Doc Edward Morbius ⭕Lead, and what it does (and doesn't) tell you about the age of the Earth
The fact that we can estimate the Earth's age, over a 4.5 billion year span, to within 1% accuracy, is pretty flippin' amazing.
And yes, lead plays a role. Though some people get that wrong.
Anywho, if you're into that sort of thing:
https://joindiaspora.com/posts/9e5739104e4b0139d8fb002590d8e506
#Science #ScienceBitches #AccurateScienceIsBetterScience #AgeOfTheEarth #Lead #Creationism #Fundamentalism #LymanStewart #RedShift #CepheidVariables #RadiometricDating #geology
Bad Science Is a Poor Response to Science Denial: The Age of the E...
Bad Science Is a Poor Response to Science Denial: The Age of the Earth and Lead's Role in Determining It A cute meme circulating has a "Christian Against Science" declaring The Earth is 4,000 years old. Change my mind. A presumably more scientifically-inclined reply reads: The half-life of uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years. It decays into radium-226 which in turn decays into radon-222. Radon-222 becomes polonium-210, which finally decays into a stable nuclide [sic], lead. The existence of lead as an element disproves the 4000 year old myth. Unfortunately that second sentence is incorrect, though the first may be accurate (I've not looked into it). The issues. Yes, the Earth is more than 4,000 years old, and is in fact about 4.54 billion years +/- 1% in age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Earth). That's not the beef. Yes, radiometric dating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating) using radioactive decay and ratios of lead isotopes and lead vs. other post-transit...