Radioactive dating basics

dad · Post by **dad** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:34 pm

"The figure above shows the decay of a group of atoms of a radioactive isotope over a period of time equal to four half-lives. After two half-lives, a quarter of the original atoms remain. Three quarters have decayed to form the daughter product. After four half-lives, only one sixteenth of the original atoms will be left and fifteen sixteenths will have decayed. If we know the half-life of an isotope and we can measure both the amount of an isotope remaining and the amount of daughter product, then we can figure out how old the mineral is.

...Using the results of isotopic dating, it has become possible to put numbers on the geologic time scale, and to extend the time scale back before the occurance of abundant fossils. "
//www.stmarys.ca/conted/webcour.../isotopic.html

So, there is a process of decay we can measure. It is known. It produces a daughter element. As long as the present state of decay existed, it can be assumed it worked the same.

How long did it exist? That is the question. I say about 4400 years. Before that, the spiritual and physical state (rather than the physical only present state) saw no decay universally. The process would have likely been one that resulted in an eternal state of matter. So, the daughter material as we now call it, was then otherwise engaged, and involved in that former process.
If we look at the daughter now, the only portion of that material that was produced by decay was the bits since the split, which left us in this physical only state. Therefore, the daughter in no way can be used under any circumstances to measure age beyond the split! (The "split" refers to a time when the former spiritual and physical universe was seperated, leaving us in this temporary physical universe)

Yes it decays now, yes at a known rate. Yes there is daughter material as we call it. No it is certainly not old! Unless, of course, someone can solidly support the past as being in this same temporary decaying physical only state. It has become quite clear this can never be done. Yet, assuming a same past is the heart and soul, and very basis of all so called dating! think about it.
And isochron dating is just a similar story.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:27 am

Dad,

First, your link above is broken. I suspect you may have posted this from another site you are not citing and it would be a good idea to reveal your source.

Were you aware that even Anwers in Genesis does not recommend or espouse the basic argument you've given here?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp

I'm asking this sincerely.

Why do you even attempt to put your arguments into scientific terms when your hypothesis presumes that the conditions necessary to make science of this type reliable do not exist?

Further, how do you explain the technological and scientific advances we observe today in view of your world view?

Do you just want to argue for its own sake or do you have a point to make?

dad · Post by **dad** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:46 pm

Canuckster1127 wrote:Dad,

First, your link above is broken. I suspect you may have posted this from another site you are not citing and it would be a good idea to reveal your source.
http://www.stmarys.ca/conted/webcourses ... topic.html

(That was where I got the few paragraphs, and the picture from)

Were you aware that even Anwers in Genesis does not recommend or espouse the basic argument you've given here?
No. And I don't care, as they do not know about the split, and the different past, so the reasons they reccomend something are overruled!

Why do you even attempt to put your arguments into scientific terms when your hypothesis presumes that the conditions necessary to make science of this type reliable do not exist?
Why do you presume that science applied then? Cause, that's all you do, in case you were not fully aware of that yet.

Further, how do you explain the technological and scientific advances we observe today in view of your world view?
The science of the present is great! I share all of it! All that is in question is how do you prove the laws of physics, and a physical only, temporary, decaying, present like existed before the split? Answer: you don't. Therefore all that is based on that assumption is useless.

Do you just want to argue for its own sake or do you have a point to make?

Point is this, the past and future REALKLY were/are different, and the bible really, really truly, actually was right all along. This is big big news.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:10 pm

Dad,

For the benefit of those not familiar with you why don't you outline your position on this.

Include sources if you wish.

Thanks,

Bart

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:29 pm

dad wrote:
Canuckster1127 wrote:Dad,

First, your link above is broken. I suspect you may have posted this from another site you are not citing and it would be a good idea to reveal your source.
http://www.stmarys.ca/conted/webcourses ... topic.html

(That was where I got the few paragraphs, and the picture from)

Were you aware that even Anwers in Genesis does not recommend or espouse the basic argument you've given here?
No. And I don't care, as they do not know about the split, and the different past, so the reasons they reccomend something are overruled!

Why do you even attempt to put your arguments into scientific terms when your hypothesis presumes that the conditions necessary to make science of this type reliable do not exist?
Why do you presume that science applied then? Cause, that's all you do, in case you were not fully aware of that yet.

Further, how do you explain the technological and scientific advances we observe today in view of your world view?
The science of the present is great! I share all of it! All that is in question is how do you prove the laws of physics, and a physical only, temporary, decaying, present like existed before the split? Answer: you don't. Therefore all that is based on that assumption is useless.

Do you just want to argue for its own sake or do you have a point to make?
Point is this, the past and future REALKLY were/are different, and the bible really, really truly, actually was right all along. This is big big news.

Dad,

Thanks for the Source.

You left off the conclusion which is completely contrary from what you appear to be saying.

Here it is for those interested from the same site you referenced above.

Thanks for doing that by the way. It's always good to let people know where you're getting your material from.

Dating the time scale
Using the results of isotopic dating, it has become possible to put numbers on the geologic time scale, and to extend the time scale back before the occurance of abundant fossils. The results are shown below.
Geologic Time Scale
Eon

Era

Period

Age in Millions of Years
Phanerozoic Cenozoic Quaternary
.01 to 1.6
Tertiary Neogene
1.6 to 23.7
Paleogene
23.7 to 66.4
Mesozoic Cretaceous
66.4 to 144
Jurassic
144 to 208
Triassic
208 to 245
Paleozoic Permian
245 to 286
Carboniferous Pennsylvanian
286 to 320
Mississippian
320 to 360
Devonian
360 to 408
Silurian
408 to 438
Ordovician
438 to 505
Cambrian
505 to 545
Proterozoic
545 to 2,500
Archean
2,500 to 4,600
Formation of the Earth
4,600

Currently, the oldest known rocks in the world come from the Acasta area of Canada's Northwest Territories. They have been dated using the U-Pb zircon method at 4041 +/- 12 Ma. The oldest rocks in Atlantic Canada are from the Nain area of Labrador, dated around 3900 Ma.

dad · Post by **dad** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:44 pm

Canuckster1127 wrote: Dad,

Thanks for the Source.

You left off the conclusion which is completely contrary from what you appear to be saying.

The conclusion was not what I posted, it was the methods they use. Conclusions are based from there on the same or different past.

By the way, the geologic column was mostly deposited, I feel, in about 1600 years.

So, again, we know about parent/daughter materials, etc, and how they date things, and upon what assumptions things are based. As the OP shows.

Now, with the different past, and no decay, universally then, we see that the daughter materials were there already, basically. What about it?

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:47 pm

dad wrote:
Canuckster1127 wrote: Dad,

Thanks for the Source.

You left off the conclusion which is completely contrary from what you appear to be saying.
The conclusion was not what I posted, it was the methods they use. Conclusions are based from there on the same or different past.

By the way, the geologic column was mostly deposited, I feel, in about 1600 years.

So, again, we know about parent/daughter materials, etc, and how they date things, and upon what assumptions things are based. As the OP shows.

Now, with the different past, and no decay, universally then, we see that the daughter materials were there already, basically. What about it?

You "feel" the deposits were made in 1,600 years?

Do you have any evidence for this? Please source it.

Bart

dad · Post by **dad** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:53 pm

Canuckster1127 wrote: You "feel" the deposits were made in 1,600 years?

Do you have any evidence for this? Please source it.

Bart

The source is the different past of the bible. That is how different it was. Water came up from the subteranean, trees grew in a week or so, in some cases, etc. Imagine how fast the layers could pile up. If you think the past was the same, do source it.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:01 pm

dad wrote:
Canuckster1127 wrote: You "feel" the deposits were made in 1,600 years?

Do you have any evidence for this? Please source it.

Bart
The source is the different past of the bible. That is how different it was. Water came up from the subteranean, trees grew in a week or so, in some cases, etc. Imagine how fast the layers could pile up. If you think the past was the same, do source it.

You've not provided any source.

You've just made several tangible claims.

1. The Bible indicates a different past than what scientific dating does.

2. Water came up from the Subteranean.

3. Trees grew in a week or so in some cases.

4. This explains layers in geologic terms.

What is the basis of those claims?

How does this relate to Ice Cores?

If Biblical, please explain with verse references.

If Science, please explain with some links to source material.

When you have done so I will be happy to respond. You have a responsibility first to substantiate your claims.

Jbuza · Post by **Jbuza** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:14 pm

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:25 pm

For those interested what I was referring to in terms of Dad's hermeneutics relating to His Biblical Interpretations and their being rejected by Answers in Genesis, which is a major site representing many in the Young Earth Movement.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp

“Earth's division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents.”

Commentators both before and after Lyell and Darwin (including Calvin, Keil and Delitzsch, and Leupold) are almost unanimous that this passage refers to linguistic division at Babel and subsequent territorial division. We should always interpret Scripture with Scripture, and there's nothing else in Scripture to indicate that this referred to continental division. But only eight verses on (note that chapter and verse divisions were not inspired), the Bible states, “Now the whole earth had one language and one speech” (Gen. 11:1), and as a result of their disobedience, “the LORD confused the language of all the earth” (Gen. 11:9). This conclusively proves that the “earth” that was divided was the same earth that spoke only one language, i.e., “earth” refers in this context to the people of the earth, not planet Earth.

Another major problem is the scientific consequences of such splitting—another global flood! This gives us the clue as to when the continents did move apart: during Noah's Flood. See also comments on plate tectonics below.

I do not endorse Answers in Genesis and in fact have some very real problems with many of the positions they promote in terms of Young Earth Creationism.

It does say something however, when the primary source for Young Earth Creationism distances themselves from a position and recommend that Young Earth Creationists not use the argument.

I'm frankly glad that AIG and other YEC sites are finally beginning to make these kinds of statments. They are long overdue and necesssary if the YEC position is to gain any credibility outside the group that espouses it on the basis of their Bible and doesn't really examine the science beyond what they are fed.

It certainly on its own doesn't make the position right or wrong. It raises important questions that should be answered by those like Dad who espouse it and in effect claim that Plate tecktonics have occured in a time frame of about 4,400 years. It's a staggering claim and one that you would think would have left all kinds of evidence, including even written history and observation. The standard answer however is usually just to reassert the claim and claim it can't be proven scientifically because the current rules of science and natural laws we observe now were not always in effect.

Small wonder even main-stream YEC proponents don't want to be associated with it.

This passage and the interpretation rejected even by many Young Earth Creationists is the position that I believe dad espouses. Perhaps he'll explain why and address some of these points.

Blessings,

Bart

dad · Post by **dad** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:26 pm

Canuckster1127 wrote:

You've just made several tangible claims.

1. The Bible indicates a different past than what scientific dating does.
You doubt that? Then show us some bible that supports that. Obviously science can't do anything for us.

2. Water came up from the Subteranean.
According to the bible, yes, the earth used to be watered by a mist that rose up.
Gen 1: 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
3. Trees grew in a week or so in some cases.
Yes, indeed. Noah sent out a bird, -no tree. A week or so later-- a tree, with fruit, even. Plants were made 3 days before we ate them.

4. This explains layers in geologic terms.
WEll, no, but such plant bio mass helps. Add to that the waters from below, and hyper reproduction rates, and other things, and the picture comes into focus.

How does this relate to Ice Cores?
Anyhing in the cores came in the last several thousand years.

If Biblical, please explain with verse references.
I think any 8th grader ought to understand the bible says what I have indicated. I have dug this up many times, what is it you'd like?

If Science, please explain with some links to source material.

Look at the source material that proves and supports your same past. Science is handicapped, and limited to the present, it does not apply one way or the other.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:30 pm

Jbuza wrote:Dad you should know your not allowed to tell stories. I mean after all aren't the OLD earthers the only ones with evidence sources from long before records existed?

Perhaps many of the stories told by geologists would have remaaned stories if we had moderators like the ones here saying where's your source that tells us that geological formation is that age.

But if you are just trying to tell people about your hypothetical framework, than it seems like you have as much support as contrived geological columns have.

The Bible indicates that individuals lived much longer in the past, that would seem to indicate there was something different about the past now wouldn't it?

The Bible indicates "dinosaurs" in the past, that would indicate something different about the past wouldn't it?

The Bible indicates that 8 souls were saved through the water, that would seem to indicate that there was a different time with lots of people that didn't survive to the post flood days.

The Bible indicates that there was a time before death, that is clearly different than now.

The Bible indicates that our Holy God had a different relationship with man at some point in our past, that is different from the relationship we have today.

Just for the record Jbuza. Do you support Dad's position with regard to Peleg and the Division of the Earth?

dad · Post by **dad** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:38 pm

Jbuza wrote:Dad you should know your not allowed to tell stories. I mean after all aren't the OLD earthers the only ones with evidence sources from long before records existed?
The bible is the record, and I have that. No stories needed.

Perhaps many of the stories told by geologists would have remaaned stories if we had moderators like the ones here saying where's your source that tells us that geological formation is that age.
But I can back that up. I just try to minimise distracions on a thread not about that.

But if you are just trying to tell people about your hypothetical framework, than it seems like you have as much support as contrived geological columns have.
Sorry, wrong. I have the bible. They have nothing.

The Bible indicates that individuals lived much longer in the past, that would seem to indicate there was something different about the past now wouldn't it?
I have been trying to say that. It also talks of a different light. Stars reached Adam from far away, and there was light before the sun and stars. Plants grew differently as well. Adam could have lived forever as well. If the state of the universe was the same, the earth would have decayed away under his feet. Also, the ark was only so big. Hyper evolution rates must have exuisted. Otherwise, the millions of types of creatures could simply not have fit on the boat.

The Bible indicates "dinosaurs" in the past, that would indicate something different about the past wouldn't it?
Yes

The Bible indicates that 8 souls were saved through the water, that would seem to indicate that there was a different time with lots of people that didn't survive to the post flood days.
True. But with a different past we also could have a canopy, or rings, or partial canopy, fast ice age, and rapid continental seperation. AS a matter of fact, we know that magma cooled faster then. The waters in Gen 1 in creation week were seperated, on a planetary level, from the land. This would produce heat today. But only days later, we see Adam, and animals, etc. It had to have cooled fast.

The Bible indicates that there was a time before death, that is clearly different than now.
And time after there is no more death.

The Bible indicates that our Holy God had a different relationship with man at some point in our past, that is different from the relationship we have today.

AS we will again have in the future. This means the present is sandwiched between a different past and future. It means we are in a temporary state that will pass away. Yet, they measure ALL from only this state. Mystery solved.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:51 pm

dad wrote:
Canuckster1127 wrote:

You've just made several tangible claims.

1. The Bible indicates a different past than what scientific dating does.
You doubt that? Then show us some bible that supports that. Obviously science can't do anything for us.

2. Water came up from the Subteranean.
According to the bible, yes, the earth used to be watered by a mist that rose up.
Gen 1: 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
3. Trees grew in a week or so in some cases.
Yes, indeed. Noah sent out a bird, -no tree. A week or so later-- a tree, with fruit, even. Plants were made 3 days before we ate them.

4. This explains layers in geologic terms.
WEll, no, but such plant bio mass helps. Add to that the waters from below, and hyper reproduction rates, and other things, and the picture comes into focus.

How does this relate to Ice Cores?
Anyhing in the cores came in the last several thousand years.

If Biblical, please explain with verse references.
I think any 8th grader ought to understand the bible says what I have indicated. I have dug this up many times, what is it you'd like?

If Science, please explain with some links to source material.
Look at the source material that proves and supports your same past. Science is handicapped, and limited to the present, it does not apply one way or the other.
Dad,

Since you ask, my belief regarding the Bible is that an Old Earth Position is Biblical.

My position is very similar to what you will find in this article from the main board. You might find it helpful to refer to if you haven't already.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

In view of this, the geologic record doesn't represent a problem in my estimation because I do not believe the Bible makes any claim with regard to the age of the earth that science generally is in conflict with.

Please explain to me how you derive from the passage you quote that the Bible that the earth used to be watered by a mist that rose up. That seems to be a different claim that what you first stated that water arose from the subteranean.

I know you'll disagree with my understanding of this passage, so just for the record, maybe you can explain if you disagree with Answers in Genesis' admonition in this arena and explain if you are in disagreement with other Young Earth Creationists in this regard.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp

What arguments are doubtful, hence, inadvisable to use?
Canopy theory.

This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water, but some creationists suggest a partial canopy may have been present. For AiG's current opinion, see Noah's Flood—what about all that water? from the Answers Book.
“There was no rain before the Flood.”

This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so again there should be no dogmatism. Genesis 2:5—6 at face value teaches only that there was no rain at the time Adam was created. But it doesn't rule out rain at any later time before the Flood, as great pre-uniformitarian commentators such as John Calvin pointed out. A related fallacy is that the rainbow covenant of Genesis 9:12—17 proves that there were no rainbows before the Flood. As Calvin pointed out, God frequently invested existing things with new meanings, e.g., the bread and wine at the Lord's Supper.

In terms of your trees growing in a week, it is one thing to claim this at the time of creation. Are you suggesting that based upon this passage that it is a direct teaching of Scripture or are you simply inferring this as a plausible explanation? Do you see the difference? Do you think there is any other possible explanation which would allow your inference to be wrong and Scripture still correct?

In terms of the ice cores. Are you suggesting that the ice layers formed at accelerated rates and matched the accelerated geological layers you claim? This would seem to be a necessary assertion on your part or else the markers found in these ice core samples which match up with the sediment layers in terms of volcanic ash from major erruptions, changes in earth's magnetism etc would not correlate.

How is it that your interpretation of the Flood would account not only for advanced sediment layers in the ocean (tying them as you do on the premise that trees were grown in a week for example) would also account for ice accumulation at the same rate?

Do you have any specifics or do you simply assert this as necessary based upon your understanding of Scripture?

Some sources and links would be nice if you have any, but if not, by all means let us hear you thoughts on this and why we should accept your feelings on the matter.

Thanks,

Bart