The problem with teaching lies is that once you stop believing in part of the story (i.e. 6000 year-old earth) the rest of the story (biblical god, afterlife) seems incredibly shaky… The church has a good deal of experience cracking down and moderating scientific viewpoints, but this also engenders stronger reaction from the scientific community. Perhaps the radicalization of western scientists and a shift away from US domination in research is precisely what we need to spur on the next generation of scientific discovery.
The freezing point of water can be observed during repeatable experiments. The development of macro evolution over millions of years cannot.
Both theories can be developed into good science, but one can achieve a higher level of certainty of one theory over the other. Creationists are correct to highlight the difference.
“The development of macro evolution over millions of years cannot.”
I throw the BS flag. There are thousands of pieces of proof of evolution in universities, museums, and laboratories all over the world. There is not one bit of evidence anywhere of creationism. It is a lie told by the deceitful and hypocritical accepted only by the gullible.
I was taught that it isn’t that (pure) water freezes at zero, it’s that ice thaws at zero. Same for the other end of the scale. Water doesn’t boil at 100 Celsius, Steam condenses at 100 Celsius. Apparently scientifically one is more accurate than the other. Also it’s 0 Celsius not 0° Celsius.
Feel free to correct me. I’m certainly not claiming to be any sort of expert I just happen to remember my Science teacher.
Supercooling occurs because water can exist as a liquid below its natural freezing point if it has no surface or seed on which to crystallize. That is, if there is no rough surface, impurity, or bit of ice to start the crystallization process, water can remain in a liquid state below 0deg Celsius.
http://www.singlegrain.com/blog/supercooled-water/
The phrase “at sea level”, water freezes 32°F/0°C under lower pressure. (I would also like to have seen a reference to the triple point of 0.01°C, but pedantry is a bad habit.)
Aug 15, 2007 @ 22:33:25
Actually, any good scientist (or at least physicist) will tell you that water freezes at 273°. ;)
Sep 03, 2007 @ 12:01:51
Actually, any good scientist would know that you don’t use the degree sign in kelvin. ;)
Sep 03, 2007 @ 14:08:42
Quite… pwnt, Mr. Ing.
Sep 04, 2007 @ 04:59:18
The problem with teaching lies is that once you stop believing in part of the story (i.e. 6000 year-old earth) the rest of the story (biblical god, afterlife) seems incredibly shaky… The church has a good deal of experience cracking down and moderating scientific viewpoints, but this also engenders stronger reaction from the scientific community. Perhaps the radicalization of western scientists and a shift away from US domination in research is precisely what we need to spur on the next generation of scientific discovery.
Sep 04, 2007 @ 05:22:34
This comic’s premise is invalid.
The freezing point of water can be observed during repeatable experiments. The development of macro evolution over millions of years cannot.
Both theories can be developed into good science, but one can achieve a higher level of certainty of one theory over the other. Creationists are correct to highlight the difference.
Oct 05, 2012 @ 08:05:09
I never expected to see “Creationists are correct” in a sentence.
Mar 19, 2014 @ 16:47:21
“The development of macro evolution over millions of years cannot.”
I throw the BS flag. There are thousands of pieces of proof of evolution in universities, museums, and laboratories all over the world. There is not one bit of evidence anywhere of creationism. It is a lie told by the deceitful and hypocritical accepted only by the gullible.
Sep 04, 2007 @ 07:34:59
Water freezes at 0 degrees.
Oct 05, 2012 @ 08:11:26
I was taught that it isn’t that (pure) water freezes at zero, it’s that ice thaws at zero. Same for the other end of the scale. Water doesn’t boil at 100 Celsius, Steam condenses at 100 Celsius. Apparently scientifically one is more accurate than the other. Also it’s 0 Celsius not 0° Celsius.
Feel free to correct me. I’m certainly not claiming to be any sort of expert I just happen to remember my Science teacher.
Oct 05, 2012 @ 12:42:10
This is incorrect.
-0°C is when water becomes a solid
+0°C is when water becomes a liquid
and yes, you are supposed to put a °C not just C.
Sep 04, 2007 @ 08:54:39
Howard, they might be right to highlight the difference, but that gives no extra credence to their theory’s claim.
Sep 06, 2007 @ 06:54:12
Sorry to be pedantic but ice melts a 0, water doesnt necessarily freeze at that temprature.
Sep 06, 2007 @ 07:32:53
Err, there’s actually a difference between -0c and +0c.
You actually need to add energy to move from frozen water which is at -0c to make it melted at +0c. If you want to get specific.
Sep 06, 2007 @ 21:54:04
the freezing/melting temperature of water/ice changes dependin on atmospheric pressure
Sep 06, 2007 @ 23:20:07
err, the amount of energy needed for entropy changes depending on the system’s atmosphere, but water always freezes at 0c.
Sep 07, 2007 @ 04:49:10
Sorry Ian, you’ve got it wrong:
Supercooling occurs because water can exist as a liquid below its natural freezing point if it has no surface or seed on which to crystallize. That is, if there is no rough surface, impurity, or bit of ice to start the crystallization process, water can remain in a liquid state below 0deg Celsius.
http://www.singlegrain.com/blog/supercooled-water/
Oct 05, 2012 @ 13:19:31
This is an exception to the rule.
Sep 07, 2007 @ 08:35:30
My chemistry teacher lied to me! *shakes fist*
Sep 16, 2007 @ 12:50:35
Ice is like pornography, I know it when I see it. No matter what the temp. ;)
Apr 20, 2013 @ 11:48:07
Important point missing here:
The phrase “at sea level”, water freezes 32°F/0°C under lower pressure. (I would also like to have seen a reference to the triple point of 0.01°C, but pedantry is a bad habit.)