I said that God doesn’t exist? Oh yeah? Where exactly did I say that? The last time I checked, saying that I reject an idea isn’t the same as saying that the idea isn’t true. Get your facts straight.

You obviously don't think it is true if you reject it. I don't reject ideas I think are correct. What exactly is your position?

Saying “god did it” doesn’t answer anything. It doesn’t answer any question about mechanism and until someone can come up with a testable model of how god interacts with the universe which we can then make accurate predictions with, it’s a useless and meaningless statement. It doesn’t help us expand the frontiers of our understanding of reality.

The fact of the matter is that it is you who is fundamentally uneducated in everything that you mentioned and that is made obvious by your inability to form your own arguments; you’re just cherry picking quotes that support you’re cognitive bias.

You realize that your entire reply could be summed up thusly "nu uh". Just stating that you're right and I am wrong doesn't advance your argument. You don't even have an argument. Everything you've said here is logically fallacious. If you think what I've said is wrong, or cherry picked, address it directly and demonstrate why. I don't think you really understand the subject matter which is why you're trying to make the argument about me instead.

I love it when people like you pull out the second law of thermodynamics card because I know that you can’t name or explain the rest of the laws of thermodynamics without copy and pasting them from Google search. Life isn’t a closed system and the second law of thermodynamics only deals with closed systems. The 2nd law has nothing to do with anything biology or the existence of complex organisms, get your facts straight. If you had any respect for truth, you wouldn’t be making so many entirely misinformed and uneducated statements.

And this is why I don't think you understand the subject matter, because your statement that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to biological systems shows a total lack of research.

John Ross, Harvard University, Chemical And Engineering News, p.40 July 7, 1980, "Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."

Arnold Sommerfel, "...the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not." Thermodynamics And Statistical Mechanics, p.155

There is no such thing as negative entropy. Everything is always trending towards disorder.

The 2nd law equally applies to living systems:

Harold Blum, Prinston Univ., "No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world." Time's Arrow and Evolution, p.14

Everything is technically an open system in nature.

Richard Morris, "An isolated system is one that does not interact with its surroundings. Naturally there are no completely isolated systems in nature. Everything interacts with its environment to some extent. Nevertheless, the concept, like many other abstractions that are used in physics, is extremely useful. If we are able to understand the behavior in ideal cases, we can gain a great deal of understanding about processes that take place in the real world In fact treating a real system as an isolated one is often an excellent approximation.", Time's Arrows, p.113

The argument is that the energy of the sun is what is overcoming the entropy, but that doesn't explain information. Just putting power into something does not magically create organization:

George Gaylord Simpson & W.S. Beck, "But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.", An Introduction To Biology, p. 466

But there is no mechanism for information to spontaneously arise by itself, overcoming entropy in the system, and we know information comes from minds.

Charles J. Smith, "Biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.

This is why a Creator agrees with the evidence more so than evolution. Was this quote cherry picked?:

G.J. Van Wylen, Richard Sonntag, "...we see the second law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe." Fundamentals Of Classical Thermodynamics, 1985, p.232.

Because I know that none of this is actually going to matter to you, go ahead and enlighten us with more of your church-pamphlet science.

I'm looking forward to your point by point refutation of my argument, with sources. Thanks.



>> ^IAmTheBlurr

>> ^vaire2ube:

murray rothbard wrote those parts of the newsletters, or someone who thought like him.
In a 1963 article, Rothbard wrote that "the Negro Revolution has some elements that a libertarian must favor, others that he must oppose. Thus, the libertarian opposes compulsory segregation and police brutality, but also opposes compulsory integration and such absurdities as ethnic quota systems in jobs. According to Rothbard biographer Justin Raimondo, Rothbard considered Malcolm X to be a "great black leader” and Martin Luther King to be favored by whites because he “was the major restraining force on the developing Negro revolution." Rothbard also compared Lyndon B. Johnson's use of troops to crush urban rioters in 1968 after King's assassination to Johnson's use of American troops in the Vietnam War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

now, who does that sound like? The newsletter or ron paul? and was murray convinced enough of his own rightness that he used paul to get his true feelings out...
and rothbard dies in 1995, just in time for ron paul to be harassed non-stop about these things with no real recourse...


If I understand you--you are saying the Dr. Paul didn't know that these things were being said in a newsletter that had his name on it.
Okay.
Then he wasn't paying attention to something that he really should have been paying attention to. Not a glowing endorsement of his leadership abilities.

murray rothbard wrote those parts of the newsletters, or someone who thought like him.

In a 1963 article, Rothbard wrote that "the Negro Revolution has some elements that a libertarian must favor, others that he must oppose. Thus, the libertarian opposes compulsory segregation and police brutality, but also opposes compulsory integration and such absurdities as ethnic quota systems in jobs. According to Rothbard biographer Justin Raimondo, Rothbard considered Malcolm X to be a "great black leader” and Martin Luther King to be favored by whites because he “was the major restraining force on the developing Negro revolution." Rothbard also compared Lyndon B. Johnson's use of troops to crush urban rioters in 1968 after King's assassination to Johnson's use of American troops in the Vietnam War.

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


now, who does that sound like? The newsletter or ron paul? and was murray convinced enough of his own rightness that he used paul to get his true feelings out...

and rothbard dies in 1995, just in time for ron paul to be harassed non-stop about these things with no real recourse...

Jean-Luc Godard filmed the band on a rooftop in Midtown Manhattan (December 7, 1968)

@quantumushroom, I'm not old enough to remember things before FDR, much less the time of Jefferson.

I'm not old enough to remember Nixon either, but while I agree that he did found the EPA, I should point out he was a Republican, not a Democrat.

I guess the real difference between us is that I see America's progress over the period from the Civil War through to about 1968 or so as being mostly in the right direction. Increased individual rights, increased equality, increased prosperity, and a largely shared prosperity.

Sometime in the 1968-1980 period that started to break down. In the Reagan-era, I mostly just saw the pieces of what was the American Dream being hauled off and sold, with the rich keeping the proceeds.

My goal is not to see government controlling everything -- that's the mirror-image assumption again.

I would like to see us have a more generous set of welfare programs, like many European countries have. But that's not socialism, it's still capitalism, just like we've had since the country was founded. Socialism would be the government literally running everything, with private ownership of capital being illegal. The only place that still runs that way is North Korea, and I'm no more eager to emulate them than you are.

I don't like corporations using government to stamp out competition, or to line their pockets with subsidies and tax cuts, either. I just think the solution to that problem is to get corporations out of government, rather than government out of corporations.

I want to see everyone get richer, I just don't think that cutting taxes on the rich and abolishing environmental regulations helps anyone, not even the rich.

And I've definitely not "won" with millions of people unemployed, millions without health care, millions of children needing food stamps, and seeing our roads, bridges, and schools crumbling away, while the military budget keeps on going up and up and up.

You're winning! The public sector is shrinking! Corporate profits are at all-time highs! Union participation is at historic lows! Taxes collected are at historic lows! The Pentagon budget is bigger than ever, and we're at war with two countries!

The world outside your window is the result of your triumph! Aren't you happy?

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Planet of the Apes - Taylor's Opening Monologue (1968). Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'john wayne, rooster cogburn, true grit, the duke, 60s, 1968' to 'john wayne, rooster cogburn, true grit, robert duvall, the duke, 60s, 1968' - edited by enoch

come on winston!
anecdotal evidence does not an argument make and you should know better and whats with the name calling?
this is not a political ideology problem but a greed and corruption problem which is more a personal flavor than a political one.
leftie,rightie,neolib,spendocrat,rethuglican...
who cares? they are all paid whores for their corporate and wall street masters and by the looks of your previous comments you have bought their line of tripe hook,line and sinker.

the fact of the matter is that after WWII america became a manufacturing juggernaut (mainly due to other manufacturing countries being leveled from bombings).our government dealt with the public in a pretty straight forward manner (relatively speaking of course).the unionized american work force set the standard and helped usher in the middle class,a hard fought standard i might add.this was the first appearance of the "middle class" and it was not just handed over but fought for tooth and nail by our grandparents and their parents.

the 60's were a time of great changes,not only politically but socially and marked a definitive change how our government dealt with the people and thus began the slow march we find ourselves in today.
consider this:
1.in 1972 the dollar was worth .78 cents on the dollar (22 cents interest per dollar)
in 2011 the dollar is worth .03 cents on the dollar.that loaf of bread didnt increase in price but rather the purchasing power of your dollar decreased.
2.in 1968 the phrase "for the public good" was removed from the corporate charter.hows that been working out for us?
3.in the 60's the middle class was roughly 48% of the american population and controlled 72% of americas total wealth.this was unheard of on a global scale,this sharing of wealth and was one of the main reasons why so many wished to come to america and take a swing at opportunity.fast forward to the present the "middle class" is roughly 11% of population and controls less than 10%.
4.while america still outproduces the rest of the world,has the largest and richest economy (yes,we still are the biggest).now lets consider the fact that the american worker produces more,works longer hours (on avg),yet receives less benefits in the forms of health care and retirement and the wages have stagnated since the 80's and when you factor in inflation,american workers are actually making LESS than their counterparts from 40 years ago.

let us all be clear on one thing.
capitalism,socialism or communism are NOT political ideologies but rather ECONOMIC systems and right now the system is rigged.
lowest tax rates in 40 years right along with interest rates.
this is NOT a coincidence.
you are being robbed.
at least the blacks KNEW they were slaves.
you on the other hand...remain clueless.
the fox is in the henhouse and people waste their time waxing poetic about political perfunctory.

@marbles
right on man.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

*isdupe>> ^Stingray:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/AD-1999-The-internet-predicted-in-1968

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/AD-1999-The-internet-predicted-in-1968

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Stingray. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by critical_d.

*dupeof=http://rocknroll.videosift.com/video/Pink-Floyd-Let-There-Be-More-Light-live-1968

@TheGenk @Skeeve @Boise_Lib @gwiz665 @packo @IronDwarf @MaxWilder @westy @BicycleRepairMan @shuac @KnivesOut

Evolution is pseudo-science. It exists in the realm of imagination, and cannot be scientifically verified. At best, evolution science is forensic science, and what has been found not only does not support it, but entirely rules it out. I don't think any of you realize how weak the case for evolution really is. None of them quotes, as far as I know, are from creation scientists btw

No true transitional forms in the fossil record:

Darwins theory proposed that slow change over a great deal of time could evolve one kind of thing into another. Such as reptiles to birds. The theory proposed that we should see in the fossil records billions of these transitional forms, yet we have found none. When the theory was first proposed, darwinists pleaded poverty in the fossil record, claiming the missing links were yet to be found. It was then claimed that the links were missing because conditions conspired against fossilizing them, or that they had been eroded or destroyed in subsequent fossilization.

120 years have gone by since then. We have uncovered an extremely rich fossil record with billions of fossils, a record which has completely failed to produce the expected transitions. It has become obvious that there was no process that could have miraculously destroyed the transitionals yet left the terminal forms intact.

The next theory proposed was "hopeful monster" theory, which states that evolution occurs in large leaps instead of small ones. Some even suggested that a bird could have hatched from a reptile egg. This is against all genetic evidence, and has never been observed.

The complete lack of transitional forms is not even the worst problem for evolution, considering the big gaps between the higher categories, and the systemic absence of transitional forms between families classes orders and phyla.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (and a hardcore evolutionist), in a letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979 admitting no transitional forms exist.

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

-Charles Darwin

"In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

-Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins University

Fossil record disputes evolutionary theory:

According to evolutionary theory we should see an evolutionary tree of organisms starting from the least complex to the most complex. Instead, what we do see in the fossil record is the very sudden appearance of fully-formed and fully-functional complex life.

If you examine the fossil record, you see all kinds of complex life suddenly jumping into existence during a period that evolutionists refer to as the "Cambrian explosion".

None of the fossilized life forms found in the "Cambrian period" have any predecessors prior to that time. In essence, the "Cambrian period" represents a "sudden explosion of life" in geological terms.

Evolutionists try to disprove this by stretching it over a period of 50 million years, but they have no transitional fossils to prove that theory before or during.

"The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed"

-Paleontologist George Gaylord

What disturbs evolutionists greatly is that complex life just appears in the fossil record out of nowhere, fully functional and formed.

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.

-Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki (an evolutionist)

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative."

-Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230

Evolution can't explain the addition of information that turns one kind into another kind

There is no example recorded of functional information being added to any creature, ever.

"The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)."

Species just don't change. Kind only produces kind:

"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it."

Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University

Not enough bones:

Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeroes following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations have evolved the human race?

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.

Try to debunk this if you can
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=tYLHxcqJmoM&feature=PlayList&p=C805D4953D9DEC66&index=0&playnext=1

More fun facts:

There are no records of any human civilization past 4000 BC

"The research in the development of the [radiocarbon] dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historic and prehistoric epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisors informed us that history extended back only for 5,000 years . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, the earliest historical date that has been established with any degree of certainty is about the time of the First Dynasty of Egypt."—*Willard Libby, Science, March 3, 1961, p. 624.

Prior to a certain point several thousand years ago, there was no trace of man having ever existed. After that point, civilization, writing, language, agriculture, domestication, and all the rest—suddenly exploded into intense activity!

"No more surprising fact has been discovered, by recent excavation, than the suddenness with which civilization appeared in the world. This discovery is the very opposite to that anticipated. It was expected that the more ancient the period, the more primitive would excavators find it to be, until traces of civilization ceased altogether and aboriginal man appeared. Neither in Babylonia nor Egypt, the lands of the oldest known habitations of man, has this been the case."—P.J. Wiseman, New Discoveries, in Babylonia, about Genesis (1949 ), p. 28.

Oldest people/language recorded in c. 3000 B.C., and were located in Mesopotamia.

The various radiodating techniques could be so inaccurate that mankind has only been on earth a few thousand years.

"Dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude . . Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."—*Robert Gannon, "How Old Is It?" Popular Science, November 1979, p. 81.

Moonwalk disproves age of moon:

The moon is constantly being bombarded by cosmic dust particles. Scientists were able to measure the rate at which these particles would accumulate. Using their estimates according to their understanding that the age of the Earth was billions of years, their most conservative estimate predicted a dust layer 54 feet deep. This is why the lander had those huge balloon tires, to be prepared to land on a sea of dust. Neil Armstrong, after saying those famous words, uttered two more which disproved the age of the moon entirely "its solid!". Far from being 54 feet, they found the dust was 3/4 of an inch.

Evolution is a fairy tale that modern civilization has bought, hook line and sinker. Humorously, atheists accuse creationists of beiieving in myths without any evidence..when they place their entire faith in an unproven theory even evolutionists know is fatally flawed and invalid. Evolution is a meta physical belief that requires faith. Period.

Evolution is false, science affirms a divine Creator
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Tracts/big_daddy.htm

Though most of this is undisputable, I'm just getting started..