Posted: Dec 30, 2012 7:40 am
by willhud9
Weaver wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:
Weaver wrote:And?

It seems pretty central to the entie argument. How much time has elapsed between the creation of the unstable atom, in the aftermath of a star going supernova, and its becoming part of the dust cloud out of which the Earth emerged? Also, it would be nice to know if the initial decay rate of the heavy isotopes is different from that observed on Earth.

Have you ever looked at a chart of the nuclides? Have you ever considered the half-life of some of the really long-lived radioactive atoms?

If you had, you'd know just how foolish your questions sound to people who have.

No, not foolish. Just ignorant. Asking questions and looking for evidence is not foolish. But that ignorance turns into foolishness when presented with the evidence they choose to ignore the evidence.

As much as I hate to just leave with a wiki page, I must since I am tired and it is 2:30 am here.

The mathematics has probably been shown on this thread a million times. But there it is again. This math is consistent whether the atom be short or long lived. However, it does require the ability to read and comprehend differentials, so if you cannot Joe, I am sure a mathematician on this thread can gladly help you understand (since explaining mathematics is not even close to being my expertise).