It's a Swedish show where they try different things with a house (already set to be demolished) to see how dangerous things can be in everyday situations. In this episode, they wanted to see what would happen if they tried to fill a whole room with water. In other episodes, they took out an outside supporting wall of the house to see what would happen, or they removed safety devices on a hot water heater to see what would happen.

I'm a "just born once" atheist. I lack any form of faith in any creator gods, interfering gods or any other so-called "supernatural beings". There are things I do not understand, but I live my life based on what I think is likely, what I can prove myself (or demonstrate) and what I otherwise can observe in nature.

The central claim of the Christian faith is something that you can prove to yourself. If you believe Gods testimony that He raised His Son from the dead and you confess Jesus is Lord, you will be born again and receive the Holy Spirit. It is tangible and experiential. To know God is to know Him personally, and He gives you the evidence.

Gravity, I can prove myself - to a certain degree, and when testing it, the current theory does predict the result, so I think it's true.

You can think about morality this way. If you take a look at your life, you will probably see that you live as if there is good and evil, that an absolute moral law exists. Your conscience will tell you that much, before intellect even comes into it. Some things are right and some things are wrong. The whole world acknowledges this, and this points to an absolute moral law, which in turn points to a moral lawgiver.

Evolution is a little more tricky, because I can prove micro evolution myself with fish, and with basically all the animals we have bred artificially, cats, dogs, cows, chickens etc. Macroevolution is harder, for me as a layman, but I think it is likely, because it explains so much very neatly, and it predicts how things are now, it is also the natural conclusion of micro evolution.

This is what Darwin believed, and he expected to find the evidence for it in the fossil record. Except it wasn't there:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

150 years later and it still hasn't appeared. You see, if you assume that all life has a common ancestor, then you have to believe that micro-evolution leads to macro. It's a just-so story. Darwin made a quantum leap of assumption when he extrapolated micro evolution to a common ancestor. He made a great discovery, but one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. The model of micro evolution is also compatible with special creation. Why should one be preferred when there is absolutely no evidence for macro evolution? Micro has even been demonstrated not to lead to macro:

natural selection, long viewed as the process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution. Micro evolution is decoupled from macro evolution.

SM Stanley Johns Hopkins University
Proceedings, National Science Academy Science
Vol.72 p.648

They have been breeding thousands of generations of fruitflies and millions of generations of bacteria and never once have they created a new species. If macro is true, you have to ask yourself why there are limits they are unable to cross. Living fossils are another problem, creatures supposedly hundreds of millions of years old, and no change at all. They found a blue green bacteria (supposedly) over 1 billion years old, and it is exactly the same as it is today. The evidence all points away from macro. Fossils enter the record in stasis; they don't change.

God can't be observed, can't even be tested for. God also have no direct impact on the world, other than through his followers, and since he (she/it) is not his followers, the conclusion is that he probably doesn't exist.

If you can't even see the operations of atoms in the world, why would you expect to see the operations of God? The bible says that in God all things live and move and have their being. How could you observe that?

It is not that I have faith that he doesn't exist, it's just that I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise. I have the same attitude towards Ghosts, Zombies and Unicorns. I would have had the same attitude towards Dinosaurs, because, come on, they're huge lizards, no way they exist! But the evidence suggest otherwise, fossils are real, they actually did exist, but not anymore, thus my earlier theory is demolished by the evidence, and a new hypothesis is formed, one backed by evidence.

It's good that you have an open mind. That's a rare thing in this world. If you don't prefer any evidence, but just want the actual truth, no matter what it is, then all is open to you. Jesus said, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will open. Take a leap of faith and ask Him what the truth is..ask Him for revelation. If He can't hear you, all you will have done is wasted a few minutes of your life.

>> ^gwiz665

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Bad-Idea-using-a-pneumatic-hammer-to-demolish-a-building

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by kulpims.

http://videosift.com/video/Bad-Idea-using-a-pneumatic-hammer-to-demolish-a-building

I'm a "just born once" atheist. I lack any form of faith in any creator gods, interfering gods or any other so-called "supernatural beings". There are things I do not understand, but I live my life based on what I think is likely, what I can prove myself (or demonstrate) and what I otherwise can observe in nature.

Gravity, I can prove myself - to a certain degree, and when testing it, the current theory does predict the result, so I think it's true.

Evolution is a little more tricky, because I can prove micro evolution myself with fish, and with basically all the animals we have bred artificially, cats, dogs, cows, chickens etc. Macroevolution is harder, for me as a layman, but I think it is likely, because it explains so much very neatly, and it predicts how things are now, it is also the natural conclusion of micro evolution.

God can't be observed, can't even be tested for. God also have no direct impact on the world, other than through his followers, and since he (she/it) is not his followers, the conclusion is that he probably doesn't exist.

It is not that I have faith that he doesn't exist, it's just that I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise. I have the same attitude towards Ghosts, Zombies and Unicorns. I would have had the same attitude towards Dinosaurs, because, come on, they're huge lizards, no way they exist! But the evidence suggest otherwise, fossils are real, they actually did exist, but not anymore, thus my earlier theory is demolished by the evidence, and a new hypothesis is formed, one backed by evidence.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Shiny is here to 'sell' a point of view. Granted, it's the wrong audience to espouse fundamentalism, but if you see someone's house is burning in the night, you don't worry about their grumpiness at being awakened by total strangers.
Be grateful for hearing other points of view, and more grateful for resistance, it's the only thing that builds strength.

>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Someone wrote of shiny: It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time.
Shiny's the one being infinitely patient here, and by an act of free will endures these cheap shots. A less angry foe you do not have.
A good Christian spreads the Word, and in another Penn video Penn himself states if you Believe, you should be out spreading your message.
You should be grateful there are shinys out there to keep you honest, as honest as a liberal can be, anyway.

I can't swallow this. By its very nature, Christianity as espoused by Shiny is bigoted and infinitely intolerant (the ultimate end of impatience) of any view point in opposition of its literally written in stone beliefs.
Just because the evangelists adopt a cloyingly condescending tone that can be mistaken for politeness when they 'discuss' (read: lecture and don't listen) this with us heathens does not make them 'less angry' or 'infinitely patient'.



To use your metaphor, QM: I don't see shiny and his fundamentalist ilk as firefighters or concerned neighbors rushing to save anyone from flames. I see them as self-appointed building inspectors who refer to an ancient building code and attempt to demolish any house that isn't constructed according to their specifications.

And as we see here, if we disbanded the EPA and all other environmental agencies in charge of keeping wildlife safe, the energy company, through the goodness of their hearts, would have decided not to renew the dam and demolish it themselves, because they love fish more than money.

So the government shouldn't assist in boosting our country's innovation? Of course they should. In tech, you win some and you lose some. But to help a company that would potentially employ high skilled workers is a good thing.

The private investors of Solyndra sunk $1B into Solyndra; that investor class will definitely lose. Since the government "funding" of the company was basically a loan, most of that debt should be recoverable.

Also, I would like to ask, should the SBA be demolished as well?

>> ^lucky760:

9 : 5
10 : 6
11 : 5
9 : 5 (or 10 : 5)
This is a website, not an SAT exam. A channel subdomain name should simply convey the general idea and do so succinctly.
If the idea of the channel is to be focused on teachers, students, classrooms, and the educational system, school is well-suited.

strlennification! I guess that means channels like Documentaries, Shortfilms, Catsanddogs, Controversy, Conspiracy, all red-headed step children now.

I'm just being cranky about channel names being inconsistent. Calling it "school" is actually a clever choice in keeping with Videosift's tradition. I just think that tradition has led to the channel list becoming quite a mess.

My point isn't to make using channels more like an SAT test, my point was to make it easier for people to categorize videos into channels. Succinctness is as much about clarity as it is about brevity, and the way to bring clarity would be to actually name channels after the category of information they're meant to contain, and not after nouns associated with the category.

People familiar with our site's eccentricities will know that we often name channels that way, but would people unfamiliar with the site intuitively understand that they need to look in the school channel for educational videos like this?

You'd also wind up with random videos that have nothing to do with education going there, like say a video of a school being demolished, or a video of Donald Trump demanding to see Barack Obama's diploma...

I'm just giving my opinion, and I fully confess to being needlessly cranky about it, but it's not like what I'm saying here is crazy talk. The word school is not synonymous with education, and it's not like education is some fancy shmancy 14-syllable word that only eggheaded people like me would understand...

>> ^Trancecoach:

Yeah, you're right.. These guys are clearly lying. In fact, they're not even fire fighters! They're actors working on scale.. (how else would they know what it's like to be on a movie set?)
>> ^EvilDeathBee:
I dunno about you guys, but i'm convinced. This is such a conspiracy, there is no other explanation at all.

Everybody knows that an approaching tornado sounds like an oncoming locomotive. And a path of destruction it leaves behind also looks like a train plowed through. Shouldn't there also be a claim that it's a conspiracy and they are hiding all the rogue trains while blaming tornadoes?

These firefighters might not be lying or actors, but I would not necessary take their post-traumatic descriptions of the event as facts. They just lived through perhaps their most extreme experience of their lives with 2 giant buildings collapsing around them. While they might be trained and have experience with fires, nobody there had any training or preparation or prior experience on how an 110 story building hit by a plane would collapse and what it would sound and feel like.

When the south tower started collapsing i was standing at exactly 40.705426,-74.004928 that was literally in front of the an entrance to our office building(it was demolished since). When it started collapsing from my vantage point it looked like the top simply toppled over. That was my experience of the event. Was it accurate? No. But everybody on the street at that time saw it that way.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^charliem:
Pulling a building in that context means get everyone the fuck out....not to demolish it.

the firefighters were already out


What about the flamers?

>> ^charliem:

Pulling a building in that context means get everyone the fuck out....not to demolish it.


the firefighters were already out

Pulling a building in that context means get everyone the fuck out....not to demolish it.

>> ^srd:

Of course Mr. Kibbe is reality-resistant. He isn't arguing from a position of conviction, he's arguing an ideological point he's been paid to push. He's PR, marketeer and lobbyist all wrapped into one. I think that he personally doesn't give a flying love-act either way as long as the money is right.


I have to admit, I was surprised he never fought back at all. Spitzer utterly demolishes him and he just sits there.

One thing I have yet to understand is the relationship between the Tea Party and Republicans. Part of me wants to think the whole thing is just a scam. Tea Partiers are obviously just angry racist Republicans. But then you have Tea Partiers running against Republicans and fracturing the red vote, ensuring that Obama is going to win, even with portions of the left that are unhappy with him.

All I can say is that Democrats have been known for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory so I don't flippin care if it seems like an easy victory for Dems in 2012, they said the same thing for running against Bush in 2004. So the left better get out there and VOTE. Hell, if the left werent so stereotypically lazy about voting, they'd probably still hold congress and we wouldn't be in the debit limit mess in the first place!