Your lack of imagination is your defeat

[bennyboy]

You forgot to take in consideration the free will in humans Rit.
Because of the free will you can mold or shape the consciousness the way you like
and all this turn the consciousness stronger or weaker to the stage that lose all her value
and this is the reason why I say get disconnected.
Disconnected to your reality not disconnected to your existence.  

LR, I commend you on being able to disconnect from your reality. I'm convinced that you have, in fact, achieved this.

[Little Rik]

You surely may well know the technical reasons why there is radioactivity in some matter but you do not know the causes behind it.
Physical science tell us that unstable nucleus tries to achieve a balanced state by given off a neutron or proton and this is done via radioactive decay but that is not the cause why there is instability in the first place.
You don't get it yog, do you?      

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.

There are four primary sources of radioactive elements on earth:

1. Primordial. These elements were radioactive when the earth was formed. They came from the supernova that produced all the elements on earth. The elements were produced by fusion in the star. The force of fusion was sufficient in the last stages of the supernova to produce the elements heavier than lead (e.g., uranium and thorium). Also, some primordial elements are not that heavy, (e.g., potassium-40). They were also formed in the star.
    
   
2. Cosmogenic. These elements are formed by cosmic rays hitting the earth's atmosphere and transmuting a stable element into a radioactive one. Cosmic rays are primarily protons. When the proton hits a nucleus in the atmosphere it will often knock out a neutron and make an unstable element (e.g., carbon-14).
      
   
3. Human made. Humans make radioactive elements by hitting the nucleus with particles which change the neutron to proton balance, making them radioactive. Accelerators and nuclear reactors are the primary ways. We also hit very heavy elements with particles or other nuclei to make very heavy elements which are also radioactive. Nuclear weapons are also a source of radioactive elements through fusion, fission, and particle bombardment.
      
   
4. Decay of the above. Often radioactive elements produced by the above processes will decay into an element that is also radioactive. For example, as uranium is decaying to become lead, it goes through a variety of radioactive states (e.g. radium-226 and radon-222). These elements are not primordial since their half life is too short. They are produced by the decay of primordial elements.
   

https://www.quora.com/What-exactly-are-r...come-to-be

So, yes we do know the causes behind the instability in many cases and it's not "being old."

Nucleosynthesis is the process that creates new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons, primarily protons and neutrons. The first nuclei were formed about three minutes after the Big Bang, through the process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. It was then that hydrogen and helium formed to become the content of the first stars, and this primeval process is responsible for the present hydrogen/helium ratio of the cosmos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

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.

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.

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.  

[Edwardo Piet]

Hey, Little Rik... your lack of imagination is your defeat.

[Little Rik]

Hey, Little Rik... your lack of imagination is your defeat.

Eating those funny mushrooms again?  

[Edwardo Piet]

Never ate any funny mushrooms

[robvalue]

What is this defeat supposed to be anyway? I don't give a monkeys about any of this, whether it's true or not.

[Angrboda]

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?

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.

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.

[Crossless2.0]

That is a hell of a confusion yog.  
All you did is to provide a lot of guessing and no evidence of whatsoever.

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.

A hell of a confusion, indeed! Of course I'm not the least surprised that you haven't any idea as to how the heavier elements were forged (I choose the word carefully to provide you with a clue), but I'm sure you'll just fall back on your unsupportable dogma, as usual, rather than actually research the question.

[Whateverist]

Hey, Little Rik... your lack of imagination is your defeat.

Eating those funny mushrooms again?  

I think what Rik is trying to say boils down to "hey, look over there!"

[ignoramus]

Why does LR attract so much attention from you guys?
You must all find him fascinating or something? To spend the time involved in replying back to him in detail.
I just don't get it. I can't get through a full post of his without falling into a semi coma.

It's not the "patronising the budgie's first words syndrome" is it?  If so, then that's just sad! That you think so little of his intelligence!