Penn & Teller and a Petition to Ban that Evil DiHydrogen Monoxide...

[DKW 86 7,726]

Too funny...

smh, until it hurts...

[Aufan59 100]

I love this example. Many environmentalists are idiotic and only do what sounds right, despite the science and math.

One current example of retarded environmentalism is how electric vehicles get 100+ MPGe, yet can potentially result in more green house gasses than a traditional car with an internal combustion engine with half of the MPG. Equivalent my ass, MPGe completely disregards the fuel source of the electricity used to charge the car.

[cptau 169]

wonder what the characters who signed feel like now that they are all over the Internet and on TV........for banning water

Penn & Teller have done some interesting stuff like this over the years...

[Aufan59 100]

Penn and Teller is great, as long as you don't watch the episode where they explain how the Bible is bull****.

[homersapien 11,812]

I love this example. Many environmentalists are idiotic and only do what sounds right, despite the science and math.

One current example of retarded environmentalism is how electric vehicles get 100+ MPGe, yet can potentially result in more green house gasses than a traditional car with an internal combustion engine with half of the MPG. Equivalent my ass, MPGe completely disregards the fuel source of the electricity used to charge the car.

I agree, but would like to point out that the term "environmentalist" is used by anyone who decides to characterize themselves as such. Unfortunately, this includes a lot of people who mean well but are nevertheless ignorant on the matter. It's unfortunate since such folks tend to do little more than obfuscate the issues.

Real (educated) "environmentalists" have no problem in pointing out the paradoxical economic and technical details of adding EtOH to gasoline.

Bottom line, the term "environmentalist" is taken on a little too much currency IMO.

[DKW 86 7,726]

I love this example. Many environmentalists are idiotic and only do what sounds right, despite the science and math.

One current example of retarded environmentalism is how electric vehicles get 100+ MPGe, yet can potentially result in more green house gasses than a traditional car with an internal combustion engine with half of the MPG. Equivalent my ass, MPGe completely disregards the fuel source of the electricity used to charge the car.

This is the true take-away from the Electric Car Crowd. You are just shifting the power producing consumption away from gas, that is reasonably efficient, to the power grid with many many inherent inefficiencies. A robust hybrid is in reality far better option than all electrics at least with today's technology unless you are using some solar supplementation, etc on your own premises.

[DKW 86 7,726]

Penn and Teller is great, as long as you don't watch the episode where they explain how the Bible is bull****.

Just an idea, here. When you are telling folks that you are basing all your decisions on "The Age of Science" and then proceed to state comical errors such as: "ALL MARSUPIALS ARE IN AUSTRALIA" i think you poke all the holes the rest of us need to know about in your own story.

Southerners have these things called opossums in the Deep South. They are marsupials. They are not in Australia.

Now if "Mr. Nothing But The Facts Scientist" cant even get a commonly known fact that every Southern Kid over 6 knows right, i will just stop wasting my time watching. Tossing out gross generalities like "Archaeology does not support the Bible," despite many ways in which it actually does support the Bible is a silly over simplification. Does Archaeology totally support the bible? Well since we have only been looking for about 200 years, and there are many thousands of differing interpretations of what the Bible actually says and means i dont really think we can stand here and say CATEGORICALLY that Archaeology doesnt support the Bible. Archaeology certainly doesnt support SOME INTERPRETATIONS. That i do agree with.

Ex: i dont know but maybe <5% of Christianity that really thinks that Creation happened in just 144 hours. i know i dont, and i know most here surely dont either.

[autigeremt 6,970]

I love this example. Many environmentalists are idiotic and only do what sounds right, despite the science and math.

One current example of retarded environmentalism is how electric vehicles get 100+ MPGe, yet can potentially result in more green house gasses than a traditional car with an internal combustion engine with half of the MPG. Equivalent my ass, MPGe completely disregards the fuel source of the electricity used to charge the car.

I agree, but would like to point out that the term "environmentalist" is used by anyone who decides to characterize themselves as such. Unfortunately, this includes a lot of people who mean well but are nevertheless ignorant on the matter. It's unfortunate since such folks tend to do little more than obfuscate the issues.

Real (educated) "environmentalists" have no problem in pointing out the paradoxical economic and technical details of adding EtOH to gasoline.

Bottom line, the term "environmentalist" is taken on a little too much currency IMO.

Much like every other media driven vernacular. Correct? It's not about what's good for people or communities. It's about the bottom line and the emotional attachment.

[homersapien 11,812]

I love this example. Many environmentalists are idiotic and only do what sounds right, despite the science and math.

One current example of retarded environmentalism is how electric vehicles get 100+ MPGe, yet can potentially result in more green house gasses than a traditional car with an internal combustion engine with half of the MPG. Equivalent my ass, MPGe completely disregards the fuel source of the electricity used to charge the car.

This is the true take-away from the Electric Car Crowd. You are just shifting the power producing consumption away from gas, that is reasonably efficient, to the power grid with many many inherent inefficiencies. A robust hybrid is in reality far better option than all electrics at least with today's technology unless you are using some solar supplementation, etc on your own premises.

While the current power grid may have many inefficiencies, shifting to electricity generated from centralized sources offers huge advantages in terms of reducing pollution. It is far easier to control emissions for any given single power plant than trying to control emissions coming from a huge number of point sources (such as automobiles).

But I agree that there is a lot of potential for generating "solar" electricity a point sources (homes) that can be added to the grid.

Anyway you cut it. Electricity will form the foundation of our transportation systems for the future.

[homersapien 11,812]

........Ex: i dont know but maybe <5% of Christianity that really thinks that Creation happened in just 144 hours. i know i dont, and i know most here surely dont either.

Interesting comment.

Which leads me to ask, what exactly is it about evolution that so many Christians find so difficult to accept?

If you are willing to accept the literal story of Genesis as allegory (correct me if that is a mischaracterization), why is it so hard to accept that evolution can be and is valid?

There is nothing to keep you from accepting evolution as the process used by God to create biology (for example). Nothing about evolution demands a Godless universe.

[homersapien 11,812]

I love this example. Many environmentalists are idiotic and only do what sounds right, despite the science and math.

One current example of retarded environmentalism is how electric vehicles get 100+ MPGe, yet can potentially result in more green house gasses than a traditional car with an internal combustion engine with half of the MPG. Equivalent my ass, MPGe completely disregards the fuel source of the electricity used to charge the car.

I agree, but would like to point out that the term "environmentalist" is used by anyone who decides to characterize themselves as such. Unfortunately, this includes a lot of people who mean well but are nevertheless ignorant on the matter. It's unfortunate since such folks tend to do little more than obfuscate the issues.

Real (educated) "environmentalists" have no problem in pointing out the paradoxical economic and technical details of adding EtOH to gasoline.

Bottom line, the term "environmentalist" is taken on a little too much currency IMO.

Much like every other media driven vernacular. Correct? It's not about what's good for people or communities. It's about the bottom line and the emotional attachment.

Not sure I am following you here. But I agree that the media - or more accurately modern culture - creates a vernacular that doesn't try to distinguish between "real" environmentalists and "self-described" (but relatively ignorant) environmentalists. Many of the latter understand the need, but they don't really understand much about the means.

I like to think of myself as one of the former. I am also associated with an organization of "true" environmentalists who are doing tremendous things locally. I can assure you that our focus is on doing things that make a positive difference in our community.

If you are interested, here's their website:

http://www.upstateforever.org/

Think globally, act locally.

[DKW 86 7,726]

........Ex: i dont know but maybe <5% of Christianity that really thinks that Creation happened in just 144 hours. i know i dont, and i know most here surely dont either.

Interesting comment.

Which leads me to ask, what exactly is it about evolution that so many Christians find so difficult to accept?

If you are willing to accept the literal story of Genesis as allegory (correct me if that is a mischaracterization), why is it so hard to accept that evolution can be and is valid?

There is nothing to keep you from accepting evolution as the process used by God to create biology (for example). Nothing about evolution demands a Godless universe.

I think most of the Rational Professing Christians will back me up on this, but we dont think Evolution is an exclusive separation with Creation. There are fundies on both sides that have decided that it does.

Some Christian Fundies insist on the 144 Hour Creation no matter how many gaps in support are realized.

Some Evo-Fundies insist that any evidence of Evolution Theory, no matter how many gaps still remain, totally disproves Creation and therefore God.

Extremists on both sides almost need to be institutionalized.

[Aufan59 100]

Just an idea, here. When you are telling folks that you are basing all your decisions on "The Age of Science" and then proceed to state comical errors such as: "ALL MARSUPIALS ARE IN AUSTRALIA" i think you poke all the holes the rest of us need to know about in your own story.

Southerners have these things called opossums in the Deep South. They are marsupials. They are not in Australia.

Now if "Mr. Nothing But The Facts Scientist" cant even get a commonly known fact that every Southern Kid over 6 knows right, i will just stop wasting my time watching. Tossing out gross generalities like "Archaeology does not support the Bible," despite many ways in which it actually does support the Bible is a silly over simplification. Does Archaeology totally support the bible? Well since we have only been looking for about 200 years, and there are many thousands of differing interpretations of what the Bible actually says and means i dont really think we can stand here and say CATEGORICALLY that Archaeology doesnt support the Bible. Archaeology certainly doesnt support SOME INTERPRETATIONS. That i do agree with.

Ex: i dont know but maybe <5% of Christianity that really thinks that Creation happened in just 144 hours. i know i dont, and i know most here surely dont either.

I never knew possums were marsupials and I grew up in Alabama. Even Mr. Nothing But The Facts Scientist doesn't know everything. But I guarantee once presented with the facts they wouldn't argue against them.

But it is too bad you ignored my advice and watched that episode. Now you probably don't like Penn and Teller anymore.

[Aufan59 100]

It is far easier to control emissions for any given single power plant than trying to control emissions coming from a huge number of point sources (such as automobiles).

This is not necessarily true. For example, catalytic converters are great for cars, but they aren't practical for large industry. The small scale solution for various pollutants was much easier and came sooner than a large scale solution.

Plenty of technological advances start small, the difficulty is scaling them up. Sometimes implementing a small scale solution in mass is more practical than trying to scale up the solution.

However if you mean that it is easier for government to regulate a single power plant rather than a huge number of cars, I agree.

[homersapien 11,812]

........Ex: i dont know but maybe <5% of Christianity that really thinks that Creation happened in just 144 hours. i know i dont, and i know most here surely dont either.

Interesting comment.

Which leads me to ask, what exactly is it about evolution that so many Christians find so difficult to accept?

If you are willing to accept the literal story of Genesis as allegory (correct me if that is a mischaracterization), why is it so hard to accept that evolution can be and is valid?

There is nothing to keep you from accepting evolution as the process used by God to create biology (for example). Nothing about evolution demands a Godless universe.

I think most of the Rational Professing Christians will back me up on this, but we dont think Evolution is an exclusive separation with Creation. There are fundies on both sides that have decided that it does.

Some Christian Fundies insist on the 144 Hour Creation no matter how many gaps in support are realized.

Some Evo-Fundies insist that any evidence of Evolution Theory, no matter how many gaps still remain, totally disproves Creation and therefore God.

Extremists on both sides almost need to be institutionalized.

Do you have any examples of "Evo-fundies"?

Not saying they don't exist, but I am not aware of them. No doubt there are militant atheists that use evolution as a club, but that in no way suggests that a "belief" in evolution requires religious exclusion of any sort, well, other than excluding a literal interpretation of the Bible. In other words, evolution as a "club" can only work with "literalists".

As far as the "many gaps" there will always be evidence gaps in such a huge, fundamental theory. But I even hesitate to use the word "belief" regarding evolution. At this point it requires no more "belief" than does gravity. Here's a humorous essay on that very point:

http://www.huffingto..._b_1579698.html

[homersapien 11,812]

It is far easier to control emissions for any given single power plant than trying to control emissions coming from a huge number of point sources (such as automobiles).

This is not necessarily true. For example, catalytic converters are great for cars, but they aren't practical for large industry. The small scale solution for various pollutants was much easier and came sooner than a large scale solution.

Plenty of technological advances start small, the difficulty is scaling them up. Sometimes implementing a small scale solution in mass is more practical than trying to scale up the solution.

However if you mean that it is easier for government to regulate a single power plant rather than a huge number of cars, I agree.

Well I meant it as a generalized engineering principle that a centralized pollution source is much easier to deal with than a decentralized source.

And catalytic converters aren't necessarily more efficient than systems designed to control emissions from a centralized source. Regardless, gas and other fuels used for transportation are not burned at a centralized source, so the comparison is not valid.

On the other hand if petrochemicals are burned at a centralized plant to produce electricity, then it should at least be theoretically easier to reduce the emissions they create compared to controlling them at millions of point sources (autos).

Now if you are an engineer you are likely doing the calculations involving total systemic and lifespan pollutants and efficiencies. Save your time. I surrender.

[autigeremt 6,970]

I love this example. Many environmentalists are idiotic and only do what sounds right, despite the science and math.

One current example of retarded environmentalism is how electric vehicles get 100+ MPGe, yet can potentially result in more green house gasses than a traditional car with an internal combustion engine with half of the MPG. Equivalent my ass, MPGe completely disregards the fuel source of the electricity used to charge the car.

I agree, but would like to point out that the term "environmentalist" is used by anyone who decides to characterize themselves as such. Unfortunately, this includes a lot of people who mean well but are nevertheless ignorant on the matter. It's unfortunate since such folks tend to do little more than obfuscate the issues.

Real (educated) "environmentalists" have no problem in pointing out the paradoxical economic and technical details of adding EtOH to gasoline.

Bottom line, the term "environmentalist" is taken on a little too much currency IMO.

Much like every other media driven vernacular. Correct? It's not about what's good for people or communities. It's about the bottom line and the emotional attachment.

Not sure I am following you here. But I agree that the media - or more accurately modern culture - creates a vernacular that doesn't try to distinguish between "real" environmentalists and "self-described" (but relatively ignorant) environmentalists. Many of the latter understand the need, but they don't really understand much about the means.

I like to think of myself as one of the former. I am also associated with an organization of "true" environmentalists who are doing tremendous things locally. I can assure you that our focus is on doing things that make a positive difference in our community.

If you are interested, here's their website:

http://www.upstateforever.org/

Think globally, act locally.

I helped Upstate Forever on a couple of projects back in the late 90's.

[homersapien 11,812]

I helped Upstate Forever on a couple of projects back in the late 90's.

Really! Maybe we have met. They hold a conservation easement on our property. We were among their earliest grantors of an easement.

[Aufan59 100]

Well I meant it as a generalized engineering principle that a centralized pollution source is much easier to deal with than a decentralized source.

And catalytic converters aren't necessarily more efficient than systems designed to control emissions from a centralized source. Regardless, gas and other fuels used for transportation are not burned at a centralized source, so the comparison is not valid.

On the other hand if petrochemicals are burned at a centralized plant to produce electricity, then it should at least be theoretically easier to reduce the emissions they create compared to controlling them at millions of point sources (autos).

Now if you are an engineer you are likely doing the calculations involving total systemic and lifespan pollutants and efficiencies. Save your time. I surrender.

I understand your point. One source of pollution can be easier to deal with than a thousand sources of pollution. Regulating one coal plant is easier than regulating a thousand cars.

My point is that sometimes a small scale solution implemented in mass is more practical than scaling up. Mass producing catalytic converters was far easier than finding a large scale solution for pollutants on an industrial scale. It is why catalyic converters were implented in the 70's, but it took until the 90's to deal with the same problem on an industrial scale.

Another example(which I believe you mentioned briefly before), we have lithium ion batteries on the market that are currently capable of storing enough energy to make small scale, residential wind/solar generation viable.

In contrast, the biggest challenge of making solar/wind viable on an industrial scale is the lack of viable energy storage. Scaling up lithium ion batteries (or any storage medium) is THE challenge of renewable energy. Instead we use solar/wind as a supplement to fossil fuels, or solar/wind as the primary source of energy with a fossil fuel backup when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining.

If the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions ASAP (as suggested by climatologists), then best solution is to implement current renewable energy technology in mass, rather than waiting for a large scale solution to be implemented.

And yes, I graduated as a chemical engineer at Auburn. I won't bore anyone with calculations, as calculations generally get ignored on message boards.

[homersapien 11,812]

Well I meant it as a generalized engineering principle that a centralized pollution source is much easier to deal with than a decentralized source.

And catalytic converters aren't necessarily more efficient than systems designed to control emissions from a centralized source. Regardless, gas and other fuels used for transportation are not burned at a centralized source, so the comparison is not valid.

On the other hand if petrochemicals are burned at a centralized plant to produce electricity, then it should at least be theoretically easier to reduce the emissions they create compared to controlling them at millions of point sources (autos).

Now if you are an engineer you are likely doing the calculations involving total systemic and lifespan pollutants and efficiencies. Save your time. I surrender.

I understand your point. One source of pollution can be easier to deal with than a thousand sources of pollution. Regulating one coal plant is easier than regulating a thousand cars.

My point is that sometimes a small scale solution implemented in mass is more practical than scaling up. Mass producing catalytic converters was far easier than finding a large scale solution for pollutants on an industrial scale. It is why catalyic converters were implented in the 70's, but it took until the 90's to deal with the same problem on an industrial scale.

Another example(which I believe you mentioned briefly before), we have lithium ion batteries on the market that are currently capable of storing enough energy to make small scale, residential wind/solar generation viable.

In contrast, the biggest challenge of making solar/wind viable on an industrial scale is the lack of viable energy storage. Scaling up lithium ion batteries (or any storage medium) is THE challenge of renewable energy. Instead we use solar/wind as a supplement to fossil fuels, or solar/wind as the primary source of energy with a fossil fuel backup when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining.

If the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions ASAP (as suggested by climatologists), then best solution is to implement current renewable energy technology in mass, rather than waiting for a large scale solution to be implemented.

And yes, I graduated as a chemical engineer at Auburn. I won't bore anyone with calculations, as calculations generally get ignored on message boards.

OMG, they are one of the worst!

I had a ChE boss(from Idaho). He was a great boss, one of the best I ever had. But he would whip out a calculator at the first suggestion that option A might be better than option B. It was a riot.

Anyway, I think we pretty much agree. I envision a "smart grid" with point sources (homes) of solar generation feeding into it. But you are right, storage is the bottleneck.

[autigeremt 6,970]

I'd love to see us somehow tap into Natural Electricity one day. No, not lightening, but turning the static electricity that helps to create lightning into a power source. http://ezinearticles.com/?Free-Energy-From-Static-Electricity&id=4896121

[DKW 86 7,726]

Just an idea, here. When you are telling folks that you are basing all your decisions on "The Age of Science" and then proceed to state comical errors such as: "ALL MARSUPIALS ARE IN AUSTRALIA" i think you poke all the holes the rest of us need to know about in your own story.

Southerners have these things called opossums in the Deep South. They are marsupials. They are not in Australia.

Now if "Mr. Nothing But The Facts Scientist" cant even get a commonly known fact that every Southern Kid over 6 knows right, i will just stop wasting my time watching. Tossing out gross generalities like "Archaeology does not support the Bible," despite many ways in which it actually does support the Bible is a silly over simplification. Does Archaeology totally support the bible? Well since we have only been looking for about 200 years, and there are many thousands of differing interpretations of what the Bible actually says and means i dont really think we can stand here and say CATEGORICALLY that Archaeology doesnt support the Bible. Archaeology certainly doesnt support SOME INTERPRETATIONS. That i do agree with.

Ex: i dont know but maybe <5% of Christianity that really thinks that Creation happened in just 144 hours. i know i dont, and i know most here surely dont either.

I never knew possums were marsupials and I grew up in Alabama. Even Mr. Nothing But The Facts Scientist doesn't know everything. But I guarantee once presented with the facts they wouldn't argue against them.

But it is too bad you ignored my advice and watched that episode. Now you probably don't like Penn and Teller anymore.

I love Penn & Teller and you too my Auburn Brother.

Stereotyping really doesnt work, you do know that right? lol

[DKW 86 7,726]

........Ex: i dont know but maybe <5% of Christianity that really thinks that Creation happened in just 144 hours. i know i dont, and i know most here surely dont either.

Interesting comment.

Which leads me to ask, what exactly is it about evolution that so many Christians find so difficult to accept?

If you are willing to accept the literal story of Genesis as allegory (correct me if that is a mischaracterization), why is it so hard to accept that evolution can be and is valid?

There is nothing to keep you from accepting evolution as the process used by God to create biology (for example). Nothing about evolution demands a Godless universe.

I think most of the Rational Professing Christians will back me up on this, but we dont think Evolution is an exclusive separation with Creation. There are fundies on both sides that have decided that it does.

Some Christian Fundies insist on the 144 Hour Creation no matter how many gaps in support are realized.

Some Evo-Fundies insist that any evidence of Evolution Theory, no matter how many gaps still remain, totally disproves Creation and therefore God.

Extremists on both sides almost need to be institutionalized.

Do you have any examples of "Evo-fundies"?

Not saying they don't exist, but I am not aware of them. No doubt there are militant atheists that use evolution as a club, but that in no way suggests that a "belief" in evolution requires religious exclusion of any sort, well, other than excluding a literal interpretation of the Bible. In other words, evolution as a "club" can only work with "literalists".

As far as the "many gaps" there will always be evidence gaps in such a huge, fundamental theory. But I even hesitate to use the word "belief" regarding evolution. At this point it requires no more "belief" than does gravity. Here's a humorous essay on that very point:

http://www.huffingto..._b_1579698.html

Somewhere on this site is a statistical review on the probability of Evolution.

It pretty bascially trashes the "logic" and inevitability of Evolution.

Just a taste, but the statistical probability of the double helix of DNA formation makes Evolutionary Theory AT THIS TIME ludicrous.

To be able to get to Evolution, most "scientists" JUST ASSUME IT AS A GIVEN...LMAO! They dont even pretend to model the probability because it would essentially disprove their theory...

Now we factor in the hurdle of 237 or 238 enzymes just miraculously appearing at the same time, in the right proportions, with NO impurities, in a swamp, or tidal pool, etc and well i am just getting ready to wet myself for this debate...lol.

The probabilities of these two events essentially define mathematic certainty.

Did i say it would not be eventually workout? NO. i just pointed out that using scientifically accepted probability theory makes all this very hard to swallow at present.

[DKW 86 7,726]

It is far easier to control emissions for any given single power plant than trying to control emissions coming from a huge number of point sources (such as automobiles).

This is not necessarily true. For example, catalytic converters are great for cars, but they aren't practical for large industry. The small scale solution for various pollutants was much easier and came sooner than a large scale solution.

Plenty of technological advances start small, the difficulty is scaling them up. Sometimes implementing a small scale solution in mass is more practical than trying to scale up the solution.

However if you mean that it is easier for government to regulate a single power plant rather than a huge number of cars, I agree.

Well I meant it as a generalized engineering principle that a centralized pollution source is much easier to deal with than a decentralized source.

And catalytic converters aren't necessarily more efficient than systems designed to control emissions from a centralized source. Regardless, gas and other fuels used for transportation are not burned at a centralized source, so the comparison is not valid.

On the other hand if petrochemicals are burned at a centralized plant to produce electricity, then it should at least be theoretically easier to reduce the emissions they create compared to controlling them at millions of point sources (autos).

Now if you are an engineer you are likely doing the calculations involving total systemic and lifespan pollutants and efficiencies. Save your time. I surrender.

My Enginerd Friends swear that the losses and inefficiencies in electricity transmissions across a regional grid will negate any positive effects of Electric cars. But i am not an Eniginerd.

[AUDub 11,424]

Somewhere on this site is a statistical review on the probability of Evolution.

It pretty bascially trashes the "logic" and inevitability of Evolution.

Just a taste, but the statistical probability of the double helix of DNA formation makes Evolutionary Theory AT THIS TIME ludicrous.

To be able to get to Evolution, most "scientists" JUST ASSUME IT AS A GIVEN...LMAO! They dont even pretend to model the probability because it would essentially disprove their theory...

Now we factor in the hurdle of 237 or 238 enzymes just miraculously appearing at the same time, in the right proportions, with NO impurities, in a swamp, or tidal pool, etc and well i am just getting ready to wet myself for this debate...lol.

The probabilities of these two events essentially define mathematic certainty.

Did i say it would not be eventually workout? NO. i just pointed out that using scientifically accepted probability theory makes all this very hard to swallow at present.

How does the fact that it's statistically unlikely rule it out as the best answer?