Tags for this video have been changed from 'natural world, masters of mayhem, bbc, tricksy' to 'natural world, masters of mayhem, bbc, stoffel, tricksy' - edited by Mordhaus

Even if you were to extend the definition to "Eurasia", as he no doubt does, it ignores something critical. The aboriginal Americans were masters of biotechnology. We have found the antecedents of maize, tomatoes, and potatoes, and they vary from utterly inedible to kinda poisonous. Over time, they transformed these noxious weeds into the crops that today keep billions of people alive. Imagine Italian cuisine without tomatoes. I would argue that maize was the Mezoamerican cathedral, a visible sign of their supremacy over the natural world.

The love of a God didn't save me from trauma, sexual and gender identity issues, clinical depression, and the ever looming bipolar disorder. Living is hard, even if it's also simultaneously fun and easy for me to succeed; because the concept of my personal identity isn't flush with the expectations that society and my family have. Being myself almost always gets me in trouble and is misunderstood with sometimes violent repercussions. This forms further cognitive dissonance which is a psychological isolation that has physical isolation as a matter of course. Depression runs in my family, despite all of their love and adoration of Jesus. Southern Baptists, bless their hearts.

I'm sorry to hear about all of that poolcleaner. I think maybe you have the idea that Christians, according to the bible, are supposed to live pain free lives. That isn't what the bible says, though. Jesus promised that Christians would suffer, not only persecutions but grievous trials, physically and spiritually. A Christian is supposed to die to himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus.

That means a Christian can become depressed, or have gender issues, or any number of other infirmities or temptations. Christians can and do screw up all the time. People have a picture of churches filled with people who think they are perfect, but it is the opposite. Churches are usually filled with people who have screwed up everything royally, and God rebuilt their lives from the ground up. Churches are filled with people who know and proclaim that it is only by Gods grace and mercy that there is anything good happening in their lives; they are filled with broken people who are held together in the loving arms of almighty God. They fall apart sometimes and God puts them back together again.

There's almost nothing logical about anything you say. The only logic is that you make things make sense according to the Bible. If it's scientifically logical but goes against the teachings Christ or God, it's wrong. If the Bible can support the science, it's good!

The most destructive thing in a mans life is a lack of integrity. When you cheat, you aren't getting away with it because no one found out; you are going to reap a bitter harvest from the bad seed you have sown. A loss will occur, whether it is financially, or even mentally and emotionally, and it will far outweigh the temporary gains. It is the same with lying, hating, lusting, etc. Sin in our lives is destructive physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. The bible describes it in exacting detail and it matches reality because the true reality of mankind, what he is really like, and why, can only be found in scripture. The bible is right about everything it says about mankind. Although the bible does match our observations of the natural world, I think it is more remarkable how it matches the reality of the inner universe.

I don't know if think you think this is science or not, as far as the video goes. As far as I can tell it is speculation based on a few studies the author researched. Has anyone tested his theory?

You, on the other hand, make every excuse to prove your stupid philosophy is true and that science is wrong for not agreeing upon the truth of your hippy God love cult. Prove me to be objectively incorrect in my perspective and I will give up on my convictions. Because what is a conviction if it's a false one based upon circular logic and feel good analogies? Oh, them feels. Them Jesus feels. Jesus hippy love.

I'm not a Christian because I thought it was a good idea, or because it made me feel good. When I gave my life to Jesus, I didn't feel any differently at all, except perhaps with a realization of some things I had to change in my life. I became a Christian because God revealed Himself to me, and He showed me Jesus is the messiah. No one ever witnessed to me or explained the gospel in my entire life; it was entirely because of personal revelation that I became a Christian.

I'm not here to prove anything; I post when I feel motivated by God, and the intent of my heart is care and concern for your souls. I started coming here when I was a new christian, and I got into arguments with people over petty issues. To me, now, the real issue is where you're spending eternity and I am praying for that. Perhaps I will never be known on this forum as anything other than an unthinking zealot, but God knows I am sincere at least about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fine-tuned_Universe&redirect=no

Newtboy, I know that I am wearing glasses. The problem is that you don't think you're wearing any. I see everything through the lens of the word of God, you see it through the lens of humanistic naturalism. We both have what is called a worldview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

Your worldview is grounded on your belief in certain axioms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

A belief such as the scientific method being the best way to understand the natural world is an axiom. The problem with that belief is that you cannot prove that using the scientific method. It isn't a self-evident truth, it is based on unprovable assumptions. That is the fundamental issue which creates what is called the problem of induction which "calls into question..all empirical claims made by the scientific method"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

If you don't think you have a worldview, or don't know what the axioms of your worldview are, then I am sorry to break this to you but you sir are the one walking around completely blind. You believe your filter is wide when it is actually very narrow.

It's easy to think that you're getting a good overall picture when actually you have simply selected sources of information which agree with your underlying assumptions about what you already believe. You are then simply living in an echo chamber.

You also forget that I used to be an agnostic and I understand that point of view. It's not my failure to understand the atheist and the agnostic, it is that I understand them all too well. I rejected that point of view when I found out there was a God. When you find out there is a God your entire worldview will shatter and fall into itsy bitsy little pieces, and you'll marvel that could be so ignorant as to miss the complete obvious:

Which is that It's completely obvious that the Universe was created and is maintained by an all powerful Creator, it isn't something anyone has to strain to look for. The majesty of Gods creation is constantly surrounding us, and our very existence at this moment is proof positive of that fact.

The theory of Intelligent Design looks for design features in the "code" of the Universe. For a good overview for the application of Intelligent Design to many other fields of science, check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYLHxcqJmoM&list=PLC805D4953D9DEC66

scientism is really like truthieness. It's a made up word, with a made up definition, that has no bearing on, or connection to reality.
Science is not about belief.
If data 'proves' that science can't ever answer any question about reality (not about human insanity, although it already goes a long way towards explaining that too), scientists would concede instantly. If it were a belief, they could never change it based on evidence, but science does change.

No one is asking you to 'bow' to any 'theory'. They are simply the 'rules' that 'science' has produced to explain how the world/universe works. They work just fine without your 'belief' in them or knowledge of them. That's just one thing they have over the supernatural.

Please give an example or two of scientific 'truths' that were half baked ideas. I think if you look throughout history, carefully, you will see the scientific method was developed mostly around the 12th century as explained here:

Amongst the array of great scholars, al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method. His scientific method involved the following stages:1.Observation of the natural world
2.Stating a definite problem
3.Formulating a robust hypothesis
4.Test the hypothesis through experimentation
5.Assess and analyze the results
6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions
7.Publish the findings

but it's widely held that it was not solidified to the modern scientific method (eliminating guessing and 'induction' and requiring repeatable experimentation) until Newton. That means any example you might give should come after 1660 or so at the earliest, or you aren't talking about the same "science" that the rest of us are.

I think most scientist would say it is 'possible' that supernatural events happen, but incredibly unlikely, and constantly less so the more we know about the world and it's rules. It's just as likely that if I only eat the right color yellow foods I'll eventually 'magically' crap gold. I can't prove it won't happen (because I'll never know if I ate the 'right' color foods, if I ever tried), but I can use science to show it's absolutely unlikely to a NEAR certainty (no matter how one misunderstands quantum physics).
The supernatural is right there with my golden poops....and I can't tell which smells worse.

@RedSky - You aren't reading what I'm saying.

I'm talking about finding an equilibrium in which humanity can thrive economically, socially and environmentally.

I'm only saying that things like environmental damage, fracking, certain food production techniques, the current flavor of resource wars, and the fact that a massive proportion of our current population really can't feed itself are all evidence that the effort required to sustain current and future population levels doesn't fit my definition of finding balance.

The only point of no return I'm talking about is that at some point it will be essentially impossible to get to that place of balance that I favor. It's a nebulous concept for sure, but I do think it is relatively imminent and at the very least that we are heading in the wrong direction - especially in light of the notion proposed by this video where exponential growth can give you a false sense of security right up until just before you hit it.

I actually agree with you and think that earth could sustain an arbitrarily large population of say 20 billion or even more.

But we'd have to spend more of our time and efforts competing (sometimes violently) for the resources, we'd have to shape ever larger proportions of the natural world to our own narrow needs, we'd have to put up with a much less pleasant environment, and since it will be challenging enough to just get the resources to feed and clothe your own people, there is a really good chance that unfathomable (billions) quantities of human beings will be marginalized by this system and spend most of their time suffering.

Again, a far cry rom my definition of equilibrium.

As for your notion that vague global threats don't cause change, for starters I'm not sure that's true - there are significant popular environmental movements around the world and also some threshold of self interest can be breached. For example if you look at negotiations over things like the Kyoto protocols you will see that developing nations who are much more susceptible to environmental changes like shifting climates and rising sea levels are significantly more likely to sign on. It's no coincidence that Bangladesh and a few other island nations were the only countries to ratify the thing.

But there are also educational and social strategies that can have a huge effect. I think that you'd get a lot of mileage from just increasing women's rights around the world.

Your video, Louie Schwartzberg: Hidden miracles of the natural world, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I wonder if the fundraiser was considered a success after they paid the bill for clean up, the fines for littering, and served their time in purgatory for obscene disrespect shown towards the natural world?

..it was really neat looking though.

How am I supposed to continue to interact intelligently when you keep twisting my words to imply things I have repeatedly stated I was not saying?

I deliberately chose my words to make it clear that I was not saying the driver MUST have done anything but only that he MIGHT. Simple reading comprehension; trying to twist my words for emotive effect is not going to work on me. (apart from getting a rise which it totally did)

You only seem willing to entertain a single perspective assessment of the situation and appear completely closed off to any other interpretation/speculation I have attempted to present.

The fact you have repeatedly ignored the core argument I have been making (that there is no such thing as one perspective and morality is a relativistic concept) suggests that either A you don't understand what I'm trying to say (in which case I'm happy to explain further) or B. don't want to understand (in which case I can't do shit for you sorry)

Let me put it another way. Do you think we understand Hitler and the Nazi's better by A. calling them racist fags and blindly denouncing their actions as "evil". or B. attempting to understand the mindset and motivations for what they did with a minimum of emotional compromise?

When you take the care to examine life's little unpleasantries like Nazi's or bike gangs or whatever from a less emotive position, you realise that they were/are not just some abhorrent alien force in society. Any one of us has the same capacity to behave like this, they aren't fundamentally different creatures and the belief that they are is exactly what allows people to justify doing this kind of thing in the 1st place. (If you asked one of the bike gangers to describe you and I you'd likely find they used the same kind of derogatory and dehumanising terms and categories, we're just slipping into the reciprocal tribal mindset)

Do I think bike gangs (and for that matter large groups of people in general) generally represent humanity at its worst? Yes totally, they are to my sensibilities 1st class arseholes. That's why I've agreed with you repeatedly on this (from post 1 onwards in fact!) I just like to come at things from more than one perspective because ultimately perspective is all that really exists to us, in this case I shared some measure of perspective with the bikers as I can see how thing thing could have escalated from that POV and how they might well have justified their actions to themselves.

Ethics/morals are little more than deep aesthetic preferences, they have no observable basis of authority in the natural world, only our own minds. While it's an illusion were arguably better off with, it does rather get in the way of objectivity.

All I really take exception to is having my words and meaning distorted and my core argument ignored. It's called a straw-man (reciting a deliberately distorted and weak version of your opponents argument to then tear it down) that shit wouldn't even fly in a high-school debating club and it certainly wont work with me here. Its fine that you disagree but at least get what your disagreeing with right please.

It's not about "good and "bad" "right" and "wrong" but rather "why" and "how". In short it's more complicated than "bike curious fags" and reducing matters only to that does nothing to help the situation other than to illustrate ones deep aesthetic distaste (which in itself is totally valid and I've not contradicted at any stage). I have somewhat more split "deeply held aesthetic preferences" here which is what I originality began talking about, perhaps that's why I'm finding it easier to at least relate to the bikers side of things even if I don't agree or condone.

"....and also disagree that anything excuses...."

^ This phrase beautifully demonstrates the folly of rigid non-perspective based morality. By embracing any arbitrary absolute truth or principle such as this one renders objectivity and transcendence impossible. Justification is a personal thing, what I'm interested in is provocation and explanation, we can argue what's justified until the cows come home because its not an objective concept it's a subjective preference.

This, when all semantics are stripped away is the core of why we are disagreeing I think. You think Ethics/morals are actual things that matter in their own right, I think they are no more than strong preferences who's usefulness is directly proportional to ones ability to understand and sympathise with those of others. Everything else has really been a play around that (by both of us) in less direct terms I fear....

My mother is a biology teacher and all my life she's shown me how fascinating the natural world is. It's become a real interest for me and shapes the way I live my life. When I got married my wife and I went to kenya on safari and saw some of the most beautiful and incredible wildlife. I remembered seeing lions and elephants in the zoo with my mother telling me all about them, to see them for real in the wild was mind blowing. I vividly remember how much my mother would love to see Africa. She could make the creepy crawlies under a rotting log fascinating, I just thought how wonderful lions, leopards and so on would be for her.

She's worked hard all her life and provided very well for my brother and I, we had a great upbringing and great opportunities but they never left enough for themselves. So last year my wife and I took her to Zambia. Highlight of the trip was tracking a lioness on foot and getting to within about fifty yards of it. Being able to share the experience with her was awesome. We're lucky enough to be able to afford it and it's the best money I've ever, ever spent.

If you can, you really should spoil your mother. They deserve it

Matthew 16:26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?

It is written that in the last days, knowledge will increase, but it doesn't mention anything about wisdom. You can see that very clearly in the world system, that for all of mans hubris regarding his accomplishments, the character of man has not changed one iota. The evil that is done in this world is symptomatic of a disease that has no modern cure, which is called sin, and all who sin are slaves to sin. This is why Jesus came into the world, to free men from slavery to sin and death. Investigating 4 alpha decay sets and why the neptunium set doesn't appear in nature is never going to reveal that to you. There is no knowledge that you can gain from studying the natural world which is going to solve the problem of sin; it is only Jesus Christ who has solved this problem.

Yes, you're correct, the bible is not a science book; it is a salvation book. God inspires men to do great things in science; just ask Newton. Yet there are two questions science cannot answer; why am I here, and what happens after I die? No experiment will give you any revelation on these matters. They are the most important questions, and Jesus did answer them. He said we are here because God created us to be in fellowship with Him, and there will be a judgment after we die that determines where we end up. That is why, if Satan came to your door and gave you a deed to all of the nations of the world and all of their wealth (hundreds of trillions at the least), in exchange for your soul, you would have made an unprofitable deal. Everything in this world is perishing and will pass away, but those who do the will of God will abide forever.



>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^shinyblurry:
1 Corinthians 1:18-21
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

What does the bible have to say about the 4 alpha decay sets and why the neptunium set doesn't appear in nature? Problem is, the bible doesn't really answer any scientific questions, nor does it give any useful tools into discovering how the world works. So while I still hold that Corinthians has the best definition of love, it can't give you an understanding of the bio-chemical-neurological goings on of love, and has to deal with deformities of the working order of the body with the deus ex machina of demons. No one prayed the printing press into existence so you could even have a bible in written form, or a keyboard and the internet, or medicine, or refrigeration. Anyone who can't agree that science and technology vastly improve the quality of life on the planet more than any one other thing, including religion, has a large burden of evidence to overcome, imo. While I don't go as far as Bill Maher kind of people and say that religion is bad (I think it does do a lot of good), I will say that I think STEM has done most of the heavy lifting in our modern world in terms of doing good.

^ More insane blathering from our local Repug tool. Good for a chuckle if you forget that this nutter actually believes this stupidity. Incredible how little it takes for some people to rail and vote against their own interests in the name of some cultish ideology. Gullibility, tunnel-vision, and the lack of common sense use to be culled from our species by lions and other predators. Now, these luddites multiply like rats and have become dead weight on humanity and progress. It's almost like Mother Nature's way of balancing out our decimation of the natural world. Humans overpopulate -> humans displace natural predators -> more low-intelligence, self-destructive idiots survive -> idiots infect gene pool -> raise more idiots -> vote for idiots -> humans destroy themselves -> predator population increases (if not already extinct).

Not one thing this kid said was true. I feel sorry for him. You can't pick your parents.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'BBC Natural World, Clever Monkeys, animals, nature, cute, funny, mischievous' to 'BBC Natural World, Clever Monkeys, animals, nature, cute, David Attenborough' - edited by BoneRemake

My entire point is his religion doesn't control his mind. He controls his mind.

>> ^rottenseed:

Shinyblurry sure knows how to take a giant dump on a thread. Your religion is a pebble in the shoe of honesty, rationality, and humanity for the sake of humanity. Instead of having a conversation about what we know to be personally true -- psychology and emotion -- you grant the "wisdom" of folklore and treat it as fact. There's no book less important than the bible. The book "Everybody Poops" is more relevant to us as a species than the bible.


Dude, come on. We know psychology to be true?! That's like saying we know science to be true. Extremely broad, and science has been known to be wrong. I'm not playing the relativism card. I'm a big believer in science, but it's pretty absurd to think science is infallible. Even what we still consider scientific laws we actually already know aren't true. Matter can not be created or destroyed we already know isn't true, since you can convert mass into energy. The law though is still useful to understand the natural world.

But you're saying we know broadly one of the most disputed sciences ever conceived?

Agreed; Dante's "Inferno" and the expressiveness of the Old Testament and Apocrypha in general no doubt have inspired reams of artistic works. I suppose my point was we often don't think of the day-to-day lives of celebrated old artists... and how a church/state commissioned 'Lamentation of Christ' alter piece that is now seen as a masterwork was at one time seen as a safe bet to generate some income, which could fund experimentation with capturing more personal themes and illustration of the natural world.

(I should say "may have been seen as a safe bet to generate some income", as this is my own impression)

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> Undoubtedly true, but at the same time I think it would be wrong to say that none of the artists involved in creating great works were not genuinely inspired by their faith. I don't just mean the likes of the Sistine Chapel either, but lots of smaller non-commissioned work.
Although you could argue that that is art inspired by faith rather than religion.