Reply to Re: Is there a name for Dink's world?
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
If you measure the amount of carbon atoms in a fossil, and from the radioactivity you measure how much of that carbon is radioactive, you can find the ratio between them. There will be less radioactive material than there is in a living body. Some simple math (and facts like the half life of the atom you're using) gives you the age of the sample.
Calling differential equations 'simple math' is quite telling...
And if there was a huge catastrophe that wiped the entire planet out of dinosaurs, then it wouldn't have left turtles or crocodiles alive either. Or are you suggesting the catastrophe thought out loud: "Hmm... these things will not be called dinosaurs in the future, even though they technically are, so I'm gonna spare them". Sadly, that's what most people seem to believe, even though that's the biggest hole in pretty much any theory ever.
Why would any catastrophe that killed off the dinosaurs kill off crocodiles and turtles as well? Science doesn't say that during the K-T extinction everything went extinct, only about 75% of all species went extinct. That also means that about 25% survived. Also keep in mind that such a mass extinction isn't random, the species best suited for surviving such a disaster will tend to survive. As the K-T extinction was likely caused by some sort of nuclear winter smaller creatures will tend to have a higher chance of survival as smaller creatures survive better in situations of low energy availability.
Well now you've lost all respect from me. Talk about going with scientists' beliefs. Why the hell would you believe that snow isn't water even if a million highly educated scientists said so after a decade of research, when you can use common sense, go to a place where there's snow, put it in a warm place and see that it's water with your own eyes!
Imagine that scientists would say that snow isn't water, they may actually have their reasons for it. Especially if they put in a decade of research. Perhaps you should listen to their arguments before ridiculing it. Most probably it would have to do with the exact definition of 'water'. If I define 'water' to be 'a liquid primarily made up of water molecules' than snow is not water. Of course scientists don't actually say that snow isn't water so the discussion is a little bit academic. I'd rather talk about examples where a majority of scientist actually do say something different than the mainstream believes. Rather than a purely imaginary case of 'imagine that scientists would be saying this or that'.
By the way, by your reasoning I could say that a log is fire, because if I take a log to a hot place it turns to fire. Though perhaps science may provide an alternative explanation...
Calling differential equations 'simple math' is quite telling...
And if there was a huge catastrophe that wiped the entire planet out of dinosaurs, then it wouldn't have left turtles or crocodiles alive either. Or are you suggesting the catastrophe thought out loud: "Hmm... these things will not be called dinosaurs in the future, even though they technically are, so I'm gonna spare them". Sadly, that's what most people seem to believe, even though that's the biggest hole in pretty much any theory ever.
Why would any catastrophe that killed off the dinosaurs kill off crocodiles and turtles as well? Science doesn't say that during the K-T extinction everything went extinct, only about 75% of all species went extinct. That also means that about 25% survived. Also keep in mind that such a mass extinction isn't random, the species best suited for surviving such a disaster will tend to survive. As the K-T extinction was likely caused by some sort of nuclear winter smaller creatures will tend to have a higher chance of survival as smaller creatures survive better in situations of low energy availability.
Well now you've lost all respect from me. Talk about going with scientists' beliefs. Why the hell would you believe that snow isn't water even if a million highly educated scientists said so after a decade of research, when you can use common sense, go to a place where there's snow, put it in a warm place and see that it's water with your own eyes!
Imagine that scientists would say that snow isn't water, they may actually have their reasons for it. Especially if they put in a decade of research. Perhaps you should listen to their arguments before ridiculing it. Most probably it would have to do with the exact definition of 'water'. If I define 'water' to be 'a liquid primarily made up of water molecules' than snow is not water. Of course scientists don't actually say that snow isn't water so the discussion is a little bit academic. I'd rather talk about examples where a majority of scientist actually do say something different than the mainstream believes. Rather than a purely imaginary case of 'imagine that scientists would be saying this or that'.
By the way, by your reasoning I could say that a log is fire, because if I take a log to a hot place it turns to fire. Though perhaps science may provide an alternative explanation...
