Joe studies for a couple of days. Allegedly

After going a bit quiet for a couple of days Joe hits back with a monster post. Not a swear word in it! Perhaps the peroxide is taking effect.

However the reason the age of the mother element would affect the ratio is because that is what we are dating.

Yeah, b'coz that's where the clock is ticking! The radioactive wind-up clock that you can speed up and slow down. But don't speed it up too much! That waste heat has to be dealt with by the designer.

The ratio is indicative of the decay rate- time it has been decaying

Yes indeed. The rain in Spain also falls mainly on the plain. The cat sat on the mat. The ratio is indicative of the decay rate, the time it has been decaying for. A man, a plan, a cat, a canal – Panama!

For example if we start with a pound of pure U238, then in about 4.47 by we should have a half pound of U238 and a half pound of Pb206- 50/50 ratio.

If Joe had a pound of pure U238, or for that matter anything where "pure" was a relevant state, I'd have to call it in. For his own good of course!

Now what about if you only have one atom of U238?

You could keep it next to your brain cell! They could go on dates, dance. It'd be awfully swell.

In 4.47 by you will either still have that atom- of U238- or any one of the nuclides in the decay chain down to and including Pb206.

For a guy who refuses to say how old the earth is, he's doing a good job of undermining his own argument. Hey, Joe. Given that nobody is around for 4.47 by how come we know how long this stuff takes to decay?

Allegedly, however, if you do this with enough atoms then 50% of the time the 4.47 by timeline will be met.

?

Allegedly, however, if you do this with enough atoms then 50% of the time the 4.47 by timeline will be met.

Allegedly? Huh, OK, it is ID guy I suppose.

Most of the decay time is in the first step- from U238 to Th234 (more than 4 by).

You know what Joe? I don't believe you! Were you there? IOW it's just all hearsay, sensible people know that nobody was here 4.47 by ago as that means that Adam and Eve did not exist. Were you there 4.47 by ago? Were you? Were you there?

So if some/ most/ all the U238 that gets incorporated into the crystal is already 4 byo then that would skew the final ratio in favor of an older rock.

Gotta wind the clocks back up before you incorporate it into the crystal! Of course! Account for the age differential that way! That's what I've been telling them for years, even wrote an inter-office memo regarding it. Only supposed to blow the bladdy doors off. Etc.

Allegedly.

Lack of evidence for anything is evidence for ID

Or at least in Joe's "mind".

We have never observed blind, undirected processes design anything from scratch.

How many things have we seen your "intelligent designer" create Joe?

We have never seen a non-human intelligent designer design anything from scratch.

I'll tell you how many. Zero.

So if we have to observe something in action before you believe it, why do you believe an Intelligent Designer created life?

Joe gets it wrong on common descent

Joe makes a claim

Some or even most IDists don't accept Common Descent because the premise is not science- it cannot be tested.

Let's pick a few IDists at random then. Oh, let's see now. Behe and Dembski...

Behe:

Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.

For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.

The Edge of Evolution, pp 71-2.

Dembski:

More significantly for the educational curriculum, however, is that intelligent design has no stake in living things coming together suddenly in their present form. To be sure, intelligent design leaves that as a possibility. But intelligent design is also fully compatible with large-scale evolution over the course of natural history, all the way up to what biologists refer to as "common descent" (i.e., the full genealogical interconnectedness of all organisms). If our best science tells us that living things came together gradually over a long evolutionary history and that all living things are related by common descent, then so be it.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_teachingid0201.htm

So if these two leaders of ID can support common descent what does Joe G know that they don't?

The "clock" starts ticking!

Here's what Joe said when I asked him what a "radioactive clock" is

That is what scientists are looking at- the clock starts ticking when the unstable element is formed in/ by the star.

One logical consequences of that is a ticking clock can be examined to tell how long it's been ticking.

Yet Joe claims that I am the one who does not understand how "rad decay" works.

To try and save himself Joe comes back with this

Umm a radioactive clock is the clock of radioactive elements.

Oh, the "clock" of radioactive elements. If we follow the link that he provides we see this interesting text:

A radioactive isotope such as potassium-40 which spontaneously decays to a stable end product at a constant rate, allowing absolute geologic age to be determined.

Oh, in the link that Joe uses to support his claim we see that absolute geologic ages can be determined! But how is that Joe? If "rad decay" does not work to determine ages?

And anyway, knowing a clock is ticking alone does not tell you how long it's been ticking for and Joe was quite clear in that "scientists look at the ticking clock".

And from another link Joe kindly provided we get this

Living corals cannot absorb thorium 230 (the fourth descendant of uranium 238), an isotope which is insoluble in water. The moment the coral dies, however, the decay of radioactive elements begins to produce thorium 230. The amount of thorium 230 allows for measurements of how long they have been dead.

Hey, so Joe, it seems that "scientists do not examine an atomic clock" at all, rather they use the various factors that change over the existence of a sample to determine it's age.

So, perhaps I'll forgive you in your ignorance your claim that you can use the "clock that starts ticking when the unstable element is formed in a star" to tell the ages of things. You can, of course. You just don't do it by looking at a "clock" in the atom as you originally seemed to have claimed.

Yet it still does not solve the puzzle of why Joe can post links to sites were they would agree that "rad decay" can indeed be used to determine the age of the earth and at the same time claim that you cannot.

Everything done in a lab supports ID according to Joe

Intelligent Design in the lab
-
FIRST SELF-REPLICATING SYNTHETIC BACTERIAL CELL-

So ID is proving its worth in science labs- go figure...

Sure Joe. And when asked what exactly is ID supporting about this Joe says

And just because you can't see how it relates to ID doesn't mean anything to me.

You appear to be a complete dolt and are what is wrong with education.

Yep, instead of saying "oh, well this is how it relates to ID...." Joe G just throws off a few insults.

I'm sure that there is a very good, specific reason why this work supports ID. Joe says there is, after all.

I have to wonder why then Joe will not actually tell us what that reason is?

I wonder. Joe G has such a good track record supporting his claims I'm sure it's just a temporary glitch and Joe G will shorty provide the information that backs up his claim....

Joe cannot name a single thing "rad decay" can be used for

As for what rad decay works for- I am not sure.

He's very sure what it does not work for!

In this post Joe pastes in several links and paragraphs explaining radioactive decay

A three-billion year old rock needs to have its age determined by a radioactive clock that still has a measurable amount of the parent nuclide decaying into its daughter product after that long.

Yet he now claims that "rad decay" is good for nothing at all.

So when it suits Joe he can paste in evidence of how rad decay works, and it even talks about three-billion year old rocks.

And then when pressed on the issue he claims it works for nothing at all! It either works or it does not Joe! If it does not you can't use examples of how it works as evidence to prove your point! And if it does work, well you've just undermined your own point!

There's a word for people like you Joe G!

Joe refuses to state how old he thinks the earth is!

Tell us then Joe, how old do you think the Earth is?

A simple question.

Please give us the value with error ranges, and briefly explain the scientific evidence that supports those numbers.

Joe G cops out with this:

means that Thorton wants much more than what I think.

Yes Joe, that's right. What you think and why you think it.

Under the circumstances that seems perfectly reasonable.

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/05/radioactive-decay-and-age-of-earth.html

So, Joe, YEC is it now then? How low you have sunk.

IOW any heat generated by rapid decay could have been transferred to the core.

Or the "intelligent designer" could have put cooling fins on the earth and radiated it out into space. Lots of options!