Your All Wrong!

[time2design]

Phil, not trying to be Mr.Grammar, but it should be:

"<b>You're</b> All Wrong."

Your = possesive, "your car"

You're = conjunction, "you are"

:evil:


t2d

[kirupa]

oooh...Mr. Grammar laying the Book down on Phil's message subject:P

[telekinesis]

Your both whiny little bastards! lol just playin!

[kirupa]

Hey dan!
I like your work on deviantart :) The one that is displayed first is really good!

Cheers!
Kirupa =)

[upuaut]

lol. There are a number of other theories which could be produced to end up with those results Phil. If you want to seriously examine this theory of yours I will help you out.

Personaly I don't buy it. I know for a fact that the Universe was created instantly this morning, about 12 minutes ago by an invisible flying pink unicorn named Lou. His explination for the depletion halos is.."what fun would life be if you could explain everything easily." Personaly I think the bloak has a sick sick sense of humor.. but that's a unicorn for you.

(hey Vts.. brings back memories no?)

[liveacoustic]

Interesting, Phil.

Ironic, really.

Why? For the same reason that the earth is flat.

It's always bugged me how independent everybody pretends to be these days. How Socratarian everybody thinks they are. How people proudly declare "I don't accept anything until I've seen proof!" and then grin proudly about how intellectual they are.

The only proof I have that the world is round is that somebody told me that it is. As far as I can tell, it's flat. I look at it every day and see, "Yep, it's flat.". But if I go around telling people it's flat they'll ridicule my intelligence. Because they're enlightened. They questioned everything by accepting whatever they were told most recently.

Your entire proof that the world is young comes from what somebody recently claimed he wasn't lying about. Somebody else's entire proof that the world is old comes from what somebody else recently claimed he wasn't lying about.

But really, you have no personal proof. You don't even have proof that your great great grandmother ever existed. You're just going on what your grandmother says.

You're completely reliant on other people's opinions for you to have what you like to call an independent thought.

What's my point? Nothing, really. I'm not really proving that the world's young or old or even that it exists at all. Really, I'm just bored and throwing out random words and hoping they make sense.

That and I'm getting pissed off at everybody who says things along the lines of "I question everything" and, most importantly, people who say "I'm not going to let some religion decide what I think!".

Yes you are. You already have. You have very, very Christain ethics. If you were to go to church you'd hear general agreement with most of the opinions you already have. Because these so-called independent ethics you have only exist because of what society told you to think. And society only thought that because of Emperor Constantine's idea to turn the Western world Christain.

If he hadn't you'd be sleeping with your sister's pig. Read some history text books and you'll find out that if history had been a bit different you'd be sleeping with your sister's pig. Not just your sister. Her pig.

So if you're going to tell me that you've got some great independent ideas you'd better be in bed with Babe while you do it!

What am I getting at?

Nothing, really.

Who am I talking to?

Nobody in particular.

I'm just bored and need something to do.

Why haven't I posted in weeks?

I think I just forgot to. Not sure.

When will I post again?

Who knows?

Are you ready for the excitement and suspense of waiting for my next post?

[upuaut]

If you want to believe in what you do, you're welcome to Phil... If you want to know the best arguements that will be used against your theory, then you should take it over to KIR and see what Victor says in reply to it.

http://pub16.ezboard.com/brealism

is the link.

Mind you.. a lot of times these people are not kind at all when delivering their opinions. Just bear this in mind... often they make people cry. Now I doubt that they can make you cry, but I figured I'd warn you that they are brutal.

I'll check out the post over in your forum, but I doubt that it will change my opinion about the nature and age of the universe.

[upuaut]

You know Phil.. I checked out that post, but no I'm not going to reply over there. The fact is that I can't tell when you're seriously kidding or just being serious.

First rule of Dave's reality, never argue with someone who doesn't take the subject material seriously. (yup that pretty much means that no one should argue with me)

[Kitiara]

Personally I like the theory proposed at sinfest (http://sinfest.net) - God and the Devil are ound all the time, and God plays with little hand puppets.

It's a cartoon strip, by the way. A most amusing one. :)

[Raydred]

I tend to believe in the Matrix Theory. =) hehehehe

We're all in a computer, simulating a world that we know.
However, it must be running windows Cause it SUCKS lol =) jk

[upuaut]

Not that I think the movie was all that, but they make an excellent point which is philisophicaly sound. That is: if everything was perfect, the system would fall apart. Human kind has shown again and again it's aptitude for destroying a "good thing". So Phil, you should be glad your car isn't working. It keeps the entire universe from falling apart. ;) I know I appreciate your suffering. :)

I decided to let you rope me into replying over there Phil. I had a sort of answer for you that I thought you'd apprciate, but I didn't really want to post it here on Kirupaforum.com. :)

[upuaut]

Well go back and look again, cause I didn't get that post done by the time you hit the sack. :)

as for the "roped in" statement.. I didn't mean to imply that you had anything to do with it. I used to be addicted to boards like yours and I have weened myself away from them for some time now, finaly finding a comfortable medium at 0. I get far too angry with some types, and that just isn't good as these boards tend to attract those types. :) Not you of course.. but some, I've already seen it on your board from at least one poster.

Ah well.. like I said in the thread you read. You get your *** down to NY and the bbq is on me. Can even offer a place to sleep if you don't mind an air bed or a soffa. (saves on hotel bills)

[Makaveli]

bump!!! :P this thread need to be brought back!




anyways...who wants to ride in my plane?
http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/sarge/Tomcat.gif

[Makaveli]

hehe...the posts on your own forum are incredibly long!!!
i brought this back because i enjoy watching you argue!! :P :whistle: :bad: :bad: :bad:

[vts31]

so we're supposed to ignore all of the other evidence against the young earth theory because of that article?

err...

no thanx


-edit- ALL HAIL THE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE, PINK UNICORN LOU!-


dav: *sigh* the memories of KIR....*sigh*

OH YEAH, challange yourself http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

well this is a better link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html


ok im done. enuff edits

[upuaut]

Never able to answer??? We'll see about that.


Your All Wrong!
All~

Now that I have your attention, check out why I think your all wrong....Theres not a single person here, as far as I know, that believes in a Young Earth, as I do. My own estimate is somewhere less than 10,000 years and more than 5000. If I had to guess, then I would say around 5800 years old, as that is the farthest back any historical evidence and writing occur. Now check out this 'short' Article and see the link; Challenge yourselves! Come on, it's Saturday.

In India a man made structure has been discovered that lies 20 meters under water. The Archeological evidence points to the last time that particular peice of land was exposed is in the odd range of 8000 years or more ago.
I have more proofs.. but that one should suffice for now.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fingerprints of Creation

Etched within Earth's foundation rocks--the granites--are beautiful microspheres of coloration produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence. A simple analogy shows, on one hand, how these polonium microspheres--or halos--contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. On the other hand, it demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth: A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared with an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock. An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as the frozen bubbles would be clear evidence of quick-freezing of water, so are polonium halos undeniable evidence that many rapidly "effervescing" specks of created polonium interacted with a sea of primordial matter which was directly "frozen" as solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.

An absence of explination does not mean that the most far fetched myths should be accepted as fact, it mearly means that we should look more closely at those myths. That's hardly proof of anything except a current lack of explinations for this effect.




Recently, two videos, Fingerprints of Creation and the Young Age of the Earth have been produced which describe a model for Earth's origin consistent with the polonium halo evidence. Additionally, the book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, by scientist Robert V. Gentry chronicles the evidence and challenges of proposing a scientifically based creation model of the Earth amidst widespread acceptance of ancient, evolutionary models by most scientists.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the link I promised to this Website;
http://www.halos.com/finger.htm

Here are some links to various pages related to this creationist's theory


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lorence_collins/polonium.html

I've also read some others tonight (and am still reading some) the general consensus so far, from various sources is that Gentry has one major problem with his theory. That is to say that he has failed thus far to provide a peer reviewed theory according to proper scientific criteria. As it stands there are a number of papers out by other scientists who are in the field of physics and or geology, who have explained Gentries theory in a manner which does not challenge conventional science. Namely
Von Wimmersperg and Sellschop, Phys Rev Lett 38:886, 1977
Moazed et al., Science 180:1274, 1973
and
Odom and Rink, Science 246:107, 1989
These are published science papers and I do not have immediate access to them, however I'm only responsible for providing proofs, not finding them. :)

I'll have more to say on this when I finish reading these 300 pages or so on the subject. Bear with me here.

[upuaut]

again.. still reading, but I wanted to take a break so I thought I would take a second or two to ask some questions of you Phil

Are you a physicist or geologist? Did you read the article that you provided for us? Did you understand what Gentry was saying throughout the whole thing, or just parts of it? (I'll admit that I didn't) Did you bother to search for other sources of information on this effect and if so, why not site some of the people who claim that Gentry is full of crap?

A scientist phil, chooses to attempt to debunk his own theories. It's not a requirement, but any scientist worth his salt does so. The obvious reason is to prevent one from going before a peer review with skewed data. If you can't debunk what you theorize, then you can have others attempt to debunk it. When that fails, it is a theory.. until that point it's just a thought.

So by leaving out potential arguements against Gentries thoughts ( I refuse to call them theories) you've opened up the speculation that you're either A) uninformed on the subject, or B) attempting to hide something. I see that Gentry is guilty of this as well.

You and I are not experts on these subjects. We both already know that. Not being an expert, I first read Gentry's explination (first from the link you provided, then from a lecture on the subject that Gentry gives) then I went and read everything that has been said in denial of his 'theory'. That makes the most sense to me, and I doubt that you can find a flaw in that reasoning.

Can you provide me with an explination as to why you would not include specific arguements of Gentry's which refute the claims of other's that he's full of crap? There certainly are enough of them made by established scientific schollars. In fact, I have yet to read ANY paper by ANYONE other than Gentry, that claims that he has a point to make of valid scientific discovery.
So you want us to believe that one man, of all the thousands of scientists in the world, is right, despite the fact that his theory would preclude that thousands of other well documented scientific discoveries are actually false? That seems like a very hard thing to swallow to me. Hopefuly others will think so as well.

So far the only thing that I can come up with is that you have a belief in a young earth and will accept at face value the psudo-scientific theory of a single lone voice, forsaking all others, in order to prove that belief correct. Certainly correct me on this if I'm wrong, but you must provide an explination for why you would do what you have done other than the one I've provided.

*more to come* (or, "how David explains the effect of Gentry, and why it is flawed.")

[vts31]

maybe we should change the title of this thread to " I AM WRONG". lol ;)

[upuaut]

I think rather. "All are wrong"

For you see I have not yet proven anything. Neither has Phil.

:) I hope some day that both Phil and I get to prove something..

[vts31]

boo

[upuaut]

ok.. well this is how I see the theory.

Within all crystalin structures there is a pattern to the formation. When radiation (and sometimes other sources) are introduced to developing crystals damage occurs to the pattern that is forming, which shows up to the human eye (in most cases) as 'halos' of discoloration within the matrix.
Gentry believes that he has discovered evidence which proves that hard substances like mica and granite have been found which have halos caused by Polonium radiation. Polonium material, having a half life of under a second, is gone quickly (changing to the next material in the periodical table). It also only occured at the dawn of time itself, during the "big bang" according to conventional science.

There's more too it than that, but it's a layman's explination.. I'm no physicist.

Apparently Gentry has a masters in physics, so he's certainly in a better possition than I to judge such things, but I have been reading the words of scientists with Ph.D's and they have quite a different story to tell.

major flaws in Gentry's so called theory.

Gentry has failed to produce an experiment which may be duplicated by peers, who are not chosen by him, which in turn, fail to produce a negative effect. This above anything else is the most damning part. A believe CANNOT be a theory unless it adhires to this basic principal.

If we are to assume that Gentry is correct, it would preclude that 200 years of geological, and physics experimentation must be re-examined and conciquently changed. That means that all the other theories that other scientists have come up with, which have already failed to produce a negative result, have to have another explination to their effect. Gentry has failed to give ANY explination for these other theories or how they may work. Personaly I don't think that this is his job, but given the sheer amount of experiments that have already been done, SOME sort of explination should be forth coming from his group. Since it's been over two decades since Gentry came up with this theory, there has been plenty of time to do that.
For instance. In order for this theory to work we have to assume that the half life of all radioactive substances has changed over the last 8000 years. Not only changed, but all have changed differently from each other. There is no precident for this in any example or experiment EVER. Not only that but the premise itself seems to contradict what Gentry says. If the halflives of these substances have changed, it would have required some amount of time. The result of having a planet with uranium at it's supposed higher halflife state, as Gentry has stated it was, would have "left this planet a molten ball of magma well into the future".

The second problem with this theory is that other substances DO produce the same halo as the polonium as far as the best none electron microscopes can detect. This of course is not a problem for a scientist who has access to a very serious peice of equipment, however Gentry specificaly tells his followers that ANYONE can pick up mica and see the halos, and conciquently do the experiments for themselves. This is a lie, and Gentry KNOWS that it is. No one will be able to do the experiments accurately because they cannot see the halos for what they are. However to the naked eye the halos match his experiments exactly.

The last problem some see is that Granite, takes thousands of years to develope. ANY amount of polonium material within the substances creating the granite, would long change to some other material before the granite was ever formed. Hence the halos would look different.

This leads to the age old debate between creationists and evolutionists. (even though this subject has NOTHING to do with evolution. I mention this because I don't want anyone confusing what I'm talking about here.) Creationists almost always distribute their material to laymen. They've been pushing that line to the common man for hundreds of years. When you target a group for information, and the purposefuly lie to them as Gentry HAS to be doing, it's both unethical and immoral. It's called disinformation. Scientists may very well be pricks when it comes to process, but that's what science is, exact process, defined by the following.

1) think of a thought
2) develope a postulate
3) create an experiment which may produce a "false" in response to the postulate.
4) experiment without a false reply.
5) give the experiment to peers, who are not chosen by the developer of the postulate, who in turn also do not recieve a "false" response to it.

Something is a theory ONLY when the above is adhired to.

What is obvious to me Phil, after reading BOTH sides of the debate is that Gentry has a predefined model of the Universe which he then attempts to find proofs for, ignoring all other evidence before him. That's piss poor science. Hell it's not even science.. it's called propeganda. Gentry is a liar, and a fraud Phil. I would suggest starting to look for your evidence in other areas. In addition I would suggest that you take a lesson from Gentry and not be like him. Science does not ignore evidence for the sake of a conclusion, it bases that conclusion off of the evidence provided.

[upuaut]

oh and as a final snaffoo.. a geologist and minor physicist has produced identical halo's (to the human eye) using radon, one of the most common radiations on the planet. Again proving that any laymen will be led astray from proper end results by a meriad of halos produced by a VERY common and long lasting radiation.

[upuaut]

no problem. :)