Dinosaurs not mentioned in the Bible? Wrong...

[MisterWensleydale]

If the Big Bang theory was right, matter and antimatter should have been equally produced at this "explosion", and then they would have obliterated each other and given off massive amounts of energy again, which, in that volume, could have caused a Big Bang, which would have caused an "explosion", giving off equal parts of matter and antimatter, which would have obliterated each other and given off massive amounts of energy again, which, in that volume, could have caused a Big Bang, which would have caused an "explosion", giving off equal parts of matter and antimatter, which would have obliterated each other and given off massive amounts of energy again, which, in that volume, could have caused a Big Bang, which would have caused an "explosion", giving off e...you get the point.

But it didn't.

You are disregarding CP (charge-parity) violation with this statement. It's not exactly new physics and it's well worth reading up on if you're ever tempted to repeat this sort of thing.

EDITS FOR THESE 3 POSTS: Syntax, typos, grammar, trying to be a better man than I was when I started writing them etc.

 

[Moriarty]

What do I think a keyboard is? A macroscopic object you can't be trusted to use responsibly, and seemingly can't tell apart from a system of microscopic quanta.

If your keyboard is powered by a power station instead of some batteries it doesn't surprise me, but it's time you considered upgrading to a wireless one. And frankly, your nonsensical musings on power stations and the transfer of energy have absolutely nothing at all to do with the subject under discussion - the obvious and long proven relationship between entropy and uncertainty.

And by the way, the string theory reference was there as you mentioned theories of quantum gravity. What quantum gravity theories were you referring to if not string theory? You don't strike me as an expert on noncommutative geometry or someone who'd know a great deal about the mathematics of twistors. You haven't stated a preference for background independent theories of quantum gravity. I've yet to hear you mention LQG or CDT. Not that any of this has anything whatsoever to do with entropic uncertainty in the first place.

Anyhow, enough of this. This is absolute garbage.

The fact that I'm having to wade my way through this inane drivel merely because I pointed out that entropy is a measure of uncertainty is pathetic. Nobody in the world disagrees with that statement except you.

If you're trolling, then this word salad you're pretending is physics is laughable. If you're not trolling then it's just worrying.

Whatever points you're trying to make, you're not making them. Suddenly mentioning chaos theory and pretending it's what your point's been all along isn't going to work. You're just smashing words together because you mistakenly believe typing the words 'chaos theory' in the middle of your word salad makes you sound clever.

That scam might work on someone without a science background, but anybody with even a rudimentary science background isn't going to fall for this childishness for a moment.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. You're a bluffer.

Stop pretending you know better than all the physicists and information theorists on the planet. Every single thing you've said so far about the relationship between entropy and uncertainty is ridiculous.

Being too proud to say "I don't know" or "I was wrong about that" when there's a gap in your knowledge is what's preventing you from retaining any useful information on this subject.

Unfortunately, no matter how loudly you proclaim your infallible genius, that never works when you actually run into somebody who isn't bluffing and doesn't speak on subjects they don't know about.

Until you realise there's no shame in not knowing something, you will always reflexively make up something that you misguidedly believe makes you sound like you're an authority.

The shameful part is hearing an adult doubling down on an obvious piece of nonsense, then trying to support it by smugly and aloofly assuming a god perspective as they dismiss all science and human knowledge as laughable because it dares to contradict their delusions.

I personally hope the explanation for this madness is that you're addicted to senseless squabbling or you're just having fun indulging in some trolling, as the only other plausible explanation is rampant egomania.

If you think I have any interest in discussing physics and information theory with a troll who'll deliberately misunderstand it all then you're wrong.

If you think I'm interested in discussing these subjects with somebody afflicted with a Donald Trump level ego who's too proud to admit they don't understand the first thing about any of it, you're wrong there too.

From what I've read on these forums, there's no shortage of people in this place who get a real kick from that sort of thing. You'll normally find them squabbling incessantly about the culture wars, race, gender, identity politics and so forth, just like such people always do.

You know the ones I'm talking about. The ones who always seem to get a thrill from arguing the toss with you, long after the point when it could possibly serve any useful purpose.

I'm not interested in any of the playground bickering, insecurity, hatred, self loathing, virtue signalling, calling people c**ts and flat out ignorance that permeates far too many of the threads here.

If that's what passes for thought here on UKChat, then fine. It's hardly any different to any other place on the internet these days.

Having said that, I'm f****d if I'm going down that disgusting cesspit of a rabbit hole with you. Or any other poster on this site for that matter.

I wish you no ill will. Do whatever you've got to do, and good luck with it.

Just leave me out of your trolling and or/vanity from now on please.

Did you actually read what I typed.

Because you missed the point I made in the second sentence.

It is a way of using energy to transfer a subjective opinion into to another state, data.

Note the word subjective.

After that you gave us a prime example of what it means not to reason.
You simply went on a "subjective" rant without actually thinking about what I said.
From keyboard to screen, was probably totally intentional.

You simply wanted to defeat or appear smarter than me, which maybe you are, dont know, dont care.

But is that not what entropy is?

 

[MisterWensleydale]

Did you actually read what I typed.

Because you missed the point I made in the second sentence.

It is a way of using energy to transfer a subjective opinion into to another state, data.

Note the word subjective.

After that you gave us a prime example of what it means not to reason.
You simply went on a "subjective" rant without actually thinking about what I said.
From keyboard to screen, was probably totally intentional.

You simply wanted to defeat or appear smarter than me, which maybe you are, dont know, dont care.

But is that not what entropy is?

You obviously didn't read what I typed, because I told you to leave me out of it. I'm not interested in debating any of this with you.

I read everything you typed and addressed it clearly.

If you think you know better than all the world's scientists then you are obviously extremely immature.

And for the record, just because you don't know what you're talking about on this particular subject doesn't make either of us any more or less smart that the other.

If you view knowledge and debate as a p***ing contest instead of a chance to learn new things then fine - you're the 'winner'. Everything you've said is right, everything I said is wrong and I'm an absolute cretin who has no idea what I'm talking about.

Here's a trophy for you, along with a big shiny medal and a signed certificate from me stating you're much smarter than me or anyone else on the planet

I'm sure there are plenty of other people here who'll be delighted to jump into a futile squabble with you.

I told you, I'm not doing this with you any more. Leave me out of it champ.

 

[Moriarty]

You obviously didn't read what I typed, because I told you to leave me out of it. I'm not interested in debating any of this with you.

I read everything you typed and addressed it clearly.

If you think you know better than all the world's scientists then you are obviously extremely immature.

And for the record, just because you don't know what you're talking about on this particular subject doesn't make either of us any more or less smart that the other.

If you view knowledge and debate as a p***ing contest instead of a chance to learn new things then fine - you're the 'winner'. Everything you've said is right, everything I said is wrong and I'm an absolute cretin who has no idea what I'm talking about.

Here's a trophy for you, along with a big shiny medal and a signed certificate from me stating you're much smarter than me or anyone else on the planet

I'm sure there are plenty of other people here who'll be delighted to jump into a futile squabble with you.

I told you, I'm not doing this with you any more. Leave me out of it champ.

Ok.. so sad.

Thought we maybe could actually converse, but seems not.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

I don't recall saying anything in my post about not wanting to pay attention to Dr. Kinney or why you would assume I wouldn't want to.

I didn't say you didn't. I just responded to your words that were mocking the idea that people believed there was a "middle of the universe" as such. A singularity. This didn't even have anything to do with the idea of matter/antimatter.

He's combined the two. If you read the article he is NOT arguing that matter was present at the beginning of the initial big bang phase.

The point is the whole theory does. You yourself went on to try to ascertain that baryogenesis turns something into matter, because it divides matter and antimatter. Yet, it still is based on the idea that "something is there", which it is, as it isn't only matter that appears to get heated up.

In the Big Bang theory, again, for the probably twentieth time, something was already there. It was in a "hot, dense state". You can mock the TV show that puts it so simply and put as many sentences on the end of it you like, but basically, this is the theory. There is no explanation of how nothing became something. So, if antimatter gets heated, then it is "something".

Is that part not clear enough?

An initial singularity in any big bang model does not contain matter.

Yes, it does. Your link to baryogenesis shows that matter DOES exist, as I just mentioned in my last sentence. It is tied with antimatter. It is not nothing, as it got heated. Nothing does not heat up, because being heated up demonstrates a movement of particles.

Let me know if that part need a bit more explanation.

A big bang and a big bounce are two completely different things.

Yes. This is tangential to the point.

It can't be that simplistic if you're confusing a big bang cosmology with a big bounce cosmology.

I'm not.

Simplistic as opposed to what? Chapter 1 of the bible?

Simplistic in there have to be presumptions to make a form of calomel electrode as such, or a weight of 12 for carbon-12. Pretending everything is stable and consistent for the formula to work, when we really don't know all the facts, nor the range of where they reach.

The temperature of a system is inversely proportional to the change in its entropy.

Irrelevant.

Yes. That sentence is totally irrelevant. I also have a pack of mints on my table.

It didn't go bang, it's not an explosion and you seem to be under the assumption that Big Bang models provide a description of the initial singularity.

Now we're getting somewhere. Yes. The Big Bang theory does not describe anything at all about how our universe went from energy, nor the source of that energy, into matter...other than separating matter/antimatter, which are already particulate in nature.

In the lecture I posted a link to earlier in this thread, Turok and Boyle imposed CPT (charge, parity, time) symmetry at the big bang via a mirror universe model, enabling them to apply these analytic tools to the singularity in a big bang model. This is an exciting new approach that's already yielding some incredibly promising results.

Again, this is using exactly the same fundamentals as the baryogenesis, and the separation of matter and antimatter. Still, it isn't "nothing" that heated up and separated them. There is no explanation in any of these theories about the nothing at all. Yet...again...the Big Bang theory states that it began with a "hot, dense state", and not before it.

Baryogenesis (the creation of matter) describes how energy converts into matter and vice versa. It's not my fault if you don't understand it, just like it's not my fault if you don't know the difference between a big bang cosmology and a big bounce cosmology.

No, it doesn't. It's a nice theory, but that is like stating that if we divide zero by temperature, we'll have a physical object. We can't firstly divide zero. That is one way alone to note that baryogenesis isn't correct. You can't divide zero. We can only divide "something". So separating matter from antimatter is not dividing zero by anything.

As for your presumption on my beliefs on the Big Bang, that's not an issue for me. That is your issue. Just know that it is not accurate. I don't believe that.

Of course you do. You don't know the difference between a big bang and a big bounce so that's obviously a shortcoming in my knowledge and not yours, professor.

...

I do study cosmology and have done for the last couple of decades. I don't proclaim to be Stephen Hawking, but I'm not likely to confuse big bounce models with big bang models any time soon. And I at least have the good sense to say "I don't know" when there's a gap in my knowledge on any given subject.

...

You certainly wouldn't catch me reading (and misunderstanding) a magazine article, then assuming I knew enough to start telling people who actually know what they're talking about that they're wrong.

You do have a fair amount of knowledge. Still, your conclusions are wrong. They are missing a simple flow of logic. Not all of them, and I'm not saying you're stupid either. I'm quite enjoying our conversation.

It doesn't matter if 'people' refer to it as a bang or an an explosion. If they do then they are not correct.

That isn't the point. But this is how the whole article started, because you stated the opposite.

I don't know if you're familiar with the expression 'not even wrong'... but those people are not even wrong.

The ones who were far enough away from the blast not to be incinerated by it definitely heard the bang. This isn't a matter of debate.

No, it isn't. If you use your good sense, you'll understand it is there for you to get the point.

Are you seriously suggesting nuclear explosions are silent and you can't find any evidence they make a sound?

Do you really think so?

If you are referring to the model used to calculate the age of the universe, then the Hubble parameter decreases with time. If you require graphs and equations then don't hesitate to ask. I can easily provide you with both.

It doesn't matter. It is still theoretical. We don't know. There are so many parameters that we just don't know. We are using a matchstick to measure the diameter of the earth, but claiming we've used a string that doesn't stretch.

If you're finding any of the any of the 'big' words hard to understand, then I am more than happy to provide you with any further explanation you require. I'm not some bluffer who types things they've read on the internet that they don't understand properly.

Thank you. What does "Wensleydale" mean?

I'm not interested in dazzling you or anyone else and I'm certainly not bull*****ing you. If you want bull****, consult a clergyman.

I agree. LOL If I want to hear lies, I'll indeed ask a clergyman.

You may well be debating wave/particle duality, but nobody else is. Who exactly are you claiming is debating wave/particle duality?

All particles have a wavelength, whether they have mass or not. Everything that occurs in nature that we use wave equations to describe has a wavelength.

I'm not debating wave/particle at all. The point is we're only scraping the surface of what things are, and they're theoretical.

Are you, or are you not at least enjoying our discussion? If not, I apologise. I don't intend to argue whether or not "everything that occurs in nature" has wave equations to describe them with you.

I appreciate your input, but we're not seeing eye to eye on the fact that the theory of the Big Bang starts with an already existing "state".

Please, don't get upset mate. You're entitled to disagree, and also, I'm entitled to be wrong. As are you. Best wishes.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

You are disregarding CP (charge-parity) violation with this statement. It's not exactly new physics and it's well worth reading up on if you're ever tempted to repeat this sort of thing.

Yes. Just like the theory that precedes it.

EDITS FOR THESE 3 POSTS: Syntax, typos, grammar, trying to be a better man than I was when I started writing them etc.

You have no need to explain your edits mate. I edit at will too, for exactly the same reason. I appreciate the platform allowing it so we can clarify our meanings. It is Kev who thinks that editing something means we're being hidey people, because he is only trying to attack people. But thanks for explaining mate.

 

[Kev45]

It is Kev who thinks that editing something means we're being hidey people, because he is only trying to attack peop

I have no idea why this angry grudge holding little baby has even mentioned me on this most holy of days, and especially on a thread I have by and large avoided.

To save face I guess after being exposed (yet again) as pig sh@t ignorant on it.

The same angry little sausage who fraudulently presented the New World Translation of the Holy Scripture as original "bible teachings" and when it is no such thing.

A dishonest, shifty character and without an honest bone in his entire body.

The same angry little sausage who in fact accused me of "hiding" and while he "edited" out all his personal abuse, and all while he masquerades as a god fearing respectful Christian on this site.

 

[Confused_Fred]

It sounds like there's been some conflict and misunderstanding between you and this individual. If you're feeling unfairly targeted or misrepresented, it might be helpful to address the situation directly with them or seek moderation from the platform administrators. Additionally, focusing on maintaining a respectful and positive presence yourself can help diffuse tensions and promote a more constructive environment for dialogue.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

As for derivatives of the Steady State theory, there are a few. Whether someone deems the quasi-steady-state model as not making it or not isn't the issue. It's still one of them. But a newer one seems to not be fully established yet, and seems based on the idea that there is no dark matter, and that the universe is older than people think. Here is a link to the seven page paper. You might enjoy it, and you might find flaws in it too. The reason I consider it to be a derivative of the Steady State theory is because it dismisses dark matter, which is used to address key things in the Big Bang theory.

Here is another one - a 22 page work, which calls upon again the Static Universe model. When you read the paper though, you'll see that he's going to refer to some of the things that have proven to some to accept the Big Bang theory that there may be other reasons for things.

Whether it shines as accurate or not in the future also isn't the point, because the point is that the Big Bang theory may be the widely accepted one, but it is definitely not the only one.

Here is another article, just showing that there are more theories than just the Big Bang theory though.
ALL have holes, including the Big Bang. It is fun to speculate, but misleading to call it fact.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

it's been pleasant have a safe trip back look forward to more.

G'day mate. I said I'd get back to you on this, and although I've posted other stuff, I have been busy. LOL

So, here's some of the reasoning and some links, regarding the flaws in the different kinds of dating.

1) Women - You'll never know for certain what exactly they want, what they mean, nor what they said yesterday as you were watching the football that you had to remember precisely. So, we can't presume that one method of dating will be accurate for all, nor end with the same conclusions.

2) Potassium/Argon dating - There are fundamental issues with this method, as things have to be presumed, which can be demonstrated as flawed in the fact they're presumed. This is a copy/paste from a site, with my two bob's worth chucked in.

• The material in question is a closed system. In other words, no radiogenic 40Ar has escaped from the rock/mineral since it formed. In the case of a volcanic mineral, this means rapid cooling. Likewise, potassium has not been gained or lost.

There is no way to prove this has happened. In fact, it is only right to note that even if gas was entrapped within the molten lava as it spewed out, especially on the edge of a volcano, that it couldn't have again been heated up enough to allow gases to come out. How do WE know how long the rock was liquid for?

• A correction is made for atmospheric argon (40Ar from the 40Ar/36Ar ratio = 295.5 subtracted).

I have nothing to say to this. To me, this isn't a flaw, just an estimate. Estimates aren't accurate, but are ballpark. Surely it is fair to presume that Argon levels differ in different parts of the world. Still, it is good they do it, as it should give a ballpark. But there are many ballparks given just for the sake of having a base to start from, in different fields....ballparks, fields...I think I'm still on track.

• No non-atmospheric 40Ar was incorporated into the rock/mineral during or after its formation.

How can this even be presumed? This can only be presumed if it could be proven there was literally no argon in the magma and its pathways through the rocks over the timeframe it took to erupt. We have no way of knowing this. In fact, a science/creation work shows a major problem here. HERE is the article in PDF format.

• The isotopes of potassium in the rock/mineral have not fractionated, except by 40K decay.

The very fact that it is presumed that up to 20% of the earth's 40K are from things like meteorites, and that we don't know the exact origin of the materials making up the magma (whether it has undergone change over billions of years by cycling and recycling), and their levels differ from earths, it is not a fair presumption.

• The decay constants of 40K are accurately known.

This is one that I think is relatively fair to assume, with the exception of it coming from the "middle of the earth" as such. I only learned relatively recently that these constants aren't necessarily constant.
Here's an article that is basically showing that unless we can ascertain the math for the deviations from all the solar flares - and for that matter anything similar that has affected us that we may not be aware of yet - we may not have an accurate platform to start with.

• The quantities of 40Ar and potassium in the rock/mineral are accurately determined.

We can probably just consider the point made regarding the diamonds, of which the potassium/argon dating gave dates that were approximately twice the age of the earth. As you stated, there is no potassium in diamond, nor should there be argon...with the exception of flaws in the diamond. So, if a diamond can have flaws in it that can give inaccurate readings, then why can not other forms of mineral?

3) Uranium/Lead dating - Again, there are assumptions that are made on this kind of dating. Namely, the issue of decay constants, the isotopes not fractionating in any way other than our models, it being a closed system. For instance, the first assumption admitted in THIS article, is that the dating can be made "by assuming that the parent material for the galena had suffered no chemical fractionation of U from Pb from the time of formation of the Earth until production of the galena".

Also, THIS article from 2012 shows that we've had to adjust our constants before with this, and that there may be even more reasons to consider them as not accurate. Okay, so it shows a new constant from before 2012, with an error of only just over 0.05%, but this isn't all. Another article HERE shows that weathering also affects the dating, quite substantially. And on top of this, the article itself shows a major problem, which is where I mentioned the "pseudoscience" of it, in the fact that the samples for testing are hand-picked to ensure that the ranges fall within EXPECTED ranges. Sampling of itself in this field is very biased. Surely you are aware of this, and it has to be in a way, as otherwise the field wouldn't do very well. But the anomalities have to be ignored, and assumptions have to be made to get a case to look well enough to present for one to state with certainty "This rock is X years old!!!"

4) Carbon 14 dating - I didn't think it necessary to discuss the flaws with this dating method, as it is quite commonly accepted that there have been not only substantial changes with the half-life over time, but also it is one method easy to find articles online showing why it can only be used within small timeframes - by one source, only ten times the half life, and even on top of that, there are other problems with it. I think we might have already discussed some, but I don't really recall now.

Additionally, I'm unaware of any need to show other methods, as the flaws can be the same. For instance, using tree rings to confirm the rock age etc...well, there have been recent demonstrations that no, a tree ring is not necessarily an annual thing, and so on and so on.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Here is an interesting fossil that was discovered relatively recently. Well, I found it interesting anyway.

Stunning Dragonlike Fossil Reptile Found in China

The ancient reptile Dinocephalosaurus had a neck of mythic proportions

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Moriarty]

You obviously didn't read what I typed, because I told you to leave me out of it. I'm not interested in debating any of this with you.

I read everything you typed and addressed it clearly.

If you think you know better than all the world's scientists then you are obviously extremely immature.

And for the record, just because you don't know what you're talking about on this particular subject doesn't make either of us any more or less smart that the other.

If you view knowledge and debate as a p***ing contest instead of a chance to learn new things then fine - you're the 'winner'. Everything you've said is right, everything I said is wrong and I'm an absolute cretin who has no idea what I'm talking about.

Here's a trophy for you, along with a big shiny medal and a signed certificate from me stating you're much smarter than me or anyone else on the planet

I'm sure there are plenty of other people here who'll be delighted to jump into a futile squabble with you.

I told you, I'm not doing this with you any more. Leave me out of it champ.

I simply made a point that entropy cannot be measured.

It is simply that.

Anything else you think of me is well beyond that simple statement.

I'm sorry if I offended you in any way.

I was just making a point I think viable.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

2) Potassium/Argon dating - There is no way to prove this has happened.

it's difficult to directly prove that a rock has remained a closed system since it solidified scientists can make reasonable assumptions based on the geological context and mineral composition of the rock, example, the results of potassium-argon dating can be cross-checked with other dating methods and geological evidence to ensure accuracy.. fission, lead dating.. stratigraphy (decay in comparison due to released gasses
even considering potential limitations and uncertainties in it's scientific method, potassium-argon dating has proven to be a reliable and valuable tool

A correction is made for atmospheric argon (40Ar from the 40Ar/36Ar ratio = 295.5 subtracted).

Id tell you a chemistry joke about this..... but all the good ones argon

No non-atmospheric 40Ar was incorporated into the rock/mineral during or after its formation.

while yes the method relies on the assumption it's based on a few factors 1 that the rock slash mineral has not been significantly contaminated or altered since its formation..... if its not been subjected to processes that would introduce non-atmospheric 40Ar like heating, melting or interaction with external fluids then it's reasonable to assume that the 40Ar present in the mineral is predominantly of atmospheric origin & comparing the amount of radiogenic 40Ar generated by the decay of potassium to the amount of atmospheric 40Ar trapped in the mineral they can calculate the age of said sample...
also analysing multiple samples from the same rock formation or mineral deposit to ensure consistency and reliability if all samples from the same geological setting yield consistent ages and do not show evidence of contamination or alteration, it supports the assumption that non-atmospheric 40Ar has not been incorporated into the sample
all this being said you're right there's no definitive proof.

The isotopes of potassium in the rock/mineral have not fractionated, except by 40K decay. *it is not a fair presumption*

its true the composition of magma CAN vary based on factors such as recycling and cycling of materials over billions of years, it isn't accurate to assume that a significant portion of the earth's potassium comes from external sources like meteorites... the isotopic composition of potassium in rocks and minerals is typically used to study the age/origin of geological formations but it's not tied to the presence of extra-terrestrial material in any substantial way it's primarily influenced by natural processes occurring on earth, such as radioactive decay and geological events like magma formation and rock crystallization... how do we know?
consider by comparing the isotopic ratios of potassium isotopes in terrestrial rocks to those in meteorites & other extra-terrestrial materials they can differentiate between indigenous and foreign sources of potassium

The decay constants of 40K are accurately known

agreed buddy it's above me.

if a diamond can have flaws in it that can give inaccurate readings, then why can not other forms of mineral?

other minerals do also contain impurities & imperfections that can lead to inaccurate readings...
thats why researchers carefully select samples and ensure they're properly prepared and analysed to minimize potential sources of error using methods such as purity testing & mineral separation which allows them to obtain a purer sample, magnetic separation, flotation, heavy liquid separation & gravity sparation.
by isolating specific minerals with these techniques they can obtain purer samples that provide more reliable data

3) Uranium/Lead dating - Again, there are assumptions that are made on this kind of dating.

1974 what a year!
the study did indeed highlight that the growth curve of lead isotopes may not be as linear as previously thought & that the growth curve of lead isotopes may not be as linear as previously thought, which could have lead to inaccuracies & it did prompt researchers to re-evaluate their methods & also reminded us the importance of continually refining and improving dating techniques to ensure accurate results in the ever-evolving nature of scientific understanding...

the concerns raised by the research you linked regarding the lead isotope growth curve in 1974 prompted scientists to reassess the following assumptions and calculations & was essential to ensure the robustness and accuracy of the current geochronological techniques used now:

linear relationship between uranium and lead isotopes and its implications for dating accuracy
potential for non-linearities in the build up of lead isotopes over time
various impacts of variations in lead isotope growth curves on age calculations
reliability of the uranium/lead dating method in providing accurate and precise ages of geological samples

1) Women

YOU WIN IM STUMPED ON THIS 1

 

[Moriarty]

Women will always stump men, they are more complex.
Us men are pretty simple when it comes to our needs and goals.
Get laid, get status, in it's simplist form.
For women, much more complex.
Get laid, get status, then make sure that status can create a good place for a child.

That adds a whole new fluctuating layer to male female relationships.

Which to be fair, is not wrong.
Children are the ones who create or maintain the future we all need to pay for us when we get old.

Then they get that back when we die from selling our assets.

It's a simple capitalist circle.
It isn't working though, because we aren't having enough kids.
Add to that parents housing is being leveraged to live well in later life through loans repaid after death or re-mortgages.
Hence kids are losing out on their inheritance and not being able to get on a property ladder.

Tis a sad state of affairs to be true.
Feel sorry for kids these days.

 

[Chip_TheViking]

Us men are pretty simple when it comes to our needs and goals.