Popular Myths in Science

I've always felt wetter (In advance, fuck you Jackal) running.

Haha, Kevin has a wet vagina while running.

Edit: Haha, Kevin has a vagina to begin with!!

Your mom lays on people.

Kevin, you have a vagina. A vagina I says!!!

myth- it took millions of years forthe river to form grand canyon!
really i didnt know rivers flow uphill!

What are you talking about?

myth- it took millions of years forthe river to form grand canyon!
really i didnt know rivers flow uphill!

He is talking about how "Science" explains how the grand canyon was formed. But it would be litterally impossible for it to happen that way.

Here is another one. The big bang created the universe over billions of years. That one is pretty popular. Apparently if you add the phrase "Millions of years" or "billions of years" to anything people will believe it. Yet when they study the earth and everything in it, its more likely to be around 6,000 years old. Not Billions.

Yet when they study the earth and everything in it, its more likely to be around 6,000 years old.

Where on Earth did you read that nonsense? There's been fossils/rocks etc found that are billions of years old.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

The way they measure the age of the earth by how deep it goes is all wrong. If it was true, then there have been things found like shoes, air planes, and other more current items that would be dated millions of years old. Which obviously is wrong.

Is this a religious thing?

Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54×109 years).[1] This age represents a compromise between the interpretations of oldest-known terrestrial minerals – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – and astronomers' and planetologists' determinations of the age of the solar system based in part on radiometric age dating of meteorite material and lunar samples.

Not "by how deep it goes".

No this is science. Here is an article where they found a Plane in ice, that shows even their dating of ice is off too.

THE LOST SQUADRON

In 1942, during World War II, some war planes landed in Greenland. When the war ended, those planes were left there and forgotten.

In 1990, an aircraft enthusiast came up with the bright idea to find them and fly them off again.

He organised a group and they went searching. As it turned out, they had to use radar, because the planes were under the ice, in fact, so deep under the ice, the men had a hard job finding them. Do you know, that lost squadron had got covered by 263 feet of ice in 48 years!

Let's do some arithmetic.
* 263 feet divided by 48 years, that's an ice growth of about 5.5 feet per year.
* Now divide 10,000 feet by 5.5. And you get 1,824 years for ALL of the ice to build up.

We should allow longer for the fact that the deeper ice is pressed into finer layers.

Note: those planes did not sink into the ice, due to pressure on the ice. The ice had grown OVER them.

ARE THESE ANCIENT AIRCRAFT IN ICE?

Okay, would you do some maths? Can you work this out?

The Denver National Ice Core Laboratory said that 10,000 feet of ice had to be 135,000 years old! So the 263 feet deep of "Lost Squadron" ice - how old should that be? That's right, 3,419 years old.

Does that mean those aircraft are 3,419 years old? What do you think?

Consider this my last post. I try to stay away from any debate over Science or Religion because in the end, after all the arguing, after all the "prove me wrong", after all the "here is my proof", after all that, in the end they continue to believe in what they want to believe and it never really accomplishes anything. People will continue to believe what they want, and you wont be able to change their minds, at least not in a forum. LOL

Last edited by -Young Buck- on Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sounds more like a conspiracy theory than anything scientific. The argument is flawed from the beginning, whoever wrote this (which is not scientific, it's based on one strange example and explains nothing) didn't actually find out how old 263 feet of ice would have to be, he just derived it from a calculation of how old 10,000 feet of ice would have to be... I'm not a scientist but I'd imagine ice doesn't form at exactly the same pace throughout 10,000 years, so the idea that you can accurately say how old 263 feet of ice is based on what has been said about something that is like 76% older/larger seems silly to me. I am interested though, so do you have any links to any real proof of this theory that I can read?

Consider this my last post. I try to stay away from any debate over Science or Religion because in the end, after all the arguing, after all the "prove me wrong", after all the "here is my proof", after all that, in the end they continue to believe in what they want to believe and it never really accomplishes anything. People will continue to believe what they want, and you wont be able to change their minds, at least not in a forum. LOL

Why are people at this forum so petrified of debates or discussions these days? It's happening in NBA Talk and now it's going on here. If you have an opinion you've got to be willing to back it up because a fact of life is, not everyone is going to agree with you. The purpose of a discussion isn't to change someone's mind, it is to inform/educate the other party on your own particular thoughts/beliefs/whatever.

The arithmetic of that is based on assumptions. It doesn't consider other factors, only the presumed build up of ice. Really doubtful.

Dating rocks and ice are also entirely different. The only thing they can be similar is if an organic object was found in the ice and subjected the same method to analyze rocks.

I'm all about skepticism about being able to tell how old the earth is and whatnot, but for eff's sake... I'd think rock would be a much better subject to decide than ice.

For one thing:

The depth of ice – the amount of annual snowfall at the Lost Squadron site (near the coast) is much greater than the GISP2 site (far inland near the summit of the ice sheet). The annual snowfall at the Lost Squadron site is around 7 ft per year. So 268 ft of snow in 50 years isn't unusual for that site. The amount of annual snowfall at the GISP2 site is much lower (around 1 ft per year). Using the amount of snowfall accumulation at the Lost Squadron site to infer the rate of snow accumulation at the GISP2 site is wildly inappropriate. That would be like using the amount of rainfall on the west side of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon to make predications about the amount of annual rainfall in Arizona.
Source (March 16 post)

And, if you're going to date ice layers (Like some people do to "prove" that the Mayans died from a massive heat wave), you trace chemicals and isotopes in the ice. Not just count how many layers there are. But if you wanna hack it and just count the layers, you need to at least study the different types of layers (it's not as simple as one layer = one year. Far from it.), if not, you're going to end up with a crapload of extra layers. Which, the lost squadron didn't even do.

And seriously, using how deep in the ground you find shit is not accurate at all. The most popular, and as far as I know - most accurate, way to determine how far back an organic object goes is by carbon dating it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating). Though it's only extremely accurate to about 60,000 years back.

No this is science. Here is an article where they found a Plane in ice, that shows even their dating of ice is off too.

THE LOST SQUADRON

In 1942, during World War II, some war planes landed in Greenland. When the war ended, those planes were left there and forgotten.

In 1990, an aircraft enthusiast came up with the bright idea to find them and fly them off again.

He organised a group and they went searching. As it turned out, they had to use radar, because the planes were under the ice, in fact, so deep under the ice, the men had a hard job finding them. Do you know, that lost squadron had got covered by 263 feet of ice in 48 years!

Let's do some arithmetic.
* 263 feet divided by 48 years, that's an ice growth of about 5.5 feet per year.
* Now divide 10,000 feet by 5.5. And you get 1,824 years for ALL of the ice to build up.

We should allow longer for the fact that the deeper ice is pressed into finer layers.

Note: those planes did not sink into the ice, due to pressure on the ice. The ice had grown OVER them.

ARE THESE ANCIENT AIRCRAFT IN ICE?

Okay, would you do some maths? Can you work this out?

The Denver National Ice Core Laboratory said that 10,000 feet of ice had to be 135,000 years old! So the 263 feet deep of "Lost Squadron" ice - how old should that be? That's right, 3,419 years old.

Does that mean those aircraft are 3,419 years old? What do you think?

That looks less like an article and more like a forum post or chain letter. Although I managed to find it: http://evolution-facts.org/New-material ... planes.htm

It also does not make any sense, just lots of random "facts" thrown out that relies on the person to form into an argument supporting their already supported view. It's like the people who believe that Loose Change movie.

I would assume the "135,000" years figure is for the ice at the very bottom, not all of the ice from top to bottom. Or perhaps that the entire 10,000 foot structure of ice was formed over a 135,000 year period.

If ice does grow at an even rate of 5.5 feet per year, it is possible, one supposes, that all that ice grew in just 2,000 or so years. But it seems like this is ignoring the theory that ice melts.

But it would be litterally impossible for it to happen that way.

Really? Guess I'll toss that theory of "erosion" in with the theory of "ice melting" as being ones with lingering questions of validity.

Here is another one. The big bang created the universe over billions of years.

Yeah, but that's not what the big bang theory actually says.

Why are people at this forum so petrified of debates or discussions these days? It's happening in NBA Talk and now it's going on here. If you have an opinion you've got to be willing to back it up because a fact of life is, not everyone is going to agree with you. The purpose of a discussion isn't to change someone's mind, it is to inform/educate the other party on your own particular thoughts/beliefs/whatever.

I disagree.

I was reading through the site from where the story came from, and it seems like a one-sided creationist playground.

Here is another one. The big bang created the universe over billions of years. That one is pretty popular. Apparently if you add the phrase "Millions of years" or "billions of years" to anything people will believe it. Yet when they study the earth and everything in it, its more likely to be around 6,000 years old. Not Billions.

Wait, what? So if I say that I am 14 billion years old, I'm going to be believed? And by using the ice theory everywhere else, how the hell are dinosaurs and trilobites so far away from each other underground, much less where we are at right now?

I disagree.

I challenge your disagreement and put forth my own argument on the matter.

Look, you're just wrong. Everyone knows it.

at benji and jae

However as for the dating stuff found in the earth with rocks and fossils however, i once was given a book by a die hard southern baptist. Not that theres anything wrong with that, but at the time i was atheist and he tried to sway me any way he could. This book claimed to have Christian answers to all science questions. so yeah...apparently the dinosaurs were on the ark and died out due to heavy climate changes in the environment afterwards and all sorts of fun things. It also used the Bible as proof carbon dating and other things could not exist. It made me laugh

Well, let me ask you aussies/other guys from the southern hemisphere: does the water flow backwards? it did when i was there.

EDIT realized the fallacy in the end question...what direction does it flow down there? They taught us about the Coriolis Effect at school and i'll be greatly amused at American schools giving completely false information

Last edited by Oznogrd on Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Stay away illini from benji and Jae's disagreement to agreement.
It could get ugly. Don't say I warned you.

I'm sorry for not putting together the Yao Ming argument like I should of. Get off my back.

TRUE
- I'm the long lost son of this forum.

Well, let me ask you aussies/other guys from the southern hemisphere: does the water flow backwards? it did when i was there.

It flows the right way for us. It flows backwards for you guys. Just like the Southern Hemisphere is on top, darnit.

OK, just tested. The toilet flushed anti-clockwise. Then i went to wash my hands (Recommend it to everyone).


And the water ran down the drain....clock-wise.


Official result: Inconclusive, but refreshing.

Well, let me ask you aussies/other guys from the southern hemisphere: does the water flow backwards? it did when i was there.

EDIT realized the fallacy in the end question...what direction does it flow down there? They taught us about the Coriolis Effect at school and i'll be greatly amused at American schools giving completely false information

It isn't affected by Coriolis but it seems the design of fixtures has allowed the myth to thrive.

here is the official web site for the lost squadron http://www.thelostsquadron.com . please note this is not a site promoting or debunking evolution.
now to my earlier statement about the grand canyon. the river runs through a plateau called the kaibab plateau. now the middle of this plateau is obviously higher than the edge. therefor why did the river flow into the upward slope, in which case it would be flowing uphiill, and not flow around it?

Perhaps weathering had something to do with that. Over millions of years, the edge was weathered more than the middle, thus leaving the middle higher. How is that hard to understand. Are you trying to say the river didn't create the canyon? If not, then what did?

Perhaps weathering had something to do with that. Over millions of years, the edge was weathered more than the middle, thus leaving the middle higher. How is that hard to understand. Are you trying to say the river didn't create the canyon? If not, then what did?

Benji's mom.