Slashdot Mirror
Lunar Polar Ice Not Present
pclark999 writes "The New Scientist reports that radar probes of the lunar polar region has disproved earlier theories regarding large sheets of polar ice in craters permanently in the shade. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Global warming cultists would like you to ignore this news.m
l wa rmingseries01.shtml
/. individual come up with a reasonable defense against the UHIE argument. Until you do, you're just a bunch of uninformed spew-the-latest-FUD global warming activists.
http://www.parthe.net/_cwg0803/00000018.ht
http://www.opinionet.com/staff/bobwebster/globa
I'm *STILL* waiting to hear a single K5 or
Note: UHIE stands for Urban Heat Island Effect. I'm not going to bother explaining, cause if you don't know, you're exactly the kind of person that propogates FUD while having no clue what you're talking about.
cult: a small, unpopular religion.
religion:a group of fanatics so devoted to their cause they abandon all science, reason, and logic. See also: Global Warming.
Come on man, there was no call for that comment. You dont believe, fine...its your decision. But, taking pot shots...not cool.
I wont shove my Christianity down your throat, if you dont shove your atheism down mine.
The flying hamster of DOOM rains coconuts on your pitiful city.
Somebody please mod this idiot down! No mention of the moon prior to 1950? What the hell is wrong with you? I suppose that Galileo and Tycho Brahe were looking up their own asses with their telescopes then? Or was that the satelite sent it to orbit by the Illuminati or the Catholic Church? Get your head out of your ass, dipshit.
Show me a "geologist" who believes that Noahs Ark is burried between Iraq and Iran and I'll show you a washed-up hack.
to tolerate capitalism.
Individuality is far, far too important to be lost working to death in someone else's sugar mines.
"But don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor." -John Dickinson
Ummm....the Bible only says Mt. Nebo which, btw isn't between Iran and Iraq. (You're not helping yourself here) and there is plenty of geological evidence for the flood. Not the least of which is polystrait trees. These are fossilized trees that are welded into strata that cross (supposedly) millions of years of rock and deposits. Either the tree lived for millions of years, or a catastrophy mixed up the strata. Geologists believe, this may be the result of flooding or a large catastrophic flood.
JAV
if only all christians were like you (honestly). the large majority of christians i meet everyday never hesitate to attempt to force their christianity down my throat and up my ass. no offence, but sometimes the hostility a lot of atheist display towards people of faith is largely due to the actions of the religious fanatics (of any religion).
I prefer to call it "Spiritual Pollution".
> So I've been reading your replies in this thread
:-)
As the nice yellow "enemy" icon informs me. I happily made you a friend just for the hell of it.
> You are basically saying that a book A) that was thrown
> together by humans a couple thousand years ago B) in a
> time when most still thought the world was flat was the
> center of the universe is C) just as good as any theories
> that modern man has come up with today? That is just
> asinine!
How do you know that they believed the world was flat? The Bible certainly doesn't state it. The "flat" world model was an invention of the middle ages. Many things had to be rediscovered due to the impact that the fall of Rome had on science and philosophy. Before that, the Egyptians were building pyramids, the Greeks were figuring out how to use a lever on the earth, and the Romans were building aqueducts and computational devices.
Perhaps the original Atlas image was a large flat surface on his back, but I've always seen it as a globe. Interestingly A quick google search for "was atlas holding a globe or a flat earth?" comes up with this Biblical opinion.
> You say the big bang theory is completely random
Eh? I did? Where?
> I say these verifiable historical records are recorded
> plain as day in the rocks surrounding all of us!
I agree. Do you know how to interpret them correctly? I'm glad you do, because there are a LOT of geologists fighting over that very point.
> And, don't even get me started on the age of the Earth.
I have not and will not state that the Earth is 6000 years old. However, if we interpret the Genesis account correctly, human beings are probably about that age.
> Basically what I'm saying is what ever happened to
> rational thought based on factual data?
Good question. I'm game if you're ready to act rationally.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade