Radioactive dating

[dad]

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



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.



Follow what pattern?



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?



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?

You may not, unless you independently verify it. In other words, no circular reasoning...'oh, we know it is old because we be.ieve the stae and decay were here' Now, on the issue of why the pattern exists of more daughter material as time increases, it occurs to me that time was involved in the nature change!!! The way time exists in the forces of nature and physics probably is different now! Just think, you helped arrive at that conclusion!

 

[Loudmouth]

You may not, unless you independently verify it. In other words, no circular reasoning...'oh, we know it is old because we be.ieve the stae and decay were here'

I never made that argument. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Now, on the issue of why the pattern exists of more daughter material as time increases,

That isn't the argument. For the thousandth time, it is the ratios, not the presence of daughter material.

If you can't address the argument I am making, you might as well go elsewhere.

it occurs to me that time was involved in the nature change!!! The way time exists in the forces of nature and physics probably is different now! Just think, you helped arrive at that conclusion!

I already falsified that conclusion. From the previous post . . .

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.

 

[dad]

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. e state past, and they don't match what we actually see in rocks.

What a load of nonsense. I said nothing of the sort. I said what we see is what we should see.
There are many things that go into present state decaying. There are certain forces at work. There is time involved and at work.

You do not even know what time is in any meaningful way!
You do not know ehat forces existed! Of the forces in the present you do know about, you have no clue why they exist or how they work! You have NO way to go back and verify what time the ratios we find existed! You have godless dreams of the past, and nothing else.

Creation resulted in some things existing. No decay or anything else involved. The former state used what was here and the forces at that time did what they did, including time which was in the mix.


There is no need at all for the present state to have created all ratios! Plotting more and more daughter isotopes to parent ratios means nothing unless we know how much time was involved in any given sample. You do not.

 

[Loudmouth]

What a load of nonsense. I said nothing of the sort. I said what we see is what we should see.

Why? Why would a different state past produce the ratios we see, and not others? Why wouldn't a different state past produce the data points in this graph?

If you can't explain why, then all you are doing is assuming a different state past.

You do not even know what time is in any meaningful way!

An accusation without any evidence to back it.

You do not know ehat forces existed!

Yes, I do. They are the same forces as now because the ratios produced in the past are the same ratios being produced now. A different state past would produce different ratios than the present state, not the same ratios.

Of the forces in the present you do know about, you have no clue why they exist or how they work! You have NO way to go back and verify what time the ratios we find existed!

A different state past would produce different ratios than a same state past. Since we find ratios consistent with a same state past, that falsifies a different state past.

Creation resulted in some things existing.

The data points in the above graph fit your description. All of those ratios have daughter material.

There is no need at all for the present state to have created all ratios!

Since you can't tell us how a different state past would produce those ratios and only those ratios, then we do need a present state past to produce them.

Plotting more and more daughter isotopes to parent ratios means nothing unless we know how much time was involved in any given sample. You do not.

Then show me how the ratios would be different if they really were created by millions of years of decay by a same state past. If you can't, then you have agreed that the evidence backs a same state past.

 

[dad]

Why? Why would a different state past produce the ratios we see, and not others? Why wouldn't a different state past produce the data points in this graph?

If you can't explain why, then all you are doing is assuming a different state past.



An accusation without any evidence to back it.



Yes, I do. They are the same forces as now because the ratios produced in the past are the same ratios being produced now. A different state past would produce different ratios than the present state, not the same ratios.



A different state past would produce different ratios than a same state past. Since we find ratios consistent with a same state past, that falsifies a different state past.



The data points in the above graph fit your description. All of those ratios have daughter material.



Since you can't tell us how a different state past would produce those ratios and only those ratios, then we do need a present state past to produce them.



Then show me how the ratios would be different if they really were created by millions of years of decay by a same state past. If you can't, then you have agreed that the evidence backs a same state past.

If in a different state past, say, for example, the daughter isotopes were parents, and parent isotpes daughters, how would we ecpect different ratios than what we see? Especially if most of both were here at creation anyhow!

 

[Loudmouth]

If in a different state past, say, for example, the daughter isotopes were parents, and parent isotpes daughters, how would we ecpect different ratios than what we see?

Why would we expect a different state past to produce specific ratios of Ar/K and Pb/U?

Your continued inability to answer this question is what indicates that a different state past would not produce the same ratios as a same state past. If a different state past produced a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 in a zircon, what ratio of Ar/K would a different state past produce in a tektite in that same geologic layer, and why? Can you answer this question or not?

 

[dad]

Why would we expect a different state past to produce specific ratios of Ar/K and Pb/U?

Your continued inability to answer this question is what indicates that a different state past would not produce the same ratios as a same state past. If a different state past produced a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 in a zircon, what ratio of Ar/K would a different state past produce in a tektite in that same geologic layer, and why? Can you answer this question or not?

We had the creation, so that may account for most. Then we had 2 states working on the stuff, each working with the same materials for the most part. What am I missing here...a pattern is a surprise to you?!

 

[Loudmouth]

We had the creation, so that may account for most. Then we had 2 states working on the stuff, each working with the same materials for the most part. What am I missing here...a pattern is a surprise to you?!

I am asking you for the pattern that a different state past would produce.

If a different state past produced a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 in a zircon, what ratio of Ar/K would a different state past produce in a tektite in that same geologic layer, and why?

 

[dad]

I am asking you for the pattern that a different state past would produce.

Exactly what we have! You omitted the creation and former state from your calculations. Before looking at why a former state under different laws would work on the same msterisls we now have in a different way, address the elephant in the room ..how could scirnce tell if the daughter material was here thousands of years ago when this state started?

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly what we have!

You are assuming a different state past. Try again.

You omitted the creation and former state from your calculations.

Then put those calculations back in and answer the question.

If a different state past produced a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 in a zircon, what ratio of Ar/K would a different state past produce in a tektite in that same geologic layer, and why?

Before looking at why a former state under different laws would work on the same msterisls we now have in a different way, address the elephant in the room ..how could scirnce tell if the daughter material was here thousands of years ago when this state started?

We can determine when the same state started by looking at the relationship between ratios of isotopes as I already explained.

 

[dad]

You are assuming a different state past. Try again.



Then put those calculations back in and answer the question.

If a different state past produced a Pb/U ratio of 0.1 in a zircon, what ratio of Ar/K would a different state past produce in a tektite in that same geologic layer, and why?



We can determine when the same state started by looking at the relationship between ratios of isotopes as I already explained.

We donot know the specs of the future or past nature. I see it something like this...There was X amount of daughter material at creation. Then, whatever forces resulted in the processes of that day worked on that X, perhaps the X was the parent back then, and produced the Y that is now the so called parent. We still would see the ratios! We still have dome stuff created.. and some stuff in ratios! The ratios would be what you would expect from present state decay but it was not decay that was responsoble for much of the stuff. The details we do not need to onow..suffice it to say that you need to prove a same state past if you claim one, and cannot use the ratios! Bing and a bam and a boom.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We donot know the specs of the future or past nature. I see it something like this...There was X amount of daughter material at creation. Then, whatever forces resulted in the processes of that day worked on that X, perhaps the X was the parent back then, and produced the Y that is now the so called parent. We still would see the ratios! We still have dome stuff created.. and some stuff in ratios! The ratios would be what you would expect from present state decay but it was not decay that was responsoble for much of the stuff. The details we do not need to onow..suffice it to say that you need to prove a same state past if you claim one, and cannot use the ratios! Bing and a bam and a boom.

dad, you have only shown that you don't know what you are talking about.

Let's take zircon as an example. Zircon is a crystal that forms from molten rock. Chemically it does not like lead at all. When it solidifies it excludes lead. That means it is kicked out, it never becomes part of the crystal. So for zircon we know the initial amount of daughter product. It is zero. When we date a zircon the lead in it could only have come from radioactive decay. That is unless you propose a lying God that put lead into zircons so it would exactly match evidence that tells us that the Earth is old. Most Christians do not believe in a lying God and therefore accept radiometric dates.

 

[dad]

dad, you have only shown that you don't know what you are talking about.

Let's take zircon as an example. Zircon is a crystal that forms from molten rock.

You don't know what you are talking about!

Prove it formed that way in the former state?

Chemically it does not like lead at all. When it solidifies it excludes lead. That means it is kicked out, it never becomes part of the crystal.

Nope, we don't know the processes in the former nature, your usual mistake.

So for zircon we know the initial amount of daughter product. It is zero. When we date a zircon the lead in it could only have come from radioactive decay.

No, that is religion. What is now the daughter product may not even have been a product in the former times. You build ALL things on your belief system. End of story. Gong!

That is unless you propose a lying God that put lead into zircons so it would exactly match evidence that tells us that the Earth is old. Most Christians do not believe in a lying God and therefore accept radiometric dates.

Cut the slander about God. Changing laws should have fooled no one who believed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't know what you are talking about!

Prove it formed that way in the former state?
Nope, we don't know the processes in the former nature, your usual mistake.

Until you prove that there was a former state there is no need for me to do so. Remember, the former state claim is your BS. You need to support it with evidence first.

No, that is religion. What is now the daughter product may not even have been a product in the former times. You build ALL things on your belief system. End of story. Gong!

Wrong, I have no religion. Gong! End of story. Gong! dad loses again, oops, that is so common place that you don't get a gong.

Cut the slander about God. Changing laws should have fooled no one who believed.

I am not the one slandering God, you are. It is a shame that you cannot see your own blasphemy.

 

[Loudmouth]

We donot know the specs of the future or past nature.

Yes, we do. The specs were the same in the past as they are now as evidenced by the ratios of Ar/K and Pb/U.

I see it something like this...There was X amount of daughter material at creation. Then, whatever forces resulted in the processes of that day worked on that X, perhaps the X was the parent back then, and produced the Y that is now the so called parent. We still would see the ratios! We still have dome stuff created.. and some stuff in ratios! The ratios would be what you would expect from present state decay but it was not decay that was responsoble for much of the stuff. The details we do not need to onow..suffice it to say that you need to prove a same state past if you claim one, and cannot use the ratios! Bing and a bam and a boom.

All of these data points have both parent and daughter isotope.

Can you tell me why a different state past would not produce those data points?

 

[dad]

Until you prove that there was a former state there is no need for me to do so.

You are further proof that God's recorded state of the past stands, and that no one has squat to say about it.

Wrong, I have no religion.

If your godless dreams of the future and past were more than beliefs only we would not have seen the sort of puff posts you spammed for years now. The jury

I am not the one slandering God, you are. It is a shame that you cannot see your own blasphemy.

Because some posters have been noted over a long period of time for being unwilling to rationally discuss Scripture you are blocked from being able to discuss God's word. While there may be places to vent contempt for Scripture and blashemy etc..this is not one of those places. Thank you. Happy repenting...

 

[dad]

Yes, we do. The specs were the same in the past as they are now as evidenced by the ratios of Ar/K and Pb/U.

The ratios involve the same material, and looking at those does not tell us what forces acted on them in the far past or what was created, deal with it.

All of these data points have both parent and daughter isotope.

What decays and is a product of decay is totally a product of the laws and forces in place. Nothing to do with any of your godless dreams.

Can you tell me why a different state past would not produce those data points?

You have no way of knowing what the data means! You avoid time because you know full well your circular religion will get busted to smithereens soon as you try to show how you get that time! If the KT layer was more like 4500 years ago in real time, then how you look at the ratios becomes comically wrong. You are comically wrong. The joke will likely echo through eternity commemorating the depths of foolishness end time man was willing to sink to.

 

[Loudmouth]

The ratios involve the same material, and looking at those does not tell us what forces acted on them in the far past or what was created, deal with it.

It does tell us what forces acted on them. Deal with it.

What decays and is a product of decay is totally a product of the laws and forces in place. Nothing to do with any of your godless dreams.

You are assuming a different state past.

You have no way of knowing what the data means!

I just showed you that I do have a way. Please address it.

You avoid time because you know full well your circular religion will get busted to smithereens soon as you try to show how you get that time!

So you complain that I don't use time, but soon as I do use time you will accuse me of making a circular argument. Do you see the problem here? You are complaining that I am not using a circular argument.

If the KT layer was more like 4500 years ago in real time, then how you look at the ratios becomes comically wrong.

If the K/T boundary was created 4500 years ago in a different state past, would the ratios marked by these red dots be consistent with what you would expect to see?

Yes or no?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are further proof that God's recorded state of the past stands, and that no one has squat to say about it.

Wrong again dad. You bad opinion of others is not evidence. And dad, how are you ever going to win an argument when you do not even know what evidence and proof is? I can help you with those lacks of yours.

If your godless dreams of the future and past were more than beliefs only we would not have seen the sort of puff posts you spammed for years now. The jury

Once again you are wrong. Beliefs, such as yours, are not demonstrable. People on the science side can show evidence that supports them you can't. And you are projecting again. Spamming is your specialty, not mine. You run away from the science when I offer to discuss it with you. The jury can see your fear and cowardice. I am not afraid to discuss the science.

Because some posters have been noted over a long period of time for being unwilling to rationally discuss Scripture you are blocked from being able to discuss God's word. While there may be places to vent contempt for Scripture and blashemy etc..this is not one of those places. Thank you. Happy repenting...

Yes dad we all know that you blaspheme your own God on a regular basis by you trying to tell him how he had to make the world. One of these days you really will apologize, instead of these fake apologies of yours. What if there is a God? Aren't you going to be in terrible trouble for making up stories about him?

 

[dad]

Wrong again dad. You bad opinion of others is not evidence. And dad, how are you ever going to win an argument when you do not even know what evidence and proof is? I can help you with those lacks of yours.



Once again you are wrong. Beliefs, such as yours, are not demonstrable. People on the science side can show evidence that supports them you can't.

Prove a same state past then. Your longstanding epic fail cries out to us all, and says.....flush....
.