Pericles, I'm curious.

What does this lump of rock tell us?

What does this lump of rock tell us?....lol That what you see, is not what you get:) Oh for times most said, the African lioness/ plus clubs, and all but a few exceptions, has this "emotionality" and whats your point:)

An observation of the natural world will not justify your claims. ( in-fact you make it right )Love is the program, which makes the animal world....Higher....and war and indifference, makes us fools.

Still comes down to your non.

I think love is going to win:)

leap

LEAp

Which lump of rock might that be, Dan S de Merengue?

>>Pericles, I'm curious. What does this lump of rock tell us?<<

I can see how you awarded yourself the monicker. Dancing, dancing, all the time dancing...

What does this lump of rock tell us?
 
Which lump?

Pericles, you tell me. It was your idea. It was your rock. You dug it up.

You raised the question.

What does this lump of rock tell us according to Pericles? I was curious to know. Silence so far.

Usually rocks are silent. They have no mouths. All they say is deduced from an interpretation which we put on them. How we perceive or interpret them depends on the philosophical matrix through which we view such matter. 

Our philosophical approach or viewpoint comes first. That will determine how the rock speaks. Philosophy is paramount.

Discussion with a closed mind indeed lends itself to fruitlessness. But where to find the open mind? The truly open minded would attemp to see another perspective or the differing philosophical view rather than cheaply denouncing its adherents as morally deficient.

Very cute, Dan S de Merengue.

>>What does this lump of rock tell us according to Pericles? I was curious to know. Silence so far.<<

The rock in question is a hypothetical rock. It represents a part of this physical world of ours that can be examined, with the objective to determine a) what it is made of, b) how it came to be the form in which it now presents itself, c) how old it is and d) what can it tell us about the world at the time it was formed.

>>Usually rocks are silent. They have no mouths. All they say is deduced from an interpretation which we put on them. How we perceive or interpret them depends on the philosophical matrix through which we view such matter.<<

Quite. So the last thing you need is a conviction that the earth was created in seven days by a pan-dimensional spirit some six thousand years ago.

You would be unable to produce the following:

http://geology.com/press-release/ancient-mantle-rocks/

Instead, you would need to expend all your energies finding alternative explanations for the geochemical evidence that shows us the "region of the Earth's mantle that has largely escaped the billions of years of melting and geological churning that has affected the rest of the planet."

By addressing the piece of rock with an open mind, you are able to arrive at the conclusion that "the lead isotopes in the lava samples... date the reservoir to between 4.55 and 4.45 billion years old", reflecting the weight of evidence, rather than any prejudice.

Your position on geological evidence is interesting.

>>Our philosophical approach or viewpoint comes first. That will determine how the rock speaks. Philosophy is paramount.<<

Not really. You don't need a philosophical viewpoint to conduct electron microprobe analysis of micro-milled rock samples.

http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/8/1449.full

You just do it.

>>The truly open minded would attemp to see another perspective or the differing philosophical view rather than cheaply denouncing its adherents as morally deficient.<<

Agreed, one hundred percent.

But that has nothing to do with the analysis of rocks.