If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Bill Nye, the "please stop being science denying idiot" guy   (nytimes.com) divider line 494
    More: Hero, Big Man on Campus, age of the earth, Bill Nye, the Science Guy, Inhofe  
•       •       •

25748 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jun 2013 at 8:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



494 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-18 09:36:38 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: compelling scientific evidence. Not by some consensus (real or invented).


You mean the compelling scientific evidence of the published papers by those consensus scientists? You know, the ones published by actual climatologists who agree, based on those papers, that global warming is created by man?
 
2013-06-18 09:36:52 AM  

chimp_ninja: Bullseyed: It is funny when they feel the need to say things like:

"They have gone from watching him explain magnetism and electricity to defending the scientific evidence forclimate change, the age of the earth and other issues they have seen polemicized for religious, political and even economic reasons. "

If they really believed in climate change, they wouldn't need to specify "defend the scientific evidence" and could just say "defend climate change". Like a criminal being interrogated, they feel the need to restate minor details thinking they are making their story more believable, but when in reality they're flagging themselves as liars to anyone trained in behavioral psychology.

And of course if they said that, the same troll would be here saying "It's funny that they defend a THEORY but don't mention the evidence!"  Except they would write THEORY 72 times bigger, because they don't understand the word in its context and think it makes them look smart.


More sarcastic ranting from chimp ninja.
 
2013-06-18 09:37:14 AM  

FLmassage1: utah dude: science is just another religion.

But you don't have to believe in it for it to work.


Says you. I didn't believe in gravity the other day and it took me four hours to get down.
 
2013-06-18 09:37:28 AM  

Alonjar: Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 480x640]

Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.


To be fair, "Why" is often a stupid question.


wjllope: For a "theory" to be scientific, it must be:
1. Naturalistic: cannot be based on presently unknown laws, and must be supported by independent reproducible experiments.
2. Predictive: under controlled conditions, it must predict what will happen, and get it right up to knowable experimental uncertainties.
3. Falsifiable. if no experiment is possible that could refute the theory, it isn't scientific.

cheers


Depends on the details of #3: There are many natural-historical sciences that generate theories that are theoretically falsifiable, but few of them are testable given our current technology.

Similarly, there is a great deal potentially testable hypotheses in the social and behavioral sciences that would be unethical to actually test - You can't just place an infant in a skinner box, no matter your pure intentions.

Falsifiability is a relatively new tenet of science - not that there is anything wrong with that.
 
2013-06-18 09:38:02 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: More sarcastic ranting from chimp ninja.


That's about all you deserve considering you don't strictly seem to understand where the consensus among climatologists derives from.
 
2013-06-18 09:38:40 AM  

Mad Scientist: When y'all are ready for a real science broadcaster, let me know.  I'll make the Connections.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x355]


loved that show.
 
2013-06-18 09:39:05 AM  

mbillips: Skywolf the Scribbler: mbillips: Genesis is pretty clearly based on a flat Earth scenario

Que?

Genesis 1:7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9: And God said, let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so.

Genesis 11 has land plants emerging before the sun and moon are created in Genesis 14. Not exactly paralleling scientific theory. Not to mention, water-living animals (sponges) predate land plants (in contradiction of Genesis) by 100 million to 250 million years.

The "firmament" is a solid barrier between the heavens and the earth, upon which the sun, moon and stars are set. They are "above" and the land and seas are "below." That's pretty much a flat earth. There are other scriptural references to flat earth in the Bible (the four corners of the Earth in Revelation, etc.). That's why early 20th century, fundamentalist science deniers often believed the earth was flat. Unlike today, nobody much listened to them.


The "firmament" was added in English translations to make logical sense to the reader:

http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1.htm

It refers to the earth's crust, under which is water tables and pockets of deep water from whence geothermal activity originates. Above the earth was the cloud cover, which again is water based.

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
 
2013-06-18 09:39:14 AM  

Raharu: tenpoundsofcheese: Some TV guy with a mechanical engineering degree is lecturing people about climate change and how tornadoes are caused by global warming?

This is why we can't have nice things.

I'll wait until Natalie Portman writes a paper.


I'll take what Bill Nye says more seriously then anything you have ever said, or are ever to likely say.


Then?  When?

Bill Nye is just a better human being then you.

Then?  When?
Maybe instead of listening to Bill, you should spend more time watching Sesame Street.
Isn't it time for you to go to school and let the grown ups talk?


He's also waaaaaay more Academically credible then you.


Whoa, you used a capital "A".   Sounds like you are really smart and serious.
 
2013-06-18 09:39:44 AM  

Alonjar: Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 480x640]

Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.


"Why does it burn when I pee?"
"Because you have a urinary tract infection."

"Why don't we all float away?"
"Because gravity prevents it."
 
2013-06-18 09:39:58 AM  

Skywolf the Scribbler: my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim


There's your problem right there.  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  Evolution explains genetic diversity and how we get (got) from there to here.  You can believe that your god created life and evolution is the mechanism he put in place that led to human beings if that's what makes you happy.  Denying evolution makes you look stupid, and it is obvious you are trying very hard at the opposite.
 
2013-06-18 09:40:28 AM  

MaliFinn: If you seriously dislike Bill Nye then you have a problem in your head.  The guy's goal in life is to change the world by encouraging kids to use science.  People who have a problem with this:
- Religious zealots who are offended that their faith isn't logical
- Political enemies of anything that exposes the negative consequences of greed
- Assholes who mock intelligence and education because they are insecure


I like this comment because of how cleverly you've disuised your "if you disagree with me you're a bad person" opinion as something reasonable.
 
2013-06-18 09:41:24 AM  

Carn: Skywolf the Scribbler: my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim

There's your problem right there.  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  Evolution explains genetic diversity and how we get (got) from there to here.  You can believe that your god created life and evolution is the mechanism he put in place that led to human beings if that's what makes you happy.  Denying evolution makes you look stupid, and it is obvious you are trying very hard at the opposite.


Actually, evolution equivocally does explain the origin of life. Someone in one of these threads summed it up. Started with elements attaching to one another, into proteins, etc.
 
2013-06-18 09:41:44 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Alonjar: Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 480x640]

Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.

"Why does it burn when I pee?"
"Because you have a urinary tract infection."

"Why don't we all float away?"
"Because gravity prevents it."


Those are really how questions - despite the presence of the word "why".
 
2013-06-18 09:42:22 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: I like this comment because of how cleverly you've disuised your "if you disagree with me you're a bad person" opinion as something reasonable.


If you disagree with scientific evidence, especially on this issue, you want to continue to ruin the planet which definitely makes you a bad person.
 
2013-06-18 09:42:28 AM  

mamoru: steamingpile: Nice point, like the fact man is most likely not the sole cause for warming and its arrogant to think a flea speck on this planet is causing all of it. Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.

Hmmm... I wonder what happened to all that CO2 that was in the atmosphere all those many millions of years ago. Maybe it was fixed into organic molecules in plants, some of which eventually died and fossilized, carrying their carbon into the ground with them, to be buried for all time never reintroduced to the atmosphere unless some species was dumb enough to dig it up and burn it.

And humans definitely don't dig up and burn fossilized carbon, therefore modern atmospheric CO2 increases are not man-made. Right?


Holy shiat. I never thought of it like that. I definitely believe there is climate change occurring, but I couldn't really say "Yea, we did it." Your statement changes that.
The planet coped before when large amounts of CO2 were present through whatever natural disaster (volcanoes or a small meteor impact I think was the prevailing theory?) . As a response, it sequestered the carbon through natural processes...then we come along dig the crap up and burn it.

/No sarcasm
/Srsly.
 
2013-06-18 09:42:31 AM  
i227.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-18 09:43:19 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Carn: Skywolf the Scribbler: my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim

There's your problem right there.  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  Evolution explains genetic diversity and how we get (got) from there to here.  You can believe that your god created life and evolution is the mechanism he put in place that led to human beings if that's what makes you happy.  Denying evolution makes you look stupid, and it is obvious you are trying very hard at the opposite.

Actually, evolution equivocally does explain the origin of life. Someone in one of these threads summed it up. Started with elements attaching to one another, into proteins, etc.


Equivocally? Sure.

yourenothelping.jpg
 
2013-06-18 09:43:29 AM  

cubic_spleen: THE GREAT NAME:

The mushy bit in the middle is increasingly sceptical about AGW. Rightly so, since it is utter nonsense.

The fact that you are too dumb to understand the science doesn't make the science wrong.


Actually, I agree that failing to understand science does not make science wrong. But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?
 
2013-06-18 09:43:34 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: MaliFinn: If you seriously dislike Bill Nye then you have a problem in your head.  The guy's goal in life is to change the world by encouraging kids to use science.  People who have a problem with this:
- Religious zealots who are offended that their faith isn't logical
- Political enemies of anything that exposes the negative consequences of greed
- Assholes who mock intelligence and education because they are insecure

I like this comment because of how cleverly you've disuised your "if you disagree with me you're a bad person" opinion as something reasonable.


The truth doesn't need people to agree with it.
 
2013-06-18 09:43:56 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Carn: Skywolf the Scribbler: my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim

There's your problem right there.  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  Evolution explains genetic diversity and how we get (got) from there to here.  You can believe that your god created life and evolution is the mechanism he put in place that led to human beings if that's what makes you happy.  Denying evolution makes you look stupid, and it is obvious you are trying very hard at the opposite.

Actually, evolution equivocally does explain the origin of life. Someone in one of these threads summed it up. Started with elements attaching to one another, into proteins, etc.


I do not deny it. On the contrary, I say that it may have occurred as one theory to explain life. While we do not have presently tangible examples of abiogenesis, however, it remains theoretical.
 
2013-06-18 09:44:38 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: cubic_spleen: THE GREAT NAME:

The mushy bit in the middle is increasingly sceptical about AGW. Rightly so, since it is utter nonsense.

The fact that you are too dumb to understand the science doesn't make the science wrong.

Actually, I agree that failing to understand science does not make science wrong. But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?


How do you feel about geology, astronomy, and evolutionary biology? Beware: judgements will be made.
 
2013-06-18 09:44:49 AM  

ph0rk: cameroncrazy1984: Carn: Skywolf the Scribbler: my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim

There's your problem right there.  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  Evolution explains genetic diversity and how we get (got) from there to here.  You can believe that your god created life and evolution is the mechanism he put in place that led to human beings if that's what makes you happy.  Denying evolution makes you look stupid, and it is obvious you are trying very hard at the opposite.

Actually, evolution equivocally does explain the origin of life. Someone in one of these threads summed it up. Started with elements attaching to one another, into proteins, etc.

Equivocally? Sure.

yourenothelping.jpg


Sorry, unequivocally. It's 9:45 and I'm trying to stay off caffeine.
 
2013-06-18 09:45:33 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?


lolwut

What does an actual science (climatology) have to do with those things?
 
2013-06-18 09:47:25 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: ph0rk: cameroncrazy1984: Carn: Skywolf the Scribbler: my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim

There's your problem right there.  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  Evolution explains genetic diversity and how we get (got) from there to here.  You can believe that your god created life and evolution is the mechanism he put in place that led to human beings if that's what makes you happy.  Denying evolution makes you look stupid, and it is obvious you are trying very hard at the opposite.

Actually, evolution equivocally does explain the origin of life. Someone in one of these threads summed it up. Started with elements attaching to one another, into proteins, etc.

Equivocally? Sure.

yourenothelping.jpg

Sorry, unequivocally. It's 9:45 and I'm trying to stay off caffeine.


Hidden in the snark (or by the snark) was the point that arguing the ambiogenesis angle isn't that helpful. Or, frankly, that relevant - all the shiat that happened after is what is vitally important. Whether or not the first domino fell by chance or was pushed by a random entity is irrelevant to the subsequent process, and only clouds the issue with the general public.
 
2013-06-18 09:47:36 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: compelling scientific evidence. Not by some consensus (real or invented).

You mean the compelling scientific evidence of the published papers by those consensus scientists? You know, the ones published by actual climatologists who agree, based on those papers, that global warming is created by man?


As I said in my comment, in the part you did not copy into your comment, the claim that has no evidence is the one for massive positive feedbacks that lead to catastrophic AGW. There will be papers out there about that subject, and some will have got through peer reveiw (a rubber stamp job in climatology). But none of them refer to any real scientic evidence. Certainly, their mere existance is not scientific evidence.
 
2013-06-18 09:48:55 AM  

MaliFinn: THE GREAT NAME: MaliFinn: If you seriously dislike Bill Nye then you have a problem in your head.  The guy's goal in life is to change the world by encouraging kids to use science.  People who have a problem with this:
- Religious zealots who are offended that their faith isn't logical
- Political enemies of anything that exposes the negative consequences of greed
- Assholes who mock intelligence and education because they are insecure

I like this comment because of how cleverly you've disuised your "if you disagree with me you're a bad person" opinion as something reasonable.

The truth doesn't need people to agree with it.


You sound pre-pubescent.
 
2013-06-18 09:49:14 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: chimp_ninja: tenpoundsofcheese: Some TV guy with a mechanical engineering degree is lecturing people about climate change and how tornadoes are caused by global warming?

So if someone reviewed over three thousand surveys filled out by Earth scientists, and noted that 97% of publishing climatologists answered 'Yes' to the statement "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?", and had his findings reviewed and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, that would be compelling, right?


Are you still pulling this old con, chimp ninja? For anybody not already aware, these "meta-studies", which are made by environmentalist activist groups, not proper scientists, count virtually all opinions as being in the "pro" AGW group. That includes most rational climate sceptics, suck as myself, who accept that human emissions probably are causing some warming (just not very much).

Because you're a "skeptic", right? Not a troll, certainly. And skeptics are persuaded by evidence. So it would be compelling to see an overwhelming consensus of experts agreeing that the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities? Right?

Putting your sarcastic and ranty tone to one side for a moment, scientists are compelled by compelling scientific evidence. Not by some consensus (real or invented). Remember, the consensus once was that the earth was flat. By your logic we would still believe that. We changed our minds because some good scientists concentrated on the scientific evidence, and saw that there was none for the flat earth theory, so they abandoned the theory.

Catastrophic AGW theory (the one with the large positive feedbacks leading to high CO2 sensitivity) should be abandoned too, because it also has no scientific evidence to support it.


Other than a number of unrefuted recent studies that tend to confirm it, no, "catastrophic" AGW has no scientific evidence to support it.

/You don't have to have a runaway greenhouse effect a la Venus in order to have catastrophic impacts on currently existing species and human civilization. A few degrees C will do it.
//All it takes is a little drought in the main food-growing areas, a few meters of sea-level rise and boom.
///On the other hand, it seems that AGW may well have staved off the scheduled Ice Age, so there's that. But having staved it off, turning the world back into a Paleozoic swamp by putting ever-increasing amounts of fossil CO2 in the atmosphere seems ill-advised.
 
2013-06-18 09:49:33 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Carn: Skywolf the Scribbler: my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim

There's your problem right there.  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  Evolution explains genetic diversity and how we get (got) from there to here.  You can believe that your god created life and evolution is the mechanism he put in place that led to human beings if that's what makes you happy.  Denying evolution makes you look stupid, and it is obvious you are trying very hard at the opposite.

Actually, evolution equivocally does explain the origin of life. Someone in one of these threads summed it up. Started with elements attaching to one another, into proteins, etc.


Well, I think it's debatable.  Evolution explains species diversity through natural selection.  It may explain how you get from an amoeba to a bacteria, but eventually if you keep asking "well how did [x]" get there you get to some fundamental building block which either spontaneously came into being, was put there by a god, or aliens, or something else miraculous happened.  Regardless, it's certainly irrelevant to evolution being an exceptionally sound theory describing how life changes over time, and that was my point to the above poster.  The short and sweet version is that religion and evolution can (and should) coexist.
 
2013-06-18 09:50:13 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: (a rubber stamp job in climatology).


How many of your papers have sailed through the rubber stamp job of peer review in Climatology?

Clearly, if it is so easy, you've already secured a tenured post in the discipline and are swimming in a vast pool filled with grant money by now.
 
2013-06-18 09:50:28 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: the claim that has no evidence is the one for massive positive feedbacks that lead to catastrophic AGW. There will be papers out there about that subject, and some will have got through peer reveiw (a rubber stamp job in climatology). But none of them refer to any real scientic evidence. Certainly, their mere existance is not scientific evidence.


Okay. Name one, and explain why a scientific paper which gives evidence for positive feedbacks is not scientific, nor evidence.

Come on. You made the claim. Now you get to back it up. Just name one, and explain how it got through peer-review without simply stating that it was a "rubber-stamp" without any evidence to back up your claim.
 
2013-06-18 09:51:35 AM  

utah dude: science is just another religion.


I just woke up and I can tell, even without coffee, that you are a moron. 0/10.
 
2013-06-18 09:53:49 AM  
 
2013-06-18 09:54:22 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Sounds like you are really smart and serious.


In other words, the exact opposite of you.

You've showcased your stupidity on the Politics forum time and time again.

It would be colossal folly for you to even dip a toe into scientific issues. It would be like a mosquito facing off against an incoming 5 mile wide meteor.

So, why don't you let the grown ups handle science matters, OK?
 
2013-06-18 09:54:27 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: the claim that has no evidence is the one for massive positive feedbacks that lead to catastrophic AGW. There will be papers out there about that subject, and some will have got through peer reveiw (a rubber stamp job in climatology). But none of them refer to any real scientic evidence. Certainly, their mere existance is not scientific evidence.

Okay. Name one, and explain why a scientific paper which gives evidence for positive feedbacks is not scientific, nor evidence.

Come on. You made the claim. Now you get to back it up. Just name one, and explain how it got through peer-review without simply stating that it was a "rubber-stamp" without any evidence to back up your claim.



Now now, be fair... that's how science works, but he's doing not-science.  No need for him to provide evidence.
 
2013-06-18 09:54:36 AM  

Skywolf the Scribbler: mbillips: Skywolf the Scribbler: mbillips: Genesis is pretty clearly based on a flat Earth scenario

Que?

Genesis 1:7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9: And God said, let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so.

Genesis 11 has land plants emerging before the sun and moon are created in Genesis 14. Not exactly paralleling scientific theory. Not to mention, water-living animals (sponges) predate land plants (in contradiction of Genesis) by 100 million to 250 million years.

The "firmament" is a solid barrier between the heavens and the earth, upon which the sun, moon and stars are set. They are "above" and the land and seas are "below." That's pretty much a flat earth. There are other scriptural references to flat earth in the Bible (the four corners of the Earth in Revelation, etc.). That's why early 20th century, fundamentalist science deniers often believed the earth was flat. Unlike today, nobody much listened to them.

The "firmament" was added in English translations to make logical sense to the reader:

http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1.htm

It refers to the earth's crust, under which is water tables and pockets of deep water from whence geothermal activity originates. Above the earth was the cloud cover, which again is water based.

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.


Then why does Genesis 1:16-17 say that the sky, moon and stars are set in "the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth?"
 
2013-06-18 09:55:04 AM  

Wulfman: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: the claim that has no evidence is the one for massive positive feedbacks that lead to catastrophic AGW. There will be papers out there about that subject, and some will have got through peer reveiw (a rubber stamp job in climatology). But none of them refer to any real scientic evidence. Certainly, their mere existance is not scientific evidence.

Okay. Name one, and explain why a scientific paper which gives evidence for positive feedbacks is not scientific, nor evidence.

Come on. You made the claim. Now you get to back it up. Just name one, and explain how it got through peer-review without simply stating that it was a "rubber-stamp" without any evidence to back up your claim.


Now now, be fair... that's how science works, but he's doing not-science.  No need for him to provide evidence.


Ooh, that sneaky bastard.
 
2013-06-18 09:56:14 AM  

Dadbart: "we are still at the point where idiot people are trying to make schools teach fantasy (intelligent design) "

Always wondered why many people think some aspects of religion and science are mutually exclusive. Genesis actually describes, in simplistic terms, the correct sequence of events as discovered by science. From Big Bang on. That was written long before science spelled it out. How did they know? Unless, of course, you subscribe to Ancient Aliens theories.


Genesis??? You've got to be kidding me.
 
2013-06-18 09:56:52 AM  
Meh. He's boring, stiff and vaugely creepy. He's definitely no Carl Sagan by a long shot.
 
2013-06-18 09:57:27 AM  

mbillips: Skywolf the Scribbler: mbillips: Skywolf the Scribbler: mbillips: Genesis is pretty clearly based on a flat Earth scenario

Que?

Genesis 1:7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9: And God said, let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so.

Genesis 11 has land plants emerging before the sun and moon are created in Genesis 14. Not exactly paralleling scientific theory. Not to mention, water-living animals (sponges) predate land plants (in contradiction of Genesis) by 100 million to 250 million years.

The "firmament" is a solid barrier between the heavens and the earth, upon which the sun, moon and stars are set. They are "above" and the land and seas are "below." That's pretty much a flat earth. There are other scriptural references to flat earth in the Bible (the four corners of the Earth in Revelation, etc.). That's why early 20th century, fundamentalist science deniers often believed the earth was flat. Unlike today, nobody much listened to them.

The "firmament" was added in English translations to make logical sense to the reader:

http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1.htm

It refers to the earth's crust, under which is water tables and pockets of deep water from whence geothermal activity originates. Above the earth was the cloud cover, which again is water based.

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Then why does Genesis 1:16-17 say that the sky, moon and stars are set in "the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth?"


Again, added to the English translation. This is the terminology of the KJV for the Hebrew word for 'expanse', which word is now translated simply as heavens or space.
 
2013-06-18 09:57:54 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: He's boring, stiff and vaugely creepy.


Are you sure we're talking about the  same Bill Nye?
 
2013-06-18 09:59:22 AM  
Oh, btw, catastrophic AGW denial is the latest fallback position for global warming deniers (I won't call them skeptics, because skepticism requires a mind open to new information).

Step 1 was: There's no such thing as global warming.
Step 2: Global warming is real, but not human-caused.
Step 3: Global warming is real, and includes human causes, but it won't hurt us. We'll be growing strawberries in Alaska!

Step 4 comes when we have to build 20-foot sea walls around all major coastal cities, and wars are breaking out over scarcity of food and fresh water: Global warming is real, and human-caused, and catastrophic, but it's too late now.
 
2013-06-18 09:59:23 AM  

ph0rk: THE GREAT NAME: cubic_spleen: THE GREAT NAME:

The mushy bit in the middle is increasingly sceptical about AGW. Rightly so, since it is utter nonsense.

The fact that you are too dumb to understand the science doesn't make the science wrong.

Actually, I agree that failing to understand science does not make science wrong. But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?

How do you feel about geology, astronomy, and evolutionary biology?


Geology, astronomy and evolutionary biology all have MUCH MUCH bigger collections of supporting evidence. And with all three one could dig up or point a telescope at something that would falsify them. There are no concealed models or raw data sets. There is no attempt to invoke Pascal's wager to force people to accept them. And in these fields, peer reveiw is done reasonably thoroughly (though from what I hear still not perfectly) unlike in climatology where it's a pat on the back from a like-minded buddy.

Beware: judgements will be made.

Let me check my worry pocket - oh look, it's empty.
 
2013-06-18 09:59:23 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: But what makes you think climatology is a science


You know how weathermen predict hurricane tracks, professor?

Wait for it.......they use theories that became proven fact, and apply those facts to the real world.

They use.......SCIENCE!
 
2013-06-18 10:00:05 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: steamingpile: Nice point, like the fact man is most likely not the sole cause for warming and its arrogant to think a flea speck on this planet is causing all of it. Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.

Yes because not causing all of it is obviously reason to deny all evidence that some contribution from green house gases due to industrialization are having a marked and measurable effect.


Marked and measurable is how much exactly? Its like the old Simpsons '0 is a number', I'm not saying that's how much just using it for a reference. Is crippling our industry while ignoring other nations causing more green house gasses allowing them to keep polluting? I am sure they will just voluntarily comply in a decade or two when asked to comply.

I am not against controlling shiat like this but let's be realistic about it, trying to put a damn up in the middle of the river while allowing the rest of the water to flow freely accomplishes nothing.
 
2013-06-18 10:02:38 AM  

Allen. The end.: Dadbart: "we are still at the point where idiot people are trying to make schools teach fantasy (intelligent design) "

Always wondered why many people think some aspects of religion and science are mutually exclusive. Genesis actually describes, in simplistic terms, the correct sequence of events as discovered by science. From Big Bang on. That was written long before science spelled it out. How did they know? Unless, of course, you subscribe to Ancient Aliens theories.

Genesis??? You've got to be kidding me.


www.startrek.com

/oblig
//hot like an unstable planet
 
2013-06-18 10:03:04 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: And in these fields, peer reveiw is done reasonably thoroughly (though from what I hear still not perfectly) unlike in climatology where it's a pat on the back from a like-minded buddy.


I'm still waiting on your evidence for this. Where are all these climate papers that show zero evidence? I mean, you're so sure, there must be thousands of examples at your disposal!

Or can you just finally admit now that calling it a non-science is just accusations that you do as a denier to make yourself feel better.
 
2013-06-18 10:03:51 AM  

0Icky0: steamingpile: Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.

Because as we all know, if something can happen naturally, it is impossible for man to make it happen. Even  when six thousand million of them are working together.


Never said that did I? My point remains we are a speck on the planet that has been here billions of years and will be here a lot longer. The issue is we still have no idea why life formed and what precious variables have to happen for it to occur and what has to happen for it to cease.

There was a picture one time a researcher did comparing mans footprint on the planet by laying the globe flat, we were barely a postage stamp on a post card.
 
2013-06-18 10:04:01 AM  

steamingpile: Is crippling our industry while ignoring other nations causing more green house gasses allowing them to keep polluting?


What?
 
2013-06-18 10:04:44 AM  

mbillips: Step 4 comes when we have to build 20-foot sea walls around all major coastal cities, and wars are breaking out over scarcity of food and fresh water:



I believe we call that a jobs program that will drive down unemployment and stimulate economic growth.

/shovel-ready
 
2013-06-18 10:05:14 AM  

steamingpile: My point remains we are a speck on the planet


You think that 7 billion humans with access to modern technology are "a speck"? And that modern science has "no idea" how the earth is affected by various climate factors?

Jesus, do you underestimate humanity.
 
Displayed 50 of 494 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report