| 03-01-2025 19:27 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1622) |
"Sulfate is not a chemical". Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
Sulfate absolutely IS a "chemical" being referred to in the term "sulfate reduction".
"Sulfate" in the context of "sulfate reduction" is an OBVIOUS reference to the SULFATE ION, SO4(2-).
The sulfate ion IS a chemical according to all but the most WACKY definitions.
And the sulfate ion absolutely CAN be chemically reduced to hydrogen sulfide.
Repeating "sulfate is not a chemical" and "sulfate cannot be reduced" 10,000 MORE times STILL won't change the reality that sulfate IS a chemical which CAN be reduced.
There must be some kind of comfort derived from repeating over and over again the exact same sentence, no matter how MEANINGLESS or FALSE.
You got your Bennifers and Branjolinas celebrity power couples.
Well, among the world's truly scientific geniuses, there is only ONE power couple to pay attention to.
Into daMann. It saves time. You don't have to write as much to get both names identified.
And so much of what Into daMann says comes out as the same words from both mouths, it's easier to just address them as a single unit.
Into daMann has been telling me that I am a scientifically illiterate moron for more than two years.
"Go and learn some science." - Into daMann
Yes, Into daMann, y'all need to go and learn you some SCIENCE.
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
I have NO IDEA where the Internet finds these SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE MORONS to publish BOGUS definitions for scientific terms.
The internet did not create you.
Im a BM wrote:
Sulfate "reduction", for example. So many LIES about "sulfate reduction", which Into the Night has SO CLEARLY EXPLAINED, hundreds of times:
"Sulfate cannot be reduced." - Into the Night (a CHEMIST!)
Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce it.
Im a BM wrote:
To prove that I worship more gods than just Google, I'll take one of those FAKE "definitions" from WIKIPEDIA (boo! hiss!)
Question transmitted via Google: "what are sulfate reducing bacteria?"
Answer from WIKIPEDIA:
"Sulfate reducing microorganisms (SRM) or sulfate reducing prokaryotes (SRP) are a group composed of sulfate reducing bacteria (SR and sulfate reducing archaea (SRA), both of which can perform anaerobic respiration utilizing sulfate SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor, reducing it to hydrogen sulfide H2S."
Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce 'sulfate'.
Im a BM wrote:
Wikipedia must be part of that vast conspiracy of Marxist warmazombies.
It is.
Im a BM wrote:
It refers to "sulfate" is if it were some kind of CHEMICAL. (Boo! hiss!)
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
It strongly implies that sulfate CAN be reduced. (BLASPHEMY!)
Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce 'sulfate'.
Im a BM wrote:
It seems to indicate that some kind of oxidation reduction reaction can occur in the absence of oxygen, during which a microorganism reduces sulfate in order to oxidize organic carbon.
Sulfate is not a chemical. Oxygen is not an absence of oxygen. Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
Note:
Biologists used to have just one big KINGDOM of organisms they called "bacteria"
Now they distinguish TWO different KINGDOMS of organisms, radically different kinds of "bacteria".
Divisional fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Archaea bacteria are survivors of the OLDEST line of organisms on earth.
Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Rock evidence clearly shows sulfate reducing archaea bacteria already on the scene doing their thing at LEAST 3500 million years ago.
Sulfate is not a chemical. Omniscience fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Newer lines of sulfate reducing bacteria compete with them now.
Sulfate is not a chemical. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Too bad that the Wikipedia blurb didn't mention the inorganic carbon PRODUCT of anaerobic respiration, because it is of major significance to the discussion.
Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
Sulfate reduction allows organisms to acquire energy from the oxidation of organic carbon in the absence of oxygen, and the inorganic (oxidized) carbon product is NOT carbon dioxide, but rather carbonate or bicarbonate.
Sulfate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Oxygen is not an absence of oxygen. Carbon is not organic. Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Just think how FAR REACHING the conspiracy has to be to pull this off.
The Democrat party is a conspiracy.
Im a BM wrote:
The Marxist warmazombies are just flooding the zone with FAKE science about so called "greenhouse gases" and "climate change".
There is no such thing as 'fake science'. Religion is not science.
Im a BM wrote:
They have some sinister agenda to push the anti chemistry propaganda about so-called "sulfate reduction".
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Still can't figure out who is enhancing their wealth or power this way, but they have a lot of bribe money to spread around to get all the textbooks, dictionaries, and so-called "scientists" on board to push the BIG LIE of this "sulfate reduction" hoax
Sulfate is not a chemical. Science is not a book. You deny and discard theories of science. |
| 03-01-2025 23:11 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(22820) |
Im a BM wrote:
"Sulfate is not a chemical". Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
Sulfate absolutely IS a "chemical" being referred to in the term "sulfate reduction".
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
"Sulfate" in the context of "sulfate reduction" is an OBVIOUS reference to the SULFATE ION, SO4(2-).
Sulfate is not a chemical. Random letters is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
The sulfate ion IS a chemical according to all but the most WACKY definitions.
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
And the sulfate ion absolutely CAN be chemically reduced to hydrogen sulfide.
Sulfate is not a chemical. 'Sulfate' cannot be reduced.
Im a BM wrote:
Repeating "sulfate is not a chemical" and "sulfate cannot be reduced" 10,000 MORE times STILL won't change the reality that sulfate IS a chemical which CAN be reduced.
Sulfate is not a chemical. 'Sulfate' cannot be reduced. Buzzword fallacies ('sulfate', 'reality', 'reduced').
Im a BM wrote:
There must be some kind of comfort derived from repeating over and over again the exact same sentence, no matter how MEANINGLESS or FALSE.
Assumption of victory fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
You got your Bennifers and Branjolinas celebrity power couples.
Well, among the world's truly scientific geniuses, there is only ONE power couple to pay attention to.
Into daMann. It saves time. You don't have to write as much to get both names identified.
And so much of what Into daMann says comes out as the same words from both mouths, it's easier to just address them as a single unit.
Into daMann has been telling me that I am a scientifically illiterate moron for more than two years.
"Go and learn some science." - Into daMann
Yes, Into daMann, y'all need to go and learn you some SCIENCE.
You do need to learn some science. Unfortunately, you only want to ignore it.
You also need to learn English. Unfortunately, you don't want to.
You also need to learn mathematics. Unfortunately, you only want to ignore it.
You also need to learn logic. Unfortunately, you only want to ignore it.
The theories of science you ignore are the same, no matter who describes them, whether it is myself, IBdaMann, or anybody else.
The mathematics you ignore is the same, no matter who describes them.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 03-01-2025 23:11 |
| 04-01-2025 00:50 |
Swan ★★★★★
(6003) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
I have NO IDEA where the Internet finds these SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE MORONS to publish BOGUS definitions for scientific terms.
The internet did not create you.
Im a BM wrote:
Sulfate "reduction", for example. So many LIES about "sulfate reduction", which Into the Night has SO CLEARLY EXPLAINED, hundreds of times:
"Sulfate cannot be reduced." - Into the Night (a CHEMIST!)
Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce it.
Im a BM wrote:
To prove that I worship more gods than just Google, I'll take one of those FAKE "definitions" from WIKIPEDIA (boo! hiss!)
Question transmitted via Google: "what are sulfate reducing bacteria?"
Answer from WIKIPEDIA:
"Sulfate reducing microorganisms (SRM) or sulfate reducing prokaryotes (SRP) are a group composed of sulfate reducing bacteria (SR and sulfate reducing archaea (SRA), both of which can perform anaerobic respiration utilizing sulfate SO4(2-) as terminal electron acceptor, reducing it to hydrogen sulfide H2S."
Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce 'sulfate'.
Im a BM wrote:
Wikipedia must be part of that vast conspiracy of Marxist warmazombies.
It is.
Im a BM wrote:
It refers to "sulfate" is if it were some kind of CHEMICAL. (Boo! hiss!)
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
It strongly implies that sulfate CAN be reduced. (BLASPHEMY!)
Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce 'sulfate'.
Im a BM wrote:
It seems to indicate that some kind of oxidation reduction reaction can occur in the absence of oxygen, during which a microorganism reduces sulfate in order to oxidize organic carbon.
Sulfate is not a chemical. Oxygen is not an absence of oxygen. Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
Note:
Biologists used to have just one big KINGDOM of organisms they called "bacteria"
Now they distinguish TWO different KINGDOMS of organisms, radically different kinds of "bacteria".
Divisional fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Archaea bacteria are survivors of the OLDEST line of organisms on earth.
Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Rock evidence clearly shows sulfate reducing archaea bacteria already on the scene doing their thing at LEAST 3500 million years ago.
Sulfate is not a chemical. Omniscience fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Newer lines of sulfate reducing bacteria compete with them now.
Sulfate is not a chemical. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Too bad that the Wikipedia blurb didn't mention the inorganic carbon PRODUCT of anaerobic respiration, because it is of major significance to the discussion.
Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
Sulfate reduction allows organisms to acquire energy from the oxidation of organic carbon in the absence of oxygen, and the inorganic (oxidized) carbon product is NOT carbon dioxide, but rather carbonate or bicarbonate.
Sulfate is not a chemical. Carbon is not organic. Oxygen is not an absence of oxygen. Carbon is not organic. Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Just think how FAR REACHING the conspiracy has to be to pull this off.
The Democrat party is a conspiracy.
Im a BM wrote:
The Marxist warmazombies are just flooding the zone with FAKE science about so called "greenhouse gases" and "climate change".
There is no such thing as 'fake science'. Religion is not science.
Im a BM wrote:
They have some sinister agenda to push the anti chemistry propaganda about so-called "sulfate reduction".
Sulfate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Still can't figure out who is enhancing their wealth or power this way, but they have a lot of bribe money to spread around to get all the textbooks, dictionaries, and so-called "scientists" on board to push the BIG LIE of this "sulfate reduction" hoax
Sulfate is not a chemical. Science is not a book. You deny and discard theories of science.
Everything is a chemical, including the goo between your ears
IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.
According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC
This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop
I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.
ULTRA MAGA
"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA
So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?
Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy
Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL |