Dissecting an actual science article

[dad]

View attachment 179598

I like this. It brings all sorts of geological possibilities that would alter or obscure the uniform flood evidence that science insists on. I'm guessing there exists catchment areas and regions everywhere on earth that would mimic this were there to be another global flood.

It would be like the puddles in my parking lot after a rain.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The "crazy" is strong in this thread.

 

[AirPo]

The "crazy" is strong in this thread.

It's a HI Theory thread. That's the point.

 

[[serious]]

Looking at an article in a science news site, I noticed it might be a good example to dissect as to the way they arrive at conclusions.

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 -"

Hilarious!!!

Did we consider creation? What happened when God created the planet? Did anything liquefy or melt? Everything about the so called science claim here shouts religion.

So, the hilarious part is you confuse press releases with peer reviewed papers?

 

[dad]

The "crazy" is strong in this thread.

Welcome to the world of science.

 

[dad]

So, the hilarious part is you confuse press releases with peer reviewed papers?

No. The science news sites are great for digesting the latest cutting edge science finds, and disseminating the news in a quasi digestible manner. You see, the pious little hotty tots of so called science love to pontificate among themselves, trying to impress themselves, and agree with themselves, and review themselves. They do not much care if the peons or kids know what they are blabbing about. The more confusing and aloof sounding, the better they like it. It is a great thing to simply get the real gist of what they are saying, and put it on the table for all to see in a more honest and simple and forthright fashion. After all, it is my experience that science folks don't really know what they are talking about anyhow, save perhaps in a narrow field and range! Their overall knowledge and ability to grasp the big picture appears to me to be below average.

Now if you had a grip on the issue cited, why maybe you could comment intelligently, rather than expect us simply to bow at the altar of the science pervs.

 

[AirPo]

Welcome to the world of science.

HI Theory "so called" science.

 

[dad]

HI Theory "so called" science.

Well from your posts it might as well be from the chocolate factory. Rather than posting on the actual article and actual topic, something actually interesting and thoughtful, you whine and wave.

 

[AirPo]

Well from your posts it might as well be from the chocolate factory. Rather than posting on the actual article and actual topic, something actually interesting and thoughtful, you whine and wave.

What for? These threads are for making things up. Whether they are about actual articles are not should not matter. And for the record, that's laughter and wave.

 

[[serious]]

No. The science news sites are great for digesting the latest cutting edge science finds, and disseminating the news in a quasi digestible manner. You see, the pious little hotty tots of so called science love to pontificate among themselves, trying to impress themselves, and agree with themselves, and review themselves. They do not much care if the peons or kids know what they are blabbing about. The more confusing and aloof sounding, the better they like it. It is a great thing to simply get the real gist of what they are saying, and put it on the table for all to see in a more honest and simple and forthright fashion. After all, it is my experience that science folks don't really know what they are talking about anyhow, save perhaps in a narrow field and range! Their overall knowledge and ability to grasp the big picture appears to me to be below average.

Now if you had a grip om the issue cited, why maybe you could comment intelligently, rather than expect us simply to bow at the altar of the science pervs.

A press release is not "an actual science article"

 

[dad]

A press release is not "an actual science article"

Better. More concise and clear.

 

[[serious]]

Better. More concise and clear.

More not subject to peer review and written for an audience who doesn't know how to disect an actual science article

 

[AirPo]

Better. More concise and clear.

In other words, dumbed down for The HI Theory.

 

[gladiatrix]

So, let me get this straight.....you observe time in the far universe? You observe nature in early earth era?

We observe the past using physical evidence from it, for instance, I don't need video of a murder to know one occurred and depending on the crime scene, who committed it.

Deep space and with ancient time is also observable using instrumentation with two explanations at sites below:

A. How Close to the Big Bang Can We See? (Popular Mechanics)

B. NPR 2-11-16: In Milestone, Scientists Detect Gravitational Waves As Black Holes Collide (Einstein was right!)​

I predict that you, dad, will resort to your usual Argument from Incredulity-Frantic Fan-Dancing to dismiss any and all physical evidence contradicting your version of YEC (young-earth creationism) you've already decided is The TRUTH™, all contradicting evidence be darned to heck!

God was proven over time, demoed, observed, and tested.

Where is any of this proof, dad? You assert it without producing any....sorry no cigar!

 

[dad]

More not subject to peer review and written for an audience who doesn't know how to disect an actual science article

I looked at an article to check out your claim on sciencedaily a moment ago. I noticed they referenced the sources..

the article...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160804093327.htm


http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v11/n8/full/nnano.2016.70.html

Get off your high horse.

 

[dad]

In other words, dumbed down for The HI Theory.

At least they talk about what the research involved, and the methods and basic reasons for the claim. With that, I can put it on the table and rip it apart. With your empty posts, one can only hear air rush by.

 

[AirPo]

At least they talk about what the research involved, and the methods and basic reasons dor the claim. With that, I can put it on th table and rip it apart. With your empty posts, one can only hear air rush by.

In other words, make things up!

 

[dad]

We observe the past using physical evidence from it, for instance, I don't need video of a murder to know one occurred and depending on the crime scene, who committed it.

Deep space and with ancient time is also observable using instrumentation with two explanations at sites below:

A. How Close to the Big Bang Can We See? (Popular Mechanics)​

From your link..

"Light reaching us from this latest galactic-distance champion, which bears the unfortunate moniker of z8_GND_5296, left there 13.1 billion years ago. That means the picture we see of it now comes from just 700 million years after the big bang."

There is no citation or reasons given for this claim. They merely rattle off a story, and expect people to believe blindly. I happen to know the reasons, and they are pitifully indefensible. Now if you want to span fable links, fine, don't pretend you know what you are talking about, or that the silly rag the article is from is some good source on the origin of the universe and creation.

B. NPR 2-11-16: In Milestone, Scientists Detect Gravitational Waves As Black Holes Collide (Einstein was right!)

From your link..

"According to a paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters, the two black holes were each roughly 30 times the mass of the sun. They merged some 1.3 billion light years from Earth. .."

Let's see you show us that the black holes really are black holes as claimed? Let's see you support the distance. Let's see you show us that the supposed BHs are 30 times the mass of the sun!?

You can't. Your fable is circular and 100% faith based. Just because something affects something out in unknown space does not mean it is gravity as we know it, and unless time existed as we think of it nothing took billions of years of time to do anything, and also no light years to anything are known, therefore no sizes of anything out there are known. I kid you not. Stop preaching unless you can back it up.​

I predict that you, dad, will resort to your usual Argument from Incredulity-Frantic Fan-Dancing to dismiss any and all physical evidence contradicting your version of YEC (young-earth creationism) you've already decided is The TRUTH™, all contradicting evidence be darned to heck!

False prophesy. No need to dismiss the fact that there are little stars and such out in space and that something affects them. The issue is what affects them, and how far and big they really are.


Next time you try to come out shooting, try to find more than a pop gun.

Until then, put a cork in it.

 

[dad]

In other words, make things up!

At least they talk about what the research involved, and the methods and basic reasons for the claim.

 

[AirPo]

At least they talk about what the research involved, and the methods and basic reasons for the claim.

Then The HI Theory makes things up.