Dissecting an actual science article

[dad]

Yeah.

Saw an alert, guess it was only you.

 

[AirPo]

Saw an alert, guess it was only you.

HI Theory experts are imaginary.

 

[dad]

HI TRheory experts are imaginary.

That's nice

 

[pgp_protector]

Yeah.

Agree.

 

[dad]

Agree.

oh

 

[pgp_protector]

oh

yep

 

[dad]

yep

go

 

[[serious]]

go

to

 

[AirPo]

to

D Nile.

 

[pgp_protector]

to

School

 

[[serious]]

School

to learn the difference between a press release and a scientific, peer reviewed article?

 

[dad]

to

Jesus saves.

 

[dad]

to learn the difference between a press release and a scientific, peer reviewed article?

A good press article on what scientists on the cutting edge are working on and claiming is fine and dandy for a forum on science, where issues should be discussed, and the basis of claims looked at. Now if you had a portion of some 'peer reviewed' article you think would add to the discussion and scientific news article, it would be incumbent on you to provide it. Otherwise you have nothing to say...and say...and say...and say... there comes a time when posters here should do more than bray like a donkey.

 

[dad]

School

In school they teach stuff. Here you should post stuff. Topical stuff. Interesting stuff. Stuff from the losing side of the argument you are on here.

 

[AirPo]

A good press article on what scientists on the cutting edge are working on and claiming is fine and dandy for a forum on science, where issues should be discussed, and the basis of claims looked at. Now if you had a portion of some 'peer reviewed' article you think would add to the discussion and scientific news article, it would be incumbent on you to provide it. Otherwise you have nothing to say...and say...and say...and say... there comes a time when posters here should do more than bray like a donkey.

But The HI Theoory doesn't discuss anything. It just makes stuff up and s away everything else.

 

[dad]

But The HI Theoory doesn't discuss anything. It just makes stuff up and s away everything else.

The science articles quote the teams and scientists involved in the various studies. They usually dissemilate the information to us in a way that the average person has some hope of comprehending. The pious peer review process of science papers perhaps would be permissible here if the poster presented their position on the paper in a way that was perceptively proper, not pretentious preaching, or POEing in a predictable way.

 

[AirPo]

The science articles quote the teams and scientists involved in the various studies.

Which has nothing to do with The HI Theory.

They usually dissemilate the information to us in a way that the average person has some hope of comprehending.

Which has nothing to do with The HI Theory.

The pious peer review process of science papers

Which has nothing to do with science.

perhaps would be permissible here if the poster presented their position on the paper in a way that was perceptively proper, not pretentious preaching, or POEing in a predictable way.

Which is exactly what The HI Theory is all about!

 

[[serious]]

A good press article on what scientists on the cutting edge are working on and claiming is fine and dandy for a forum on science, where issues should be discussed, and the basis of claims looked at. Now if you had a portion of some 'peer reviewed' article you think would add to the discussion and scientific news article, it would be incumbent on you to provide it. Otherwise you have nothing to say...and say...and say...and say... there comes a time when posters here should do more than bray like a donkey.

A good bicycle is not a boat

A good sofa is not a refrigerator

A good press release is not a peer reviewed journal article.

The OP is not dissecting an actual science article, it's commenting on a press release.

 

[dad]

Which has nothing to do with The HI Theory.

Which has nothing to do with The HI Theory.

Which has nothing to do with science.


Which is exactly what The HI Theory is all about!

The articles on news sites I referred to ARE science actually. This thread exposes the idiocy of their claims, like in today's news.

"
NC State assistant professor and planetary geologist Paul Byrne and colleagues determined when the bulk of Mercury's crust-forming volcanism ended by using photographs of the surface imaged by NASA's MESSENGER mission. Because there are no physical samples from the planet that could be used for radiometric dating, the researchers used crater size-frequency analysis, in which the number and size of craters on the planet's surface are placed into established mathematical models, to calculate absolute ages for effusive volcanic deposits on Mercury.

According to their results, major volcanism on Mercury stopped at around 3.5 billion years ago, in stark contrast to the volcanic ages found for Venus, Mars and Earth."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160805155132.htm

Notice they did not talk about what those 'established' math models are based on. Vague religious drool.

Anti Creation heretics. Con artists.

 

[dad]

A good press release is not a peer reviewed journal article.

Better...so?? We want to look at the latest science studies and cases, and research here, and get into why the claims are made. We are not looking for Tweedledee to rubber stamp Tweedledum's short story with good grades!

The OP is not dissecting an actual science article, it's commenting on a press release.

.

Actually it is a science news site. The story dealt with specific issues that I quoted, dealing with how they determined ages...when rocks melted, etc. It explained how the used a lab on earth to melt rocks. You thought that was what...history? Calculus? Geography? Social sciences? No, it deals with scientists and studies. I see they cite the source for the stories covered at the end also, in this case is see they cited this

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The original item was written by Jennifer Chu.Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference:

1. Olivier Namur, Max Collinet, Bernard Charlier, Timothy L. Grove, Francois Holtz, Catherine McCammon. Melting processes and mantle sources of lavas on Mercury. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2016; 439: 117 DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2016.01.030

So discuss the issues rather than whining.