How many people here actually have a clue about Science or have an interest in discussing topics?
I would say perhaps half the people who post to this forum. The other half are clueless individuals who can only repeat what they read in their favorite propaganda outlet.
@eladar saidToday, distinguishing propaganda from honest science requires nothing short of genius, and even then it can be difficult.
How many people here actually have a clue about Science or have an interest in discussing topics?
I would say perhaps half the people who post to this forum. The other half are clueless individuals who can only repeat what they read in their favorite propaganda outlet.
And here's a topic for you: If some honest scientist discovered who the Gods and Angels really are, and are physically real, would that transfer the entire subject of religion from spirituality into science?
@eladar saidSomeone has stuck a “kick me” sign on your back.
How many people here actually have a clue about Science or have an interest in discussing topics?
I would say perhaps half the people who post to this forum. The other half are clueless individuals who can only repeat what they read in their favorite propaganda outlet.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@bunnyknight saidSure - if you're a Trump-or-Duchess-level moron. If you paid attention to anything else than gender "studies" in middle school - not so much.
Today, distinguishing propaganda from honest science requires nothing short of genius
@shallow-blue saidOnce again another person who cares not about actual discussion.
Sure - if you're a Trump-or-Duchess-level moron. If you paid attention to anything else than gender "studies" in middle school - not so much.
I suppose half was being generous. Well below half the people who post in this forum do not care about Science, they just wish to state opinion.
Too much belief gets in the way of dealing with truth.
@eladar saidProvide a scientific article about what? I'm not quoting anyone else. I have my own questions and my own thoughts. And you - do you have a brain that's your own, or do you always need to quote some questionable source that's probably nothing more than some paid shill to promote someones agenda, which is usually just selfish profit?
@bunnyknight
So you do not like to provide scientific articles either.
Two for two.
@bunnyknight saidThen join in on other threads and do so.
Provide a scientific article about what? I'm not quoting anyone else. I have my own questions and my own thoughts. And you - do you have a brain that's your own, or do you always need to quote some questionable source that's probably nothing more than some paid shill to promote someones agenda, which is usually just selfish profit?
@Eladar
Yeah, there are SO few science discussions here. But of course you don't habitate this place so how would you know? Here is an exercise for you if you choose to do it:
SCROLL DOWN.
Also, if we DID post an article you would just attack it as propaganda.
I am very interested in science, ALL MY LIFE. I worked in several scientific fields including as a tech on Apollo, a tech at Autec, google them if you never heard of them. Long time at Varian working ion implanters which has a combination of 6 or more scientific disciplines.
I post questions, articles here all the time so you just casting aspersions on those posting here is just another example of your mindless trolling.
Case in point, they believe stuff like this without question, the claim to know the science
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/03/30/fact-check-sunlight-does-not-kill-new-coronavirus/2931170001/
Instead of reading this
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280232/#!po=41.5000
The most effective wavelength for inactivation, 260 nm (55), falls in the UVC range, so-named to differentiate it from near-UV found in ground-level sunlight, i.e., the UVB and UVA portions of the spectrum, 290 to 320 nm and 320 to 380 nm, respectively (51). Nucleic acids are damaged also by UVB and UVA but with lower efficiency than by UVC radiation (64).
64. Setlow, R. 1960. The use of action spectra to determine the physical state of DNA in vivo. Biochim. Biophys. Acta39:180-181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]