Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/26/07 11:47 PM, mash4077th wrote: HERES THE MAIN POINT FOR RELIGION ITS WHAT U MAKE IT,
(LIKE U WOULD NEVER COVERT ME)
but basicly every person will always say thats wrong to every thing an oposing religoin says and so simply all convert to one religion(MINE) and everybody has no problems simple now!!!!!!!

And what pray tell, religion would that happen to be?

---

At 12/25/07 01:50 PM, Earfetish wrote:
Well what part would you say was factual? Like all of it up to Moses and beyond aren't. And they're all pretty essential. I've read the Old Testament, and some of the most essential bits, like all of Genesis and Exodus, are not based in reality.

Not factual if you take it as a simple history of the world, when genesis is clearly not supposed to be taken as history. Think about it if the Bible is supposed to teach you how to live, why waste time with history? The truth is EVERYONE believes certain parts are metaphorical, the only question is what to take. Because something is not literally true, does not mean it is not true. Like I told you about the 13th century Rabbi who postulated, purely based on verses in the Bible, that the world is 15 billion years old.

I know Pox disagrees, and I agree that meditation and deep prayer can make you very happy (even atheists can meditate), but there is something unfortunate in seeing Orthodox Jew families, dressed in black, with big beards, women with wigs and shaven heads, all looking distinctly unnattractive. Everyone can have an enjoyable life - if you've convinced yourself denial of base pleasures is how you want to live, then you'll enjoy denying yourself such pleasures - but that's not really the point. Dogma stifles freedom. They're living like that because they were raised to live like that and taught it was fundamentally important that they live like that; if they think it's their own choice, 95% of the time, they're deluding themselves.

I think you're wrong in assuming its not their choice. First off the high amount of "Drop-outs" would indicate that those who stay, stay of their own free will. Second the volume of people who live completly secular lives, and then become very religious shows you that people really want to live like that, even though it means giving up all the cheeseburgers and all the poon. Like that Law & Order actor who is now hasidic.

So yeah; even if they're having fun, they're still not engaging in freedom. They might feel very proud every Friday when they turn off the electrics, but they'd have purposeful fun if they watched Jerry Springer with their family, had some beers, went out for a meal with their friends, and didn't bother keeping it holy.

But do you really feel happy watching Jerry Springer? All I feel is dirty when I catch a glimpse of that. Is that true happiness for you? If so i truly pity you.

This ill effect of religion goes hand-in-hand with how it fucks up war (which you didn't comment on, very good, I accept that humanity has tribalist tendencies but I think religion and war are a horrible combination)

I think all it encourages is the "Them vs. Us" mentality, which would be there anyway, just based on different factors.

not sure what your reffering to... a little specific?

Maccabee's versus Seleucids. But it's irrelevant really to my point, that a religion that focuses on dogma and submission is worse than one that focuses on philosophy, freethought and hedonism.

But thats just it. Judaism is a very scholarly based religion. I started learning Talmud when I was 10. When you learn it its not straight dogma being spouted. I disagreed with my Rabbi's vehemently all the time, and I was a favorite student because of it. The whole back and forth is pretty much the whole point of it. And there are a ton of Jewish philosophy books.

---

At 12/27/07 01:44 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Not factual if you take it as a simple history of the world, when genesis is clearly not supposed to be taken as history.

It was taken as historically accurate 300 years ago. It was complete fact until science blew the lid off it.

Think about it if the Bible is supposed to teach you how to live, why waste time with history? The truth is EVERYONE believes certain parts are metaphorical, the only question is what to take.

How about if I said the whole Jesus story was metaphorical, Heaven and Hell are metaphorical, God is metaphorical, and you can learn how to live from Aesop's fables and trash TV.

Because something is not literally true, does not mean it is not true. Like I told you about the 13th century Rabbi who postulated, purely based on verses in the Bible, that the world is 15 billion years old.

Damn he was a bit out

Well done him, anyway. God kinda sucked with the inspiring, though, since everyone else disagreed.

I think you're wrong in assuming its not their choice. First off the high amount of "Drop-outs" would indicate that those who stay, stay of their own free will.

Or maybe they stay because their culture is so strong. Maybe they don't even know their own free will, or have never been given the chance to decide. Maybe the amount of kids who act Western at school and begrudgingly orthodox at home, until eventually they get shouted at by their parents, is evidence that you're actually incorrect.

Or maybe, the whole 'you want to do this, but you have to deny those desires because Leviticus says,' is a plain-as-day assault on free will. Live how you like, but don't deny yourself the right to live another way because of a book.

Second the volume of people who live completly secular lives, and then become very religious shows you that people really want to live like that, even though it means giving up all the cheeseburgers and all the poon. Like that Law & Order actor who is now hasidic.

That's fine. If they weren't raised like that, but think the prospect is amazing, good for them.

So yeah; even if they're having fun, they're still not engaging in freedom. They might feel very proud every Friday when they turn off the electrics, but they'd have purposeful fun if they watched Jerry Springer with their family, had some beers, went out for a meal with their friends, and didn't bother keeping it holy.

But do you really feel happy watching Jerry Springer? All I feel is dirty when I catch a glimpse of that. Is that true happiness for you? If so i truly pity you.

Shame you don't like my TV taste. I was more focused on the 'family' part. Like 'doing fun things with your friends and loved ones is more fun than being devout with them'.

I think all it encourages is the "Them vs. Us" mentality, which would be there anyway, just based on different factors.

It would be there a lot less. If nationalism or racism were causing as much 'tribalism' as religion, then I would start arguing against them. But they don't.

But thats just it. Judaism is a very scholarly based religion. I started learning Talmud when I was 10. When you learn it its not straight dogma being spouted. I disagreed with my Rabbi's vehemently all the time, and I was a favorite student because of it. The whole back and forth is pretty much the whole point of it. And there are a ton of Jewish philosophy books.

I do prefer Judaism of the three Abrahamic faiths, but your view of Judaism and what happens at your synagogue is different to what happens in an orthodox one, where orthodox parents raise orthodox babies.

Don't like your holy books at all

---

At 12/27/07 12:14 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/26/07 11:47 PM, mash4077th wrote: HERES THE MAIN POINT FOR RELIGION ITS WHAT U MAKE IT,
(LIKE U WOULD NEVER COVERT ME)
but basicly every person will always say thats wrong to every thing an oposing religoin says and so simply all convert to one religion(MINE) and everybody has no problems simple now!!!!!!!

And what pray tell, religion would that happen to be?

WHY WOULD U WANT TO KNOW THAT

give me one good reason and ill say TO KEEP U IN SUSPESE ITS...
(FFIND OUT NEXT TIME LIKE NOBODYS GIVES A SH888888TT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
)
i do have a religon and thats not it in the brackets for the idiots who might think thatt now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

At 12/27/07 07:40 PM, mash4077th wrote:

And what pray tell, religion would that happen to be?

WHY WOULD U WANT TO KNOW THAT

Because you're spewing out bullshit like "If everyone had my religion it would be all good blah blah blah"

---

At 12/27/07 06:05 PM, Earfetish wrote:
It was taken as historically accurate 300 years ago. It was complete fact until science blew the lid off it.
Think a

Meh, irrelevent.

How about if I said the whole Jesus story was metaphorical, Heaven and Hell are metaphorical, God is metaphorical, and you can learn how to live from Aesop's fables and trash TV.

Remember... Jewish. Anyway I don't have that belief and it doesn't matter to me what you believe so...I don't see your point.

Well done him, anyway. God kinda sucked with the inspiring, though, since everyone else disagreed.

In those times no one was ready for such an Idea really, now its only slightly more acceptable, but it will catch on.

Or maybe they stay because their culture is so strong. Maybe they don't even know their own free will, or have never been given the chance to decide. Maybe the amount of kids who act Western at school and begrudgingly orthodox at home, until eventually they get shouted at by their parents, is evidence that you're actually incorrect.

The weird thing is everyone has a "chance" because we have all seen it. My two best friends from my pre-high school days completely dropped the religion a couple years back. Virtually everyone I know, knows someone well who left the religion. The choice is clear and obvious to us all, we choose not to take it.

Or maybe, the whole 'you want to do this, but you have to deny those desires because Leviticus says,' is a plain-as-day assault on free will. Live how you like, but don't deny yourself the right to live another way because of a book.

The book is merely a guide on how to live a moral life, your hands are not tied, god will not send lightning down to kill you. We believe pre-marital sex is immoral, and we relay that. Now does that mean there is no pre-marital sex in the orthodox community? Of course not. There is no sunjugation here.

Shame you don't like my TV taste. I was more focused on the 'family' part. Like 'doing fun things with your friends and loved ones is more fun than being devout with them'.

I'm sorry, I just get sick to my stomach when I see that show, occasionally I'll have to watch in the same way you watch a horrific accident, you are to shocked to look away.
"Well Jim here sleeps with his sister, and pimps out his daughter, and Jims father isn't happy about that."
"Jim, what do you have to say for yourself?"
"Wha'ever, I do wha' I want."

You think this is a better way of spending quality time with your kid, rather than telling him about his heritage, and God, and his ancestors?

I do prefer Judaism of the three Abrahamic faiths, but your view of Judaism and what happens at your synagogue is different to what happens in an orthodox one, where orthodox parents raise orthodox babies.

Dude, I'm Orthodox.

Don't like your holy books at all

The philosophy books, such as by Maimonides and Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato are not considered holy.

---

At 12/27/07 09:45 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/27/07 07:40 PM, mash4077th wrote:

And what pray tell, religion would that happen to be?

WHY WOULD U WANT TO KNOW THAT

Because you're spewing out bullshit like "If everyone had my religion it would be all good blah blah blah"

WELL AS U MAY NOT HAVE NOTICED
i am a spriturlist(i not good with its spelling)
what basicly means the same sort of vaules as others but different find the rest out urself u prat
also wat that BULLSHIT I was speaking earlier was stating the fact that if we all flew the same flag there would be no wars. NOW ANT THAT RIGHT EVERY BODY ANSWER NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

At 12/28/07 01:02 AM, mash4077th wrote: also wat that BULLSHIT I was speaking earlier was stating the fact that if we all flew the same flag there would be no wars. NOW ANT THAT RIGHT EVERY BODY ANSWER NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christians have and even still continue to blow each other up in places like Northern Ireland.
Muslims continually wage war with one another over the "correct" way to worship their god.

Religion never seems to perfectly unite societies.

---

At 12/27/07 07:40 PM, mash4077th wrote:

i do have a religon and thats not it in the brackets for the idiots who might think thatt now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If your religion made you write that you can keep it

---

At 12/28/07 01:13 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/28/07 01:02 AM, mash4077th wrote: also wat that BULLSHIT I was speaking earlier was stating the fact that if we all flew the same flag there would be no wars. NOW ANT THAT RIGHT EVERY BODY ANSWER NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christians have and even still continue to blow each other up in places like Northern Ireland.
Muslims continually wage war with one another over the "correct" way to worship their god.

Religion never seems to perfectly unite societies.

did u know that world war two was happened due to religous and scintific vaules
what u ganna say now the smartass talks next ........................................
.................................N OW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!

---

At 12/28/07 02:30 AM, mash4077th wrote: did u know that world war two was happened due to religous and scintific vaules

Science is not an ideology.

---

At 12/28/07 02:30 AM, mash4077th wrote: did u know that world war two was happened due to religous and scintific vaules
what u ganna say now the smartass talks next ........................................
.................................N OW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!

Really, you've decided that, even after making several posts that this is they way you want to communicate. Did you type, stop and consider what you had written, and then decide, "well, hey, this looks like a fine way to present my case?"

I swear to God, anybody who can't automatically assume that, on a medium whereby your thoughts are conveyed solely in text, it might be prudent to use spell check (if you no can spell good, I swear, did you really even phrase it like that?) and or use some coherent, logical sentence structure has nothing knowledgeable, relevant, or insightful to say.

Your opinions are irrelevant simply because you are too fucking stupid to work the English language in ANY intelligible way.

---

At 12/28/07 02:46 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 12/28/07 02:30 AM, mash4077th wrote: did u know that world war two was happened due to religous and scintific vaules
what u ganna say now the smartass talks next ........................................
.................................N OW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!

Really, you've decided that, even after making several posts that this is they way you want to communicate. Did you type, stop and consider what you had written, and then decide, "well, hey, this looks like a fine way to present my case?"

I swear to God, anybody who can't automatically assume that, on a medium whereby your thoughts are conveyed solely in text, it might be prudent to use spell check (if you no can spell good, I swear, did you really even phrase it like that?) and or use some coherent, logical sentence structure has nothing knowledgeable, relevant, or insightful to say.

Your opinions are irrelevant simply because you are too fucking stupid to work the English language in ANY intelligible way.

LOOK YOU TOTAL TWITS I AM MUCH MORE INTELLIGENT THEN THEESE STUPID PRATTS TRYING TO DISSPROVE FACT WORLD WAR TWO WAS STARTED BY THE NAZI PARTY WHAT MADE A CULT BASED CULTURE THATS WAS A FASCIT BASED CONTROL AND THE SCIENTIFIC VAULES WHAT THAT YOU ASKED
ADOLF HITTLER WAS CONSUMING LARGE DOSSES OF VULIUM WHAT IF YOU DO NOT KNOW IS AN ANTHITIMINE BASED DRUG WHAT MAKES THE MIND ACT HIGHLY IRATIONALY IT IS HIGHLY POSSIBLE IF NOT FOR HIS CHEIF MEDICAL ADVISER THE APPLIERE OF THIS INJECTION BASED DRUG HE WOULD HAVE MOST LIKILY WON THE WAR AS HIS FORCES WERE SUFICENT YET HIS BRAINPOWER WAS TOTALLY CROPTED ONE THING U OR UR MATES DID NOT KNOW

---

Holy mother of shit, you're stupid.

GTFO of my messageboard. You're dirtying the water.

---

At 12/28/07 03:01 AM, mash4077th wrote: LOOK YOU TOTAL TWITS I AM MUCH MORE INTELLIGENT THEN THEESE STUPID PRATTS TRYING TO DISSPROVE FACT WORLD WAR TWO WAS STARTED BY THE NAZI PARTY WHAT MADE A CULT BASED CULTURE THATS WAS A FASCIT BASED CONTROL AND THE SCIENTIFIC VAULES WHAT THAT YOU ASKED

Nazism has nothing to do with 'scientific values' or whatever bullshit label you came up with.
If anything, I could argue that he was actually Christian, but of course that would make me "ignorant".

---

At 12/24/07 04:05 PM, Elfer wrote:

No, your understanding of temperature is erroneous.

No it isn't, you can claim it is all you want but you saying it doesn't effect that which it surrounds doesn't make it so.

radioactive decay

I understand exactly how it works, it involves the movement of molecular particles, which is effected by temperature, no matter how much you try to deny it.

But when you have a very broad idea, it's hard to find evidence that demonstrates that idea exclusively.

Not really. Just because your idea isn't specific doesn't mean it isn't specifically proven. The ideas that the sun is hot and that vinegar is acidic are both broad ideas. But they are both proven.

the giant elliptical boat

Is about the only boat that could survive such a flood. A normal boat would be flooded out and sink.

Non sequitur.

Erroneous claim laced with twisting of what was presented in a way that supports your argument, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

Oh for fuck's sake. Temperature doesn't affect what it surrounds. Heat does. Get it straight.

You are contradicting yourself. Heat is hot temperature, you basically just said, "Temperature doesn't effect what it surrounds, temperature does" which makes no sense. It doesn't magically start effecting its surroundings when it gets hot.

But they mean very different things.

I know the difference between the two, simply naming those words to twist your argument is playing semantics.

the properties of the mantle therefore must have a significant effect on the speed of continental drift.

Which does not mean it has to be constant BTW.

Here, words and pictures. If there's something in this link you don't understand, look it up for yourself.

Just on page one of that there are 2 errors, it assumes that only the continents can cause magnetic anomolies(which is false on so many levels) and that it can know the age of rocks which amazingly enough, relies on the radioactive decay thing, which erroneously assumes decay is constant.

Also I noticed the part where it said plates get heavier as they cool. Which in turn means they get lighter as they heat up. Which in turn means they get less resistant to movement as they heat up, which means that since, as you yourself said, no drift happens without convergence(and hence heating up of plates as they sink below others into the mantle) that continental drift is not something which happens at a constant speed.

Especially when you consider the last line, "At some point, we will run out of heat, and the plates will stop moving." Funny how plates that will eventually stop moving go at a constant speed.

Correct, I brought up two terms that are important in understanding continental drift,

Funny that they didn't turn up in the thing you linked.

at absolute zero

Didn't say it ever reached absolute 0. I said that things generating their own heat are still effected by their surrounding temperatures. And that is true. Your body generates its own heat, but can still break down in the cold, and would still fry in extreme heat. Game consoles get warm after a while in use(ie. generate their own heat) but lower or increase the temperature too much and they can not function.

It's the same with everything that generates its own temperature.

Well, material properties such as elasto-plastic behaviour,

Which you still have given no details about.

and in the same vein, chemical bonding.

That's erroneous, I didn't contradict chemical bonding.

But they do have the same change of sinking

Right, because you say so.

Give me a REASON

I did and you're ignoring it. 1000 or more years is enough for there to be enough small changes throughout the ever vast universe to create a notable change in cosmic rays, that is a reason.

That's not as populum.

That's correct it's Ad Populum, not as populum. If 1 million people repeat a fault experiment because they were told it's the right way to test things when it isn't, that doesn't make them correct all of a sudden, they're still wrong.

Fine. I'm waiting.

It has been found that stuff such as supernovas in other galaxies and various other cosmic activity actually benefits us here on earth. Now this could be argued to death, but the more the universe is studied, the more it gives signs of being 1 of 2 things:

1.A universe aimed at protecting and regulating earth

2.A self regulating universe.

Whether it be option 1 or 2 the universe is pretty massive. It is possible but unlikely something that massive could coincidentally form this way. However, consider the mass amount of energy throughout the universe. Now with energy being a major underlying element of things, if we as complex bio-organisms can come to life, why can't energy? And if it did, being that energy is important in all properties of physics and chemistry, in theory, such a being may be able to control matter or even the laws of physics themselves.

I think he's still a dumbass.

Erroneous invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

He provided nothing other than is deranged rantings with nothing to back them up.

Erroneous personal attack.

---

I have also been touched by His noodly appendage.

---

JerkClock, stop pulling this bullshit "fallacies" out of your ass and start arguing properly.

So far, all you have presented as evidence is a picture of an ambiguous brownish blackish object embedded in the snow, and dodgy anecdotes that are basically all disproved as hoaxes.

This is Newgrounds. If we want to call you a delusional asswipe, we will. It doesn't somehow make your argument any stronger.

---

At 1/1/08 03:34 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: JerkClock, stop pulling this bullshit "fallacies" out of your ass and start arguing properly.

Erroneous poisoning of the well, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

So far, all you have presented as evidence is a picture of an ambiguous brownish blackish object embedded in the snow, and dodgy anecdotes that are basically all disproved as hoaxes.

Unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, how ironic, coming from someone who thinks that the person arguing temperature doesn't effect that which it surrounds has a valid point when he clearly doesn't.

This is Newgrounds. If we want to call you a delusional asswipe, we will.

Irrelevent appeals to emotion, laced with invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

It doesn't somehow make your argument any stronger.

Nor do your erroneous Ad Hominem attack make it any weaker, so your remark is irrelevant.

---

Here's a fallacy for you JerkClock: Ignorance Syndrome.
Someone who knows so little that he actually presumes to know everything. Someone who knows SOOOO little that they value their own personal opinion on facts higher than all the research of all the men and women in any given field.

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warri orshtm/ferouscranus.htm

---

At 1/2/08 01:12 AM, poxpower wrote: Here's a fallacy for you JerkClock: Ignorance Syndrome.

Erroneous personal attack.

Someone who knows so little that he actually presumes to know everything.

Erroneous personal attack.

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warri orshtm/ferouscranus.htm

Oh please, you're just saying that because I said that's what yall were several pages ago. No I think someone who, say, repeatedly denies that temperature has effect on its surroundings would be a ferrous cranus.

---

At 1/2/08 01:12 AM, poxpower wrote: Someone who knows SOOOO little that they value their own personal opinion on facts higher than all the research of all the men and women in any given field.

And again, that's Argumentum Ad Populum, it means jack shit when they tested using the same faulty methods. In fact, that is Ad Nauseum on your part, because you haven't proven their methods of testing were any good. In fact you went to prove the opposite when you tried to claim magic numbers existed where temperature started effecting stuff despite that being contrary to how science works.

No, the one repeating the same attack over and over is you. Don't pull that "IKYABWAI" shit.

---

Jesus titty fucking Christ. I give up.

If the man wants to cling to his fairytales, let him.

---

At 1/2/08 01:38 AM, JerkClock wrote:

And again, that's Argumentum Ad Populum, it means jack shit when they tested using the same faulty methods.

Who tested what with what methods again?
And how are these methods faulty?
And how are you qualified to determine this again?

Oh that's right, you're not, you're a dumbass. You're willfully ignorant or just the most persistant troll I've ever seen anywhere. That would be like Martin Luther King Jr. ripping off his mask and being an albinos skinhead underneath and saying "fooled yah suckahs, I'm in the KKK, WHITE POWAAAH".

Anyways at this point we're just all waiting for your every answer to earfetish so we can laugh and laugh at your crazyness.

Seriously, your ENTIRE argument so far is "well it would be possible that thing X would be a certain way for no reason at all other than to support my theory that it could be this way"
HEY MAYBE ICEBERGS ARE MADE OF FIRE, A TYPE OF FIRE THAT IS COLD, IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE AND IT SUPPORTS MY THEORY THAT ICEBERGS ARE MADE OF COLD FIRE!

---

It's called special pleading. It's where you believe only what suits your position and discredit anything that opposes it.

It's a common symptom of delusional faith.

---

At 1/2/08 02:48 AM, poxpower wrote:
Who tested what with what methods again?

You're trying to tell me that because a lot of people blindly believed the radiometric principle that it's a solid method, and that doesn't make it so.

And how are these methods faulty?

Because it assumes temperature and energy fluctuations won't effect decay, and they most certainly will.

And how are you qualified to determine this again?

Because I happen to know that temperature effects the speed at which molecular particles move, which would in turn effect the rate of decay.

Oh that's right, you're not, you're a dumbass. You're willfully ignorant or just the most persistant troll I've ever seen anywhere. That would be like Martin Luther King Jr. ripping off his mask and being an albinos skinhead underneath and saying "fooled yah suckahs, I'm in the KKK, WHITE POWAAAH".

Erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy.

Seriously, your ENTIRE argument so far is "well it would be possible that thing X would be a certain way for no reason at all other than to support my theory that it could be this way"

See that's your problem, I am not saying anything is or isn't a certain way, that doesn't make my argument faulty. In fact doing the opposite makes a person's argument faulty, you can not argue in absolutes and say that you are right no matter what, then accuse other people of being stubborn minded, because that is what you are doing. You "science" is no more proven than you claim God to be.

---

At 1/2/08 03:15 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: It's called special pleading. It's where you believe only what suits your position and discredit anything that opposes it.

How am I "special pleading" by arguing in non-absolutes. Your presupposed argument is erroneous and ironic, as you guys are the ones who won't believe anything but what supports your arguments, like for instance when you state that temperature does not effect that which it surrounds.

---

At 1/2/08 03:41 AM, JerkClock wrote:

Who tested what with what methods again?

You're trying to tell me that because a lot of people blindly believed the radiometric principle that it's a solid method, and that doesn't make it so.

You believe atoms decay yourself. I guess you're just as crazy as them. Or maybe you have nooooooooooooooooooo idea what you're talking about because you haven't listened to a thing that Elfer or me has said in this entire thread and you haven't clicked on a single link we've shown you or watched a single video.

And how are these methods faulty?

Because it assumes temperature and energy fluctuations won't effect decay, and they most certainly will.

Prove it. Produce a source that shows anything on earth that was affected in this way naturally. Or are you all talk? Show us fossils that have been wildly affected by these craaaaazy fluctuations.
Then also don't forget to explain how these fluctuations somehow affected different materials to falsify the results in a way that would show more primitive organisms to be older and less primitive ones ( like mammals ) to be younger.

That's FUCKING CRAZY.

Listen to what you're saying here.

You're saying that atoms DECAY. which is THE BASIS OF RADIOMETRIC DATING.
You can't say certain atoms decay and then say datings methods based on that are bullshit.

Theeeeeeeeen you're saying that some wild cosmic fluctuation, which you have shown NO PROOF OF, EVER, NO LINK, NOT EVEN A SINGLE DUDE ANYWHERE SAYING IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE, affected EVERY LAST BIT OF FOSSIL ON EARTH, AT EVERY LEVEL OF THE CRUST in a way that makes it seem like the theory of evolution is possible.

Seriously, think about it for ONE SECOND. How come, if these wild fluctuations you claim exist, have made it so that when tested, things appear to be an age that varies in the millions and billions of years.

What you're saying is that things will decay FASTER, correct? So somehow this crazy wild cosmic radiation or whatever the fuck you're talking about, that raised the earth's temperature to like `1000 degrees.....

God this is too crazy.

And how are you qualified to determine this again?

Because I happen to know that temperature effects the speed at which molecular particles move, which would in turn effect the rate of decay.

Here read this: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ph y00/phy00543.htm

No, wait, I know you won't read it.

This guy says that pressure and temperature DON'T AFFECT THE DECAY RATE, UNLESS YOU'RE IN THE FUCKING CORE OF A NUCLEAR REACTOR.

When the fuck was is that the earth was as warm as a nuclear reactor AND also teeming with prehistoric animals whose then somehow all died and left bones, which then got fossilized over a long period of time and then affected by the Millions of degrees.

lol

Or maybe now you're a nuclear scientist and you know how uranium reacts better than every other guy on earth who's ever actually read a fucking book about it.

OH WAIT i FORGOT, THAT'S A FALLACY TO BASE MY REASONING ON FACTS AND EXPERT OPINION, I SHOULD JUST TRY TO DEDUCE EVERYTHING FOR MYSELF WHILE SITTING HERE IN THIS CHAIR HMMM LETS SEE AM I IN CANADA RIGHT NOW? NO WAY TO KNOW, MAYBE I'M ON THE MOOOOOOOOON WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

---

At 1/2/08 03:41 AM, JerkClock wrote: Because I happen to know that temperature effects the speed at which molecular particles move, which would in turn effect the rate of decay.

"The rate of decay (i.e., half-life) is characteristic of a radioactive element and "for all practical purposes" it is unaffected by temperature, pressure, atmospheric conditions, vacuum, space, etc."

Those "practical purposes" he describes include carbon dating. Yes, at ridiculous temperatures, radioactive decay can theoretically be altered, however, not with any temperature you'll find on earth. Sorry, skippy.

---

Special pleading by ignoring the fact that you still haven't explained how pairs of animals managed to migrate tens of thousands of kilometres around the world.