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 #81So again....name one thing, besides your own existence, that you know to be true.dad1 wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:24 pmNo. 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?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #82If you want to claim radioactive decay existed at any rate at all in the far past on earth, back it up.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:27 pmSo again....name one thing, besides your own existence, that you know to be true.dad1 wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:24 pmNo. 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?
Last edited by dad1 on Wed May 25, 2022 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- 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 #83Another dodge by a creationist.dad1 wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:29 pmIf you want to claim radioactive decay existed at ant rate at all in the far past on earth, back it up.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:27 pmSo again....name one thing, besides your own existence, that you know to be true.dad1 wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:24 pmNo. 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?
I honestly don't understand y'all. Not one bit.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- 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 #84I 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.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #85Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:35 pmAnother dodge by a creationist.dad1 wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:29 pmIf you want to claim radioactive decay existed at ant rate at all in the far past on earth, back it up.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:27 pmBeing 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.dad1 wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:24 pmNo. 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?
So again....name one thing, besides your own existence, that you know to be true.
I honestly don't understand y'all. Not one bit.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #86dad1 wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:39 pmBeing on topic is anything but a dodge. Raising petty and irrelevant and off topic philosophy questions is what is the dodge.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:35 pmAnother dodge by a creationist.dad1 wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:29 pmIf you want to claim radioactive decay existed at ant rate at all in the far past on earth, back it up.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:27 pmBeing 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.dad1 wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:24 pmNo. 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?
So again....name one thing, besides your own existence, that you know to be true.
I honestly don't understand y'all. Not one bit.
- 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 #88Um, 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.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #89Not 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'!
Did you not see that connection?And that leads to my question: How can the people who subscribe to this viewpoint say that they know anything?
[/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.
- 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 #90So do you believe we can know anything about the past? If so, what things? Why them and not others?
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?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'!
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?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.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.