Of course scientists don't agree 100% of the time. It is common to show scrutiny in the scientific community to find a better and accurate understanding of things. Both Neil and Bill are correct from their perspectives. From space, meteors plunge into the Earth where as from Earth's perspective, it can enter the atmosphere in a way that looks like it is going up relative to your position.
I did not say worse. I said just as bad. Before the atom bomb it took a lot of time and hard work to kill millions of people. Now, it can be done in a day.
True, I did not mean to say worse, but I fail to see how it makes them just as bad. Before the atom bomb, millions were killed and land was destroyed, like in WW2. The only application of an atomic bomb in military history can easily be argued to have saved thousands of lives, and led to the creation of a new form of energy that much of that world uses.
Still don't see your comparison as being justified.
The Northern Front of the Pacific Theater during WW2 was an absolute blood bath. When you combine the tactics of the U.S.S.R with the Bushido code of Japanese Army, you had an absolute meat grinder. The number of deaths from that conflict alone would have VASTLY outdone the number of deaths from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even if you don't count the casualties from the Southern Front of the Pacific Theater between the Japanese and the United States.
Indeed, but chances are they will never be used due to the (utterly absurd) concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. Any state that fires a nuke will have nukes fired upon them, which means the only way a nuke will be used is if an extremist group gets ahold of one, which the United States (among others) has been preventing for quite a long time, and will continue to do so. If you want to argue hypotheticals we could, though that really seems pointless to me. Instead we could argue what has actually happened, which is that the Manhattan Project ended up saving MANY lives through the use of the two bombs during world war 2 and helped lead to the invention of nuclear energy which has been incredibly beneficial to mankind.
Disagreement between scientists is one of the best parts about the scientific community. We challenge each other on the knowledge we don't yet know so that we can find the answers and advance scientific knowledge. If I hypothesize something and everyone agrees with me without proof, am I really going to go out of my way to prove it? Maybe, maybe not.
Too bad there is no scientific disagreement on evolution. Anyone that disagrees is labeled a heritic. That's not how science is supposed to work. It's like the evolutionists are afraid of any dissenting opinions.
