The Moon and Design

Originally posted by wildgrass
"Occams razor is not about finding something that provides an explanation, it is about specificity of claims and whether or not claims are necessary and sufficient."

Maybe, then, I don't understand Occam's razor very well. I thought it was a logical system for explaining things by breaking down different arguments, weeding out the assumptions, and assig ...[text shortened]... stence of physical laws is evidence of creation, only that creation is the simplest explanation.

So creation is a valid option.
Good to hear a scientist say it.

I was not watching Looney Tunes, but instead, a documentary about Uranium.

It seems that science cannot explain why uranium changes its own nucleus, multiple times, and becoming new elements.

Originally posted by chaney3
So creation is a valid option.
Good to hear a scientist say it.

I was not watching Looney Tunes, but instead, a documentary about Uranium.

It seems that science cannot explain why uranium changes its own nucleus, multiple times, and becoming new elements.

Where did you get that idea? They know exactly why uranium and a lot of other elements change to other elements.

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

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where did you get that idea? They know exactly why uranium and a lot of other elements change to other elements.

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

The scienist said that uranium is the only element that, on its own, changes its nucleus.

Originally posted by chaney3
The "view everyone agrees with" is that science does NOT know origin, nor many other things.

Nobody does.

Science does much much guessing.....but don't call it guessing...they call it theory.
No, they call it 'hypothesis. A theory is when science is very very sure.

Design makes more sense than the alternative you LACK to give.
If it makes more sense, then you wouldn't need to lie. So why do you lie? Because you know you are wrong. You want it to be true but it isn't. So you have to lie to fool yourself.

Why does your sister believe in God?
Presumably because she was brought up in a theistic household. Belief is a cultural trait.
I can, however, promise you that it is not because of eclipses.

PS. Still waiting for either an admission that you were wrong (and have known it ever since I challenged it) or a reference to support your earlier claim.

Originally posted by chaney3
I was not watching Looney Tunes, but instead, a documentary about Uranium.

It seems that science cannot explain why uranium changes its own nucleus, multiple times, and becoming new elements.

It seems you can't tell the difference between Looney Tunes and documentaries.

Originally posted by chaney3
So creation is a valid option.
Good to hear a scientist say it.

I was not watching Looney Tunes, but instead, a documentary about Uranium.

It seems that science cannot explain why uranium changes its own nucleus, multiple times, and becoming new elements.

Appears you are fast running out of forums to post in sir, after making a complete ass of yourself in the spirituality and debates forum, and now here in science.

I guess it's the Culture Forum for you next, hey?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Appears you are fast running out of forums to post in sir, after making a complete ass of yourself in the spirituality and debates forum, and now here in science.

I guess it's the Culture Forum for you next, hey?

There is always sports.....

Originally posted by chaney3
The scienist said that uranium is the only element that, on its own, changes its nucleus.

I guess he didn't know about this:

"Many nuclei with mass numbers greater than 200 undergo alpha (&alpha😉 decay, which results in the emission of a helium-4 nucleus as an alpha (&alpha😉 particle, 42α24α. The general reaction is as follows:

AZXparent→A−4Z−2X′daughter+42αalphaparticle(20.2.1)
(20.2.1)ZAXparent→Z−2A−4X′daughter+24αalphaparticle
The daughter nuclide contains two fewer protons and two fewer neutrons than the parent. Thus α-particle emission produces a daughter nucleus with a mass number A − 4 and a nuclear charge Z − 2 compared to the parent nucleus. Radium-226, for example, undergoes alpha decay to form radon-222:

22688Ra→22286Rn+42α(20.2.2)
(20.2.2)88226Ra→86222Rn+24α
Because nucleons are conserved in this and all other nuclear reactions, the sum of the mass numbers of the products, 222 + 4 = 226, equals the mass number of the parent. Similarly, the sum of the atomic numbers of the products, 86 + 2 = 88, equals the atomic number of the parent. Thus the nuclear equation is balanced."

From Wiki.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I guess he didn't know about this:

"Many nuclei with mass numbers greater than 200 undergo alpha (&alpha😉 decay, which results in the emission of a helium-4 nucleus as an alpha (&alpha😉 particle, 42α24α. The general reaction is as follows:

AZXparent→A−4Z−2X′daughter+42αalphaparticle(20.2.1)
(20.2.1)ZAXparent→Z−2A−4X′daughter+24αalphaparticle
The daughter nucl ...[text shortened]... 8, equals the atomic number of the parent. Thus the nuclear equation is balanced."

From Wiki.

Radium and radon are daughters of uranium, right?

Why are they the only two elements listed in your post?

Originally posted by chaney3
The scienist said that uranium is the only element that, on its own, changes its nucleus.

Are you able to give us a reference to this 'documentary'. Its been a while since I had a good laugh at a creationist nutter.

Although I feel compelled to point out that it appears that you didn't understand something as you contradicted yourself.

Earlier you said:

changes its own nucleus, multiple times,

Now if it changes 'multiple times' then surely after the first 'change' it is a different element thus contradicting the claim that it is the only element that, on its own, changes its nucleus. Or does it do it with help on the second change?

Originally posted by chaney3
Radium and radon are daughters of uranium, right?

Why are they the only two elements listed in your post?

as if you now understand atomic physics. Please don't make us laugh by pretending you know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by chaney3
Radium and radon are daughters of uranium, right?

Why are they the only two elements listed in your post?

Did you want me to post the entire list of nucleotides and their transmutations? I posted that because it was an example which countered that blanket statement that only uranium decomposes. And no Radium and radon are not just daughters of uranium. You are in fact a seeker of cracks in science so you can insert your own agenda and nothing more.

Originally posted by chaney3
The scienist said that uranium is the only element that, on its own, changes its nucleus.

Then the scientist is wrong. I'm assuming that he is talking about nuclear fission. The words: "on its own" implies spontaneous fission. I am not aware that uranium will undergo spontaneous fission. Plutonium 240 on the other hand will, which is an issue in warhead design. In ballistic missile boats they need to keep the missiles close together, as submarines aren't all that big, but keeping them together exposes each warhead to the neutron fluxes from its neighbours. They use "supergrade" for SLBM warheads, which has a P240 content of less than 3.5% to ameliorate this. The facts you are repeating are clearly wrong.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I am not aware that uranium will undergo spontaneous fission.

Be careful here. It all depends on what isotope you are talking about.
But according to Wikipedia, every known isotope of Uranium has a halflife.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

I suspect that every atom except hydrogen has a theoretical halflife.

Originally posted by twhitehead

I suspect that every atom except hydrogen has a theoretical halflife.

I just looked this up and there is the occasional rarely accepted theory going around that all atoms have a halflife but one that is so massively great (zillions of zillions of years) that we have yet to ever observe a single 'stable' atom decay.
This theory currently has no real evidence supporting it and can currently be easily dismissed as pure wild speculation; -but who knows and perhaps time will tell.