Search Results
6/13/2025, 10:24:27 AM
>>40518630
>can’t provide actual empirical evidence
>spams more non sequiturs and appeals to pseudoscientific religious dogma
>skates past 95% of the points in the posts he’s replying to bc he cant address them but lacks the intellectual honesty required to just concede
Yea you’re done son.
>Spectroscopy
Laboratory spectroscopy, whether emission or absorption, requires a controlled environment where you know the medium, and a reference sample to compare the observed spectra. Stellar spectroscopy takes place in an uncontrolled environment in a medium (outer space) that is unknown and is a thermodynamics violation on its face. Also, nobody has a reference sample from another planet or star. Stellar spectroscopy is pseudoscience by definition.
>seismic/geological activity
Doesn’t tell you anything about what’s under the surface, as outlined in the very post you’re replying to. When attempting to predict the composition of the layers as they dug the deepest hole ever dug, Kola Superdeep Borehole, they were admittedly wrong every single layer they encountered and that was less than 8 miles or <0.19% of the alleged distance to the earth’s core. The claim that seismic/geological activity can tell us what is beneath the surface is provably false and pseudoscientific by definition.
Again, you have nothing but pseudoscientific religious dogma which you’ve never even looked into yourself. Of course, the vast majority of those who adhere to the doctrine of scientism do not even bother to personally investigate the claims made by their high priests; they simply hear a phrase such as “spectroscopy” or “parallax” or “Cavendish” or “seismic activity” and blindly believe what they’re told to think without even the slightest bit of research into the methodology behind the jargon they’re so easily impressed with.
>can’t provide actual empirical evidence
>spams more non sequiturs and appeals to pseudoscientific religious dogma
>skates past 95% of the points in the posts he’s replying to bc he cant address them but lacks the intellectual honesty required to just concede
Yea you’re done son.
>Spectroscopy
Laboratory spectroscopy, whether emission or absorption, requires a controlled environment where you know the medium, and a reference sample to compare the observed spectra. Stellar spectroscopy takes place in an uncontrolled environment in a medium (outer space) that is unknown and is a thermodynamics violation on its face. Also, nobody has a reference sample from another planet or star. Stellar spectroscopy is pseudoscience by definition.
>seismic/geological activity
Doesn’t tell you anything about what’s under the surface, as outlined in the very post you’re replying to. When attempting to predict the composition of the layers as they dug the deepest hole ever dug, Kola Superdeep Borehole, they were admittedly wrong every single layer they encountered and that was less than 8 miles or <0.19% of the alleged distance to the earth’s core. The claim that seismic/geological activity can tell us what is beneath the surface is provably false and pseudoscientific by definition.
Again, you have nothing but pseudoscientific religious dogma which you’ve never even looked into yourself. Of course, the vast majority of those who adhere to the doctrine of scientism do not even bother to personally investigate the claims made by their high priests; they simply hear a phrase such as “spectroscopy” or “parallax” or “Cavendish” or “seismic activity” and blindly believe what they’re told to think without even the slightest bit of research into the methodology behind the jargon they’re so easily impressed with.
Page 1