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.

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 #101

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #94]
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.
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.
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
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

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to dad1 in post #96]
If one knew some science relating to the topic, would not one post it?
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.
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

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

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #103

Post by dad1 »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 8:08 pm
Several of us have been doing exactly that,

Not true. That is why you cannot cite the post where it happened.

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 #104

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to dad1 in post #103]
Not true. That is why you cannot cite the post where it happened.
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.
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

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

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #105

Post by dad1 »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 8:41 pm [Replying to dad1 in post #103]
Not true. That is why you cannot cite the post where it happened.
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.
Let's look at that.

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.

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 #106

Post by brunumb »

dad1 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 8:03 pm
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!
Oh 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 pm 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.
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.

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

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #107

Post by dad1 »

brunumb wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 12:36 am Oh dear, that old trope. The beauty of the scientific method is that it does not depend on the personal beliefs of anyone.
Neither 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!
In fact it works in such a way as to eliminate possible biases from those prior 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.
Or so the story goes. Again, all you have presented is unsupported claims.
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.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #108

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

[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.

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 #109

Post by Jose Fly »

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
Sheesh, do you even pay attention in these threads? We've covered that multiple times already.
and cannot and should not be portrayed as if they were facts.
Under the framework that you and dad are advocating, nothing is a fact.
Glad we got that cleared up.
Who's this "we"? As far as you can tell, I'm just an illusion created by the gods.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #110

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 11:53 am
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
Sheesh, do you even pay attention in these threads? We've covered that multiple times already.
and cannot and should not be portrayed as if they were facts.
Under the framework that you and dad are advocating, nothing is a fact.
I 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.

That is not a "framework" it is a recognized characteristic of science, of epistemology.

Post Reply