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 #91By science we can only know so much. Looking at history and Scripture, there are things we can learn about the past.
It is the only source man has to learn about creation.Does that mean you believe the Bible is the only way to know anything about the past?
Worse than that, it is dangerous! As far as origins go science is in the dark for the most part. Just look at their attempt to tell us where life came from!Also, are you saying that science is effectively useless?
Whatever we use, we should be able to make a case and support it. On a science forum, the emphasis is on what science knows. Or not.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?
- 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 #92[Replying to dad1 in post #91]
Right. But you have to know some science to debate it and not just claim it is useless or dangerous simply because it is at odds with your religious beliefs, which is apparently the only argument you have against science.On a science forum, the emphasis is on what science knows. Or not.
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
- 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 #93How much? What things do you think science can tell us?
Like what?Looking at history and Scripture, there are things we can learn about the past.
Do you believe God is involved in everything that happens, or do some things happen on their own?It is the only source man has to learn about creation.
So not only do you believe science is useless, you believe it is dangerous. Interesting. Does that mean you think we should stop teaching science in school? Stop funding science? Even ban people from doing science?dad1 wrote:Worse than that, it is dangerous!Jose Fly wrote: Also, are you saying that science is effectively useless?
That didn't really answer my question, but I think you covered it in your earlier responses.dad1 wrote:Whatever we use, we should be able to make a case and support it. On a science forum, the emphasis is on what science knows. Or not.Jose Fly wrote: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.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #94He 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.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 7:07 pm [Replying to dad1 in post #91]
Right. But you have to know some science to debate it and not just claim it is useless or dangerous simply because it is at odds with your religious beliefs, which is apparently the only argument you have against science.On a science forum, the emphasis is on what science knows. Or not.
This is a science question asked in a thread about science, yet it remains unanswered, even apparently, unwelcome.
- 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 #95How is that any different than "can you show that matter was made of atoms in the past" or "can you show that the earth wasn't flat in the past", or more broadly, can you truly say that you know anything?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 7:16 pm 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.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #96If one knew some science relating to the topic, would not one post it?
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #97That doesn't seem to answer the question, unless your insinuating it's a "no"? are you?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 7:18 pmHow is that any different than "can you show that matter was made of atoms in the past" or "can you show that the earth wasn't flat in the past", or more broadly, can you truly say that you know anything?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 7:16 pm 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.
I'll be getting into my pool now so don't expect any replies this side of midnight, its hot here in Arizona, and I always like to think over things in my pool, a bit like Archimedes in that respect!
- 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 #98Wow, you really don't get it? Really?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 7:27 pmThat doesn't seem to answer the question, unless your insinuating it's a "no"? are you?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 7:18 pmHow is that any different than "can you show that matter was made of atoms in the past" or "can you show that the earth wasn't flat in the past", or more broadly, can you truly say that you know anything?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 7:16 pm 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.
I'll be getting into my pool now so don't expect any replies this side of midnight, its hot here in Arizona, and I always like to think over things in my pool, a bit like Archimedes in that respect!
Demanding that we show radioactive decay occurred in the past is no different than demands to show that in the past the earth was spherical, matter was made of atoms, gravity existed, organisms had DNA, or......any aspect of reality you care to name. Once you open the door to "Maybe X was different in the past but the gods just magically changed it to its current state", you've jumped right in to the deep end of solipsism. Under that framework where gods magically change fundamental realities on a whim and in undetectable ways, nothing can be said to be known.
You think you ate breakfast this morning? Can you show that it wasn't just an illusion created by the gods?
You think you have a child? Can you show that it isn't just an illusion created by the gods?
And actually, I think you do realize all this and that's why you and dad keep avoiding my request for you to name one thing you know. You understand that no matter what you say, all I have to do is put the same demand on you.....can you show that it's actual reality rather than an illusion created by the gods?
So to answer your question....no, under your framework we can't show that radioactive decay occurred in the past, nor can we show that matter was made of atoms, the earth was spherical, or anything. And that includes everything you believe about your religion. You can't show that the Bible isn't a false narrative created by some devious magical entity as a means to lead you astray.
That's what fascinates me about creationists' eagerness to embrace solipsism. Y'all never seem to appreciate that in your zeal to reject the conclusions of science, you've unwittingly thrown your own beliefs under the bus.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6005
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6670 times
- Been thanked: 3225 times
Re: Radioactive dating
Post #99With 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. In comparison, when it comes to scripture, the navel gazing musings of ancient anonymous goat herders, we have learnt nothing. The so-called creation event is just one of many such stories dreamed up by human societies around the world. When it comes to assumptions, it takes a truckload of them to even get the Bible on the table as a possible account of how this world began.
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 #100Much 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!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.
In comparison, when it comes to scripture, the navel gazing musings of ancient anonymous goat herders, we have learnt nothing.
Since modern science is only a few centuries old, you seem to be calling all people that lived before 'goat herders! (as if there is anything wrong with raising animals). Furthermore you seem to think nothing ever was learned before very recent history!
. You are in no position to tell us where the account of creation is Genesis is from. None at all.The so-called creation event is just one of many such stories dreamed up by human societies around the world
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. It is now only a matter of belief or unbelief.When it comes to assumptions, it takes a truckload of them to even get the Bible on the table as a possible account of how this world began.
When we look at the origin stories from science we see belief piled on belief, piled on assumption, piled on bad religion,piled on more assumptions and etc. None of which was ever seen, or heard, or tested, or known, or repeated..etc etc etc. Total fabrication based on belief.