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
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
So what a moron. Yep, Joe is the first person to think of this.
ReplyDeleteAnd what's a suprnovae anyway Joe?
>> But I cannot find any reference that states that is so.
Yep, Joe can't find something therefore it does not exist.
>> 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.
ReplyDeleteThat's not all Joe is missing.
>> So the bottom line here is rad decay starts when the unstable elements are created
ReplyDeleteAnd that's the thing eh Joe? When they are created by "the designer". The funny thing is that this "designer" could have created them with any age at all, and how would we know?
>> IOW the radioactive elements that formed Earth would be old to begin with
Yes, because it's easy to examine an atom and determine how "old" it is. I got two carbon atoms the other day and one was twice as old as the other. You could see it was all wrinkly and stuff. So it was much older the the other one. I think the other atom was a teenage atom, it was all "like" and "such as like" and stuff. It was obvious it was much younger.
IOW Joe is stupid. In another way, ID guy is a moron.
Even the maroons at RATE
ReplyDeletehttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm
have more of a clue then Joe. At least they can pretend to be scientists. At first glance they even appear to be rational! Unlike our Joe.
Joe is like a stick of rock with "stupid" written all the way through.
Ummm, I am not trying to disprove anything.
ReplyDeleteNo need to disprove what has never been proven.
What's a supernova?
I linked to that in my OP moron.
Also it isn't that if I can't find the reference it doesn't exist you asshole.
It's that I was hoping that someone would know and help me out.
Ya know actually provide some science- data I could post.
What else am I missing?
Do you have a point?
Do you have data?
But anyway I covered most of your ignorant "objections" in the OP.
Are you too stupid to understrand what I posted?
The elements- all of them- are forged in stars.
I never said anything about a designer making them and I never said anything about a designer making them appear older than they are.
That isn't required.
IOW you are an ignorant asshole and you think just because you can spew your ignorance it refutes what I posted.
That said, the decay starts when that unstable element is forged/ formed- which would be just after the supernova from which it came.
Do you agree of disagree?
Our solar system is made up of the remnants of supernovae.
Do you agree or disagree?
But you do bring up a good point- just how can you tell how far along in the decay processa hunk of uranium is?
It is all uranium but giving off heat because it is decaying.
Oh that's right the methodology doesn't work that way.
But anyway OM do you have something beyond being an asshole?
You could fit Joe Gallien's understanding of science into a thimble, with plenty of room left over for his testicles.
ReplyDeleteNice projection.
ReplyDeleteUmmm, I am not trying to disprove anything.
ReplyDeleteNo need to disprove what has never been proven.
What's a supernova?
I linked to that in my OP moron.
Also it isn't that if I can't find the reference it doesn't exist you asshole.
It's that I was hoping that someone would know and help me out.
Ya know actually provide some science- data I could post.
What else am I missing?
Do you have a point?
Do you have data?
But anyway I covered most of your ignorant "objections" in the OP.
Are you too stupid to understrand what I posted?
The elements- all of them- are forged in stars.
I never said anything about a designer making them and I never said anything about a designer making them appear older than they are.
That isn't required.
IOW you are an ignorant asshole and you think just because you can spew your ignorance it refutes what I posted.
That said, the decay starts when that unstable element is forged/ formed- which would be just after the supernova from which it came.
Do you agree of disagree?
Our solar system is made up of the remnants of supernovae.
Do you agree or disagree?
But you do bring up a good point- just how can you tell how far along in the decay processa hunk of uranium is?
It is all uranium but giving off heat because it is decaying.
Oh that's right the methodology doesn't work that way.
But anyway OM do you have something beyond being an asshole?
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/05/shadowed-by-moronic-coward.html
ReplyDeleteHow do you tell how old a particular atom is Joe?
ReplyDelete>> Oh that's right the methodology doesn't work that way.
ReplyDeletePerhaps before "disproving" the age of the earth you might spend some time finding out how it's calculated in the first place.
>> I never said anything about a designer making them and I never said anything about a designer making them appear older than they are.
Who made the stars in the first place peroxide-man-boy?
>> IOW you are an ignorant asshole and you think just because you can spew your ignorance it refutes what I posted.
ReplyDeleteAnd what was it you posted? A dismantling of the methodology used to determine the age of a particular object? Why don't you write it up into a formal paper and send it off to Nature? Tell all those people who've spent their lives in this field that they've got it all wrong because decay starts the moment an unstable element is formed and you are the first person ever to figure that out?
Your Nobel awaits, moron.
>> Do you agree or disagree?
ReplyDeleteHey, I'm too stupid to understand what you posted, remember? So figure it out yourself.
If you want a remedial science education head down to the children's library. I'm sure they have some picture books of the solar system in there.
>> Ummm, I am not trying to disprove anything.
ReplyDelete>> No need to disprove what has never been proven.
To your satisfaction, perhaps. To the rational reality based community, it's settled science.
Here's a place to start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Radiometric_dating
Please feel free to point out the first factual error you find.
I'll be waiting. A long time I suspect. As even the simplest method seems wayyyy beyond your understanding. Proven by the fact that you could have searched it out yourself before writing your ignorance laden blog post.
>>>Perhaps before "disproving" the age of the earth you might spend some time finding out how it's calculated in the first place.
ReplyDeleteBeen there, done that.
And as you are admitting to be too stupid to understand what I post I will leave it at that....
>>>Proven by the fact that you could have searched it out yourself before writing your ignorance laden blog post.
ReplyDeleteEverything I posted is scientific fact.
So what part is the ignorance?
Please be specific- if you can...
>> Been there, done that.
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. What exactly have you been there and done? If you fully understood how the age of the earth is determined they you would not have felt the need to post such an ignorance laden post in the first place.
>> And as you are admitting to be too stupid to understand what I post I will leave it at that....
ReplyDeleteThe coward ran away.
Brave Joe G ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Joe G turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Joe G!
>> So what part is the ignorance?
ReplyDeleteLet's see shall we.
>> It is said that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
It's not "said". Rather, it's been determined that....
>> This is based on radioactive decay- well what some scientists have assumed is based on rad decay.
No, it's not "assumed". It's been meticulously determined by multiple strands of evidence. Assume is what you do.
>> Phycists have told me that radioactive decay can start once the unstable element is formed.
Yeah, right, like you know any physicists. Did you know everything is unstable Joe, if long enough time periods are considered?
>> So when is that?
When the designer created them, could have been billions of years ago, could have been yesterday.
>> IOW the radioactive elements that formed Earth would be old to begin with.
Yep, so dating can't work. You've disproven it! Well done Joe.
Tell me Joe, a serious question, if you have two samples of radioactive elements how would you tell which one was older?
What signs would you look for? Assume 1 mole of each is present.
>> 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.
And what, pray tell, is a "radioactive clock"? Is there some time inside the atom that ticks along until a pre-determined time and then it decays?
The fact you ask the question at all is telling.
Why not ask your pretend physicist about radioactive clocks being reset?
Go on, I dare you.
"Determined" by people who need a very, very old Earth.
ReplyDeleteYes I know several physicists.
Rad decay starts/ can start when the elements are forged/ formed in/ by the stars.
I never said rad-dating doesn't work.
There are several influencing factors.
Decay can speed up and all that happens is more heat is given off.
So say the uranium in a meteor gets blasted by gamma rays or some other cosmic anomaly- this may affect the minerals it contains, speeding up any decay taking place.
The meteor crashes through our atmoshere and becomes a meteorite that scientists examine.
The apparent age would be skewed.
What is a radioactive clock?
That is what scientists are looking at- the clock starts ticking when the unstable element is formed in/ by the star.
Are you that obtuse?
As for a dare I dare you to come to New Hampshire and meet me- but that ain't going to happen, is it?
Ignorance warning
ReplyDelete>> "Determined" by people who need a very, very old Earth.
No, determined by people who could not care less about evolution. The age of the earth would be the age of the earth even if the intelligent designer walked among us.
>> Yes I know several physicists.
Sure.
>> Rad decay starts/ can start when the elements are forged/ formed in/ by the stars.
What do you mean "can"? Are there cases where unstable elements don't start to decay?
>> I never said rad-dating doesn't work.
I'm afraid you did when you said " we cannot use rad decay to tell the age of the earth"
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/05/radioactive-decay-and-age-of-earth.html
>> Decay can speed up and all that happens is more heat is given off.
Ah, this old YEC claim. Unfortunately for you accelerated decay in the amounts you require would melt the earth.
>> So say the uranium in a meteor gets blasted by gamma rays or some other cosmic anomaly- this may affect the minerals it contains, speeding up any decay taking place.
In every sample ever tested? Citation please.
>> The meteor crashes through our atmoshere and becomes a meteorite that scientists examine.
ID scientists?
>> The apparent age would be skewed.
Luckily you are here to correct those misunderstands.
However, citation please!
>> What is a radioactive clock? That is what scientists are looking at- the clock starts ticking when the unstable element is formed in/ by the star.
Really? Citation please. How do we examine this "clock" to determine how old something is?
Please do tell!
>> Are you that obtuse?
Yes, as you have not supported your claim of "radioactive clocks" being used to tell the age of elements.
I want to know! How do we examine this clocks???
>> As for a dare I dare you to come to New Hampshire and meet me- but that ain't going to happen, is it?
Yeah, it'll happen right after the debate you claim to want to have but need to have $10,000 put up first for.
"As for a dare I dare you to come to New Hampshire and meet me- but that ain't going to happen, is it?"
ReplyDeleteEasy Joe - I know you want to be an internet bully but aren't you REALLY an old man with a bad hip?
Joe might have meant meet up for a cup of tea. Or for something quite different!
ReplyDeleteWhat are you suggesting Joe G for this meeting? Should I bring protection? If so, of what type/size?
Richtard,
ReplyDeleteYou should join him.
And I am not being the bully assface.
I am standing up to the bullies.
That you are too stupid to understand that says quite a bit about your character.
And saying you cannot use rad decay to determine the age of the Earth does not mean rad decay does not work.
ReplyDeleteTHat OM thinks the two are linked just proves he is an ignorant faggot.
>> And saying you cannot use rad decay to determine the age of the Earth does not mean rad decay does not work.
ReplyDeleteSaying it is one thing. Proving it is another. Why don't you provide your proof? Then I can send it to some people I know. They need a good laugh!
Or is "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" your "evidence"? No wonder ID is winning in your mind if a claim is the same as proof of a claim.
>> THat OM thinks the two are linked just proves he is an ignorant faggot.
I know what I am, but what are you?
Joe G
ReplyDelete>> And saying you cannot use rad decay to determine the age of the Earth does not mean rad decay does not work.
What does "rad decay" work for then, and what does it not work for? A short list will suffice.
Simple questions I fully expect you to avoid answering.
OM,
ReplyDeleteWe have rocks of known age that cannot be dated via radioactive decay- the rad decay "answer" does not agree with the known rock age.
As for "proof" well science doesn't work like that.
No one "proved" the Earth is 4.5 BYO.
No one "proved" that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor.
As for determining the age of the Earth we have to know how it was formed.
As for what rad decay works for- I am not sure.
But I am not arguing that rad decay doesn't take place.
All I am saying is that there are a few untestable assumptions made when using that methodology.
>> We have rocks of known age that cannot be dated via radioactive decay- the rad decay "answer" does not agree with the known rock age.
ReplyDeleteCitation please.
>> As for "proof" well science doesn't work like that.
Yet you claim that there is proof out there that "the designer did it".
>> No one "proved" the Earth is 4.5 BYO.
As far as proof goes in science, yes they have.
>> No one "proved" that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor.
As far as science goes, yes they have. This is just another example of the YEC in you Joe. Thanks for coming out on my blog!
>> As for determining the age of the Earth we have to know how it was formed.
Citation please.
>> As for what rad decay works for- I am not sure.
But you just pasted several paragraphs and links explaining how it works! Are you really saying that you will claim scientists words as proof on one hand and then out the other side of your mouth claim it does not work for anything at all?
>> But I am not arguing that rad decay doesn't take place.
Who said you were?
>> All I am saying is that there are a few untestable assumptions made when using that methodology.
Citation please! Or a little more detail then that at the very least! Otherwise I'm tempted to believe you are just repeating the words of YECs on this subject.