As David Berman pointed out so eloquently, when asked if he considers him self a poet or a song writer, he said " the only thing I "am" is an American. It seems pompous when people call them selves scientists. Really so if your a scientist you are more able to distinguish bullshit form truth.

With so many opinions on what a legitimate study is, (the dogma of the double-blind study as the only validity of a subject) I think science is going down down into the ground.

I remember in the early 90's smart was not easy to come by. Now even dumbest are considered smart. Because they use fancy phones and work with computers, what is beyond science?

Max, thats one part of the what if equation. In the above renderings, chances are the ring is a solid mask effect and not actually rendered particles. The pictures from space show almost dark night in the shadow of the rings. In reality, it might not get that dark...

That being said, the rings would cast a gigantic shadow over a section of the earth on a day by day bases. While it wouldn't be a frozen tundra, it most certainly would create enough change in temperature to change the current jet streams dramatically. Not only air temperatures, but water temperatures as well. The hot and cold areas on the planet would most certainly be different, and if the rings reflected light heated up other parts of the globe, I would imagine our weather patterns would be quite violent.

Then there is the physical side of things, I am sure rocks from the ring fall into the atmosphere on a constant bases.

that was a fantastic video!you should post it.i think its a valuable component and a great tutorial.
i agree wholeheartedly with the videos premise,and i think it also strengthens my position.
let me explain:
the reason why i stated it would be futile to argue one way other the other matters concerning faith was expressed quite eloquently in the video you shared.
i have no concrete evidence or data that can concretely convince you of anything.however,i do not reject or dismiss the findings of science in order for me to retain my faith.so while you will find me agreeing with you on many subjects concerning science,you will also find i will not put any facts on the table concerning my faith.because there are no facts and i am very aware of this.
maybe it would help if i gave you an idea how i view things:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Perceiving-Reality-A-useful-philosophy
notice the lack of dogma?of a bearded white dude with jealous,genocidal tendencies?
a total lack of judgment?
the video i shared is a very over-simplified explanation of how i view reality.
could i be wrong?
of course.my faith is not based on a book,or a theology so i have the freedom to be curious and ask questions.my faith is organic in its ability to evolve along with my understand of the universe.so if anything defines my faith,it would be science.
which is only limited by our ability to observe and test.
in my opinion,science is the testing and validating the observable physical universe.basically..the study of the creator.the more science uncovers the more that is revealed that is beautiful,poetic and far more complicated than any doctrine or dogma could ever imagine.

i state i am a man of faith because thats what it is..faith.i have faith that we all have a divine spark.a part of us that is sacred and connected to the creator/god/goddess/buddha/the All,whatever you wish to call it.we are all co-creators..we are all just "potential",raw and un-tapped.i cannot prove with any conclusive evidence that what i feel/think is correct.so it must be called what it is...faith.
we are mind/body/spirit.
i say this with conviction,but i have no way to prove this to you,and to try without any measurable means would insult you.so i dont try.

i shall give you one example where i hope you have experienced to relate,somewhat ,to what i am attempting to convey:
ever love a woman? ever love her so completely that when you were together it seemed you fell into her?and she you?where you both seemed to have created a space that was so lovely as to be over-powering?that when you were together time seemed to stop?
would you be insulted if someone said to you "bah,thats just chemicals and hormones.nothing more,nothing less".
but you KNEW..it was more,and to reduce it to mere chemicals and hormones just cheapened the experience.and if it IS just chemicals and hormones,electric synapses firing.then we should be able to replicate this affect yes?
but we cant..not yet at least.
is there something more? is it possible?
understand i am not trying to convince you of anything,i am just asking the same questions i ask myself.one of the millions i ask myself.
i left the church at 14 due to my pastors absolute failure to answer my questions.
because if you do a little research and study the history of the bible,qu'ran,torah et'al dogma and doctrine will fall short everytime.they are man made...its obvious.
but what of those questions?the answers is what i find most intimate and revealing.

i believe,through the experiences and encounters,that we are more than our sum parts.what that actually is,i do not know,but i am "faithful" we are more and shall continue to ask the questions.it is also for this reason i do not try to convince anybody else that my "faith" is valid in their eyes.that would be me seeking validation,and i need none.

the only thing i am wary of,and i think its a large reason why i do not attempt to convince anybody of my faith,is the trap of conflation.to use information and mold it to fit my world view.religious people do this ad nauseum,as do consprisy(sp?) theorists and politicians.while being faithful may fly in the face of logic,i do my best to employ logic as often as i can.
but when your questions deal with things outside the realm of the phyisical universe sometimes all you have is faith.

i am thoroughly enjoying this conversation my friend.i am doing my best to construct complete sentences and paragraphs for you.but i am the run-on-sentence king.you on the other hand,write beautifully.
thank you very much for your insight my friend.
the conversation continues.
till next time...namaste.

Zyrxil

"You have no sense of subtle comedic timing"

Well that's not the case maby i have watched to much comedy + bloody student animations and i am bored to the skull of the same sort of thing. I am very aware of timing aside from the fact it is probably a subjective issue if you were to get an "expert" on the subject I think they would likely come to my conclusion (or maby not ) not that that means annything, I am just pretty sure i can identify good timing based on the nature of the content.

for example the timing used in this might have worked if the animation included more detail in the characters facial expressions or editing of the scene was to make it more dynamic and emphasize the characters mind set If the animator wanted to keep it static maby better use of sound could help out.

The lighting and rending was nicely executed as well as the modaling of the props. I think it was pretty much let down by the character animation maby they did the character in anima style due to lack of talent in character modeling and animation / lack of time.


Its not "BAD" for example if a student made it you would easily give them a 1st its just i don't rate things in acrodence with who produced it i rate it on the grand scale of things that I'm aware of.

so compared to the best student films i have seen and pixar Japanese anima manga this is pretty shitty. But compared to the Average manga/student film this is awesome.

>> ^ant:
Good thing I am not on it!


I regret that I am on it now so I *promote this.

*amazon=asscrack

That looks like I'm dissing the amazon thing. I am not. I was just testing the boundaries.

But then, maybe I'm just old.

good thing I am young and invincible

Good thing I am not on it!

Of course a stimulus package is exactly like a unilateral military invasion of another sovereign country!

Apparently not, the porkapalooza stimulus costs TWICE as much as Iraq but liberates no one. It pays off Big Labor and the government school teachers' union. Oh, and 50 million for "the arts" and Ninny Pelosi's 335 million dollar condom scheme.

Per Netrunner's comment, I don't think Democrats do a good job governing, and the Republicans that do the worst jobs were usually emulating Democrats & expanding the size of government (Bush)!

Today's Democrat is a nanny-state socialist; if you're a socialist that's a good thing. I am not a socialist. I do not trust the government with excessive power, just as the Founding Fathers did not.

I say again, if you want a sneak preview of what liberal policies will do to America, look to the disaster that is California, which is solely run by majority Democrats (with a sissy RINO as governor) and has very high taxation and crime, illegal aliens running amok and can't pay its bills. The State of California has the 6th largest economy in the world yet is bankrupt.

Obama's baking cakes with salt instead of sugar. They look good, but tastewise....

This is good stuff, Gwiz. I like this discussion even though I'm convinced that it isn't going aywhere. But what the heck? I'll take a crack at it, anyway.

I really can understand why people look at organized religion and think, "WHAT THE -- ?!?" I do the same thing. Especially in light of the fact that they can't even get their OWN doctrine straight half of the time, let alone try to resolve their religion with science. Most religious people, you are right, probably have not put a great deal of effort into objectively justifying their religion to themselves.

In saying this I am not saying that all religion needs to be justified, because I don't see any "evidence" that God does not exist. Lack of evidece is not evidence. But certain principles within religion (Christianity's creation theory, for example) could be seen as illogical. I was going somewhere with this...

Ah, yes. My point is that some religious people (me) believe very much in the power of faith but also are not satisfied to believe blindly. If I encounter "evidence" that any doctrine does not agree with, I think about it A LOT. I research it, I ask other people, I read scriptures and books of doctrine, I pray, and I figure it out. I have never failed to resolve logic and my religion. Now, I am admitting that when I do these things I am seeking to find answers in a biased way, but I don't think that my bias prevents me from following things to their logical conclusions. For example, both of my parents are very wise, intelligent, and well-read people. When I have a question about a point of doctrine, I pick their brains apart. If they don't give me a logical answer, I keep asking and challenging the doctrine until we've found a solution that truly makes sense to me. And things making sense to me is nothing to scoff at. I don't let illogic slide.

The scientific method is not a good way to discover the truth about matters that ought to be discussed philosophically. Philosophy is the very essense of logical thought. You say that to be religious is to accept a forgone conclusion in spite of evidence? What does that mean? What evidence is their to suggest that God does not exist? What "pretty big jumps in logic" am I making? I see evidence that He exists every day of my life. This is not evidence gained through the scientific method, but it is evidence.

Some clarifications: To be "universally accepted" means that it is truth in the same way that gravity is a universally accepted truth. If God proved to all of us that He exists, we might not understand HOW He exists, but it would be a universally accepted truth that He does, thus requiring very little of us. That is what I meant.

One last point. The only three possible answers for the existence of the universe are

1. it came from nothing
2. it has always existed
3. unmoved mover

If logic indisputably disproves the existence of God, why are the first two answers illogical?

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]

/cry (good thing I am all alone at work).

If Bush could apologize, I'd be utterly stunned. Mainly because he thinks he's on the side of righteousness, and history will view him as a magnificent and beneficent leader, so he sees nothing for which an apology is necessary. That is the gall of a dictator on his throne. I really hope Obama can change things. I am not entirely sure about it, but he cannot possibly be worse than Bush.

Oh, and you mentioned he's a President and not a King? Well, if were a King, he'd be on the downswing of a guillotine blade by now.

>> ^Farhad2000:
I read a very interesting article in Harpers the other day called "Democracy and Deference", about how people relate to power in the US, it featured an anecdotal story about Vietnam veteran Jim Webb meeting Bush, Webb has a son fighting in Iraq, Bush asked him about him, Jim said he wanted to get him out of Iraq, Bush said that he didn't ask him about that but about his son.
What followed next was a big media outrage about how rude Jim Webb was to President Bush in the Whitehouse questioning his decisions about Iraq! You simply do not question the president. Unquestionable loyalty is more important then rational dissent.
It then posed the same example with Powell and his presentation to UN, where the statesman part of Powell lost out to the loyal Soldier. Powell later said that even though he had grave doubts about the evidence against Iraq, he still went ahead with the presentation because he was loyal to the President.
When did this type of thinking evolve? The President is not a King, he is an elected official accountable to the population. The White house is rented out by the American people to him.
The parallels are stark when you comparing the US and UK political process, the UK populace believes it has an inherent right to meddle in politics, whereas in the US its more about trusting someone else to do the right thing.
You ever watch Tony Blair giving a press conference? The audience is always full of well informed people who ask challenging questions, who make the PM sweat, who press if the question is dodged, the PM then apologizes (OMFG) and tries to clarify.
Compare that to the US media circus of PR, where questions are always soft balled and there is a silly air of jolly good fun with funny quips, the seriousness is lost. The questions are prescreened, weeding out challengers and encouraging stupid expressions of admiration along the lines of "All my heroes are cowboys" to which there is thunderous applause.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

I agree with Deedub's rebuttal to this, but I want to add a few things.

I'm sorry you're offended. It's a weak argument, though. Just because something about another person's religion offends you, they ought not to have to discontinue. Honestly, how often have you been approached by missionaries? It has NEVER happened to me, but by the way people around here talk, it seems like it happens just about every day to you guys.

Here's a hypothetical situation for you: I may be offended by a Sikh because his turban is blocking my view at a play. I may not see the need to wear a turban. I may even say that the "mere presence of the guy in the turban freaks me out", but it is important to him so I deal with it. Missionary work is important to Mormons. Deal with it.

So you're saying that any group that is persecuted ought to expect and accept persecution? I don't think you mean that. One could say: "Interracial couples CHOOSE to get married, so I don't know why they have a problem with being harrassed!" "Gays CHOOSE to be openly gay, so I don't see why they have a problem with people defacing their property! They ought to expect that kind of thing!" "Muslims CHOOSE to be Muslim, so I don't see why they have a problem with being called terrorists!" Gimme a break! Mormons DO NOT have to take the knocks and have every right to expect and seek after religious tolerance. They also have the right to fight against the damaging effects of anti-Mormon propaganda and, as deedub said, half-truths.

You might be referring to my comment that a summary need not discuss all Mormon doctrine or controversy. I stand by that. No one is asking you to ignore anything. You've just made that part up. By pointing out that Mormons are nice, I'm emphasizing the fact that as far as the outside world is concerned, this is all that is important for YOU to worry about. If you've decided that Mormonism is not for you, great! Fine! More power to you! I'm just saying, why stress about the Mormons? Why are the users of videosift so determined to put them in a bad light? Why do you care about the so-called "magic hat?" To emphasize insignificant and unflattering parts of a religion FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE of being cruel and promoting hatred and misunderstanding is wrong and intolerant.

Mormons don't believe that they have the corner on good people, if that's what you were implying. Some people may look into it fairly, but ask yourself if you are truly one of those people, or are you the type that likes to take cheap shots at Mormons because, let's face it, it is so...very...easy?

>> ^MINK:
^actually, the mere presence of the guys in the white shirts freaks me out and i consider it a mild "force" in my face in the street. I can take the pain, i just think it's what some people call "offensive", for example if i wore a "fuck god" tshirt all day and asked people in the street if they would like to talk about Satan. It would be... rude.
one thing i am noticing is the need to tell us how persecuted you are. that's interesting. I would say you choose persecution if you follow an unconventional path, whatever that is. if it was purely your skin colour it would be unfair to persecute, but it's your chosen belief, you have to take the knocks.
As for the defences here of Mormonism, they seem to amount to "don't worry about that part". I am afraid I consider all the parts, and I wouldn't want to be part of an organisation with parts like that, even if it contains nice people in other parts.
all your life you were told mormonism is good, and you seem to find it hard to understand that some good people simply weren't born into that tradition, and that from the outside, it looks ridiculous (like most religions). some retards will throw retarded accusations, but other people will read a lot about your religion (from many sources) and simply decide it's not believable or coherent.

^Here we go again.

I'm fine with people that read accurate information and make the decision that they're not interested.

Q:When did I say anything about being persecuted?
(I simply want to put a stop to incorrect information being spread on THIS website.)

Q:When did anyone say "don't worry about that part"?
(I consider all parts too, my man.)

I told you before: I'm not apologetic about ANY of my beliefs. I'm no Barack Obama. I haven't heard anything in church, or read anything from the leaders in my church that I don't believe or that I would try to sweep under the rug.

The half truths being told about my beliefs, on the other hand, I would like to get rid of.



>> ^MINK:
^actually, the mere presence of the guys in the white shirts freaks me out and i consider it a mild "force" in my face in the street. I can take the pain, i just think it's what some people call "offensive", for example if i wore a "fuck god" tshirt all day and asked people in the street if they would like to talk about Satan. It would be... rude.
one thing i am noticing is the need to tell us how persecuted you are. that's interesting. I would say you choose persecution if you follow an unconventional path, whatever that is. if it was purely your skin colour it would be unfair to persecute, but it's your chosen belief, you have to take the knocks.
As for the defences here of Mormonism, they seem to amount to "don't worry about that part". I am afraid I consider all the parts, and I wouldn't want to be part of an organisation with parts like that, even if it contains nice people in other parts.
all your life you were told mormonism is good, and you seem to find it hard to understand that some good people simply weren't born into that tradition, and that from the outside, it looks ridiculous (like most religions). some retards will throw retarded accusations, but other people will read a lot about your religion (from many sources) and simply decide it's not believable or coherent.

^actually, the mere presence of the guys in the white shirts freaks me out and i consider it a mild "force" in my face in the street. I can take the pain, i just think it's what some people call "offensive", for example if i wore a "fuck god" tshirt all day and asked people in the street if they would like to talk about Satan. It would be... rude.

one thing i am noticing is the need to tell us how persecuted you are. that's interesting. I would say you choose persecution if you follow an unconventional path, whatever that is. if it was purely your skin colour it would be unfair to persecute, but it's your chosen belief, you have to take the knocks.

As for the defences here of Mormonism, they seem to amount to "don't worry about that part". I am afraid I consider all the parts, and I wouldn't want to be part of an organisation with parts like that, even if it contains nice people in other parts.

all your life you were told mormonism is good, and you seem to find it hard to understand that some good people simply weren't born into that tradition, and that from the outside, it looks ridiculous (like most religions). some retards will throw retarded accusations, but other people will read a lot about your religion (from many sources) and simply decide it's not believable or coherent.