THE LAST DIFFICULTY THREAD (honest)

[jakev2.0]

GO GO GO !!!

[pianistimo]

diamond.  i mean you can't get any harder than that.  unless you're talking a different kind of hard.

who voted for patton?

[jre58591]

those math topics arent that hard once you know how to do them and understand them. id say diamond.

[jakev2.0]

Well, it's totally dependent on the depth of the course material and the difficulty of the tests they subject you to.

[liszt-essence]

What is the diamond test?

[jakev2.0]

The Mohs scale.

[arbisley]

not knowing the last three, maybe becuase I'm not advanced enough, I chose integration.

[gruffalo]

i dont find integral and differential calculus difficult. it may be because i enjoy using it, but i found vectors difficult to understand back when i first started studying them.

[cziffra]

calculus ion vectors and matricis can be incredibly difficult, and remember that alot ofdifferential equations can only be solved by computers and a very large majority are actually impossible, so I'll give the edge to that

[kony]

this is pretty funny.. considering even in high school maths, integral and differential caculus are not the hardest topics.

but then, integral caculus sounds so 1337 

[bench warmer]

Nice poll!

Add maybe:

Theory of Complex Variables
Elliptical Equations
The 3-body gravitational problem and quantuum gravity
What happend before 10^-35 seconds before the Big Bang
Prime Number Theorem
The Inside of my Head

[gruffalo]

quantuum gravity

agreed. this becomes a complete pregnant dog to understand.

[soliloquy]

Dayum jake.  u already no da anzah to this.


MAH


GIRTH

[jakev2.0]

true this was an inevitable response. 

[dnephi]

I've done all the calc series and stuff and I had Calculus 2 (second semester- partial derivatives, tricks to integrate, etc.) as my hardest by far.  Good luck! 

PS Benchwarmers just being lazy and not coming up with anything smart.

[moi_not_toi]

GO CALCULUS!!!!
I'd say "Contemplating 11 Diminsions" would be hardest, but It's not there.

[soliloquy]

GO CALCULUS!!!!
I'd say "Contemplating 11 Diminsions" would be hardest, but It's not there.

How bout fourteen? 


Anyway, I think we forgot Tensor Calculus, Advanced Number Theory (ew), Chaos Mathematics, Quantum Mathematics, Non-Integral Cardinals, Inaccessible cardinals, Quantum Groups, Motivic Cohemology, Infinite Banach Spaces, Microlocalized Group Analysis, n-space geometry and super string theory :O

[henrah]

Super string theory? What makes it super?

[ahinton]

How bout fourteen? 

It might risk the intervention of "pianistimo" with some material about carbon dating; is that a valid reason for or against?...

Advanced Number Theory (ew)

I'm sure there are plenty of members here who either indulge in or recognise the "2+2=5" principle...

Chaos Mathematics

Some here might take that one as a personal affront to their mathematical prowess..

Non-Integral Cardinals, Inaccessible cardinals

These are respectively those in favour of greater Christian unity and those who are secretly members of Opus Dei, I think; better consult "pianistimo" again...

Motivic Cohemology

With the minimum of tweaking that could be made to sound like a Tony Bliarism...

super string theory :O

Ah - I know this one; this is the science surrounding those special silken threads with which the cat plays with its right front paw while playing Wittgenstein's south-paw transcription of Scarlatti's Cat's Fugue with the other front one...

Best,

Alistair

[rach n bach]

Where are all the votes for peanut brittle?   

Have you people ever tried to make the stuff?

I'm in culinary arts, and belive me, it can be prettly hard to make... I mean, I just got a digital thermometer so that I could measure down to 1/10 of a degree!  Now I don't need to be that accurate, but if it isn't just right, well, in culinary arts it dosen't fly!  And when you add how hard the final product is, well...     

RnB

[soliloquy]

It might risk the intervention of "pianistimo" with some material about carbon dating; is that a valid reason for or against?...
I'm sure there are plenty of members here who either indulge in or recognise the "2+2=5" principle...
Some here might take that one as a personal affront to their mathematical prowess..
These are respectively those in favour of greater Christian unity and those who are secretly members of Opus Dei, I think; better consult "pianistimo" again...
With the minimum of tweaking that could be made to sound like a Tony Bliarism...
Ah - I know this one; this is the science surrounding those special silken threads with which the cat plays with its right front paw while playing Wittgenstein's south-paw transcription of Scarlatti's Cat's Fugue with the other front one...

Best,

Alistair

what XD

[pianistimo]

it is a valid reason for young earth - believe it or not!  according to the site below, carbon 14 has a very short half life (not billions of years) so dating things has to be within a prescribed time of the carbon being trapped and how much was trapped at the time and how much escaped (as it appears that some things have at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay - as when uranium decays to lead, a by-product is the formation of helium, which being a light gas readily escapes). 

ok.  so we get to diamonds.  according to this site - people assume that ALL the carbon has turned to diamond.  but, when five diamonds were presented to a lab by dr. baumgardner - they found C14 in them!  so, if we have C14 present - how can they be billions of years old?  especially if their hard cover (which makes them inpenetrable) would allow the C14 to escape after it hardened - which doesn't make sense.

https://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/radiometric.asp

ps  i actually think all that higher math is the most difficult.  i got stuck on geometry.  i still remember my feeling of failure of the brain when i just couldn't 'get it' no matter how much the teacher or my dad tried to explain it.  it was like my brain couldn't wrap around it.  and, yet - i'm very good at algebra.  i think you have to start children small - that have math difficulties like mine.  i mean - i think my parents thought - 'who cares if she gets it or doesn't get it - she'll probably not use it.  but, it's frustrating to take a subject and not be prepared for it.  preparation for geometry and stuff like that could come a lot earlier (and i think it does here in pa).  of course, doing all the homework is a good idea.  not sure if i was doing that at the time.

[jakev2.0]

Absolute insanity.

[pianistimo]

try wikipedia:

https://creationwiki.org/Carbon-14_dating

it also says 'assumed but unobserved initial ratio' - which means that a lot of different things could have happened in the early stages that would determine the final C14 to C12 outcome.  this is for some rock.  whereas - buried items show the reverse to be true.  that the C14 has been trapped and is STILL there in much more quantities than expected.

it's not just creationists who are revising numbers.

for instance oil/gas drilling - the amount C14 from CO2  shows that (despite an absence of organic material to absorb the C14) the depth would eliminate the age of the earth at that point as below the age of the C14 - which is relatively a young age even with it's half-lives otherwise the C-14 would have decayed long ago.

[pianistimo]

perhaps the last difficulty is really faith.  why i say this is because i feel that knowledge doesn't really tell you everything.  i mean - there are some things that seem to be a mystery. love.  music.  feelings.  inspiration.  poetry.  things that are sort of undefinable.  diamonds?

no woman is ever going to tell her man 'i wish you were smarter.'  but, if he is gentle and kind and thoughtful - that's all that matters.  that is part of the mystery.  just accepting that what a man thinks is #1 is probably last on the list to his girlfriend.

i think the most difficult thing for anyone (girl or guy) is to be loving more often than mean.

[Kassaa]

try wikipedia:

https://creationwiki.org/Carbon-14_dating

LOLZ OMG THAT SOURCE, that's YOUR wikipedia, not the normal one.

Carbon dating is NOT used for determining the age of the earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

[pianistimo]

it's used to date things found in the earth - which ultimately supposedly dates the earth.  ie rock

btw, when i mentioned buried - i mean that volcanic eruptions, magma from underneath - give the rock heat and sometimes surfacing over the years - and reburial or simply staying put - but dealing with cracks and crevasses which allow gas and all to escape.  then, sometimes they are covered up again.  with all the things that happen to rock - how can we accurately date the crust.

now, if someone knows how to date the center of the earth (if perchance it was water?) - that would be something!  weren't they drilling somewhere in china - the deepest hole yet?

here's another site about dating using C-14.  it's really no different on creation sites than the other sites.  C-14 is a method that's been around so long - but is constantly proven on the younger side of dating rather than older.

https://www.rae.org/bits23.htm

[pianistimo]

here's a place which discusses why a freshly killed seal was carbon dated at 1300 years old.  https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html

[Kassaa]

it's used to date things found in the earth - which ultimately supposedly dates the earth.  ie rock

btw, when i mentioned buried - i mean that volcanic eruptions, magma from underneath - give the rock heat and sometimes surfacing over the years - and reburial or simply staying put - but dealing with cracks and crevasses which allow gas and all to escape.  then, sometimes they are covered up again.  with all the things that happen to rock - how can we accurately date the crust.

now, if someone knows how to date the center of the earth (if perchance it was water?) - that would be something!  weren't they drilling somewhere in china - the deepest hole yet?

here's another site about dating using C-14.  it's really no different on creation sites than the other sites.  C-14 is a method that's been around so long - but is constantly proven on the younger side of dating rather than older.

https://www.rae.org/bits23.htm

Which part of 'up to 60000 years' is the part you don't understand? Carbon-14 is just gone after 60000 years, the earth is way older than that:

Modern radiometric dating

Radiometric dating continues to be the predominant way scientists date geologic timescales. Techniques for radioactive dating have been tested and fine tuned for the past 50+ years. Forty or so different dating techniques are utilized to date a wide variety of materials, and dates for the same sample using these techniques are in very close agreement on the age of the material.

Possible contamination problems do exist, but they have been studied and dealt with by careful investigation; leading to sample preparation procedures being minimized to limit the chance of contamination. Hundreds to thousands of measurements are done daily with excellent precision and accurate results. Even so, research continues to refine and improve radiometric dating to this day.

[edit] Why meteorites were used

Today's accepted age of the Earth of 4.55 billion years was determined by C.C. Patterson using Uranium-Lead dating on fragments of the Canyon Diablo meteorite and published in 1956.

The quoted age of the Earth is derived, in part, from the Canyon Diablo meteorite for several important reasons and is built upon a modern understanding of cosmochemistry built up over decades of research.

Most geological samples from the Earth are unable to give a direct date of the formation of the Earth from the solar nebula because the Earth has undergone stratification into the core, mantle and crust, and this has then undergone a long history of mixing and unmixing of these sample reservoirs by plate tectonics, weathering and hydrothermal circulation.

All of these processes may adversely affect isotopic dating mechanisms because the sample cannot always be assumed to have remained as a closed system, by which it is meant that either the parent or daughter nucleide or an intermediate daughter nucleide may have been partially removed from the sample, which will skew the resulting isotopic date. To mitigate this effect it is usual to date several minerals in the same sample, to provide an isochron. Alternately, more than one dating system may be used on a sample to check the date.

Some meteorites are furthermore considered to represent the primitive material from which the accreting solar disk was formed. Some have behaved as closed systems (for some isotopic systems) soon after the solar disk and the planets formed. To date, these assumptions are supported by much scientific observation and repeated isotopic dates, and it is certainly a more robust hypothesis than that which assumes a terrestrial rock has retained its original composition.

Nevertheless, ancient Archaean lead ores of galena have been used to date the formation of the Earth as these represent the earliest formed lead-only minerals on the planet and record the earliest homogeneous lead-lead isotope systems on the planet. These have returned age dates of 4.54 billion years with a precision of as little as 1% margin for error.

See, nothing about carbon, carbon is just used for determining other things than the age of the earth. And that link you give is just as ridiculous as all the other links you give like Creationwiki.org :\ . See a conclusion of the writer Curt Wussell here: 

The book of Genesis is an historical account, not an allegory.  Its accuracy is assured by the inspirational guidance of the Holy Spirit.  I think its details are best explained by this modified tablet theory, which offers a more satisfactory explanation of all the details, and doesn’t violate any known fact.  It’s in good accord with Scripture, and adds the authenticity that Genesis was composed of eye-witness accounts.  I believe that it’s true.  We would do well to simply believe the exact teaching of the Bible, just as God inspired it.  To do otherwise is an insult to its Author, our Creator God.

You people just believe without accepting that it simply is disproven every damn day.

[soliloquy]

The book of Genesis is an historical account, not an allegory.  Its accuracy is assured by the inspirational guidance of the Holy Spirit.  I think its details are best explained by this modified tablet theory, which offers a more satisfactory explanation of all the details, and doesn’t violate any known fact.  It’s in good accord with Scripture, and adds the authenticity that Genesis was composed of eye-witness accounts.  I believe that it’s true.  We would do well to simply believe the exact teaching of the Bible, just as God inspired it.  To do otherwise is an insult to its Author, our Creator God.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OH


MAN


lol


I love how at the end he tries to emotionally blackmail all of us crazy idiots that use logic, science and common sense by telling us that not believing something that is so OBVIOUSLY total BS and makes absolutely no sense, and contradicts basically everything in reality as we know it we are insulting God and will therefore be punished.  What eye witnesses exactly were there BEFORE GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE, much less the earth?  Now, without doing any research whatsoever because it is totally unnecessary, can I assume this eye witness is God?  hahahaha!  God says it happened because God did it, therefore God must exist.  wtffffffffffffff!  Christianity is so screwed up.

[ahinton]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Well, now - there's a potentially good 4/5 trill gone to waste...

I love how at the end he tries to emotionally blackmail all of us crazy idiots that use logic, science and common sense by telling us that not believing something that is so OBVIOUSLY total BS and makes absolutely no sense, and contradicts basically everything in reality as we know it we are insulting God and will therefore be punished.0

Just out of interest, who is this "he" of whom you write? You do not identify the source of your quote and I really cannot be bothered to trawl through to ascertain who it was. And DO stop splitting your infinitives as you boldly go to wherever you're going(!) - the axeman cometh, splitting infinitives along the way (as in)...(OK, I'm just having a bit of what "shortyshort" seems intent on believing is "fun" - at the expense of no one in particular...)

Best,

Alistair

[soliloquy]

Well, now - there's a potentially good 4/5 trill gone to waste...
Just out of interest, who is this "he" of whom you write? You do not identify the source of your quote and I really cannot be bothered to trawl through to ascertain who it was. And DO stop splitting your infinitives as you boldly go to wherever you're going(!) - the axeman cometh, splitting infinitives along the way (as in)...(OK, I'm just having a bit of what "shortyshort" seems intent on believing is "fun" - at the expense of no one in particular...)

Best,

Alistair

Wrong.  4-2 trem

[ahinton]

Wrong.  4-2 trem

OK - but then I cannot either be party to, or criticize one way or the other, your fingerings various (if you'll pardon my manner of expression here)...

Best,

Alistair

[soliloquy]

OK - but then I cannot either be party to, or criticize one way or the other, your fingerings various (if you'll pardon my manner of expression here)...

Best,

Alistair

The letters H and A have four other keys between them: s, d, f and g.  Would you tremolo an M6 with a 5-4 configuration?  If so, how big is your penis, sir, because you must have the most freakishly massive hands ever.

[ahinton]

The letters H and A have four other keys between them: s, d, f and g.  Would you tremolo an M6 with a 5-4 configuration?  If so, how big is your penis, sir, because you must have the most freakishly massive hands ever.

Please leave out the "sir"; whilst based in UK, I am most certainly not a "knight of the realm". I am not going to discuss the size of my hands or any other of my limbs here; what I will do instead is remind you of a fact that to which I have drawn attention on this forum on several occasions - which is that I am not a pianist. The absence of logical thought processes that apparently enables you to attempt to associate penis size with hand size in a pianistic context (and, still worse, to address it to a non-pianist like me), when even Liszt almost certainly never used his penis on the keyboard as any kind of additional finger, is entirely beyond me and, if you don't mind, I'd be quite happy to keep it that way...

Best,

Alistair

[steinwaymodeld]

HAHAHAHA omg!!!
https://creationwiki.org

AND THE 88ISIMO pozt from b4....

this COMEDY FEAST IS JUST TOO MUCH!!!!

hahaha since when do christian need to create their own knowledge base to prove that they are infallible?


Back in the ol' good days, people who disagree were just stoned to death.
Plain and simple.


BTW, volcano eruption does not induce enough heat to alter the nuclear (not molecular) structure of C-14. (it does not create enough energy to break the strong-nuclear force within the nucleus)

C-14 decays thru a rather stable beta decay with a pretty accurate half-life.

And mind u, the scientist (even though they don't use carbon dating to find out the age of earth), they have a calibration curve that will compensates the other production of C-14 (mostly thru cosmic ray)

And I am glad you did point out that u were having difficulties while learning geometry, thus i can expect what kind of answer i will get outta this post.

Please don't mix religion with science (except if u are scientologist, or are u?), so i can at least read the bible like a storybook instead of confusing it with 'lab manual for the insane'.