15 Dec 05
Originally posted by Coletti"But how do we know what the original ratios of isotopes were?"
But how do we know what the original ratios or isotopes were? This is an assumption. They found ratios that did not seem right. So they accounted for them by asserting that there must have been a fission reaction. Doesn't that tell you something? The facts do not point to an old earth. The facts should not point to anything at all. Only the interpret ...[text shortened]... ng about a natural fission reactor - something scientist would never had considered before 1972.
I corrected 'or' to 'of'.
If it were the case that the original ratios were variable we would get different ratios from different studies which is not the case. I'm afriad your point is sadly NOT VALID.
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf I look at something without my glasses, they get fuzzy close up.
Actually, radioactive decay is pretty easy to do. We can do a pretty good analysis using, for example, 11C which has a half life of 20.4 minutes. Meaning that inside of an eight hour day you'll have 23 half lifes or 0.002% of the original amount. Pretty simple really. You want to test of on something a bit longer lived? How about iodine-131, half ...[text shortened]... really just theoretical. How do you think we came up with these theories on the first place???
If I look at them with my glasses they become clear.
So my question to you is, how do you know what you do that seems
to be quite simple in a short time span, yields they same results as
you push the time span out as far as you do? It isn’t like you have
a known sample that is a billion years old for a comparison, that
doesn’t depend on some method that may carry some unknown error
built into it. Dating methods that claim millions or billions of years
all boil down to either faith/belief/conclusions they sure don’t boil
down to facts.
Kelly
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'd say if we cannot verify even 2 hours can be an issue. How far off
What is the age threshold for this? Can the age of something 100 years old be a matter of fact? 1000? 10,000?
is off? If what we have is a conclusion based on current known good
data streams, as soon as we find something is amiss all bets are
off.
Kelly
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayOkay, of course I agree that there will be variation, but we're talking percentages of the 4 billion years. We're not talking orders of magnitude. Even without radiodating that Lord Kelvin chap worked out that the earth was a minimum of 24 million years old. (He worked out how long it'd take the rock to cool enough to set)
If I look at something without my glasses, they get fuzzy close up.
If I look at them with my glasses they become clear.
So my question to you is, how do you know what you do that seems
to be quite simple in a short time span, yields they same results as
you push the time span out as far as you do? It isn’t like you have
a known sample that is a bill ...[text shortened]... rs
all boil down to either faith/belief/conclusions they sure don’t boil
down to facts.
Kelly
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzThere are a lot of assumptions, and that is all we will ever have unless
Okay, of course I agree that there will be variation, but we're talking percentages of the 4 billion years. We're not talking orders of magnitude. Even without radiodating that Lord Kelvin chap worked out that the earth was a minimum of 24 million years old. (He worked out how long it'd take the rock to cool enough to set)
someone like God shows up and either shows us or tells what really
happened. Which I believe he did, but that is faith like I said before,
not a science manual. The truth of the matter, will remain a mystery
even if we think we know it, no one can know for sure.
Kelly
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayFair enough, I'm happy with that compromise. Science is the best guess we have at the moment, but we can't know definitively.
There are a lot of assumptions, and that is all we will ever have unless
someone like God shows up and either shows us or tells what really
happened. Which I believe he did, but that is faith like I said before,
not a science manual. The truth of the matter, will remain a mystery
even if we think we know it, no one can know for sure.
Kelly
