The Problem with Science as a Substitute

[Warthaug]

Sorry to rain on anybody's parade, but this thread should be closed.

Even in the pub, this thread would be a disaster.

I disagree. I use scubaboard as a way to reduce my productivity. And I cannot think of anything less productive then posting messages to a thread as random as this...

Q2) 200 points.

The rate of decay for a radioactive isotope is described by:

Half life = ln (2)/decay constant

This is wrong because:

a) The decay constant is wrong
b) Logarithms are wrong
c) The transdimensional music of the spheres oscillates the luminiferous ether
d) It's correct. I have issues about how isotope ratios are measured in mineral grains.

I like games. I'd have to go with 'd', but one has to wonder - if god determines decay rates, and is in a different reference frame than earth, and the relative speed of those two reference frames change, than maybe so does the decay rate?

lets see - half life = ln(2)/dc * (1/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

Or maybe I should just accept that I only got a C+ in relativity; hence why I became a biologist, not a physicist

Bryan

 

[Sas]

Sorry to rain on anybody's parade, but this thread should be closed.

Even in the pub, this thread would be a disaster.

Noooooo. :shocked2: It will take away one of my sources of amusement that helps pass my days at work when stuff is broken! Anyway, I don't like any threads being closed, even inane ones, I am sure the intermernet tubes can handle it. As people are still posting away, why not leave it open? I am always an optimist and still think there is a chance we might get nereas to post his assumption and convince him otherwise. I was once a Christian fundo so because of that I think no one is beyond hope with gaining the ability to think and argue rationally!

 

[DiverBeth]

I think Nereas has a future in politics as he refuses to answer a direct question and instead just tries to turn it around.

 

[nereas]

...I was once a Christian fundo so because of that I think no one is beyond hope with gaining the ability to think and argue rationally!

That is quite fine, Saspo. There is no issue there.

The issue is with atheists who have made science into a religion, to which they give blind faith, and add to it mythologies that cannot be proved, and then science becomes their substitute for religion.

That be the problem.

 

[nereas]

I think Nereas has a future in politics as he refuses to answer a direct question and instead just tries to turn it around.

Beth, there are bozos here claiming to know science, however they seem to have slept through the college chem class that teaches about the underlying assumptions of carbon dating, and therefore they cannot "remember" it.

I suggest they never knew it, and are therefore not even scientists, but rather are merely misguided atheists (not to be confused with enlightened nihilistic atheists) who have simply substituted science as their religion.

Given enough time, we may actually meet a real scientist (there are plenty around, to be sure) who knows the underlying assumptions.

And then we will go from there.

The imposters (fake scientists) of course would want to close the thread down, to cover up their fraud, or else want to be able to call others names in a pub. No kidding!

As for the mod squad, I am betting that they are happy with any thread that abides by the TOS and that generates more postings. Since that is how Scubaboard gets ratings with advertizers.

 

[nereas]

Still no bite - lets drop it down a level


Q3) 400 points. Hangman!

_ _ _
I I
I O
I I
I / \
I
_ _ _


Methinks radiometric decay be wrong because _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Nereas - can I please have an ‘A' for Answer ?

Your red dive suit matches with "red herring" and so you get an F for "fish."

 

[Thalassamania]

Beth, there are bozos here claiming to know science, however they seem to have slept through the college chem class that teaches about the underlying assumptions of carbon dating, and therefore they cannot "remember" it.

I suggest they never knew it, and are therefore not even scientists, but rather are merely misguided atheists (not to be confused with enlightened nihilistic atheists) who have simply substituted science as their religion.

Given enough time, we may actually meet a real scientist (there are plenty around, to be sure) who knows the underlying assumptions.

And then we will go from there.

The imposters (fake scientists) of course would want to close the thread down, to cover up their fraud, or else want to be able to call others names in a pub. No kidding!

As for the mod squad, I am betting that they are happy with any thread that abides by the TOS and that generates more postings. Since that is how Scubaboard gets ratings with advertizers.

And here we have the fake philosopher, who can't even qualify as a competent sophist, once again engaged in his usual suite of logical fallacies. Shall we play identify the logical fallacy? There's at least one in every real paragraph. Who can match the paragraph with the fallacy? Give it a go ...

1. Ad Hominem
2. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
3. Appeal to Authority
4. Appeal to Belief
5. Appeal to Common Practice
6. Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
7. Appeal to Emotion
8. Appeal to Fear
9. Appeal to Flattery
10. Appeal to Novelty
11. Appeal to Pity
12. Appeal to Popularity
13. Appeal to Ridicule
14. Appeal to Spite
15. Appeal to Tradition
16. Bandwagon
17. Begging the Question
18. Biased Sample
19. Burden of Proof
20. Circumstantial Ad Hominem
21. Composition
22. Confusing Cause and Effect
23. Division
24. False Dilemma
25. Gambler's Fallacy
26. Genetic Fallacy
27. Guilt By Association
28. Hasty Generalization
29. Ignoring A Common Cause
30. Middle Ground
31. Misleading Vividness
32. Personal Attack
33. Poisoning the Well
34. Post Hoc
35. Questionable Cause
36. Red Herring
37. Relativist Fallacy
38. Slippery Slope
39. Special Pleading
40. Spotlight
41. Straw Man
42. Two Wrongs Make A Right

 

[nereas]

Either he's onto something that will revolutionize many fields of study, something that everybody else has missed, or he has no answer, he just enjoys playing the fool, or (my guess) his logical facility is incredibly simple, he's full of horse pucky.

The revelation that self-proclaimed "scientists" do not know or recall the fundamental assumption(s) of carbon dating betrays the fact that either a lot of scientists do not even know the limits of science, or else a whole lot of self-professed scientists here are not actually scientists at all.

I am waiting for a true scientist to chime in and answer the question correctly.

Some threads go on for years here on Scubaboard, and it might just take that long for someone to get the right answer.

If you are indeed smart, Thal, then you will dig it up on your own, eventually. At the very least, I have to believe you have smart friends from U.C. Berkeley whom you still stay in touch with.

 

[Warthaug]

The revelation that self-proclaimed "scientists" do not know or recall the fundamental assumption(s) of carbon dating betrays the fact that either a lot of scientists do not even know the limits of science, or else a whole lot of self-professed scientists here are not actually scientists at all.

I am waiting for a true scientist to chime in and answer the question correctly.

Some threads go on for years here on Scubaboard, and it might just take that long for someone to get the right answer.

If you are indeed smart, Thal, then you will dig it up on your own, eventually. At the very least, I have to believe you have smart friends from U.C. Berkeley whom you still stay in touch with.

Translation: I've had my as$ handed to me on a platter, so now the best I can do is ridicule, and pretend to have secret knowledge.

The scientific qualifications of many of us here are widely known, despite Nereas's claims otherwise.

Bryan

 

[Tassie_Rohan]

You do realise Nereas, old boy, that you are repeating yourself?

You repeat the words ‘carbon’, ‘textbook’ and ‘pseudoscience’ like a mantra, oblivious to any external influence.

You believe that you, and you alone, understand a great secret that, honestly, would revolutionise science, and which has been overlooked by tens of thousands of workers in the field.

A discovery that, out there in the real world, would give you real fame for decades to come - yet you are unable to articulate it.


The only textbook I’m reaching for is one on psychology...

Cheers,
Rohan.