#### Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

# How to avoid going to church and Christianity discussion

This topic is 5869 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

quote:
Original post by KalvinB
"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

LOL! No you don''t. I''ve forgotten the proper equation for it, but this is something like it:

z = z0 . e^(lambda . t)

We know the half life - lambda.
We know the amount of radioactive isotopes in the samples now - z.
We know the amount of stable isotopes in the sample that were brought about through radioactive decay, therefore we know (or can calculate z0).

Therefore the only unkown is t. The time of decay.

Have you ever seen that equation before? If not, its a pretty obvious indicator your scientific knowledge of the subject is absolutely nil.

##### Share on other sites
quote:

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.

Why should we not assume a constant rate of decay in a sample so large, with random times of decay in the isotopes? It''s statistically sound.

As for the tripe about the 4 variables, I''ve already shown you how to reduce it to a 1 variable equation, yet you seem to refuse to accept it.

##### Share on other sites
"As the matter decays, it doesn''t dissappear."

I put a glass out with water. I come back two days later and it''s all evaporated out. How much water was originally in the glass?

This is a very simple concept.

Ben

##### Share on other sites
EDITED: This post does not it exist. It's just your imagination.

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

[edited by - CpMan on May 1, 2003 11:11:02 AM]

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by KalvinB
"As the matter decays, it doesn''t dissappear."

I put a glass out with water. I come back two days later and it''s all evaporated out. How much water was originally in the glass?

This is a very simple concept.

Ben

Ummm...we''re talking about rocks....rocks don''t evaporate.

And, yes, you could determine the amount of water that was in the glass if it was a closed system.

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

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by KalvinB
"As the matter decays, it doesn''t dissappear."

I put a glass out with water. I come back two days later and it''s all evaporated out. How much water was originally in the glass?

This is a very simple concept.

Ben

omfg.

Does the water leave isotopes that we can calculate how much was originally there, like a radioactive isotope does?

I think that statement underpins just how little you know, and can comprehend about the subject.

##### Share on other sites
"Ummm...we''re talking about rocks....rocks don''t evaporate."

Never heard of erosion?

"You are quite possibly the most difficult person with which to debate"

That''s sad. I''d think more people would be less quick to bow down to science. Considering your blind faith in science I guess it might be surprising to find someone who isn''t so gullible.

Ben

##### Share on other sites
quote:

Never heard of erosion?

LOL! Erosion is irrelevant. Dating is used on a sample of the rock, not the whole rock.

quote:

That''s sad. I''d think more people would be less quick to bow down to science. Considering your blind faith in science I guess it might be surprising to find someone who isn''t so gullible.

You mean another person who comes out with comic gems like comparing radioactive decay to evaporation? If you knew what you were talking about, you''d understand just how ridiculous that statement made you look.

##### Share on other sites
"I think that statement underpins just how little you know, and can comprehend about the subject."

No, it just demonstrates your complete lack of ability to comprehend such a simple concept. You''re making this out to be way more complicated than it actually is.

Radio active decay is no different than evaporation. Unless you KNOW you got ALL the "evaporation" you can''t make any claims about anything. Rocks get broken. They get eroded. They get beat up and mixed about and made into dirt and then formed back into rock.

You''re not nearly as smart as you think you are.

Ben

##### Share on other sites
"Erosion is irrelevant. Dating is used on a sample of the rock, not the whole rock."

So how do you know you have a correct "sample" which accuratly represents the original? Unless the decay is exactly homogenous it's impossible. Being off just a few isotopes makes a difference of millions of years.

This is far simplier than you're making it out to be.

Ben

[edited by - KalvinB on May 1, 2003 4:53:43 AM]

##### Share on other sites

This topic is 5869 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

This topic is now closed to further replies.

• 17
• 19
• 23
• 10
• 21