A recent email poll shows that 100% of people (plus or minus a 5% margin of error) don't consider spam to be a problem.
That could be a good way to harvest e-mails. Send out a bulk e-mail poll saying "We are looking to find out whether you really do hate spam as much as we hear. Please fill out this survey to give us your opinion."
Then sit back and watch all the accounts you harvest!
That's really unfair. Lindows is using deceptive marketting to advertise their laptop. We have reservations about Lindows because of a lot of stuff they have been doing - they just don't look like a company with great integrity.
Now if this was Gentoo, Mandrake, etc then I don't think we'd have much complaint.
Excepting of course comments on people's personal preferences. And that's exactly that, personal preference.
Ack! These comparisons are rubbish, as you say. A 933mhz VIA C3 vs a 867mhz PPC G4? It's just apples and oranges.
Same with comparing the latop to a PDA. Right tool for the job. Why buy a family car for a single man? Why get a car with a large family instead of a van? The PDA is smaller than the laptop, it fits in your pocket. It is quicker to boot up and start using, etc.
Lindows is not getting a good reputation in my eyes...
I am so glad that the Bible code has been debunked. That was a potential hole for a great deal of deception, both atheists and Christians can agree (the Christians who rejected it). Off-topic, I know.
Why do you say they hate your freedom? That is one of the strangest arguments I have ever heard. I'll tell you some of the reasons that I can think of:
1. UN sanctions against Iraq - they _hate_ the fact that America is a primary force behind sanctions that result in the starvation of 250 children a day. And yes, the sanctions _are_ responsible. They hate saddam hussein too, but it's a question between the lesser of two evils
2. US soldiers on Arabic soil - to them this is a great insult/sin or something, I don't fully understand, to have western soldiers in their home countries. When Osama Bin Laden came back from Afghanistan after defending it from the Russians (With the help of the CIA) he was very angry to discover American soldiers in Saudi Arabia
3. US immorality - whether you agree or not, American culture is saturated with sexual immorality - sex out of marriage, adultery, and much more. Compare this with Muslim culture where the women are covered to help stop thoughts of immorality as much as possible, it makes American appear like a satanic immoral nation. (don't ask why the men aren't covered - it's simply because men have stronger sexual urges than women. the women can control themselves easier).
4. They hate Israel - the terrorists hate Israel and what they see the Israeli's do. America supports Israel _very_ strongly, and they see this as the reason why Israel gets away with the crimes they accuse it of. I personally lean towards Israel because of the suicide bombings, but I see evil on both sides. But this is what they see - their brothers being murdered by Israeli soldiers, and America cheering them on.
And so on. It has _nothing_ to do with America's freedom. I have no idea where you got that from, but it is completely wrong. I suggest that you know your enemy before you accuse them.
Additionally it is impossible to be "without blame". I can "blame" you for doing something I see as wrong and you see as right. Who's wrong?
Absolutely true, no one is without blame. But will a terrorist start because a child steals a loaf of bread from him? No, there are many things that we would consider not something to have blame for. Certainly not something as grounds for genocide.
You're making the dangerous assumption that God exists. The same assumption that the terrorists make that allow them to do the things they do. It'd be interesting to see if we would be in a better world tomorrow if we could eliminate religion today. Of course that's impossible, I'm just musing.
I make no dangerous assumptions here about God, there is ample testimony to His existence. I can assure you 100% that the world would not be a better place if you could eliminate God or if there was no religion. Why? Knowing what I know - that the only foundation for government and good/evil lies in the fact that we believe in God - it would open up a world of actions that I could do with no fear of judgment apart from what men can exact from me.
I really don't care though if you think an atheist can be good. That's something for you to choose yourself. I personally, if I didn't believe in God, would not follow the path of "good", because no such path would exist. And you could make a 1000 arguments to pursuade me to do good but in the end it wouldn't matter if you were right or not because there are no eternal consequences. And I consider this one of the most fatal flaws of atheism - that we know the difference between good and evil, yet such an understanding is irrational if there is no God.
Didn't 9/11 teach us that you cannot stop a determined enemy? They had no bombs, no high tech weaponry. They used aircraft, a specialised WMD. This is simply _not_ the way to stop terrorism. A terrorist will get his/her hands on explosives, firearms, or whatever they need regardless of what rules are put in place.
Imagine a society where citizens are not allowed knives, guns, explosives, anything sharp or slightly dangerous. Now imagine someone manages to sneak a gun/knife through the defenses. How much more damage could he cause because the citizens are undefended?
My point is basically that if you increase defense it will keep the amount of damage a terrorist can do around the same - the weapons they have at their disposal will be less, but they will need less to do lots of damage. The way to defeat terrorism is to understand your enemy - find out why they hate you. If you have no fault then God will testify on your behalf whether you die or not. If you have a fault - well, then you know what you need to do. Don't get me wrong, murdering defenseless people is evil, but the question is whether the terrorist hate for good reason. Stop their mouths by being without blame - then when they murder ask why. They will stand condemned by their own words.
Could it be that not many people report bugs because they have come to expect them? Not just that though....
If konqueror crashes then I get a nice backtrace and I know exactly where to send the bug report. I care about it and feel like my input counts. It's part of a larger effort to make something good. So I submit the bug report with all relevant information.
Now when I used MS products if something crashed or didn't work I'd think "someone else has reported it", or "it's not worth the effort", or "I have no idea how to reproduce the error". No-one want to make a phonecall just to report a bug, but for a new feature they will. A bug is something everyone experiences, so not much point reporting. But a new feature or a change in the way things are done, that's something possibly only "I" want, so then it's worth suggesting.
It should be considered that the number of bug reports is related to culture - that there's simply not enough motivation to report them.
If we all do a line each, then go back to the start 50 million times, perhaps we could come up with the windows 2003 code, or a very humerous approximation:)
You cannot link to the GPL and make your application closed source. You must make it open source under the GPL as far as I understand. This is why the LGPL (library GPL initially, now called lesser GPL) was introduced - to allow libraries to be linked to and still keep the application closed source.
So you could use Qt GPL version and make an app and sell it, but you'd also have to release the source code with it under the GPL license.
I have to agree with this. I think we australians may not realise how different it is in america, apart from movies. There's bullying, popular and unpopular people, etc, but it's really not that extreme. Some of the smart people in our school were respected by others, so were some of the sporty, so were some of the socially adept, etc. There was no real distinguishing characteristic.
But that's exactly the point! We can look at a Mack truck or a feather and see what scale we need. But if I kick a rock in the desert and want to know how old it is how will I know which method to use??? There was a beginning, when scientists first had to decide how old something was. How were those initial dates formed? How many dates do we have now that are a direct result of those original dates? Ie, if those original dates were false, then how much of today's dates are false? See where I'm heading with this?
If this line of reasoning sails over your head, then you are totally hopeless!!
Do _NOT_ assume I am a simpleton just because I am a creationist.
This reminds me of something that happened to me. Some of the students were in the habit of knocking books out of people's hands. One day this guy who had been irritating and picking on me (would be considered a bully) did it to me. I was picking up my books and this 'friend' who was walking with me knicked off because he sensed trouble. I got to the last item, pencil case, when he snatched it and dangled it in front of me as some bait I was supposed to dance for. I got fed up, so I slammed him against the wall and punched him in the face. Then his friends held me while they hit me twice.
I think this highlights for me a different attitude from most people, that I'm not afraid of bullies. I don't see them as popular heroes who I can't challenge. In fact, standing up to the bully gained me popularity for a short time. I simply didn't care about who was popular or not in high school. I had my friends, and was happy to be friends with anyone - the popular and the unpopular. I was oblivious to schools of popularity and didn't stand for rubbish against myself. And I was certainly not someone of a strong build in high school, a weak looking character:)
It's interesting to read how different cultures are for other people.
When I was at my school, I'm sure there were popularity circles - but unlike everyone else I had absolutely no idea about them. I was one of those people who was told constantly "you could do so well if you just tried." I didn't want to try - school was teaching me too slow and there's a whole world out there to learn about. I perceived school as a waste of my valuable time. I knew what I wanted to learn, I didn't need to be told.
So during school, I just didn't care - I had no idea who was popular and who wasn't. I just had some friends, and I was happy with them.
And I think there are two reasons why nerds get picked on in school:
1. They act arrogant, and no one likes someone lording it over them
2. It increases the popularity of the idiot who picks on the nerd, so it's like a drug to them. Old habits are hard to break.
I felt above school. As I said, I was happy with my friends, and happy with who I was - I was just unahappy with where I was. It doesn't have to be as wretched as the article makes it sound. I am very poor at social interaction - but I'm learning. Yet despite this I don't wish for more popularity. I'm happy with what I have.
And that's why smart people's lives tend to be worst between, say, the ages of eleven and seventeen. Life at that age revolves far more around popularity than before or after.
It was worst for me as I said above - school moved too slowly, and I already knew what I wanted to learn. I'm even tempted to think there are at least two streams of "smart kids" at school - those who constantly study and perform well in school, totally inept at sports and popularity but yearn for it (nerds). And those who almost never study but perform well without effort, who misbehave in school and are oblivious or uncaring of popularity.
Also notice that when a murder occurs with no witnesses, we can often identify the time and manner of the event anyway. People actually investigate this stuff in order to come up with a model of the universe that works. It's not just some mechanism that someone pulled out of their hat.
I like the murder example - because in a murder the only unknown is who killed the person. Everything else is an intimately familiar world. So in the case of the murder professionals can trace events to find the killer (sometimes), and sometimes their predictions while seeming to fit the data are grossly wrong.
Then there's evolution, which is trying to date things in a world of which very, very, little is known using new methods. So why shouldn't I expcect gross mistakes?
Finally, notice that geologists had figured out that the earth was far, far older than a literal reading of the bible implies, long before they had radioisotopic methods to work with. (And even before they had Darwin's theory of evolution, for that matter.)
How did they figure it out? Why is this statement supposed to convince me? Instead, it seems to be saying "scientists already thought the earth was old so they found methods that would give them these dates and calibrated them to their already existing models".
For instance, if there had been any significant changes in the rate of radioactive decay over the past few thousand years then we could see that the stars a few thousand light-years away were "burning" differently than the ones nearby.
There are other problems to this - such as different ages having different ratios of C-14 in the atmosphere. It doesn't require the rate of decay to chane for there to be a problem.
I will investigate the talkorigins.org response, but give me any other problems now because we probably won't continue this discussion later. Ie, if there is a reasonable response to the talkorigins.org criticisms, are there any other problems you can see that means I shouldn't accept the creationist response?
What is the point of this comment? That because he was branded a heretic and had to live with his beliefs alone his whole life, that they must be true? Or something else and I miss the point of your post...
I implied no such thing. I simply selected one of many problems and decided to play that out to see if it had any foundation or not. It was a completely arbitrary decicion, and there are many other problems I could have chosen.
Like I said earlier -- you use a truck scale to weigh trucks, and a postage scale to weigh first-class letters. You must choose a radiometric dating methods appropriate for the expected age-range for the sample just as you must choose a scale appropriate for the expected weight-range of the object you are weighing (i.e. truck vs. letter).
This is exactly the point though. Lets say for example that a recent lava flow was buried underground near some fossils from the cambrian period. You would look at the flow and say "judging from these fossils, this flow is probably somewhere around the 500million year mark". Then you would send them off for testing selecting that method - when in fact the samples are quite young.
What I want to know is how the first dating was given that sets the standard for the rest of dates to be made?
The three million year error on a 50=year old sample *is* a problem and simply goes to show that the K-Ar method is not appropriate for extremely young samples.
Sometimes we won't know when a sample was created, so we will resort to trusting the dating method. Yet this experiment seems to show that the assumptions of K-Ar are faulty.
It's pretty late, but I will read through those links. In the meantime, answersingenesis.org recently mentioned some trees that were radiocarbon dated 30,000-40,000 years old via C-14 dating, but a tree ring count showed ages no greater than 3,500 years.
Unfortunately the article is not online (fair enough because it's in their latest issue), but its "Patriarchs of the forest" in this issue.
Oh that's funny:) You think I've given up because I was "defeated under the crushing power of your almighty logic"? Or something like that...
No, the reason I have stopped is because of you, and a few others like yourself, who resort to insults rather than logic. And because of one time when I went in circles for ages trying to get you to see something that was so fundamentally simple but you just couldn't. So I decided that there's not much point arguing unless I can talk to someone in person to see what point they are having difficulty with.
I have never seen a person convinced through a forum, or slashdot posts, either way, so seriously what's the point? You'd be ignorant to think I've stopped because I've subconsciously "realised" my arguments are invalid. I'd rather spend my energies talking with someone in an environment where they can learn, and I can learn, and we can discover together whether either of us has any valid arguments. And despite what you may believe, if evidence was shown to me, and all my criticisms of evolution and the evidence I have seen for creation were addressed, I _would_ change my view. But I doubt this will ever happen through slashdot, and especially never by you - it would have to be in person, over a long period of time, where I can carefully investigate all the arguments presented.
I respect your answer as being more coherent than most, but your main objection is that the range is so large that it demonstrates how inaccurate K-Ar dating is for young samples.
The problem is that the range I mentioned is from all results from different labs of all the samples, giving the lowest and highest date. For any given sample, the dates were given with an accuracy of +/- 0.2 million years, not much of a difference when these samples were talking of ages between 1-3.5 million years.
I'm not sure that you fully read through the article, because the date results given show what I mention above very clearly. I acknowledge that I was not clear in mentioning that the 0.27-3.5 range was not the results of one test on one sample, but of many tests on many samples.
I am also uncertain of what you mean by "coarse resolution".
I'd love to hear about these trees, got any URL's? And I'd love to know why I'm a troll just because I'm a creationist? If an evolution posted a post same as mine except with a direct question to creationists, it would be 5, Insightful.
Forget about those other questions, I want an answer to this one first. Then we'll move on. Why should we burden ourselves with many questions when we can settle on one then move to the next?
So you have not answered my question - you say the answer is simple, we calibrate it with things we know the age of. So then why in that URL I provided, and other times, do the official institutes that date objects show a date 0.27-3.5 million years old when the sample was only 50 years old? You haven't answered the question at all. If they are properly calibrated then the return answer to those samples should have been "not enough argon present to give an accurate date".
And don't try to make an example of me by saying things like "standard Creationist rhetoric". Answer my question, _then_ make an example of me.
You are talking about our God Jesus, hold your mouth before you speak and cause Him offense.
I don't care if you believe in Him or not, you think it's a small thing to offend your Creator? You'd better be damned sure of your facts before you speak like this again.
Creationists: assuredly not, since they think evidence is something to be ignored rather than something to be explained. Most deny that "good" mutations can happen at all.
Yes, because "good" mutations obviously happened, since we are here. Right?
I would say you ignore evidence, Black Parrot, so why should I think differently of you than you do of me?
Slashdot Mirror
That could be a good way to harvest e-mails. Send out a bulk e-mail poll saying "We are looking to find out whether you really do hate spam as much as we hear. Please fill out this survey to give us your opinion."
Then sit back and watch all the accounts you harvest!
Now if this was Gentoo, Mandrake, etc then I don't think we'd have much complaint.
Excepting of course comments on people's personal preferences. And that's exactly that, personal preference.
Same with comparing the latop to a PDA. Right tool for the job. Why buy a family car for a single man? Why get a car with a large family instead of a van? The PDA is smaller than the laptop, it fits in your pocket. It is quicker to boot up and start using, etc.
Lindows is not getting a good reputation in my eyes...
I am so glad that the Bible code has been debunked. That was a potential hole for a great deal of deception, both atheists and Christians can agree (the Christians who rejected it). Off-topic, I know.
1. UN sanctions against Iraq - they _hate_ the fact that America is a primary force behind sanctions that result in the starvation of 250 children a day. And yes, the sanctions _are_ responsible. They hate saddam hussein too, but it's a question between the lesser of two evils
2. US soldiers on Arabic soil - to them this is a great insult/sin or something, I don't fully understand, to have western soldiers in their home countries. When Osama Bin Laden came back from Afghanistan after defending it from the Russians (With the help of the CIA) he was very angry to discover American soldiers in Saudi Arabia
3. US immorality - whether you agree or not, American culture is saturated with sexual immorality - sex out of marriage, adultery, and much more. Compare this with Muslim culture where the women are covered to help stop thoughts of immorality as much as possible, it makes American appear like a satanic immoral nation. (don't ask why the men aren't covered - it's simply because men have stronger sexual urges than women. the women can control themselves easier).
4. They hate Israel - the terrorists hate Israel and what they see the Israeli's do. America supports Israel _very_ strongly, and they see this as the reason why Israel gets away with the crimes they accuse it of. I personally lean towards Israel because of the suicide bombings, but I see evil on both sides. But this is what they see - their brothers being murdered by Israeli soldiers, and America cheering them on.
And so on. It has _nothing_ to do with America's freedom. I have no idea where you got that from, but it is completely wrong. I suggest that you know your enemy before you accuse them.
Absolutely true, no one is without blame. But will a terrorist start because a child steals a loaf of bread from him? No, there are many things that we would consider not something to have blame for. Certainly not something as grounds for genocide.
You're making the dangerous assumption that God exists. The same assumption that the terrorists make that allow them to do the things they do. It'd be interesting to see if we would be in a better world tomorrow if we could eliminate religion today. Of course that's impossible, I'm just musing.
I make no dangerous assumptions here about God, there is ample testimony to His existence. I can assure you 100% that the world would not be a better place if you could eliminate God or if there was no religion. Why? Knowing what I know - that the only foundation for government and good/evil lies in the fact that we believe in God - it would open up a world of actions that I could do with no fear of judgment apart from what men can exact from me.
I really don't care though if you think an atheist can be good. That's something for you to choose yourself. I personally, if I didn't believe in God, would not follow the path of "good", because no such path would exist. And you could make a 1000 arguments to pursuade me to do good but in the end it wouldn't matter if you were right or not because there are no eternal consequences. And I consider this one of the most fatal flaws of atheism - that we know the difference between good and evil, yet such an understanding is irrational if there is no God.
Imagine a society where citizens are not allowed knives, guns, explosives, anything sharp or slightly dangerous. Now imagine someone manages to sneak a gun/knife through the defenses. How much more damage could he cause because the citizens are undefended?
My point is basically that if you increase defense it will keep the amount of damage a terrorist can do around the same - the weapons they have at their disposal will be less, but they will need less to do lots of damage. The way to defeat terrorism is to understand your enemy - find out why they hate you. If you have no fault then God will testify on your behalf whether you die or not. If you have a fault - well, then you know what you need to do. Don't get me wrong, murdering defenseless people is evil, but the question is whether the terrorist hate for good reason. Stop their mouths by being without blame - then when they murder ask why. They will stand condemned by their own words.
If konqueror crashes then I get a nice backtrace and I know exactly where to send the bug report. I care about it and feel like my input counts. It's part of a larger effort to make something good. So I submit the bug report with all relevant information.
Now when I used MS products if something crashed or didn't work I'd think "someone else has reported it", or "it's not worth the effort", or "I have no idea how to reproduce the error". No-one want to make a phonecall just to report a bug, but for a new feature they will. A bug is something everyone experiences, so not much point reporting. But a new feature or a change in the way things are done, that's something possibly only "I" want, so then it's worth suggesting.
It should be considered that the number of bug reports is related to culture - that there's simply not enough motivation to report them.
If we all do a line each, then go back to the start 50 million times, perhaps we could come up with the windows 2003 code, or a very humerous approximation :)
So you could use Qt GPL version and make an app and sell it, but you'd also have to release the source code with it under the GPL license.
I have to agree with this. I think we australians may not realise how different it is in america, apart from movies. There's bullying, popular and unpopular people, etc, but it's really not that extreme. Some of the smart people in our school were respected by others, so were some of the sporty, so were some of the socially adept, etc. There was no real distinguishing characteristic.
If this line of reasoning sails over your head, then you are totally hopeless!!
Do _NOT_ assume I am a simpleton just because I am a creationist.
I think this highlights for me a different attitude from most people, that I'm not afraid of bullies. I don't see them as popular heroes who I can't challenge. In fact, standing up to the bully gained me popularity for a short time. I simply didn't care about who was popular or not in high school. I had my friends, and was happy to be friends with anyone - the popular and the unpopular. I was oblivious to schools of popularity and didn't stand for rubbish against myself. And I was certainly not someone of a strong build in high school, a weak looking character :)
When I was at my school, I'm sure there were popularity circles - but unlike everyone else I had absolutely no idea about them. I was one of those people who was told constantly "you could do so well if you just tried." I didn't want to try - school was teaching me too slow and there's a whole world out there to learn about. I perceived school as a waste of my valuable time. I knew what I wanted to learn, I didn't need to be told.
So during school, I just didn't care - I had no idea who was popular and who wasn't. I just had some friends, and I was happy with them.
And I think there are two reasons why nerds get picked on in school:
1. They act arrogant, and no one likes someone lording it over them
2. It increases the popularity of the idiot who picks on the nerd, so it's like a drug to them. Old habits are hard to break.
I felt above school. As I said, I was happy with my friends, and happy with who I was - I was just unahappy with where I was. It doesn't have to be as wretched as the article makes it sound. I am very poor at social interaction - but I'm learning. Yet despite this I don't wish for more popularity. I'm happy with what I have.
And that's why smart people's lives tend to be worst between, say, the ages of eleven and seventeen. Life at that age revolves far more around popularity than before or after.
It was worst for me as I said above - school moved too slowly, and I already knew what I wanted to learn. I'm even tempted to think there are at least two streams of "smart kids" at school - those who constantly study and perform well in school, totally inept at sports and popularity but yearn for it (nerds). And those who almost never study but perform well without effort, who misbehave in school and are oblivious or uncaring of popularity.
So how do you know which test to employ?
I like the murder example - because in a murder the only unknown is who killed the person. Everything else is an intimately familiar world. So in the case of the murder professionals can trace events to find the killer (sometimes), and sometimes their predictions while seeming to fit the data are grossly wrong.
Then there's evolution, which is trying to date things in a world of which very, very, little is known using new methods. So why shouldn't I expcect gross mistakes?
Finally, notice that geologists had figured out that the earth was far, far older than a literal reading of the bible implies, long before they had radioisotopic methods to work with. (And even before they had Darwin's theory of evolution, for that matter.)
How did they figure it out? Why is this statement supposed to convince me? Instead, it seems to be saying "scientists already thought the earth was old so they found methods that would give them these dates and calibrated them to their already existing models".
For instance, if there had been any significant changes in the rate of radioactive decay over the past few thousand years then we could see that the stars a few thousand light-years away were "burning" differently than the ones nearby.
There are other problems to this - such as different ages having different ratios of C-14 in the atmosphere. It doesn't require the rate of decay to chane for there to be a problem.
I will investigate the talkorigins.org response, but give me any other problems now because we probably won't continue this discussion later. Ie, if there is a reasonable response to the talkorigins.org criticisms, are there any other problems you can see that means I shouldn't accept the creationist response?
What is the point of this comment? That because he was branded a heretic and had to live with his beliefs alone his whole life, that they must be true? Or something else and I miss the point of your post...
I implied no such thing. I simply selected one of many problems and decided to play that out to see if it had any foundation or not. It was a completely arbitrary decicion, and there are many other problems I could have chosen.
This is exactly the point though. Lets say for example that a recent lava flow was buried underground near some fossils from the cambrian period. You would look at the flow and say "judging from these fossils, this flow is probably somewhere around the 500million year mark". Then you would send them off for testing selecting that method - when in fact the samples are quite young.
What I want to know is how the first dating was given that sets the standard for the rest of dates to be made?
The three million year error on a 50=year old sample *is* a problem and simply goes to show that the K-Ar method is not appropriate for extremely young samples.
Sometimes we won't know when a sample was created, so we will resort to trusting the dating method. Yet this experiment seems to show that the assumptions of K-Ar are faulty.
Unfortunately the article is not online (fair enough because it's in their latest issue), but its "Patriarchs of the forest" in this issue.
No, the reason I have stopped is because of you, and a few others like yourself, who resort to insults rather than logic. And because of one time when I went in circles for ages trying to get you to see something that was so fundamentally simple but you just couldn't. So I decided that there's not much point arguing unless I can talk to someone in person to see what point they are having difficulty with.
I have never seen a person convinced through a forum, or slashdot posts, either way, so seriously what's the point? You'd be ignorant to think I've stopped because I've subconsciously "realised" my arguments are invalid. I'd rather spend my energies talking with someone in an environment where they can learn, and I can learn, and we can discover together whether either of us has any valid arguments. And despite what you may believe, if evidence was shown to me, and all my criticisms of evolution and the evidence I have seen for creation were addressed, I _would_ change my view. But I doubt this will ever happen through slashdot, and especially never by you - it would have to be in person, over a long period of time, where I can carefully investigate all the arguments presented.
The problem is that the range I mentioned is from all results from different labs of all the samples, giving the lowest and highest date. For any given sample, the dates were given with an accuracy of +/- 0.2 million years, not much of a difference when these samples were talking of ages between 1-3.5 million years.
I'm not sure that you fully read through the article, because the date results given show what I mention above very clearly. I acknowledge that I was not clear in mentioning that the 0.27-3.5 range was not the results of one test on one sample, but of many tests on many samples.
I am also uncertain of what you mean by "coarse resolution".
Forget about those other questions, I want an answer to this one first. Then we'll move on. Why should we burden ourselves with many questions when we can settle on one then move to the next?
So you have not answered my question - you say the answer is simple, we calibrate it with things we know the age of. So then why in that URL I provided, and other times, do the official institutes that date objects show a date 0.27-3.5 million years old when the sample was only 50 years old? You haven't answered the question at all. If they are properly calibrated then the return answer to those samples should have been "not enough argon present to give an accurate date".
And don't try to make an example of me by saying things like "standard Creationist rhetoric". Answer my question, _then_ make an example of me.
I don't care if you believe in Him or not, you think it's a small thing to offend your Creator? You'd better be damned sure of your facts before you speak like this again.
Yes, because "good" mutations obviously happened, since we are here. Right?
I would say you ignore evidence, Black Parrot, so why should I think differently of you than you do of me?