| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
02 Jan 2008 07:35:44 PM |
| Object: |
Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
5>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Radioactive dating techniques are routinely used to
determine the ages of fossils, dinosaur bones, ancient
artifacts, meteorites, moon rocks, geological
formations, and Mother Earth herself.
ALL radioactive dating techniques rely on the
ASSUMPTION that the radioactive decay rate of each
isotope is CONSTANT with time.
But this ASSUMPTION might NOT be true! Radioactive
dating techniques may be extremely IN-ACCURATE beyond
ten thousand years into the past!
Someday soon, scientists will discover (some know
already!) that every 13,000 years our Solar System
passes through an extremely energetic area of space
(sometimes called the "Photon Belt"; look it up on the
Internet, including http://www.paoweb.com/glossary.htm ).
During the two thousand years that it takes to pass
through it each time, radioactive decay rates here are
greatly SPEEDED UP or even MULTIPLIED !
This would have the effect of making ancient
objects AND THE EARTH seem to be MUCH OLDER than they
REALLY ARE !
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
ALSO http://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
.
|
|
| User: "Landy" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
13 Jan 2008 03:15:03 PM |
|
|
<rem460@aol.com> wrote in message
news:928d8612-3d9e-4894-b649-54ad795a7b6c@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
5>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Radioactive dating techniques are routinely used to
determine the ages of fossils, dinosaur bones,
First lie - AFAIK fossils are never dated with isotopic techniques.
artifacts, meteorites, moon rocks, geological
formations, and Mother Earth herself.
ALL radioactive dating techniques rely on the
ASSUMPTION that the radioactive decay rate of each
isotope is CONSTANT with time.
But this ASSUMPTION might NOT be true!
Lie number 2.
Radioactive dating techniques may be extremely IN-ACCURATE
beyond
ten thousand years into the past!
If the wrong techniques is used or incorrect assumtions are made yes. You
need to pick the right decay scheme on minerals that have not been affected
by later events. When wrong ages are obtained there is always a sound
scientific reason why - and it is NOT because the decay rates are changing.
Someday soon, scientists will discover (some know
already!) that every 13,000 years our Solar System
passes through an extremely energetic area of space
(sometimes called the "Photon Belt"; look it up on the
Internet, including http://www.paoweb.com/glossary.htm ).
A fairly story website.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Agent Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
15 Jan 2008 03:05:33 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:928d8612-3d9e-4894-b649-
54ad795a7b6c@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
5>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Radioactive dating techniques are routinely used to
determine the ages of fossils, dinosaur bones, ancient
artifacts, meteorites, moon rocks, geological
formations, and Mother Earth herself.
ALL radioactive dating techniques rely on the
ASSUMPTION that the radioactive decay rate of each
isotope is CONSTANT with time.
But this ASSUMPTION might NOT be true! Radioactive
dating techniques may be extremely IN-ACCURATE beyond
ten thousand years into the past!
Someday soon, scientists will discover (some know
already!) that every 13,000 years our Solar System
passes through an extremely energetic area of space
(sometimes called the "Photon Belt"; look it up on the
Internet, including http://www.paoweb.com/glossary.htm ).
During the two thousand years that it takes to pass
through it each time, radioactive decay rates here are
greatly SPEEDED UP or even MULTIPLIED !
This would have the effect of making ancient
objects AND THE EARTH seem to be MUCH OLDER than they
REALLY ARE !
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
ALSO http://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
Creationist Alert.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abo" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
13 Jan 2008 03:49:54 AM |
|
|
wrote:
<snip>
I refuse to believe someone who cannot hyphenate properly...
--
Abo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
13 Jan 2008 02:54:36 PM |
|
|
In article <fmcmrl$3gt$1@news.albasani.net>, Abo <no@spam.thanks>
wrote:
rem460@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
I refuse to believe someone who cannot hyphenate properly...
Of course not! It's a compound word and thus should be hyphenated
thusly: proper-ly. }: )
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
02 Jan 2008 08:48:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
5>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
[snip crap]
Convince nuclear warhead storage that monitors thermal output of
plutonium isotopes heavier than Pu-239.
Convince medical isotope users.
Convince tritium-illuminated safety sign manufacturers.
Convince the calculation and measurement of bismuth half-life,
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/17319
http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/bismuth.htm
Fucking imbecile.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
03 Jan 2008 12:27:17 AM |
|
|
On Jan 2, 9:48 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
[snip crap]
Convince nuclear warhead storage that monitors thermal output of
plutonium isotopes heavier than Pu-239.
Convince medical isotope users.
Convince tritium-illuminated safety sign manufacturers.
Convince the calculation and measurement of bismuth half-life,
[crap but leave it in place as a demonstration of Uncle anAL's lack of
scientific method. ]
Lessee. How many warheads did dinosaurs have? Wonder how many medical
scans those civilized Romans got? Guess Napoleon's troops all had
tritium sights on their muskets?
Moron.
This is just the radioactive version of the bogus "theory of
uniformity" that formed the make-believe backbone of the religion of
geology "science" for so many years. The ONLY demonstrable fact is
that radioactive decay rates haven't been changing (much) since the
20th century. What they did before that is pure speculation. It is
known that contrary to popular assumption, decay rates CAN be adjusted
(slightly) by certain experiments. Whether or not they can be changed
by significant amounts is unknown. And whether or not the processes
which might change them are found in NATURAL cycles is also unknown.
Cripes! Aren't there any skeptics around when you need them?
However, these speculations are not the whole story as a considerable
amount of carbon dating HAS been compared to objects for which the
actual age in known. Generally speaking, carbon dating is not
especially accurate although the public is widely led by the press to
believe it's infallible. The biggest problem with carbon dating of
historical items is contamination during the history of the object.
This is something which is easier to study than what decay rates were
in roman times.
However, the correctly dated uncontaminated objects would tend to show
that in at least SOME cases there were no variations in decay rates
due to unknown outside influences.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/17319http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/bismuth.htm
Fucking imbecile.
--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
03 Jan 2008 10:37:57 AM |
|
|
Benj wrote:
On Jan 2, 9:48 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
[snip crap]
Convince nuclear warhead storage that monitors thermal output of
plutonium isotopes heavier than Pu-239.
Convince medical isotope users.
Convince tritium-illuminated safety sign manufacturers.
Convince the calculation and measurement of bismuth half-life,
[crap but leave it in place as a demonstration of Uncle anAL's lack of
scientific method. ]
Lessee. How many warheads did dinosaurs have? Wonder how many medical
scans those civilized Romans got? Guess Napoleon's troops all had
tritium sights on their muskets?
Moron.
This is just the radioactive version of the bogus "theory of
uniformity" that formed the make-believe backbone of the religion of
geology "science" for so many years. The ONLY demonstrable fact is
that radioactive decay rates haven't been changing (much) since the
20th century. What they did before that is pure speculation. It is
known that contrary to popular assumption, decay rates CAN be adjusted
(slightly) by certain experiments. Whether or not they can be changed
by significant amounts is unknown. And whether or not the processes
which might change them are found in NATURAL cycles is also unknown.
Cripes! Aren't there any skeptics around when you need them?
However, these speculations are not the whole story as a considerable
amount of carbon dating HAS been compared to objects for which the
actual age in known. Generally speaking, carbon dating is not
especially accurate although the public is widely led by the press to
believe it's infallible. The biggest problem with carbon dating of
historical items is contamination during the history of the object.
This is something which is easier to study than what decay rates were
in roman times.
However, the correctly dated uncontaminated objects would tend to show
that in at least SOME cases there were no variations in decay rates
due to unknown outside influences.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/17319http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/bismuth.htm
Fucking imbecile.
Hey stooopid - Oklo, Gabon.
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor>
What part of that is demonstrably incorrect? Go ahead, jackass,
demonstrate.
Uncle Al can give a dozen examples of radioactive decay that can be
turned off at will - the nuclei rendered permanently stable, at will,
to that mode of decay. Give one example.
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
03 Jan 2008 03:15:08 PM |
|
|
On Jan 2, 8:27 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Jan 2, 9:48 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
[snip crap]
Convince nuclear warhead storage that monitors thermal output of
plutonium isotopes heavier than Pu-239.
Convince medical isotope users.
Convince tritium-illuminated safety sign manufacturers.
Convince the calculation and measurement of bismuth half-life,
[crap but leave it in place as a demonstration of Uncle anAL's lack of
scientific method. ]
Lessee. How many warheads did dinosaurs have? Wonder how many medical
scans those civilized Romans got? Guess Napoleon's troops all had
tritium sights on their muskets?
Moron.
This is just the radioactive version of the bogus "theory of
uniformity" that formed the make-believe backbone of the religion of
geology "science" for so many years. The ONLY demonstrable fact is
that radioactive decay rates haven't been changing (much) since the
20th century.
We either have a troll here or a real-life creationist stooge.
You can't change radiodecay rates without changing the fundamental
constants of
nature like C, fine structure constant and others. If those changed
appreciably
with time, the Universe would be vastly different than the one we
observe.
However, given the observations we have of distant stars, galaxies and
supernova,
astrophysicists have concluded that if the fundamental constants like
the fine structure constant have changed,
they could not have changed by more than one part in 100,000 over the
last 13billion years. Thats 13 followed
by 9 zeroes in creationist talk.
Repeating the falsehoods of AIG and the ICR won't get you very far
here.
Stuart
.
|
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
03 Jan 2008 07:34:37 PM |
|
|
On Jan 3, 4:15 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
We either have a troll here or a real-life creationist stooge.
You can't change radiodecay rates without changing the fundamental
constants of
nature like C, fine structure constant and others. If those changed
appreciably
with time, the Universe would be vastly different than the one we
observe.
Lessee. I take it you are one of those "evolutionists" who think that
the entire universe is controlled by nothing more than "chance" and
that nothing at the quantum level can EVER be known exactly, but at
the same time we are all supposed to believe that you know precisely
what the exact parameters controlling radioactive decay are? I have an
isotope here and I'd like you to predict for me
the EXACT time the next decay is going to be ejected. <taps foot> I'm
waiting for your precise predictions based on your exact knowledge of
the mechanisms involved.
Moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
03 Jan 2008 08:51:08 PM |
|
|
On Jan 3, 3:34 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Jan 3, 4:15 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
We either have a troll here or a real-life creationist stooge.
You can't change radiodecay rates without changing the fundamental
constants of
nature like C, fine structure constant and others. If those changed
appreciably
with time, the Universe would be vastly different than the one we
observe.
Lessee. I take it you are one of those "evolutionists" who think that
Um. You mean scientist.
the entire universe is controlled by nothing more than "chance" and
that nothing at the quantum level can EVER be known exactly, but at
the same time we are all supposed to believe that you know precisely
what the exact parameters controlling radioactive decay are?
Yup. Funny how that works.
Those parameters also set limits on the probabilities associated
with the "chance" you speak of above. Try Plancks Constant
for instance.
QM isn't all about chance. QM is the most precise, and precisely
tested
scientific theory of all time. Some aspects of QM have been tested to
a
precision of 1 part in a thousand billion billions.
I have an
isotope here and I'd like you to predict for me
the EXACT time the next decay is going to be ejected.
I can't predict the weather three weeks from now. That doesn't mean
I don't know why it rains.
Howvere Given a sample of U235 I can tell you how much of it will no
longer
be U235 after a given stretch of time. That I can't tell you which
atoms of U235
will decay is irrelevant to radiodecay dating.
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the depths of
your ignorance.
Like most creatobabbling rubes you don't know the diffrerence between
testing a scientific theory and prognostication.
<taps foot> I'm
waiting for your precise predictions based on your exact knowledge of
the mechanisms involved.
Not necessary. None the less its worth noting that weather forecasts
have improved
and are more far reaching due to improved physics, numerical
algorithms and computational
speed.
Moron.
If you weren't a moron, you'd know that weather is a highly non-linear
phenomenon, and that
long range weather prediction is a vritual impossibility thanks to
chaos. Better measurments and better
models can forestall the effects of chaos, but as errors grow
exponentially you can't win. Of course
mathematics teaches us this.
But a knuckle walking, drooling creationist luddite who thinks The
Flintstones is a documentary will not
appreciate or understand any of the above.
Stuart
.
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
24 Jan 2008 04:09:32 AM |
|
|
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the depths of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
24 Jan 2008 08:30:22 AM |
|
|
On Jan 24, 5:09 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the depths of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
It's clear that my "depths of ignorance" do not measure up to Stuart's
ignorance of the the written English language.
He actually means my "clumsy attempt at bait and switch", but I'm
happy to play "who's the biggest moron" here. In fact I love to
"bate", but even more, I love to do it again and again (rebate!) :-)
I really have to love Stuart's celebration of his own ignorance of so
many things, and yet he believes it all. Everything those in authority
tell him are "unknowable" he believes can never be known. He thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing. To him
"science" is a religion formed from the holy books of peer-reviewed
journals. He willing accepts the wildest of speculations as "proven"
fact. He "knows" that the sun goes around the earth. He "knows" that
nobody will EVER fly in heavier than air craft. He "knows" that an
electric motor can never be built without brushes and commutator. He
"knows" that the rate of radioactive decay can never be changed and
HAS never changed for eons even though it has only been measured for
the past few years. He "knows" that weather can "NEVER" be predicted
successfully. In short, Stuart is an unquestioning moron who takes as
gospel the ponderous prognostications of so-called "experts". He is
incapable of thinking for himself. He refuses to examine any data for
himself. All he knows how to do is "proof by assertions" and proof by
accusing anyone who upsets his little dogmatic world as being much
less intelligent than he is. Oh sure. that wins the debate for me
every time. That is what I call "real" science. Now if Stuart could
just tell me how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, I could die
informed!
.
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
24 Jan 2008 09:13:33 AM |
|
|
Benj wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:09 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the depths of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
It's clear that my "depths of ignorance" do not measure up to Stuart's
ignorance of the the written English language.
He actually means my "clumsy attempt at bait and switch", but I'm
happy to play "who's the biggest moron" here. In fact I love to
"bate", but even more, I love to do it again and again (rebate!) :-)
I really have to love Stuart's celebration of his own ignorance of so
many things, and yet he believes it all. Everything those in authority
tell him are "unknowable" he believes can never be known. He thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing. To him
"science" is a religion formed from the holy books of peer-reviewed
journals. He willing accepts the wildest of speculations as "proven"
fact. He "knows" that the sun goes around the earth. He "knows" that
nobody will EVER fly in heavier than air craft. He "knows" that an
electric motor can never be built without brushes and commutator. He
"knows" that the rate of radioactive decay can never be changed and
HAS never changed for eons even though it has only been measured for
the past few years. He "knows" that weather can "NEVER" be predicted
successfully. In short, Stuart is an unquestioning moron who takes as
gospel the ponderous prognostications of so-called "experts".
Right! Your dead right! This is an astounding dissection, ..every
word redolent of reality. "Stuart is a moron". That is
*sheer*poetry*! How do you do it?
He is
incapable of thinking for himself. He refuses to examine any data for
himself. All he knows how to do is "proof by assertions" and proof by
accusing anyone who upsets his little dogmatic world as being much
less intelligent than he is. Oh sure. that wins the debate for me
every time. That is what I call "real" science. Now if Stuart could
just tell me how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, I could die
informed!
Of course the answer is none, since Stuart is sitting on it already -
which is why he never sees the point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landy" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
24 Jan 2008 03:30:19 PM |
|
|
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:17a92771-a734-49ef-9661-1ae34a0e85b5@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Benj wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:09 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the depths of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
It's clear that my "depths of ignorance" do not measure up to Stuart's
ignorance of the the written English language.
He actually means my "clumsy attempt at bait and switch", but I'm
happy to play "who's the biggest moron" here. In fact I love to
"bate", but even more, I love to do it again and again (rebate!) :-)
I really have to love Stuart's celebration of his own ignorance of so
many things, and yet he believes it all. Everything those in authority
tell him are "unknowable" he believes can never be known. He thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing. To him
"science" is a religion formed from the holy books of peer-reviewed
journals. He willing accepts the wildest of speculations as "proven"
fact. He "knows" that the sun goes around the earth. He "knows" that
nobody will EVER fly in heavier than air craft. He "knows" that an
electric motor can never be built without brushes and commutator. He
"knows" that the rate of radioactive decay can never be changed and
HAS never changed for eons even though it has only been measured for
the past few years. He "knows" that weather can "NEVER" be predicted
successfully. In short, Stuart is an unquestioning moron who takes as
gospel the ponderous prognostications of so-called "experts".
Right! Your dead right!
Since you're picking on spelling perhaps you should check your own.
You're dead wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
24 Jan 2008 04:01:43 PM |
|
|
Landy wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:17a92771-a734-49ef-9661-1ae34a0e85b5@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Benj wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:09 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the depths of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
It's clear that my "depths of ignorance" do not measure up to Stuart's
ignorance of the the written English language.
He actually means my "clumsy attempt at bait and switch", but I'm
happy to play "who's the biggest moron" here. In fact I love to
"bate", but even more, I love to do it again and again (rebate!) :-)
I really have to love Stuart's celebration of his own ignorance of so
many things, and yet he believes it all. Everything those in authority
tell him are "unknowable" he believes can never be known. He thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing. To him
"science" is a religion formed from the holy books of peer-reviewed
journals. He willing accepts the wildest of speculations as "proven"
fact. He "knows" that the sun goes around the earth. He "knows" that
nobody will EVER fly in heavier than air craft. He "knows" that an
electric motor can never be built without brushes and commutator. He
"knows" that the rate of radioactive decay can never be changed and
HAS never changed for eons even though it has only been measured for
the past few years. He "knows" that weather can "NEVER" be predicted
successfully. In short, Stuart is an unquestioning moron who takes as
gospel the ponderous prognostications of so-called "experts".
Right! Your dead right!
Since you're picking on spelling perhaps you should check your own.
You're dead wrong.
(Teach rushes to dictionary)
Hey, Teach., ...
Since when did dictionaries purport to tell what's right? They just
say what's *USED*. (Dope.) They reflect the higgerance back to the
higgerant, ..and you're as higgerant as he is. You didn't know that
did you? (About higgerance..) You probably even think Plate
Tectonics is right, rather than just what's used. You can't even rise
to making a shrinking Africa right.
If Stu chooses to wallow in a poor education on a remote island
without your interference that's his choice. Let him. S Leave our Stu
alone. He's got enough on his plate with duelling propagators.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landy" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
25 Jan 2008 05:24:47 AM |
|
|
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:cfb6b630-fc3f-45e0-8f7a-3dca64a8160f@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Landy wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:17a92771-a734-49ef-9661-1ae34a0e85b5@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Benj wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:09 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the depths of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
It's clear that my "depths of ignorance" do not measure up to Stuart's
ignorance of the the written English language.
He actually means my "clumsy attempt at bait and switch", but I'm
happy to play "who's the biggest moron" here. In fact I love to
"bate", but even more, I love to do it again and again (rebate!) :-)
I really have to love Stuart's celebration of his own ignorance of so
many things, and yet he believes it all. Everything those in authority
tell him are "unknowable" he believes can never be known. He thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing. To him
"science" is a religion formed from the holy books of peer-reviewed
journals. He willing accepts the wildest of speculations as "proven"
fact. He "knows" that the sun goes around the earth. He "knows" that
nobody will EVER fly in heavier than air craft. He "knows" that an
electric motor can never be built without brushes and commutator. He
"knows" that the rate of radioactive decay can never be changed and
HAS never changed for eons even though it has only been measured for
the past few years. He "knows" that weather can "NEVER" be predicted
successfully. In short, Stuart is an unquestioning moron who takes as
gospel the ponderous prognostications of so-called "experts".
Right! Your dead right!
Since you're picking on spelling perhaps you should check your own.
You're dead wrong.
(Teach rushes to dictionary)
Hey, Teach., ...
Since when did dictionaries purport to tell what's right? They just
say what's *USED*.
I was talking about your misspelling of the word "you're" moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
25 Jan 2008 06:02:42 AM |
|
|
Landy wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:cfb6b630-fc3f-45e0-8f7a-3dca64a8160f@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Landy wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:17a92771-a734-49ef-9661-1ae34a0e85b5@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Benj wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:09 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the depths of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
It's clear that my "depths of ignorance" do not measure up to Stuart's
ignorance of the the written English language.
He actually means my "clumsy attempt at bait and switch", but I'm
happy to play "who's the biggest moron" here. In fact I love to
"bate", but even more, I love to do it again and again (rebate!) :-)
I really have to love Stuart's celebration of his own ignorance of so
many things, and yet he believes it all. Everything those in authority
tell him are "unknowable" he believes can never be known. He thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing. To him
"science" is a religion formed from the holy books of peer-reviewed
journals. He willing accepts the wildest of speculations as "proven"
fact. He "knows" that the sun goes around the earth. He "knows" that
nobody will EVER fly in heavier than air craft. He "knows" that an
electric motor can never be built without brushes and commutator. He
"knows" that the rate of radioactive decay can never be changed and
HAS never changed for eons even though it has only been measured for
the past few years. He "knows" that weather can "NEVER" be predicted
successfully. In short, Stuart is an unquestioning moron who takes as
gospel the ponderous prognostications of so-called "experts".
Right! Your dead right!
Since you're picking on spelling perhaps you should check your own.
You're dead wrong.
(Teach rushes to dictionary)
Hey, Teach., ...
Since when did dictionaries purport to tell what's right? They just
say what's *USED*.
I was talking about your misspelling of the word "you're" moron.
It's not mispelling. It just happened to be what I was using at the
time. It can be used in many situations... with erudition. (So
there.). Erudition is something your yourness will have to
dictionarise. So ***** and doo wop doo wop doo wop doo wop waaahhh
(it).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landy" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
25 Jan 2008 02:45:28 PM |
|
|
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:5ed8c04b-1836-4bfc-82be-34a5dd7758f1@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Landy wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:cfb6b630-fc3f-45e0-8f7a-3dca64a8160f@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Landy wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:17a92771-a734-49ef-9661-1ae34a0e85b5@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Benj wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:09 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the depths
of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
It's clear that my "depths of ignorance" do not measure up to
Stuart's
ignorance of the the written English language.
He actually means my "clumsy attempt at bait and switch", but I'm
happy to play "who's the biggest moron" here. In fact I love to
"bate", but even more, I love to do it again and again (rebate!)
:-)
I really have to love Stuart's celebration of his own ignorance of
so
many things, and yet he believes it all. Everything those in
authority
tell him are "unknowable" he believes can never be known. He thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing. To him
"science" is a religion formed from the holy books of peer-reviewed
journals. He willing accepts the wildest of speculations as
"proven"
fact. He "knows" that the sun goes around the earth. He "knows"
that
nobody will EVER fly in heavier than air craft. He "knows" that an
electric motor can never be built without brushes and commutator.
He
"knows" that the rate of radioactive decay can never be changed and
HAS never changed for eons even though it has only been measured
for
the past few years. He "knows" that weather can "NEVER" be
predicted
successfully. In short, Stuart is an unquestioning moron who takes
as
gospel the ponderous prognostications of so-called "experts".
Right! Your dead right!
Since you're picking on spelling perhaps you should check your own.
You're dead wrong.
(Teach rushes to dictionary)
Hey, Teach., ...
Since when did dictionaries purport to tell what's right? They just
say what's *USED*.
I was talking about your misspelling of the word "you're" moron.
It's not mispelling. It just happened to be what I was using at the
time. It can be used in many situations... with erudition.
You obviously never learned grammar. You used the wrong spelling for the
context.
You said "Your dead right". "Your" is a posessive pronoun, so that's not
even a sentence (no verb). His dead right what? And what did it do?
"You're" is a shortening of "you are" which is actually what you meant to
say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
25 Jan 2008 04:33:20 PM |
|
|
Landy wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:5ed8c04b-1836-4bfc-82be-34a5dd7758f1@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Landy wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:cfb6b630-fc3f-45e0-8f7a-3dca64a8160f@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Landy wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:17a92771-a734-49ef-9661-1ae34a0e85b5@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Benj wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:09 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the depths
of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
It's clear that my "depths of ignorance" do not measure up to
Stuart's
ignorance of the the written English language.
He actually means my "clumsy attempt at bait and switch", but I'm
happy to play "who's the biggest moron" here. In fact I love to
"bate", but even more, I love to do it again and again (rebate!)
:-)
I really have to love Stuart's celebration of his own ignorance of
so
many things, and yet he believes it all. Everything those in
authority
tell him are "unknowable" he believes can never be known. He thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing. To him
"science" is a religion formed from the holy books of peer-reviewed
journals. He willing accepts the wildest of speculations as
"proven"
fact. He "knows" that the sun goes around the earth. He "knows"
that
nobody will EVER fly in heavier than air craft. He "knows" that an
electric motor can never be built without brushes and commutator.
He
"knows" that the rate of radioactive decay can never be changed and
HAS never changed for eons even though it has only been measured
for
the past few years. He "knows" that weather can "NEVER" be
predicted
successfully. In short, Stuart is an unquestioning moron who takes
as
gospel the ponderous prognostications of so-called "experts".
Right! Your dead right!
Since you're picking on spelling perhaps you should check your own.
You're dead wrong.
(Teach rushes to dictionary)
Hey, Teach., ...
Since when did dictionaries purport to tell what's right? They just
say what's *USED*.
I was talking about your misspelling of the word "you're" moron.
It's not mispelling. It just happened to be what I was using at the
time. It can be used in many situations... with erudition.
You obviously never learned grammar. You used the wrong spelling for the
context.
You said "Your dead right". "Your" is a posessive pronoun, so that's not
even a sentence (no verb). His dead right what? And what did it do?
"You're" is a shortening of "you are" which is actually what you meant to
say.
(Jesus) (Now I understand why you have trouble seeing the fallacies
of Plate Tectonics.)
Look (Your Deadness), ... there's a difference between your dead,
piled up on the the right, and your dead piled up on the left. Which
pile of dead would you rather belong to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landy" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
25 Jan 2008 05:05:13 PM |
|
|
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:807aea30-6c72-47f7-99e0-69c210de5ca0@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Landy wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:5ed8c04b-1836-4bfc-82be-34a5dd7758f1@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Landy wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:cfb6b630-fc3f-45e0-8f7a-3dca64a8160f@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Landy wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:17a92771-a734-49ef-9661-1ae34a0e85b5@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Benj wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:09 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the
depths
of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
It's clear that my "depths of ignorance" do not measure up to
Stuart's
ignorance of the the written English language.
He actually means my "clumsy attempt at bait and switch", but
I'm
happy to play "who's the biggest moron" here. In fact I love to
"bate", but even more, I love to do it again and again (rebate!)
:-)
I really have to love Stuart's celebration of his own ignorance
of
so
many things, and yet he believes it all. Everything those in
authority
tell him are "unknowable" he believes can never be known. He
thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing. To him
"science" is a religion formed from the holy books of
peer-reviewed
journals. He willing accepts the wildest of speculations as
"proven"
fact. He "knows" that the sun goes around the earth. He "knows"
that
nobody will EVER fly in heavier than air craft. He "knows" that
an
electric motor can never be built without brushes and
commutator.
He
"knows" that the rate of radioactive decay can never be changed
and
HAS never changed for eons even though it has only been measured
for
the past few years. He "knows" that weather can "NEVER" be
predicted
successfully. In short, Stuart is an unquestioning moron who
takes
as
gospel the ponderous prognostications of so-called "experts".
Right! Your dead right!
Since you're picking on spelling perhaps you should check your own.
You're dead wrong.
(Teach rushes to dictionary)
Hey, Teach., ...
Since when did dictionaries purport to tell what's right? They just
say what's *USED*.
I was talking about your misspelling of the word "you're" moron.
It's not mispelling. It just happened to be what I was using at the
time. It can be used in many situations... with erudition.
You obviously never learned grammar. You used the wrong spelling for the
context.
You said "Your dead right". "Your" is a posessive pronoun, so that's not
even a sentence (no verb). His dead right what? And what did it do?
"You're" is a shortening of "you are" which is actually what you meant to
say.
(Jesus) (Now I understand why you have trouble seeing the fallacies
of Plate Tectonics.)
Look (Your Deadness), ... there's a difference between your dead,
piled up on the the right, and your dead piled up on the left.
My dead what? Cat? Dog?
.
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
25 Jan 2008 05:35:40 PM |
|
|
Landy wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:807aea30-6c72-47f7-99e0-69c210de5ca0@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Landy wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:5ed8c04b-1836-4bfc-82be-34a5dd7758f1@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Landy wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:cfb6b630-fc3f-45e0-8f7a-3dca64a8160f@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Landy wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:17a92771-a734-49ef-9661-1ae34a0e85b5@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Benj wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:09 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the
depths
of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
It's clear that my "depths of ignorance" do not measure up to
Stuart's
ignorance of the the written English language.
He actually means my "clumsy attempt at bait and switch", but
I'm
happy to play "who's the biggest moron" here. In fact I love to
"bate", but even more, I love to do it again and again (rebate!)
:-)
I really have to love Stuart's celebration of his own ignorance
of
so
many things, and yet he believes it all. Everything those in
authority
tell him are "unknowable" he believes can never be known. He
thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing. To him
"science" is a religion formed from the holy books of
peer-reviewed
journals. He willing accepts the wildest of speculations as
"proven"
fact. He "knows" that the sun goes around the earth. He "knows"
that
nobody will EVER fly in heavier than air craft. He "knows" that
an
electric motor can never be built without brushes and
commutator.
He
"knows" that the rate of radioactive decay can never be changed
and
HAS never changed for eons even though it has only been measured
for
the past few years. He "knows" that weather can "NEVER" be
predicted
successfully. In short, Stuart is an unquestioning moron who
takes
as
gospel the ponderous prognostications of so-called "experts".
Right! Your dead right!
Since you're picking on spelling perhaps you should check your own.
You're dead wrong.
(Teach rushes to dictionary)
Hey, Teach., ...
Since when did dictionaries purport to tell what's right? They just
say what's *USED*.
I was talking about your misspelling of the word "you're" moron.
It's not mispelling. It just happened to be what I was using at the
time. It can be used in many situations... with erudition.
You obviously never learned grammar. You used the wrong spelling for the
context.
You said "Your dead right". "Your" is a posessive pronoun, so that's not
even a sentence (no verb). His dead right what? And what did it do?
"You're" is a shortening of "you are" which is actually what you meant to
say.
(Jesus) (Now I understand why you have trouble seeing the fallacies
of Plate Tectonics.)
Look (Your Deadness), ... there's a difference between your dead,
piled up on the the right, and your dead piled up on the left.
My dead what? Cat? Dog?
You must be surrounded with cadavers of the most indescribable colour,
hue and .... and ... and...pong. I'll let you choose.
Bring our your dead, everybody, ..email it Bill, ..who collects it -
for use in class.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
28 Jan 2008 02:48:18 PM |
|
|
On Jan 24, 4:30 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:09 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the depths of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
It's clear that my "depths of ignorance" do not measure up to Stuart's
ignorance of the the written English language.
He actually means my "clumsy attempt at bait and switch", but I'm
happy to play "who's the biggest moron" here. In fact I love to
"bate", but even more, I love to do it again and again (rebate!) :-)
I really have to love Stuart's celebration of his own ignorance of so
many things, and yet he believes it all. Everything those in authority
tell him are "unknowable" he believes can never be known.
Such as?
He thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing.
I question bad science all the time. Hence your frustration.
I question good science too, but then I usually get satisfactory
answers.
<blather, rinse, repeat snipped>
What is obvious here, is that you are not going to make attempt
to refute my arguments. Your claim that we cannot come to conclusions
regarding events that happened in the past is bogus.
We get it. No need to repeat it. Its still wrong. The premise is
wrong.
Science isn't about knowing for sure or *proof*. Proof is for drunks,
mathematicians and creationists. Science is as much a method
for quantifying doubts as anything else.
You claim I treat science as a religion. However, it is you who
approach
science with your religious blinders on. And when it fails to support
your
beliefs you resort to epistemological nihilism. We've seen it before.
Stuart
.
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
05 Feb 2008 04:18:08 PM |
|
|
Stuart wrote:
He thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing.
I question bad science all the time. Hence your frustration.
I question good science too, but then I usually get satisfactory
answers.
Now, will the real Pteronimus Rex Please step forward so we can inject
some heat into this debate? (No cardboard cut-outs this time please.
And that old trolley-dosser needn't apply.) I want to ask another
civil question about this nice picture
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/tomo1.html
that nobody seems inclined to answer. (I see Krumbo's turned up again
too..) ..Namely as follows:- The red bits are hot and the blue stuff
cold, right? And the mantle is shown hot close to the core, right
too? Now, here is the **BIG** question:-
"What else would you expect?"
Of course the mantle is hotter close to the core, but that doesn't
mean to say it's going to convect, now does it, ..not when there is
the natural heat of burial to account for. How much hotter is the hot
blob(s) close to the core, than the natural heat of burial (and how
would you know)?
And anyhow as asked before:-
1.How does it rise through all the cold stuff (blue and green) to give
a hot rim at the top? How does the rim get hot again after rising
through all that cold stuff?
2.How does a mantle wind to give a slope to the orange zones blow in
two directions at once?
3. On the left, why do you get a real cold bit directly above the
biggest hottest bit of all - right in the middle of the Pacific?
Answers to these are the reason George Pocketpisser has abandoned
Stuart to his trolley and piles of cardboard. (..and
yeah, ..probably them too...).
<blather, rinse, repeat snipped>
What is obvious here, is that you are not going to make attempt
to refute my arguments. Your claim that we cannot come to conclusions
regarding events that happened in the past is bogus.
What is obvious by now is that Stuart is quite happy in his trolley of
dank cardboard donated by years of pocket pissers (though apparently
none any more now), and is not going to make any further attempts to
refute the accusation that Plate Tectonics is pure Garbage from go to
wo,
We get it. No need to repeat it. Its still wrong. The premise is
wrong.
Science isn't about knowing for sure or *proof*. Proof is for drunks,
mathematicians and creationists. Science is as much a method
for quantifying doubts as anything else.
Stuart believes that Subduction is proven-by-numbers, much like
colouring-in squares, .. All you have to do is plug in the right
number and the mantle wind will blow and the World and everything else
will be Hunky Dory. (And why, ..with the right number on Christmas
morning donated by Santa, even the Pacific might behave itself for a
change.)
The Mantle wind blows,
Convection will slow,
And what will poor Stuartie do then,
Poor Thing.
He'll sit in his trolley
And count up his lolly
....And wonder why the ***** his luck ran out, just when all this nice
seisimic tomography was going to show Plate Tectonics to be everything
he had always dreamed/ believed/ wanted it to be - convecting away on
a roiling boil, just like mother's soup.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/soup.html
You claim I treat science as a religion. However, it is you who
approach
science with your religious blinders on. And when it fails to support
your
beliefs you resort to epistemological nihilism. We've seen it before.
Stuart
Do we get a rebate against your rabbid plundering of The Gift that
Keeps on Giving, Stuart? No? Not even any points for listening to
your Frequent *****?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
04 Feb 2008 07:05:50 AM |
|
|
Stuart wrote:
Science isn't about knowing for sure or *proof*. Proof is for drunks,
mathematicians and creationists. Science is as much a method
for quantifying doubts as anything else.
So, science is "about quantifying doubts", but mathematicians get
short shrift. Well they would, wouldn't they, where in your world
doubts never add up. In your world doubts are gubbins to be swept
under the table when what counts is the big radient wobbly jelly on
the top you just made.
In your world science is about constructing hypotheses, one after
another, ..and breaking them down and building another. The more the
better in fact. One wobbly after another. Science is about showing
how clever you are at manipulating the data into the weirdest
constructs, and using sleight of hand to cast doubt on it and having
another go. Data are the legitimate tools of the magician, nothing in
their own right - a wave of the wand and hey Presto, yet another
'Hypothesis'. Who said science is about finding out about how the
world works is soft in the head in Stuart's world. It's just about
hypothesising till you're blue in the face, ..and trying to shore them
up. The more wrong you are the more clever you are seen to be when
you have another go.
So, there are earthquakes at the ridges and earthquakes in subduction
zones, but nothing in between, ..but who cares when with a number or
two you can show how cooling away from the ridge lets you join a line
over half the Earth's surface to define a lithosphere 8km to 200km.
a lithosphere which shrinks when it cools and drives Plate Tectonics
and builds mountains.
A cooling, shrinking Earth is the rationale for mountain building. Is
that right Stu? Come on, be a Hero, ..tell us again about your quest
for rubbishing bad science.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
02 Feb 2008 05:36:17 PM |
|
|
Stuart wrote:
On Jan 24, 4:30 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:09 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the depths of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
It's clear that my "depths of ignorance" do not measure up to Stuart's
ignorance of the the written English language.
He actually means my "clumsy attempt at bait and switch", but I'm
happy to play "who's the biggest moron" here. In fact I love to
"bate", but even more, I love to do it again and again (rebate!) :-)
I really have to love Stuart's celebration of his own ignorance of so
many things, and yet he believes it all. Everything those in authority
tell him are "unknowable" he believes can never be known.
Such as?
He thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing.
I question bad science all the time. Hence your frustration.
I question good science too, but then I usually get satisfactory
answers.
<blather, rinse, repeat snipped>
What is obvious here, is that you are not going to make attempt
to refute my arguments. Your claim that we cannot come to conclusions
regarding events that happened in the past is bogus.
We get it. No need to repeat it. Its still wrong. The premise is
wrong.
Science isn't about knowing for sure or *proof*. Proof is for drunks,
mathematicians and creationists. Science is as much a method
for quantifying doubts as anything else.
You claim I treat science as a religion. However, it is you who
approach
science with your religious blinders on. And when it fails to support
your
beliefs you resort to epistemological nihilism. We've seen it before.
Stuart
Come on then Stu, you say you question bad science all the time, and
set yourself up as netcop to do it. So how about doing something about
questioning the crap that Teachers teach all the time:-
--------------------------------------------------------
"...Scientists now know that Earth's crust, which encompasses all of
the continents and the seafloor, is made up of a patchwork of a dozen
major and several minor tectonic plates. These plates move
independently and shift uneasily atop Earth's molten mantle. Circular
convection currents in the mantle are thought to be the driving force
that pushes plates together or pulls them apart. ..
http://tinyurl.com/2mhdlx
------------------------------------------------------
"Move independently"? Everybody here now knows that plates do *NOT*
move independently,
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/egeo/flash/2_8.swf
.....that all over the world and away from the short break of the
spreading ridge they move all-of-a-piece, in unison.
"Driving force"? They (and you) also know that it's the blobtonics of
the subducting slab as it is *forced down by the continental
lithosphere* that drives Plate Tectonics,
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/fails.html
and that what drives Plate Tectonics is not the same thing as what
drives convection.
So what are you doing about policing this crap? Nothing.
Let's see you "refute" that one.
("Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep..."
leave them alone
and they'll come home
wagging their tails behind them..")
Or is the reason you don't because - "you (who) approach science with
your religious blinders on. And when it fails to support your beliefs
you resort to epistemological nihilism. We've seen it before. -
Stuart "
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
05 Feb 2008 08:13:05 AM |
|
|
Stuart wrote:
On Jan 24, 4:30 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:09 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the depths of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
It's clear that my "depths of ignorance" do not measure up to Stuart's
ignorance of the the written English language.
He actually means my "clumsy attempt at bait and switch", but I'm
happy to play "who's the biggest moron" here. In fact I love to
"bate", but even more, I love to do it again and again (rebate!) :-)
I really have to love Stuart's celebration of his own ignorance of so
many things, and yet he believes it all. Everything those in authority
tell him are "unknowable" he believes can never be known.
Such as?
He thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing.
I question bad science all the time. Hence your frustration.
I question good science too, but then I usually get satisfactory
answers.
<blather, rinse, repeat snipped>
What is obvious here, is that you are not going to make attempt
to refute my arguments. Your claim that we cannot come to conclusions
regarding events that happened in the past is bogus.
We get it. No need to repeat it. Its still wrong. The premise is
wrong.
Science isn't about knowing for sure or *proof*. Proof is for drunks,
mathematicians and creationists. Science is as much a method
for quantifying doubts as anything else.
You claim I treat science as a religion. However, it is you who
approach
science with your religious blinders on. And when it fails to support
your
beliefs you resort to epistemological nihilism. We've seen it before.
Stuart
Okay okay, okay.. ... Nice easy one for our Stu.. What's the goss?
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/tomo1.html
How come the outside skin of the earth shows all hot (that red outside
shell) and not cold, ..hotter at any rate than what's 'feeding' it?
Looks like it's hot the whole way from ridge to subduction zone. Is
it the continental lithosphere forcing it down then that makes it
cold?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
03 Feb 2008 03:58:14 PM |
|
|
Stuart wrote:
On Jan 24, 4:30 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:09 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the depths of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
It's clear that my "depths of ignorance" do not measure up to Stuart's
ignorance of the the written English language.
He actually means my "clumsy attempt at bait and switch", but I'm
happy to play "who's the biggest moron" here. In fact I love to
"bate", but even more, I love to do it again and again (rebate!) :-)
I really have to love Stuart's celebration of his own ignorance of so
many things, and yet he believes it all. Everything those in authority
tell him are "unknowable" he believes can never be known.
Such as?
He thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing.
I question bad science all the time. Hence your frustration.
I question good science too, but then I usually get satisfactory
answers.
<blather, rinse, repeat snipped>
What is obvious here, is that you are not going to make attempt
to refute my arguments. Your claim that we cannot come to conclusions
regarding events that happened in the past is bogus.
We get it. No need to repeat it. Its still wrong. The premise is
wrong.
Science isn't about knowing for sure or *proof*. Proof is for drunks,
mathematicians and creationists. Science is as much a method
for quantifying doubts as anything else.
You claim I treat science as a religion. However, it is you who
approach
science with your religious blinders on. And when it fails to support
your
beliefs you resort to epistemological nihilism. We've seen it before.
Stuart
Then what about that one about the ocean floors? With all those
fractures of transform faults and spreading ridges past, the ocean
floors must be more crushed gravel than dirt in a dollypot. How does
it all stay together when it gets pulled by the descending slab? From
the subduction zone right back to the spreading ridge, not even a
chink in it. Crikey! Not even an *EARTHQUAKE*
What sort of a load of old cardboard do you think you're sitting on?
(Transform faults as zones of ductile flow..) .. Bloody Hell !..
Don't you think it just a tiny bit indigestible? "Who cares, if it
pays wages?" Is that it?
What about cardboard science? Do you question that any time?
(...The House that Stuart Built... )
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
28 Jan 2008 03:52:06 PM |
|
|
Stuart wrote:
On Jan 24, 4:30 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:09 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the depths of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
It's clear that my "depths of ignorance" do not measure up to Stuart's
ignorance of the the written English language.
He actually means my "clumsy attempt at bait and switch", but I'm
happy to play "who's the biggest moron" here. In fact I love to
"bate", but even more, I love to do it again and again (rebate!) :-)
I really have to love Stuart's celebration of his own ignorance of so
many things, and yet he believes it all. Everything those in authority
tell him are "unknowable" he believes can never be known.
Such as?
He thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing.
I question bad science all the time. Hence your frustration.
Then let's see you question Plate Tectonics.
I question good science too, but then I usually get satisfactory
answers.
<blather, rinse, repeat snipped>
What is obvious here, is that you are not going to make attempt
to refute my arguments. Your claim that we cannot come to conclusions
regarding events that happened in the past is bogus.
We get it. No need to repeat it. Its still wrong. The premise is
wrong.
Science isn't about knowing for sure or *proof*. Proof is for drunks,
mathematicians and creationists. Science is as much a method
for quantifying doubts as anything else.
So quantify them. What doubts do you have about Plate Tectonics - in
your words The Gift that keeps on Giving? We have never heard you
express one doubt, only orgasmic gratitude for how Plate Tectonics has
served you.
You claim I treat science as a religion. However, it is you who
approach
science with your religious blinders on. And when it fails to support
your
beliefs you resort to epistemological nihilism. We've seen it before.
Stuart
We've never heard you question anything Stuart. ( Nor has anyone else
here for that matter)
.
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
29 Jan 2008 03:47:09 PM |
|
|
don findlay wrote:
Stuart wrote:
On Jan 24, 4:30 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Jan 24, 5:09 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your clumsy attempt and switch and bate only reveals the depths of
your ignorance.
(...'Bait', ..Stuart, .. it's 'bait'. )
It's clear that my "depths of ignorance" do not measure up to Stuart's
ignorance of the the written English language.
He actually means my "clumsy attempt at bait and switch", but I'm
happy to play "who's the biggest moron" here. In fact I love to
"bate", but even more, I love to do it again and again (rebate!) :-)
I really have to love Stuart's celebration of his own ignorance of so
many things, and yet he believes it all. Everything those in authority
tell him are "unknowable" he believes can never be known.
Such as?
He thinks
he's some kind of "scientist" but he questions nothing.
I question bad science all the time. Hence your frustration.
Then let's see you question Plate Tectonics.
I question good science too, but then I usually get satisfactory
answers.
Like Jam Tarts in Jelly Jars, .. They're on the left, third
compartment along on the gravy train. That's your idea of "Good
Science". We know, ..we know. You're a dead loss Stu.
<blather, rinse, repeat snipped>
What is obvious here, is that you are not going to make attempt
to refute my arguments. Your claim that we cannot come to conclusions
regarding events that happened in the past is bogus.
We get it. No need to repeat it. Its still wrong. The premise is
wrong.
Science isn't about knowing for sure or *proof*. Proof is for drunks,
mathematicians and creationists. Science is as much a method
for quantifying doubts as anything else.
So quantify them. What doubts do you have about Plate Tectonics - in
your words The Gift that keeps on Giving? We have never heard you
express one doubt, only orgasmic gratitude for how Plate Tectonics has
served you.
You claim I treat science as a religion. However, it is you who
approach
science with your religious blinders on. And when it fails to support
your
beliefs you resort to epistemological nihilism. We've seen it before.
Stuart
We've never heard you question anything Stuart. ( Nor has anyone else
here for that matter)
Yes, we've seen you before, too mate. But your Use-By is expired
apparently. You've certainly nothing useful to say when it comes to
Plate Tectonics. That's pretty clear by now.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating: NOT RELIABLE |
03 Feb 2008 01:54:51 AM |
|
|
Stuart wrote:
a load of old cobblers as usual<
Why is it I get a picture of Stu in a supermarket trolley round the
back of some disused warehouse, sitting on a heap of old cardboard
guarding it like a dragon, thinking it still a treasure because it was
once of his own making... ?
Come on Stu, ..all the fair maidens (and George) are on the other side
of town. George doesn't much come to your assistance any more.
Wonder why. The embarassing smell of wee in too many of both your
pockets perhaps, ..and old cardboard. I tell you, ..chuck it out,
Stu. Get with some shiny new stuff. Try it. See if you can explain
how hot spots (- *_spots_* -) can split the entire planet from pole to
pole and right around the equator.
For a net cop you're not doing too well, are you, .....letting one-
legged jokers like me push you around, and leave you stranded at
will, ..up the proverbial creek without a proverbial paddle
Whasat? Wuzzat you breathing fire I just heard? <poke poke>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
