"then guess what we can do, Sherlock?"

You''re going to have to run that one by me again because you''re just puking up a dictionary.

So a scientist 100,000 years ago observed a number of isotopes and recorded their radiation or whatever. Over the years the amount of radiation it emmitted was recorded until 100,000 years later when now we can match radition levels of those isotopes to isotopes of unknown age up til 100,000 years.

Oh, that never happened?

"1) Do you accept the fact that I am not trying to challenge your religious beliefs?"

Not any more.

"2) Do you accept that I know I cannot disprove any religion and am not trying to?"

Not any more.

"3) Do you accept that you cannot disprove the THEORIES of evolution and most sciences because you have not the expertise to do so?"

It doesn''t take a genius to show their dating methods are inherintly flawed.

"4) Do you accept that because you cannot disprove them, they are not any more right or wrong than they were before?"

It doesn''t take a genius to figure out it''s bogus. Show me the 100,000 year experiment. Can''t? Then it''s not science.

"5) DO you accept that I cannot prove them, because I have not the expertise to do so?"

Take five minutes and think before posting.

"6) Do you think I am an idiot?"

At times I''d consider you an idiot.

Ben

quote:Original post by KalvinB
You''re going to have to run that one by me again because you''re just puking up a dictionary.

I am? So that''s admission you haven''t got a fucking clue what you are talking about? Isotope is introduced in GCSE physics. I think I''m a little past that now.

quote:
So a scientist 100,000 years ago observed a number of isotopes and recorded their radiation or whatever. Over the years the amount of radiation it emmitted was recorded until 100,000 years later when now we can match radition levels of those isotopes to isotopes of unknown age up til 100,000 years.

No you fucking dick. We don''t need to do that. We know that the half life of a substance remains pretty much constant, and we know what the radioactive isotopes will decay into.

There''s an exponential relation between the number of undecayed isotopes present, and the original number, based on time. It''s elementary physics.

quote:
Oh, that never happened?

Why would it need to happen you moron? You''re basing your opinion of a technique on things that aren''t even necessary to show it works.

"there is a build up again"

It''s a very simple question: how do they know how much radiation is built up over X amount of time? Did a scientist even 1000 years ago make a pot and mark the exact time it was made so we could tell how much radiation was built up 1000 years later? Did scientists make adjments to all the variables so we could determine how each variable affects the amount of radiation that gets stored?

Try reading my posts before responding.

"In my world, they don''t."

In your little imaginary world the Bible teaches PI=3. Who cares about your little world? It''s a joke.

"enough to put off anyone who actually knows what they are talking about off"

Like you or CGameProgrammer? Good. I have a harsh tone with those who are being jerks. If that makes you go away then yippee.

Ben

quote:
It''s a very simple question: how do they know how much radiation is built up over X amount of time? Did a scientist even 1000 years ago make a pot and mark the exact time it was made so we could tell how much radiation was built up 1000 years later? Did scientists make adjments to all the variables so we could determine how each variable affects the amount of radiation that gets stored?

List the variables you are talking about. I challenge you to tell us which ones will affect the radiation stored.

"There''s an exponential relation between the number of undecayed isotopes present, and the original number, based on time. It''s elementary physics."

Let me put it into stupid terms for you:

I have X isotopes left of a substance that started with X0 isotopes with a half life of Y years that has been sitting for Z years

One equation. Two unknowns. You either have to know the original amount or the time that it spent decaying. All that''s given is X and Y.

Ben

Well, you don''t need a 100,000 year experiment. Radioactive isotopes decay at know rates, sometimes extremely stable. It''s only logical to extend it further in time. Here, I''ll relate it to Christianity. According to the Bible, God created the world universe and the world in 6 days, correct? He created the animals of the earth. The Bible does not mention viruses and bacteria, or other single celled organisms directly, but you extend the text in your mind to ecompass those because it seems only logical to you. Which is perfectly fine.


Gamedev for learning.
libGDN for putting it all together.
An opensource, cross platform, cross API game development library.

"You''re basing your opinion of a technique on things that aren''t even necessary to show it works."

That''s a neat trick. Apprently in your world scientists don''t need to follow the scientific method.

You even said yourself it assumes a constant rate of decay. It''s inherently flawed on pretty much every level. It makes assumptions and it solves 4 variable problems with only 2 variables given and even then one of those is ASSUMED.

Ben

"It''s only logical to extend it further in time."

You just don''t get it do you?

How far back do you extend it? The farther back you go the more isotopes you have. Unless you KNOW either the TIME or the ORIGINAL AMOUNT you can''t make any definite claims where to stop.

This is pathetically simple.

Ben

MDI is obviously angry and just ranting now so obviously I''m correct. You all might as well give up now.

Ben

See, you''re not actually understanding it then

You know N0, because of conservation of mass. As the matter decays, it doesn''t dissappear. It decays into another element. Adding up the relative amounts of these two elements. Gives you N0.

More info here


Gamedev for learning.
libGDN for putting it all together.
An opensource, cross platform, cross API game development library.