The thing is, we should be (and we were) doing better.

That line from 1800 to now is not a straight line. It rises steadily up to about 1980, but then flattens out sharply. Over the last 30 years the average worker actually earns less than they would have over the previous 30 (adjusted for inflation).

The top end basically figured out they could demand a larger slice of the profits at the expense of the middle and lower classes. We've all seen the stats on ceo vs worker pay and the obscene differences (200+ times a workers salary). That money didn't just appear from nowhere.

Uniformitarianism as stated was proven false in the early 1800's

That is not correct:

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

"Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism."

The entry says exactly what I have been saying, which is that uniformitarian ideas are foundational to modern geology, excepting now because they have been unable to deny that there were catastrophes they have mixed in catastrophism.

You completely ignore the scientific method

When you stop ranting at me and form a cogent argument, maybe it will be possible to have a dialogue.

neither can fossilization

I guess this cowboy lived millions of years ago:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils-rapid-petrifaction.htm

and I love that your 'proof' video includes Uluru, the oldest large rock in the known world, which is proven by numerous differing methods to be well over 550 Million years old

Using logic, the point of demonstrating that you can find the same sediment all over the world would be to show that those dating methods are wrong. Yet, you cite the dating methods as a reason not to watch the video which has proof that they are faulty. Incredible.

so it goes unwatched.

It's simply the close-mindedness that you accuse me of that it goes unwatched.

Just fail dude.
I never claimed to be an expert in geology, just to have enough knowledge to understand the science involved, unlike you.
EDIT: but your millionaire uncles HAVE talked about money with you, right...so you understand, say, interest?
Uniformitarianism as stated was proven false in the early 1800's. Many factors are involved in the time frame for feature formations, they are not uniform.
Yes, you are consistently anti-science here. You completely ignore the scientific method when making obviously false claims like 'that proves it was caused by a giant flood'.
Oh dude, no where in your fairy tale book does it ever say the earth is 6000 years old, you've been duped by idiots with agendas. Give it up, even your religious 'leaders' have realized the insanity of that stance and the requirement to suspend reality for it to be correct. Try listening to them.
There is absolutely zero evidence for a 'world wide flood' unless you can create some out of thin air with your level of faith in ridiculousness. There is not a single whit of actual evidence, which would take the form of a single, homogeneous layer of sediment world wide at the same geologic age. Doesn't exist. Sorry, you're just plain wrong about what you claim.
The 'evidence' in this video is evidence that landslides happen fast, not that layered non-volcanic sediments can be put down in tens of thousands of distinct and differing layers in an instant, then massive erosion can happen also in an instant, as you claim it does. True enough, erosion can happen fast, but doesn't often, and sedimentary layering simply can't...neither can fossilization. (oops, forgot, the devil put those stone bones there to fool me...but since I AM the devil, I'm not fooled)
Your claim that there is a homogeneous sediment layer all over the world is a complete fabrication. It does not exist. If it did, that would be HUGE scientific discovery heard on every network and science program for years to come, not one only heard about in church and/or afterwards in the lobby.
Once again...fail....as I suspect you did in your science classes.

EDIT:...and I love that your 'proof' video includes Uluru, the oldest large rock in the known world, which is proven by numerous differing methods to be well over 550 Million years old (that's how long ago it was rotated, it existed well before then) I guess the devil/gawd made that too, in order to confuse scientists? I'm not going to watch more time wasting ridiculous unscientific propaganda by the scientifically challenged, so it goes unwatched.
and good job with the cut and paste in order to quote me and answer me without me noticing,...sorry, didn't work.
SECOND EDIT: Do you not notice that on one side you claim uniformitarianism is wrong, but you also insist it's held as a major tenant of modern geology? If it's that obvious to you, an admitted lay person, don't you think it might be more obvious to professionals?

Only those still believing in 'uniformitarianism' think landslides took thousands or millions of years to 'form'...most people stopped believing in that theory in the early 1800's.
There is NO evidence of a world wide flood. NONE WHATSOEVER. Either show exactly where the (as yet undiscovered) layer of homogeneous sediment is in the strata world wide or stop lying. You can't, because it didn't happen.
Your (intentional?) lack of understanding of geology and it's processes, and science and it's theories do not make them wrong.

I can claim to know far more than you seem to because I went to college and graduated with a degree in science, have a NASA geologist uncle, and read numerous scientific publications monthly, and because I didn't get my science training from Wikipedia, the worst place to try to learn something because it can be changed by those with an agenda and no knowledge.

Uniformitarianism as described is NOT the cornerstone of geology, that's ridiculous. Geologic forces are not uniform...erosion, for one, happens at it's own rate each time depending on uncountable factors. Differing geologic forces act in concert on differing geologic features to change the rate at which features are made/changed. That means that there is NO uniformitarianism as described...except to a quite small extent in the lab where ALL other things are equal. That's probably why they never mentioned it in any of the numerous geology classes I took, nor from my uncle, nor in Science, nat. geo., Scientific American, etc..
I imagine you know about it because you have been told it can be used as a tool to try to debunk geology, and as an anti-science guy you grabbed onto it without understanding.
Once again, there are certain processes that happen at certain rates, like the decay of radioactive materials down to their bases, usually lead. That is not the same as saying all features are created at the same rate, which you suggest uniformitarianism claims. EDIT: apparently that IS what uniformitarianism claims, and why it was discarded as a hypothesis in the early 1800's, it was wrong in it's basic assumptions.
None of it has a thing to do with a landslide, which is what the video describes. Not a whit.
I would guess you believe the earth is about 6000 years old, right?

EDIT: I hope I can be forgiven for not knowing every discredited theory from the late 1700's.

I dunno... Malthus was predicting doom and gloom about population growth back in the 1800s but the "Malthusian catastrophe" never came to pass thanks to technology. Technological advancement allowed us to farm better foods more efficiently and to farm areas that were previously inaccessible.

I figure the same process will continue into the future, except it won't be incidental (as it was in Malthus's time) but a deliberate, concerted effort on the part of humanity to be more efficient with our energy and food production while reducing the impacts of our waste... pretty much exactly what Colonel Sanders David Suzuki is saying here.

tl:dr

Science will save us, not family planning.

i did some mural work years ago and they paid me some cash and a modified 77 280Z.

and when i say modified,i mean MODIFIED.
brand new straight 6 with a cam,1800 stall converter and porsche transmission and linkage.

it looked very similar to the 240 in this video.
was a total rust bucket.
the suspension was toast and the u-joints were all bad.
no muffler....just a straight pipe ..yeah..that baby was LOUD.
chug chug CHUG chug chug....
didnt even have a key for the ignition,started it with a screwdriver.

but holy hell could it move on a straight away.
mustang GT's were my favorite to embarrass.
i would stay with em till they hit 4th gear (round 50 mph) and i would hit second,chirp the tires and wave...buh bye....

man,now that i think about it...
how am i still alive?
damn car was a death trap.

@kevingrr

while i will concede that the language used is inflammatory..is it really that much of a stretch?

do you get paid hourly?weekly?monthy?
were you aware that in the late 1800's the citizens of america viewed wage labor as being little better than slavery?

i forgot who stated "no man is more enslaved than the man who believes himself to be free"

so while i do agree that this video is making assertions but they are not exactly unfounded.
in fact i would submit,hyperbolic language aside,those assertions have some merit.

maybe you are just uncomfortable with the assertions?

*promote

*isdupe
suckme siftbot

Who is the Denis Nicholson that upped this on youtube? 1200 upped vids and 1800 views.. a retarted person or something? just copying?

Night photo of scene, Yellow Tarp is covering Trayvon's body.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/gallery/trayvon-martin-crime-scene-photos/slide_305143_2617618
_free.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mediaite.com/online/trayvon-martin-crime-scene-pictures-shown-to-jury-graphic-photos/&h=399&w=600&sz=78&tbnid=gTA2MCebV
ELF2M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&zoom=1&usg=__A7K2FL0q-9QTbs1LWEQMyT24-bk=&docid=lg7SLr3w8FMIgM&sa=X&ei=Mc_kUc3fHrKl4AP13YHACA&ved=0CDAQ9QEwAQ&dur=248


Daytime photo of scene:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://transferstation.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/spot-of-shooting.jpg&imgrefurl=http://marinadedave.com/journal/
2012/3/22/the-tragedy-of-trayvon-martin.html&h=1350&w=1800&sz=2038&tbnid=m1IKo5J0-675KM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=125&zoom=1&usg=__9IeX8ZPcjYhuuxVgrG-pvk6zszI=&do
cid=Qi5fmgt8p5KwWM&sa=X&ei=Mc_kUc3fHrKl4AP13YHACA&ved=0CE0Q9QEwCg&dur=16

So, not hedges blocking view on sides, but fences and building facades. Small trees to some degree blocking view. Generally and unlit walkway/footpath/alley overall.

As for definition of Alley: An alley or alleyway is a narrow lane found in urban areas, often for pedestrians only, which usually runs between or behind buildings

So I guess you can argue how narrow it has to be to be "narrow" and how "urban" this area is. The buildings aren't sky scrapers, but they rival the height of some of the buildings in the wiki pictures.

I'll take a few extra cookies for doing the looking up you could have done.

Woah, the girl in the BMW 1800 @ 0:26 was definatly not ok after that. And what about that Beetle convertible @ 2:26? Somebody please whop that driver's ass.

Also, it's quite amazing to see how stable the 914 was, compared to the 911s and that Capri(?) @ 3:14.

Lol, only the first 20 seconds discusses 1800s politics. The rest of the video is about the new establishment of slavery created by a welfare state, created to control the people. Classic libtard ad hominem tactics to distract from the actual topic. Also, Eisenhower isn't exactly ancient history.

You didn't read the southern strategy article did you.

The Republican Party of Lincoln's time...does...not...exist anymore. Neither does the Democrat party of Lincoln's time.

Yet you're still attempting to make a value judgement on R's vs D's of today based on what happened in the 1800s.

Dishonest much?

what a profoundly sad thread this has become.

i am not referring to the most excellent posts by @Chairman_woo and his discourse with @shinyblurry.

no.

it is the ignore function use i am talking about.
what an intellectually weak and vapid excuse to not engage with those who you may disagree with or (gasp) not actually like.

are your tender sensibilities so fragile as to not survive scrutiny of one who may disagree? or is it the manner in which they disagree?
is THAT the measure of how you judge anothers ideas?
words?
and you find this to be a valid reason?
this makes sense in your world?

well allow me to point out that without the dissenting voice challenging your preconceptions and only allowing those that parrot the same homogenized,pastuerized vanilla-same cloned vomit will only serve to create a stagnant pond of lifeless banality.

but as long as you are safe in your little bubble world in which you are always right and the circle-jerk perpetuates a lackluster and flaccid worldview.then thats ok right? as long as the echo chamber reflects how RIGHT you are.

@chingalera offends you?
good! because maybe you needed to be offended.

@VoodooV we have to apologize to @bareboards2 for derailing her thread?
no we fucking dont.
human discourse is by its very nature an ugly evolving creature.so get over yourself.love your commentary,hate your high horse..so get the fuck off it.

@bareboards2 is a very nice and sweet woman,and sometimes can be sensitive but she is a big girl and i dont think we will find her weeping in a dark,curtains drawn room.in fact i am willing to bet she loves the fact her video got such a great discussion going.so who are you to judge? or tell us what we should or should not do for that matter?

this brings me all back to my main point.
the sift used to have a vibrant community that discussed,argued and debated.the arguments were legendary and we still see old skool sifters refer to these people with fondness,even if they disagreed with them vehemently.
they were passionate and had something to say.
the list reads like a funeral march to those great voices who have passed and no longer engage in the sift:@MINK,@rougy,@choggie,@thinker247,@joedirt

what do we have now?
bunch of panty waist pussies who will only jump on the band wagon because other people join in the carnage.jumping on @BoBknight,@shinyblurry,@Lantern.
its like a bully convention with free crystal meth.
these folks might as well be black living in mississippi in the 1800's.
look! a chrsitan fundamentalist!
a conservative right winger!
lets lynch em......

and those tired pussies dont even have the courage to choke on their own hypocrisy.
wont even acknowledge that those in the minority have some serious balls to post comments on a secular left site.
this hasnt become a self-masturbatory thread.
its one big circle jerk.

so to those old skool peeps that i know still lurk here on the sift.
please come back.
for the love of god come back.
because these pussies are to busy sucking each others dicks.

im going to get some fresh air because you fuckers have sucked all the vibrance out of the air and left it stale with your own hubris.

and for the love of christ.get the fuck over yourself.

Actually, that's exactly what I say, and average modern human morality is considerably superior to the filth that the biblical God advocates.

The moral standard of western civilization is founded upon judeo-christian beliefs. Read:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595555455/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366921071&sr=8-1&keywords=book+that+made+your+world

Following the morality the biblical God advocates is the hardest thing you will ever do. The standard of today is a superficial, politically correct morality where you pretend to be nice to people but curse them when they aren't around. God requires a transformation on the inside where you have genuine love for your fellow man.

I am only saying that they are wrong by todays generally agreed upon moral standards. Some of these moral standards are extremely effective and have been around since very early human communities, so they only have the illusion of being absolute due to high adherence rate.

Are you saying nigh universal adherence to certain moral standards isn't evidence for an absolute standard of morality?

Murder, theft, oppression and incest are three fairly obvious examples. The evolutionarily advantageous trait of society building tends to list it's effectiveness when such things are widespread. But we have a very long human tradition of sanctioning and celebrating murder and theft as long as it occurs well outside our cohort. Killing other tribes is celebrated in the bible, as is stealing their possessions. Ethically justified slavery took another 4000 years to mostly get rid of, and hell, it was common practice to fuck your fifteen year old cousin all the way up to about the late 1800s here in the good old US of A as long as it was under the marital auspices of the church, of course.

Yep, but thank God that his just definition of morality - if we didn't have god's guidance through scripture, we'd probably do crazy shit!

You don't understand what God was doing in the Old Testament, or why He did it the way He did. It is morally consistent with His goodness and holiness, and there are logical reasons for why this is so. So far you are not interested in hearing them or discussing them. When you are let me know. In the end you don't have any excuse for suppressing the truth about Jesus, no matter what you think about how God acted in the Old Testament.

Using the word 'absolute' is a concession to brevity, but nice try - seriously dude, this is laughable and it wouldn't even stand up in Jr. High debate - absolutes do exist, they just need to be well justified, and yes if you want to be nitpicky about it there is an ever so remote chance that 1+1 is not equal to two in some distant corner of the universe. But as humans with an admittedly limited scope of understanding, we have to accept that level of certainty. If you want to relegate your theory to claiming its space somewhere in the possibility that we might be wrong about the whole 2+2=4 thing, go right on ahead.

There, that's what I meant by absolute. happy?

Basically, what you're saying is that because 2+2 probably equals four everywhere in the Universe, you are free to make absolute statements about morality? The fact is that your belief system leaves you with no justification for any absolute statement what so ever. Why should 2 + 2 always equal 4 in the first place? Can you tell me why the laws of physics should work in the same way 5 seconds from now without using circular reasoning?

Can you justify any piece of knowledge without God? If you can then tell me one thing you know and how you know it. Could you be wrong about everything you know?

Well then thanks for the offer, but I think I'll pass in the whole god based morality thing. I prefer to have a really good reason to never slaughter innocent kids. But thanks for finally answering my question: there has been a good reason to butcher a toddler after all! Praise The Lord, for he is good!

It comes back to the same question: As the giver of life, and the adjudicator of His Creation, is it wrong for God to take life?

And here's another interesting brain tickler. If everything god commands is right, and god has a track record of testing his faithful with their willingness to commit infanticide, how can you say that this lady isn't moral?

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-08-17/news/0108170166_1_baby-s-death-baby-s-father-documents

The scripture is finished and anything which contradicts it is not of God.

Wrong, I know that things are wrong because humans and cultures have a long history of interacting with reality, and certain strategies have been more successful than others. You haven't spent one iota of your time discrediting this notion, whereas I have given you plenty of examples crediting mine and discrediting yours.

What I am supposed to be discrediting? You're asking me to nail jello to a wall. You have not even defined what "successful" is supposed to mean beyond pure survival. In that case, every civilization has been successful. Tell me what your definition of success is supposed to be.

For the millionth time, I have no hopes of convincing you of anything - you'll defend your stance against literally any proof. But you seem to come here on the sift with the intent of demonstrating to others that there is some logical basis for your beliefs.

What proof? The foundation of atheism stands upon the shifting sands of relative truth. You, the atheist, ultimately make yourself the measure of all truth. Because of that, you can't tell me a single fact about the world that you can justify.

Well you're failing miserably, mainly because you are only capable of restating the following sentence as if it is an agreed upon truth:

"Not only is the entire concept logically contradictory, but it doesn't match our experience, which is that some things are absolutely wrong. "

I don't expect you to have any good support for that, but the audience out there just waiting to be convinced, they will need at least something.

Torturing babies for fun; not absolutely wrong?

I'm still waiting for you to give Stalin some kind, any kind of argument as to why he should adopt your morality and abandon his own. If you can't tell Stalin why he is wrong, then you have no hope of escaping the charge of incoherency.