Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/21/07 08:54 AM, poxpower wrote: Actually, you can date snow too, and it has nothing to do with radioactive decay or whatever. Don't really remember how they do it, but they use layers of old snow in the artic to determine things about the earth's past, mainly stuff like Co2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperature estimates, in fact it's one of the ways they know the earth has had many past rapid warming and cooling cycle.

You can't really "date snow" but they do drill ice cores and know how old the specific layers are. Due to the cycle of the seasons, when snow piles up it forms distinguishable layers of ice, one per year. They can get a good estimate of temperature from a time period by the thickness of the layers, and they can test for dissolved CO2 to determine atmospheric levels.

Some things can't even be dated because they don't contain any of those datable particles.

Good job, a lot of people don't know this. They think you can just date whatever the hell you want whenever you want.

At 12/21/07 01:57 AM, Earfetish wrote:

I think the one thing naturalistic science fails to address is the sense of awe and wonder at the universe and at life itself - the Magic Mushroom experience, if you will.

You mean that thing they constantly duplicate with drugs in labs?
Yeah I guess we'll never understand chemical reactions changing stuff in the brain :(

I think he was referring more to the philosophical aspect rather than the physical :/

---

really need to prove? ha... well if i must

jewsness is the oldest and start of all the other religins!

---

At 12/21/07 12:23 PM, Elfer wrote:

You can't really "date snow" but they do drill ice cores and know how old the specific layers are. Due to the cycle of the seasons, when snow piles up it forms distinguishable layers of ice, one per year.

I don't think that snow melts in the middle of the antarctic circle where the drill the holes so dating the pieces probably would be feasible by counting the layers of snow. There's like miles of it :O
But yeah I didn't mean that they did a test to date the snow itself.

Good job, a lot of people don't know this. They think you can just date whatever the hell you want whenever you want.

Yeah what can I say, I'm an art grad, so I know a lot of things about science...
...
Oh wait, no, it's because I finished high school, I'm so silly lawl
SIKE, JERK CLOCK

At 12/21/07 01:57 AM, Earfetish wrote:

I think he was referring more to the philosophical aspect rather than the physical :/

You know what I find astonishing?
Is how you can "hurt" something. How can a bunch of atoms somehow feel "pain"??? Like, yeah, your nerves will feel the pain at some point, but somehow atoms will react in a certain way that it will make an individual collective of brain cells feel "pain" or "pleasure".

In fact I know that's there's actualy 3 things that are 100% certain in the world:

- I exist
- I feel pain
- I feel pleasure.

Many people will assume that pain and pleasure are just "illusions created by the brain" but they are REAL. The world around me might not be, but the feelings of pain and pleasure are real! Even if my brain isn't real, even if nothing is real, I know that they are real to me.
Pretty neat. And fucked up. Damn you pain.

---

At 12/21/07 02:29 PM, satanbrain wrote: really need to prove? ha... well if i must

jewsness is the oldest and start of all the other religins!

Hinduism is older, thank you very much.

---

really? Hinduism was after jewness - prove its worng! ):)

---

At 12/10/07 04:45 PM, mayeram wrote: I was wondering if any of you religious newgrounders could prove that your religion is more valid then Pastafarianism. So many religious people tell me that there are great amounts of evidence and proof pointing towards their religion, and yet I haven't seen anything that gives more proof for the belief in any other religion then the Pastafarians have for their religion. Why be offended of a religion that has just as much proof as yours?

By the way, if you don't know what Pastafarianism is, here is a link to the religion's homepage.

http://www.venganza.org/

why dont you fuckin give it a rest already? you just made the damn thing up for hilarity issues and now i'm getting sick of it. along with a few others. what i dont understand is why you compare something made up by your own idiocracy to religions that people have actually believed in. i dont really believe in spiritual religion, but your so called pastafarianism is the lamest thing i heard on newgrounds.

---

At 12/22/07 01:28 AM, statikeye1 wrote: how can you be so disrespectful

because religion is stupid and dangerous and it's about time the world got told this

---

At 12/22/07 01:35 AM, Earfetish wrote:

At 12/22/07 01:28 AM, statikeye1 wrote: how can you be so disrespectful

because religion is stupid and dangerous and it's about time the world got told this

thats the point in reliogn! >:) we must survive, mean we must fight on resources, and religion

assembles ppl from with same opinions and make them survive! >:))

---

you cant prove or disprove a religion with natural law

---

At 12/22/07 01:28 AM, statikeye1 wrote:
why dont you fuckin give it a rest already? you just made the damn thing up for hilarity issues and now i'm getting sick of it.

Youcan't disprove it, k.

along with a few others. what i dont understand is why you compare something made up by your own idiocracy to religions that people have actually believed in.

Just because people believe in it doesn't make it more likely. We compare it because it has the same amount of evidence.

i dont really believe in spiritual religion, but your so called pastafarianism is the lamest thing i heard on newgrounds.

Sign-Up: 09/19/07

That means a lot, coming from you.
Not.

---

At 12/22/07 01:19 AM, satanbrain wrote: really? Hinduism was after jewness - prove its worng! ):)

Hinduism is the world's oldest major religion that is still practiced

---

At 12/22/07 02:51 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/22/07 01:19 AM, satanbrain wrote: really? Hinduism was after jewness - prove its worng! ):)

Hinduism is the world's oldest major religion that is still practiced

just cause a lot of anti semits in the world don't mean its right!

---

At 12/22/07 01:35 AM, Earfetish wrote: because religion is stupid and dangerous

so are governments

---

At 12/22/07 03:02 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 12/22/07 01:35 AM, Earfetish wrote: because religion is stupid and dangerous

so are governments

and? its spouse to be a bad thing?

---

At 12/22/07 03:02 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 12/22/07 01:35 AM, Earfetish wrote: because religion is stupid and dangerous

so are governments

I am an atheist libertarian and would agree whole-heartedly

If we could alter the power of one of the two then the world would be better

and it'll be easier to alter the power of religion

---

so what you suggest? free world?

thats not work like that...

---

At 12/22/07 03:29 AM, satanbrain wrote: so what you suggest? free world?

thats not work like that...

Libertarianism is a totally different topic

stay on religion please

---

ok, ok... so what you suggets about religion?

---

At 12/22/07 03:32 AM, satanbrain wrote: ok, ok... so what you suggets about religion?

There should be critical analysis in schools, everywhere should be explicitly secular, churches should pay taxes, and rearing your kids with your religious beliefs should be discouraged. There should be no religious schools, no religious summer camps, whenever anyone says 'the law should be this way because of the Bible' then they should get ignored, no politician should pay any explicit attention to the wishes of religious groups, and everywhere should publish Muhammed.

There should be soft pressure on society to stop being religious. It shouldn't be outlawed, churches should stay open, holy books and religion should still be academically studied, but the leap of faith it takes to be a specific religious domination should seem extraordinary.

We need to change society's opinions on religion, to one of 'it's stupid'.

---

really? depans where! wich countrys?

---

At 12/22/07 03:39 AM, Earfetish wrote: We need to change society's opinions on religion, to one of 'it's stupid'.

Actually just 'it's stupid and dangerous'. Society can decide what to do with that information, but really, all anti-religion atheists (and agnostics, and deists) want is the world to agree that religion is stupid and dangerous. What it does with that information is its choice, but it's essential atheists try and convey this information.

---

even if one religion hurt the other one?

---

At 12/22/07 02:59 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 12/22/07 02:51 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/22/07 01:19 AM, satanbrain wrote: really? Hinduism was after jewness - prove its worng! ):)

Hinduism is the world's oldest major religion that is still practiced

just cause a lot of anti semits in the world don't mean its right!

What..the fuck. I give up with you.

---

At 12/22/07 03:43 AM, satanbrain wrote: really? depans where! wich countrys?

The Middle East would be the ultimate target of the secular movement, I suppose. North America and Europe, and then Asia and Africa. And when all those continents are publishing Muhammed, I'd imagine the Islamic world would be far more pliable to the secularist lobby.

At 12/22/07 03:47 AM, satanbrain wrote: even if one religion hurt the other one?

I thought I was quite explicit in that secularism should be a peaceful movement. It's not atheists and agnostics who blow up mosques.

I'll grant Buddhism and Raelism that it doesn't look excessively dangerous to the world, but you never know when old superstitions can challenge new progress.

---

At 12/22/07 03:48 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/22/07 02:59 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 12/22/07 02:51 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/22/07 01:19 AM, satanbrain wrote: really? Hinduism was after jewness - prove its worng! ):)

Hinduism is the world's oldest major religion that is still practiced

just cause a lot of anti semits in the world don't mean its right!

What..the fuck. I give up with you.

thats how we survive the eygpts,greeks, romies, nazi. and now the muslims!

if you give up that mean i won!

---

At 12/22/07 03:39 AM, Earfetish wrote: There should be critical analysis in schools, everywhere should be explicitly secular,

How exactly would you do this? Impose fines upon individuals who make one mention on a higher power? This point's kinda vague.

churches should pay taxes,

This is the government's way of bribing churches. In essence, it's saying "As long as you don't tell your faithful to vote for any specific candidate or cause you'll have tax exempt status." If you do away with this there's nothing stopping a preacher/reverend/bishop who to vote for.

Also, churches by definition are non-profit organizations since they endeavor to help the needy by using the money gathered by their caucus to open soup kitchens, finance projects, fund rehad centers, etc. Removing tax exempt would only harm individuals in need of these programs and purposelessly single out these churches while leaving other charities unharassed, strikes me as bigotry since you're ignoring the fact churches are charities. I'm sorry to use the word, but that's how I see it.

and rearing your kids with your religious beliefs should be discouraged.

Good luck with thiat.

There should be no religious schools, no religious summer camps,

This doesn't sound very libertarian of you. Are you going to have it so local and federal gonverments ban these functions in an authoritarian manner?

whenever anyone says 'the law should be this way because of the Bible' then they should get ignored, no politician should pay any explicit attention to the wishes of religious groups, and everywhere should publish Muhammed.

Good luck with that.

There should be soft pressure on society to stop being religious. It shouldn't be outlawed, churches should stay open, holy books and religion should still be academically studied, but the leap of faith it takes to be a specific religious domination should seem extraordinary.

I don't think even then you'll eliminate religions influence. You might get all the sheeple(unthinking individuals in society who follows the wind) to quit being religious, but you'll always have individuals adhering to a religion because it simply appeals to their personality-wise.

We need to change society's opinions on religion, to one of 'it's stupid'.

Will you do the same for socialism and marxism in general?

---

At 12/22/07 04:24 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 12/22/07 03:48 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/22/07 02:59 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 12/22/07 02:51 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/22/07 01:19 AM, satanbrain wrote: really? Hinduism was after jewness - prove its worng! ):)

Hinduism is the world's oldest major religion that is still practiced

just cause a lot of anti semits in the world don't mean its right!

What..the fuck. I give up with you.

thats how we survive the eygpts,greeks, romies, nazi. and now the muslims!

if you give up that mean i won!

Not quite, you see, you haven't beaten anyone, especially if even yahoo has proof against your statments.

---

At 12/22/07 01:22 PM, Zeistro wrote: How exactly would you do this? Impose fines upon individuals who make one mention on a higher power? This point's kinda vague.

Well, in my primary school, in this country at least, some of the teachers went on about God all the time and Religious Studies lessons were like religious brainwashing, and it was a state school. Maybe they should teach kids critical studies in religious education, and how to apply critical analysis to religion. And there shouldn't be the Ten Commandments anywhere, compulsory prayer at public functions, an ommision of compulsory God from the public sphere.

churches should pay taxes,

This is the government's way of bribing churches. In essence, it's saying "As long as you don't tell your faithful to vote for any specific candidate or cause you'll have tax exempt status." If you do away with this there's nothing stopping a preacher/reverend/bishop who to vote for.

Do they not do this anyway?

strikes me as bigotry since you're ignoring the fact churches are charities. I'm sorry to use the word, but that's how I see it.

Aye well who the fuck cares, religion is getting a free ride; churches aren't necessarily charities and you deduct your charitable costs from your bloody taxes anyway.

and rearing your kids with your religious beliefs should be discouraged.

Good luck with thiat.

Well, it should be. Society should be pretty condemning. That's why I think publicism of atheism is important - the societal shift is by far the most important aspect. Towards condoning a stronger sense of secularism and intolerance of imposing religion on the unwilling and uncritical.

There should be no religious schools, no religious summer camps,

This doesn't sound very libertarian of you. Are you going to have it so local and federal gonverments ban these functions in an authoritarian manner?

Of course there shouldn't be religious schools. I suppose I can allow religious summer camps.

whenever anyone says 'the law should be this way because of the Bible' then they should get ignored, no politician should pay any explicit attention to the wishes of religious groups, and everywhere should publish Muhammed.

Good luck with that.

Still should happen. Which is why the promotion of atheism is so important. I would recommend religious people read, cover-to-cover, their particular holy book, and a book that is a critique of their religion. That seems intleligent.

There should be soft pressure on society to stop being religious. It shouldn't be outlawed, churches should stay open, holy books and religion should still be academically studied, but the leap of faith it takes to be a specific religious domination should seem extraordinary.

I don't think even then you'll eliminate religions influence. You might get all the sheeple(unthinking individuals in society who follows the wind) to quit being religious, but you'll always have individuals adhering to a religion because it simply appeals to their personality-wise.

Correct. I don't think there'll ever be eradication of religion. But people like the Pope and the Vatican have a stupid amount of influence.

We need to change society's opinions on religion, to one of 'it's stupid'.

Will you do the same for socialism and marxism in general?

No; political viewpoints are at least worthy of arguing about and are based on real observation.

---

At 12/22/07 01:49 PM, Earfetish wrote:

At 12/22/07 01:22 PM, Zeistro wrote:

they should teach kids critical studies in religious education, and how to apply critical analysis to religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_th inking

---

At 12/21/07 01:37 AM, Elfer wrote: in circles

Erroneous personal attack and evasion of proof, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

Temperature

Effects everything it surrounds, no exceptions.

This would mean that your definition of Christianity includes all possible scenarios, and therefore the required evidence is fully arbitrary.

Yeah and? What's your point? I fail to see how that invalidates my belief.

independent of the existence of the Christian god.

Anything could be said to have happened independant of a christian God no matter what it is, if it was God talking to people who'd be arguing that they were all hallucinating the same thing by shear coincidence. However that would be unlikely, just like someone somehow predicting that a flood will come and wipe out the town, then pre-emptively building a boat. Sure it could happen but it's more likely something told him/her about it.

crazy theories

No see it doesn't contradict our science, merely some of it's conclusions based on assumptions we can't possibly know.

Again, the gap increases in magnitude, but not in proportion.

Playing of semantics to dodge the point noted.

physics-defying

It doesn't defy physics and you haven't proven it.

unwilling to learn

No I asked for details and you refused to give them because you knew they'd be debunked.

wizard.

Rodney Dangerfield is not remembered as a wizard either, so your comparison fails.

Refusal to learn anything for yourself noted.

You bring it up, you explain, I'm not looking shit up just because you lack ability to back yourself up.

judging all science

Calling into question the ability of dating stuff millions and billions of years old is "judging all science" eh? That's a fallacy of composition.

fossilized remains

The analogy fails because ground isn't the same as water, and so boyancy would have no effect.

No, see,

Yes, see, it is plausible that over a thousand or more years the enitre universe would have enough small changes to effect the cosmic ray amount notably, you're just invoking Ad Nauseum at this point.

making up

No, I've always said the idea we can somehow measure what happens over millions or billions of years is utter bullshit. And the fact that both radiocarbon and radiometric dating are directly contradicted by the properties of temperature with respect to molecular particles(something which can be, and has been measure within our lifetime) should set off alarms with anyone who thinks rationally about stuff.

dismissal without cause

The idea that we can not possibly know what happens over millionsor billions of years, combined with the fact that the methods are directly contradicted by the properties of temperature and neglect variations in energy which could very easily effect it also(such as lightning strikes).

unverified statement

There's been many people throughout history who said the same things dude, that's better than some stupid fuck atheist going, "Well I'm making this spagetti monster up."

Just something, anything, that you think suggests that Christianity (and Christianity in particular) is true, that you feel isn't adequately explained by naturalistic science.

I do have some, but no links, so you'rejust going to call bullshit on it(although much of it has recently aired on "The Universe")

Poxpower wrote:
fucking strong evidence

There is strong evidence, they're just saying radioactive decay can't be effected by anything that happens around it which is not only a bold assumption, but pretty fallacious at that, it directly contradicts the properties of temperature, and since energy is a factor, it neglects variations in energy as well.

decay rate that affects the temperature

Again that's like saying your computer's ability to function can't be effected by temperature because it creates its own. It does, but it's still effected by the temperatures around it.

you can date snow too

Well I'd be hard pressed to believe using snow layers based on average snowfall could accurately date snow beyond a human lifespan either. And for the record, they wouldn't need that to prove natural occurrences of global warming. Historical accounts alone could do that.

different material

And as that source said, those different materials get less accurate.

Dating techniques are insanely complex and precise and if you don't believe they work

Saying "I am right" doesn't prove your case.