Why radioactive decay dates beyond around 4300 years are invalid

[The Barbarian]

On 3/1/2024 at 1:48 PM, dad2 said:

Your checking cannot be checked. The checking only applies as long as the current laws exist.

Since ancient evidence shows that the laws of physics were the same as now, your imagination is no substitute for reality.  You are merely grasping at straws and trying to reinvent the bible to fit your religion and belief system.

 

 

[Eman_3]

Every valid piece of evidence points to the simple fact that the laws of physics are unchanging. What they were a million years ago, or ten seconds ago, no difference.

 

If you can prove me wrong, then there is a Nobel prize and millions of dollars waiting for your collection.

[The Barbarian]

On 3/1/2024 at 11:55 AM, dad2 said:

It is not verified for Noah's day

Actually, it is verified long before that.   Would you like to learn how we know it?

Hint Oklo reactor as one way.    The fact that we are here is another way.   If radioactive decay was faster in the past, the added radiation would have fried all living things on Earth.   If it was slower in the past, then the Earth would be much older than we think it is.

Rock and a hard place for creationists.

 

[dad2]

12 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Since ancient evidence shows that the laws of physics were the same as now, your imagination is no substitute for reality.  You are merely grasping at straws and trying to reinvent the bible to fit your religion and belief system.

 

 

How ancient evidence is would be the question.

[dad2]

6 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Actually, it is verified long before that.   Would you like to learn how we know it?

Hint Oklo reactor as one way.    The fact that we are here is another way.   If radioactive decay was faster in the past, the added radiation would have fried all living things on Earth.   If it was slower in the past, then the Earth would be much older than we think it is.

Rock and a hard place for creationists.

 

The whole site was submerged underwater years ago, so no one can go and recheck evidences. There were reactions in the former world nature as well, in case this is news. The problem for you is that you invoke a long series of miracles to have the ratios of isotopes we saw there come to exist. Ever consider that it may have happened another way? One such miracle in your fable is the magic elevator ride. The sites  all got dunked miles underground for no apparent reason right at the exact right time. Why? Because that needed to happen for a natural explanation, using today's physics to be even possible theoretically. Then of course untold eons later just when needed all sites magically rise to the surface again! Hilarious. I am surprised you would mention that, let alone make a silly allusion that is supports your religion.

[The Barbarian]

2 minutes ago, dad2 said:

The whole site was submerged underwater years ago, so no one can go and recheck evidences. There were reactions in the former world nature as well, in case this is news. The problem for you is that you invoke a long series of miracles to have the ratios of isotopes we saw there come to exist.

Nope.  It's observed in labs.    Decay rates are precisely known for them and the isotope mix is consistent with the age derived by other means.    No point in denial.

3 minutes ago, dad2 said:

One such miracle in your fable is the magic elevator ride. The sites  all got dunked miles underground for no apparent reason right at the exact right time.

Wrong again.   Plate tectonics nicely shows how that worked.  Would you like to learn how we know that?

4 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Why? Because that needed to happen for a natural explanation,

And you're wrong there, too.   The plate movement was known long before Oklo was discovered.

3 hours ago, dad2 said:

Because that needed to happen for a natural explanation, using today's physics to be even possible theoretically.

The forces and movements involved are well-understood.  No magic involved.

4 hours ago, dad2 said:

Then of course untold eons later just when needed all sites magically rise to the surface again!

Needed?   C'mon.  Such concentrations are rare but not unique:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-reactor/

Nice try, though.

4 hours ago, dad2 said:

I am surprised you would mention that, let alone make a silly allusion that is supports your religion.

Christianity doesn't need stuff like that.   Sorry about your religion.

 

[dad2]

Quote

Nope.  It's observed in labs.    Decay rates are precisely known for them and the isotope mix is consistent with the age derived by other means.    No point in denial.

Everything observed in labs has only been observed since there were labs. What is to deny?

Quote

Wrong again.   Plate tectonics nicely shows how that worked.  Would you like to learn how we know that?

What you need to do is prove plate tectonics selectively dunked the sited of Oklo then resurfaced them again as needed!

Quote

And you're wrong there, too.   The plate movement was known long before Oklo was discovered.

Plates move and did move a lot in the past. Nothing to do with Gabon and the Oklo specs.

 

Quote

Needed?   C'mon.  Such concentrations are rare but not unique:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-reactor/

Nice try, though.

Christianity doesn't need stuff like that.   Sorry about your religion.

 

Yes absolutely needed. You should know that if you raise the issue. The needed reactions require being under the surface (some of them)

Edited March 7, 2024 by dad2

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

Everything observed in labs has only been observed since there were labs.

Nope.   Natural reators like Oklo show us that the decay rates have been constant over billions of years.    And, as you learned, if they had been faster in the past, the increase ionizing radiation would have killed all living things on Earth.   No way to get around that.

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

What you need to do is prove plate tectonics selectively dunked the sited of Oklo

But it didn't.   That site moved with the rest of the plate.   If you would bother to learn a little about this, you wouldn't be messing up like this.

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

Plates move and did move a lot in the past. Nothing to do with Gabon and the Oklo specs.

The reactors occurred in an aquatic environment that eventually was raised through plate and fault movements, as shown in Fig. 8.

http://magdiragheb.com/NPRE 402 ME 405 Nuclear Power Engineering/Natural Nuclear Reactors, The Oklo Phenomenon.pdf

Remember, if you learn about it, you'll be harder to embarrass like this.

7 hours ago, dad2 said:

I am surprised you would mention that, let alone make a silly allusion that is supports your religion.

Needed?   C'mon.  Such concentrations are rare but not unique:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-nuclear-reactor/

Nice try, though.

Christianity doesn't need stuff like that.   Sorry about your religion.

[dad2]

Quote

Nope.   Natural reators like Oklo show us that the decay rates have been constant over billions of years.   

No they show you use beliefs to piece together explanations regardless of how utterly unsupported and absurd they may be.

Quote

And, as you learned, if they had been faster in the past, the increase ionizing radiation would have killed all living things on Earth.   No way to get around that.

Different does not mean faster.

Quote

But it didn't.   That site moved with the rest of the plate.   If you would bother to learn a little about this, you wouldn't be messing up like this.

Support the claim that the whole plate submerged and resurfaced?

 

Quote

The reactors occurred in an aquatic environment that eventually was raised through plate and fault movements, as shown in Fig. 8.

http://magdiragheb.com/NPRE 402 ME 405 Nuclear Power Engineering/Natural Nuclear Reactors, The Oklo Phenomenon.pdf

Of course your link says nothing about what plates moved how or why etc. Zero. It says this
The tectonic hypothesis suggests that the reactors occurred in an aquatic
environment that eventually was raised through plate and fault movements

Less than laughable

[The Barbarian]

The major problem for your new Noah story is that the Bible doesn't say the flood was global. 

 

On 3/1/2024 at 1:48 PM, dad2 said:

That is not an issue.

It isn't for one who knows the difference between "land" and "whole world."