Radioactive dating

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
dad1
Under Suspension
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 3:40 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Radioactive dating

Post #1

Post by dad1 »

The 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.

dad1
Under Suspension
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 3:40 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #91

Post by dad1 »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:59 pm So do you believe we can know anything about the past? If so, what things? Why them and not others?
By science we can only know so much. Looking at history and Scripture, there are things we can learn about the past.
Does that mean you believe the Bible is the only way to know anything about the past?
It is the only source man has to learn about creation.
Also, are you saying that science is effectively useless?
Worse than that, it is dangerous! As far as origins go science is in the dark for the most part. Just look at their attempt to tell us where life came from!
Do you believe science can tell us anything? What other means of knowing things (past, present, or future) do you utilize, other than the Bible?
Whatever we use, we should be able to make a case and support it. On a science forum, the emphasis is on what science knows. Or not.

User avatar
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 #92

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to dad1 in post #91]
On a science forum, the emphasis is on what science knows. Or not.
Right. But you have to know some science to debate it and not just claim it is useless or dangerous simply because it is at odds with your religious beliefs, which is apparently the only argument you have against science.
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

User avatar
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 #93

Post by Jose Fly »

dad1 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 7:04 pm By science we can only know so much.
How much? What things do you think science can tell us?
Looking at history and Scripture, there are things we can learn about the past.
Like what?
It is the only source man has to learn about creation.
Do you believe God is involved in everything that happens, or do some things happen on their own?
dad1 wrote:
Jose Fly wrote: Also, are you saying that science is effectively useless?
Worse than that, it is dangerous!
So not only do you believe science is useless, you believe it is dangerous. Interesting. Does that mean you think we should stop teaching science in school? Stop funding science? Even ban people from doing science?
dad1 wrote:
Jose Fly wrote:Do you believe science can tell us anything? What other means of knowing things (past, present, or future) do you utilize, other than the Bible?
Whatever we use, we should be able to make a case and support it. On a science forum, the emphasis is on what science knows. Or not.
That didn't really answer my question, but I think you covered it in your earlier responses.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #94

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 7:07 pm [Replying to dad1 in post #91]
On a science forum, the emphasis is on what science knows. Or not.
Right. But you have to know some science to debate it and not just claim it is useless or dangerous simply because it is at odds with your religious beliefs, which is apparently the only argument you have against science.
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.

User avatar
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 #95

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 7:16 pm 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.
How is that any different than "can you show that matter was made of atoms in the past" or "can you show that the earth wasn't flat in the past", or more broadly, can you truly say that you know anything?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

dad1
Under Suspension
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 3:40 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #96

Post by dad1 »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 7:07 pm
Right. But you have to know some science to debate it and not just claim it is useless or dangerous simply because it is at odds with your religious beliefs, which is apparently the only argument you have against science.
If one knew some science relating to the topic, would not one post it?

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #97

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 7:18 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 7:16 pm 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.
How is that any different than "can you show that matter was made of atoms in the past" or "can you show that the earth wasn't flat in the past", or more broadly, can you truly say that you know anything?
That doesn't seem to answer the question, unless your insinuating it's a "no"? are you?

I'll be getting into my pool now so don't expect any replies this side of midnight, its hot here in Arizona, and I always like to think over things in my pool, a bit like Archimedes in that respect!

User avatar
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 #98

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 7:27 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 7:18 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 7:16 pm 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.
How is that any different than "can you show that matter was made of atoms in the past" or "can you show that the earth wasn't flat in the past", or more broadly, can you truly say that you know anything?
That doesn't seem to answer the question, unless your insinuating it's a "no"? are you?

I'll be getting into my pool now so don't expect any replies this side of midnight, its hot here in Arizona, and I always like to think over things in my pool, a bit like Archimedes in that respect!
Wow, you really don't get it? Really?

Demanding that we show radioactive decay occurred in the past is no different than demands to show that in the past the earth was spherical, matter was made of atoms, gravity existed, organisms had DNA, or......any aspect of reality you care to name. Once you open the door to "Maybe X was different in the past but the gods just magically changed it to its current state", you've jumped right in to the deep end of solipsism. Under that framework where gods magically change fundamental realities on a whim and in undetectable ways, nothing can be said to be known.

You think you ate breakfast this morning? Can you show that it wasn't just an illusion created by the gods?

You think you have a child? Can you show that it isn't just an illusion created by the gods?

And actually, I think you do realize all this and that's why you and dad keep avoiding my request for you to name one thing you know. You understand that no matter what you say, all I have to do is put the same demand on you.....can you show that it's actual reality rather than an illusion created by the gods?

So to answer your question....no, under your framework we can't show that radioactive decay occurred in the past, nor can we show that matter was made of atoms, the earth was spherical, or anything. And that includes everything you believe about your religion. You can't show that the Bible isn't a false narrative created by some devious magical entity as a means to lead you astray.

That's what fascinates me about creationists' eagerness to embrace solipsism. Y'all never seem to appreciate that in your zeal to reject the conclusions of science, you've unwittingly thrown your own beliefs under the bus.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #99

Post by brunumb »

dad1 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 7:04 pm By science we can only know so much. Looking at history and Scripture, there are things we can learn about the past.
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. In comparison, when it comes to scripture, the navel gazing musings of ancient anonymous goat herders, we have learnt nothing. The so-called creation event is just one of many such stories dreamed up by human societies around the world. When it comes to assumptions, it takes a truckload of them to even get the Bible on the table as a possible account of how this world began.
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.

dad1
Under Suspension
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 3:40 am
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #100

Post by dad1 »

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.
Much 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!
In comparison, when it comes to scripture, the navel gazing musings of ancient anonymous goat herders, we have learnt nothing.

Since modern science is only a few centuries old, you seem to be calling all people that lived before 'goat herders! (as if there is anything wrong with raising animals). Furthermore you seem to think nothing ever was learned before very recent history!
The so-called creation event is just one of many such stories dreamed up by human societies around the world
. You are in no position to tell us where the account of creation is Genesis is from. None at all.
When it comes to assumptions, it takes a truckload of them to even get the Bible on the table as a possible account of how this world began.
When Jesus rose from the dead and was observed repeatedly by many, and touched, and handled, heard, that ended any argument about the rest of what the bible says as possibly being false. It is now only a matter of belief or unbelief.

When we look at the origin stories from science we see belief piled on belief, piled on assumption, piled on bad religion,piled on more assumptions and etc. None of which was ever seen, or heard, or tested, or known, or repeated..etc etc etc. Total fabrication based on belief.

Post Reply