GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ April 23 2014,00:21) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 22 2014,23:29) | | Quote (Texas Teach @ April 21 2014,16:54) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ April 21 2014,08:34) | Just visited Joey's little blog. It's pretty funny how much he still stalks me. But, as I was reading, I came upon this gem...
| Quote | And decay rates are fine. I am not saying otherwise. But unstable isotopes can start decaying when they are formed and they are not formed on earth. They were decaying for millions or billions of years before the earth formed.
It's as if you are just an ignorant fool who can't think beyond its own ass.
Uranium was formed either by supernovae or via the collision of two neutron stars. So it is decaying/ can decay well before it comes to earth. |
https://www.blogger.com/comment....4186811
That's just... wow... much ignorance... |
A misunderstanding, even a basic one, wouldn't be so bad if Joe wasn't so arrogant that he thought he'd outsmarted pretty much every scientist ever. Can he really believe that no one else would have noticed such a devastating mistake? |
It looks like (in another thread) Texas Teach just got trolled.
Uranium was formed on this planet? Really? |
Jesus, Gary, you are just determined to demonstrate that you know crap all about darn near everything, aren't you? Joe kept scoring one "own-goal" stupidity after another on that thread, and you want to join his side of the argument??? He and you by extension are wrong on so many aspects of this that it is hard to keep count. Uranium decay is dated by the presence of U versus daughter elements, so when we are counting parent uranium and daughter lead in minerals, we look at minerals that readily incorporate uranium when they form but which don't incorporate lead, so all newly crystallized minerals start at 100% U/(U+ daughter Pb). (Yes, there are minor exceptions, but they are manageable.) Furthermore, yes, uranium forms in a supernova (and presumably also in any higher energy events) (no one said it formed on earth), and yes, decays begin immediately on formation of the uranium, but so what? Some uranium is lost early, but the rest remains, and any early losses are irrelevant to dating of minerals, as each clock starts when those minerals form, not when the uranium forms. Just for additional confirmation that decays before the formation of the planets themselves are irrelevant, both uranium 235 and uranium 238 decay chains pass through gas phases (Radon 222 and Radon 219), so if that happens out in space then the radon disperses, and when those radon atoms eventually decay the daughter products end up far, far away from what's left of the original uranium. Thus uranium-decay clocks start long after that process is over.
However, we can in fact look at ratios of other, much short-lived, isotopes to see which ones "got away" between the supernova and the formation of the planets, and which ones didn't. If I recall the details, by identifying daughters of very short-lived elements that nonetheless did end up incorporated into the Earth and meteorites as opposed to daughters of even shorter-lived isotopes that did not end up incorporated into them, we can estimate how long it took to go from the supernova to the accretion of the earth and the asteroids (about 100 m.y. for the earth). This sort of work has people looking at very short-lived isotopes like aluminum-26 and hafnium-182. (It apparently took considerably longer for the gas giants to form, given the increasing losses of hydrogen in the more distant planets.) We have radiometric dates on the calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions in carbonaceous chondrites, which are thought to be the oldest material in the solar system, and which predate the earth by 50 to 100 m.y. |
Very good. Now all you need to do is put that in Joe's thread, where it currently looks like he's being trashed for mentioning that Uranium was not formed on planet Earth.
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
