RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
September 9, 2014 at 2:48 am
(This post was last modified: September 9, 2014 at 3:25 am by Anomalocaris.)
(September 8, 2014 at 6:01 pm)pocaracas Wrote:(September 8, 2014 at 11:42 am)Chuck Wrote: When speaking of heavy metal, geochemists don't usually mean the atoms. Very few heavy metals are ever found in nature as pure elements. They are almost always found combined with other elements in characteristic molecules and minerals. When geochemist say heavy metal, they often mean the characteristic molecule or mineral in which the said metal is usually found. So when chemist say breaking down heavy metal, they don't mean nuclear fission. They mean chemically taking apart the characteristic molecules in which the heavy metals are found.
huh?!
wiki Wrote:A heavy metal is any metal or metalloid of environmental concern. The term originated with reference to the harmful effects of cadmium, mercury and lead, all of which are denser than iron. It has since been applied to any other similarly toxic metal, or metalloid such as arsenic,[4] regardless of density.[5] Commonly encountered heavy metals are chromium, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, arsenic, selenium, silver, cadmium, antimony, mercury, thallium and lead. More specific definitions of a heavy metal have been proposed; none have obtained widespread acceptance.[6]
I see elements, not compounds...
Also, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...6108002668
Quote:This paper presents the results of modeling the distribution of eight critical heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, lead and zinc) in topsoils using 1588 georeferenced samples from the Forum of European Geological Surveys Geochemical database (26 European countries)....
That's from a geochemist's paper.... all I see is elements.
For a moment, there, I thought my nuclear fusion bias was working up... but... nope!
I majored in geological engineering. I should know. The term "heavy metal" is often used as jargon to refer to compounds with metal elements in them, not the metal elements themselves. When we said breakdown heavy elements, we don't necessarily even mean breaking down compounds into simpler compounds. Some times we just mean transferring the metal element form one compound which has certain specific property in question to another that doesn't.
(September 9, 2014 at 2:14 am)snowtracks Wrote: stars have already gone through several cycles, the first ones fused hydrogen and helium to form heavier elements that astrophysics called metals. subsequent stars used these metals to form smaller, and hence longer-lived stars suitable to form rocky planets. the ashes of these smaller generation of stars enriched earth with the chemical form of metals; i.e., iron, nickel, moly, copper, etc. high concentration of these metals are poisonous to advanced life in soluble form. various forms of bacteria over a billion years fed on diluted soluble metal compounds converting these compounds into insoluble forms. the decayed residues of the bacteria yielded the concentrated ores.
so this bacteria activity over a billion years worked on the earth’s environment, made it safe for advanced life and produced ore deposits which without would have assured stone age isolation for homo sapiens sapiens.
Tell me, do you think the sun is one solar mass because your imaginary god knew a star with one solar mass will shine in a color that happen to suit the sensitivity of the human eye, and so benevolently caused the sun to be made that way?
Or is the sun one solar mass simply because it happen to be one solar mass, and human eye evolution then found the advantage of having an eye that happen to see best in the available light?