Sometimes I think our problem is that, as much as is humanly possible, our country has solved certain kinds of problems--racism, for one. The real racism is gone: as one black film-maker challenged his audience, "Tell me one thing that I would be prevented from doing in America because of the color of my skin." So what remains is largely imaginary racism, and imaginary problems can never be solved.

Highly edumacated scientists at their best:

<“The first time we saw it I think we all went a little bit into denial because it was not expected to be found in a comet,” she said. >

It didn't fit into the gazillions of years model? Shocking, I tell you, shocking. In denial? Yes, and in many other areas too.

<“Molecular oxygen is very reactive. There was a lot of hydrogen around when the solar system was formed. Everybody and all models showed that molecular oxygen would react with the hydrogen and would no longer be present as molecular oxygen.”>

Translation: Houston, we have a problem. Molecular oxygen can't be around for gazillions of years. Is it possible, I mean, in a remote universe, far, far, away, that the universe really <isn't> gazillions of years old? I mean, is the premise causing these pangs of denial possibly wr-wr-wr-----not exactly right?

<“The fact that it’s in the whole body led us to the idea that it was primordial so the O2 must have been present at the formation of the comet,” Bieler said.>

Okay, back to a scientifically rigorous statement.

<But how did it form and manage to stick around for billions of years?>

Uhhhhhh, maybe, just maybe, it really <isn't> gazillions of years old. Crazy idea, I know, right?

<Bieler said the international team considered two theories – either the oxygen was in the gaseous phase and endured a "shock freeze" or the oxygen was built onto the icy grains.>

Two. Not three, one of which would be that the universe wasn't created a a gazillion years ago. And the wannabe intellectuals on this site fawn over every statements from such highly edumacated scientists.

<The researchers said the first theory was probably unlikely because “gaseous O2 has only been detected twice outside of our solar system.”>

Only 2 guesses.......errr......"theories" and one of them ain't very good?

<“If you freeze it out very slow in the grains it will react with hydrogen and transform into water ice,” Bieler said. "The other way to build up O2 is on these grains. We came up with the idea that it could happen through radiolysis, a common effect that is known in the solar system on other icy bodies and in the rings of Saturn.”

If the second theory holds up, Bieler said it would indicate that the comet was “a very pristine object.”>

"Came up with the idea" = desperate, wild guess for an explanation that fits into their a priori thinking that the universe is gazillions of years old. And <this> tripe is what holds sway in Academia? Seriously?

<"Our study merely suggests that our current models [of the solar system] most probably are not right," Bieler told FoxNews.com in an email.>

But to point this out is probably hate speech. See below.

<Steamed Colleagues> A recent poll of college students shows a majority favor modifying the First Amendment to restrict speech.

http://leeduigon.com/2015/11/12/sta...

<Sorry, kids. Bill Nye is not the true Science Guy…but the Pseudo-Science Guy (Miller, 2012a). Sadly, he is among the many skeptics that rejected Noah’s message, failed to believe in the global Flood, and missed the boat. We pray that he’ll reconsider the evidence before it’s too late.>

Thank you for providing the link that very interesting article!

I was particularly impressed by this...

<Attacking the Flood

Animals to Australia?

Nye spent an extensive amount of time attacking the biblical Flood account. For example, he argued that kangaroos and other Australian animals could not have traveled from the Ark on Ararat to Australia, since no land bridge exists and no evidence of a past land bridge exists.

As is the case from localized floods today, small “land masses” composed of trees and debris can be found floating on the water (e.g., traveling down rivers). Who’s to say that such mini-, mobile “continents,” with various animals along for the ride, would not have been common immediately following the Flood?>

Exactly right!

And don't forget that along with trees and other debris, there would also have been numerous dead bodies from the drowned sodomites and other sexually confused sinners, so the kangaroos, koalas, emus etc would have had plenty of "raft-material" for their ocean voyage!

It's just simple science for goodness sake!

Why can't those stupid evolutionists see this?!

It seems highly appropriate that Bill Nye should have a degree whose initials are B.S.

Sorry, but scientists in recent years have erased their own credibility, largely by their unceasing efforts to put Global Warming/Climate Change over on us--no matter how many times they get caught red-handed, lying and cheating.

"Climate Science" is to science as televangelism is to religion.

Notice how the Warmists are getting more and more hysterical, demanding that anyone who doesn't buy what they're selling be thrown into jail. A recent poll shows 27% of Democrats (of course!) would like to see some kind of punishment for the "crime" of Climate Change Denial.

My mockery has always been aimed at the silliness of fundamentalists who try to use pseudo-science to "prove" that Noah's Ark actually existed, or the Garden of Eden was real, or Jonah really got swallowed by a whale, or Joshua stopped the sun, etc etc etc...

And as regard your segue into climate science, I find it revealing that 100% of biblical fundamentalists all deny the reality of human-induced global warming!

I suppose if they're right about the universe being created only 6,000 years ago, then they must be right about human-induced global warming being nothing but a scam!

I mean, it just logically follows, right?!

Far be it from me to undermine your faith statements in regard to Science.

Do I understand you to be saying that everyone who doubts Global Warming, for whatever reason, is a fundamentalist simpleton?

I'm pretty sure the world is not 6,000 years old. I'm also pretty sure it's not billions of years old.

Even if I were not a Christian, I still wouldn't believe the Climate Scientists. How many times do they have to be caught lying and cheating, before you doubt them? Even less do I believe anyone like Gore or Kerry--the truth is not in them.

All Scripture is God-breathed. You do know that. You must stop insisting that Christians either accept the details of the Bible with a robotic literal-mindedness, or else reject them and make fun of Christians--I include myself--who believe that yes, Adam and Eve were real people, the first people, created by God, etc.

The theology of the fall in Genesis 3 is not reliant upon an historical Garden of Eden.

I have no faith statements in regard to science other than what the evidence points to.

Whilst I wouldn't go so far as to say "that everyone who doubts Global Warming, for whatever reason, is a fundamentalist simpleton" I can't help but notice that all fundamentalists -- without exception -- deny the reality of human-induced climate-change!

Perhaps you could tell me how old you think the world actually is? If you're sure it's not 6,000 years old and you're sure it's not billions of years old, then maybe you could give us your best estimate, and how you arrived at it?

And btw anything other than 6,000 years is non-biblical, so it would be inconsistent to believe that Adam and Eve were real people (as described in Genesis), yet not accept the Genesis dating of the universe to 6,000 years!

As a Christian, I believe "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16), but it's vital to properly understand what that term means!

Your "interpretation" of Joshua 10:12-14 in a non-literal manner is reassuring, although as our good friend <Big Pawn> has pointed out, objective moral values prove the existence of a God that is maximally good, which would call into question the wholesale slaughter of the Amorites, especially since they were in retreat!

Anyway, the key to interpreting Joshua 10:12-14 is in understanding that the sun and the moon were considered deities in the ancient pagan world, yet they obey Yahweh, which helps the Israelites destroy these same pagans!

Do you get it?

And regarding the age of the universe, perhaps you agree with <OhioChessFan> on a dating of 10,000 to 11,000 years based on ... umm ... er ... well, something or other.

<Who says?> Biblical scholars.

<That sort of ad hoc appeal is the cornerstone of Gnosticism and irritating to no end.> You may find it irritating but it is neither ad hoc nor is it gnosticism.

<irritating to no end> Now you know how everyone else feels when pseudo-science purporting to "prove" Noah's Ark & The Flood is paraded as some sort of real evidence!

Anyway, may I inquire as to your own understanding of the passage in question?

You don't think the sun actually stood still do you?

And what about the moral issue of slaughtering the Amorites who had given up the fight and were in retreat?

Not to mention Yahweh himself hurling large hailstones down on them as they fled for their lives!