Radioactive dating

Status
Not open for further replies.

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,129
Los Angeles Area
✟820,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Sorry, that old fable doesn't cut the mustard. The sites all are claimed to have been dunked miles under the ground and then resurfaced eons later. You can start by proving this, and we'll look at the other bits of the fable if you succeed. Too bad you won't be able to though.

To your satisfaction? Perhaps not. But you asked a question, and I gave you a great answer.

The present character of (anything in physics) has nothing to do with what physics or forces or laws were like before this nature!


How is it you know this?

The only way you could enter that as evidence is if you first proved nature was the same. Instead you offer it as some absurd attempt at circular reasoning where it is supposed to prove the nature of the past.

As I pointed out, we see the same effect. The same result in the ratio of daughter nuclei. This gives us confidence that the cause is also the same.

You assert that natural causes were different. What is your evidence?
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
To your satisfaction? Perhaps not. But you asked a question, and I gave you a great answer.
If you could answer the first question about the fable you cited that would be the great answer.
Here is a link showing that it is claimed that the sites were dunked miles under.

"


He explained that, after the fission process had finished, a geological shift caused the Oklo reactor to sink a few miles below the surface - where it was preserved from erosion. A few million years ago, another shift brought the uranium deposits back to the surface."


Natural Nuclear Reaction Powered Ancient Geyser

Ha. Hilarious fable.


How is it you know this?
Well, if something is not the same, we could not look at that something as the guide to what something else was like. Science doesn't know what state existed.

As I pointed out, we see the same effect. The same result in the ratio of daughter nuclei. This gives us confidence that the cause is also the same.
Your problem is that if the old nature ratios were achieved some other way, than the ratios did not get there by any same effect. All we can say is that in this present nature, daughters are now produced a certain way, and that the parent and daughter materials are in a certain relationship to each other now. That has nothing to do with what relationships and processes atomic reactions had to each other in a different nature. You are trying to look at how it works today and impose that unto the past to explain all things.
You assert that natural causes were different. What is your evidence?
I assert science doesn't know what nature was like. The evidence is that...they don't!
You should get over the idea that man should be God and know everything. I know God did something that resulted in all men no longer understanding what others were saying. I do not need to know exactly how and what. Science sure doesn't!
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
relativity
I've been through this with Justatruthseeker more than once. He seems unable to grasp the basic concept of relativity.

As it happens, the time dilation of an accelerating frame doesn't apply to objects being separated by the expansion of the universe because it's a scalar expansion of the metric itself, not an acceleration through the metric. But whether or not this is the case, it would not be relevant to Earth-local measures of time over billions of years, as you rightly point out.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I put this into these terms for simplicity: If (not saying it is so, but for the sake of perspective) a person (a consciousness, an atom, microbe, whatever) existed from the beginning, to modern day, say, for 15 billion years, it would "age" that 15 billion years. Yet, the beginning of those 15 billion, to use common terminology, was very fast years compared to the later, when compared to any one year within that expansion --for example when compared to the "size" or "rate" of 2018. No?

Now, to use your terms, though the metric itself, say of 2018, is within that expansion, the average rate of 2018 is expanded considerably compared to year 6. Yet, from within that expansion, that person (consciousness, atom, whatever) sees no difference.

I see the same principle in the sci-fi stories about entering a black hole. They keep saying that as the space ship of whatever size approaches the event horizon of the black hole, the stresses would destroy the ship. I honestly do not see why. This is not a ship weathering a storm, but a ship becoming the black hole. I should think that the nose and the people inside the nose of the ship stretch (or compress, if you wish) with no awareness of distortion of size and shape, compared to the rear of the ship.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
False. What HAS been checked or compared is only after your beliefs are imposed on things. You look at tree rings for example, and believe that even rings from 5000 layers deep represent rings grown in this nature. Then you compare that with ratios of isotopes that you claim came to start to exist and that were created in this nature. Then you compare the imaginary dates. Then you weld and fabricate and bend and hammer all things till they seem to almost fit. One example is that radioactive carbon dates were calibrated and corrected by tree rings years ago. Google it if you are not familiar with history. If I recall, they changed the carbon date something like 1000 years or some such as a result. Your belief system is not science or fact or knowledge.

You seem to have a very limited understanding of how radioactive dating works.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You seem to have a very limited understanding of how radioactive dating works.
I don't see you posting anything about radioactivity in the past...or even now. Nor do we see you showing us some point that no one really gets.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,129
Los Angeles Area
✟820,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Well, if something is not the same, we could not look at that something as the guide to what something else was like.


Oh, so you don't know it. It is just your hypothesis.

Your problem is that if the old nature ratios were achieved some other way, than the ratios did not get there by any same effect.

What other way? You don't know what the other way was. And you don't have any evidence that it was any other way.
 
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Can’t make heads or tails of this . Dad’s been claiming for a while about some space bubble that prevents distant objects from being under the same time constraints as near earth objects . And somehow this pseudoscience prevents radioactive decay from being constant . I’m still trying to wrap my head around this and it’s just giving me a headache
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,006
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Can’t make heads or tails of this . Dad’s been claiming for a while about some space bubble that prevents distant objects from being under the same time constraints as near earth objects . And somehow this pseudoscience prevents radioactive decay from being constant . I’m still trying to wrap my head around this and it’s just giving me a headache
I think he is just allowing for the possibility that things have not always been as they are now. We really don't know much, after all.

I don't see how we can assume that radioactive decay has always been the same rate, if we don't know the conditions present way back when. But then, I am admittedly ignorant on the subject.
 
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I think he is just allowing for the possibility that things have not always been as they are now. We really don't know much, after all.

I don't see how we can assume that radioactive decay has always been the same rate, if we don't know the conditions present way back when. But then, I am admittedly ignorant on the subject.
. I’m not completely ignorant of the subject ( I’m no expert by a long shot)but to my knowledge radioactive decay rates can’t be changed by earth normal environments. So dad’s complaint isn’t relevant anyway . The earth is very old;any natural radioisotopes that have half-life’s of less than 8 million years don’t exist naturally on earth . We can recreate them in reactors though. If you start with a billion tons of pure substance you’d end up with about a pound after 40 half-lifes . Half a kilo for you metric users . 40 half lives is 320million years and the earth is billions of years older than that- About 4.6 billion years old ( aka 4600 million years old )
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Oh, so you don't know it. It is just your hypothesis.
Science doesn't know. The bible and history are not hypotheses.
What other way? You don't know what the other way was. And you don't have any evidence that it was any other way.

Why worry about how the future will be and how the past was? It is not I that have some false front to uphold and pretensions to make about being some little know it all god. Science has talked the talk we see that no one can walk the walk. See anyone here proving that the nature was the same? See anyone here offering definitive support or evidence that there had to have been radioactivity and decay in the past? All I see is side stepping and trying to wiggle out of the topic.
You raise the Oklo fable and I asked about one simple aspect of it (there are scores more that could be raised, but you can't even deal with one) How is that honest debate?
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Can’t make heads or tails of this . Dad’s been claiming for a while about some space bubble that prevents distant objects from being under the same time constraints as near earth objects . And somehow this pseudoscience prevents radioactive decay from being constant . I’m still trying to wrap my head around this and it’s just giving me a headache

No connection to what time may be like in the distant universe to this topic that I know of.

This topic is down to earth. As you must know radioactive dating methods are the absolute fundamental pillar on which all evolutionary claims rest. It is also the foundation that all very ancient history basically depends on for dates. It is the pillar upon which claims about when Pangaea separated. It basically is the beast upon which false science rides. The car it drives to work. The staple in the diet of fables it pollutes the earth with.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What debate? You asked a question. I answered it. That you care not for my answer is not my problem.
Great, so prove that the sites of the Oklo reactors all got magically dunked miles under and resurfaced just as needed? Offering stories you can't discuss or defend is not answering anything.
 
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No connection to what time may be like in the distant universe to this topic that I know of.

This topic is down to earth. As you must know radioactive dating methods are the absolute fundamental pillar on which all evolutionary claims rest. It is also the foundation that all very ancient history basically depends on for dates. It is the pillar upon which claims about when Pangaea separated. It basically is the beast upon which false science rides.
Actually evolutionary history is based on developmental and biochemical processes , genetics and fossils at a minimum. Radioactive dating didn’t come into it for almost a hundred years after Darwin . And the idea that common descent being true is much older ( about 100 years) than Darwin.
The idea that the earth was very old was determined by normal geological processes long before radioactivity was understood . James Hutton in the 1700s
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
. I’m not completely ignorant of the subject ( I’m no expert by a long shot)but to my knowledge radioactive decay rates can’t be changed by earth normal environments.
Nature change was not caused by normal environments. The shorter lifespans man faced and the confusion of languages were not caused by some normal thing. The whole idea is that what was normal and natural in the former world and nature is no longer normal or natural.

The earth is very old;any natural radioisotopes that have half-life’s of less than 8 million years don’t exist naturally on earth
How about you show us they ever did!!!? And don't give us that old.'well they must have, because we think the earth is old and they would have vanished' routine.

. We can recreate them in reactors though. If you start with a billion tons of pure substance you’d end up with about a pound after 40 half-lifes
What should be painfully obvious to lurkers is that no billion year half life can be recreated nor has been recreated in any lab.
As for short half lives, if you read the OP you will see no one questions how it NOW works or that there is decay in our present nature.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Actually evolutionary history is based on developmental and biochemical processes , genetics and fossils at a minimum.

These days, yes, that holds true to a great extent. However there was no genetics we know in the different nature past. So anyone trying to trace it back is engaged in dreaming and endless and baseless what ifs. Who says Noah's DNA was the same as modern man? The laws and forces of nature dictate how atoms behave which in turn determines how molecules and cells would work. Unless you first prove a same state or nature existed in the far past you may not claim DNA existed the same. As for fossils, they represent a tiny tiny fraction of what life existed at the same time that they died and left remains. Probably in the former nature most life on earth and man also could not leave any such remains! At the same time a dino lived that became fossilized later after dying, man lived, crows lived, lions lived and etc etc etc. As for biochemical or chemical...anything....reactions depend on laws and forces...the nature that exists. You see only reactions in this present nature!


Radioactive dating didn’t come into it for almost a hundred years after Darwin . And the idea that common descent being true is much older ( about 100 years) than Darwin

Radioactive dates are used to tell us when science thinks various fossils lived or were laid down etc. It dates stuff. Evo stuff.
 
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Nature change was not caused by normal environments. The shorter lifespans man faced and the confusion of languages were not caused by some normal thing. The whole idea is that what was normal and natural in the former world and nature is no longer normal or natural.

How about you show us they ever did!!!? And don't give us that old.'well they must have, because we think the earth is old and they would have vanished' routine.

What should be painfully obvious to lurkers is that no billion year half life can be recreated nor has been recreated in any lab.
As for short half lives, if you read the OP you will see no one questions how it NOW works or that there is decay in our present nature.
you haven’t demonstrated any mechanism to change a radioisotopic rate and neither has any of your YEC cronies. What’s painfully obvious is that you have a poor understanding of the idea that if you change one basic fact then it affects everything and those effects would be demonstrable
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Actually evolutionary history is based on developmental and biochemical processes , genetics and fossils at a minimum. Radioactive dating didn’t come into it for almost a hundred years after Darwin . And the idea that common descent being true is much older ( about 100 years) than Darwin.
The idea that the earth was very old was determined by normal geological processes long before radioactivity was understood . James Hutton in the 1700s
If we asked Darwin when his proverbial pond of first life form was what do you think he would have said?? They never even claimed the world was that old back then. The dates come from radioactive decay dating. Same even for ancient Egypt!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
you haven’t demonstrated any mechanism to change a radioisotopic rate and neither has any of your YEC cronies.
Change?
Who says radioactive decay existed? That is the thread topic so can you prove it did?
What’s painfully obvious is that you have a poor understanding of the idea that if you change one basic fact then it affects everything and those effects would be demonstrable
Nature is a basic fact that happen to determine how atoms work and how the world is.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.