Scientific proof of flood.

[duordi]

And at the time the theological belief of society as a whole was acceptance of a young earth and a global flood. The early geologists were breaking new ground, not following the crowd.

I'm not saying that. I am saying what the predominant belief of the time was. Scientists who were influenced by that belief looked for evidence of the flood because they believed it had really happened. They began with modest estimates of the age of the earth and only increased their estimates when the evidence demanded it.

In our society the predominant belief has changed because of the conclusions those early geologists came to, which have been consistently re-inforced by more evidence.

Darwinism gained acceptance in the late 1800's to the early 1900's with the original release of his book in 1859.
The great depression started with the stock market crash of 1929 and was caused by moral chaos during the decade before. Questioning of commonly held moral and social standards was commonpleace. Gay rights, women’s rights, and acceptance of drug use was a sign of the times. Coke ( the soft drink ) had cocaine (the drug) in it, that is why it is called Coke today.

The acceptance of Darwinism did not happen during a time of moral utopia.

Your opnion that Darwinism was accepted by scientists which believed the Bible but were swayed by scientific evidence would seem incorrect based on my research.

I think you are the one making the assumptions here. Can you provide evidence of this procedure?

You do not need to know math to understand how radioactive dating works.

Assume I start with a radioactive element V

V degrades to several other elements W, X, Y, and Z in quantities determine by a specific time interval.

If a rock forms with no trace elements W, X, Y and Z, then you could tell how old it is.

If the rock had trace elements when created, then the question is how much?

If the trace elements are somewhat random and do not match the proportions predicted then the trace elements are some combination of existing during the rock creation, leaching in and out or being created due to radioactive decay.

Now....

Considering all of the above we are looking at a rock which has been tested.
We know the rock has trace elements which are somewhat random and radioactive elements also.

To calibrate the specimen we need two reference points.

We have one reference point as we have just tested the rock.

If we assume the rock is about 2 billion years old we have a second reference point at its creation.



Now all we have to do is assume the rock had the correct amounts of trace elements during creation to cause the rock to be 2 billion years old.

We have calibrated the time clock and we have a working tool.

We can also calibrate the clock using 6000 years as the second point of reference.

Once the clock is calibrated the clock will always give the same relative results and we can compare ages of different rocks.

If a rock can not loose or accept trace elements once it is created then we do know the rock has a maximum age. We will assume all of the trace elements must be formed by radioactive decay.

If you assume a rock was created with no traces elements then the rock could be dated with a maximum age requiring only one calibration point.

This would not date the rock exactly but limit the maximum age that the rock could be.

Relax....

I did not prove the the rock was not 2 billion years old, so I did not disprove your evolutionary belief system.

Duane


Disclaimer:
I am not God, and my posts are not inspired, unless they are Bible quotes.
My intent is to post my assumptions and information gathered to allow the reader the freedom to decide for themselves.
My opnions will change as I learn, and I do not apologize for this.

 

[Sheseala]

Darwinism gained acceptance in the late 1800's to the early 1900's with the original release of his book in 1859.
The great depression started with the stock market crash of 1929 and was caused by moral chaos during the decade before. Questioning of commonly held moral and social standards was commonpleace. Gay rights, women’s rights, and acceptance of drug use was a sign of the times. Coke ( the soft drink ) had cocaine (the drug) in it, that is why it is called Coke today.

Here, I thought the stock market crash was caused by margin buying and over speculation and it didn't help that people freaked and defaulted on their loans.

What the heck is morally wrong with giving rights to people? I rather like being able to vote, go to an engineering school, get a degree, and be recognized in the field (which I'll admit is still hard). What is morally wrong about that?

Cocaine's for horses and not for men...

 

[Tomk80]

Darwinism gained acceptance in the late 1800's to the early 1900's with the original release of his book in 1859.
The great depression started with the stock market crash of 1929 and was caused by moral chaos during the decade before. Questioning of commonly held moral and social standards was commonpleace. Gay rights, women’s rights, and acceptance of drug use was a sign of the times. Coke ( the soft drink ) had cocaine (the drug) in it, that is why it is called Coke today.

The acceptance of Darwinism did not happen during a time of moral utopia.

Your opnion that Darwinism was accepted by scientists which believed the Bible but were swayed by scientific evidence would seem incorrect based on my research.

Care to share the sources for this. Especially on your stockmarket crash thingy. Economics seems to have a very different explanation for it (as Sheseala already pointed out), which differs very much from yours, so I'm wondering where you get yours from.

 

[gluadys]

Darwinism gained acceptance in the late 1800's to the early 1900's with the original release of his book in 1859.
The great depression started with the stock market crash of 1929 and was caused by moral chaos during the decade before. Questioning of commonly held moral and social standards was commonpleace. Gay rights, women’s rights, and acceptance of drug use was a sign of the times. Coke ( the soft drink ) had cocaine (the drug) in it, that is why it is called Coke today.

The acceptance of Darwinism did not happen during a time of moral utopia.

Your opnion that Darwinism was accepted by scientists which believed the Bible but were swayed by scientific evidence would seem incorrect based on my research.

Excuse me, but we were not talking about Darwinism. We were talking about geology. The basics of geology were established in the late 18th and early 19th century and had confirmed the non-existence of the flood by 1835.

And morality had nothing to do with it. This was scientific work.

Since you apparently don't know the difference between geology and evolution, I suggest your research was badly planned. You need to do it again within the proper parameters.

You do not need to know math to understand how radioactive dating works.

You sure do. You need physics to understand the process and I have never heard of physics that did not involve math.

Assume I start with a radioactive element V

V degrades to several other elements W, X, Y, and Z in quantities determine by a specific time interval.

If a rock forms with no trace elements W, X, Y and Z, then you could tell how old it is.

If the rock had trace elements when created, then the question is how much?

If the trace elements are somewhat random and do not match the proportions predicted then the trace elements are some combination of existing during the rock creation, leaching in and out or being created due to radioactive decay.

You need to do more research on this. If you check out the real science you will find that in most cases it is possible to distinguish original elements from radiogenic elements. For example, it is possible to distinguish lead which occurs naturally from lead which occurs as a decay product of uranium.

To calibrate the specimen we need two reference points.

We have one reference point as we have just tested the rock.

If we assume the rock is about 2 billion years old we have a second reference point at its creation.

As I suspected, you don't really know what calibration is. It is used with carbon 14 dating, which does not date rocks.

If you assume a rock was created with no traces elements then the rock could be dated with a maximum age requiring only one calibration point.

It is not necessary to assume this. I suggest you do further reading on scientific sites until you have better comprehension of how radiometic and carbon-14 dating works.

Here are a couple of places to start.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

PS I agree with sheseala too.

 

[duordi]

Excuse me, but we were not talking about Darwinism. We were talking about geology. The basics of geology were established in the late 18th and early 19th century and had confirmed the non-existence of the flood by 1835.

I did not intend to say when the current ideas started for I believe you would have to go back to ancient civilizations.
I only indicated when the ideas were accepted.

And morality had nothing to do with it. This was scientific work.

Since you apparently don't know the difference between geology and evolution, I suggest your research was badly planned. You need to do it again within the proper parameters.

It would seem that you don’t like the idea that the old Earth geology theories could have been due to a social belief system change, instead of a change in scientific information.
That would make evolution science, and the old Earth science similar to the young Earth science, in that both would be faith based.
I can see why that would bother you.
I may indeed research further but I doubt that there would be any logical argument that would change your mind on this subject, as it concerns your core beliefs.
This is a journey you must take yourself if you will, and I can not take it for you.
So the best I can do on this topic is wish you luck in your search.

You sure do. You need physics to understand the process and I have never heard of physics that did not involve math.

You only need math to do it.

You don’t need math to understand it.

There is no way of telling one molecule from another of the same type.
If the ratio of residue forms are identical to the known ratio produced by radioactive decay you can assume they were created by decay.
There is no way to tell if the decay residue was not eroded with an original rock and reformed into a new rock.
If the trace elements are carried with the process then the age read will be of the age of the material the rock is formed from and not of the rock itself.

As I suspected, you don't really know what calibration is. It is used with carbon 14 dating, which does not date rocks.

Ha. Ha.

I am sorry, I should have specified the radioactive dating type I was using.

Carbon 14 dating uses a different process and can only be used on materials once living.
Carbon 14 is limited to dates of a several thousand years or less.

The radioactive dating I was discussing is used to determine dates of rocks Millions and Billions of years old which are made of materials that may have or may not have been alive at one time.

I did not laugh at you, but at myself.

I have great respect for you and so assume that you have in-depth knowledge on any topic I discuss.
I will try to be more specific next time.

Duane

 

[gluadys]

It would seem that you don’t like the idea that the old Earth geology theories could have been due to a social belief system change, instead of a change in scientific information.
That would make evolution science, and the old Earth science similar to the young Earth science, in that both would be faith based.
I can see why that would bother you.
I may indeed research further but I doubt that there would be any logical argument that would change your mind on this subject, as it concerns your core beliefs.
This is a journey you must take yourself if you will, and I can not take it for you.
So the best I can do on this topic is wish you luck in your search.

I believe God created an objectively real and knowable universe. What kind of universe do you think God created such that all our knowledge would be faith-based rather than evidence-based?

Faith applies to what is not seen, not to what we can observe.

There is no way of telling one molecule from another of the same type.

You didn't read the links I gave you, did you. The sentence above is false. You can tell one molecule (or rather atom) from another. Read the links and/or google "isotopes". After all, the whole concept of carbon-14 dating depends on being able to tell one carbon atom from another.

There is no way to tell if the decay residue was not eroded with an original rock and reformed into a new rock.

If it was reformed into new rock, the date will be that of the new rock unless there are inclusions of incompletely melted old rock in the new rock. Often inclusions can be detected by anomalies in the dating results. Whenever possible, a geologist will find and remove inclusions before submitting the sample for testing.

btw are you aware that radiometry cannot be used on sedimentary rock? It is used on igneous rock which we know has been formed by great heat and pressure, such that the rock was completely melted. (e.g. lava flows) With care it can be used on metamorphic rock which has also been subjected to heat and pressure.

 

[Tomk80]

There is no way of telling one molecule from another of the same type.

First off, radiometric dating is done on atoms, not molecules. And yes, there are several ways of discerning one molecule from another of the same type, depending on what the difference is. For that matter, there are also several ways of discerning one atom from another of the same type.

 

[duordi]

Care to share the sources for this. Especially on your stockmarket crash thingy. Economics seems to have a very different explanation for it (as Sheseala already pointed out), which differs very much from yours, so I'm wondering where you get yours from.

First I must ask a question?

Is it morally wrong to start a chain letter?

Yes or no, any why do you take the position you do?

Duane

 

[duordi]

First off, radiometric dating is done on atoms, not molecules. And yes, there are several ways of discerning one molecule from another of the same type, depending on what the difference is. For that matter, there are also several ways of discerning one atom from another of the same type.

Here is a site which contains an explaination of how dating is commonly done.
This site is pro-old dating just to give the opnion an advantage.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solfluf/s4.htm
"If Amount of Original Is Not KnownThere are always a few astronomy students who ask me the good question (and many others who are too shy to ask), ``what if you don't know the original amount of parent material?'' or ``what if the rock had some daughter material at the very beginning?'' The age can still be determined but you have to be more clever in determining it.

One common sense rule to remember is that the number of parent isotope atoms + the number of daughter isotope atoms = an unchanging number throughout time. The number of parent isotopes decreases while the number of daughter isotopes increases but the total of the two added together is a constant. You need to find how much of the daughter isotopes in the rock (call that isotope ``A'' for below) are not the result of a radioactive decay of parent atoms. You then subtract this amount from the total amount of daughter atoms in the rock to get the number of decays that have occurred since the rock solified. Here are the steps:

Find another isotope of the same element as the daughter that is never a result of radioactive decay (call that isotope ``B'' for below). Isotopes of a given element have the same chemical properties, so a radioactive rock will incorporate the NONradioactively derived proportions of the two isotopes in the same proportion as any nonradioactive rock.

Measure the ratio of isotopes A and B in a nonradioactive rock. This ratio, R, will be the primitive (initial) proportion of the two isotopes.

Multiply the amount of the non-daughter isotope (isotope B) in the radioactive rock by the ratio of the previous step: (isotope B) ×× R = initial amount of daughter isotope A that was not the result of decay.

Subtract the initial amount of daughter isotope A from the rock sample to get the amount of daughter isotope A that IS due to radioactive decay. That number is also the amount of parent that has decayed (remember the rule #parent + #daughter = constant). Now you can determine the age as you did before."



This example assumes that all of the products of radioactive decay occurred after the rock was formed and not before.

Suppose I took some material which contained radioactive material but no decay products and put it in a sealed environment.

As time progressed the environment would contain radioactive material and decay isotopes indicating age.

Notice the material is showing age and may not be a rock yet.

My environment now causes a rock to be formed.

When I date it will I get the date of the rock or the material the rock came from because I assumed all of the possible decay took place after the rock was formed.

If I assume that all decay that has taken place after the rock was formed as in the example above then I will determine the age of the radioactive material and not the rock.

Now I will discuss the assumption of 'no decay products' being present at the start.

I have also assumed that the radioactive material has come first with no isotopes.

Is this a good assumption?

What if the universe created the less complicated and more stable isotopes first and then created the radioactive material from the isotopes, as what might be expected?

And would the building of isotopes cause the same ratio as the decaying process causes?

It would seem so.

Which came first the chicken or the egg.

In both evolution and creation it is assumed the chicken came first before the egg.

(This might take some thought on your part.)
But in the example above it is assumed the egg came first.

This explanation is not intended to be simple.

I hope you find it more of a challenge to your intellect then the previous post.

Duane

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

The problem I can see with this is that the creatinist flood model typically claims the same flood that caused the sediment that later became the SOLID ROCK is what caused the erosion.

When did the SOLID ROCK that these formations are carved out of form?

Please don't misunderstand me: I do not think that the geological column was formed by the great deluge. However, if one is wondering how solid rock can be formed from liquid sediments, one could point to the Scriptures as such:

Tremble, O earth, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob, who turned the rock into a pool, the hard rock into springs of water.

Psalm 114:7-9 (New International Version)

If the Lord can do this supernaturally, I'm fairly sure he could also reverse it (or do some variation of this reversal) so that liquid sediments could be used to form solid rock.

Again, just to be clear, I personally do not think the geological column was formed by the great flood -- I think the geological evidence indicates millions of years.

However, to be fair to creationist claims, if one is "hypothetically" talking about how the Lord could do it using "supernatural" means, this seems to be one credible possibility that is mentioned in the Scriptures. It might also explain where all the water went too -- using this supernatural explanation, that is.

 

[notto]

If the Lord can do this supernaturally, I'm fairly sure he could also reverse it (or do some variation of this reversal) so that liquid sediments could be used to form solid rock.

I guess a few dinosaurs got caught in this act as they laid their eggs under 100 feet of water. The dinosarus must have been supernatural as well. After all, why not? Those petrified forests that are stacked on on top of the other must have been living under water as well.

Sorry, I'm not buying this as a rational explanation - even with the supernatural angle. It doesn't address or explain the actual state or nature of the fossil record.

 

[duordi]

I believe God created an objectively real and knowable universe. What kind of universe do you think God created such that all our knowledge would be faith-based rather than evidence-based?

Faith applies to what is not seen, not to what we can observe.

If God gave perfict evidence we would
I will not try to give Bible references as we would disagree on the interpretation.

I will try logic this time.



If God gave perfect evidence we would not have free wills as shown in the example.

Suppose God gave perfect proof of His existence.

To do this He took each person to the edge of hell and said what is it going to be?

Are you going to do as I say or do I push?

This person is not making a free will choice.

So God does not give perfect proof until after the choice is made.

Then those that area wrong are given delusion.

Any one who is not opposed to considering both possibilities will find the end of one is death and the end of the other is life, and so life is chosen.

Only the one who confines them self to the position that God will not get involved or doesn’t care or doesn’t exist is given delusion.

The one who can accept that God has an intense desire for good for His creation and would be willing die to help them receives faith.

Faith is not based on unreasoned trust but is based on conformation given when the correct choice is made.

That is why we grow in faith.

Each step is verified as we find how loving, generous, kind patient, involved and holey God is.


Now as for dating.


Sand will contain all the materials of a previously existing rock structure.

Why would you not expect it to contain all of the products of an aging radioactive time clock?

If the sand turns to sandstone how is the clock reset? It is not reset.

You are dating the radioactive elements and its decay product not the rock.

You must also assumed that the radioactive material has come first with no isotopes.

Is this a good assumption?

What if the universe created the less complicated and more stable isotopes first and then created the radioactive material from the isotopes, as what might be expected?

And would the building of isotopes cause the same ratio as the decaying process causes?

It would seem so.

So why would you assume that the radioactive productive products existed first?

There is only one answer, your belief system desires it to be so.

What reaction should be expected if the assumption is questioned?

Emotional rejection is not a scientific response but a faith response.

Duane

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

I guess a few dinosaurs got caught in this act as they laid their eggs under 100 feet of water.

If you're trying to say that I believe that dinosuars perished in the flood, you would be incorrect. My insertion of this possibility is an attmept to be fair to the creationist claims of such.

The dinosarus must have been supernatural as well. After all, why not?

And I ask why?

Those petrified forests that are stacked on on top of the other must have been living under water as well.

You seem to be missing my point.

What I'm saying is if the Lord has supernaturally turned the hard rock and earth into vast quantities of liquid in one form or another, all things would be caught into the disaster. If something like this happened, I suppose there were be cascades of continental sized oceans flowing in tsunami like fashions crashing together in various junctures. And if he turned them back into hard rock, things that were caught in the global deluge would then be caught within the hard rock they found themselves in.

Sorry, I'm not buying this as a rational explanation - even with the supernatural angle.

But you don't have to "buy" anything. Neither do I -- because I don't believe this actually happened.

It doesn't address or explain the actual state or nature of the fossil record.

I suppose if the Lord turned quantities of the solid rock and earth in waves around the earth, and then quickly solidified them before turning another section of rock and earth liquid, and systematically continued in this fashion, then some orderly layering of the stata could be formed like the ways we see it today.

I mean, one could invoke a thousand supernatural claims in order to make the observation of the strata fit with the Scriptural account of the great deluge.

The point is not that I think this happened. My point is that if a "supernatural explanation" is employed, and modern physics as we know it are "suspended" for the duration of the event, then it may be well beyond the scope of either science or religion to perfectly explain what happened in purely physical terms.

Of course, people can try to explain these things materialistically. I have no problem with them doing so -- so long as they can recognize the limits of what science can explain. However, where matters of supernatural and the divine are concerned, it may yet be found that some things just cannot be explained to the level we'd like to have them explained -- and I would hope that the religiously minded may well recognize these limits too.

 

[gluadys]

Here is a site which contains an explaination of how dating is commonly done.
This site is pro-old dating just to give the opnion an advantage.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solfluf/s4.htm
"If Amount of Original Is Not Known

Good article. Very clear.

Suppose I took some material which contained radioactive material but no decay products and put it in a sealed environment.

As time progressed the environment would contain radioactive material and decay isotopes indicating age.

Notice the material is showing age and may not be a rock yet.

My environment now causes a rock to be formed.

By what process is the rock formed?

I have also assumed that the radioactive material has come first with no isotopes.

Is this a good assumption?

No. Elements have isotopes. Every atom is an isotope of its element. i.e. every atom has a number of electrons, protons and neutrons which give it an atomic weight. Most of this weight is in the protons and neutrons. The two charged particles (electrons and protons) have to balance each other electromagnetically. If their number changes, you have a different element (and that only happens if the element is unstable and therefore radioactive.) But changing the number of neutrons does not affect what the element is or how it interacts with other elements. So when atoms of the same element have different numbers of neutrons, they are the same element, but they have different atomic weights. Each of these is an isotope. The creation of different atomic isotopes would begin with the very formation of atoms long before the earth existed.

What if the universe created the less complicated and more stable isotopes first and then created the radioactive material from the isotopes, as what might be expected?

It is true that a lot of radioactive elements are complex (check out the periodic table of elements). And it is true that these were created later than the light elements. The first atoms to be created were simple hydrogen and helium atoms. (Note that even these have different isotopes although they are not radioactive isotopes.) More complex atoms did not appear until stars were formed, as they required the nuclear fusion reactions in the heart of stars to fuse simple atomic nuclei together into more complex ones.

The heaviest elements required even more than ordinary stellar fusion. They required the immense pressures of a super-nova. However, all these elements had been created before our solar system came into being. So as far as the earth is concerned we can consider that all the elements in all their isotopes already existed.

In both evolution and creation it is assumed the chicken came first before the egg.

Actually evolution says the egg came first. However radiometric dating has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[gluadys]

If God gave perfect evidence we would not have free wills as shown in the example.

I don't follow your logic here. Nor do I understand what free will has to do with being able to study nature.

Suppose God gave perfect proof of His existence.
To do this He took each person to the edge of hell and said what is it going to be?
Are you going to do as I say or do I push?
This person is not making a free will choice.
So God does not give perfect proof until after the choice is made.
Then those that area wrong are given delusion.
Any one who is not opposed to considering both possibilities will find the end of one is death and the end of the other is life, and so life is chosen.
Only the one who confines them self to the position that God will not get involved or doesn’t care or doesn’t exist is given delusion.
The one who can accept that God has an intense desire for good for His creation and would be willing die to help them receives faith.

This is all beside the point. I wasn't making a statement about salvation. I was making a statement about creation.

Let me try to make it clearer.

Do you think it is true that God made a real world?

Do you think it is true that God made a world of order that follows natural laws and processes?

Do you think it is true that God equipped us with sense, intellect and reason that is capable of comprehending the orderly processes of nature?


If your answer to all the above is yes, then it follows that it does not require faith to know what the orderly processes of nature are. All it takes is study.

If you hold that it requires faith to believe in a scientific conclusion, then you must answer "no" to one or more of those three questions. Which one(s) will you answer "no" to?

Now as for dating.
Sand will contain all the materials of a previously existing rock structure.
Why would you not expect it to contain all of the products of an aging radioactive time clock?
If the sand turns to sandstone how is the clock reset? It is not reset.

Correct on all counts. That is why sandstone (and other sedimentary rocks) are not dated radiometrically. Igneous rocks (which are derived from molten material) are those used for radiometric dating.

 

[Tomk80]

First I must ask a question?

Is it morally wrong to start a chain letter?

Yes or no, any why do you take the position you do?

Duane

Despite not seeing the point of that in any way, here you go.

No it is not. The intention of the chain letter is harmless. The personal freedom of the subjects participating in chain letters is not compromised in any way, neither does it limit the participants in anyway to develop themselves as humans. Chain letters in postal form also cost the persons participating little money (a few stamps, that's it).

Chain letters in e-mail form cost society more money and might thus be regarded as immoral. However, the cost of those is negligable when compared to the cost of spam-mail. Next to that, the participants again make the choice of sending the e-mail themselves, it is not forced upon them. And if it is a chain letter that is funny, it would have been send through anyway.

So, no. The persons receiving and sending the chain mail are not inflicted personal harm, and the cost to society as a whole because of chain mail is negligable.

 

[Matthew777]

All you need to do now is submit your paper to a peer-reviewed geology journal and wait for the Nobel Committee to call.

That's just what you say to anything.


Given that there is only enough water to flood 22 percent of the earth's surface, I doubt that a worldwide flood is possible. I may be wrong.

 

[Event Horizon]

Given that there is only enough water to flood 22 percent of the earth's surface, I doubt that a worldwide flood is possible. I may be wrong.

I have been googling some terms from this claim and can find the claim on some sites but do you know of a source that elaborates on that figure and how it was gotten? It would be really useful.

 

[Matthew777]

I have been googling some terms from this claim and can find the claim on some sites but do you know of a source that elaborates on that figure and how it was gotten? It would be really useful.

I don't know. However, this article may help:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/flood.shtml?main

 

[Asimov]

To do this He took each person to the edge of hell and said what is it going to be?
Are you going to do as I say or do I push?

You assume that this is the perfect evidence? Amazing. Anyway, the question was related to God existing, not him asking us to follow him or not.

This person is not making a free will choice.

Oh, but of course they are, they can choose to go to hell or not.

So God does not give perfect proof until after the choice is made.

How does that make sense?

God: "ok guys, here's the way it's gonna be. There's all this misinformation running about, because you guys are fallible. There are different religions to choose from, fallacies regarding Jesus and the Bible and all that. Added on top of that, there's this evil guy Satan that I allow to wander my Creation and trying to subvert my followers. Now, I can give you the real deal now, so you have enough information to make an intelligent decision, but I'm not gonna do that until after you're dead and in the places that you've chosen, ok? Sounds good!"

Humans: uuuuuhh......what?