Celtic Heroes

I can not tell if Bennancio is trolling or not...

You can not just look at evidence and say "No!" like a little child. You need counter arguments and evidence to prove something incorrect.

You people also need to read my posts so I do not have to keep repeating myself.

Good luck with not repeating yourself lol. Just copy your stuff into a word processing file and paste as needed. After all a stale question deserves a stale answer.

I can not tell if Bennancio is trolling or not...

You can not just look at evidence and say "No!" like a little child. You need counter arguments and evidence to prove something incorrect.

You people also need to read my posts so I do not have to keep repeating myself.

Good luck with not repeating yourself lol. Just copy your stuff into a word processing file and paste as needed. After all a stale question deserves a stale answer.

Lol, I can see that happening:

Oh, they are using the "carbon dating is a lie" excuse again. Where is my radiometric file...

Another "science is a manifestation of the devil." Where are my replies for "incredibly superstitious" statements of stupidity...

Another "No!" Without evidence. Time to break out the long explanations file.

Addressing the religious side of this discussion: Do not misunderstand me. I can discuss evidence and ideas all day but when you just outright deny something with evidence and further go on to justifying religion with a childish "No!" stomping your feet on the ground... It is annoying.

I know this is a game forum but there is no reason for such childish replies. I am not referring to insults per say but rather how some people carry out the childish belief of "I can just say no to everything else and remain correct since my perspective is obviously superior to everyone else's on this planet."

My own "cold hearted" and logical perception of religion is perhaps captured in a quote from the series Sherlock:
"And contrast is, after all, God's own plan to enhance the beauty of his creation. Or it would be if God were not a ludicrous fantasy designed to provide a career opportunity for the family idiot."

However, I do not just prance around with this idea and deny everything else. In fact, the above is simply the cold logic that I use but in fact I think there is some probability, no matter how small, that a god could exist. In order to share ideas, there must be proof and evidence. Otherwise, collective belief without scientific support is simply stupidity.

Overall message: Prove yourself correct before you attempt to disprove anything else.

In answer to the idea that the process of adding layers on a tree could change over time...

I am sorry but as I was looking it over, I thought about the exact process. A tree grows as cells divide. As cells divide, old cells move outward forming the layers. The thing is, the time for this process has to be set as a plant cell can only divide so fast.

The oldest tree I believe was 11000 Years? Some even more? The point is, if you were to shorten the estimated time for the formation of these layers to 6000 years, that would mean these tree cells would have been going through lightening fast division.

We have never seen such a rate of cell division (in plants) occur on the planet, there would be no reason for all trees everywhere to slow down cell division (in fact, such hastily cell division without error would be VERY beneficial), and there is no reason for the particular trees we investigate to be be cursed to trick us.

The conclusion would be that the Earth must be, at the very least, as old as the oldest tree and that would be over 6000 years old.

I may be incorrect, perhaps overlooking another scientific idea...

In answer to the idea that the process of adding layers on a tree could change over time...

I am sorry but as I was looking it over, I thought about the exact process. A tree grows as cells divide. As cells divide, old cells move outward forming the layers. The thing is, the time for this process has to be set as a plant cell can only divide so fast.

The oldest tree I believe was 11000 Years? Some even more? The point is, if you were to shorten the estimated time for the formation of these layers to 6000 years, that would mean these tree cells would have been going through lightening fast division.

We have never seen such a rate of cell division (in plants) occur on the planet, there would be no reason for all trees everywhere to slow down cell division (in fact, such hastily cell division without error would be VERY beneficial), and there is no reason for the particular trees we investigate to be be cursed to trick us.

The conclusion would be that the Earth must be, at the very least, as old as the oldest tree and that would be over 6000 years old.

I may be incorrect, perhaps overlooking another scientific idea...

There are conditions that make tree rings of some species more difficult to date such as harsh dry summers and mild warm winters :
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 095250.htm
And
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0054730

You could fool some research facilities by slipping in these harder to date specimens without any information on what wood it is or where it came from. However revealing the location of the specimen and an analysis to determine what kind of wood along with the right analysis can reveal the actual uncertainty involved and can in some cases get a far better measurement. Remember this is about the very worst case possible for tree rings. Other climates and species have near 100% certanity in measurement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees this article is fairly well cited and in agreement with the limited research I've done. The oldest trees that have had samples taken and physically analyzed are only 5000 years old. There are estimated ages of other trees t 6-7000 years. If you count colonal trees (ones that offshoot identical clones and some species share thier root structure) but don't have individual above ground structures that old there are trees over 100 thousand years old.

If you take a literal interpretation of the bible then any trees over about 4400 years disprove it because of the flood. There are virtually no species of above ground tree that can live for months to a year underwater. Not to mention the myriad of other fallacies this flood myth creates that are easily shown false.

But yes there really isn't an argument against the "the devil put them there to decieve us from the true path of god!!!!1!1!!!!". Since they are there god must be a real lying deceitful ***. Or simply does not exist.

Addressing the religious side of this discussion: Do not misunderstand me. I can discuss evidence and ideas all day but when you just outright deny something with evidence and further go on to justifying religion with a childish "No!" stomping your feet on the ground... It is annoying.

I know this is a game forum but there is no reason for such childish replies. I am not referring to insults per say but rather how some people carry out the childish belief of "I can just say no to everything else and remain correct since my perspective is obviously superior to everyone else's on this planet."

My own "cold hearted" and logical perception of religion is perhaps captured in a quote from the series Sherlock:
"And contrast is, after all, God's own plan to enhance the beauty of his creation. Or it would be if God were not a ludicrous fantasy designed to provide a career opportunity for the family idiot."

However, I do not just prance around with this idea and deny everything else. In fact, the above is simply the cold logic that I use but in fact I think there is some probability, no matter how small, that a god could exist. In order to share ideas, there must be proof and evidence. Otherwise, collective belief without scientific support is simply stupidity.

Overall message: Prove yourself correct before you attempt to disprove anything else.

I certainly understand what you are saying and I would say that you are right that we shouldn't just say "no thats not true." We should give reasons for it. What you have to understand, is that I am not Plus3 who as far as I know is retired as he made a lot of money in his younger years. What I mean by this is that I have other things to do. Im sure he does too of course, but most likely not as much. I do know that you, Vraelen, aren't as "successful" as that(well i don't think so; are you?) and that you have lots to do as well. Now I certainly could find time to make snappy retorts on this topic(like you), but I do like to do other things besides debate about evolution. I know its not a great excuse but...

@Plus: so because I nail you for taking things out of context(aka: picking and choosing) Im making myself out to be the supreme picker and chooser of what to read in Gods word?

Heat: the transfer of energy between objects.

Addressing the religious side of this discussion: Do not misunderstand me. I can discuss evidence and ideas all day but when you just outright deny something with evidence and further go on to justifying religion with a childish "No!" stomping your feet on the ground... It is annoying.

I know this is a game forum but there is no reason for such childish replies. I am not referring to insults per say but rather how some people carry out the childish belief of "I can just say no to everything else and remain correct since my perspective is obviously superior to everyone else's on this planet."

My own "cold hearted" and logical perception of religion is perhaps captured in a quote from the series Sherlock:
"And contrast is, after all, God's own plan to enhance the beauty of his creation. Or it would be if God were not a ludicrous fantasy designed to provide a career opportunity for the family idiot."

However, I do not just prance around with this idea and deny everything else. In fact, the above is simply the cold logic that I use but in fact I think there is some probability, no matter how small, that a god could exist. In order to share ideas, there must be proof and evidence. Otherwise, collective belief without scientific support is simply stupidity.

Overall message: Prove yourself correct before you attempt to disprove anything else.

I certainly understand what you are saying and I would say that you are right that we shouldn't just say "no thats not true." We should give reasons for it. What you have to understand, is that I am not Plus3 who as far as I know is retired as he made a lot of money in his younger years. What I mean by this is that I have other things to do. Im sure he does too of course, but most likely not as much. I do know that you, Vraelen, aren't as "successful" as that(well i don't think so; are you?) and that you have lots to do as well. Now I certainly could find time to make snappy retorts on this topic(like you), but I do like to do other things besides debate about evolution. I know its not a great excuse but...

@Plus: so because I nail you for taking things out of context(aka: picking and choosing) Im making myself out to be the supreme picker and chooser of what to read in Gods word?

Heat: the transfer of energy between objects.

Nothing I said was out of context. It clearly says to kill gay men in the old testament. It also clearly says how to beat your slaves properly. Additionally it says in exodus 31:15 to put people to death who work on Sunday. To thus fkn day I still can't buy a car on Sunday. Please explain how those are taken out of context it is extremely plain.

It's this complete BS "interpretation" thing that gets me. People use it to make the bible say whatever they want. People also pick and choose what to accept it is extremely common and ubiquitous to do so. Yet that act of picking and choosing is exactly as I describe.

And yes while you are on thermodynamics I'm not interested in a one line definition that you can cut and paste (the one you provided is not technically correct you probably should have specified thermal energy as it is not electrical or chemical energy transfer) but putting a description of the physics into your own words to make it more clear you understand. Also the same for the second law as that seems to be favorite misquote among apologists. They get the second law laughably wrong and use it in a way that often demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of first principles.

I certainly understand what you are saying and I would say that you are right that we shouldn't just say "no thats not true." We should give reasons for it. What you have to understand, is that I am not Plus3 who as far as I know is retired as he made a lot of money in his younger years. What I mean by this is that I have other things to do. Im sure he does too of course, but most likely not as much. I do know that you, Vraelen, aren't as "successful" as that(well i don't think so; are you?) and that you have lots to do as well. Now I certainly could find time to make snappy retorts on this topic(like you), but I do like to do other things besides debate about evolution. I know its not a great excuse but...

I mean...ok...

For the record, even the longest posts that I have written would only take a maximum of 15 mins, hence why I may have quite a few spelling/grammatical mistakes. I do understand time constraints and you are correct in the assumption that I am still on my way towards being "successful."

Heat is the transfer of thermal energy from a hotter body to a colder one, usually without direct work, which means it is a byproduct. In thermodynamics, we focus on heat since it is a near universal indicator that work is occurring and as there can never be a complete transfer of energy, all work must generate heat or byproduct energy.

The thermodynamic laws may apply to specific systems of work that generate heat but it they are used for a variety of ideas regarding all energy, as heat is a form of energy, and we can say that any form of energy not specifically going from point A to point B could be representative of "heat."

That is my understanding at least... I am not sure why I felt like giving my own explanation, lol.

I certainly understand what you are saying and I would say that you are right that we shouldn't just say "no thats not true." We should give reasons for it. What you have to understand, is that I am not Plus3 who as far as I know is retired as he made a lot of money in his younger years. What I mean by this is that I have other things to do. Im sure he does too of course, but most likely not as much. I do know that you, Vraelen, aren't as "successful" as that(well i don't think so; are you?) and that you have lots to do as well. Now I certainly could find time to make snappy retorts on this topic(like you), but I do like to do other things besides debate about evolution. I know its not a great excuse but...

I mean...ok...

For the record, even the longest posts that I have written would only take a maximum of 15 mins, hence why I may have quite a few spelling/grammatical mistakes. I do understand time constraints and you are correct in the assumption that I am still on my way towards being "successful."

Heat is the transfer of thermal energy from a hotter body to a colder one, usually without direct work, which means it is a byproduct. In thermodynamics, we focus on heat since it is a near universal indicator that work is occurring and as there can never be a complete transfer of energy, all work must generate heat or byproduct energy.

The thermodynamic laws may apply to specific systems of work that generate heat but it they are used for a variety of ideas regarding all energy, as heat is a form of energy, and we can say that any form of energy not specifically going from point A to point B could be representative of "heat."

That is my understanding at least... I am not sure why I felt like giving my own explanation, lol.

Maybe he has to do too much research for posts and that is the hang up. I don't know. I don't spend much more time than the typing (which I am fairly fast at) and a few quick searches. Probably because I enjoy learning and research/read stuff all the time.

The thermodynamic laws apply to all systems if you found a violation you would become an overnight celebrity.

And yes they do have far reaching implications because they are based off physical laws. For example the idea of entropy is likely closely related to the unidirectional flow of time.

Just as you mentioned one can find an equvelant amount of energy in thermal terms but if you are defining heat it is not appropriate to leave it in general terms of just energy transfer or flow. It is not kenetic energy transfer (macroscopically), nor change in gravitational potential energy, nor magnetic potential energy, not seperation of electric charges, nor chemical energy generation, nor nuclear. I would be looking for a classical molecular scale description and for bonus points an electromagnetic description and for extra credit virtual particle theory.

The reason i brought it up is thermodynamics is used by apologists in general that haven't the first F-in clue as to what they are talking about. I should know as thermodynamics is one of the branches of applied physics studied by mechanical engineers.

On the Bible: You are not taking those verses out of context with the verses around them(well you might be, I didn't really check). You are taking those verses out of context with the rest of the Bible. Show me where the apostles said that we could not eat unclean food. Or where they were making sacrifices. Or where they were executing gay people. Or adulterers. These were the men who knew Jesus best. Not only that, but when Jesus died, He took away the need to sacrifice animals and to keep "clean". I'm not making that up as an excuse either. The Old Testament Law was a law for a nation. Just like America has a law, Israel had a law. The punishing of certain things were the punishments for breaking that law. The principles are still there, but the same punishments are not.

On different branches of Christianity: I believe when I mentioned the importance in discerning the difference between Catholics, Mormens, Protestants, etc. someone said that it was not really important. This is absolutely not true. If you are going to say that Christianity is what oppressed galileo and Newton, you have to be specific. For instance, Newton himself actually believed in God. Many of the great scientists did. It's not right that these things should be pinned on Christians(I use this name for lack of a better word) as a whole. Take Nazi Germany. Because of that, the German stereotype for a long time was...well...that they were Jew-hating Nazi's. And that stereotype outlasted the fact. Not only that, it was not even totally true during that era. Many Germans fought in the Allied Army. I'm sure others spied for us. Others, helped Jews escape the country. And I'm sure that others who did none of this, did not agree with the government. You can't take a whole (insert word that means a group of people) and lump them all together.

Lastly, I am ready to debate what makes a Christian. If then you will stop calling every person who claims to be a Christian a Christian, I will be thankful.