search results matching tag: spider web
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
Videos (21) | Sift Talk (1) | Blogs (2) | Comments (36) |
Videos (21) | Sift Talk (1) | Blogs (2) | Comments (36) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
ant (Member Profile)
Your video, Snippet: Ants free siblings from spider webs., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
Lovely Irish dance set to 'Hamilton'
Nice spider web under the table's left leg.
Spiders on Drugs
This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by ant.
Spiders on Drugs
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Effects-Of-Drugs-And-Alcohol-On-Spider-Webs
Spiders on Drugs
This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.
Truck Attempts A Ship Boarding On Sketchy Planks
those were made from a trillion stands of spider web
Time For A New Maid?
I don't think she was intending to vaccum the roof, just use the pipe to catch the spider webs
Man Rescues Hummingbird Stuck in Used Chewing Gum
They get caught in large spider webs too, I've rescued many.
Effects Of Drugs And Alcohol On Spider Webs
Beautiful Spider Web Time Lapse. has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.
Beautiful Spider Web Time Lapse.
Effects Of Drugs And Alcohol On Spider Webs has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.
Beautiful Spider Web Time Lapse.
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Effects-Of-Drugs-And-Alcohol-On-Spider-Webs
Spiders on Drugs.
This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by mintbbb.
Spiders on Drugs.
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Effects-Of-Drugs-And-Alcohol-On-Spider-Webs
Spiders on Drugs.
This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by jonny. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.
Bill Maher and Craig Ferguson on Religion
When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).
If He is so easily disproven, it's interesting how no one in history has ever done so. What you're detailing in the supposed conflict between Gods omnipotence and omni-benevolence is the logical problem of evil. Plantigas free will defense proves that they are in fact logically compatible, so you don't have an argument here.
Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.
See where this is getting?
Yes, I see where you're conflating the issue. Anyone can make a claim, but that doesn't make every claim equally valid. Yes, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and you can't disprove a universal negative. Yet just because you cannot disprove the existence of God does not make the God hypothesis equal to cosmic teapots. There is no good reason to believe there are cosmic teapots, but plenty of good reasons to believe there is a God. The difference lies in the explanatory power of the claim, which is the basis for believing any theory.
You believe in the theory of abiogenesis, presumably, even though there is no actual evidence for life from non-life. So by your logic, a magic teapot could be an equally valid explanation for the origin of life. But since Abiogenesis has more explanatory power (barely) for the origin of life than a magic teapot, that makes it more probable and gives you justification for believing it.
The burden of proof lies with whomever is making a claim, for or against. Your epistemological position about uncertainty is countered by the fact that certain claims have more explanatory power than others. I cannot absolutely prove magic teapots don't exist, but that doesn't mean I don't have good reasons to believe they don't exist; since they explain precisely nothing they can safely be discarded as a valid claim.
>> ^hpqp:
@GeeSussFreeK: I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
@shinyblurry: Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".
When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).
I love how shiny uses the expression "want to have our cake and eat it to", which is a very rational and feasible desire (I'm a greedy atheist, I don't share my babby-cake with anyone. Mmmm, fetus fudge! <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileevil.gif">).
Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.
See where this is getting?