Christians are anti-science.

Michael_Panetta said:
Do you know why Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system?
Click to expand...
Do you know why no one knows Venus' actual average temperature?

Michael_Panetta said:
Because the thick atmosphere captures a lot of heat.
Click to expand...
You are scientifically illiterate. What you wrote makes no sense. "Heat" can never be "captured" or "trapped."

Hint: Try writing a true statement about Venus without using the word "heat." Physics has plenty of terms for you to do this correctly. "Heat" will not help you in this case. (that leaves you up shit creek without a paddle, doesn't it? "Heat" is the only word you know, right?)

From The MANUAL:

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and use whatever level of physics you need to make your point. I'll take the responsibility of translating your point into common English for the laymen on this site.

Michael_Panetta said:
When you're cold, you get under a blanket because it heats you up. Correct?
Click to expand...
Nope. If I were to take a cold stone and wrap it in a cold blanket, when does the stone's temperature increase?

Read the above. You need to get off the word "heat." I realize it will be difficult since it is the only word you know ... but it is wrong. It does not mean what you think it means in physics.

Michael_Panetta said:
Well, as the we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, heat escapes at an increasingly slower rate.
Click to expand...
1. You need to get off this word "heat." In physics, "heat" does not "escape." It doesn't even make any sense.
2. You are describing an egregious violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. If Radiance is decreased as you are describing then Temperature is decreased, not increased. You have been studying under morons.
 
Into the Night said:
The temperature of Venus is unknown. It is not possible to measure it or the temperature of any planet (including Earth). We don't have enough thermometers. You are denying statistical math.

It is not possible to trap heat. Heat has no temperature. Obviously, you have no idea what 'heat' is, and you have so far ignored the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. You also seem to have a problem with the 0th law of thermodynamics, which defines the concept of 'temperature'. The 2nd law defines the concept of 'heat'.

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1)=E(t)-U where E is energy, 't' is time, and 'U" is work. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. You cannot reduce entropy in any system. You cannot trap heat. You cannot heat a warmer surface with a colder gas.

Incorrect. Your body temperature remains the same, as regulated by your own body as it converts chemical energy into thermal energy. Putting a blanket on a dead body or on a rock will not heat them up. Blankets work by reducing heat.


You are now ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance (electromagnetic energy, or light), 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant of emissivity', and 't' is temperature in kelvins. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. There is no frequency component to this equation. There is no sequence.

Everything you are stating comes from the Church of Global Warming. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth (or Venus, or any other planet). You can't create energy out of nothing. You can't compare two different systems as if they are the same system. You can't create energy out of nothing. You can't reduce entropy. You can't trap heat or light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

Obviously, you never learned physics or statistical mathemematics.

Oh...I am Christian BTW. I am correcting you.
Click to expand...

Cute. You have some copy/pasta pseudoscience nonsense. I guess actual scientists are wrong and you're right.

Lol.
 
Michael_Panetta said:
Cute. You have some copy/pasta pseudoscience nonsense. I guess actual scientists are wrong and you're right.

Lol.
Click to expand...

Nah. You just want to ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamic and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Science isn't scientists. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Theories that you just choose to ignore.
 
Into the Night said:
Nah. You just want to ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamic and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Science isn't scientists. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Theories that you just choose to ignore.
Click to expand...

So you're right and the entire international scientific community is wrong.

Ok. Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal.
 
Michael_Panetta said:
So you're right and the entire international scientific community is wrong.

Ok. Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal.
Click to expand...

Science does not use consensus. It has no elite voting bloc. It is not a magazine, journal, web site, or book. It is not a community. It is a set of falsifiable theories. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for yourself.

I don't need to publish the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. They are already published. You just want to deny them.
 
Into the Night said:
Science does not use consensus. It has no elite voting bloc. It is not a magazine, journal, web site, or book. It is not a community. It is a set of falsifiable theories. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for yourself.

I don't need to publish the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. They are already published. You just want to deny them.
Click to expand...

FFS. Everyone knows what science is except for you. Science very much relies on consensus. It's an integral part of the process.

Global warming is real. COVID-19 is real. Evolution is real.

Stop being a twat.
 
Michael_Panetta said:
FFS. Everyone knows what science is except for you.
Click to expand...
I know what science is and you clearly do not. Into the Night is correct that science is a set of falsifiable theories that predict nature. You hold the undereducated wackadoodle belief that science is somehow owned by some organization or institution whose approval must be obtained in some sort of official "peer review" process in order for science to exist, i.e. you strangely believe that science operates as do the religions of the world. You are a moron.

Michael_Panetta said:
Science very much relies on consensus.
Click to expand...
Give it up. Science is not subjective and is not based on anyone's opinion. You clearly don't understand the concept of falsifiability which precludes any subjectivity and is an absolute requirement for science.

There is no consensus involved. If the word "consensus" is present then you are discussing a religion, not science. From what school did you play hooky?

Michael_Panetta said:
Global warming is real.
Click to expand...
Those are the opening words of all religions, e.g. "God is real and is active in our lives!","Allah is real and will serve up justice!," etc..

No science ever begins with the precursor requirement that you first must believe it is true. Science is a persistent process of questioning and doubting in attempts to prove something FALSE, i.e. the scientific method, which is why falsifiability is an absolute requirement. Nothing in science is ever confirmed as TRUE; everything in science merely has not yet been proven FALSE.

Stop being a twat.
 
Michael_Panetta said:
So you're right and the entire international scientific community is wrong.
Click to expand...
Hilarious! You imagine that you somehow speak for "the entire international scientific community"! Too funny!

I hate to break it to you but no organization of sane people would ever designate you to speak for them, much less any group of intelligent people, much less any international group of brilliant people.

You don't speak for anyone but yourself and yes, you are egregiously in error. You are a rube. You are a moron

Michael_Panetta said:
Ok. Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal.
Click to expand...
It looks like someone has no idea what "peer review" means and yet is nonetheless required to use that term by the people who do his thinking for him. Too funny.

LOSER.
 
Grugore said:
You see this a lot on the forums. Some ignorant, hateful atheist claiming that Christians don't believe in science or are scientifically illiterate.
Guess again.
In the last 100 years

Nobel prizes:

Chemistry: 72.5 percent were awarded to Christians
Physics: 62 percent were awarded to Christians.
Medicine/Physiology: 54 percent were awarded to Christians.

A very small percentage were awarded to non-Theists.

Any questions?
Click to expand...

how many were fundamentalist Christ stains . zero
 
Michael_Panetta said:
FFS. Everyone knows what science is except for you.
Click to expand...
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you.
Michael_Panetta said:
Science very much relies on consensus.
Click to expand...
Nope. Science does not use consensus at all. There is no voting bloc in science.
Michael_Panetta said:
It's an integral part of the process.
Click to expand...
Nope. Science isn't a process or a procedure.
Michael_Panetta said:
Global warming is real.
Click to expand...
Define 'global warming'. Buzzword fallacy. Define 'real'. Buzzword fallacy.
Michael_Panetta said:
COVID-19 is real.
Click to expand...
So?
Michael_Panetta said:
Evolution is real.
Click to expand...
So?
Michael_Panetta said:
Stop being a twat.
Click to expand...
Insult fallacy.


No argument presented. Incomplete arguments. Buzzwords. Denial of science. Denial of philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top