Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 1/2/08 04:16 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: 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.

trying to pick holes in the scientific theory and never even critically examining Christianity

what's the more reliable source for scientific information, science, or the Bible?

must be the Bible because there's a big atheist conspiracy to make science disagree with Genesis when it should really agree, right Jerkclock?

---

religion was used to get ahold of people so priests could get all there needs for nothing. to prevent that poor people would steal so they could benefit from everything that the priest would promise them.

---

Congrats on best poster, Elfer. You damn well deserve it.

---

At 12/10/07 04:51 PM, SlithVampir wrote: Nice.

Mucho lulz all around.

Good luck connecting it to politics.

didn't the founding fathers base the government on the christian faith.
and to reply: no

---

At 12/10/07 07:42 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 12/10/07 07:36 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

But the story of the flood takes place some thousands of years ago, and evolution takes literally millions before the species will be so divided that they are called different species.

Not neccessarily. That's:

1. only theory

2. neglecting the more minor things, like a species having different variants. Something could have moved to different continent where it evolved into both deer on one, and elk on another.

Well, since gravity is only a theory, I'll drop this Coke Can 10000000000000000000000 times and see how often it goes up. Evolution is one of the most tested theories that exists today. Being a theory means little to nothing to disprove it.

So you're willing to use evolution to support your ideas, but then say it's only a theory and change it so it has no evidence WHATsoever, but fits your ideas better? Your way fits the fossil record...how?

---

At 1/2/08 03:56 AM, poxpower wrote:

You believe atoms decay yourself.

It's proven.

I guess you're just as crazy as them.

Not really because it isn't contradictory to the temperature thing.

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.

Unsubstantiated and erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy, too bad your theory about me not clicking links is busted wide open by me analyzing a link elfer posted on the exact page you posted this. Not unexpected considering you lack a logical argument.

Prove it.

Argumentum Ad Nauseum. I've told you, it has major gaping hole. They are trying to prove something with a theory about decay that is directly disproven by what we have proven about the effect of temperature on molecular particles. How ironic, coming from someone who accuse me of being stubborn minded.

You're saying that atoms DECAY. which is THE BASIS OF RADIOMETRIC DATING.

Nonsequitur.

No the basis of radiometric dating is that decay constant no matter what the fuck happens, which directly contradicts what is known on how energy and temperature effect the movement of molecular particles.

Theeeeeeeeen you're saying that some wild cosmic fluctuation, which you have shown NO PROOF OF, EVER,

Erroneous statement laced with Ad Nauseum, as expected from someone who laacks a logical argument.

I explained this several times, but you remain oblivious, how ironic, coming from someone who accused me of being stubborn minded. The vast size of the universe combined with the reasonable assumption that over 1000 years there can be enough minor changes throughout, is proof that a notable change in cosmic rays can happen over 1000 years. I didn't say it will or will not happen, just that it very easily can.

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.

How would variance in the millions and billions not indicate unreliability?

What you're saying is that things will decay FASTER, correct?

No I'm saying it can decay faster or slower

And how are you qualified to determine this again?

Irrelevant Ad Hominem fallacy. Who I am is irrelevant to the validity of my argument.

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

Nice link, you've proven for me that decay is not constant. It directly states that decay is effected by temperature. Which means you can not reliably determine the age of something which is millions or billions of years old. It even notes that extreme heat or energy fluctuations can effect it measurably within a human lifespan. Which means stuff such as lava flows and lightning strikes or ice ages can fuck up your "readings." Or as your link puts it:

If decay rates were found

to be temp/pressure dependent, a good deal of geologic dating work would be
rendered meaningless.

Indeed, too bad the page itself proved that "geologic dating work" is "meaningless"

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.

Over 10, 20 years no, but over millions or billions of years, it's quite significant.

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.

Erroneous claim, I explained it several times by now, you are just too lazy to go back and read it.

200monkeys wrote:
Well, since gravity is only a theory

Actually it is, I don't disbelieve it, but it is. Ever hear of expanding matter?

---

At 1/4/08 08:25 PM, JerkClock wrote:

I guess you're just as crazy as them.

Not really because it isn't contradictory to the temperature thing.

Atom decay is pretty much PROOF that dating methods work.

Unsubstantiated and erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy, you lack a logical argument.

Unsubstantiated and erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy, you lack a logical argument.

They are trying to prove something with a theory about decay that is directly disproven by what we have proven about the effect of temperature on molecular particles.

In a nuclear reactor haha

No the basis of radiometric dating is that decay constant no matter what the fuck happens, which directly contradicts what is known on how energy and temperature effect the movement of molecular particles.

Still waiting for you to show anything that points to when the earth was as hot as a nuclear reactor and inhabited by animals.

Erroneous statement laced with Ad Nauseum, as expected from someone who laacks a logical argument.

I'm THIS close to banning you for trolling.
Lol

Well, where are you links? You claim something, you show it.

I explained this several times,

Link again please

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.

How would variance in the millions and billions not indicate unreliability?

I'm saying that they date different things and some times are really old, and are always tested to be that old, and some things are not as old, like 100 times younger, or 1 000 000 times younger, and tested to be that way again and again.
If radiometric was not accurate, you would get completely different values every time you tested something. But that's not what you get. Ever.

Oh wait I forgot all the scientists everywhere on earth falsify their results to disprove your statements that you have just made up in this thr/// AD NAUSEUM OMG YOU LACK A LOGICAL ARGUMENT BZZT BOOP BLUE SCREEN SHUTTING DOWN STUPIDITY OVERLOAD.

And how are you qualified to determine this again?

Irrelevant Ad Hominem fallacy. Who I am is irrelevant to the validity of my argument.

Not when your argument is " I know thing X works this way". Who are you? You're not a professional in that field, you haven't read any books, haven't taken any classes, so again, you are not qualified to refute the claims of people who have 40 years of expertise in fields such as archeology with various dating methods.

Indeed, too bad the page itself proved that "geologic dating work" is "meaningless"

IN A NUCLEAR REACTOR IS THE ONLY PLACE WHERE TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE IS HIGH ENOUGH TO SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT DECAY RATES ON EARTH.
Or in the opposite, you'd need 0 kelvin. Which is nowhere to be found in the entire universe.

Over 10, 20 years no, but over millions or billions of years, it's quite significant.

No, you don't get it, a little temperature over time does NOTHING.
That's like saying that water will eventually melt at -10 celcius because over millions of years there will be magical heat injected into it.

And you've STILL failed to show even ONE DUDE who found even ONE TINY LITTLE SHRED of evidence that at some point on earth there was some wild crazy cosmic fluctuation that somehow made the earth as warm as a nuclear reactor.

200monkeys wrote:
Well, since gravity is only a theory

Actually it is, I don't disbelieve it, but it is. Ever hear of expanding matter?

That doesn't even work since gravity is higher in some places than others. 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.

---

At 1/4/08 09:22 PM, Grammer wrote: I don't need to prove my religion is more valid because it's not my job to prove faith.

Proving faith? Paradox.

But that doesn't mean it's wrong.

So you have nothing that validates the Bible, but you still believe fully in the Bible.

And that is a reasonable position, because it can't be proven wrong.

I think you're believing for the sake of believing.

---

At 1/4/08 09:22 PM, Grammer wrote: I don't need to prove my religion is more valid because it's not my job to prove faith.

One day a giant snake will come from the heavens and carry us all to candyland in his spaceship made out of unicorns and rainbows, then we'll stay there forever and copulate with robotic sexual partners for the rest of eternity ( like a million years or something, who can count that many years? ).

I don't need to prove MY religion. That's why I should have a tv show about it and also tax cuts. Also a special school just for it and my uniform is a loaded assault rifle with a dildo hat. Stop me if you can, HEATHEN.

---

At 1/4/08 09:51 PM, Grammer wrote:

If you wanna believe that, that's fine, but just keep in mind we Christians found Jesus' family tomb, so we have one notch up on your cool new religion.

Well robots exist even today, so that's pretty fucking amazing because my religion is FULL of robots. I'd say that pretty much proves it at this point.

But you do make a good point. We should base our religions on its book and how many things that actually exist or have existed are found in it. I mean, if a man named "Jesus ( a common name back then)" once existed around 2000 years ago, who knows what else could be true? ( the answer is: anything you can imagine! ).

---

At 1/4/08 09:51 PM, Grammer wrote: If you wanna believe that, that's fine, but just keep in mind we Christians found Jesus' family tomb, so we have one notch up on your cool new religion.

Didn't it have something to the effect of "here lies Joseph son of Jesus" on the side of it? Doesn't that in itself prove that your new testament is inaccurate?

---

At 1/4/08 09:49 PM, Grammer wrote: We did find Jesus' tomb, with him not in it. That counts for something, even if it doesn't prove anything.

No it doesn't. An empty tomb. Sign me up.

Can you prove atheism right?

I can certainly prove your religion wrong, although you wont find the proof satisfactory. As to whether I can 'prove' atheism right, it depends how you define 'God'.

I think you're believing for the sake of believing.

I think you're a desperate atheist who's sort of like those Christians who go door to door telling you to convert or burn.

I think you're the kind of Christian who I would love to convert, because Christianity is too much of your politics.

---

You did see my big long argument as to whether there's any proof Jesus existed or not. If you've got contemporary evidence of a guy called Jesus being born to two people called Mary and Joseph, I'd loooove you to show me it.

---

At 1/4/08 10:34 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/4/08 10:31 PM, Earfetish wrote: You did see my big long argument as to whether there's any proof Jesus existed or not. If you've got contemporary evidence of a guy called Jesus being born to two people called Mary and Joseph, I'd loooove you to show me it.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25 /tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology

kthxbai

So now they've found a tomb, not the famous Jesus' tomb, which contains Jesus' actual body, as well as the body of his son? Surely this is a drastic invalidation of great swathes of Christian doctrine?

lol did you actually realise the full gravity of what you were linking me to; if this is the greatest proof of Christianity, it's also the greatest disproof of Christianity

---

Anyway here's an invalidating link to that tomb:
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbKCtombevansf eldman.html
Plenty more on the wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talpiot_Tom b
Far less 'watch this TV-show' orientated

---

At 1/4/08 10:29 PM, Grammer wrote: Did your religion predict robots were going to exist before they did?

Did your religion predict Jesus was going to exist before he did?
pwned

p.s. no, it didn't.
p.p.s. no, vague "messiah will come" allusions aren't predictions. I predict that someone will win the lottery tomorrow. WOW I'M FUCKING AWESOME IT CAME TRUE.

Cause it sounds like you just made that "we predicted robots" on the spot. The Bible told of Jesus and his miracles, before we knew Jesus existed.

So the bible told the story of Jesus before they knew he existed?
Oh wait you mean the bible was talking about a guy who was there at the time! OH you made it sound like it was amazing how it predicted something when in fact it was just a historical account.

Damn I thought it was weird too because back in high school my math books kept predicting equations that we were seeing in class, almost as it knew what the teacher was going to talk about.

HOLY

SHIT

With a mother named Mary, a father named Joseph, and other relevant names.

Yeah I bet there's no way some kid named "Tommy" in the U.S.A. could ever have a father named "John" and a mother named "Mary". CRAZY FOOLISHNESS.

Did you ever look at a Chinese phonebook? DAMN

I'm sure if you look for the article in which it tells of Jesus' tomb, they calculate the chance of it being all a coincidence, of being 1 in 600. I'd say those are pretty good odds it's not a coincidence, wouldn't you?

Yeah apparently it was because that dude they found had a KID.

Here let me link you to an article I found recently about it: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25 /tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology

lol

Too bad there was also a body in the tomb :(
Because that wasn't in the movie.

---

At 12/29/07 11:41 PM, JerkClock wrote: 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.

You're still mixing up cause and effect. Molecular motion affects temperature, not the other way around. There's a specific free energy change associated with C-14 radioactive decay, and the particle emitted won't magically speed up without the interaction of surrounding particles.

Again, temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a substance, not a magical force that drives the motion of particles.

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.

Those aren't broad ideas, because they're falsifiable by easily apparent means, means that even the proponent would acknowledge. For example, if vinegar failed to react with lye, or if temperature measurements of the sun didn't fall into the "hot" range, then the ideas would be falsified.

Tell me, what would convince you that you were wrong?

the giant elliptical boat

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

Exactly. As you've said, plausible boats wouldn't plausibly survive, and boats capable of survival are of implausible design for the time. Weak.

You are contradicting yourself. Heat is hot temperature,

Remember how I mentioned that you don't know what you're talking about in terms of science? Yeah, right here. You don't know what temperature is, you don't know what heat is, and you certainly don't know the difference between the two.

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.

Well, barring magic, yes it does. Give me a reason that continental drift might have happened faster in the past, or drop the issue.

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)

Well, it assumes that only the Earth's magnetic field would cause a world-wide magnetic field of a specific directionality, which is true. Again, unless you have a magic phenomenon that would cause the same magnetic anomaly with the same directionality all over the planet at the same time, you're just talking out of your ass.

and that it can know the age of rocks which amazingly enough, relies on the radioactive decay thing, which erroneously assumes decay is constant.

Decay is constant. Just because you don't understand why doesn't mean it isn't true.

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.

I said relatively constant. Yes, it stands to reason that some time far, far, far into the future the Earth's internal energy will finally escape to space and the process will grind to a halt. However, as I brought up earlier, even if we do speed up the process to impossibly high levels, and even if we do presume unheard of levels of technology for early man, you're still a million years away from anything resembling a plausible timeline.

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.

Well, they turned up frequently in my geology lectures. It's conceivable that an introductory lecture on continental drift wouldn't drag out the properties of the mantle. They're important to understanding the actual physics of it, not necessarily the basic idea.

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.

Correct, your body produces heat through the breaking of inter-atomic chemical bonds, and game consoles produce Joule heating by the interaction of electrons with ions. Radioactive decay involves the breaking of intra-atomic bonds, therefore your examples are worthless anyway.

Well, material properties such as elasto-plastic behaviour,

Which you still have given no details about.

I explained the terms plastic and elastic, and explained how they apply to the mantle. I don't know what else is left to tell you.

and in the same vein, chemical bonding.

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

Change the properties of the mantle, change the character of silicon-oxygen bonds. Can't change one without changing the other.

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.

Saying "I think it's enough time" isn't a reason. You have to tell me what would actually cause the change in activity.

That's correct it's Ad Populum, not as populum.

Thanks captain typo. Might I remind you that you've been talking about plate "techtonics" for most of this topic?

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.

That's why they come up with alternative ways to test the idea as well. Scientific rigor does involve redundancy, you know.

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.

So? It makes sense that life that benefits from such activity would thrive more than that which doesn't.

On top of that, this only works if you ignore the more malicious aspects of the universe, such as the way it's filled with rocks hurtling through it at enormous speed, which could wipe out all of the life on a planet in the event of a collision, which did happen to Earth a while back.

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.

You've essentially narrowed this down to me being right or you being right. Congratulations.

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.

That seems like some hand-waving conjecture to me. What exactly makes such a configuration less likely than any other?

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?

Err, matter is composed of energy, so I'm not sure of the difference.

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.

If you're talking about energy as a whole becoming sentient and self-transforming, the idea doesn't really make sense conceptually in this universe.

---

As far as the carbon dating thing goes, JerkClock is technically right. After millions and billions of years, it becomes too difficult to accurately gauge the correct age.

What he fails to mention, however, is that up to roughly 50 thousand years or so, it's incredibly accurate. Not to mention the fact that, once something gets so old that it's hard to date, it's pretty obvious that it is incredibly old. What's more, scientists know that dating something millions of years old is going to be inaccurate, this is why, whenever you see the approximate age of something that old, there's usually a margin of error of at least another million years. So, you're right, it's wildly inaccurate on a fine-tune scale, but it gives us a reasonable approximation of the order in which things happened. When you're talking about events from millions of years ago, pinpoint accuracy tends to matter less and less.

---

At 1/5/08 10:19 PM, Gunter45 wrote: As far as the carbon dating thing goes, JerkClock is technically right. After millions and billions of years, it becomes too difficult to accurately gauge the correct age.

That's why we don't use carbon dating for really old shit, as has already been discussed.

---

At 1/4/08 09:19 PM, poxpower wrote:

Not really

Argumentum Ad Nauseum, you may wish to believe that, but that does not change the fact that what I said is true.

nuclear reactor

I see you are stubbornly pointing to magic numbers again, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

I'm THIS close to banning you

Not surprising coming from a mod who broke the BBS's no flaming rule on me several times. Of course you would want to ban someone who disagrees with you and call them a troll when they are not. Because you can't stand people who don't accept your point of view.

you show it.

You've

you would get completely different values every time you tested something.

By that same logic, a tool which measures room temperature at 825 degreesC consistantly is accurate, and it is not.

Who are you?

Is again irrelevant. It has no effect on the truth of the statement.

a little temperature over time does NOTHING

Still being a proponent of magic numbers eh?

That doesn't even work since gravity is higher in some places than others.

Well actually that doesn't disprove expanding matter. If the Earth, or any other object out there were a perfect shape maybe it would.

but we know that the moon's gravity is much lower, so it would "expand" slower

Yes and the moon is noticably smaller than the Earth, so that does not disprove it either.

Yet the moon is always at the same size relatively to the earth.

But that's not necessarily true. You see it would take a lot to measure that and it may not be noticble within a human lifespan. If you consider the Earth may be expanding at a slow rate, even with the moon expanding at a fraction of that the proportions may go unnoticed over the course of 100 years. At least with out current technologies.

Molecular motion affects temperature, not the other way around.

Which is exactly why when the temperature is lower the molecular particles move slower.............Right. In any case, it's a basic property of temperature to effect other temperatures it borders, which means even things that create their own temperature would be effected by surrounding temperatures. You haven't disproven that, you know that right?

Those aren't broad ideas

Well whatever they are, you can't disprove a general idea as easily as you can disprove a specific one and that's my point.

Weak.

It's not implausible, you may wish to think it is but it isn't.

you don't know what heat is

Yes I do, you're just trying to pretend you know stuff which you do not.

yes it does

Give a reason that the mantle does make drift constant, other than playing semantics with "elastic" and "plastic."

Well, it assumes that only the Earth's magnetic field would cause a world-wide magnetic field of a specific directionality, which is true.

So? That doesn't mean it's the only thing which can do so at all. And we don't even know for a fact that the Earth has always had its magnetic field or when or how it came about if it didn't always have it.

Decay is constant.

Too bad that was disproven by a link your buddy pox posted.

I said relatively constant.

Which it wouldn't be if it's going to eventually stop. It would be a process which started out much faster and has slowed with time, and is still slowing.

Well, they turned up frequently in my geology lectures.

And that's your problem, you believe what you are told without questioning it. I used to receive lectyres about second hand smoke being more dangerous than what the smoker breathed, but I was never stupid enough to believe them.

Radioactive decay involves the breaking of intra-atomic bonds

It doesn't matter because temperature effects the speed of all molecular particles, not just electrons.

I explained the terms plastic and elastic

Correct, you played semantics, which isn't a valid argument.

the properties of the mantle

The properties which your own link invalidated.

You have to tell me what would actually cause the change in activity.

Well "enough small changes" would indicate that it's nothing specific, just a lot of small changes to varies things throughout the universe.

That's why they come up with alternative ways to test the idea as well.

Such as?

On top of that, this only works if you ignore the more malicious aspects of the universe, such as the way it's filled with rocks hurtling through it at enormous speed, which could wipe out all of the life on a planet in the event of a collision, which did happen to Earth a while back.

Which have provided us with much of the Iron we have made use of, as well as other things. Also we have means tosurvive it if we see one coming, course have to live way underground and stuff. The point is we are unlikely to be wiped out, and the space rock that have crashed into the Earth in the past have had various unseen benefits to us, even though not many are aware of them because they hear the word "meteor" and think "disaster" and nothing else.

What exactly makes such a configuration less likely than any other?

That's like asking what makes getting the same number on 5 dice less likely than getting the same number on 3. Don't know what else to tell you.

If you're talking about energy as a whole becoming sentient and self-transforming, the idea doesn't really make sense conceptually in this universe.

Neither does the idea of life in and of itself, or even the existence of matter(because ultimately you get something from nothing no matter what you do). However pure energy makes more sense as a life form than biomatter.

---

"Proof your religion is more valid."

Jerkclock - 'my religion is more valid because science is totally wrong'.

---

At 1/8/08 11:48 AM, Earfetish wrote: "Proof your religion is more valid."

Jerkclock - 'my religion is more valid because science is totally wrong'.

It's a common argument for various Christian groups for some reason. :S

Intelligent Design does it all the time, trying to find flaws in evolution like it would somehow prove their own theory.

Young age creationists just deny all the evidence that points to and old world and somehow thinks that proves that the world is 6000 years old.

---

At 1/8/08 04:49 AM, JerkClock wrote:

Molecular motion affects temperature, not the other way around.

Which is exactly why when the temperature is lower the molecular particles move slower.............Right. In any case, it's a basic property of temperature to effect other temperatures it borders, which means even things that create their own temperature would be effected by surrounding temperatures. You haven't disproven that, you know that right?

Well, you seem to be the expert here, so I'd like you to go ahead and explain your theory behind the kinetics of surrounding particles colliding with an emitted beta particle before it reaches another particle with which to propagate radioactive decay.

(Hint: doesn't happen)

Well whatever they are, you can't disprove a general idea as easily as you can disprove a specific one and that's my point.

Yes, but the door swings both ways. It's also harder to find something that you can specifically claim as evidence towards your broad idea, because most of the events have simple explanations even without your theory.

Weak.

It's not implausible, you may wish to think it is but it isn't.

This is a pretty bad attempt at a proof by assertion. If you can bring up any archaeological evidence to suggest that humans had the technology to build large elliptical boats that would be stable in a global flood millions of years ago, you might have something here.

However, all of the evidence suggests that they didn't, so yes, it is implausible, no matter how many times you say it.

you don't know what heat is

Yes I do, you're just trying to pretend you know stuff which you do not.

Let me be more specific. You don't know what heat is in the thermodynamic sense, you only know what it is in the colloquial sense.

Give a reason that the mantle does make drift constant, other than playing semantics with "elastic" and "plastic."

"Elastic" and "plastic" isn't semantics. That's a total non-sequitur.

Let me explain this again.

-In order for continental drift to occur, a plate has to move into the mantle at a zone of subduction.
-In order for a plate to move into the mantle, it has to move through the mantle for at least some distance.
-In order for a plate to move through the mantle, the mantle must deform plastically. I have explained what plastic deformation is in terms so simple a child could understand it, so you should understand this statement.
-Due to the intrinsic properties of the materials which make up the mantle, the mantle can only deform plastically over long periods of geologic time.
-Therefore, to speed up continental drift significantly, you'd either have to raise the mantle to absurd temperatures without melting the crust, which is impossible, or completely change the character of the chemical bonds in the materials that compose the mantle, also impossible.

So? That doesn't mean it's the only thing which can do so at all. And we don't even know for a fact that the Earth has always had its magnetic field or when or how it came about if it didn't always have it.

So what you're proposing is that the Earth's magnetic field magically appeared one day, a day which coincided with the disappearance of another unnamed phenomena which also caused a uniform global magnetic field?

Decay is constant.

Too bad that was disproven by a link your buddy pox posted.

How? It was a link with three people saying that radioactive decay isn't affected by temperature. The one person said that it might be possible that the rate would be measurably affected in the core of a nuclear reactor, but they doubted it.

Physically, it does not make sense that radioactive decay would be affected by ambient temperature, which you'd be able to understand if you actually knew the mechanism of decay and if you just sat and thought about it for a few minutes.

Which it wouldn't be if it's going to eventually stop. It would be a process which started out much faster and has slowed with time, and is still slowing.

Why should it have started very fast? It makes sense that continental drift wouldn't begin to occur until enough heat had already been released for solid plates to form.

Also, even if it did start very fast, it doesn't make sense that it would have been moving at 100 times the speed as early as 2 million years ago. You have to actually think about what you're saying AND how it relates to your position before you try to make a point.

And that's your problem, you believe what you are told without questioning it. I used to receive lectyres about second hand smoke being more dangerous than what the smoker breathed, but I was never stupid enough to believe them.

Well, if it was equally concentrated, then yes, it would be more dangerous.

But the thing is, when you have critical thinking skills, you can evaluate things and then accept them or reject them, rather than blindly accepting everything or blindly rejecting everything. The properties of the mantle make intuitive sense because I know what rocks are and I know what chemical bonds are. If you would like to propose an alternative theory for the behaviour of the mantle, I'd be glad to hear it, but until you do, you're just blindly rejecting things with no basis for doing so.

It doesn't matter because temperature effects the speed of all molecular particles, not just electrons.

Again, you have cause and effect mixed up. Temperature is a measurement that is defined by the motion of the particles, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Physically, there has to be a way that the energy is actually transferred to the beta particles after they decay but before they strike a viable target, and it also has to reliably occur with the correct directionality to increase the velocity rather than decreasing it.

I explained the terms plastic and elastic

Correct, you played semantics, which isn't a valid argument.

Explaining scientific terms to allow you to understand the properties of an object isn't "semantics"

Again, this is a total non-sequitur.

the properties of the mantle

The properties which your own link invalidated.

You mean "Didn't elaborate on"?

Look, this link doesn't mention god and therefore invalidates god.

Well "enough small changes" would indicate that it's nothing specific, just a lot of small changes to varies things throughout the universe.

And as I mentioned earlier, this is a probability nightmare. I'd do some calculations to show that you're stupid, but let's just say that what you're suggesting is equivalent to throwing a thousand quarters in the air and having them all turn up heads, then doing that over and over and getting the same result for an appreciable amount of attempts.

If you're saying it didn't happen by chance, then you have to give an idea as to what those changes were and what caused them.

Such as?

Well, what strata the objects came from, any recorded dates available for the object or the area in which it was found, radiometric dating using various different isotopes that decay at different rates from the initial isotope, etc.

What exactly makes such a configuration less likely than any other?

That's like asking what makes getting the same number on 5 dice less likely than getting the same number on 3. Don't know what else to tell you.

No, it isn't actually. It's like asking what makes rolling a five less likely than rolling a three.

the idea doesn't really make sense conceptually in this universe.

Neither does the idea of life in and of itself, or even the existence of matter(because ultimately you get something from nothing no matter what you do).

No, life itself makes sense conceptually because we can see the different parts of it and how it works. Claiming that all energy everywhere would become a cohesive consciousness doesn't make any sense because there's no rhyme or reason to it. There is no real mechanism by which it could occur.

---

At 1/8/08 04:49 AM, JerkClock wrote:

Argumentum Ad Nauseum, you may wish to believe that, but that does not change the fact that what I said is true.

Argumentum Ad Nauseum, you may wish to believe that, but that does not change the fact that what I said is true.

nuclear reactor

I see you are stubbornly pointing to magic numbers again, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

I see you are stubbornly pointing to magic numbers again, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument

you show it.

You've

Still waiting for you to show anything that points to when the earth was as hot as a nuclear reactor and inhabited by animals.

you would get completely different values every time you tested something.

By that same logic, a tool which measures room temperature at 825 degreesC consistantly is accurate, and it is not.

So how do you know the room is at 825 degrees?

a little temperature over time does NOTHING

Still being a proponent of magic numbers eh?

Sorry if you don't understand scientific things like the melting point of water and "reading articles".
Oh, p.s Argumentum Ad Nauseum

Well actually that doesn't disprove expanding matter.

Yes, it does exactly that, along with like 30 other things. Whatever we're not here to debate that.

Yes and the moon is noticably smaller than the Earth, so that does not disprove it either.

It would EXPAND
SLOWER.
See, if it expands at a rate of 2 times per day, and the earth expands at 3 times per day, then here's what will happen using values:

Day1:

Earth is at 10
Moon is at 5

Day2:

Earth: 30
Moon: 10

Day3:

Earth 90
Moon: 20

Day 4:

Earth : 270
Moon: 30

SO you see that by day 4, the earth is now 9 times bigger than the moon when it was only twice as big to being with. So yeah, the moon would shrink into nothingness if it had a different expansion rate.

AS EXPECTED FROM SOMEONE WHO LACKS A LOGICAL ARGUMENT
lol

You see it would take a lot to measure that and it may not be noticble within a human lifespan.

The "expansion" "theory" ( it's not a theory ) relies on centrifugal force to "push" people down to the earth. To get a force of 1g ( 1 times the earth's gravity ) something needs to move at the speed that we've measure our gravity, which was 9.8 m/s I think. So that would mean that the rate of the earth's expansion is 9.8 m/s, which would equal 846 720 kilometers in a day, and the earth is like 10 000 kilometers wide if I recall from high school classes. So the earth would blow up 84 times per day? And the moon is probably at about half that gravity, so it would blow up only 42 times per day, which would be noticeable in mere hours and it would shrink to nothing in about a week haha.

Yes I do, you're just trying to pretend you know stuff which you do not.

Even then, didn't you read the article that says decay rates are only affected significantly by insane temperatures and pressures like in a frickin nuclear reactor?
So when did that happen on earth?

BZZZT YOU LOSE
AS EXPECTED FROM SOMEONE WHO LACKS A LOGICAL ARGUMENT.

---

CARBON DATING IS INACCURATE, THEREFORE JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD.

---

A Swedish minister, having assembled the chiefs of the Susquehanah Indians, made a sermon to them, acquainting them with the principal historical facts on which our religion is founded; such as the fall of our first parents by eating an apple, the coming of Christ to repair the mischief, His miracles and suffering, &c. When he had finished, an Indian orator stood up to thank him. "What you have told us," he says, "is very good. It is indeed bad to eat apples. It is better to make them all into cider. We are much obliged by your kindness in coming so far, to tell us these things you have heard from your mothers. In return, I will tell you some of those we have heard from ours. In the beginning our fathers had only the flesh of animals to subsist on; and if their hunting was unsuccessful, they were starving. Two of our young hunters, having killed a deer, made a fire in the woods to broil some part of it. When they were about to satisfy their hunger, they beheld a beautiful young woman descend from the clouds, and seat herself on that hill, which you see yonder among the blue mountains. They said to each other, it is a spirit that has smelled our broiling venison and wishes to eat of it; let us offer some to her. They presented her with the tongue; she was pleased with the taste of it, and said, 'Your kindness shall be rewarded; come to this place after thirteen moons, and you shall find something that will be of great benefit in nourishing you and your children to the latest generations.' They did so, and, to their surprise, found plants they had never seen before, but which, from that ancient time, have been constantly cultivated among us, to our great advantage. Where her right hand touched the ground, they found maize; where her left hand had touched, they found kidney beans; and where her backside had sat on it, they found tobacco." The good missionary, disgusted with this idle tale, said, "What I have delivered to you were sacred truths; but what you tell me is mere fable, fiction, and falsehood.

---

That is not where I was going with my previous post.

---

At 1/8/08 11:59 PM, Xtesh wrote: People can prove that their beliefs are 100% correct now?

I see you have trouble reading.

"Prove your religion is more valid than Pastafarianism"

---

Anyway JerkClock, at this point, you're really struggling to keep your idea in the realms of possibility, leaving you far and away from having any actual evidence to support your claims, which was, in fact, the point of this discussion.

---

At 1/8/08 07:39 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: CARBON DATING IS INACCURATE, THEREFORE JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD.

SCIENTISTS HAVE FOUND A SPECIES THAT WAS PRESUMED EXTINCT, THEREFORE THAT'S ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE GODS EXISTIENCE!!