13 Mar '06 21:49Originally posted by micarrI can assure you he's not a nuclear physicist; if he were he'd understand quite why he's wrong, and why these assertions being made as just quite so ludicrous.
What do you do for a living just out of interest djbecker? If your not a nuclear physicist then WTF?
13 Mar '06 21:55Originally posted by DragonFriendThe decay rate for an exponential is only dependant on the concentration of the thing decaying - a linear relationship between decay rate and concentration. Thus the amount of radioactive material will get smaller and smaller, but (theoretically) will never reach zero. If the graph were to level off it'd mean no decay was happening, no radioactivity at all.
I'm confused (easy to do , huh?)
If the rate of decay slowed, why would there be less radiation now than if the decay rate continuted to increase? It would appear at first glance that a reduced decay would leave more of what was decaying.
DF
14 Mar '06 15:24Originally posted by scottishinnzWho'd of thought I'd get such an education in science on a spirituality forum.
The decay rate for an exponential is only dependant on the concentration of the thing decaying - a linear relationship between decay rate and concentration. Thus the amount of radioactive material will get smaller and smaller, but (theoretically) will never reach zero. If the graph were to level off it'd mean no decay was happening, no radioactivity at all.
15 Mar '06 17:38Originally posted by scottishinnzHow can you be sure that the material has been decaying for billions of years and not for a couple thousand years?
The decay rate for an exponential is only dependant on the concentration of the thing decaying - a linear relationship between decay rate and concentration. Thus the amount of radioactive material will get smaller and smaller, but (theoretically) will never reach zero. If the graph were to level off it'd mean no decay was happening, no radioactivity at all.
15 Mar '06 17:40Originally posted by scottishinnzCompletely igores fossil stromatolites, dated at 3.5 billion years old.
okay, well, my biggest issues is the use of the words 'maybe' and 'perhaps'.
He's always using it,
"Perhaps the earth was made from older pre-existing matter, or perhaps decay rates were briefly faster for some reason."
Where is his evidence for this? You wouldn't be allowed to write this in a scientific paper, without evidence. He has none ...[text shortened]... old.
Really want me to continue? That's just what I found waiting for my toaster.
16 Mar '06 08:22Originally posted by scottishinnzNone of this answers my question.
SO, you didn't actually bother to read the article huh?
Fine.
Well here's your article.
Zhang YX, The age and accretion of the earth. 2002. Earth Science Reviews. 59 (1-4), pp. 235-263.
Reviews multiple recent studies that use different, independant methods to radiodate the formation of the earth. They agree to within 100,000 years. No ...[text shortened]... e to rule out one of the scenarios and further constrain the accretion history of the earth.
16 Mar '06 08:23Originally posted by scottishinnzPlease, deej, tell me, what evidence do you have that the universe wasn't created by the flying spaghetti monster last week?
We've went over this many times.
Did you ever read Professor Zhang's paper? I'll happily send you a PDF of the paper should you wish - that'll answer all your questions.
Please, deej, tell me, what evidence do you have that the universe wasn't created by the flying spaghetti monster last week?
You really are an intolerable idiot.
16 Mar '06 08:30Originally posted by dj2beckerThe FSM could have implanted false memories in your mind. Or maybe you're just deluded due to insanity.
[b]Please, deej, tell me, what evidence do you have that the universe wasn't created by the flying spaghetti monster last week?
Are you serious?
Dude, I was here last week and so was the universe.[/b]
16 Mar '06 11:531 editOriginally posted by dj2beckerExplain how a video clip with a date on differs from a rock sample with a date on, a tree ring with a date on, an ice core with a date on, or even star light with a date on, all of which you have dismissed as not being observable proof.
A video clip with the date on?
Nah, you wouldn't accept that...
But let me just built an ape man from the tooth of an extinct pig and you have observable proof of macroevolution.
16 Mar '06 12:05Originally posted by twhiteheadThe difference is that rocks, ice etc do not have dates written on them. Their dates have to be approximated by exprapolation into the past using unprovable assumptions.
Explain how a video clip with a date on differs from a rock sample with a date on, a tree ring with a date on, an ice core with a date on, or even star light with a date on, all of which you have dismissed as not being observable proof.
[edit]
Maybe the laws of video cameras were different yesterday and the dates were moving extra fast hence the wrong date reading?
16 Mar '06 13:101 editOriginally posted by dj2beckerSo you trust writing (easily forgable) and datestamps on video tapes (just as easy to modify) over highly accurate scientific dateing methods?
The difference is that rocks, ice etc do not have dates written on them. Their dates have to be approximated by exprapolation into the past using unprovable assumptions.
Speaking of dates, why do we say that it is 2006 'AD'?
Natural Selection
Back to Top