 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)big Roger Wilco ...and 233 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614123 Today 2 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
is fundie american slang for bible-basher? where did it come from? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fundamentalist perhaps? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Luciferian Illumininist" i love that |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
either that, or they all come from An inlet of the Atlantic Ocean in southeast Canada between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
world's biggest tidal range |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
are new fundies from newfoundland? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
newfie newfundamentalist |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nova scotia? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i like the idea that george bush is using christianity to destroy christianity. that seems like quite an interesting theory |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ha, fundies. i read somewhere some page by some wanker fundamentalist, who thinks the 15-billion-year age of the universe was taken by scientists from an ancient babylonian story. what bullshit! the age of the universe comes from the gradient of a graph that any retard can plot. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in that video i posted in the evolution thread the fundie said that dinosaur bones found today are from the flood of noah's time (4040BC) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and let's see you refute that claim |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't refute, i believe not |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
good, good |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i thought this was going to be about some new brand name underwear that claims to be fun. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sure, fundamentalists can be obnoxiously strident and smugly confident that their model of reality is the only valid model. but i've found that scientific materialists are just as likely to be absolutely convinced that their model of reality is the only valid model, are just as likely to fail to recognize that they are operating a model, and are probably less likely to acknowledge that tremendous gaps exist within their models, and that they fill in the gaps themselves to create the illusion of continuity and integrity. consider how radically our conception of reality has changed in the last one hundred years. we're not done yet by a long shot. but yeah, fundie is a disparaging term for american protestant hyperchristian creationist types. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
easily refuted. they can be dated using various radiometric methods, and it is unlikely that the remains would be found in a flood deposit anyway |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not sure whether or not radiometric methods are the same as carbon dating and such, but I can say that we don't know yet whether or no carbon, for instance, doesn't degrade differently over time, so our calculations could most definately by really really wrong. also, even the smallest error, when stretched out over time, will resonate and grow and by the end it is amazingly large, so if our predictions about how certain things degrade over time are off by 0,001%, that could be a major difference in our predictions about the age of something we try to decide the age of by our calculations. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
all the decay chains are well known - and more than one is used in the dating of anything. no one ever relies on just one. Carbon 14 has a 5570yr half-life so it is useless for dating fossils. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what I was getting at is that we assume it has a 5570 year half-life; no-one's ever checked (that'd involve 5570 years of observation). it's degraded predictably until now, but what if it actually doubles its decay rate after 3000 years? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, theres no known process that has ever been observed to affect decay rates. and its all perfectly mathematically sound too. you dont assume it has a 5570yr half-life. you can measure the decay counts of a sample and plot them on a graph, and work out the half-life. you dont need to take counts for over a whole half-life to find it |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
real life isn't mathematics it needn't be external causes, it could just be the way it decays.. it could also be that already decayed carbon is more susceptible to external causes, etc... it is also, as I said, so that if our calculations are off by even 0,001% (which they, by the way, most definately are; maths are a mere approximation of anything it tries to describe outside itself), that causes a huge difference at the end 'of the string. I mean, it's not impossible that our calculations have lead us to believe that earth is waaaaay younger than what it really is (or th other way around) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we know how it decays! ive measured the half-life of protactinium (what isotope is it?) every six months for a few years at college, its never changed! theres no evidence at all to suggest that the decay rates for any given nucleus have ever changed - well, not to my knowledge. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we know how it has decayed up until now, and that no evidence has shown up yet isn't the same that it couldn't be so. the thing about using mathetmatics for real life creating unfillable gaps also still stands. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there are other ways of doing it too. ive got a paper by some russian guy who dated the sun using some sort of sunquake study in some relation to proportions of helium - nothing to do with radioactive decay - and he comes up with a 4.77ga age - which is within 10 million years of the oldest meteorites, dated radiometrically. it all fits together so perfectly. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the lord of the rings books are also a coherent system, that doesn't make them true. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ha yeah, because they were made up. its different to getting evidence from various natural sources |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
your interpretation of the data is still as made up as anything in lord of the rings, an "insane" man could believe this world to be the lord of the rings world and everything he saw around him would be proof of that; interpretation of data based upon current beliefs or opinions. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Female circumcision is not barbaric. It is done for a reason, to keep the female pure. If only we adopted such practices here in the UK, then maybe women would be less inclined toward infidelity and therefore family values would still be an integral part of society. Family values instil a sense of discipline and respect, which we need as a counteraction against the modern trend of zero respect and zero discipline that is undermining the very fabric of our decaying society. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
WHAT THE FUCK JUST HAPPENED TO THIS THREAD?! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You can approximate every one-dimenstional function by a parabole if you only have three points lying on the graph of that function. The approximation of any polynomial function is so precise that you rarely need more than 2/3 iterations of the quadratic approximation optimization method to find its optimum with the precision of, let's say, 0.001. In case of a parabole you don't even do any approximating - 3 points is enough to get the exact formula for the parabole. And don't think scientists took the three points from single samples. If they did, they would only get laughed at. If they say that the half-life time is 5570 years than they probably took enough samples to estimate it with at least 10 year precision. If you really want I can find the formulas you need to use to get a desired precision in this case (after the 6th of July, not earlier). You can also become a beta-tester of my master's thesis program which teaches, among others, about the quadratic approximation method. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Just for you Mastah I did an experiment. I optimised a simple parabole (y = x^2). I have given the program 2 points: -5570 and -5500 (let's assume, scientists had samples from 70 years, which they most certainly did) . The third point is chosen in the middle as far as I remember. Using these three points and the value of the function in them, the procedure found the following minimum in single iteration: x_0 = 0,0000000. Do you like this precision? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I can guarantee you that the precision goes way beyond what my result visualisator displays and is limited only by 6 multiplications and 1 division present in the procedure. I think the double precision floating number can store a number with 308 places after the coma, but I'm not sure of my memory. The only thing that can introduce a significant error to approximating of half-life time is the inconsistance in the proportion of c14 to c12 measured in the samples of same age. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my friend calls another friend fundies as a nick name because he talks about philosophy and shit like that alot like yo check out fundies over on the couch |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you're trying to prove that mathematics works for describing the world by doing calculations... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What I proved in my post is that you can estimate the halt-life by doing calculations using samples from a not so long time span. BTW, I've just done calculations for a month-worth of trustworthy samples and it occured that the error is only half a day (not the dating itself, but estimating the half-life, mind you). If you claim that it's inappropriate to use mathematics in describing reality, than tell me: are you afraid when you enter a steel construction? As for your claims of scientific beliefs being a religion, I can say I agree to some extent, as a pragmatic would do. But this only applies to faith in science, not the science itself. Science is not a system of beliefs. It's a machinery for generating ideas, checking their validity and making use of these them. Also, I would never equal a believer of science to a believer of any realigion. Believer of science thinks in boundaries of the real world and generally has knowledge of what science can and cannot do. Religious people, in the traditional meaning, venture outside reality. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
PS: The above post was really aggresive and anti-post-podern at the begining, but I thought nobody deserves being treated as a generalisation, especially not here |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Before anybody notices it: the amount of the isotope in time is described by an exponential function, not a polynomial one. The whole tirade has vague connection to our case. Our function is y = 2^(-1/5570*t) for t>=0 (assuming that y=1 is the inital amount). Where is Combo when he's needed? Somebody should have pointed that out. Still, you need only 2 points to get the whole formula BTW: Mastah, I was about to write a post of surrender and admit that science itself is indeed a religion, but I noticed that even movie bussiness fitted the very liberal definition I had rigged up for myself. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my point further up was that we just don't know if carbon sticks to our rules; we don't know if it degenerates at the same speed after 1000 years or not.. it may double, it may halve or do anyting else.. of course it can keep going at the same speed, I just think ezkerraldean needs a healthier critical view of his own beliefs. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Doubt is always beneficial to the cognitive process, that's true. Introducing doubt to Ezkerraldean's thinking may seem a good idea, but you chose a physical process that was discovered and pretty precisely desribed in the beginning of the XX-th century. The decay is a random process, but its rate is constant unless external stimuli are present. At least that is what Wikipedia says. And carbon must stick to our rules as every other isotope that undergoes beta-decay. If you choose to doubt? Well, there's no harm in that I guess. I choose to doubt thing much more deserving. Peace yo! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if a theory predicts that a number of data sets should correlate, and if several seperate data sets are "interpreted", and they do correlate, then is this not confirmation that the "interpretations" are correct? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
most certainly not. any theory can predict anything of anything meaning any number of theories could, on different basises and with different interpretations, predict that the same data should correlate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we don't have rules, only observations so carbon will stick to doing what it does and we can observe it and interpret what we see. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you want to put it like this then we don't even have observations. If the matematical idealisations of relations between the elements of the system we call world (forgive the pretentiousness) are never to be called truth (and I can agree with that), than you have to assume that our observations are tainted in the same way. For observations we use devices provided either by nature or by science and the first flaw accurs on this stage, If you say that we actually DO have observations than you have to agree that the rules we derive from them are also true. Of course then you can get another observation which changes the rules, but that ones are equally true, given another set of data. I'm starting to feel really really uneasy talking about such things on a music forum. Can we get to the creationsts bashing already? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think Drunken Mastah thinks that because "You can't prove something wrong 100%" then the burden of proof lies on the person trying to disprove God. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
an observation isn't objective. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
am I talking about god? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think thats bollocks. look at plate tectonics. nothing else explains and predicts earthquakes, volcanoes, the types of volcanoes and their distribution, the existance of subduction trenches and spreading ridges, benioff zones, accretionary prisms, increasing age of islands along hotspot chains, the relative depth of the moho, etc. etc. if "any theory" can predict and explain all that, what other theories are there? there arent any. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
plate tectonics is the worst example you could've used as that contains unobservable entities (the plates themselves). There are probably tons of other theories, but as the education system is today you don't get to hear of them; they're only interested in preserving current science and don't present alternatives. It's probably hard to find them if they don't have high regards with current scientists, but general scientific consensus has been wrong before and seeing as we really couldn't say if we have progressed or not (with regards to describing things as they really are), we can't say that we're more likely to be right this time. If we were presented with some of the major alternatives to what we're being taught throughout, I have little doubt that this would lead to better and more accurate science (in the broader sense like the word that science is interpreted as in norwegian which isn't just natural sciences, but all sciences). Current science is a bastion of stubborn fucks trying to hold on to their paradigm (particularly noticeable in physics with that string theory bullshit). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
why did you do that :( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
