I used to listen to this video/song every day while writing my thesis. It's a relaxing, poetic, emotional and energetic song all at once. The 27 minutes (or so) original might be superior to this performance, but the majesticness of this performance can only be denied by philistines.

*PROMOTE

You're right, I am making an argument about you. This has always been about you. I don't care about the whole god argument, I care about why you believe what you believe and that is what I'm talking about. I could care less about what you believe, the 'why' is far more significant.

It took you an hour to throw all of those quotes together to make a case. Based on that, do you really expect me to believe that you're not just quote mining from some general creationist website somewhere? Do you really expect me to believe that you've actually studied the subjects that you're presenting as evidence for your claims? You are by definition, cherry picking. You are not taking into account the whole of scientific findings, you are ignoring the information which dis-confirms your existing views, and you are unknowingly misrepresenting the facts. If you were well read on any of the subjects of physics or evolutionary biology then you'd completely understand where I'm coming from.

You are trying to make a case for the existence of a god but the only thing that you can say about this god that you believe in is that it basically follows the christian mythos.

"The God I believe in is a personal God who created us for a purpose. His desire is for us to know Him personally and attain to eternal life through His Son Jesus Christ. I believe He is the true God because He transformed my life and being, made me whole by His love, and because I received the direct witness of the Holy Spirit. Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will receive the witness of the Holy Spirit and then Gods existence will become undeniably true. God Himself provides the evidence if you approach Him in faith."

That's you, you said that. Why do you believe those things? Are you willing to attempt to prove yourself wrong? Are you willing to work to subdue cognitive biases in order to be as certain as you can be that you aren't mistaken? How can you say that your god is the correct one and all of the rest are incorrect? How can you justify a jump from the idea that we don't understand entirely how a system works to, there must be agency behind it? That is exactly what you are asking everyone to do. That is a huge leap and it does not directly follow. Extraordinary claims such as a personal god, require extraordinary evidence. You can't simply suggest that because we don't understand something that there must be agency there, that is not how logic works nor science. You can say nothing about the true nature of something if it requires faith in order to have evidence.

The thing is, I am in doubt about you. I am in doubt about your sincerity for meaningful investigations into reality. I am in doubt that you have actually read any scientific material in their entirety. I am in doubt that you value critical thinking. I am in doubt that you understand what a logical fallacy is or how they work. I am in doubt that you are doing anything more than attempting to justify a belief that you already hold by attempting to give legitimacy in the face of dissonance.

This was always about you. Your belief is based on quotes taken out of context and stitched together to weave a picture that conforms to what you already believe in while ignoring all of the information that doesn't agree with you. This is called a confirmation bias. You wont know how unconvincing your statements and claims are until you get past that kind of bias and seek to prove what you believe wrong to see if it actually holds water.

Seek to prove your beliefs wrong before convince yourself that you are correct.

>> ^shinyblurry:

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

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

>> ^RadHazG:

anyone know what that green halo is?


I'm guessing that it is aurora; a less energetic presentation than this: http://videosift.com/video/Aurora-Australis-as-seen-from-the-ISS

Particularly fun when mixed with glycerol isn't it? And as I recall it stains whatever it gets anywhere near.

Edit: Yep, quite energetic.

>> ^bareboards2:

Besides, even if you don't subscribe to the possibility of change on an energetic level, you must know about the power of placebos. Just think of alternative medicine as Structured Placebo. Placebos work. It has been proven.


The measure for medicine that works is that it exhibits a response significantly stronger than the placebo response. Some placebos exhibit stronger responses than others, e.g. using larger sugar pills over smaller ones, using toothpicks instead of acupuncture needles. But the differences are only a few percentage points, not enough to qualify as a working remedy. Alternative remedies are all about how you administer the placebo, not what you're giving them, just making people feel better so that their body has time to heal naturally over time. So long as the body is capable of recovering on its own that is.
If gullible people are willing to pay over the odds for something they could live without, there will be an industry selling placebos. But unregulated, greed tends to prevale and wild claims abound of placebos that cure e.g. cancer, can prove tragically fraudulent.
There is room for the unknown in medicine, undiscovered natural remedies that actually work, but that place is in medical trials. Alternative medicine that refuses to submit to such trials isn't worth the sugar it's coated in.

@enon.

Please read the quote below from ryanbennitt.

As a scientist (I presume you have a scientific frame of reference) you should know that we don't know everything. When I was in elementary school, there were no quarks. Now there are quarks.

You must know that there are things we don't yet have the ability to measure.

Besides, even if you don't subscribe to the possibility of change on an energetic level, you must know about the power of placebos. Just think of alternative medicine as Structured Placebo. Placebos work. It has been proven.

>> ^ryanbennitt:

As has been said on many occasions, alternative medicine that has been proven to work is just called, yep, you guessed it, medicine. The alternative to taking medicine that works is taking something that doesn't work.

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

>> ^probie:
Ever notice that when actors do a character again after a few years away from it, they just don't get it exactly right again? Not in this case. Ricky Gervais nailed Brent.

I respectfully disagree. I can't put my finger on it though - was it that he was just too sparky and energetic, or was it that I'm too used to seeing Gervais being painfully unfunny in everything outside of the office and extras series 1, and that's colouring everything he does now?


Go on. Your first answer was more on the mark then the latter, laced with sarcasm and envy. Put some real thought into this time. You might be able to figure it out then.

>> ^probie:

Ever notice that when actors do a character again after a few years away from it, they just don't get it exactly right again? Not in this case. Ricky Gervais nailed Brent.


I respectfully disagree. I can't put my finger on it though - was it that he was just too sparky and energetic, or was it that I'm too used to seeing Gervais being painfully unfunny in everything outside of the office and extras series 1, and that's colouring everything he does now?

I didn't have enough information when I initially commented on this video (because the video didn't provide it), and I jumped to conclusions - my bad!! In any event, it would definitely have been helpful if the video had indicated if the otter was a sea otter, river otter, or ...

Here's some fun and interesting information about otters from the World Famous San Diego Zoo web site:
Class: Mammalia (Mammals)
Order: Carnivora
Family: Mustelidae
Genera: 6
Species: 13
Length: largest—giant otter Pteronura brasiliensis, up to 7.8 feet (2.4 meters); smallest—Asian small-clawed otter Amblonyx cinereus, up to 3 feet (0.9 meters)
Weight: largest—sea otter Enhydra lutris, males up to 95 pounds (43 kilograms); smallest—Asian small-clawed otter, up to 11 pounds (5 kilograms)
Life span: 15 to 20 years
Gestation: from 2 months for smaller species to 5 months for sea otters
Number of young at birth: 1 to 5, usually 2
Size at birth: 4.5 ounces (128 grams) for smaller species to 5 pounds (2.3 kilograms) for sea otters
Age of maturity: 2 to 5 years
Conservation status: four species, including the sea otter, are endangered; three otter species are vulnerable.
Fun facts
• You can tell otter species apart by the shape and amount of fur on their noses.
• Unlike other marine mammals, sea otters do not have a layer of blubber to keep them warm; they rely on warm air trapped in their fur. Sea otters have the densest fur of any mammal, with about 100,000 hairs in a space about the size of a postage stamp!
• Most otter species capture prey with their mouths, but Asian small-clawed otters and sea otters have flexible fingers and grab with their hands.
• North American and European river otters have been known to share dens with beavers—but the beavers do all the building!

Mammals: Otter
Range: Africa, Asia, and parts of North America, Central America, and South America
Habitat: sea otters are found in the Pacific Ocean and along the coastline, but most otter species live in rivers, lakes, and marshes

Champion swimmers
Otters are the only serious swimmers in the weasel family. They spend most of their lives in the water, and they are made for it! Their sleek, streamlined bodies are perfect for diving and swimming. Otters also have long, slightly flattened tails that move sideways to propel them through the water while their back feet act like rudders to steer.

Almost all otters have webbed feet, some more webbed than others, and they can close off their ears and noses as they swim underwater. They can stay submerged for about five minutes, because their heart rate slows and they use less oxygen. They’re also good at floating on the water’s surface, because air trapped in their fur makes them more buoyant. Have you ever noticed that when an otter comes out of the water, its outer fur sticks together in wet spikes, while the underneath still seems dry? That’s because they have two layers of fur: a dense undercoat that traps air; and a topcoat of long, waterproof guard hairs. Keeping their fur in good condition is important, so otters spend a lot of time grooming. In fact, if their fur becomes matted with something like oil, it can damage their ability to hunt for food and stay warm.

Party animals
Otters are very energetic and playful. You might say they love to party! They are intelligent and curious, and they are usually busy hunting, investigating, or playing with something. They like to throw and bounce things, wrestle, twirl, and chase their tails. They also play games of "tag" and chase each other, both in the water and on the ground. River otters seem to like sliding down mud banks or in the snow—they’ll do it over and over again! Otters also make lots of different sounds, from whistles, growls, and screams to barks, chirps, and coos. All this activity is part of the otters’ courtship, social bonding, and communication, and since otter pups need practice, they tend to be even more playful than the adults.

Life as a pup
Most otters are born in a den, helpless and with their eyes closed. The mother takes care of them, often chasing the father away after their birth, although in some species the dad may come back after a couple of weeks to help raise them. The babies, called pups, open their eyes and start exploring the den at about one month, start swimming at two months, and stay with their mother and siblings until they are about one year old, when they head off on their own.

For sea otters in their ocean habitat it’s a little different—the pups are born with their eyes open, and they have a special coat of hair so they can float, even though they can’t swim yet. They are carried on their mother’s stomach until they are about two months old, when they start swimming and diving on their own.

For most otters, social groups are made up of a mother, her older offspring, and her newest pups; the males spend most of their time alone or with a few other males. During breeding time or where there’s lots of food, though, larger groups of otters may gather, especially among sea otters in kelp beds.

The seafood diet
Otter food may not all come from the ocean, but it is definitely fishy! River otters eat mostly fish, frogs, crayfish, crabs, and mollusks, with an occasional small mammal or bird. Sea otters eat many of the same things, but mostly sea urchins, abalone, crabs, mussels, and clams, which they crack open against rocks they hold on their stomachs. Otters have long, sensitive whiskers that help them find prey, even in murky water. Some species, like the Asian small-clawed otter Amblonyx cinereus, also use their hands to probe into mud or under rocks to find a tasty meal that might be hiding there. River otters use lots of energy and digest their food very fast, so they eat several times a day. Sea otters need to eat 20 to 25 percent of their body weight each day. That’s a lot of abalone!
The otters at the San Diego Zoo are fed carnivore diet, carrots, and either squid or trout. They also get small amounts of "treats" for enrichment, like crayfish, worms, potatoes, or yams.

>> ^Retroboy:

Lewis is super and brilliant. But the problem is he's stutteringly energetically uncomfortable for normal people in this interview. 5:30 for an example.
Someone channel that energy and intelligence, please. This rather long soundbite does not serve, and I've seen him in other venues that showcase his capability, and it's damned good.


Fuck so called normal people.

Lewis is super and brilliant. But the problem is he's stutteringly energetically uncomfortable for normal people in this interview. 5:30 for an example.

Someone channel that energy and intelligence, please. This rather long soundbite does not serve, and I've seen him in other venues that showcase his capability, and it's damned good.

>> ^gwiz665:

Nuclear power is the best fast and effecient substitute for coal and oil. Ideally we'd all just use solar, wind and geothermal, but this is not an ideal world and we need to end our dependence (or lessen it) asap.


Why are those ideal? They are an eye sore and take up vast amounts of space, and at times, in what used to be nice habitats. Daming up rivers and strip clearing land for wind and solar seem to be a step backwards for the goal. In my mind, the ideal is a little power plant that powers the whole world. It seems thermodynamically speaking you have 3 options: To burn stuff that is energetic, to harness small pools of energy over large amounts of space, or to have a high level energy reaction that is potentially volatile. Fusion does seem like the answer once we get it, its volatility is unlike nuclear. The volatility of fusion, from my understanding, is trying to maintain the reaction. Catastrophic failure means a reactor restart, not a meltdown. So you get high energy density, stability (of power output levels), low risk, low pollution. The same is true of fission reactors, except they aren't "as" safe, or "as" clean as some of the alternatives. But the type of clean they ARE (low co2) is exactly what we want.

The title of this video doesn't quite capture the energetic, bendy, craziness of that drummer.

*promote

I respect dag's decision, but I will miss choggie. he was an energetic part of the sift.