Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:40 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 162 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ? 
Author Message
Years of membershipYears of membership
Creative Writing Student


Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
Chris OConnor wrote:
Ah, so you haven't read any books on evolution but you know it to be untrue.

Quote:
...years of listening and years of research into what I was listening to evolutionists say


Did you listen to them speak in person or in YouTube videos? What videos? Please post a few links.

So you've done research? Excellent. What sources did you use for this research? What was the nature of this research? Please explain how you went about conducting the research without cracking open a book on evolutionary theory.



Have a nice day Chris. I notice that I haven't even been welcomed yet here at Booktalk but boy have I been assailed at all fronts by the evolutionary elite. lol Really, I couldn't care less what you believe, you believe what you want because I sure will believe what I want. Your evidence FOR evolution is good enough for you but not me, ok? If you want to believe you came from some swamp-dwelling critter then have at it. lol I myself think it rather childish but hey, that's ole unedjamacated me. Actually, no I haven't listened to any You Tube videos on the matter. Do you want to know my research? Ok, Google, "evolution is a hoax" and there ya go. But I am going to start exploring your excellent site after I answer a couple more scholars on evolution.



Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:14 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membership
Creative Writing Student


Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
Interbane wrote:
Barry wrote:
See? You have faith in the environment, the environment is your god.


That doesn't make sense. Do you mean I have faith I'll be rained upon at some point? The environment doesn't produce conclusions. Humans do. I don't have faith in the conclusions of humans ex nihilo, but I trust conclusions if they were arrived at by proper method.

Quote:
There is no evidence. We have gone from searching for the "missing link" to saying ALL fossils are transitional. Evolution, like climate change, is hardly settled science. It is not even a science. The theory of evolution originated not long after God created man and he promptly rebelled.


There's more evidence than you could possibly digest in your remaining years in support of evolution. If you don't know this to be true, you've been horribly mislead at some point in your life. No words will change your position, but you need to know you're wrong, beyond the shadow of a doubt. There are many hibernating threads on this topic in our archives that you're welcome to read through to catch up.

Quote:
Mankind has been puttering around on earth for around 14 thousand years. We are still here. To think that WE, little ole fallible man, can destroy this earth is really naive at best.


What you're appealing to here aren't good reasons. Obviously, our "puttering" has increased exponentially, as has our population size. It is the opposite of naive. You have blinders on if you don't see that we're changing the environment for the worse.

Quote:
According to you folks, the earth's atmosphere at one time had to be so clogged with CO2 that life as we know it could not have originated.


Really? Could you provide a source for that claim. I'd like to read the words of this expert who knows what conditions are impossible for any life, rather than just life as we know it.

CO2 levels have been higher in Earth's history. But correspondingly, the Earth's temperature was much higher, the weather much harsher, sea levels higher, etc. Thrusting us into such a dramatically different Earth would wipe out the majority of our population. No one here is arguing that fallible old man won't survive. Just that our numbers will be greatly reduced.

But that's a good thing in your holy book, right? Perhaps the difference between us is that we actually agree that the environment will change, yet we think it's a horrible thing that millions or billions will die, while you think it's a good thing. Please tell me that's not true.

Lone facts on a pulpit do nothing, which is why it's so easy to come to conclusions that are opposite the truth from a handful of true facts. You need a comprehensive set of facts and evidence, which you make clear you don't have.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human- ... ssions.htm


Uhhh, which proper method? Everyone has a "proper" method, which is yours?

No, YOU need to know that YOU are wrong. In your little vapor span of life, how can you possibly arrive at conclusions that have taken billions of years to produce? lol You can't. You can only read others opinions that coincide with your own, of which there are THOUSANDs of differing opinions that you dismiss because YOUR worldview is different. Again, mankind CANNOT destroy himself environmentally speaking and there is a difference in pollution and climate change. One we can't do anything about, the other we can. Guess which is which. I have no desire to visit dead threads on the subject.

Our puttering hasn't increased all that much. Human nature is exactly the same.

Well, which is it? Either CO2 kills or it doesn't and earth's early atmosphere was full of it.

Its early atmosphere was probably formed from the gases given out by volcanoes. ... The early atmosphere was probably mostly carbon dioxide, with little or no oxygen. There were small quantities of water vapour, ammonia and methane. As the Earth cooled down, most of the water vapour condensed and formed the oceans.
BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Evolution of the atmosphere
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesi ... rev1.shtml

Sorry, try this one. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesi ... rev7.shtml

So, I am to assume that life, no matter what form, originated in that? Or waited for more favorable conditions and THEN, life came from non-life? lol Oh boy, Saturday morning cartoons weren't that good. lol

It's never a good thing when billions die. Of COURSE, I believe in climate change and there is NOTHING you or I can do about it. It is called WEATHER! Now, pollution on the other hand...

Please, I don't need to go through tomes of documents that Al Gore put together, right after he invented the internet. Or was that BEFORE? lol

Have a good day sir.



Last edited by BarryW55 on Thu Dec 29, 2016 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:35 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membership
Creative Writing Student


Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
geo wrote:
BarryW55 wrote:
LanDroid wrote:
There is a large collection of evidence here; let us know when you're done reading it.
http://talkorigins.org/



As soon as you get through reading all this. :up:

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/

The obvious question here is why would you turn to a book of religion to learn about a scientific theory (or to even discuss it)? It makes no sense.

Granted, religion is a source of personal meaning for people. But when it comes to discussing the physical world, we turn to science. If you don't agree with this, that's fine. But I doubt any kind of substantive discussion can ever get past this point.



Well, the book of religion spells out true science. Since science is just another word for knowledge, let's see what that book of religion says about it.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

So, the fear, or reverence, of God is the beginning of knowledge. Now, what if you don't reverence, or respect God? Wat kind of knowledge do you have?

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

So, many shall run back and forth, you know, like a chicken with its head cut off. Knowledge will be increased but what good is it without reverence of God? It leads to this.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Science falsely so called. Like evolution and climate change. And also, on a spiritual level, false teachers and man's traditions against the Word of God.

The bible has been proved right so many times but since it reveals the true God that so many don't believe in, t is cast aside as just another "religious book." Well, that's your call, nothing I can do about it. Have a good day.



Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:51 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 16169
Location: Florida
Thanks: 3492
Thanked: 1326 times in 1045 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
Quote:
Since science is just another word for knowledge.


Not true.

Here, let me help.



The following user would like to thank Chris OConnor for this post:
LanDroid
Thu Dec 29, 2016 5:00 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7059
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1076
Thanked: 2074 times in 1663 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
Quote:
Uhhh, which proper method? Everyone has a "proper" method, which is yours?


If there are thousands of different methods for arriving at the truth, how do we select between them? The answer, of course, is that we wean away the methods that have lead to conclusions which are false. We keep what is left. There is a core stock of methods dating back a couple thousand years that have been unfailing. This set is called logic, and is exceptionally more structured than the layman typically knows. What most people call "logical" or "illogical" is an abuse of these ancient terms. Actual logic is the first set of proper methods. Not layman logic.

The second set of proper methods started a little over four hundred years ago. In a sense, this set of newer methods is a structure built around the core set of logical methods. Logic must be used, but the newer set uses methods above and beyond logic. This newer set is also able to go much further than logic in discovering our world, but for that advantage it's also much more susceptible to arriving at false conclusions.

But, that doesn't mean there is any other set of methods more capable of weaning away false conclusions. This newer set - science - is unmatched by any other set of methods. Nothing compares, except for the logical subset, which is required for good science.

Quote:
Well, which is it? Either CO2 kills or it doesn't and earth's early atmosphere was full of it.


This is what is called a false dichotomy. If you reference the first set of methods, you'll find it's a mistake of reasoning dating back thousands of years.

Quote:
So, I am to assume that life, no matter what form, originated in that? Or waited for more favorable conditions and THEN, life came from non-life? lol Oh boy, Saturday morning cartoons weren't that good. lol


This is an appeal to incredulity. The universe is filled with incredible things. Until we discover them and know them to be true, reactions such as yours are detrimental. Appealing to incredulity does nothing but make you feel better about what you believe. Unless you show that it's impossible, you have nothing. Incredulity is meaningless.

Quote:
Our puttering hasn't increased all that much. Human nature is exactly the same.


This is a mistake of false equivalence. Human nature may not have increased, but our puttering has increased exponentially. They are two different things.

Quote:
It's never a good thing when billions die. Of COURSE, I believe in climate change and there is NOTHING you or I can do about it. It is called WEATHER! Now, pollution on the other hand...


It's called anthropogenic climate change. The question is whether or not humans are having an impact on our environment. The evidence answers this question with a resounding and unfortunate "yes".

Quote:
No, YOU need to know that YOU are wrong.


I could be wrong. But at the very least, I'm a hell of a lot closer to the truth than you are. The sheer number of mistakes of reasoning you make in a single post demonstrates this. From what I can tell, you use emotional reasoning, which is the fastest way to false conclusions. Keep responding, the evidence will pile up. Not that it will matter. :-D


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Thu Dec 29, 2016 6:08 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membership
Creative Writing Student


Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
Uhhh, which proper method? Everyone has a "proper" method, which is yours?


If there are thousands of different methods for arriving at the truth, how do we select between them? The answer, of course, is that we wean away the methods that have lead to conclusions which are false. We keep what is left. There is a core stock of methods dating back a couple thousand years that have been unfailing. This set is called logic, and is exceptionally more structured than the layman typically knows. What most people call "logical" or "illogical" is an abuse of these ancient terms. Actual logic is the first set of proper methods. Not layman logic.

The second set of proper methods started a little over four hundred years ago. In a sense, this set of newer methods is a structure built around the core set of logical methods. Logic must be used, but the newer set uses methods above and beyond logic. This newer set is also able to go much further than logic in discovering our world, but for that advantage it's also much more susceptible to arriving at false conclusions.

But, that doesn't mean there is any other set of methods more capable of weaning away false conclusions. This newer set - science - is unmatched by any other set of methods. Nothing compares, except for the logical subset, which is required for good science.

Quote:
Well, which is it? Either CO2 kills or it doesn't and earth's early atmosphere was full of it.


This is what is called a false dichotomy. If you reference the first set of methods, you'll find it's a mistake of reasoning dating back thousands of years.

Quote:
So, I am to assume that life, no matter what form, originated in that? Or waited for more favorable conditions and THEN, life came from non-life? lol Oh boy, Saturday morning cartoons weren't that good. lol


This is an appeal to incredulity. The universe is filled with incredible things. Until we discover them and know them to be true, reactions such as yours are detrimental. Appealing to incredulity does nothing but make you feel better about what you believe. Unless you show that it's impossible, you have nothing. Incredulity is meaningless.

Quote:
Our puttering hasn't increased all that much. Human nature is exactly the same.


This is a mistake of false equivalence. Human nature may not have increased, but our puttering has increased exponentially. They are two different things.

Quote:
It's never a good thing when billions die. Of COURSE, I believe in climate change and there is NOTHING you or I can do about it. It is called WEATHER! Now, pollution on the other hand...


It's called anthropogenic climate change. The question is whether or not humans are having an impact on our environment. The evidence answers this question with a resounding and unfortunate "yes".

Quote:
No, YOU need to know that YOU are wrong.


I could be wrong. But at the very least, I'm a hell of a lot closer to the truth than you are. The sheer number of mistakes of reasoning you make in a single post demonstrates this. From what I can tell, you use emotional reasoning, which is the fastest way to false conclusions. Keep responding, the evidence will pile up. Not that it will matter. :-D



Oh, you ARE wrong and so close to myth it is rather boring. You are so arrogant that you didn't even use my link. That is what is so pathetic about you "higher educated" folks. You think you know everything. Anthropegenic climate change? lol Did Al Gore come up with that one?



Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:30 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membership
Creative Writing Student


Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
Chris OConnor wrote:
Quote:
Since science is just another word for knowledge.


Not true.

Here, let me help.


Still haven't welcomed me to your little click? lol Uh, yes, very true. Let ME help.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... rch=scienc



Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:35 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7059
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1076
Thanked: 2074 times in 1663 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
Quote:
You are so arrogant that you didn't even use my link. That is what is so pathetic about you "higher educated" folks. You think you know everything.


I've read through all your links Barry.

The thing is, none of us knows the smallest fraction of the knowledge available to us, let alone everything. You're the arrogant one, thinking you're correct without putting in any effort to actually learn what that entails. Thinking you're correct and the tens of thousands of educated scientists worldwide are collectively wrong. Not just on one subject, but on multiple subjects that branch out into hundreds of fields of science. Thinking that you don't need to do any of the studying they had to go through, and you still know better than them. That's arrogance Barry, and it stinks.

Also, I've never been to college. :hmm:

Quote:
Still haven't welcomed me to your little click? lol Uh, yes, very true. Let ME help.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... rch=scienc


You can't understand some terms by their dictionary definition. Science isn't another word for knowledge, as you claim. There are types of knowledge that can be acquired which aren't scientific, even as there is scientific knowledge. If you want the conceptual definition rather than the dictionary definition, try here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Fri Dec 30, 2016 5:57 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4378
Location: NC
Thanks: 1861
Thanked: 1929 times in 1444 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
BarryW55 wrote:
Still haven't welcomed me to your little click? lol

Barry, welcome to BookTalk!


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
LynLlew
Fri Dec 30, 2016 8:56 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Discussion Leader
BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2079
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 79
Thanked: 782 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
BarryW55 wrote:
Again, mankind CANNOT destroy himself environmentally speaking ...

Why would you make such a strange statement? One difference between the atomic bomb and a thermonuclear bomb is there is no upper limit on the explosive power of the latter. Humans could construct a thermonuclear bomb powerful enough to turn the planet Earth into microscopic space dust; for all we know doomsday weapons like this may already exist. Or we could unleash global warfare involving biological agents, poisons, and radioactive weapons that render the planet inhospitable to human life. You appear to claim it is Absolutely Impossible for man to "destroy himself environmentally speaking", but obviously that's not true given considerations such as these.

Quote:
Well, which is it? Either CO2 kills or it doesn't and earth's early atmosphere was full of it.

Are you unaware of anaerobic bacteria that thrive in atmospheres devoid of oxygen, such as those rich in CO2? You might want to read the current non-fiction book we're discussing, which at one point describes how cyanobacteria provided oxygen to the ancient atmosphere on earth.

Quote:
Still haven't welcomed me to your little click? lol Uh, yes, very true. Let ME help.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... rch=scienc

Surely you realize you linked to a dictionary of etymology, which studies the origins of words? The definition of science provided there is from the 14th century! To find a current definition, please go back to the link Chris O'Connor provided.


_________________
When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you multiply your prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
Isaiah 1:15

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21: 23 - 25


Fri Dec 30, 2016 5:12 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membership
Pop up Book Fanatic


Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 14
Thanks: 2
Thanked: 11 times in 8 posts
Gender: Female
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
BarryW55 wrote:
LynLlew wrote:
There's a lot to be said about desperately wanting the events of a book to be true....

I'm still looking forward to running into the family from Tuck Everlasting.


You mean like Charles Darwins epic, "On the Origin of Species?" lol The bible of evolutionists and atheists.



If an intelligent discussion were a variation of rock-paper-scissors, Spitting vitriol would never win against biting sarcasm.

I am fairly certain that by making a nasty jab at a book that is historically important to the scientific community, you fully intended to cause as much extreme personal pain toward me as you obviously feel when someone points literally anything out that doesn't agree ten-thousand percent with your group's personal interpretation of the bible...another historically important document.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't really get butthurt by jabs at the scientific community. The scientific community can handle a little ignorance and schoolyard taunting, since it's the only way that the "other side" has been able to communicate its disagreement.....ever. And I think I speak for a few geeks out there when I say that our eyes are pretty much accustomed to the sand-kicking, thanks.

I disagree with some of the things that people say in defense of science....and I agree with some of the things that people say in defense of faith. But here's the thing...at the end of the day, I remain an individual with a complex mind and varying ideas and opinions on many subjects....and while I may find lots of things very interesting and intriguing....and while I may agree with the points that someone may make...I will neither follow blindly behind one ideal or group, nor will I debase and insult another individual.

I will, however, judge people for their lazy ignorance and pity people who are more comfortable as puppets and automatons than living, breathing, amazingly diverse and complicated chunks of awesome.

Oh, and I read Darwin's book. It is a very dryly written and fascinating study on scientific thought and observation. I didn't cry.....or raise my hands and praise Darwin...or sway while holding hands with other scientifically minded people...or base all of my life's decisions on how Darwin felt about grains of wheat. I read it....and then I read lots of other things. And as I read more and more.....I began to think more and more....and the more I thought, the more I lived.

If I'm not mistaken, this is a book lovers forum. Don't be afraid to expand your horizons to a few different subjects. You may catch yourself becoming empathetic or even thinking about things.

Best of luck..and DFTBA


_________________
“I believe the universe wants to be noticed. I think the universe is improbably biased toward consciousness, that it rewards intelligence in part because the universe enjoys its elegance being observed. And who am I, living in the middle of history, to tell the universe that it--or my observation of it--is temporary?” ~John Green


The following user would like to thank LynLlew for this post:
Interbane, Robert Tulip
Fri Dec 30, 2016 9:43 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5823
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2283
Thanked: 2211 times in 1671 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
BarryW55 wrote:
ant wrote:
Here's what I can't understand:

Despite my personal acknowledgement of a warming planet
Despite my acknowledgement and support of the need to take action
Despite my complete and utter disdain for pollution and raping of our natural landscape (what's left of it)...,

I am still referred to as a "bigot" and "denier" because I will not point the finger at human beings as being strictly and completely responsible for climate change.


It's like a weird cult for people like Robert. It's so Orwellian.


:goodpost:
Anyone who thinks humans are not responsible for climate change is deluded. The worst "Orwellian Weird Cult" in relation to climate change is the science denial movement. See http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change- ... 96371.html for a good summary of current science, although the article has not articulated any constructive approach to the Trump Presidency.

Barry contradicts himself in the above quoted post by endorsing acknowledgement of a warming planet. And ant flatly continues his flat earth contradiction between alleged acceptance of science and denial that human emissions are the main cause of climate change.

"Orwellian" means the slogans 'ignorance is strength, war is peace, freedom is slavery'. Those well summarise the dystopia of young earth creationism.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Sat Dec 31, 2016 4:15 am
Profile Email WWW
Years of membershipYears of membership
Creative Writing Student


Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
You are so arrogant that you didn't even use my link. That is what is so pathetic about you "higher educated" folks. You think you know everything.


I've read through all your links Barry.

The thing is, none of us knows the smallest fraction of the knowledge available to us, let alone everything. You're the arrogant one, thinking you're correct without putting in any effort to actually learn what that entails. Thinking you're correct and the tens of thousands of educated scientists worldwide are collectively wrong. Not just on one subject, but on multiple subjects that branch out into hundreds of fields of science. Thinking that you don't need to do any of the studying they had to go through, and you still know better than them. That's arrogance Barry, and it stinks.

Also, I've never been to college. :hmm:

Quote:
Still haven't welcomed me to your little click? lol Uh, yes, very true. Let ME help.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... rch=scienc


You can't understand some terms by their dictionary definition. Science isn't another word for knowledge, as you claim. There are types of knowledge that can be acquired which aren't scientific, even as there is scientific knowledge. If you want the conceptual definition rather than the dictionary definition, try here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/


You've read through my links and they go against what YOU think, plain and simple. So of course, you don't like them. lol I'm not arrogant, I'm just not stupid. To think we evolved from some lower life form is ridiculous. LOL Ten's of thousands of educated scientists? In WHAT? MYTH? lol Frog-man to modern man? I think it stinks that you dismiss out of hand the millions, if not BILLIONS of people that believe God created man from the dust of the ground. But of course, your tens of thousands of scientists, that will say ANYTHING to keep their jobs and grant money, are right.

I've never been to college either. :omg4:



Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:30 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membership
Creative Writing Student


Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
geo wrote:
BarryW55 wrote:
Still haven't welcomed me to your little click? lol

Barry, welcome to BookTalk!



Thank you!



Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:33 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membership
Creative Writing Student


Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Is Bill Nye really a "science guy" ?
LanDroid wrote:
BarryW55 wrote:
Again, mankind CANNOT destroy himself environmentally speaking ...

Why would you make such a strange statement? One difference between the atomic bomb and a thermonuclear bomb is there is no upper limit on the explosive power of the latter. Humans could construct a thermonuclear bomb powerful enough to turn the planet Earth into microscopic space dust; for all we know doomsday weapons like this may already exist. Or we could unleash global warfare involving biological agents, poisons, and radioactive weapons that render the planet inhospitable to human life. You appear to claim it is Absolutely Impossible for man to "destroy himself environmentally speaking", but obviously that's not true given considerations such as these.

Quote:
Well, which is it? Either CO2 kills or it doesn't and earth's early atmosphere was full of it.

Are you unaware of anaerobic bacteria that thrive in atmospheres devoid of oxygen, such as those rich in CO2? You might want to read the current non-fiction book we're discussing, which at one point describes how cyanobacteria provided oxygen to the ancient atmosphere on earth.

Quote:
Still haven't welcomed me to your little click? lol Uh, yes, very true. Let ME help.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... rch=scienc

Surely you realize you linked to a dictionary of etymology, which studies the origins of words? The definition of science provided there is from the 14th century! To find a current definition, please go back to the link Chris O'Connor provided.


Uh, I said ENVIRONMENTALLY speaking that man couldn't destroy himself. You are throwing weapons into the mix.

So, the ORIGIN of the word "science" was coined in the 14th century. What was the word used for it before then? Knowledge maybe?

science (n.) Look up science at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- "to cut, to split" (source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate;" see schizo-).

From late 14c. in English as "book-learning," also "a particular branch of knowledge or of learning;" also "skillfulness, cleverness; craftiness." From c. 1400 as "experiential knowledge;" also "a skill, handicraft; a trade." From late 14c. as "collective human knowledge" (especially "that gained by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning). Modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation" is attested from 1725; in 17c.-18c. this concept commonly was called philosophy. Sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1670s.
Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]
In science you must not talk before you know. In art you must not talk before you do. In literature you must not talk before you think. [John Ruskin, "The Eagle's Nest," 1872]
The distinction is commonly understood as between theoretical truth (Greek episteme) and methods for effecting practical results (tekhne), but science sometimes is used for practical applications and art for applications of skill. To blind (someone) with science "confuse by the use of big words or complex explanations" is attested from 1937, originally noted as a phrase from Australia and New Zealand.



Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:40 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 162 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank