Radioactive dating

[Loudmouth]

First of all did you invent those numbers or can we see them in an actual sample?

If there was a different state past, would the ratios be consistent or inconsistent with what we would expect from a same state past?

 

[dad]

If there was a different state past, would the ratios be consistent or inconsistent with what we would expect from a same state past?

What you expect is based on certain things. Those things you should post. Not vague expectations based on those things. That is called honest debate. Wouldn't it be nice to make your posts interesting for all the nice readers of the forum?

 

[Loudmouth]

What you expect is based on certain things.

Answer the question.

Should a different state past produce evidence that is indistinguishable from a same state past?

 

[dad]

Answer the question.

Should a different state past produce evidence that is indistinguishable from a same state past?

That depends on who is doing the distinguishing! If some godless group of folks get together who have cast God out of their little knowledge dead pool, then naturally they will see all things a certain foolish godless way.

Looking at the forces that govern atoms and result in radioactive decay at this present time, it is elementary to see that if those forces were different, atoms would behave differently.

 

[Loudmouth]

That depends on who is doing the distinguishing!

I am asking you to do the distinguishing, but you refuse to do it. Why is that? Afraid you will have to admit that the evidence is consistent with a same state past?

If some godless group of folks get together who have cast God out of their little knowledge dead pool, then naturally they will see all things a certain foolish godless way.

Since you claim you are including God, please tell us if a different state would produce different ratios of isotopes in rocks than a same state past.

Looking at the forces that govern atoms and result in radioactive decay at this present time, it is elementary to see that if those forces were different, atoms would behave differently.

So we wouldn't see the same ratios of isotopes as we would see with the same state decay rates, right?

 

[dad]

I am asking you to do the distinguishing,...

Hey why be pretentious? Science loves to pretend it knows it all...not me.

If the forces that affected atoms resulted in isotope patterns existing in the former arrangement and state or nature..why would that bother me?

Since you claim you are including God, please tell us if a different state would produce different ratios of isotopes in rocks than a same state past.

?? The ratios would exist, but not have originated by present state decay. Whatever forces worked on atoms and whatever processes then existed would have left ratios as time went on. There is no way to know how much daughter isotope was there when this state started.

Now if (let's use an oversimplification here) there was one gram of daughter material X in a rock in the former state, and then God changed the forces and laws, that X would still be here! Under the current forces and laws of physics that X would increase due to the decay we now see.

So we wouldn't see the same ratios of isotopes as we would see with the same state decay rates, right?

That X would still be there and so we would have the ratios...just different reasons for their existing, depending of the state.

 

[Loudmouth]

If the forces that affected atoms resulted in isotope patterns existing in the former arrangement and state or nature..why would that bother me?

It has bothered you throughout this thread. Every time I create a graph with ratios and patterns on it, you throw a little hissy fit.

?? The ratios would exist, but not have originated by present state decay. Whatever forces worked on atoms and whatever processes then existed would have left ratios as time went on.

Those ratios would be different from what a same state would produce, correct?

There is no way to know how much daughter isotope was there when this state started.

Then you wouldn't expect those ratios to have any consistency, or match up with same state decay, correct?

Now if (let's use an oversimplification here) there was one gram of daughter material X in a rock in the former state, and then God changed the forces and laws, that X would still be here! Under the current forces and laws of physics that X would increase due to the decay we now see.

We don't determine the rate of decay by the amount of isotopes found in rocks.

Also, what determined the amount of X that a rock started with in the past state?

That X would still be there and so we would have the ratios...just different reasons for their existing, depending of the state.

What ratios would they have, and why?

 

[dad]

It has bothered you throughout this thread. Every time I create a graph with ratios and patterns on it, you throw a little hissy fit.

If it deals in reality, then let's look at it. Actual sample.

Those ratios would be different from what a same state would produce, correct?

No one cares what a fantasy state 'would produce'. There is no way to check.

Then you wouldn't expect those ratios to have any consistency, or match up with same state decay, correct?

Decay affects little in a ratio! Most of what is there has zero to do with decay in the last 4400 years. If you want to talk shorter half lives..fine..but that is not the creation/origins/evolution issues.

We don't determine the rate of decay by the amount of isotopes found in rocks.

The rate of decay matters not at all unless this present state exists.

Also, what determined the amount of X that a rock started with in the past state?

A combination of creation, and the forces and laws that were in place in the former nature.

What ratios would they have, and why?

Look, if the X daughter material in a rock existed already when this present state started, then that means maybe 99.8% of the daughter material X existed BEFORE this state. It is foolish to use only this state to try to explain it all.

 

[Loudmouth]

If it deals in reality, then let's look at it. Actual sample.

Already did, and you threw a hissy fit.

No one cares what a fantasy state 'would produce'.

If it is a fantasy state, then we should see what we would expect from that fantasy, correct?

There is no way to check.

Sure you can. You can see if the evidence is consistent with the proposal.

Decay affects little in a ratio!

Then we shouldn't see ratios consistent with long time periods of decay, correct?

The rate of decay matters not at all unless this present state exists.

That's like saying that DNA evidence doesn't matter unless the suspect is guilty. You have the evidence and conclusion completely backwards.

A combination of creation, and the forces and laws that were in place in the former nature.

Would these forces and laws produce ratios of isotopes consistent with a same state past?

Look, if the X daughter material in a rock existed already when this present state started, then that means maybe 99.8% of the daughter material X existed BEFORE this state.

With Ar/K and Pb/U, we have two different daughter isotopes. What would the relationship be between Ar and Pb, the two daughter isotopes? Would there be any consistent relationship between Ar and Pb in a different state past?

It is foolish to use only this state to try to explain it all.

How is the evidence inconsistent with a same state past?

 

[dad]

Already did, and you threw a hissy fit.

False. I pointed out likely origins of the tektites. The ratios are all fine.

If it is a fantasy state, then we should see what we would expect from that fantasy, correct?

Better not to deal in fantasy, but actual facts.

Sure you can. You can see if the evidence is consistent with the proposal.

How much X existed (99.9% or whatever) 4400 years ago or so when this nature likely started is not something we can determine with science. They look only at the teeny bits on this end.

Then we shouldn't see ratios consistent with long time periods of decay, correct?

No way to check. If the X was here for the most part, it is foolish to try to see how long current decay would take to make it.

That's like saying that DNA evidence doesn't matter unless the suspect is guilty. ...

Suspects actually exist. You have no DNA from Noah's day.

Would these forces and laws produce ratios of isotopes consistent with a same state past?

The stuff was almost all here, so using present state decay is not a way to determine how it got here, rather it is a way to show you want to believe it got here via the present state only.

With Ar/K and Pb/U, we have two different daughter isotopes. What would the relationship be between Ar and Pb, the two daughter isotopes? Would there be any consistent relationship between Ar and Pb in a different state past?

So we have the X I mentioned, and we also have other isotopes. If we want to look at a Y also, the same thing applies...they were here.

 

[Loudmouth]

False. I pointed out likely origins of the tektites. The ratios are all fine.

I put the ratios on a graph and you threw a hissy fit.

Better not to deal in fantasy, but actual facts.

Then why won't you?

How much X existed (99.9% or whatever) 4400 years ago or so when this nature likely started is not something we can determine with science.

Where did it go? Did it just disappear?

No way to check.

Sure there is. We can draw a graph that ratios should fall on if there was a same state past, like this one. We then see if measured ratios fall on the line in that graph.

If the X was here for the most part, it is foolish to try to see how long current decay would take to make it.

If X got here by processes other than the present state, then it shouldn't produce the same ratios as the present state.

Suspects actually exist. You have no DNA from Noah's day.

Rocks actually exist, and you haven't demonstrated that Noah even exists, nor that the past was any different than today.

You might as well argue that DNA can't be used in a trial because no one was there to see the criminal deposit the DNA. That is exactly what you are arguing with respect to radiometric dating.

The stuff was almost all here, so using present state decay is not a way to determine how it got here,

Then I shouldn't be able to apply the present state laws and accurately predict what the ratio of isotopes would be, right?

rather it is a way to show you want to believe it got here via the present state only.

Just like DNA forensic tests is only a way to show how you believe the blood got there, right?

So we have the X I mentioned, and we also have other isotopes. If we want to look at a Y also, the same thing applies...they were here.

What thing applies? I am asking you for the mathematical relationship we should see between X and Y, or if there should be one at all. If we see a certain amount of Ar in a geologic layer, what amount of Pb should we see? Or should there be no relationship between the two daughter isotopes?

 

[dad]

Where did it go? Did it just disappear?

No, the daughter mater is here as we speak.

Sure there is. We can draw a graph that ratios should fall on if there was a same state past, like this one. We then see if measured ratios fall on the line in that graph.

Any child can draw lines. The trick is explaining what they mean.

If X got here by processes other than the present state, then it shouldn't produce the same ratios as the present state.

Produce the same ratios? Nothing is produced by decay now that amounts to a hill of beans in the origins debate! MOST of the daughter materials are only claimed to be produced by decay by you. Prove it. You can't. Thus, you lose.

Rocks actually exist, and you haven't demonstrated that Noah even exists, nor that the past was any different than today.

Known historical characters need no proof that 'they exist' since they are only known by the records. You overrate your silly doubts.

You might as well argue that DNA can't be used in a trial because no one was there to see the criminal deposit the DNA. That is exactly what you are arguing with respect to radiometric dating.

You have no bones, no DNA no nothing for any man pre flood now do you? Therefore you have no suspects. You are the suspect.

Then I shouldn't be able to apply the present state laws and accurately predict what the ratio of isotopes would be, right?

Anyone can play the silly little game of trying to claim all things came about because of their little beliefs.

Just like DNA forensic tests is only a way to show how you believe the blood got there, right?

Talk about dino blood...name any test of that that helps you.

What thing applies? I am asking you for the mathematical relationship we should see between X and Y, or if there should be one at all.

That math relationship is determined by the forces that exist and act upon atoms. We have a relationship now in this present time. We also had some relationship in the former state, obviously.

If we see a certain amount of Ar in a geologic layer, what amount of Pb should we see?

The issue is not whether we will see different ratios in the past but why.

Or should there be no relationship between the two daughter isotopes?

They were not daughter isotopes before this state started! Yet they must have been here. That is your mistake.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, the daughter mater is here as we speak.

So the past leaves evidence that we can measure in the present, correct?

Produce the same ratios? Nothing is produced by decay now that amounts to a hill of beans in the origins debate! MOST of the daughter materials are only claimed to be produced by decay by you. Prove it.

Already did. The ratios we observe are consistent with a same state past. As you have so clearly shown, you can't explain these ratios with a different state past.

Known historical characters need no proof that 'they exist' . . .

You are only assuming that they are known.

You have no bones, no DNA no nothing for any man pre flood now do you?

It is you that needs this evidence, not I.

Therefore you have no suspects. You are the suspect.

We have suspects galore. Have you never heard of DNA evidence being used in a trial? Seriously?

If I show you a trial with a suspect where DNA evidence was used, would you admit that you are wrong?

That math relationship is determined by the forces that exist and act upon atoms. We have a relationship now in this present time. We also had some relationship in the former state, obviously.

Those relationships would be different, would they not?

The issue is not whether we will see different ratios . . .

Yes, it is the issue.

They were not daughter isotopes before this state started! Yet they must have been here. That is your mistake.

So if they didn't get there from decay, then they should not match the ratios that decay would produce, correct?

 

[dad]

So the past leaves evidence that we can measure in the present, correct?

No. Not you. Not science. Not to any significant degree in the creation and origins fields.

Already did. The ratios we observe are consistent with a same state past. As you have so clearly shown, you can't explain these ratios with a different state past.

You observe nothing in the far past. You observe already here daughter materials, and try to run numbers on it comparing it to present state decay rates.

You are only assuming that they are known.

No I am not assuming Alexander the Great or Christ existed. You assume I assumed it.

It is you that needs this evidence, not I.

I guess that's fair.

We have suspects galore. Have you never heard of DNA evidence being used in a trial? Seriously?

Name on suspect from Noah's day. Heard of that?

If I show you a trial with a suspect where DNA evidence was used, would you admit that you are wrong?

I never even commented on any recent trails and do not care as they do not have any bearing on the far past. Talk about desperate to try and win even some minor point! Sorry, you get nothing.

Those relationships would be different, would they not?

Not in ratio proportions. The difference would be in why the stuff got there to begin with.

So if they didn't get there from decay, then they should not match the ratios that decay would produce, correct?

False. The match is not in the real world. In the real world if we see a sample that has a lot of daughter material, we do not know how it got there. Whether one can play a foolish game of deception, and try to run numbers on the sample claiming it 'must be so old' is of no intelligent value at all. There is no way to prove that. You may just be looking at daughter material that was all here except for some minute fraction that was caused by our nature and our decay.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. Not you. Not science. Not to any significant degree in the creation and origins fields.

You just said that the isotopes didn't disappear, that they are still in the rocks. Why can't science measure those isotopes?

You observe nothing in the far past. You observe already here daughter materials, and try to run numbers on it comparing it to present state decay rates.

Those isotopes did not come from a different state past?

No I am not assuming Alexander the Great or Christ existed. You assume I assumed it.

Where is the evidence that Noah existed?

Name on suspect from Noah's day. Heard of that?

Is Noah's day the only day that exists?

I never even commented on any recent trails and do not care as they do not have any bearing on the far past.

You haven't shown that they have no bearing on the past.

Not in ratio proportions. The difference would be in why the stuff got there to begin with.

If the why is different, the result would be different, would it not?

False. The match is not in the real world. In the real world if we see a sample that has a lot of daughter material, we do not know how it got there.

They do match in the real world, which is how we know how they go there. I already showed you that they match.

You have also been incapable of showing how a different state past would produce those ratios and only those ratios.

 

[dad]

You just said that the isotopes didn't disappear, that they are still in the rocks. Why can't science measure those isotopes?

They can, but not the time involved.

Those isotopes did not come from a different state past?

Ones assumes if they were here when this state started, that they existed before it.

Where is the evidence that Noah existed?

Where is evidence you exist?

Is Noah's day the only day that exists?

No that day existed a long time ago. It does not exist now.

You haven't shown that they have no bearing on the past.

Your inability to show that the bearing you believe they had is valid means that science cannot determine the bearings.

If the why is different, the result would be different, would it not?

No. The result is that we have some what is now daughter material, and that only a fraction of a percent of that is known to have come about in this state by decay!

They do match in the real world, which is how we know how they go there. I already showed you that they match.

False. Showing there is rocks with more daughter material in them is not matching anything.

You have also been incapable of showing how a different state past would produce those ratios and only those ratios.

If the daughter isotopes were here already, then what is to show? What you need to show is that the present state forces now acting on the stuff are what made it all. You cannot do that. Hooped you be.

 

[Loudmouth]

They can, but not the time involved.

Then they shouldn't match what time would produce.

Ones assumes if they were here when this state started, that they existed before it.

It isn't assumed. It is concluded from evidence. When the evidence matches what a same state past would produce then it isn't an assumption.

Forensic evidence is the same. You don't assume that a suspect left DNA at a crime scene. The DNA match demonstrates that the suspect did leave DNA at a crime scene.

Where is evidence you exist?

These posts, for one. When you are able to find posts by Noah here on this site, then you will have your evidence.

Your inability to show that the bearing you believe they had is valid means that science cannot determine the bearings.

So how are the ratios inconsistent with a same state past?

No. The result is that we have some what is now daughter material, and that only a fraction of a percent of that is known to have come about in this state by decay!

The ratios match a same state past which allows us to know that they were produced by a same state past.

False. Showing there is rocks with more daughter material in them is not matching anything.

The match isn't made by merely measuring the presence of daughter material. It seems that you still don't understand the evidence.

If the daughter isotopes were here already, then what is to show? What you need to show is that the present state forces now acting on the stuff are what made it all. You cannot do that. Hooped you be.

I did show that. The ratios match what we would expect from a same state past.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hey why be pretentious? Science loves to pretend it knows it all...not me. . . . .
.

Well, actually, real scientists are quite willing to agree they don't know it all.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's review, shall we?

If there was a same state past, then we would expect to see the same patterns of ratios from the past as we see in the present. Those patterns are predicted from the measured decay rates of the isotopes under question. For example, if the decay of isotope A into B is twice as fast as that of the decay of isotope C into D, then you would expect to find that the ratio of B/A is twice that of D/C on a logarithmic scale. This is like looking at the pattern of a suspect's DNA and then comparing it to DNA found at a crime scene. If the patterns match, then it is evidence for a same state past. For the decay of K into Ar and the decay of U into Pb, this is what the graph looks like.

If a rock has a Pb/U ratio of 0.6 along the x axis, then rocks in that same geologic layer should have an Ar/K ratio of approximately 0.3. That is the relationship we should see if there was a same state past, and it is EXACTLY what we observe in the rocks as discussed here:

http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

The U/Pb and K/Ar dates are the same meaning that they have the predicted ratios that we would see with a same state past.

Let's compare that to dad's different state past. As he has shown, all the same state past will do is put some random amount of daughter isotope into rocks. dad has been given every chance to show that there would be some sort of relationship between B/A and D/C as discussed above, but at every turn has made it painfully obvious that no such relationship should exist in a different state past. Therefore, a sample from a different state past could as well have these measured amounts of the 4 isotopes listed above.

Ar/K------Pb/U
0.4--------1.6
0.1-------0.8
0.7-------0.2

When we graph those data points on the graph, this is what they look like.

As anyone can see, dad's different state past would not produce the same data points as a same state past, and they don't match what we actually see in rocks.

Therefore, a same state past is supported and a different state past is falsified.

 

[dad]

Well, actually, real scientists are quite willing to agree they don't know it all.

I am quite willing to agree also. God too.