The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[metis]

First of all, to read dates without any references to exactly how the item was dated and categorized is not too good. In my opinion of course. And from my experience reading textbooks about evolution, that's what happens.

The dating is done by experts in that area, thus not us anthropologists. Textbooks only give a student the summation, not the specifics as to how the dating was derived at.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok I give up.

Give up? Are you saying that you don't understand what I wrote? If so, then simply ask your questions.

There are some basics you do need to know, though. I suggest you save this post and refer back to it if you have questions. You can also ask for clarification if you want.

Everything around you is made of atoms. Those atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. The protons and neutrons are in the nucleus of the atom (at the center), which is much smaller than the atom. Usually (but not always), the number of electrons and the number of protons is the same. This is what determines the chemical properties of the atom. Atoms with the same number of protons are said to be the same element. For example, an atom of carbon has 6 protons in its nucleus, an oxygen atom has 8, and a uranium atom has 92.

Atoms can share electrons, though, which is what makes a chemical bond. Atoms bound together in this way form a molecule.

Radioactivity occurs when the nucleus is unstable. Either there are too many protons or too many neutrons for it to be stable. When this happens, there is a 'decay': either an alpha decay, where two protons and two neutrons are emitted (since a helium nucleus is made of two protons and twqo neutrons this make helium), changing the chemical nature of the atom to one that is two protons less. Or there can be a beta decay, where a neutron changes into a proton and an electron. This increases the number of protons in the nucleus by one. It is also possible for a proton to change into a neutron and a positron, thereby decreasing the proton number by one.

Different isotopes of an element are where the number of neutrons are different. For example, carbon 12 has 6 protons and 6 neutrons, while carbon 14 has 6 protons and 8 neutrons. For uranium, the U-238 isotope has 92 protons and 146 neutrons, while the U-235 isotope has 92 protons and 143 neutrons.

So, for example, Uranium 238 is radioactive and decays by alpha decay. So, after the decay it has 90 protons and 144 neutrons (two protons and 4 neutrons were emitted). This is an atom of thorium-234. it turns out that this isotope is also radioactive, so it decays further. Ultimately, the atom continues to decay until it gets to the place where it has 82 protons and 126 neutrons, which is an atom of lead-208.

Different isotopes take a different amount of time to decay. Carbon-14, for example, decays by half over a period of 5700 years. For Uranium-238, the half life is 5 billion years.

So, I want to ask: does this make sense? Do you have any questions about *this* material? is there anything you don't understand about it?

 

[YoursTrue]

Give up? Are you saying that you don't understand what I wrote? If so, then simply ask your questions.

There are some basics you do need to know, though. I suggest you save this post and refer back to it if you have questions. You can also ask for clarification if you want.

Everything around you is made of atoms. Those atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. The protons and neutrons are in the nucleus of the atom (at the center), which is much smaller than the atom. Usually (but not always), the number of electrons and the number of protons is the same. This is what determines the chemical properties of the atom. Atoms with the same number of protons are said to be the same element. For example, an atom of carbon has 6 protons in its nucleus, an oxygen atom has 8, and a uranium atom has 92.

Atoms can share electrons, though, which is what makes a chemical bond. Atoms bound together in this way form a molecule.

Radioactivity occurs when the nucleus is unstable. Either there are too many protons or too many neutrons for it to be stable. When this happens, there is a 'decay': either an alpha decay, where two protons and two neutrons are emitted (since a helium nucleus is made of two protons and twqo neutrons this make helium), changing the chemical nature of the atom to one that is two protons less. Or there can be a beta decay, where a neutron changes into a proton and an electron. This increases the number of protons in the nucleus by one. It is also possible for a proton to change into a neutron and a positron, thereby decreasing the proton number by one.

Different isotopes of an element are where the number of neutrons are different. For example, carbon 12 has 6 protons and 6 neutrons, while carbon 14 has 6 protons and 8 neutrons. For uranium, the U-238 isotope has 92 protons and 146 neutrons, while the U-235 isotope has 92 protons and 143 neutrons.

So, for example, Uranium 238 is radioactive and decays by alpha decay. So, after the decay it has 90 protons and 144 neutrons (two protons and 4 neutrons were emitted). This is an atom of thorium-234. it turns out that this isotope is also radioactive, so it decays further. Ultimately, the atom continues to decay until it gets to the place where it has 82 protons and 126 neutrons, which is an atom of lead-208.

Different isotopes take a different amount of time to decay. Carbon-14, for example, decays by half over a period of 5700 years. For Uranium-238, the half life is 5 billion years.

So, I want to ask: does this make sense? Do you have any questions about *this* material? is there anything you don't understand about it?

It's a bit tedious, you know much more than I do. Ok I'll give it another try later but I can see it's not an overnight clear understanding. But I'll try. I'm not home now so will look your post over later.

 

[Polymath257]

It's a bit tedious, you know much more than I do. Ok I'll give it another try later but I can see it's not an overnight clear understanding. But I'll try. I'm not home now so will look your post over later.

Nothing I said is at all deep. Frankly, if this isn’t stuff you are comfortable with, even starting to question evolution or the she of the earth is pointless. I actually wonder how it is possible you don’t know this already, especially after people have tried to explain it many times.

So, my recommendation. First learn the basics. And all of that post was very basic. Then you can start talking about the chemistry of living things, evolution, the age of the universe, and the data that supports all of these things.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing I said is at all deep. Frankly, if this isn’t stuff you are comfortable with, even starting to question evolution or the she of the earth is pointless. I actually wonder how it is possible you don’t know this already, especially after people have tried to explain it many times.

So, my recommendation. First learn the basics. And all of that post was very basic. Then you can start talking about the chemistry of living things, evolution, the age of the universe, and the data that supports all of these things.

Ok yes I have to concentrate.

 

[YoursTrue]

Give up? Are you saying that you don't understand what I wrote? If so, then simply ask your questions.

There are some basics you do need to know, though. I suggest you save this post and refer back to it if you have questions. You can also ask for clarification if you want.

Everything around you is made of atoms. Those atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. The protons and neutrons are in the nucleus of the atom (at the center), which is much smaller than the atom. Usually (but not always), the number of electrons and the number of protons is the same. This is what determines the chemical properties of the atom. Atoms with the same number of protons are said to be the same element. For example, an atom of carbon has 6 protons in its nucleus, an oxygen atom has 8, and a uranium atom has 92. questions about *this* material? is there anything you don't understand about it?

While I truly t your expertise and desire to help me, I can see it takes a long while to learn about this. Your patience is laudable so I thank you for that. And really my biggest question is about the dating of fossils said to be human along with the classification of fossils said to be human and then dating them.

 

[Polymath257]

While I truly t your expertise and desire to help me, I can see it takes a long while to learn about this. Your patience is laudable so I thank you for that. And really my biggest question is about the dating of fossils said to be human along with the classification of fossils said to be human and then dating them.

First learn the basics. The dating methods are general.

Walk before you run.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

First learn the basics. The dating methods are general.

Walk before you run.

They are extremely inaccurate.

 

[Polymath257]

They are extremely inaccurate.

Not if used correctly. And you can use different dating methods to verify each other. It is incredibly unlikely that two dating methods based on different decay rates or different physical effects will give the same age and not be accurate.

Please give examples of dating methods *used correctly* that are 'extremely inaccurate'.

No, carbon-14 dating of fossils millions of years old does not qualify. Nor does dating an unmelted rock in a lava flow. Nor does carbon dating clams that get most of their carbon from rocks and not from the atmosphere.

In fact, since we are interested in dates of millions of years, why not just eliminate carbon dating from consideration at all?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I guess.

There's no need to guess.

You can look up the original papers.
If you are not intellectually lazy and are actually serious on wanting to learn, that is. Which I doubt.

 

[Polymath257]

While I truly t your expertise and desire to help me, I can see it takes a long while to learn about this.

Not really. This is, truthfully, material that should be covered in high school, if not before. I learned it when I was in elementary school.

Your patience is laudable so I thank you for that. And really my biggest question is about the dating of fossils said to be human along with the classification of fossils said to be human and then dating them.

Well, the dating methods are general, like I said. We classify fossils as Homo sapiens based on a number of criteria, including size of the brain case, structure of the skull, shape of the hips, etc.

Human - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Human taxonomy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[YoursTrue]

Not really. This is, truthfully, material that should be covered in high school, if not before. I learned it when I was in elementary school.


Well, the dating methods are general, like I said. We classify fossils as Homo sapiens based on a number of criteria, including size of the brain case, structure of the skull, shape of the hips, etc.H

Human - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Human taxonomy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hi, thanks again. Yes I know that fossils are classified according to looks. I'm not well versed on the particular discoveries and classifications yet. Although I read about them -- I'm not educated about the particulars as to how and why the particular bones were classified. Maybe someday. I'm thinkin' about things. It ain't easy. For me. Because yes, I believe what the Bible says but can't figure some things out. Maybe one day (I hope).

 

[YoursTrue]

Not really. This is, truthfully, material that should be covered in high school, if not before. I learned it when I was in elementary school.

OK, from my vantage point, really. I learned the basics in jr. high and high school (was an honor and scholarship student), but at the time, as I have said, believed everything I was taught about evolution without question, as if I were learning from the experts. Who also knew without doubt or question. And I was not (and am not) an expert. I began to question the validity of the theory in its entirety (not everything, because I know that there are tribes with long arms and legs and tribes with predominately short arms and legs, etc.) later once I learned more about what the Bible said. So I'll stop there for the moment. Except to say that insofar as I (or anyone) see now, gorillas remain gorillas, birds remain birds and so forth.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not really. This is, truthfully, material that should be covered in high school, if not before. I learned it when I was in elementary school.


Well, the dating methods are general, like I said. We classify fossils as Homo sapiens based on a number of criteria, including size of the brain case, structure of the skull, shape of the hips, etc.

Human - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Human taxonomy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When I said it becomes complicated, what I mean is that highly educated scientists into the various realms of evolution themselves are questioning and attempting to upend what has been popularly taught about the process or theory of evolution. They are obviously trained in the theoretical research and examination, yet are profoundly questioning the deductions and conclusions made by their contemporaries and that which is taught. The information is there -- easy to google.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Not if used correctly. And you can use different dating methods to verify each other. It is incredibly unlikely that two dating methods based on different decay rates or different physical effects will give the same age and not be accurate.

Please give examples of dating methods *used correctly* that are 'extremely inaccurate'.

No, carbon-14 dating of fossils millions of years old does not qualify. Nor does dating an unmelted rock in a lava flow. Nor does carbon dating clams that get most of their carbon from rocks and not from the atmosphere.

In fact, since we are interested in dates of millions of years, why not just eliminate carbon dating from consideration at all?

They are already unreliable.
And that is real science.
Failure to date specimens of know age and being off by unheard of amounts means totally unreliable.
Not agreeing on the same specimens and again by unheard of amounts also means they are totally unreliable.

 

[Polymath257]

They are already unreliable.
And that is real science.
Failure to date specimens of know age and being off by unheard of amounts means totally unreliable.
Not agreeing on the same specimens and again by unheard of amounts also means they are totally unreliable.

Once again, if the methods are used incorrectly you will get bad results. Experts know how to use them correctly.

Give specific examples of people who are using the methods correctly getting contradictory results.

 

[ppp]

Once again, if the methods are used incorrectly you will get bad results. Experts know how to use them correctly.

Give specific examples of people who are using the methods correctly getting contradictory results.

Eaton : We have top men working on it right now.
Indiana : Who?
Eaton : Top... men.

 

[Polymath257]

When I said it becomes complicated, what I mean is that highly educated scientists into the various realms of evolution themselves are questioning and attempting to upend what has been popularly taught about the process or theory of evolution. They are obviously trained in the theoretical research and examination, yet are profoundly questioning the deductions and conclusions made by their contemporaries and that which is taught. The information is there -- easy to google.

OK, two things.

You asked about atoms and radioactivity. You asked how the dates are determined.

That is a very separate question from the question of how evolution happens in detail.

The scientific question currently is that of *how* evolution occurs, not *whether*. The relative balance of, say, natural selection, genetic drift, and other ways of changing genetics, is what is being debated. There are also issues of how it shows up in the fossil record: many of the larger changes appear to happen 'quickly' (on a geological time scale--so less than a million years), and we don't fully understand the mechanisms of such changes (although there are some very interesting studies of mathematical models that show exactly this sort of effect).

But, again, the questions you had were about the dating methods, of which there is no serious scientific debate any longer. There were also questions of classification, which is always an issue *because* evolution happens gradually.

 

[Polymath257]

They are already unreliable.

if you use a stopwatch incorrectly, you will get bad results. That doesn't make the stopwatch unreliable-it makes the user unreliable.

And that is real science.
Failure to date specimens of know age and being off by unheard of amounts means totally unreliable.

Not if the method is used inappropriately and incorrectly.

For example, clams in the deep sea get their carbon from the (old) rocks and not from the atmosphere. This is a known issue and makes carbon dating of such clams useless. The point is that the C14 is made in the upper atmosphere and taking carbon from an older reserve dates that reserve.

Similar issues happen with inclusions in lava flows. If the rocks don't melt, the 'clock' doesn't get reset and you end up dating the age of the included rock and not the lava flow. This is a mistake no expert would commit.

Not agreeing on the same specimens and again by unheard of amounts also means they are totally unreliable.

Not if the methods are used incorrectly. ALL methods need to be done in a correct manner or they will give garbage. This is as true of a stopwatch as it is for radioactive dates.

 

[F1fan]

Hi, thanks again. Yes I know that fossils are classified according to looks. I'm not well versed on the particular discoveries and classifications yet. Although I read about them -- I'm not educated about the particulars as to how and why the particular bones were classified. Maybe someday.

If you look at pictures of cars from 1923 until 2023 you will see the evolution of the size, shapes, and other characteristics. Fossils of hominids over the last 6 millions years show a similar type of pattern. You don't see a 2023 car in 1940, and the same is there not being any homo sapiens before 200,000 years ago. The evolution of hominids is larger skulls, and larger frontal cortex areas as time progresses. The overall size of hominids got larger, too.

I'm thinkin' about things. It ain't easy. For me. Because yes, I believe what the Bible says but can't figure some things out. Maybe one day (I hope).

The influence of a flawed interpretation of the Bible is a problem for many citizens in the USA. I see those indocrinated into a false religious framework as victims. Of course it is a burden for those who have learned false claims to adjust to valid knowledge about the universe.