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
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 #81

Post by Jose Fly »

dad1 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:24 pm
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?
No. 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.
So again....name one thing, besides your own existence, that you know to be true.
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 #82

Post by dad1 »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:27 pm
dad1 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:24 pm
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?
No. 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.
So again....name one thing, besides your own existence, that you know to be true.
If you want to claim radioactive decay existed at any rate at all in the far past on earth, back it up.
Last edited by dad1 on Wed May 25, 2022 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 #83

Post by Jose Fly »

dad1 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:29 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:27 pm
dad1 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:24 pm
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?
No. 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.
So again....name one thing, besides your own existence, that you know to be true.
If you want to claim radioactive decay existed at ant rate at all in the far past on earth, back it up.
Another dodge by a creationist.

I honestly don't understand y'all. Not one bit.
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 #84

Post by brunumb »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 11:50 am I keep getting the impression that you think scientists do little more than sit around tables making things up, and then go home.
I think that's precisely what they do at the Discovery Institute.
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 #85

Post by dad1 »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:35 pm
dad1 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:29 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:27 pm
dad1 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:24 pm
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?
No. 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.
Being on topic is anything but a dodge. This is not a thread to raise petty irrelevant philosophical issues some people may think are somehow clever.
So again....name one thing, besides your own existence, that you know to be true.
If you want to claim radioactive decay existed at ant rate at all in the far past on earth, back it up.
Another dodge by a creationist.

I honestly don't understand y'all. Not one bit.

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

Re: Radioactive dating

Post #86

Post by dad1 »

dad1 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:39 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:35 pm
dad1 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:29 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:27 pm
dad1 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:24 pm
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?
No. 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.
Being on topic is anything but a dodge. This is not a thread to raise petty irrelevant philosophical issues some people may think are somehow clever.
So again....name one thing, besides your own existence, that you know to be true.
If you want to claim radioactive decay existed at ant rate at all in the far past on earth, back it up.
Another dodge by a creationist.

I honestly don't understand y'all. Not one bit.
Being on topic is anything but a dodge. Raising petty and irrelevant and off topic philosophy questions is what is the dodge.

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 #87

Post by Jose Fly »

brunumb wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:36 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 11:50 am I keep getting the impression that you think scientists do little more than sit around tables making things up, and then go home.
I think that's precisely what they do at the Discovery Institute.
Hmmmm....wonder if they're hiring (and what they pay)? :D
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

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 #88

Post by Jose Fly »

dad1 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:42 pm Being on topic is anything but a dodge. Raising petty and irrelevant and off topic philosophy questions is what is the dodge.
Um, it's you and the SH who've introduced philosophical issues, namely that we can't ever know anything about the past because the gods may have magically altered everything in various ways.

The obvious follow-up to that is, why does that only apply to the past? And that leads to my question: How can the people who subscribe to this viewpoint say that they know anything?

Did you not see that connection?
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 #89

Post by dad1 »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:46 pm
Um, it's you and the SH who've introduced philosophical issues, namely that we can't ever know anything about the past because the gods may have magically altered everything in various ways.
Not true I never said we can't know anything. I pointed out that what you thought was known was actually just belief.
The obvious follow-up to that is, why does that only apply to the past?

It doesn't if we are looking at the bible. The future also is different! If we restrain ourselves to science only, well, in all cases you must say 'I don't know'!
And that leads to my question: How can the people who subscribe to this viewpoint say that they know anything?
Did you not see that connection?
[/quote]

The way we know the future is not by science. The way we know the distant past is not by science. If you think that means we can know nothing by any means, that is not my problem.

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 #90

Post by Jose Fly »

dad1 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 6:55 pm Not true I never said we can't know anything. I pointed out that what you thought was known was actually just belief.
So do you believe we can know anything about the past? If so, what things? Why them and not others?
dad1 wrote:
Jose Fly wrote:The obvious follow-up to that is, why does that only apply to the past?

It doesn't if we are looking at the bible. The future also is different! If we restrain ourselves to science only, well, in all cases you must say 'I don't know'!
Does that mean you believe the Bible is the only way to know anything about the past? Also, are you saying that science is effectively useless?
The way we know the future is not by science. The way we know the distant past is not by science. If you think that means we can know nothing by any means, that is not my problem.
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?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Post Reply