Xalder

That's actually what my family would always say to me. I got bullied in elementary and junior high because I had some sort of anxiety issue and would very easily get upset. When I got upset, I would cry. So guess what my nickname was? I never was physically bullied, but the teasing and name-calling beat me down a bit. I would complain about it and my family encouraged me to fight back as it would get those kids to stop. I never did, but eventually I was able to ignore the assholes and learned to manage my stress and anxiety. On occasion I'll still get really upset, but it tends to be more "reasonable" for my age and the situation.

Outside of specific geological samples? YECs specifically choose samples and methods that are going to produce inconsistent measurements. Their arguments mean absolutely nothing. The fact that you're using YEC logic to argue a point that goes completely against your own rationality of an old earth is extremely inconsistent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit My point is that radiometric dating is consistent, and "If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected." Furthermore, radiometric dating is used in conjunction with stratigraphic principles. Lastly I'll provide this quote: Creationists specifically look for inconsistencies, then cite them as "proof" that "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong."

lol

So, basically, you don't like my sources, so you're just throwing more that say the exact same thing at me. http://www.oldearth.org/rate_index.htm We're going to go in a circle. This site links to numerous journals and articles discrediting attempts to disprove radiometric dating. As expected, the whole thing boils down to creationists cherry-picking data in an attempt to discredit all radiometric dating figures. What exactly are you trying to argue against Radiometric Dating? The science of the process is understood and perfectly sound. For the argument to continue with any rationality there needs to be questions asked along with the sources of information provided.

Well said, Rarity. Innumerable hypocrites and assholes abound, particularly on the internet. I don't support "equality" for any specific group, I support equality and respect for all people. If you fail to give respect, you will lose mine.

What? My perception is the inverse. I think it is 78% bat-shit crazy. Though that might just be because BTG just posts every-goddamn-where.

I refuted the argument that carbon dating is a "'pseudoscience." I don't think it's insulting to point out logical fallacies. When I mentioned false dilemma (also known as false dichotomy), I proposed a third option that the universe has only just been created at the very moment and everything in our memories up to this point is simply a product of intelligent design. You can't prove me wrong that everything before now was simply implanted by a creator who wanted to start a universe in the middle of its run. And, again, it's not a source. The requirements for a website to be a credible source of information include the following - Author: I could not find any information about the author of the site other than an email address. The links to the "main page" are inconsistent and the "main page" that I keep getting taken to has nothing to do with scientific information. - Date: There is no indicator of when the (mis-)information was written, other than "2/03," which is not enough to determine when the information was written. Based on this, one could even make the assumption that even if the information was not false at the time of writing, it's reasonable to assume that the information has become outdated since that time. - Sources: Again, none are properly cited, truly one of the first indicators of questionable credibility. - Site Design: I've made my stance on this point very clear. - Writing Style: I believe this one is subjective, too. While the writing style is clear, it makes my brain hurt from the amount of cherry picking and false dichotomies. Logical fallacies make for a very poor source of information in terms of credibility. Saying that I "don't like the source" as an argument is attempting to put the burden of proof onto me when it's your claim that requires proof. Also, claiming that I'm the one living in ignorance and arrogance is misrepresentative of my arguments and potentially could be projection. Sorry, I do recall a hint of you being an old earth creationist rather than a young earth one. I didn't mean to make you out to be a young earth creationist when you're not. Creationism as a whole is just bewilderingly asinine. The amount of scientific consensus you have to reject in order to believe in it just baffles the mind.

They're not sources. But, if you can actually locate the "sources" given, I'll gladly take a look at them. The fact that I've already refuted the idea of Carbon Dating "proving" the earth is young makes me wonder what the point is anyway. It's cherry picking, plain and simple. I may be wrong but it stands to reason that most arguments against all methods of dating are going to be cherry picking as well. Oh, and it's also false dilemma to say that if all dating methods are false then the earth must be young. You also can't prove to me that the universe wasn't created this very instant and everything before this point was implanted into our memories and the evidence planted by some intelligent design.

You sure they weren't called "proof of god" for creating something out of nothing? o:

You mean a Bible thumping website masquerading as a source? I seriously think that you did this as some sort of joke. There is no other explanation, especially considering how piss poor this "source" is. It's a source of creationism propaganda and misinformation. The insatiable amount of bias couldn't stand a hope of the slightest hint of credibility.

I think the key is actually of the ones he knows. Once again I call credibility into question.

It didn't cite any actual sources at all! "1) From a video Lecture by Dr. Kent Hovind 6)Antarctic Journal, Washington 10)"Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker" That is not even close to citing sources! What video lecture? Which "Antarctic Journal?" I suppose the thing by "Gary Parker" could be found, but there's no way to know anything else about that shit-stain of a website! There's also an autistic "joke" about a guard, insulting the intelligence of anyone who works in a museum! The fucking "can you use the information on my site?" only credits the bible as a source. Anyone who uses this shit as a source of information is poorly mis-informed and succepting themselves to absolute stupidity. The person running the site doesn't even claim to have any sort of background in any of the information they're sharing. I just don't know what else to say. The unreliability is so blatant I don't see how anyone would ever have to prove said unreliability. Anyone who tries is likely just beating a dead horse. So yeah. This is clearly a lost cause.

Of course I believe you, but does my tactical warhead believe you? Yeah that's humans alright.

What the fuck is this shit? This isn't even a source, what the fuck. I don't.... I just... what. This isn't a source. This is a shitty website made by some random person. I don't... What the hell is with these "references" on the bottom? This is... wow, this is your source? How many of your "sources" look like this? This is.... good god this is terrible. I just can't even. I can hardly bring myself to even read this it's so bad. I don't want to lose more brain cells than those lost simply by having seen it. Holy fuck, wikipedia is infinitely more reliable than this shit. Alright. Radiocarbon Dating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating Carbon Dating using C14 is only used "to estimate the age of organic materials, such as wood and leather, up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years Before Present." And that "over time there are small fluctuations in the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere, fluctuations that have been noted in natural records of the past, such as sequences of tree rings and cave deposits. These records allow fine-tuning, or "calibration", of the raw radiocarbon age, to give a more accurate estimate of the calendar date of the material. One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites." So in reality, when using C14, the limitations are known and are accounted and calibrated for, in order to get accurate readings of dead organic material up to 60,000 years old. 60,000 years is almost exactly 10 times longer than 6,000 years, by the way. The fact is that carbon dating is one tool. There are many different dating tools, and the trick is to use the one that will be most accurate for the material being dated. Is that the only dating method you were convinced is "corrupt," or do you need to argue the others as well. Again, the trick with dating is using the right method for the material being dated. Carbon dating is limited, but presumably so is every other dating method. That's why there's more than one method at all.

Heh, yeah, putting resources into energy instead of weapons seems to be lost on the U.S.

That must be new and it sounds way too good to be true. There has to be some downside.

It's actually the only altered picture I have of myself. I don't remember what all I did other than increase the "heat intensity" or something like that. OT: Umm.... 3/10, I guess...

I totally didn't pay any attention to the thing about Germany. My point was about how many sources there were for the thing about aesthetics. I included the rest of the paragraph because I thought it might be necessary context, but evidently it wasn't. Yeah, if Germany is making a switch to "completely green" sources now, that's not going to do any good. There's still a lot of work to be done to make such sources more efficient, but there's just not enough money being put into the research. Thorium is looking like a really good option. The only problem is how "Thorium, when being irradiated for use in reactors, will make uranium-232, which is very dangerous due to the gamma rays it emits." Though they're looking at an altered process, which will create U-233 which is used in atomic weapons, which is why Uranium became more popular to be used in the first place. Personally I'd rather not think about how much of a nuclear arms supply we have in the world. However, if that's what it takes to move forward towards safer alternatives, I'd be happy with that first step. The problem is that there's not much concern about air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels. It seems that until we do reach peak oil production, people just aren't going to care. One can only hope that climate change is as much of a non-issue as others make it out to be in the meantime.

I never said anything against Nuclear. The only problem is in the rare events something does go wrong. That has a huge negative impact, but otherwise it's generally safe and very effective. "History shows that no energy sector was developed without subsidies.[137]" But on the other hand "Shi Zhengrong has said that, as of 2012, unsubsidised solar power is already competitive with fossil fuels in India, Hawaii, Italy and Spain. He said "We are at a tipping point. No longer are renewable power sources like solar and wind a luxury of the rich. They are now starting to compete in the real world without subsidies". "Solar power will be able to compete without subsidies against conventional power sources in half the world by 2015".[75]" I don't have time to read about Thorium right now. I take it that's some "new" form of nuclear energy? Like solar and wind, they're likely going to need more R&D to make it more feasible. I'll take a look at that article later and give my full thoughts when I get the chance.

That's the Pascal's Wager! It is better to believe that God exists, then if you win you win a place in Paradise and if you lose - it doesn't matter, however, if you don't believe in God and lose - you go to Hell for a very long time... The trouble is what if you chose to believe on the basis of that rational argument and God really exists and he sees your mental calculations and disqualifies you for the opportunism? This is why I choose to believe that if the christian god is the real one, he's a lot more reasonable than people make him out to be. I was actually raised catholic and took weekly classes over the course of, I dunno, 5 or so years at the church in our faith. I think it actually helped me with defining my own beliefs, taking some ideas and throwing out others until I found a system that I personally believe in and allows me to live the way I want to. The way I see it, if I'm going to hell because of my beliefs, then God is a jackass and doesn't deserve my love anyway. I won't know any of that until I'm dead, and my own beliefs gives me a different idea of what will happen after death, so what if I'm right? That's the thing about faith, it's all about what you choose to and choose not to believe. Changing the way the bible is written won't accomplish anything other than giving people yet another series of things to argue about. In fact, surely there are many people who would be fully against changing the translation, because they think that this version of the bible is the really real one. Again, it's all subjective and nothing's ever going to change that.

I never meant to imply that we need to make an instant switch to renewable resources and in fact we don't even need to switch to specifically renewable sources, we just need to find more alternatives. Renewable sources tend to be cleanest, which is another benefit, but so far we haven't found ways to make them more efficient or reliable to increase cost-effectiveness. I'm thinking primarily of solar and wind right now, which obviously are dependant on weather conditions of the area for energy production. Though there is some work on storing that energy which hopefully becomes more efficient as well. Hold on, I want to show this, too. "In Germany, where wind power has gained very high social acceptance, hundreds of thousands of people have invested in citizens' wind farms across the country and thousands of small and medium sized enterprises are running successful businesses in a new sector that in 2008 employed 90,000 people and generated 8% of Germany's electricity.[150][151] Although wind power is a popular form of energy generation, the construction of wind farms is not universally welcomed, often for aesthetic reasons.[128][146][147][148][149][152][153]" Look at all those sources for wind not being accepted for aesthetic reasons. What the hell, people. "I don't like the way it looks, don't use it. I don't care how useful and effective it is, it just looks bad, kay?"

Sometimes you need to pretend the insane troll logic doesn't exist so that you can live a happier and less disappointed in all of humanity life.

"DOI DOI DOI DOI!"

The problem is that there's still an overall warming trend that has been amplified. We can easily adapt to global changes that occur over the course of centuries. It gets a bit more difficult when the changes are occurring over the course of decades. Since people continue to ignore the evidence of global warming and overall climate change, we're simply not going to be ready once things start to reach crunch time. It won't be particularly devastating, certainly, but it will still be an issue for everyone involved. Which will be literally everyone because this is a global issue. Ignoring global warming, atmospheric conditions are growing unstable on their own. With all the carbon dioxide we're pumping out, we're seeing concentration levels that haven't existed on this planet ever before. On top of being a greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide also is a building block of Acid Rain. Point is, we need to curb these emissions as much as possible, but everyone just handwaves climate change and global warming as "natural part of the earth cycle," which may be part of it, but there's still a whole lot of shit humans are doing to fuck everything up. Some people just can't be persuaded by logic and facts. They just believe whatever dumb shit is most convenient. Such as "Oh yeah, that's not because of the shit WE'RE doing at all. That's just a natural part of the earth cycle. I know because there's this scientific fact behind it. All the scientific facts that indicate the need to do something are wrong because I just can't be assed."

Simple but effective. :3 What I hate is how people think they have to spread their religion and go around preaching to people out on their daily lives. That was really annoying to be at the park with my little brother and have someone come up and ask me why I don't believe Jesus was a physical incarnation of God or whatever the proper phrasing is. I don't believe it because that's not what I choose to believe. "Oh but what if it is this way and you're going to go to hell for not believing?" What if my own beliefs are true and I'm free to live the way I want to? Stupid "what if." But yeah, I don't hate that person, I'm just annoyed with her. Not that I'll ever see her again so I don't think about it and it doesn't matter. It's nice to have as an anecdote, though. I'm fine with whatever you believe as long as it doesn't lead to hurting anyone directly or indirectly (such as arguing stupid things like "abortion is evil" in the face of the logic that, while not a favorable system, is better to have as an option for those that so choose). Wow I really do ramble mindlessly.