Have you heard of Mike Scott and his band the Waterboys? It's celtic folk and/or rock and roll and the band's been around since 1983 (i.e. forever) but there's nothing on vs already (well, not that I found). I have remedied this with White birds and Mad as the mist and snow.

>> ^jonny:

Just because it makes you feel old...
But apparently you are correct. According to Swampgirl's last talk post on the subject, it must be pre-1980. Shame, I always liked the 25+ guideline (that's the age criterion for cars, anyway).
>> ^xxovercastxx:
1983, not quite old enough for vintage.
nochannel science wheels 80s


If I remember correctly, it was originally < 1990 and she later changed it to < 1980. It probably would have been better to just say older than X years. Then the description wouldn't need to be modified every few years.

Just because it makes you feel old...

But apparently you are correct. According to Swampgirl's last talk post on the subject, it must be pre-1980. Shame, I always liked the 25+ guideline (that's the age criterion for cars, anyway).

>> ^xxovercastxx:

1983, not quite old enough for vintage.
nochannel science wheels 80s

1983, not quite old enough for vintage.

*nochannel *science *wheels *80s

Didn't WGBH/PBS do this back in 1983?

Thje coolest Planets I've ever experienced in Sci-fi are the four worlds from the "The Four Lords of the Diamond" A series of four science fiction novels by author Jack L. Chalker.

"The Warden Diamond is a system of four planets, each very different from the other, ruled by their own lords, collectively called “The Four Lords of the Diamond.” Each planet of the Diamond has its own special “Warden Organism,” a symbiotic microorganism that lives within the inhabitants of the planets. However, the organisms destroy their host when he or she leaves the Warden Diamond, making the planet system the ideal prison colony for the Confederacy, a massive space empire."

The series features four books, each centering on one of the four planets of:
"Lilith: A Snake in the Grass" (Del Rey 1981, ISBN 0-345-29369-X)
"Cerberus: A Wolf in the Fold" (Del Rey 1981, ISBN 0-345-31122-1)
"Charon: A Dragon at the Gate" (Del Rey 1982, ISBN 0-345-29370-3)
"Medusa: A Tiger by the Tail" (Del Rey 1983, ISBN 0-345-29372-X)


These books have repeatedly been in and out of press. I've bought them several times, then lent them out. Some of the most complex and thought out worlds I've experienced in sci-fi reading. Unfortunately, no movies were ever make. However unlikely, I am forever hopeful. ;:)

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

Do you like Huey Lewis and the News?
Their early work was a little too New Wave for my taste. But then Sports came out in 1983, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that gives the songs a big boost.
He's been compared to Elvis Costello but I think Huey has a more bitter, cynical sense of humor.
Then in 1987 Huey released this, Fore!, their most accomplished album. I think I heir undisputed masterpiece is "Hip To Be Square," a song so catchy that most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity and the importance of
trends. It's also a personal statement about the band itself.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^lantern53:
>> ^VoodooV:
Tasers: Please stop confusing them with phasers We don't live in Star Trek times yet.
less lethal does not equate to non lethal.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly sympathetic for the cop killer, nor would I shed a tear if they executed him. But still, 5-6 on 1 and still needing a taser is fucked up. And yeah, you know damned well they're going to get some free hits on him while no non-cops are looking.
Why don't you take your own bet Lantern? You're so...liberal with betting other people...bet yourself. If you've got such a hard-on for "justice," why arent you signing up? or are you just too special?

Sign up? I've been a police officer since 1983 and while I have never tased, shot, or hit anyone, I know a bit more about this type of situation than you do.

Oh no! @lantern53 threw down the Internet Pissing Match Gauntlet, whatever shall I do? Oh wait, it's another logical fallacy...I call them out for the bs that they are.
For all we know, you're a fat desk clerk at the station with delusions of grandeur. And even if you did get put in a situation where you did see action, there is no indication that you wouldn't be another cop that uses excessive force where it's not needed.
Like I said, I've got absolutely zero problem with taking the suspect down hard and fast but a taser is not a "do what I say" or a "you looked at me funny" button. You've got close to a half dozen people covering a restrained guy in a split second. Taser was unjustified. period. It's a joke that these guys can't subdue him. What the fuck did the police do before tasers? somehow they were able to subdue people without using a device that can kill.

Go read through his comment history. You'll see why I've had him on ignore for months. If he is a cop, he is exactly the kind of douchebag that represents all that is wrong with the police nowadays. This tired "you-don't-understand-how-hard-our-job-is" defense of any bullshit cop behavior only plays well with those who are unquestioning/fearful of authority, extremely gullible, or can't be bothered with critical thinking. As far as knowing "a bit more about this type of situation", it's the kind of dismissive condescension that has so infected police forces everywhere that it has become common caricature. It ignores the fact that the general public, the people police are supposed to serve, have eyes and ears of their own.

>> ^lantern53:

>> ^VoodooV:
Tasers: Please stop confusing them with phasers We don't live in Star Trek times yet.
less lethal does not equate to non lethal.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly sympathetic for the cop killer, nor would I shed a tear if they executed him. But still, 5-6 on 1 and still needing a taser is fucked up. And yeah, you know damned well they're going to get some free hits on him while no non-cops are looking.
Why don't you take your own bet Lantern? You're so...liberal with betting other people...bet yourself. If you've got such a hard-on for "justice," why arent you signing up? or are you just too special?

Sign up? I've been a police officer since 1983 and while I have never tased, shot, or hit anyone, I know a bit more about this type of situation than you do.


Oh no! @lantern53 threw down the Internet Pissing Match Gauntlet, whatever shall I do? Oh wait, it's another logical fallacy...I call them out for the bs that they are.

For all we know, you're a fat desk clerk at the station with delusions of grandeur. And even if you did get put in a situation where you did see action, there is no indication that you wouldn't be another cop that uses excessive force where it's not needed.

Like I said, I've got absolutely zero problem with taking the suspect down hard and fast but a taser is not a "do what I say" or a "you looked at me funny" button. You've got close to a half dozen people covering a restrained guy in a split second. Taser was unjustified. period. It's a joke that these guys can't subdue him. What the fuck did the police do before tasers? somehow they were able to subdue people without using a device that can kill.

>> ^VoodooV:

Tasers: Please stop confusing them with phasers We don't live in Star Trek times yet.
less lethal does not equate to non lethal.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly sympathetic for the cop killer, nor would I shed a tear if they executed him. But still, 5-6 on 1 and still needing a taser is fucked up. And yeah, you know damned well they're going to get some free hits on him while no non-cops are looking.
Why don't you take your own bet Lantern? You're so...liberal with betting other people...bet yourself. If you've got such a hard-on for "justice," why arent you signing up? or are you just too special?


Sign up? I've been a police officer since 1983 and while I have never tased, shot, or hit anyone, I know a bit more about this type of situation than you do.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'toto, africa, 80s, song, that, everyone, knows, 1983, bless the rains, music video' to 'toto, africa, 80s, 1983, bless the rains, music video' - edited by xxovercastxx

You quote The Blind Watchmaker and The Origin of Species but I highly doubt that you’ve read them yourself. If you haven’t then you’re not better than someone who is contesting the bible without having read it. You quote a LOT of scientists that you say are hostile to your position but again, have you actually read the works that you’re quoting from in their entirety? I doubt it.

Well, I have read them and I think it's fairly obvious that I understand the subject matter.

Here are just two things that I read recently that I think are worth repeating:

...degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR (Institute for Creation Research)...

....illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors. Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics....

I never made the argument that entropy can never decrease in a system. I made the argument that even if you want to use the energy of the sun to explain why life is becoming more complex, you haven't explained the information that makes that possible. More energy does not equal more order. I also don't know why you keep bringing up articles from the institution of creation research and expect me to defend them. I am more than willing to admit that there are some terrible theories by creationists out there, just as there are terrible theories by secular scientists.

For myself, I am only a materialist because there isn’t any demonstrable, non-anecdotal, reproducible evidence for the existence of anything non-material. I hope you can understand that. There is the appearance of design and there is DNA, and we don’t know how everything got started but that’s not good enough for me to believe that it was designed, I need something more concrete because that is the criteria for which I will justify something as believable. I’d be very interested in some sort of evidence like that but it hasn’t happened yet and conjecture just doesn’t work for me so I’ll reserve judgment but maintain doubt and that’s all there is to it.

I can understand your position as a materialist, having formally been one. I did not see any evidence for God or spirit either, and it really rocked my world to discover that there was more, and that material reality is only a veil to a larger reality. It is mind blowing to discover that everything that you know is in some way, wrong.

I think there is some very good evidence pointing towards a Creator, but that isn't going to get you there necessarily. It seems to me though, after talking with you a bit, that if there is a God, you would want to know about it. Maybe you're not terribly interested in pursuing the subject at the moment but you now strike me as someone who is open to the truth. If He does exist, would you want to hear from Him? If He let you know, would you follow Him?

On the scope of evidence, I think the two of the most powerful arguments are the information in DNA and the fine-tuning of physical laws. There is no naturalistic process which can produce a code, and that is what DNA is. It is a digital code which stores information and is vastly superior to anything we have ever designed. It is a genetic language which has its own alphabet, grammar, syntax, and meaning. It has redudancy and error correction, and it is an encoding and decoding mechanism to transmit information about an organism. Biologists actually use linguistic analysis to decode its functions. You also have to realize that the message is not the medium. In that, like all information, you can copy the information in DNA to storage device like a hard drive, and then recode it later with no loss in information. This is a pretty good article on the information in DNA:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/language-dna-intelligent-design/

The fine tuning evidence is also very powerfully because it is virtually impossible for the laws to have come about by chance. It's important to understand what fine tuning actually means. I'll quote Dr Craig:

"That the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life is a pretty solidly established fact and ought not to be a subject of controversy. By “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist."

So it's not a question whether the Universe itself is finely tuned for life, it is a question of how it got that way. In actuality, the odds of it happening are far worse than winning the powerball lottery over 100 times in a row. Random chance simply cannot account for it because there are dozens of values that must be precisely calibrated, and the odds for some of these values happening by chance is greater than the number of particles in the Universe! For instance, the space-energy density must be fine tuned to one part in 10 to the 120th power, an inconceivably huge number. That's just one value out of dozens. Many scientists understand this.

Here are some quotes from some agnostic scientists, which a couple of Christians thrown in:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Just because the universe and life might have the appearance of design doesn’t mean it was designed. After all, we might all be brains in vats being experimented on by hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings and all of this is simply like the matrix. Maybe Déjà vu is evidence that it’s true but there simply isn’t any reason to believe it just like there isn’t any reason to believe in any gods.

But if that were true then the Universe is designed, and this is simply some kind of computer program. In any case, although we could imagine many scenerios I am talking about something very specific; That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He rose from the dead. Moreover, that you can know Him personally, today.

All of the concepts of god and gods have been moved back every time we discover naturalistic explanations where once those gods were accredited. What makes you think that it’s any different with these things? Just because we don’t know what’s behind the veil doesn’t mean that the idea of someone pulling the levers is a better explanation than a currently unknown natural, non-agency explanation. If we don’t know, then we don’t know and putting a god in the place of “we don’t know” isn't a good way of helping us learn more about our universe

The primary question is whether the Universe has an intelligent causation. You believe that Universes, especially precisely calibrated and well-ordered ones just happen by themselves. I happen to think that this is implausible to say the least. You're acting like it's not a valid question, and because we can describe some of the mechanisms we see that we can rule out an intelligent cause, which is simply untrue. You could describe every single mechanism there is in the Universe, but until you explain how it got here, you haven't explained anything. The real question is not how they work but why they work and that question can only be answered by answering why they exist in the first place.

It is also just a fallacy to say that because some peoples beliefs about God have been proven false, that means all beliefs about God are false. Scientists used to believe that there were only seven planets and that the Earth was flat. Does that mean that all ideas scientists have are false? No, and neither does it mean that all beliefs about God are false because people have had ridiculous beliefs about God.

The God I believe in is not ridiculous, and the belief in His existence has led to ideas that formed western civilization and propelled modern science itself. The idea that we can suss out Universal laws by investigating secondary causes is a Christian one, that came from the belief that God created an orderly Universe based on laws.

It is also not a brake to doing science to believe that God created the Universe. Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in God. People like Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Max Planck, Mendel and Einstein. It certainly didn't stop them from doing great science.

Also, as I have explained, it is not a God of the gaps argument when God is a better explanation for the evidence.

We know that the universe, space-time, matter had a finite beginning but we can’t say anything at all about that beginning with any certainty. We can’t even say that whatever was that caused the universe is spaceless, or timeless. We just don’t know. This is the god of the gaps argument that started this whole thing. You’re putting a god in as the explanation for what is effectively a gap in our knowledge without anything solid to go off of. It would not be a god of the gaps argument if we eventually could know with a high degree of certainty that there is a god there fiddling with the controls but we don’t. That is the crux of this whole debate. That is why “I don’t know” is a better answer than “A god did it” because it’s absolutely verifiably true where as a god is not.

The ultimate cause of the Universe must be timeless because it must be beginningless, according to logic. I'll explain. You cannot get something from nothing, I think we both agree on that. So if the Universe has a cause, it must be an eternal cause, since you cannot have an infinite regress of causes for the Universe. The buck has to stop somewhere. This points to an eternal first cause, which means that cause is timeless. If it is timeless it is also changeless because change is a property of time. If it is changeless it is also spaceless, because anything which exists in space must be temporal, since it is always finitely changing relation to the things around it. It's timelessness and spacelessness makes it immaterial, and this also makes it transcendent. I think it is obvious that whatever created the Universe must be unimaginably powerful. So we have something which already closely describes the God of the bible, and we can deduct these things by using logic alone.

We just don’t know if the universe is entirely regressable into some sort of endless loop which folds in on itself, or something else, or even if there is a god or not. Furthermore, I hope you look into what physicist mean by “out of nothing” because it doesn’t mean what I think you think it means. It took me a while to understand what it meant and to be honest, it is a bit of a deceptive word play but it’s only that way because there isn’t another way to describe it. I don't actually believe that the universe came from "nothing". I don't know how it all started, so therefore, I have no belief. I don't need an answer to the big questions. I can say "I don't know" just fine and leave it at that.

“A proponent of the Big Bang Theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing.” Anthony Kenny

British physicist P.C.W. Davies writes, “The coming-into-being of the universe as discussed in modern science…is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization or structure upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.”

Physicist Victor Stenger says “the universe exploded out of nothingness the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. its then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

I think we can both agree that it is better to know than not to know. That's been one of your primary arguments against the existence of God, that we simply cannot rest of the laurels of God being the Creator because that will lead to ignorance. I have already demonstrated that there is no actual conflict with belief in God and doing good science, so your argument is invalid, but I think it's ironic that on the other side of it, you are arguing that ignorance is a good thing and leads to better science. That you're even intellectually satisified with not knowing. I hope you can see the contradiction here.

The reason why I personally don’t find the whole god argument all that interesting, and the reason why I don’t actually care about it, is because it makes a heck of a lot of claims regarding the nature of god and it’s properties which just can’t be verified. There is nothing that we can concretely discover about god and no predictions that we can make which could eventually be verified meaningfully. How can we possibly know if creator is timeless, or spaceless, unimaginably powerful, transcendent, unembodied, etc? Is it rational to believe that; do you have an equal ratio of evidence to belief? What predictions can we actually make about this god(s). All we have are books and stories written and passed down throughout history. Everything else is just unjustified belief to me.

As I explained above, we can make several predictions about God based on the evidence. Belief in God is rational and can be justified. However, I understand that until you have a personal experience, it is probably going to be unconvincing to you, since this is way you see the world. You demand evidence, and lucky for you, God provides evidence. If you asked Him to come into your life, He would demonstrate it to you. He provided evidence to me, and I know you He will provide to you, especially if you take a leap of faith ask Him for it.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

I'm pretty sure that move was invented by The Greatest American Hero on a 1983 episode! I can't find the clip. Damn I'm old.

>> ^deathcow:

This is pretty awesome.
I got into Judas Priest when I bought a JVC RC-M90 boombox in 1983 (p.s. I sold it this year for 3x the original cost : ) and the first tape I listened to was from my brother, who gave me "Screaming For Vengeance" on cassette.
I had a 4x4 foot "tapestry" of Screaming For Vengeance on my wall soon after and over the next few years filled out my cassette box with stuff going all the way back to this.
My favorite of all time (back then anyway) was the live version of Green Manalishi from Unleashed in the East. (I learned yesterday it was a cover, and Fleetwood Mac has a funky version of it.)
This old stuff has a character all its own.
I really liked the album "Point of Entry" which nobody else seemed to.
I made a killer Judas Priest logo on my Commodore 64.


Point of Entry is one of my faves. Desert Planes is such a great song. Same with Turning Circles.

This is pretty awesome.

I got into Judas Priest when I bought a JVC RC-M90 boombox in 1983 (p.s. I sold it this year for 3x the original cost : ) and the first tape I listened to was from my brother, who gave me "Screaming For Vengeance" on cassette.

I had a 4x4 foot "tapestry" of Screaming For Vengeance on my wall soon after and over the next few years filled out my cassette box with stuff going all the way back to this.

My favorite of all time (back then anyway) was the live version of Green Manalishi from Unleashed in the East. (I learned yesterday it was a cover, and Fleetwood Mac has a funky version of it.)

This old stuff has a character all its own.

I really liked the album "Point of Entry" which nobody else seemed to.

I made a killer Judas Priest logo on my Commodore 64.