Plans for when shit hits the prop

[Odin]

I like what you say except for one thing... "there is no proof that radiation for dating has been the same for the last while...".. yea... thats it. radiation needs not stay the same you say...


http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/earth/cs_zircon_chronolgy.html

seven day creationism... I don' have a problem with an "abstract" version of that... in my perception...
geology... ... you can't fuck with it... unless you rock on for ages.

EDIT... ACTUALLY when i wrote this I was drunk... so no I don't really think I like what you were saying... I don' know what I meant there... but if you are pushing seven day creationism... or a biblical 6000 year old age of the universe... then your understanding of science is seriously lacking.

... oh and if you want to use my drunken state against me... just remember that often alcoholics are the most intelligent and sensitive of those among us...

LOL... though saying that might make me sound like I'm tooting my own horn...

Yea... my ladies tell me to stop that sometimes... they can take care of it... but I say hey it's fun.

... what?::eyepatch::

Bitches. (not in a pejorative way... ladies are beautiful intelligent tough cute horny enchanting and smell nice... )

Edit again... oh I get it... when I wrote I like what you say... I was being sarcastic...

And now... just there... I was a bit douche... but thats okay in my universe. it happens. ::asshat::

 

[OpossumPolice]

Except radioactive decay is not a constant and correlates with the core of the suns rotation. Meaning it could have been muuuuuuuuch faster to decay many years ago than it does today but no scientist could know how fast so the measurements are ALL inaccurate. The scientists that discovered the changes in decay rates and how they correlate to the sun however refused to admit it could change anthropological dating. But in my honest opinion that's bullshit. If it changes at all it can change a lot. And to base an entire science on a measurement system as innaccurate as decay is not really science, considering you cannot observe the conditions of the earth and sun and of the atom prior to the year we discovered how to measure them and to extrapolate it backwards like they have is an assumption I'm not willing to hold to. http://m.phys.org/_news202456660.html theres the citation.

2

 

[Odin]

• Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.[1] However, the chance that a given atom will decay never changes, that is, it does not matter how long the atom has existed. For a large number of atoms however, the decay rate for the collection can be calculated from the measured decay constants, and the half-lives of the nuclides calculated. These numbers have no known limits for shortness or length of duration, and range over 55 orders of magnitude in time.

you sir... are a random type.. lol...

I'll drink to that.::drinkingbuddy::

 

[OpossumPolice]

But the particles emitted from the sun have a very profound effect on the decay constants and material from another star could have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT decay rates. Not to mention that the sun goes through cycles that have an effect on the ones here. To assume that just because its the same rate today as it was yesterday is naive on the solar time frame it could have been hundreds of times more radioactive than it is today making the half life seem to be billions of years when its just thousands. And I'm not using it as an argument FOR new earth philosophy but it is evidence against blindly believing the earth is billions of years old and always was the molecularly the same as it is now. On the quantum level, the atomic level or the macro level. I think the idea that yesterday was like today so last year must be like this year and the last age (epoch) was like this one is an absurd notion. We know the damn near invisible particles emitted by the sun have MAJOR effects on quantum science and molecular bonds. And that as the suns fuel ratio shifts it causes major shifts in the type and intensity of those particles creating an unobservable mystery that mankind may never know the truth about as much as we would like to extrapolate modern data to fit the pattern we don't know that the pattern is eternal.

2

 

[Matt Derrick]

no offense, but without a doctorate or some hard core references that negate cubic tons of science to the contrary, i'm going to take what you're saying with a grain of salt.

 

[OpossumPolice]

I already sent a citation of the research.?

2

 

[Odin]

okay here is another citation....
http://phys.org/news202456660.html

from this article...

In general, the fluctuations that Jenkins and Fischbach have found are around a tenth of a percent from what is expected, as they've examined available published data and taken some measurements themselves.


d
Read more at: http://phys.org/news202456660.html#jCp

and

"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings," Fischbach said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news202456660.html#jCp

 

[OpossumPolice]

Yes im not denying their finding were very miniscule changes. But it still changes the definition of "decay constants". And brings a lot of unknown variables into a science that already has variations in data. Im just saying that its not by any means an observable science its a speculative science and to assume that the constants are the same today as they were thousands and thousands of years ago is naive. They know that our electromagnetic fields have been decaying so rapidly that they can measure the difference in pottery from ancient rome radiation signatures. Which means that solar radiation could have been EXTREMELY different than it is today and would skew all attempts to measure anthropological findings on the earth. Not to mention the sun itself changes. Im not trying to say that i know for a fact its innaccurate im saying that no one can say with anything close to certainty that it is accurate. And if they do its because they are trying to fit data into a model instead of fitting the model to the data. But this argument is pointless. Just know that scientists, which used to be a reliable source of information, now HAVE to agree with the status quo and any attempts to disprove generally accepted theories goes unfunded and unpublished. Because humans are not perfect and people like to A) get paid, and B) not be shunned by their peers for disagreeing. You can plainly see this phenomenon in evolutionary biology, in pharmaceutical research programs and in astronomy. Which is why no scientist has ever been able to produce a single shred of OBSERVABLE evidence for increasing the complexity of an organism successfully through random mutation, yet if you say there is not enough evidence for macro-evolution you go unpublished. Its the reason drug side-effects go untested if they happen in longer duration than what the company deems "short term side effects" and its the reason cancer research will never, and i repeat NEVER find a cure in a capitolistic society when they can treat it repeatedly with side effect rampant drugs and therapies (which make more profit) and then the drugs to quell those side effects. While the same companies that make the medicine (monsanto for example) also makes the chemicals known to be heavy carcinogens and poors them on our food, food that is as we speak engineered by a lab that goes untested by the FDA, who assumes that the lab itself will do the proper testing. Because the leaders of the FDA are still on the pay roll. Every thing in this country is about money. When everything is about profit the truth is hard to find. And blindly trusting people just because they have a doctorate is unwise. But since the education system is forcefully dumbed down, the average worker can't comprehend the work they are even doing let alone review it. We are in a bubble designed to make profit. They feed us addictive substances in food that cause medical problems then treat them, then we die and are replaced. But its all gonna change very soon. Not that its gonna be bad for "the man", he's the one that is playing all the cards in such a way to make it happen. Were being set up for a world government under the UN. Every regulatory agency answers to the UN, because.they answer to the president who during his first term accepted the agreement proposed by The UN called sustainable development. But instead of just epa regulations its an overhaul of our entire gov't. There's gonna be riots (which is why the media has turned ferguson into a.powderkeg, in order to test public response to rioting and to justify militarization of the police. Who also answer only to the president since he has bought them all with federal munitions and surplus apc's) we are moving into a police state. One where our military is fighting the russians chinese and iran, and our police and our department of homeland security is fighting our citizens to keep them compliant. Theres gonna be food rationing, land rationing, loss of property rights, transportation limits, public assemblies of citizen will be deemed a potential homeland terror threat. And eventually there will be a revolt and its going to justify everything that the exec branch is about to do. People get scared and sell their rights for safety. It happens to EVERY empire. And we are due. The cycle is - bondage- hope - liberty - exploration - conquest - mercantilism (capitalism) - growth and wealth - decadence - then apathy- then ignorance - then moral decay - then a threat to safety is blown out of proportion and people get scared and greedy power hungry leaders incite the fear and sell them safety at the price of bondage. We are at the last rung.

2

 

[drewski]

I would actually read your shit if you put it into paragraphs.

 

[OpossumPolice]

Noted

2

 

[creature]

boat. pacific.

 

[huze24]

I'm christian, and i know exactly what is happening just by reading the last book (in an educated, study-session type of way) its insanely obvious how its lining up. Russia, iran, china = northern kingdom (magog) persia and eastern kingdom. The economic ramifications are childsplay compared to what's gonna happen after. When russia decides the easiest least obtrusive way to wipe out america is to detinate a tactical warhead on yellowstone. That alone would kill the majority of americans and starve the rest, with very little fallout. And if done secretely enough they could get away with it without war.

2

For over 2,000 years now mankind has been repeatedly and erroneously predicting the apocalypse. Wake me when it gets here.

 

[huze24]

No, because it requires at least some semblance of faith to believe what you're told. And the only things we know to be a fact is that we are. Everything else is a faith based assumption on someone else's work. Mine just happens to come from God.

“Religious fundamentalism is dangerous because it cannot accept ambiguity and diversity and is therefore inherently intolerant. Such intolerance, in the name of virtue, is ruthless and uses political power to destroy what it cannot convert.

The Bible alone is the most dangerous thing I can think of. You need an ongoing context and a community of interpretation to keep the Bible current and to keep yourself honest. Forget the thought that the Bible is an absolute pronouncement.

The Bible isn’t a single book, it isn’t a single historical or philosophical or theological treatise. It has 66 books in it. It is a library.”

~ The Rev. Peter J. Gomes

 

[Art101]

sailboat atlantic