just for laugh's, hidden camera on youtube (mebbe on british tv too) is quite possiby one of the funniest things i have ever seen.
Its like candid camera, but so much better.
Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4sBEBgq-a8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj-KK-Tj0UY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOrFqmLt8OA&feature=related
Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonIts just a different colored sleazy lying ******* politician, not the second coming of Christ. If obama "changed" anything for the better, its the color of presidents.
hey be careful now, lightsnake was getting his hopes up claiming that it was over because Obama said it was over. God forbid another administration is full of shit!
What I wanna know, is when contact with a statue of him will ensue miraculous healing, end racism, turn everyone into brilliant, devoted citizens with degrees and loads of money who all grew up to be president because this is the land of opportunity.
but obama said it, so it must be true.
Originally posted by truejediliked em all. you seen "howie do it" yet? Howie mandel dresses like "larry" and goes out and does things to people and films it. its funny like this.
just for laugh's, hidden camera on youtube (mebbe on british tv too) is quite possiby one of the funniest things i have ever seen.Its like candid camera, but so much better.
Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4sBEBgq-a8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj-KK-Tj0UY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOrFqmLt8OA&feature=related
the girl in the middle, the "mark" thinks this is a real yoga studio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl_HRUOvhkQ
he sets up these unreal situations and puts stupid people in them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUSXe0fOxR0
its pretty good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP1YqpmoCW8&feature=related
Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
Its just a different colored sleazy lying ******* politician, not the second coming of Christ. If obama "changed" anything for the better, its the color of presidents.What I wanna know, is when contact with a statue of him will ensue miraculous healing, end racism, turn everyone into brilliant, devoted citizens with degrees and loads of money who all grew up to be president because this is the land of opportunity.
but obama said it, so it must be true.
Obama said it, and liberals are eating it up.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So will conservatives soon enough. What with Obama's economic plans for agricultural reform, everyone's gonna be just that hungry.
No, a lot of liberals and most conservatives are 100% against his plan. I highly doubt it's because they think it sucks and has more to do with them just trying to contradict Obama so they can look good when he fails. That's why I listen to a certain number of economists who understand what's going on. Ron Paul, Addison Wiggin, Bill Bonner, Peter Schiff, James Turk, etc.
Dude... c'mon
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, a lot of liberals and most conservatives are 100% against his plan. I highly doubt it's because they think it sucks and has more to do with them just trying to contradict Obama so they can look good when he fails. That's why I listen to a certain number of economists who understand what's going on. Ron Paul, Addison Wiggin, Bill Bonner, Peter Schiff, James Turk, etc.
I am putting way too much effort in to this joke.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Obama said it, and liberals are eating it up.
Correlate:
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So will conservatives soon enough. What with Obama's economic plans for agricultural reform, everyone's gonna be [B]just that hungry.[/B]
Originally posted by truejedi
First, fossils are not rare.
Surely, you won’t consider this article biased for creationism: (see A Conflict Based on the Number of Fossils Observed
http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth2.htm
To make the creation science story even more unlikely, only a small percentage of animals ever form fossils when they die. Assuming that 1 of each 1,000 land animals is fossilized, (an outrageously high number)
Also:
LINK
It is important to address the rarity of fossils in the context that for any particular organism that once existed, the probability that it today is part of the fossil record is infinitesimally small. Such profound rarity is a consequence of three factors: 1) fossil formation is a rare event; 2) fossil survival is a rare event; and 3) an exceedingly tiny fraction of surviving fossils will ever be accessible to be found, though the crust of the earth is filled with them.
So there's that.
second, if they were rare, what would you ask for instead to "prove" that those links ever actually existed then? What is your other form of validation?
Forgive my impertinence, but I'm going to quote Wikipedia at you:
# 1 Evidence from genetics
3 Evidence from comparative anatomy
4 Evidence from geographical distribution
5 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
# 6 Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance
8 Evidence from speciationAlso:
A specific example of large-scale evolution is the polar bear
You'll forgive me if I am reluctant to teach you the whole of evolutionary theory myself; the topic is vast and I am not being paid for this. I would hope that before deciding how much "faith" is required that you would at least make a token effort to investigate the body of evidence.
I disagree with the premise of this paragraph. Faith is not solely through revelation. Let me explain.
Here's the thing. Evolution would only need faith if it were arrived at through revelation. As in: religiously.
faith
  /feɪθ/ [feyth]
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
For instance, you claimed to not know of a single hole in the theory of evolution. Maybe I didn’t explain what I meant by hole well.
What I meant was a gap in physical evidence. I have no doubt that there is a good explanation for any missing evidence. The theory itself leaves no room to be questioned, however, all of the physical evidence simply isn’t there red. Not 100%.
This cuts right to the heart of the mainstream misunderstanding of the scientific method. Darwin (for example) did not, sitting in his lounge, decide "oh, mayhaps there has been a slow process of selection by natural factors favoring a subgroup, primarily viable, of various species that explains various species today."
Such a picture is, to me, (and, I hope, to you) absolutely ludicrous. No, Darwin followed a much different methodology. He was a naturalist and toured the world for many years etc. [insert biography] During the course of his travels he noted the "dazzling diversity of life" and put his notable intellect to the task of explaining it. To rephrase: He set out to explain natural phenomena, not to find phenomena that supported his idea. This is important. It is the fundamental difference between "creation scientists" (ha) and scientists.
But I digress. He found an explanation that adequately accounted for every question aimed at it. With the integration of Mendellian genetics (the theory has, fittingly, evolved to keep pace with the times; the Modern evolutionary synthesis has settled several problems with Darwin's original work) the theory has expanded to a pivotal place in biology, to the point that Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
I think that at this point the distinction should by crystal clear: he explained the evidence, and so has no need to look for more. That the theory has flawlessly integrated every new discovery, from the inner workings of the cell (which were obscure in Darwin's time (?)) to DNA provides evidence that it is the correct model. As far as scientific certainty goes, it is ironclad. However. (This is the part you're going to like.) Scientific certainty is not set in stone. As Gideon loves to point out, we are not omniscient. So any judgment we make is subject to the possibility of new, contrary information. That we have yet to find any is promising.
This is how science works.
To the fact that evolution has no holes, I give you this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.htmlNo question we would both consider this website biased. However, it serves my purpose well, since I am not trying to convince you of the fallacy of evolution. I’m merely explaining why I believe what I believe.
Now, I ask you, to take any ONE (or heck, 2 or 3) of the examples and explain how evolution explains the anomaly. I have 0 doubt that there will be an evolutionist explanation that calls creationism lies, just as the link above tried to do in reverse.
With that said, again, in case you didn't read the article, you should look at it again. There is not a single example of out of place fossils; every single example given is accompanied by either a (selection of a) peer reviewed article saying that the fossil is innocuous or a parallel case that provides an explanation of the phenomena (like ancestor species surviving their "descendants." So the article doesn't actually help you.
After you post the explanation
I will ask you to prove it. (just as we do in the Star Wars vs. forum.) Give me hard factual physical evidence, that nowhere leans on a theory that someone could say “You can’t prove that”
Shouldn’t be too hard to do, if there are no holes in evolution, right?
To put it bluntly: you've made up your mind and will ignore the evidence if you have to.
Interesting really quick that you take the discussion of evolution and spread it over every scientific field. This comes despite your B condition below, which you chose yourself. I don’t know if this is considered a threat? I fail to see what it accomplishes really. I think it was meant to GOAD me into actually debating Evolution vs. Creation with you. But I’ve said repeatedly why I’m not doing that. (besides the fact that we already did it once, long ago.) But you conclusion of this sentence is hardly logical. I’ve stated repeatedly that I’m not a student of evolution. It does not at all mean I’ve never studied other fields.
Also #2: If you are "not a student of evolution" to such an extent that you do not actually know the evidence upon which it is based, how can you claim that it is based upon faith?
Which brings me to this sentence of yours, which IMO, made my point for me perfectly. In fact, you summed it up better than I will be able to, as I am a habitually expound on everything.
[quote]then you will have to have solid evidence that evolution A). is incapable of explaining [x] or B). that evolution has been extended to cover something it would not explain.
You just said yourself(bolded), that I have to have solid evidence that evolution is incapable of explaining.
Not that evolution has physical evidence of, not that evolution has actually physically proved to be true… no. You asked me to listen to explanations.[/quote]
This is a very different definition of faith than the one I use. Faith (as evidenced by the dictionary definition) is a belief in something in the absence of facts. Alternatively, as per definition 4:
Why are those explanations created for anomalies?
[forgive me, but you do ramble a bit. The gist is that it appears as though rationalization, rather than reason, is used to address new facts]They based the explanation on the fact that evolution is true, and evolution is considered true because no anomaly has ever been found that cannot be explained by it.
I see something far different. (Naturally.)
I see efficiency and pragmatism. Evolution has been successfully invoked to explain many different facts. This is one reason it is called a theory. The sheer number of different observations is staggering- Dobzhansky had a point. With that in mind, consider the alternatives. We could throw out the theory every time a new piece of evidence is submitted, and draw our conclusions from the available evidence as though for the first time each time. Guess how long that would take? A LONG TIME.
So we work with what we have: an established THEORY that has adequately incorporated all of the new information thrown at it. Any anomalous piece of information is very closely examined; to be the scientist who disproved evolution would get you into the history books for sure. And that wouldn't be difficult: as I said, a valid human fossil found in the Precambrian would put it down.
What you see as rationalization I see as pragmatism. Fitting information into what has been scientifically established as 'as close to true as we're willing to stretch our necks out for' is a reasonably safe paradigm. New information is fairly evaluated and related to other knowledge quickly.
I bet I can guess kinda what you are thinking: TJ is a hack. He’s an idiot. He just denied logic. Of COURSE the upheaval caused the anomaly, isn’t that obvious? You are probably writing me off as someone who is unable to comprehend the scientific method. I don’t blame you for reacting like that, but remember, I said from the beginning, I would reject 95% proof, with 5% believing the theory of evolution to start with. I am familiar with the method, but consider this: (and I hope the post hasn’t gotten too long for you to still be considering this)
(see how I can accuse you of close mindedness good naturedly (sp?) too? Fun!)
On this very forum, we have the example of Revan vs. Malak. Revan fights Malak aboard the Star Forge. Revan and Malak are a Jedi and Sith, respectively.Darth Revan has learned many different methods of lightsaber combat from the various Jedi masters. (that is canon I believe, disregard that sentence if I spoke incorrectly)???
At the end of their duel, both Revan and Malak have lit lightsabers. There is OVERWHELMING evidence that they fought a straight light-saber/force duel, like EVERY OTHER such confrontation in the history of star wars. However, since the actual fact that Revan beat Malak with a lightsaber is not stated by an omniscient source, and can’t be seen in actual cutscene footage, You and I, and almost every other senior member on this forum, rejects as canon the fact that they fought a lightsaber duel. Its unknown, its improvable. Very probably, but not established fact. Why do we reject this? This flies in the face of the same logic you are using to support evolution. We can easily create an explanation of the fight, that Revan and malak fought with sabers, and all the evidence supports it, but we reject it.I ask you, why?
We reject the idea that Revan and Malak fought a (traditional) lightsaber duel because the portion of the KotOR game during which it would be depicted is gameplay, that is to say, non-canon. We do not have conclusive evidence in favor or against the presumption of a lightsaber duel. Because of the nature of the game itself the fight could have gone any number of ways. It is subjective (each experience of the fight is different) and unknown.
And you want to equate this total lack of evidence, despite the two (?) canon cutscenes in which lightsabers are drawn, to the question of evolution. I must admit, it is a clever trick. In both cases we are left to wonder, is the implication valid? Or has the ostensibly easy question been answered too quickly?
The analogy fails, in my mind, for several reasons. We have no evidence about Revan (post mindwipe) engaging in any form of lightsaber duel whatsoever. (My 'Revan' kills people by shooting them in the face. Hard.) The gameplay caveat is far reaching and absolute: we cannot know anything about Revan's fighting at all. The same cannot be said about the processes of evolution. We see evolution occurring: bacteria develop new resistances, apparently Polar Bears diverged from Black Bears, and we have full family trees of fossils for horses and whales, to say nothing about archaeopteryx. Moreover, we see startling genetic similarities between creatures predicted to be taxonomically grouped. The structures of the bodies of the creatures themselves verify the predictions made by evolution.
Evolution has a case, which sets it apart from the Revan/Malak fight right out of the gate. That it is a great one puts the nail in the coffin for your analogy.
(enjoying this tremendously, keep it coming bro. Once again, I have no intention of changing your mind. None. I am merely presenting why I believe what I do.)
((Sorry if anything here is garbled or unclear, today was a hard day: we held the memorial service. This post is basically an excuse not to think anymore [about that, anyway], and I hope it doesn't show too obviously.))
From The God Delusion:
Let us, then, take the idea of a spectrum of prbabilities seriously, and place human judgements about the existence of God along it, between two extremes of opposite certainty. The spectrum is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven milestones along the way.
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100%. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated. It is in the nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang). Atheists do not have faith; [b]and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Hence category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number, category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count myself [Dawkins] in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of my garden.
-The God Delusion,
Richard Dawkins
...
Personally I would tend to fall between 5 and 6 (but closer to 6 than 5). On principle I'd like to be a 4 (because belief in something that may not exist and disbelief in something that may exist are equally silly cultural constructions) but I find it difficult to be so impartial. If forced to look at the evidence I land at 5.75.