keeping score
Kent Paul Dolan
humankind has had in finding extra-solar planets. So
far, probably no candidates for life are here, but
there should be some within four years or less, with
the recent launch of a satellite doing a massively
parallel search for extra-solar planets.
http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php
xanthian.
spintronic
.
.
> This is where one can drop by to peruse the success
> humankind has had in finding extra-solar planets. So
> far, probably no candidates for life are here,
That's rubbish.
*IF* abiogenestis & evolution are true. "Live is a property of matter
itself".
It will be everywhere.
Nearly every moon & planet in our own solar *will* have life.
That is *IF* abiogenesis is true.
But then again, God could have created life everywhere too.
So we're back to square 1.
Great Dayne
Wrong answer.
There are no other planets in this matrix.
Boikat
> .
> .
>
> > This is where one can drop by to peruse the success
> > humankind has had in finding extra-solar planets. So
> > far, probably no candidates for life are here,
>
> That's rubbish.
Why?
>
> *IF* abiogenestis & evolution are true. "Live is a property of matter
> itself".
So, you would expect to find life on a molten ball od nickle/iron?
Or, how about one of the "Hot Jupiters"? Or, i "life a property od
matter, under the right conditions"?
>
> It will be everywhere.
Have you checked inside All Seein' I(diots) skull, lately? Okay,
there's mold. Mold is life. I stand corrected.
>
> Nearly every moon & planet in our own solar *will* have life.
How about astaroids?
>
> That is *IF* abiogenesis is true.
Ahhhhhhhh. So, not finding life on a stark, airless, waterless, super
hot, or super cold, planet or moon *disproves* abiogenesis. Is that
you claim? I see you've decided to expunge all the brain cells that
deal with "logic" from your brain. Did that hurt much, of did you
enjoy it?
>
> But then again, God could have created life everywhere too.
In other words, "null hypothesis".
>
> So we're back to square 1.
In other words, you had nothing better to do than spout nothing worth
bothering with until it was too late to see you were posting nothing
worth bothering with.
Boikat
Devils Advocaat
Obviously you are not aware of the Goldilocks Zone, otherwise you
would not have asserted that life "will be everywhere" and "nearly
every moon and planet in our own solar (system) *will* have life".
Kermit
> On 10 Nov, 14:56, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> .
> .
>
> > This is where one can drop by to peruse the success
> > humankind has had in finding extra-solar planets. So
> > far, probably no candidates for life are here,
>
> That's rubbish.
>
> *IF* abiogenestis & evolution are true. "Live is a property of matter
> itself".
You mean, of course, if abiogenesis is the result of natural
processes.
>
> It will be everywhere.
>
No. The process the led to life on Earth almost certainly requires
water, at least periodically. that limits it, AFAIK, to Europa and, in
its past, Mars.
> Nearly every moon & planet in our own solar *will* have life.
>
No, but possibly one or two.
> That is *IF* abiogenesis is true.
If natural abiogenesis is true, and the conditions are met. We don't
yet know what those conditions are. It most likely requires water and
complex range of elements (e.g. third generation stars only).
Multi-celled life may not thrive where large meteorite strikes are too
frequent; this may rule out planets with no Jupiter-sized planet to
sweep the solar system clean.
It may take time; we are probably already more than half-way through
our sun's life cycle, as far as a supporting temperature range goes.
Our magnetic field may be uncommon, and it is largely the result of
our relatively large iron core - a result of a planetary collision
4,000,000,000 years ago.
We will probably feel pretty confident about our ideas of abiogensis
before we actually get out there.
>
> But then again, God could have created life everywhere too.
Sure, he could. One more example of why your god model is untestable.
Might be true, <shrug> but how could we tell?
>
> So we're back to square 1.
For now. Maybe some of the life out there will have opinions on this.
Kermit
Kermit
Sure there are, Dayne. You're making stuff up again, and believing it.
Kermit
Great Dayne
Don't be so gullible mcfly ...
Dana Tweedy
> On 10 Nov, 14:56, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> .
> .
>> This is where one can drop by to peruse the success
>> humankind has had in finding extra-solar planets. So
>> far, probably no candidates for life are here,
>
> That's rubbish.
>
> *IF* abiogenestis & evolution are true. "Live is a property of matter
> itself".
Life, as it's understood, can only exist within particular physical
boundries.
>
> It will be everywhere.
Most likely everywhere that it's possible for life to exist....
>
> Nearly every moon & planet in our own solar *will* have life.
Not every moon or planet in our solar system has conditions that are
favorable for life as we know it.
>
> That is *IF* abiogenesis is true.
There's no reason to assume it's not.
>
> But then again, God could have created life everywhere too.
God, potentally could have created life where it wasn't possible for life to
exist. In such case, one would find life on the moon, or Mercury, or even
on the Sun itself. Or maybe God uses natural processes as his means of
creation.
>
> So we're back to square 1.
Not in biology.
DJT
Tapestry
> > So we're back to square 1.
>
> Not in biology.
If the universe didn't unfold according to your theories you piled
on top of one another, where did your time come from for your last
theory, huh?
Dana Tweedy
Time appears to be a emergent property of our universe, as outlined by
Einstein, and other physcicists. What does that have to do with the biology
of extraterrestrial life?
DJT
Bob T.
Making sense is not a priority of yours, is it?
- Bob T.
Tapestry
You are really stupid.
GOD staged your whole worldview.
You date it to be yeah so old its age.
Now that didn't turn out to be so.
You now think the last part down here wasn't staged either?
Are you stupid?
Let me give you an example of your "scientific" hogwash.
You have got 3 rocks.
You date them each to be 3 billion years old.
One was made 100 years ago.
One was made 10,000 years ago.
One was made 5,000 years ago.
How can you tell their real actual age mr scientist?
Now GOD staged your whole worldview.
But you are a mental basket case and claim it was all done
by aliens. Their are medications for you to take for that specific
delusion.
You are nutz sir. It is a technical term. When Jesus comes down here
he isn't a lizard pretending to be Jesus. That is a drug induced
fantasy hallucination
comes from your use of dissociatives ketamine and dxm.
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 10 Nov, 14:56, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>.
>.
>> This is where one can drop by to peruse the success
>> humankind has had in finding extra-solar planets. So
>> far, probably no candidates for life are here,
>
>That's rubbish.
>
>*IF* abiogenestis & evolution are true. "Live is a property of matter
>itself".
>
>It will be everywhere.
>
>Nearly every moon & planet in our own solar *will* have life.
which is a remarkably stupid statement, even for a creationist. this
is like saying liquid water will exist on a hot stove
>
>That is *IF* abiogenesis is true.
>
>But then again, God could have created life everywhere too.
>
>So we're back to square 1.
god is a meaningless explanation for anything. even for god
>
spintronic
> On Nov 10, 11:16 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10 Nov, 14:56, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> > .
> > .
>
> > > This is where one can drop by to peruse the success
> > > humankind has had in finding extra-solar planets. So
> > > far, probably no candidates for life are here,
> > That's rubbish.
>
> Why?
That's the first sensible word Iv'e ever known you to utter on T.O.
I know it only had 3 letters, but wow, I believe your IQ jumped 20
points.
ANSWER:
For abiogenesis to be true, you need "energy & matter".
Evolution is obviously true, but is abiogenesis?
I can think of no scenario at all, where evolution has no role.
Yet I cannot think of one scenario which allows abiogenesis.
So we have.
1) Evolution is a fact.
2) Abiogenesis can't happen
3) Abiogenesis is as much a fact as evolution.
As far as I can see, evolution is a property of the universe.
As far as I can see, abiogenisis isn't.
But like all pole vault attempts. Just because you can vault from a-b,
doesn't mean you can vault a-c, or that after a-b, you have the energy
to go from b-c.
spintronic
> On 10 Nov, 17:16, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
.
> > > This is where one can drop by to peruse the success
> > > humankind has had in finding extra-solar planets. So
> > > far, probably no candidates for life are here,
>
> > That's rubbish.
>
> > *IF* abiogenestis & evolution are true. "Live is a property of matter
> > itself".
>
> > It will be everywhere.
>
> > Nearly every moon & planet in our own solar *will* have life.
>
> > That is *IF* abiogenesis is true.
>
> > But then again, God could have created life everywhere too.
>
> > So we're back to square 1.
>
> Obviously you are not aware of the Goldilocks Zone,
Obviously you believe the "goldilocks zone" is a volumetric torus
around a star.
Our own planet has more variation between certain deserts & frozen
regions than your *ZONE*.
I have 2 questions.
1) Can you possibly imagine a cold place on mercury?
2) Can you imagine a hot place on pluto?
Now, go home, sober up, have a think, and don't give me any more crap
about 3 bears!
Dana Tweedy
>>> That's rubbish.
>>
>> Why?
>
> That's the first sensible word Iv'e ever known you to utter on T.O.
>
> I know it only had 3 letters, but wow, I believe your IQ jumped 20
> points.
>
> ANSWER:
>
>
> For abiogenesis to be true, you need "energy & matter".
And a suitable environment, not to mention the right chemicals.
>
> Evolution is obviously true, but is abiogenesis?
Yes.
>
> I can think of no scenario at all, where evolution has no role.
>
> Yet I cannot think of one scenario which allows abiogenesis.
So? Why does your own ignorance constrain reality?
>
> So we have.
>
> 1) Evolution is a fact.
Correct.
> 2) Abiogenesis can't happen
Wrong.
> 3) Abiogenesis is as much a fact as evolution.
Correct.
>
> As far as I can see, evolution is a property of the universe.
No, evolution is a property of imperfectly reproducing organisms.
>
> As far as I can see, abiogenisis isn't.
Abiogenesis is a property of chemistry.
>
>
> But like all pole vault attempts. Just because you can vault from a-b,
> doesn't mean you can vault a-c, or that after a-b, you have the energy
> to go from b-c.
Maybe it's not a "pole vault" at all. Maybe it's a sprint. Maybe it's a
marathon. If you are hung up on sports metaphors, maybe it's a cricket
match.
DJT
spintronic
> spintronic wrote:
> > On 10 Nov, 14:56, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
.
.
> > *IF* abiogenestis & evolution are true. "Live is a property of matter
> > itself".
>
> Life, as it's understood, can only exist within particular physical
> boundries.
Well, it's obviously not well understood1
guscubed
> On 10 Nov, 17:44, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:> On 10 Nov, 17:16, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> .
> .
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > This is where one can drop by to peruse the success
> > > > humankind has had in finding extra-solar planets. So
> > > > far, probably no candidates for life are here,
>
> > > That's rubbish.
>
> > > *IF* abiogenestis & evolution are true. "Live is a property of matter
> > > itself".
>
> > > It will be everywhere.
>
> > > Nearly every moon & planet in our own solar *will* have life.
>
> > > That is *IF* abiogenesis is true.
>
> > > But then again, God could have created life everywhere too.
>
> > > So we're back to square 1.
>
> > Obviously you are not aware of the Goldilocks Zone,
>
> Obviously you believe the "goldilocks zone" is a volumetric torus
> around a star.
>
> Our own planet has more variation between certain deserts & frozen
> regions than your *ZONE*.
>
Hmm, that's not really relevant. The goldilocks zone's most important
characteristic is that liquid water would be present on a planet of a
size appreciable enough to retain an atmosphere. It doesn't mean that
life HAS to evolve in every single cubic inch of a goldilocks zone,
just that outside of this zone, for life as we know it to arise is
probably impossible.
> I have 2 questions.
>
> 1) Can you possibly imagine a cold place on mercury?
The side that is not facing the sun. Very cold there. You could argue
that the temperature at certain points on the terminator would be
conducive for life, but I don't think liquid water could accumulate in
any appreciable quantities for abiogenesis to occur.
> 2) Can you imagine a hot place on pluto?
Here I'm finding it harder to, maybe next to a concentration of
radionucliides, but without any liquid solvent and no tectonic
activity to speak of I don't see how this situation could arise
>
> Now, go home, sober up, have a think, and don't give me any more crap
> about 3 bears!
On the subject of thoughts and thinking and seeing as you seem to know
everything, I've got a question for you. If the universe was made by a
creator for the sole purpose of creating us, why did he make
99.9999999999999999999999% of it completely inimicable to life as we
know it?
Dana Tweedy
> On 10 Nov, 18:33, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> spintronic wrote:
>>> On 10 Nov, 14:56, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> .
> .
>
>>> *IF* abiogenestis & evolution are true. "Live is a property of
>>> matter itself".
>>
>> Life, as it's understood, can only exist within particular physical
>> boundries.
>
>
> Well, it's obviously not well understood1
According to whom? Again, why do you imagine your own ignorance to be a
constraint to realty?
DJT
Sapient Fridge
<3665f47f-afea-4ee6...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
>On 10 Nov, 14:56, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>.
>.
>> This is where one can drop by to peruse the success
>> humankind has had in finding extra-solar planets. So
>> far, probably no candidates for life are here,
>
>That's rubbish.
>
>*IF* abiogenestis & evolution are true. "Live is a property of matter
>itself".
>
>It will be everywhere.
Life as we know it can only survive in a narrow range of temperatures as
it is dependent on liquid water. That greatly limits the number of
places in the solar system that could support life of the type found on
Earth.
>Nearly every moon & planet in our own solar *will* have life.
Only a few possible locations in our solar system have, or have had,
liquid water on them. Earth is obviously one, but ancient Mars and
modern Europa are both possibilities. As far as I know the other
planets are too hot or too cold to allow liquid water to exist.
Of course there is nothing we know of to stop there being *another* type
of life, not based on water, but we don't have any examples to work from
so it remains in the realm of science fiction for now.
>That is *IF* abiogenesis is true.
>
>But then again, God could have created life everywhere too.
>
>So we're back to square 1.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Sapient Fridge
<05d62d50-f7cd-48c1...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
>On 10 Nov, 17:35, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 11:16�am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 10 Nov, 14:56, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>> > .
>> > .
>>
>> > > This is where one can drop by to peruse the success
>> > > humankind has had in finding extra-solar planets. So
>> > > far, probably no candidates for life are here,
>.
>
>> > That's rubbish.
>>
>> Why?
>
>That's the first sensible word Iv'e ever known you to utter on T.O.
>
>I know it only had 3 letters, but wow, I believe your IQ jumped 20
>points.
>
>ANSWER:
>
>
>For abiogenesis to be true, you need "energy & matter".
No shortage of either in the universe.
>Evolution is obviously true, but is abiogenesis?
Here's a book recommendation for you, it follows some of the possible
ways abiogenesis could have happened and covers some of the research
into the subject:
Robert M. Hazen - "Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Genesis-Scientific-Quest-Lifes-Origins/dp/0309094321
<snip>
Devils Advocaat
> On 10 Nov, 17:44, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:> On 10 Nov, 17:16, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> .
> .
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > This is where one can drop by to peruse the success
> > > > humankind has had in finding extra-solar planets. So
> > > > far, probably no candidates for life are here,
>
> > > That's rubbish.
>
> > > *IF* abiogenestis & evolution are true. "Live is a property of matter
> > > itself".
>
> > > It will be everywhere.
>
> > > Nearly every moon & planet in our own solar *will* have life.
>
> > > That is *IF* abiogenesis is true.
>
> > > But then again, God could have created life everywhere too.
>
> > > So we're back to square 1.
>
> > Obviously you are not aware of the Goldilocks Zone,
>
> Obviously you believe the "goldilocks zone" is a volumetric torus
> around a star.
No I don't, as it is actually defined as a spherical shell of space
surrounding any given star where the surface temperature of any planet
present may maintain liquid water, and that planet to be of a size
where it can maintain an atmosphere.
>
> Our own planet has more variation between certain deserts & frozen
> regions than your *ZONE*.
Being as the planet Earth exists within the Goldilocks Zone that is
highly unlikely.
>
> I have 2 questions.
>
> 1) Can you possibly imagine a cold place on mercury?
Mercury has no atmosphere to speak of and so could not support carbon
based life.
> 2) Can you imagine a hot place on pluto?
Unlike Mercury, Pluto does have an atmosphere, consisting of nitrogen,
methane and carbon monoxide, but as its temperature is typically -230
°C, it is unlikely to be able to support carbon based life.
>
> Now, go home, sober up, have a think, and don't give me any more crap
> about 3 bears!
Just a few points, I always post from home, I don't drink alcohol so I
don't need to sober up, I am always thinking, and I never mentioned
anything about any bears.
Boikat
> On 10 Nov, 17:35, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Nov 10, 11:16 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 10 Nov, 14:56, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
> > > .
> > > .
>
> > > > This is where one can drop by to peruse the success
> > > > humankind has had in finding extra-solar planets. So
> > > > far, probably no candidates for life are here,
>
> .
>
> > > That's rubbish.
>
> > Why?
>
> That's the first sensible word Iv'e ever known you to utter on T.O.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
>
> I know it only had 3 letters, but wow, I believe your IQ jumped 20
> points.
>
> ANSWER:
>
> For abiogenesis to be true, you need "energy & matter".
>
"Matter" is too vague. A lump of pure iron is "matter", yet it's
doubtful that life would emerge on a ball of pure iron, even if it
were located in the "Goldilocks Zone" of a star.
> Evolution is obviously true, but is abiogenesis?
It appears to be a fact, even if the specifics are not understood.
>
> I can think of no scenario at all, where evolution has no role.
>
> Yet I cannot think of one scenario which allows abiogenesis.
So, your mental limits are the constraints under which science should
operate?
>
> So we have.
>
> 1) Evolution is a fact.
> 2) Abiogenesis can't happen
You've failed to demonstrate that.
> 3) Abiogenesis is as much a fact as evolution.
Yes. Your tiny little mind seems to be under the impression that in
order to say "X" occured, we have to know *HOW* "X" occured. I always
like the comparision of "fire" If you see a fire, do you have to know
how it started in order to reasonably conclude it started somehow?
>
> As far as I can see, evolution is a property of the universe.
Evolution is a property of life, unless you are going to use a very
vague and all inclusive definition of "evolution".
>
> As far as I can see, abiogenisis isn't.
But under your vague and all inclusive definition of "evolution",
which you apply to the Universe as a natural property, abiogenesis
would be part of that evolutionary process, and inevitable under the
right conditions. If not, why not?
>
> But like all pole vault attempts. Just because you can vault from a-b,
> doesn't mean you can vault a-c, or that after a-b, you have the energy
> to go from b-c.
So what?
Boikat
Great Dayne
> As far as I can see, evolution is a property of the universe.
Wrong answer.
Evolution doesn't happen.
Boikat
Incorrect response. That will get you another round of electro-shock
therapy. Hope you enjoy it.
Boikat
Great Dayne
> On Nov 11, 1:20 pm, Great Dayne <ihavethecode...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 5:15 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > As far as I can see, evolution is a property of the universe.
>
> > Wrong answer.
> > Evolution doesn't happen.
>
> Incorrect response.
Wrong again douchebag loser!
Reddfrogg
> On Nov 10, 12:57 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tapestry wrote:
> > > On Nov 10, 12:33 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> So we're back to square 1.
>
> > >> Not in biology.
>
> > > If the universe didn't unfold according to your theories you piled
> > > on top of one another, where did your time come from for your last
> > > theory, huh?
>
> > Time appears to be a emergent property of our universe, as outlined by
> > Einstein, and other physcicists. What does that have to do with the biology
> > of extraterrestrial life?
>
> > DJT
>
> You are really stupid.
Your opinion, but go ahead.
> GOD staged your whole worldview.
Why would God do that?
> You date it to be yeah so old its age.
Geologists use specific techniques to ascertain the dates.
> Now that didn't turn out to be so.
When did it not turn out to be so? Geologists are still using the
same techniques, and still getting the same dates.
> You now think the last part down here wasn't staged either?
There's no evidence any of it was staged.
> Are you stupid?
I don't think so, why do you ask?
> Let me give you an example of your "scientific" hogwash.
> You have got 3 rocks.
Why three?
> You date them each to be 3 billion years old.
That depends on the technique used.
> One was made 100 years ago.
Then it wouldn't date out to 3 bil years.
> One was made 10,000 years ago.
Then it wouldn't date out to 3 bil years.
> One was made 5,000 years ago.
Then it wouldn't date out to 3 billion years.
> How can you tell their real actual age mr scientist?
There are a number of ways to test them for their age since they
solidified. One can date the rock by radiometric dating, electron
spin resonance, or zircon fisson track dating, to name three.
>
> Now GOD staged your whole worldview.
Do you have any evidence of that?
> But you are a mental basket case and claim it was all done
> by aliens.
I've never claimed anything was done by aliens. Where would you get
that idea in the first place?
>Their are medications for you to take for that specific
> delusion.
May I suggest that you need those medications more than I. I have no
delusions about aliens, whereas you apparently have delusions about
being the president, that you are under surveillance, and that your TV
talks to you.
> You are nutz sir. It is a technical term. When Jesus comes down here
> he isn't a lizard pretending to be Jesus.
I never claimed Jesus was a lizard. Where do you get the idea I
did?
>That is a drug induced
> fantasy hallucination
> comes from your use of dissociatives ketamine and dxm.
I've never used either of those drugs. You are mistaking me for
someone else.
By the way, what drugs are responsible for your own hallucinations?
DJT
Reddfrogg
Evolution has been directly observed to happen. On what do you base
your claim that it does not?
DJT
Great Dayne
> On Nov 10, 12:58 pm, Tapestry <estry....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 12:57 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > Tapestry wrote:
> > > > On Nov 10, 12:33 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > >>> So we're back to square 1.
>
> > > >> Not in biology.
>
> > > > If the universe didn't unfold according to your theories you piled
> > > > on top of one another, where did your time come from for your last
> > > > theory, huh?
>
> > > Time appears to be a emergent property of our universe, as outlined by
> > > Einstein, and other physcicists. What does that have to do with the biology
> > > of extraterrestrial life?
>
> > > DJT
>
> > You are really stupid.
>
> Your opinion, but go ahead.
>
> > GOD staged your whole worldview.
>
> Why would God do that?
To make you look exceedingly stupid in front of the whole world.
>
> > You date it to be yeah so old its age.
>
> Geologists use specific techniques to ascertain the dates.
>
> > Now that didn't turn out to be so.
>
> When did it not turn out to be so? Geologists are still using the
> same techniques, and still getting the same dates.
>
> > You now think the last part down here wasn't staged either?
>
> There's no evidence any of it was staged.
>
> > Are you stupid?
>
> I don't think so, why do you ask?
>
> > Let me give you an example of your "scientific" hogwash.
> > You have got 3 rocks.
>
> Why three?
>
> > You date them each to be 3 billion years old.
>
> That depends on the technique used.
>
> > One was made 100 years ago.
>
> Then it wouldn't date out to 3 bil years.
Are you braindead? You dated it at 3 billion years by your methods,
yet GOD made it 100
years ago.
>
> > One was made 10,000 years ago.
>
> Then it wouldn't date out to 3 bil years.
>
> > One was made 5,000 years ago.
>
> Then it wouldn't date out to 3 billion years.
>
> > How can you tell their real actual age mr scientist?
>
> There are a number of ways to test them for their age since they
> solidified.
I just told you their actual age idiot!
>
> > Now GOD staged your whole worldview.
>
> Do you have any evidence of that?
>
> > But you are a mental basket case and claim it was all done
> > by aliens.
>
> I've never claimed anything was done by aliens. Where would you get
> that idea in the first place?
>
> >Their are medications for you to take for that specific
> > delusion.
>
> May I suggest that you need those medications more than I. I have no
> delusions about aliens, whereas you apparently have delusions about
> being the president, that you are under surveillance, and that your TV
> talks to you.
>
> > You are nutz sir. It is a technical term. When Jesus comes down here
> > he isn't a lizard pretending to be Jesus.
>
> I never claimed Jesus was a lizard. Where do you get the idea I
> did?
>
> >That is a drug induced
> > fantasy hallucination
> > comes from your use of dissociatives ketamine and dxm.
>
> I've never used either of those drugs. You are mistaking me for
> someone else.
>
> By the way, what drugs are responsible for your own hallucinations?
>
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Boikat
Projection.
Did the electro-shock part cause you to spaz or something?
Boikat
Reddfrogg
> On Nov 11, 1:42 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 12:58 pm, Tapestry <estry....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 10, 12:57 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Tapestry wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 10, 12:33 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> So we're back to square 1.
>
> > > > >> Not in biology.
>
> > > > > If the universe didn't unfold according to your theories you piled
> > > > > on top of one another, where did your time come from for your last
> > > > > theory, huh?
>
> > > > Time appears to be a emergent property of our universe, as outlined by
> > > > Einstein, and other physcicists. What does that have to do with the biology
> > > > of extraterrestrial life?
>
> > > > DJT
>
> > > You are really stupid.
>
> > Your opinion, but go ahead.
>
> > > GOD staged your whole worldview.
>
> > Why would God do that?
>
> To make you look exceedingly stupid in front of the whole world.
>
>
Then God has failed. I don't look exceedingly stupid, and you look
like someone who needs immediate medical attention.
>
>
>
> > > You date it to be yeah so old its age.
>
> > Geologists use specific techniques to ascertain the dates.
>
> > > Now that didn't turn out to be so.
>
> > When did it not turn out to be so? Geologists are still using the
> > same techniques, and still getting the same dates.
>
> > > You now think the last part down here wasn't staged either?
>
> > There's no evidence any of it was staged.
>
> > > Are you stupid?
>
> > I don't think so, why do you ask?
>
> > > Let me give you an example of your "scientific" hogwash.
> > > You have got 3 rocks.
>
> > Why three?
>
> > > You date them each to be 3 billion years old.
>
> > That depends on the technique used.
>
> > > One was made 100 years ago.
>
> > Then it wouldn't date out to 3 bil years.
>
> Are you braindead? You dated it at 3 billion years by your methods,
> yet GOD made it 100
> years ago.
If God made it 100 years ago, it would not appear to be 3 billion
years old. The only way it would appear 3 billion years old is if God
were intentionally being deceptive. If so, how could God blame me,
or anyone else for accepting the apparent age of the rock?
>
>
>
> > > One was made 10,000 years ago.
>
> > Then it wouldn't date out to 3 bil years.
>
> > > One was made 5,000 years ago.
>
> > Then it wouldn't date out to 3 billion years.
>
> > > How can you tell their real actual age mr scientist?
>
> > There are a number of ways to test them for their age since they
> > solidified.
>
> I just told you their actual age idiot!
How did you determine those ages?
>
>
>
> > > Now GOD staged your whole worldview.
>
> > Do you have any evidence of that?
>
> > > But you are a mental basket case and claim it was all done
> > > by aliens.
>
> > I've never claimed anything was done by aliens. Where would you get
> > that idea in the first place?
>
> > >Their are medications for you to take for that specific
> > > delusion.
>
> > May I suggest that you need those medications more than I. I have no
> > delusions about aliens, whereas you apparently have delusions about
> > being the president, that you are under surveillance, and that your TV
> > talks to you.
>
> > > You are nutz sir. It is a technical term. When Jesus comes down here
> > > he isn't a lizard pretending to be Jesus.
>
> > I never claimed Jesus was a lizard. Where do you get the idea I
> > did?
>
> > >That is a drug induced
> > > fantasy hallucination
> > > comes from your use of dissociatives ketamine and dxm.
>
> > I've never used either of those drugs. You are mistaking me for
> > someone else.
>
> > By the way, what drugs are responsible for your own hallucinations?
>
> > DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
you didn't answer my questions.
DJT
Boikat
Why should anyone take the word of drug crazed loon seriously?
Boikat
Ken Denny
>
> I just told you their actual age idiot!
>
made up in your imagination is actual evidence of something.
The inability to distinguish between imagination and reality is a
serious mental problem that needs immediate medical attention.
Garamond Lethe
> On Nov 11, 12:46 pm, Great Dayne <ihavethecode...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 1:42 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> Are you braindead? You dated it at 3 billion years by your methods,
>> yet GOD made it 100
>> years ago.
>
> If God made it 100 years ago, it would not appear to be 3 billion
> years old. The only way it would appear 3 billion years old is if God
> were intentionally being deceptive.
I think you're being overly restrictive in your hypothesis selection.
God may be incompetent. God may have gone with the low-bid contractor.
God may have recycled an older earth that he was keeping in the back
of the drawer for just that purpose. There may have been a clerical
error such that we received the divine documentation of a brand-
spanking-new planet north of Betelgeuse. (They're still trying to
reconcile the detailed genomic descriptions found in their Holy
Scriptures with Scary Angel w/ Flaming Sword that has taken up
residence in the garden.)
> If so, how could God blame me,
> or anyone else for accepting the apparent age of the rock?
<snip>
Great Dayne
LOL!
You are a smack junkie!
Ye Old One
Quite easily. Science is very good at examining rocks to determine
their real age.
>
>Now GOD staged your whole worldview.
>But you are a mental basket case and claim it was all done
>by aliens. Their are medications for you to take for that specific
>delusion.
>You are nutz sir. It is a technical term. When Jesus comes down here
>he isn't a lizard pretending to be Jesus.
When? That is the big question? According to the bible he was due back
within a human lifetime. Why didn't he make it? Has he been grounded
for being a naughty little boy?
> That is a drug induced
>fantasy hallucination
>comes from your use of dissociatives ketamine and dxm.
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Great Dayne
Der der der.
Ye old one wrote:
'i am a retard and can't see I have been hoodwinked'
'I always fall for it'
Ye Old One
Liar!
Reddfrogg
And your drug of choice is....?
DJT
Ye Old One
No, I wrote nothing of the sort.
I ubderstand science. If you got an education you could as well.
--
Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't
make an exception for the last one.
Klaus Hellnick
Oh great, it appears this nutbag is also that DerDag idiot.I lost track
of all his nyms, but he has to be close to 10 in this NG alone.
Ye Old One
I must admit to being more than a little surprised that Dig hasn't
taken action.
Guess he must be busy with real world things.
--
Bob.
Ken Denny
>
> I must admit to being more than a little surprised that Dig hasn't
> taken action.
Absolutely. How many names does this guy post under?
Great Dayne
Tapestry
Picasso Renoir Hilton
Skinny Cartman
And he could be spintronic as well.
Skinny Cartman
No, it is an assumption that the age determined by your methods
is its actual age.
It could have been made 100 years ago.
It could have been made 5 minutes ago, or 5 trillion years ago.
The fact is, you don't know how old the rock is.
John McKendry
He is not spintronic, and he is not derdag. There is no need for
guessing about this stuff; you can almost always confirm or disconfirm
sock-puppetry by looking at the message header for an NNTP-Posting-Host
or X-NNTP-Posting-Host IP address and looking up the information on
that address. An easy way to do the lookup is to paste the address
into the form at http://ip-address-lookup-v4.com/ , if you don't
know how to do it from a command line.
Great Dayne, Tapestry, Picasso, and Cartman are one person posting
from somewhere in Missouri. [M]adman and All-Seeing-I are one person
posting from Louisiana. Spintronic and HighQ (and I think something
with Einstein in it) are one person posting from England. derdag and
other nyms with an email address ending "@chilledwatertech.com" are
one person posting from western Pennsylvania. wretchfossil is Lin
Liangtai, posting from Taiwan; he is not the same as Ed Conrad,
who posts from central Pennsylvania.
Great Dayne is mentally ill, suffering from delusions of persecution.
[M]adman is desperately trying to fool himself. Spintronic once got
a high score on some IQ test and believes that he is so smart he
doesn't have to think. derdag is Dr. D.A.G., a dentist who is
repelled but fascinated by anal sex. Lin is a true believer, and
Ed is a world-class crackpot. There are many different ways to
Get It Wrong. It's more fun around here if you keep the players
straight.
John
Skinny Cartman
> Great Dayne is mentally ill, suffering from delusions of persecution.
No, I am under government surveillance from arguing with an undercover
agent from another newsgroup, which topic of the group was drugs.
Dan Listermann
"Skinny Cartman" <skinnyc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f86594f-9337-4955...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
So all dating techniques are bogas because they are based on "assumptions?"
Consider this, theism is completly based on assumptions. I am sure you can
see how theism can be simply dismissed by this measure, right?
.
Skinny Cartman
> "Skinny Cartman" <skinnycartma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The fact is, you don't know how old a rock is.
Desertphile
wrote:
> Great Dayne is mentally ill, suffering from delusions
> of persecution.
"I want to have a baby...."
"But you *CAN'T* have a baby!"
"Stop persecuting me!"
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
Damn, you're on to us! How did you find out? I just hope you don't
figure out I'm the one running the operation.
Dan Listermann
>see how theism can be simply dismissed by this measure, right?
"The fact is, you don't know how old a rock is."
The fact is, you don't know your deities exist.
.
Skinny Cartman
wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:36:36 -0800 (PST), Skinny Cartman
>
> > On Nov 12, 9:30 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> >> Great Dayne is mentally ill, suffering from delusions of persecution.
> > No, I am under government surveillance from arguing with an undercover
> > agent from another newsgroup, which topic of the group was drugs.
>
> Damn, you're on to us!
This ain't no joke man.
Skinny Cartman
I know my Jesus exists.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No, nobody is ever as stupid as Spincronic - he is very much a one
off.
--
Bob.
Did you know that 1 in 4 people make up a quarter of the world's
population?
Mitchell Coffey
I wouldn't worry too much, whomever is surveilling you undercover
clearly isn't very good at it.
Mitchell Coffey
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
But he is a clone of Ed :)
>
> Great Dayne is mentally ill, suffering from delusions of persecution.
Very true.
>[M]adman is desperately trying to fool himself.
Well he is the only one who could be fooled.
> Spintronic once got
>a high score on some IQ test
Nah! Never happened.
> and believes that he is so smart he
>doesn't have to think.
Well, the last part is true, he doesn't ever think.
> derdag is Dr. D.A.G., a dentist who is
>repelled but fascinated by anal sex. Lin is a true believer, and
>Ed is a world-class crackpot. There are many different ways to
>Get It Wrong. It's more fun around here if you keep the players
>straight.
>
>John
Ye Old One
Believe me, you are a very big joke, just not the sort that is funny.
--
Bob.
Have you ever wondered what your life would be like if you had had
enough oxygen at birth?
Ye Old One
No, most dating is based on radioactive decay products.
>It could have been made 100 years ago.
Nope.
>It could have been made 5 minutes ago,
Nope.
> or 5 trillion years ago.
Nope.
>The fact is, you don't know how old the rock is.
The fact is that we do.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
The fact is that, in most cases, we do.
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Ye Old One
Hohohohohoho!!!!
You are a moron.
--
Bob.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
Dan Listermann
No, it is just an assumption, nothing more.
.
Skinny Cartman
Inspector clouseau.
A mental retard.
Skinny Cartman
No, you know he exists too.
Skinny Cartman
The fact is this.
Your dating techniques give you an age. You don't know that
the rock is that old, however. In fact there is no way to know how
old that rock actually is, period.
Dan Listermann
Sure, in your imagination. Please don't start the"you really belive too"
crap. It is asinine.
Can you admit that you belief in deities is just an assumption?
.
Dan Listermann
I think that the "assumptions" that radiometric dating are based upon are
far stronger than the assumptions that deities are based upon.
Give up your silly "assumptions" tactic, it will blow up in your face.
.
Skinny Cartman
You have already seen him.
You know he exists.
That is a fact.
Skinny Cartman
> "Skinny Cartman" <skinnycartma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I am not talking about assumptions. I am talking about facts.
You date a rock to be a certain age. Put all your assumptions aside.
The fact is you don't know that rock is indeed that age for 100%
certainty.
In fact let me give you another scenario.
You date a rock to be 2 billion years old. I guarantee you for a 100%
fact
that that rock is absolutely not 2 billion years old.
How much you want to bet, retard?
Ye Old One
Correct.
> You don't know that
>the rock is that old, however.
Except in a limited number of cases, yes we do.
>In fact there is no way to know how
>old that rock actually is, period.
Yes there is. All but a small sample of rocks can be dated with good
accuracy.
Great Dayne
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:23:59 -0800 (PST), Skinny Cartman
No, sir, the fact is you don't know how old that rock actually is,
idiot!
>
> >In fact there is no way to know how
> >old that rock actually is, period.
>
> Yes there is. All but a small sample of rocks can be dated with good
> accuracy.
No there isn't. You don't know if that rock was made 500 years ago or
not, idiot!
Dan Listermann
"Great Dayne" <ihaveth...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:238ed80f-ad12-4e35...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I don't know if radiometric dating of rocks is accurate to merely 500 years
ago, but carbon 14 would do a great job on something organic that grew in
the atmosphere.
.
Great Dayne
> "Great Dayne" <ihavethecode...@aol.com> wrote in message
You still don't get it idiot!
You date it to whatever age you date it to.
Doesn't mean that is indeed how old it is.
Fact: you date a rock to be 2 billion years old.
Fact: that rock you dated to be 2 billion years old is ABSOLUTELY NOT
2 BILLION
YEARS OLD, RETARD!
Dan Listermann
Such a nice man. Can you attempt to explain yourself, as your screaming is
not making much progress at getting your point accross except that you
really seem to believe in it.
.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 12, 3:28 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Great Dayne" <ihavethecode...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:238ed80f-ad12-4e35...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 12, 2:57 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> > > >In fact there is no way to know how
> > > >old that rock actually is, period.
>
> > > Yes there is. All but a small sample of rocks can be dated with good
> > > accuracy.
>
> > "No there isn't. You don't know if that rock was made 500 years ago or
> > not, idiot!"
>
> > I don't know if radiometric dating of rocks is accurate to merely 500 years
> > ago, but carbon 14 would do a great job on something organic that grew in
> > the atmosphere.
>
> You still don't get it idiot!
> You date it to whatever age you date it to.
No, we date it according to the evidence.
> Doesn't mean that is indeed how old it is.
Quite so. And if you have a better interpretation for the evidence
feel free to offer it. If you can't - and face it, you can't - why
should we take your assertion over the views of the scientists working
in several different fields who have developed and applied a range of
dating techniques which give consistent and repeatable results?
> Fact: you date a rock to be 2 billion years old.
>
> Fact: that rock you dated to be 2 billion years old is ABSOLUTELY NOT
> 2 BILLION
If the evidence shows that the rock is 2 billion years old, and nobody
can provide any alternative interpretation for the evidence, it seems
reasonable to conclude that the date is correct.
Or do you have some alternative explanation which can be tested using
the tools of science?
> YEARS OLD, RETARD!
I suggest that the fact that you are reduced to unfounded assertions
and empty insults demonstrates that you have no argument to offer.
What do you think calling someone a "retard" is evidence for?
RF
Kermit
Yes. All facts are less than 100% certain. We call them facts because
they are accepted with a high degree of confidence.
> You date a rock to be a certain age. Put all your assumptions aside.
OK.
> The fact is you don't know that rock is indeed that age for 100%
> certainty.
Correct. We don't know that the moon is a rocky body that orbits the
Earth; it may be a clever and well-executed holographic illusion
produced by aliens. I would be surprised, however, to find out that
was the case.
> In fact let me give you another scenario.
> You date a rock to be 2 billion years old. I guarantee you for a 100%
> fact
> that that rock is absolutely not 2 billion years old.
How on Earth would you guarantee that? Wouldn't you have to date it
yourself somehow?
> How much you want to bet, retard?
How would you establish that your creator god is indeed a liar, and
that the world is an illusion?
Is "retard" considered wit in your social circle, or merely a
persuasive argument?
Are you another nymshift for Great Dayne, or are you someone else?
Kermit
Dan Listermann
Still a nice guy.
Are you trying to get into some semantic argument that the rock must be
EXACTLY 2 billion years old? If so, you can claim a victory. It is
unlikely that the the rock is EXACTLY 2 billion years old. Enjoy your
victory . .
.
Kermit
> The fact is, you don't know how old the rock is.
The methodology which led to these aging methods have produced GPS
devices which can locate you which room of your house your are in, if
you are wearing your cell phone. It has produced the Hubble Space
Telescope, healed most childhood leukemia when treated, wiped out
smallpox. scanned and watched the activity in living brains, followed
whales as they migrate across the ocean and dive into the depths to
hunt the Kraken. Science has sent robots to Mars and freed prisoners
falsely accused after 30 years.
Science works. Nyaah, nyahh, nyahh.
Pretty amazing coincidences if scientists didn't know most of what
they think they know, eh?
Kermit
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 12, 9:30 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>
>> Great Dayne is mentally ill, suffering from delusions of persecution.
>
> No, I am under government surveillance
What government, and why would they put you under surveillance?
> from arguing with an undercover
> agent from another newsgroup,
Why do you imagine that anyone here, or in another newsgroup is an
"undercover agent"?
> which topic of the group was drugs.
Self medication is a bad idea. Get yourself some medical help.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 12, 9:30 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Great Dayne is mentally ill, suffering from delusions
>> of persecution.
>
>
> "But you *CAN'T* have a baby!"
>
> "Stop persecuting me!"
"Where would the fetus gestate?"
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>>> The fact is, you don't know how old the rock is.
>>
>> The fact is that we do.
>
> The fact is this.
> Your dating techniques give you an age.
Which is the best estimate as to the age of the rock.
> You don't know that
> the rock is that old, however.
There's no reason to suspect that it isn't.
> In fact there is no way to know how
> old that rock actually is, period.
there are ways, however to get a very good estimate as to the age of the
rock.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> Quite easily. Science is very good at examining rocks to determine
>> their real age.
>
> No, it is an assumption that the age determined by your methods
> is its actual age.
The methods, however are what determines it's acutal age.
> It could have been made 100 years ago.
In which case, it wouldn't test to be 3 billion years old.
> It could have been made 5 minutes ago, or 5 trillion years ago.
> The fact is, you don't know how old the rock is.
According to the evidence, geologists do.
DJT
John Wilkins
<redd...@bresnan.net> wrote:
"It's symbolic of his struggle against reality."
Dan Listermann
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:pvCdnX3XHaotEmHX...@bresnan.com...
geologists do, but the evidence is a secret and you can't see it until you
buy into their superstition, see.
.
Dana Tweedy
>>> You don't know that
>>> the rock is that old, however.
>>
>> Except in a limited number of cases, yes we do.
>
> No, sir, the fact is you don't know how old that rock actually is,
> idiot!
Actually, you do. The various dating techniques give you a good estimate as
to the age of the rock.
>
>>
>>> In fact there is no way to know how
>>> old that rock actually is, period.
>>
>> Yes there is. All but a small sample of rocks can be dated with good
>> accuracy.
>
> No there isn't. You don't know if that rock was made 500 years ago or
> not, idiot!
If the rock were to be made 500 years ago, it wouldn't date to millions of
years old. That's how dating techniques work.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> I think that the "assumptions" that radiometric dating are based
>> upon are far stronger than the assumptions that deities are based
>> upon.
>
> I am not talking about assumptions. I am talking about facts.
No, you are talking about your own beliefs.
> You date a rock to be a certain age. Put all your assumptions aside.
Why?
> The fact is you don't know that rock is indeed that age for 100%
> certainty.
You don't have to know with 100% certainty. 99% is plenty good enough.
> In fact let me give you another scenario.
> You date a rock to be 2 billion years old. I guarantee you for a 100%
> fact
> that that rock is absolutely not 2 billion years old.
On what do you base your guaranatee? What method of dating are you using
to determine the rock's age?
> How much you want to bet, retard?
I'll bet you a dollar to a trip to the doctor. If you win, you get the
dollar. If you lose, you go see your doctor. Deal?
DJT
John McKendry
> On Nov 12, 9:59 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:36:36 -0800 (PST), Skinny Cartman
>>
>> <skinnycartma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 12, 9:30 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>> >> Great Dayne is mentally ill, suffering from delusions of
>> >> persecution.
>> > No, I am under government surveillance from arguing with an
>> > undercover agent from another newsgroup, which topic of the group was
>> > drugs.
>>
>> Damn, you're on to us!
>
> This ain't no joke man.
I agree it's no joke, and it pains me to see Desertphile making
frat-boy jokes about mental illness, but it's not real, either. Your
brain's chemistry is messing with your sense of reality. The world
is not as threatening and deceptive as you think it is. The world
is really pretty much indifferent. But your own life will be easier
and happier if you find someone to help you balance your out-of-whack
chemistry and see the world the way it really is.
John
Kermit
Ah. Reading elsewhere, I see that you *are Great Dayne.
It's no use talking to you about stuff when your brain is
malfunctioning.
Really, guy, call your doctor. You're going to have trouble figuring
out what's going on until you do. It won't be completely right after,
but it will be better. When you stop taking the meds, things get
confusing again.
Call.
Kermit
Ye Old One
Yes we do.
>idiot!
You are.
>
>>
>> >In fact there is no way to know how
>> >old that rock actually is, period.
>>
>> Yes there is. All but a small sample of rocks can be dated with good
>> accuracy.
>
>No there isn't. You don't know if that rock was made 500 years ago or
>not,
Yes we do.
>idiot!
You are.
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Ye Old One
Yes, there are tests on rocks that young.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
If it was dated to 2 billion years ago then that is the date the rock
was formed.
Ye Old One
99.9999999% is close enough.
>In fact let me give you another scenario.
>You date a rock to be 2 billion years old. I guarantee you for a 100%
>fact
>that that rock is absolutely not 2 billion years old.
>How much you want to bet, retard?
Since I know you would never pay up....
--
Bob.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
Desertphile
<m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 11:08 am, Skinny Cartman <skinnycartma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 9:59 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:36:36 -0800 (PST), Skinny Cartman
> >
> > > <skinnycartma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 12, 9:30 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> > > >> Great Dayne is mentally ill, suffering from delusions of persecution.
> > > > No, I am under government surveillance from arguing with an undercover
> > > > agent from another newsgroup, which topic of the group was drugs.
> > > Damn, you're on to us!
> > This ain't no joke man.
> I wouldn't worry too much, whomever is surveilling you undercover
> clearly isn't very good at it.
Yes I am! I've got the photographs to prove it. $2.99 each for the
shower images, $39.99 for the set.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<jlas...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:08:28 -0800, Skinny Cartman wrote:
>
> > On Nov 12, 9:59 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:36:36 -0800 (PST), Skinny Cartman
> >>
> >> <skinnycartma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 12, 9:30 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> >> >> Great Dayne is mentally ill, suffering from delusions of
> >> >> persecution.
> >> > No, I am under government surveillance from arguing with an
> >> > undercover agent from another newsgroup, which topic of the group was
> >> > drugs.
> >> Damn, you're on to us!
> > This ain't no joke man.
> I agree it's no joke, and it pains me to see Desertphile making
> frat-boy jokes about mental illness, but it's not real, either.
I make jokes about mental illness for the same reason fags call
each other "fags" and black people call each other "my nigger."
> Your
> brain's chemistry is messing with your sense of reality. The world
> is not as threatening and deceptive as you think it is. The world
> is really pretty much indifferent. But your own life will be easier
> and happier if you find someone to help you balance your out-of-whack
> chemistry and see the world the way it really is.
> John
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:19:40 -0800 (PST), Skinny Cartman
> <skinnyc...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>> No, it is an assumption that the age determined by your methods
>> is its actual age.
> No, most dating is based on radioactive decay products.
My dating is based upon alcohol.
>> It could have been made 100 years ago.
> Nope.
Even the word "made" is wrong. Rocks form, they are not "made."
> >It could have been made 5 minutes ago,
>
> Nope.
> > or 5 trillion years ago.
> Nope.
Trillion years?! Who is this--- El Wrong Hubbard?
>> The fact is, you don't know how old the rock is.
> The fact is that we do.
Yes, often with an error margin of +-3%. Pretty damn accurate for
a bunch of monkeys with digital watches.
Desertphile
<skinnyc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 11:03 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:19:40 -0800 (PST), Skinny Cartman
> > >No, it is an assumption that the age determined by your methods
> > >is its actual age.
> > No, most dating is based on radioactive decay products.
> > >It could have been made 100 years ago.
> > Nope.
> > >It could have been made 5 minutes ago,
> > Nope.
> > > or 5 trillion years ago.
> > Nope.
> > >The fact is, you don't know how old the rock is.
> > The fact is that we do.
> The fact is this.
> Your dating techniques give you an age. You don't know that
> the rock is that old, however. In fact there is no way to know how
> old that rock actually is, period.
You mean all those physicists are lying? Or are the rocks
themselves lying? Or have you rejected Atomic Theory as "just a
theory?"
John Wilkins
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:36:32 -0800 (PST), Mitchell Coffey
> <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 12, 11:08�am, Skinny Cartman <skinnycartma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 12, 9:59�am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:36:36 -0800 (PST), Skinny Cartman
> > >
> > > > <skinnycartma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 12, 9:30�am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
> > > > >> �Great Dayne is mentally ill, suffering from delusions of
> > > > >> persecution.
> > > > > No, I am under government surveillance from arguing with an undercover
> > > > > agent from another newsgroup, which topic of the group was drugs.
>
> > > > Damn, you're on to us!
>
> > > This ain't no joke man.
>
> > I wouldn't worry too much, whomever is surveilling you undercover
> > clearly isn't very good at it.
>
> Yes I am! I've got the photographs to prove it. $2.99 each for the
> shower images, $39.99 for the set.
In the 27 8 x 10 colour glossy photos with the circles and arrows, and
the caption on the back of each one explaining what each one was and
was to be used as evidence against us?
Desertphile
<d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> "Skinny Cartman" <skinnyc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:966b38a2-9339-491f...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > "The fact is this.
> > Your dating techniques give you an age. You don't know that
> > the rock is that old, however. In fact there is no way to know how
> > old that rock actually is, period."
> I think that the "assumptions" that radiometric dating are based upon are
> far stronger than the assumptions that deities are based upon.
>
> Give up your silly "assumptions" tactic, it will blow up in your face.
Fortunately scientists now use multiple isotopes for the same
radioactive element, when available, to measure the age of rocks:
the only "assumption" left is that the gods aren't trying to fool
us.
Desertphile
<skinnyc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2:43 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> > "Skinny Cartman" <skinnycartma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > "The fact is this.
> > Your dating techniques give you an age. You don't know that
> > the rock is that old, however. In fact there is no way to know how
> > old that rock actually is, period."
> >
> > I think that the "assumptions" that radiometric dating are based upon are
> > far stronger than the assumptions that deities are based upon.
> I am not talking about assumptions. I am talking about facts.
> You date a rock to be a certain age. Put all your assumptions aside.
> The fact is you don't know that rock is indeed that age for 100%
> certainty.
> In fact let me give you another scenario.
> You date a rock to be 2 billion years old. I guarantee you for a 100%
> fact that that rock is absolutely not 2 billion years old.
No scientist asserts test results of rock samples will yield an
absolute age with 100% accuracy: they give error bars. Why don't
you attack a position scientists actually defend? Oh, wait, I know
why: because that would require education and knowledge on your
part.
Sapient Fridge
<d...@listermann.com> writes
>
>"Great Dayne" <ihaveth...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:238ed80f-ad12-4e35...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>On Nov 12, 2:57 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> >In fact there is no way to know how
>> >old that rock actually is, period.
>>
>> accuracy.
>
>"No there isn't. You don't know if that rock was made 500 years ago or
>not, idiot!"
>
>I don't know if radiometric dating of rocks is accurate to merely 500 years
>ago, but carbon 14 would do a great job on something organic that grew in
>the atmosphere.
I don't mean to be rude but could you *please* configure your newsreader
so that it quotes properly? Standard format is to put a > before
quoted lines rather than "".
Look above to see what I mean.
You have the same quote depth as "Great Dayne" so in most newsreaders it
looks like the same person wrote then, and I'm sure that is not your
intention.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org