lol?

[Whimsi]

I can't decide whether this is entire video is meant as a conspiracty theory joke or if it's intended seriously:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&NR=1

[Caiylania]

Seemed pretty serious. I've come to the point where I accept there is so much we don't understand and just move on. Stuff like this is interesting but eh, who knows.

[Drakam]

if its true then my question for it would be where did all the water to fill the oceans came from? seems that if the planet was smaller and continents were compacted together then there wouldn't be much land left for anything to be on past 70 mill years ago.

[fallenSaint]

if its true then my question for it would be where did all the water to fill the oceans came from? seems that if the planet was smaller and continents were compacted together then there wouldn't be much land left for anything to be on past 70 mill years ago.

Not casting my vote either way on this specific theory but for the origin of the water the ol Bible does have answer for that.

[Celephais]

Neat video, I could buy it. As for the water, I'm not a scientist but the mass of the water could have been in the magma, released as it was, or for all I know it could have been in the atmosphere, if the earth's mass was the same it would have the same gravity, so the extra radius of land mass is now radius of atmosphere, with more atmospheric volume, there is more room for the moisture to be in the air. Just some guesses, I'm sure the scientists who come up with this theory have explinations (though they might be as crackpot as creationist explinantions of dinosaurs and carbon dating).

I just think you lose a lot of credibility as soon as you say the word "conspiracy"

[Artha]

Their explanation seems to be that because the universe is expanding, everything else is as well? That seems really silly to me.

[Bartlett]

(though they might be as crackpot as creationist explinantions of dinosaurs and carbon dating).

It never ceases to amaze me how blindly folks follow things. It is interesting that someone with a degree in X science can come up with some idea, and everyone says "Well, the dude is a scientist, he must be right." Carbon dating is an odd angle to attack creation/intelligent design from, since the users of carbon dating have shown how inaccurate a system it is over and over again. Rock that is known to be "new" will pretty consistently show an age of 100s of millions of years. Rock that they find in the different "eras of time" have huge variation, and unexpected results. When they get these "anomolies" they throw them out. They have an expected date, and they test until they get it. It would be the equivalent to you getting on a broken scale, thinking you were 150lbs, getting results saying you are 300lbs, 100lbs, 275lbs, and then finally hitting 150lbs and saying Aha! See, I am 150lbs. You would be the crackpot. When someone comes along and points this out "real scientists" say Nu-uh! That guy believes in God! Then in turn everyone else says "Yeah, God has nothing to do with science." I hate to tell you, but believing in God has nothing to do with assessing scientific evidence. It is a convenient way to avoid answering the questions though.

Anyway, this is probably off topic, but in my defense, I can't watch the video at work because youtube is blocked.

[TheEschaton]

Can you back that up with non-religiously-funded sources, Bartlett, that people "throw out" samples or don't have an explanation for them?

Oh yeah, that's right...you don't.

-TheE-

[Artha]

Um, Bartlett? You don't carbon date rock because rock doesn't have much (if any) carbon. Because carbon dating measures the age of something by how little carbon it's got (it decays at a constant rate, so it's really easy). You use other methods to date rock, like looking at where it is in the sediment, or testing minerals you'll actually find in it in appreciable amounts.

Carbon dating only works for living things.

[Nieninque]

The key point of Bartlett's post was


Anyway, this is probably off topic, but in my defense, I can't watch the video at work because youtube is blocked.

Sound basis for an argument right there.

"I havent seen the video and I dont know what it says, but it's wrong anyway..."

[Kranar]

It never ceases to amaze me how blindly folks follow things. It is interesting that someone with a degree in X science can come up with some idea, and everyone says "Well, the dude is a scientist, he must be right." Carbon dating is an odd angle to attack creation/intelligent design from, since the users of carbon dating have shown how inaccurate a system it is over and over again. Rock that is known to be "new" will pretty consistently show an age of 100s of millions of years. Rock that they find in the different "eras of time" have huge variation, and unexpected results. When they get these "anomolies" they throw them out. They have an expected date, and they test until they get it. It would be the equivalent to you getting on a broken scale, thinking you were 150lbs, getting results saying you are 300lbs, 100lbs, 275lbs, and then finally hitting 150lbs and saying Aha! See, I am 150lbs. You would be the crackpot. When someone comes along and points this out "real scientists" say Nu-uh! That guy believes in God! Then in turn everyone else says "Yeah, God has nothing to do with science." I hate to tell you, but believing in God has nothing to do with assessing scientific evidence. It is a convenient way to avoid answering the questions though.

Anyway, this is probably off topic, but in my defense, I can't watch the video at work because youtube is blocked.

Hahaha, carbon dating a rock... sounds like something a creationist would do.

You can't use carbon dating a rock, carbon dating only works on living creatures that eat some form of vegetation. Unless you know something I don't, rocks don't eat.

Also, carbon dating isn't used to measure things that are 100 million years old. It is only effective for measuring things that are at the very oldest, 100,000 years old using the most sensitive equipment, and typically only 10,000-40,000 years old.

As for the video, in my opinion it makes little sense, but persuing new scientific ideas and seeing where they lead is always fascinating, even if they end up being wrong.

Can you imagine how much the Earth would have had to expand in order for the continents to be as spread apart as they are now? The volume of a sphere increases at a rate that's quadratic to its surface area; which means that the average mass of the Earth would have had to sky rocket in order for its surface to increase even a tiny bit.

That mass can't just pop out of no where and it would have had and still have an immense effect on the planet's gravity. Is the Earth unique or are other planets also expanding? Why would the Earth be unique in expanding this way?

Anyhow... interesting stuff.

[StrayRogue]

It never ceases to amaze me how blindly folks follow things.

So says the fundamental dumbass Christian.

[Bartlett]

Sorry y'all. Looks like I confused my dating methods. I am confident in my recollection that radiometric dating, including carbon was used in different ways to get rock ages from the millions of years ago. These methods have been proven ineffective, as it seems almost everyone here knows already, but the values returned from such testing are still used in textbooks. Not being a scientist myself, it is entirely possible that my memory is a bit defunct. I will be sure to refrain from posting without freshly researching my information, as all PC posters do.


Can you back that up with non-religiously-funded sources, Bartlett, that people "throw out" samples or don't have an explanation for them?

Oh yeah, that's right...you don't.

-TheE-

An easy to read sign saying don't bother even talking about it, especially since this is the second time the card has been pulled. I still fail to see how the work of a scientist who happens to be a Christian is less valid than the work of someone who subscribes to an unsubstantiated hypothesis as being fact.

Just for Nien, I watched the video. The quote that was posted from me was intended to say that my post had nothing to do with the video and was a respose to part of a post that was also unrelated to the content of the video. It does seem like a parody to me, though I wouldn't be surprised if some folks would go ahead and believe it. As for where the water came from, The flood was mentioned, but I know you guys want a better solution than that, and here is oneOcean under Asia (http://www.livescience.com/environment/070228_beijing_anomoly.html)

As for my Christianity being a blind following, that would be largely inccorect. Sure, there is plenty of faith involved and if I could prove it to you tangibly, then you would probably believe it. There is plenty of evidence that "God" exists, and a majority of this world believes it in one form or another. I have seen enough evidence to be convinced I am on the right track. I have never taken my faith lightly and I don't sit in a pew getting programmed. This, as we all know, can lead to catastrophic results.

[Celephais]

That mass can't just pop out of no where and it would have had and still have an immense effect on the planet's gravity. Is the Earth unique or are other planets also expanding? Why would the Earth be unique in expanding this way?

Just addressing a couple points, not defending or debunking the theory... They seem to think this is some physics shattering revelation, that all laws of science will have to be rethought, so maybe they're stating something like an origin of universe theory other than big bang... that um... centrifugal forces cause mass to form? That or the density of the earth was far greater previously, and the immensily dense magma expanding was the source of the extra volume.

They also said that the earth was not unique in that way, that was actually a main point of the video (near the end), and they specifically addressed Mars, saying it has been expanding.

[StrayRogue]

As for my Christianity being a blind following, that would be largely inccorect. Sure, there is plenty of faith involved and if I could prove it to you tangibly, then you would probably believe it. There is plenty of evidence that "God" exists, and a majority of this world believes it in one form or another. I have seen enough evidence to be convinced I am on the right track. I have never taken my faith lightly and I don't sit in a pew getting programmed. This, as we all know, can lead to catastrophic results.


Name one piece of tangible, provable evidence.

And the "THE ENTIRE WORLD BELIEVES IN IT SO IT MUST BE RIGHT" is so stupid, I can only laugh.

[CrystalTears]

As for my Christianity being a blind following, that would be largely inccorect. Sure, there is plenty of faith involved and if I could prove it to you tangibly, then you would probably believe it. There is plenty of evidence that "God" exists, and a majority of this world believes it in one form or another. I have seen enough evidence to be convinced I am on the right track. I have never taken my faith lightly and I don't sit in a pew getting programmed. This, as we all know, can lead to catastrophic results.

I'm all for faith and believing in something, but it doesn't really prove anything tangible. You just either believe in it or you don't. There is no proof. You may have proof through faith, but it's not substantial enough to show to another person and say, "Here, see? Proof." No such thing. So I'm not buying the "evidence" you say exists.

[Gan]

An interesting article that seems to lend itself to this discussion...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

FYI

[Kuyuk]

I liked the video. Not saying I believe it fully, but it's a new and interesting view on things, which is always fun.


True or not, was interesting and made me think a bit.

Now that I'm done thinking; all this christian science babble ruined the topic.

K.

[Gan]

Very thought provoking. Thanks for sharing. :)