It wasnt al-Ghazalis fault that muslim society adopted his idea that math is evil and made it doctrine. He was long gone by the 16th century.

It was the fault of the muslim religous authorities, but you cant say that in one sentence, if you are a muslim, even today. You have to go on and on for half an hour, naming all the muslim famous scientists, just like you would have to name all the famous russian scientists if you were a russian professor talking to a russian audience.

Even if 17th century muslim society had a Newton or Leibniz or Kopernik or Kepler and they managed to publish, what impact would their discoveries have had if they could not be used in practice for religious reasons?

It hardly matters who invented the lightbulb, if you have to keep using candles for religious reasons.

Her parents are definitely deserving of that scorn, but at some point you have to take responsibility for your own beliefs.

She's not a child anymore, she's at university. At that point, it is assumed that you have a reasonable grasp of the basics in whatever you're studying. You can question things you don't understand, but there's a limit. You wouldn't go into a physics lecture and start disputing Newtons laws (on a macro scale).

Wouldn't it be wonderful if, in a few years time, she can look back at this and say "that was the point where I started to question my beliefs"?

3 ppl called Olivia Newton John but nobody had heard of Whitesnake!!!!

*head explodes*

The best Bill Nye bar none smackdown was dished out by Sir Isaac.
http://videosift.com/video/Sir-Isaac-Newton-vs-Bill-Nye-Epic-Rap-Battles-of-History

Steel is a form of iron. Steel melts at about 1300 degrees Celsius (2400 Fahrenheit). It's boiling point is about 3000 C (or 5400 F).

Melting point of steel is around the temps he's talking about. Boiling point is a little higher.

*quality
Easy there, Nye - Neil stood up for you quite recently, so don't go dissing him.
Epic reply, though.

As a former hockey player I'll have to disagree with most of your comment. There is rarely any attempt to injure in a hockey fight and I've never heard of any hockey player pulling punches. The objective is to be perceived to have won the fight to help get your teammates and fans hyped up or to have taught a lesson. To that end you try your best to hit your hardest. Unfortunately Newton's pesky third law of motion comes into play and makes it very difficult to deliver any really dangerous blows. That's why hockey fighters always hang on to their opponents jersey so they don't drift apart or fall down.

As pointed out the worst common injuries in Hockey come from high speed blows to the head or stick injuries such as to the eye. The worst uncommon injury is a skate blade to the neck. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ295luzhtQ

All that being said, the kind of fighting in this video is stupid and boring to me. If I want to see that I'll rent "Slapshot".

scientism is really like truthieness. It's a made up word, with a made up definition, that has no bearing on, or connection to reality.
Science is not about belief.
If data 'proves' that science can't ever answer any question about reality (not about human insanity, although it already goes a long way towards explaining that too), scientists would concede instantly. If it were a belief, they could never change it based on evidence, but science does change.

No one is asking you to 'bow' to any 'theory'. They are simply the 'rules' that 'science' has produced to explain how the world/universe works. They work just fine without your 'belief' in them or knowledge of them. That's just one thing they have over the supernatural.

Please give an example or two of scientific 'truths' that were half baked ideas. I think if you look throughout history, carefully, you will see the scientific method was developed mostly around the 12th century as explained here:

Amongst the array of great scholars, al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method. His scientific method involved the following stages:1.Observation of the natural world
2.Stating a definite problem
3.Formulating a robust hypothesis
4.Test the hypothesis through experimentation
5.Assess and analyze the results
6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions
7.Publish the findings

but it's widely held that it was not solidified to the modern scientific method (eliminating guessing and 'induction' and requiring repeatable experimentation) until Newton. That means any example you might give should come after 1660 or so at the earliest, or you aren't talking about the same "science" that the rest of us are.

I think most scientist would say it is 'possible' that supernatural events happen, but incredibly unlikely, and constantly less so the more we know about the world and it's rules. It's just as likely that if I only eat the right color yellow foods I'll eventually 'magically' crap gold. I can't prove it won't happen (because I'll never know if I ate the 'right' color foods, if I ever tried), but I can use science to show it's absolutely unlikely to a NEAR certainty (no matter how one misunderstands quantum physics).
The supernatural is right there with my golden poops....and I can't tell which smells worse.

General Relativity : Einstein vs. Newton

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rainbow, difraction, supernumerary' to 'minutephysics, rainbow, diffraction, supernumerary, Newton' - edited by messenger

Why would the acknowledgement of a designer be a depressing dismissal of the human spirit? Some of the greatest scientists who ever lived, like Johannes Kepler and Issac Newton, said their search for truth through the scientific method was enhanced by their faith in a Creator. Check out some of these quotes:

http://www.newlife.org/node/362

If you came to a beach and you found the message "Drink Coke" drawn out in the sand, would you assume that this was the product of wind, waves, and erosion? It would be obvious to you that it was the product not of natural processes, but a mind. The message in the sand doesn't contain information, it is information. It has a semiotic meaning, and the information in DNA is no different than that. You can derive information from natural processes but the information in DNA is organized for a purpose. It is a genetic language with features that far outstrip anything even our finest minds have developed.

I would also add that the truth does not care for our personal preference. We need to follow the evidence where ever it leads, and if it leads somewhere we don't like, we need to adjust our way of thinking. To do otherwise would only be to deceive yourself.

Agreed. Newton was quite possibly the smartest person to ever walk the earth.

Congratulations! Your video, Sir Isaac Newton vs Bill Nye. Epic Rap Battles of History, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 2 Badge!

NdGT and Bill Nye are both far better people than Newton was, but

• Calculus
• Gravity
• Newtonian motion