Radioactive dating
Moderator: Moderators
Radioactive dating
Post #1The basis for dating using ratios of isotopes is faith based. One example is that if we see an existing amount of parent and daughter material together, it is assumed that the present processes at work today are wholly responsible for all the material.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #101[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #94]
You need to read more carefully. He asked that question in post 51, and I responded to it specifically in post 54. No point answering the same question twice.He did, if you care to peruse recent thread history, ask "can you show that radioactive decay existed at all in Noah's day?" he has asked that question perhaps three times and is still awaiting an answer.
This is a science question asked in a thread about science, yet it remains unanswered, even apparently, unwelcome.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #102[Replying to dad1 in post #96]
Several of us have been doing exactly that, repeatedly, and you just ignore it and wave it all away as nonsense, religion, faith, you don't believe it, etc. Try responding to the science points if you can, rather than just ignoring them and them claiming as above that no one is posting any science related to the topic. You're clearly reading some of the posts because you are responding, then make a statement like the one above that suggests you haven't read a single one.If one knew some science relating to the topic, would not one post it?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #104[Replying to dad1 in post #103]
Just in this thread, posts 2, 9, 13, 14, 26, 28, 45, 47, 48 and 50 are examples where some science points have been presented.Not true. That is why you cannot cite the post where it happened.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #105Let's look at that.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 8:41 pm [Replying to dad1 in post #103]
Just in this thread, posts 2, 9, 13, 14, 26, 28, 45, 47, 48 and 50 are examples where some science points have been presented.Not true. That is why you cannot cite the post where it happened.
Post 2
"No it isn't. It is based on a constant rate of radioactive decay which is what is observed. Isochron dating helps to improve the results (eg. uranium 238 decays to lead 206, uranium 235 decays to lead 207, but lead 204 does not arise from the radioactive decay of uranium so can be used to confirm the parent levels of lead independent of the uranium products).
The "faith" you refer to I assume means the constant decay rate over time. Do you have any examples of any legitimate studies that show that this is not correct, or that there are deviations of any consequence? This is an observation, not faith (belief without evidence)."
When something takes millions of years to decay into something else (or tens of thousands of years etc) no one was there to see that happen.
Therefore since we do not know what forces existed long long ago one earth, we cannot say that material got there by the process of decay rather than creation or some other processes resulting from a different nature in the past. So you are in no position to claim any 'constant decay OVER TIME'!
How dare you claim that is science? That is belief. That is blind assumption. You offer this as a post that offered science!!!?? Wow.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6623 times
- Been thanked: 3219 times
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #106Oh dear, that old trope. The beauty of the scientific method is that it does not depend on the personal beliefs of anyone. In fact it works in such a way as to eliminate possible biases from those prior beliefs.dad1 wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 8:03 pmMuch of that was due to believers and NONE of that involved any knowledge of what nature was like on earth in the past. No wealth. No crumb!With millions of people practicing the scientific method, over the centuries we have accumulated a wealth of knowledge that has been applied and advanced us to now and beyond.
Or so the story goes. Again, all you have presented is unsupported claims.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #107Neither does the bible. As far as origin sciences, that does depend on belief. Not one's personal belief, but the doctrines that they pipe down to people, that then become their 'personal' beliefs!
When belief upon belief upon belief is used to form a theoretical house of cards that is bias and does not eliminate anything but OTHER beliefs entering their little club.In fact it works in such a way as to eliminate possible biases from those prior beliefs.
I consider many witnesses and billions of changed lives over time to be the epitome of supported. When I hear various stories about a first life form that are made up whole of cloth that is unsupported.Or so the story goes. Again, all you have presented is unsupported claims.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #108[Replying to Jose Fly in post #98]
So you agree with the OP scientific claims pertaining to radiometrically determined ages, are based on assumptions and cannot and should not be portrayed as if they were facts.
Glad we got that cleared up.
So you agree with the OP scientific claims pertaining to radiometrically determined ages, are based on assumptions and cannot and should not be portrayed as if they were facts.
Glad we got that cleared up.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #109Sheesh, do you even pay attention in these threads? We've covered that multiple times already.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 9:57 am So you agree with the OP scientific claims pertaining to radiometrically determined ages, are based on assumptions
Under the framework that you and dad are advocating, nothing is a fact.and cannot and should not be portrayed as if they were facts.
Who's this "we"? As far as you can tell, I'm just an illusion created by the gods.Glad we got that cleared up.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #110I have not "advocated" anything, certainly not a "framework" whatever you mean by that. I have stated that I agree with the OP that radiometrically determined dates depend on assumptions, beliefs, all scientific claims in fact depend on assumptions.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 11:53 amSheesh, do you even pay attention in these threads? We've covered that multiple times already.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 9:57 am So you agree with the OP scientific claims pertaining to radiometrically determined ages, are based on assumptions
Under the framework that you and dad are advocating, nothing is a fact.and cannot and should not be portrayed as if they were facts.
That is not a "framework" it is a recognized characteristic of science, of epistemology.