Check out Phys.org they determined the glaciers on Mars are made of frozen water. We better get up there and make sure they don't melt!! #preventglobalwarmingonmars
Learn what a scientific theory is and stop demonstrating how flipping ignorant you are. You're embarrassing yourself.
What pots? I only have a few defense pots for pot phases of ebs. You really are divorced from reality. You and your alts are not hurting me in the slightest. Conversely, you are now a clanless, naked, pure spy. You did far more damage to yourself than I could do. At any rate, I appreciate the incoming, and its a far more intelligent and honest way for you to respond than your deranged forum posts
Actually, it does prove what you said is wrong. And Snopes is a "real" source. It's been debunking stupid stuff for over a decade and is widely cited. Your claim was: "Presidents Obama security and exchange commission ruled that pepsis use of fetuses for flavor enhancers was ordinary business." But that's not what Pepsi was actually doing. There were no "fetuses" being used for "flavor enhancers". Pepsi was partnered with a company called Senomyx that used HEK 293 cells to test new flavors. HEK 293 cells are a specific cell line which were derived from the kidney cells of an aborted human embryo in 1972. This cell line is widely used in industry for years for things such as cell biology research and biotechnology/pharmaceutical development. "The company appears to be engineering HEK cells to function like the taste-receptor cells we have in our mouth. This way, Senomyx can test millions of substances to see if they work as different types of taste enhancers without subjecting human volunteers to endless taste tests. To non-scientists this may sound a bit strange, but the reality is that HEK 293 cells are widely used in pharmaceutical research, helping scientists create vaccines as well as drugs like those for rheumatoid arthritis. The difference here is that Senomyx's work for Pepsi is one of the first times the cells have (potentially) been used to create a food or beverage. (And it's important to note that no part of a human kidney cell are ever a part of Senomyx's taste enhancers or any finished food products.)" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pepsis-biza ... -cal-soda/ That's why the SEC ruled it's ordinary business. Because it's ordinary business. Google debaters. Gotta love em
That's the second monkey reference you've made, so clearly you don't understand evolution either. Evolutionary theory doesn't postulate that man came from monkeys. It postulates that Humans and Apes have a common ancestor that we both come from. This is why the oft heard "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" line is so stupid. That's not what evolution theory says. It's what a stupid person thinks evolution theory says. Humans are classified as mammals of the order Primates, which also contains includes lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, monkeys and apes. Why? Similar anatomy and DNA evidence confirms that humans are primates and that modern humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor between 8 and 6 million years ago. No one is arguing to remove Humans from the order of Primates. Why? There's no debate about the concept in the scientific community. None. The fact is, evolutionary theory is central to our understanding of modern biology. This may offend some people who for whatever reason want to believe that evolution isn't true and a fact. Science doesn't care. Evolution is a working theory, one that has practical applications that are widely used in science and industry. People use it to make things like drugs and vaccines. Things that you can make money from. When it comes to money, results talk and BS walks. Evolutionary theory gets results. BS doesn't.
Just to clear some confusion up, a scientific theory is very different to the usual definition of 'theory'. Here's Wikipedia's definition: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
@iGrowlithe Since you want a source here you go buddy. http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictio ... g-info.htm
The accuracy of the technique decreases with the age of the material. Read this, the ages can be inaccurate so does it go by around the time period or 100% accuracy?
The link to the cite is under the copy/pasted information. What I was asking was is this information 100% accurate or estimated? I think I found my answer below: The so-called “model”1 potassium-argon (K-Ar) “ages” calculated for each of the 27 amphibolite samples from Grand Canyon ranged from 405.1 ± 10 Ma (million years) to 2,574.2 ± 73 Ma. That is a six-fold difference, for samples that should be of similar age. Note that the error estimates (the ± numbers) are small compared with the age. They are also small compared with the variation in ages between samples. This means that the laboratory testing was precise. However, as the results show, the error estimates say nothing about the accuracy of the “ages” of the rock samples. Furthermore, the seven samples from the small amphibolite unit near Clear Creek, which should be even closer in age because they belong to the same metamorphosed basalt lava flow, yielded K-Ar model “ages” ranging from 1,060.4 ± 28 Ma to 2,574.2 ± 73 Ma (figure 6). This includes two samples only 0.84 m (2 ft 9 in) apart that yielded K-Ar model “ages” of 1,205.3 ± 31 and 2,574.2 ± 73 Ma. Clearly, there is a problem with the assumptions on which the K-Ar “ages” are calculated. The isotopic results other than potassium-argon (K-Ar), namely rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd) and lead-lead (Pb-Pb), were used to calculate ages for the rock formation utilizing isochrons.2 Three ages altogether were obtained, one for each isotopic system. The best isochron plots are where the straight line of best-fit falls within the analytical errors (the ± values) for each data point. Routinely, if the data set is large, a few outlying data points are ignored if they don’t plot on the line. Geologists justify this, saying that some geochemical alteration in the past disturbed the radioisotopes in those samples. The best-fit isochron plots for these amphibolites yielded a Rb-Sr “age” of 1240 ± 84 Ma from 19 of the 27 samples, a Sm-Nd “age” of 1,655 ± 40 Ma from 21 samples, and a Pb-Pb “age” of 1,883 ± 53 Ma from 20 samples (figure 7).3 Note that the quoted “age” error margins (the ± values) are relatively small, due to the excellent statistical “fit” of these isochrons to the data. In spite of this, the three different radioisotope methods give three very different “ages”—that is the “isochron discordance” is pronounced. Figure 8 graphically illustrates how that, even when the calculated error margins are taken into account, the different radioisotope dating methods yield vastly different “ages” that cannot be reconciled. https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... nd-canyon/
What do you guys think of this. If we legalize recreational marijuana federally, we could use the taxes to help subsidize birth control for women using the federal health care program. It's a big if and not close to happening. I don't really think the states are profiting from recreational marijuana right now, but...It wouldn't shouldn't interfere with people religious morals? We really wouldn't have to stop there. We could use tax money from the sale of other items as well.
@igrowlith, I see you found Ken Ham's most recent attempt to discredit accepted science. This explanation was written for you (i've only included a small excerpt): We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing. Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records. Consider the following: There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores. All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude! Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth. Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined. Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years. The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple. The last three points deserve more attention. Some Christians have argued that something may be slowly changing with time so all the ages look older than they really are. The only two quantities in the exponent of a decay rate equation are the half-life and the time. So for ages to appear longer than actual, all the half-lives would have to be changing in sync with each other. One could consider that time itself was changing if that happened (remember that our clocks are now standardized to atomic clocks!). And such a thing would have to have occurred without our detection in the last hundred years, which is already 5% of the way back to the time http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html The actual debate over the age of the Grand Canyon is centered over when it became the Grand Canyon as we currently know it. Different parts were formed at different times, leading to a lack of consensus as to when the different parts joined to become the Grand Canyon instead of individual pretty good canyons. At no time is the science of age-determination in question. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html
1: I do not believe in zombies 2: I do not believe Jesus arose after dying 3: The difference is that in the story, Jesus came back to life. Zombies are the walking dead.
There is overwhelming evidence to support evolution theory. The first and most prominent evidence is the fact that we share DNA with our close relatives, the primates. It has been thoroughly proven that DNA is passed down from an organism to its offspring, with very few mutations (often called "errors") occurring. You can take a paternity test with your father to prove this (half of your chromosomes are from your father). The second evidence for evolution is that there are fossils from the same species from when the supercontinent Pangaea existed. This supports the theory of continental drift, which says that the earth is billions of years old. If the earth were billions of years old, then there would be time enough for enough mutations to occur to have an astronomical amount of species of animals. The third evidence is that organic matter can be made from inorganic matter. Near the earth's hydrothermal vents, there is an abundance of elements that lead to the development of life. This was proven a long time ago, when two scientists brought these elements together and zapped them with electricity. The result was a build-up of organic materials. If a build-up of organic materials were to be created, then it would be possible for life to develop. There are a few theories as to how life first started. First, there is the theory that life started as simple RNA that replicated itself. Second, there is the theory that amino acids were the first to replicate and create the cell membrane. Third is the theory that these developed together. I am being very brief in my descriptions - there is lots of information. The fourth piece of evidence is the existence of so many extinct human species that have been found. They are the "missing links". The ones dated closer to today typically had larger brains than their predecessors. The fifth piece of evidence is that life has become more and more complicated over the years. Whereas 1 billion years ago, life was relatively simple, today it is much more complex. The sixth piece of evidence is the fact that there are single-celled organism colonies that depend on one another. In many cases, some cells specialize to do certain tasks, while others specialize for other tasks. In this way, cells could become dependent on one another, in the same way the cells of multicellular organisms on one another.
@igrowlithe Once again saying using uranium dating. Not k-Ar dating. Like hydro said it is simple and has been proven more times than not. Now another analogy to maybe help you understand the issue more clearly. You are standing before court charged with murder. They have all the evidence the court needs and tons of witnesses. Would you say they are all bribed and the evidence is falsified? All you have to your defense are moral values. A relatively small part of the witnesses agree with you just based off that. But what with all the evidence? Is the court going to believe you just cause of you saying you didn't do it or is it gonna believe the evidence?
Reading this made me think, what if the calculations (like carbon dating, k-ar) are wrong too? It's always possible We see that there are at least two kinds of magma, and U and Th get carried along in silica rich magma rather than in basaltic magma. This represents major fractionation. Of course, any process that tends to concentrate or deplete uranium or thorium relative to lead would have an influence on the radiometric ages computed by uranium-lead or thorium-lead dating. Also, the fact that there are two kids of magma could mean that the various radiometric ages are obtained by mixing of these kinds of magma in different proportions, and do not represent true ages at all. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html