In the first seconds there was a logo with the name of the show, quick web search gave the following.

http://www.foxnews.com/redeye/

Looks like the same smirking chump to me. Sorry.

>> ^2pornot2p:
btw. Anyone else suspicious that the FOX logo is off screen, over black bars? I don't recognize any of these idiots (that doesn't mean they aren't for real), and this looks like a parody with all this over the top crap and trash talking (although, not so much for FOX). I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this is a sketch and not a real broadcast. Please make it be fake.

Thank you, the feeling is mutual. I've been working my way through your collection as I get a chance since I came back for this visit, you have a LOT of great stuff there. I'm not into the art as much as you but the history, science, and so on is great. It's the collection I'd hope I'd have built if I was more active here. But watching them is good too

In reply to this comment by mauz15:
Loving your science videos. Thanks for posting them.

Thanks for the promote, kronosposeidon

I used to think the same way to a point, Sketch, but I ran into one slight problem with the idea. There isn't a way in the world that I see to make it anything other than a fantasy. If it won't work then it's not a good idea and it's probably a waste of time and source of inevitable conflicts to pursue.

Best I can tell every culture, no matter how widely separated by geography or time, has had their own creation stories, myths of a superior being or beings, and so on. It doesn't seem to be anything we need to teach each other but a natural human response to the unknown, a way to explain the unexplainable. And it doesn't apply just to religion, Hell, look at those poor people on the other side who think they can use science to disprove God. You can't prove a negative. Not with God, you can't prove there were never unicorns, you can't prove we don't have that legendary flying teapot in orbit up there, not that the FSM didn't do it all. We can say we have no reason to believe it ourselves but we can't prove it. Lots of self titled "atheists" think they can though and is there really any difference in their misplaced faith and the other? Sure, one more damaging if used badly, but both latched onto faith even if only one of them realized it.

Get rid of religion before we're ready for it and what do we have? A culture that still needs to explain the unexplainable and that will latch into anything else that provides it. Politics, Scientology or some new morph of the type, nationalism, etc. Even a misplaced understanding of what science means for some. Wouldn't there be a great risk of trading one cult for another?

Maybe one day we'll evolve past that need but as far as I can tell the need for faith is a part of the species, stronger in some than in others and not there at all for me in this sense at least but it's hard to deny that it seems to be there for some. We aren't going to get rid of it, we just need to redirect it where it's damaging.

Fair enough, we're just approaching it from different angles. The religious debate isn't something that I normally enjoy or do but a few weeks ago I ran across a couple of decent kids who had their heads filled with lies from one of these groups. Pissed me off that they did that to them so I'm approaching it from that angle and I'd think that's more or less what AronRa intended as well. At least that's the way I took it. Maybe it could have been said better though.

It still isn't a debate I plan on doing, I'm mostly interested in defending science from them. The religious aspect is incidental to the lies.

The idea that the info would be useless to the public might be a decent average but they do have some use. I have. I don't trust the press to report accurately, they tend to report first indications of potential problems as some sort of proofs of things the researchers never claimed and such like that. I want to at least see the abstract, but I'd rather see the report itself. I've seen inaccuracies of the sort in everything from the marijuana debate to global warming, the press on average doesn't know science any better than I do and I'd think on average they are worse. Or dishonest, take your pick.

Same neighborhood a lot of you are in, and I was surprised the first time I took the test too. Not exactly what I saw myself as at the time. That was a few years ago.

Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

Hate to say it but this is a dupe

http://www.videosift.com/video/Cop-Jumps-Into-Speeding-Car-Hollywood-Style

Ok, I'll toss it a vote. Not because I think it's worth sifting but because I see a few names in the "voted for" box that I have some respect or affection for and if they think it's worth the debate, then WTF. Maybe it is. Even if it's just to have others say pretty much the same things as has already been said.

Personally I don't want Alex on my side of any debate. I can't think of a better way to make a decent point look weak than to push it as being stronger than it really is and having people find you overstated it. It should be at least as bad as you told them it was, maybe worse. When they find it's less than they were told the natural reaction seems to be to write it off as nothing even if there might have been a little something underneath.

I like the way jonny put it above. Rather than attack religion I've always thought we'd be better off pushing for more logic and critical thinking skills in school. For the parts we can't explain one guess is as good as another and if their guess offers them comfort in some way that isn't damaging or that even leads to charity then I don't see the harm, even if I don't share the belief. The threat comes from a different level and personally I don't think it's faith to those who are leading the movement. How could they possibly have any real faith and still be so comfortable with constant violations of their own 9th Commandment? As far as I can tell the extreme stuff is a movement lead by con artists and taking advantage of the good will and trust of the poorly educated, done for financial profit and power.

cindercone, please don't do that. Wave me at others as if they are supposed to be like me. If I'd been in the debate longer and had said all I wanted to say I might have said so and left too, it's not a big deal and I'd rather not be used like that. Ok?

My assumption isn't that we'd be better off with an "atheist" society, though we would be better off with one that accepts reality when it kicks them in the teeth. Past that from what I've read there is some indication of a biological inclination toward faith. If that's the case we won't have any more luck teaching them not to believe than they've had telling others not to be gay. That's just who they are. What we can do is to teach them the difference between faith and proof, that the way they want to run their life is their choice but they can't expect their moral or other sensitivities to run our lives too. If we can just settle it down to a private and non-damaging form of belief instead of the conflicts we see today my interest ends there.

I think we're just reading it a little different. Yes, con-creationist Christians, just like non-creationists of any other stripe, know that those stories aren't real. Those aren't the people this video is about. I'll refer you again to the description of the video segment itself. That's the context the arguments are to be taken in. There are some 15 segments in all, way too many to have listed the descriptions here, each cover a different aspect of the debate. This one was "My personal rant against one of foremost falsehoods of the creationism movement; the idea that accepting evolution is tantamount to declaring atheism, or that one need be creationist to be Christian".

The only ones it's intended to confront are those of any stripe who do believe it. The rest is to be taken in that context.

Personally I don't see any interpretation of Genesis that could be considered "scientific". Scientific examinations of what little evidence there is sure, a city was there or something, or an old script found, but how in the world would you go about testing it past the simple geography stuff? The following page describes the scientific method. To me if it can't pass that test then it's a hypothesis at best, and probably not even that in most cases. Confusing that with science is part of what I'd like to see end. http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

When I first ran across this stuff I tended to take it the same way that you seem to but that was a mistaken impression. There are committed Christians such as djarm67 who I linked above who are just as pissed about this stuff as I am and actually more involved than I've ever been, for many of the same reasons that I care. It's a scam that's hurting all of us. Visit his page and read his description of who he is and such. The religion aside that's how a lot of us approach the issue, even if it might not seem like it at first for those who are used to a different debate.

Peace

I almost put it there but when I hovered over it I noticed the "human" part added, the channel description didn't help and we're a long way from human sexuality in the video though it leads to it eventually. I figured it could go either way and you all might have had this debate already so I'd just let you figure it out

>> ^NeuralNoise:
Now, did you guys really sat through the almost two hours of this video?

This one, no. Three or so of his past ones, yes. I wasn't commenting on this video so much as on the debate about him in general but I have offered him hours in the past to base it on. I'll use the 9-11 bit as an example.

Best I can tell we should have had a fairly clear case of negligence. Not for not predicting it, but for stripping the nation of air cover in a planned exercise that was announced for everyone and their brother and an attack happened on the same day. We were striped so thoroughly of air cover that Andrews right next to DC couldn't put up effective cover even with plenty of warning. That should have been worth careers in itself I'd think but then there was a cover-up of responsibility and multiple roadblocks in the investigation. That one might have been criminal. If any of the other nonsense anyone suspected was there maybe it would have come out in any investigation but there never was and probably never will be one because the whole issue was turned into a joke.

I doubt Alex has as much proof of anything as he generally thinks he does and in the cases where he might have a point his tactics of shouting proof every time he's got a question just makes sure nobody is going to listen. If he's got anything my best advice for him would be to pass it on to someone better spoken and to stay out of it from there.

It's certainly a bull breed, hard to tell from that angle if it's pit or not. They are beautiful animals though. I used to have a mixed Pit/Australian Cattle Dog (not Shepherd) that we picked up as a nearly grown rescue. She had been abused and still adapted to people great once she got over the fear that we might be like them. I'd have another in a second, wouldn't hesitate a bit.

Never heard them called burpies and we didn't throw the hands up but when I was at a place in Texas as a kid we called them squat thrusts. Other than tossing the hands up it looks pretty much the same to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squat_thrust