Maybe I'm uninformed here, but are they saying they're not able to open a debit account? Surely that's a zero risk proposition for any bank (if overdraws are restricted), it's just pure interest for them on anything you keep in there (minus any interest you receive).

Or is it different in the US with your reliance on checks? Even if that's the case, surely checking could just be restricted, leaving you with either cash withdraws or paying by card, with instant electronic verification.

As to transaction fees. Over here in Oz, most transaction and saving accounts are monthly fee free. This is pretty new (as recently as several years ago you'd have a $5-10 monthly fee). Wonder if it's different in the states.

If they're not able to secure a loan, that's a different issue entirely. I don't see how an alternative banking system would help there.

...birth or verification of the Dark Sift?

Reserving upvote pending verification:
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?p=1776912

Yeah, if technology was designed to disable video capture so the police could domestically take liberties without any verification of their actions, I can see this being a major blow to civil liberties and social accountability.

If however, this is just a "movie theatres want this" type thing, then there's no real hype. Plus, the attempt to disable one feature in one brand in a phone, such as the iPhone, would do nothing at all to protect the corrupt officers. It just means no one will buy an iPhone.

But, this is also hype over a patent. No actual device has been made with this. And just because it is possible, doesn't mean someone is doing it. I mean, it IS possible for us to build a space ship to harvest asteroids or space elevators . . . but alas, we are sadly Earth bound for the time being.

If anything, this discussion is what leads to this technology not being implemented, but the irate and irrational discussion does nothing but hype fear that has no rational basis. Except, you know, the NSA really is wiretapping this. . . .

"But people use it to get loaded! Think of the children! Now there are two drugs to use!"
Seriously, that's Samuels main argument against legalisation?
First of all, hell yes, people want to get high. Weed isn't healthy but it's certainly healthier than alcohol.
Second, legalisation would also mean a higher likelyhood of age verification. Dealers don't check for ids, store might with the right laws in place. Works for alcohol, doesn't it?
Third, they already have weed available for consumption. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean people don't do it everywhere. You don't add it to the available drugs, you just change how you handle it.

The only good argument I know against legalisation is this: What kind of industry would the weed industry become in a country where favourable legislation can be bought by the highest bidder? Worse than the tobacco industry?
That's where it may become scary.

Then explain it to me, from how I see it, people are complaining that they're being stopped and asked for verification of citizenship at posted checkpoints.

if we could ensure that everyone who wants to vote could get an id, I would support voter id too. The problem is that you can't. voter id laws as they are right now is another situation where it SOUNDS like a great idea, but the solution is worse than the problem.

If they were genuinely concerned about voter fraud, they would enact it at least a year before a general election, they would advertise it so people would have plenty of time and that the message gets out, and the id would be free. And even if someone doesn't show up with an ID, the person should still be allowed to vote provisionally until the id can be verified. which is pretty much how my state does it. If someone wants to vote, they never get turned away, (unless you're not in the right precinct) they can still vote even if they aren't registered, the vote just has to be done provisionally and the vote is counted pending verification

but no, they usually pull this stunt right before an election. gee, I wonder why.

They don't give a shit about voter fraud, that's why

Mormonism seems cosmetically more ridiculous because it's new: we know miracles and magic didn't happen within the last couple of centuries; it only happens an inteterminate period of time so long ago that any real verification is impossible. Obviously. God prefers obfuscation, so he never shows up anymore for fear of some miracle or magic being captured on someone's cellphone and giving people a better reason to believe than "some guy said so."

1% of the world is like 70million people. So yeah, of the people in the world eligible to even attempt it, 70million isn't a small number, not really as uncommon as the percentage leads you to believe.

Even though yes, the statement is indeed pointless as his method of verification is very highly likely completely anecdotal.
>> ^Stu:

In my opinion full planche push ups are harder because of the balance involved. Yes I can do both. This just takes some practice to lock up the middle of your body. I don't believe his one percent comment. Trainers in my gym have their clients work up to these in a couple weeks. Maybe they pump an aerosol form of steroids through my gyms ventilation system.

Argumentum ad populum. A logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if billions of people believe a thing, it does NOT make it truth. Examples: people thought that the sun was a/the god, or people thought that rats spontaneously spawned from grain silos.

Did I ever say that because over 2 billion people are Christians, that makes it true? Though you could make a logical argument that, if God has revealed Himself to the world, and people are more inclined to follow truth than lies, that His religion would be the largest on Earth at any given time.


The definition for "evidence" that you used for your argument is only the definition as it relates to law (thus where it says "law"). Testimony is useful to us in order to piece together what happens for the purposes of trial law, but even then is highly faulty and is subject to the whims, mental health and capacity, subjective or erroneous observations, and other such mistakes or lies by those giving testimony. That is how people end up wrongfully jailed, and is also why you need much more evidence than just testimony in order to make a solid case against a defendant. Such testimonial evidence in a scientific context, or in a logical argument context, is immediately dismissible.

Are you really going to try to argue that personal testimony isn't evidence, or couldn't convince you of something? If you were in a building, and someone came running in screaming that there was a bomb in the basement and everyone needs to evacuate immediately, would you demand that he take you to the location of the bomb so you could empirically verify his claim before you would leave? No, you would consider his personal testimony to be sufficient and leave the area.

The definition you're looking for is anecdotal evidence, and believe it or not, it can qualify as scientific evidence. Read any medical journal and you will find anecdotal evidence printed very routinely. Anecdotal evidence doesn't qualify as proof, but I never said my personal testimony would prove anything to you. What I did say is that it qualifies as evidence, which it does, both in a legal and scientific sense. In the scientific sense, weakly, but that doesn't diminish its veracity, except perhaps in the eyes of those whose worldview is married to the idea that empirical verification is the only means of acquiring truth, a claim in itself which, ironically, cannot be empirically verified.

Similarly, the fact that our laws state that a person is innocent until proven guilty (ideally, in the U.S., at least) is an example of how the burden of proof MUST lie with the parties making the claim for guilt. Much in the same way that you MUST provide real, tangible evidence for the claims that you, and the Bible make. Your personal experiences, or the fact that a billion people agree with you is NOT evidence of anything. Example: The entire country was certain of the guilt of Casey Anthony, but lawyers were not able to build a case solid enough to convince a jury. Likewise for the Duke Lacrosse team rape trial. Thankfully, we require more than the incessant bellowing of Nancy Grace to convict a person.

What would you consider to be real, tangible evidence? I've never heard an atheist actually define what this would be. I assume it would be a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. Well, that is what I am telling you in the first place, that you can know Him personally. That Jesus will reveal Himself to you if you seek Him out and give your life to Him. A simple question: If Jesus is God, would you serve Him?

I, frankly, am not interested in arguing anything that the Bible says that God/Jesus supposedly said, unless you can first prove to me that it is the definite, infallible word of a god, and not a bunch of stories written and compiled by men who knew nothing of the universe beyond what they could misinterpret from their eyes and imagination, or who wanted to be able to control a populace by introducing divine rules. Which, of course, is something you cannot do without using circular arguments to refer back to how the Bible tells us that the Bible is true, or by referring to emotional pleas, personal experiences, offshoots of Pascal's Wager, or many other logical fallacies which fall apart as relevant proof of anything at their very inception. This, I believe, is what we are trying to get across to you.

The main point scripture makes about non-believers is this:

That you already know there is a God, and who He is, but you're suppressing the truth in wickedness. That God has made it plain to you, to the extent that when you are standing before Him on judgment day, you won't have any excuse. It's not my responsibility to prove anything to you, because you already know. My job is to tell you the gospel and pray that God would have mercy on you and open your eyes.

There is one thing I can prove to you, which is that without God you can't prove anything. I'll demonstrate this to you if you can answer a few questions:

1. Is it impossible that God exists?
2. Could God reveal Himself to someone so that they could know it for certain?
3. Could you be wrong about everything you know?

>> ^Sketch:

God provides the evidence; that's what I mean about being able to empirically verify my claim.
No, that's not empirical evidence in anyone's definition of it... not one bit. You 'invited him in', you 'get some feeling'... that's not proof, that's you feeling stuff. Not empirical evidence.

It is exactly the definition. If it is untrue, nothing will happen. If it is true, God will come into your life and change you. That is empirical verification. It isn't "some feeling". It is a supernatural encounter with God which will utterly transform your life. You're simply arguing from ignorance, here.

So no comment on what Penn said?
Yeah, he has a view that if you really believe in the bible and you really believe that people will spend eternity in damnation if they don't repent. If you really believe that. Then it is upon you to actually try to save people from that fate. He felt that this man did that for him out of kindness and did it with a kind heart.

Now I bet (in fact I'm sure he's talked about such things) his views on people telling others that they're horrible people for being gay, that they are an abomination, that they should never be able to be married (which is a man made construct, nothing to do with a 'god')... and for people who do that in a way which makes others uncomfortable. I bet he has a problem with that.

I think his point was that this man believed what he does, this man felt that Teller deserved to 'be saved' and tried to help him be saved in a really NICE way. He didn't badger him, he didn't verbally attack him as being godless... he just gave him a gift that he hoped would help him find 'his truth'.

Now it won't at all, Teller will never become religious, but he saw the man came from a good place.

What you do here is entirely different. Any video on evolution or science or anything that goes against your world view is shat on by you. That's abusive, that's combative, that's not trying to save people.

And you didn't mention why you posted a version of the video with him reiterating that he's an atheist rather than the full one.
His point was, if you believe that Jesus is God, and His words are true, you are going to tell people the gospel. He may agree or disagree with how a particular person may do that; that isn't the point. Jesus told people flat out what was right and wrong, He talked about hell, and He told people the truth. There are many biblical examples of sharing the gospel, and I am in line with them.

It's amazing though, as you get through insulting me throughout the thread, that you are going to say I am abusive and combative because I post my opinions on science videos. That's kind of a joke, I think. I can't post anywhere or say anything without getting flak from the usual suspects. It doesn't matter what it is. Perhaps you prefer an echo-chamber where everyone agrees with you all the time, but suprise, it's a diverse world out there and a diversity of viewpoints.

I didn't mention why I posted the shorter video because there was no conspiracy. That's the video I initially found, I figured shorter was better than longer, and I posted it. It turns out that the longer one was posted on here already, so even if I had wanted to, I couldn't have posted it. Also, don't say Penn will never give his life to Jesus Christ. I believe that he will. If he is thoughtful enough to understand evangelism from the chistian viewpoint, somewhere in his heart he is open to knowing God. God can change a heart in the blink of an eye.

>> ^spoco2:

So no comment on what Penn said?

>> ^spoco2:
@shinyblurry
If you prayed to Jesus Christ and sincerely admitted that you are a sinner, asked for His forgiveness and asked Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, you would come to know there is a God. It is something which can be empirically verified.
You don't know what empirical verification is, obviously, so you've completely missed the point here.
Anyway, no point discussing with you, you've shown time and time again to have no real grasp of the concepts of which we're speaking, and also will not be shaken on your faith because you believe you've had an experience that proves it to you.
Also... the video you linked of Penn's... a bit ingenuous to do so for one that has the end chopped off where he reiterates that he is an Athiest and does not believe in a god or the bible but rather just thought that this man did things in a kind and non abusive way.

God provides the evidence; that's what I mean about being able to empirically verify my claim. If you want to know if Jesus Christ is God, the way you do that is by praying to Him and asking Him to come into your life. On the other hand, there is no empirical verification for your atheistic naturalism. Its claims are founded upon metaphysical assumptions about reality with no hard evidence what so ever.

If you don't think I am sincere then engage me in further conversation rather than trail me around and say the same thing over and over again. I wouldn't be here if I wasn't sincere.

>> ^kymbos:
Ha! 'Hide behind the apron of true science'. Priceless.
Yeah, @spoco2, stop cowering behind scientific evidence and facts, you big girl's blouse. Be a man like me and believe in something without evidence, then call that belief 'empirically verified'.
I'm still not sure this isn't an elaborate scam. shinyblurry's sincerity, not god's existence. But then, come to think of it...

@shinyblurry
If you prayed to Jesus Christ and sincerely admitted that you are a sinner, asked for His forgiveness and asked Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, you would come to know there is a God. It is something which can be empirically verified.

You don't know what empirical verification is, obviously, so you've completely missed the point here.

Anyway, no point discussing with you, you've shown time and time again to have no real grasp of the concepts of which we're speaking, and also will not be shaken on your faith because you believe you've had an experience that proves it to you.

Also... the video you linked of Penn's... a bit ingenuous to do so for one that has the end chopped off where he reiterates that he is an Athiest and does not believe in a god or the bible but rather just thought that this man did things in a kind and non abusive way.

@NetRunner,

From the author's own summary in the article you linked:

Improving observations of ocean temperature confirm that Earth is absorbing more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar minimum.
In layman terms, ocean temp has increased over the last years were we have also been observing surface temp increases. If the heat content has gone up, it means more energy got in than went out.

This energy imbalance provides fundamental verification of the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change.
If solar forcing decreased while the earth retained more energy, then it must have been other forcings driving the energy increase. This is verification of what we already know, that human GHG's are driving climate change. I'd argue that the 'dominant' part can only be justified in relation to solar forcing, would you say I'm overstepping with that?

I've read through the rest of the article as well. I don't see resounding evidence or confidence about CO2 dominating all other factors over the last 100 years. The most important section is on Fast-Feedback sensitivity. They have a method where they go against Paleo-climate data and conclude that Fast-Feedback sensitivity is much smaller than most previous studies. They even go to some length explaining the different results and admit that a major factor is what you count as a forcing vs. what you count as a feedback. More importantly to me, is that Paleo climate doesn't have the resolution to observe what we should expect from fast feedbacks within a century. Rank me a denier, but I count that as very significant. Mann et al's recent work seems to corroborate that over decadal timescales, climate can fluctuate a lot more than what shows up on long-term paleo reconstructions.