Atheism

[Non sequitur]

see, isotopes. I told you they were there and they cause decay. Unless the link lied. Which is it? ARe you smarter than wikipedia? Don't answer that question.

The sun isn't made of "sun". The sun doesn't cause the sun.

Elements do have have isotopes in them, as you say!

They do not "cause" decay!

All the different variants of a chemical element are called isotopes. The different chemical elements are isotopes, not part of or in the elements.


The definition says isotopes are not in elements, but are the names of the elements, making you incorrect. Why do you keep saying they are "in" them???

But here I found a nice intellectual article to keep you busy for easter

an agents.

Peer-Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Paper Suggests "Agents" and "Choice Contingency" Needed to Explain Life's Programming - Evolution News & Views

here is a quote:

The only entity that logically could possibly be considered to organize itself is an agent. But not
even an agent self-organizes. Agents organize things and events in their lives. They do not organize
their own molecular biology, cellular structure, organs and organ systems. Agents do not organize their
own being. Agents do not create themselves. They merely make purposeful choices with the brains and
minds with which they find themselves. Artificial intelligence does not organize itself either. It is
invariably programmed by agents to respond in certain ways to various environmental challenges in
the artificial life data base.
Thus the reality of self-organization is highly suspect on logical and analytic grounds even before
facing the absence of empirical evidence of any spontaneous formal self-organization. Certainly no
prediction of bona fide self-organization from unaided physicodynamics has ever been fulfilled. Of
course if we fail through sloppy definitions to discern between self-ordering phenomena and
organization, we will think that evidence of self-organization is abundant. We will point to hundreds of
peer-reviewed papers with “self-organization” in their titles. But when all of these papers are carefully
critiqued with a proper scientific skepticism, our embarrassment only grows with each exposure of the
blatant artificial selection that was incorporated into each paper’s experimental design. Such
investigator involvement is usually readily apparent right within Materials and Methods of the paper.

This has nothing to do with uncaused agents and supports the idea that every effect needs a cause.

Two current unknown causes are your "god" and the start of radioactive decay.

So, what caused your "god" and what caused the start of radioactive decay?

 

[Eudaimonist]

don't follow you here, mind expanding on why the presence of space and the presence of the earth creating a gravitational field is entity causation any more than anything else,

It isn't. It's just an example that makes it clear that it isn't the mechanistic event-event causation that you seem to want to apply to everything except for agents.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[createdtoworship]

The sun isn't made of "sun". The sun doesn't cause the sun.

Elements do have have isotopes in them, as you say!

They do not "cause" decay!

All the different variants of a chemical element are called isotopes. The different chemical elements are isotopes, not part of or in the elements.


The definition says isotopes are not in elements, but are the names of the elements, making you incorrect. Why do you keep saying they are "in" them???





This has nothing to do with uncaused agents and supports the idea that every effect needs a cause.

Two current unknown causes are your "god" and the start of radioactive decay.

So, what caused your "god" and what caused the start of radioactive decay?

Isotopes started decay, because they are present in every known decayed radium. Don't know who caused God. He is an uncaused cause. An agent of agents. I suppose.

 

[Nabobalis]

Isotopes started decay, because they are present in every known decayed radium.

Unstable isotopes can decay. Isotopes don't cause decay.

 

[Non sequitur]

Isotopes started decay, because they are present in every known decayed radium. Don't know who caused God. He is an uncaused cause. An agent of agents. I suppose.

They don't start or cause decay.

They "are present in every known decayed radium" because they [/b]are a variation of[/B] radium, not in radium.

Please, find me any source that says isotopes caused the decay process to start, because isotopes are present in decayed radium.

Any source.

 

[TScott]

Unstable isotopes can decay. Isotopes don't cause decay.

I think that is more the case. I believe there are many types of decay, but it is always caused by an instability in the nuclear structure of the matter that causes the emission of energy. If one wants to ask what started the decay the answer would be whatever created the unstable matter-this usually would be the result, primordially, of natural phenoms like stellar nucleosynthesis, or in some cases, postmordially, by the bombardment of cosmic radiation. In many ways the same forces that have mutated life on earth over the eons have also caused the evolvution of the postmordial isotopes found in nature.

 

[Non sequitur]

I think that is more the case. I believe there are many types of decay, but it is always caused by an instability in the nuclear structure of the matter that causes the emission of energy. If one wants to ask what started the decay the answer would be whatever created the unstable matter-this usually would be the result, primordially, of natural phenoms like stellar nucleosynthesis, or in some cases, postmordially, by the bombardment of cosmic radiation. In many ways the same forces that have mutated life on earth over the eons have also caused the evolvution of the postmordial isotopes found in nature.

I'm not following.

That appears to be an effect-effect situation; there's a step missing.

"If one wants to ask what started the decay of teeth the answer would be whatever created teeth."

Kinda, sorta... but not really.


(Although, I think we can agree, isotopes being "in" the matter/elements didn't "start" the decay process...)

 

[TScott]

I'm not following.

That appears to be an effect-effect situation; there's a step missing.

"If one wants to ask what started the decay of teeth the answer would be whatever created teeth."

Kinda, sorta... but not really.

No, not really. It wouldn't be like saying that at all.

Matter is created by stellar and supernova nucleosynthisis is it not?

What causes the decay is the imbalance in the matter, what initially started that imbalance was either when the imbalanced matter was first created. I gave the example of stellar nucleosynthesis. Much of this inbalanced matter is created in that way. Another example would be the mutation of stable matter into instable matter by the bombardment of cosmic radiation.

 

[Non sequitur]

Another example would be the mutation of stable matter into instable matter by the bombardment of cosmic radiation.

Bombardment of cosmic radiation (cause) -> Mutation of stable matter (effect)

This would be a correct cause-and-effect.

1/1

No, not really. It wouldn't be like saying that at all.

Matter is created by stellar and supernova nucleosynthisis is it not?

Stellar and supernova nucleosynthisis (cause) -> Matter created (effect)

This would be cause-and-effect, but technically incorrect.

2/2

What causes the decay is the imbalance in the matter, what initially started that imbalance was either when the imbalanced matter was first created. I gave the example of stellar nucleosynthesis. Much of this inbalanced matter is created in that way.

You have still yet to name the cause; you can't predict when it starts to decay.

The cause of rocks to erode are that rocks have properties that allow it to erode... when something causes it to start to break down.

"Wind, water, etc, causes rocks to erode," not, "Rocks are made of material that cause themselves to erode".

You can say that the imbalance allows the decay to start, inherent properties, but not causes the decay to start.

2/3

Think of it in SAT analogies, if that helps. (I suggest a verb. Not a noun that represents an unchanging state, like "properties of itself".)

So far, you have arrived at self-causal, with nothing that initiating it. But what initiated it?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, not really. It wouldn't be like saying that at all.

Matter is created by stellar and supernova nucleosynthisis is it not?

It is not.

It is changed by stellar nucleosynthesis, but the matter itself predates the star (tiny fluctuations in mass due to mass-energy equivalence notwithstanding).

What causes the decay is the imbalance in the matter, what initially started that imbalance was either when the imbalanced matter was first created. I gave the example of stellar nucleosynthesis. Much of this inbalanced matter is created in that way. Another example would be the mutation of stable matter into instable matter by the bombardment of cosmic radiation.

But that instability isn't the cause of radioactive decay. Alpha decay is more likely in certain nuclei, but that doesn't cause the decay event. That event is fundamentally an instance quantum tunnelling, which is an uncaused event.

The random generation of numbers at a national lottery draw can only occur if there is a social convention to go out and buy tickets and enjoy the event. But that convention doesn't cause the instance of randomness. My buying lottery tickets doesn't cause the random event to occur, it merely allows it to occur.

 

[TScott]

It is not.

It is changed by stellar nucleosynthesis, but the matter itself predates the star (tiny fluctuations in mass due to mass-energy equivalence notwithstanding).

Sure, pardon my semantics, matter in the form of the many particular elements is created by stellar and supernova nucleosynthisis.

But that instability isn't the cause of radioactive decay. Alpha decay is more likely in certain nuclei, but that doesn't cause the decay event. That event is fundamentally an instance quantum tunnelling, which is an uncaused event.

Quantum Physics isn't my field, but what you are saying doesn't make any sense. Are you saying then that Alpha decay just happens? There is no cause?

Alpha-decay occurs when the ratio of neutrons to protons in the nucleus of certain heavier elements is low.

 

[Non sequitur]

Sure, pardon my semantics, matter in the form of the many particular elements is created by stellar and supernova nucleosynthisis.


Quantum Physics isn't my field, but what you are saying doesn't make any sense. Are you saying then that Alpha decay just happens? There is no cause?

Alpha-decay occurs when the ratio of neutrons to protons in the nucleus of certain heavier elements is low.

That's what I've been saying. It just "happens".

There is a cause, acting upon whatever, but it is random; no known reason for it to be initiated/start.

 

[createdtoworship]

They don't start or cause decay.

They "are present in every known decayed radium" because they [/b]are a variation of[/B] radium, not in radium.

Please, find me any source that says isotopes caused the decay process to start, because isotopes are present in decayed radium.

Any source.

Most radioactive elements do not decay directly to a stable state, but rather undergo a series of decays until eventually a stable isotope is reached.

Decay chain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[createdtoworship]

Unstable isotopes can decay. Isotopes don't cause decay.

Decay chain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sounds also like the nucleus is unstable mainly because of the # of neutrons makes it unstable. So that could be another cause.

 

[Non sequitur]

Most radioactive elements do not decay directly to a stable state, but rather undergo a series of decays until eventually a stable isotope is reached.

Decay chain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You still have not named the cause that starts these changes.

 

[createdtoworship]

You still have not named the cause that starts these changes.

well I found yet another one, a heavy nucleus makes radium unstable and decay

Many heavy nuclei undergo spontaneous “alpha decay,” in which the original nucleus emits an alpha particle? - Yahoo! Answers

 

[Non sequitur]

well I found yet another one, a heavy nucleus makes radium unstable and decay

Many heavy nuclei undergo spontaneous “alpha decay,” in which the original nucleus emits an alpha particle? - Yahoo! Answers

Do you not see the word spontaneous?!

 

[TScott]

That's what I've been saying. It just "happens".

There is a cause, acting upon whatever, but it is random; no known reason for it to be initiated/start.

The cause isn't random, the cause is a specific set of conditions, what seems to be random when the decay event actually takes place. We can't just observe a nucleus and say, ok it is going to decay...right...NOW! So if that is what you have been saying-yes that is true, but that is different than saying there is no cause for radioactive decay.

If you like analogies, it's like my wife's crying. There is a cause for her crying, I just can't predict when she is going to cry.

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you not see the word spontaneous?!

spontaneous is as to the timing of the decay, however all heavy nuclei undergo this transition. So that would be the cause. Walla, heavy nucleus. (more neutrons than protons I believe it is)

 

[Non sequitur]

The cause isn't random, the cause is a specific set of conditions, what seems to be random when the decay event actually takes place. We can't just observe a nucleus and say, ok it is going to decay...right...NOW! So if that is what you have been saying-yes that is true, but that is different than saying there is no cause for radioactive decay.

If you like analogies, it's like my wife's crying. There is a cause for her crying, I just can't predict when she is going to cry.

The conditions allow the decay to start.

Your analogy isn't fitting. If you knew all the data, you'd know when.