Author Topic: Unpopular Opinions V3 (Read 6612 times)

otto-san · January 29, 2015, 06:51:02 PM

Quote from: SWAT One on January 29, 2015, 06:42:01 PM

Organisms tend to keep more or less the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in their composition, collectively and individually. This difference is also considered in radiocarbon dating.

Polystrate fossils make up a very small composition of their surrounding area, and are very easy to spot. This is not sufficient to significantly undermine general ageing based upon stratum, as the vast majority of the region will provide more consistent information.

Ad Bot · Advertisement

SWAT One · January 29, 2015, 07:09:13 PM

Quote from: Steve5451� on January 29, 2015, 06:45:09 PM

I'm not sure if it works that way.

Radiocarbon dating works by detecting the amount of carbon-14 in something. The premise is that when an organism consumes carbon (12 and 14), carbon-14 enters their system. Once something dies, the organism stops taking in carbon-14. As carbon-14 has a relatively long half-life (5730 years), it is used to date the age of something. Once something is buried, its carbon-14 supply starts decreasing.

In this case. Suppose an abundance at a time is at 1.0ppt (parts per trillion) ¹⁴C in our control group of animals. They die and their fossils are preserved. Then suppose an animal existing at the same time but at a different place for generations ate grass that had ashes from a nearby forest rained on it for a long period of time. They will have a more carbon-rich diet, so suppose they have an abundance of 1.1ppt ¹⁴C. After this half-life expires, the control group now has 0.5ppt ¹⁴C, and the other species now has 0.65ppt ¹⁴C.

Supposing this experiment were done modern-day where the standard ¹⁴C concentration is 1.0ppt, 5730 years from now, radiocarbon dating methods would deem the second group to be present 1322 years after the first group.

dudeman162 · January 29, 2015, 08:38:01 PM

Being tribal is dumb.

Biostorm · January 29, 2015, 08:41:47 PM

I think Islam isn't the violent evil religion that the religious right/Fox News wants us to believe.

surprise surprise

Goth77 · January 29, 2015, 08:53:00 PM

Quote from: Biostorm on January 29, 2015, 08:41:47 PM

I think Islam isn't the violent evil religion that the religious right/Fox News wants us to believe.

surprise surprise

Hey I think that too. Funny how American troops trained most of the so called "CIA Terrorist" group people before we turned on them. It's like Gadaffi all over again. He was a good guy! The media tried to portray him as a genocide-terrorist group leader when he was not. His people loved him. He called America the "Terrorist Instigators" meaning America is always using terrorism as an excuse to go invade countries for their resources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJOqO6aOvyU

And of course the U.S. killed him off by handing him over to the rebel armies he was protecting his people from.

Katla · January 29, 2015, 08:55:36 PM

Quote from: Goth77 on January 29, 2015, 08:53:00 PM

He called America the "Terrorist Instigators" meaning America is always using terrorism as an excuse to go invade countries for their resources.

Well, I imagine that he meant America instigates terrorists. Otherwise, I doubt he'd call us "terrorist instigators."

�l��kf�ce · January 29, 2015, 08:58:51 PM

i think im stupid but other people think im a genius (mainly staff at my schools)
guess that counts

Camel · January 29, 2015, 08:59:56 PM

Quote from: Tokerovin on January 28, 2015, 09:33:27 PM

All the stupid people should be put down.

stupidity is subjective

Electrk. · January 29, 2015, 09:01:31 PM

Quote from: Camel on January 29, 2015, 08:59:56 PM

stupidity is subjective

looks like somebody doesn't want to be put down

Camel · January 29, 2015, 09:03:09 PM

Quote from: Electrk. on January 29, 2015, 09:01:31 PM

looks like somebody doesn't want to be put down

stuff

hes onto me

Georges · January 30, 2015, 12:02:05 AM

I got one

Flappy Bird is a fun and good game.

�am�on · January 30, 2015, 12:06:48 AM

Fezzes beat Fedoras.

come at me Tennessee guy! /ding ding!!

Quote from: Georges on January 30, 2015, 12:02:05 AM

Flappy Bird is a fun and good game.

You got half right.

XR-7 · January 30, 2015, 07:14:10 AM

Quote from: otto-san on January 29, 2015, 05:34:38 PM

I disagree with there even being sides; the two have no reason to be at odds. Evolution is supported by a large amount of evidence. At the same time, religion seeks to answer fundamentally different kinds of philosophical questions.

As someone who has taken courses in apologetics, I'd have to disagree with this statement. A religious view (better put: Creationism) does have loads of evidence just as well. The evidence is simply not as easily accessible since a majority of the distributed knowledge is completely contradictory to it.

I tend to not believe things that I have never seen and have not been widely distributed. But partially since I grew up in a Christian environment plus the unbelievable amounts of time I've spent researching over the years, I find the Creationist view of the events of the world to be far more believable than the view that supports simple organisms becoming complex organisms.

I won't diss the evolutionary theory though. I know it happens to some extent for adaptation to change (climate, food availability, environmental factors, etc).

Bricknave · January 30, 2015, 02:33:27 PM

I think using someone's love life as a measurement of their worth as an individual is misguided.

The argument that love = life only applies if pregnancy is involved, and pregnancy is generally avoided in one-night-stands.

"Hey Jim, did you ever lose your virginity?"
"I found a cure for cancer and invented a hoverboard, but no, I never lost my virginity."
"HA HA! VIRGIN!"

Sp00n.exe · January 30, 2015, 02:35:48 PM

The holocaust was unnecessary, but forced immigration was what should have been done to take care of the jewish problem.