Actually, in Oklo there are supposed to have been a chain of decays. Depending on the half lives, and when the reactions are thought to have happened, some isotopes would no longer be expected to be there because they would have decayed away. For example, if something was supposedly decaying for a few billion years, and something, say, had a half life of 50,000 years, when we look at what is there now, we would not expect to see the isotopes with the 50,000 year half life...would we? So, it would now be missing.
Re: Starman fails again to address the issues or provide evidence. Fail #36
Nor do you have evidence there was not a former nature. Either one. So that doesn't help you.
As for your pics, can you tell us how old the tree was and where the pics were in the life of the tree? Ha. You seem to be making the point that in THIS nature, a tree ring sequence will be a certain way. Irrelevant to your discussion of some different nature in the past.
True, but that gives us additional evidence for an old earth, because
short half-life isotopes have all decayed to the next isotope in the decay chain, a fact that would not occur with a young earth, and they leave evidence of their existence in the existence of those products, the products of the decay of those short half-life isotopes a just exactly the same products as we observe today, and they are in just exactly the same proportions to the other elements as we observe today.
So prove that the next isotopes in the chain cam from decay?
When you say "what nature" do you have a hypothesis or belief as to what natures there are?
No. You do not.
this is a science thread, and that means arguments pro and con must involve the scientific methodologies
Long as they cover it, of course. Too bad they don't for origins issues eh?
As long as a theory provides usable predictions
Guess the same is true of the bible? It has plenty of those. Unlike science, they are not sometimes wrong either.
what evidence do you have that a "former nature" existed that was significantly different from what we see around us, from historical, geological and archaeological studies of the past..
History? Long lives and spirits recorded in Sumer and Egypt. Geographical? Strange to mention that, what do you want countries and coordinates? Archaeological? Not sure we have a lot of that for the very early dawn of earth? Science? None there at all, it is not even a contender in the debate as to what nature existed.
If you want to discuss the whole of dendrochronology..
That can't cover anything but this nature. If a ring grew fast several thousand years ago you have no way of knowing.
Marie Curie and her friends and associates are well over a century ahead of you on this, Creation. The paths of nuclear decay, and the paths that don’t get followed, were pretty well worked out by 1950. Old news, in other words.
This thread is not about misinformed comments on abiogenesis, and origins is not part of the thread. There are other threads about abiogenesis you can comment on, or you can start one at Proposed New Topics
This thread is not about you tossing out the word science and have it embrace whatever you like either.
There are no theories in the bible, and discussing them is irrelevant to this thread. Please deal with the evidence on this thread rather than posting pot-shots with no substantiating evidence. Your problem is to deal with the evidence, not talk about the bible.
Testable predictions I think was what was being discussed, not theories. Keep up. Since you claim predictions, post them. Remember, a prediction is not a circular argument designed to fit the evidence you beliefs.
Irrelevant. What is relevant is that 14-C levels in artifacts in Egyptian pyramids give the same dates as the historical record, thus validating the 14C usage to correlate artifacts to tree rings.
False. That is NOT relevant unless it came about in this nature. Your circular reasoning so called dating collaboration is indeed circular. You asusme a same nature in the past for both, and then claim by so doing, the imaginary dates agree.
Indeed, because curiously, what I mentioned was geological not geographical
Hold on...what exactly is geographical that you claim here??
And amusingly, we do not need to go back to the "very early dawn of earth" to show that young earth creationism is a bald false view of reality. That the data extends well beyond any YEC scenario has been shown, that it cross-correlates and provides consilient results across many different measurement systems shows that these data are robust and the conclusions made from the data are valid.
Sorry, no way. You should face the fact that the dates you use are faith based and not accepted as reality by YECs. For example, my opinion of when the flood was is about 70,000,000 years ago in your imagined science time. That equals about 4500 real actual years ago. So when you claim something is beyond YEC time remember you are only talking about faith based religious time that is not accepted.
Except you have yet to establish that you know what science is or how it works. Your comments bleed ignorance.
You have yet to establish that science works at all outside the fishbowl of this present nature. Your comments ooze self righteous dark religion.
But I do. Read the thread and stop shooting in the dark of ignorance. Just like starman ... going around to a bunch of threads and posting simplistic comments of "you have no way of knowing" is not an argument, is not science, is not debating in good faith.
And you pretend that somewhere hiding in a desert of belifs that you post as if they were science ,there is some weighty proof or support for. So far it doesn't look like there is anything but smoke and no fire.
Your task, should you undertake an actual debate on the subject at hand, is to show that what I have posted on this thread is false, not to make stuff up. This task involves you providing substantiatine evidence and some form of theory to demonstrate your argument provides a better explanation.
Your posts on any thread are not as deep or mystical or important as you thought apparently. In posts to me you offered preciesly zero! Allusions to some great posts you made. Get serious.
..your arguments provide are teaching moments for other people reading this thread to see and understand the science versus your threadbare arguments based on fantasy and imagination.
Some may not be learning what you think! Some may learn that maybe science doesn't really know after all.
Great. So you claim it was after the fact. No last week either? Let's look at how they went after the fact to SN1987a (and almost everything else in space as needed) to predict what kind of star actually blew up since they were wrong. Then look at the rings...they never predicted were there. Etc etc.
Great, and so far we see you want to use tree rings as if they were grown in this nature for no apparent reason. Then you want to use all the laws and forces that cause radioactive decay that we have in this present nature as if they also existed in Noah's day. It seems apparent to me that such religious claims should come with some scientific evidence?
So, when we bet barraged by belief based reasons why you imagine old ages, it is not off topic to request that you provide actual evidences.