- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
At least the OP science article talks about what the research involved, and the methods and basic reasons for the claim.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
At least the OP science article talks about what the research involved, and the methods and basic reasons for the claim.Then The HI Theory makes things up.
Yes, a press release for an article does generally tell you what article it's a press release for.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.
Oh, one more thing: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.
Title: "Melting processes and mantle sources of lavas on Mercury"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.
How interesting.Then The HI Theory makes up crazy claims about what the reasearch means.
Even better. It rips the guts out from the science news study, and then puts it on the table.Yes, a press release for an article does generally tell you what article it's a press release for.
The press release still is not a science article.
I talked about the science news article. That had to do with Mercury....and their claims about it.Oh, one more thing:
The title of the paper this press release is about is: "Stochastic phase-change neurons"
My point is you then linked the wrong article.I talked about the science news article. That had to do with Mercury....and their claims about it.
Now if you have something to say about something else, just out and say it. Make a point. Bring it.
Just looked at the OP, and it is the right link..about Mercury. Now try addressing issues, rather than wasting our time.My point is you then linked the wrong article.
Click on the links in the two posts I quoted above. They are about different papersJust looked at the OP, and it is the right link..about Mercury. Now try addressing issues, rather than wasting our time.
It is not a waste of time to put the actual claims of science on the table and look at what is said and why.But these threads are a waste of time in the first place. Entertaining, but a waste of time.
So? The OP is clear, deal with the questions raised. If there is some wrong link buried somewhere, you can name the post, and the right link, maybe I can find time to change it.Click on the links in the two posts I quoted above. They are about different papers
But that is not what The HI Theory does. The HI Theory puts fantasy, delusional "claims of so called HI Theory science on the table" and makes up wild stories about what is said and why. So unless you buy into The HI Theory,It is not a waste of time to put the actual claims of science on the table and look at what is said and why.
So unless you buy into The HI Theory,i.e., you're in on the joke, it is a waste of time trying to discuss anything as if an actual discussion about reality was the purpose.
That would be you.For those that think the actual basis for the models of science regarding the past are a joke,
That would be you.and they cannot discuss them or comprehend them, that might be a valid point.
No you can't because the only authority you have is The HI Theory, which isn't real.Since the sick methodology of science constantly cooks up convoluted creation stories that deny Jesus as creator, and any creation by God, I have deemed it worthy to take the time to destroy the lies. When a child or anyone asks me if there was a real creation, and why science says something totally different, I can tell them why with absolute authority, and knowledge and confidence. I can tell them science is wrong, and a demonic religion, and has no basis in evidence or fact or logic whatsoever.
I could point them, if they were old enough, to a forum like this, where the naysayers and blind cheerleaders of science get their assumptions handed to them on a platter. While other proponents of the sick religion are reduced to empty waving, and airy time wasting posts, that display clearly no ability at all to defend their faith.
I can and do discuss them, you blow air.That would be you.
That would be you.
noThat is an excellant example of projection.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?