1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

And.......Evolution is going to drowning fast again. Lol, science is becoming a joke

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Laceygirl, Nov 22, 2010.

  1. IsraeI

    IsraeI Peon

    Messages:
    1,741
    Likes Received:
    16
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #61
    It might be laughable to some but its the plain truth, no man has ever disproved God so it's never a good idea to criticize before seeing the evidence, it's called arrogance. People should learn how to turn silly statements into valid questions.
     
    IsraeI, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  2. Breeze Wood

    Breeze Wood Peon

    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #62

    Not really, I read the report and it contained a great deal of speculation much the same as the meteor from Mars with crevices associated but not proven as animal structure later found as mineral in origin. Not everyone in the article accepted as face value the references either.

    Science and our religion are not contradictory in their respective goals.
     
    Breeze Wood, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  3. Law-Dude

    Law-Dude Active Member

    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    12
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    85
    #63
    What is "blood celling?" I am trying to understand your stance against the validity of carbon dating.
     
    Law-Dude, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  4. cientificoloco

    cientificoloco Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    #64
    No you are not, unless you have a very lousy concept of what a paleontologist is.
    I bet you studied from this book:
    creation.jpg
     
    cientificoloco, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  5. Laceygirl

    Laceygirl Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    188
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    250
    #65
    anna faris Move over!
    Its their fault this time. They turned it into some religion thing.
    Use can't use Religious catch lines without being bombarded from people. Its just the way the world works.

    I'm not? That's strange. Last year I unearthed a bunch of teeth and vertebrae from Thornhill, of Morden, MB actually. I Also assisted with the of an excellent specie of the Mosasauridae family. Damn thing of in good shape.
    I guess that's not ture becuase you know me, right?
    moron.....
    Oh, I'm sorry. "Blood cells". My mistake. Don't hold it against me.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2010
    Laceygirl, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  6. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #66
    Out of interest can you explain, in your own words, what you think carbon dating is and how it works. I just want to establish the level of ignorance which has spawed such fatuous opinions. Afterwards, feel free to stop using the computer and internet which science has provided for you, after all, you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would you.
     
    stOx, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  7. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #67
    No it's just convenient for you to pretend that the scientific method, the same thing that is responsible for explaining the diversity of life, isn't also responsible for the computer that you are using. To pretend there is a difference is simply an excuse that you think allows you to say science isn't a valid way of determining the truth while taking full advantage of what it has provided for you. You're an ingrate and a hypocrite.
     
    stOx, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  8. Laceygirl

    Laceygirl Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    188
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    250
    #68
    If you knew Stox then you wouldn't bother.
    One of the things to age dinosaurs is the level of ground, the particles found in the ground, dirt density of where that extinct species was found. So no, the people who upgraded into the computer language did not evaluate the ground to do this so they are not responsible.
    Now go away and have a KKK meeting or talk about Global Warming to your friends or something.

    I don't hate ALL Science. I'm talking about a certian area of science is total bullshit.
     
    Laceygirl, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  9. Law-Dude

    Law-Dude Active Member

    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    12
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    85
    #69
    Ok, so blood cells don't live for millions of years I believe is your argument against the validity of carbon dating. I am no scientist, but doesn't carbon continue to exist and decay regardless of whether a blood cell is living or not? Gasoline is not alive and yet it is quite full of carbon.
     
    Law-Dude, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  10. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #70
    Well no that isn't how the age of dinosaurs is determined. "dirt density"? That's the level of ignorance we are dealing with folks. This person is a primitive and an illiterate. But the methods used to determine the age of dinosaurs, the actual methods, not your fatuous made up bollocks, utilises the exact same principles as what produced the computer you are using, the internet it is connected to, the vaccinations which you owe your life too, the food you eat and practically everything else that makes you existence comfortable.

    just the science you don't use and the science with contradicts your primitive little creation myth.
     
    stOx, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  11. Seqqa

    Seqqa Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,695
    Likes Received:
    62
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #71
    Agreed. I don't think any of us "hate ALL science" after all it's bring us all together through the internet.
     
    Seqqa, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  12. setset

    setset Peon

    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #72
    Solar, I am disappointed in you. You played along when I mention FSM when you asked for my requirements. Now you back off?

    The point of FSM like others mentioned earlier relates to Russell's teapot. FSM has just as much evidence for its existence as god.


    "estimations" are measurements. All form of measurements have a degree of accuracy. What you are doing is a logical fallacy known as "moving the goalpost". If someone were prove their height and they said 5' 10", you would ask for a more accurate measurement, moving the goalpost. You will do this until a measurement is not possible or reasonable (ie, to the nearest micron). A good example of estimation is age. When you ask someone their age, most people will say something like "24 years old". Is that answer good enough or should he say, "24 years, 6 months, 2 day, 5 hours, 12 mins, and 24 seconds.... 25.... 26...."?


    The fact that the age/size of the universe is even measurable is an accomplishment in an of itself but no form of measurement will satisfy you. I mentioned earlier that I would be satisfied with accurate measurements of god but most people will be satisfied with some or any type of measurements.

    Everything in the known universe that exists can be measured in some way or another. Matter can be measured in volume, mass, etc. Energy can be measured in calories, lumens, watts, etc. Speed can be measured in MPH, FPS, parsecs, etc. Music can be measured in pitch, tone, volume, etc. Even intangible things such as thoughts, dreams, IQ, and love can be measured with MRIs, brain scans, etc. All measurements are accurate only to a degree. Even the method of carbon dating is only accurate to a degree. This is why engineers use lasers and trigonometry to measure buildings and not tape measures.


    I turn back to my original request. You say god exist. Can you provide evidence? I will accept accurate measurements but I dare you to provide any type of measurement not relating to popular vote.

    Isn't that interesting? The same thing could be said about religion.

    I request that you clear up your semantics and be more accurate. By "randomly make stuff up" you mean "hypothesize" or "theorize"? By "believable" do you mean "conclusive and testable"? By "taught to many others as common knowledge" do you mean "Submitted to peer review"? If so, then YES.

    That had nothing to do with my last reply but I will humor you. Carbon dating is not the be-all end-all form of dating. Like I said previously, measurements are only accurate to a degree. A good example is the 365 day calender and the 24 hour clock. They are not 100% accurate but are good for people to accept. There are other forms of dating like potassium-argon dating, and uranium-lead dating.


    When you say, "random guessing", you are trying to relate to the layperson. In reality, all facts are "guesses" but they are not random. Even solar's "fact" that god is real is a guess. The difference is accuracy. His fact has not/cannot been measured.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2010
    setset, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  13. Laceygirl

    Laceygirl Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    188
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    250
    #73
    Look, its real simple.

    Since the 1700's they have started dicovering dinosaurs that they have been describing them in the proper classification(group) of dinosaurs. Through the years each specimen was delivered to different dating facilities in which all have been giving dates from 267MYA to 61MYA. All seems well and science could easily determine the dating and its shown as a fact.
    On the other hand there are somethings that cannot preserve through long periods of time. Blood cells are one of them.
    Today several dinosaurs have been found with blood cells and this disproves that they are from 10,000yrs ago+.
    No, it really is. Things like minerals in the ground play a part for the dating of a fossil. You should stick with the "stars are all suns with universes" crap.
    No again. I don't like science where its some stupid pie in the sky idea where they have no chance of even getting close to having evidence about it, but make wild claims while brainwashed people like you run around believing it because the guys coat was white. Stox, let's face it. You are like one of those idots from the stone age who believed the world was flat because everyone else said so.
    And there's an example of science falling apart. Before the dating of dinosaurs was stable within 1 million yrs of so, but now after all of those building and the "oh so smart" people yabbering on about it, its actually was a schoolgirls guess for dinosaurs. This is an example of science found to be total bullshit. In the beginning they should have just said "Oh, we don't really know so to make it interesting we are going to say millions of years because that will line up good with our guess on how old the earth is".
    That would have been more honest than manipulating for 200yrs.
     
    Laceygirl, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  14. setset

    setset Peon

    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #74


    It seems you have a personal vendetta of some sort. I don't know what it is and frankly, I don't want to know. I've dropped too much knowledge on this thread already, and I expected the same in response. Pity. You say science is "total bullshit" yet you claim computer science is "different". Yeah, clearly you are bitter and picking and choosing which parts of science you want to side with.
     
    setset, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  15. Laceygirl

    Laceygirl Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    188
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    250
    #75
    People who believe in space do not always believe in aliens. Obviously I have not been clear enough as not ALL Science is bullshit!. It is completely normal to pick apart sides that are realistically good, as opposed to bigfoot.
     
    Laceygirl, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  16. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #76
    No they don't use mineral concentration to date rock, and they don't use "dirt density" either. To date an organic sample they use, among other methods, carbon 14 dating. This works because we know the rate at which the radioisotope carbon 14 decays and turns in to nitrogen 14. So by measuring the ratio of carbon 14 in a sample compared to carbon 12, the normal carbon atom which doesn't decay over time, we can accurately estimate the amount of time sinse the organic sample died and stopped taking in more carbon 14.

    To explain it in a way which even you can understand. Imagine having a bowl of sweets. If you knew the initial amount of sweets that were in the bowl and knew that 1 sweet every hour is taken out of the bowl you can, by counting the amount of sweets in the bowl at any given time, calculate for how long people have been taking sweets out. Is that an infantile enough explanation for you?

    Now, carbon 14 has a specific half life which means it can only and is only used to date specimens up to a certain age and it can only date an organic sample, like a piece of wood or flesh. A fossil isn't an organic sample, it is mineralised. In a fossil there is none of the original organic matter, only the form remains which is left as a mineralised impression in the rock. To date these sample we need to date the actual rock. Now contrary to the mindless bollocks you have made up, we don't use the density of dirt to do this. We use the same principle as mentioned before, remember the bowl of sweeties? But this time we use an isotope which has a much greater half life like potassium, uranium, rubidium and compare the ratio of those isotopes to atoms which are known to not decay or to isotopes which have a different decay rate.

    See, the thing about the people that develop these methods is they are very cleaver. They are very clever people, while you are uneducated and ignorant. That's why they are able to develop very good methods for dating samples using things that you don't even know exist, and you are left to embarras yourself publicly but claiming they use "dirt density", which incidentally is probably the most cretinous thing i have ever heard anyone say, to date a 50 million year old rock.
     
    stOx, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  17. Laceygirl

    Laceygirl Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    188
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    250
    #77
    As far as evolution of dinosaurs not accurate enough due to a 64.9million year dating flaw:) See all of this bullshit you are talking about either way not used for dating dinosaur fossils or is all a pile of BULLSHIT period. The 64.9Million yr dating flaw proves that.

    Yep, good old Stox. The racist, stalking A-hole. Instead of sticking to the point he takes a single error and saying it over and over again. Let me rephrase "Density of the ground and particles in the ground".


    Of course none of this matter to you, Stox. Because if a Scientist points at a dot in the sky and says "That mass is 39707870813049.6kms(4.2lightyears) away" you would believe it because you believe anything that's told by someone in a white coat.:)
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2010
    Laceygirl, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  18. setset

    setset Peon

    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #78
    People believe in space? I had no idea space was subject to belief. In your opinion, what is "realistically good"? Your posts are very vague. You use broad semantics such as "common knowledge" and "making crap up". You have also made a few references to "scientists in white coats". I've asked you on at least 2 occasion to state your theory.

    Let me get this straight. The point of this thread was to criticize and point out the inaccuracies of carbon 14 dating, right? What will satisfy you? How accurate should dating be? What do you suggest? Make a clear point of reference. You are free to improve and add to the study or are you just here to ridicule science while you enjoy other aspects of it?

    So what do you suggest that is "realistically good"? You have hypocritically used vague words criticizing science but demand the highest level of accuracy from it. You've made some comments saying that scientists just add "millions of years" to make it interesting. What do you suggest? What is more realistic? Do you have research? What do you hypothesize? Can you test it? Is the test repeatable? Can you conclude anything? Something of substance besides "science is bullshit". I think it's time you put whatever your agenda is, on the table.
     
    setset, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  19. Laceygirl

    Laceygirl Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    188
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    250
    #79
    Before I mentioned that this topic is not a religious debate. Let me add to this. This topic is not a scientific debate either. The information was already given. There is nothing to debate. Dinosaurs were supposed to be from millions of years ago, but now its known that it is more like 2000 years. The whole point of this topic is not to argue about it. There's nothing to argue about. There's no research to show. Blood cells do not preserve past 4000yrs, they have discovered blood cells in a dinosaur. Its over.

    The whole argument is simple. My argument is of full opinion and in my opinion I say that there is a lot of bullshit in science where they pretend to be studying on things but they are just making stuff as the go along. The, who knows how many, buildings that dinosaur fossils were sent to is one example. In science so many things are made up a just hoaxed around how can you tell what it real? The ozone layer? Distance of stars? Appollo 11? The greenhouse effect?
    Basically all of the stuff that most people just believe every word of while the Gov't and science just throws a huge fake story about.
    That is the reason why a lot of science is STUPID.

    Something where evidence was considered, not just made up(kind of like taking a picture of a dot in the sky and saying its a sun like ours and it is "balah far away)
    An interesting story/theory to get attention with no evidence or evidence that is next to none.
     
    Laceygirl, Nov 24, 2010 IP
  20. setset

    setset Peon

    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #80
    Are you suggesting that the ozone layer is not real, distance of stars cannot be measured, and the greenhouse effect is wrong? I can't decipher your point on Apollo 11. What exactly is "over"? Research? Science?

    You are generalizing Dinosaurs the same way you've generalized science. By Dinosaurs, you mean the T-rex bone studied by Schweitzer? By "from" do you mean "extinct"?


    The only thing that is "over" is your reasoning. Your thread title states "Evolution is going to drowning[?] fast again." Then in the second page you said,

    The next part of your thread title is, "Lol, science is becoming a joke". Then on page 4 you said,


    Have you ever heard of Parallax Shift?

    It's like your eyes. Close one eye, and you lose binocular vision. With both eyes opened, you can see how far an object is. The Earth is in orbit around the sun. Take a telescope and look(take a picture) at the sun, star, planet, etc. Wait 6 months. Now the Earth is located at a different point in orbit. Take another picture. Combine the pictures. Binocular vision (roughly described).
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2010
    setset, Nov 24, 2010 IP