Its main drawback is typically a lack of wood with enough tree rings visible, a lack of dendochronological record for the region you are interested in, and the uncertainty of how long the source tree lived after it deposited its interior rings and before it was chopped down and and the final rings removed to make the artifact you have at hand.
In other words, you are using a less accurate dating method to calibrate a more accurate dating method.
And how did we date the sediments and tree rings to be 20,000 years old?
What you are basically saying is we used a less precise dating method to calibrate a more precise dating method, then use the results of the more precise dating method as the authoritative date.
If I had ever tried to pull that kind of crap in my chemistry labs, I would have been flunked out by the professor.
True, but the higher incident of cosmic radiation could taint the results by forming more carbon-14 from the carbon-12 in the sample, thus throwing off the decay rate.
Since radioactive dating deals with microgram samples, I wonder if anyone has taken into account background radiation forming more of the substance?
Leave AIDS out of it. It is a direct result of human sinful choices (not that all AIDS victims are culpable, but the disease itself came into the human species through sinful acts).
As far as natural "evils" one answer might be: In order to comprehend joy and happiness, we must experience suffering and misery.
Evil is the absence of God just as dark is the absence of light. Evil exists because men turn away from God.
Evil is necessary in order to comprehend, understand and appreciate good.
Evil is the consequence of God giving man the power to choose for himself. If God asked you: Would you rather be a puppet or be a free agent, even if it meant the possibility of evil, what would you answer?
stage of development does not determine species. What you are engaging in is called a continuum fallacy.
the only logical conclusion is that every egg and every sperm is a human being
On the contrary. That is not the logical conclusion. In fact, that would be a logical fallacy (composition).
The logical conclusion is the one based on the factual definition of species and sexual reproduction. Namely that a new member of the species is formed when the gametes from a male and female fuse.
The new organism exists at the moment the gametes fuse. What part of the definition of sexual reproduction don't you get?
Of course, the truth is, you do get it, you're just engaging in sophistry to deny the fact that what you promote is the harvesting of one group of humans for the benefit of another group of humans.
Human beings can't divide into parts and form two ro more new human beings,
Of course they can because the embryo is human; a member of the species Homo Sapiens. Embryo is simply the name used to describe a stage of human development.
In sexual reproduction, a new member of the species is formed when the gametes fuse.
It's that simple.
Re:Saviour for people in need in of transplants?
on
Synthetic Life In The Lab
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
It's not just the religious freaks that find it ethically disturbing to harvest one set of human beings to sustain another set of human beings.
And just to forestall the embryos aren't humans argument, go pick up a high school biology text and study the section on sexual reproduction.
Yeah. Power trips. Specifically environmental extremists shutting down the construction of new refineries while continually demanding constantly changing and region-specific gasoline formulations.
I know this violates your little Marxian view of business, but reality doesn't really care about your opinions.
Oh, wait. WMV is a locked MS format and they won't let anyone tap into it.
The correct solution here is not to make MS bundle this or unbundble that. Simply require that ALL MS file formats, protocols, etc. be released IMMEDIATELY to the public domain. NO fees, no license restrictions.
You're about 100 years too late going by that argument. When the Constitution was proposed, the decision was that eight states signing on would make the Constitution binding on ALL states.
You see, there is no such thing as secession. It's called rebellion and Lincoln was right for putting it down. Find some other rationalization for wanting to go back to slave ownership.
1: How much would you want to be paid to work on a nuclear missile guidance system? (In other words - how much can we buy your ethics for? Or do you just not care?)
This is a fallacy of a false dilemna.
Working on nuclear missile guidance systems does not necessarily mean an abrogration of ethics. I personally, could work perfectly ethically on such a system in the United States since its values and ideologies are worth preserving, and a nuclear deterrant is a very effective tool in that arsenal.
But, of course, allowing the most leeway possible in a questionable ballot in Palm County was just ensuring that people's right to vote was being protected.
No, they were establishing a republic of federated states.
The states select who will be president, not the people. You really need to read up on a representative republic.
The founding fathers abhorred the idea of a direct democracy. They considered it little more than mob rule, so they put a number of checks into the government to prevent direct democracy, including a limited franchise and the electoral college.
So what? Unless, of course, you actually think the president is elected by the people...
News flash for you. The states elect presidents, not the people. Go read the Constitution some time. State Legislatures select the electors for President. They traditionally do it through a popular vote, but can do it any way they like.
Of course, certain people don't want you to know this, because you would then realize that Bush won the election constitutionally the moment the Florida State Legislature declared they were setting aside the popular vote and simply naming the electors for Bush.
But by keeping you ignorant, you become the useful pawn of certain groups who like the throw out phrases like Selected and not Elected.
Hey, you know, there's this really interesting thing about really hot flames. They'll catch other flammable objects on fire.
The people who investigated the Hindenburg accident in the months following were not idiots. They realized that hydrogen burns nearly invisible, too. They also realized that secondary fires would also start. They also realized that the aluminum paint would also ignite given the extremely high temperatures of the initial hydrogen fire. They also realized the fuel oil in the engines, and the metal in the framing, and the canvas tarping would likely ignite as well.
In fact, they looked at a whole hell of lot more evidence than you have and concluded a hydrogen fire. ALL of them. On multiple occasions. You have one nutball scientist out at NASA who is preaching it's all a coverup, though, because, you see, the aluminum paint was flammable at high temperatures, and so, you see, it was what really burned, because, you see, if it was the hydrogen, then he couldn't push his hydrogen economy agenda.
And a bunch of slashdot idiots, because they think it will make them somehow look intelligent and profound are swallowing it hook, line and sinker.
Um, Propane requires a larger vapor concentration and a higher activation energy to ignite. The danger with hydrogen is that it is a VERY reactive gas, and the flame is VERY, VERY hot. So hot, in fact, that it is invisible.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they were looking at the success Uganda has had in slashing AIDS infections through an abstinence program.
Its main drawback is typically a lack of wood with enough tree rings visible, a lack of dendochronological record for the region you are interested in, and the uncertainty of how long the source tree lived after it deposited its interior rings and before it was chopped down and and the final rings removed to make the artifact you have at hand.
In other words, you are using a less accurate dating method to calibrate a more accurate dating method.
And how did we date the sediments and tree rings to be 20,000 years old?
What you are basically saying is we used a less precise dating method to calibrate a more precise dating method, then use the results of the more precise dating method as the authoritative date.
If I had ever tried to pull that kind of crap in my chemistry labs, I would have been flunked out by the professor.
True, but the higher incident of cosmic radiation could taint the results by forming more carbon-14 from the carbon-12 in the sample, thus throwing off the decay rate.
Since radioactive dating deals with microgram samples, I wonder if anyone has taken into account background radiation forming more of the substance?
The Bible never gives the age of the Earth. That 6,000 number came from some monk who worked through geneaologies in the Bible.
Leave AIDS out of it. It is a direct result of human sinful choices (not that all AIDS victims are culpable, but the disease itself came into the human species through sinful acts).
As far as natural "evils" one answer might be: In order to comprehend joy and happiness, we must experience suffering and misery.
There are several possible answers:
Evil is the absence of God just as dark is the absence of light. Evil exists because men turn away from God.
Evil is necessary in order to comprehend, understand and appreciate good.
Evil is the consequence of God giving man the power to choose for himself. If God asked you: Would you rather be a puppet or be a free agent, even if it meant the possibility of evil, what would you answer?
stage of development does not determine species. What you are engaging in is called a continuum fallacy.
the only logical conclusion is that every egg and every sperm is a human being
On the contrary. That is not the logical conclusion. In fact, that would be a logical fallacy (composition).
The logical conclusion is the one based on the factual definition of species and sexual reproduction. Namely that a new member of the species is formed when the gametes from a male and female fuse.
The new organism exists at the moment the gametes fuse. What part of the definition of sexual reproduction don't you get?
Of course, the truth is, you do get it, you're just engaging in sophistry to deny the fact that what you promote is the harvesting of one group of humans for the benefit of another group of humans.
Of course they can because the embryo is human; a member of the species Homo Sapiens. Embryo is simply the name used to describe a stage of human development.
In sexual reproduction, a new member of the species is formed when the gametes fuse.
It's that simple.
It's not just the religious freaks that find it ethically disturbing to harvest one set of human beings to sustain another set of human beings.
And just to forestall the embryos aren't humans argument, go pick up a high school biology text and study the section on sexual reproduction.
Yeah. Power trips. Specifically environmental extremists shutting down the construction of new refineries while continually demanding constantly changing and region-specific gasoline formulations.
I know this violates your little Marxian view of business, but reality doesn't really care about your opinions.
Um, if we can start making ethanol out of straw and oil out of turkey guts, then that would make our fossil fuels a renewable resource.
And what the heck is "synthetic" energy? Energy is energy no matter where you get it from.
Sorenson and Apple are not monopolies. I'm getting really tired of having to continually repeat this completely obvious point.
Cool. You can play DRM WMV in winamp?
Cool. So I can play WMV files using Quicktime?
Oh, wait. WMV is a locked MS format and they won't let anyone tap into it.
The correct solution here is not to make MS bundle this or unbundble that. Simply require that ALL MS file formats, protocols, etc. be released IMMEDIATELY to the public domain. NO fees, no license restrictions.
Notify me when we reach the level of the big Cambrain die-offs. Until then man is just a pale imitator of nature.
Fair enough. I would submit that most people's ethics stop at the paycheck.
You're about 100 years too late going by that argument. When the Constitution was proposed, the decision was that eight states signing on would make the Constitution binding on ALL states.
You see, there is no such thing as secession. It's called rebellion and Lincoln was right for putting it down. Find some other rationalization for wanting to go back to slave ownership.
This is a fallacy of a false dilemna.
Working on nuclear missile guidance systems does not necessarily mean an abrogration of ethics. I personally, could work perfectly ethically on such a system in the United States since its values and ideologies are worth preserving, and a nuclear deterrant is a very effective tool in that arsenal.
But, of course, allowing the most leeway possible in a questionable ballot in Palm County was just ensuring that people's right to vote was being protected.
Look up the definition of hypocrisy some time.
No, they were establishing a republic of federated states.
The states select who will be president, not the people. You really need to read up on a representative republic.
The founding fathers abhorred the idea of a direct democracy. They considered it little more than mob rule, so they put a number of checks into the government to prevent direct democracy, including a limited franchise and the electoral college.
So what? Unless, of course, you actually think the president is elected by the people...
News flash for you. The states elect presidents, not the people. Go read the Constitution some time. State Legislatures select the electors for President. They traditionally do it through a popular vote, but can do it any way they like.
Of course, certain people don't want you to know this, because you would then realize that Bush won the election constitutionally the moment the Florida State Legislature declared they were setting aside the popular vote and simply naming the electors for Bush.
But by keeping you ignorant, you become the useful pawn of certain groups who like the throw out phrases like Selected and not Elected.
Hey, you know, there's this really interesting thing about really hot flames. They'll catch other flammable objects on fire.
The people who investigated the Hindenburg accident in the months following were not idiots. They realized that hydrogen burns nearly invisible, too. They also realized that secondary fires would also start. They also realized that the aluminum paint would also ignite given the extremely high temperatures of the initial hydrogen fire. They also realized the fuel oil in the engines, and the metal in the framing, and the canvas tarping would likely ignite as well.
In fact, they looked at a whole hell of lot more evidence than you have and concluded a hydrogen fire. ALL of them. On multiple occasions. You have one nutball scientist out at NASA who is preaching it's all a coverup, though, because, you see, the aluminum paint was flammable at high temperatures, and so, you see, it was what really burned, because, you see, if it was the hydrogen, then he couldn't push his hydrogen economy agenda.
And a bunch of slashdot idiots, because they think it will make them somehow look intelligent and profound are swallowing it hook, line and sinker.
Um, Propane requires a larger vapor concentration and a higher activation energy to ignite. The danger with hydrogen is that it is a VERY reactive gas, and the flame is VERY, VERY hot. So hot, in fact, that it is invisible.