Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Dissecting an actual science article
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dad" data-source="post: 69995925" data-attributes="member: 98011"><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>The OP quoted this..</p><p></p><p>"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!!</p><p><a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160627132939.htm" target="_blank">https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160627132939.htm</a></p><p></p><p>"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, <u>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...</u></p><p></p><p>..The experiments indicate that the planet's interior cooled dramatically, over 240 degrees Celsius between 4.2 and 3.7 billion years ago -</p><p>..</p><p>The more craters there are, the older the surface is, and vice versa. </p><p></p><p>.. 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."</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dad, post: 69995925, member: 98011"] 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!! [URL]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160627132939.htm[/URL] "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, [U]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...[/U] ..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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Dissecting an actual science article
Top
Bottom