Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Xtremehobo

How to avoid going to church and Christianity discussion

This topic is 5837 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

"Got a link to that"

It's called logic. Maybe you've heard of it.

"By sample time, do you really mean half life"

By sample time I obviously mean the time scientists spent observing decay which led them to conclude the entire transformation from one element to another would take billions of years.

You want to claim you know something about science but don't even understand the concept of "sample time."

Ben

edit: removed insults

[edited by - Machaira on May 1, 2003 7:46:04 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
"Radioactive decay is about the most random process you can ascertain."

And yet you want to claim the rate of decay can safetly be assumed to be a constant.

"Why would one isotope know when another is about to decay?"

What does that question have to do with ANYTHING I''ve written? Nothing.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:

It''s called logic. Maybe you''ve heard of it.



*Bangs head against wall*

quote:

Are you retarded? By sample time I obviously mean the time scientists spent observing decay which led them to conclude the entire transformation from one element to another would take billions of years.



*Continues banging head*
You think that the time taken to transform one element into another takes billions of years?

Guess those evil scientists were lieing when they released data showing how they transformed platinum atoms into gold ones in a matter of seconds, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"You think that the time taken to transform one element into another takes billions of years?"

Some of them.

U -> Pb -- (710 million years)
Rb -> Sr -- (47 billion years)

That's what I get for reading links people post.

Ben

edit: removed insults

[edited by - Machaira on May 1, 2003 7:44:14 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by KalvinB
"Radioactive decay is about the most random process you can ascertain."

And yet you want to claim the rate of decay can safetly be assumed to be a constant.
It''s random on the scale of individual atoms, but a consistent average appears on very large scales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by KalvinB
"Sigh. The last 8-10 pages were so civil with Kalvin gone"

It was only about 4 pages.
That's not a very good comeback

Anyway, you guys seem to be missing KB's point. Here's a possible situation; a long time ago, a rock formed. You say you can tell how old it is by comparing the parent element with its daughter element (which is what the parent element decays into). Let's use potassium-argon, for fun. Now, you can guarentee to me that there was no argon in that rock when it formed? Because if it was, it'll blow your dating to hell and there's not a thing you can do about it. You laugh about my example of that rocked formed 2 decades ago being dated to 35,000 years old, but that's how errors like that appear. How do you handle that? I've never seen a method of dealing with that; enlighten me.

EDIT: Crap; I told myself I wouldn't get into this topic >_< Argue with KalvinB; I'll wait here until we come back to Christianity ...

Chris Barry (crbarry at mts.net)
My Personal Programming Depot

[edited by - 23yrold3yrold on May 1, 2003 7:01:29 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MDI said: "Guess what, I had an experiment in organic chemistry last year which failed. So did most of the rest of the classes, too. It was relating to the fractional distillation of substances from crude oil.

Guess petroleum is a myth, eh?"


I thought Kalvin was being rough, but you really are an idiot. You took what I said out of context.

OK, when did I say that because one experiment failed everything was proven or dis-proven? Wait, don't answer that, it will just prove Kalvin B more right.

Instead of looking for information or trying to understand the other person's post, you have become so emotionally wrapped into this that you dissect the individual parts out of context that allow you to go to sleep thinking "I'm so great and their so stupid, I won but they won't admit it". I mean, what were you thinking?

What caused you to spawn such irrational methodology?

Are you really that devoted to proving other people wrong if they disagree with you that you surrender all logic to do so? .sen


[on a side note, its interesting how this thread has kept its 10:1 view/reply ratio pretty evenly for a long time now] .sen

[edited by - Senses777 on May 1, 2003 7:02:17 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, I''ve just finished reading 3 pages of half debate, half insult. If you can''t get rid of the half insult part this thread will end up being closed.

There''s no excuse for insults. Any adult should be able to control his emotions enough to have a decent conversation, even on a topic as volatile as religion.

Didn''t your parents ever teach you - "If you can''t say something nice, don''t say anything at all"?

That goes for both sides of this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Senses777
MDI said: "Guess what, I had an experiment in organic chemistry last year which failed. So did most of the rest of the classes, too. It was relating to the fractional distillation of substances from crude oil.

Guess petroleum is a myth, eh?"


I thought Kalvin was being rough, but you really are an idiot. You took what I said out of context.

OK, when did I say that because one experiment failed everything was proven or dis-proven? Wait, don't answer that, it will just prove Kalvin B more right.

Instead of looking for information or trying to understand the other person's post, you have become so emotionally wrapped into this that you dissect the individual parts out of context that allow you to go to sleep thinking "I'm so great and their so stupid, I won but they won't admit it". I mean, what were you thinking?

What caused you to spawn such irrational methodology?

Are you really that devoted to proving other people wrong if they disagree with you that you surrender all logic to do so? .sen


[on a side note, its interesting how this thread has kept its 10:1 view/reply ratio pretty evenly for a long time now] .sen

[edited by - Senses777 on May 1, 2003 7:02:17 AM]


So what exactly was the point of your original post? I mistook it for being some sort of proof that dating techniques based on radioactive decay are intrinsically flawed.

quote:

Anyway, you guys seem to be missing KB's point. Here's a possible situation; a long time ago, a rock formed. You say you can tell how old it is by comparing the parent element with its daughter element (which is what the parent element decays into). Let's use potassium-argon, for fun. Now, you can guarentee to me that there was no argon in that rock when it formed? Because if it was, it'll blow your dating to hell and there's not a thing you can do about it. You laugh about my example of that rocked formed 2 decades ago being dated to 35,000 years old, but that's how errors like that appear. How do you handle that? I've never seen a method of dealing with that; enlighten me.



You count specific isotopes only. Rare ones, which would only appear through radioactive decay.

quote:

Some of them.

U -> Pb -- (710 million years)
Rb -> Sr -- (47 billion years)

That's what I get for reading links people post.



OMG! I have it! Some people have red hair, therefore by your logic all people have red hair?

Seriously, is that what you call an argument these days? Radioactive dating cannot be used because some isotopes have a half life of a few billion years?

[edited by - MDI on May 1, 2003 8:05:41 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 5837 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!