@ChaosEngine

Oh sweet irony, I'm being called wilfully ignorant by a young-earther.

I'm not going to refute you. I don't need to; @BicycleRepairMan has already done an excellent job of it.

An excellent refutation? He cherry picked one sentence out of my reply, a reply where I had demonstrated the fallacy of his argument from incredulity by proving his assumption of the constancy of radioactive decay rates was nothing more than the conventional wisdom of our times. Is this what passes for logical argumentation in your mind? He posited a fallacious argument. I exposed the fallacy. He ignored the refutation and cherry picked his reply. You seem to be showing that in your eagerness to agree with everything which is contrary to my position that you have a weak filter on information which supports your preconceived ideas. Why is it that a skeptic is always pathologically skeptical of everything except his own positions, I wonder?

@BicycleRepairMan

...and to see an exampe of such a racket, check the flood "geology" link.

Seriously, you cant see the blinding irony in your own words? So, things like radiometric dating, fossils, geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology are all just parts of a self-perpetuating racket confirming each others conclusions in a big old circlejerking conspiracy of astronomical proportions.. well, lets assume then that it is. So they are basically chasing the foregone conclusion that the universe is over 13 billion years old and that life on this planet emerged some 3,6 billion years ago and has evolved ever since. But where did these wild conclusions come from? Who established the dogma that scientists seems to mindlessly work to confirm, and why? And why 13,72 billion years then? Why not 100 billion years, or 345 million years?

The thing is, what you have here is an alleged "crime" with no incentives, no motivation.. Why on earth would all the worlds scientists, depentently and independently and over many generations converge to promote a falsehood of no significance to anyone? it might make some kind of sense if someones doctrine was threatened unless the world was exactly 13.72 billion years old. Or if someone believed they were going to hell unless they believed trilobites died out 250 million years ago.. The thing is, nobody believes that.

The truth is pretty much staring you in the face right here. The conclusions of science on things like the age of the earth emerged gradually; Darwin, and even earlier naturalists had no idea of the exact age of the earth, or even a good approximation, but they did figure this much: It must be very, very old. So old that it challenged their prior beliefs and assumptions about a god-created world as described in their holy book. And thats were nearly all scientists come from: They grew up and lived in societies that looked to holy books , scripture and religion for the answers, and everybody assumed they had proper answers until the science was done.If scientists were corrupt conspirators working to preserve dogma, they be like Kent Hovind or Ken Ham. Ignoring vast mountains of facts and evidence, and focus on a few distorted out-of-context quotations to confirm what they already "know".

Not only was your prior argument fallacious, but I refuted it. Now you're ignoring that and cherry picking your replies here. Seems pretty intellectually dishonest to me? In any case, I'll reply to what you've said here. I was going to get into the technical issues concerning why scientists believe the Universe is so old, and the history of the theory, but so far you have given me no reason to believe that any of it will be carefully considered.

Instead I'll answer with a portion of an article I found, which was printed in "The Ledger" on Feb 17th 2000. It's interview of a molecular biologist who wanted to remain anonymous

Caylor: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

MB: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

Caylor: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

MB: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times:
One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself.
Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures -- everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.”

Caylor: “I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”

MB: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.”

Caylor: “What elephant?”

MB: “Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!”

Here are some selected quotes:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin

"In China its O.K. to criticize Darwin but not the government, while in the United States its O.K. to criticize the government, but not Darwin."

Dr. J.Y. Chen,

Chinese Paleontologist

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

S. C. Todd,
Correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999

"Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it."

Steven Pinker,
Professor of Psychology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA., "How the Mind Works," [1997]

"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."

Professor Whitten,
Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia, 1980 Assembly Week address.

"Science is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as truth is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time. [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm, in this case neo-Darwinism. So it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict that paradigm to get a hearing. They find it hard to [get] research grants; they find it hard to get their research published; they find it very hard."

Prof. Evelleen Richards,
Historian of Science at the University of NSW, Australia

Speaks for itself, I think..

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Mark Hamil, Heath Ledger, Joker, Batman, Comics' to 'Mark Hamill, Heath Ledger, Joker, Batman, Comics' - edited by bareboards2

I think you phrased that backwards. It isn't remarkable how close he is to something that came out 30 years later, instead it's interesting how close the new thing is to the thing from the past. Or, you could consider that this may have been one of the things that Ledger drew on for inspiration.

haha that's hilarious

I love when they fuck political correctness...

James Holmes was a better joker than Heath Ledger anyhow

While these are all "The Joker", they are all very different characters. Ledger's Joker was my favorite, but it's not a matter of any of them being better than the others.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'joker, laugh, comparison, ledger, nicholson, hamill' to 'joker, laugh, comparison, heath ledger, jack nicholson, mark hamill' - edited by xxovercastxx

Can not touch Hamill. Ledger 2nd, Cesar Romero 3rd, Nicholson 4th.

I think Hamill has the superior overall voice/laugh but Ledger's performance as the Joker (including the laugh that accompanied it) was superlative. He really nailed the character perfectly for the tone of the movies.

This. Especially the observation that Ledger was the artist. He brought something new to the table. Not just a laugh. A whole twisted soul. Amazing.


>> ^L0cky:

They're all good in different ways.
Hamill is by far the most consistent, with the best vocal range. He's like the technical guitar player on his laughing strings. He knows what his Joker is supposed to sound like and he nails it every time.
When he hits it right Nicholson's is the most natural. Unlike the others he sounds genuinely and heartily amused; his has soul.
For scary, actually I'm not really all that amused I'm just an evil fucking psychotic that's restless, impatient and only mildly entertained at the best of times, and I'm only genuinely amused at other people's futility in the face of how pointless everything is, Ledger nails it. He's the artist.
Out of all three I choose Ledger for the scene at 2:10 and the way his laugh changes. That was chilling when I first watched it.
It's interesting how comics offer so much room for interpretation of character.

oh, right, oops. >> ^Payback:

>> ^Trancecoach:
or Larry Storch, Frank Welker, Mark Hamill, Kevin Michael Richardson, Jeff Bennett, Steven Blum, Richard Epcar, John DiMaggio, Corey Burton or Brent Spiner...
>> ^Fantomas:
No Cesar Romero? Pffft!


You do realize Hamill was in this clip?

>> ^Trancecoach:

or Larry Storch, Frank Welker, Mark Hamill, Kevin Michael Richardson, Jeff Bennett, Steven Blum, Richard Epcar, John DiMaggio, Corey Burton or Brent Spiner...
>> ^Fantomas:
No Cesar Romero? Pffft!



You do realize Hamill was in this clip?

or Larry Storch, Frank Welker, Mark Hamill, Kevin Michael Richardson, Jeff Bennett, Steven Blum, Richard Epcar, John DiMaggio, Corey Burton or Brent Spiner...

>> ^Fantomas:

No Cesar Romero? Pffft!

They're all good in different ways.

Hamill is by far the most consistent, with the best vocal range. He's like the technical guitar player on his laughing strings. He knows what his Joker is supposed to sound like and he nails it every time.

When he hits it right Nicholson's is the most natural. Unlike the others he sounds genuinely and heartily amused; his has soul.

For scary, actually I'm not really all that amused I'm just an evil fucking psychotic that's restless, impatient and only mildly entertained at the best of times, and I'm only genuinely amused at other people's futility in the face of how pointless everything is, Ledger nails it. He's the artist.

Out of all three I choose Ledger for the scene at 2:10 and the way his laugh changes. That was chilling when I first watched it.

It's interesting how comics offer so much room for interpretation of character.

1:19 won it for me for Ledger.

All of the Heath Ledger clips were cut off early.