Got to love these doomsday predictions... September 23rd was also supposed to be the end of the world, and yet again didn't come to pass, as AronRa pointed out in *related=http://videosift.com/video/Apparently-We-Missed-the-Rapture-on-23-September-2015... though without Colbert's humor.

*beg classic AronRa.

I see what you're getting at. In this particular instance though, I'd say the Tyson explains it in a fine manner. What else would you like to back it up? Citations?

You can compare these with more in-depth videos like those thunderf00t or AronRa makes, where they actually go in detail with their explanations. Those are indeed much harder pills to swallow - most people want to be educated while entertained and often a video simile of a university lecture is just not appealing.

You'll, of course, notice the difference between what the two speakers in this video are saying. Limbaugh says "it may result in this", while Tyson says "it does this, which then results in this". Limbaugh does not provide anything to back up his claim, while Tyson at least backs up one step. He does not explain why the atmosphere captures IR light, granted, but it is not just an empty claim.

The framing of the video is a bit crass, but in terms of right and wrong it sums it up pretty well.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bookface:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^enoch:
i really like this aronra dude.

He looks like a douchenozzle.

Douchenozzles usually don't bother to apologize for making fun of someone's accent.

I said LOOKS!


Ah. My mistake. You didn't employ CAPS, italics, "quotes"... not even a smiley face... so I didn't know WHAT to "think" ;-) It's the aviator glasses that really bring out the nozzle in him, of course. Good evening.

>> ^bookface:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^enoch:
i really like this aronra dude.

He looks like a douchenozzle.

Douchenozzles usually don't bother to apologize for making fun of someone's accent.


I said LOOKS!

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^enoch:
i really like this aronra dude.

He looks like a douchenozzle.


Douchenozzles usually don't bother to apologize for making fun of someone's accent.

>> ^enoch:

i really like this aronra dude.


He looks like a douchenozzle.

i really like this aronra dude.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

My characterization of the theories of abiogenesis and macro evolution as based on weak, circumsantial evidence, thus regulating them to the realm of metaphysics is entirely accurate and a proper usage of those terms. Posting a couple of videos which you feel substantiates both theories, even if they did substantiate them, does not prove I used the terms incorrectly. At best it would mean I was mistaken about the sufficiency of the evidence. In any case, clearly you feel I am mistaken, so rather than rebut other peoples videos, I am interested to hear what you personally feel substantiates those theories.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
So.. these statements show you have no comprehension of the words you strung together.
"Investigating" articles published on "Christian Science" Monitor or reviewing Kurt Cameron's Banana Atheist Nightmare video does not count as research.
>> ^shinyblurry:
However, what spurred me to change my mind.. ..was simply investigating what the evidence for macro evolution actually was. I was profoundly shocked to find that it was based on nothing more than weak, circumstantial evidence,

A "weak" inductive argument is one which has little evidence to support its claim.
Hence, the more evidence.. the stronger the argument. I'll let AronRa take over from here
>> ^shinyblurry:
and like abiogenesis, it dwelled solely in the realm of metaphysics..

Again, your ignorance is showing man.
The term "Metaphysics" is the study of existence and relies on Ontology, the study of entities that exist or don't exist.
Not only is abiogenesis possible.. there's more evidence to prove the existence of abiogenesis than there is to prove Adam Eve or Yahweh exist(ed).
That is to say. Yahweh & Adam are purely metaphysical. Abiogenesis is not.