Sign in / up

* Posts by David Ralston

10 publicly visible posts • joined 1 Oct 2007

Pig plague 2.0: Can't spell 'pandemic' without 'panic'

David Ralston

Pan (dem) ic

Pan (dem) ic .. Odd.. Those dem's are in the middle of a panic.

0 0

US customs: Yes, we can seize your laptop, iPod

David Ralston

Or better yet..

Put it in a box with your address on and a postage stamp.

0 0

MS pulls plugs on XP SP3 mass launch

David Ralston

Sounds to me like an antitrust issue..

Lesse our application doesn't work .. let's delay the service pack so we don't look bad and make it work.

Hmmm...

If that was the case Oracle would never allow a SP to go out there door!

0 0

Windows Server 2008 to come in 8 flavors

David Ralston

Duh!

It's no suprise.. By putting the price tag on it they are in compliance with the court ordered lack of innovation clause. Can't add free stuff to your product otherwise you'll get sued.

0 0

Oxygen pollution began earlier than we ever thought

David Ralston

@David

Again, RD/carbon dating are NOT observable FACTS. You are subjecting your belief that this must be accurate. There is no FACTUAL dating mechanism in place today. They are all based upon assumptions that this thing I just found decomposed meets these guidelines established by "the scientific community" so it must be xxx years old. The theory of RD/carbon dating is too frequently cited as fact -- when in reality there is no way this is accurate +/- any number of years without knowing what happen to the enviroment around it during all of those years. Eg;. Yemen has just did what to the artifacts/bodies located there? How old are they now? Did they just age hundreds of years? Unfortunately as I said before -- RD/carbon dating doesn't care about atmosphere .. only that this theory is subjected to my belief system that this thing must be xxx years old.

0 0
David Ralston

@Aaron

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/exper/exper.htm (tomatoes)

The point I am making here, that you obviously aren't understanding is that "scientific theories presented as facts" are just as good as "religious theories presented as facts".

Both are theories once you accept them as theories (not facts) life is much better.

What the atmosphere is like for either carbon or RD plays a HUGE role in the date determined. Since we don't know what that was like for either method we assume this to be true, which may/may not be. Look what happened in Yemen over the weekend. What kind of atmospheric changes exist in that area, now? Does carbon/RD science even care? Probably not.

0 0
David Ralston

Dare I say carbon dating is only a theory!

But when Carbon or RD is presented as FACTUAL evidence is bull. We have NO idea what the world was like in 100BC -- ziltch nothing. We have no idea how much radiation, oxygen, carbon, smog, etc.. existed .. NOTHING. Our obvservational window on these theories is way to short to extrapolate that information back gazillions of years.

Ever put a frog in a hyperbaric chamber?? They grow HUGE!! What about a tomato? yes there is scientific evidence available on these one. Wonder what would happen if you put a lizard in there.. Maybe Mr. Dino himself appears.

0 0
David Ralston

@Re: What will the creationists think?

"Unless of course we look at carbon dating, which is proven due to the half life of the carbon atoms, which gives us good reason to assume the Earth is millions of years old at least, so no, it isn't what you'd really call circular reasoning."

Dare I say carbon dating is only a theory! This is what the scientific community states as a "fact". Which is the basic problem with creationism vs evolution. You are trying to shove "theories presented as facts" down our throats. Present them as theories and the scientific community in evolution would have more acceptance. Just like the creationism side of the house use "theories presented as facts" -- although I have more belief in the creationists viewpoint.

0 0

Science and religion collide for galactic conference

David Ralston

what a load of christianity

you can only carbon date something upto 60000 years old as the half life of carbon 14 means there woun't be a detectable level left in anything older.

Or so you state as fact, but should be theory. Hence the problem. Science has no factual proof, just like Christianity. Except you believe your human theories because in my reality this happens.

Hit me up in 60,000 years and present it as fact and I'll believe you. Until then shove your theory based science up your bosom.

0 0
David Ralston

what a load of christianity

Again to prove my point..

Whatever method of dating you use carbon or RD they are ONLY THEORIES PRESENTED AS FACTS, which inherently make them unprovable. Unless you have the KNOWN facts of the environment at THAT time it is impossible to STATE 100% this thing is 100 million years old.

Perhaps you should understand a little more about science or at least the difference between theories and facts.

If dino's didn't exist with man why are there so many cave paintings which depict dino's with men? Case in point, we still have caveman today .. where o'where is that man Mr. Bin Laden at again?

0 0