Natural Selection

Originally posted by micarr
What do you do for a living just out of interest djbecker? If your not a nuclear physicist then WTF?

I 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.

Originally posted by DragonFriend
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

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.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
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.

Who'd of thought I'd get such an education in science on a spirituality forum.
Thanks Scotty.

DF

Originally posted by scottishinnz
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.

How can you be sure that the material has been decaying for billions of years and not for a couple thousand years?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
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.

Completely igores fossil stromatolites, dated at 3.5 billion years old.

Using what dating method may I ask?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
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.

None of this answers my question.

Did you even bother to read through this before you posted it?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
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.

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.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[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]

The FSM could have implanted false memories in your mind. Or maybe you're just deluded due to insanity.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The FSM could have implanted false memories in your mind. Or maybe you're just deluded due to insanity.

It would have been on the news headlines for sure...

Or are you saying that the entire population on earth is insane?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Dude, I was here last week and so was the universe.

You have exactly zero "observable" evidence that you were here last week.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have exactly zero "observable" evidence that you were here last week.

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.

Originally posted by dj2becker
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.

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?

Originally posted by twhitehead
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?

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'?

Originally posted by dj2becker
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'?

So you trust writing (easily forgable) and datestamps on video tapes (just as easy to modify) over highly accurate scientific dateing methods?

Every date is approximate as is clearly shown by your video clip date stamp which is only accurate to a second or so (assuming the owner actually set the clock in the camcorder in the first place and that his watch was correct).
I would hardly call any of the various dating techniques extrapolation. The important point you miss is that every clock you use today actually works via some law of science. Time itself moves via the laws of science. If the atomic clock goes faster then time goes faster and hence the clock is still right!
A wierd product of relativity is that some parts of the universe are actually older than others!

"provable assumptions" I think I have said this before, proof is for mathematics not science. The only real assumption is that the universe didnt 'poof' into existance last week just after you made that video clip.

[edit]
By the way this is not 2006 it is the Year of the Dog