I thought the title was "Ricky Gervais Electrocutes Steve Jobs"...
WHAT A FUCKING DISAPPOINTMENT!

with video of flowers being electrocuted displayed on a screen behind her.

People without good critical thinking skills can be misled to do stupid and harmful things (like voting for prop . Faith is synonymous with lack of critical thinking. Faith is a problem no matter how benign some of its practitioners currently are because they can more easily be misled by clergy, politicians, and hucksters.

Stupid people do stupid things, whether they are theists or atheists. Faith has nothing to do with it, and your idea that believing in a higher power is a suspension of critical thinking shows that you are intellectually satisfied with a stereotypical and superficial analysis, which itself shows a lack of critical thinking.

With over 90 percent of the world having some kind of faith in a higher power, and 93 percent of this country, you must think you're pretty darn special, considering that you must believe that the vast majority of people on this planet, and those who came before them, are inferior to you. Yet, you have more faith than anyone else. Here is a smart person to tell you about it:

atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

Christian theology is bullshit because the problem of evil is insurmountable.

You apparently don't know the difference between the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil. They are separate issues.



Malaria was not created by free will. If there were a benevolent all-powerful creator, he would not have allowed Malaria to exist.

What about poisonous mushrooms? Should He allow those? Someone might eat one. Should He have allowed us to invent electricity, since people have been electrocuted? How about hang nails? Long lines at the grocery store?

Sin fucked up the world? Well, the creator would have had to create the magic that would cause the world to become fucked up when sin occurred. Malaria is necessary for the greater good?

Man screwed up the world. Sickness, disease and death are the consequences of sin entering into the world through man. None of it was necessary, but God is still capable of using it to achieve a greater good.

You just have a very imbalanced view here. You blame God for the bad but fail to notice the good. If there is anyone to blame for scourge of Malaria today, it is the apathy of human beings:

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/preventive-care/malaria-prevention.htm

That makes your supposed creator about as 'benevolent' as Hitler who thought gassing Jews was necessary for the greater good. The god of the old testament is a genocidal megalomaniac, exactly like Hitler.

Hitler didn't send his son to die on a cross for your sins. God has His hand extended to you to pull you out of the fire at any time, but it's on you to reach out for it.

>> ^jwray:

People without good critical thinking skills can be misled to do stupid and harmful things (like voting for prop . Faith is synonymous with lack of critical thinking. Faith is a problem no matter how benign some of its practitioners currently are because they can more easily be misled by clergy, politicians, and hucksters.
Christian theology is bullshit because the problem of evil is insurmountable.
Malaria was not created by free will. If there were a benevolent all-powerful creator, he would not have allowed Malaria to exist. Sin fucked up the world? Well, the creator would have had to create the magic that would cause the world to become fucked up when sin occurred. Malaria is necessary for the greater good? That makes your supposed creator about as 'benevolent' as Hitler who thought gassing Jews was necessary for the greater good. The god of the old testament is a genocidal megalomaniac, exactly like Hitler.
It is pretty fucked up to believe in / worship this bloodthirsty megalomaniac without any evidence that he even exists.
Yes, church gives you a sense of community. That's fine. I still even go to a church event once in a blue moon to catch up with some old friends from 10 years of attending the same small Sunday school classes. But for fuck's sake, there are other ways to meet people and serve your community than through glorifying a fictional genocidal tyrant who wouldn't even deserve it if the bible were true.

I love the part in the book where the guy is listening to White Rabbit and wants Hunter to throw the tape player in the tub at the end of the song and electrocute him.

He's lucky he didn't get electrocuted. All that electricity in such a small cup of water--everyone knows you need at least a gallon to do this safely.

Some misconceptions I've read in this thread:
1) The squid is most definitely not alive/feeling pain. As seen in this video, the head is removed, leaving only the legs to spasm. No brain, no pain.

2) Any killing is barbaric. Fish suffocate when caught. Chicken are hung from hooks and electrocuted. Death row inmates are injected full of poison. It's all killing and all barbaric, but I'm still gonna eat meat (not prisoners, animals).

3) The Japanese never claimed to be "holy pillars of righteousness", that's America's job.

4) Judging an entire culture on one youtube video is pretty shitty.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'newscaster, grapes, electricution' to 'newscaster, grapes, electrocution' - edited by quantumushroom

>> ^westy:

This is so fucking retardedon multiple levels .
In the end Terrorists can always and will always find a way to blow stuff up if they realy want to .
thankfully there are hardly anny terrorists in the world ( or people that actualy want to kill other people first hand) weather that be amercan or of anny nationality ( bare in mind that most terrorists in usa have actual been american) .
allso more people die on a daily basis from car accidents or cancer from smoking , obesity, or other general shit that would be greatly reduced if you spent the money that's been spent on TSA to used elsewhere.
Granted I'm not saying we don't need basic security at air ports, ultimately a passport check , luggage scan , basic metal detector , bomb sniffing dogs, and having a general awareness and education of what to look out for , Is likely to provide as much security that you need.
Also its worth baring in mind that the number of people that died in 911 was pretty much entirely due to governmental failing. Typically if a plane is hijacked and flying into a city it is shot down. I'm pretty sure that plane that crashed in country side was actually shot down and I have no idea why the us government would cover that up.


the National Safety Council notes:

-- You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

-- You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

-- You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane

-- You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack

--You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack

-- You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack

-- You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack

--You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack

--You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack

--You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

--You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack

-- You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/fear-of-terror-makes-people-stupid.html

You didn't understand my post, and I can't be bothered to explain something that's not simple to someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. Sorry.

Your post was very simplistic..you propose an argument that we will eventually know everything (or rule god out) because science has explained things people use to think God directly inspired..which is false..science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for natural phenomena..we may know some of the ways but not the means

You then further try to say an infinite universe and a supernatural Creator are somehow logically equivilent ideas because they can both solve a particular problem, which is patently false, but of course this is what intellectually dishonest people do when they conduct their argument through ad homs. I advanced the questions I did as being fundemental to understanding life, which they are, and they are ones science knows nothing about. You go on to say I should "read a book". Well, I think that's a great idea and I recommend you do the same..specfically one on antisocial personality disorder.

Read Dawkins, instead of reading people quote-mining (or "summarizing") him. If you have read Dawkins, you haven't understood anything (at all). No way around that, sorry.

I did read dawkins, specifically his abominable God delusion where the idea is postulated that any appearance of design can be explained away by multiple universes. Of course, no word on where all those multiple universes come from, but that's the fun of science. You can postulate any lunatic theorum and cover it under an avalanche of imaginary "data" based entirely on speculation and conjecture. Then of course any ignoramous will buy it because science said it was true.

It will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes (assuming you're under 50) that people create life starting with inorganic chemicals. Will that change your mind at all? Of course not. How could it, when your belief system wasn't founded on reason to begin with? And, as before, there are already interesting ideas for how the first life could have formed. You may not find them credible (and certainly none has compelling evidence yet), but they're not metaphysical. But even if there was credible ideas it wouldn't matter to you, really, would it? Of course not, just move them goalposts.

They are entirely metaphysical, ie taken on faith. Evolution and abiogenesis are not testable theories. The mechanism of natural selection is not proven, and cannot even begin to account for the complexity of life. These theories have been elevated as some sort of unquestionable absolute that dogmatic materialists (and undoubtably secular humanists) take on faith, while pointing to pseudo-scientific research as science fact. As if somehow the methodology of scientific inquiry was respresentitive of the limits of reality itself. As far as abiogenesis is concerned, what was once a marxist wet dream hasn't moved one inch away from the sad experiments conducted in the 60s when they electrocuted pea soup. The theories it was based on have been entirely falsified. Abiogenesis is dead in the water, literally, and just wishing it was true isn't going to make it happen.

I guess add probability and infinity to the list of things you have no idea about. In short, yes those monkeys would - and we could make detailed predictions about how long it would likely take to get a sonnet, a play, or the entire collection. It would take a very, very long time for that last one obviously, but it would happen. Want to dispute that? Don't tell me about it. Again, I can't be bothered to teach you things you aren't interested in learning. Idiot.

lol, your entire post is just riddled with ad homs and childish conclusions with no supporting evidence. You have failed to prove that you know anything what so ever..extended diatribes and assertions of knowledge a counter-argument does not make. The probability of any of that ever happening in the timeline of the Universe is null and void. The odds of anything as complicated as a cell or dna arising from random mutation is expodentially less. The mechanism is completely unproven. Much like your presumption of superior knowledge.

you want a more detailed treatment of all this related stuff, Dawkins has written books that are easy to understand (very "pop science" level) that go over all this very clearly. At least by reading a couple you'd understand the other side (which you clearly, clearly do not at this point).

But if you don't want to know, just keep getting your stupid information and talking points from wherever the hell you're getting them now and go back under your rock.

read dawkins? He may be a passable biologist, but beyond that, its completely amatuer hour. Now that I know where you are getting your information from, I can understand why you think that using personal attacks is a demonstration of intellect. Have you ever had an original thought in your life? Lets see you flex this intellectual muscle you are bragging about...

Okay, the theory is that something mutates and creates something beneficial which then is selected to survive because it reproduces...well..how does natural selection choose for parts for components that dont exist and dont work? why would a creature with 1/40th of a working part be selected to survive so that it could get another part for a component that still doesnt work it just does not explain things like the flaggelums tail..thats what irreducible complexity is all about..there is no reason why flaggelums with a 10th an onboard tail motor would be selected to survive..just because each component could independently grow in some scenerio doesnt mean anything..no mutation for a non working part is beneficial..there would be no reason to continue on down that line or why the creature would survive in the first place.

another problem for evolution is that we can observe it in action..a generation of bacteria grows in no time..and at no time has there ever been observed one kind of bacteria mutating into another kind. we can test evolution this way..yes things mutate all the time..but they don't produce new kinds. not even once. so evolution is just not happening today

>> ^TheGenk:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or
Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747
it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.
Those quotes are all true, but the fail on one point: They assume a very complex endproduct (Here: the unabridged dictionary, the boeing 747 and the cell). Which is simply false.
Arguments about the statistical chances of something happening being very unlikely when it demonstrably happened are moot.
I could use that to argue that statistically the chance of you being created from the genetic material of your parents is so small that therefore you could not possibly exist. But clearly you do.
I'll just address the last one:
No one claims that the fully formed cell was the first "life" to pop into existance. There are other more "primitive" forms which came first. I can't find the articles but I know of at least one which demonstrates how a less complex version of a cell membrane every cell enjoys today "creates itself" in a primordial soup like environment. Add the amino acids that form in the same environment and you got yourself a very primitive cell.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or
Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747
it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.
Those quotes are all true, but the fail on one point: They assume a very complex endproduct (Here: the unabridged dictionary, the boeing 747 and the cell). Which is simply false.


Arguments about the statistical chances of something happening being very unlikely when it demonstrably happened are moot.
I could use that to argue that statistically the chance of you being created from the genetic material of your parents is so small that therefore you could not possibly exist. But clearly you do.

I'll just address the last one:
No one claims that the fully formed cell was the first "life" to pop into existance. There are other more "primitive" forms which came first. I can't find the articles but I know of at least one which demonstrates how a less complex version of a cell membrane every cell enjoys today "creates itself" in a primordial soup like environment. Add the amino acids that form in the same environment and you got yourself a very primitive cell.

It's still all about the missing link, which has never been found. You have a lot of theory and speculation, but you would be surprised how much science takes on faith about evolution, and these discoveries. Entire societies have been fabricated from the find of a single tooth! Or an armbone..but there is no real proof, which is why science still desperately searches for the missing link that they'll never find.

I'll get back to you on the information question because I need to read through the articles..but even if there was some process for it, how do you get from inanimate material to life? Here's a quote:

Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or

Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747

it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.






>> ^TheGenk:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry: Have you seen the Hominidae Family, then going on to the line of the genus Homo? Pretty well documented. I dare say a nice line of transitional forms.
also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
Mutation actually favors loss of information (DNA loss through small deletions) by a small margin.
While Retrotransposons transposition or polyploidy can drastically increase genome size.
So in short, as "we"(or more appropriately I) understand it today: Information increase in genomes through mutation happens by copy/paste AND random deletion of gene sequences, thereby changing the function of either existing or new duplicate genes.
Evidence that a Recent Increase in Maize Genome Size was Caused by the Massive Amplification of Intergene Retrotransposons
or
Doubling genome size without polyploidization: Dynamics of retrotransposition-driven genomic expansions in Oryza australiensis, a wild relative of rice
are two articles I found with a quick search.


>> ^TheGenk:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry: Have you seen the Hominidae Family, then going on to the line of the genus Homo? Pretty well documented. I dare say a nice line of transitional forms.
also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
Mutation actually favors loss of information (DNA loss through small deletions) by a small margin.
While Retrotransposons transposition or polyploidy can drastically increase genome size.
So in short, as "we"(or more appropriately I) understand it today: Information increase in genomes through mutation happens by copy/paste AND random deletion of gene sequences, thereby changing the function of either existing or new duplicate genes.
Evidence that a Recent Increase in Maize Genome Size was Caused by the Massive Amplification of Intergene Retrotransposons
or
Doubling genome size without polyploidization: Dynamics of retrotransposition-driven genomic expansions in Oryza australiensis, a wild relative of rice
are two articles I found with a quick search.

Looks like the videographer was being electrocuted. Fuckin tripod, how do they work?

longde; I showed you when I was being patronizing, in the comments about Couey. No other comments are patronizing. I cannot help if some points are stated bluntly.

As far as the "pro-cop bias"--stop assuming just because I question you beliefs. Here is an example of how I think in ALL matters--not just about cops.

I personally am atheist and think belief in a higher power is kind of sad (Like a fat woman eating a whole tub of ice cream.) Most religious people act horribly towards atheists like myself. However, I give religious people the benefit of doubt. I am not pro-religious... Just like I am not pro-cop. Pro-cops make excuses for violence, pro-religious makes excuses for belligerent a-holes, I DO NOT, EVER! However, I tell you what I try to be--non-judgmental.

The answer to my statistics isn't worth the time. Let's just say that you were the one who said he knew about cop beatings in his community, and I have yet to get your number.

Lastly, "setting the bar low." Oh grow the fuck up (I have to patronize to the hyperbole you use here.) Cops are humans, and they sometimes are horrible sacks of shit. See, I agree one case of abuse is too much, and your statement implies that I do not. Also too much; is one car wreck, one cancer case, one still-born and one mental retardation, one electrocution, one accidental drowning or shooting, the list goes on and on to infinity. Yes--all of those are bad, and all of those are going to happen. But to classify, for example, heart-attacks, something that happens quite often (about 1 million a year,) as close to cop beatings, that's insane hyperbole. All I ask is that you use the proper adjectives, instead of lumping the same words together
for the shake of shock-and-awe, or whatever reason you are doing it.

I do appreciate the fact that you have not said, "Well, I have a life and gotta go!" So many pricks do... So thank you for still pointing out your beliefs and not resorting to being a child.


>> ^longde:

Yes, you are patronizing; it oozes out of your posts. No, you don't know what you're talking about.
The correct answer is that there is not enough data to prove one way or another. Even the organization in the link you provided admit the severe limitations of their technique, which primarily relies on media reports. Your obvious pro-cop bias (nothing wrong with that, but at least admit it) leads you to think that the very scant data supports your point.
Even your back-of-the-envelope calculation show your bias. And do you really think that 54 cases of brutality in a year is so insignificant? Probably because you think you or your loved ones will never be on the wrong end of a stick. 54 is quite alot for one city. Hell, one is too many, to be frank. Setting a low bar for our officers is not helping them.
>> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="