298 Million Yr Old Forest Found

Off Topic
461

The burden of proof lies with you. Find a single instance where the rate of decay of an isotope has changed. It’s never been observed by a human being, not in thousands upon thousands of experiments.

When something happens over and over and over again the same way each and every single time, we accept it as fact.

If you wish to dispute this fact, you must present evidence to the contrary. You have none. You have no rational reason to dispute this fact, and yet you persist. That is the difference between scientific faith and religious faith.

463

Just as I can’t prove that rates of decay have never changed, you can’t prove that they did. We are in the same boat when it comes to the facts. The difference is I analyze the data, assess the implications, extrapolate out and then draw conclusions. You start with a conclusion and work backwards. When the facts don’t agree with you, you retreat to a more tenable position.

If god flew down from heaven and bitch slapped me across the face and transformed my roommate into a cat, I would have to reevaluate my position. If radiometric rates of decay were proved tomorrow, you would again retreat (and probably argue God intended that to test our faith, or something else equally ridiculous).

If you want to go ahead and concede the fact that you have absolutely no rational reason for your beliefs and justify them with faulty logic and abusive rhetoric we can end this debate right here.

465

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Tell me this guy isn’t a preacher in the Green Church:

Type: youtube.com/

then add:

watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zORv8wwiadQ#t=490s

“What do you personally do about it? … Spread the word of Jesus Christ… … because … the only way … is changes in public policy … Praise Al”[/quote]

It doesn’t matter.

Ideas and arguments stand and fall on their own. This could’ve come out of the mouth of Jeffrey Dahmer, it would make no difference on its validity.[/quote]

And therein lies the problem-- his ‘idea’ is opinion. It’s not science. I don’t have the answer for “Global Warming”. What I understand from my education and professional experience is that these things are naturally cyclical. I’m not willing at this point to incur expense, give up liberty, or otherwise be prodded along by agenda driven ideas. The “science” is quite inconclusive. The agenda is quite clear.

“Tobacco Industry” scientists lobby government: Bad. Agenda driven.

“Green Industry” scientists lobby government: Good? Agenda driven.

Scientists who have found an influx of money need a problem to sustain their research. There is no ‘pure’ science about it- it’s a business, and they’re competing for dollars against other scientists. Whoever wins in the court of public opinion is the winner regardless of the conclusions.

[/quote]

Even though I am in no way an expert on global warming, I would have to agree that there is very little in way of actual scientific evidence. The few published articles that I am familiar with that didn’t have some major flaws in their methodology were inconclusive, and almost every documentary that I have seen on the topic had many lies and used bad scientific research. People don’t usually lie and use bad science when the truth and good scientific research methods agree with their conclusions. If you want a god example of this, watch the movie Fuel. It is just horrible.

466

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Tell me this guy isn’t a preacher in the Green Church:

Type: youtube.com/

then add:

watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zORv8wwiadQ#t=490s

“What do you personally do about it? … Spread the word of Jesus Christ… … because … the only way … is changes in public policy … Praise Al”[/quote]

It doesn’t matter.

Ideas and arguments stand and fall on their own. This could’ve come out of the mouth of Jeffrey Dahmer, it would make no difference on its validity.[/quote]

And therein lies the problem-- his ‘idea’ is opinion. It’s not science. I don’t have the answer for “Global Warming”. What I understand from my education and professional experience is that these things are naturally cyclical. I’m not willing at this point to incur expense, give up liberty, or otherwise be prodded along by agenda driven ideas. The “science” is quite inconclusive. The agenda is quite clear.

“Tobacco Industry” scientists lobby government: Bad. Agenda driven.

“Green Industry” scientists lobby government: Good? Agenda driven.

Scientists who have found an influx of money need a problem to sustain their research. There is no ‘pure’ science about it- it’s a business, and they’re competing for dollars against other scientists. Whoever wins in the court of public opinion is the winner regardless of the conclusions.

[/quote]

Even though I am in no way an expert on global warming, I would have to agree that there is very little in way of actual scientific evidence. The few published articles that I am familiar with that didn’t have some major flaws in their methodology were inconclusive, and almost every documentary that I have seen on the topic had many lies and used bad scientific research. People don’t usually lie and use bad science when the truth and good scientific research methods agree with their conclusions. If you want a god example of this, watch the movie Fuel. It is just horrible.
[/quote]

Agreed.

And interestingly, many folks I know with some kind of background in the physical sciences tend to agree that these things are inconclusive at best. Seems the only people who are fed the ‘information’ from various lay media are the only ones who are convinced it’s immutably true.

467

I must be one ignorant fuck.

cause all I got out of this is that we need to INVADE CANADA naow~

time is of the essence!

468

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Tell me this guy isn’t a preacher in the Green Church:

Type: youtube.com/

then add:

watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zORv8wwiadQ#t=490s

“What do you personally do about it? … Spread the word of Jesus Christ… … because … the only way … is changes in public policy … Praise Al”[/quote]

It doesn’t matter.

Ideas and arguments stand and fall on their own. This could’ve come out of the mouth of Jeffrey Dahmer, it would make no difference on its validity.[/quote]

And therein lies the problem-- his ‘idea’ is opinion. It’s not science. I don’t have the answer for “Global Warming”. What I understand from my education and professional experience is that these things are naturally cyclical. I’m not willing at this point to incur expense, give up liberty, or otherwise be prodded along by agenda driven ideas. The “science” is quite inconclusive. The agenda is quite clear.

“Tobacco Industry” scientists lobby government: Bad. Agenda driven.

“Green Industry” scientists lobby government: Good? Agenda driven.

Scientists who have found an influx of money need a problem to sustain their research. There is no ‘pure’ science about it- it’s a business, and they’re competing for dollars against other scientists. Whoever wins in the court of public opinion is the winner regardless of the conclusions.

[/quote]

Even though I am in no way an expert on global warming, I would have to agree that there is very little in way of actual scientific evidence. The few published articles that I am familiar with that didn’t have some major flaws in their methodology were inconclusive, and almost every documentary that I have seen on the topic had many lies and used bad scientific research. People don’t usually lie and use bad science when the truth and good scientific research methods agree with their conclusions. If you want a god example of this, watch the movie Fuel. It is just horrible.
[/quote]

Agreed.

And interestingly, many folks I know with some kind of background in the physical sciences tend to agree that these things are inconclusive at best. Seems the only people who are fed the ‘information’ from various lay media are the only ones who are convinced it’s immutably true.
[/quote]

I have noticed that too. Maybe it has to do with the fact that we tend to require more solid mathematics in our work, but I can’t really be sure. I do know that at my university, one can get a PhD in Biology with 2 semesters of calculus and 2 semesters of statistics, which I don’t have a very high opinion of. I don’t even like to use Monte Carlo codes if I can get around it. For a physics B.S. degree, one must have 3 semesters of calculus (5 is recommended) plus ordinary differential equations and linear algebra. My major problem with most of the published articles on global warming has to do with some very bad math and a failure to account for many variables that they should have.

469

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Push, when you say “that there is evidence point(ing) to a young earth”, how young are you talking about?
I don’t know if you’re going full bore saying the earth is 6000 years old or not.
My biggest problem with this is where do all the fossils fit in? neolithic peoples?

As DrMatt581 has pointed out, radioactive decay has shown to be consistent and verified, and when you start saying that God manipulated things so that the bible is true, you come across as stretching truths and/or not providing evidence for your side of the argument.

I read about the appearance of age theory here

Does this information agree with what your call the appearance of age theory?

[/quote]

I didn’t say God manipulated things. Ano did.

I DO think He created things exactly the way He wanted.

There are several sites you can go to to explore the AoA theory besides Wiki. I’ll look at your link in a little while.[/quote]

If you compared the AOA model to the conventional model using Occam’s razor, which model yields the most likely explanation?

471

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Push, when you say “that there is evidence point(ing) to a young earth”, how young are you talking about?
I don’t know if you’re going full bore saying the earth is 6000 years old or not.
My biggest problem with this is where do all the fossils fit in? neolithic peoples?

As DrMatt581 has pointed out, radioactive decay has shown to be consistent and verified, and when you start saying that God manipulated things so that the bible is true, you come across as stretching truths and/or not providing evidence for your side of the argument.

I read about the appearance of age theory here

Does this information agree with what your call the appearance of age theory?

[/quote]

I didn’t say God manipulated things. Ano did.

I DO think He created things exactly the way He wanted.

There are several sites you can go to to explore the AoA theory besides Wiki. I’ll look at your link in a little while.[/quote]

If you compared the AOA model to the conventional model using Occam’s razor, which model yields the most likely explanation?

[/quote]

What theory do you consider to be the conventional one? Be specific.[/quote]

Also, they both hold the same validity under Occam’s Razor since evidence of one is by necessity evidence of the other.

473

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

I read about the appearance of age theory here

Does this information agree with what your call the appearance of age theory?

[/quote]

I read the link. It is pretty much a cheap, plastic toy gun from Walmart. Go to other websites/books if you want a gun that actually fires and fires accurately.[/quote]

Would you mind providing some links that you find more reputable, so that we’re on the same page.

474

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Push, when you say “that there is evidence point(ing) to a young earth”, how young are you talking about?
I don’t know if you’re going full bore saying the earth is 6000 years old or not.
My biggest problem with this is where do all the fossils fit in? neolithic peoples?

As DrMatt581 has pointed out, radioactive decay has shown to be consistent and verified, and when you start saying that God manipulated things so that the bible is true, you come across as stretching truths and/or not providing evidence for your side of the argument.

I read about the appearance of age theory here

Does this information agree with what your call the appearance of age theory?

[/quote]

I didn’t say God manipulated things. Ano did.

I DO think He created things exactly the way He wanted.

There are several sites you can go to to explore the AoA theory besides Wiki. I’ll look at your link in a little while.[/quote]

If you compared the AOA model to the conventional model using Occam’s razor, which model yields the most likely explanation?

[/quote]

What theory do you consider to be the conventional one? Be specific.[/quote]

Also, they both hold the same validity under Occam’s Razor since evidence of one is by necessity evidence of the other.[/quote]

Perhaps I’ve been looking at the wrong AOA sites. Can you point me in the direction of one that shows evidence of is by necessity evidence of the other?

475

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

If you compared the AOA model to the conventional model using Occam’s razor, which model yields the most likely explanation?

[/quote]

What theory do you consider to be the conventional one? Be specific.[/quote]

The earth is billions of years old, speed if light has always been stable, isotope decay rate has always been stable, etc…

You know, the typical crap taught in public high schools.

476

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

If you compared the AOA model to the conventional model using Occam’s razor, which model yields the most likely explanation?

[/quote]

What theory do you consider to be the conventional one? Be specific.[/quote]

The earth is billions of years old, speed if light has always been stable, isotope decay rate has always been stable, etc…

You know, the typical crap taught in public high schools.[/quote]

We are now able to observe through the Very Large Telescope that the speed of light may not have always been the same as it is now. We have also been able to observe the decay of radioisotopes from hundreds of millions of years ago and the decay rates are the same.

479

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

If you compared the AOA model to the conventional model using Occam’s razor, which model yields the most likely explanation?

[/quote]

What theory do you consider to be the conventional one? Be specific.[/quote]

The earth is billions of years old, speed if light has always been stable, isotope decay rate has always been stable, etc…

You know, the typical crap taught in public high schools.[/quote]

We are now able to observe through the Very Large Telescope that the speed of light may not have always been the same as it is now. We have also been able to observe the decay of radioisotopes from hundreds of millions of years ago and the decay rates are the same.
[/quote]

Does the VLT evidence support the idea that the speed of light has radically decreased?

480

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ranengin wrote:

If you compared the AOA model to the conventional model using Occam’s razor, which model yields the most likely explanation?

[/quote]

What theory do you consider to be the conventional one? Be specific.[/quote]

The earth is billions of years old, speed if light has always been stable, isotope decay rate has always been stable, etc…

You know, the typical crap taught in public high schools.[/quote]

We are now able to observe through the Very Large Telescope that the speed of light may not have always been the same as it is now. We have also been able to observe the decay of radioisotopes from hundreds of millions of years ago and the decay rates are the same.
[/quote]

Does the VLT evidence support the idea that the speed of light has radically decreased?[/quote]

what do you mean by radically?