Origins: Millions and Billions of Years!

Discussion in 'Science' started by usfan, Nov 2, 2019.

  1. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The simplest method of radiometric dating that can be used to date the age of the earth involves the conversion of uranium to lead in zircon crystals. This subject is covered

    at the Wikipedia website and I will use this source to explain the process.

    Uranium–lead dating, abbreviated U–Pb dating, is one of the oldest[1] and most refined of the radiometric dating schemes. It can be used to date rocks that formed and crystallised from about 1 million years to over 4.5 billion years ago with routine precisions in the 0.1–1 percent range.[2][3]

    The method is usually applied to zircon. This mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead when forming. As a result, newly-formed zircon deposits will contain no lead, meaning that any lead found in the mineral is radiogenic. Since the exact rate at which uranium decays into lead is known, the current ratio of lead to uranium in a sample of the mineral can be used to reliably determine its age.

    The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years.

    Note that the initial value of lead in zircon is assumed to be zero because zircon crystals strongly reject lead when forming. There is a way to check this assumption by using an isochron plot which

    incorporates a non-radiogenic isotope of lead with atomic mass of 204 and does not assume that the initial.value of 206Pb is zero. Lead (82Pb) has four stable isotopes: 204Pb, 206Pb, 207Pb, 208Pb. Lead-204 is

    entirely a primordial nuclide and is not a radiogenic nuclide.

    An approximate age of the zircon crystal can be made from the 238U to 206Pb decay route by assuming that the initial value for lead, 206Pb is zero and the initial amount of uranium can be

    calculated by adding the amount of uranium (238U) at the time the measurement is taken to the amount of 206Pb found at the same time. In this method, neither the initial amounts of 238U or 206Pb

    need to be known.

    One can also check the previously discussed decay route's age calculation using the other decay route involving 235U to 207Pb.

    There is also a method involving a coupling of both decay routes into a "concordia" diagram and this method is typically used to date the age of zircon crystals. This method has a way to correct for

    the leakage of lead from the sample.

    From Wikipedia, radiometric dating:
    Uranium–lead dating is often performed on the mineral zircon (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials, such as baddeleyite, as well as monazite (see: monazite geochronology).[23] Zircon and baddeleyite incorporate uranium atoms into their crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly reject lead. Zircon has a very high closure temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. In situ micro-beam analysis can be achieved via laser ICP-MS or SIMS techniques.[24]

    One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost. This can be seen in the concordia diagram, where the samples plot along an errorchron (straight line) which intersects the concordia curve at the age of the sample.

    This is from datinhttps://www.britannica.com/science/dating-geochronology/Principles-of-isotopic-g

    Fortunately for geochronology, the study of radioactivity has been the subject of extensive theoretical and laboratory investigation by physicists for almost a century. The results show that there is no known process that can alter the rate of radioactive decay. By way of explanation it can be noted that since the cause of the process lies deep within the atomic nucleus, external forces such as extreme heat and pressure have no effect. The same is true regarding gravitational, magnetic, and electric fields, as well as the chemical state in which the atom resides. In short, the process of radioactive decay is immutable under all known conditions. Although it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will change, given a sufficient number of atoms, the rate of their decay is found to be constant

    An article by Ethan Siegel, Ph.D astrophysics, at Forbes discusses how the fundamental constants of physics such as the speed of light are truly constant over time

    Distant Quasars Show That Fundamental Constants Never Change
    There are certain assumptions we make about the Universe that appear to be true based on what we see, what our theories state and what we can infer by putting them together. We see distant stars and galaxies that emit the same light and display the same spectral features as the ones near us, so we assume the laws governing atoms and nuclei are the same. We see the same hydrogen transitions, so we assume that the electric charges and masses of quantum particles are the same. We see the same large-scale clustering and rotations of galaxies, so we assume the gravitational laws are the same. And we see a consistent pattern in the energies, speeds and emissions from cosmic particles, pointing towards the speed of light being the same. Of all the fundamental constants, however, one has shown some circumstantial evidence for changing over time: α, the electromagnetic coupling constant.

    Thankfully, there is a very particular class of system -- although rare -- that can be used to check the constancy of α like never before. Three billion light years away, a bright quasar was found with a cloud of molecular hydroxyl gas (OH molecules) in front of it. The molecule has very particular fine and hyperfine transitions, leaving signatures at 1.612 GHz and 1.720 GHz, respectively, that can be observed with a large, sensitive enough radio telescope. The Arecibo observatory was up to the challenge, and after 150 hours of dedicated observation, they were able to get pristine measurements of these lines: 1.612 GHz thanks to its absorption of the background quasar light and 1.720 GHz due to its stimulated emission. The result? The best ever constraint on how the fine-structure constant, α, doesn't vary with time: to no more than 1.3 parts in a million, or 0.00013%


    If the speed of light changed over time that would seem to violate conservation of energy since E = mc squared.
     
  2. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    This is from,
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969804317303822

    Is decay constant?

    Highlights
    Repeatedly measured decay rates of radionuclides.

    No cycles between 1 and 20 year−1 in residuals from exponential decay.

    No evidence of variable decay constants due to solar neutrinos.

    No effect from 11.1-year solar cycle on decay rate.

    Our knowledge of the time scale of human evolution, the age of Earth and the solar system, and various geological and biological milestones is based on radioactivity. Chronometry through the decays of long-lived radionuclides yields mutually consistent dates, furthermore backed up with other dating techniques such as dendrochronology, ice core dating and historical records (Currie, 2004, Renne et al., 1997). Cross-section data from the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (Fujii et al., 2000) and absorption lines of distant quasars (Srianand et al., 2004) demonstrate that the fine-structure constant, which has an impact on radioactive decay rates, has not changed in 2–10 billion years. Supernovae up to billions of light-years away produced isotopes emitting gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates (Prantzos, 1999). Decay constants are also invariable under changes in pressure and temperature (Emery, 1972), except potentially at extreme conditions relevant to stellar nucleosynthesis and cosmochronology (Atanasov et al., 2015).
     
  3. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The idea of a young earth comes from a misreading of the Bible.
     
  4. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  5. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    A young earth is not consistent with the theory of continental drift. The evidence for continental drift includes observations from the similarity of rocks, fossils, and ancient glaciation; paleomagnetism;

    and ocean floor spreading. Plate tectonics and continental drift also explain the formation of mountain ranges, some islands, and can help explain changes in the earth's paleoclimate.

    Formations of extremely similar nature and composition exist in South Africa, South America, Antarctica, the Falkland Islands, and Madagascar and that is consistent with the existence of an ancient

    supercontinent known as Gondwana. The pictures below are from the Geological Society showing from left to right: fossil evidence, geological fit of opposing coastlines, and tectonic fit.

    https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Plate-Te.../Fossil-Evidence-from-the-Southern-Hemisphere




    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]


    The pictures below, also from the Geological Society, show glaciation from the Permo-Carboniferous glaciation (about 300 million years ago) and the jigsaw fit of the coastlines.

    [​IMG][​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2019
    WillReadmore likes this.
  6. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You misrepresent me.

    I post 'food for thought' articles in many forums. ..If it is appropriate..
    Sometimes i have posted in this one, first, sometimes in a competitor's forum. But the content, source, and opinions expressed are individual and my own.

    You evidently prefer cut and pastes from unknown drips under pressure (experts), than from thoughtful members.

    I do boycott forums, from time to time, when censorship rears its ugly head. This forum is one of the worst, in mandating conformity and using moderator power to promote the progressive agenda. I am a minority poster, going against the tide of progressive Indoctrination. You can ban me, if you wish, to achieve the echo chamber of your liking.
     
  7. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course it is.

    Even if you accept the circumstantial evidence, and argument of plausibility, there is nothing in the scientific evidence that prohibits this phenomenon from occurring rapidly.

    The big bangers posit an 'inflation' of 'trillions fold, in trillions of a trillionth of a second!' If you posit this physical impossibility to arrive at your big bang assumptions, how can you suspend it to insist on uniformity and assumed eons?
     
  8. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Religious texts are irrelevant in any scientific examination of the evidence. Please stay topical, and do not deflect with religious flame baiting.

    Dating methods and conclusions, is the subject here. Does the evidence support 'millions and billions of years!', or is does it support a thousands or tens of thousands premise?

    That is the debate, not religious texts.
     
  9. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ..and i addressed this specifically in the OP. It is filled with flaws and assumptions. Do you care to address those? Repeating assertions and beliefs is not really a rebuttal.
     
  10. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    5,754
    Likes Received:
    3,162
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Words can have different meaning depending on their application. Theory is one of those words.

    In layman term , a theory is an hypotesis.
    In science a Theory is an observable and proven fact. Gravity is a scientific theory, try disproving it by jumping off a bridge shouting that you don't accept it or don't believe in it.
     
    Diablo likes this.
  11. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not. And 'young' hemoglobin was found in a partially fossilized mosquito, making the assumptions of 'millions of years!', impossible.

    So yes, there are many flaws with assuming ancient dates, and much more compatibility with ALL the evidence of more recent dates..

    ..thousands, not millions.
     
  12. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't misrepresent you at all. I told the truth. That this was a cut and paste from one of your posts in a different forum. Is this not the truth?

    You are misrepresenting me. I never cut and pasted anything, nor did I really go much into my views.

    Where does this ban stuff come from? This board is center right overall. Yes, there are a few crazies from the left come here, but for the most part, the average viewpoint is to the right.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2019
  13. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is true. There is little tolerance for conflicting ideas in Progresso World. Homogeneity of belief, is the goal, not critical thinking and skepticism.

    How many question their indoctrination, about common ancestry, the big bang, and 'million and billions of years! '?

    Very few. Outrage and indignation awaits you, if you dare question the sacred tenets of the progressive faith.
     
  14. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I responded to your off topic deflection, which you seemed to think had significance to the topic. I do not want to go tangential any more, and disrupt the thread.
     
  15. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In science the term "dark" means UNKNOWN. The "dark side" of the moon is not actually "dark" because the sun does shine on it. It was called the "dark" side because it was UNKNOWN until the Apollo 8 astronauts were the first men to ever observe it.

    The same concept applies to "dark matter". It just means UNKNOWN matter. NOTHING was "created from the nothingness of space" but interesting that you used the terminology of theists and are defensive about "creationism" in post #8 above.

    Another thing that theists have in common is a lack of the grasp of the terminology of science and how the concepts apply such as in "dark" matter.

    Finally it is ONLY theists who come into this forum and ATTACK science rather than using the scientific method to falsify the hypotheses being attacked in the OP.

    From the evidence above it is not difficult to see a consistent pattern and come up with a working hypothesis as to why this thread was "created out of nothingness".
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  16. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is actually no debate on that. The evidence quite clearly and conclusively shows the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years old.
     
    Derideo_Te and Diablo like this.
  17. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no physical mechanism to explain how continents could move hundreds or thousands of miles within a 10,000 year time frame. There have been a a few super continents that have formed and

    broken apart during the history of the earth. Any rapid shifting in the position of the continents would affect the earth's climate in several different ways and that has not been observed.

    The subject of cosmic inflation is not relevant to the discussion of the age of the earth.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2019
  18. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I did address the unscientific claims made in your opening paragraph. I provided evidence that it is not always necessary to know the initial amounts of parent or daughter isotopes in the samples under

    investigation. I addressed the evidence for the constancy of decay rates. I specifically addressed items 1,2 and 4 under the "assumptions" list. I also addressed the evidence for the constancy of the

    speed of light.

    Your own list of assumptions is filled with flaws and assumptions. You are just repeating creationist claims that have been debunked.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  19. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To the OP...

    I've studied much of the evidence related to the age of the Earth and have accepted that current estimate (about 4.5B years) is consistent with other observations and our general understanding over nearly all disciplines of science. My position is based on the abundance and consilience of evidence that all point to this conclusion.

    It's okay if you have a different position but if you want to convince a skeptic like me you'll need to present your theory and your evidence. And remember, when presented with two or more candidate theories we skeptics pick the one that provides the best match to reality. You'll get bonus points if you can provide the revolutionary insight that as yet has eluded the combined intellect of worlds population and which would necessarily shake the very foundations of science to show how we were all so wrong.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2019
    OldManOnFire, Derideo_Te and Diablo like this.
  20. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Well the only place some of your opinion comes from is religious texts. And with that premise some people begin with that and use cherry picked science and or its rejection.

    But we can act like the premise isn't biblical .

    Geology looked at the stratification of rocks and other geology and logically arrived at the great age needed. They didnt began with the premise you like.

    I just dont see the bible being a book of geology. It may be right on the biology though. Ha ha

    Regardless I am interested in what you have to say.

    I am not the typical critic. Yet think science is essential to a better existence. It has improved physical existence.

    I just dont care for scientists becoming the new priests.
     
  21. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    D(t) = P(t) X [e(ct) - 1] mathematical expression that relates the number of daughter atoms [D(t)] to the number of parent atoms [P(t)] at the time of meaurement, t. e(ct) is the base of

    the natural logarithm raised to the power of the decay constant (c) multiplied by the time. This is an expression that does not require us to know the initial number of atoms of either the parent or

    daughter isotopes.This method can be used with some samples such as zircon crystals that reject lead at the time of formation. So, we can determine that the earth must be many billions

    of years old from this measurement alone. I have already provided evidence that decay rates are constant and the fact that we can get very consistent results using different samples and

    different types of isotopes is further evidence of the constancy of decay rates. All we need to do is measure the ratio of D(t) to P(t) to get the age of the sample.

    In order to check our assumption that there was no daughter atoms initially present in the sample at the time of formation, an isochron plot can be used. In an isochron plot both D(t) and P(t) are divided

    by the number of atoms found in a stable isotope of lead , 204Pb . This allows to find the age if the data from several samples take from the same formation produces a straight line plot according to the equation,

    D(t)/S = D/S + P(t )/S X [e(ct) -1], where S is the number of atoms present in the stable isotope of lead. The expression [e(ct) - 1] is the slope of the line and D/S is the y-intercept.

    The picture below is from Britannica.com, https://www.britannica.com/science/dating-geochronology/The-isochron-method .At time = 0 the line is horizontal and with increasing time the

    line rotates counterclockwise. If the points from multiple samples don't line up to form a straight line the age of the formation must be rejected. D(t)/S is on the vertical axis and P(t)/S is

    on the horizontal axis.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2019
  22. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not on top of that discovery and will give it more time to see if science can explain what appears to be impossible.

    Gobeki Tepe has been dated to 12,000 years ago. Carbon dating is physics and entail natural law. And its accurate and agrees with age of known organics .
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2019
    usfan likes this.
  23. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The navy interacting with that tic tac ufo should make people who thought they knew reality to question everything.

    These things look like magic. Perhaps the creation has some magic in it? Divine actions look magical.

    Have any new info on how dino flesh can survive while the bone turns to minerals? Rock?
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2019
    usfan likes this.
  24. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is factually incorrect, so the question is why are you lying?

    The age of Earth has been determined and corroborated through dozens of different scientifically valid methods.

    Once such method is the use of radio-isotopes. There are certain radioactive elements that do not exist naturally. They only exist as daughter products through the process of radioactive decay. Because we know the decay series for each radio-nuclide, we can know the age of Earth.

    Regarding the age of the Universe, it has increased in my life-time, but not because of human error. The increase is due to more advanced technology. We know the speed of light in a vacuum. We understand the Doppler Effect and Red-Shift.

    Earth-based telescopes are inferior, but for the longest time, that's all we had. Space-based telescopes are superior. Hubble allowed us to see farther than we ever could, and I imagine Webb will allow us to see even farther. We will continue to develop better technology, until such time as our space-based telescopes can see no further, which will verify the age of the Universe.

    Red Herring, but then I expect that from people like you. Tree-rings are not used to determine the age of Earth or the Universe.

    That's a stupid question only asked by people with no scientific education, training or experience.

    There's no such thing as "full strength." Only a moron would even phrase it that way.

    A radio-isotope either exists, or it does not. It does not exist at a particular strength. Where it exists, in the mantle, in the crust, in molten lava, in sedimentary rock or any other strata is totally irrelevant.

    Again with the Red Herrings. Asteroids, solar and weather changes, magnetic fields and the like have no bearing on radio-isotopes.

    Radio-isotopes decay, because the nucleus is unstable. Because the nucleus is unstable, it will spontaneously fission, creating two daughter products. One or both daughter-products may or may not have unstable nuclei. So long as the nucleus is unstable, it will continue to decay until the nucleus reaches a stable state.

    The rate of decay is known. It has been studied, verified, confirmed and corroborated.

    For example, U-235 spontaneously fissions at a rate of 30 fissions per second per kilogram.

    Contrast that with Pu-239 which spontaneously fissions at a rate of 20,000 fissions per second per kilogram.

    What conclusions can you draw from those confirmed, corroborated, verified irrefutable facts?

    If you're designing nuclear weapons, you cannot use the gun or double-gun design. Why? I just told you why. Which part of "Pu-239 spontaneously fissions at a rate of 20,000 fissions per second per kilogram" do you not understand?

    It also means you can store U-235 in kilogram quantities, but you cannot store Pu-239 in quantities greater than 1 cubic centimeter. Why? I just told you why. Which part of "Pu-239 spontaneously fissions at a rate of 20,000 fissions per second per kilogram" do you not understand? Any quantity greater than 1 cubic centimeter and the spontaneous fissions will initiate a cascading chain reaction resulting in forcible fissions. It won't blow up like Nagasaki, but it will get very hot and throw off lots of deadly neutrons, gammas and x-rays. You wouldn't want to have it your pocket.

    Measurements of what? Given your penchant for the use of Red Herrings, you'll have to be precisely specific and cite an actual verifiable example with a link.

    Readings on a Geiger counter may fluctuate for any number of reasons.

    Shocking as it may be, a gamma ray does not have a mind of its own and say, "Hey, look! There's a guy with a Geiger counter. I should be a good boy and fly directly toward the Geiger counter so he can measure me."

    That's a stupid statement that only someone with no scientific education would make.

    Every hear of Avogadro's Number? That's the number of atoms in 1 mole of any substance.

    Had you taken high school chemistry, you would have weighed substances and calculated the number of atoms in that substance, but obviously you aren't even familiar with high school chemistry concepts.

    Your lack of knowledge of all things scientific is overwhelming. Dare I mention electromagnetic radiation?

    I know this may come as quite a surprise to you, but a gamma ray or x-ray is not just a gamma ray or x-ray. A gamma ray has a specific wavelength at a specific frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum.

    Shocking as it may be, each radio-isotope emits gamma rays at certain specific wavelengths, and no other. Because we can measure the wavelengths of gamma rays, we can know exactly which radio-isotope emitted that gamma ray.

    Some radio-isotopes emit only x-rays, some only gamma rays and some emit both. When we have 1 kilogram of Uranium ore, we can use Avogadro's number to calculate the number of atoms. We can measure the wavelengths of the x-rays and gamma rays and know exactly how much of that 1 kilogram is U-234, U-235 and U-238.

    Apparently, you fail to understand that once a parent undergoes spontaneous fission, or it decays by Alpha or Beta emission, it ceases to exist.

    Lead-206 exists both naturally and as the product of U-238. Even a kid with Down's Syndrome can tell the difference. When you find a lode of Lead-206 ore with no other radio-isotopes or daughter-products, it's naturally existing. If you're mining Uranium ore in the Black Hills of the Dakotas and you find Lead-206, it is the product of radioactive decay.

    It is not a big assumption. It's confirmed, verified and corroborated.

    I would also point out that you have unwittingly -- because of your ignorance -- refuted your own claim.

    Light cannot travel faster than the speed of light, but it can travel slower.

    If light from 14 Billion years ago is slowed by the effects of gravity, then the Universe is older than 14 Billion years.

    That's what happens when you don't know what you're talking about.

    That is not how, but thanks for trying to deceive people just the same.

    When Earth first formed, there was no Oxygen in the atmosphere. The atmosphere was 72% Nitrogen and 26% CO2 or 26,000 ppm if you will, and some trace gases.

    After 2 Billion years, plankton-like organisms evolved in the ocean (and there was only one). Oxygen is a by-product of photosynthesis. At first, the free Oxygen in the ocean bonded with highly reactive metals and minerals dissolved in the ocean. One highly reactive metal is Iron. Iron bonded with the free Oxygen in the ocean to form Iron Oxide, and due to its weight, it precipitated out and fell to the ocean. After a few 100 Million years, you had bands of Iron Oxide several meters thick. You can see those bands if you drive to Wisconsin, Minnesota or Michigan or go to South Africa or Australia.

    Iron wasn't the only thing. Manganese, Magnesium and lots of other metals (but not Gold) and lots of mineral oxides precipitated out to form bands, and you're mining a lot of those today.

    Iridium exists on Earth only in trace amounts and only as certain isotopes. Asteriods contain large quantities of Iridium and different isotopes of Iridium. When those asteroids collide with Earth, there are bands of Iridium showing the impacts. That is used for dating. Deposits of radioisotopes in certain areas are used for dating. Many Earth events are used in dating.

    That might be how you measure it, but that's not how scientists measure it.

    If you had any training or education in science, you'd know magnetism is measured in flux.

    Did you read that in some sci-fi comic book?

    Magnetism has never vaporized anything. Ever. Nor could it ever.

    If you were like me, you would have taken a geology course from Professor Emeritus Madeline Briskine. Her team was drilling sea floor core samples on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. They noticed the iron was crystallized conforming to magnetic polarity. After examining the samples, she concluded that Earth's magnetic field reverses polarity about every 435,000 years, meaning north magnetic pole becomes south magnetic pole and vice versa. There are no known extinction events even remotely associated with any magnetic polarity shift.

    Fail. First, Helium escapes the atmosphere into the sub-orbital area where it is not easily measured, and second, not all Helium produced by radioactive decay escapes the crust to enter the atmosphere.

    Shocking as it may be, natural gas is trapped in the crust and does not escape into Earth's atmosphere.
     
  25. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Porphyrins were found, not hemoglobin. This finding does not refute an earth billions of years old. I copied the information below from livescience.com.

    https://www.livescience.com/40402-fossil-mosquito-blood-meal.html


    About 46 million years ago, a mosquito sunk its proboscis into some animal, perhaps a bird or a mammal, and filled up on a meal of blood. Then its luck turned for the worse, as it fell into a lake and sunk to the bottom.

    In their study, Greenwalt and his collaborators bombarded the mosquito fossil with molecules of bismuth, a heavy metal, which vaporizes chemicals found in the fossil. These airborne chemicals are then analyzed by a mass spectrometer, a machine that can identify chemicals based on their atomic weights, Greenwalt said. The beauty of this technique, called time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry, is that it doesn't destroy the sample — previously, similar techniques required grinding up portions of fossils, he added. The analysis revealed hidden porphyrins, organic compounds found in hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protein in blood, hidden in the fossilized mosquito's abdomen.
     

Share This Page