[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.42 MB, 1492x1026, sauropod.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3942474 No.3942474 [Reply] [Original]

How do "young earth creationists" explain this? I still don't get it. Are they trolling everyone or are they really just stupid / gullible?

>> No.3942477

They think that dinosaurs were created at the same time as other animals, including humans

>> No.3942478

Explain what?
Fossils?

The dinosaurs just didn't survive the big flood.

>> No.3942479 [DELETED] 

OP here, again

From wiki:
>Between 40-50% of adults in the United States say they believe in young earth creationism

Is this some sort of an anomaly? From a rational point of view, it sounds like a sociological circus.

>> No.3942482

>>3942478
But those bones can be dated with striking accuracy these days. Are you saying the problem is ignorance alone?

>> No.3942483

Well, if at point in time all the "kinds" in the world that breath through their nostrils were reduced to a population of 2, I'd expect quite a few of them to be extinct. All of them, actually.

>> No.3942485

>>3942479
At least 90% of the population are stupid.
Where's your belief in scientific reasoning now?

>> No.3942487

ignorance/deliberate misinformation/religious zealotry

>> No.3942489

>>3942478
Noah was supposed to take 2 of every animal on the Ark. Why would he miss dinosaurs out?

>> No.3942491

>>3942482
The methods used to determine the age of fossils are not accurate because they implicitely make assumptions which cannot be proved.

>> No.3942492

Fossils are a trick by the devil to move people away from god.

Seriously. That's the answer.

>> No.3942493

>>3942489
Because they were too big and heavy to fit his boat lol

>> No.3942494

>>3942489
Either he didn't find them, because they lived too far away from his ark, or there wasn't enough space.
Anyway it was God's intention that dinosaurs didn't survive.

>> No.3942495

>>3942482
Oh, you're talking about the age. The age isn't immediately apparent just from looking at the bones. Ignorance of the principles used to date objects is all that's required. Add to that some folks who go around and give talks about fossilized boots... it could be convincing if you don't dig into it too deeply.

>> No.3942497

>>3942482
Dating itself is a paradigme that is controversial for some people.

The thing is there is a thin lin between scientific skepticism and affective criticism.

>> No.3942498

>>3942491

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Please read this in-depth

>> No.3942504

>>3942493
Elephants, Hippopotamuses and Rhinoceruses were on the Ark, so the story goes. They are also very large.

>> No.3942507

>>3942498
I know that shit. YOU should read it in depth and not only on wikipedia.
The underlying assumptions are
>that the concentrations of these materials in the atmosphere were more or less the same now and millions of years ago,
>that the processes leading to placement of these materials in the fossils were the same as today,
>that there were no other factors involved in acceleration or slowing down the decay

All these assumptions are educated geusses, but still guesses.

>> No.3942511

Fossiles are dated by measuring the quantity of radiactive material they have with them. For rocks we use uranium 238 and for animals we use carbon 14.

>> No.3942518

>>3942511
thanks for not reading the thread

>> No.3942520

>>3942507
Let me guess ... you're one of those people that would argue furiously if I was to mention that the age of our universe is exactly and _precisely_ calculated to be 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years old, verified by hard science?

Because if you are, I have just one thing to say to you: lol.

And your premises are all wrong .... ;_;

>> No.3942521

>>3942504
>comparing the sizes of elephants and dinosaurs

>> No.3942525

>>3942521
Some dinosaurs were as small as chickens.

>> No.3942527

>>3942520
What's that?
You don't want to admit that I'm right and resort to ad hominem?

Have fun never being good at science.

>> No.3942528

>>3942525
>derp

>> No.3942530

>>3942525

some dinosaurs were chickens. oh shit, son!

>> No.3942531

>>3942527
Have fun being a dumbass

>> No.3942533

>>3942528
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/tp/Five-Smallest-Dinosaurs.htm

>> No.3942534

>>3942531
>pointing out scientific facts
>being a dumbass
choose one

I seriously hope you're failtrolling right now. Otherwise it would be sad to see such an ignorant person.

>> No.3942537

>>3942533
>missing the point

>> No.3942548

I don't recall the god telling Noah to just ignore anything that's inconveniently large. Then again, this wouldn't have worked even if a chicken is the largest thing he brought.

>> No.3942554

>>3942534
Not the guy you responded too, but the thing with carbone dating is that it is the best method we have (assuming yet).

That's how scientific paradigms work: they are used, they do a good job, we keep using them, something better comes along, intergrate it in the process, rinse and repeat.

Sciences, when it develops better tools to take measures don't throw everything it accumulated away - it incorporates it in the new theories or knowledge.

>> No.3942556

It's what happens when you go full retard:

>accept theory based off of old book and oral history
>must be correct if everyone's doing it
>the book says to believe in the book, so the books right, right?
>Scientific evidence refutes the book
>therefore the evidence is falsified
>continue believing in the oldest fanfic ever told.

Seriously I hate creationist-fags. Most of them have the excuse: I haven't really looked into evolution beyond "we came from monkeys". And you know those fuckers no jack shit about radiometric dating.
>mfw people call it carbon dating for multimillion year fossils
>mfw I understood the math behind it in middle school, yet some people can't into exponential decay
>mfw the American Republican Party still endorses this idiocy
>no face, raged it off

>> No.3942563

>>3942554
Carbon dating isn't used on fossils (lack of carbon makes it difficult), just replace with radiometric dating I guess.

>> No.3942572

>>3942534
>claiming variable radioactive decay

Response:
>The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:
>The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.
>Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).

>> No.3942574

>>3942572
(continued)

>The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).
>Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002).
>Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records (e.g., Renne et al. 1997).
>The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).

(quoting from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html))

>> No.3942582

>>3942554
I didn't doubt that. I just pointed out its inaccuracy.

>> No.3942587

>>3942572
>>3942574
Yeah right, Mr. Asperger. That was the assumption that is backed up most. The other two have less evidence.

>> No.3942595

>>3942587
As I said, you're a dumbass and debating with you is a real pain in the ass.

>> No.3942598

>>3942574
>The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976)

How do they determine the age of the reactor if the validity of radiometric dating is under question?

>> No.3942603

>>3942595
The intellectual value of this post exceeds my mental capacity.

>> No.3942605

>>3942603
I will take that as a compliment.

>> No.3942606
File: 49 KB, 465x700, 876432..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3942606

>>3942554
>carbon dating

'-Carbon dating is useless for dating things greater than ~60,000 years.¹ ² ³ ⁴
-It relies upon knowledge of the atmospheric levels of CO2 at the alleged date of the sample - "knowledge" which is in no way irrefutable itself. The atmospheric levels of carbon-14 varies considerably with time and location.⁵
-Constant production of carbon-14 is (somewhat unjustifiably⁵ ⁶) assumed.
-Carbon-12 and carbon-13 levels also vary hugely (more so than carbon-14; chemicals reactions produce more than nuclear reactons) with time and location. This is important, as it is the ratio of different carbon isotopes that is used to date, and not just the carbon-14 presence.

We also need to remember that smaller samples necessarily cause proportionally larger uncertainties.

>> No.3942607

>>3942574
You seem to be an expert on this.
How about shooting neutrons at radioactive material?
Does that accelerate the decay?

>> No.3942609

There are several dating methods that independently confirm one another. This is not coincidence, the dating methods are accurate.

You both should try to debate without resorting to insults.

>> No.3942611

continued from >>3942606


"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as "proof" for their beliefs...
Radiocarbon dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered foundation, and now lurches onward with feigned consistency. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who base their argument upon the dates.
...[Some authors have said] they were "not aware of a single significant disagreement" on any sample that had been dated at different labs. Such enthusiasts continue to claim, incredible though it may seem, that "no gross discrepancies are apparent". Surely 15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil is indeed a gross discrepancy! And how could the excessive disagreement between the labs be called insignificant, when it has been the basis for the reappraisal of the standard error associated with each and every date in existence?
Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the numbers do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better--both to the layman and professional not versed in statistics--than complex stratigraphic or cultural correlations, and are more easily retained in one's memory. "Absolute" dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely useful in bolstering weak arguments...

>> No.3942614

continued from >>3942611

No matter how "useful" it is though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."⁷'

¹Plastino et al, 2001, Cosmic Background Reduction in the Radiocarbon Measurements by Liquid Scintillation Spectrometry at the Underground Laboratory of Gran Sasso
²Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2011, NOSAMS Radiocarbon Data and Calculations
³http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/courses/anth/fagan/anth3/Courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating..
html {-->August 2011}
⁴http://www.c14dating.com/int.html {-->August 2011}
⁵Hessel de Vries et al, 1958, Carbon-14 Activity during the past 5,000 Years
⁶Ramsey and Bronk, 2008, Radiocarbon Dating: Revolutions in Understanding
⁷Robert Lee, 1981, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error

>> No.3942623

>>3942491
But the argument is a fallacy:

>theory of radiometric dating proved by experiment, and comes directly from other laws and theories
response:
>new hypothesis to refute the old one.

You can't use a hypotheses as evidence against a theory. That's like saying electricity is caused by magical elves. Sure it directly contradicts the laws of electricity and magnetism, but as the claimer, its up to you to show that the new hypothesis is correct.

>> No.3942624

Hey guys... God created the earth as if it had already existed pre-Creation i.e. he created things at the "beginning" of time that would even then have been radiometrically dated to before then.

When we date things (and, indeed, embark upon any scientific endeavour) assuming that Creation didn't happen (or God doesn't exist), it's no surprise that we discover that Creation didn't happen.

>> No.3942631

>>3942624
No, because god can't lie.

>> No.3942632

>>3942624
Oh wow.

>> No.3942636

>>3942631
>implying God would need to lie

>> No.3942638

>>3942631
Debatable.

>> No.3942644

>>3942623
Nobody is using a theory as evidence against another.

The point is that radiometric dating methods make the assumption that there existed the same concentration level of this radioactive shit now and then.

This claim is commonly believed in, but it cannot be confirmed unless we have time travel.

That weakness of radiometric dating is known and accepted by the scientific community and taught in schools and universities.

>> No.3942647

fuck this shit. This is type of people we're dealing with:

"Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence"

In fact we have an entire major in this day and age dedicated to such processes - CNS.

http://bestbiblescience.com/top.htm#1

>> No.3942648

It is just my opinion but all this christian mumbo jumbo stems from the fact that they hold this belief that the whole world revolves around them and that somehow, in the grand scheme of things they hold some sort of importance. I think they're just afraid to admit that we're just a little peck of nothing in a universe that couldn't care less about us. The whole thing is just confusing.

>> No.3942652

>>3942606
Look up
>>3942563
I don't know for you, but I'm not an expert in the field of anthropology, even more so in paleontology or paleoecology. I was mistaken about the good choice of dating.

There, I admitted my ignorance in the field and that's why, when reasonable and coherent with other knowledge, I don't deny experts solely because it undergoes my individual instinct, beliefs and attitudes.

Can you do it too?

>> No.3942660

>>3942652
No, but I could slap you.

>> No.3942661

>>3942644
So what kind of concentrations would we be talking about if a 6000 year old earth gives 4 billion year read outs? Also, where did that stuff come from and where did it go?

>> No.3942662

>>3942644
The sky was blue today, and it was blue the day before, and the day before...etc. We think the sky is blue because of the chemicals in the air, which we expect to exist at a relatively consistent rate given the temperature of the cooled earth. Using this data, what color do you think the sky will be tomorrow? You could answer red, because God said the devil was coming. OR you could use the data we know. Stop making shit up, and trying to use it as evidence.

Either the laws of nature were different back then, or radiometric dating works. You can't have both

>> No.3942664

>>3942607
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html

>> No.3942670

>>3942661
>missing the point
I'm NOT arguing that the earth is 6000 years old.

>>3942662
>Stop making shit up, and trying to use it as evidence.
Are you mentally impaired? Can't you read? Don't you comprehend simple english?
>Either the laws of nature were different back then, or radiometric dating works. You can't have both
THIS is exactly what my post said.

>> No.3942673

>>3942660 is not >>3942606
I am >>3942606 and that was my first post on this thread; I just wanted to make the irrelevance of carbon-dating clear.

>> No.3942677

>>3942670
I know you're not arguing that. I'm just wondering what the consequences are if this is used in defense of YEC.

>> No.3942680

>>3942662
Shit nigga, please no induction!

>> No.3942682

>>3942677
The only consequence I could imagine would be that creationists exaggerate it to claim that fossil dating is implicitely bullshit.

>> No.3942722

There are 14 different radiometric dating methods listed on wikipedia, all put forward in easily understandable and simple ways go have a read, come back when you known even a modicum about the massive amount of supported evidence radiometric dating has to support it.

>> No.3942728

>>3942722
>he didn't read the thread

>> No.3942742

You /sci/ retards fall into the thesist trap of defending your science as though it was the unlikely and unproven fantasy and creationism was the genius and logical theory.

Is there any worthwhile evidence that the world is 6000 years old?
No.
The end.

>> No.3942756

>>3942662
>sun has always risen
>therefore sun will always rise

where is the logic

>> No.3942758

>>3942742
>fullretard.jpg

That's not how science works.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You have to ask if there's evidence that the earth is not 6000 years old.
I leave it to some aspies to explain why there is such evidence.

>> No.3942771

>>3942742
>never studied logic

>> No.3942779

>>3942758
The simplest explanation as to why there is such evidence, is that the earth actually *is* older than 6000 years.

>> No.3942787

>>3942779
I know you're trolling, but that's the most retarded thing I've read today.

>> No.3942796

>>3942787
It may be pedantic, but it's not retarded.

>> No.3942801

>>3942791
>failed at simple logic

Your IQ isn't very high, is it?

>> No.3942803

>>3942796
>circular reasoning
>not retarded

>> No.3942815

What evidence is there that supports the theory that the world is 6000 years old?


What's that? Cave drawings of a dinosaur? Cool! Good for you! That's great evidence! Really impressive! That totaly justifies your belief!
Science is fun!

>> No.3942817

why don't we get creatures as big and as numerous as dinosaurs anymore?

>> No.3942821

>>3942758
No, you fucking moron. THAT isn't how science works. We don't make assumptions because there's no evidence to disprove claims. You do not treat my claim that I am immortal and have wings with legitimacy just because you don't have any explicit evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence saying that the Earth is 6,000 years old, so we don't fucking say it's 6,000 years old.

If you make the claim, you must supply the evidence. If you claim the Earth is 6,000, YOU are the one who needs to provide evidence, not the person who challenges you.

>> No.3942824

>>3942803
Read more carefully.

>I leave it to some aspies to explain why there is such evidence.
We are not being asked to provide evidence for our claim that the earth is old. We are asked to explain the existence of that evidence. There are many possible ways to explain *why* there is evidence of the earth being older than 6000 years. Fairies may have put it there. Or maybe the earth actually is old.

>> No.3942847

Why is this on /sci/ ?
How is it that creationists "scientifically" try to disprove things like radiocarbon dating, the fossil record, evolution, etc, and then saying that their explanation is that it magically happened because of a man in the sky?

>> No.3942851

>>3942817
Less CO2 in the air.
Or oxygen. One of those.

>> No.3942853

>>3942821
Nope.

>> No.3942857

>>3942853
Yup.

>> No.3942863

>>3942853
strong rebuttal bro

>> No.3942866

>>3942824
my mind is blown

>> No.3942873

>>3942815
I would wager that you yourself don't actually have any idea of why some things do constitute evidence for a given hypothesis and others don't.

>> No.3942878

>>3942863
A statement that is inherently false doesn't need a detailled rebuttal.
I doubt this guy would understand an explanation, because he is so rigid in his belief that his way of discussing can be compared to that of a christian fanatic.

>> No.3942885

>>3942821
No evidence except for numerous documents (which were necessarily written closer to "creation" than we are) citing the approximate date of creation.
>nope, no evidence

What you mean to say is that there is not any conclusive evidence.

>> No.3942890

>>3942873
Inb4 problem of induction, Bayesian interpretation etc.

>> No.3942936

>>3942878
Strong rebuttal, bro. You still haven't said anything to disprove what I said.

>> No.3942940

>>3942936
Why should I?
You would post the opposite again and claim your version to be true.

>> No.3942946

>>3942940
>Implying you're not doing the exact same thing
I gave you an explanation as to why you were wrong. All you're saying is "Nope"

>> No.3942952

>>3942946
You didn't give an explanation.

>> No.3942956

>>3942482
bullshit

they still contain C14

i.e., less than 50,000 years old

each and every one of them

>> No.3942957

>>3942474
It doesn't matter how much evidence we provide, anything that may be agains't their teachings is either a test of faith by god or made by the devil.

>> No.3942967

>>3942952
Either you are legitimately retarded or a troll.

Goodbye

>> No.3942970

>>3942498
please read that bones are not radiometrically dated

thank you

>> No.3942971

>>3942956
Source?

>> No.3942975

>>3942967
Since you are both of these, you left out the reality: I'm right.

>> No.3942997

>>3942971
Abstract: The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America. When it was learned in 2005 that Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum, Hugh Miller asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for C-14 testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 ± 380 radiocarbon years (RC) for the Triceratops and 23,170 ±170 RC years for the Hadrosaur were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS). Total organic carbon and/or dinosaur bone bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna.

http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm

>> No.3942999

>>3942952
I have a question for you.
If I tell you to give me all of your money, and I promise to give it back, would you do it?
You would ask how you could know if you could trust me.
I tell you because I'm trustworthy.
Would you give me your money?

>> No.3943006

>>3942999
Nice strawman.

Giving someone my money is not the same as holding up or refuting a scientific theory.

>> No.3943021

>>3943006
What I'm getting at is that the only "evidence" a creationist has is the bible.
People believe the bible because the bible itself says it's the truth.

So why would you not take my word for something even if I tell you I'm trustworthy?

>> No.3943025

>>3943021
Then you're talking to the wrong guy. I don't know shit about the bible.

>> No.3943054

The fact we alone are pompous enough to believe we our some special animal is more then enough evidence; for me at least, to believe dinosaurs existed -before- us. Intelligence in animals is all around us, and most refuse to accept it even to this day.

Creationists are just idiots trying to base their entire world on a book that -NEVER- even mentions 2/3 of the bullshit they try to spout out. This is all after the fact too. The darkages would of never happened without this plague of the mind.

>> No.3943068

>>3943021
>>3943021

becoz i have faith in the bible. everyone knows religion got an element of faith in it. thats why we don't gotta prove shit.

unless u're willing to admit the fact that faith is involved in science also, then u can't use the same argument. so u either admit science is also based on faith or admit that u can't be certain about shit like radiometric dating because there are assumptions.

>> No.3943069

>>3943054
angsty hipster detected

>> No.3943080

>>3943054
>>3943054
>implying science did not benefit from religion

the fact that God created the universe gave scientists during the enlightenment that rules of nature can be observed. whether u like it or not, religion was a driving force behind the age of enlightenment.

>> No.3943082

>>3943068
faith is believing in something in which there is no concrete evidence for
science is drawing conclusions based on evidence
see the difference, sport?

>> No.3943084

>>3943080
>>3943080
gave scientists during the enlightenment the confidence**

>> No.3943091

>>3943082
>>3943082
yes. so u can't be 100% sure radiometric dating is accurate. do u understand?

>> No.3943093
File: 39 KB, 498x321, 1307469407427.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3943093

I weep for humanity..

>> No.3943095

>>3943082
>theoretical physics
>making up theories
>having trouble to find evidence
>hard science
>not just faith

>> No.3943101

>>3943093
>>3943093
there is no need to. people are given the choice. if they end up in hell, it is the result of their own doing. no need to feel sorry for them. i don't.

>> No.3943105

>>3943101
As a christian it is your job to help others find salvation, even these atheists

>> No.3943108

>>3943105
>>3943105
i don't think it is my job. everyone has a chance to get introduced to the holy spirit. that is God's promise to us.

having said that, i do try to help. but if people won't listen, then they won't listen. there's nothing u can do about them.

>> No.3943111

ITT: loonies

>> No.3943115

>>3943108
I've seen the holy spirit. It's inside the sacred mushroom. Your holy spirit is one made of words and letters, mine is one made of eternity.

>> No.3943116

>>3943108
I hope you are a true catholic christian and not some evangelic heretic.

>> No.3943122

>>3943115
>>3943115
u'll get the chance one day. dun worry. just keep ur mind open and don't think that u already know everything.

>> No.3943128

>>3943122
>>3943122
If you open your mind too much, it might fall out