Dissecting an actual science article

[[serious]]

Dissecting an actual spam post...

Better than a press release on his post.

 

[dad]

I agree, HI Theory threads are nothing but spam. But they are entertaining spam.

So stop spamming and address the issues from the articles in an honest an intelligent way. No one appreciates a sore loser.

 

[dad]

Better than a press release on his post.

How would that read.. 'Still saying nothing after all these years'?

 

[dad]

And now we are back to your standard, "but what if everything just looks like the laws of physics are accurate descriptions of how things work throughout the history of our universe?"

We never departed from looking at what things are based on actually. We have discovered, in so many ways in these articles, that there is always one underlying belief that all the claims and models of the past sit on, and only one...always, without fail..and that is the unfounded belief in a same state past. Rather than address the core and only issue here, you try to invoke blind unquestioned faith in that belief. It cannot be supported. The models of science are exposed here as nothing but faith based godless lies. Unsupportable. Evil.

Either way though, your analysis of the article on the press release got their methodology completely wrong.

Not at all. The way they heated stuff on earth, and the way they interpret crater density and etc etc ALL religion. NOT science. The fact that it is considered part of science shows science itself has terminal disease. Even the good parts of science cannot be considered healthy because the infection and cancer of the godless belief system so permeates body of science.

The OP quoted this..

"The article is about Mercury. One example of the way they decide on a date for when molten rock appeared is that they used a furnace on earth to heat rock to see when it would now behave a certain way! They then extrapolate that into the unknown past, to declare a way and time that Mercury got it's rocks melted!!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160627132939.htm

"The team melted the synthetic rocks in a furnace to simulate the point in time when the deposits were lava, and not yet solidified as rock. Then, the researchers dialed the temperature and pressure of the furnace up and down to effectively turn back the clock, simulating the lava's eruption from deep within the planet to the surface, in reverse...

..The experiments indicate that the planet's interior cooled dramatically, over 240 degrees Celsius between 4.2 and 3.7 billion years ago -
..
The more craters there are, the older the surface is, and vice versa.

.. The researchers were able to correlate Mercury's lava composition with age and found that older deposits, around 4.2 billion years old, contained elements that were very different from younger deposits that were estimated to be 3.7 billion years old."


Whoopee do! So the composition in area is different than other areas. What if a lot of the meteors falling happened in a short time and did not represent ages? How would they know? What if, in the former state in the past, the melt temperature of rock was no where near the same?? What if....well, basically they interpret ONLY through the filter of the godless same state past belief system and methodology, so nothing they say is any better than that belief.

 

[AirPo]

So stop spamming and address the issues from the articles in an honest an intelligent way. No one appreciates a sore loser.

Guess who is not appreciated around here .

 

[AirPo]

How would that read.. 'Still saying nothing after all these years'?

Describes The HI Theory perfectly!

 

[Speedwell]

We never departed from looking at what things are based on actually. We have discovered, in so many ways in these articles, that there is always one underlying belief that all the claims and models of the past sit on, and only one...always, without fail..and that is the unfounded belief in a same state past. Rather than address the core and only issue here, you try to invoke blind unquestioned faith in that belief. It cannot be supported. The models of science are exposed here as nothing but faith based godless lies. Unsupportable. Evil.

Except that it is not an "unfounded belief," it's a reasonable assumption. In order for the laws of physics to be different now than they were at some time in the past, one or more of the fundamental constants of the universe must have changed, the speed of light for instance, or the coefficient of gravitation. If you get into the physics of it, you will find that these constants cannot change without leaving evidence that they have done so. No evidence has been detected of such changes within the time frame suggested for the formation of the planet Mercury.

 

[dad]

Guess who is not appreciated around here .

Who cares? What does matter is what we post and whether it is an honest attempt to talk about issues.

 

[dad]

Except that it is not an "unfounded belief," it's a reasonable assumption.

No it is a godless unsupported foolish belief. I see you make no reasoned case for it! Instead you allude that one exists somewhere. It doesn't. I kid you not.

In order for the laws of physics to be different now than they were at some time in the past, one or more of the fundamental constants of the universe must have changed, the speed of light for instance, or the coefficient of gravitation.

False. The idea that what we have and see now changed is wrong. Whatever changed would not have been what we have. Of course if OUR present laws changed we would know that.

No evidence has been detected of such changes within the time frame suggested for the formation of the planet Mercury.

No evidence was looked for! They merely slapped together a model to explain what is there using present laws. That is the name of the game.

 

[Speedwell]

No it is a godless unsupported foolish belief. I see you make no reasoned case for it! Instead you allude that one exists somewhere. It doesn't. I kid you not.


False. The idea that what we have and see now changed is wrong. Whatever changed would not have been what we have. Of course if OUR present laws changed we would know that.No evidence was looked for! They merely slapped together a model to explain what is there using present laws. That is the name of the game.

So you seem to like to make up lies about how the Principle of Uniformity is viewed by science. What is the name of your Game?

 

[dad]

So you seem to like to make up lies about how the Principle of Uniformity is viewed by science. What is the name of your Game?

Tell us how that principle does not presuppose the same laws in the past, or stand exposed with your silly false accusation.

Looking at a quick search I see this..


"The theoretical system Lyell presented in 1830 was composed of three requirements or principles: 1) the Uniformity Principle which states that past geological events must be explained by the same causes now in operation; 2) the Uniformity of Rate Principle which states that geological laws operate with the same force as at present; 3) the Steady-state Principle which states that the earth does not undergo any directional change. The three principles form a single thesis called “uniformitarianism” which has been repeatedly questioned and which has been reputed to be unable to face the competing “directional synthesis” based on the theory of the earth's cooling down."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1006504910017

Or a simple look at wiki says this

"Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.[1] It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates.[2"

Hee hee. Wow.

You seem to be out of your depth in this part of the forum.

 

[Speedwell]

Tell us how that principle does not presuppose the same laws in the past, or stand exposed with your silly false accusation.

Looking at a quick search I see this..


"The theoretical system Lyell presented in 1830 was composed of three requirements or principles: 1) the Uniformity Principle which states that past geological events must be explained by the same causes now in operation; 2) the Uniformity of Rate Principle which states that geological laws operate with the same force as at present; 3) the Steady-state Principle which states that the earth does not undergo any directional change. The three principles form a single thesis called “uniformitarianism” which has been repeatedly questioned and which has been reputed to be unable to face the competing “directional synthesis” based on the theory of the earth's cooling down."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1006504910017

Or a simple look at wiki says this

"Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.[1] It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates.[2"

Hee hee. Wow.

You seem to be out of your depth in this part of the forum.

Right. But you have not addressed the point I raised, that if the physical laws had been significantly different in the past, there would be evidence of it. The absence of that evidence does not make uniformity an absolute certainty, but it remains a reasonable working assumption at least, and that is all that has ever been claimed for it.
I think what's going on here is that you've got a bean up your nose about how many Christians prefer the relatively provisional conclusions of science to what you see as the "certainty" of your crackpot interpretation of Genesis.

 

[AirPo]

Who cares? What does matter is what we post and whether it is an honest attempt to talk about issues.

That is what The HI Theory is all about!

 

[AirPo]

So you seem to like to make up lies about how the Principle of Uniformity is viewed by science. What is the name of your Game?

It's The HI Theory

 

[dad]

That is what The HI Theory is all about!

If we need weird circular airhead statements we'll get back to you.

 

[dad]

Right. But you have not addressed the point I raised, that if the physical laws had been significantly different in the past, there would be evidence of it. The absence of that evidence does not make uniformity an absolute certainty, but it remains a reasonable working assumption at least, and that is all that has ever been claimed for it.

False, since it is NOT OUR state that changed, not OUR laws.

We ARE the change.

I think what's going on here is that you've got a bean up your nose about how many Christians prefer the relatively provisional conclusions of science to what you see as the "certainty" of your crackpot interpretation of Genesis.

Actually what is going on is that a sound thrashing intellectually and Scripturally, and scientifically is going on to those who have been manpleasers, and worshiped man over God and His word. Genesis and the rest of the bible cannot be reinterpreted to make creation mean some speck poofing out the universe and man evolving rather than being made by God Personally.

 

[AirPo]

If we need weird circular airhead statements we'll get back to you.

No need, you're doing fine on your own.

False, since it is NOT OUR state that changed, not OUR laws.

We ARE the change.

Actually what is going on is that a sound thrashing intellectually and Scripturally, and scientifically is going on to those who have been manpleasers, and worshiped man over God and His word. Genesis and the rest of the bible cannot be reinterpreted to make creation mean some speck poofing out the universe and man evolving rather than being made by God Personally.

QED.

 

[Speedwell]

Genesis and the rest of the bible cannot be reinterpreted to make creation mean some speck poofing out the universe and man evolving rather than being made by God Personally.

You're right. It cannot. No interpretation of Genesis which claims to deduce accurate scientific facts about the origin of the universe from it can be correct.

 

[[serious]]

We never departed from looking at what things are based on actually. We have discovered, in so many ways in these articles, that there is always one underlying belief that all the claims and models of the past sit on, and only one...always, without fail..and that is the unfounded belief in a same state past. Rather than address the core and only issue here, you try to invoke blind unquestioned faith in that belief. It cannot be supported. The models of science are exposed here as nothing but faith based godless lies. Unsupportable. Evil.
Not at all. The way they heated stuff on earth, and the way they interpret crater density and etc etc ALL religion. NOT science. The fact that it is considered part of science shows science itself has terminal disease. Even the good parts of science cannot be considered healthy because the infection and cancer of the godless belief system so permeates body of science.

The OP quoted this..

"The article is about Mercury. One example of the way they decide on a date for when molten rock appeared is that they used a furnace on earth to heat rock to see when it would now behave a certain way! They then extrapolate that into the unknown past, to declare a way and time that Mercury got it's rocks melted!!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160627132939.htm

"The team melted the synthetic rocks in a furnace to simulate the point in time when the deposits were lava, and not yet solidified as rock. Then, the researchers dialed the temperature and pressure of the furnace up and down to effectively turn back the clock, simulating the lava's eruption from deep within the planet to the surface, in reverse...

..The experiments indicate that the planet's interior cooled dramatically, over 240 degrees Celsius between 4.2 and 3.7 billion years ago -
..
The more craters there are, the older the surface is, and vice versa.

.. The researchers were able to correlate Mercury's lava composition with age and found that older deposits, around 4.2 billion years old, contained elements that were very different from younger deposits that were estimated to be 3.7 billion years old."


Whoopee do! So the composition in area is different than other areas. What if a lot of the meteors falling happened in a short time and did not represent ages? How would they know? What if, in the former state in the past, the melt temperature of rock was no where near the same?? What if....well, basically they interpret ONLY through the filter of the godless same state past belief system and methodology, so nothing they say is any better than that belief.

Yeah, what if everything is exactly as we would expect for a universe in which the laws of physics were reliable through time? Would that not indicate that we could use those laws of physics to determine how things were in the past?

 

[dad]

No need, you're doing fine on your own.


QED.

Correct. Whatever forces and laws and whatever else changed, it left us..our state. No change IN our state.

Keep paying attention, it improves your little posts.