Proof that evolution is the only answer

originally posted by: peter vlar

Because Lead 206 does not occur naturally. It only exists as the end result of radioactive decay of that specific isotope of Uranium. No other element, nor their isotopes, decay into Lead 206. It can NOT exist until U 238 begins to radioactively decay.

I've asked before, do you have any data suggesting that this is not true?

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. What is the evidence that lead-206 does not exist besides the radioactive decay of uranium? There should be a paper focusing on such because it is integral to accurate dating, but I cannot find such a paper.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Therefore, we can assume that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic.

That's my point^

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

Because Lead 206 does not occur naturally. It only exists as the end result of radioactive decay of that specific isotope of Uranium. No other element, nor their isotopes, decay into Lead 206. It can NOT exist until U 238 begins to radioactively decay.

I've asked before, do you have any data suggesting that this is not true?

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. What is the evidence that lead-206 does not exist besides the radioactive decay of uranium? There should be a paper focusing on such because it is integral to accurate dating, but I cannot find such a paper.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Therefore, we can assume that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic.

That's my point^

Let's go over the definition of an isotope: an isotope is a DERIVATIVE of an existing element. The isotope of an element has the same number of protons, but has a different number of neutrons. Therefore, the isotope is unique to that element. Hence, Pb206 can only come from uranium. There is no other way it can be produced.

Regarding my zircon comments, again you're using the word "assume, assumption" in layman's terms. If you read the article (which I see you didn't), you would understand how many samples are tested, analyzed and the final result is calculated mathematically. These calculations are within a standard deviation.

You don't read the articles or you would be asking more intelligent questions.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Let's go over the definition of an isotope: an isotope is a DERIVATIVE of an existing element. The isotope of an element has the same number of protons, but has a different number of neutrons. Therefore, the isotope is unique to that element. Hence, Pb206 can only come from uranium. There is no other way it can be produced.

Phantom I'd expect you to know more about radioactive decay. Alpha decay involves the removal of 2 protons and 2 neutrons. This causes decay of the nucleus and can result in a different element. I'm also confused with what you're saying - Lead is not an isotope of uranium.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Regarding my zircon comments, again you're using the word "assume, assumption" in layman's terms.

I didn't use the word assume, the paper you quoted admitted that it was an assumption.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Let's go over the definition of an isotope: an isotope is a DERIVATIVE of an existing element. The isotope of an element has the same number of protons, but has a different number of neutrons. Therefore, the isotope is unique to that element. Hence, Pb206 can only come from uranium. There is no other way it can be produced.

Phantom I'd expect you to know more about radioactive decay. Alpha decay involves the removal of 2 protons and 2 neutrons. This causes decay of the nucleus and can result in a different element. I'm also confused with what you're saying - Lead is not an isotope of uranium.

originally posted by: Phantom423

The decay product is unique to the element - there is no other way that the product can be formed. I misused the isotope example - but the concept is the same - the decay product is unique to an element.

If you're suggesting an exotic process which would produce Pb206, then you have to describe that process. That question was raised many times over the course of a century and each time the answer was the same: Pb series can only be derived from uranium.



Regarding my zircon comments, again you're using the word "assume, assumption" in layman's terms.

I didn't use the word assume, the paper you quoted admitted that it was an assumption.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Let's go over the definition of an isotope: an isotope is a DERIVATIVE of an existing element. The isotope of an element has the same number of protons, but has a different number of neutrons. Therefore, the isotope is unique to that element. Hence, Pb206 can only come from uranium. There is no other way it can be produced.

Phantom I'd expect you to know more about radioactive decay. Alpha decay involves the removal of 2 protons and 2 neutrons. This causes decay of the nucleus and can result in a different element. I'm also confused with what you're saying - Lead is not an isotope of uranium.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Regarding my zircon comments, again you're using the word "assume, assumption" in layman's terms.

I didn't use the word assume, the paper you quoted admitted that it was an assumption.

The decay product is unique to the element - there is no other way that the product can be formed. I misused the isotope example - but the concept is the same - the decay product is unique to an element.

If you're suggesting an exotic process which would produce Pb206, then you have to describe that process. That question was raised many times over the course of a century and each time the answer was the same: Pb series can only be derived from uranium.

originally posted by: Phantom423

The decay product is unique to the element - there is no other way that the product can be formed.

How are you so sure? when uranium was formed, perhaps lead is formed alongside it.

"The Earth's uranium was produced in one or more supernovae"

How do you know lead was not formed in supernovae as well?

a reply to: cooperton

We're not talking about just Lead though. We're talking about a specific isotope of lead, Pb 206. Lead 204 is the only non radiogenic, stable isotope of Lead. All others are daughters of various isotopes of Uranium and Thorium. Do you have any evidence at all that there is a separate, magical process to create these other lead isotopes? I am more than willing to read any papers supporting your position on this and despite how I come across sometimes ( you know, stubborn, hardheaded, cynical and slightly arrogant) I really am willing to change my position in the face of overwhelming evidence thatI am incorrect. I've done it before and will do so again. I'm just not seeing any evidence. Just incredulousness. This link is just Wikipedia but it includes all of the requisite math. I don't have any illusions at this point that I'm going to change your mind but on the off chance that others may be lurking this thread I feel somewhat obligated to carry on.

Lead-Lead dating info w/ the math

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

The decay product is unique to the element - there is no other way that the product can be formed.

How are you so sure? when uranium was formed, perhaps lead is formed alongside it.

"The Earth's uranium was produced in one or more supernovae"

How do you know lead was not formed in supernovae as well?

It wouldn't make a difference. There's enough data which demonstrates that the half life calculation works. If it didn't work, every nuclear engineering development would be invalid -

So unless you can come up with some exotic process or hypothesis, the current model stands as being valid.

originally posted by: Phantom423

It wouldn't make a difference. There's enough data which demonstrates that the half life calculation works. If it didn't work, every nuclear engineering development would be invalid -

So unless you can come up with some exotic process or hypothesis, the current model stands as being valid.

I was never arguing half life calculation. I am saying you cannot with certainty determine the initial ratio of the sample. As your source said, " we can assume that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic".

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton
Do you have any evidence at all that there is a separate, magical process to create these other lead isotopes?

When uranium was formed long ago, how do you know it was formed with concentrations of lead in a ratio of 100/0 Uranium/lead?

You assume this to be true, yet there is no empirical evidence that this is true - it is an assumption.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

It wouldn't make a difference. There's enough data which demonstrates that the half life calculation works. If it didn't work, every nuclear engineering development would be invalid -

So unless you can come up with some exotic process or hypothesis, the current model stands as being valid.

I was never arguing half life calculation. I am saying you cannot with certainty determine the initial ratio of the sample. As your source said, " we can assume that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic".

Then it would be an equal assumption that it wasn't. And as I said, it makes absolutely no difference as to what is being sampled and tested today. If you're not arguing half life calculations, then you're not arguing that the dating methods used today are incorrect. It isn't necessary to have the first atom of uranium ever formed in the universe. Uranium and the estimated age of the Earth are about the same. If all uranium was formed at the same time, then it's half life would currently be one half of the original sample.

But again, it just doesn't matter because the calculations we use today serve well to determine dates. I posted this link before - you obviously didn't read it - but contained in this document is a very thorough explanation about U-Pb dating.

www.princeton.edu...

originally posted by: Phantom423

Then it would be an equal assumption that it wasn't.

So you, (and many of the papers you posted), admit that you have to assume a particular initial concentration ?

And as I said, it makes absolutely no difference as to what is being sampled and tested today.

It absolutely does. If I have a sample with 1g of uranium, and I know the half life, I still cannot determine the age of the rock without knowing the initial concentration of uranium. Do you understand?

originally posted by: DarkvsLight29
I also believe in evolution.

Just because something is created to evolve doesn't mean it wasn't created.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: DarkvsLight29
I also believe in evolution.

Just because something is created to evolve doesn't mean it wasn't created.

There is no evidence to suggest anything was created to evolve, if you have evidence do share.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Then it would be an equal assumption that it wasn't.

So you, (and many of the papers you posted), admit that you have to assume a particular initial concentration ?

And as I said, it makes absolutely no difference as to what is being sampled and tested today.

It absolutely does. If I have a sample with 1g of uranium, and I know the half life, I still cannot determine the age of the rock without knowing the initial concentration of uranium. Do you understand?

Look, all I'm going to say about that is that you're wrong. Take your question over to the science board and see if they can clarify the issue for you. I'm done with it. If you don't want to post it, I'll post the question - with your name on it - as I don't want to appear like I don't know the answer!

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

Because Lead 206 does not occur naturally. It only exists as the end result of radioactive decay of that specific isotope of Uranium. No other element, nor their isotopes, decay into Lead 206. It can NOT exist until U 238 begins to radioactively decay.

I've asked before, do you have any data suggesting that this is not true?

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. What is the evidence that lead-206 does not exist besides the radioactive decay of uranium? There should be a paper focusing on such because it is integral to accurate dating, but I cannot find such a paper.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Therefore, we can assume that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic.

That's my point^

Let's go over the definition of an isotope: an isotope is a DERIVATIVE of an existing element. The isotope of an element has the same number of protons, but has a different number of neutrons. Therefore, the isotope is unique to that element. Hence, Pb206 can only come from uranium. There is no other way it can be produced.

Regarding my zircon comments, again you're using the word "assume, assumption" in layman's terms. If you read the article (which I see you didn't), you would understand how many samples are tested, analyzed and the final result is calculated mathematically. These calculations are within a standard deviation.

You don't read the articles or you would be asking more intelligent questions.

Unfortunately you are speaking to a brick wall. Coop doesn't understand a lick of it, he pretends to and it's obvious. He thinks he can just make random statements online and that it somehow discredits science without even doing any science or research himself. Hopefully the short bus will leave this thread soon.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

The decay product is unique to the element - there is no other way that the product can be formed.

How are you so sure? when uranium was formed, perhaps lead is formed alongside it.

"The Earth's uranium was produced in one or more supernovae"

How do you know lead was not formed in supernovae as well?

How do you know for sure that lead didn't come from a giant cosmic anus? I mean like how you do you know this isn't true!!!! Like maybe a white hole just farted and pb206 came out. HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN!!?!?!?

Maybe you could just demonstrate another verified way that pb206 can arise. Find it and you'll become famous and you'll actually have an argument beyond denial and "how do you know". Read the paper. That's the only way it has been observed to form. That's how we know.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton
Do you have any evidence at all that there is a separate, magical process to create these other lead isotopes?

When uranium was formed long ago, how do you know it was formed with concentrations of lead in a ratio of 100/0 Uranium/lead?

You assume this to be true, yet there is no empirical evidence that this is true - it is an assumption.

Why did you ignore the question you are responding to? Seems almost deliberate.

a reply to: cooperton
There is a misunderstanding here, the dating method described here using uranium and lead does not rely on environmental ratios of lead or uranium, not in the past and not now. The most common mineral tested is zircon-due to chemical properties, when zircon forms, it can incorporate uranium, but CANNOT incorporate lead into its structure, so it starts out with ZERO lead and possibly a certain amount of uranium, I come along 3 billion years later, find a zircon crystal and analyze that crystal and get a ratio of uranium to lead-since I know the half life of uranium,and I know the current ratio of lead to uranium, I can work out how old the zircon crystal is (ie. when it was formed). The lead in the zircon crystal can only come from the decay of the original uranium in the crystal when it formed.
What ever the ratios are outside the zircon crystal, they are irrelevant to the crystal itself.
I believe I have this more or less correct, if not, I'm sure the smarter ones in the crowd will correct me.

originally posted by: HiddenWaters
a reply to: cooperton
There is a misunderstanding here, the dating method described here using uranium and lead does not rely on environmental ratios of lead or uranium, not in the past and not now. The most common mineral tested is zircon-due to chemical properties, when zircon forms, it can incorporate uranium, but CANNOT incorporate lead into its structure, so it starts out with ZERO lead and possibly a certain amount of uranium, I come along 3 billion years later, find a zircon crystal and analyze that crystal and get a ratio of uranium to lead-since I know the half life of uranium,and I know the current ratio of lead to uranium, I can work out how old the zircon crystal is (ie. when it was formed). The lead in the zircon crystal can only come from the decay of the original uranium in the crystal when it formed.
What ever the ratios are outside the zircon crystal, they are irrelevant to the crystal itself.
I believe I have this more or less correct, if not, I'm sure the smarter ones in the crowd will correct me.

I gave him all that information including citations. He just doesn't read it or just doesn't understand it. Thank you for posting it again.