Kamikaze wrote:

Also, while it's not exactly pertinent to what you said, I would like to direct your attention to the Ica Stones, which provide some compelling evidence regarding the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_Stones

Weren't those widely discredited as being a hoax?

There's been no conclusive results. The person who found them claimed they were a hoax, but later recanted saying that he only said they were hoax to avoid the hefty prison sentence that comes with the sale of antiquities. There are certain facts that support them though. First off, over 11,000 stones have been produced to date. If they were all hoaxed it would have required him to work non-stop for decades. Furthermore, there is an enamel that has formed in the etchings that takes thousands of years to form.

@Will: What I'm trying to argue is that you can't take the Bible literally and even though it says the Earth is 6,000 years old it could easily be an error in translation or telling that persisted in future copies. So, before you reject the entirety of it you have to realize that there may be errors. As for the Ica Stones it shows that the dating of such things as fossils may be wrong if Man and dinosaurs coexisted. Considering that the dating of fossils provides much of the groundwork for the dating of the planet, if that's wrong then our concept of how old the planet is may be wrong as well.

Kamikaze wrote:

There's been no conclusive results. The person who found them claimed they were a hoax, but later recanted saying that he only said they were hoax to avoid the hefty prison sentence that comes with the sale of antiquities. There are certain facts that support them though. First off, over 11,000 stones have been produced to date. If they were all hoaxed it would have required him to work non-stop for decades. Furthermore, there is an enamel that has formed in the etchings that takes thousands of years to form.

@Will: What I'm trying to argue is that you can't take the Bible literally and even though it says the Earth is 6,000 years old it could easily be an error in translation or telling that persisted in future copies. So, before you reject the entirety of it you have to realize that there may be errors. As for the Ica Stones it shows that the dating of such things as fossils may be wrong if Man and dinosaurs coexisted. Considering that the dating of fossils provides much of the groundwork for the dating of the planet, if that's wrong then our concept of how old the planet is may be wrong as well.

The notion of the Earth being 6,000 years old was devised by an Irish monk who basically used the genealogies in the Bible along with the ages of those mentioned to calculate the number of years from Jesus' life back to Adam. This would give us the length of human existence, according to the Bible. To apply that to the age of the Earth in general would require a literal interpretation of the Creation lasting 6 'days'.

On Carbon Dating

*Puffs out his chest*

Ok, as the resident materials-guy, I figured I’d shed some light on what carbon dating actually is.

It actually works using a very simply process. It is built around the use of Carbon-14, a naturally occurring isotope of carbon (which is most commonly found as Carbon-12, indicating 12 electrons). These Carbon-14 atoms are unstable, containing more electrons than their ground state, and as a result electrons are radiated from them. Thus, over time the ratio between Carbon-14 isotopes and Carbon-12 atoms will decline.

Firstly, carbon is used for two reasons.
1) Its pretty damn unreactive. There are very few elements that will react in a powerful manner to yield error in the results (though this doesn’t mean it wont react at all – a point I’ll expand on later).

2) It’s found pretty much everywhere. Bone is of course made with a high quantity of carbon, as well as most naturally occurring rock. Limestone is by far and away the most common form of rock, everything from the Pyramids in Egypt to most naturally occurring caves are made of the stuff (or at least contains it). (The chemical formula is CaCO3, or Calcium Carbonate). Volcanic rock is igneous, not sedimentary and generally won’t contain much – if any – carbon. Directly testing the volcano for its age basically won’t work. It is however VERY good at preserving fossils which do contain carbon, and it is generally these that are tested. Naturally, this can yield some error (as stated about the volcano situation, dating volcano’s is pretty easy to fuck up. If the fossil has been there for millions of years already, we’re pretty far off).

Secondly, when I say radiation, yes I am talking about the same process that you probably more readily associate with nuclear physics, uranium-238 and the like. The difference is rate of decay; whereas uranium-238 is measured in emissions per second, Carbon-14 would probably be measured in something like emissions per year. In terms of the actual process though, no difference.

Thus, all you need to know to calculate the age of a material using carbon dating is the naturally occurring ratio normally found (I think its about 0.003% Carbon-14, but I can’t remember off hand), the ratio in the sample and the rate of decay. Since the rate of decay is logarithmic (if it takes 1 hour for 1 gram to decay into half the original quantity, the remaining ½ gram will become ¼ gram in the next hour and so on), the further we look back the greater the error becomes. When we say a fossil is roughly 350million years old, what we really mean is ‘it could be 325, it could be 375.’ We can only be so precise with our measurements.

Another source of inaccuracy is as others have said; we are taking the ratio existing today. Ideally, we’d need the ratio existing then, and since the change is likely to be greater over time, once again our results become increasingly inaccurate the further we go back. Thus regardless of how accurate our readings our, we will never reach the pipedream of 99.9% accuracy with this method (As for closer to now, its probably pretty accurate to a date of maybe 50,000 years? I mean, we won’t get any hard dates out of it but decent stab 25 years either side. 5,000 years? Within the decade I’d guess). I saw an argument about how temperature and pressure affects chemical reactions? Not really with regards to decay. It’s something of a spontaneous quantum mechanical event, more variable with the presence specific catalysts than anything else.

“But xxx were dated to be only 6,000 years old”

If you have 50 results, and 49 say one thing, and one says another, which are you going to assume is the anomaly?

“But re-tests gave the same result”

Which reinforces the method being used and indicates it is the sample that has the error. This relates back to my point about reactivity. Our initial calculations on the rate of decay are rooted to ordinary atmospheric conditions. If there was a specific event that would preserve the ratio, the results could be drastically off, and no amount of re-tests would rectify the contamination to the sample.

As for the ica stones: “Because they are rocks and contain no organic material, Carbon-14 dating cannot be used. No other method of radiometric dating has been applied to the stones.” – Wikipedia.




To Mostafa

1) Environment and upbringing is twinned. You can’t blame the environment for one and the upbringing for another. Its not as if both wont have an impact, and as I pointed out earlier, yes, its usually the surrounding environment that has the largest impact. Religion too is based on your environment and upbringing, if you prefer that example. Like Language, nearly everyone in your country is Muslim. So, I’ve explained its relevance, pointed out that they are all valid examples of aspects that are entirely influenced by your environment – as you claim homosexuality is – and I repeat a third time; why is it that people grow up to ‘reject the normal way’ when it comes to sexual orientation and not reject language or religion? This shouldn’t be a difficult question to answer. My theory has a perfectly sound reasoning for such an aspect, I’m still waiting for yours. I’m not after your religious response – you claim to be capable of free thought, so tell me why you think it is so.

2) I think my introduction was a little different. Namely my introduction was to a butch rugby player a few years older than me kissing his boyfriend. Even at that age it wasn’t exactly rocket science to figure out Also, you make it sound like they show us porno – not the case. Usually its things like rolling condoms on banana’s and really ugly, grotesque fat people with herpes showing you what unprotected sex can do. The other side is far more scientific. Those women are so naked you can see right to the workings of the uterus in this handy diagram drawn by that creepy biology teacher who perhaps enjoyed this part of the job a little too much…

Despite that, not gay. I wasn’t told it was wrong (and don’t believe it to be wrong either), but it doesn’t affect who I am. So you were told it was wrong, I wasn’t, net effect: zero. No gender confusion, no homosexuality. Two unrelated psychological states that show no correlation to upbringing in our own little miniature experiment.

3) But you claim that learning right and wrong is entirely from upbringing. If that’s the case and two siblings are given the same upbringing then that should mean they would have the same sexual orientation. Your argument is either contradictory to your earlier statements or in alignment with my belief that genetics has influence over personality and beliefs.

4) Actually, Will posted a link to a Muslim in Iran being hung for being a homosexual, and another in Malaysia (I think), authorised to be caned for being a homosexual Muslim. So why identify yourself as a Muslim if that’s the penance for it? Devoted Homosexual Muslim’s exist? I’d say rather being sentenced to death than renounce your faith was a pretty convincing argument he had belief…

mostafa wrote:

That's the whole point of this debate, when you embrace a religion -specialy Islam- it should be a factor of all aspects of life, Qu'ran has answered all questions a muslim could ask so we can follow it's leading and it organize our lives, why else would it be a religion if it didn’t organize EVERY aspect of life ?

I agree to an extent. Hence, the only logical conclusion is that their homosexuality is NOT a factor which they can control. If they could, then surely they would follow their faith to the letter and choose not to be. The mere fact that they embrace a religion criticising their homosexuality acts as proof that it is not a choice that they can choose to make. I can understand the differences in society, but that wouldn’t turn someone into a homosexual. It may result in certain actions taking place, but they aren’t going to start becoming sexually attracted to men.

As Will said, personality is determined in part by genetics. How do we know this?
1) The difference in personality between siblings and identical twins (with the same genetics) is greater in the former.
2) Children often take personality traits after their parents.

Monkzum wrote:

I don't know but the point is you're only pointing out anomolies. Scientists make mistakes but I guarentee you that 99.9% of the time they're accurate. I'm not entirely sure of what you're trying to get at here, are you seriously suggesting that the earth isn't millions of years old?

I'm suggesting that there is no way of scientists being certain about the age of the Earth. They are making an educated guess.

Seems a pretty decent estimate to me

Kamikaze wrote:

There's been no conclusive results. The person who found them claimed they were a hoax, but later recanted saying that he only said they were hoax to avoid the hefty prison sentence that comes with the sale of antiquities. There are certain facts that support them though. First off, over 11,000 stones have been produced to date. If they were all hoaxed it would have required him to work non-stop for decades. Furthermore, there is an enamel that has formed in the etchings that takes thousands of years to form.

@Will: What I'm trying to argue is that you can't take the Bible literally and even though it says the Earth is 6,000 years old it could easily be an error in translation or telling that persisted in future copies. So, before you reject the entirety of it you have to realize that there may be errors. As for the Ica Stones it shows that the dating of such things as fossils may be wrong if Man and dinosaurs coexisted. Considering that the dating of fossils provides much of the groundwork for the dating of the planet, if that's wrong then our concept of how old the planet is may be wrong as well.

How long do you think it'd take to carve a basic picture on a hunk of rock? He's making a tidy profit from his trade...

Even if he could manage to carve that many, it does not explain the enamel, nor does it reconcile the fact that this guy was a poor farmer from Peru, yet some of the animals depicted on these rocks would only be known by a palaeontologist.

Kamikaze wrote:

Even if he could manage to carve that many, it does not explain the enamel, nor does it reconcile the fact that this guy was a poor farmer from Peru, yet some of the animals depicted on these rocks would only be known by a palaeontologist.

I found no reference to there being any form of enamel or bone in them (link plz), and the fact that he's the only person apparently capable of finding them (and seeing as he's found 11,000 as you claim, you'd expect it to not be too difficult for anyone else) offsets the fact he's managed to get his hands on a book or once been to a museum.

Seriously, it would take about half an hour to carve one? assuming he worked 250 days a year, 8 hours a day, he could make 8000 in one year.

Let me go a little more in depth into the Ica Stones. The stones themselves are composed of andesite, which is quite difficult to work using hand tools. Furthermore, the etchings were created using continuous lines, not repeated lines. I was mistaken when I used the term enamel, the exact term is patina. It's a kind of varnish that builds up on rocks caused by bacteria. A few rocks were sent to a lab in Germany where it was confirmed that the patina was not faked. It should also be noted that the rocks not only depicted extinct creatures, but such things as genetic codes, medical procedures, and accurate depictions of the continents. Some of the most interesting stones though contain maps of the world as it looked 13 million years ago. as well as star charts from that long ago. Mind you, these stones were carved in the 1960s, which is before scientists were even able to determine how the planet or stars looked that long ago. So, I would like to know how an uneducated and illiterate farmer was able to produce etchings of things scientists at the time didn't even know about. Unfortunately the book I have that describes them does not provide in-text citations, but I know they are mentioned in Forbidden Archaeology and that that book provides other sources.

This is the book I have that mentions them.

Pretty sure even the guy who came upon the ica stones admitted they were a hoax in the end and even made one in front of some people.

...I'm not getting into this any deeper.

As has already been said, he said they were a hoax so he didn't go to prison life for selling antiquities. Also, those stones that are known to be fake lack the patina and the etchings are of an entirely different quality.

Rosalind wrote:

On Carbon Dating

*Puffs out his chest*

Ok, as the resident materials-guy, I figured I’d shed some light on what carbon dating actually is.

It actually works using a very simply process. It is built around the use of Carbon-14, a naturally occurring isotope of carbon (which is most commonly found as Carbon-12, indicating 12 electrons). These Carbon-14 atoms are unstable, containing more electrons than their ground state, and as a result electrons are radiated from them. Thus, over time the ratio between Carbon-14 isotopes and Carbon-12 atoms will decline.

Firstly, carbon is used for two reasons.
1) Its pretty damn unreactive. There are very few elements that will react in a powerful manner to yield error in the results (though this doesn’t mean it wont react at all – a point I’ll expand on later).

2) It’s found pretty much everywhere. Bone is of course made with a high quantity of carbon, as well as most naturally occurring rock. Limestone is by far and away the most common form of rock, everything from the Pyramids in Egypt to most naturally occurring caves are made of the stuff (or at least contains it). (The chemical formula is CaCO3, or Calcium Carbonate). Volcanic rock is igneous, not sedimentary and generally won’t contain much – if any – carbon. Directly testing the volcano for its age basically won’t work. It is however VERY good at preserving fossils which do contain carbon, and it is generally these that are tested. Naturally, this can yield some error (as stated about the volcano situation, dating volcano’s is pretty easy to fuck up. If the fossil has been there for millions of years already, we’re pretty far off).

Secondly, when I say radiation, yes I am talking about the same process that you probably more readily associate with nuclear physics, uranium-238 and the like. The difference is rate of decay; whereas uranium-238 is measured in emissions per second, Carbon-14 would probably be measured in something like emissions per year. In terms of the actual process though, no difference.

A few coorrections are in order. You meant neutrons instead of elektrons when you explained isotopes and the half life of uranium-238 is 4.46 billion years and 5,730 ± 40 years for carbon-14

Thomas :

I cant deny the effect of the environment on many aspects of personality, but I dont believe homosexuality to be one of them. Who told you they dont ? many people grow up and reject their religions, I've heard about many many cases of people turning from Islam to Christianity and vice versa -against their parents and everyone else's will- also, I'am sure you know about the french occupation of algeirs, till this very day, people there talk french as a first langauge..

You finding homosexuality not wrong, is a subjective matter -which is probably the core of this argument, subjectivity.

Genetics surely affects personality, not sexual orientation. Why then of two brothers, one turns out to be a murderer for example ? is it genetics ?now dont throw all this psychopat stuff at me lol, I wont honestly get it. Genetics play a role, sure, but mostly it's the upbringing.

Nah, if he actually had any belief to start with, wouldnt turn out to be a homosexual.

That's the point, they had very low or no faith at all to begin with in order to be homosexuals. You choose what you are. Or else every wrong in life would be related to genetic.

Mostafa wrote:

Thomas :

I cant deny the effect of the environment on many aspects of personality, but I dont believe homosexuality to be one of them. Who told you they dont ? many people grow up and reject their religions, I've heard about many many cases of people turning from Islam to Christianity and vice versa -against their parents and everyone else's will- also, I'am sure you know about the french occupation of algeirs, till this very day, people there talk french as a first langauge..

You finding homosexuality not wrong, is a subjective matter -which is probably the core of this argument, subjectivity.

Genetics surely affects personality, not sexual orientation. Why then of two brothers, one turns out to be a murderer for example ? is it genetics ?now dont throw all this psychopat stuff at me lol, I wont honestly get it. Genetics play a role, sure, but mostly it's the upbringing.

Nah, if he actually had any belief to start with, wouldnt turn out to be a homosexual.

That's the point, they had very low or no faith at all to begin with in order to be homosexuals. You choose what you are. Or else every wrong in life would be related to genetic.

"I've heard of many cases" and "20% of the population" don't quite equate do they?

Agreed on whether its subjective, but surely its part of your personality? You're focussed on the actual action; its not about that at all. Someone growing to be a 25 year old virgin doesn't change his sexual orientation, you cannot equate an action to a thought process. Killing someone is a criminal offence. Thinking about it isn't. Whether a homosexual man ever has sex or not does not change the fact he is a homosexual.

You claim he had little or no faith, and yet he was still willing to die for it. Now call me silly, but I call someone who's willing to die for their beliefs pretty devoted.

Kamikaze wrote:

As has already been said, he said they were a hoax so he didn't go to prison life for selling antiquities. Also, those stones that are known to be fake lack the patina and the etchings are of an entirely different quality.

I wrote a response twice to have it die on me. Fuck that.

Patina can be faked with the right chemical. It acts like a catalyst to accelerate the process, and with a decent clean afterwards any test for it will show levels that are inconclusive (could be naturally occurring rather than chemically treated). Its done all the time to make fake-looking antique furniture and ornaments. Since it can't be carbon dated, you can't tell its age.

People guess at animal origins all the time. If only one or two are correct, probably got lucky.

Ultimately I still go back to the scientific method. If 49/50 results all say the same thing, then that one is probably an anomaly and unreliable.

Whether homosexuality is genetic or due to upbringing I don't know, but I can certainly tell you it's not a choice. A good deal of homosexuals spend their entire lives trying NOT to be gay, even getting married and having kids, but it never works. If it was a choice there would be no struggle whatsoever, these people would simply choose not to be gay.

son_ov_hades wrote:

Whether homosexuality is genetic or due to upbringing I don't know, but I can certainly tell you it's not a choice. A good deal of homosexuals spend their entire lives trying NOT to be gay, even getting married and having kids, but it never works. If it was a choice there would be no struggle whatsoever, these people would simply choose not to be gay.

The struggle does not come from within them. It comes from social mores. Being that American has long been a religious nation, that is why they hide it nothing more. They are ashamed because of being institutionalized in a way of thinking. If there is nothing wrong with it and it is not unnatural why would they hide it? Because society for a long time told them to. The fact is if it is a choice or not is really not the problem. They are equal whether they choose or not. I do believe it is a choice though.

20% out of over 80 million ? that's quiet some people.

What gave you the idea those people -in Will's and other's links- died for their beliefs !? they died because they were setenced to die for whatever the hell they did, so -sorry for the god damn repeated example, but I'am too tired to think right now- if a murderer is hanged, he dies for his beliefs ? if those people we're talking about rejected their religions, they'd still be hanged because these are the rules of that strict country. They dont die believing, if it were up for them they wouldnt die at all.

son_ov_hades wrote:

Whether homosexuality is genetic or due to upbringing I don't know, but I can certainly tell you it's not a choice. A good deal of homosexuals spend their entire lives trying NOT to be gay, even getting married and having kids, but it never works. If it was a choice there would be no struggle whatsoever, these people would simply choose not to be gay.

I dont mean a choice as in you wake up one morning and go, fuck it, I'am going to be gay, no. I mean it comes from absence of correct surroundings and lack of ability to tell what's right and what's wrong ( Read: before someone asks, who the fuck are you to say what's right and what's wrong, I say, if it goes against natural order, it's wrong).

AarO)))n wrote:

son_ov_hades wrote:

Whether homosexuality is genetic or due to upbringing I don't know, but I can certainly tell you it's not a choice. A good deal of homosexuals spend their entire lives trying NOT to be gay, even getting married and having kids, but it never works. If it was a choice there would be no struggle whatsoever, these people would simply choose not to be gay.

The struggle does not come from within them. It comes from social mores. Being that American has long been a religious nation, that is why they hide it nothing more. They are ashamed because of being institutionalized in a way of thinking. If there is nothing wrong with it and it is not unnatural why would they hide it? Because society for a long time told them to. The fact is if it is a choice or not is really not the problem. They are equal whether they choose or not. I do believe it is a choice though.

Eh, took you long enough to tell your opinion on this matter.

Mostafa wrote:

Eh, took you long enough to tell your opinion on this matter.

After all the god talk, I need a break. Though I doubt I will go any further with this discussion.

Mostafa wrote:

20% out of over 80 million ? that's quiet some people.

What gave you the idea those people -in Will's and other's links- died for their beliefs !? they died because they were setenced to die for whatever the hell they did, so -sorry for the god damn repeated example, but I'am too tired to think right now- if a murderer is hanged, he dies for his beliefs ? if those people we're talking about rejected their religions, they'd still be hanged because these are the rules of that strict country. They dont die believing, if it were up for them they wouldnt die at all.

10%. Typo, my bad. And that's a broad average from multiple countries. Its hard to be specific - people have a tendency to lie about for fear of ridicule and derision from society.

What makes me think they died? They refused to admit to not being Muslim and admitted to being homosexual, despite knowing that they were to be killed. They were guilty only of the crime of being homosexual. A murderer dies for committing murder. Thoughts are not a crime. But suppose you're right. Islam indeed does hang non-believers. Great freedom of thought there.

I'm getting tired of this argument. I've provided ample evidence to demonstrate there is no explanation other than that homosexuality is genetically linked and thus not a controllable factor. Most of you're responses are contradictory in the vein of "Muslims taught to be open-minded" and "We hang non-believers," "You can choose whom you find attractive" and "I can't choose to find her attractive," "Whether homosexuality is wrong is subjective" and "Would you not hang a murderer?" and so on. Im done. Continue persecuting those who don't conform.

Mostafa wrote:

son_ov_hades wrote:

Whether homosexuality is genetic or due to upbringing I don't know, but I can certainly tell you it's not a choice. A good deal of homosexuals spend their entire lives trying NOT to be gay, even getting married and having kids, but it never works. If it was a choice there would be no struggle whatsoever, these people would simply choose not to be gay.

I dont mean a choice as in you wake up one morning and go, fuck it, I'am going to be gay, no. I mean it comes from absence of correct surroundings and lack of ability to tell what's right and what's wrong ( Read: before someone asks, who the fuck are you to say what's right and what's wrong, I say, if it goes against natural order, it's wrong).

But how is someone's surroundings and their ability to tell right from wrong a choice?

son_ov_hades wrote:

Mostafa wrote:

son_ov_hades wrote:

Whether homosexuality is genetic or due to upbringing I don't know, but I can certainly tell you it's not a choice. A good deal of homosexuals spend their entire lives trying NOT to be gay, even getting married and having kids, but it never works. If it was a choice there would be no struggle whatsoever, these people would simply choose not to be gay.

I dont mean a choice as in you wake up one morning and go, fuck it, I'am going to be gay, no. I mean it comes from absence of correct surroundings and lack of ability to tell what's right and what's wrong ( Read: before someone asks, who the fuck are you to say what's right and what's wrong, I say, if it goes against natural order, it's wrong).

But how is someone's surroundings and their ability to tell right from wrong a choice?

They're not a choice; choosing to abid and follow the surroundings and just going with the follow is infact a choice.