Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, May 17, 2010

Radioactive Decay and the Age of The Earth

-
It is said that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

This is based on radioactive decay- well what some scientists have assumed is based on rad decay.

However when does rad decay start? Phycists have told me that radioactive decay can start once the unstable element is formed.

So when is that?

Well physics 101 says that all elements are born in the stars. All elements up to Fe (iron) form via fusion when burning fuel.

The rest are born via fusion when a (the) star goes supernova.

So if rad decay can start when the elements are formed then we would have to know what suprnovae seeded out part of the galaxy in order to know anything about age.

IOW the radioactive elements that formed Earth would be old to begin with.

There is only one thing that I could be missing and that is if the radioactive clocks got reset somehow when the Earth was forming.

But I cannot find any reference that states that is so.

So the bottom line here is rad decay starts when the unstable elements are created then we cannot use rad decay to tell the age of the earth because the elements were created, not when the Earth was formed, but when the supernonae that created them occurred.

116 Comments:

  • At 1:39 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    That's right. Only one possible thing. You have certainly accounted for everything else. Perhaps you should start a radioactive decay seminar in the Keene schools.

     
  • At 3:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That's right. Only one possible thing. You have certainly accounted for everything else.

    Great. A clown chimes in with another vague accusation.

    If you think I didn't account for something then please present it.

    Or just admit that you are an ignorant clown and we can move on.

    Perhaps you should start a radioactive decay seminar in the Keene schools.

    I am sure it is already discussed.

    Who do you think I got the information from?

    Physicists who teach at Keene schools...

     
  • At 5:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    oops I see my mistake- Iron- Fe- not Lead (Pb)

    I will correct it in the OP...

     
  • At 5:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    D'oh...

     
  • At 9:50 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You go to the Keene public schools to get your physics information? Seems strange, but whatever.

    Also strange that you think you've covered the entirety of "Age of the Earth" in your OP. Do you think that there are comparative lines of evidence? For example, how does Carbon dating work (I know this is not the same as other methods of radioactive dating)? Your understanding of this may have some bearing on this present thesis.

     
  • At 10:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You go to the Keene public schools to get your physics information?

    That isn't what I said assface.

    Keene State is in Keene.

    I get my information from physicists.

    Also strange that you think you've covered the entirety of "Age of the Earth" in your OP.

    I don't think that asshole.

    Do you think that there are comparative lines of evidence?

    All evidence says that rad decay starts when the unstable element is formed.

    And physics says all elements are born from stars.

    And the Earth is made from leftovers of supernovae.

    Those leftovers have been decaying for quite some time before they met up to form Earth.

    For example, how does Carbon dating work (I know this is not the same as other methods of radioactive dating)?

    Carbon 14 has a half-life of about 5730 years.

    Plants take in C14 from the atmosphere which decays to Nitrogen- take a cup of C14 and in 5730 years half the cup will be N14.

    Well read about here for yourself:

    radiocarbon dating

    Your understanding of this may have some bearing on this present thesis.

    You haven't demonstrated an understanding of anything.

    You definitely don't understand that unstable lements start decaying when they are formed and they are formed in stars.

     
  • At 10:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And clownie- if you have a point to make then make it.

    Stop acting as if you know something and are speaking as some sort of authority.

    You're a clown for a reason- deal with it.

     
  • At 10:42 PM, Blogger TFT said…

    I knew all that science stuff was just a bunch of crap!

    Thanks, Joe. I can't believe it took so many years for radioactive decay to be debunked as a means of dating old shit.

    Stupid physicists and scientists.

     
  • At 7:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    TFT:
    I knew all that science stuff was just a bunch of crap!

    What "science stuff" are you talking about?

    Could you please be specific?

    Ya see I posted science stuff-

    It is a science that says all the elements are born from stars.

    It is science that says radioactive decay starts when the unstable element is formed.

    I can't believe it took so many years for radioactive decay to be debunked as a means of dating old shit.

    That isn't what the post is about dipshit.

    All I am saying is that the decay starts well before the Earth was formed.

    U238 still decays to Th234 which decays into Pa234 decays to U234 decays to Th230 decays toRa226 decays to Rn222 decays to Po218 decays to Pb214 decays to Bi214 decays to Po 214 decays to Pb210 decays to Bi210 decays to Po 210 and finally Pb206-> stability!

    Now the longest half-life in that series is the first, from U 238 to Th234, and the total chain's half-life is about 4.5 billion years (from U238 to Pb206).

    Stupid physicists and scientists.

    Nope- stupid TFT.

     
  • At 7:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- All elements are born in/ from stars- first by burning fule and then via the supernaova that follows

    2- Rad decay starts when the unstable element is formed.

    3- The Earth (and this solar system) is made of leftovers from supernovae

    4- So in order to determine the age of the Earth we need at least need to know when the supernovae that seeded this solar system took place

     
  • At 7:20 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Christ but you're a dumbfuck

    Isochron dating

     
  • At 7:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That's all you have?

    An ignorant-laiden blurb and a link to a site that doesn't refute anything I have said.

    Wonderful...

     
  • At 11:33 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Um...in what circumstances do you take carbon dating to be valid?

    Surely not from the formation of stars?

     
  • At 7:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    in what circumstances do you take carbon dating to be valid?

    What is the relevance of your question?

    What does it have to do with the OP?

    Do we use radiocarbon dating to estimate the age of the earth?

     
  • At 7:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And clownie- if you have a point to make then make it.

    Stop acting as if you know something and are speaking as some sort of authority.

    You're a clown for a reason- deal with it.

     
  • At 7:22 AM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…

    When dating a rock, for instance, the time at which the original element is created is completely irrelevant.

    All that is looked at is the amount of daughter element compared to the amount of mother element in the sample.

    When the rock is formed, it contains a certain amount of element A. A then slowly turns into B at a specific rate (depending on the element A happens to be). A decreases, while B increases. You can then compare the amount of A to the amount of B, and using the decay rate (half life) of A, figure out how long this process has been going on in the rock.

    Notice, that the age of A when the rock is formed is not relevant at all.

    I hope this answers your question.

     
  • At 7:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Frikkenlazer:
    All that is looked at is the amount of daughter element compared to the amount of mother element in the sample.

    I believe isochron dating replaced that method.

    Ya see there isn't any way to know how much daughter product was present to begin with.

    IOW your method assumes all the daughter product came from decay.

    And even if all the daughter product came from decay then we would have to know when that decay started.

    We know it starts when the unstable element is formed so it would depend how long that material is floating around in space "waiting" to become part of the Earth.

    IOW all we can tell from that method is how long the decay has been occurring and I am not arguing that.

    I am saying it all depends on when those unstable elements were formed.

    IOW as I have said before the material that Earth is made of could be very, very, old. But that does not mean the earth is old.

    My daughter's desk is made from trees over 100 years old yet I just built it a couple of months ago, so it is only a couple of months old.

     
  • At 4:02 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Hey Joe,
    Suck on this
    http://unintelligent-reasoning.blogspot.com/2010/05/moron-attempts-to-disprove-something-he.html#comments

     
  • At 6:28 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, the formation of a rock is different that the construction of a desk. The analogy is a very poor one.

    Now, back to carbon dating [which we do not date the Earth with--well, most people don't ;)]; how does that work again? Try to associate this technique the formation of the thing being dated.

    I am not an authority, Joe and never claimed to be so stop fucking around.

     
  • At 8:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey limp dick- nothing to suck on...

     
  • At 8:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey limp dick- you don't have anything to suck except you momma's teats...

     
  • At 9:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    testing....

     
  • At 10:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey limp dick- the only thing you have to suck on are you momma's teats...

     
  • At 7:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe, the formation of a rock is different that the construction of a desk.

    The point is that old materials were used to make a new desk and so it could be with the earth.

    That is why it is a relevant analogy.

    Now one more time:

    Make your fucking point clownie.

    I am not playing your games.

     
  • At 10:41 AM, Blogger Alan Fox said…

    Good grief, Joe! Are you not the least embarrassed that anyone can come here and read what you write here?

    Though please feel free to carry on. Your contributions to the Intelligent Design movement are much appreciated by me, at least.

     
  • At 10:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK Alan, what did I write that you think should embarrass me?

    Please be specific.

     
  • At 10:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I don't think using rad-decay to get the age of the Earth is reliable.

    That isn't anything to be embarrassed about.

     
  • At 1:15 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Joe: "I don't think using rad-decay to get the age of the Earth is reliable.

    That isn't anything to be embarrassed about


    Since you don't know the first thing about radiometric dating, why should anyone care about your dumbass misunderstandings?

    Anyone with an IQ over 50 should be deeply embarrassed, but that category obviously doesn't include you.

     
  • At 9:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Since you don't know the first thing about radiometric dating, why should anyone care about your dumbass misunderstandings?

    It's safe to say that I know more about it than you do.

    All you can do is mindlessly parrot the party line.

    But that is all a mindless dolt like you can do.

     
  • At 9:51 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Tell us then Joe, how old do you think the Earth is? Please give us the value with error ranges, and briefly explain the scientific evidence that supports those numbers.

     
  • At 10:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Tell us then Joe, how old do you think the Earth is?

    I don't know- and neither does anyone else.

    That is the point.

    Or are you too stupid to understand that?

     
  • At 11:15 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    I don't know- and neither does anyone else.

    That is the point.

    Or are you too stupid to understand that?


    The how do you know the 4.5 billion is wrong?

    Or are you too stupid to understand that?

     
  • At 12:55 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    He said "think", not "know".

    "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance." -

    Socrates, from Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers
    Greek philosopher in Athens (469 BC - 399 BC)

     
  • At 4:41 AM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…

    I believe isochron dating replaced that method.

    Ya see there isn't any way to know how much daughter product was present to begin with.

    IOW your method assumes all the daughter product came from decay.


    Sure. Which is why you have to confirm it by using different methods, and different elements with different half-lives. If two completely different mother-daughter element pairs gives you the same result, despite having different half lives, then you know the sample did not have material added or removed. It even tells you that you started with mother element only, since if you did not, the ages would not match.

    Why not read up on this in stead of asking on a blog? All this info is readily available.


    And even if all the daughter product came from decay then we would have to know when that decay started.


    No you don't. Read my previous comment again. Nowhere in any of the calculations is the age of the element used. All that is used it the amount of daughter element and the amount of mother element in the sample.


    We know it starts when the unstable element is formed so it would depend how long that material is floating around in space "waiting" to become part of the Earth.


    No it doesn't. If a rock contains only mother element when it is formed (I suggest you read up on radiometric dating to learn how they actually know this) you don't need to know when the mother element was formed. See above.


    IOW all we can tell from that method is how long the decay has been occurring and I am not arguing that.

    I am saying it all depends on when those unstable elements were formed.


    See above.


    IOW as I have said before the material that Earth is made of could be very, very, old. But that does not mean the earth is old.

    My daughter's desk is made from trees over 100 years old yet I just built it a couple of months ago, so it is only a couple of months old.


    When determining the age of the earth, basically what they are doing is figuring out when rocks solidified out of lava. The process of cooling down and becoming rock from lava has certain side effects. These side effects include ensuring that certain elements are present, but not the elements they dacay into.

    So basically scientists are never determining the age of any of the elements, they are determinging how long ago a rock solidified by examining ratios of elements inside that rock.

    So, to go back to your post, no, the age of the elements are not needed in radiometric dating, only the ratio of mother-daugher elements in the sample.

     
  • At 7:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The how do you know the 4.5 billion is wrong?

    No one knows if it is correct.

    As I hav esaid many, many times you have to know how the Earth was formed before you can say anything about its age.

    And the evidence says it is here by design not an accumulation of cosmic collisions.

    Or are you too stupid to understand that?

     
  • At 7:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard chimes in:
    He said "think", not "know".

    First I have to figure out how before I give that any thought.

     
  • At 7:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    FrikkenLazer,

    1- You can't always use more than one isotope.

    2- And when it can be done the two don't always agree.

    3- You have to know how the earth was formed before you can say anything about its age.

    4- Meteorites- not from lava- were used to "calibrate" the methodology for Earth rocks.

    5- Rapid decay- would cause something young to look old

    6- Too much helium- it appears that samples that say "4.5 billion" have too much helium in them to be that old.

    7- Rocks of known age radioactive dating doesn't work

    But anyways- thanks I will have to get the books again and brush up.

     
  • At 7:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID and the age of the Earth:

    On other blogs some people are asking about ID's position on the age of the Earth. Here I will atempt to answer that query.

    ID's position on the age of the Earth is that it all depends on HOW the Earth was formed. That is key because we know that intelligent agencies can speed up processes- just look at manmade diamonds.

    Now there are some who will complain that when one speeds up some processes there will be heat generated, for example from rapid rad decay. These people want to know where the heat went.

    First we would have to know how much heat they are talking about and the verification of that. Then I would tell them to look at the Earth's core. IOW any heat generated by rapid decay could have been transferred to the core. An inteligent designer would know that the core requires heat to stay molten so it can provide a proper magnetic field along with plate tectonic recycling.

    So the bottom line is when someone tells you that the Earth is 4.5 byo, all they are really doing is telling you the speculation based on the assumption (that the Earth was not intelligently designed).


    Also heat is energy and the enrgy from rapid decay would/ could have been used to facilitate the design.

     
  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Magma Opus: Geologist Reveals Earth's Plumbing

    Momentous Theory In Earth Science Topples
    :

    Crystals in the magma

     
  • At 11:31 AM, Blogger Hawks said…

    So the bottom line is when someone tells you that the Earth is 4.5 byo, all they are really doing is telling you the speculation based on the assumption (that the Earth was not intelligently designed).

    So the bottom line is when someone tells you that they had porridge for breakfast, all they are really doing is telling you the speculation based on the assumption (that, for example, Earth was not intelligently designed sometime after breakfast this morning).

     
  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "First I have to figure out how before I give that any thought."

    So you have to think before you think? No wonder you never got started!

     
  • At 12:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    So you have to think before you think?

    That isn't what I said.

    IOW thanks for once again proving that you are an imbecile.

     
  • At 1:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So the bottom line is when someone tells you that the Earth is 4.5 byo, all they are really doing is telling you the speculation based on the assumption (that the Earth was not intelligently designed).

    So the bottom line is when someone tells you that they had porridge for breakfast,

    IOW Hawks cannot think of anything rational to say so he is forced to pull another PoS from his arse.

     
  • At 1:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And richtard,

    This

    Tell us then Joe, how old do you think the Earth is? Please give us the value with error ranges, and briefly explain the scientific evidence that supports those numbers.

    means that Thorton wants much more than what I think.

     
  • At 12:11 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    If you can't tell us how old the earth is, you have NO BUSINESS speculating on what 'nature operating freely' can do.

     
  • At 5:54 AM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…

    FrikkenLazer,


    1- You can't always use more than one isotope.


    Thats right. Sometimes you simply cant. What they do is they date the layer by finding rocks they CAN date accurately, then they know how old the layer is. And even if they cant find the date for a layer, they can date the layers above and below it, and at least figure out what the age for the layer in-between is.


    2- And when it can be done the two don't always agree.


    Yes. Sometimes samples are contaminated. There are ways to identify contaminated samples.


    3- You have to know how the earth was formed before you can say anything about its age.


    It helps a lot, yes.


    4- Meteorites- not from lava- were used to "calibrate" the methodology for Earth rocks.


    There are many methods used for calibration. Some of them don't use radioactive decay at all. Read this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

    Pay specific attention to the section called 'Calibration'. Interesting stuff.


    5- Rapid decay- would cause something young to look old


    I am not familiar with the concept. Can you point me to some articles or something where this has been studied>


    6- Too much helium- it appears that samples that say "4.5 billion" have too much helium in them to be that old.


    Again, I am not familiar with this. Can you point me in the right direction?


    7- Rocks of known age radioactive dating doesn't work


    Examples please. Sounds interesting.


    But anyways- thanks I will have to get the books again and brush up.


    No problem. I am by no means an expert or anything, but I know enough to spot basic errors.

     
  • At 7:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you can't tell us how old the earth is, you have NO BUSINESS speculating on what 'nature operating freely' can do.

    Why? Just because you say so?

    BWAAAAHAAAHAAAAAA

    Hell seeing you cannot produce a testable hypothesis for your position that tells me you have NO BUSINESS discussing science.

    And seeing that you are totally ignorant of ID you have NO BUSINESS discussing ID.

     
  • At 7:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    FRikkinLazer:

    Crystals in the magma-

    Do you understand the implications of this find?

     
  • At 7:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 7:39 AM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…


    Crystals in the magma-

    Do you understand the implications of this find?


    If this is correct, then models for the formation of crystals will have to be revised.

    Am I missing something?

     
  • At 7:44 AM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…

    Was your question in the OP answered?

    Do you understand why the age of the element is not important, but only the ratio between elements found in a sample?

     
  • At 7:44 AM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…

    too much helium in the crystals

    new rocks look old

    more dating miscues


    These are from ICR and AIG. Do you have any sources that are scientific in nature?

     
  • At 7:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If this is correct, then models for the formation of crystals will have to be revised.

    Am I missing something?


    If that is correct then the methodology for determining the age of the Earth needs to be revised or dumped.

    These are from ICR and AIG. Do you have any sources that are scientific in nature?

    Those are scientific in nature.

    Deal with the data, not the people.

    Do you understand why the age of the element is not important, but only the ratio between elements found in a sample?

    Allegedly the age determines the ratio- that is the whole point behind the methodology.

     
  • At 8:11 AM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…

    If that is correct then the methodology for determining the age of the Earth needs to be revised or dumped.


    I am not sure how you reached that conclusion. Crystals don't play a role in all dating methods.

    And we will just have to see how these findings stack up under scrutiny.

    Those are scientific in nature.

    Deal with the data, not the people.


    Since no single person can be an expert in all fields, it is important to find sources that are reliable when you need information and opinions about fields you are not expert in. AIG and ICR don't have a good track record, and they manage to make mistakes about the simplest things. If you cannot trust them about certain things, how can you trust them as a source for others? AIG states openly that they are not scientific.

    Allegedly the age determines the ratio- that is the whole point behind the methodology.

    Lets try a simplified analogy: You start with a jar with a certain amount of red marbles in it. Every ten minutes one red marble turns into a blue marble.

    How will you determine how much time has passed since the jar contained red marbles only?

    You count the blue marbles.

    The age of the jar is not important. The age of any of the marbles is not important. The marbles can range in age from 1 year to 50 billion, it does not matter how old the marbles were when they were placed in the jar.

    All that is omportant is the AMOUNTS of marbles of each color.

    Radiometric dating is much more complicated, but the idea is the same. The age of any of the in the rock (for example) is irrelevant. All that is important is the amounts of various elements in the sample, and the rations between them.

    Do you understand now?

     
  • At 8:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From the link "crystals in the magma":

    "His work poses a critical challenge to a theory embedded in geological lore for the past one hundred years, which assumes that any body of magma begins its slow evolution to igneous rock singularly devoid of crystals, then begins growing crystals that eventually produce recognizable, intricate layering in the body."

    The point is that scientists dated the rock by assuming the crystals formed as the rock cooled.

     
  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…

    Well, like I said, well see how that pans out.

    Now, is your question in the OP answered?

     
  • At 8:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I am not sure how you reached that conclusion. Crystals don't play a role in all dating methods.

    Can you name the dating methods that don't require crystals?

    AiG and ICR employ scientists.

    Why should I accept what atheists say?

    Are they trustworthy?

    You start with a jar with a certain amount of red marbles in it. Every ten minutes one red marble turns into a blue marble.

    How will you determine how much time has passed since the jar contained red marbles only?

    You count the blue marbles.


    That works great in a scenario you can control.

    The age of the jar is not important. The age of any of the marbles is not important. The marbles can range in age from 1 year to 50 billion, it does not matter how old the marbles were when they were placed in the jar.

    All that is omportant is the AMOUNTS of marbles of each color.


    In real life the color is determined by the rate of decay along with how long it has been decaying.

    All that is important is the amounts of various elements in the sample, and the rations between them.

    The amounts of various elements and their ratios are determined by decay rates and how long the process has been on-going.

    Also the ratios are determined by the amount of parent and daughter products that were present initially.

    Then there is leaching- did any parent of daughter product escape of get introduced.

     
  • At 8:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes FrikkenLazer, I do not think that rad dating is reliable when it comes to determining the age of the Earth.

    Nothing you have said has changed that.

     
  • At 8:38 AM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…

    So... do you agree that the age of the mother element is not use in radiomentric dating?

     
  • At 8:56 AM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…

    I am well aware that you reject radiomentric dating.

    What I am asking is if you understand why the age of the mother element when locked into a rock is not relevant when using radiomentric dating.

    Thats the topic in the OP right?

     
  • At 11:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    do you agree that the age of the mother element is not use in radiomentric dating?

    Does the age of the mother element determine the ratio?

    I was under the impression scientists used the ratio of mother to daughter- for example U-Pb uses the ratio of U238 to Pb206- U238 being the starting nuclide and Pb206 being the final product in the chain.

    It is assumed that zircons reject lead and therefor all lead (Pb) in the crystal is from rad decay.

    So if the mother element has been sitting around decaying for millions or billions of years before being incorporated into the zircon we would need to take that into consideration- no?

    I am well aware that you reject radiomentric dating.

    In the case for the age of the Earth it makes too many untestable assumptions.

    What I am asking is if you understand why the age of the mother element when locked into a rock is not relevant when using radiomentric dating.

    I think the age of the mother element would affect the ratio observed.

     
  • At 12:30 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I think the age of the mother element would affect the ratio observed."

    Why? try and make a positive case for once.

     
  • At 4:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nice projection RT.

    However the reason the age of the mother element would affect the ratio is because that is what we are dating.

    The ratio is indicative of the decay rate- time it has been decaying.

    For example if we start with a pound of pure U238, then in about 4.47 by we should have a half pound of U238 and a half pound of Pb206- 50/50 ratio.

    Now what about if you only have one atom of U238?

    In 4.47 by you will either still have that atom- of U238- or any one of the nuclides in the decay chain down to and including Pb206.

    Allegedly, however, if you do this with enough atoms then 50% of the time the 4.47 by timeline will be met.

    Most of the decay time is in the first step- from U238 to Th234 (more than 4 by).

    So if some/ most/ all the U238 that gets incorporated into the crystal is already 4 byo then that would skew the final ratio in favor of an older rock.

     
  • At 11:01 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    IOW Hawks cannot think of anything rational to say so he is forced to pull another PoS from his arse.

    Au contraire, mon chere. You can't even say if the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, 600 years old or 45 seconds old. Or, heck, it might even be created sometime in the future. Such is the consequences of yours (and ID's) "thinking".

     
  • At 1:32 AM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…

    You are NOT measuring the age of the mother element. You are measuring the age of the sample CONTAINING a certain amount of the mother element.

    The age of any of the atoms in the sample is not of use in any way in radiomentric dating.

    The ONLY thing looked at is the ratio between the amounts of elements in the sample.

    The age of the mother element doesn't change these ratios. It has no effect whatsoever.

    If you have trouble understanding this simple comcept, it is not surprising at all that you are having trouble understanding more complex ones like evolution.

     
  • At 7:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks:
    You can't even say if the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, 600 years old or 45 seconds old.

    There isn't any positive evidence for any of those.

    Such is the consequences of yours (and ID's) "thinking".

    No, that is the consequnce of your stupidity.

    Also when they start teaching what people had for breakfast in science class your original spewage would be relevant.

     
  • At 7:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You are NOT measuring the age of the mother element.

    I am not. The people who do the measuring are.

    That is what a half-life is.

    It is the time (ie age) that it takes 1/2 of the mother element to decay into something else.

    You are measuring the age of the sample CONTAINING a certain amount of the mother element.

    The people doing the measurement are measuring the ratio because that ratio is supposed to tell us something about the decay of the mother product.

    And if the mother product is old to begin with the decay will be skewed.

    As for evolution- I am still waiting for positive evidence that blind, undirected processes can do what people like you say they did.

    IOW FL you cannot provide any positive evidence for that either.

     
  • At 7:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The ratio measured is the ratio produced by the decay of the mother element.

    And if that mother element has been decaying for billions of years before it gets incorporated into the rock then the rock's age will be skewed.

    If you cannot understand a simple concept like that then there isn't any way you will understand anything as complex as biology.

     
  • At 1:16 AM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…

    Go back to the marble analogy I provided.

    Do you understand that in that analogy the age of the marbles is not of interest?

    The age of the marbles is not used to determine when the marbles were placed in the jar.

    The ONLY thing that is used is the ratio between the two colors.

    Thats it. It's really that simple.

    The age of the mother element is not used. The only thing that is used is the ratios between mother and daughter elements.

    This ratio is not determined by the age of the mother element BEFORE being deposited in the rock. It is determined by how long the mother element has been locked in the rock after the rock was formed.

    What I don't understand here, is why you asked the question in the first place. You ask a question, and when I answer it, you refuse to listen to the answer, and cling to the idea you had since you posted the question. Why then ask the question?

    I am beginning to suspect that you are not interested in educating yourself by asking questions, but that you are asking questions simply to argue the point in troll fashion.

     
  • At 7:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Go back to the marble analogy I provided.

    Do you understand that in that analogy the age of the marbles is not of interest?


    I also undersatnd that the analogy has nothing to do with radiometric dating which is all about the age of the mother element.

    What do you think the ratio is about?

    It is about the age of the mother product.

    The ONLY thing that is used is the ratio between the two colors.

    That is incorrect.

    The ratio is useless if you do not know the time factor (ten minutes per marble change).

    The age of the mother element is not used. The only thing that is used is the ratios between mother and daughter elements.

    With radiometric dating the ratio is determined by the age of the mother element.

    That is the whole purpose.

    For example if we start with a 1 pound sample of pure U238 then in about 4.47 billion years we would expect to see a ratio of 50% U238 and 50% Pb 206.

    It is determined by how long the mother element has been locked in the rock after the rock was formed.

    And that is why the dating methodology is unreliable.

    What I don't understand here, is why you asked the question in the first place. You ask a question, and when I answer it, you refuse to listen to the answer, and cling to the idea you had since you posted the question. Why then ask the question?

    What question?

    I am beginning to suspect that you are not interested in educating yourself by asking questions, but that you are asking questions simply to argue the point in troll fashion.

    You do not appear to be an authority and you are anonymous.

     
  • At 2:06 AM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…


    I also undersatnd that the analogy has nothing to do with radiometric dating which is all about the age of the mother element.

    What do you think the ratio is about?

    It is about the age of the mother product.


    No. No, it really is not. The ratio is about the age of the ROCK. Not the mother element. The mother element can be ANY age BEFORE it is deposited in the rock. Remember, when using radiometric dating, you are not measuring the age of the mother element. You are measuring the AGE OF THE ROCK. You measure the age of the rock by comparing the ratio between the mother element, and the daughter element, and the doing a calculation based on the half life of the mother element, and this ratio.


    The ratio is useless if you do not know the time factor (ten minutes per marble change).


    The POINT is that the age of the marbles when they are placed in the jar is not used. Do you understand why?


    With radiometric dating the ratio is determined by the age of the mother element.

    That is the whole purpose.

    For example if we start with a 1 pound sample of pure U238 then in about 4.47 billion years we would expect to see a ratio of 50% U238 and 50% Pb 206.


    Even in your example, the age of the mother element is irrelevant. The age of the SAMPLE is determined, not the age of the mother element. At the moment the mother element is locked into the sample, the mother element can be any age whatsoever. AFTER the mother element is locked into the sample, decay starts, and daughter element is produced. Now you can ompare the amounts of mother element with daughter element, and figure out how much time went by since the mother element was locked into the sample. The age of the mother element when it is locked into the sample is 100% irrelevent, since it is not used in any of the calculations.


    And that is why the dating methodology is unreliable.


    Then you will have to explain how you can get the same age, in the same sample, for different mother-daughter element pairs, with DIFFERENT half lives.
    Also, why does isochron dating work?



    What question?


    The question you asked in the OP?


    You do not appear to be an authority and you are anonymous.


    Why take my word for it? Why don't you email someone at a university who actually works with radiometric dating, and ask them if the age of the mother element is important?

     
  • At 7:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The ratio is about the age of the ROCK.

    The ratio determines the age of the mother element.

    What the fuck do you think they are measuring? (the decay rate of the mother element)

    You measure the age of the rock by comparing the ratio between the mother element, and the daughter element, and the doing a calculation based on the half life of the mother element, and this ratio.

    The decay rate of the mother element tells us its age.

    The ratio is used to determine how much has decayed thereby giving us the age- ie how long the mother element has been decaying.

    Even in your example, the age of the mother element is irrelevant. The age of the SAMPLE is determined, not the age of the mother element.

    The sample came from the mother element.

    The ratio determined the age of the sample and the sample was the mother element.

    AFTER the mother element is locked into the sample, decay starts, and daughter element is produced.

    That is false.

    Decay starts before the mother element gets locked into the rock.

    Now you can ompare the amounts of mother element with daughter element, and figure out how much time went by since the mother element was locked into the sample.

    That is what you say however decay can start before the mother element gets locked into the sample thereby skewing the results because the results are based on the mother element's half-life- ie the aging process of the mother element.

    Then you will have to explain how you can get the same age, in the same sample, for different mother-daughter element pairs, with DIFFERENT half lives.
    Also, why does isochron dating work?


    Who says isochron dating works?

    Who says that every diffeernt mother- daughter from the same sample gives the same age?

    As for questions in the OP:

    However when does rad decay start? Phycists have told me that radioactive decay can start once the unstable element is formed.

    So when is that?

    Well physics 101 says that all elements are born in the stars. All elements up to Fe (iron) form via fusion when burning fuel.

    The rest are born via fusion when a (the) star goes supernova.

    So if rad decay can start when the elements are formed then we would have to know what suprnovae seeded out part of the galaxy in order to know anything about age.


    I answered them.

    Do you have an issue with the answers?

    If you do then you are the problem, not a solution.

    But please, by all means, explain your issue(s) with the answers.

     
  • At 7:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The ratio measured is the ratio produced by the decay of the mother element.

    And if that mother element has been decaying for billions of years before it gets incorporated into the rock then the rock's age will be skewed.

     
  • At 7:36 AM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…

    I think I know where the misunderstanding lies now.

    Lets use the marbles again.

    Lets say you start with 100 red marbles. Lets say the half life of red marbles is 1 day.

    So, after 1 day, the jar should contain 50 red marbles, and 50 blue ones. (statistically speaking of course)

    So I put 100 red marbles in a jar, and leave them for a day. The jar now contains 50 red, and 50 blue.

    Then I take the 50 red marbles from the jar, and put them in a completely new jar. I then add 50 red marbles, and mix them around.

    If I wait another day, the jar will contain 50 red and 50 blue marbles.

    Can you see that it does not matter where the marbles come from. The history of the marbles BEFORE they were placed in the jar does not matter.

    Lets say that there are green marbles as well. Green decays into red, and red decays into blue.

    Now if I start with two green marbles, and I wait for one of them to decay into red, I have one red and one green. Now I wait for the other green marble to decay into red as well. Now I have two red marbles.

    We know that one red marble is older then the other one. But even though one is older, both have EXACTLY the same chance of decaying into blue next.

    Are you with me so far?

     
  • At 8:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The problem is that you have lost your marbles.

    Uranium that has been decaying for 4 billion years is more likely to decay into lead before Uranium that has just been formed.

    Do you understand that?

     
  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe wrote: Uranium that has been decaying for 4 billion years is more likely to decay into lead before Uranium that has just been formed.

    You are mistaken, Joe. Radioactive decay is a memoryless process. An atom that has been just created in a nuclear reaction and an atom of the same species that has been around for a billion years have equal probabilities of decay in the next 10 minutes.

     
  • At 10:37 AM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…

    Well, at least we have identifeid the source of your confusion.

    In fact, an Uranium atom that formed yesterday is JUST AS LIKELY to decay as an Uranium atom that formed a billion years ago.

    Perhaps this simple page I found will help you:

    http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/isotopes/lifetime.html

     
  • At 11:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Uranium that has been decaying for 4 billion years is more likely to decay into lead before Uranium that has just been formed.

    It has already been decaying-

    so olegt chimes in with:
    You are mistaken, Joe. Radioactive decay is a memoryless process. An atom that has been just created in a nuclear reaction and an atom of the same species that has been around for a billion years have equal probabilities of decay in the next 10 minutes.

    That isn't what I said.

    In my scenario the uranium has already been decaying for 4 billion years.

    And I have already addressed your complaint in the OP:

    Phycists have told me that radioactive decay can start once the unstable element is formed.

     
  • At 12:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    FrikkinLazer:
    Well, at least we have identifeid the source of your confusion.

    In fact, an Uranium atom that formed yesterday is JUST AS LIKELY to decay as an Uranium atom that formed a billion years ago.


    The confusion is all yours.

    I said one sample has been decaying for 4 billion years.

    It isn't waiting to start decaying it is well on its way to decaying into Th234- heck some may be beyond that point in the decay chain.

     
  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A speaking about simple- your link didn't work.

    You need to learn how to use the html tags.

    If those are too difficult for you to master then I would say rad dating and biology are way over your head...

     
  • At 12:36 PM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…

    If you have two Uranium atoms, and one has existed for ten seconds, and the other for 4 billion years, both atoms have EXACTLY THE SAME CHANCE of decaying next.

    This is not my opinion of the matter, thats just the way it is. I am really not sure how to convey this to you other than simply stating it as fact.

    I know the concept is strange, and also extremely counter intuitive, but there you have it.

     
  • At 12:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you have two timers- A and B- both set for 10 minutes and you start timer A 5 minutes before you start timer B, which timer goes off first?

    If you walk into a room that has those timers sitting on the table with timer B showing 4 minutes left (timer A had already stopped), what could you say about those timers if you didn't observe them being set?

    Could you say how long timer A has been off?

    How long has timer B been running since being placed in that room?

    Timer B could have been running for 6 minutes but it could have been running before it was placed in the room.

    Timer A could have been in that state forever.

    Can't tell the difference between a timer that has never been used and a timer that was recently used nor a timer that was used once a long, long time ago.

     
  • At 5:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you have two Uranium atoms, and one has existed for ten seconds, and the other for 4 billion years, both atoms have EXACTLY THE SAME CHANCE of decaying next.

    That doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

    Are you that obtuse that you cannot understand what I posted explaining exactly that?

     
  • At 7:53 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Hawks:
    You can't even say if the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, 600 years old or 45 seconds old.

    Joe:There isn't any positive evidence for any of those.


    Under ID, there can't be any evidence for either of them.

    P.S. thanks for the entertainment.

     
  • At 12:26 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe wrote: There is only one thing that I could be missing and that is if the radioactive clocks got reset somehow when the Earth was forming.

    But I cannot find any reference that states that is so.


    You are confused, Joe. Atomic elements themselves don't have clocks. When a free uranium atom decays the decay products disperse and you have no idea how long the U atom itself has been around. What you need is an environment in which the decay product don't move away.

    Such an environment is produced when a radioactive atom gets embedded in a crystal, solid rock. When scientists examine a rock with uranium content they check the relative concentrations of three lead isotopes, 204, 206, and 207. These ratios tell you for how long uranium has been decaying. That's how we know that the oldest rocks in the solar system have been formed about 4.5 billion years ago.

     
  • At 9:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Atomic elements themselves don't have clocks.

    radioactive clock:

    "Not long after the
    discovery of radioactivity in 1896, scientists realized that radioactive decay constitutes a “clock” capable
    of measuring absolute geologic time."


    What you need is an environment in which the decay product don't move away.

    Such an environment is produced when a radioactive atom gets embedded in a crystal, solid rock.


    That doesn't always prevent leaching.

    That's how we know that the oldest rocks in the solar system have been formed about 4.5 billion years ago.

    Right and the Earth is made up of those old rocks.

    IOW the Earth could be young- just made out of old stuff.

     
  • At 9:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks:
    You can't even say if the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, 600 years old or 45 seconds old.


    Joe:There isn't any positive evidence for any of those.

    Under ID, there can't be any evidence for either of them.

    Why is that?

     
  • At 12:57 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Hawks:
    You can't even say if the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, 600 years old or 45 seconds old.

    Joe:There isn't any positive evidence for any of those.

    Hawks:Under ID, there can't be any evidence for either of them.

    Joe: Why is that?


    Because a totally unspecified intelligent designer COULD have made the Earth look, for example, 4.5 billion years old, 600 years old or 45 seconds old even though it, in fact, could be 36 trillion years old.

     
  • At 1:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You said there can't be any evidence and now you are saying there could be evidence.

    And how do you know what an unspecified designer could do?

     
  • At 10:34 AM, Blogger Hawks said…

    You said there can't be any evidence and now you are saying there could be evidence.

    No, I said that there could be no evidence under ID.

    And how do you know what an unspecified designer could do?

    Seriously? Are you really that ignorant about ID?

    Here is some basic ID for you:

    ID allows for ANY type of designer. It could, for example, be humans, klingons or the god of the bible. With all there possibilities (an infinite of them) there is a possibility that the "real" designer could be anything and have any conceivable (and inconceivable) power.

     
  • At 4:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Here is some basic ID for you:

    ID allows for ANY type of designer.


    ID doesn't say anything about the designer.

    But anyway- ID is all about positive evidence.

     
  • At 11:25 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    ID doesn't say anything about the designer.

    That was pretty much my point.

    But anyway- ID is all about positive evidence.

    And without saying something about the designer, you can't have any positive evidence for the age of the Earth. Isn't that so, Joe?

     
  • At 3:35 AM, Blogger FrikkinLazer said…


    That doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

    Are you that obtuse that you cannot understand what I posted explaining exactly that?


    I understand exactly what you are saying.

    What you are saying is that when dating a sample using radiometric dating, you use the ratio between the mother and daughter element. But since the mother element might already be billions of years old BEFORE it ends up in the rock, you think that the ratio will be skewed, since the mother element has already spent a lot of time decaying. You think that this gives atoms that is older a head start over atoms that are brand new, and since they have a head start they will decay sooner than atoms that are brand spanking new.

    This is your problem with the mother element existing for a long time BEFORE the formation of the rock.

    I hope this describes your position fairly acurately.

    Now, the problem with your argument is that if you have two Uranium atoms (for example), they both have THE SAME CHANCE of decaying next, independant of thier age.

    What seems to be confusing you is that you think atoms change slowly over time until they are degraded so much that they decay. You seem to think that an atom becomes unstable over a period of time, until it cannot maintain its form, and is forced to decay.

    This is not how it works. An atom just sits there, its chance of decaying in the next second determined by its half life. The age of the atom does not determine its half life, and so its odds of decaying within the next second is not changed by its age. The age of the atom is not relevant. Let me repeat that: The age of the atom is does not determine the odds of the atom decaying within the next second, because the age of the element does not have any effect on the half life of the element.

    When observing a single atom, decay happens suddenly. It does not happen over any great amount of time. Decay does not build up in the atom until the atom cannot maintain its state. Decay is sudden.

    If the age of an element had any effect on when it decays, then mixing 50% Uranium that is a billion years old with 50% Uranium that was formed 10 seconds ago will result in a mixture of Uranium with a half-life that is not equal to the half life of Uranium. If what you say is correct, the Uranium mixture should decay FASTER.

    THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SEE.

    The half-life of a mixture of atoms does not change if you mix old Uranium with new Uranium.

    Consider the following:

    Take a block of Uranium. Every atom in this block is 4 billion years old. Call this block A.

    Block B is contains the same amount of Uranium atoms that block B contains, but all atoms in block B is 1 day old.

    Not, put the blocks next to each other. Now wait a period of time equal to the half-life of Uranium.

    Block A now contains 50% Uranium.
    Block B now contains 50% Uranium.

    Notice that even though Block A consisted of Uranium that is billions of years older then the atoms in block B, the half life did not change.

    Do you understand this now?

    You don't even have to take my word for it. You can find a physisist you think is trustworthy, and ask them the question: "Does the age of a block of Uranium change it's half life?"

     
  • At 10:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And without saying something about the designer, you can't have any positive evidence for the age of the Earth.

    Why is that?

     
  • At 10:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    FRikkenLazer:
    Now, the problem with your argument is that if you have two Uranium atoms (for example), they both have THE SAME CHANCE of decaying next, independant of thier age.

    That doesn't have anything to do with what I am saying.

    When observing a single atom, decay happens suddenly. It does not happen over any great amount of time. Decay does not build up in the atom until the atom cannot maintain its state. Decay is sudden.

    So an atom of U238 will decay suddenly and it will not take 4.47 billion years?

    According to your scenario the Earth was formed via colliding meteors, asteroids, comets-> ie space debris.

    That means the U238 would have been locked up in crystals for eons before Earth formed.

    Decay would have been going on for eons before the Earth formed.

    IOW the Earth is made up of old stuff- but that doesn't mean the Earth is old.

     
  • At 1:54 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Me:And without saying something about the designer, you can't have any positive evidence for the age of the Earth.

    Joe:Why is that?


    I'll just rewrite what I wrote to you the last time you asked the same question, shall I?

    Because a totally unspecified intelligent designer COULD have made the Earth look, for example, 4.5 billion years old, 600 years old or 45 seconds old even though it, in fact, could be 36 trillion years.

    Would you care to argue against that point or not?

     
  • At 2:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Because a totally unspecified intelligent designer COULD have made the Earth look, for example, 4.5 billion years old, 600 years old or 45 seconds old even though it, in fact, could be 36 trillion years.

    You don't have any idea what an unspecified intelligent designer could do.

     
  • At 7:07 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    You don't have any idea what an unspecified intelligent designer could do.

    You keep on saying that as if you had some sort of insight. Try to get this through your thick skull: under ID, it is POSSIBLE that an intelligent designer COULD have made the Earth look, for example, 4.5 billion years old, 600 years old or 45 seconds old even though it, in fact, could be 36 trillion years.

    It is equally possible that an intelligent designer COULD have made the Earth look, for example, 4.5 billion years old, 600 years old or 45 seconds old even though it, in fact, could be 2 seconds old.

    It is equally possible that an intelligent designer COULD have made the Earth look, for example, 6000 years old, 600 years old or 45 seconds old even though it, in fact, could be non-existent.

    All this is under ID, obviously.

    Now, Joe, explain to me why, under ID, any measurement of the age of the Earth would be more likely to be correct than any other.

     
  • At 7:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You don't have any idea what an unspecified intelligent designer could do.

    You keep on saying that as if you had some sort of insight.

    I keep saying it because it is a fact.

    under ID, it is POSSIBLE that an intelligent designer COULD have made the Earth look, for example, 4.5 billion years old, 600 years old or 45 seconds old even though it, in fact, could be 36 trillion years.

    That is either a strawman or red herring- take your pick.

    Get that through your fucking thick skull.

    Now, Joe, explain to me why, under ID, any measurement of the age of the Earth would be more likely to be correct than any other.

    Explain to me why that has anything to do with any claim I have made- ever.

     
  • At 9:57 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    me:under ID, it is POSSIBLE that an intelligent designer COULD have made the Earth look, for example, 4.5 billion years old, 600 years old or 45 seconds old even though it, in fact, could be 36 trillion years.

    Joe:That is either a strawman or red herring- take your pick.


    No.............

    Me:Now, Joe, explain to me why, under ID, any measurement of the age of the Earth would be more likely to be correct than any other.

    Joe:Explain to me why that has anything to do with any claim I have made- ever.


    This all started when I responded to what you wrote:

    So the bottom line is when someone tells you that the Earth is 4.5 byo, all they are really doing is telling you the speculation based on the assumption (that the Earth was not intelligently designed).

    Remember? You added the possibility that everything was intelligently designed. I responded that this meant that you could say nothing about the age of the Earth. Remember?

    Now, Joe, explain to me why, under ID, any measurement of the age of the Earth would be more likely to be correct than any other.

     
  • At 7:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks:
    under ID, it is POSSIBLE that an intelligent designer COULD have made the Earth look, for example, 4.5 billion years old, 600 years old or 45 seconds old even though it, in fact, could be 36 trillion years.

    Joe:That is either a strawman or red herring- take your pick.

    Hawks:
    No.............

    Yes it is.

    Bye-bye...

     
  • At 3:15 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Joe:You don't have any idea what an unspecified intelligent designer could do.

    Me:You keep on saying that as if you had some sort of insight.

    Joe:I keep saying it because it is a fact.


    For once, you sort of got something right. I don't have any idea what an unspecified intelligent designer could do. That is sort of the whole point. Neither does ID.

     
  • At 7:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks:
    For once, you sort of got something right.

    That is more than you have ever accomplished.

     
  • At 11:40 AM, Blogger Hawks said…

    So.. since you sort of got something right, you could perhaps answer my question as to why, under ID, any estimation of the age of the Earth is better than any other?

    Explain this in the context of us knowing nothing about the designer. Or, perhaps, explain why you think you know something about the designer and how this helps you estimate the age of the Earth.

     
  • At 3:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm I never said that the estimate for the age of the earth is better under ID.

    All I have ever said about that is that we have to know something about how the earth was formed before making such an estimate.

     
  • At 6:22 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Umm I never said that the estimate for the age of the earth is better under ID.

    I never asked you why this would be better under ID than non-ID. I asked why any ID estimate would be better than any other ID estimate.

    All I have ever said about that is that we have to know something about how the earth was formed before making such an estimate.

    And using ID, how would you get such knowledge?

     
  • At 7:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I never asked you why this would be better under ID than non-ID. I asked why any ID estimate would be better than any other ID estimate.

    That is close but not quite what you asked:

    why, under ID, any estimation of the age of the Earth is better than any other?

    Meaning any other estimate of the earth.

    I asked why any ID estimate would be better than any other ID estimate.

    The age of the Earth is does not concern ID.

    IOW it doesn't give an estimate on the age of the earth.

    All I have ever said about that is that we have to know something about how the earth was formed before making such an estimate.

    And using ID, how would you get such knowledge?

    I am sure if it really matters someone will figure that out.

     
  • At 10:44 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    That is close but not quite what you asked:

    why, under ID, any estimation of the age of the Earth is better than any other?

    Meaning any other estimate of the earth.


    No, that was not my meaning. That's how you read it. But at least you sort of gave an answer to my question:

    The age of the Earth is does not concern ID.

    IOW it doesn't give an estimate on the age of the earth.


    Yeah, it can't.

    If you were consistent, you would not then claim (regarding how the Earth was formed using ID):

    I am sure if it really matters someone will figure that out.

    Not under ID they will. For exactly the same reason that ID can't be used to estimate the age of the Earth.


    btw, Joe. The age of the Earth does concern ID. After all, one of ID's claims is that there has not been enough time for all this wonderful complexity to have evolved (without intelligence). You can't say such a thing without taking into account the age of the Earth.

     
  • At 7:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    btw, Joe. The age of the Earth does concern ID.

    No it isn't.

    After all, one of ID's claims is that there has not been enough time for all this wonderful complexity to have evolved (without intelligence).

    No it isn't.

    And there isn't any evidence that 4.5 by is enough time for blind, undirected chemical processes to do their magic.

    You can't say such a thing without taking into account the age of the Earth.

    Then it is a good thing tat ID does not say such a thing.

    That is close but not quite what you asked:

    why, under ID, any estimation of the age of the Earth is better than any other?

    Meaning any other estimate of the earth.


    No, that was not my meaning.

    Perhaps not but that is how your sentence reads.

    That's how you read it.

    If it was only me you would have a point.

    However my English teacher neighbor agrees with me.

    The age of the Earth is does not concern ID.

    IOW it doesn't give an estimate on the age of the earth.


    Yeah, it can't

    Right ID cannot.

    ID is not an entity asshole.

    However IDists may be able to but only once how the Earth was formed is determined.

     
  • At 1:09 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Me:btw, Joe. The age of the Earth does concern ID.

    Joe:No it isn't.


    Maybe you should show your english teacher neighbor what you wrote above. Also point out to him that english is spelled with a capital E.

    And there isn't any evidence that 4.5 by is enough time for blind, undirected chemical processes to do their magic.

    And why would that be relevant if ID doesn't care about the age of the Earth?

    However IDists may be able to but only once how the Earth was formed is determined.

    They will never determine that. They can't.

     
  • At 3:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Maybe you should show your english teacher neighbor what you wrote above. Also point out to him that english is spelled with a capital E.

    In the context I used it English is spelled with a capital "E".

    And there isn't any evidence that 4.5 by is enough time for blind, undirected chemical processes to do their magic.

    And why would that be relevant if ID doesn't care about the age of the Earth?

    You are the one who brought it up asshole.

    And obviously you brought it up because you are sooo fucking ignorant of ID that you have to lie.

    However IDists may be able to but only once how the Earth was formed is determined.

    They will never determine that. They can't.

    So claims the ignorant asshole...

     
  • At 4:05 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    In the context I used it English is spelled with a capital "E".


    That's a keeper, Joe. (also, you missed a comma in the above sentence)

    Me:And why would that be relevant if ID doesn't care about the age of the Earth?

    Joe:You are the one who brought it up asshole.


    No, I didn't. You claimed that 4.5 by was not enough. I claimed that you, as an IDer, could say nothing about the age of the Earth. Do pay attention, double-O-ring.

    Me:They will never determine that. They can't.

    Joe:So claims the ignorant asshole...


    Freud again...

    It's some faily simple logic, Joe. Under ID, the designer could be just about anything. It could, for example, be deceiving us so that anything we think looks a million years old is, in fact, a million times older. Why dont you argue against that? Because you can't, perhaps?

     
  • At 5:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks,

    The "E" in "English" is capitalized in the context I used it.

    Now if you put english on a ball or observe someone's body english then the "e" is the lower case.

    You are the one who brought it up asshole.

    No, I didn't.

    Look fuckface YOU are the one who said:

    "The age of the Earth does concern ID. After all, one of ID's claims is that there has not been enough time for all this wonderful complexity to have evolved (without intelligence). You can't say such a thing without taking into account the age of the Earth."

    IOW YOU brought it up.

    I corrected you by saying that is not ID's position and rearked that 4.5 by isn't enough anywho.

    I claimed that you, as an IDer, could say nothing about the age of the Earth.

    You do spew many falsehoods, lies and bullshit.

    Under ID, the designer could be just about anything.

    That is your strawman.

    It could, for example, be deceiving us so that anything we think looks a million years old is, in fact, a million times older.

    Topped off with another strawman.

    If you want to get into this then in your scenario anything is possible.

    Shit accidents can make things look older tahn they really are...

     
  • At 1:38 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Now if you put english on a ball or observe someone's body english then the "e" is the lower case.

    Perhaps your english teacher neighbor could explain the above sentence for me?

    Two quotes from Joe:
    And there isn't any evidence that 4.5 by is enough time for blind, undirected chemical processes to do their magic.


    I corrected you by saying that is not ID's position and rearked that 4.5 by isn't enough anywho.

    Did you not being up 4.5 by?

    Me:Under ID, the designer could be just about anything.

    Joe:That is your strawman.


    Why is that a strawman?

     
  • At 5:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It's a strawman because ID doesn't say anything about the designer- duh.

     
  • At 4:33 PM, Blogger TerrencePhilip66 said…

    The magma chamber/crystal article is irrelevant. It does not matter when the crystal forms, it matters when it goes below a critical temperature, the closure temperature, at which point the isotopes are locked into the crystal. If the crystal goes above that temperature the clock is reset. The time the isotopes ratio gives will be that last time the crystal went below it's closure temperature.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home