Nope-You missed nothing, and I'm no bible-thumper....I just get a hard-on to fuck with atheists every once in a while-Sort of a test to see if they're still as fucking rabid as they were about 6 years ago....Guess that shit died down a bit, praise Otters. I generally deride and distrust anyone who discounts the metagnostic aspects of the human experience.

Would have thought with so many type-A's here that this video would have done better, and took it out on atheists and what I perceive as a predictable morose and dull-witted-ness in the general, god-damming population...

At present this concept of design is just castle-in-the-sky nonsense. Empty piffle. A complete non-starter.

This is why the "mere mention" of "design" will get you "banned" from peer-review, because you could just as well have made a "mere mention" of Bigfoot and the loch ness monster in your zoology report, it's a big tell to your peers that you are a nut who fails to understand the nature of evidence and science, and a big sign that you are in for some fuzzy logic and dumb assumptions instead of solid science.

Design is a better hypothesis for the information we find in DNA, and the fine tuning we see in the physical laws. The reason design is a non-starter is because the idea this Universe was created by anyone is anathema to the scientific community:

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

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, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...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 MIT
How the mind works p.182

After essentially nullifying and disproving everything we have learned about biology the last 200 years, you still have all the work ahead of you, I'm afraid. You now have to build a completely new framework and model for every single observation ever made in biology that makes sense of it all and explains why things are the way they are. Shouting that a thing is "complex" is not cutting it, I'm afraid. You need a new theory of DNA, Immunology, Bacterial resistance, adaptation, vestigal organs, animal distobution, mutation, selection, variation, genetics, speciation, taxonomy... well, as Dobzhansky put it: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" That quote is more relevant than ever.

Your error here is conflating micro and macro evolution. Creation scientists believe in micro evolution and speciation. That is part of the creationist model of how the world was repopulated with animals after the flood. Macro evolution, the idea that all life descended from a universal common ancestor, is not proven by immunology, bacterial resistance, adaptation, animal distribution, mutation, seclection, variation, speciation, taxonomy etc. The only way you could prove it is in the fossil record and the evidence isn't there. They've tried to prove it with genetics but it contradicts the fossil record (the way they understand it). So Creationists have no trouble explaining those things..and common genetics points to a common designer.

You dont have to trust scientists, most of the EVIDENCE is RIGHT FUCKING THERE, in front of you, in your pocket, in your hand, around your home, in every school, in every home, in every post office or courtroom, in the streets. ACTUAL REAL EVIDENCE, right there, PROVING, every second, that the universe is billions of years old.

Every scientist since Newton could be a lying sack of shit, all working on the same conspiracy, and it would mean fuck all, because the evidence speaks for itself.

The earth is definately NOT ten thousand years young.

Have you ever heard of the horizon problem? The big bang model suffers from a light travel time problem of its own, but they solve it by postulating cosmic inflation, which is nothing more than a fudge factor to solve the problem. First, it would have to expand at trillions of times the speed of light, violating the law that says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. There is also no theory compatible with physics that could explain the mechanism for how the Universe would start expanding, and then cease expanding a second later. It's poppycock. See what secular scientists have to say about the current state of the Big Bang Theory:

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

As far as how light could reach us in a short amount of time, there are many theories. One theory is that the speed of light has not always been constant, and was faster at the beginning of creation. This is backed up by a number of measurements taken since the 1800s showing the speed of light decreasing. You can see the tables here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n1/velocity-of-light

The problem the GOP-faithful seem to have these days is they assume, because the news keeps reporting on the Republicans' failures, that it's a liberal bias. They never stop to consider that maybe the Republicans are actually out of control and need to be exposed.

Maybe if the Republicans moved back toward the classical conservatism that made them successful in decades past; maybe if they supported the citizens' freedom to make their own decisions about drugs, sex, religion, etc; maybe if they stopped this insane march toward Theocratic Authoritarianism; maybe then the media wouldn't have so many negative GOP stories to run.

As someone who leans toward classic conservatism on the majority of issues, it's plainly obvious to me how fucked up the GOP is. The Democrats are fucked up, too; don't get me wrong; they're just not on the same level right now. And no matter how fucked up one party gets, it doesn't justify the other party's fucked-up-ness.

If scientists are those that practice science then every creation scientist who has published a peer reviewed paper is a scientist.

Well, yes. you can be a scientist and a creationist. That doesnt make Creationism science. The link you provided referred to a biologist creationist publishing a paper without creation/god/whatever mentioned and a creationist physicist publishing non-biological papers. All fine.

The site also says/implies that mentioning ceationism/design will prevent publishing. This is probably true in most cases, but not for the conspiratorial reasons creationists think.

Suppose you are a biologist working on understanding say, a particular enzyme, what it does and how it works, now suppose you reach a point where you just cant figure the fuck out how the enzyme is made exactly or exactly how it works. Now suppose you are writing an article for peer-review about said enzyme. Suppose you note in the article that you hit a dead end in your research, unable to figure out the excact workings of the enzyme: Thats fine.

What is NOT fine, however, is to speculate that unicornpiss is required for the enzyme to work. Thats not because your peers are biased against unicornpiss, its just that there is no evidence for it, no detailed description of what it is, what it contains, how it works or that it even exists, nor is there any reason to link it to a particular enzyme.

Replace "unicornpiss" with "creation" or "design" or "god" or whatever, the example still works.

In science you need to be specific, descriptive, and evidence-based. The reason words like Creation and Unicornpiss does so poorly in the peer-review wordcloud is because they are essentially dealing with the imaginary.

So if you want more creationism published, start by defining exactly what is meant by creation, design etc, who? what? how? is there a designer behind the flagellum? describe him/her/it! define the limitations, the exact method used, the magic involved in detail, then present the direct or indirect evidence of the now precicely defined designer.

At present this concept of design is just castle-in-the-sky nonsense. Empty piffle. A complete non-starter.

This is why the "mere mention" of "design" will get you "banned" from peer-review, because you could just as well have made a "mere mention" of Bigfoot and the loch ness monster in your zoology report, it's a big tell to your peers that you are a nut who fails to understand the nature of evidence and science, and a big sign that you are in for some fuzzy logic and dumb assumptions instead of solid science.

They are vintage instruments, and I don't believe your standard music shop will repair them. Sometimes a little bit of pitcy-ness in vintage instruments is considered charming and nostalgic, hence the popularity of out of tune upright pianos in indy music. Also, overblowing or underblowing can push the instrument sharp or flat. >> ^chingalera:

So...whys the melodica kinna flat???

*promote the Burnsy-ness.

I was going to reply to him but you guys covered it pretty well. The crazy storylines, the wild writing, characters that were up, then down.. that was the fun about it. Farscape remains one of my all-time fav shows simply because every time I watched a new episode I left it with a massive grin on my face. It was just one of the most fun shows I've ever watched.

>> ^00Scud00:

Farscape could be really over the top sometimes, but then I think that's at least part of what I liked about it, overall I thought the show was pretty well written and I enjoyed the hell out of a lot of the characters. As for why people tend to deify Firefly so much I think it could be compared to just falling in love with someone and then having them promptly die on you, they weren't around long enough to really disappoint you in any big way so your memory of them will be pretty much be eternally perfect.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Reefie:
Farscape is definitely a show that has to be watched from beginning to end in order to follow the threads and feel like you know where you are with it. It's a stark contrast to Firefly where episodes are an entire story unto themselves with only a couple of background story threads being maintained at any one point. IMO Farscape's complex story is second only to Babylon 5's epic-ness when considering the story-arc aspect of sci-fi TV shows.
Also helps to be a little bit crazy to fully appreciate Farscape. A love of the 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky helps too

That doesn't explain the characters, they were sometimes very poorly written, by any standard.

Farscape could be really over the top sometimes, but then I think that's at least part of what I liked about it, overall I thought the show was pretty well written and I enjoyed the hell out of a lot of the characters. As for why people tend to deify Firefly so much I think it could be compared to just falling in love with someone and then having them promptly die on you, they weren't around long enough to really disappoint you in any big way so your memory of them will be pretty much be eternally perfect.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Reefie:
Farscape is definitely a show that has to be watched from beginning to end in order to follow the threads and feel like you know where you are with it. It's a stark contrast to Firefly where episodes are an entire story unto themselves with only a couple of background story threads being maintained at any one point. IMO Farscape's complex story is second only to Babylon 5's epic-ness when considering the story-arc aspect of sci-fi TV shows.
Also helps to be a little bit crazy to fully appreciate Farscape. A love of the 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky helps too

That doesn't explain the characters, they were sometimes very poorly written, by any standard.

>> ^Reefie:


Farscape is definitely a show that has to be watched from beginning to end in order to follow the threads and feel like you know where you are with it. It's a stark contrast to Firefly where episodes are an entire story unto themselves with only a couple of background story threads being maintained at any one point. IMO Farscape's complex story is second only to Babylon 5's epic-ness when considering the story-arc aspect of sci-fi TV shows.
Also helps to be a little bit crazy to fully appreciate Farscape. A love of the 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky helps too


That doesn't explain the characters, they were sometimes very poorly written, by any standard.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Xaielao:
Firefly was very good while it lasted, but I've always been more of a Farscape fan and would much rather see a reunion episode of that.
/runs for the door

I've watched a lot of Farscape. It is sometimes very good. Other times though it's just farcical. I mean I started watching it in the order that you're intended to watch it, and the Characters still had no consistency. You never knew where anyone stood at any particular time, sometimes they were mad, or happy, or friends, or enemies. It made so little fucking sense and the characters would change WAY too much over a very short period of time, and then go back like nothing was gained or learned.
I love their use of puppetry and the costumes for some of the characters, it was amazing. Some of the story lines and ideas were absolutely fun and great. The consistency and character arcs simply didn't exist though, they were chaotic at the best of times.


Farscape is definitely a show that has to be watched from beginning to end in order to follow the threads and feel like you know where you are with it. It's a stark contrast to Firefly where episodes are an entire story unto themselves with only a couple of background story threads being maintained at any one point. IMO Farscape's complex story is second only to Babylon 5's epic-ness when considering the story-arc aspect of sci-fi TV shows.

Also helps to be a little bit crazy to fully appreciate Farscape. A love of the 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky helps too

>> ^brycewi19:

Two things I haven't been a fan of so far, and they're both intentional choices that Moffat has gone with.
1. The movie poster idea. It doesn't have the same feel as the rest of the series and it removes the sense of serial-ness/continuity to the season.
2. The Ponds are not continuous companions. This is a problem to me. It was revealed in the "Waters of Mars" special that the Doctor MUST have a companion to balance out his power - to "humanize" him, so to speak. Having him simply "check in" on them doesn't feel like it honors this previous internal struggle they worked so hard to show in the Doctor's personality in years past.
I understand that these are choices that Moffat has made, and I tremendously respect him as a writer (see: TinTin and Sherlock), but I just don't like the direction these choices have taken this year so far.


I think they have alluded to the fact that it's not a good thing he's been on his own Amy even says "this is what happens when you travel alone too long", and my best guess is that this will be instrumental in their downfall.

Two things I haven't been a fan of so far, and they're both intentional choices that Moffat has gone with.
1. The movie poster idea. It doesn't have the same feel as the rest of the series and it removes the sense of serial-ness/continuity to the season.
2. The Ponds are not continuous companions. This is a problem to me. It was revealed in the "Waters of Mars" special that the Doctor MUST have a companion to balance out his power - to "humanize" him, so to speak. Having him simply "check in" on them doesn't feel like it honors this previous internal struggle they worked so hard to show in the Doctor's personality in years past.

I understand that these are choices that Moffat has made, and I tremendously respect him as a writer (see: TinTin and Sherlock), but I just don't like the direction these choices have taken this year so far.

Please. Women look at me almost like this all the time. It usually has a bit more shock in the face followed by a look of pure disgust and has some more horizontal-ness to it, but it is close-ish.

"I didn't do anything"? What egocentric bullshit. Why are you getting closer to the action where cops are telling you to move away? Why on earth would you walk with the rioters when the police are actively telling you to disperse?

This naive 백소년's logic of the role of his bystander-ness is flawed. Most likely some individuals were involved in illegal activities to have triggered the cops to act at first. So cops try to look for these individuals, but the individual disappears into the crowd. Police tries to search for the individual.

Now this is the important part. It's most likely that the crowd of bystanders got in the way of the cops, saying they didn't have anything to do with the illegal activity, so they shouldn't have to do anything or comply to cop's requests.

There are two things the bystanders are doing wrong:

1. Actively getting in the way of the cop's official duty.
2. Failure to disassociate themselves from the illegal activity.

See, what the bystanders forget is that you can't just stand there and let shit happen. It's common knowledge that if you see someone murdering a person or let your friend drink and drive, and didn't do anything to stop them, you are charged for contempt as well. When you are a bystander, it doesn't mean that you are responsible for everyone else's action. But at least when someone acts in a way you disagree with, you are obliged to ACTIVELY part yourself from that activity. Point the person out, or at least move away from the individual to disassociate yourself.

This is not so much to ask. Remind yourselves what you would have to do when you have witnessed a murder scene or saw your drunk friend with the car keys. In these situations, if you aren't able to prevent the illegal activity yourself, you are obligated to report to the police right away. In a crowded setting you often don't know who have committed the crime or let alone know if there is a crime being committed. So you haven't witnessed it first hand, but you are still obliged to disassociate yourself from the crime scene. So what's so hard about just walking away from group of people who have reportedly been doing illegal things?

Saying you are innocent at a crime scene and then actively walking toward the cops who are telling you to clear the area does not make you innocent. Because now you are purposely getting in the way of cops official business. When they tell you to move away, MOVE AWAY. Why are you disregarding the cops request? Why the FUCK are you approaching a group of cops who has their weapons drawn out? And notice how the film doesn't show what illegal activity was going on that triggered the cop's response, and only show the parts where cops are crackin' heads.

Know your civic duties before claiming you are being violated of your rights. Naive, biased, hotheaded youth of America.

I live in a smallish town in the midwest; there is a community orchestra and a generally 'old-person' community band that play outdoors a few times each year. Also community theater. Also an inexpensive 'artist work space' thats really a big warehouse that a guy rents out sections of for people to work on, view and collaborate in art projects. Also... well, a lot more.

When I first got here I needed not only to find people and pay attention to postings about these things, but also to appreciate that these things are actually fun, and the quirkiness and unprofessional-ness of much of it can actually be charming when there is no pretentiousness.

>> ^Payback:

Why does neat stuff like this only happen in foreign countries?
I mean, other than them all being arrested for disturbing the peace or street performing without a permit.