The Transformers Archive Skip to main content / Also skip section headers

[The Transformers Archive - an international fan site]
Please feel free to log in or register.

 
  • transformers toys
  • transformers comics
  • transformers cartoon
  • transformers live-action movies
  • transformers fandom
  • transformers forum

Go Back   TFARCHIVE > COMMUNITY > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2002-04-11, 12:21 AM   #21
S
Registered User
 
Default Re: a science project, ahhy

Quote:
Originally posted by sprites touch
I'd have to give god an "F" on that one, he got our limbs all wrong, and our efitiancy is very bad (we suposedly use only 10% of our brain at best).
We definitely use more than 10%. It's been shown in magnetic scans of our brains and whatnot. I specificly wanted to refute this notion because a few years back some JWs used the 10% myth as a proof that pre-flood folks lived ten times as long as we did...:rolleyes:

About Earth being a science project, I think I'd give it a C. Solid ground work, but then a species of hairless apes showed up and contaminated the whole biosphere.
 

- S
S is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 12:26 AM   #22
Plasmodium
Groovy
 
Canada
Default

Evolution all the way. Its not possible for someone to just simply create beings with the snap of a finger and put them here. Then again, some may think the same for evolution, but evolution is the more logical and sane theory.
 
Plasmodium is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 12:34 AM   #23
Denyer
Shooty Dog Thing
 
Denyer's Avatar
 
UK
Wink Hey!

Quote:
Originally posted by S
About Earth being a science project, I think I'd give it a C. Solid ground work, but then a species of hairless apes showed up and contaminated the whole biosphere.
...until animals turned up, the place was being poisoned by oxygen! The carbon dioxide was running out!
 
Denyer is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 12:47 AM   #24
Unicron
Time for plan bee-weeoop
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Default

I have to go with Evolution. I just don't buy into all that Adam and Eve bullsh!t.

If some supreme being threw two humans down onto the planet, that would mean the entire human race is a bunch of inbred hicks. Not exactly an appealing thought
 
Unicron is online now  
Old 2002-04-11, 12:48 AM   #25
Computron
Welsh & Proud
 
Computron's Avatar
 
Cardiff, Wales
Default

Well basically I need proof to believe something. There is a lot of proof that supports Evolution hence I support that. As far as I am concerned a book describing the creation of the world (that contradicts proof I can hold and see) is not enough. If someone would show me proof supporting god creation then I can be swayed but I need tangable evidence
 

I support a ban on powerposting
Computron is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 12:59 AM   #26
sprites touch
Registered User
 
Gobotron, smiting the little bastards
Smile funny thing about logic...

Either you see it, or you don't, and when you do see it, you're sure everybody else do too. I come to realize that many things which I don't understand, other see as obvious, it doesn't make any of us more right or wrong, just that few people I've met, could reconcile what they don't understand fully, and setled for one theory or another, to put their mind at ease.
There probobly could be among the multiverse, one such universe in which pigs can fly and horses can talk, and all laws of phisics are completely difrent (why do I call it phisics than, I have no idea), might aswell be these universe.
I think we can't precieve matter created out of nower, but that's only what our sences tell us, and the mechanics behind it are beyond our grasp, but existant non the less.
We all are fans of a cartoon depicting giant sentient robots, if someone thought them up, who says they don't exist somewhere.
I'm probobly crazy, but I consider that everything is posiable, and us not understanding how, doesn't prevent things from existing, seemingly conflicting with the rules we know/aware of.
 



Having a smart mouth gets me in a lot of stupid $#!t.
------------------------
Original artwork M.cavotta
sprites touch is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 01:33 AM   #27
RoboCop
Registered User
 
Batte Creek, MI
Default

The "Religions" thread is not solely for this purpose.

Anyway, I am going with evolution. They have proven facts, able to be proven by experiment, whereas creation is only in word, no proven facts.
 
RoboCop is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 02:41 AM   #28
Grandizer
Registered User
 
Florida
Default

something I never understood about the evolution argument. if man evolved from monkeys or apes or what not, why are there still monkeys and apes here? why did only some monkeys and apes evolve and not all of them? and by saying that we've evolved from monkeys and apes implies a kind of.... what's the phrase? I can't think of it, but what I'm saying is, if people think that the human being as it stands now is the end all of this evolutionary line, I think that's both arrogant and sad. you'd think in the 10,000 or however many years we've been here we would've learned to treat each other better by now.
 
Grandizer is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 02:48 AM   #29
Denyer
Shooty Dog Thing
 
Denyer's Avatar
 
UK
Smile I would suggest...

Quote:
Originally posted by Grandizer
why did only some monkeys and apes evolve and not all of them?
...for much the same reason that some birds lose their ability to fly, or that there are horses/giraffes/etc: the location was favourable for certain adaptions to survive, and in a closed-population, no copies of the previous genes were around to maintain that species, so another gradually formed. It didn't happen overnight; creatures didn't suddenly lose the ability to mate with one another; close in-breeding simply produced more mutations in a shorter space of time, with the whole group progressing at a similar rate.
 
Denyer is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 02:52 AM   #30
RID Scourge
Lurking
 
RID Scourge's Avatar
 
In ur newz forum. Reading ur newz!
Default

I believe that the answer is an amalgamation of the two theories. God created mankind, but used evolution as a tool.
 
RID Scourge is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 03:02 AM   #31
Skylinx
Registered User
 
Skylinx's Avatar
 
Currently lost -->?<--
Default

Hmmm, tough choice, logic and rationality support the evolution theory, on the other hand we have mystical powers and a magnificent story in which you have to believe in out of blind faith...
I'll go with the evolution

Quote:
Originally posted by Stuart Denyer


There's that gravity stuff that locks the moon in orbit too. Even I remember that much...

It is a scientifically knonw fact that the Moon is escaping the Earth's gravity field, thousands of years ago the moon was much closer than it is now, the ancient egyptians saw the moon a few times larger than we do

Quote:
Originally posted by Grandizer

something I never understood about the evolution argument. if man evolved from monkeys or apes or what not, why are there still monkeys and apes here? why did only some monkeys and apes evolve and not all of them?
This is because man did not evolve from the modern day ape, manknid and apes and chimps have all evolved from a same ancestor
the differenciation occurs at different times, and the last common ancestor is actually in discussion,
 


Last edited by Skylinx; 2002-04-11 at 03:05 AM.
Skylinx is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 04:03 AM   #32
Galvatron91
Has anger management issues
 
Galvatron91's Avatar
 
Keeping the world safe from crappy posts
Default

both...
 

Galvatron91 is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 05:32 AM   #33
Stormbringer
Registered User
 
Australia
Default

I don't know why I bother, no ones going to listen anyway (also I would like to point out the rules of the forum to respect other peoples opinions )buuuuuuut..........

Evolution says that the human race is becoming more perfect as time goes on, while creation says we were created perfect and degrading with time. Look on the news and tell me (with a straight face) that we are getting better

There are no facts for support any THEORY (not fact), all there is is speculation and conjecture. I am the first one to admit that Creation is only a theory, it is my faith that makes it real for me, but when it all comes down to it no one really knows (no, not even Darwin )

The origin on the Earth is that it was created as part of a gigantic computer from beings from another galaxy to compute the Ultimate Question to life, universe, and everything (the answer of which being "42")
 

Stormbringer /storm.bring.ah/ v.n. 1. to stop a conversation 2. An individual who repeatedly is the source of halted conversations

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Stormbringer is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 06:05 AM   #34
Sheba
One with the Matrix
 
Sheba's Avatar
 
Sephiroth's Backyard
Wink For the Record:

I wish I could be a scientist so I could CHECK OUT all the information that's available out there for myself and determine validity or b#ll$#!tiness.

I am no fan of fabrications. Some data can be interpreted differently, and some things will ONLY be seen in the light of the worldview of the person looking at them.

Creationists are NOT NECESSARILY "anti-scientific"--although some of them may not be all that thorough. And the ones that aren't being very thorough may in fact be STEALTH EVOLUTIONISTS...

For instance much is made of the debate over whether there are human footprints in the Paluxy River bed near Glen Rose Texas. Now let me say that I do not know if the reports of human tracks are EITHER fact or chiselled-out fabrication. But that's really not the point for me. The point for me is that if human tracks WITH dino tracks WAS true, it would be entirely UNACCEPTABLE to an evolutionist ON PRINCIPLE. No matter what the evidence showed, a committed dyed in the wool evolutionist would HAVE to explain it in other terms. So much for the idea that ONLY Creationists reject "evidence" that does not support their own ideas.

Let's take Potassium-Argon dating for instance. Only those dates that "agree" with the contrived ages listed in the specific geologic column sector are accepted. The rest, which may vary significantly, are thrown out. Lunar samples dated by K/Ar ranged from 2 to 28 BILLION years--an outcome SELDOM reported in the literature. Researchers are reluctant to report dates that differ markedly from the conventional (the assumed 4.5-4.6 billion year age for the Earth--which is supposed to be the same age as the moon). It is a dirty little secret in radiometric-dating land that it is virtually necessary to assume the age of the earth in order to calculate it!
Most critics of K/Ar dating point to the results of dating Hawaiian lava flows KNOWN to be less than 200 years old. The K/Ar method dated them at up to 3 BILLION years
I'm not in any hurry to prove a+b=c. However it's NOT fair to say that ALL Creationists are snake-oil charlatans. The only reason I'm NOT an actual scientist is because of my health problems. I NEED to learn.
 

"This appears to be a copy of Final Fantasy, which is a step up from a copy of Pearl Jam"-Ed the Sock, on Fromage 2002, about one of Creed's videos--"Bullets".
Sheba is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 06:22 AM   #35
Blitzwing
was here way before you.
 
Blitzwing's Avatar
 
British Columbia
Wink

I'm a simple minded, fairy tale believing, blind fool that blieves in Creation as opposed to Evolution. :rolleyes:
 
Blitzwing is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 06:42 AM   #36
strafefox64
Registered User
 
Netherlands
Default

"you can not stop evolution!"
 
strafefox64 is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 08:38 AM   #37
Stormbringer
Registered User
 
Australia
Default

Well I have had conversations like this elsewhere on the net (though I must congradulate the pro-evolution people here for not using a string of vulgarities to get their opinions across), and my experience is that no matter what I say on the topic on creation it will only fuel the fire, anything I can say will mean little to most people.
In otherwords I am not gonna check this thread again
 

Stormbringer /storm.bring.ah/ v.n. 1. to stop a conversation 2. An individual who repeatedly is the source of halted conversations

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Stormbringer is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 01:23 PM   #38
S
Registered User
 
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Stormbringer
Evolution says that the human race is becoming more perfect as time goes on, while creation says we were created perfect and degrading with time. Look on the news and tell me (with a straight face) that we are getting better
That's one big misconception creationists have about evolution. Because nowhere does evolution say that we are becoming more perfect, all the theory claims is that we are slowly becoming more adapted to our evironment. Human, however, have the ability to change the environment hell of a lot faster than we can biologically adapt to. Hence, there's trouble (by the way the stuff on news is usually not caused by biological reasons, I'd say greed and bigotry and far bigger issues).

Quote:
There are no facts for support any THEORY (not fact), all there is is speculation and conjecture. I am the first one to admit that Creation is only a theory, it is my faith that makes it real for me, but when it all comes down to it no one really knows (no, not even Darwin )
Oh there are facts alright. Fossil record, genetic similarities, observed speciation both in laboratories and in nature. Evolution is a "theory" much in the same sense gravity or "Earth is round" are theories... we don't know for sure if Gravity really exists or if invisible angels sit on top of things to make then drop, nor do we know for sure that Earth is not flat. But we can make darn good guesses.

Quote:
The origin on the Earth is that it was created as part of a gigantic computer from beings from another galaxy to compute the Ultimate Question to life, universe, and everything (the answer of which being "42")
But the question cannot exist in the same reality as the answer!
 

- S
S is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 02:39 PM   #39
S
Registered User
 
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Sheba
I wish I could be a scientist so I could CHECK OUT all the information that's available out there for myself and determine validity or b#ll$#!tiness.
You can. Start with talkorigins.net. They usually have very detailed explanations as to why the creationist mumbo jumbo doesn't hold water. Ultimately, you probably cannot double check everything... but what you can do is compare the evolutionists arguments to creationist arguments and see which ones are more compelling when you dig down deep enough. So far, you have only been reading the creationist propaganda, unfortunately. Please have an open mind.

Quote:
I am no fan of fabrications. Some data can be interpreted differently, and some things will ONLY be seen in the light of the worldview of the person looking at them.
Is that why biblical creationists deny the fossil record, because it does not fit their world view? You are constantly trying to argue that there is this big, stealthy evolution conspiracy, and that creationists are the ones who are right no matter what the evidence (the conclusive evidence, not the ambiguous stuff creationist ring leaders push down your throat) points out to...

Quote:
For instance much is made of the debate over whether there are human footprints in the Paluxy River bed near Glen Rose Texas. Now let me say that I do not know if the reports of human tracks are EITHER fact or chiselled-out fabrication. But that's really not the point for me. The point for me is that if human tracks WITH dino tracks WAS true, it would be entirely UNACCEPTABLE to an evolutionist ON PRINCIPLE. No matter what the evidence showed, a committed dyed in the wool evolutionist would HAVE to explain it in other terms. So much for the idea that ONLY Creationists reject "evidence" that does not support their own ideas.
Okay, read yoru argument again. You said that IF paluxy tracks are real, then evolutionists And you go on assuming that IF the evidence goes against evolution, evolutionists would be rejecting evidence. And then you think this is proof that evolutionists are rejecting evidence? You have two IFs in there which do not hold true! Let me illustrate this with a similar example.

IF the fossil record was millions of years old, creationism is wrong.
IF there is evidence which cannot be explained without fossil record being millions of years old, then creationists will try to reject this evidence.
HENCE, creationists will try to reject this evidence.

Do you think that kind of argument holds water? No, not unless you prove that both of the IFs are true. Incidently, unlike in the case of Paluxy man-tracks, we have a lot better case on behalf of old Earth: the fossils that are organized in sediments in a way that cannot form in shorter than millions of years. In the religion topic, I explained you in detail why this is possible. You were unable to deny any of the reasons I gave (okay, you did explain some of them by way of God's magic tricks... like lions eating lettuce). You may think that "if you were a scientist you could SURELY tell me I'm wrong". But the thing is, you couldn't creationist scientists who claim that they can are fraudulent. And most creationist propaganda men (like Kent Hovind, may his children be cursed to the secenth generation) are not scientist, and do not even bother checkign with scientists before making their outrageous claims (instead, they use arguments like "My friend Carl said this..." or "Many scientists say that...").

Anyway, my point is that I am not a scientist myself, but I am still able to refute anything your creationist sources have to offer (because most of the claims have been refuted already and I'll just have to find the refutations on the net). But the opposite is not true for creationists: they are totally unable to explain the organized fossil record, and many other things, without referring to supernatural causes. Have you ever read a debate between a creationist and an evolutionist? And I mean read... not seen on video where charismatic creationists can obfuscate the topic. Creationists are regularly offered chances for such debates, but they categorically deny. Why would they do that if they had explanations?

One more thing about Paluxy man-tracks and whether it is true or not: you are being partial to the creationists because you demand that everything merely the chance of them being true will collapse evolution. However, at the same time you are not demanding that creationists explain the far larger body of evidence that supports old Earth. No matter what way you look at it, there is by far more stuff to support old earth than young earth.

Quote:
Let's take Potassium-Argon dating for instance. Only those dates that "agree" with the contrived ages listed in the specific geologic column sector are accepted. The rest, which may vary significantly, are thrown out. Lunar samples dated by K/Ar ranged from 2 to 28 BILLION years--an outcome SELDOM reported in the literature. Researchers are reluctant to report dates that differ markedly from the conventional (the assumed 4.5-4.6 billion year age for the Earth--which is supposed to be the same age as the moon). It is a dirty little secret in radiometric-dating land that it is virtually necessary to assume the age of the earth in order to calculate it!
I thougth Moon was considered to be slightly younger than Earth, around 3 billion years? But anyway, there is no secret. All the scientific data is readily available, and even if some measurements may have been wrong (because mistakes happen) they are all repeated several times and anomalities (i.e. the results that are do not fit in with the rest of the data) are discarded. This is normal scientific procedure. But the thing is, even if some results are shrugged off and only the averages are counted, all the results are carefully documented. Creationists never rarely bother to document their "research", but rather rely on anecdotal evidence ("My friend Carl...").

Secondly, it is another creationist misinformation that radioactive dating (for instance Potassium-Argon) would need to be calibrated based on geological column. That is not true. Radioactive decay is based on fundamental laws of physics, and the measurement of decay rates is done in laboratories.

Quote:
Most critics of K/Ar dating point to the results of dating Hawaiian lava flows KNOWN to be less than 200 years old. The K/Ar method dated them at up to 3 BILLION years
That is another misconception (originating from creationist Henry Morris). You see, the lava rock was not exclusively 200 years old... the measurements were made on so called xenoliths, which are rocks that are embedded in lava and spewn to the surface in the eruption. The whole purpose of the experiments was to show that these rocks are older than the Lava, and that K/Ar dating cannot be used to determine their age (because the volcanic eruption was not hot enough to melt these rocks and release the Argon). However, they also dated the surrounding Lava, and that measurement was correct!

(Here's my source: http://dlindsay.best.vwh.net/creation/hawaii.html)

I think this is a fine example of how many things that creationists claim are misunderstandings of what the scientists are really doing... and many creationists don't actually check the original sources when writing their popular books.

Quote:
I'm not in any hurry to prove a+b=c. However it's NOT fair to say that ALL Creationists are snake-oil charlatans. The only reason I'm NOT an actual scientist is because of my health problems. I NEED to learn.
Well, I'm not a scientists either... I dig up this stuff from the web (also creationist sites like ICR) as we speak. Heck, I'd never even heard of "London Hammer" before this conversation. I am all for learning and finding out stuff, all I'm asking is to keep an open mind. You have seen only the creationist side of the story so far, so I'm not blaming you for being ignorant or anything... just mislead.

True, not all creationists are charlatans, but it's always the vocal minority that gets the most publicity, sadly so. Hey, I did mention Kurt Wise as an example of a creationist whom I at least consider to be honest with himself. And Old Earth creationism is another thing entirely.
 

- S
S is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 06:42 PM   #40
Sheba
One with the Matrix
 
Sheba's Avatar
 
Sephiroth's Backyard
Default

The reason Creationists don't believe the hype about some of the "evidence" for evolution is because much of it is FAR from provable--and almost none of it is repeatable in a laboratory. It is quite one thing to prove that hydrogen and oxygen make water. It is something else entirely to "prove" that life spontaneously generated.

I have not JUST seen the creationists side. I HAVE seen the evolutionists side as well. A few years ago I regularly went into the library at the local University in search of books written by evolutionists to see what arguments they had against creationism. And you know what? NOT ONE of those books had ANYTHING to do with research. Every single book was a polemic against Creationism--in other words just a big long RANT. No "debunking" of evidence--just a bunch of name-calling. Needless to say I was sorely disappointed. I'd thought someone could have actually gotten a DECENT argument from at least ONE of them.

And why does a debate have to be "written"? Seems that several evolutionists are afraid of LIVE debate. They don't want an audience involved. Many times I have heard tell from the horse's mouth about how some evolutionists simply refuse to debate AT ALL. I guess the evolutionists think debating on paper is safer because nobody will see it but them and the creationist :rolleyes:

uuuuuuuum how do they "KNOW" it's CORRECT? (the dating results of the actual lava)?

Despite all your claims that evolution has lots GOOD scientific evidence, the fact remains that there ARE scientists--ones who are themselves evolutionists and have NO USE for creationism--that are critical of much of the "evidence" presented as indisputable fact towards the propping up of evolution.

Dates of millions of years came into vogue long before radiometric dating was ever used. This was to provide adequate time for species to "evolve" and had no other basis in fact.

Now this is my understanding of radiometric dating:

Everybody knows that certain elements decay at a specific rate--although not every element decays AT the same rate.

IT is a simple matter to calculate what WILL be left of a radiogenic substance IN THE FUTURE. However, working backwards is a little trickier. Sure, TECHNICALLY you can work your way backwards, but the problem there is how do you know that much time has elapsed? And how do you KNOW what happened to the sample in that time?

For instance, nuclear Potassium decays into Argon gas. Scientists have accepted 1.31 BILLION years as the half-life of radioactive potassium (the amount of time it takes for half the potassium to become argon). However--argon from the atmosphere can get trapped in lava while it is on the surface of the ground and still molten. That of course would naturally skew the results to make it appear that the rock is older than it actually is. (More argon that is assumed to be solely from decay process = older sample)

A number of ASSUMPTIONS are made regarding this dating.
- that the initial state of the sample of the rock can be determined, and that the fundamental physical constants of nature have not changed over the time interval under study. While many interesting samples do not meet assumptions underlying the use of K/Ar dating, others do, therefore the latter can be accurately dated--Zetterberg, J. Peter
-that volcanic samples are virtually leakproof with the argon trapped inside little crystals. None of the products of decay were lost or gained during the course of time.
-that the crystals formed as a result of volcanic eruptions represent a specific moment in time, and they are totally uncontaminated by any OLDER argon. There were no productos of decay ALREADY PRESENT when the rock was first formed.
-that the crystals were able to trap ALL the argon that is released by potassium decay and thus can be utilized for accurate dating.
-that none of the ORIGINAL radioactive material has been leached out AT ANY TIME.

And here are the REQUIREMENTS and PROCEDURES for dating K/Ar: (noted by Donald Johanson)

-volcanic rocks are eminently suitable for K/Ar dating. The argon in the air adhering to the sample must be subtracted from the argon in the sample because the best vacuum pumps cannot remove all the air from the sample.

-The samples must be clean, that is, free of contamination from other materials and free from any damage that might have released some of the argon, such as weathering.

-the geologic history of the sample MUST be known, since exposure to high temperatures causes argon to leak from the sample.

-K/Ar dating is commonly checked against other methods. For example, seven years were spent in dating "Lucy" during which the K/Ar tests were "synchronized" with four other techniques: geology (the strata or layers of rock in the earth), fission-track dating, paleomagnetism, and biostratigraphy. The result of 3.5 to 4.0 million years for "Lucy" was overturned a few years later by a method not involving radiometric dating.

The biggest argument I have ever heard tell of involving controversy over K/Ar dating was NOT between Creationists and Evolutionists, but rather between EVOLUTIONIST scientists trying to date Richard Leakey's Skull 1470. In 41 trials on KBS tuff (conducted by Fitch and Miller) the K/Ar dates ranged from 910 Thousand to 223 Million years. Curtis--who had obtained dates of 1.6 and 1.8 million years for the same KBS tuff, accused Fitch and Miller (some of the other testers) of reaching into a hat filled with all the numbers they had obtained, while Fitch accused Curtis of using simple conventional irrelevant K/Ar methods. Fitch and Miller now claim that Leakey must have mistakenly collected samples from many sites other than the KBS tuff (around where Skull 1470 was found). Leakey retorted that he was as sure of where his first sample was collected from as he was sure about where his house was.

Science at work, folks.

IF we ARE to take dating by K/Ar SERIOUSLY then I suggest the following be done:
--the FULL results of ALL K/Ar tests be reported. If there is picking and choosing of acceptable dates and discarding unnacceptable ones, as commonly reported, the practice should be universally condemned and stopped.
-Geochronologists using K/Ar method must clearly state whether or not this procedure can stand by itself for valid and reliable dating. If K/Ar testing can stand on its own merits, geochronologists should condemn the recommendation (made in a book edited by geochronologist Christopher Harper) that a committe of experts be established to prevent the publication of unacceptable dates (translation--censorship SUCKS).
-If the half-life of K/Ar is known more precisely than 1.31 billion years, the correct half-life should be commonly reported to the media. The standard practice is to round the half-life to the nearest 10 or 100 million years. If calculation of the half-life is that imprecise, then it should be publicly acknowledged that it is futile to attempt to establish any dates under 10,000,000 years.
-Simple, standard statistical language SHOULD be used to report the standard error of measurement in K/Ar determinations. Current practice is to fail to mention error entirely or to state it so imprecisely that it cannot be understood or evaluated.
-The practice of testing a sample first, THEN ruling it as being an invalid sample for testing in the first place should be condemned and stopped.
-Full record of K/Ar testing should be published in terms of apparent successes and failures for the evaluation of scientists and laymen alike.
 

"This appears to be a copy of Final Fantasy, which is a step up from a copy of Pearl Jam"-Ed the Sock, on Fromage 2002, about one of Creed's videos--"Bullets".
Sheba is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
 
 
[the-hub.co.uk]
[transfans.co.uk]
[oneshallstand]
[unicron.com]
[counter-x.net]
[ntfa.net]
[allspark.com]
[transformertoys.co.uk]
[tfu.info]
[botchthecrab.com]
[obscure_tf]
[tfradio.net]
 

[TFArchive button]
Link graphics...

BOOKMARK US
Or in FF, hit Ctrl+D.