Originally posted by KellyJayMy apologies, if I have offended you.
"Forgive my saying so, no insult intended..."
Never mind buddy we don't need to continue our discussion.
Maybe you missed chemistry class.
The natural decay chain of uranium-238 is as follows:
decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years to thorium-234
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 24 days to protactinium-234
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 1.2 minutes to uranium-234
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 240 thousand years to thorium-230
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 77 thousand years to radium-226
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 1.6 thousand years to radon-222
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 3.8 days to polonium-218
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 3.1 minutes to lead-214
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 27 minutes to bismuth-214
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 20 minutes to polonium-214
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 160 microseconds to lead-210
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 22 years to bismuth-210
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 5 days to polonium-210
which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 140 days to lead-206, which is a stable nuclide.
"All we know is what we see now." Uranium is one of those things like trees and mollusk shells which bear with them the traces of their past, and those traces are available to us now and can be measured very accurately.
Based on the objections which have been raised by the YEC camp to other putative evidence of deep time, I think I can guess what the objection is going to be to this. So let me make a couple of remarks in advance:
a) If chemists and physicists have got it wrong about the durations involved in the decay of uranium to lead, then they have got it wrong about the rest of the periodic table of elements, too. They would have to have gotten it wrong about aluminum, too -- and hydrogen and oxygen, and boron and manganese, and chromium and phosphor, and the whole lot. They would have to have gotten it wrong about how atoms form bonds to make such things as steel alloys, they would have to have gotten it wrong about how hydrogen and oxygen bond to form water, and so on across the board. Why can't they can't they have gotten it wrong only about uranium but gotten it right about aluminum and boron? Because there is a single unifying theory which explains how all chemicals work which is based on a single set of natural laws which applies to all chemicals. A single exception would blast the whole thing to pieces.
Moreover, given that materials science is based on knowledge of chemical bonds, if chemists and physicists had gotten it wrong about the half-life of uranium, and by implication also about iron and manganese and so on, then bridges would be falling down because architects would have gotten it wrong about the tensile strength of steel alloys. And wings would be falling off of airplanes because Boeing would have gotten it wrong about the tensile strength of aluminum and titanium alloys. And we'd be dying of all sorts of infectious diseases, because pharmacists would have gotten it wrong about how vaccines and antibiotics work. But that isn't the case. Ergro, we have not got it massively wrong about the periodic table of elements and how chemicals work, including uranium 238.
b) If someone wants to argue that, yes, uranium really does change into lead, but it doesn't take that long to do it -- and anyway, no one knows because no one has been around that long to observe it in all of its transitional stages -- then I have a reply to that, too. By that logic, no one knows how old Queen Elizabeth is either, unless he was present at Elizabeth's birth and has accompanied her in all her activities all her life (for, after all, birth certificates can be forged). Which is hooey.
The evidence for deep time is pervasive. Really pervasive. I would like to establish that point, before moving on to the separate question whether we can know how the universe began.
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by moonbusMaybe you should look at what is in question, if there wasn't a billion years ago it would
My apologies, if I have offended you.
Maybe you missed chemistry class.
The natural decay chain of uranium-238 is as follows:
decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years to thorium-234
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 24 days to protactinium-234
which decays, through beta-emission, with a half ...[text shortened]... hat point, before moving on to the separate question whether we can know how the universe began.
make all the rates non-starters for use in coming up with the age. Which was the point
of the car travelling, which you blew off with insults.
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, it wouldn't. It would still be possible to determine age. Atomic decay rates are useful in dating rocks of just about any age, even those a few thousand years old.
Maybe you should look at what is in question, if there wasn't a billion years ago it would
make all the rates non-starters for use in coming up with the age.
The only way they would not be useful is if God or some other process very carefully measured out specific quantities of elements so as to make it look like they were a particular age when they weren't.
Which was the point of the car travelling, which you blew off with insults.
And the car travelling is a poor analogy. As I said before a much better analogy would be a car travelling that has a dash camera recording everything. But you wouldn't want to discuss that because it would demonstrate that the main argument you have been using all along is blatantly false and you know it.
23 Jan 16
Originally posted by KellyJayThat leads to solipsism. Solipsism is a cold, dark, lonely place; you don't want to go there.
As it goes, we find a car going down the highway 70 mph, how far away from when
we see it was it 4 hours ago? Mind you there is no way of knowing how long it was
on the road, or anything else, all we know is what we see now. My italics.
Originally posted by KellyJayYou lost me somewhere.
You really didn't follow along did you?
When you say we can know only what we see now, it leads me to wonder whether you believe the Roman Empire really existed. All we see now of the Roman Empire are ruins and history books, but those could have been forged a hundred years ago. We also never see the back side of the moon. So do you think there is no back side of the moon?
25 Jan 16
Originally posted by moonbusYou were lost before you began listing the natural decay chain of uranium-238 as having something to do with determining the age of the earth. 😏
You lost me somewhere.
When you say we can know only what we see now, it leads me to wonder whether you believe the Roman Empire really existed. All we see now of the Roman Empire are ruins and history books, but those could have been forged a hundred years ago. We also never see the back side of the moon. So do you think there is no back side of the moon?
25 Jan 16
Dr. John Baumgardner Discusses Evidence for a Young Earth
John Baumgardner PhD, is geophysicist. Dr. Baumgardner was employed at one of the most prestigious research institutes -- Los Alamos National Laboratory, in New Mexico. He has developed a 3D computer program called TERRA which models Earth's plate tectonics. This was such an important and useful program he was interviewed by US & World Report in 1997.
Those who support evolution depend on radiometric dating of rocks to provide evidence that the Earth is 6.4 billion years old. In this interview Jim Bendewald asks Dr. Baumgardner about radiometric dating and the RATE project. The discussion includes the RATE project results which challenge the long ages of Earth's history. Carbon dating in coal is also discussed as well as carbon in diamonds which should long be gone if Earth is as old as the evolutionists claim.
This was an extremely important research project. It provided empirical data as evidence for a much younger Earth than evolutionists are willing to accept. Therein lies the problem. No matter how clear the data for disproving evolution, those committed to material causes will dismiss the evidence.
25 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonhouseOur Created Solar System
So you think conditions on the moon are so different if you drop a feather there you are going to create a crater a mile across? BTW, that experiment HAS been done on the moon. A craft at the end of it's useful life was crashed deliberately into the moon and it made an encouragingly large flash.
I imagine you do know ballistics have shown to have X amou ...[text shortened]... u breathing hard in the background waiting to pounce on any hint of my getting through to Kelly.
What you aren't being told.
Jupiter's Moon Europa shows the long age crater counting method used for Earth's moon is wrong.
25 Jan 16
Originally posted by RJHindsI was talking to someone who actually HAS a mind, Kelly. Butt out, assshole.
[b]Our Created Solar System
What you aren't being told.
Jupiter's Moon Europa shows the long age crater counting method used for Earth's moon is wrong.
[youtube]Gr8Az3QQZdI[/youtube][/b]
25 Jan 16
Originally posted by RJHindsYep, just EXACTLY like YEC's. Just like you.
[b]Dr. John Baumgardner Discusses Evidence for a Young Earth
John Baumgardner PhD, is geophysicist. Dr. Baumgardner was employed at one of the most prestigious research institutes -- Los Alamos National Laboratory, in New Mexico. He has developed a 3D computer program called TERRA which models Earth's plate tectonics. This was such an important and u ...[text shortened]... those committed to material causes will dismiss the evidence.
[youtube]bNcLmHtCjqw[/youtube][/b]
25 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusThe claim is this deity made the universe look old by creating every photon in place to be seen on Earth the instant stars were created, create a star 6000 light years away, fill space with the photons that star would be emitting and now we have a star created yesterday looking like it was 6000 years old.
You seem to be missing some really basic principles of how things work. If God created stars on some specific date, 23 Oct 4004 BC, for example, and those stars were 60 or 600 or 6000 light years away from Earth, then people on Earth would not have seen those stars on the 23d of Oct, nor on the 24th, nor on the 25th. They would have seen those stars in anoth ...[text shortened]... ,000 years, then the universe cannot be only 6,000 years old. Are we in agreement on that point?
All to fool humans. And not just any humans. ONLY those able to make astro measurments so all that work by said deity would have been un-noticed by the entire human race for 6000 years till WE came on the scene with scientific instruments capable of sussing out such things as age and spectrums of stars.
So not only did this alleged deity make the universe LOOK old, it did it JUST FOR OUR GENERATION.
SURE, that's logical, isn't it?
Oh, I know, said deity didn't just CREATE our universe, it had a gigantic FOUR D printer and copied an already existing universe as a snapshot and then with a universe copy and paste thing, Viola', new universe. Sure, that makes sense, doesn't it?
25 Jan 16
Originally posted by RJHindsIn the other thread you stated that no empirical data for earths age exists. Was that a lie or is this a lie?
This was an extremely important research project. It provided empirical data as evidence for a much younger Earth than evolutionists are willing to accept.