Proof that evolution is the only answer

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

Because Lead 206 does not occur naturally. It only exists as the end result of radioactive decay of that specific isotope of Uranium. No other element, nor their isotopes, decay into Lead 206. It can NOT exist until U 238 begins to radioactively decay.

I've asked before, do you have any data suggesting that this is not true?

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. What is the evidence that lead-206 does not exist besides the radioactive decay of uranium? There should be a paper focusing on such because it is integral to accurate dating, but I cannot find such a paper.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Therefore, we can assume that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic.

That's my point^

Let's go over the definition of an isotope: an isotope is a DERIVATIVE of an existing element. The isotope of an element has the same number of protons, but has a different number of neutrons. Therefore, the isotope is unique to that element. Hence, Pb206 can only come from uranium. There is no other way it can be produced.

Regarding my zircon comments, again you're using the word "assume, assumption" in layman's terms. If you read the article (which I see you didn't), you would understand how many samples are tested, analyzed and the final result is calculated mathematically. These calculations are within a standard deviation.

You don't read the articles or you would be asking more intelligent questions.

Unfortunately you are speaking to a brick wall. Coop doesn't understand a lick of it, he pretends to and it's obvious. He thinks he can just make random statements online and that it somehow discredits science without even doing any science or research himself. Hopefully the short bus will leave this thread soon.

I know you're right, but I was hoping that he would learn a little basic physics. He really doesn't understand his own question I'm afraid.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton
Do you have any evidence at all that there is a separate, magical process to create these other lead isotopes?

When uranium was formed long ago, how do you know it was formed with concentrations of lead in a ratio of 100/0 Uranium/lead?

You assume this to be true, yet there is no empirical evidence that this is true - it is an assumption.

For the 900th time, Pb 206 can not exist unless U 238 undergoes radioactive decay. Why do you refuse to attempt to understand this point? At this stage you are being purposely obtuse and you know it. Has Raggedyman taken over posting for you or something?

You keep repeating that it's all assumption as if saying it 30 different times makes it more true. For the record, it does not. You have yet to provide any citations or even a pet hypothesis for any other mechanism for the formation of this isotope. You can't because there is not any other known mechanism. The only assumptions being made here are that you understand any of the subject matter.

scifun.chem.wisc.edu...

chemed.chem.purdue.edu...

Please demonstrate another valid mechanism that would allow for the formation of this daughter isotope or admit that you are simply being obstinate because you just don't believe or understand any of the chemistry involved.

a reply to: Phantom423

I know, you and Barcs, and PVlar need a rest once in a while.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: HiddenWaters
a reply to: cooperton
There is a misunderstanding here, the dating method described here using uranium and lead does not rely on environmental ratios of lead or uranium, not in the past and not now. The most common mineral tested is zircon-due to chemical properties, when zircon forms, it can incorporate uranium, but CANNOT incorporate lead into its structure, so it starts out with ZERO lead and possibly a certain amount of uranium, I come along 3 billion years later, find a zircon crystal and analyze that crystal and get a ratio of uranium to lead-since I know the half life of uranium,and I know the current ratio of lead to uranium, I can work out how old the zircon crystal is (ie. when it was formed). The lead in the zircon crystal can only come from the decay of the original uranium in the crystal when it formed.
What ever the ratios are outside the zircon crystal, they are irrelevant to the crystal itself.
I believe I have this more or less correct, if not, I'm sure the smarter ones in the crowd will correct me.

I gave him all that information including citations. He just doesn't read it or just doesn't understand it. Thank you for posting it again.

Unless its gospel, its not gospel. That's what it comes down to. Some horses will drown before they drink. Your efforts are noted, but save your time and energy and educate the willing.

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: DarkvsLight29
I also believe in evolution.

Just because something is created to evolve doesn't mean it wasn't created.

There is no evidence to suggest anything was created to evolve, if you have evidence do share.

My point is you can have it both ways.

a reply to: Phantom423

Not only that, but the narrow minded focus on Uranium series dating while ignoring basic facts of dating techniques. Particularly important is the fact that a single dating technique is never used to obtain an age on a sample. For example, lets look at the lunar samples returned by the Apollo missions that were dated to between 4.4 and 4.5 BnA. These dates were obtained using 2 different methods by multiple laboratories.

Meteorites that have been dated to between 4.4 and 4.6 BnA were obtained utilizing 5 separate dating techniques and again, by multiple laboratories. Time and time again, multiple dating techniques, performed at separate and independant labs, corroborate each other. That's some real magic if everything is just "assumption" yet independant labs using different techniques are arriving at the same dates within the known margins of error. Seriously, looking at it mathematically, the odds of assumptions leading to the same conclusion are astronomical. Some people just aren't looking at the big picture here because they're so focused on proving to themselves that one minor detail they are focused on with myopic acuity is of the utmost importance. It's insane.

originally posted by: Barcs

How do you know for sure that lead didn't come from a giant cosmic anus?

I am not making the claim, petervlar and phantom are claiming that the initial concentration of these uranium-lead samples was 1-0. I am pointing out that this is an assumption because we cannot know this through empirical evidence. The burden of proof remains on the people making the claim.

originally posted by: HiddenWaters
a reply to: cooperton
There is a misunderstanding here, the dating method described here using uranium and lead does not rely on environmental ratios of lead or uranium, not in the past and not now. The most common mineral tested is zircon-due to chemical properties, when zircon forms, it can incorporate uranium, but CANNOT incorporate lead into its structure, so it starts out with ZERO lead and possibly a certain amount of uranium, I come along 3 billion years later, find a zircon crystal and analyze that crystal and get a ratio of uranium to lead-since I know the half life of uranium,and I know the current ratio of lead to uranium, I can work out how old the zircon crystal is (ie. when it was formed). The lead in the zircon crystal can only come from the decay of the original uranium in the crystal when it formed.
What ever the ratios are outside the zircon crystal, they are irrelevant to the crystal itself.
I believe I have this more or less correct, if not, I'm sure the smarter ones in the crowd will correct me.

Good explanation, that's about what I've gathered so far too. but by eliminating the variable of initial uranium-lead concentration with zircon crystals, you then have the question of "when did the zircon crystal form"? Phantom quoted many papers that admit they rely on assumptions for these initial dates... which is a breathe of fresh air because many of these researchers tout their results as if they're infallible, and this sort of chauvinism is what hinders true scientific questioning.

originally posted by: peter vlar
For example, lets look at the lunar samples returned by the Apollo missions that were dated to between 4.4 and 4.5 BnA. These dates were obtained using 2 different methods by multiple laboratories. Meteorites that have been dated to between 4.4 and 4.6 BnA were obtained utilizing 5 separate dating techniques and again, by multiple laboratories.

Are you sure there were no unaccounted variables within these supposed 4.4-4.5billion year old samples that could have skewed the data? Hell, unaccounted variables occur in a matter of seconds in controlled settings, let alone samples that have been theoretically traversing the cosmos for billions of years. I understand half-life rates could be assumed to be constant since the beginning of time, but there are so many other variables that could occur.

I'd like to read this experiment if you have a source.

originally posted by: peter vlar
You have yet to provide any citations or even a pet hypothesis for any other mechanism for the formation of this isotope.

Why couldn't have been formed in a particular ratio along with the original formation of the uranium during the theorized supernova? Peter I can't tell if you are admitting this is an assumption or not

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

How do you know for sure that lead didn't come from a giant cosmic anus?

I am not making the claim, petervlar and phantom are claiming that the initial concentration of these uranium-lead samples was 1-0. I am pointing out that this is an assumption because we cannot know this through empirical evidence. The burden of proof remains on the people making the claim.

originally posted by: HiddenWaters
a reply to: cooperton
There is a misunderstanding here, the dating method described here using uranium and lead does not rely on environmental ratios of lead or uranium, not in the past and not now. The most common mineral tested is zircon-due to chemical properties, when zircon forms, it can incorporate uranium, but CANNOT incorporate lead into its structure, so it starts out with ZERO lead and possibly a certain amount of uranium, I come along 3 billion years later, find a zircon crystal and analyze that crystal and get a ratio of uranium to lead-since I know the half life of uranium,and I know the current ratio of lead to uranium, I can work out how old the zircon crystal is (ie. when it was formed). The lead in the zircon crystal can only come from the decay of the original uranium in the crystal when it formed.
What ever the ratios are outside the zircon crystal, they are irrelevant to the crystal itself.
I believe I have this more or less correct, if not, I'm sure the smarter ones in the crowd will correct me.

Good explanation, that's about what I've gathered so far too. but by eliminating the variable of initial uranium-lead concentration with zircon crystals, you then have the question of "when did the zircon crystal form"? Phantom quoted many papers that admit they rely on assumptions for these initial dates... which is a breathe of fresh air because many of these researchers tout their results as if they're infallible, and this sort of chauvinism is what hinders true scientific questioning.

Sorry to interrupt what I am sure was a very productive argument that was going places, but I have observed some members who use that initial fallibility to justify an even more fallible alternative which is then bolstered by an array of cookie cutters excuses and fallacies. Speaking of which, what are your methods for measuring and recording atemporality and omnipresence? Since these are (some of) the prerequisites for your personally favored alternative hypothesis? Given your disdain for devices that deliberately hinder scientific questioning, I hope you have the relevant materials ready to defend your alternative science. Given your attacks on carbon rating, you will have taken the necessary steps to make sure no such uncertainties plague your tools and techniques.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
You have yet to provide any citations or even a pet hypothesis for any other mechanism for the formation of this isotope.

Why couldn't have been formed in a particular ratio along with the original formation of the uranium during the theorized supernova?

Show me some evidence that this occurs. You have been given multiple citations showing that Pb 206 is the daughter of U 238's decay. All of the empirical evidence specifically dealing with, and related to, Uranium 238 and Pb 206 shows definitively that Pb 206 is the end result of U 238's radioactive decay as I have outlined and provided citations in support of.

The onus now lies with you to demonstrate another mechanism or explain your pet hypothesis if you have an alternative explanation. At this stage you really aren't doing anything more than grasping at straws filled with hot air.

Peter I can't tell if you are admitting this is an assumption or not

Trolling much? There's obviously no point in replying to any future posts. You have zero interest in learning anything here.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Phantom423

Not only that, but the narrow minded focus on Uranium series dating while ignoring basic facts of dating techniques. Particularly important is the fact that a single dating technique is never used to obtain an age on a sample. For example, lets look at the lunar samples returned by the Apollo missions that were dated to between 4.4 and 4.5 BnA. These dates were obtained using 2 different methods by multiple laboratories.

Meteorites that have been dated to between 4.4 and 4.6 BnA were obtained utilizing 5 separate dating techniques and again, by multiple laboratories. Time and time again, multiple dating techniques, performed at separate and independant labs, corroborate each other. That's some real magic if everything is just "assumption" yet independant labs using different techniques are arriving at the same dates within the known margins of error. Seriously, looking at it mathematically, the odds of assumptions leading to the same conclusion are astronomical. Some people just aren't looking at the big picture here because they're so focused on proving to themselves that one minor detail they are focused on with myopic acuity is of the utmost importance. It's insane.

Coop thinks that because no one was there when the first uranium atom was formed that no one can know anything about it. Well one thing is for sure - he/she MOST DEFINITELY knows nothing about it. Doesn't even understand the language of science - "assumptions" seem to invalidate all of science.

In any case, I'm done with the topic. Any idiot can understand the mathematics of radioactive decay - you don't need to be a rocket scientist. However, you do have to be able to absorb information. This person doesn't absorb information - asks the same question over and over when all the answers are right in his/her face.

I'm done.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: HiddenWaters
a reply to: cooperton
There is a misunderstanding here, the dating method described here using uranium and lead does not rely on environmental ratios of lead or uranium, not in the past and not now. The most common mineral tested is zircon-due to chemical properties, when zircon forms, it can incorporate uranium, but CANNOT incorporate lead into its structure, so it starts out with ZERO lead and possibly a certain amount of uranium, I come along 3 billion years later, find a zircon crystal and analyze that crystal and get a ratio of uranium to lead-since I know the half life of uranium,and I know the current ratio of lead to uranium, I can work out how old the zircon crystal is (ie. when it was formed). The lead in the zircon crystal can only come from the decay of the original uranium in the crystal when it formed.
What ever the ratios are outside the zircon crystal, they are irrelevant to the crystal itself.
I believe I have this more or less correct, if not, I'm sure the smarter ones in the crowd will correct me.

I gave him all that information including citations. He just doesn't read it or just doesn't understand it. Thank you for posting it again.

Unless its gospel, its not gospel. That's what it comes down to. Some horses will drown before they drink. Your efforts are noted, but save your time and energy and educate the willing.

He/she is fundamentally ignorant of science in general. Blabbers a lot but never supports anything.

Anyway, I'm done.

originally posted by: peter vlar

You have been given multiple citations showing that Pb 206 is the daughter of U 238's decay. All of the empirical evidence specifically dealing with, and related to, Uranium 238 and Pb 206 shows definitively that Pb 206 is the end result of U 238's radioactive decay as I have outlined and provided citations in support of.

I am not arguing that, do you understand my concern? I am arguing the ability to know the initial ratio, I don't know how else to say it. I know Pb-206 can be a product of Uranium decay, but lead-206 also could have been created in the supernovas just as easily as uranium - in other words, you cannot say for certain that the original uranium-lead ratio of any sample was 1-0.

originally posted by: Phantom423

He/she is fundamentally ignorant of science in general.

Just because I question things? This is the exact problem with the scientific community, it is taboo to even question the contemporary dogma - this is a hindrance to the progress of knowledge.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

You have been given multiple citations showing that Pb 206 is the daughter of U 238's decay. All of the empirical evidence specifically dealing with, and related to, Uranium 238 and Pb 206 shows definitively that Pb 206 is the end result of U 238's radioactive decay as I have outlined and provided citations in support of.

I am not arguing that, do you understand my concern? I am arguing the ability to know the initial ratio, I don't know how else to say it. I know Pb-206 can be a product of Uranium decay, but lead-206 also could have been created in the supernovas just as easily as uranium - in other words, you cannot say for certain that the original uranium-lead ratio of any sample was 1-0.

originally posted by: Phantom423

He/she is fundamentally ignorant of science in general.

Just because I question things? This is the exact problem with the scientific community, it is taboo to even question the contemporary dogma - this is a hindrance to the progress of knowledge.

Have you looked it up on amazon?

www.amazon.com...

www.amazon.com...

www.amazon.com...

It sounds to me like maybe you should be reading some of these books instead of pursuing your scholarly interests on a conspiracy forum. There is no conspiracy in carbon dating, or if there is, those books will better equip you for outlining it in concise terms. Good luck.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
There is no conspiracy in carbon dating, or if there is, those books will better equip you for outlining it in concise terms. Good luck.

Although I believe C-14 dating has limitations and unforeseen variables, I was not questioning C-14 dating in this thread. But how come when I bring up C-14 tests done, one by the University of Georgia, regarding dinosaurs being 4,000-40,000 years old all of a sudden C-14 is no longer considered?

Comprehensive analysis of C-14 dating on dinosaurs
University of Arizona Dinosaur C-14 dating (blind sample)

Surely these tests aren't as accurate as you'd like them to be due to many unforeseen variables over time, but one thing it can tell us is that these samples are not older than 100,000 years old, otherwise there would be no trace of C-14.

originally posted by: cooperton
I am not arguing that, do you understand my concern? I am arguing the ability to know the initial ratio, I don't know how else to say it. I know Pb-206 can be a product of Uranium decay, but lead-206 also could have been created in the supernovas just as easily as uranium - in other words, you cannot say for certain that the original uranium-lead ratio of any sample was 1-0.

Lol, please offer a citation for the pb206 from supernovas. The burden of proof is on you if you wish to suggest that it can come from anywhere besides Uranium, as has been demonstrated and proved. Otherwise my cosmic anus hypothesis holds weight as well.

Just because I question things? This is the exact problem with the scientific community, it is taboo to even question the contemporary dogma - this is a hindrance to the progress of knowledge.

In science, you need evidence to question existing evidence. You can't just walk in to academia and say, "How do you know it wasn't THIS?" You need hard data and experiments that show lead can come from anywhere else. Scientists follow data, not ignorant questions that essentially say "What if". Science encourages the challenging of data, but you have to use the proper methods and present data yourself based on research. Otherwise you are just rambling.

a reply to: Barcs

You gotta love the irony and hypocrisy:

>claims that the empirical evidence is dogma
>offers absolutely no empirical evidence to support his wild speculation that flies in the face of existing empirical evidence
>applies none of his hyperskepticism to his fundamentalist religious beliefs

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Barcs

You gotta love the irony and hypocrisy:

>claims that the empirical evidence is dogma
>offers absolutely no empirical evidence to support his wild speculation that flies in the face of existing empirical evidence
>applies none of his hyperskepticism to his fundamentalist religious beliefs

I'd figure it would get old for him after arguing and debating using these same tactics for so long. I guess not.

originally posted by: Barcs

Lol, please offer a citation for the pb206 from supernovas.

Glad you brought this up. I was giving other possible alternatives for pb206 formation - do you realize how asinine such assumptions are? Please, anyone, ever, show empirical evidence that Uranium was formed from supernovas. Or are we faced with yet another assumption? My assumption that pb206 can come from supernovas is just as sound as the assumption that uranium can come from supernovas - especially since they both reside in the same radioactive series.

In science, you need evidence to question existing evidence.

In science you should have empirical evidence to support scientific claims. "Knowing" the initial uranium-lead concentration of any given uranium-lead sample is not based on any empirical evidence.

As Phantom quoted from one of her sources:

originally posted by: Phantom423
we can assume that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic.