Man! I grew up playing with troll dolls. This is like watching someone attack my childhood!

(My best friend Sandy and I would play Man from U.N.C.L.E with our troll dolls. The troll with the best hair was always Ilya Kuriyakin. Even at 10, we had a crush on him.)

I said that God doesn’t exist? Oh yeah? Where exactly did I say that? The last time I checked, saying that I reject an idea isn’t the same as saying that the idea isn’t true. Get your facts straight.

Saying “god did it” doesn’t answer anything. It doesn’t answer any question about mechanism and until someone can come up with a testable model of how god interacts with the universe which we can then make accurate predictions with, it’s a useless and meaningless statement. It doesn’t help us expand the frontiers of our understanding of reality.

The fact of the matter is that it is you who is fundamentally uneducated in everything that you mentioned and that is made obvious by your inability to form your own arguments; you’re just cherry picking quotes that support you’re cognitive bias.

I love it when people like you pull out the second law of thermodynamics card because I know that you can’t name or explain the rest of the laws of thermodynamics without copy and pasting them from Google search. Life isn’t a closed system and the second law of thermodynamics only deals with closed systems. The 2nd law has nothing to do with anything biology or the existence of complex organisms, get your facts straight. If you had any respect for truth, you wouldn’t be making so many entirely misinformed and uneducated statements.

Because I know that none of this is actually going to matter to you, go ahead and enlighten us with more of your church-pamphlet science.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Do you know what "the burden of proof" means?
Yes, and you said that God doesn't exist. You have your own burden of proof.
I realize that you're a christian so I've decided to keep this a bit short for the sake of simply providing you with a potentially new view that isn't your own. You may reject it but hopefully you will at least understand how someone else might think about this topic.
I grew up without any religion and was previously agnostic, so I understand both sides of the argument. I used to have many of the same objections that you and others have raised against the existence of God.
One reason that I reject the notion of designer deities is because the question becomes infinitely regress-able; it explains nothing, it helps clarify nothing, and it opens up more questions than it answers. The notion of a designer god begs the question, who or what designed the designer, then that designers designer, and most importantly, how do these gods operate, by what laws?
The answer is that no one designed God. He is an eternal being and has always existed. A created god isn't really a God. God is the one whom no one else created.
This is actually a problem for your side of the fence, unless you believe that something came from nothing, which would be worse than magic. Since the Universe has a beginning there must either be an eternal first cause or else you are left with an infinite regress of causes.
Suggesting that a creator exists because something doesn't make sense to you isn't a valid way of forming believes if your goal is truth.
I don't believe in God because the world doesn't make sense to me. I believe in God because the evidence points to His existence.
The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science.
Actually, to believe that systems become more ordered over time is a fundemental misunderstanding of scientific laws, specifically the second law of thermodynamics. Sir Arthur Eddington says
"...if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.", p.74 Nature of the Physical World.
The second law states that systems become more disordered over time and there is no known exception to this rule. Everything is breaking down and becoming more disorganized. Evolutionary theory claims the opposite, that systems are getting more complex and highly organized over time. This clearly violates the 2nd law, which is why Ilya Prigogin said this:
LIFE WON'T "FORM" Ilya Prigogin (Nobel Laureate) "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred." Physics Today, Vol.25, p.28.
True, we do have gaps in our knowledge about systems and mechanism but those gaps should remain gaps instead of prematurely filling them with god fluff. But, you are a believer, and believers do not make critical thinkers.
Again, God is a better explanation according to the evidence, such as the information in DNA, the fine tuning in the universe, and the appearance of design in biological systems. It is not a gap theory, it is a better theory.
I just hope that you come to understand that the answer "A creator did it" isn't an intellectually honest way of thinking.
There is nothing intellectually dishonest in believe that God created the Universe. Did you know that nearly half of biologists, mathematicians and physicists believe in a personal God? To dismiss the possibility is what is intellectually dishonest.
>> ^IAmTheBlurr

Do you know what "the burden of proof" means?

Yes, and you said that God doesn't exist. You have your own burden of proof.

I realize that you're a christian so I've decided to keep this a bit short for the sake of simply providing you with a potentially new view that isn't your own. You may reject it but hopefully you will at least understand how someone else might think about this topic.

I grew up without any religion and was previously agnostic, so I understand both sides of the argument. I used to have many of the same objections that you and others have raised against the existence of God.

One reason that I reject the notion of designer deities is because the question becomes infinitely regress-able; it explains nothing, it helps clarify nothing, and it opens up more questions than it answers. The notion of a designer god begs the question, who or what designed the designer, then that designers designer, and most importantly, how do these gods operate, by what laws?

The answer is that no one designed God. He is an eternal being and has always existed. A created god isn't really a God. God is the one whom no one else created.

This is actually a problem for your side of the fence, unless you believe that something came from nothing, which would be worse than magic. Since the Universe has a beginning there must either be an eternal first cause or else you are left with an infinite regress of causes.

Suggesting that a creator exists because something doesn't make sense to you isn't a valid way of forming believes if your goal is truth.

I don't believe in God because the world doesn't make sense to me. I believe in God because the evidence points to His existence.

The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science.

Actually, to believe that systems become more ordered over time is a fundemental misunderstanding of scientific laws, specifically the second law of thermodynamics. Sir Arthur Eddington says

"...if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.", p.74 Nature of the Physical World.

The second law states that systems become more disordered over time and there is no known exception to this rule. Everything is breaking down and becoming more disorganized. Evolutionary theory claims the opposite, that systems are getting more complex and highly organized over time. This clearly violates the 2nd law, which is why Ilya Prigogin said this:

LIFE WON'T "FORM" Ilya Prigogin (Nobel Laureate) "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred." Physics Today, Vol.25, p.28.

True, we do have gaps in our knowledge about systems and mechanism but those gaps should remain gaps instead of prematurely filling them with god fluff. But, you are a believer, and believers do not make critical thinkers.

Again, God is a better explanation according to the evidence, such as the information in DNA, the fine tuning in the universe, and the appearance of design in biological systems. It is not a gap theory, it is a better theory.

I just hope that you come to understand that the answer "A creator did it" isn't an intellectually honest way of thinking.

There is nothing intellectually dishonest in believe that God created the Universe. Did you know that nearly half of biologists, mathematicians and physicists believe in a personal God? To dismiss the possibility is what is intellectually dishonest.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr

To me punk hasn't broken new ground since Refused's Shape of Punk to Come, but that's really post-hardcore more than punk

Music breaking new ground in genres huh? Try:

Pure Reason Revolution - The Dark Third
Mutyumu - Ilya
Kashiwa Daisuke - Program Music I
Noah And The Whale - The First Days Of Spring
Thy Catafalque - Róka Hasa Rádió

In reply to this comment by acidSpine:
I'm probably gonna get some downvotes for this but what the hell. Is punk music the only genre breaking new ground anymore? I mean I listen to all kinds of music and it's the same stuff being recycled over and over. Punk on the other hand, just when I think it can't be degraded any further...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'hardcore, post rock, opera, japanese, violins, piano, music video, Ilya' to 'post hardcore, opera, japanese, violins, piano, music video, Ilya' - edited by randomize

EDIT - Actually, instead of just listing it, I'll copy out my descriptions of them too since I already wrote this up for another forum:


1. The Flashbulb - Soundtrack to a Vacant Life | Instrumental | 4.5/5

Simply put, a seamless, sweeping epic of genres that dabbles in everything from sombre piano ballads, to upbeat flamenco, caustic electronica, serene ambience, rhythmic percussive tribal drum sections and haunting string sections, imposing every possible emotion on the listener. If anything, the sole weakness is that the rough 2-3 minute length of each of the 31 songs means they don't work so effectively as standalone compositions but as verses in a protracted poem, making the idea of listening to the entirety of it a tad daunting.


2. Protest The Hero - Fortress | Progressive Metal | 4.5/5

Metal that while relatively intricate yet melodic enough and hell, catchy enough to avoid divulging into incomprehensible technical wankery. Lyrics abound with references to goddesses and dethroned kings but it's decidedly tongue in cheek. Perhaps the biggest weaknesses resides in a lack of coherence, a tendency for the album to mesh together as a string of riffs, with little sense of a recurring chorus or verses within songs, but then you can take that as a plus depending on how you look at it. Besides that and a couple of immensely obnoxious vocal lines it's a pretty solid effort all around.


3. Blue Sky Black Death - Late Night Cinema | Instrumental Trip-hop | 4.5/5

One of the least expected surprises this year for me, partly because I generally despise anything that relates in any way to hip-hop or remixes yet I was sold on first listen. It’s just such a supremely chilled out but simultaneously melodically multilayered album which weaves hip-hop/trip-hop styling with a fairly significant utilisation of violins, trumpets, keyboards and an organ, capping it off with a distinct jazz tinge.


4. In Mourning - Shrowded Divine | Melodic Death Metal | 4/5

Genre-wise they’re probably best described as melodic death metal based but with progressive and doom influenced sections, reminiscent of Opeth, but not exactly the same. I initially junked this when I first picked it up but it’s grown on me immensely since then. There’s nothing immediately about them that sticks out as particularly impressive, the riffs aren’t all too complex, the melody isn’t overly diverse. If anything the drumming is quite good and both the harsh and clean vocals are solid. Nevertheless they clearly have a knack for creating memorable melody lines, and many minor touches such as the use juxtaposed clean and harsh vocals of essentially the same lines, coupled with a number of sexy breakdowns and a consistently bleak and permeating tone really make this album memorable in some indescribable way.


5. Transcending Bizarre? - The Serpent's Manifolds | Avant-Garde Black Metal | 4/5

Typical black metal brain mashing, but nicely broken up by violin sections to prevent migraines! Again it really feels like this band just clicks, but that not to say they can’t put out some impressively melodic riffs, and solos or bring it intensity-wise. In terms of criticism, there’s probably too much reliance on violin for a metal album, but that’s a very subjective disparagement, also a select few sections drag a bit ... oh and the intro is obnoxious and highly skipable. Oh and keyboards, oh the humanity! Run for the hills!


6. Thrice - The Alchemy Index - Vol.3 & 4 Air & Earth | Experimental Rock | 4/5

Partially successful but suffers from issues strangely distinct from the first two volumes. Whereas the first two could perhaps be argued to have taken the element concepts too literally both melodically and lyric-wise, this time around there are fairly tentative connections to the elements. With Air there’s simply a heavy use of reverb and echo to create the impression of an expansive soundscape, among a number of other tricks; whereas Earth is merely embodied by heavy use of stripped back and stark acoustic guitar with an American folk grounding. In all, neither really captures the concept as effectively as the haphazard, chaotic, distorting Fire; and if anything the biggest weakness of Air is it doesn’t distance it enough from the seeping smoothness that characterised Water to offer anything particularly distinctive. All in all it still remains an intriguing unconventional attempt with a number of standout songs, particularly the sonnets that outro each of the volumes oddly enough, led by consistently strong vocals.


7. Bar Kokhba Sextet - Lucifer The Book of Angels - Vol. 10 | Jazz | 4/5

I'm not really qualified to comment on or critique jazz as I'm very much a neophyte to it, but this is some excellent stuff.


8. Lights Out Asia - Eyes Like Brontide | Post Rock | 4/5

To me the main element any post rock effort needs to really be effective is a pervasive, consistent atmosphere, which this album abounds with. It doesn't fall into clichés such as blasting you into submission by badgering you with volume changes, or an over reliance on monotonous arpeggios, but builds upon subtle layers of sound to create a vast, rich soundscape of echoing guitars, staccato electronica beats and fleeting vocals.


9. Opeth - Watershed | Progressive Death Metal | 4/5

Disappointingly inconsistent by their standards, but still a pretty solid album all around. Some songs definitely drag massively, and certain parts sound technically overindulging and tiresome particularly the outro to Burden. On the other hand in my humble opinion it also has some of the best songs they have written, the way the progressive acoustic guitar section fades in and out in Porcelain Heart for example is seamlessly mesmerising, Hessian Peel is almost equally memorable. Regardless this is no Blackwater Park unfortunately.


10. Mutyumu - Ilya | Post Rock | 4/5

Post rock doesn't really give this band justice. It's like an odd mix of opera and hardcore Japanese vocals, with heavily piano reliant post rock grounding. Awesome? Somewhat. Half the time its carried by stirring complex but seemingly effortless piano and string sections unfolding at a blistering pace coupled with occasional strangely effective hushed murmurs, yet the other half of the time it cascades into almost unbearable droning repetition. Now given that, Prayer is damn well one of the best post rock songs I have ever heard and it really is a pity that the rest of the album wasn’t equally brilliant. I probably overrate this a tad too but well ... goshdarnit it’s all gotta be about job creation and shoring up our economy.

Look, Up in the Sky! The Amazing Story of Superman is a documentary film from executive producers Bryan Singer and Kevin Burns which details the history of the Superman franchise, from comic book, to television, to the big screen. The story of Superman is told through archival footage, as well as interviews with many of the actors, directors, and producers involved with the Superman media over the years. The closing credits feature outtakes from the Christopher Reeve Superman films, including an outtake of Marlon Brando improvising during the recitation of a poem in a scene deleted from the original version of Superman II.

The documentary was released on DVD on June 20, 2006, shortly before the theatrical release of Superman Returns. A two DVD Best Buy exclusive Limited Edition version was released the same day (extra material on the second disc included Bryan Singer's video journals and 5 official Superman movie poster mini-prints). A shortened version of the documentary was played on A&E on June 12, 2006. Finally, it (along with Singer's video journals) was included as part of the 14-disc box set release, The Ultimate Superman Collection, in November, 2006.

Look, Up in the Sky! features interviews with the following personalities.

Those directly associated with Superman: * Dean Cain (Clark Kent/Superman, Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman) * Gerard Christopher (Clark Kent/Superboy, Superboy) * Jackie Cooper (Perry White, Superman: The Movie) * Richard Donner (Director, Superman: The Movie) * Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (executive producers and creators of Smallville) * Margot Kidder (Lois Lane, Superman: The Movie) * Bill Mumy (Tommy Puck, Superboy) * Annette O'Toole (Lana Lang, Superman III; Martha Kent, Smallville) * Brandon Routh (Clark Kent/Superman, Superman Returns) * Ilya Salkind (Executive Producer, Superman: The Movie) * Bryan Singer (Director, Superman Returns) * Lesley Ann Warren (Lois Lane, It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Superman[1])

Those not directly associated with Superman: * Mark Hamill (played The Joker in animated incarnations and comic book fan) * Stan Lee (Marvel Comics heroes' co-creator) * Gene Simmons (musician and comic book fan) * Adam West (Bruce Wayne/Batman, Batman TV series)

Kevin Spacey (who also played Lex Luthor in Superman Returns) narrates the documentary. Mumy and Hamill are also credited as consultants on the documentary.