(July 26, 2016 at 8:00 am)Little Rik Wrote:(July 24, 2016 at 12:18 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Then you are claiming you 'know' the causes behind it. Go ahead and tell me how you know that radioactive elements are the oldest. You don't know. You just have a story that attributes age to radioactive elements. What's your evidence that radioactive elements are the oldest?
If radioactivity were due to age, then the rate of decay would be a linear function, as age of expiration is a linear function. But the rate of decay, the half-life, is an exponential function. There's no way that a linear process can underlie an exponential function. So it's not possible that radioactive decay is due to age.
So no, you don't know the underlying cause. You never thought about that, did you?
Wrong again, Mr. Yoga.
So, yes we do know the causes behind the instability in many cases and it's not "being old."
Moreover, the primordial hydrogen and helium are the oldest elements and the bulk of that is not radioactive.
That is a hell of a confusion yog.![]()
All you did is to provide a lot of guessing and no evidence of whatsoever.
You are the one who claimed that radiation is due to age of the rock, therefore it's you who need to provide evidence. As usual, you bail when confronted with that challenge. What's your evidence that radioactive rocks are 'older' than non radioactive rocks? Hmmm?
(July 26, 2016 at 8:00 am)Little Rik Wrote: Hydrogen and helium are in a different phase of devolution so you can not possibly compare with
matter which instead start the process of evolution.
Bare assertions are worthless. They aren't evidence of anything.
(July 26, 2016 at 8:00 am)Little Rik Wrote: And what about the big bang?
The universe had countless of big bang in the past have them today and will also experience them in the future.
Big bang is not the cause of the existence of the universe.
And what about the proton and the neutrons?
Who create them?
Scientists still haven't got a clue while Sarkar already explain the microvita theory which is souce of life in the universe but what's the point yog.
You still live in the fantasy world.
Sarkar's theory has no evidence for it. It's a dead issue. Or are you now going to provide that evidence for microvita that I've been asking for? A hypothesis about mysterious particles that can't be detected is nothing but an intellectual fart. It's nothing. It's meaningless.
As usual, when asked to provide evidence for your worldview, all you do is throw back questions about the materialist worldview. It's nothing but a form of distraction. A red herring. No matter how many questions you throw back, it won't advance the evidence for Yoga one bit. And this tactic of yours is getting old.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)