digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

Bill Nye Booed in Waco for pointing out Moon reflects the Sun

ocellated.com — Nye angered a few audience members when he criticized literal interpretation of Genesis 1:16, which reads: “God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.” He pointed out that the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • vroom101, on 10/23/2007, -9/+268Not only does the Moon reflect light from the Sun, the Moon can reflect visible light from Earth. Here's photographic proof in the form of a U.S. Navy photo snapped from Earth by Photographer's Mate 2nd Class Scott Taylor on October 27, 2004 -- Earth's sunset/sunrise light (colors) reflecting off of the Moon during a total lunar eclipse:

    http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-200702-65-UnitedStatesNavy-041027-N-9500T-001-Moon-reflects-sunrise-sunset-colors-total-lunar-eclipse-20041027-medium.jpg
    via http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-200702.htm -- photo 65
    • Eastlygod, on 10/10/2007, -3/+36http://www.duggmirror.com/general_sciences/Bill_Nye_Booed_in_Waco_for_pointing_out_Moon_reflects_the_Sun/
      • mdhauke, on 10/10/2007, -5/+67nonsense, that's devil talk
        • tsteele93, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11I'd just point out that this story is a year old. And yes, I know - there will be plenty of people who say, "it's new to me!"
          • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's on the internet, so it must be true, right?

            Funny, I can't find the original article on the WacoTrib.com site. Nor in the Google cache. Nor in the Wayback Machine.

            If these people were so dumb that they don't know that the moon reflects the sun, then here's my question -- What were all of those seemingly backwards and ignorant folks doing at a Bill Nye event in the first place?

            Something's just not kosher here. I call ***** on this one. There's either a lot more to the story, or the blog entry is total fiction.
      • m0tbaillie, on 10/10/2007, -6/+57DARK FORCES! - In JESUS' name I pray!!

        IT'S NOT CHRISTIAN!!!!!1111oneoneoneONE

        http://youtube.com/watch?v=CCODIhAXbQM
        • scoot2006, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16DO NOT WANT!!!!!!!!

          lol.. that lady's ***** insane
        • Hayaemsay, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13That was somewhere between disturbing and hilarious.

          Oh how I would love to tattoo a pentagram onto her forehead.
        • woody56292, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5I wish someone would take a bible and slap her across the face with it. People like her give us a bad name. Please tell me she isn't a licensed preacher.
          • thesimo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4some ***** beliefs she has when she took the money anyway. stupid bitch
            i hate fanatical types like her
          • TehClaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's DORK SIDED!
        • nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11holy crap. that is going to keep me up at night.

          it's sad that she is going to ***** up her kids with her inane "faith".
        • kanima, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I don't think so. She's just insane. The rest of her family seemed to realize that, to some extent.
        • DavidBGie, on 10/10/2007, -29/+3More Digg Anti-Christian BS! Everybody in the crowd knows that the moon reflects light. It doesn't matter if it's a reflection or a source of light bone heads! It still is a light! He should have been booed.
          • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16It doesn't matter? It is people like you who would allow pseudo-science and magical thinking to exist.
          • pataylor1965, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2It seems like you can't discuss things in a logical, civilized, adult manner anymore. I probably shouldn't say this...oh well, when in Rome...I'll sink to their level....I've had it with morons.
          • DavidBGie, on 10/10/2007, -15/+1@imperium2000
            No, it's arrogant and intolerant people like you that have a problem. Faith has nothing to do with magic.
          • Teej, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Faith has nothing to do with magic? Have you read the bible?
          • TnTBass, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So basically, if you take a mirror, shine a flashlight on it, the mirror becomes a light? I kind of thought it was still a mirror, or a reflective surface... odd...
        • DavidBGie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2@teej
          Have you?
      • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Jesus! Sounds like David Koresh may have been the most sane religious figure in the city of Waco...
        • cawpin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Koresh wasn't crazy, just a little off kilter. If you've ever seen the interviews with people whom he interacted with on a daily basis, you'll see that.
          • brycelb, on 10/23/2007, -2/+6You have got to be ***** me. Anyone that thinks they are the second coming is 100% out of their mind.
          • EricSchC1, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1@ brycelb: Anyone that thinks they are the first coming is 100% out of their mind...oh wait...?
      • boxmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's DORKsided!
        • Johnny1337h4x0r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Funny thing is she still took the money afterwards
    • kenvsryu, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15God will punish you for taking the soul of the moon!
    • sselbor, on 10/10/2007, -5/+195Breaking news: Lunar eclipse occurs over Waco, citizens baffled!
      • tdowling, on 10/10/2007, -5/+35God needs to switch to LEDs
        • redxii, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22Boston's bomb squad doesn't extend to space.
          • SimianSamurai, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Hahahah! That's the best comment on this board yet!
      • ShadwDrgn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The only problem with that is that fanatic religious people tend to ignore evidence in order to maintain faith. Given evidence contradicting what their faith tells them, they will simply choose to carry on believing the dis proven belief. A religious father might sit there telling his child about how the moon is a light source DURING a lunar eclipse that would disprove exactly what he's teaching. It wouldn't surprise me at all.
    • monsterofNone, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5seems to me that sunset and sunrise light is still light from the sun. the amount of light that earth generates is tiny compared to even the light of the sun that is refreacted through our atmosphere.
    • DeathBorn, on 10/10/2007, -5/+64That's really funny: I thought they solved this in the 90's when the Pope pardoned Galileo. I think that those audience members were not religious, but ignorant.

      BTW: Bill Nye is awesome.
      • oddtom, on 10/10/2007, -14/+81Not religious, just ignorant? Personally I think the two are far from being mutually exclusive.
      • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -8/+28yeah because the creationsist are al Roman Catholic. The vast majority of Creationists in this country are Fundamentalsit Christian Protestants.
      • obrysii, on 10/10/2007, -2/+40The Roman Catholic church has even stated that Genesis is a metaphor, not literal.
        • mrsteveman1, on 10/10/2007, -14/+12Yea they backtracked on all the ridiculous claims now that they look stupid.
        • nigh7dagger, on 10/10/2007, -16/+9A lot of the Bible that people use as proof that Christianity is stupid is misinterpreted. "2 lights" fulfilles the same purpose as "a light and a giant reflective mass of rock that looks like a light".
          • xtmno3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Well, forgive us for thinking that the end all be all book that is supposed to govern our entire existence would be written logically, concise, and meant to be taken literally instead of 'pick and choose' metaphorically.
        • Yoshi39, on 10/10/2007, -8/+29"A lot of the Bible that people use as proof that Christianity is stupid is misinterpreted. "2 lights" fulfilles the same purpose as "a light and a giant reflective mass of rock that looks like a light"."
          Yes because everyone knows that a light bulb is the same as a mirror
          • woody56292, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2but two light bulbs come from the same source. the same light. =P
    • diggsIt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23I don't know how anyone could possibly think the moon emits light. But, it might have been better explained that a light emitting moon would be full all the time. Maybe that explanation would sink in.
      • brycelb, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Or the fact that half of it is Dark 100% of the time.
        • LavosPhoenix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, it's not. The moon is tidally locked with the Earth's rotation, so it shows the same SIDE to us, discounting librations. We see phases of the moon. That is because the moon is rotating around the earth, only having one half of it illuminated at one time. When the moon is full, the far side of the moon is dark, otherwise the other respective portions of the far side of the moon are being illuminated as well.
    • warpdriveATX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31That is not light reflected from the earth. It is light refracted(bent) around the earth by the atmosphere. During an eclipse the sun is directly behind the earth, therefore no reflection is possible. It is basic optics visible from a simple ray diagram.
      • geoffstgermaine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10I don't understand why you're getting dugg down. Here's an imagine to show what is happening. The moon in the above image is passing through the earth's umbra/penumbra. The moon is illuminated by light that has had the visible blue component filtered (scattered) out of it by earth's atmosphere.

        http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/science/images/eclipse.gif
      • R2Bacca, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually, Warp is correct, mostly. The reddish hue you see is in fact due to the refraction of sunlight through the earth's atmosphere. The shadow of the earth does no have a nice, clean edge. Refraction "fuzzes" the edge of the shadow, and this "fuzzy" area is referred to as the penumbra. The image represents a penumbral eclipse. An eclipe where the moon is totally darkened is referred to as an umbral eclipse or more commonly a total eclipse. The earth *does* however, reflect light off the moon, though not during an eclipse. During a full moon, you can still see the shape of the moon, as it is slightly illuminated by the earth.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra
        • Animal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think you mean that during a *new* moon, you can still see the shape of the moon...
      • 30thElement, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The earth does reflect light. Do a wiki search for albedo, and look at the value for albedo in the sidebar of Earths page.
    • TheFoundry, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Blood Moon anyone?
    • psylancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10No, during a lunar eclipse the moon appears orange due to light from the moon getting refracted by our atmosphere, not reflecting light from the Earth.
    • vroom101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nowhere in the caption for #65 does it say the light reflects off *Earth's surface* and it's not even implied. Furthermore going to photo credit #65 (my those credits are really good!) and checking the source -- http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=18609 -- I see that even there nothing is said about reflections off the *surface of the earth*. I can see where my comment can certainly be interpreted as saying that the Moon's reddish-orange color is a reflection from off the *Earth's surface* -- and that's not, as I understand it, quite right. It's a great photo, but there's no need to read anymore into it than what science allows. So please accept my "I'm Sorry!" for not sticking with the caption-language given and leaving it at that.
    • themastersb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Bill Nye should have gave everyone the finger and called them retards.
    • macromorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The people in Waco are just pissed because they thought the moon glowed because it reflected the light off the fires of Mt. Carmel.
    • alphaterminus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Jesus told me y'all are goin to Hell! Hell I say! Never let thine pearls be cast before swine. Especially that Joo Billy Nye the *****-SEX-ual satanic science Joo!
    • Shadowsaint, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Have these people NEVER seen the moon when it isn't full? ... yeah.... two light sources... sure that earth can SomeHow block portions of on a regular cycle...
      Religion = Astrology
  • lapseofreason, on 10/23/2007, -35/+543The Bible can be interpreted in any way, shape or form. Faith loses its power when religion gets to involved. Cheers for Bill Nye.
    • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -27/+20What's the difference between faith and believing without any evidence? Is the power of believing in something with requiring evidence a good thing?
      • bruenig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+36Faith is belief without evidence, obviously there is no difference between a word in its definition.
      • woody56292, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5faith can be as simple as trusting someone. it isn't necessarily believing without evidence, it is trusting that someone knows more than you and is telling you for your benefit.
        • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Faith:
          - belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
        • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Right, if you trust your wife, it's probably because you've been with her long enough to base that trust on some evidence, so I wouldn't call it "faith". You're basing your trust on evidence.
      • Lister169, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9"Faith? Oh, I had a girlfriend named Faith. She cheated on me, with a girl named Chastity."
      • mediaphile, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3whereas science trusts nothing but what can be reproduced and proved, at least until those things are reproducibly disproved.
        • minigamer1896, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Except in areas such as the string theory.
      • Shadowsaint, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think believing evidence is common sense .... what did you call believing something Without any support/evidence again? faith? yeah.. thought so..
    • fmaxwell, on 10/10/2007, -33/+112Here's a good interpretation:

      It's a work of fiction and contains myths passed off as fact. It is analogous to the Greek, Roman, and Viking myths about their deities and the "God" in the bible is no more likely to exist than is Zeus, Jupiter, or Odin.

      It was written to control the masses and it makes appealing promises about no one ever truly dying and people spending a blissful eternity in heaven. It encourages people to stone people to death for working on Sunday (no exceptions, so that means the policemen, firemen, and ER workers are to be stoned to death, too). It states that it's okay to buy slaves from neighboring countries. It encourages the murder of non-Christian people, homosexuals, and of women who are not virgins on their wedding night.

      It's just embarrassing that so many Americans still believe what is written in the Bible.
      • tryangles, on 10/10/2007, -39/+20I'm glad you have your own interpretation too. I am a staunch liberal that was raised by the bible, remains christian, and doesn't believe in any of the aspects that you've gathered from your interpretation of the bible itself. What's ironic is that the bible has probably motivated more people to do better in their lives and for others than for such things like 'controlling the masses' and stoning homosexuals. I guess it's always easier to take the negative out of things that requires your absolute faith and requires responsibility out of ones self and lump into something that is used solely for evil purposes.

        And by the way the Bible is a composition of writings that span a few thousand years not some fairy tail that was whipped up together by one guy. If this wasn't we would not be using this as a historical marker of time, there are so many portions of the bible that historians use as events to mark dates and time off, but of course, because you weren't there it has to be false right? - Always the easy answer....
        • fanclerks, on 10/10/2007, -7/+36You know, it's funny, but I think the evil done as a result of religion far outweighs any good it might have done. As evidence, look at the sheer number of people killed throughout time for not believing in the "one true God" or for not being the same denomination of some religion. It's utterly ridiculous. I seriously think that religion has done far more harm in the world than any one other thing in our history. And as for your comment about motivating people to do better in their lives, I think that's crazy. If it takes some fantasy for people to do the right thing, there is something seriously wrong with us as a species.
          • mrsteveman1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+22In particular i don't like the fact that people find it acceptable to turn to supernatural crap when science can't explain every last detail about something immediately, that makes no sense whatsoever. Sp we can't explain why we are here, does that mean we should start making crap up? cause thats basically how most religions started....

            People spend far too much time trying to fine tune religion and weed out the pedophiles, crazy idiots, suicide bombers, abortion clinic bombers, political activists, doomsday morons, and yet i see no good reason why we should spend one more minute of time protecting and refining something that i have no reason to support in the first place.

            Even spiritual people should realize that organized religion is nothing but a bad thing, its intended purpose is to govern outside of the law of the land, both now and 2000 years ago in the case of christianity. Most of the rituals we have now were hand picked by the romans to convert pagans to christianity, making it look like it was no big change. Sounds like a lot of those rituals are meaningless even to the religion itself.

            I went to catholic school and studied religion for YEARS and i know most of the bible stories pretty well, and a lot of the history, and none of it is worth protecting.
          • tdowling, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8We shouldn't be quick to say that these bad things happened *because* of religion. Humans love to be in "clubs" and then fight with those who are in different clubs. If there was no religion, people would still be getting killed needlessly...like for wearing blue shoes instead of red, or for something else just as asinine.

            As for needing the bright side of religion to promote good in the world, some people do need something like that to keep them going. Most are probably coming from around the left side of that bell curve over there.
          • chillmandan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I'm a follower of Jesus, no religion required. Honestly, when I get to heaven, I don't think Alex Trebek is going to be standing there quizing me on my interpretation of the Bible. Concerning all the negative things you've said about religion, I don't think you can point the finger at "religion" so much as just douch bag people that happened to have a religios background, if that makes sense.
        • AgarwaenUmarth, on 10/10/2007, -24/+7And then the 40 million people killed for Lenin's dream of atheist Communism, and Mao's x millions.

          So has a lack thereof. Atheism hasn't exactly helped the world in that regard, but merely provided a reason for eugenics.
          • brucesan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Atheism is not an institution. One of the requirements of a true communist society is that there be no institutionalised religions. The fact that Lenin was himself an atheist is irrelevant. Lenin never waged war 'in the name' of atheism.
          • sabach, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc killed because they were power-hungry degenerates and lunatics, not because they were atheists.
        • loki440, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13tryangles
          Just because the bible is an amalgam of many different stories doesn't make it any less of a fairy tale. Additionally just because some Bible events MAY have historical significance doesn't make up for the fact that the book itself is a collection of myths with utterly ridiculous claims of the truth.

          It's nice, I suppose, that you're still Christian. But it's not admirable. I actually agree with you that religion can serve a positive role in people's lives. But at the end of the day it's fiction being sold as truth. The world described by the Bible doesn't match the world you observe every day. The only way you can make it match is to suspend reason. That what makes it truly dangerous.
        • Euler2718, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2@ Tryangles

          It Doesn't matter whether religion helped more people than it hurt, you shouldn't make people ignorant in order to make them better people. The ends doesn't justify the means.
        • TnTBass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Tryangles:
          You're right, the bible was written over the course of roughly 1000 years, and each story insists it's the truth. Which is awesome, cause we don't know the truth about what happened 1000 years ago, and we have much better records, and archeology methods than they did 1000 years ago. So... what is true and what isn't?
          Plus, the dates and times in the bible are by no means accurate, as many historians have tried matching up times and places from the bible with real life and are not able to do it most of the times. So again, what is true, and what isn't?
          You also say the bible has probably done more good than harm, as well as "requires your absolute faith and requires responsibility out of ones self". God wills it anyone? (Quote from the movies aside, this is, and was, a means of justification for doing certain things.) How are people like this at all taking responsibility for ones self?
          I love how you pick and choose the parts of the bible that work for you. Way to be true to your faith. At best you are a hypocrite sir.
      • TheSavant, on 10/10/2007, -10/+16Countless people have died and will die over what is in the Bible. That isn't irony. That is just plain WRONG.
        • AgarwaenUmarth, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2And here I thought dying for what you believed in was admired...
          • IndigoMoss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Well in most cases with death and religion, it's dying from what you don't believe in.
          • TheSavant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm talking about killing OTHER people for what you believe in.
            I would most certainly die for what I believe.
        • candafilm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6So you admire all of the suicide bombers that have died for what they believe in?
          • Vindexus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"That is just plain WRONG."

            Miss that part of his comment?
        • cawpin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Suicide bombers aren't dying for what they believe in. They are murdering others for "not believing what they do." Dying for your morals and murdering others for them are two very different things.
        • candafilm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm sorry I thought that's what this whole argument was about. If these religious radicals from any religion didn't kill people for "not believing what they do" then we wouldn't be having this conversation. It's the same argument, different sides. I'm sure every suicide bomber and the people they are associated with are convinced that they are dying for what they believe. The other side or their victims (which can be switched, there is no good guy/bad guy here) believe that they are murdering them because they "don't believe what they believe."
      • mrfuzzy129, on 10/10/2007, -31/+8jesus christ you ***** atheists are such goddamn assholes. everyone on digg that is wondering why this site is filled with god-haters, it's because most diggers are nerds that sit in their basement playing WoW, can't get laid, and are pissed off at their own crap-ass life that they denounce God. If most of these "atheists" had actual meaningful existences on this earth, they wouldn't be so ***** irritable all the time. this is just for those people who are wondering why the world seems so ***** up today. Digg me down i want -50 you *****.
        • RpgActioN, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Ooh, nice.
        • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13from the looks of it, you're the one who's irritable. if you had an "actual meaningful existence" would be on digg saying derogatory things to others? perhaps the anger in your comment is due to your living in your mom's basement; maybe your WoW account got canceled and your girlfriend thinks your a loser and you can't get laid. yes, baseless speculation is pointless. why don't you go read an article that's of your interests and comment on that?
        • whiterussian, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Jesus would be proud of you.
        • KarthVader, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I don't want you to be an attention whore, so I dugg you up. Stop being so bitter and go play outside.
        • chillmandan, on 10/10/2007, -14/+1Aside from the harsh tone, the man has a point. Digg is filled with a bunch of people who care about three things: The Iphone, Ron Paul, and Promoting atheism and denouncing any existence of God.
        • AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Atheists' disbelief in God is equivalent to theists' disbelief in Leprechauns. The difference is, with Leprechauns, you don't have a bunch of people constantly trying to convince you that they're real. If there were a large contingent of Leprechaun-believers in the world, theists would be just a adamant about denouncing their existence as atheists are about declaring the non-existence of gods.
          • karel747, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You know what man? Don't even bother any more. I've long since given up trying to reason with these people - they're never going to understand/consider the logical arguments, they'll continue to be hypocrites, and , for some reason, no matter what you say, all they take away from your words is "I'm an atheist, I'm the best, and Christians are stupid." In the end of the day, no matter what an atheist says, all it will harbor is more negative feelings towards atheists. Save yourself the high blood-pressure and let these idiots live in their fantasy land.
      • fbombs, on 10/10/2007, -10/+0I don't know anyone that believes that certain laws of that era that were documented in the bible have anything to do with "Christianity". Do you even know why "Jesus Christ" came into the New Testament? You're taking scriptures out of context and painting "religion" to be all about them.

        You are just hilarious. Christianity is based on Christ and his teachings, and no-where in the "Bible" does Christ teach any of those things you cherry picked from Old Testament.

        Look, here's an easy way to look at it: half the Bible is about Christianity, half the Bible is not. I know it's complicated.
        • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Are you saying that more than half of the Bible is irrelevant? Great...so what makes anything else in it relevant?

          The Bible was written by Jews FOR Jews. It is the gentiles who take things completely out of context.
        • annenk38, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'd hate for this to turn into a theological discussion, but from what I can tell, Christianity is almost certainly not based on the teachings of Christ. That is, Christianity is Christian in name only. Christ, if he indeed ever existed at all, was the enemy of the clergy of his day, and indeed is the enemy of the clergy today.
        • Acolyte357, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sweet, so you don't follow/believe the ten commandments, the creation story, moses ect..
          Is that what you are saying?
      • diggimator, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2"It encourages the murder of non-Christian people, homosexuals, and of women who are not virgins on their wedding night."

        Actually the three religions that you mention doesn't ban homosexuality. People who are homophobic are just pretending that their religion bans it. I have never heard of anti-virginity laws like that in any of the religions. While the viking and greek religions weren't related, they shared the same belief in a heaven (valhalla, elysian field) for the war dead. The greek, roman, and egyptians shared different variations of the same religion. LIkewise, the bible itself shares stories amongst its neighboring religions as well. See:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28mythology%29
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra
      • battletrax, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Glad your so positive about your beliefs.

        Its embarrasing that people still don't believe in the bible.
      • luvkit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2*sigh* Can't we all just get along?
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/10/2007, -8/+17It's really pretty trivial to argue that god created the moon with the purpose of reflecting the suns light and thus providing some light to the earth. I'd consider that sufficient to call it "a light", so no real need for anybody to get in a huff about it.
      • r0b0, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Hell, I was taught that the moon reflected the sun in a Catholic school. The only problem is some people think that the bible is 100% correct. Obviously, this isn't true.
    • gwhardyiv, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Whatever. The dude was speaking at a community college in Waco, Texas? He was asking for it.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Galileo understood this when he wrote nearly 400 years ago that the Bible is intended as a guide to god, and is intended to bring people salvation. Not to be a science textbook. Why don't people get this today? Why the hell would anyone write down (especially since the Bible is written by men) "God made one great light -- and another celestial object that would reflect some light from the first light back onto the earth so it could be seen, especially at night."
      • Abaddon1125, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Because it's accurate?
        • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yes, but clear communication sometimes requires leaving out the irrelevant information so that the relevant information is better emphasized.

          Furthermore, a thing is misleading insofar as it claims to be a rigorous, precise statement but isn't. The Bible doesn't make any such claim.
    • jestin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25There's no need to say "Cheers for Bill Nye". Bill was just stating the obvious. We should instead be booing religious zealots who actively choose to keep themselves ignorant.
    • PlumDumb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Oh yes. Blind, unthinking faith always gets weakened when you try to apply a structure to it, because the structure asks that you do more than just believe in Santa Clause just for the hell of it; you now have too many unexplainable things like elves, and the flying reindeer, and it's just much easier to say "Santa exists!" and show the intellectual prowess of a six year old.
      God doesn't exist, and people are too afraid to admit that and live their lives accordingly. GROW UP. Take responsibility for your own life without the parent figure of Jesus looking over your shoulder.
      • Chordinator, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I just want you to realize that the assumption of "God doesn't exist" is way more ignorant than someone saying "God does exist!". One man's OPINION based on one man's narrow view of the world around him, with no evidence supporting his argument in any way, compared to several thousand years of unexplainable accounts which all point to a single, specific Diety. Go ahead, prove to me that a Diety DOESN'T exist. Prove it.

        It's like saying that there's NO POSSIBLE WAY that a creature resembling the loch ness monster exists. Despite the fact that 95% of our own earth's oceans remain unexplored by humans. Grow up, sir.
        • llamagorama, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0While I mostly agree with your point, using the argument to compare God to the Lock Ness monster is a little useless. God is a supernatural being, who is omnipresent and has no physical form and thus no physical evidence, so lack of physical proof isn't enough of an argument, where a Loch Ness monster can be disproven simply through the lack of proof because it's physically 'real'.
    • llamagorama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Very much agreed. The Bible, whether true or not, was written by mere men, by either their direct accounts or by stories passed on through generations. Too much of it is either opinion or just uneducated scientific beliefs at the time, like that the sun revolved around the earth.
      The Bible itself is not to be taken literally. It's not rules to live your life. It's the ideas - love thy neighbour, blessed are the children, ect.
    • insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you believe in it, unfortunately it cannot be interpreted. The way it was written is the way it is. Saying it can be interpreted is a stupid way of trying to pretend any of it could be true.
    • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Hmm, I know why I got dugg down. My message came out wrong. It should read "Is the power of believing in something WITHOUT requiring evidence a good thing?".. I agree with the poster on religion, but I go further and say faith is a bad thing. It didn't help that my name is "SuperMoses". I'm an atheist.
  • Leonarde, on 10/10/2007, -167/+7"Posted Apr 13th, 2006 at 7:19 am"

    Buried as old.
    • DivisibleByZero, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25Why does your profile show that you dugg it?
    • Walory, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0how the hell does someone get -105 diggs? are you trying to piss everyone off?
    • Serphyas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Buried for excessive amounts of douchebaggery.
  • holycrapitsed, on 10/23/2007, -21/+783Psh. What does Bill Nye know? Next he's going to tell us the Earth is older than 6000 years old just because it can be proven.
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -22/+14Those wacky Christians!

    • mrsteveman1, on 10/10/2007, -23/+2Yea but what if theres one shred of 1% that it MIGHT be 6000 years old....

      QUICK SOMEONE MAKE UP A STORY!
      • Abatrour, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6There is no way the earth is 6000 years old. How far away are all the other stars/suns in the universe? Hundreds of thousands of light years away. So if the Earth was really created 6000 years ago, the sky would still be completely black because the light from stars wouldn't have reached us yet. Same with the sun, If all that stuff really happened in 7 days or how ever the Bible said it does, nobody would have been able to survive because the earth would have been covered in ice since it takes more than 7 days for the suns heat to warm up the earth.
        • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5as much as i agree the earth is far more than six thousand years old, if the earth suddenly popped into existence six thousand years ago in its orbit, the sky would still be lit up as light would have been reaching any given point on our orbit for potentially billions of years. now, if the whole universe was created six thousand years ago, you'd have a point.
        • karel747, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I'll add, in much the same spirit of noumuon's comment, that light takes 8 minutes to reach Earth from the Sun.
      • Androne, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I think what you meant to say is that if the universe was created 6000 years ago the sky would be black because if the stars were already there there isn't anything stopping them from transmitting light towards the location of earth.
      • Abatrour, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10First day god created the heavens and earth (heavens = universe)
        Second day god created light..

        The bible even says there was nothing before the earth and heavens.. not even stars giving off light.
        If there was to be light, the bible would have had to say day one god created light
        And then billions of years later god created the Earth and the sun.
        Then thousands of years later god created water and life.
        • BCRazgriz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3lol, why couldn't the bible just say it then? Why must it be ambiguous? Because it's made up, just like all the other religions around the world, and all the ones before you. You can't say the bible is true without being able to compare it to something to show that.
    • bnrchiefs, on 10/10/2007, -29/+2Just because Earth was made 6000-10,000 years ago doesn't mean God couldn't have made everything on Earth millions of years old. And I'm pretty sure if God made light and stars, He probably made the starlight reach the Earth when He made it.
      • AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16By that logic, it's just as likely that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe last Tuesday, and set it up to *appear* to be older.
        • Meatetarian, on 10/17/2007, -2/+3And if that's the theory that makes things work for some dude, who are we to say otherwise? Religion gives people a sense of order and stability in their lives. I don't think it's a big deal as long as they understand that the science is real too.
          • karel747, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What beautiful thing religion would be if it was as you described it.
      • Meatetarian, on 10/17/2007, -3/+4Why is the Old Testament viewed as infallible truth when we see the New Testament as being open to interpretation (Revelation, for instance, is generally taken less literally than Genesis)? Too many see science and religion as polar opposites when they can get along just fine if take the time the books were written into account. There's no reason a day to God couldn't be a million years to us. If you view the days as defining stages of the creation, there's no reason you can't believe in both the science of the matter and the Bible all at once; the same goes for evolution. Being religious doesn't mean you have to ignore scientific reason (and I'm not saying you are, bnrchiefs, because you're doing the right thing by finding room for science within your religion -- you've got it right).
      • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wait...What?
    • frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Pff, you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
    • Reno582, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3E-E-E-EPIC DIGG!!!
  • scubasteve11, on 10/10/2007, -13/+394I loved this show so much when I was younger. His theme song is still so damn catchy.

    BILL BILL BILL BILL, BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY.
    • Zoshchenko, on 10/10/2007, -26/+5Yeah, this story is all you YOU, huh?
    • Rikushix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Ditto scuba steve....you don't ***** with Bill Nye.
    • crawf061, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11SCIENCE RULES! (Listen to the song)
    • airwalkery2k, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20That's how the devil hypnotizes you into believing "science". Catchy theme songs and science are distractions from faith.
    • wushu18t, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9or the ever popular russian version! "Boris Boris Boris Boris Boris!"
  • crillbilly, on 10/23/2007, -16/+363Them damn internets, always spreding Satanic things like actual fact!
    • radu79, on 10/10/2007, -51/+8Well, the moon IS a light source. It reflects the sun (and other ambient light), but that doesn't matter. It is not the same light it comes from the sun, the photons from the moon are not the original photons from the sun.
      • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -5/+33A *SOURCE* of light is that which emits the light in the first place, not something that merely reflects light originally from another source!
        Of course its reflecting the SAME photons! Do you seriously believe that it makes its own!

        What level of high-school did you drop out in?
        • trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Actually technically they are not, for various reasons. What radu79 is most likely referring to is summarized @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_%28physics%29#Quantum_interpretation

          "All interactions between photons and matter are described as series of absorptions and emissions of photons. When an arriving photon strikes a single molecule at the surface of a material, is absorbed and almost immediately reemitted, the ‘new’ photon may be emitted in any direction, thus causing diffuse reflection."
          • mrsteveman1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6There is no fusion reaction creating light on the surface of the moon, theres a fairly large one going on in the sun.
        • radu79, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11Yes, that's what I meant.
          And actually, if the moon is not a source, then the sun is not a source either, because the original photons are absorbed/re-emitted many. many times until they leave the sun's surface (those nuclear interactions that cause the photons take place very deep inside of the sun).

          But that's besides the point. A window is also a source of light, relative to the room.
          • Jonjonr6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Nice circle-talk to try and make your point right. Its wrong however.

            I would define a source of light as being its original, such as the sun, not requiring another independent source to reflect or refract photons. Plain and simple, the moon wouldn't glow if it weren't for the sun and other true sources of light.
      • LambertHeenan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14That a nice stretch you have there. But consider this - the photons coming from the sun *are not* the photons that *left* the sun. They long ago went through various quantum mechanical virtualizations before reaching us: 8 minutes is along time at the quantum level. :-)
        • fweeky, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3"8 minutes is along time at the quantum level"

          What, at the speed of light? I would have thought it would be pretty much no time at all. Did someone break relativity?
          • Radan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Speed of light isn't actually as fast as many wants it to be. In complete vacuum it travels in "only" around 300 000 km/s (roughly 190 000 miles per second for you Americans out there) and therefor takes the light around 8 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth. It even takes the light more than a full second to travel simply from the moon to earth.
          • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0i think he was talking about from the point of view of the light itself. obviously it takes time for the light to travel to the earth, but if there were an observer on any given photon time would not exist for that observer.
        • neotek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Einstein disagrees: eight minutes doesn't exist at a quantum level. Time is irrelevant to a photon, which by virtue of its speed does not experience time.
        • radu79, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4But then again, the photons that left the sun are not the photons that the nuclear reactions generated, it takes quite a while for a photon to reach the surface of the sun :)
        • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0you should look up the definition of virtual. the photons that left the sun are most certainly the photons that reach the earth, despite the necessities of our present models. they don't exist in the same states, but by all means, they're the same photons.
      • AgarwaenUmarth, on 10/10/2007, -10/+0Wow....must be an interesting universe you live in....
      • HillerMylife, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9It is an interesting universe!
      • CrazyPirate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Erm... By your logic, nearly every object is a source of light. Everything that we can see reflects light, and surely the photons being reflected are not the exact same ones that are seen by someone looking at that object. I think the distinction that needs to be made, is in a universe with nothing but a moon, there would be no light, while in a universe with nothing but a sun, there would be light. Just sayin.
        • radu79, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1If by light source you mean "an object that creates it's own photons", then yes, the moon is not a light source.
          But a light source means somethign where the light comes from, so a window, or a mirror, or a reflective surface are also light sources. On the moon the shadows are very dark, because there is no other light source than the sun. On earth, the shadows are soft, because there are many other light sources (the air, dust, water vapours, etc.)
      • Abaddon1125, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2A light source is something that EMITS photons, not something that merely reflects them.
      • CannibalTom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Honestly, this stuff is taken up in high school physics, atleast it was for me. I can't see why theres a dispute. Secondly, the meaning of words when they were supposably written into the bible are not the same as what they mean now. The bible writers could not articulate themselves the same way we can now, purely because he have amassed a larger vocabulary with meanings to back them up. Scientists have given clear definitions to things like "theory", "light" and this case "light source".
    • MusicalGenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I want to be a Computational Fluid Dynamics Engineer.
  • str3ama, on 10/23/2007, -6/+196Inertia is a property of matter.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -23/+5matter is a property of light
    • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I.....
    • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7would have kept moving along in a straight line, but some people have affected my motion. Obviously they don't get my lame word play. :)
    • fli7e, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3BLASPHEMY
    • Scarfy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Iiiiiiiii-i-i-i-i-i inertia inertia.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1*comes back 11 hours later* He's right guys, I just googled it.
  • ganjadude4391, on 10/10/2007, -11/+437FTA:

    He pointed out that the sun, the “greater light,” is but one of countless stars and that the “lesser light” is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light.

    A number of audience members left the room at that point, visibly angered by what some perceived as irreverence.

    (This is the best part, I CANNOT believe that someone would say this)

    “We believe in a God!” exclaimed one woman as she left the room with three young children.


    wow.... just. wow... What do you say to someone like that???
    • crillbilly, on 10/10/2007, -7/+127You say "Your god obviously loved you enough to make you so ignorant, and you know what they say about ignorance being bliss and all..."
    • satx, on 10/10/2007, -8/+240"I believe I feel sorry for your children. Their mother has the reasoning skills of a retarded cabbage."
      • drato, on 11/08/2007, -3/+51That, sir, is an insult to the retarded cabbages of the world.
      • nakp88d, on 10/10/2007, -3/+22Yeah! Keep the retarded cabbages out of this!They have done you no harm.
      • arevolutionof1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+36I can't believe the insensitivity of these comments. Don't we mean to say "mentally challenged cabbages?"
        • Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11They're not "mentally challenged", they're "special"!
        • Useight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Wait, I thought everyone was special.
    • rumorsofdemise, on 10/10/2007, -21/+7"I'm sorry."
    • wicked6, on 10/10/2007, -9/+34"wow.... just. wow... What do you say to someone like that???"

      Where is your God now!? :D
    • DangerCollie, on 10/10/2007, -10/+29"What do you say to someone like that???"

      Move to another country....please.
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4NO! You deal with your own problem. You've taken this "Freedom of Religion" nonsense too far -- these people are getting ready to start WWIII to bring jesus back in the End Times(TM). YOU deal with them.
    • Evilhenchman, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8"Wow... you are friggin stupid!"
    • adamchristopher, on 10/10/2007, -5/+140"sit down and shut up"


      my second guess would be "Bitch, i am Bill mother ***** Nye"
      • MikeWanDo, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Bad use of "mother *****." Next time try "Bitch, I'm Bill ***** Nye."
        • Jonjonr6, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Actually, perfect use of mother *****, but he didn't finish the sentence. It should be:
          "I'm Bill mother-***** Nye, and I'm tired of all these mother-***** rednecks on these mother-***** plains!"
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"And I want these mother ***** snakes off my mother ***** podium!"
        • drgmdp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5all of you shut the ***** up
    • GatesofHell, on 10/10/2007, -12/+19The thing is that what he said does not discount or hamper the literal reading of that verse. The moon is a light in the sky, is it not? Sure, it reflects the light of the Sun, but that doesn't mean that the moon isn't a light, just that it is "lesser".
      • m3mn0n, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Light generally implies the source of the illumination. Reflection is more accurate, as the source/light is actually coming from elsewhere.

        But it's okay to say light if you're ignorant/lazy/don't want to sound like a massive nerd... but you should still understand and respect the actual facts.
        • GatesofHell, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2m3mn0n, I respect the well thought response (as opposed to what I get from others), but it is not me wanting or being ignorant in saying the moon is a light in the sky, but a fact. Yes, in scientific terms, it is reflecting light, but from visibly evident terms light is coming from it, just not emanating from it.
      • Abaddon1125, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2If the moon is not emitting photons it is not a source of light. Period.
      • Shadowsaint, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1if you want to try to fake an argument that he made 2 lights, just argue any random star.... doesn't say he didn't make more than 2 lights.... .rolleyes

        Don't try to sell me a mirror and call it a light bulb
    • AgarwaenUmarth, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11No. You say, "Objection! Relevance?"
    • Hayaemsay, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2"Would you like to nominee for a Darwin Award?"
    • ksgant, on 10/10/2007, -4/+31Say "you're a shining example that proves not everyone ate from the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden"
      • woody56292, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5rofl.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Zing. But then, people who are that retarded might take to the tradition of tarring and feathering, torching and hanging the symbol of their religion burning in peoples yards.
    • nakp88d, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2What do you say to that:
      I believe in God too but I don't buy Christianity,there are other religions too sister.
    • teeheehee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10"Yes, I would like fries with that."
    • cnot3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Even the pope doesn't discredit science, these people were probably evangelical *****.
      • barc0de, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Yes, because after the whole "Galileo" affair, the Vatican started hiring astronomers and science advisers.
    • biotch, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19I wonder how many of them voted for Bush citing the same reason.
      • Xdrakemanx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1this is the ***** problem. voters don't know who they're voting for, and they're just too damn uneducated. 50% of guliani supporters don't even know he's pro-choice.
        • gogmu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hopefully they won't find out until after the nomination.
    • bachdog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Say, "are you sure you know the difference between believing in a god and believing the story about a god?"
    • phlebitis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Notice that she didn't specify which God...
    • Web_Weasel, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3In the immortal words of Bill Hicks: "Here's your sign"
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"There's a cliff. Go jump off of it."
    • txtraveler79, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0"He pointed out that the sun, the “greater light,” is but one of countless stars and that the “lesser light” is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light."

      So each time I use the word "moonlight", I am proving myself scientifically backwards since the moon doesn't make light, right? Or perhaps you and Bill are taking yourselves a little bit too seriously...
    • gogmu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0They probably went outside to find some stones to throw at the blasphemer. The ones with pointed edges are the best from what best I've heard.
  • TheRealToma, on 10/10/2007, -17/+9Sif the Earth isnt the centre of the universe! :O
    • GatesofHell, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5Do people that insult and take jabs at the Bible even read it to see what they are taking jabs at? You look ignorant if you don't, because the Bible never states that the Earth is the center of the universe or the solar system. The Bible even claims that the Earth is round, and that was denied by seculars for millennia. If you want to take jabs, read the book so you understand.
      • Kurisuku, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10I don't think he was taking a jab at the bible. Just a jab at stupid people in general.

        Furthermore, I was in catholic school for 14 years of my life. It's the biggest load of nonsense that one could ever endure. It's shameful that people take it for truth.
        • brucesan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I have read the bible cover to cover several times. I know exactly what I'm talking about.
        • Eclipce, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Catholicism and Christianity are two totally separate religions.
          • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The ***** Romans compiled your Bible you moron. The Roman Catholic Church *IS* Christianity. Every other is a sect that adopted its book.

            Twit.
      • TheRealToma, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Thank you :) And yes, I was taking a stab at neolithic people that still believe in ancient Gods and books that have more revisions than pages.
    • slezzzter, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Every physicist knows they are the center of the universe, because they pick their own reference frame.

      I know most of them probably don't comprehend this, but religious people aren't wrong when they believe that the universe revolves around the earth, because they are mathematically free to choose earth as their inertial reference frame.
      • GatesofHell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I don't know if there is anything valid in what you said, but I dugg you up anyway. It sounds more like a philosophy than a science though.
        • slezzzter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's a standard Newtonian physics principle. When driving down the road, it is perfectly valid to say that the earth is moving past you, because your reference frame (the car) can be considered stationary. All measurements of velocity must be made from some reference frame and no one reference frame is any more valid than any other.
          • GatesofHell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I see what you are saying an a local level, but when you fact the force of torque on the Earth caused by the Sun, and on the Sun caused by the galaxy, and so on, it relative velocity doesn't matter. Also, if you look up and see that the planets in fact are moving around the Sun (which is visible with a telescope), and that you too seem to be moving around the same kind of path, it destroys a view of relative velocity and position.
      • Buckiller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1couldnt the center of the universe be found based on the age of all the stars etc? Or have there already been many generations of stars etc?

        prolly the later.
  • Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -18/+234i'm a shamed to be from Texas.......
    • waveman216, on 10/10/2007, -8/+76Only driven through Texas. What's a shamed?
    • Anrkist, on 10/10/2007, -5/+48I'm not... I'm ashamed those kind of idiots live here.
    • duke, on 10/10/2007, -32/+9I'm ashamed that you swallowed this story without any proof or corroboration.
    • leexy, on 10/10/2007, -10/+35With Dubya in the White House, I think that ship has sailed.
      • AgarwaenUmarth, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Texans love pointing out that he's a New Englander...
        • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And this was dugg down because of what? George W. Bush was born July 6, 1946 in New Haven, Connecticut.
    • DangerCollie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20I lived in Texas many years, not everyone is like that. Quite a large state, very diverse population. Just seems like lately the idiots manage to make their way into political office.
    • CosmicJustice, on 10/10/2007, -10/+16You should be because apparently they don't teach spelling, capitalization or punctuation in Texas.
      • rippin1700, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6Apparently you didn't learn to properly punctuate either, jackass. Buried for ignorance.
      • nigh7dagger, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I'm proof that they do, Frosty122 is proof that some don't pay attention in class.
        • emmcubed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Actually (if you want to be picky about it) to make your sentence correct, a semicolon should go between "do" and "Frosty122". Those are two complete thoughts and must be punctuated as such. A comma is not sufficient.

          English teacher from Texas here.
          • LucianSolaris, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20wn3d!!!
          • MikeWanDo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1 I already knew what this reply was going to say before I clicked view replies.
          • emmcubed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Ah, well. What the ***** do I know? Further down the thread, I posted "one in the same" as opposed to "one and the same".
        • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5comma splice ftl :P
        • Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0.....well what i think it was....is really, was uh.....i'm gonna go with stupidity, here......
      • S1ngular1ty1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I think you forgot a comma there smart ass.
    • DontGiveADamn, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I'm in California and even though this is a progressive state we have some of these idiots here. I'm afraid they are everywhere and as this great nation declines there numbers will increase.
      • DocMalk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Agreed. I'm a Californian, and I'm living in Texas. The idiots are just a little more concentrated here. I know about the idiots, though. They seem to be in abundance in Orange and Riverside Counties.
    • binky79, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Don't be ashamed to be from the great state of Texas just because some idiots can't understand that the bible shouldn't be taken literally. There are idiots everywhere in this world, they just manage to get more headlines down here. It's almost like there is a media bias against the state of Texas. If it was in another state the headline probably wouldn't have even been mentioned where it took place, it would have simply said, "Bill Nye Booed for pointing out Moon reflects the Sun."
      • svenathon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Bull. All articles include a location, it's a basic element of journalism. I'm sure Texas is a very diverse state but it's probably safe to assume there are more people who take the bible literally per capita around Texas than in the North East, around New York
      • boituma, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Texas has produced two presidents in the last fifty years (Johnson and W). Both have started optional wars which ended in defeat, Both have overseen a growth in government spending higher than any other presidents. And both have presided over a massive worldwide erosion of goodwill towards the USA. I think there is something structurally wrong with Texas and Texas culture, and anti-Texas sentiment is more than simply media bias. I don't think you Texans truly appreciate how disliked you are, especially in the north. And it is not envy. (I've been to Houston. Not that impressed.) I personally believe Texas is a liability, and America would be stronger without it.
      • binky79, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1It has been 10 months since i made this comment, and i just noticed the response from "boituma" and all i can say is I am proud to be an American and a Texan so ***** YOU. How dare you you stereotype all Texans based on your knowledge of 2 people and a trip to Houston. I think America would be a lot stronger without narrow minded ***** like YOU. I know its late but it has to be said.
    • HanSolo69, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5I'm ashamed to be a part of the same country as Texas. But that's more because of G.Dubya and Ron Paul than this story.
      • emmcubed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Buried for the simple fact that you equated George Bush and Ron Paul. Blatant abuse of power VS. advocate for responsible government. The two are not one in the same.
        • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0As long as this whole discussion has degenerated into grammar and spelling flames, I might as well point out that the phrase is "one and the same".
        • emmcubed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0And you would be absolutely right.
    • LaughingBovine, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Thats OK. A lot of people aren't, and thats our problem. We, the younger, more educated, "untouched" by god crowd need to do something about that. I say we freak all those dumbasses out and start some sort of satan worshiping group which blatantly speaks out against god and the bible and how its all lies. That'd be cool. Then once they're full swing into defending themselves from satan everyone just drops it and votes while they're not looking.
      Good idea? No? Well at least it's something.
      • Sansname, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I would so get shot if I did that in my little town...
      • DarKnight90, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If I could digg you twice I would.
    • phlebitis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Waco especially. It has a long history of spawning religious nut jobs. Branch Davidians, anyone?
    • icenineiv, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I'd imagine that happens often these days.
    • jesuswuzanalien, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2You should be.
  • Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -25/+3whoa 17 species go extinct every hour!
    • crillbilly, on 10/10/2007, -7/+21Yeah, thanks to Rosie O'Donnel, but on a different subject, WHAT ON GODS GREEN EARTH DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH BILL ***** NYE?
  • VIrus9, on 10/10/2007, -11/+37Bill Nye has his good points, but he's no Don Herbert.
    • Pimptastic, on 10/10/2007, -11/+9Mr. Wizard would wtfpwn Bill Nye with home made napalm
  • posys, on 10/10/2007, -26/+10Bill Nye is a great guy, Sounds like he ran into some not so smart people.
    Our kids love watching Bill "El Cientifico !"

    http://TeamInfinity.com/ROBO_WAGELESS_gid
    • Kyouto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That's a pretty horrible site.
    • litolist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I logged in just to digg you down, spammer.
      • HelloSonya, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0He may be scientifically inclined, but he's not socially wise or very nice for that matter. You wouldn't think a children's TV show host would give a young boy the cold shoulder, especially when that young boy was the son of the man he was making a business deal with.

        Just a little personal experience with the Nye-master!
  • mrzack, on 10/10/2007, -59/+63These trash audience members also voted for Bush.
    Thanks a lot assholes, you have wasted your life. You worthless wasters of food.
    Now I understand why the Illuminati would want to depopulate the human species cuz of ***** audience members.
    • diggdong, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Maybe they had an epileptic response from his tie.
    • Crad123, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8I sadly agree
    • FunkyNuts, on 10/10/2007, -18/+6Buried for the gratuitous linkage to Bush. Why is it you lefties can't separate every facet of your lives from Bush and politics? It gets SOOOOooooo old watching you use every opportunity to link every Digg story to Bush somehow. Get a life already.
      • kurttrail, on 11/01/2007, -2/+3If it bothers you so much, then why don't you take responsibility for your own actions, and stop reading Digg?

        Why should people change what they want to do in order to please you?
      • Shadowsaint, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1why does Bush link his actions with God? politics should be free from religion, any religion, the way the constitution intended, period.
    • airiox, on 10/10/2007, -20/+2You're retarded and an ethug, meet me in real life and I'll give you a lesson on the laws of nature. i.e. natural selection, survival of the fittest.
    • RedHerringHack, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3You are too stupid to know how stupid you are. It cannot be explained to you either. You aren't worth the try.
      • peterpeachfuzz, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Why are Leftwingers so mean-spirited like this comment(s)? Why are Liberals so prejudiced and full of hatred? I thought that wasn't their bag. I guess NYT/ABC/CBS/NBC/AP/Rueters/BBC/CBC/CNN lied to me about you folks. You sure sound an awful lot like intolerant Nazis when you make comments like this.
        • Jay72, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Hear, hear! I happen to think that these people are awfully silly. But there is no reason for 'enlightened' folks to call for their execution. Its people like you who would have all churches fire bombed and then bring the marshmallows.
    • PixelEater, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I didn't vote for Bush. Y'all need to get yer heads out yer asses pardners. Science rules.
  • Rodman930, on 10/10/2007, -7/+119" Perhaps those audience members who got angry should have googled him first. Then they could have gotten angry at home." FTW!
    • thedragon4453, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Indeed - his name is the "Science Guy." We know these people are retarded, but did they really think: "Well, I take the bible literally in all occasions, and basically think science is a bunch of *****, but I should enjoy a show hosted by a guy with the moniker "the Science Guy." I mean, its not like he is going to try to teach me science or have different beliefs than me."
  • Eastlygod, on 10/10/2007, -4/+92http://www.duggmirror.com/general_sciences/Bill_Nye_Booed_in_Waco_for_pointing_out_Moon_reflects_the_Sun/
    • treehugger87, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0OMG, thank you so much. I've been trying to read this for 3 days and couldn't!
  • JarLeachJim, on 10/10/2007, -21/+15Let me guess, the persiod meteor showers tonight (8/12/07) are just God sweating right? I love JC too, but c'mon!
  • benitojuarez, on 10/10/2007, -9/+580It takes a special kind of ***** to boo Bill Nye the Science Guy.
    • phinious, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14This quote made my day! Dugg!
    • bsmang, on 10/10/2007, -4/+24I thought they were called 'religious freaks', but ***** works.
      • GatesofHell, on 10/10/2007, -8/+0People actually digg this kind of idiotic language? Seriously? Wow, I see who is the ignorant ones in the world by the language used.
        • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"*****, Piss, *****, *****, *****, *****, and *****." -George Carlin

          I'll reiterate; *****, Piss, *****, *****, *****, *****, and *****. I hope your horse didn't die.
      • TnTBass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0So because I say "***** You" it makes me less intelligent than you?

        Here's a better one: Go impregnate yourself you dimwitted baboon.
    • GatesofHell, on 10/10/2007, -33/+2I love how us Christians are called intolerant all the time, and then this is the kind of language that is used against us. The people calling us intolerant are often the most intolerant, close-minded fools ever. Get a life, and read a Bible. You may get some love and mercy out of it.
      • thedarkrabbit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Or horribly nauseated.... one or the other.
        • Plinkotic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It's really more that non-christians like me don't claim to be tolerant. Your figurehead, on the other hand, wanted YOU to be and so you say constantly that you are. I'm a hypocritical *****, there, happy? I'm just able to admit it.

          Reminds me of Bill Hick's rant on Abortion, near the end I spose. I'll badly paraphrase:
          "Well, if you've got such a love for life, then instead of bombing abortion clinics and picketing, why don't you adopt one of the lonely kids on the planet that are already here, and need care from someone? You what they always say? They say "Well, why don't you do that? Huh?" Because I couldn't give a *****. Not a goddamn. Don't want em, don't need em, don't care for em. But if you care so damn much, why not adopt a kid?"

          //yeah, I know I did that badly
          • GatesofHell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Bud, you don't know me, so don't claim that I am intolerant. I may at times be hypocritical, and I will be the first to admit that. Yes, I am a Christian, but that doesn't, and never could mean that I am perfect. I am working towards being a better person, but I know who was a perfect person, and that is who I follow. Jesus was no hypocrite. I don't ask people to follow me, because I am going to screw up.
            Those that bomb abortion clinics are not CHRISTIANS! They are extremists that want to claim to be doing God's work. Killing is not my God's work. He said to love, not kill. That is what I do. Intolerance does not go with the Bible, it goes with men that misinterpret the Bible.
            Instead of insulting me, you may want to get to know me. I am quite a nice person if you are nice to me, and even when you're not you'll get my good side anyway.
        • KrystollMeth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Eh, just go see Jimmy Boy's (GatesOfHell) website. Sheds a little light on his comment.

          http://www.fromthegatesofhell.com/
      • nigh7dagger, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2Or read a Bible and actually understand what you're blindly criticizing.
      • artdwpmt, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11"You may get some love and mercy out of it."

        Love and mercy. Like in the story of Lot where he offers up his two virgin daughters to be raped by all the men of the village? Just to save the two angels that had arrived at his house from a similar fate? That kind of "love and mercy"?

        In case you need a refernce to confirm this (verses 6, 7, 8):
        http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=19&version=31
        • DivisibleByZero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It's called "taking one for the team".

          ...Well, more than one in this case.
        • GatesofHell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Which was not a command of God, but the will of a stupid man in a bad situation. We make mistakes. The Bible doesn't try to make the Jews look good, it shows all the bad they have done too. This shows are fallen nature. If God had commanded Lot to hand over his daughters, then I would be right with you and that one.
      • darienphoenix, on 10/27/2007, -4/+22If I wanted to read fiction I'd read Harry Potter. It's better written, and the fanclub isn't as annoying.
      • pcghost, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I have read the bible. It's a great book, up there with Tolkien and even Homer in my opinion. With that said, people who take it as literal truth are wingnuts who should find a better use for their life.
      • JustinShreve, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"Get a life, and read a Bible"

        What? You can do the two at the same time?
      • bsmang, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7hey dude... I have read PLENTY of the bible... I spent 2 hours every sunday for the first 15 years of my life in a ***** church listening to a ***** idiot spew trash about how I have to fear and love our great lord... Bahhh.. People who still believe in that ***** after they're all grown up have a serious deficiency in their lives.
      • mmmmmmmchips, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I laughed because his user name is GatesofHell.
        • bsmang, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2me too.. I'm guessing he feels he's special in some way... Maybe that name makes him 'closer to god'..
        • GatesofHell, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Actually the name is in reference to my website, From the Gates of Hell. The name means that though I was fallen and near the gates of Hell, I have been redeemed by God's endless mercy. It was my condition, and now I am free.

          And bsmang, names don't make me closer to God, Christ did that.
      • StarlessKnight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"The people calling us intolerant are often the most intolerant, close-minded fools ever." Assuming that "the people" are non-Christians (which would make sense given your statement), then it is not inexcusable for them to be intolerant on a fundamental level as it is for a Christian to be intolerant. You see, Christians are told by their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His Heavenly Father (AKA God) to love one another. Christians, by violating this, are an affront to the deity they profess to worship. You can see where the onus of behavior lies with the Christian, right? Unless the "people" adhere to a similar, but different, philosophy, but that is a problem they will need to resolve for themselves.
      • Setari, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I know far too many Christians that are grossly intolerant of pretty much everything.
        • GatesofHell, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I apologize, Setari, for any one of them. That isn't the way we are supposed to be. Those that are, I confront when I have the chance and talk to them one on one regarding the manner.
      • bagboyrebel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't think gatesofhell understands, they were booing BILL NYE!
        • GatesofHell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Yes, I do understand. But people here are being extremely rude against all Christians. I don't believe in evolution, but I believe in science. The fact that light bounces off the moon, and doesn't come from it itself does not hamper the biblical account, as I said above. I liked Bill Nye as a kid, but haven't heard from him recently. I wish to (and do whenever I have the chance) educate Christians on real creation science. These people choose to be ignorant of science, I don't.
      • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2believing in fairy tales, holding back science, pressuring the government to change politics to fit your way of life, trying to get creationism taught in school, preaching hate, taking for truth some ancient ***** written thousands of years ago, etc. should not be tolerated. to tolerate it would make those of us who are intelligent as ignorant as the religious. bring them hell i say!
        • GatesofHell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I want to push science forward, and don't think politics and religion should mix. I believe that alternatives to evolution should be taught in public school, but cannot expect them to teach creation science, because it requires the existence of a god. I preach love, as does Jesus.
          What you mention is not Christianity, but extremists. We, as Christians, don't require a "Christian nation". We are told to live under and respect the government, no matter where we are. Sure America was founded on Christianity and Christian principles, but it is most certainly not a Christian nation (especially not anymore).
      • terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm surprised no one has pointed out the obvious flaw in Gates' reasoning: the poster was calling people who boo Bill Nye for saying something that is so easily and completely proven *****, which is not the same as calling Christians in generally *****. Most Christians aren't going to deny that the moon simply reflects the sun's light. Even fake moon landing nuts admit we've been their since the first time, and I think the astronauts would've noticed if the moon was glowing.
      • Ravatar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1All I can say is "haha".
    • konklarii, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I met him, and he was a bit of a jackass. But still, SCIENCE!
    • seamuslp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Well then, I guess you'll just see Bill Nye and Hitler when you die and go to hell.
  • pennvneff, on 10/10/2007, -25/+104It's Texas what the hell do you expect was going to happen.
    • ichbinladen, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13Sad but true. I see these ***** every single day.
    • rippin1700, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5And you think ignorance is limited to just one state or country on this doomed planet?? Yep, I guess you are one of them. Way to profile, asshat. Buried.
    • abreen12, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3True that.
    • SurferBette, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11You know, we do have towns like Austin ... filled with college-educated people, techies and thoughtful people... and Houston, you know ... home to NASA? Almost all the people we know (DH is an eng in aerospace) in Houston's Bay Area, where Johnson Space Center is located, would side with Bill Nye in an INSTANT. And Houston is also the home of Marvin Zindler, the recently late consumer advocate, who always sought out the truth at any cost, and had ministers from four very different faiths stand up at his funeral.
    • seamuslp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think it's time to sell Texas back to Mexico, although we'd probably have to pay them to take it from us.
  • Darph.Bobo, on 10/10/2007, -17/+34Bill Nye rocks they ridiculed Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and every other scientific mind known to humankind. Many have eventually caught-up others still have a ways to go.
    • chaosium, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Not the most effective argument, considering that "they" ridiculed far more people who deserve to be ridiculed over the centuries.
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why is he being dugg down? This is a well known axiom, and Sagan said it best:

        "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
    • sholde4, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Buried for comparing Bill Nye to Galileo, Copernicus, Newton.
    • drizzlelicious, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Not like people had trouble believing that the moon in fact does reflect light. Most likely booed because of using that to try to prove the Bible is wrong.
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Bible adherents are under obligation to prove that their assertions (The Bible itself) is CORRECT. The burden of proof isnt on Nye (or anyone else) to disprove The Bible, but Christians to provide even a single shred of evidence for anything contained therein.
        • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Nobody said anything about Bill Nye having a burden to prove anything. Instead, drizzlelicious said (and I think absolutely correctly) that Bill Nye was in fact trying to use the sun/moon thing to argue against a certain style of Biblical interpretation. And *that* is what he was booed for. He wasn't booed for saying the moon is a reflector. He was booed because certain people think non-literal interpretation of the Bible is a slippery slope to becoming a libertine.
  • Pyroteq, on 10/10/2007, -82/+21“God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”

    You people are so stupid. The Bible is saying he created the Sun and the Moon. The Bible was written so it could be understood by people thousands of years ago. No where does it say "The Moon creates light", it says rather vaguely, that the Moon appears to be a giant light in the sky - Which is what it is and no one here can argue against that.

    Go ahead and bury me, you know I'm right, but all you "tolerant" atheists don't like being wrong...
    • Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -10/+14True, but when you try and interpret a religion or religious text it looses what little validity it had.
      Even so, simplifying text so it fits doesn't make it correct.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/10/2007, -7/+27Tell me, o tolerant Christain, what these passages from the King James Version, say. I don't see the Sun and the moon mentioned specifically. It does say that there was created two lights. But, what the outrage is about is not that it "says the Moon creates light" as interpeted by anyone. It is about the people getting angry about an attack on their religion based on the idea/fact that the Moon reflects light instead of being a light on its own like it states in the Bible. So, you are attacking the wrong people. Attack the stupid people of your own religion who got upset at a man of science because they interpet the Bible differently than you do.

      It is not about atheists and deists. And, it is sad that you see it in that "light".

      14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

      15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

      16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

      17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

      18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -14/+36Sorry, you think the claim "God made two great lights" doesn't mean that god made, well, 2 great big LIGHTS in the sky?
      You ***** christians will say absolutely anything to wriggle out of the utter ***** the bible is crammed with.
      Earth is flat - Matthew 4:8
      pi = 3 - First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26
      Moon is a light - Genesis 1:16
      Sun moves around the earth - Psalm 93:1
      God is love - Numbers 31
      Turn the other cheek - 2 Kings 2:23-24
      Do not kill - Joshua 6:21, Exodus 22:29-30, Genesis 22:2

      Now if ANY of those things are a bit contradictory, then the whole ***** book is! Its supposed to be the word of god, or the inspired word of god, and yet its so filled with this sort of ***** that god must have been BiPolar!!
      • lazydrumhead, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5the devil has power of his own, and being above nature in some ways was fully capable of doing this.
        pi is approximately 3.
        the moon does reflect light.
        how do we know what love is apart from some standard embedded into the fabric of our universe by something above us?
        many many christians are stupid, and don't turn the other cheek.
        the old testament commands clearly did not include war, but that is a subject too long to go into here.

        i am so sad about all the Christians that are stupid and make people talk like this. and for that I am ashamed.
        • fweeky, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3"how do we know what love is apart from some standard embedded into the fabric of our universe by something above us?"

          Well, some of us have this little thing called "cognition", you should try it sometime; it might help with your capitaliztion too.

          (Oh, I know, you feel "love" is so magically special that it must be some base element of the universe handed down to you from from higher being. See, this is why it's rarely a good idea to do your thinking with your feelings)
          • sabach, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Buried for criticizing somebody's writing skills and then misspelling capitalization.
        • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Of course it's