Radioactive dating

[Loudmouth]

What would have been produced depends on what started out at creation as well as the nature and laws of the day.

So what was it? What were the ratios of Ar/K and Pb/U?

Science doesn't know anything about either.

You claim to know, so let's see it.

That is why they have merely tried to impose dates on rocks . . .

No dates on the graphs you refuse to look at. GONG!!!!!!

 

[dad]

I didn't assume that. GONG!!!!!

Prove that you do not think all daughter material got here because of decay then!? Who do you think you're foolin?

I didn't say that they are ages. GONG!!!!!

The pic YOU posted did! Gotcha.

I just showed how real world rocks fall on that line. GONG!!!!!

Not really. Only in the la la land fantasy non exitant time of imaginary ages does anything fall in your imaginary line!! Top that.

No such belief was made in measuring the ratios of those isotopes. GONG!!!!!

You admit you go just by what is now measured in this state then!

You are assuming a different state past. GONG!!!!!

God hints at it and science doesn't know. One can clue in or admit total ignorance of the matter...or do like science and make stuff up.

Once again, you avoid the analogy because you know it destroys your argument.

Do we have to prove that a suspect is guilty BEFORE we can use DNA evidence? Yes or no?

You have to HAVE a suspect! You don't! Not from the time that matters, which is the former state...or the days of Noah and before. You have no suspects Not one. You little parable is smashed to bits. Destroyed. Utterly annihilated.

Do you have to assume that a suspect is guilty in order to get a DNA match?

I might if we had one!

Then you are avoiding the evidence. GONG!!!!

Evidence is something real, not pi in the sky graphs that are insanely vague! You say no time is involved, then you admit it is, then you say it isn't...etc. Gong.

 

[dad]

So what was it? What were the ratios of Ar/K and Pb/U?

Show a sample from the same deposit of different layers! Then we can graph it.

You claim to know, so let's see it.

I claim God knows and God created. That means we had some stuff here before our laws were here. No one knows the exact forces and laws in heaven or in the future new world coming. Nor do we know them for the far past. Believers do not need to know that now. Science cannot get out of the box so it cannot know it now. The issue is that they claim they know. That is a crime against humanity.

No dates on the graphs you refuse to look at. GONG!!!!!!

Decay takes no time? Can you not make your doodle grapgh connect to reality at some point we can check and inspect? Pitiful.

 

[Loudmouth]

Prove that you do not think all daughter material got here because of decay then!? Who do you think you're foolin?

Show me where I assumed that the isotopes came from a same state past.

The pic YOU posted did! Gotcha.

I only used those ages to find the ratios that they measured. GONG!!!!!!

Not really. Only in the la la land fantasy non exitant time of imaginary ages does anything fall in your imaginary line!! Top that.

You are assuming a different state past. GONG!!!!

You admit you go just by what is now measured in this state then!

Do we have to assume a suspect is guilty in order to get a DNA match?

God hints at it and science doesn't know. One can clue in or admit total ignorance of the matter...or do like science and make stuff up.

You are assuming a different state past. GONG!!!!!

You have to HAVE a suspect!

Here's one:

In 1987, Florida’s Assistant State’s Attorney, Tim Berry began collaborating with forensic director Michael Baird to determine how DNA could be used in identification. After a serial rapist terrorized 23 women in Orlando, Tommie Lee Andrews was caught by two fingerprints left on a victim’s window, identification by a victim in a lineup, and with the same blood type left at each scene.

After two retrials, during which time Baird had been both meticulously processing the DNA evidence and Barry prepared compelling legal briefs, in the final trial Andrews complicity was proven by his DNA, genetic profiling was admitted for the first time, and DNA gained legal precedence.
http://forensicoutreach.com/5-real-life-cases-where-dna-profiling-changed-everything/
​

Did they have to assume that Andrews was guilty in order for the genetic profiling patterns to match?

Not from the time that matters, which is the former state...or the days of Noah and before.

You are assuming a different state past. GONG!!!!!

Evidence is something real, not pi in the sky graphs that are insanely vague!

I plotted real data on the graph. GONG!!!!!!

 

[Loudmouth]

Show a sample from the same deposit of different layers! Then we can graph it.

Answer the question.

What ratios of isotopes would a different state past produce?

I claim God knows and God created.

Assumptions. GONG!!!!!

Decay takes no time? Can you not make your doodle grapgh connect to reality at some point we can check and inspect? Pitiful.

Still ignoring the evidence. Pitiful.

 

[dad]

Show me where I assumed that the isotopes came from a same state past.

You assume that decay as we know it existed, and caused all the daughter material? Why try to muddy the waters?

I only used those ages to find the ratios that they measured. GONG!!!!!!

You used non existent ages to measure something?? We may be getting near your problem here. By the way just because you misuse the gong doesn't mean it can't be used properly against posts like ones you usually make.

You are assuming a different state past. GONG!!!!

Either science knows...or not. If not, then they better close their beaks on creation issues.

Do we have to assume a suspect is guilty in order to get a DNA match?

You need a real person with DNA you actually have.

In 1987,...​

Don't waste our time if you can't focus on the actual times involved in the origins issues.

​

I plotted real data on the graph. GONG!!!!!!

Yet you cannot show us where the silly thing intersects with some point in reality.

 

[dad]

Answer the question.

What ratios of isotopes would a different state past produce?

How about the ones we actually find? But remember that creation is what produced the earth, and the initial ratios.

 

[Loudmouth]

You assume that decay as we know it existed,

WHERE???????

You used non existent ages to measure something??

I used the ages they reported to back calculate the ratios they measured. Not that hard to figure out. I even showed you the equations I used. Didn't look at those, did you.

Either science knows...or not. If not, then they better close their beaks on creation issues.

Science knows. GONG!!!!!!

You need a real person with DNA you actually have.

Already gave you an example. GONG!!!!!

Don't waste our time if you can't focus on the actual times involved in the origins issues.

You are assuming a different state past. GONG!!!!!!

​

Yet you cannot show us where the silly thing intersects with some point in reality.

Here it is again. GONG!!!!!!!

Let's look at the Hell Creek data towards the middle. We get a K/Ar date of 64.6 million years and a U/Pb date of 63.9 million years. Using the equation above, the K/Ar ratio was 0.0364 and the U/Pb ratio is 0.0657. If we zoom in on the graph and plot those points, we get:

The data point is within instrument error of being right on the line.

As we have already shown, a different state past would not produce data points that fall on that line.

 

[Loudmouth]

How about the ones we actually find? But remember that creation is what produced the earth, and the initial ratios.

You are assuming a different state past. GONG!!!!!!

Try again. What ratios of isotopes would a different state past produce?

 

[dad]

WHERE???????

If you assume no decay what is your chart based on...the stock market? If you do assume decay existed and use present state rates to make a graph, then you do assume decay.

I used the ages they reported to back calculate the ratios they measured. .

They were not ages. Prove that a tektite found in the KT layer area is 70 million years old!!? You can't assume decay existed and use ratios so what can you use? You offer circular idiocy.

Science knows. GONG!!!!!!

Science believes.

Let's look at the Hell Creek data towards the middle. We get a K/Ar date of 64.6 million years and a U/Pb date of 63.9 million years.

That is an imaginary 700,000 years difference even in your own source!

So, how do you independently verify those ages without same state past decay based methods? Ha. You are busted.

Using the equation above, the K/Ar ratio was 0.0364 and the U/Pb ratio is 0.0657. If we zoom in on the graph and plot those points, we get:

The data point is within instrument error of being right on the line.

So it isn't even on your imaginary line! Hilarious. Now, does your graph include time? If so, you are defeated because the time is derived from assuming decay in the far past. If not, you are defeated because you cannot make your grapgh hit reality at any point!! In all ways you lose. Gong!

 

[Loudmouth]

If you assume no decay what is your chart based on...the stock market?

The line on the chart is the ratios of isotopes that a same state past will produce. There is nothing forcing the actual isotope ratios found in rocks to land on that line. If there was a different state past, then the ratios of isotopes in rocks will not land on that line since they were not produced in a same state past.

If you do assume decay existed and use present state rates to make a graph, then you do assume decay.

Do you have to assume a suspect is guilty in order to determine what a DNA match would be? GONG!!!!

They were not ages. Prove that a tektite found in the KT layer area is 70 million years old!!? You can't assume decay existed and use ratios so what can you use? You offer circular idiocy.

I never assumed any of those things. You will notice that I plotted the ratios, not the ages. GONG!!!!

Science believes.

I just showed you that science knows. GONG!!!!

That is an imaginary 700,000 years difference even in your own source!

You assume that it is imaginary. GONG!!!!!

So, how do you independently verify those ages without same state past decay based methods? Ha. You are busted.

The fact that the data points fall on the line in the graph IS THE VERIFICATION!!! GONG!!!!!

So it isn't even on your imaginary line! Hilarious.

Yes it is. GONG!!!!

Now, does your graph include time?

No. GONG!!!!

If so, you are defeated because the time is derived from assuming decay in the far past.

No such assumption is made. GONG!!!

 

[dad]

The line on the chart is the ratios of isotopes that a same state past will produce. There is nothing forcing the actual isotope ratios found in rocks to land on that line.

What landed on your line, the only red dot there was imaginary, and even that did not hit your imaginary line! Show us in a sample from the Kt layer where anything hits your line or comes close!? Then show us how you date it without circular logic of trying to use same stae past decay! Hooped ye be, and hooped you'll stay.

 

[dad]

The line on the chart is the ratios of isotopes that a same state past will produce. There is nothing forcing the actual isotope ratios found in rocks to land on that line.

What landed on your line, the only red dot there was imaginary, and even that did not hit your imaginary line! Show us in a sample from the Kt layer where anything hits your line or comes close!? Then show us how you date it without circular logic of trying to use same stae past decay! Hooped ye be, and hooped you'll stay.

 

[Loudmouth]

What landed on your line, the only red dot there was imaginary,

It wasn't imaginary. It is the ratio of isotopes found in very real rocks.

and even that did not hit your imaginary line!

Yes, it did hit the line within instrument error.

Show us in a sample from the Kt layer where anything hits your line or comes close!?

THAT'S JUST WHAT I DID!!!!!

Then show us how you date it without circular logic of trying to use same stae past decay! Hooped ye be, and hooped you'll stay.

It isn't circular because I have confirmed a same state past independent of the dating method.

 

[dad]

It wasn't imaginary. It is the ratio of isotopes found in very real rocks.

Great. So now we're talking. So there are 2 ratios in actual samples. You made a graph that translares those bits of stuff into imaginary time. Anything else?

Yes, it did hit the line within instrument error.

Which is many years supposedly in time.

It isn't circular because I have confirmed a same state past independent of the dating method.

?? Using 2 ratios and pretending the amounts of daughter material in them mean a lot of time, because present state decay had to have dunnit??! Hilarious.

Why did't you spare us all a lot of time and just out and admit you have nothing at all? So now we see, you offer 2 ratios and then want to try to claim a same state past existed to create these. Absolute foolishness. Stop peddling religion here, and trying to pass it off as science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Great. So now we're talking. So there are 2 ratios in actual samples. You made a graph that translares those bits of stuff into imaginary time.

No I didn't. Look at the labels on the axes.

Nowhere is time found on the axes or in the data that is plotted. The ONLY thing I plotted was ratios of isotopes. No ages. No time.

Which is many years supposedly in time.

Just ratios. No time.

?? Using 2 ratios and pretending the amounts of daughter material in them mean a lot of time, because present state decay had to have dunnit??! Hilarious.

Falling on the line means that the measured and current decay rates produced those ratios since those are the ratios that current decay rates produce. It is that simple.

Why did't you spare us all a lot of time and just out and admit you have nothing at all?

Why don't you spare us all a lot of time and admit that you can't address the evidence, which you still haven't addressed.

 

[dad]

No I didn't. Look at the labels on the axes.

Nowhere is time found on the axes or in the data that is plotted. The ONLY thing I plotted was ratios of isotopes. No ages. No time.

So how would you come up with 70 million years or connect this to a real deposit? If it is a real sample as you sometimes seem to claim, then why claim no time is involved? If time is involved, show how you get it. Otherwise you are blowing smoke up our various collective orifices.

Just ratios. No time.

So created stuff then. And..? Yes the former nature also worked on it and even this nature...so?? You have no clue what is what, but just a foolish religion that tries to force us to believe that the present state did it all. You are done.

Falling on the line means that the measured and current decay rates produced those ratios since those are the ratios that current decay rates produce. It is that simple.

?? No time involved you say, so where does your line go...limbo!!?

 

[Loudmouth]

So how would you come up with 70 million years or connect this to a real deposit?

What I connected this to is the observed decay rates. I measured the ratios of isotopes that the current decay rates would produce, and then looked to see if those ratios are present in real rocks.

If it is a real sample as you sometimes seem to claim, then why claim no time is involved?

Why claim that time is involved if time is not found on the graph?

So created stuff then.

Why would created stuff have ratios that fall on that line and not elsewhere on the graph?

You have no clue what is what, but just a foolish religion that tries to force us to believe that the present state did it all. You are done.

You still haven't addressed the evidence.

?? No time involved you say, so where does your line go...limbo!!?

Why don't you actually look at the graph, or are you unable to interpret even simple graphs?

 

[dad]

What I connected this to is the observed decay rates. I measured the ratios of isotopes that the current decay rates would produce, and then looked to see if those ratios are present in real rocks.

Meaningless unless we ow the time involved. If one uses decay rates, one can get almost any ratio. Need a certain amount of daughter material? Just follow the pattern backward, and sure enough at some point there is obviously more daughter material! What a pathetic point.

Why claim that time is involved if time is not found on the graph?

Here we go again, now you seek to play hide and seek with the truth. If you had a good case you could be simple and clear. Lurkers...behold the strange confusion.
Decay involves time in the real world.

Why would created stuff have ratios that fall on that line and not elsewhere on the graph?

God created without using your graph as a guide...get over it. If you cook up a graph long after the fact that includes created stuff don't blame us.

You still haven't addressed the evidence.

Your backpeddling, conflation of issues, denial that time is involved, and general confused blather is evidence.

Why don't you actually look at the graph, or are you unable to interpret even simple graphs?

Pathetic. You seem desperate to want to hold up your work to have men bow in respect to it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Meaningless unless we ow the time involved.

You have already said that we aren't allowed to involve time. Make up your mind.

If one uses decay rates, one can get almost any ratio.

It's as if you have not read a single thing I have written.

You can't get almost any ratio. You can ONLY get the ratios represented by the line on the graph. That's the whole point.

Need a certain amount of daughter material? Just follow the pattern backward, and sure enough at some point there is obviously more daughter material! What a pathetic point.

Follow what pattern?

Here we go again, now you seek to play hide and seek with the truth. If you had a good case you could be simple and clear. Lurkers...behold the strange confusion.
Decay involves time in the real world.

My point is very clear, and has been made several times now. You claim that there is time on the graph, yet you can't show it to me or to any lurkers. Why is that?

God created without using your graph as a guide...get over it.

Then you admit that if rocks were created in a different state past that the ratios should not fall on that line in the graph, correct?