Radioactive carbon dating

You're not making any sense, JJ. Because it doesn't. And you'd only think that was weird if you didn't know what radioactivity was. Which you clearly don't. Yes. And there was nothing alive at that period in the Earth's history, because it was before the evolution of living things.There are no fossils from a time when the Earth had no atmosphere, because life could not exist under those circumstances. If that had ever happened in Earth's past after the evolution of life, the Earth would be lifeless, today. (And it's not.) That's not how fossilization works. If you were to fall into a volcano, there wouldn't be any bones to find. No, it's proportion. Maybe you should look up how radioactive decay works? It proceeds in a geometric progression, which we measure as a "half-life." (You've heard that term before, right?) There's no such thing. Seriously, there isn't. No, we'd know. But it wouldn't have any effect on radiometric dating. No, that's not what it means. It means "the proportion of the isotope to its decay product." It's about proportion.

No more than your height is "directly proportional" to the number of inches between the bottom of your feet and the top of your head.Like I said, you need to refresh your memory on the kinetic theory of gases. It's the model that explains (among other things) why most materials expand when they get hot.

Science could be described as a process that finds truth by excluding falsehood. In other words it's not so much that we find out what models are true, it's that we eliminate the models that are false.If we allow supernatural explanations - which can be anything at all - how could we possibly do that? How can any "supernatural" model ever be rejected? You believe in God; but what about the people who believe in fairies? From what basis could we tell them that they were wrong? If the fairie-supporters can just make up any explanation they require, how can we possibly ever decide that they're wrong?Intelligent people realize that just making things up and believing them is not generally a path that leads to truth. But human imagination is the source of all "knowledge" about fairies, God, and everybody else held to be "supernatural." Reasonable people shouldn't have to be told that the reason science rejects the supernatural is because it's impossible to know anything about it - the only thing you can do is make up stuff about it. Who would possibly mistake that process for one of truth-finding? The way you find out what's under your bed isn't to make up stories about monsters and boogeymen. The way you find out is to bend down there and look.

Which is basically a physical impossibility. The behavior of electrons and protons is based on their net charges, which we can and have measured. For instance, if one electron has a charge of e- (and a proton p+), it doesn't matter if it's actually a mixture of, say, 2e- and 1p+; its net charge would be e-, and its behavior would be based on that.Unless you propose that they're made of equal negative and positive charges (which we know they're not), any kind of net charge imbalance would leave the same problem Rutherford had to explain - the concentration of protons in the nucleus would make the nucleus fly apart from electrostatic repulsion if not for the strong nuclear force.Like charges repel. That's a basic law of nature. Yes impossible. We know from Rutherford's alpha scattering experiments that atoms have a nucleus where protons and neutrons reside. There's no such thing as being "not total positive or negative" for something that small. Either electrons and protons have a net charge, or they don't. Since they behave as charged particles, we know that they do. ...what? "It" what? Neither potassium or argon are radioactive, and triple points are measured in degrees/pressure. And potassium's half-life is nearly 1 billion years.So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say.