They were white and they spoke English. Just like God and Jesus. I’ve seen the photos and the movie.
5 Likes
Ok. So which version of English? Since this presumably somewhere in the Middle East, I would assume they’d speak English with a heavy accent of some ancient proto-semitic language? But since they were, by definition, the very first speakers of English, the language should not be called English, but Evelish or Adamlish, or something like that.
Oh come on, There is only American English. God is all knowing. He planned ahead. It’s just taken the world 100000 years to catch up. God always knew what language to write the bible in.
1 Like
FOR LURKERS
I forget how the idea of hell can be a fear trigger or tool for some folks. So for the sake of debate, reason and stomping on fear-porn shit that locks a person’s brain into inhumane behaviour… 
Warning long (cause his sermon was blah blah blah)
2 Likes
In the beginning there was the word and the word was the word and the word was with them and they with the word. And, what you ask, was the word? Hotdog. A mighty Hotdog is our lord. And when you eat the mighty Hotdog you become like him, as he is in you and are you are of him and he of you. So verily I sayeth unto thou as our Lord sayeth unto me, “Eat Me” and only then can you become as me, as I am as me as you are as me and we are of the same.
Skriteronomy 5:55
1 Like
You bunch of ignorant-ass godless heathens! EVERYBODY knows the Bird is the Word.
1 Like
Uh Papa Ooh Mao Mao Mama Ooh Mao Mao…Don’t ya know our parents’ generation loved this song?
Nope. It’s PENIS. PENIS is the Word. Because God is a dick.
1 Like
So you were a Catholic prior to becoming an atheist?
I have never licked a cat that I remember.
Skriteronomy 5:54-58
And he said the word and they ate it. What was that word? Hotdog! A mighty Hotdog is our lord. Fear not the consumption of the mighty Hotdog, for it is as it always has been now and forever more that when you eat of the flesh of the Lord, ye shall nay be as you once were and until the end of days be consumed by the meat of the truth.
That may also be rendered “Cat - a - holic” ie. one who is addicted to cats in some form or fashion; either for the sake of nourishment, companionship, sexual gratification, adornment, and/or (as you pointed out) licking. This is an exhaustive list.
1 Like
If it is eternal, how can it have a beginning?
Funny that God, knowing ahead of time that Bundy’s soul was evil and unrepentant, would chose to let him murder and dishonour the bodies of all of those women.
What was God’s plan when He failed to save the women and chose to have them murdered in order to send Bundy into that pit of Sulpher?
1 Like
Paper!!! Papers…. Pit o’Paper.
Eternal pit of smouldering ash and white hot flaming paper. Eternal, but with a beginning.
Like, “Johnny? Would you please point out to the class where this circle begins?”
This guy has an asshole for an ego. Anyone who pulls the “You will certainly go to Hell!” trip has an extremely anal retentive personality.
1 Like
C’mon, Ratty. You should know the answer to this one. Obviously it was to give ol’ Bund a chance to deviate from God’s plan and change his murderous ways and ask forgiveness. So God just kept throwing innocent women to him in the hopes dear Bund would eventually take the hint and figure out what he was doing is wrong. Apparently, however, some people just never learn. Sure, God’s plans are ALWAYS PERFECT, but (sadly) people are not. Meaning no matter how hard God tries to help them be better people, some of them never quite catch on. Can’t blame God for that. Now, as for all those innocent women who got slaughtered, God was also testing them to make sure they would call to him for help while Bund was terrorizing/torturing them. See? God can multitask.
By the way, how the hell ya been?
I truly wish that atheists would stop citing
The historically recorded unfortunate crimes of man in the Bible as the fault of Christianity. IT reinforces the ever-present unintelligence that encompasses atheism and atheists.
Okay, people, listen up! You heard Mr. Rich! Stop using God’s commands from the bible to give Christianity a bad name and make God look like a bad guy! It’s disrespectful! Meanwhile, Rich and other Christians - correction: other TRUE Christians - are free to pick and choose whatever passages they want to make their God appear wonderful and loving! It’s THEIR bible, so they can do whatever they want with it! But we ignorant dumbass godless heathen assholes have NO BUSINESS looking through their Holy Book and pointing out the undesirable material that upsets them! Shit like that is the reason we cannot make new friends!
1 Like
This is bullshit plain and simple.
Strap yourself in, you’re in for a hard ride.
Radionuclide Dating Is Rigorous
In order to address this topic at the proper level of detail, something that creationists prefer to avoid at all costs, I shall first begin with a discourse on the underlying physics of radionuclide decay, the precise mathematical law that this process obeys, and how that law is derived, both empirically and theoretically. Note that the decay law was first derived empirically, courtesy of a large body of work by scientists such as Henri Becquerel, Marie Curie, Ernest Rutherford and others. Indeed, the SI unit of activity was named the Becquerel in recognition of that scientist’s contribution to the early days of the study of radionuclide decay, and 1 Bq equals one transformation (decay) per second within a sample of radionuclide. However, the underlying physics had to wait until the advent of detailed and rigorous quantum theories before it could be elucidated, and is based upon the fact that the nuclei of radionuclides are in an excited state with respect to the sum total of the quantum energy states of the constituent particles (which, being fermions, obey Fermi-Dirac statistics, and consequently, Pauli’s exclusion principle applies). In order for the system to move to a lower energy state, and settle upon a stable set of quantum numbers, various transformations need to take place, and these transformations result in the nucleus undergoing specific and well-defined structural changes, involving the emission of one or more particles. As well as the most familiar modes of decay, namely α and β- decay, other decay modes exist, and a full treatment of the various decay modes possible, along with the underlying quantum physics, is beyond the scope of this exposition, as it requires a detailed understanding of the behaviour of the appropriate quantum operators, and as a corollary, a detailed understanding of the behaviour of Hilbert spaces, a level of knowledge that is, sadly, not widespread. With this limitation in mind, however, it is still possible to deduce a number of salient facts about radionuclide decay, which I shall now present.
Empirical Determination Of The Decay Law
Initially, the determination of the decay law was performed empirically, by observing the decay of various radionuclides in the laboratory, taking measurements of the number of decay events, and plotting these graphically, with time along the x-axis, and counts along the y-axis. Upon performing this task, the data for many radionuclides is seen to lie upon a curve, and determination of the nature of that curve requires a little mathematical understanding.
To determine the nature of a curve, various transformations can be performed upon the data. The result of each of these transformations is as follows:
[1] Plot loge(y) against x - if the result is a straight line, then the relationship is of the form:
loge(y) = kx + C (where C is some constant, in particular, the y-intercept of the straight line)
which can be rewritten:
loge(y) - loge(C0) = kx (where C = loge(C0))
which rearranges to:
y = C0ekx
where C0 is derived from the y-intercept of the straight line produced by the transformed plotting, and k is the gradient of the transformed line.
[2] Plot y against loge(x) - if the result is a straight line, then the relationship is of the form:
y = k loge(x) + C, where k is the gradient of the line, and C is the y-intercept of the straight line.
[3] Plot loge(y) against loge(x) - if the result is a straight line, then the relationship is of the form:
loge(y) = k loge(x) + C (where C is the y-intercept of the straight line thus produced)
This rearranges to:
loge(y) - loge(C0) = k loge(x) (where C = loge(C0))
Which in turn rearranges to:
loge(y/C0) = loge(xk)
Which finally gives us the relationship:
y = C0xk, where k is the gradient of the straight line produced by the transformed data, and C0 is derived from the y-intercept of the straight line produced by the transformed data.
The above procedures allow us to determine the nature of the mathematical relationships governing large bodies of real world data, when those bodies of real world data yield curves as raw plots of y against x. By applying the relevant transformations to radonuclide decay data, it was found that transformation [1] transformed the data into a straight line plot (within the limits of experimental error, of course), and consequently, this informed the scientists examining the data that the decay law was of the form:
N = C0ekt
where C0 and k were constants to be determined from the plot, and which were regarded as being dependent upon the particular radionuclide in question.
Now, if we are start with a known amount of radionuclide, and observe it decaying, then each decay event we detect with a Geiger counter represents one nucleus undergoing the requisite decay transformation. Since the process is random, over a long period of time, decaying nuclei will emit α or β particles in all directions with equal frequency, so we don’t need to surround the material with Geiger counters in order to obtain measurements allowing a good first approximation to the decay rate. Obviously if we’re engaged in precise work, we do set up our experiments to do this, especially with long-lived nuclei, because the decay events for long-lived nuclei are infrequent, and we need to be able to capture as many of them as possible in order to determine the decay rate with precision. Let’s assume that we’re dealing with a relatively short-lived radionuclide which produces a steady stream of decay events at a reasonably fast rate, in which case we can simply point a single Geiger counter at it, and work out what proportion of these events we are actually capturing, because that proportion will be the ratio of the solid angle subtended by your Geiger counter, divided by the solid angle of an entire sphere (this latter value being 4π). When we have computed this ratio (let’s call it R), which will necessarily be a number less than 1 unless we have surrounded your sample with a spherical shell of Geiger counters, we then start collecting count data, say once per second, and plotting that data. In a modern setup we’d use a computer to collect this mass of data (a facility that wasn’t available to the likes of Henri Becquerel, Röntgen and the Curies when they were engaged in their work), in order to have as large a body of data as possible to work with. Before working with the raw data, we transform it by taking each of the data points and dividing it by R to obtain the true count.
Once the data has been collected, transformed and plotted, the end result should be a nice curve. At this point, we’re interested in knowing what sort of curve we have, and there are two ways we can determine this. One way is to take the transformed data set, comprising count values c1, c2, c3, … , cn, where n is the number of data points collected, compute the following values:
r1 = c2 - c1
r2 = c3 - c2
r3 = c4 - c3
…
rn-1 = cn - cn-1
and then plot a graph with rk on the vertical axis, and ck on the horizontal axis. This should give a reasonable approximation to a straight line, and the slope of that straight line, obtained via regression analysis, will give the first approximation to the decay constant k. At this point, we know we are dealing with a relationship of the form dN/dt = -kN, and you can then apply the integral calculus to that equation (see below). Technically, what we are doing here is approximating the derivative by computing first differences.
However, as a double check, we can also perform a logarithmic regression on the data, plotting loge(ck) against time, which should also reveal a straight line, and again, the slope of that line will give you the value of k, which should be in good agreement with the value obtained earlier using the more laborious plot of rk against ck. In other words, applying the transformation [1] above to the data set, and extracting an exponential relationship from the data. Since we now know that the data is of the form:
logeN = -kt
we can then derive the exponential form and check that it tallies with the integral calculus result.
Once we have that function coupling the decay rate to time, we can then work backwards, and feed in the values of the known starting mass and the experimentally obtained decay constant k, and see if the function obtained reproduces the transformed data points. If the result agrees with observation to a very good fit, we’re home and dry.
This is, essentially, how the process was done when the decay law was first derived - lots of data points were collected from observation of real radionuclide decay, and the above processes applied to that data, to derive the exponential decay law. When this was done for multiple radionuclides, it was found that they all obeyed the same basic law, namely:
N = N0e-kt
where N0 is your initial amount of radionuclide, N is the amount remaining after time t, and k is the decay constant for the specific radionuclide.
Now, having determined this decay law empirically, it’s time to fire up some calculus, and develop a theoretical derivation of the decay law. Which I shall now proceed to do.
Theoretical Derivation Of The Decay Law And Comparison With The Above Empirical Result
Upon noting, using the calculation of first differences in the empirical determination above, that the rate of change of material with time, plotted against the material remaining, is constant, this immediately leads us to conclude that the decay law is governed by a differential equation. An appropriate differential equation is therefore:
dN/dt = -kN
which states that the amount of material undergoing decay is a linear function of the amount of material present (and furthermore, the minus sign indicates that the process results in a reduction of material remaining). Rearranging this differential equation, we have:
dN/N = -k dt
Integrating this, we have:
∫dN/N = - ∫ k dt
Our limits of integration are, for the left hand integral, the initial amount at t=0, which we call N0, and the amount remaining after time t, which we call Nt. Our limits of integration for the right hand integral are t=0 and t=tp, the present time.
Thus, we end up with:
logeN -logeN0 = -ktp
By an elementary theorem of logarithms, this becomes:
loge(N/N0) = -ktp
Therefore, exponentiating both sides, we have:
N/N0 = e-kt
or, the final form:
N = N0e-kt
The half-life of a radionuclide is defined as the amount of time required for half the initial amount of material to decay, and is called T½. Therefore, feeding this into the equation for the decay law,
½N0 = N0e-kt
Cancelling N0 on both sides, we have:
½ = e-kt
loge½ = -kt
By an elementary theorem of logarithms, we have:
loge2 = kt
Therefore T½ = loge2/k
Alternatively, if the half-life is known, but the decay constant k is unknown, then k can be computed by rearranging the above to give:
k = loge2/T½
Which allows us to move seamlessly from one system of constants (half-lives) to another (decay constants) and back again.
If the initial amount of substance N0 is known (e.g., we have a fresh sample of radionuclide prepared from a nuclear reactor), and we observe the decay over a time period t, then measure the amount of substance remaining, we can determine the decay constant empirically as follows:
N = N0e-kt
N/N0 = e-kt
loge(N/N0) = -kt
Therefore:
(1/t) loge(N0/N) = k
On the left hand side, the initial amount N0, the remaining amount N and the elapsed time t are all known, therefore k can be computed using the empirically observed data.
Once again, this agrees with the empirical data from which the law was derived in the earlier exposition above, and consequently, we can be confident that we have alighted upon a correct result.
Once we have the decay law in place, it simply remains for appropriate values of k to be determined, which will be unique to each radionuclide. This work has been performed by scientists, and as a result of decades of intense labour in this vein in physics laboratories around the world, vast bodies of radionuclide data are now available.
Kaye & Laby’s Tables of Physical & Chemical Constants, devised and maintained by the National Physical Laboratory in the UK, contains among the voluminous sets of data produced by the precise laboratory work of various scientists a complete table of the nuclides, which due to its huge size, is split into sections to make it more manageable, in which data such as half-life, major emissions, emission energies and other useful data are included. The sections are:
[1] Hydrogen to Flourine (H1 to F24)
[2] Neon to Potassium (Ne17 to K54)
[3] Calcium to Copper (Ca35 to Cu75)
[4] Zinc to Yttrium (Zn57 to Y101)
[5] Zirconium to Indium (Zr81 to In133)
[6] Tin to Praesodymium (Sn103 to Pr154)
[7] Neodymium to Thulium (Nd129 to Tm177)
[8] Ytterbium to gold (Yb151 to Au204)
[9] Mercury to Actinium (Hg175 to Ac233)
[10] Thorium to Einsteinium (Th212 to Es256)
[11] Fermium to Roentgenium (name not yet officially recognised by IUPAC) (Fm242 to Rg272)
Now, the above exhaustively compiled data gives rise to yet more data, in the form of the tables covering the major decay series. These arise from the observation of which radionuclides decay into which other radionuclides (or in the case of certain radionuclides, which stable elements are formed after decay), and all of these decay events follow specific rules, according to whether α decay, β- decay, or one of the other possible decay modes for certain interesting radionuclides, takes place. Again, data is supplied in the above tables with respect to all of this.
Now, we come to the question of how this data is pressed into service. Since the above work couples radionuclide decay to time, via a precise mathematical law, we can use this data to provide information on the age of any material that contains radionuclides. This can be performed by performing precise quantitative measurements of parent radionuclides and daughter products, all of which is well within the remit of inorganic chemists (since the chemistry of the relevant elements has been studied in detail, in some cases for over 200 years) and of course, modern gas chromatograph mass spectrometry can be brought to bear upon the process, yielding results with an accuracy that past chemists reliant upon earlier techniques could only dream of. Consequently, it is now time to cover the business of dating itself.
Radionuclide Dating - The Basics
With the data obtained above, it becomes possible to trace the decay of suitably long-lived elements in geological strata, locate specific isotopes, determine by precise quantitative analysis the amounts present in a given sample, and compare these with calculations for known decay observations in the laboratory, whence the time taken for the observed isotope composition of the sample can be determined. Given that several isotopes have extremely long half-lives, for example, U238 has a half-life of 4,500,000,000 years, and Th232 has a half-life of 14,050,000,000 years, and several of the daughter isotopes also have usefully long half-lives, one can determine the age of a rock sample, where multiple isotopes are present, by relating them to the correct decay series and utilising the observed empirically determined half-lives of laboratory samples to determine the age of a particular rock sample, cross correlating using multiple isotopes where these are present and enable such cross correlation to be performed. Thus, errors can be eliminated in age determinations by the use of multiple decay series and the presence of multiple long-lived isotopes - any errors arising in one series will yield a figure different from that in another series, and the calculations can thus be cross-checked to ensure that they are consilient.
Referring to the data tables above, I have selected a number of isotopes of interest. These are isotopes whose half-lives have been determined to lie within a specific range, and which moreover are not known to be produced in the Earth’s crust by any major synthesis processes (except for the various Technetium isotopes, which can arise if Molybdenum isotopes are coincident with Uranium isotopes in certain rocks, but this exception is rare and well documented). The isotopes in question, in increasing atomic mass order, are:
Al26 : 740,000 years
Cl36 : 301,000 years
Ca41 : 103,000 years
Mn53 : 3,740,000 years
Fe60 : 1,500,000 years
Kr81 : 213,000 years
Zr93 : 1,530,000 years
Nb92 : 34,700,000 years
Tc97 : 2,600,000 years
Tc98 : 4,200,000 years
Tc99 : 211,000 years
Pd107 : 6,500,000 years
Sn126 : 100,000 years
I129 : 15,700,000 years
Cs135 : 2,300,000 years
Sm146 : 103,000,000 years
Gd150 : 1,790,000 years
Dy154 : 3,000,000 years
Hf182: 9,000,000 years
Re186m : 200,000 years
Pb205 : 15,200,000 years
Bi208 : 368,000 years
Bi210m : 3,040,000 years
Np236 : 154,000 years
Np237 : 2,140,000 years
Pu242 : 373,300 years
Pu244 : 81,700,000 years
Cm247 : 15,600,000 years
Cm248 : 340,000 years
The reason I have chosen these isotopes is very simple. Namely, that they would all be present in measurable quantities in the Earth’s crust, and detectable by modern mass spectrometry among other techniques, if the planet was, say, only 6,000 years old, as various enthusiasts for mythology continue to assert. This is because because the half-lives of all these radionuclides are a good deal longer than 6,000 years. So, what do we find when we search for these isotopes in Earth rocks?
NONE of them are present in measurable quantities.
Now, one can safely assume that at the end of 20 half-lives, any measurable amount of a particular radionuclide has effectively vanished - the amount left is ½20, or just 0.000095367% of the original mass that was present originally. So even for isotopes of common elements, this fraction represents a vanishingly small amount of material that would test even the world’s best mass spectrometer labs to detect in a sample. So, what does the observation of no measurable quantity of the above isotopes mean? It means that at least 20 half-lives of the requisite isotopes must have elapsed for those isotopes to disappear. Taking each isotope in turn, this means that:
[1] Sn126, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 100,000 years = 2,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 2,000,000 years old for all the Sn126 to have disappeared.
[2] Ca41, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 103,000 years = 2,060,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 2,060,000 years old for all the Ca41 to have disappeared.
[3] Np236, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 154,000 years = 3,080,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 3,080,000 years old for all the Np236 to have disappeared.
[4] Re186m, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 200,000 years = 4,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 4,000,000 years old for all the Re186m to have disappeared.
[5] Tc99, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 211,000 years = 4,220,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 4,220,000 years old for all the Tc99 to have disappeared.
[6] Kr81, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 213,000 years = 4,260,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 4,260,000 years old for all the Kr81 to have disappeared.
[7] Cl36, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 301,000 years = 6,020,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 6,020,000 years old for all the Cl36 to have disappeared.
[8] Cm248, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 340,000 years = 6,800,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 6,800,000 years old for all the Cm248 to have disappeared.
[9] Bi208, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 368,000 years = 7,360,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 7,360,000 years old for all the Bi208 to have disappeared.
[10] Pu242, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 373,000 years = 7,460,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 7,460,000 years old for all the Pu242 to have disappeared.
[11] Al26, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 740,000 years = 14,800,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 14,800,000 years old for all the Al26 to have disappeared.
[12] Fe60, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 1,500,000 years = 30,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 30,000,000 years old for all the Fe60 to have disappeared.
[13] Zr93, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 1,530,000 years = 30,600,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 30,600,000 years old for all the Zr93 to have disappeared.
[14] Gd150, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 1,790,000 years = 35,800,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 35,800,000 years old for all the Gd150 to have disappeared.
[15] Np237, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 2,140,000 years = 42,400,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 42,400,000 years old for all the Np237 to have disappeared.
[16] Cs135, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 2,300,000 years = 46,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 46,000,000 years old for all the Cs135 to have disappeared.
[17] Tc97, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 2,600,000 years = 52,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 52,000,000 years old for all the Tc97 to have disappeared.
[18] Dy154, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 3,000,000 years = 60,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 60,000,000 years old for all the Dy154 to have disappeared.
[19] Bi210m, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 3,040,000 years = 60,800,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 60,800,000 years old for all the Bi210m to have disappeared.
[20] Mn53, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 3,740,000 years = 74,800,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 74,800,000 years old for all the Mn53 to have disappeared.
[21] Tc98, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 4,200,000 years = 84,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 84,000,000 years old for all the Tc98 to have disappeared.
[22] Pd107, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 6,500,000 years = 130,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 130,000,000 years old for all the Pd107 to have disappeared.
[23] Hf182, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 9,000,000 years = 180,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 180,000,000 years old for all the Hf182 to have disappeared.
[24] Pb205, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 15,200,000 years = 304,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 304,000,000 years old for all the Pb205 to have disappeared.
[25] Cm247, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 15,600,000 years = 312,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 312,000,000 years old for all the Cm247 to have disappeared.
[26] I129, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 15,700,000 years = 314,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 314,000,000 years old for all the I129 to have disappeared.
[27] Nb92, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 34,700,000 years = 694,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 694,000,000 years old for all the Nb92 to have disappeared.
[28] Pu244, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 81,700,000 years = 1,634,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 1,634,000,000 years old for all the Pu244 to have disappeared.
[29] Sm146, being absent, must have disappeared over a period of 20 half lives = 20 × 103,000,000 years = 2,060,000,000 years. Therefore the Earth must be at least 2,060,000,000 years old for all the Sm146 to have disappeared.
This is an inescapable conclusion from observational reality, given that these isotopes are not found in measurable quantities in the Earth and would be found in measurable quantities if the Earth was only 6,000 years old, indeed, hardly any of the Sm146 would have disappeared in just 6,000 years, and it would form a significant measurable percentage of the naturally occurring Samarium that is present in crustal rocks. The fact that NO Sm146 is found places a minimum limit on the age of the earth of 2,060,000,000 years - over two billion years - and of course, dating using other isotopes with longer half lives that can be measured precisely has established that the age of the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years. Now since the decay of these isotopes obeys a precise mathematical law as derived above, and this law has been established through decades of observation of material of known starting composition originating from nuclear reactors specifically for the purpose of determining precise half-lives, which is one of the tasks that the UK National Physical Laboratory (whose data I cited above) performs on a continuous basis in order to maintain scientific databases, the provenance of all of this is beyond question. The tables I have linked to above are the result of something like half a century of continuous work establishing half-lives for hundreds upon hundreds of radionuclides, and not ONE of them has EVER been observed to violate that precise mathematical law which I opened this post with under the kind of conditions in which those materials would exist on Earth if they were present. The majority of those isotopes are nowadays ONLY obtained by synthesis within nuclear reactors, and observation of known samples of these materials confirms again and again that not only does the precise mathematical law governing radionuclide decay apply universally to all of these isotopes, but that the half-lives obtained are valid as a consequence. The laws of nuclear physics would have to be rewritten wholesale for any other scenario to be even remotely valid, and that rewriting of the laws of nuclear physics would impact upon the very existence of stable isotopes including stable isotopes of the elements that make up each and every one of us, none of which would exist if the various wacky scenarios vomited forth on creationist websites to try and escape this were ever a reality.
I’ll leave the part dedicated to isochron dating out for now, as I would exceed the post size limit if I left it on (sigh).
7 Likes
Just seems real Catholickee to me.
LOL. I saw this post from the bottom up. As soon as I saw all the quotes and numbers, I just told myself, “Someone Just God Owned.” No surprise, when I finally reache the top and saw, it was a post from Calilasseia. LOL
1 Like