You're probably not familiar with the argument, and you only get to see a snippet of what he is talking about..but it's not a "because God" argument. The argument attempts to establish the existence of God by the impossibility of the contrary, it does not assume it.

Particularly scary was the fact that the mattress played a soap opera audio snippet as it narrowly missed the driver.

What do you mean by "History is bunk" Yogi?

Re: previous post.
What a wonderful "Jewish State" it is too.

Here's a snippet of the official nature of it's democratic and liberal proclivities.

http://nigelparry.com/diary/ramallah/plates.html

"Jewish settlers living in Bet El settlement near Ramallah do not get plates with an "R" on an orange background. They have yellow Israeli plates. In other words, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Jews and Arabs have license plates that show their race."

You can follow up with more official sources if you are in any way interested.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Kofi:
The Daily Show covered this (I'm in Australia so I can't find the link) and they showed, through Fox news, that the 2/3rds say Aye was actually already on the teleprompter.
Either way, surely its WEST Jerusalem that is the capital of Israel if anything. Does history mean nothing??

History is mostly bunk.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Liberals purport to hate fascism but also hate Israel, the freest, most liberal nation in the Middle East.
The liberal mind, who can know it?
>> ^lantern53:
The UN set up Israel, didn't they? I thought the libs loved the UN.
What happened?


Well... the freest nation with mandatory military service, anyway. Occupying and oppressing the natives doesn't sound all that liberal to me, either. As far as the "liberal mind", you can't know what you're incapable of hearing.

It's also a "Jewish State" that has lots of Non-Jews yet they are held to the same laws. Because a state based on a religion will never work and cannot in anyway be Democratic.

>> ^bmacs27:

This certainly looks like an advance, but didn't similar technology already exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_injector


Yeah, I remember seeing this on Beyond 2000 about 20 years ago.

I like this snippet from the wiki article you cited:
"1937: First known recorded accidental jet injection by a diesel engine's fuel injector."
Youch!

>> ^bareboards2:

It was a journalism conference on bullying.
The bible is used to justify bullying gays.
This SNIPPET out of CONTEXT addresses that portion of his longer talk.
That, my friend, is context.
He only called out the hypocrisy of quoting the pieces of the bible while ignoring others when you want to justify hating on the gays.
It is tiring as all get out to STATE THE OBVIOUS over and over again.
Now I am done with you.
@dirkeagler7


Sigh I thought I was done as well. Although his commentary on the misuse of the bible by some to justify bigotry and hate and how damaging that can be to gays and Christians alike DOES have merit...you're using context to justify someone stepping out of line with his methodology in said context.

When the organizers denounce it and he in a way apologizes for it, how can you still maintain that he was justified in the timing and manner of which he broached the subject.

If his main point in this 3min segment was to show that using the Bible in a direct way to justify ones behavior has proven to be erroneous or unreasonable, he could easily have done so in a way that didn't belittle the topic at hand. A simple "as we have seen people have attempted to use the bible to justify slavery, stoning, and other concepts that society has now dismissed, who is to say that its stance on homosexuality should also be revisited. blah blah"

Instead he opened with "the Bible is bullshit" and yet you staunchly support his method and criticize anyone who thinks that this guy went a bit over the top. You my friend are exhibiting similar behaviors to the religious nuts you seem to want to criticize so readily...and that is MY opinion.

It was a journalism conference on bullying.

The bible is used to justify bullying gays.

This SNIPPET out of CONTEXT addresses that portion of his longer talk.

That, my friend, is context.

He only called out the hypocrisy of quoting the pieces of the bible while ignoring others when you want to justify hating on the gays.

It is tiring as all get out to STATE THE OBVIOUS over and over again.

Now I am done with you.

@dirkeagler7

I like this video snippet version much better the static picture versions of these types of videos. Also, am I the only one who thought Lotte was a boy for the first two years?

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
In reply to this comment by TheSluiceGate:
Can anyone / any moderator / high ranking sifter hook me up with an embed code for this one?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/10-oclock
-live/video/series-2/episode-2/s2-ep2-which-witch-hunt

Sorry man, I tried to download it for you and reupload to youtube and everything, but all it would copy was the fucking ad! What a shame, it's a great snippet.


Cheers man, thanks so much for trying... Deserves to be seen. I saw it go out live on TV and it was an awesome TV moment.

In reply to this comment by TheSluiceGate:
Can anyone / any moderator / high ranking sifter hook me up with an embed code for this one?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/10-oclock
-live/video/series-2/episode-2/s2-ep2-which-witch-hunt

Sorry man, I tried to download it for you and reupload to youtube and everything, but all it would copy was the fucking ad! What a shame, it's a great snippet.

Think I might buy this, looks rather promising. Dialogue seems a bit weak judging from these snippets.

>> ^quantumushroom:

They tried, and had every right to do so. But Lincoln and Friends, right or wrong, waged war to stop them. Now, of course, we have a gigantic, out-of-control federal leviathan, just like the South a-feared. Enjoy!
As for the rest of it, different beliefs for everyone, my friends. It would be nice for the left if the Kenyawaiian had NO ties to islam, but even though these snippets in this video lack context, why do they exist at all?
Obama is likely a closet atheist, but who knows?
Californian idiots keep voting in socialists over and over again even as their economy atrophies and illegal immigration runs rampant. There are actual numbers to demonstrate this, but they conflict with the leftist "belief system".
Intolerance is a staple of the left as much as the right. Same concept, different targets.

>> ^Locque:
If the South wants to secede, I think they should be allowed to do so.



I think equating Chuck Norris and friends' cries for secession in the modern era to the situation in the civil war is kinda silly. It would be like blaming the modern day church for the crusades.

Also, you seem to realise claims that he's a muslim are completely fucking stupid, but you are extremely consistent in refusing the acknowledge the wrongs of the right (I've been reading your posts for years dude, old hat)

I think it's fallacious to accuse the left of being as intolerant as the right. There is an unbelievable history among the left of idiocy, hypocrisy, failure, and all that other good stuff, but racism and bigotry are absolutely the territory of the right. Fascistic political correctness and a refusal to acknowledge existing problems are more the political left's tools of the trade.

On the whole though, i feel chuffed. Does being on the receiving end of one of QM's posts mean I've arrived? WILL VIDEOSIFT NOTICE ME NOW?

They tried, and had every right to do so. But Lincoln and Friends, right or wrong, waged war to stop them. Now, of course, we have a gigantic, out-of-control federal leviathan, just like the South a-feared. Enjoy!

As for the rest of it, different beliefs for everyone, my friends. It would be nice for the left if the Kenyawaiian had NO ties to islam, but even though these snippets in this video lack context, why do they exist at all?

Obama is likely a closet atheist, but who knows?

Californian idiots keep voting in socialists over and over again even as their economy atrophies and illegal immigration runs rampant. There are actual numbers to demonstrate this, but they conflict with the leftist "belief system".

Intolerance is a staple of the left as much as the right. Same concept, different targets.



>> ^Locque:

If the South wants to secede, I think they should be allowed to do so.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Don't know about that. Those Twitter and Facebook links that they surface look like the profile pages of the users. I don't need to be logged into Facebook to see Jamie Oliver's Facebook profile page: https://www.facebook.com/jamieoliver
>> ^mxxcon:

Actually this video is a bit misleading.
While this bookmarklet might float twitter or facebook to the top above G+, those results will have no actual useful data. You see that in the video. Every twitter or facebook snippet is just useless "sign up" text.
If twitter would decide to allow Google to index their stream, aka "firehose", i'm sure these results would've been different and perhaps more useful.

Actually this video is a bit misleading.
While this bookmarklet might float twitter or facebook to the top above G+, those results will have no actual useful data. You see that in the video. Every twitter or facebook snippet is just useless "sign up" text.
If twitter would decide to allow Google to index their stream, aka "firehose", i'm sure these results would've been different and perhaps more useful.

(This is part two as mentioned in my previous comment)

I’ve read and re-read your arguments over the weekend and for a portion of today. I’ve done a lot of research into what you’ve said and I found something particularly interesting which lead me to a significant question. “Where is all of this guy’s information coming from?”

So I did a little experiment. I did a Google search for all of the quotes that you’ve replied with and can you guess what I found? All of your arguments can be taken nearly verbatim or just reworded from creationist websites. Can you honestly expect anyone to believe that you’ve done your own research or read any real books on the subject of thermodynamics or biological evolution? How can you even take yourself seriously if you haven’t spent the time putting in the work to understand what the source material says for yourself?

The problem with your theory is, I have done the research, and I do know what the source material says. I understand the theory of evolution better than most atheists I have met. I use the quotations because they are hostile witnesses to my position which gives the argument even more force. It doesn't matter where I've gotten them from; that is irrelevent. The evidence I am presenting is what is relevent.

If someone has objections about the bible, would you take them seriously if you discovered that they hadn’t actually read it? No, of course not, so how can you expect to be taken seriously if you haven’t read the source material yourself? It’s just an attempt to try to discredit something that you haven’t actually studied yourself which I find to be a bit on the disingenuous side of things.

Most atheists I've spoken to who criticize the bible haven't actually read it. I've already told you my background so you don't have an argument. I have studied these things.

I know that you’re expecting this because every creationist website prepares creationists for this criticism but you’re idea of how thermodynamics works is entirely misinformed and you won’t know by how much until you do yourself a favor and listen to a course in thermodynamics or read a book on it. If you have iTunes, go to iTunes U and search for thermodynamics, spend 12 hours learning and then you’ll see that classical thermodynamics has nothing to say about biological systems. I suspect that you probably read a lot of articles from the Institute for Creation Research website.

You haven't offered any criticism of my position and you haven't demonstrated any actual knowledge of this subject, except that which is patently false. The laws of thermodynamics apply to everything, including biological systems. Evolutionists attempt to weasel out of that by declaring that they are 'open systems' and thus immune to entropy because of the energy from the sun, but as I showed this does nothing to show where information comes from, so you cannot explain it away.

I've read a lot of science textbooks, and a lot of scientific literature. When I was agnostic, I read volumes and volumes of it, and I stay abreast of the latest discoveries. Your accusations all ring hollow, especially considering you have failed to show you understand the subject on your own.

If that is the case and you do frequent ICR then here is something to think about: (Taken directly from the conclusion to their article “Does Entropy Contradict Evolution”)

“If science is to be based on fact and evidence, rather than metaphysical speculations, then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all. In fact, at least until someone can demonstrate some kind of naturalistic comprehensive biochemical predestinating code and a pre-existing array of energy storage-and-conversion mechanisms controlled by that code to generate increased organized complexity in nature, the entropy law seems to preclude evolution altogether. The marvelously complex universe is not left unexplained and enigmatically mysterious by this conclusion, however. It was created by the omnipotent and omniscient King of Creation! If evolutionists prefer not to believe this truth, they can make that choice, but all the real facts of science - especially the fundamental and universal law of entropy - support it.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that the majority of this article is correct and that the 2nd law does indeed contradict evolution. This final conclusion from the article does something very interesting. It jumps from saying that evolution cannot have happened because it violates the 2nd law to it was created by a god. How the heck are they coming up with that conclusion!? By what evidence can they make that leap let alone make the claim that the creator is both omnipotent AND omniscient? This is my problem with how you are arguing; you are doing the same thing. You are suggesting that the math doesn’t add up and that your answer is better but you aren’t providing the math to suggest why your answer is better; you’re just telling us that it’s the answer.

What you're doing is using a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument. You're absolutely right, that is a terrible argument. That isn't the type of argument I have made. When I brought up thermodynamics, I was responding to this comment:

"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."

I showed it was your position that was betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science. My argument was rational, well founded, and based on solid evidence, yet you have taken the low road of trying to assasinate my character, or outright say that I don't actually know what I am talking about. Again, it is you who have failed to adaquately demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Instead of addressing my argument, you have made the argument about me, as you have admitted to, and that is what is dishonest here.

Whether or not you resonate with that that snippet from their article or not, it illustrates how egger some people are to praise some scientific findings when those findings don’t contradict their beliefs and in the same breath, criticizes other scientific findings which do contradict their beliefs. If you encounter something that seems to contradict what you already believe to be true, it is wise to question whether what you believe to be true is actually true rather than searching for information that confirms what you believe.

It's called confirmation bias. A good example of this is looking at the question of the origin of life and believing it must have evolved despite having no actual evidence that it did.

The thing is that I know that you’re going to say that “science” has an agenda, and it does, but not like you think it does and you’ll never understand that agenda until you actually study it for yourself. You believe that it’s all about disproving god, or maintaining naturalism but it’s not.

Science is an institution run by individuals with individual beliefs and goals. Over 40 percent of biologists, astronomers and mathematicians believe in God. Belief in God is not incompatible with doing good science, nor is science in and of itself something bad. There is however a concerted effort, on the part of evolutionists, to push their version of origins on the rest of us, and they have often used legal means to do so. Evolution is pushed on the public like it is a proven fact and it is not.

You are arguing against a set of misunderstandings that you hold about what you believe the science is saying. Everything that you think you know about these matters is either a straw man, a red-haring or blatant misinformation. It would be very hard to impress on you how exactly that is true without you being educated on the source material. This is why we cannot have a conversation regarding these issues. You will just need to start reading the source material instead of going to interpretive websites; its far more interesting that way anyway.

What you're doing is jumping to a bunch of unfounded conclusions and drawing extremely weak inferences about what I have or haven't done, and then extrapolating that to a bunch of highly prejudiced judgements against me personally, and doing so in a haughty way, as if you are talking to a child. You have completely failed to include anything of substance in this reply. It is all just a sad attempt to write me off without actually addressing any of my arguments. Until you actually address the meat of my reply with a point by point refutation, this entire reply can be chopped up to one gigantic ad hom.

I am sorry to say that I find a degree of intellectual dishonesty in your method of arguing against these ideas by primarily pulling information and quotes from these sources without having done the work yourself. You are representing yourself as personally knowledgeable about the subject when you are doing nothing more than copy and pasting in quotes to support you. Besides this being a type of an argument from authority, it shows to me that you have no regard for the context in which the original quote was written. That is the definition of cherry picking and to me; it makes me think that you are more interested in maintaining your beliefs than being honestly interested in expanding your knowledge.

Or you have completely mischaracterized me, as I have demonstrated. Again, you want so badly for this to be about me. Even if I was doing everything you said I am doing, my arguments, if they were accurate, would still stand. You haven't moved one inch closer to disproving anything I've said. It doesn't matter where I've gotten the information, what matters is if it is correct or not. Regardless, I do understand the subject matter, and demonstrably better than you do thus far.

I don’t expect to change your mind. You seem deeply rooted in creationism and as you’ve said, you believe in the biblical god and that you feel that your life was transformed by him. That is a very powerful feeling, one that is very hard to overcome because it is something personal that you probably relate to. Perhaps you feel that your stability rests on the idea that a god exists and that your view of that god must be the correct one based on your personal experiences; I don’t know. I have nothing more to say other than to suggest that you read the source material so that way you can at least honestly say that you know what you’re talking about.

You aren't going to change anyones mind with this low grade excuse for an argument. This isn't about me, it's about the evidence. You say my evidence is invalid because I don't understand the subject matter, which is fallacious. The evidence is valid whether I understand it or not. However, I do understand it, and the problem here is you have no basis to criticize me because you're the one who hasn't demonstrated any understanding. You have even demonstrated the wrong understanding. However, the difference between you and I is that I will give you enough credit to assume you are a reasonably intelligent person who isn't just pretending to understand it. I am still waiting for you to prove it, however. Your attempt to make this argument about me has failed, because I have shown all of your claims about me to be false, and it is logically fallacious in the first place. If you want to continue, address my arguments directly and prove you actually know something. If my arguments are incorrect, feel free to show me why, at any time.


>> ^IAmTheBlurr: