Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   cambrian death cause
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 232 (122873)
07-08-2004 3:05 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 195 of 232 (128284)
07-28-2004 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by simple
07-28-2004 1:38 AM


a warning
I guess this would mean, also, by your account, then that Adam's rate of decay was constant, and he never had any change?
You are either very stupid (which is forgivable) or you are not debating in good faith. Tell me which on it is, please.
If the second, this is your last warning before you get a suspension for not engaging in honest debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by simple, posted 07-28-2004 1:38 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 2:50 PM AdminNosy has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 211 of 232 (128711)
07-29-2004 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by simple
07-29-2004 2:50 PM


Re: Adam's atoms
What's wrong with Adam's rate of decay?
I see from this and you comment in post 209 that the answer is that you are, in fact, stupid and so forgiven. You are utterly ignorant of what is even meant by radioactive decay.
Unless there are direct complaints by other participants I'll let you carry on.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 07-29-2004 04:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 2:50 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 11:59 PM AdminNosy has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 220 of 232 (128869)
07-30-2004 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by simple
07-29-2004 11:59 PM


Re: Adam's atoms
I am guessing what you think is stupid is my leaving room for the possibility atomic decay rates could have changed.
No that is not it (though there is no reason to think they have (that is evidenced reasons) ). What is stupid is suggesting that Adam would decay radioactively. It is so stupid I had to leave open the possibility of you just trying to avoid actually debating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 11:59 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by simple, posted 07-30-2004 5:51 PM AdminNosy has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 229 of 232 (129026)
07-30-2004 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by simple
07-30-2004 5:51 PM


Re: Adam's atoms
Perhaps the wording was fuzzy.
No, the wording had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of discussion. It had no thought behind it at all. It is gibberish pretending to be something intelligent.
If you wish to continue to be able to debate I suggest you demonstrate that you can actually read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by simple, posted 07-30-2004 5:51 PM simple has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 232 of 232 (129030)
07-30-2004 6:36 PM


Topic Closed
You may take this to Suggestions and Questions if you feel this is uncalled for.
The frequent use of the word retarded seems to hint at where this has gotten to. I see no recent progress in this thread.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024