1,422 Forum Posts by "JerkClock"
At 4/12/08 10:52 AM, Elfer wrote:
The reason he electrified the particles being ejected from thorium was to measure the relative amount of them that were coming out. He wasn't taking an extra step of electrifying them for no reason, then counting them under a microscope. The electricity itself (or rather, the relative electrical resistance) was the method of observation.
But my point was, whatever it proved, constantness of decay wasn't it.
Passing electricity through the thorium would tell him nothing.
It would tell him how much effect electricity had on decay would it not?
Like I said, radiation was new and shiny. He couldn't just figure out what beta radiation was by looking it up in his textbook.
At the time, what he proved was that whatever the hell was coming out of thorium, it could go through silver and gold really easily.
Well I can't argue with that. He certainly proved it alright
I don't know, maybe look it up, or infer it, since the term is pretty self explanatory?
Obviously it isn't if it can be interpreted several ways.
At 4/12/08 07:20 AM, poxpower wrote:
No, the trees were just an example of a method that could be used to check global climate changes,
More accurately you said the trees could be used to check and see if said changes were effecting radiometric dating, you thus invoked circular logic when you said radiometric datingcould be used to check the trees.
That sentence doesn't even make sense.
Strawman.
No, you are, with your "ad populum" bullshit
So let me get this straight, you using Ad Populum makes me the one who's saying science is about popularity.
whenever I tell you that all the scientists lean one way. That means that you should shut up and put up because you don't know dick-all about science.
Unfortunately your assertion is highly erroneous, and ironic. Remember a few pages back when you failed to debunk expanding matter? That should have clued you in that I'm a bit knowledgable and you are not.
Because if they could prove it wrong, they would win a nobel prize and a mansion full of nude models and not to mention eternal fame.
You of course keep saying that but of course that is nothing more than your own speculation. Good luck proving that they would.
Historical facts are not testable predictions of a science.
Loaded statement. They're not testable predictions but they are often testable happenings that while they can't be replicated, they can certainly be figured out or accounted for.
No I meant they know their own books better than me, as stupid and wrong as they may be.
But see you missed the point again, you are calling them stupid and wrong, but when someone says that what you believe in may even be slightly wrong, you throw a fit and shout Ad verecundiums, Ad populums, and Ad nauseums endlessly. That's extremely hypocritical.
Why would you? How would it prove gravity more or less? Stick to the point. You can test gravity yourself, period.
Ad nauseum, you've still failed to debunk expanding matter.
That's why they usually discard the results that make no sense against the thousands that do.
The point you are adressing was talking about decay being constant. The point you are addressing it with refers to another subject. You still haven't shown me them testing the constantness of decay.
Huh, yes they do, that's how science moves ahead. If scientists didn't challenge the present science, then science would never advance.
That's only somewhat true though. I happen to know of a huge incident where they didn't challenge the approximation of an authority figure's "5.6" which should have been 7.1, resulting in electrical circuits to this day being far less efficient than they potentially could be. If what you say was true, said incident would never have happened.
Yeah here we go again with these phantom science rebels who go up against radiometric dating.
And there you go again with your "they would win a nobel prize" stuff.
Again with the " I already said it" bullshit when you haven't.
Yeah, you must have a real short memory span.
So? It just proves evolution took place, that's the whole point.
I never denied evolution though. I think a loving God would want us to evolve, as it logically makes sense for us to.
It's STILL billions of years.
Didn't say it wasn't.
current methods:
*promptly names absolutely ZERO new methods*
I said new methods, as in ones which did not exist 30 years ago.
prove a global climate change affects all dating methods.
You're missing the point, I didn't say any did or didn't, just that it is more than possible. If it really happened you couldn't prove it anyway because scientists are too dependant on radiometric dating to prove everything. You'd have to find a dating method independant of it to do so which it appears they don't have one.
never seen your source of this wild claim. Show me.
For fuck's sake I posted it on the same page that you're claiming you never saw it on, but here it is, AGAIN:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jel/512/timelin e05.html
And the quote:
Today's estimates of 4-5 billion years for the earth's age rely on several factors including radioactive properties of meteorites.
name 10
I gave you a link where you'd be able to find more than 10, hypocritically, you never clicked it, here:
So how hold would you estimate the earth is, and based on what?
I don't, because I'm not stupid enough to try and measure stuff that can't possibly be measured.
radioactive decay is constant:
Ad Nauseum.
"Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002). " hahaha so much for that, eh?
Except that I'm not arguing for the young earth, only that you can't know the earth's age.
there, they talk about your theory of "something huge affecting all rates equally"
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/rate/in dex.html
Unfortunately for you, they are debunking young-earth creationism, not the idea decay can be effected at all. They are talking about drastic decay rate acceleration, not the idea that a small percentage can build on itself over the years and throw off the dating methods by a significant margin at all.
See, you not only don't know what you're talking about, you don't know what I'm talking about either because you are replying by debunking theories I'm not arguing for.
Now about proving decay is constant, yeah, you still haven't done that.
At 4/2/08 10:53 AM, Elfer wrote:
So, what you're suggesting is a form of radioactive decay that doesn't eject any particles? You just want mass and energy to disappear forever with no reason?
I said nothing of the sort, I said he'd have to effect the thorium itself, hence effecting the particles before they are ejected, not after, for his results to mean anything.
Radiation was new and shiny. They didn't know a lot about it yet, so they did a lot of crazy stuff. It's like how they discovered polymers my putting ethene into cannons and then heating them until goo came out.
Yeah but the question is what did it prove. I mean trying to catch electrons with silver and gold is like trying to catch a rubber ball with an open window. Sure it may land on the window-sill and stay there, but it'll more than likely go through. It's the same with sending electrons through silver and gold, although he may have only been trying to affirm that much, in which case what he did makes sense.
You're kidding, right?
Hey how am I to know exactly what I term I never heard before meant?
At 4/2/08 05:10 AM, poxpower wrote:
I didn't change my story,
For fuck's sake yes you did. You first said it was 30 years, then you said it was 900 years.
Well you do know if you know anything about the movement of the plates or if you use radiometric dating which you decided to not believe in.
Circular logic. You first said that those methods are valid because of your "trees", now you're saying that said trees are valid because of your methods. Sorry, that doesn't hold.
I'm saying it's crazy because it somehow affected all radiometric dating in a way that evolution not only becomes the only scientific theory that makes sense, it actually manages to predict what kind of fossils we'll find where and what age dating methods will give out.
Considering you wouldn't know how much they were affected by, no it wouldn't.
No, science is not about popularity.
Of course not, but you're certainly arguing as though it were.
When a lot of scientists believe the same thing, it's because they can replicate and test it.
And how do you know it's not simply because they do not question what they are told? Or because they'd be dismissed as creationists if they did?
When a lot of people agree on something like religion, it's only through birth because there's nothing to test.
Yeah because historical records can't be tested, oh wait............
I don't question them on their theology. When did I ever do that?
If you call their religion invalid, that is exactly what you are doing. Since you are an athiest, you obviously believe they are wrong, despite having "no degree" in theology. Anywho, it seems you totally missed the point that not being an authority doesn't make you someone who can't question things.
Why do you believe in gravity?
Because you can test it.
I can't test it against expanding matter can I? No, I can not. It seems more plausible, but there is no test I can do to validate it.
Scientists test things.
Yes, but they don't always test things right, nor do they all go about testing stuff they believe has long been established. Some may do this, but very few, and again, ones that have are dismissed as creationists for it, even when they're clearly not.
Huh, no, it's the whole point of like the entire thread now :o
No how much a part of science something is, is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is correct.
But what would change the decay rates????
I've been answering that, you're just pretending like said answers suddenly don't exist or like science works in magic numbers in order to dismiss said answers.
invariably simpler when older and more complicated when younger
That doesn't mean shit about the age of the earth though, that could hold true whether it's 200 million or 200 trillion years old, it's completely irrelevant.
I didn't claim to know the latest, I just heard 4.6.
It's only important to note that it's BILLIONS OF YEARS.
And of course, you ignored the point that there's a 20% margin of error even amongst supposedly "valid" dating methods.
Oh great, the attack on wikipedia.
Don't use wikipedia and you won't have that problem.
So what do you want now? New stuff in the radiometric dating scene from the last 30 years?
You want a list of all the methods that we now have? You want to see how we've refined the testing instruments and protocols?
YES, you made the claim they exist, prove it.
It's valid because the results are CONSTANT.
Argumentum Ad Nauseum. Again, that doesn't invalidate the possibility of global climate changes effecting it, and even "valid" results vary by 20%, like say, 4-5billion years? Yeah.
Even if they weren't right, which only religious people try to debate, you'd still know that something's going on.
Ad Nauseum, again. There are plenty of non-religious people who question this, but people like yourself dismiss them as religious anyway.
But they are right because THEY TESTED PROPERLY AGAINST HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS OF WHICH THE AGE WAS KNOWN FROM WRITTEN HISTORICAL RECORDS.
Of which the age was thousands, not millions or billions of years.
What you want is for me to prove that decay was always constant, which is proving a negative.
No you could easily prove it by showing me the results of a lab experiment involving a scientist subjecting a 100+ element(have half lives under 1 minute long) to various conditions without it effecting their decay rates. That should be easy to find if it was done.
Supreme commander, I can finally stop getting points, for good.
At 4/2/08 03:04 PM, TomFulp wrote: I'm still working on CC
Your working on the Clock Crew?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Reached rank 300 in experience.
At 3/30/08 07:20 AM, gfoxcook wrote:
He won't quite bump me down before he retires. Huzzah!
Heh, yeah, I'm happy just to have made the top 50 at any point. Too bad the site's actually ranking page probably won't be working again until after I've dropped off of it.
At 3/24/08 08:14 PM, poxpower wrote:
I'm not the one who came up with the bible timeline. People who read it did.
Maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that you've been changing your story on it.
The fuck, here you go again pretending like you know more than the most eminent authorities on certain subjects.
You can't just go around calling said authorities hack jobs then scalding others for also calling said authorities into question, just because they didn't do so in a matter that satisfies you. It's called hypocrisy.
A young-earth creationist is by definition someone who believes the earth was created not long ago. You are not a young-earth creationist, though you may be some kind of creationist.
Ok, gotcha. I can see your point in that case, even so, I'm sure there's exceptions to the rule, even if I may not agree with their opinions.
Well based on where the tree is you can say "ok well that place was way warmer X years ago".
To an extent yes, but you don't know for how long, or exactly how long ago, or if it got cold again several times, etc.
"well I can't prove how it would affect it, when it would, why it would or how it makes any sense that it would affect every possible ratioactive atom in a way that paints a perfect picture of evolution so that means it might be true".
Deliberate twisting of words. I didn't say that, I said global conditions could easily effect things decay rates across the globe and if they did, you would have no way of measuring how it did.
This is beyond dumbassery,
Erroneous personal attack.
For example: just because there's billions of morons who think their God is real doesn' t mean a single one of them is right.
And that's the problem here. See that what you're arguing, only in reverse.
By rational people's minds that shit wouldn't fly, sure, but by your very own logic it does. Because guess what? The "authorities" on religions have researched their gods, and therefor are automatically correct. And people like you who have no degrees in theology have not done said research, have zero right to question them. This is your very own logic, and it's the same argument you've been making, only you do it for science instead of religion.
you're retarded.
Erroneous personal attack.
Which is clearly not a fallacy when all the experts agree.
It is if they only agree because they've been taught it, and not because of their research.
But since you're way too ignorant of how science works, you confuse facts for the opinion of scientists, which is unbelievably sad.
Erroneous personal attack.
Haha that's so stupid,
Erroneous personal attack.
Radiometric dating is as much part of science as GRAVITY.
Irrelevant.
Show me how a global climate change would change the dating methods of anything.
Okay if you're to imagine a condition effecting decay, but that it exists all across the earth, it would have to throw off all decay rates relatively equally. Because of the relative equalness, we would not have a way to know how much it was thrown off by without having been alive at the time, before, during, and after the condition to measure the changes in decay rates.
It's 4.6 billion years old at the latest.
Is it? Gee that's funny:
Today's estimates of 4-5 billion years for the earth's age rely on several factors including radioactive properties of meteorites.
Source:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jel/512/timelin e05.html
Hmm, seems people who you side with even disagree with you on that one.
I claimed they made new methods of radiometric dating? lawl I'm sure.
At any rate, there have been many new ones since carbon dating made it's appearance 40+ years ago,
Oh gosh, you're contradicting yourself. Plus, yes you did say it, on page 16:
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/8251 25/16
in science, yes. Science evolves constantly, and extremely fast. It's like quoting something about computers or television 30 years ago. It would be impossibly dated.
Claiming the info is "dated" is tantamount to claiming that new methods have come about, outdating any supposedly old info. You've yet to substantiate this, and are now telling me to look it up on a site who's owner frequently fabricates information and allows false info to sit on his site, even if it's sourced with something unbelievably stupid, so long as it's sourced:
just go look at the wikipedia of it.
Really, it's like you're actually trying to be wrong.
They use the method day-in, day-out, and invariably it returns good results.
What else should they try? Whenever it's done properly, it works.
Circular definition. Saying "radiometric dating is valid because it's results are valid" isn't going to prove anything. Worse, it also fails to address your claim that they scientists try to find holes in it.
I did, you just tried to pretend it was all invalid for bullshit reasons that you couldn't prove.
Erroneous posturing.
Stop fucking doing that "oh I already said it, I have links blabla" REPOST THEM.
No fuck that. If you can't remember what was said in an argument, then stop arguing with people. Why should I compensate for your own short term memory?
again with the stupid "prove a negative" bullshit.
I didn't say to prove a negative, I said prove that science works in magic numbers(a positive). If something didn't happen at all before a certain point, then suddenly started happening beyond it(like in a video game), it should be rather easy to prove.
Right after you give me proof that gravity always affects things on earth.
The inverse square function proves not only that, but that it actually effects even distant astronomical objects, albiet negligibly. So it is actually omnipresent throughout, thus, it easily effects everything on the Earth itself, natch.
At 3/24/08 06:27 PM, Elfer wrote:
The original experiments were done over a hundred years ago, it's not something I could exactly link you to on the internets from a credible source. I'd recommend you go to a university library and search through the bound journals if you really, really think that Ernest Rutherford just made all this shit up.
So show me recent experiments then with fast decaying elements.
Elfer wrote:
Against all odds, here's something from a site that you probably won't accept or understand anyway.
Interesting that you would link a site containing this:
slight currents of air is very remarkable. The movement of the air caused by the opening or closing of a door at the end of the room opposite to where the apparatus is placed, is often sufficient to considerably diminish the rate of discharge. In this respect thorium compounds differ from those of uranium, which are not appreciably affected by slight currents of air. Another anomaly that thorium compounds exhibit is the ease with which the radiation apparently passes through paper. The following table is an example of the way the rate of leak between two parallel plates, one of which is covered with a thick layer of thorium oxide, varies with the number of layers of ordinary foolscap paper placed over the radioactive substance.
To prove decay is constant and unchanged by the environment when that quote suggests otherwise. It also says this:
slight currents of air is very remarkable. The movement of the air caused by the opening or closing of a door at the end of the room opposite to where the apparatus is placed, is often sufficient to considerably diminish the rate of discharge. In this respect thorium compounds differ from those of uranium, which are not appreciably affected by slight currents of air. Another anomaly that thorium compounds exhibit is the ease with which the radiation apparently passes through paper. The following table is an example of the way the rate of leak between two parallel plates, one of which is covered with a thick layer of thorium oxide, varies with the number of layers of ordinary foolscap paper placed over the radioactive substance.
As far as the part where he electrifies the radioactive particles goes, he's only electrifying ones already ejected, not ones still in the thorium itself. And so the experiment, while interesting on a number of levels, can not be used to say anything about decay itself, only the particles thereof.
On a side note, I'm also not sure why he ran beta radiation(which is basically electrons) through silver and gold, since it should have been obvious those elements would just pass it along. Nothing to do with what we're discussing, it's just weird is all.
he did specify "young-earth-creationists".
i thought this thread was supposed to be about religions.
I'm 25, dunno if you'd call that young or not. Still blanket statements aren't arguments I would consider valid.
Those below me can hold out hope as I'll soon be retiring. Just waiting to get that supreme commander rank.
At 3/16/08 10:22 PM, poxpower wrote:
bottom line is that you don't know shit as clearly shown by the fact that only me and Elfer bring in new ideas, new science, new links and new concepts to the thread that you then try to refute mostly out of ignorance, i.e.
Yeah cus those links I posted didn't exist :|
you're like DOS when you type the wrong command lol
And you're like the dumb user who never learns to stop entering the wrong command, what's your point?
Fuck you're stupid.
Erroneous personal attack.
Are you trying to piss me off with your annoying ignorance?
Erroneous personal attack.
How the fuck am I to know if there's a 30 year or 3000 year gap?
Indeed, you don't know, so stop contradicting yourself and acting like you do. My point, is that since you don't, you can't claim to know the timeline of the bible.
All I know is that 100% of young-earth creationists affirm that the earth is less than 10 000 years, sometimes around 6600.
Odd, I believe the earth was created, but yet I don't think it has to be so young. Guess that blows your "100%" theory out of the water.
For instance you could check the growth rings in fossilised trees.
That's localized, not global. If it even works.
You could check the layers of snow in the arctic.
Again localized. If it even works.
There's probably many more ways that I don't know about
Speculation, not proof.
It would offset everything equally? No that's crazy.
No that's accurate, a global condition would apply everywhere.
It's your theory, dumbass.
Erroneous personal attack.
IN science, when you postulate a theory, you bring proof.
You of course missed the point entirely. The point is, you have no proof, which is what you are attacking religious people for. All you have are your "well umm, uh, maybe they invented new methods" stuff which you have not proven.
YOU ARE A HUMAN PIECE OF POO.
Erroneous personal attack
You are the laziest, most dishonest debater I have ever seen in my entire life.
Erroneous personal attack.
You constantly claim tons and tons of shit then ask US to google evidence for it FOR YOU.
I wasn't asking you to do shit, just telling you that the info was very easy to find, and posting a link substantiating such. But of course, I overestimated your reading comprehension,
Holy shit you're a douche.
Erroneous personal attack.
No, the argument is that neither of us are experts in that field yet YOU challenge the expert's views,
Argumentum Ad Verecumdium does not an argument make.
There's no scientist who doesn't have wet dreams about proving carbon dating is bullshit. It would win them a nobel prize IN AN INSTANT.
That's not exactly true. They have to break away from conformity and actually think to question it in the first place.
Yet here you are, sitting in your chair, without any degrees,
Ad Verecundium.
And yet they don't account for a significant percentage. If 50% of the results were random bullshit, it would be bad. The truth is that 99.9% of the results are consistant and just talking about the small amount that aren't is completely dishonest.
That's not exactly true, and it wouldn't invalidate the idea of global climate changes throwing it off anyway. As it is, there results vary enough that they theorize the earth may be anywhere from 4-5 billion years old. That's a 20% gap that even they acknowledge.
Says the guy who can't google his own fucking shit haha
I did google it, which you would have seen had you clicked the link.
New methods of what now?
Oh gosh, you don't even know your own arguments, you're just making it up as you go. You claimed they made new methods of radiometric dating, but never substantiated it.
Ok so if I understand you lazy question, I have to prove your point for you again?
No you have to prove your own point about no non-creationists attacking radiometric dating.
I already said that scientists try day-in and day-out to prove that dating methods are bad.
Proof?
So again show me some.
I did, you just tried to pretend it was all invalid for bullshit reasons that you couldn't prove.
Creationists are the only people who still attack those methods,
Still waiting for you to prove your blanket statement.
And again I have to stress that any scientist who could show that carbon dating is worthless would instantly win the nobel prize
Or be dismissed as a creationist by people like yourself.
Well Let me put it this way: if you can count up to 10 at a rate of 1 number per second, taking you 10 seconds to get to 10, could you predict how long it would take to get to 1 000 000?
No because you don't count at the same pace throughout, and can't accurately predict the effects boredom and monotony will have on it, or how long you sleep in between counting, or if you do at all(since it would probably take over a day). You can surmise it would take a while, but not for how long.
Again you are just wildly speculating that the rate of decay might change even though it would take an outside factor of an impressive magnitude,
Too bad you have no proof it would take something of impressive magnitude, especially since science doesn't work in magic numbers.
No, YOU are claiming something for which YOU have no evidence,
You could have just said "I know you are but what am I" you know.
then scientist are claiming something for which they have evidence,
Still waiting on proof of said "evidence" of decay being constant.
How can they? They can't.
And therefore they shouldn't assume it is.
No experimental data to support constant radioactive decay? That's just a lie. The radioactive decay function was inferred from data, they didn't just make it up and assume it to be true.
Prove it then. Show me said data.
Elfer wrote:
Ok, so to that extent you can be an agnostic theist, but it's basically admitting that you believe in god for absolutely no reason.
No agnostic thiesm encompasses any belief in a diety insofar as said belief acknowledges the possibility of it being wrong. Usually, it is someone like myself who believes God may not exist, but is more likely to than not.
At 3/10/08 02:00 AM, poxpower wrote:
Step 1 of brain loop for Jerkclock:
- say something
step2:
- said thing is refuted
step3:
-quote one tiny part of said thing and say "that's wrong", ignoring the explanation.
I refute the explanation as well, but my point is merely you shouldn't declare yourself right.
Look you nitwit,
Erroneous personal attack.
the peope then lived 900 years ( for some reason ) not 30 fucking million,
Self contradiction, you just got through saying it was 30 years.
Good job, using the "post limit" ( which doesn't exist or justify anything ) to avoid posting arguments.
I could post everything in said links, but really, is it that hard to just go back and read them?
Because there is no evidence for it whatsoever anywhere.
Evidence such as what? How would one "prove" a global temperature change(or other phenomena) offset decay when, due to being global, it would offset everything equally? Besides which, in stating the theory wrong for not being proven, you are invoking Ad Ignorantium.
If that's not enough of a reason for you, you're a fucking moron,
Erroneous personal attack.
Ad Populum isn't an argument
Correct, it's a fallacy, one which you keep using repeatedly and which doesn't prove your points.
you stupid fuck.
Erroneous personal attack.
Yeah there's tons of creationist scientists, such as:__________________
All you had to do was google it
I'm no one to say that, that's why I don't say it
Odd, your whole argument has been "scientists say it, therefor it's true" yet you now contradict yourself by saying you declared nothing of the sort.
Now the REAL question, who the fuck are YOU to say THEY are wrong?
Not saying they are or aren't, just that they can be.
You don't know how science works
Highly erroneous presupposition.
so far be it from me to explain to you why that data is ignored.
Evasion of your burden of proof noted.
Made what up? Here's how it went: you asked ME a question, I said I didn't know the answer and YOUR REPLY TO THAT was that I "made it up"? Made what up?
The "new methods" thing, you declared they exist, but when asked what they are, you didn't seem to know it.
No one in this thread knows what the fuck you're talking about anymore, least of all you.
Erroneous personal attack.
You just keep cropping every line we post into like 3 words that are out of context and don't mean anything,
No, you keep throwing multiple points and personal attacks into each sentence, which I addres individually. Try making one point per sentence and I'll stop.
then you reply to those words with some random "fallacy" accusation of just the same warmed-up meaningless retorts that aren't ever backed up.
They're not random, they're a correct assertion of what you are doing. And you're correct, your retorts are indeed meaningless and never backed up. Hell that "new methods" one was a disaster for you.
Only creationists attack evolution and only religious people attack carbon dating.
Erroneous blanket statement. How about you prove that no non-creationists did what you say?
No idea what to tell you except you're a dumbass and you don't even realise what you're typing.
Erroneous personal attacks.
You're telling me to prove a NEGATIVE without using scientific evidence for it because you think scientists aren't honest about their results.
I didn't say they were dishonest. I said that constantness of decay is not, and never has been proven. It's been theorized as such, and blindly believed by most who "learned" it. That's not "proof" of it being constant.
Everything is "possible". BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO PROVE IT.
And that's the same line this thread was created to mock religious people for saying, ergo, your own beliefs are no more valid than pastafarianism, congrats.
Elfer wrote:
Ad Populum is a valid argument when the population in question is qualified to speak on the subject.
But unfortunately, they never "proved" decay is indeed constant, they only have a "theory", no experimental data, nothing, but just the theory and the generations who've believed in it, which is damned close to circular logic.
At 3/7/08 02:27 AM, NEVR wrote:
JerkClock: Level 36 - Where have you been lately?
Soooo busy studying for tests and filling out reports it isn't funny. The grades are coming in quite well though, seeing as I'm pulling straight A's thus far.
At 3/3/08 11:46 PM, Ravariel wrote: Like what? You need temperatures near that of absolute zero or in nuclear fission to effect decay rates,
Not over a period of billions of years you don't.
graduate-level physics and math under your belt so that you can actually understand it, right?
Yes.
Yeah... read those links. None of them show any significant error percentage.
Odd, I could swear rocks near volcanos giving dates like 200,000 years in the future would be significant.
Most if not all can be explained by bad techniques or contaminated samples. If there were significant discrepancies, the scientific community would notice and would acknowledge them. They have no motive to "cover it up"... so where's the data?
Not necessarily, if you saw something you thought was bad, but knew if you presented it you would be shouted down as a creationist and lose your credibility as a scientist, what would you do?
Yes.
All this link proved is the KAr dating is in fact unreliable at times, it did not prove decay was constant.
Yes.
All this link proved was that Lead dating is in fact, only scientific guesses and is not proven.
Yes.
All you linked here was people saying that temperature is an important factor in wether or not Lead diffuses in titanite.
And yes.
All this said was that "xenotime" can indeed be effected by external conditions.
Very substantiated and accurate accusation of ignorance.
Argumentum Ad Nauseum, prove you "substantiated" your claim and that it was "accurate."
Then the entire point is moot,
Indeed it is, and as such it does not help your case, does it?
You're mixing up "proof" and "evidence" again.
No I'm not, you're playing semantics with "proof" and "evidence."
ALL observations have indicated that it is constant.
Non Sequitur, and a blanket statement, post ALL of these observations then and show them concluding that.
Math itself proves that it must be constant.
Non Sequitur, you claim "math" shows it but fail to demonstrate how.
...wow, you fail at math.
Argumentum Ad Lapidem.
lmao. Pox is right... you ARE funny.
Ad Hominem fallacy.
And all beings are harmed in some way by it... so what?
You're harmed in some way by anything that's good for you if you have too much of it. It might just be a sign that we're supposed to take things in moderation.
Read: "I refuse to accept any article that refutes my position on the completely unsubstantiated basis that it's from a site I don't like, nevermind the abundance of actual sources cited in the article."
Right, I refused to accept an article on a website where the very owner fabricated his own birthdate, so that means I won't accpet anything at all? Oh yes, I do believe you just commited the hasty generalisation fallacy.
Uh, no... he very much said and meant Cosmic Radiation. Learn to read.
Odd, he directly stated UV, but despite this, he, in fact, meant cosmic rays. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and "learn to read."
Tans keep us from burning even if we stay out in the sun all day,
That might just be an adaptation tool so that those of us who need to out in the sun a lot, can be. And BTW, you can NOT be in the sun all day just because you have a tan, you'll still get burned, albiet less so.
ergo you're an idiot.
Erroneous personal attack.
No, it merely anthropomorphises for ease of understanding.
How is "nature gave it to us" anthropomophising?
"posturing"? Lol. You've pretty much proven that you don't get it... sticking to wild claims of what might be (in absence of all observation)
Odd, those links I posted are observations which say the contrary, so your blanket statement is erroneous.
in the face of pages upon [ages of evidence to the contrary. QED... you don't get it.
What "evidence"? Scientists being conformists and not questioning what they're told? Scientists dismissing anyone who does question them as creationists even though they're often not?
Again, QED via your own posts.
Ad Nauseum.
At 3/1/08 04:36 PM, JerkClock wrote:Well it doesn't.
oops
Saying "It doesn't" isn't proving anything.
What things? We're talking about like 30 years, not 30 million.
Odd, the bible didn't say, "30 years later along came Noah"
Why don't you ever write back what you claim your sources say? I don't remember any "this affects decay rate a lot" examples.
Because to write all of it would take a full page of posts due to the character limit.
statistics.
No I mean how do we know the ones they've been testing aren't contaminated to a lesser extent caused by stuff which happened on a global scale, not "well there might be more with erroneous dates."
99.999999% of scientists go one way and maybe two guys go yours and no one respects them so -_-
Ad Populum.
Creationists aren't scientists. ever
1. Religious people are creationists because they believe God created the Earth.
2. That's another blanket statement of yours which is also false.
well not really since 19th century scientists didn't know dick and had bad protocols
And who are you to say that isn't the case now all of a sudden?
like what? Carbon dating? Nothing carbon dating has ever shown contradicts anything we've ever observed. So. Only religious people attack it for the simple reason that it fucks their shit up
Non sequitur. You acknowledge that there are contaminated readings at times but here you are ignoring it.
hell if I know.
Indeed, you don't know, you made it up.
you know what I mean
Same here, you obviously know what I mean.
never ever heard of it outside of religious websites or books from 35 years ago.
With how much anyone who questions our science is shouted down as a creationist(often erroneously) I can't say I'm surprised.
No, it's not speculation nimrod.
That's what happens when you mix radioactive minerals together.
I was talkng about you saying decay was constant, I've still yet to see you prove it, since scientists practicing conformity isn't proof.
YOU'RE speculating. YOU'RE saying there's some "things" that accelerate decay rates even though every time you try to guess something, I can show in like 3 seconds why it doesn't work.
I'm saying it's quite possible, not that they necessarily do or don't. Therein lies the problem with your argument, you are trying to prove something you can't. I am merely presenting possibilities which are not, and at present, can not be disproven. And I'm sorry, but it would take over 3 seconds to show "nothing effects decay", if that's even true.
I think you forgot what you were talking about haha
No, I remember quite well.
Elfer wrote:
You can't "prove" agnosticism, since it's essentially a lack of a conclusion.
It's a lack of conclusion which says either side can be true. So to prove it, one only needs to prove that neither side is conclusive.
Earfetish wrote:
It's fine to have a healthy skepticism towards science, just try and balance the same skepticism with religion. Read books, and see whether your scientific skepticism is warranted.
I do, that's why I'm an agnostic thiest, not a full blown member of a sect. I acknowledge the possibility of God not existing, but believe he is more likely to exist than not. I also disbelieve much of what's written in the bible though(God telling us to practice incest for instance).
Level 36, you know I actually like the tomahawk better than the level 37 and 38 axes.
At 2/25/08 04:37 PM, 66goom1 wrote: but if you need to have some spiritual stuff involved to be able to compete in the "Race Of Religions" then agnosticism is the best because there is some unnamed spirit(s) that have shaped the universe or have done something to help or cause a detriment to us so pretty much Agnosticism is the easiest to prove
It's funny you should say that, agnosticism is indeed what I've been trying t prove, and no one has even noticed.
At 2/23/08 04:42 AM, Ravariel wrote:
That's kind of implicit in the whole "not constant" thing. Because if they always agree (which they do) they would be constant.
Not necessarily, there could be global conditions which would effect things relatively equally.
's that so? Please do tell of these anomalies.
If you're going to read my argument and make a counter point, and least go back and read the links I posted which clarified that point instead of just reading my last post, and throwing this garbage at me.
Yes.
Really? I don't suppose you have proof of it and aren't just making that up.
Oh, shit... someone else who doesn't understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.
Unsubstantiated and erroneous accusation of ignorance.
Yeah... that's why there's usually a range of dates given. i.e. between 4.5 and 5 billion.
Out of context dissection. The line you were quoting was referring to objects that can not be dated at all(due to potassium-argon being the only available method and being thrown way out of whack), and thus are not explained by said "ranges."
Doesn't mean they are... or even that it's likely.
Didn't say it did, however it doesn't mean it's not, or that it's unlikely either.
Considering our technology has improved by leaps and bounds over the years and yet these methods still prove to be incredibly accurate I think shows how well it does work.
How does that prove decay is constant?
At 2/15/08 07:44 PM, JerkClock wrote: Argumentum Ad Nauseum. Prove it then, prove that insignificant percentages won't build on themselves enough over time to become significant instead of just saying "no they won't" matter of factly..01% of variation over 100 years is insignificant.
Guess what? .01% variation over 100 years yields a percent of 1.874*10^434 over 1 billion years, so your argument fails.
.01% of variation over 1000 years is also insignificant.
.01% over 1000 years yields a percent of 2.6747*10^43 over 1 billion years
.01% of variation over 10,000 years is still insignificant.
.01% over 10000 years yields a percent of 22015.5 over 1 billion years.
Just because the number upon which the variation percentage is placed grows does not make that variation any more scientifically or statistically significant.
Too bad actual calculations say otherwise.
<sarcasm>And our planet didn't do anything to shape us... nooooo.</sarcasm>
No it didn't, we were shaped because of how our planet formed, but the planet itself did nothing.
They also harm, so the point is moot.
Not really, all beings require some amount of UV
also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_larg e_numbers
Dumbfuckipedia doesn't count. Also, you argue it, you google it.
Uh... no. Cosmic radiation and Ultraviolet Light are two VERY different things.
Yes and he made it crystal clear he was talking about UV. Did you not read his argument?
It isn't like your body doesn't give you warning signs long before you get skin cancer, such as sun burns. Which in turn are meant to tell a person not to spend too much time in the sunlight.Aaaaaahhhahahahahahahahahaaaaaa! In one word I can prove to you that sunburns are not the body's cancer warning-sign:
It gives you incentive to get out of the sun, which, too much sun, will indeed cause skin cancer. Ergo, you don't know what you are talking about.
Or those emotions could instead be the remnants of biological (fear) and psychological (love/attachment) tools that nature used to keep us alive.
Okay but the problem is your statement assumes "nature" is an entity that "gave" them to us.
Just because you don't get it over and over
Erroneous posturing.
doesn't mean we're wrong or using "logical fallacies"
No, you using logical fallacies means you're using logical fallacies, and ignoring a counter point to restate what you said matter of factly, which he was doing, is indeed a logical fallacy.
it only means you're stupid.
Erroneous personal attack.
At 2/24/08 07:16 PM, poxpower wrote:
Well think about it for one second.
Your claim is that we can't use the dates because they are too random because of the decay. Yet the dates check out against each other and through multiple tests.
So somehow the "random factor" distributes itself perfectly as to give the illusion that evolution is plausible?
Not exactly, I noted inconsistent dates exist. But even without them, if global climate changes effected decay, it would mean the consistency is meaningless to whether or not decay is constant, since global changes would likely effect all substances about the same. For that matter, I think God created us by evolving us, ergo, I don't disbelieve evolution.
Mostly through bad samples and bad tests.
Bad samples and bad tests do happen, but those weren't the ones the sources were referring to.
They give the age of people and the age at which they have kids/die/do things, so using additions you can deduce the age of the earth all the way to Adam.
I mean, that's not really complicated :O
But there's gaping holes,for instances, between Cain and Noah. So there are indeed missing time frames which could account for things.
when did I say that? haha
It's the most common theory for the big bang, I was simply just stating that it would more likely happen slightly different.
well you can't even name them. I'm pretty sure someone would have figured it out by now.
I didn't name them, but I did link sites which did.
I'm pretty sure dating works by clusters, i.e. the bulk of the results will be around age X and you'll have some that will be way off, and can be discarded safely and explained by sample contamination or whatever.
But that's sort of the problem. How do we know the "bulk" weren't just "contaminated" to a lesser extent? We already know erroneous dates can turn up, what makes us think that global conditions haven't altered it enough to make our studies wrong?
Well not amongst scientists.
There are scientists who question this, but they're dismissed as creationists even when they're not.
The thing is that creationists don't know dick about science and their keep trying to make it seem like somehow they have their democratic say as to what in science is true and what isn't.
That's a blanket statement which presumes, falsely, that just because someone is religious, they can't know any science. Suffice to say it isn't true, there are plenty of religious people who study science for science's sake. It's a fallacy to assume by default that they don't know what they're tlking about.
Just the same, I can't go and say scientists don't know "dick" about religion, because that would be an equally false and fallacious remark.
Well the trend for the last century has been to put it older and older while religions always place is at a couple thousand years. So basically if you're hoping that tomorrow they'll go "oh wait we were wrong it wasn't 10 billion, it was 10 thousand"
I'm not, I personally think the earth could be 1 billion years old, or 100 billion and we couldn't measure the difference.
let me find that video...
maybe it was this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuhvLHVq9 QY
It's one of those.
Ah ok, I have no trouble believing that, since at other volcano's the measurements are off by lesser periods of time.
In 21st century science, yes.
What century we are in is irrelevant.
The conspiracy is that somehow only creationists attack scientists on those topics. That's KINDA weird, especially when they're usually old crazy people or assholes like Kent Hovind ( who's probably in jail now )
Not exactly, many people who aren't creationists but just question how right we could be about certain things are mislabeled as creationists though.
in science, yes. Science evolves constantly, and extremely fast. It's like quoting something about computers or television 30 years ago. It would be impossibly dated.
What "new methods" came about then? What did he miss if he missed anything? You can't just say he might have missed something if he didn't necessarily.
Again that's a stupid argument to make because it :
Erroneous accusation of a stupid argument.
a. is a general claim that can be applied all the time to everything
b. has no basis.
That argument contradicts itself. If a were true, then a would be the basis, thus b could not be true.
Science is ever-evolving, that's a GOOD thing. There's no "debate" right now in the scientific community about wether dating methods work or evolution is true or not.
There's some, but the problem is people have a tendency not to question the methods they know and were taught. That's the result of conformity, not the lack of problems with said methods.
right but again it's probably because it adds more chemicals and minerals to the mix, it doesn't accelerate the decay rate of minerals already found in there.
Speculation, but either way, it does have an effect on the dates.
Only in your mind
No in reality.
By marketing executives
What marketing executive would want people to freak out about 2nd hand smoke? I could see the patch companies overblowing first hand smoke to make people buy their product, but I'm just not seeing any industry having a market for people who are scared of second hand smoke.
At 2/16/08 05:42 AM, poxpower wrote:
Well if that was true, the date at which date stuff would vary wildly from thing to thing. I.e. we'd test some random fossil from a layer of rock, then we'd test another from the same layer and find out that wow it's somehow 500 million years older.
You've stated that much, but never explained how it is so. There's no evidence that non-constant decay would mean everything has to read totally different dates. For that matter, there are such anamolies which do occur, but they are discarded for various reasons.
Yeah it does, have a look at this fun chart:
http://www.gorepent.com/en/BibleTimeLine 2.jpg
Funny, I've read the bible and don't recall it giving any dates. Of course, I haven't read the bible of every denomination so I dunno, there may be one which does.
Adam was created on day 6, so there you go, according to the bible, the human race is like 4400 years old even though we have tons of shit that proves otherwise.
Day 6 could always mean he picked a friday which took place 200 billion years later. Seriously, bible is extremely ambiguous as it is.
It's been observed as such?
Observed how? I mean did they subject matter to varying conditions for prolonged periods of time and observe zero difference?
I'm not up on my big-bang stuff but if I recall, atoms formed like a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang. Whatever.
Not saying the big bang did or didn't happen, but if it did, I somehow doubt it formed the laws of physics and atoms. It's more likely they existed prior to it's happening, unless you go with the "end is beginning" theory, which could be true but is definitely only a theory.
you know I keep reading about how all these changes are dependant on the level of X stuff in the atmosphere, but fossils are usually from animals that died in the bottom of the water or were encased in mud or amber and that eventually became rock buried many feet under the ground.
how does the atmosphere really affect that? :O
The atmosphere wouldn't likely be the only factor, however since the ground isn't vacuum sealed, it would still have an effect, just less of one.
ok well there seems to be good scientific values in there but they're mostly applied to wild speculations. He often goes "ok well we know thing X, but WHAAAAAAAAT IIIIIIIIIIIIF this happens!!??"
Well what if it DOESN'T? Dating works :O
Touche, but on the other hand he does bring up points that call things into question. Just saying "what if he's wrong" doesn't make him wrong anymore than him saying "what if they're wrong" makes them wrong.
All his assumptions, if true, would be backed up by the scientific evidence that dates vary wildly for everything you test and make no sense at all in most cases, but the opposite is true.
If you mean the parts where he talks about them discarding dates that vary too wildly, he discussed it in great detail. If by scientific evidence you mean that scientists have to confess that they do this, they do make some such admissions, but they have their own stories about it. At the least, it does mean these things are subject to debate and not solid fact.
Also all his sources seem to be creationist books.
Which aren't necessarily wrong. It should be noted he didn't exactly just pick random sources. Plus, while I won't deny that there's bias on the creationist side, it's not as if the darwinist side isn't biased as well. I don't think either should be discarded outright though.
still dealing in the millions and billions of years at the least here
But it does call into question any "conclusions" on earth's age.
I heard the "lava dated as millions of years" thing once and apparently that's bullshit because they weren't testing the lava but rocks inside it that were that old.
Where did this come about? Not saying you're wrong, since it blow the measurements even further out than I would have expected possible(and other volcanos had similar problems, just with 100s of 1000s of years instead of millions), just that I did not see that for myself.
Ok right there you can guess what the author's view of it is. Radiometric is hard stuff and yes, you can get really fucked up results some times, that's why they do it a LOT. If you can't get a reliable date on something, then they usually don't use it or use the interval they got. Of course he doesn't mention how different the values were.
Alleging he's a creationist just for questioning a certain practice, sorry but I'm not seeing it. He may or may not be, but that quote doesn't suffice for evidence of it. He does have a point in any case, if there are indeed things out there that give no reliable dates, it not only throws the "always the same" argument into question, but also affirms that there are things which can effect readings.
Also most of his sources seem to be from the early 1970s, when the method was only 10-15 years old! It's had 30 years to make it's proofs and it's still widely used.
Wide use doesn't mean it's good, neither does the 30 years argument. If you can show proof of it improving over the last 30 years, fine. Procedures for commonly used methods do not always improve with time. In fact, the moe often than not improve for a while, then are thought to be perfected or near perfected and plateau as a result.
that dude just explains in great detail on different techniques work.
However you'll note at the beginning he goes on about how old methods in the past were proven wrong, if they've been wrong before they can be wrong again.
again they try to use the fact that potassium argon is bad for dating volcanic rocks as the proof it's bad for dating all minerals.
That wasn't their only argument against potassium Argon, it was only one them. There were a lot more, though they would breach the character limit to describe, they are within the links.
It's not the heat that affects the decay. Nothing affects it,
Actually, if you read through the links, you'll note "heat periods" are one obstacle that is mentioned. Admittedly, with lava flows, argon is the biggest problem, but there are sections(that aren't talking about lava) which affirm heat is a problem.
Ok I think I see where you got confused here. Decay rates ARE constant, it's just that in an open system more radioactive material that is more or less decayed can be added to a substance thus modifying the date we'd give that thing.
Even if that's true it's still something which makes it unreliable.
no, Tobacco commercials said that.
Yes, but they were based on supposed "observations"
Slizor wrote:
Yawn. Learn some new fecking words.
What words I use are irrelevant.
Everyone knows that you're fucking stupid.
Argumentum Ad Populum.
Actually, it's no-where near that.
Actually it is, you did not substantiate your argument.
In fact, your continual dismissals of arguments on the basis of a few words does constitute a Argumentum Ad Lapidem.
Which is not a fallacy when the person being addressed did not himself substantiate his argument. Which is exactly the case here, your argument lacked substantiation, and as such, it can be dismissed outright non-fallaciously.
However, my view that my previous post was a statement would onl require "backing up" from people who speak the language - like me.
Argumentum Ad Populum. Just because others said it and you said it too, does not make it so.
But it does the way that you are doing it.
No it does not, this is the way I talk.
It's probably because you're a clock.
Hasty generalization. Tom Fulp is a clock, so by your logic, Tom Fulp uses big words for posturing purposes because he's a clock. But yet he does not, ergo your statement is false.
At 2/8/08 10:12 PM, poxpower wrote:
No, he was talking about decay.
We know, but how does that address my statement?
you constantly contradict yourself,
How have I contradicted myself?
On one hand you're telling me this scientist is an idiot for saying it can only be affected in some places, but then you come back and tell me that nothing should affect it ever.
Firstly, I never called him stupid, secondly, where did I make the latter statement?
But they don't. Because it's INSIGNIFICANT. I'm pretty sure they know this better than you and me.
But my whole point was that insignificant changes to the particle loss, if enough happen, can build on themselves over time. It's like if you gain a millionth a percent interest per year, yeah that's insignificant. But time warp 1 billion years and it's a lot.
So? It works up to 50k years so that disproves anything in the bible that claims the earth is only 6000 years old.
That bible doesn't officially declare the age of the earth.
Ay any rate, the principle for carbon dating is the same as the other elements so if it works for carbon, there's no reason why it wouldn't work for the other elements that have far longer half lives.
But that's like saying that because your millionth of a percent interest didn't make you rich over 50000 years, it won't over 1 billion years.
How innacurate?
That would depend on how much the particle loss was effected over time.
And why?
Insignificant particle losses building up over billions of years to create a wide error margin.
We've already been talking about this, you haven't provided actual reasons why it wouldn't be accurate except that "error" thing that you seem to be the only person to know about.
But what reason do we have to believe decay is constant. It's what scientists believe but they have never proven it.
So yeah maybe write that up and present it to scientists because if it turns out you're right about the error multiplying with every year, you're in line for a Nobel Prize my friend.
If I meet one in the field I intend to.
Cool, like atoms? They're pretty old. About as old as the universe.
We know the exist but not for how long. Also, it is more likely that the base matter which makes up electrons, protons, and neutrons existed before atoms, forms said particle, then atoms formed. You could theorize they're as old as the universe, but that is only theory.
Well like it's been said, the error is a percentage. 5% of 10 million is a lot more than 5% of 1000, but it's still the same accuracy level.
I'm not talking about the error in counting atoms so much as the error in assuming particle loss rate is necessarily constant.
If you can find me sources that show that dating methods that date shit up to X billions years somehow have a + or - 10 000% error rate... Otherwise it's pretty clear that there are things here that are millions and billions of years old.
I did find these:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/datin g.html
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf071/s f071g11.htm
http://www.rae.org/radiodat.html
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon 14.html
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/
radiometric_dating.htm
http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometr icdating.html
Note the one which says Mt. Saint Helens examinations turned up erroneous dates. Admittedly, I didn't expect the heat from lava to throw it off that much.
What's yours? The contrary? That the majority must be wrong be default?
No, just that the majority isn't necessarily right.
haha It's not a fallacy to back yourself up with experts,
However to assume they're never wrong and always right, even with stuff they haven't officially proven(decay rates being constant) is indeed a fallacy.
They didn't KNOW it was harmless,
Right, but they spoke as if they did.
No idea what your "scientists are contradicting themselves" crap is about but I'm sure it's got something to do with you not understanding something in there.
They said the electron cloud is effected by temperature and the environment, then moved on to say beta decay isn't effected, when beta decay is electrons.
At 2/8/08 09:13 PM, Elfer wrote:
Precisely: You don't understand what "insignificant" means.
Argumentum Ad Nauseum. Prove it then, prove that insignificant percentages won't build on themselves enough over time to become significant instead of just saying "no they won't" matter of factly.
I could only do a formal proof for you if you understand calculus.
I do understand calculus, quite well in fact, so have at it.
Do you want a deductive or inductive proof?
Well, why not both?
And my point is that "life" is an obsolete term because it was based on a very incomplete knowledge of our surroundings. Saying "we don't even know how to define life yet" is like saying "we don't even have a robust model of applied phrenology yet."
But then why would we still use the term? In any case, this still doesn't explain what the difference between living, and not living is, and how we would replicate it.
They are beneficial BECAUSE they shaped us. Your argument is equivalent to being astonished how the water in a puddle is shaped exactly like the hole in the ground in which it collects.
No they shaped our planet. Very little, if any, shaped us ourselves.
Ah yes, of course, I forgot that UV radiation is transmuted to carbon atoms when it strikes the Earth.
UV rays do indeed benefit life on earth in various ways. They benefit plants which in turn benefits us.
Probability. If big planets are more likely to be struck by big rocks that kill everything, it is more likely that life will survive longer on smaller planets that are near large ones.
That's assuming however, that the big rocks would be capable of killing everything on such a huge planet. Or that they wouldn't merely exist as airborne gas beings, which would simply be blown a long way by said comets as they descend, not necessarily killed.
It's called "The law of large numbers."
Proof?
Cosmic radiation can cause skin cancer. Generally it's caused by the sun, but you know how it is.
You're talking about UV, which as explained is as much a blessing as it is a curse. It isn't like your body doesn't give you warning signs long before you get skin cancer, such as sun burns. Which in turn are meant to tell a person not to spend too much time in the sunlight.
Ad nauseum.
Yes, however all of the fallacies have exceptions. In this case, invective which is in fact erroneous has been used over and over, and so pointing this out over and over is not a fallacy.
Gee, what a stupid design that is. If we were really designed well, suffering would not be requisite for joy.
In theory yes. But if the only emotion you know was happiness, it would likely be appreciated less. Because you wouldn't know anything else.
You're presuming that a benevolent god created the universe the way it is, without considering the implications of benevolence.
No I'm presuming he gave us a variety of emotions to make life more interesting for us.
Well, that's exactly what you were saying. You were comparing the development of organic chemical replicators with entire comets. It doesn't make any sense to do that.
What about what I said made you think I was arguing that?
(which is only true if you ignore all the bad stuff).
Ad Nauseum.
On top of that, the argument is irrelevant because whether or not a benevolent creator is more likely, it still doesn't make a particular religion more observably valid than Pastafarianism, which is what we were discussing.
It makes my personal belief about our existence, thus my personal religion, more valid.
At 2/3/08 08:50 PM, A BBS rule breaking flamer mod wrote:
Argumentum Ad Nauseum,
How ironic, coming from someone who repeatedly shouts "NUCLEAR REACTOR BLAH BLAH BLAH" despite that being an out of context quotation. In any case, you have not addressed the fact that your own link was contrary to what you are saying.
So do you finally concede it can't be affected or not?
Did you even read what I said or are you just skimming for the parts you like and adressing me out of context on purpose?
Ok just sit there for one second and think about how stupid what you're saying here is.
Erroneous personal attack.
that IMMEASURABLE CHANGE is MEASURABLE because you said so?
No, I'm saying even an immeasurable change, when it is with regards to non-linear stuff, can build on itself enough over millions or billions of years to throw radiometric dating out.
Here's how they determined carbon 14 worked:
Okay but the tomb isn't exactly millions or billions of years old.
Well apparently you say radiometric dating is false, hence it implies you actually know the real age of things you claim to not be a certain age, right?
Not exactly. I'm saying it is very likely to be innaccurate. Not saying that it is necessarily.
MAN this is the funniest trolling ever. lol
Erroneous accusation of trolling.
So what do YOU use to determine the age of something
Something older than the human race, you can not.
Because if you use historical writings, we're in luck! Carbon dating just so happens to match all of those dates as well! Wow!
Over mere thousands of years the error would still be small, but not over millions or billions.
1. Every last reputable scientist on earth has been using them without fail for 50 years
Argumentum Ad Populum. Every scientist on earth thought smoking was harmless for a much, MUCH longer period of time than 50 years, guess what? They were wrong.
2. No one has ever brought up anything that would make anyone doubt they work,
Argumentum Ad Lapidem.
You still haven't proven it's NOT constant
Yeah, those links you posted where people contradicted themselves by saying electrons are effected by temperature but beta decay(which is electrons) isn't, or affirmed temperature does effect decay be it significant or not, they SOOO don't exist because it suits you for them not to.
You see, smart people try BOTH things: they debate something with what they know, and then they try to find news arguments and provide sources for them to the other
Only when they are trying to prove an absolute, not when they are merely trying to point out that something is not definitively proven. There's a difference.
while at the same time I don't recall you being any of these
Argumentum d Verecundium. You don't need to be an authorit to recognize when authorities are contradicting themselves.
Ok humor me, of what proportion?
I showd it already in my argument with elfer, which you obviously read, as you acknowledged it earlier, and are now conviniently pretending it didn't happen.
YOU FUCKWIT
Erroneous personal attack, laced with Ad Nauseum and avoidance of the point that you did in fact say something which you yourself acknowledged is invalid:
No, I never ever said that.
And you know what, even if I didn't, IT'S WRONG, I ADMIT IT WASN'T TRUE, WOW, FOR SERIOUS, SO SHUT UP WITH YOUR LIES.
Do you even pay attention to what you are arguing?
Do you even know what "erroneous" means? hahaha
Yes.
At 2/3/08 01:29 PM, Slizor wrote:Actually it's not erroneous...or indeed a fallacy. Firstly, it's not erroneous because he is correct, you are fucking stupid.
Unsubstantiated and erroneous personal attack/
Secondly, it's not a fallacy because it is not actually an argument - it's a statement. He is not saying you are stupid therefore your argument is wrong (or something along those lines), he is just saying that you are stupid - thus it is an ad hominem attack, but not a logical fallacy.
Argumentum Ad Lapidem, laced with lack of substantiation.
P.S. stop trying to make yourself look smart by using "long" words and latin phrases, kay?
Erroneous presupposition. Use of big words does not begit posturing.
:elfer wrote:
Given the fact that you're saying an insignificant error can have a significant impact on results, I'm guessing you don't.
No I'm saying effects that in our lifetime are insignificant but effect something which is non-linear(such as particle loss rate of decaying stuff), can build on itself enough over millions or billions of years to have a very significant impact.
Case in point: The example we're going through right now.
Non-sequitur. That doesn't prove language equates to math.
But my point is, if you're changing the decay rate by "one millionth" then you can't just exponentiate the number "1.000001" a billion times and pretend it's the same as altering the decay rate. You have to actually determine what value a millionth of the decay rate is and exponentiate THAT.
The particle loss rate of decay specifically. Given its non-linearity a small amount over time will in fact accumulate dramatically in that manner.
You just picked an arbitrary way to do the math because you don't understand what you're doing.
Prove it then. Demonstrate how effecting particle loss rate by 1 millionth would actually build on itself instead of just dismissing my claim.
Okay, but let's extend this to the case of cosmic activity which we are examining. Cosmic activity exists in a continuum, not an array of discrete points. Or rather, there are so many points possible that it can be well-approximated as a continuum.
ie. it works analogly instead of digitally. But it really doesn't matter because it works the same way, just with a limitless set of infinitely small numbers instead of definitive ones. Either way, the laws of probability apply the same.
If you look at the average (and, by extension, the total), you will find that increasing the number of sources will decrease deviation from the expected value.
Prove it instead of just saying it then.
stuff about the previous definition of life
But see that's a definition that as you yourself said, was proven false. The point was we don't know what life is, not that we once thought we did but actually didn't.
The sentence as written didn't really say this, because it didn't make any grammatical sense. Anyway, I don't see how human evolution can't explain beneficial cosmic events. Anything that occurs on a regular basis would shape the creatures that are to live in that environment.
Well I don't really know how else to put it if you can't make sense of it. But what I was saying is that your explanation would only work if the beneficial cosmic events really did shape us. While a select few may have, the overwhelming majority have benefitted us in ways that don't effect our bodies, as such, natural selection is out. Such as enhancement of the magnetosphere, or the bringing of iron.
As for the fossil fuels argument, I'd note that digging them up and burning them has led to innumerable environmental problems that are damaging to human health, and the industrial revolution in general (i.e. technology progressing faster than our biologocial capacity to adapt to it) has led to us opening up other things that we were evolutionarily unprepared for, such as CFCs burning a hole in the ozone layer and letting in all sorts of cancer-causing UV radiation.
The environmental hazards are seriously overblown(pollution for instance eventually dissaptes into more natural substances), however while those hardships do exist, it's not as if we won't gradually adapt to them over time either, seeing as how this sort of thing isn't likely to be going away. Yeah we do things faster than we can evolve to handle them, but that is one of many areas where our intelligence is meant to serve us.
If the universe was really designed to benefit humans, what makes more sense, a gigantic ball of fire a million times the size of our planet that constantly emits deadly radiation, which is then blocked by a fragile gas layer, or an absence of that type of radiation?
The former, because it gives the earth some of it's carbon which is essential for a number of reasons.
Since the big rocks are more likely to be hit by incoming rocks, it's more likely that life will develop on smaller planets near big ones to protect them.
How so? Live can not adapt to stuff before it is even alive. What rule is it that states life can not exist on a planet simply because it is big?
Given the size of the universe, it's also extremely likely that small rocks will be next to big rocks.
However there is no rule which states they have to be.
We kind of have the technology to do that,
Yes, but that's ignoring the fact that we're a long way off from the next time such a big meteor comes our way.
Of course, we're still plagued by far more complicated problems caused by cosmic activity and technological advance (i.e. cancer, pollution, etc.)
How are cosmic events causing us cancer?
No, that's dumb.
Erroneous invective.
If the universe was designed for us, why make suffering a necessity for enjoyment?
When you're doing nothing but having fun, it gets boring after a while, even if you change things up and vary your activities.
You're arguing that something can't happen on the microscopic scale because it doesn't happen on the macroscopic scale.
That's not at all what I was saying, I'm saying inanimate objects do not evolve and giving examples. Thus your theory about life on earth being benefitted because of "natural selection" is invalid.
No, I mean "what" as in energy doesn't have mass and what does equal mass have to do with anything I said?
Because what you said was this:
Sorry, what is it that makes something smaller more likely than something bigger, given the same amount of matter and energy?
At 1/30/08 03:48 PM, Elfer wrote:
You don't understand what "significant" means, do you?
Semantics, I know exactly what it means.
But if you can't describe what you're doing, the math is probably wrong (as is the case here).
That's basically just you saying "no you're wrong", so prove it then. Prove that math and language are tied in a way such that lack of ability to describe math means not knowing said math.
You are compounding the error in particle loss annually, when particle loss itself only compounds once every 1.26 billion years.
But it doesn't, it compounds constantly. In order for what you just said to be true the half life would half to involve linear particle loss that halves its rate once it's completed a half life, and it doesn't work that way. And yes, I could have used per month, per day, or per second(same formula, just different unit) compounding, but I don't think any of us are interested in those units.
You're using discrete totals with a small number of dice to try to demonstrate your point, and you didn't even give the input values.
When I said 3 or 7 dice, I meant 3 or 7 six sided dice. I didn't clarify that, but I shouldn't have to either because typically unless describing the number of sides, a person means the dice are 6 sided. However, I did fuck something up by using the same number of results when I should have used proportional numbers, so let me do this again:
7 25 11.57
8 27 12.5
9 27 12.5
10 25 11.57
For 3 dice, with a 48.4% chance of being on the top:
15 18327 6.55
16 20993 7.5
17 22967 8.2
18 24017 8.58
19 24017 8.58
20 22967 8.2
21 20993 7.5
22 18327 6.55
For 7 dice, with slightly less than twice the numbers on the top of the curve, having a cumulative 61.66% chance of occuring, all with smaller percentage deviations from one another.
You can't, but this is irrelevant to the discussion.
It's relevant only because you tried to say energy beings aren't possible and that we could create living bodies.
"It might be possible, even if I have absolutely no idea how" is not evidence.
But that wasn't what I said.
What? You mean prove that the terms "living" and "non-living" have existed at some point in human history?
No I mean prove we once difined, non-circularly, what life is.
Ok, but I can argue that two identical states will behave identically,
You can.
which is equivalent to what you were saying.
How so?
Could you rewrite this so the sentence has meaning?
It does have meaning, the cosmic events that benefit us, and the way in which they do can not be explained by human evolution
Jupiter acts as a meteor "shield" by virtue of being big,
But not via human evolution is the point.
And as I've mentioned, we've been hit by meteors before.
But the human race has never been wiped out, and in fact, even has the means to defend itself from a strike catastrophic enough to wipe it out.
If the being was really benevolent and trying to make things easier for us, it doesn't make sense that the line between "good" and "too helpful" is drawn in such a fuzzy manner.
Does it? Or is it the case that hardships are what make us realise how sweet we have it when the good times come?
Only so much as it benefits any other planet in the universe.
But how so? And even so what are the odds of it happening on it's own versus the existence of an energy being? You'd have to argue that inanimate objects evolve for which there is no proof. If it were true, IO wouldn't be habitally ripped apart by Jupiter's magnetosphere, Uranium would stop leaking it's particles, and stars would no longer be prone to supernova(as they've had sufficient time to evolve out of said tendency).
What?
The problem is you assume the energy that formed into god has the same mass as the unverse itself.
Exactly what I said.
At 1/30/08 01:13 PM, smokinjoeevil wrote:
The point at which God stopped being present, in-person, in the lives of humanity coincides pretty much with the increase in our keeping more accurate and consistent documentation of our history.
Does it? Proof?
still waiting for your links to anything that points to dating methods not being effective. I think me and elfer have been patient enough for those now. So go ahead.
You've proven it with your own links, of people saying it is in fact effected by temperature. I know you wish to deny this with Argumentum Ad Nauseum, but that won't make it untrue.
fuck you're stupid, it's unbelievable.
Erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy.
Because all you do it talk out your ass and misread everything.
Erroneous personal attack. How ironic coming from the person who keeps saying that science works in magic numbers. If it is in fact me misreading things and not you, then how come you keep saying temperature will only effect decay in the heat of a nuclear reactor(your link said it would take that to effect it measurably, not that it would take that to effect it at all like you keep pwersisting on saying)
and he says right there black on white that nothing affects decay rates except MAYBE, in THEORY, a nuclear reactor, but HE'S NOT EVEN SURE.
He said measurably, not that it takes that much to happen at all. As I have proven however, it does not have to effect decay measurably tothrow off radiometric dating.
So what do you want as proof, then?
How about data from experiments on the subject? Like say, a test run on unnilonium(forgot it's current name) which has a half-life of 22 seconds. It's very easily testable in a lab.
you analogy implies that dating methods are somehow constantly giving the SAME numbers, but those are ALL WRONG
Irrelevant, you still have yet to prove that consistency = truth.
and you know this because you somehow actually know the REAL date of everything, but you still haven't told me how you know that.
When did I say I knew the real date of anything?
How the fuck do you know someone isn't 1.5 million years old?
How the fuck do you know decay rates are constant? I mean your own links even sometimes affirm there is some effect.
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
How ironic that after you yourself have been appealing to authority, you accuse me of the same, for merely pointing out your "authorities" have been contradicting themselves.
No, the half-life is CERTAIN.
Argumentum Ad Nauseum. You can keep repeating yourself till the end of time, but that doesn't make you correct. You still haven't proven this.
THEY ARE COUNTING TINY LITTLE FUCKING ATOMS.
And when calculating the age of stuff that's supposedly billions of years old, small errors result in big miscalculations.
Because I really don't recall.
Add that to the list of things you do not recall. If I went back and reposted it, I'd breach the character limit, go back and read it yourself.
You do realise now that every time you've been saying this would imply that decay is actually constant
Out of context strawman. No I'm saying it would effect decay before it reaches that point, because life doesn't work digitally like you think it does.
But constant and calculable
Argumentum Ad Nauseum, prove it.
No, I never ever said that.
Really? Then what was this shit on page 12?:
Expanding matter would require gravity to be the same everywhere you can stand on land or whatever, but we know that the moon's gravity is much lower, so it would "expand" slower???
Yet the moon is always at the same size relatively to the earth.
Oh yeah, it was you, arguing the exact thing you're denying you argued, that the moon would require the same gravity as the earth to keep its proportions the same in expanding matter. Now that I've debunked your little statement, you're backpeddling in the hopes I won't notice.
LIES
Erroneous stubborn remark.
I don't know what crazy batshit insane thing you were trying to prove, all I know is that I explained the same thing 3 times and you countered differently every time lol
Not exactly, I did use different methods of explaining it in the hopes of, but the "it" I was explaining was the same point. Go back and read them and try to disprove this. Good luck with that BTW.
The entire argument for it was that the moon would grow slower because of it's smaller gravity, when in fact, for the theory to work, it would need to grow at a much faster rate than earth.
No expanding at a faster rate would make it get LARGER than the earth. If what you are arguing were true, we'd have needed to gain MORE experience per day under the old level system just to keep our levels the same because otherwise we wouldn't keep our proportions to humantarget's XP and thus lose our levels.
And btw growing "in proportion" doesn't even mean anything
No it means everything. For the moon to keep it's proportion, it would have to expand at a rate which reflects it's proportion, otherwise it's proportions would change.
What you probably mean is that it would expand at the same rate as earth,
Erroneous conclusion. Show where I said that.
At 1/26/08 10:33 PM, Elfer wrote:
Because what he is saying and what you are saying are two completely different things. You're saying "temperature affects the rate of radioactive decay" and he's saying "temperature almost certainly does not affect the rate of radioactive decay"
No he said it doesn't effect it significantly, however I'm not denying that. I'm simply pointing out that even insignificant effects on particle loss can completely discredit radiometric dating.
Aaaaagh. Then why did you do the calculations in a linearized manner? Let me give you a tip: if you don't know how to put it into words, you probably did the math wrong.
That statement assumes that language and math are linked, which they are not. It is very easy to know the math, but not the language that describes it.
I think your problem is that you're doing your calculations based on error propagated by "a millionth of one" rather than "a millionth of the decay constant," because the decay constants for long-term dating methods are quite a bit smaller than one.
A millionth of the particle loss actually, the numbers represented a ratio of how much older it would make something seem in years.
No, deviations "on the top" become less likely as well, because it's not a plateau.
It's not a plateau, but at the same time if what you're saying is true it would be at high numbers, and the other sides would drop off into nearly straight down lines.
Here's a link:
http://www.kcrew.org/~shadzar/dnd/dice.p hp
It seems to show the bell curve actually flattens a bit, and while the outer numbers still become less likely, the mid numbers seem to get closer pecentage wise:
17 22967 8.2
18 24017 8.58
19 24017 8.58
20 22967 8.2
For 7 dice and:
7 25 11.57
8 27 12.5
9 27 12.5
10 25 11.57
For 3 dice.
This whole topic is about observable evidence for religion, right? If you're going to argue that observation and reality are two different things, the debate becomes meaningless.
Not necessarily, in this case I'm merely affirming we don't know what life is, which is relevant to whether or not you can surmise the existence of a pure energy life form.
Unobservable postulates are not evidence.
That's true, they are evidence for neither side, which proves my point. You can't know what life is, so how can you disprove an energy being?
It's completely relevant, you're just avoiding the point. The point is that of course we don't have a term for what is "alive" and what is "not alive" because they're OBSOLETE TERMS.
Prove it then, prove we once had said terms.
They have no discernible scientific meaning given what we now know about the world.
Exactly, and as such you can not argue that we would create life by creating a body.
Ok, here's another explanation: Natural selection. Things that thrive on regular cosmic events will procreate and survive more than those that don't. Eventually, most of the life on the planet will have evolved to benefit from regular cosmic activity.
Touche, but one problem, to assume it's due to evolution assumes we get healthy off cosmic events, not that they push deadly meteors away or that they bring us iron, and other materials that we erect structures with or make effective use of that benefits us. Or that planets like Jupiter act as a meteor shield for earth. Or that alter our magnetosphere in a good way.
This explanation, unlike yours, is also consistent with the existence of catastrophic extinction events such as asteroid impacts, because species can't really evolve to survive something that only affects them one every few hundred million years.
That's very easily explained by the fossil fuels we have made use of from said extinct species, and the fact we have the ability to learn to shove off meteors(it is likely by the time one hits us, we will have the technology to deflect it in some way).
Let's use logic here.
If there were a benevolent being organizing things for the benefit of Earth, it would make sense that it would also avoid the creation of things that are devastating to Earth,
Problem is, your statement assumes that we would necessarily be created without hardships. But hardships provide us with incentive to technologically progress in order to make our lives easier. Who are you to say we would necessarily have all our work cut out for us and not instead be forced to help ourselves and do things on our own?
Your explanation assumes a supernatural being for which there is no evidence,
Except a universe that particularly benefits earth.
Humans have existed for a relatively short period of time. It's not unthinkable that an asteroid hasn't hit us yet but might in the future.
Yes but it's not unthinkable that we would come up with a way to deflect it before it does either.
Sorry, what is it that makes something smaller more likely than something bigger, given the same amount of matter and energy?
The problem is you assume the energy that formed into god has the same mass as the unverse itself.
At 1/26/08 08:33 PM, poxpower wrote:
You being a dumbass isn't a fallacy, it's a fact of life.
Erroneous backpeddling.
not being able to prove a negative doesn't invalidate ANYTHING.
Right, but you seem to think that stuff we can't possibly measure effectively is automatically valid because you can't prove a negative, which it isn't.
Carbon dating has made it's proofs,
No it hasn't, it assumes decay is constant no matter what, which it certainly isn't, your own link affirmed that.
and you have FAILED, utterly FAILED to provide anywhere or anything
Argumentum Ad Lapidem, you have no proof decay is constant.
You don't know maths, you don't know science, you don't even know basic logic or when to apply your "fallacy" bullshit statements that you've been using for weeks.
So says the man who thinks that the moon expanding at the same rate as the earth would keep it in equal proportion, so says the man who thinks stuff doesn't happen at all below certain numbers, but magically does at or above them. How ironic that someone who thinks like that is telling me about math science and logic.
link me, nimrod. You saying things isn't a proof.
Yes but at the same time it's simple logic that consistantly being wrong doesn't make you correct. Why should I link you because you can't understand that being wrong is still being wrong no matter how persistantly wrong you are?
A link to a scientist saying something is proof.
No a link to a scientist saying something only proves a conclusion which may or may not be. To automatically accept what they say without question is Ad Verecundium.
Innacurately how? If it gives different readings every time, it's a piece of shit.
But if radiometric dating is wrong every time, it works perfectly according to you.
And like I said, if you know it is wrong, then you have another instrument that gives you a correct reading. So in the analogy of carbon dating, what is YOUR instrument that tells YOU things aren't X years old?
The fact that decay rates are affirmed to be affected by temperature and energy fluctuations.
read this: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ph y99/phy99x43.htm
Argumentum Ad Verecundium, not only that, but they are even contradicting themselves by affirming that electrons are effected(thus Beta Decay would be, since it involves electron loss) by the environment. And yes, alpha decay would be effected by how electrons are effected(albiet indirectly)/
Maybe you're confusing what they're saying with what is actually means. The rate of decay is not constant when you're talking about the atoms themselves decaying, it grows slower with time, but THAT PROCESS is constant and measurable and is the basis of dating methods.
No, THAT PROCESS is not constant. All your proof thus far is a guy saying "not significantly"(affirming decay isn't constant) and people contradicting their own statements.
lol you mean that crazy-ass stupid math
Erroneous invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
where you applied the error margin to every year when in fact it is only applicable to the end result?
The error margin is FOR THE MEASURMENT OF THE DATE,
The error margin being applied was for the particle loss, which non-linearly affects half lives.
you can't apply it to the decay, it doesn't even make any sense! It always decays the same way,
Circular logic.
What are you trying to prove?
That you have no more evidence for your shit than pastafarianism.
You're right, all we can do is prove that is it at LEAST 4-5 billions years old using radiometric dating methods.
Argumentum Ad Nauseum.
Give me the quote.
I did, and you ignored it Ad Nauseum touting your magic numbers.
No nuclear reactors though,
Still suffering from the mindset that science works in magic numbers?
Why?
Because particle loss rate is non-linear.
It's NOT growing at the same rate, the moon is growing SLOWER because it has a SMALLER GRAVITY.
See you're missing the point though. You argued that it would need to grow at the same rate to keep its proportion to earth, and I proved that I would actually grow in proportion to earth if that were the case.
At 1/26/08 07:27 PM, poxpower wrote:
You can't prove a negative,
Exactly you can't prove it, you have none.
dumbass.
Erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy.
When done correctly, you get the same results.
Argumentum Ad Nauseum. I've pointed out several times now why that doesn't work, if you wish to claim that, then prove a thermometer reading innaccurately every single time is correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_da ting
Dumbfuckipedia doesn't count, give actual evidence, as in evidence decay is constant.
And even if it was 5%, or even 50%, it would be more than precise enough to establish a clear portrait of both history and evolution.
Too bad I already proved it's 278% for 1 million years and 1.96909E436% for 1 billion years, as proven in my argument with elfer.
Those are the most common ones, and there's lots more:
Red herring, prove decay is constant, that is not proof.
Done, for the 20th time.
But you didn't prove decay with constant.
Carbon dating is good for up to 40 000 years, destroying the story of genesis easily.
God can exist without the bible being 100% accurate. And as described in my argument with elfer, carbon dating isn't necessarily good.
Error margins don't "build up" over time,
That's only true for stuff that's linear, but molecular particle loss in decay is certainly not.
Why are you ever trying to deny it's possible to date things that are millions of years old? What's your point here? Are you implying there is nothing that old? What claims are you hoping to refute?
It shows you can not prove that the earth is 4 billion years old.
But it turns out it is. Sweet.
Argumentum Ad Lapidem.
How?
It affirmed decay is effected by temperature. But you don't understand math so you think science works in magic numbers.
No, because fossils are made by burying animals in mud rapidly. Lightning doesn't strike things that are incased in mud or under 20 feet of solid granite.
But even then there's other factors, such as temperature.
YOU SIR, ARE RIDICULOUS hahaha
Erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy.
MAYBE IN A NUCLEAR REACTOR
Still suffering from the mindset that science works in magic numbers?
YOU'RE A DUMBASS
Erroneous invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
That's possible of precisely 100% of everything we know.
Yes but over millions or billions of years they would make the calculations a lot more innaccurate than for stuff that can be directly measured in our lifetime.
See, that's why I know you don't know maths.
How ironic, coming from someone who thinks science works in magic numbers.
Ok again:
1- Expanding universe theory states that everything grows bigger, thus creating a "g-force" that pins people down to earth or the moon
2- the faster something expands, the bigger this force will be
3. the earth's gravity is bigger than the moons', thus the earth expands faster
4. something that expands faster than something else will eventually be much bigger.
Argumentum Ad Nauseum.
Yes, but it seems you still can't grasp proportions. A smaller object growing at the same rate will grow bigger in proportion, you can't seem to grasp this no matter how many times it's pointed out. But it means a smaller object would have to expand slower to keep its proportion.
You saying the same shit over and over won't disprove that, ask a mathemitician if you don't believe me.
