I've been to this church in the Normandy countryside. It's remote, removed from the beaches, and from all outward appearances unremarkable. It's not until you walk in and realize how small it is inside, unlike the grandiosity of Notre Dame in Paris or Cathédrale Notre Dame in Reims: it's narrow and confined. How so many wounded soldiers fit in the little space is beyond me. I can't imagine the stone floor slicked with blood, the moans of pain, the smells of wounds. Even the pews seem too narrow to accommodate a human body laid lengthwise.

Even with all that said, if you stand inside that little church it's impossible not to feel the touch of history. Of everything I saw in Normandy, nothing made a bigger impression on my than the little church in Angoville-au-Plain.

No, they are not the same thing, and they are not creationist terms.

Yes, they are in fact the same thing, and yes, I know creationists didnt come up with the terms, predictably, since they have never come up with a single useful term or idea in the history of everything. They can be useful terms to describe the short-term and long-term effect of evolution, but creationist use the term to shield themselves from admitting that they deny reality. Lets just take one example: genetic variation, according to creationists then, genetic variation is real and actually happens, your genes are slightly different from other human genes, ie: there is variations within a species.

But this is the same kind of variation there is BETWEEN species, its the SAME FREAKING THING, but when the difference is large enough, individual organism can no longer breed to produce fertile offspring. That is in fact the definition of "species". Conceptually, there is no difference between the genetic difference between you and me and the genetic difference between you and a tomato, its just MORE difference.

I honestly dont know how to respond to this time=miracle nonsense, the point is that because there is variation and mutations, speciation will happen over long stretches of time, now you might say "biologists sure needs lots of time for evolution to work" but the thing is that other, unrelated fields of study, like chemistry, physics and cosmology have independently reached conclusions about how old the universe is, and its billions of years old. We KNOW that, not from inventing a number large enough to allow evolution to work its "miracles", but because its the only logical conclusion based the available evidence.

The correlating data you are looking at is a hall of mirrors. Radiometric data is based on uniformitarian assumptions. The light travel time is based on similar assumptions. Embedded in all of the estimations of an old age are unprovable assumptions that have no empirical evidence to prove they are true. They are in fact unknowable.

Everything in that paragraph is wrong. These things are NOT based on assumptions, but empirical evidence, calculations and experiments. In fact, the knowledge has not only been confirmed by experiments and evidence, and as I tried to explain earlier, YOU ARE RELYING ON TECHNOLOGY BASED ON THAT KNOWLEGDE TO READ THIS SENTENCE. It is literally being proved right in front of your eyes.

>> ^deathcow:

I dont buy into the 1% more superior aliens having a hard time communicating with us. If chimps had a written language we'd have been talking for a long time now.


We are very similar to the genetic history of everything on this planet. Imagine you are born on a planet that was thrown from any an all nearby galaxies. Your planet didn't even a sun, you had no solar system, only your planet. Every form of life derived for the thermal activity of your planet. As a result, your complete narrative of communication would be different. Perhaps, even, being the very lack of competing life forms, you are the only one of your species. And thus, there is no need for language, or even, the thought of communication.

Even so, I think the point here wasn't that we COULD communicate, but would they want to. It's like talking to children, they are so dumb!

I'm commenting as I watch here, he's already screwed on the "problem" of evil. He's got the whole thing ass backwards. The only way to really solve the problem of evil from a theistic point of view is as he rightly points out the "lack of perspective argument" ie "Maybe there is a larger plan"/maybe it isnt evil after all/maybe its all part of gods plan or similar nonsense.

The point about bringing up this from an atheistic point of view is that there is of course a much more elegant, more logical, more reasonable and more probable solution to the "problem" of evil: There is no god.

It seems like Keller hasnt even considered this as a real possibility, because if he did, he would realize that the problem dissappears entirely. And its not just for human acts of evil, of course. Think of the recent Japan Tsunami..Thousands pointlessly killed by the physics of tectonic plate movement. In a godless universe there is no "why?!!" here, we live on a thin crust wrapping around a lava ball, partially covered by water. A tsunami now and again is inevitable.

If you believe in god, you'll have to make up lots of shitty excuses for these kind of events

None of this proves that there is no god, its just one of those many things that makes it unlikely.

Oh and now his dragging Stalins corpse out again to bash atheism. Nothing to do with atheism. Stalinism was a sick personality cult catering to creduilty and superstition in order to promote a form of marxism. The reason they went after Christianity was because they were competing to convert the gullible to a new mindless cult.

Its not just that its pointless "keeping scores" as it were, I would like to see him tackle Hitchens 2-part Challenge:
Part 1: Name for me one good thing done, or one nice thing said, in the name of religion, that it would be unthinkable that a secularist/atheist could just as reasonably say or do.

I've never hard a satisfying answer to part 1.

Part 2: Name for me one bad thing done, Or one bad thing said, in the name of religion,that it would be unthinkable that a secularist/atheist could just as reasonably say or do

I bet you thought of something after reading the fifth word in that sentence.

Its not a tie.

Kelller parroting atheist argument:"Until you prove there is a god, I dont have to believe in god!"

What a dishonest douche.

I've never actually heard any atheist make that argument. Heres how the argument really is: I've never seen a shred of evidence, ever, anywhere, in the history of everything that would even suggest, in the slightest,remotest possible way that there might be a god. None. Zip, Zero. I'm not demanding that you come up with a mathematical proof or anything, far from it, but until there is some evidence, ANY kind of evidence, I dont see any reason to believe in god, any more than santa.

More rubbish: Why do I assume god is "inside" the universe? I dont, douchebag, I'm not assuming anything, its your invisible friend, moron, you can fantasize. Oh great, there you go now... "He might be outside of everything", please do go on wasting brainpower trying to make that work..

"You cant prove anything" "So why do you say to God.."---BEEP-- I dont say anything, Keller, I dont talk to invisible things that arent there.

"You cant prove there is no god, so not believing is an act of faith" Yup, I take the same risk you do, Keller, But I'd wager disbelieving in Cthulhu will land you in much more trouble than the mere wuzzy little lake of fire I'll be surfing on (while listening rock music).

Oh fuck. "Fine-tuning" now.. Yep, this universe, that has almost NOTHING but vaccum at minus 270 celsius instantly deadly to any living thing, where the extremely tiny exceptions are 99.999% nuclear fireballs that will burn anything to death once its close enough not to freeze to death. So among a hundred billion galaxies with a hundred billion stars, we know of exactly one that has a planet at just the right distance. What are the chances, eh? Ten thousand billion stars and one of them has life around it (and in few million years its gonna toast that motherfucker too). Ergo: stars are perfect places to have life around. Yup Finetuning. Four aces? more like one ace and ten thousand billion worthless cards, but whatever.

Of course, if I was god, I might make just , I dont know, lets say ten stars, with lots of fine planets around them with lush green envirionments and no nasty earthquakes, asteroids, hurricanes and so on, perhaps I'd even make sure that the sun doesnt blow up and kill everybody in the end. But then again, what the hell do I know..


Ok, that was half an hour. maybe I'll do the rest tomorrow.

This is bullshit. the evidence not only is in, but it is growing. The deniers rely purely on distorted data, and basically none of them are climate scientists. If you look at the famous list of climate "skeptics" often referred to as scientists, it turns out that almost none of them are actually scientists in the related fields.

The argument that scientists conspire to create panic so theyll recieve funding is complete bullshit. Anyone who believes that, simply doesn't understand how science works. The evidence for global warming comes from a wide vareity of fields, and the people responsible for collecting it includes, but are not limited to meteorologists, geologists, arctic explorers, glacier experts, NASA and other space-organisations, marine biologists, oceanographers and people who do climate research. If this is a conspiracy, it is simply unprecedented in the history of everything, and involves mostly people with no interest in fueling the panic. Much of the imagery that shows the ice receding, for instance, come from NASA, now why would a company that burns off a hundred tons of fuel every time they send a rocket to space, want to lie so that people thought burning fuel was destroying the planet?

If you are a climate scientist, and you are interested in making a shitload of cash, Call Exxon on and lend your credibility to them for an infomercial, and you wont need to lift a finger the rest of your life. Much, much easier than trying to co-conspire with thousands of scientists.

I can see what he's saying but I don't really buy that argument totally.

We share 90% of our DNA with all life because at the end of it all we all emerged from the same spark of life millions of years ago. We share DNA with almost all living things.

After that, let's think about it, Neil's arguement essentially levels all humans to the same level i.e. I can be as smart as Stephen Hawking. I believe that the difference between the average human being and Stephen Hawking is far larger then the difference between the average human and the chimpanzee. Out of our 6 billion people we have a small pool of highly educated and inquisitive people like Neil, Hawking and so on.

Furthermore, the more I read into the subject of INTELLIGENT alien life, the more I think it's fairly rare in our universe. There is alien life out there for sure, if life can arise near volcanic plumes then life is out there perhaps in the probable oceans of Europa.

A reading of our past and development as a species show how depended we were on some factors beyond the probable. We have had extinction events but not catastrophic enough to kill all life. We have a satellite that induces currents and what I believe contributed to life occurring. I recommend reading the Short History of Everything to further explore this topic.

that has to be the single most patient cat in the history of everything.

I try not to use the word cute, but I'll be damned if that isn't the cutest thing in the history of everything.

Muchas gracias mis amigos, I'm flattered - in an... evil way, or something. I honestly didn't ever think I'd make it to 50, especially given the relative obscurity of most of my videos, on top of the fact that they're mostly music videos, which are hard enough to sift. So I focused on building up a nice little Pqueue for myself, keeping every video that got at least one upvote, knowing that one day they would hit it big (maybe when GW Bush re-writes history and everything becomes distorted and backwards).

I mostly joined to be able to upvote and make comments here and there, but like many others got sucked into the flow of the VideoSift community, posting some of my videos more out of curiosity than anything else (to see how many upvotes I'd get). There are a lot of good, intelligent people here and I can't tell you how many hours at work I've killed wandering around this site, reading comments and watching the latest hits.

I'd like to thank Fedquip for introducing me to the highest quality video site on the net (through his old Throw Away Your TV blog), alien_concept aka Rachel (she hates being called Rae-Rae, so everyone can start calling her that) for being a good sifting buddy, and kronosposeidon, kulpims, schmawy, MrFisk, DFT, Farhad, Gunter, LadyDeath, laura, and everyone else (my stoner memory can't recall everyone) who has supported my quest to inject more underground music into the Sift through your upvotes.

I'm running out of music material (of course, that's what I've thought since I got my bronze star) but hopefully, once I get the Net set up at my new place, I can keep fine-tuning my video-searching skills and continue posting - maybe with a little more variety.

Peace

-jake-