Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
There is an obvious question. Which person absurdly denies science? Is it the scientist or the angry BBC reporter?Is there a question here?
Well you manage it on a regular basis.There is an obvious question. Which person absurdly denies science?
Fine. However, you don't understand the comedy of the video.Many religious people don't believe in science just as many scientists don't believe in religions.
Is there any reason I should?However, you don't understand the comedy of the video.
The entire video (which starts at the 25 second mark) is funny because the chemistry professor only wants to discuss facts and science while the BBC reporter behaves much like the exchemist that is outraged that anyone believes in a scientific view that isn't approved by the US goberment.Is the entire thing funny or is it just the odd humorous line interspersed throughout the 2 and a quarter hours that you (somehow) expect us to watch with no explanation?
Or maybe it's funny because a certain nutcase thinks that the chemistry professor is discussing facts and science.The entire video (which starts at the 25 second mark) is funny because the chemistry professor only wants to discuss facts and science while the BBC reporter behaves much like the exchemist that is outraged that anyone believes in a scientific view that isn't approved by the US goberment.
It is true that I agree with the chemistry professor. Is it true that your understanding of the facts and science coincides with that of the BBC reporter?Or maybe it's funny because a certain nutcase thinks that the chemistry professor is discussing facts and science.
That too would be comical since Dr Niels Harrit refused to speculate and insisted repeatedly that he was only qualified to talk about science and evidence.I see this is "9-11 Scholars for Truth". I'm going to report this with a request that it be moved to the Conspiracies section.
No. The subject is "How dare anyone discuss scientific facts that aren't approved by the powers that be?"I would not for a moment consider watching a 2hr video, ... when the subject seems to be a ludicrous 9-11 conspiracy theory.
Given that you've consistently shown yourself to not understand science I find THAT rather more amusing than the OP.No. The subject is "How dare anyone discuss scientific facts that aren't approved by the powers that be?"
Then feel free to start a thread on that. It would be very short since I would ask for proof and you wouldn't be able to produce anything valid. This thread however is about a distinguished chemistry professor that angers a faith-based non-scientist that obviously disrespects science.Given that you've consistently shown yourself to not understand science I find THAT rather more amusing than the OP.
No. The subject is "How dare anyone discuss scientific facts that aren't approved by the powers that be?"
Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy.Well the thread is now in Conspiracies, where it belongs, so I am content.
I agree. Apart from linking to some of the unscientific crap you spread in the various threads you've started I wouldn't be able to produce anything at all.Then feel free to start a thread on that. It would be very short since I would ask for proof and you wouldn't be able to produce anything valid.
Nope, it's about a nutcase claiming that a chemistry professor who's talking bollocks is somehow being "scientific" (oh look! More support for my claim about you).This thread however is about a distinguished chemistry professor that angers a faith-based non-scientist that obviously disrespects science.
Who are the powers that be?No. The subject is "How dare anyone discuss scientific facts that aren't approved by the powers that be?"