The Daily Twitter: Science is athiest religion

Christina here…

Here’s your daily dose of Twitter:


Dude, I’ve got nothin’.

I’m an atheist, and my job is to help people with disabilities live better lives. They are pretty much all poor and needy. I don’t do it because of any god or lack of gods.




Learn more about Christina and follow her @ziztur.

About christinastephens
  • JT (Generic)

    I give to charities all the damn time.

    Fuck you, random Christian on the interwebs.

  • unbound

    That last statement is a kicker indeed. Both my wife and I have done far more in support of our local community than the vast majority of the religious in the area…combined.

    The religious seem to think that donating to their local clubhouse is helping the poor when, in fact, very little of those donations go to help the poor or needy at all. The funds just go to continue clubhouse operations.

  • Randomfactor

    I give, quite often, to PROTECT the poor and powerless from Christians.

    And I do it BECAUSE no god exists either to show them the error of their ways, or to smite them out of sheer exasperation.

  • J*

    Pretty sure we don’t use carbon dating anymore. It’s potassium argon now because it has a longer half life, no?

    • JT (Generic)

      Not exactly. It’s like saying that we don’t use tack hammers because we have sledge hammers now.

      Different types of dating are good for different scopes of time. Longer half lives also mean less accuracy in dating younger objects. How do you accurately measure the width of a human hair with a yardstick?

    • JT (Generic)

      Likewise, it’s difficult to measure the length of a car with a caliper.

      • J*

        So carbon is more precise. Gotcha. Thanks for the info!

        • gshelley

          Not so much more precise, just a different range of ages that can be measured. In absolute terms, the error is going to be smaller, but I don’t know about percentage error.

        • Martin

          Radiometric dating methods are (generally) usable from 1/20 to 10X the half life of the isotope in question, with an accuracy of up to +/- 1%.

          Thus carbon dating uses C14 with a half life of 5700 years…so it’s good for organic material between 250 to 60000 years* old, whereas Uranium/Lead has within one sample two decays, one half life of 700 million years, the other of 4.5 billion years, thus providing a cross check for samples older than 200 million years.

          *If the carbon sample is found in an locale with high radioactivity, the neutrons from the (non-carbon) decay can convert C12 to C13, and C13 to C14. This is why coal and diamonds sometimes show a C14 age of as low as 20,000 years.

  • baal

    Different elements and ratios for different time interval. Wikki it! If you have dead trees around a certain event (say remains of a camp fire buried in the floor of a cave) you can figure out times to the exact year. This technique only work for a certain time window where we have decent tree ring growth records. So it’s great for recent stuff but useless further back.

  • Yoritomo

    Funny how an attempt to legislate help for the poor would likely be decried as godless socialism by the same person.

  • gshelley

    Why were you even bothering? His replies seemed like random streams that in no way addressed your points

  • ‘Tis Himself, OM

    Like so many goddists, madmax thompson is arguing with the straw atheist who lives in hir head.