of Eden was the same? You need a reason to 'expect'!

That's exactly our point.

We have data consistent with the natural laws being constant. We have no reason to expect all of that stuff to just coincidentally match up with exactly what consistant natural laws would produce if those natural laws were not the same in the past.

 

[dad]

That's exactly our point.

We have data consistent with the natural laws being constant.

No you do not. You have circular religion.

We have no reason to expect all of that stuff to just coincidentally match up with exactly what consistant natural laws would produce if those natural laws were not the same in the past.

It involves no coincidence at all that Jesus changes things in the future and did change things in the past. The key is to let Him change us in the present also, so we can start to tune in.

 

[[serious]]

No you do not. You have circular religion.

Varves would be an example.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe this was the flood layer? Once we lose your dream dating, hey, why not!?

Why would a flood produce tektites with specific ratios of isotopes consistent with a same state past? Why would a flood fail to bury a single modern mammal under this layer?

Making the same mistake many times does not make it right, in fact it makes it crazy.

How is it a mistake? How are the results inconsistent with a same state past?

 

[Loudmouth]

No you do not. You have circular religion.

How is it circular?

It involves no coincidence at all that Jesus changes things in the future and did change things in the past. The key is to let Him change us in the present also, so we can start to tune in.

Why would Jesus change rocks so that the ratios of Pb/U and Ar/K fall on the line in this graph?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry, but if science was not claiming one state in the past and basing ALL things on that and that alone and nothing else..ever..then you could talk.

The measurement of isotopes in rocks is not based on one state. You and I would get the same measurement of isotopes in rocks.

I have merely rose to point out that those who darkly forecast things against the creation of God as told by God in Scripture have no clue, no authority, no fact, and no credibility at all.

You think you are God?

False. The evidence left behind was hijacked by the same state past, godless so called science belief system.

Then show us how the evidence is inconsistent with a same state past. Show us what the ratios in rocks should really look like if they were created by a same state past.

Their whole trip is to smear the evidence with that indoctrinated opinionated unsubstantiated, outdated, overrated belief system that is a large part of what is called science today.

And yet you can't show how any of it is wrong. What does that tell you?

 

[Zosimus]

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

Why is this supposedly relevant?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why is this supposedly relevant?

Independent trials producing the same result within statistical error. How is that not relevant?

 

[Zosimus]

Independent trials producing the same result within statistical error. How is that not relevant?

Maybe it's because I'm used to seeing arguments that go something like:

Premise, premise, premise, therefore, conclusion.

I'm not that good at arguments that go:

Premise.

However, I'll take a stab at it. You think that since there is consilience between certain results that something has been proved. I will compare your situation to that of a hyper-intelligent one-year-old. Imagine that the one-year-old boy comes to you and says:

"We have a problem."
"What's that?"
"Daylight will soon end and we will be plunged into eternal darkness."
"How do you figure?"
"I've noticed that the days have been getting consistently shorter at a specific, predictable rate. Soon there will be no daylight at all."
"No, no," you explain. "At a certain point we will hit the winter solstice, and then things will turn around again."

Then he calls you a data denier and stalks off.

How do you know that what you think is a stable, fixed occurrence isn't merely a temporarily stable period in the middle of a cycle that is reversing? You don't. You're making assumptions. Then when I say, "Well, you might be right, but I'm not convinced yet," you go purple in the face and start insulting me.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe it's because I'm used to seeing arguments that go something like:

Premise, premise, premise, therefore, conclusion.

Apparently, you haven't heard of the scientific method.

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

 

[dad]

Why would a flood produce tektites with specific ratios of isotopes consistent with a same state past? Why would a flood fail to bury a single modern mammal under this layer?

There were plenty of mammals under that layer, and man too! Since there was no present state, we should not expect fossilization of either! As for tektites if some of them were caused by violently erupting fountains of the deep, then of course they are expected!! Naturally, they would have some isotopic signature at the time, the issue is what caused it. Your fables need not be invoked to explain that.

How is it a mistake? How are the results inconsistent with a same state past?

The issue is not whether present state processes could be extrapolated into great great imaginary time, and yield results! The issue is what we know about the state of the past.

 

[dad]

How is it circular?



Why would Jesus change rocks so that the ratios of Pb/U and Ar/K fall on the line in this graph?

Jesus didn't doodle up your graph, that would be you. The changing ratios are expected, after all why would things be stagnant in the former state?? That makes no sense. Processes were at work then to, doing whatever stuff does with the different laws.

 

[dad]

The measurement of isotopes in rocks is not based on one state.

I know that. Yet you doodle little weird graphs trying to insinuate just that. Bizarre.

You and I would get the same measurement of isotopes in rocks.

But we would not agree that the measurement means that the present state dunnit all.

Then show us how the evidence is inconsistent with a same state past.

You weaved and spun it together with the present state, based on the decay here and etc. It HAS to be consistent...internal and circular and foolish...but consistent!

Show us what the ratios in rocks should really look like if they were created by a same state past.

Why would I waste time and brain power trying to rearrange reality to fit your strange godless same state past??