Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@spendius,

Quote:

On eugenics he has not the nerve to follow his own convictions to their logical conclusion.

The whole atheism is based on eugenics ... not to say that some people become atheists because they are fond of the Nazi eugenics.
Just take a look at their posts and comments: everybody who is not atheist and does not believe that the eugenics evolutionary understanding of the world is the cherry of all the cakes ... is stupid, retard, silly, foolish, etc. ... for 'evidently' he does not possess the 'thinking of the right type'.

1 Reply

@Herald,

youre oundng as stupid as spendi now. My position on eugenics has been posted and discussed in a thread about that subject several times. This is not a place and you are just being suckered in by the attention whore that is spendi. Now stop acting like an idiot and pay attention to your mistakes in this discussion

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Do you have the samples or you are going to make a Ph.D. thesis of the theme: Phylosophical Issues of the Rocks ...

Are you being a snot nosed kid? or are you that stupid? Ive tried to be nice to you but your abysmal ignorance is deafening. The USGS publishes C contents of magamas and offgases. HAWAII(which contins the volcanoes you wanted to have me sample for C14,) , has a variable C content in its Thoelitic/basaltic lavas (Hwaii has several volcanoes, each with several necks). The USGS publishes volcano exudate analyses and pots em on the deep web. YOU can actually look em up and see that CARBONOTITES are the only magmas that contain any real content of C. They contain Carbonate lavas. Carbonotites are relatively rare. Most carbonotite volcanoes are extinct and the ones still working are a few in the African Horn. Several are in Asia.
BUT, if youd look rather than continuing your dumass assertion to collect C14 samples in lava (or go deeper to the magma chambers), youd find that, for example Hawaiian volcanoes contain less than 1% C mostly as CO2 and the maximum average C content is at Kilahuea , which averages about 120 PPM Carbon whenever the eruption first occurs after a quiet period (Trust me,120 ppm is just not enough even to do an accurate isotope ratio analysis)

Quote:

Just tell us how old is the fresh magma according to the carbon dating techniques

Only idiot Creationists don't bother understanding the science and they would , no doubt, try to "force" a C14 date from a low C ash or a CO2/S vent.
I would imagine theyd get dates that were somewhat older because the temperature that would cause "distillation" of the country rock near the vent would be much older than the gas.
SO, Id imagine that some idiot Creationist would get a date and it would be so wrong that scientists would just shake their heads in disbelief as to how stupid some folks can be. You agree?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

No, I am not asking about the other techniques

Then remain ignorant. No skin off my ass.
The world needs guys who can say
"You want fries with that?"

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

... because those two erupt magma directly from the mid-ocean ridge ... that has carbon for sure.

Since it has carbon for sure, you should be able to tell us the exact amount of carbon it has in an eruption.

The amount of carbon released by the volcano will affect the amount of C14 in a reading.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Then remain ignorant. No skin off my ass.
The world needs guys who can say "You want fries with that?"

Yeah!! Remember that fm when you get feeling ambitious about bringing us all up to your level and providing yourself with competition which would see you off.

The world surely does need guys, and gals, who say "You want fries with that?" a lot more than it does silly fuckers like you.

It must be 10 years since I told you that. Has it finally sunk in? Or do you have a foot in both camps depending on how you feel about the last thing said to you.

What about the eugenics.

Read Proust sometime on people who resort to Ignore.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

The world surely does need guys, and gals, who say "You want fries with that?" a lot more than it does silly fuckers like you.

It must be 10 years since I told you that. Has it finally sunk in

Without silly fuckers like me, youd be drinking in the dark because youd have no fuel to make your fries or
metal grilles upon which to create your burgers. As far as sinking in, you are certainly impressed with yourself more than I.
youre but a gnat, a minor annoyance that provides me with time checks as I move along.

Unless you are completely brain dead, my feelings on eugenics have been elucidated so that even you should have understood. Im not in the habit of dragging up old stories without reason. Youre just in the need of attention, get it somewhere else.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

No, no fm. Tell us about your policy on eugenics.

If your assertion that your "feelings on eugenics have been elucidated" I must have missed them, for which lapse I apologise. A concise recap will do.

Although I can't see what feelings have to do with logically derived scientific laws. Spock would laugh at such sentimentality.

0 Replies

well, now I have two douche bags on ignore, JTT and spendi, for approximately the same reasons. Both aren't worth any effort because they are attention whores only.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

The USGS publishes C contents of magamas and offgases.

Forget about the offgases. Tell us something about the original carbon - that has ever been into the magma. How much is the reading? How much is the age of the newly formed volcanic rocks? What is the number ... of the calculated years of age of such rocks ... by using the method of carbon dating? What is the number?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Tell ya what, you find the average ion content of magmas (actually lavas) from any of the Hawaian volcanoes and let me know what YOU would consider is a minimum concentration with which YOU would do a C14.
Ill critique you.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Don't take it from me. Heres a Creationist website that has produced a pretty accurate quick read on radiometric dating for dummies. Its actually got real science in it (although the interpretations of the methodologies are what I find unsupportable.

About 1/3 of the way in theres a discussion of WHAT we use C14 for and why we don't use C14 for volcanoes and Offgases .
Hey, its an OEC site but they writer is correct about the methods in general.
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

That's why I say, the best tool for determining the age of a new volcano is to take its picture >(I forgot, my Canon cameras all have date stamps on the digital file, so I don't need to hold up a copy of this mornings newspaper)

Cmon, Im starting to worry about you.
If your laptop wont boot up what do you do first?
(I check to see whether the damn battery is charged before I think about doing a C14 on the bias)

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

well, now I have two douche bags on ignore, JTT and spendi, for approximately the same reasons. Both aren't worth any effort because they are attention whores only.

There you go folks. His whole position, and that of Science, leads logically to flat out eugenics. Ask fm about it and he puts you on Ignore and blames you for him doing so, adding a gratuitous insult, which applies to all of us including himself.

So now you know what his much vaunted "peer-reviewing" is worth.

He departed another thread recently when I asked him the eugenics question.

He's lost his cool good-style. And is giving Science a bad name thereby.

He can't even answer Herald's soft-ball lobs.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Here is Marcel Proust's take on the Ignore method--

Quote:

On the other hand, my grandmother’s two sisters, elderly spinsters who shared her nobility of character but lacked her intelligence, declared that they could not conceive what pleasure their brother-in-law could find in talking about such trifles. They were ladies of lofty ambition, who for that reason were incapable of taking the least interest in what might be called the ‘pinchbeck’ things of life, even when they had an historic value, or, generally speaking, in anything that was not directly associated with some object aesthetically precious. So complete was their negation of interest in anything which seemed directly or indirectly a part of our everyday life that their sense of hearing — which had gradually come to understand its own futility when the tone of the conversation, at the dinner-table, became frivolous or merely mundane, without the two old ladies’ being able to guide it back to the topic dear to themselves — would leave its receptive channels unemployed, so effectively that they were actually becoming atrophied. So that if my grandfather wished to attract the attention of the two sisters, he would have to make use of some such alarm signals as mad-doctors adopt in dealing with their distracted patients; as by beating several times on a glass with the blade of a knife, fixing them at the same time with a sharp word and a compelling glance, violent methods which the said doctors are apt to bring with them into their everyday life among the sane, either from force of professional habit or because they think the whole world a trifle mad.

1 Reply

@spendius,

And the bloody forum is headed "Ask an Expert".

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The world needs guys who can say: "You want fries with that?"

No, no, fm, the world sooner would need guys who can say: 'If you think that you want fries ... think again'
Do you have the readings?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Do you have the readings?

The folks at McDonalds will love you until you question the customers selections.

Why don't you just get to the point you are dying to make. You want to tell me about the K/Ar dating that was done on fresh Mt St Helens tephra.

Did you ever consider moving to Texas?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I know when something means nothing and your definitions mean nothing.

Even fm will explain that for you.

Your life must be very interesting since you don't believe that any common definitions mean anything. That explains your frequent misuses of basic vocabulary.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

I know that an assertion is a positive statement, usually made without an attempt at furnishing evidence.

Science provides evidence. Thus statements made with no supporting evidence are unscientific and do not belong on a science thread or in any other scientific context.

That provides evidence that you haven't a scientific cell in your body along with many others on here who habitually use assertions and, more often than not, self-serving, stupid and simple ones.

The assertion that God exists is flawed because there is no evidence that God exists but there is evidence that a general belief that God exists has utility for social organisation in societies considered as above the level of small hunter-gathering groups.

Whether they are "above" is a philosophical question.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I notice you tend to go off on random tangents.

Have you any interest in discussion at all or are you going to change the subject to what you want to talk about in every thread in which you post?

Every cell in my body is scientific just by virtue of existing. Get mad, spendius. Get mad.

2 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know