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.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #61My current estimate/guess (subject to evidence) is somewhere around the time the KT layer was laid down. In real time I think that was about 4500 years ago (give or take a few centuries), or some 70 million imaginary so called science years ago.
No trick question here ... you used "70 million years ago probably" to refer to something, and from your comment above that appears to be Noah's flood. [/quote Correct. See above for the actual time.The only thing it is a problem for are your religious wrong silly unsupportable so called dates.] If you think that occurred 70 million years ago that is a real problem for biblical chronology as well as a 6000 year old universe.
- 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 #62I'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?
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.
- 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 #63[Replying to dad1 in post #61]
If that is correct, and it happened only 4,500 years ago, old Noah would have had one rough environment to work in. If he set sail prior to the impact, he'd have been likely wiped out by a tsunami or high winds, or various other problems. If he set sail after the impact his less populated ark would be drifting around in the dark with very little sunlight for his entire year, and he and his cargo likely would have had no food to eat once the waters receded for far longer than they could survive. Noah and his family would have had to eat the animals to make it for several years (or the animals would eat them) and eventually they'd all die before the atmospheric catastrophe cleared up enough to allow plants to grow again. All kinds of problems with this scenario.
Ah ... so its 70 million in imaginary science years and that equates to about 4500 years in estimate/guess years. Got it. Isn't this having it both ways? And why would you believe that the KT boundary (now called the K-Pg boundary), is real? Your friend radiometric dating puts that at 66.043 ± 0.011 Ma, and the high levels of iridium indicate a large meteroite impact initiated the events.My current estimate/guess (subject to evidence) is somewhere around the time the KT layer was laid down. In real time I think that was about 4500 years ago (give or take a few centuries), or some 70 million imaginary so called science years ago.
If that is correct, and it happened only 4,500 years ago, old Noah would have had one rough environment to work in. If he set sail prior to the impact, he'd have been likely wiped out by a tsunami or high winds, or various other problems. If he set sail after the impact his less populated ark would be drifting around in the dark with very little sunlight for his entire year, and he and his cargo likely would have had no food to eat once the waters receded for far longer than they could survive. Noah and his family would have had to eat the animals to make it for several years (or the animals would eat them) and eventually they'd all die before the atmospheric catastrophe cleared up enough to allow plants to grow again. All kinds of problems with this scenario.
Religious dates? I thought I was dealing in imaginary science years. Or do the modifiers "wrong, silly, unsupportable and so-called" make them religious?The only thing it is a problem for are your religious wrong silly unsupportable so called dates.
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
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- 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 #64[Replying to Jose Fly in post #62]
My guess would be the usual ... refusal to believe an old Earth because it contradicts the biblical narrative, and attacking anything that contributes to that. If radiometric dating had no implications for the validity of the creation story in Genesis, we most likely would not hear a peep from them on the subject.I'm wondering....what specifically is the creationists' position here?
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
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #65Nothing changes the fact that the OP is absolutely correct to state that radiometric dating is based on assumptions, this is the point of the thread to show that the assumptions we choose form the basis of how we build our worldview.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 4:16 pm [Replying to Jose Fly in post #62]
My guess would be the usual ... refusal to believe an old Earth because it contradicts the biblical narrative, and attacking anything that contributes to that. If radiometric dating had no implications for the validity of the creation story in Genesis, we most likely would not hear a peep from them on the subject.I'm wondering....what specifically is the creationists' position here?
We've established many pages ago that this is true, dating is based on assumptions, you chose yours and I chose mine, but they are freely chosen and hence our worldview is chosen.
- 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 #66I guess I should have been more clear. My question is "What is the creationists' argument?" You're correct in that their position is akin to AiG's statement of faith, where anything that contradicts their religious beliefs is automatically wrong, no matter what. But specific to radiometric dating, we still don't know what their actual argument is. Decay rates were faster and then slowed down? Things were created with daughter elements already in place, and in a way that's consistent across isotopes and decay mechanisms?DrNoGods wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 4:16 pm [Replying to Jose Fly in post #62]
My guess would be the usual ... refusal to believe an old Earth because it contradicts the biblical narrative, and attacking anything that contributes to that. If radiometric dating had no implications for the validity of the creation story in Genesis, we most likely would not hear a peep from them on the subject.I'm wondering....what specifically is the creationists' position here?
Of course it would help greatly if creationists would just answer basic questions, but as I noted when I first signed up here....most of the "debates" (and I use the term lightly) with creationists consist of chasing them around trying them to answer basic questions, and them doing everything they can to avoid doing so.
And here we are....
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- 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 #67So? Radiometric dating, like all historical science, assumes uniformitarianism (and tests that assumption). Therefore......?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 4:27 pm the OP is absolutely correct to state that radiometric dating is based on assumptions, this is the point of the thread to show that the assumptions we choose form the basis of how we build our worldview.
And what exactly is your position/argument specific to radiometric dating? Is it that decay rates were faster in the past and the gods slowed them down at some point? That the gods crated things with daughter elements already in place, and in a way such that they give the same results across different isotopes and decay mechanisms?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #68[Replying to Jose Fly in post #67]
As I explained to you earlier, one cannot test any assumption without introducing further assumptions and so to then test those assumptions one must introduce additional assumptions.
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.
As I explained to you earlier, one cannot test any assumption without introducing further assumptions and so to then test those assumptions one must introduce additional assumptions.
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 #69And therefore.........?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 4:48 pm [Replying to Jose Fly in post #67]
As I explained to you earlier, one cannot test any assumption without introducing further assumptions and so to then test those assumptions one must introduce additional assumptions.
Also, are you really going to dodge yet another question? (what exactly is your position/argument specific to radiometric dating? Is it that decay rates were faster in the past and the gods slowed them down at some point? That the gods crated things with daughter elements already in place, and in a way such that they give the same results across different isotopes and decay mechanisms?)
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #70Apologies, I added that as a later edit, here it is:Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 4:51 pmAnd therefore.........?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 4:48 pm [Replying to Jose Fly in post #67]
As I explained to you earlier, one cannot test any assumption without introducing further assumptions and so to then test those assumptions one must introduce additional assumptions.
Also, are you really going to dodge yet another question? (what exactly is your position/argument specific to radiometric dating? Is it that decay rates were faster in the past and the gods slowed them down at some point? That the gods crated things with daughter elements already in place, and in a way such that they give the same results across different isotopes and decay mechanisms?)
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.