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.
- 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 #71So your entire argument/position on radiometric dating is "it's based on assumptions" and "the results are as good as those assumptions"? That's it? Nothing else? No "Therefore....."?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 4:52 pm My position is clear if you read my posts earlier in the thread, it is that the dates we establish are only as good as the assumptions we make.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #72Jose, that is my position, you can either agree with it or disagree. If you agree all well and good, if you disagree then do so and I'll consider what you have to say.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 4:59 pmSo your entire argument/position on radiometric dating is "it's based on assumptions" and "the results are as good as those assumptions"? That's it? Nothing else? No "Therefore....."?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 4:52 pm My position is clear if you read my posts earlier in the thread, it is that the dates we establish are only as good as the assumptions we make.
- 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 #73"Radiometric dating is based on assumptions". So what? Everything we do is "based on assumptions". You really have no other point beyond that beyond obvious observation?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 5:05 pmJose, that is my position, you can either agree with it or disagree. If you agree all well and good, if you disagree then do so and I'll consider what you have to say.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 4:59 pmSo your entire argument/position on radiometric dating is "it's based on assumptions" and "the results are as good as those assumptions"? That's it? Nothing else? No "Therefore....."?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 4:52 pm My position is clear if you read my posts earlier in the thread, it is that the dates we establish are only as good as the assumptions we make.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #74I wasn't making a "point" other than I agree with the OP, its not clear to me whether you agree or disagree with the OP but that's not my concern.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 5:11 pm"Radiometric dating is based on assumptions". So what? Everything we do is "based on assumptions". You really have no other point beyond that beyond obvious observation?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 5:05 pmJose, that is my position, you can either agree with it or disagree. If you agree all well and good, if you disagree then do so and I'll consider what you have to say.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 4:59 pmSo your entire argument/position on radiometric dating is "it's based on assumptions" and "the results are as good as those assumptions"? That's it? Nothing else? No "Therefore....."?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 4:52 pm My position is clear if you read my posts earlier in the thread, it is that the dates we establish are only as good as the assumptions we make.
- 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 #75Oh, so you believe radiometric dating is "faith based". Do you think geochronologists practice a brand of faith unique to their field of study, or something else?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 5:19 pm I wasn't making a "point" other than I agree with the OP, its not clear to me whether you agree or disagree with the OP but that's not my concern.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #76[Replying to Jose Fly in post #75]
Please direct that question at the thread's creator, it is he who has this as his thesis, he is best placed to respond to such a question I think.
Please direct that question at the thread's creator, it is he who has this as his thesis, he is best placed to respond to such a question I think.
- 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 #77Another dodge? Hmmmm....I sense a pattern.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 5:24 pm [Replying to Jose Fly in post #75]
Please direct that question at the thread's creator, it is he who has this as his thesis, he is best placed to respond to such a question I think.
You just said you agree with the OP, which claims radiometric dating is "faith based", did you not? Why so reluctant to answer such a simple follow-up question about that? What "faith" do you believe is the basis behind radiometric dating? Is it religious faith?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #78Jose, if you disagree with the OP then it would be helpful - I think - if you submitted a post saying so and explaining why you disagree. I may or may not respond to that depending on what you actually say in the post.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 5:28 pmAnother dodge? Hmmmm....I sense a pattern.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 5:24 pm [Replying to Jose Fly in post #75]
Please direct that question at the thread's creator, it is he who has this as his thesis, he is best placed to respond to such a question I think.
You just said you agree with the OP, which claims radiometric dating is "faith based", did you not? Why so reluctant to answer such a simple follow-up question about that? What "faith" do you believe is the basis behind radiometric dating? Is it religious faith?
- 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 #79You're still dodging, which again leads me to wonder......why? Why is answering such a simple question so problematic for you that you'll do whatever you can to avoid it?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 5:35 pm Jose, if you disagree with the OP then it would be helpful - I think - if you submitted a post saying so and explaining why you disagree. I may or may not respond to that depending on what you actually say in the post.
You said you agree that radiometric dating is "faith based". All I'm asking is what "faith" you believe is the basis for it.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #80No. Was there decay in the far past on earth? Can you prove it? If creation happened then a lot of things came into existence with ratios intact already! That means you cannot use the present day physics and processes such as decay to be the reason they all exist! Nor can we assume that the forces and laws in place today even existed as we know them. The isotopes then may have been working in some other arrangement with each other than the radioactive decay relationship we see today.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 3:47 pm I'm wondering....what specifically is the creationists' position here?
Is that that the gods greatly accelerated decay rates in the past and later slowed them down to their current rate?
Is it that the gods created things like rocks with the isotopes already partially decayed to daughter elements (but the decay rates themselves didn't change), and that's why we keep getting results that indicate ages in the billions of years?
Something else?