Religion II

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'm about ready to blow the story of how the Noah's could not have repopulated the earth to the tune of over 7 billion people today.

Do you remember saying that the first time it rained was the great flood? Do you have an explanation for why all the water didn't evaporate between Adam and Noah? Considering they all lived in the same general area of the world, do you think they would have quickly used all the water in the area growing food and sustaining life? They didn't have the tools to drill deep wells or anything. You want to explain how they made it 2,000 years without rain? (By the way, that would have severely limited their ability to support any size population).

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I'm about ready to blow the story of how the Noah's could not have repopulated the earth to the tune of over 7 billion people today.

Do you remember saying that the first time it rained was the great flood? Do you have an explanation for why all the water didn't evaporate between Adam and Noah? Considering they all lived in the same general area of the world, do you think they would have quickly used all the water in the area growing food and sustaining life? They didn't have the tools to drill deep wells or anything. You want to explain how they made it 2,000 years without rain? (By the way, that would have severely limited their ability to support any size population).

How do you know they didn't have wells? Oh...because Adam was a knuckle-dragging cave-dweller, right? And scripture tells us how man survived without rain and I even quoted or cited the passage in the Religious thread. Look it up.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I didn't assume it. Chemistry did. But I offered you the opportunity to prove that there are effects out there in the asteroid belt that could make 6,000 year old rocks appear 4.5 billion years old. Or that there are meteors that have come from deep space. You can't do it. You simply try to make non-educated guesses.

You are once again intellectually corrupt. If you have some evidence that my "assumptions" are incorrect, make them. If you think there are meteors that came from a different solar system, cite the argument. Explain how in that solar system the laws of physics, including gravity, were suspended in order for that meteorite to make it to our solar system. You already showed your complete ignorance by suggesting the meteorite could have broken off from a planet and flew to earth. I can see you gave that one up.

The "some scientists" argument is a non-starter unless you can name the scientists, they are credentialed, and they have published the alternative explanation in a peer reviewed journal. It's no different than the guy who says, I knew nothing about climate change until I spent a half day on the internet claiming equivalency to people who have spent a lifetime studying climate. As the PhD's often say, for every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD. You can always find someone to say the opposite, but when 98% of scientists buy into something, the probability shoots way up that the other 2% are off. We know the half life of uranium because we can measure it. To suggest that uranium somehow "changed" in space or on the earth is absurd. Don't hand me your ignorant bullshit that "it could have happened." Explain the mechanism. Explain to me how absolute zero in space could make a 6,000 year old rock look like 4.5 billion years old. Explain how conditions on earth could have done that.

Again, explain the mechanism by which the half-life of an element can "drastically age and decay based in environmental conditions." Especially explain how it could have given us the impression a 6,000 year old rock is 4.5 billion years old. We're not talking about trees rotting or petrifying, which can be affected by environment. We're talking about the half life of an element, a different mechanism of decay. I'll give you a clue before you do too much work. The simple answer is, no, the half life cannot change.

And riddle me this. Even assuming some accelerated rate of decay, it would have to have been 7.5 MILLION times faster to explain the difference between 6,000 years and 4.5 billion. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds, much less how impossible it sounds?

Keep embarrassing yourself with your ignorance. You've only got one argument. God put a 4.5 billion year rock on the earth 6,000 years ago. God made light from the stars travel millions of light years in a day. He lied and fooled us all. No other explanation can exist for the earth only being 6,000 years old.

How 'bout the mechanism of radiation from the sun? The sun emits all kinds of radiation. You even mentioned that that meteorite that was found could have broken off from Mercury. Since this planet is the closest to the sun, are we to believe that mercury's environment doesn't differ from earth's?

And, no, God didn't lie and fool us all. He created a fully functional, mature universe. And how this universe and, indeed, this world appears to scientists in terms of its age is a moot point because scientists cannot tell us what they think a young earth would look like. To say that something is old presupposes that the scientists know what that thing would like look young. Until scientists produce a "young" earth, they're blowing smoke up everyone's anal cavity. Until then, no one can say with certainty that a mature, fully-functional universe would not look as it currently does.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How 'bout the mechanism of radiation from the sun? The sun emits all kinds of radiation. You even mentioned that that meteorite that was found could have broken off from Mercury. Since this planet is the closest to the sun, are we to believe that mercury's environment doesn't differ from earth's?

And, no, God didn't lie and fool us all. He created a fully functional, mature universe. And how this universe and, indeed, this world appears to scientists in terms of its age is a moot point because scientists cannot tell us what they think a young earth would look like. To say that something is old presupposes that the scientists know what that thing would like look young. Until scientists produce a "young" earth, they're blowing smoke up everyone's anal cavity. Until then, no one can say with certainty that a mature, fully-functional universe would not look as it currently does.

The environment doesn't affect half-life. Do I need to explain nuclear decay to you, or do you think you could look on your own?

Certain atoms are unstable, and their nuclei sometimes break apart and change into another element through a process known as "radioactive decay". Some of these radioactive elements transform themselves by emitting a high-energy particle consisting of two protons and two neutrons, a process known as "alpha decay". Other radioactive elements decay when a neutron inside the nucleus breaks into a proton and an electron. The proton stays in the nucleus, and the electron is ejected at very high speed--a process known as "beta decay".

Your comprehension isn't too good on this one. I never said the meteorite could have broken off from Mercury. I said it most likely came from the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. There are in orbit around the sun and eventually the orbit degrades and THAT is when they might collide with a planet. And I also said that rocks don't break off planets and fly into space because of GRAVITY. Explain exactly how the rock breaks free of Mercury's gravity and flies to earth?

I have to say that even for the ID folks, the argument that we don't know exactly what a young earth looked like so we can't decide it is old, is a non-starter. Almost all the ID people with accredited degrees in geophysics will tell you the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Plus, I'm not sure why you think the scientists don't know what a young earth looked like. There is ample description in the literature. I'm not going to recite it to you, but you are dead wrong that scientists don't know what happened to form the solar system.

There are a small number of fundamentalists who believe in the literal creation story. The vast majority of Christian sects do not dispute the age of the earth. If I thought it was worth the time, I'd continue to shred ever argument you think sounds "sciencey" because what you and the other third standard deviation fundamentalists believe is so anti-science it's absurd. What you've got is a belief that cannot be backed up with a decent shred of science. I'd leave it that way if I were you and not try to argue in venues where you are completely unarmed.

And as I've mentioned multiple times, we know the universe has changed over the millions of years because it is expanding, and we can calculate the rate of expansion and thus the age of the universe. We can tell you how the earth was formed and when the earth was formed. Only in your mind are scientists as oblivious as you think. If you'd like I could recommend some books that will clear this up for you.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How do you know they didn't have wells? Oh...because Adam was a knuckle-dragging cave-dweller, right? And scripture tells us how man survived without rain and I even quoted or cited the passage in the Religious thread. Look it up.

I didn't say they didn't have wells. I said they didn't have the tools or technology to dig deep wells. That's why everybody lived near a water body. And how do I know? Because I know how the tools are made, how they work and that we never found anything resembling such a tool in the fossil record.

If you believe there were "rivers" sustaining life and agriculture, and these rivers were never replenished, you really have no ability to explain the absence of evaporation for 2,000 years. Those rivers would have dried up fairly quickly without rain. And there was only a finite amount of water available on the earth. It has been that way for millions of years. There was not an infinite amount of FRESH water available for drinking and irrigation. Again, you have to resort to supernatural miracles to explain such a thing, otherwise you have to suspend physical law. And if that is where you are going to go, you always win the argument in your own mind.

I'm going to ask you a very serious question. Yes or no. If there was no Bible with a creation story, would you believe what science tells us about the origin of the universe and the solar system?

Some refutation for the literalness of the water parts of the Genesis story.

2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The early universe was not "dark". We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of "decoupling", about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today.

The verse refers to "the face of the waters". If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accretion had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth.

However, most Biblical scholars believe that the "waters" referred to here are those in heaven, from which rain comes. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans.

But we know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong.

8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says "the windows of heaven were opened", and also in Genesis 8:2, which says "the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained". It is also referred to by other verses in the Bible like Acts 14:17, where God "gave us rain from heaven", Deuteronomy 11:11, which says "But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven", Deuteronomy 11:17, which says "And then the LORD's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain", Deuteronomy 28:12, which says "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season", Isaiah 55:10, which says "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud", and Revelations 11:6, which says "These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy".

Needless to say, there is no "firmament" that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. The ancient writers of the Bible, having no knowledge or understanding of "gravity", simply postulated that this hard clear sphere MUST be there, or else the stars and planets would all fall down, and that the "firmament" must have "windows" to let the rain through. They were wrong.

9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


According to the Genesis account, the oceans come from water that was already existing when the earth was formed-----the "waters above" and "the waters below". From the description given, it appears that the Genesis writers assumed that the entire earth was covered with water ("the waters below"), and that the dry land was formed by moving all that water to specific locations to form the oceans. Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it accreted that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

.................................................. .........

According to the Genesis account, the oceans come from water that was already existing when the earth was formed-----the "waters above" and "the waters below". From the description given, it appears that the Genesis writers assumed that the entire earth was covered with water ("the waters below"), and that the dry land was formed by moving all that water to specific locations to form the oceans. Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it accreted that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets.

The above account is part of the Babylonian creation account. Babylonian cosmology believed the earth was engulfed in the depths of a cosmic sea of water. The dome of the sky protected the dry land from the water surrounding and encompassing the earth, the waters above and the waters below.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I didn't say they didn't have wells. I said they didn't have the tools or technology to dig deep wells. That's why everybody lived near a water body. And how do I know? Because I know how the tools are made, how they work and that we never found anything resembling such a tool in the fossil record.

If you believe there were "rivers" sustaining life and agriculture, and these rivers were never replenished, you really have no ability to explain the absence of evaporation for 2,000 years. Those rivers would have dried up fairly quickly without rain. And there was only a finite amount of water available on the earth. It has been that way for millions of years. There was not an infinite amount of FRESH water available for drinking and irrigation. Again, you have to resort to supernatural miracles to explain such a thing, otherwise you have to suspend physical law. And if that is where you are going to go, you always win the argument in your own mind.

I'm going to ask you a very serious question. Yes or no. If there was no Bible with a creation story, would you believe what science tells us about the origin of the universe and the solar system?

Some refutation for the literalness of the water parts of the Genesis story.

2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The early universe was not "dark". We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of "decoupling", about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today.

The verse refers to "the face of the waters". If this verse refers to the waters on earth, such as the ocean, it is completely wrong. The early earth had no ocean. It was not until millions of years of accretion had built up the planet that liquid water began to form, both from volcanic outgassing and from the impacts of comets attracted by the gravity of the earth.

However, most Biblical scholars believe that the "waters" referred to here are those in heaven, from which rain comes. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Genesis account later describes how these "waters" were divided from those of earth by a wall, with one portion of these divided waters forming the oceans.

But we know from science that the early universe did not have any liquid water. None at all. Not even any water molecules. In fact, for a period of several hundred thousand years, it did not have any molecules of any sort. The Genesis description of water above the "firmament" is simply wrong.

8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The word "firmament" refers to a hard, clear wall or divider. It refers to the ancient belief that the stars and planets were held in the sky by a huge transparent wall or roof. The "waters above" the firmament were presumed to be huge reservoirs of water in the sky, from which, it was presumed in ancient times, rain came through holes in the firmament. This is referred to during the Flood story by Genesis 7:11, which says "the windows of heaven were opened", and also in Genesis 8:2, which says "the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained". It is also referred to by other verses in the Bible like Acts 14:17, where God "gave us rain from heaven", Deuteronomy 11:11, which says "But the land, whither ye go to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water of the rain of heaven", Deuteronomy 11:17, which says "And then the LORD's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain", Deuteronomy 28:12, which says "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season", Isaiah 55:10, which says "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud", and Revelations 11:6, which says "These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy".

Needless to say, there is no "firmament" that holds rainwater or stars up in the sky. The ancient writers of the Bible, having no knowledge or understanding of "gravity", simply postulated that this hard clear sphere MUST be there, or else the stars and planets would all fall down, and that the "firmament" must have "windows" to let the rain through. They were wrong.

9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


According to the Genesis account, the oceans come from water that was already existing when the earth was formed-----the "waters above" and "the waters below". From the description given, it appears that the Genesis writers assumed that the entire earth was covered with water ("the waters below"), and that the dry land was formed by moving all that water to specific locations to form the oceans. Scientifically, we know this to be untrue. There has never been a time in earth's history when its surface was covered with water. In fact, the early earth had no liquid water at all on its surface. It wasn't until millions of years after it accreted that the earth began accumulating water, in the form of volcanic outgassing and impacts of ice comets.

As stated earlier, the bible tells us how the earth was watered prior to the Flood. Research it. Hint: It's in Genesis.

As far as the rest of your post goes, I have zero interest in debating the biblical account of creation with your science fiction. I have news for you: No scientist KNOWS anything for certain about the origins of the universe of or hows or whys of things since there were no eyewitnesses around to report it. At best...and I mean at the very best...it's all educated guesses. Forensic scientists grope around in the dark looking for answers, yet at the end of the day, truly find very few that are true.

It never ceases to amaze me how sinful mankind (including the high priests of scientism) will always try to convince the world that whatever the bible says something is evil, it is good. Or when something is good, it's evil. Or when the age of the universe is young, it's really old. Or when the bible says there was water in the very beginning, that there was none. Or that when God created all things ex nihilo in 6 days that everything evolved very slowly over a period of time naturally, etc., etc., etc. The list is endless. This lost, dying (yes, DECAYING world as we speak!) has its own philosophy and in all points (I repeat: IN ALL ITS POINTS), this philosophy is diametrically opposed to divine revelation. It's no wonder at all that Jesus disowned this world system or order as being his own!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

The environment doesn't affect half-life. Do I need to explain nuclear decay to you, or do you think you could look on your own?

Certain atoms are unstable, and their nuclei sometimes break apart and change into another element through a process known as "radioactive decay". Some of these radioactive elements transform themselves by emitting a high-energy particle consisting of two protons and two neutrons, a process known as "alpha decay". Other radioactive elements decay when a neutron inside the nucleus breaks into a proton and an electron. The proton stays in the nucleus, and the electron is ejected at very high speed--a process known as "beta decay".

Your comprehension isn't too good on this one. I never said the meteorite could have broken off from Mercury. I said it most likely came from the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. There are in orbit around the sun and eventually the orbit degrades and THAT is when they might collide with a planet. And I also said that rocks don't break off planets and fly into space because of GRAVITY. Explain exactly how the rock breaks free of Mercury's gravity and flies to earth?

I have to say that even for the ID folks, the argument that we don't know exactly what a young earth looked like so we can't decide it is old, is a non-starter. Almost all the ID people with accredited degrees in geophysics will tell you the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Plus, I'm not sure why you think the scientists don't know what a young earth looked like. There is ample description in the literature. I'm not going to recite it to you, but you are dead wrong that scientists don't know what happened to form the solar system.

There are a small number of fundamentalists who believe in the literal creation story. The vast majority of Christian sects do not dispute the age of the earth. If I thought it was worth the time, I'd continue to shred ever argument you think sounds "sciencey" because what you and the other third standard deviation fundamentalists believe is so anti-science it's absurd. What you've got is a belief that cannot be backed up with a decent shred of science. I'd leave it that way if I were you and not try to argue in venues where you are completely unarmed.

And as I've mentioned multiple times, we know the universe has changed over the millions of years because it is expanding, and we can calculate the rate of expansion and thus the age of the universe. We can tell you how the earth was formed and when the earth was formed. Only in your mind are scientists as oblivious as you think. If you'd like I could recommend some books that will clear this up for you.

Well, Mr. Whiz Kid: Let me ask you this: Does radiometric dating rely upon any assumptions, and if so what are they?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

As stated earlier, the bible tells us how the earth was watered prior to the Flood. Research it. Hint: It's in Genesis.

As far as the rest of your post goes, I have zero interest in debating the biblical account of creation with your science fiction. I have news for you: No scientist KNOWS anything for certain about the origins of the universe of or hows or whys of things since there were no eyewitnesses around to report it. At best...and I mean at the very best...it's all educated guesses. Forensic scientists grope around in the dark looking for answers, yet at the end of the day, truly find very few that are true.

It never ceases to amaze me how sinful mankind (including the high priests of scientism) will always try to convince the world that whatever the bible says something is evil, it is good. Or when something is good, it's evil. Or when the age of the universe is young, it's really old. Or when the bible says there was water in the very beginning, that there was none. Or that when God created all things ex nihilo in 6 days that everything evolved very slowly over a period of time naturally, etc., etc., etc. The list is endless. This lost, dying (yes, DECAYING world as we speak!) has its own philosophy and in all points (I repeat: IN ALL ITS POINTS), this philosophy is diametrically opposed to divine revelation. It's no wonder at all that Jesus disowned this world system or order as being his own!

You think there was a wall in the sky holding up the stars and an ocean of water. And science is whacked out.

What we are trying to convince you is that God's universe is a wonder and we don't need a fairy tale to prove that. We actually have a universe that works to prove it.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well, Mr. Whiz Kid: Let me ask you this: Does radiometric dating rely upon any assumptions, and if so what are they?

Radiometric dating relies on the known decay of certain elements into what are called "daughter" elements. Uranium is an example.

All of the isotopes of uranium are radioactive, and decay by emitting an alpha particle. Through a series of intermediate steps, the U-235 atom will decay to form an atom of the lead isotope 207 (abbreviated chemically as Pb-207). The Pb-207 atom does not undergo radioactive decay--it is "stable"--and thus over time all U-235 will tend to decay to form increasing amounts of Pb-207. Other chemical elements may have some isotopes that undergo radioactive decay, and other isotopes that do not decay--they are also "stable". The other radioactive elements will decay to form different stable "daughter elements".

Radio-dating is possible because of the fact that the decay of a radioactive element into its daughter element takes place at a constant rate, known as the "half-life", and the half-life of various radio-decay rates can be measured very precisely. U-235, for instance, has a half-life of 713 million years. If we start with a known quantity of U-235, say one pound, in 713 million years this material will consist of half U-235 and half Pb-207. In another 713 million years, half of the remaining uranium will decay, and the material will now consist of three-fourths lead and one-fourth uranium.

Conversely, if we calculate what the ratio of lead to uranium is in a given rock, we can calculate the length of time that has passed since the original uranium started decaying. For instance, if we determine that a rock consists of one-sixteenth U-235 and fifteen-sixteenths Pb-207, we know that a total of four half-lives have passed since the original uranium started decaying, and therefore the rock was formed approximately 2.8 billion years ago.

Now I know what you are thinking because the other creationists already thought of this. Since rocks are virtually never found in a pure elemental state, but consist of a number of different minerals mixed together when the rock was formed, it is entirely possible (and even likely) that some amount of lead was present along with the original uranium when the rock was formed, and geologists must therefore find a way to calculate how much of the lead in any given rock is "primordial", or present from the beginning, and how much is "radiogenic", or produced by radio-decay after the rock was formed. This is done using the fact that the isotope lead-204 is non-radiogenic, and is not produced by any process of radioactive decay. Any Pb-204 in a given rock, therefore, must be primordial.

A much more precise method of radio-dating depends on the decay of the isotope potassium-40 to form argon-40 through beta decay, with a half life of 1.2 billion years. Another very precise method of radio-dating is called "isochron" dating, and depends on the beta decay of the isotope rubidium-87 (Rb-87) to strontium-87 (Sr-87), with a half-life of 4.8 billion years. The rubidium-strontium method takes advantage of the fact that three other nonradiogenic isotopes of strontium are usually found with strontium-87; these are Sr-84, Sr-86 and Sr-88. As with the isotopes of lead, all of the isotopes of strontium are chemically identical, and no means exists in nature to move one isotope without also moving the others, in the same ratios.

And finally, you're thinking, what if the rocks don't have uranium, strontium, rubidium or potassium. Well, you've got us there. radio-dating depends on having a radioactive element available. Luckily though, there are plenty of rocks that have radioactive elements that we can use.

So, not an assumption. A fact based on scientific observation. We understand how radioactive particles decay and we can measure them. I'll bet the people who wrote Genesis didn't know all that.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Radiometric dating relies on the known decay of certain elements into what are called "daughter" elements. Uranium is an example.

All of the isotopes of uranium are radioactive, and decay by emitting an alpha particle. Through a series of intermediate steps, the U-235 atom will decay to form an atom of the lead isotope 207 (abbreviated chemically as Pb-207). The Pb-207 atom does not undergo radioactive decay--it is "stable"--and thus over time all U-235 will tend to decay to form increasing amounts of Pb-207. Other chemical elements may have some isotopes that undergo radioactive decay, and other isotopes that do not decay--they are also "stable". The other radioactive elements will decay to form different stable "daughter elements".

Radio-dating is possible because of the fact that the decay of a radioactive element into its daughter element takes place at a constant rate, known as the "half-life", and the half-life of various radio-decay rates can be measured very precisely. U-235, for instance, has a half-life of 713 million years. If we start with a known quantity of U-235, say one pound, in 713 million years this material will consist of half U-235 and half Pb-207. In another 713 million years, half of the remaining uranium will decay, and the material will now consist of three-fourths lead and one-fourth uranium.

Conversely, if we calculate what the ratio of lead to uranium is in a given rock, we can calculate the length of time that has passed since the original uranium started decaying. For instance, if we determine that a rock consists of one-sixteenth U-235 and fifteen-sixteenths Pb-207, we know that a total of four half-lives have passed since the original uranium started decaying, and therefore the rock was formed approximately 2.8 billion years ago.

Now I know what you are thinking because the other creationists already thought of this. Since rocks are virtually never found in a pure elemental state, but consist of a number of different minerals mixed together when the rock was formed, it is entirely possible (and even likely) that some amount of lead was present along with the original uranium when the rock was formed, and geologists must therefore find a way to calculate how much of the lead in any given rock is "primordial", or present from the beginning, and how much is "radiogenic", or produced by radio-decay after the rock was formed. This is done using the fact that the isotope lead-204 is non-radiogenic, and is not produced by any process of radioactive decay. Any Pb-204 in a given rock, therefore, must be primordial.

A much more precise method of radio-dating depends on the decay of the isotope potassium-40 to form argon-40 through beta decay, with a half life of 1.2 billion years. Another very precise method of radio-dating is called "isochron" dating, and depends on the beta decay of the isotope rubidium-87 (Rb-87) to strontium-87 (Sr-87), with a half-life of 4.8 billion years. The rubidium-strontium method takes advantage of the fact that three other nonradiogenic isotopes of strontium are usually found with strontium-87; these are Sr-84, Sr-86 and Sr-88. As with the isotopes of lead, all of the isotopes of strontium are chemically identical, and no means exists in nature to move one isotope without also moving the others, in the same ratios.

And finally, you're thinking, what if the rocks don't have uranium, strontium, rubidium or potassium. Well, you've got us there. radio-dating depends on having a radioactive element available. Luckily though, there are plenty of rocks that have radioactive elements that we can use.

So, not an assumption. A fact based on scientific observation. We understand how radioactive particles decay and we can measure them. I'll bet the people who wrote Genesis didn't know all that.

Rich...I'd like to say that I admire your "stick-to-it-iveness" in this matter...but I am not sure that "admire" is the right word for it.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Rich...I'd like to say that I admire your "stick-to-it-iveness" in this matter...but I am not sure that "admire" is the right word for it.

I was thinking I was wearing him out.

On the other hand, I wouldn't feel so bad if the subject changed.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

You think there was a wall in the sky holding up the stars and an ocean of water. And science is whacked out.

What we are trying to convince you is that God's universe is a wonder and we don't need a fairy tale to prove that. We actually have a universe that works to prove it.

Yeah...and it works not by accident but by design!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Radiometric dating relies on the known decay of certain elements into what are called "daughter" elements. Uranium is an example.

All of the isotopes of uranium are radioactive, and decay by emitting an alpha particle. Through a series of intermediate steps, the U-235 atom will decay to form an atom of the lead isotope 207 (abbreviated chemically as Pb-207). The Pb-207 atom does not undergo radioactive decay--it is "stable"--and thus over time all U-235 will tend to decay to form increasing amounts of Pb-207. Other chemical elements may have some isotopes that undergo radioactive decay, and other isotopes that do not decay--they are also "stable". The other radioactive elements will decay to form different stable "daughter elements".

Radio-dating is possible because of the fact that the decay of a radioactive element into its daughter element takes place at a constant rate, known as the "half-life", and the half-life of various radio-decay rates can be measured very precisely. U-235, for instance, has a half-life of 713 million years. If we start with a known quantity of U-235, say one pound, in 713 million years this material will consist of half U-235 and half Pb-207. In another 713 million years, half of the remaining uranium will decay, and the material will now consist of three-fourths lead and one-fourth uranium.

Conversely, if we calculate what the ratio of lead to uranium is in a given rock, we can calculate the length of time that has passed since the original uranium started decaying. For instance, if we determine that a rock consists of one-sixteenth U-235 and fifteen-sixteenths Pb-207, we know that a total of four half-lives have passed since the original uranium started decaying, and therefore the rock was formed approximately 2.8 billion years ago.

Now I know what you are thinking because the other creationists already thought of this. Since rocks are virtually never found in a pure elemental state, but consist of a number of different minerals mixed together when the rock was formed, it is entirely possible (and even likely) that some amount of lead was present along with the original uranium when the rock was formed, and geologists must therefore find a way to calculate how much of the lead in any given rock is "primordial", or present from the beginning, and how much is "radiogenic", or produced by radio-decay after the rock was formed. This is done using the fact that the isotope lead-204 is non-radiogenic, and is not produced by any process of radioactive decay. Any Pb-204 in a given rock, therefore, must be primordial.

A much more precise method of radio-dating depends on the decay of the isotope potassium-40 to form argon-40 through beta decay, with a half life of 1.2 billion years. Another very precise method of radio-dating is called "isochron" dating, and depends on the beta decay of the isotope rubidium-87 (Rb-87) to strontium-87 (Sr-87), with a half-life of 4.8 billion years. The rubidium-strontium method takes advantage of the fact that three other nonradiogenic isotopes of strontium are usually found with strontium-87; these are Sr-84, Sr-86 and Sr-88. As with the isotopes of lead, all of the isotopes of strontium are chemically identical, and no means exists in nature to move one isotope without also moving the others, in the same ratios.

And finally, you're thinking, what if the rocks don't have uranium, strontium, rubidium or potassium. Well, you've got us there. radio-dating depends on having a radioactive element available. Luckily though, there are plenty of rocks that have radioactive elements that we can use.

So, not an assumption. A fact based on scientific observation. We understand how radioactive particles decay and we can measure them. I'll bet the people who wrote Genesis didn't know all that.

So, Mr. Windy, are you saying there are no assumptions to radiometric dating?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, Mr. Windy, are you saying there are no assumptions to radiometric dating?

The assumption is that the standard model is correct.