Apr 1, 2013 at 13:24:39
“I was once that way, adhering to beliefs that were not valid or no longer valid. At some point not long ago, I came to the understanding beliefs must be dynamic, able to change as we gain greater knowledge & understanding. As a result I don't try to change people's beliefs, the individual must do that for themselves.
Instead I focus on providing doubt in the hope that once enough doubt accumulates in the individual. It will cause them to question their belief's to the point change is possible for them.
The other problem is how do I know what I believe is correct, I don't exactly. Thats why beliefs must be dynamic & where small things like your comment come into play. Not only does your comment reinforce what I said, it also adds to the doubt accumulating in others.
The truth is whats important, we can rely on the truth. We can't rely on deceptions & self-deceptions whether our own or those of another's.”
“Has anyone been around testing atomic decay for 11,400 years to know the half life is 5,700 years. The answer is of course no, we have only studied atomic decay for about 70 years. Which puts the theory of atomic decay into the realm of science fiction not reality.
Perhaps atomic decay speeds up or slows down after 150 years or maybe every 500 years. Maybe the rate of decay randomly & sporadically changes. We have only 70 years worth of study & would not have witnessed such changes yet. Our sun bombards the earth constantly with many didn't types of radiation, many of which penetrate deep into the earth. The intensity of those radiations from the sun also change.”
Molly D on Apr 1, 2013 at 15:13:20
“If you think rates of atomic decay can just up and change, for what, any and all elements? You're an anti-science nut, essentially a parasite on human knowledge.
I can go read anti-science, or pseudo science screeds, like sites trying to make carbon dating out as false. I see exactly where they DELIBERATELY lie about details to make their argument. What is the objective of that? Someone who actually KNOWS it works, knows HOW it works, and uses that knowledge to construct a false picture of it.... for what purpose? You yourself become the victim of that, and leverage whatever their purpose is, for them.”
“2000 years is not 25k, 100k or millions of years.
Besides which, calibrating carbon dating to a book found with an actual date does not mean the carbon dating process is accurate or factual for anything beyond date books up to 2000 years old & exposed to that exact same conditions the book used for calibration was.
Those exact same conditions would typically be environmental & physical usage conditions.
We calibrate weight scales, each scale however is limited to a certain maximum weight. Go beyond that max weight & the scale no longer functions accurately. The same limitation applies to carbon dating.
So carbon dating is really only accurate when used to date the exact same thing it was calibrated for & that were exposed to the exact same conditions.
We could use carbon dating for bones found in graves with actual date markers. however such dating would only be accurate for bones found in similar environments, like the graves nearby. Such dating would not be accurate for graves found in northern Canada & those found in the tropics. Totally different environmental conditions.
That is why carbon dating is useless & the same applies to all other means of dating artifacts.”
Molly D on Apr 1, 2013 at 02:20:15
“I'd be interested to hear how environment can selectively alter the C12 to C14 ratios. Because chemically they react identically. Only in nuclear reactions is there any difference. Or if the material was turned to a homogenous gas or liquid like CO2, and put into a centrifuge of the type used to separate isotopes. You ever use a high speed centrifuge? But a piece of linen laying in a box for 1000 years, selective carbon atoms don't just fall out of the cellulose molecules. The calibrations already include comparisons of samples of exactly known ages back to 1850BC, from around the world. Tree rings back to 14,000 years ago. The half life is 5700 years. Measurements at 2000 years old are extremely accurate. 1000 years a little less so. To test a sample, the material is oxidized to pure CO2, then reduced to pure carbon. The counters pick up every atomic decay in the sample. At 2000 years old, given a sample of a few grams, accuracy would be in the 1% error range. They took less from the Turin shroud. But enough to nail the century.”
“What starts my car, how it runs how my computer works has no bearing on carbon dating.
Did scientist actually go back & see the fossil while it was a living thing & record the date?
Of course not, science created a theory called carbon dating.
Even sciences method of dating using core samples is nefarious. There are simply to many factors/variables involved, science is simply incapable of ever including all the possible factors/variables in any model like carbon dating or core samples to provide anything more than a best guess date.
Such guesses using carbon dating get further distorted the longer the time span suggested. A suggestion of 100k years could just as easily be 25k or 2 million years in reality.
Science is having the exact same problem with their climate change models. If only the variables programmed into those computer models occur, then yes the results will be accurate.
Do you seriously believe climate change computer models have every single variable that will occur in the next 50 years programmed into those models. Did they get the 1000 volcanic eruptions programmed in that will occur during the next 50 years. How about all the floods, droughts & wildfires during the next 50 years.
Are you getting the picture, without all those variables programmed into the computer model exactly as they occur, the model is completely useless. The same is true of carbon dating & core samples.”
Molly D on Mar 30, 2013 at 03:46:08
“Carbon dating is calibrated by testing timber which is dated by its growth rings, over the last 2000 years. You do know there are carbon-based things like BOOKS made, and with the EXACT date they were printed, in them, for the medieval period? Variables eliminated.”
Mar 30, 2013 at 02:38:11
“Both the businesses I worked for that closed & moved to another location, were low profit margin businesses. One of the two was a former division of General electric. GE sold that division because their employees were unionized & the union wages & benefits rendered that division unprofitable so they got rid of the division. The owner explain this fact to the employees & union reps dozens of times. The union still managed to convince enough employees everything would be fine & the union got certified with a 72% vote. Five years later they closed & moved the business. Why do you think so many companies have left north America for cheaper overseas markets. Unions have priced our workforce out of jobs. When you are competing against other businesses production costs have to be low enough for the company to still make a profit.”
“Its just to bad radiocarbon dating, along with virtually every other method of dating artifacts are basically useless. Little more than pseudoscience.
Garbage in garbage out!”
RubalKhali on Mar 29, 2013 at 13:49:07
“nothing pseudo about the science of radio carbon dating.”
Doug MacKenzie on Mar 29, 2013 at 00:09:39
“Oh, really? And what data do you have to present to support your statement? Please be sure to include credible links and/or peer reviewed scientific research to support your assertion. Thanks.”
Molly D on Mar 29, 2013 at 00:08:02
“Yup. Your car starts in the morning by faith. Your computer is pseudoscience.
That's a problem nowadays. When my dad was a kid technology was so simple anybody could understand it. I grew up with vinyl records, and tube radios. Which I built a couple and understand how they work. Now? Everything is magic. Anybody can ignore the phenomenal technology they use everyday, like it's the woodwork, and disparage science as phony.
Listen bub, radio carbon dating is so simple compared to what's going on right now in your computer, its like a nutcracker to an airliner. You're the pseudo.”
Mar 28, 2013 at 23:32:35
“I never said those companies I worked for went broke, they simply couldn't make the profits they required as a unionized business. So they packed up & moved where they could make the profits they needed.
I went with the 2nd company for a year to help setup their new plant 120 miles away. They wanted me to stay, even offered me 25% more money but I didn't want to move.
Both these companies left because union demands were simply unrealistic.
Do you even have any idea how much unions drive up the cost of living in Canada?
Do you have any idea how much a vehicle would cost if those car companies were not paying union wags of over $30 per hour, & instead paying $16 to $20 which is what those jobs are really worth. That $30k vehicle would cost only $18k without unions, the $20k vehicle about $12k without unions. About 40% is the difference in price because of unions.
No you likely have no idea because its simply not something you have given any thought to.”
Mar 28, 2013 at 23:18:21
“Why is it a problem when an employer pays a lower wage?
People are not forced to take those lower paying jobs.
Its not an employers problem that an employee has a huge mortgage because they bought a house they can't afford.
Its not an employers problem when a an employee has 6 kids they can't afford.
Its not the employers problem when the employee has a high mortgage, credit cards maxed out & cars loans.
None of these things are the employers problem, but unions attempt to create the belief employers must help employees pay for all these things.
Why does an employer have to provide medical benefits & pensions. Are these not personal responsibilities the individual is responsible for. When did it become the employers responsibility to provide all these things plus a wage to cover the labour the person was hired to perform.”
Mar 28, 2013 at 11:41:39
“I never had any problems landing good paying non-union jobs. Employers pay employees what they can get away with paying their employees, is that a bad thing? NO!
Employers are in business to make money, that is their right. If you don't like the wages find another job.
The problem is people believe their labour is worth more than it really is. Unions propagate that belief among workers.
What politician get is of no relevance to the discussion of unions, nor is what CEOs earn. Both are delusional comparisons without any basis in reality.”
kaladarbob on Mar 28, 2013 at 12:50:15
“If you are happy, that's great.
I know a lot of people who weren't as fortunate as you.
You are right when you say an employer pays his employees what he can get away with and that is the problem. Compare the working conditions you were fortunate enough to have experienced with conditions before unions, compare your wages to wages before unions. Anyone who believes that unions are not necessary and have not created the life styles people my age could enjoy, just don't know what they are talking about, and that includes you.”
Mar 28, 2013 at 11:33:20
“That is exactly the problem, the union doesn't hire & pay people, companies do!
Twice I was employed by a company that was non-union, both later unionized & both closed there doors within 5 years. I would still have a job with that first company had some newly hired pro-union clowns not push for a union right after passing their 90 day probation period. Both of those companies simply closed shop & relocated outside the unions 80 mile zone.
I never voted for a union, why should I have to support them?”
Mar 27, 2013 at 12:48:19
“How can there be an income inequality between classes?
That makes absolutely no sense, the reason we have classes is because of a difference in income, lol!
You want to erase those differences, than lets pay every person the exact same wage. Thats not what your union masters want, they are interested only in creating fear with this delusional talk of income inequality.”
Shaun L on Mar 27, 2013 at 15:57:13
“I sense you are a paid Con spinner! Nicely taking whatever I said and turning into something it is not. If you really believe what you just wrote then you need help buddy! ”
Mar 27, 2013 at 12:46:41
“What way of life, the only life people of today have is one of servitude. The masters being unions, government & business.
Who is talking about lowering union members wages, only unions lol.
Of course unions don't want lower wages for their members, it lowers the amount of dues those members pay the unions. Which is also why unions negotiate away benefits before wages.”
kaladarbob on Mar 27, 2013 at 14:50:11
Exceptfor-a fewyears-inthe-army I wasa tradesman-allmy-life. I havealways hada decentincome andnever felt I wasin servitude toanyone. Sometimes I belongedto a unionand othertimes I didn’t. , I walkedthe road thatwas bestfor me Youwant toget ridof unions"? Thinkabout thisit wasunions thatallowed theworking manwhether hewas a memberof a unionor not to-bring in a decentwage. Non-union companieshad-no choicebut treattheiremployees fairly
becausetheyknew thatif they didn'tthe unionswould move in.
Yes unionmembers payfees, it'slike anythingelse, ifyou wantsomething youhave topay for it. Youseem to thinkthat thosefees arejust goingto line thepockets of unionleaders, hereis a listof what thosefees payfor.
Rentalor mortgagecosts for a unionhall.
Moneyis setaside in atrust fundas for strikepayshould membersdecide to strikefor a legitimatereason.
Costof operatinga unionhall sucha heatelectricity water, taxesrepairs, andwhat everother coststhat mightbe relevant.
Youare-concernedabout-payingwages-forthe-bigbosses-and-ational-officeswell-takeinto-considerationhow much yourpoliticians take from your pocket to put in theirs. Full pension for six years service that is equal to there salary whilst in office. Think about how much you are paying your present prime minister to tear our country apart, and how about all the perks these people get. either you are not old enough to understand the value of unions even for non union workers, or you just not bright enough to understand. Sorry Mack but that's the way it is.”
Mar 27, 2013 at 10:13:33
“Income equality or income inequality can only exists within a given workplace.
What two people earn at two separate workplaces has no relevance to anything. Even if they perform the exact same job.
Income inequality can only occur within an individual workplace, & only when the work being performed is paid at differing wages within that given workplace. Hence our "Equal pay for Equal work" legislation.
No issue of income equality or income inequality exists outside of individual workplaces.
You can't compare multiple workplaces as being one & the same, that is delusional!”
Molly D on Apr 1, 2013 at 01:12:26
“See, how do you like it when what you say is a good and accurate point, and they come back at you with the same party-line gibberish?”
Shaun L on Mar 27, 2013 at 10:58:02
“Again you have no idea what they mean when they are talking about income equality. They are talking about income between the Lower class, middle class and upper classes.
Mar 27, 2013 at 09:24:59
“Income inequality is little more than a socialist myth created to illicit an emotion response such as sympathy, anger & outrage. Its used to give the perception something is missing or lost.
There is no income inequality, only people who make more money than other people.
Equal pay for equal work performed is an issue of equality. But only when its for the same job being performed within a given individual business.
If one lettuce farmer pays his workers $10 per hour & another pays his workers $14 per hour, there is no inequality. Provided all the workers at their respective farms are paid equally for the same work performed.
Since the CFLR is suggesting Equality is what they are after, lets pay everyone the exact same wages. The Doctor, nurse, teacher, auto worker, WalMart greeter & the garbage collector should all earn the exact same wage. If you truly want income equality thats the way you get it.
That of course is not what the CFLR wants, they want only to create fear by claiming some mythical inequality will result if right to work legislation comes to pass. Its called looking out for themselves, lower wages equals lower union dues!”
kaladarbob on Mar 27, 2013 at 11:54:30
“It is dummies like you who will cause the downfall of our way of life. We are not a socialist country but we do have a lot of social policies, and that is what that has kept us in the top five countries in the world, and you would destroy that rather than fight to keep it in place. Are you aware that by lowering the wages for union members you will be lowering the wages for every working stiff in this country and the only ones who will benefit are those who are already earning more than a million a year, those people will get a raise in their income because the rest of us took a cut.”
watercolor girl on Mar 27, 2013 at 10:02:40
“That is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard”
Mar 21, 2013 at 14:56:05
“There's nothing wrong with coloring to cover grey hair. Although woman should stick to color that is close to the original when covering grey.
What I find awful is the multi-colored, half black half white jobs. Also a large number of hair coloring & hair dye jobs are just horrid. The root growth thing looks simply disgusting. Most women actually add another decade to their age with bad color jobs, its especially noticeable on the ones who choose to go blonde or near white.
There is the right way to color & the wrong way, far to many opt for the wrong way & think it looks good. Avril Lavigne is a perfect example of a young woman going from beautiful to ugly simply by using hair color, the 5lbs of makeup doesn't help either. Jennifer Aniston, Sally Field are two examples of women getting it right with both hair & makeup.”
janet2derek on Mar 21, 2013 at 15:41:54
“I agree with you about trying to get the color as close to the original as possible because you are correct it does look better because it blends with the skin tone better. (Unless you slap on the wrong color foundation with a spatula) I also hate the 2 color jobs they look silly so does royal blue and purple. I live in Quebec and many of the french colorists have this revolting affection for burgandy or orange/red hair. It looks so cheap and awful. You are correct about some get it right and some totally blow it. Now I must run off and get rid of my grey roots..
have a fun rest of the day.”
Mar 20, 2013 at 16:01:03
“Katie's not a ravishing beauty, certainly good looking.
I find most women actually look better natural, without all the god awful hair color & makeup.
Red lipstick turns me right off, it was nice to see a pic of Anna Hathaway the other day with no lipstick or makeup. She looked great, Anna just needs to get some sun!”
janet2derek on Mar 21, 2013 at 12:29:38
“I have grey hair since I was 18 and have to dye it or I would go nuts. By the time I was 25 it would have been all white. ugh. I need and want my hair dye.”
sillyblueness2 on Mar 20, 2013 at 21:42:14
“You had me right up until the last 6 words.”
PARANOID365 on Mar 20, 2013 at 17:02:29
“Not only do I agree with the above poster, (except I think Katey is more than just good looking, but I prefer the, "girl next door look"), but this article is laughable, what do they think celebs are magical, and don't go gray like everyone else?? It's natural folks, and the ones that never show gray are just coloring, as Katey does when she has time, (hell even everyday men do it). The best part about this article, is the fact that I find her just as beautiful in this pic, as I do in any of the others....”
Mar 18, 2013 at 11:36:45
“Denial & flight, the typical response when one faces the truth regarding the beliefs they desperately cling too. We don't like it when someone bursts our little belief bubble so we switch to denial & flight mode.”
Mar 17, 2013 at 22:30:18
“1 - The woman's right to choose argument is based on the notion a fetus isn't a life. All factual evidence shows life begins at conception (see answer to number 10 below). A woman's right to choose, is simply notion created to justify abortion. Its an excuse used to absolve woman & men from acting irresponsibly.
With the exception of rape, all pregnancies are 100% avoidable. It requires a conscious choice to become pregnant, a man & woman agreeing to have sex.
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 - All have nothing to do with abortion. They are little more than fear-mongering & obfuscation by both sides.
10 - Life can only begin at conception since a sperm & egg cease to exist if conception does not occur. From the moment of conception a life is created.”
alsm9 on Mar 18, 2013 at 09:24:09
“"The woman's right to choose argument is based on the notion a fetus isn't a life."
THAT'S NOT WHAT IT'S BASED ON!!! It's based on the fact that it's a woman's body and she has the right to CHOOSE what happens with it. I'm done with you, didn't even read past the first sentence. Bye bye...”
Mar 17, 2013 at 16:21:23
“Those so called myths & answers or whatever they are, simply hilarious.
So that's the type of nonsense people use to justify their abortion stances, be it for or against abortion, simply hilarious.
Whether a fetus feels pain or has a brain, has no bearing on whether or not the fetus is a life.
Number 10 is pure bunk, life only begins at conception since neither a sperm or egg on their own constitute a life. Neither can grow & will perish unless they join to become a life. As such life can only begin at the point of conception, not before. Like all things, life only begins when growth results, be it a plant seed or a fetus.
So if life begins with growth, you can't use 24 weeks as some sort of cutoff point for abortions. In fact if you insist on 24 weeks we should actually extend that period to 19 years. It is only around the age of 19 that the fetus has finely stopped physically growing.
So really we should be able to terminate from the point of conception all the way to the age of 19 years.
And before you spout off about the fetus being a viable life. If viability is going to brought up as justification for abortion. Than we should allow people to die when they become sick, as they are no longer viable, without medical intervention.
Mar 17, 2013 at 10:14:33
“Science didn't make that 24 week claim, politicians did to set a standard cutoff point for abortions. It was not based on factual information, because we have no factual information from which we can make such a claim.
Saying 24 weeks is a contradiction in itself, nothing has change at 24 weeks. The fetus is exactly as it was at conception, growing!
A tree at 6 weeks is still the same tree at 20 years, the tree became a tree at the moment it started to grow. There is no, the tree is only a tree once it reaches 2 years or 5 years, that is nonsense.”
alsm9 on Mar 17, 2013 at 10:29:07
“Wow, I'm just speechless. An acorn is not a oak tree. And I don't think you understand what the word contradiction means.