if all things formed from 2 beginning atoms, shouldnt all things be the age of those first two atoms?

I have no clue of how you came up with such silly ideas but I commend you on your grasp of the ridiculous.

This is one of the most nonsensical Q's I have seen on R&S

No offense, but it's a little presumptuous of you to assume you're right, off the bat. You're not leaving any room for debate.

You're actually wrong. Nothing came from "two atoms," but from one super-compact mass the size of your fist. Everything that exists came from that, which is true (you are correct about that - good job!), but only on the subatomic level. Subatomic particles reform new atoms all the time, at rates that have been tested. We know that plutonium has a very long half-life due to its appreciable level of electronegativity, while others have much shorter ones.

If you take any kind of chemistry, you would see that your supposition was incorrect. For example, subatomic particles (neutrons, protons, electrons, etc) are like bricks in a building (which represents an atom). You can take the building down brick by brick, and then make a completely new and entirely different building with those same bricks. The material the new and old buildings are made of are the same, but their rearrangement is different.

So you see, you are NOT right, and once again, you really should educate yourself on chemistry, especially atomic theory. I recommend Moore and Stanitski's "Chemistry: The Molecular Science.". It has review questions after each chapter. Or, enroll in a community college and take a class in chemistry.

First, all things didn't "form from 2 beginning atoms". That's absolutely ridiculous.

Second, elements radiate at a specific rate, starting from the time of their nucleosynthesis. This occurs in the fusion process of stars, and especially supernovae. These events create new elements *all* the time.

"i came from my mothers sperm and egg, which was formed by the materials that had existed in their bodies since their births."

And from that time, you've formed from the material of the food you've eaten, which contains elements from the Earth.

The iron in your blood is as old as the iron in the core of the Earth. A small percentage of carbon in your body, however, is newly created by particle reactions in the upper atmosphere. This is why we use carbon to date recently-deceased fossils and remains.

Talk about flawed logic.

Who says that all things [were] formed from two beginning atoms?

You are aware that radiometric dating of ancient rocks are based upon the _fact_ that when lava cools (solidifies), certain atoms are created at that point in time and start the decay process from that point in time?

No?

I didn't think so.

TDs expected from the ignorant.

Add: I didn't say certain _molecules_. Can you even read? Or can you even comprehend what you read?

Sheesh.

Go tell your science teacher your great idea. It's sure to make him or her bang her head against the wall and moan for a while.

You do know that you're saying a plant is as old as the nutrients it pulled from the soil and the water it took up, right? The lettuce you ate for dinner would have to be considered billions of years old under your system.

Wow, are you confused. The primordial singularity was not two atoms.

Second, hydrogen and some helium date all the way back to the primordial singularity. But, the heavier elements can only originate in s dying star. So, they dates when these elements originate can vary by billions of years.

We can date the age of the current configuration of some things

Geologists can measure the ages of some gases in the ice if they know nobody touched them, based on what they know about atmospheric conditions millions of years ago.

How do you know if a man is old or young? by his components? no, but how are they arranged.

Next.

But where did the first two atoms come from. Dig deeper (in science, not in religion).

Except that all things did not form from two atoms.

Right. Just as you are the same age as your parents.