Your video, The Mandalorian | Season 3 Teaser Trailer | Disney+, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 307 Badge!

Your video, True Facts: The Beaver, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 307 Badge!

Congratulations! Your video, Harvard Rejection Letter, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 307 Badge!

Congratulations! Your video, Icy, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 307 Badge!

Your video, Big bird, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 307 Badge!

Congratulations! Your dedication to keeping VideoSift clear of baddies has earned you your "Ban Police" Level 307 Badge!

*length=307

>> ^messenger:
So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?

Read it again. Nobody claimed to have a superior intellect to anyone else. The contrast is between using our intellect and not using it. As Galileo famously put it, "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Now, he was talking from the perspective of a person of faith who simply didn't believe the bible or church teachings anymore but certainly did still believe in God. We are speaking as people with sense, reason and intellect who don't see sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that God might reasonably exist.

It's the entire contention that someone who believes in God is not using their sense, reason and intellect that is prideful. Did you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? Some extremely intelligent people believe in a Creator, and they can back up their beliefs with logical evidence. You see theists through a grossly distorted lens created by your own prejudice, and it blinds you. Galileo, by the way, did believe the bible; what he didn't buy is the catholic interpretation of it, and rightly so.

>> ^messenger:
Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

The lack of evidence for existence is a non-concrete kind of evidence for the lack of existence. So the overwhelming lack of evidence for God is a bloody strong case. Everywhere we look in nature, we continue not to find God.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Although I think there is evidence, such as fine tuning and information in DNA. In any case, do you honestly believe you can point an instrument at God and say "there he is!". Is this idea not fundamentally ridiculous? I think what youre confusing is mechanism with agency. You think because you describe a mechanism, how something works in a mechanical sense, somehow it rules out an Agent. God says He upholds the entire Universe; that He is the one that keeps the atoms from flying apart. How does mechanism rule out Gods agency?

Not only that, but if God created the Universe, do you realize that the entire Universe is evidence of Gods existence? The question I would put to you is, how would you tell the difference? How would you know you're looking at a Universe God didn't create? What would you expect that to look like?

What about the laws of logic? Where do they come from? If they're only in our brains, subject to constant flux, then what is rationality? It isn't anything you can trust if what you believe is true. Therefore all of your arguments fall apart. You have nothing in your worldview that can explain it, yet I can explain it. I know there is an omnipotent God who made us in His image, and we are rational beings because He is a rational being.

>> ^messenger:
Please, stop talking about science. You really do not understand it. You sound like a religious sceptic spouting crap about the bible. Really, what you say about science is just non-verified faither talking points. All science is based only on observation and drawing generalized inferences from that. "Theories" are just that. The strength of a scientific theory is roughly [how well it predicts other things] ÷ [how many things you have to just accept]. The belief in a particular atomic structure for oxygen has many predictions, which are testable and have largely been shown reliably true. So the atomic structure of an oxygen atom is a generally accepted theory, even though we will never be able to sense it directly. It's scientific. On those same grounds, the theory of evolution is also a strong theory in science. It has very few conjectures (three simple ones, I believe I heard Dawkins once say), it generates predictions, the predictions are testable, and they affirm the theory. Saying that evolution is untestable is as ridiculous as saying we haven't investigated every oxygen atom, so the model of the atom is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

If you understood it better than I do then you would know what macro evolution is. The scientific method uses empirical evidence, which comes from empirical experimentation or observation. There is no experiment to prove macro evolution, nor can it be empirically observed. It is simply an unjustified extrapolation from micro evolution (which is proven beyond a reasonable doubt), and based on nothing but inferences from *circumstantial* evidence and not evidence based on empirical observation.

Many people have this conception that the theory of common descent is as certain and proven as 2 + 2 = 4, or as Sepacore put it:

"once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions"

That is certainly how it is taught in schools, as absolute fact, and that's why I believed it too. It's when you stop looking at their conclusions and see the actual data they base them on that you will get the shock of your life. Yes, you're right, the theory makes a few predictions, all of which have turned out to be wrong..such as this:

The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Darwin

Darwin predicted that for his theory to be true, there must be innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record. What have we found?:


"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .., prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's prediction. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, pg 45-46.

What we find is that creatures appear in stasis, and enter and leave the fossil record abruptly with no changes.

Another prediction is a start from simple to complex, with an increase of diversity of the phyla over a long period of time.

"Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer."
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1st edition, pg 307.

What we find is that all of the phyla we have today all abruptly appeared in the "cambrian explosion"

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs ... "
S. Gould, The Panda's Thumb, pg 238, 239.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for how poor a theory macroevolution actually is, but you won't have a shortage of true believers in it, even though they don't even understand what evidence it is based on. I do know something about science, and although I am a layman, I am perfectly capable of understanding of what makes a sound theory, and what doesn't. I would believe in macroevolution if the evidence supported it. Not only does it not support it, but it actually argues against it. It is shocking to someone who has been indoctrinated (like I was), but if you want to talk about fairy stories, macroevolution is a whale of a tale.

>> ^aurens:

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:

1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."
If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)

2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."
Too absurd to even address.

3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."
You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.

4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."
Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.



Of course the post is highly speculative: It says that RP gets elected. I thought this would be obvious.

1. The question would be: What would happen if Antitrust-laws exist no more at all, not: Are Anti-trust laws at the moment used fairly?


2. Either you adress it or you don't. It is not absurd. Tell me why it would be.


3. Again, the inferred question is not: Does it work now?; the question at hand is: What would happen if the farm subsidies in a first-world-country would fall away? Would farming become too unprofittable and only be used for subsistence; importing cheaper food from outside the US? Or would it become profittable again by increasing the price of food immensely, cutting heavily into the income of poorer people?


4. That text says on the first page (paraphrased): "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance. Give me a serious unbiased text on this, and I'll read it. I really will. But to dismiss at least 40% of the uninsured right out of hand is highly irresponisble and assholish.

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:


1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."

If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)


2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."

Too absurd to even address.


3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."

You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.


4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."

Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Sarah Palin is hacking our site.
@<a rel="nofollow" linkindex="306" href="http://dag.videosift.com" title="member since February 16th, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 136, 0);">dag and @<a rel="nofollow" linkindex="307" href="http://lucky760.videosift.com" title="member since May 2nd, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 68, 255);">lucky760 might want to know about this.
weird http://www.google.com/#q=%22www.nigger+videos%22&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1440&bih=662&prmd=i
vns&ei=F5guTbPqGIaBlAext72ICw&start=0&sa=N&fp=770787e3cafede9e


That seems pretty damning! Surprised there isn't more urgency to look at this.

Automatically replaced video embed code with backup #307 (supplied by member Raaagh) - video declared dead by member EDD.

I was being facetious, however I disagree that the questioner "implied" that the money was being handed over willy nilly... he directly and repeatedly asked her (presumably a person who would know) whether the bloomberg article (which he described) was indeed accurate, that money was being handed over with poor oversight and documentation.

Call me cynical, but I doubt the woman was ignorant that she was being called there that day to discuss this subject; it appears to me that she is simply answering questions that she would prefer to answer and forcing the gentleman to burn through his time.


>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^bamdrew:
Hey, I'll take a trillion $ if we're just passing that kind of cash out.
Hell, I'd take the $29,315.96 that I'm apparently lending out ($9,000,000,000,000 / 307,000,000 people).


I certainly understand the confusion though, as the questioner implied with every question that the money was just being handed over willy nilly...

>> ^bamdrew:

Hey, I'll take a trillion $ if we're just passing that kind of cash out.
Hell, I'd take the $29,315.96 that I'm apparently lending out ($9,000,000,000,000 / 307,000,000 people).

The ending is kind of funny... 'mr. chairman I am shocked... I apologize that my shocked voice sounds like my normal, tired voice, just trust me that I'm very shocked.'


For the record, the fed doesn't just hand out the money it prints. It operates like a typical bank and any money it gives out is handled like a normal loan. If a bank comes to the fed and wants a trillion dollars they don't just automatically get it. They need to convince the fed they are good for such a large loan, generally requiring them to put up their own assets as collateral. From there they STILL are not just handed the money, they are granted a loan for that amount. And the fed will be charging the bank interest on that loan until it pays it back.

I certainly understand the confusion though, as the questioner implied with every question that the money was just being handed over willy nilly and the fed rep just ignored that bent and tried to make sense of the question and how it would relate to what the fed really does. You can tell by her confused expression and pathetic answers that it was the wrong course. Leaving us watching a question and answer session where neither of the participants seems to realize the problem is neither of them are talking about the same thing.

Hey, I'll take a trillion $ if we're just passing that kind of cash out.

Hell, I'd take the $29,315.96 that I'm apparently lending out ($9,000,000,000,000 / 307,000,000 people).


The ending is kind of funny... 'mr. chairman I am shocked... I apologize that my shocked voice sounds like my normal, tired voice, just trust me that I'm very shocked.'