Menu Bar
C_munkie's Comments
Re: Taco - Puttin' on the Ritz
Can also be found at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OG3PnQ3tgzY
By: C_munkie
Re: The Boondock Saints - Guns
This is one of the more quoted movie scenes amongst my freinds and I. You just gotta love it.
By: C_munkie
Re: One Way to Shop …
I really shouldn't have seen that. I think I see myself getting arrested in the near future.
By: C_munkie
Re: Physics: Water Battery
Impressive. Since it was a clip from a class, the experiment wasn't clearly explained. But you did a good job. How you describe it makes sense.
By: C_munkie
Re: Lies In The Textbooks: Hovind on Evolution
Yeah, I just talked to one of my friends about this and we came up with another issue with one of his theories.
He keeps talking about rock layering and saying well just shake up a cup of mud and it will layer out. Well, how does he account for layers with higher density forming on top of layers with lower density.
His theories all around are just bad.
He keeps talking about rock layering and saying well just shake up a cup of mud and it will layer out. Well, how does he account for layers with higher density forming on top of layers with lower density.
His theories all around are just bad.
By: C_munkie
Re: Monsterpiece Theater: The Taming of the Shoe
It is way funnier watching this now that I am older.
By: C_munkie
Re: Cookie Monster harrasses Gladys Ormphby
And thats why Cookie Monster apears on the Sex Offender Registry.
By: C_munkie
Re: Cookie Computer Song
Holy crap! Cookie Monster said "Cowabunga"! That gets five stars!
By: C_munkie
Re: Sesame Street - Monster in the Mirror
I saw someone submitted this song but it was a sped-up version, where you can't tell what is being said. So I decided the real version should be showcased.
By: C_munkie
Re: Lies In The Textbooks: Hovind on Evolution
Hahaha... He speaks of lies that our children are taught in schools... Where do I begin? Oh yes, the Grand Canyon.
He states that the the Colorado River would have had to have traveled uphill to cut through the mountains there. So therefore, it had to have instead been a spillway. Wow, that is so totally wrong, all I have to do is turn to my freshman geology class. The reason there is the change in elevation is due to a little thing we geologists call "uplift". The river starts to cut its path, then the ground beneath begins to raise in elevation due to plate tectonics, but slowly. In fact, slowly enough for the river to cut through instead of being forced to find a new route. I am pretty sure that the Grand Canyon is mostly sandstone, which is fairly easy to erode away.
His attacks on Charles Lyell are absurd. The guy basically liked rocks, and noticed that rock formations hundreds of miles apart share very similar, if not the same stratigraphy. And using the law of superposition he attempted to date the layers. It was no way as indepth as the one we have now, nor was it as accurate, but it was a start. Now, due to various types of dating, the Geologic Column is extremly acurate. And this whole Uniformitarianism thing actually makes sense. It basically states that scientific laws and theories that apply today most likely applied in the past. Therefore, observations we make on how things are currently forming gives us a really good idea of how things formed before. He makes a decent point that there is no place where the complete Geologic Column can be found, but you can find the whole thing in bit and pieces around the world. And the use of radiometeric dating confirms the ages.
The whole thing on circular logic with dating fossils by their strata, and dating strata by their fossils is sorta being taken out of context. If someone gives you a layer of rock, and asks you to date it, you would look for index fossils, or fossils of a species that lived only in a very specific time period. If you are given a fossil of a species that lived for a long period of time, like a trilobite, and you could not find any other index fossils, you would be forced to date it using the rock that the fossil was embeded in. The type of rock the layer is and the index fossils should back each other up. ANd we know both their ages due to radiometeric dating.
He also goes on about all of his supposed fossils. Well, I would like to know if they are indeed fossils or are they just really hard. True fossilization occurs when something organic is lithofied and mineralized. All the oranic stuff has to be replaced with minerals. And that is harder to than just leaving a handfull of acorns in a bucket of water for a year.
Evolution is not really my realm of expertise, but I don't see why he calls it "Godless". Maybe God, being the clever guy he is, used the process of natural selection to bring about his plans of creation. Of course, my opinion of that doesn't really count, because I am not a Bible literalist. But his discounting of fossil evidence backing up evolution is a little hasty. Even in my limited knowledge of evolution, I have seen some pretty good evidence of gradual change and diversification of species. It obviously wasn't drastic and overnight like he is trying to make it seem.
This guy gives half-truths and takes things out of context left and right. Anyone who has a basic understanding of these things should be able to see that. Thats why I don't like the majority of people who try and debate in favor of creationism. They make us all look bad.
He states that the the Colorado River would have had to have traveled uphill to cut through the mountains there. So therefore, it had to have instead been a spillway. Wow, that is so totally wrong, all I have to do is turn to my freshman geology class. The reason there is the change in elevation is due to a little thing we geologists call "uplift". The river starts to cut its path, then the ground beneath begins to raise in elevation due to plate tectonics, but slowly. In fact, slowly enough for the river to cut through instead of being forced to find a new route. I am pretty sure that the Grand Canyon is mostly sandstone, which is fairly easy to erode away.
His attacks on Charles Lyell are absurd. The guy basically liked rocks, and noticed that rock formations hundreds of miles apart share very similar, if not the same stratigraphy. And using the law of superposition he attempted to date the layers. It was no way as indepth as the one we have now, nor was it as accurate, but it was a start. Now, due to various types of dating, the Geologic Column is extremly acurate. And this whole Uniformitarianism thing actually makes sense. It basically states that scientific laws and theories that apply today most likely applied in the past. Therefore, observations we make on how things are currently forming gives us a really good idea of how things formed before. He makes a decent point that there is no place where the complete Geologic Column can be found, but you can find the whole thing in bit and pieces around the world. And the use of radiometeric dating confirms the ages.
The whole thing on circular logic with dating fossils by their strata, and dating strata by their fossils is sorta being taken out of context. If someone gives you a layer of rock, and asks you to date it, you would look for index fossils, or fossils of a species that lived only in a very specific time period. If you are given a fossil of a species that lived for a long period of time, like a trilobite, and you could not find any other index fossils, you would be forced to date it using the rock that the fossil was embeded in. The type of rock the layer is and the index fossils should back each other up. ANd we know both their ages due to radiometeric dating.
He also goes on about all of his supposed fossils. Well, I would like to know if they are indeed fossils or are they just really hard. True fossilization occurs when something organic is lithofied and mineralized. All the oranic stuff has to be replaced with minerals. And that is harder to than just leaving a handfull of acorns in a bucket of water for a year.
Evolution is not really my realm of expertise, but I don't see why he calls it "Godless". Maybe God, being the clever guy he is, used the process of natural selection to bring about his plans of creation. Of course, my opinion of that doesn't really count, because I am not a Bible literalist. But his discounting of fossil evidence backing up evolution is a little hasty. Even in my limited knowledge of evolution, I have seen some pretty good evidence of gradual change and diversification of species. It obviously wasn't drastic and overnight like he is trying to make it seem.
This guy gives half-truths and takes things out of context left and right. Anyone who has a basic understanding of these things should be able to see that. Thats why I don't like the majority of people who try and debate in favor of creationism. They make us all look bad.
By: C_munkie
Re: Why Don't We Die When the Sun Goes Down?
Yeah, that was what I was trying to say. True religion should be backed up by true science.
By: C_munkie
Re: Why Don't We Die When the Sun Goes Down?
Hahahaha! Thats too funny.
I think though, that this is a perfect demonstration of some of the problems I have with the whole God/ no God debate. Atheists try to make theists look like complete idiots. And theists always seem to get into battles they just can't win and wind up looking like idiots.
I believe that there is a God, but I can't back it up with any real hard evidence. All I have is merely anecdotal evidence and that doesn't really fly in the scientific world. But I don't think that the lack of proof of the existence of God is proof of God's nonexistence.
I think that science and religion can work together, if the religion aspect doesn't destroy the science aspect. Theories like the Big Bang and Evolution really shouldn't be shunned by theists. I mean they are damn good explanations of how things came to be. Stephen Hawking said in his book "A Brief history of time", concerning the Big Bang, that we don't know how, but we have a pretty good idea when God created the universe.
I think though, that this is a perfect demonstration of some of the problems I have with the whole God/ no God debate. Atheists try to make theists look like complete idiots. And theists always seem to get into battles they just can't win and wind up looking like idiots.
I believe that there is a God, but I can't back it up with any real hard evidence. All I have is merely anecdotal evidence and that doesn't really fly in the scientific world. But I don't think that the lack of proof of the existence of God is proof of God's nonexistence.
I think that science and religion can work together, if the religion aspect doesn't destroy the science aspect. Theories like the Big Bang and Evolution really shouldn't be shunned by theists. I mean they are damn good explanations of how things came to be. Stephen Hawking said in his book "A Brief history of time", concerning the Big Bang, that we don't know how, but we have a pretty good idea when God created the universe.
By: C_munkie
