bill nye booed in waco Options

[Seeker]

using duggmirror because the original site's server is down

http://www.duggmirror.com/general_sciences...flects_the_Sun/

[impala454]

I will never understand non-believers almost instinctive need to try to disprove Christianity and/or other religions. It's almost like a religion of its own.

And yeah, it's dumb and pointless for someone like Bill Nye to go into Waco, TX and start quoting bible verses alongside his lecture. I'm not sure what the title of his presentation was, or what the flyer or whatever said though. If it said that he was going to present that stuff, then the people who stormed out are the dumb ones for getting upset. If not, Bill Nye needs to keep his lecture on topic.

[Psykopath]

I will never understand non-believers almost instinctive need to try to disprove Christianity and/or other religions. It's almost like a religion of its own.

And yeah, it's dumb and pointless for someone like Bill Nye to go into Waco, TX and start quoting bible verses alongside his lecture. I'm not sure what the title of his presentation was, or what the flyer or whatever said though. If it said that he was going to present that stuff, then the people who stormed out are the dumb ones for getting upset. If not, Bill Nye needs to keep his lecture on topic.

People believing such obviously disproved/false points in the bible (in this case, the sun as something other than a star and the moon as a light of its on) just bleeds blind ignorance. I'm sorry Impala, I'm not cracking on the Christian faith or intelligent Christians. But to blindly accept something true that has been proven false ALL because it is in a book of moral fables is silly.

[JRockTTU]

People believing such obviously disproved/false points in the bible (in this case, the sun as something other than a star and the moon as a light of its on) just bleeds blind ignorance. I'm sorry Impala, I'm not cracking on the Christian faith or intelligent Christians. But to blindly accept something true that has been proven false ALL because it is in a book of moral fables is silly.

Do I really need to get started on how many times something has been proven one way or another by science and then proven to be the opposite? Science said the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. Science said that there are 9 planets in our solar system, then 10, then 8. Science said we were evolved from tree dwelling apes, then it said we evolved from ground dwelling apes. Science said don't eat dietary fats, wait DO eat them because they're good for you! I'm not saying I believe the bible is accurate, but using the accuracy of science as your argument is blind ignorance to me. Science is what we know, that doesn't mean it's right.

[Inferia]

Do I really need to get started on how many times something has been proven one way or another by science and then proven to be the opposite? Science said the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. Science said that there are 9 planets in our solar system, then 10, then 8. Science said we were evolved from tree dwelling apes, then it said we evolved from ground dwelling apes. Science said don't eat dietary fats, wait DO eat them because they're good for you! I'm not saying I believe the bible is accurate, but using the accuracy of science as your argument is blind ignorance to me. Science is what we know, that doesn't mean it's right.

Science did not say the earth is flat, people said the earth is flat. Science did not say there are 9 planets, then 10, then 8, people did. Science is science, and can be interpreted different ways, just like religion. Most science we do fall into the theory category, nothing is really concrete, and by definition it should really be a systematic way of studying something that can be repeated indefinitely. As a scientist, blindly trusting science is ignorant, but not many of us understands nuclear physics or jet proposition, so we must to some degree trust those who develop science. Even science that may seem to change around a lot does not mean it is inaccurate, it just means that we haven't found the right theory to explain it yet.

Simple example I think most of us are familiar with. Objects in free fall travel at the same acceleration, regardless of mass. Is that statement true or false? Well, it depends. It's true because bigger, or more massive objects experience more gravitational pull than smaller ones. But only if air resistance is small in comparison to the mass. And hence how we have parachutes. So if we restate the statement, objects in free fall travel at the acceleration in a vacuum, regardless of mass. Is this statement true or false? Well, mostly. The earth's gravitational pull differs slightly depending on where you are. And here you have science. Not exactly the first statement is so much wrong as it is incomplete.

Another example, during the summer, blowing air on you using a fan will make you cooler. I think most of us will say yes, this is true because we have experienced it. This however is not science. Why does blowing air on us make us cooler? Because when forced air travels around our body, it is forced to expand, when it expands it increases its heat transfer coefficient. And you can explain this using thermodynamics which I'm not going to go through. Either way, the latter part is science. And for those who can state when this is not true, you get a cookie.
Much of the science we are developing today are incomplete, but I wouldn't call them wrong.

[impala454]

but not many of us understands nuclear physics or jet proposition

I definitely don't understand jet proposition

heh sorry.. had to