probably, or oil slick.

Slick Willy

[["atheists kinda sorta make a claim of some sort. What's your point."]]

To me it's kind of a minor point but for this it comes down to the burden of proof, which is something atheists are trying to avoid at all costs.

[["And if you think that the atheist experience simply trawls the bottom of Christian intellectualism then who would you have them debate, Ray comfort? Matt Slick? Perhaps you?"]]

How about Ravi Zacharias? John Lennox? Matt Dillahunty has actually formally debated a few Christians and he didn't do very well.

[["More than anything, the most disgusting trait of Christianity is that it equates child rapists and children as equally sinful in the eyes of God. There are certainly various arguments saying that different consequences will be felt here on earth, or perhaps that there is an arbitrary age of innocence, etc... But almost universally, Christians agree that the following scenario is at least possible:"]]

What the scripture says is that we've all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Further, it says that the wages of our sin is death. Therefore, it is saying that we all have a sin problem, and that God doesn't show any partiality between sinners. The murderer and the liar are both headed for hell, although there is an indication in the scripture that there are degrees of punishment in hell. I also believe in the age of accountability.

Is it possible that the murderer may go to heaven while the murder victim goes to hell? It certainly is. What you're not realizing is, God loved both equally, and had His hand out to both equally. He doesn't show partiality in punishment, and He doesn't show partiality in salvation. He did everything possible to save the one that perished without violating His free will, and the man turned him down. That isn't because God is wicked, or unjust, but because the one that perished refused to stop doing evil and accept Gods pardon. Would you release a murderer out of death row who refused to stop murdering? Why should God forgo justice with unrepentant sinners?

What you're saying is, the murderer deserved to go to hell and the victim didn't. Yet, what the scripture says is that both equally deserved to go to hell, since they are both sinners. Every single person alive on the planet right now is not receiving the punishment they deserve; every day they are receiving what they don't deserve, which is breath, and life, and a chance to begin forgiven. No one has to go hell; people get there by pushing past the love, grace and mercy of their Creator.

You are an a-godzilla-ist and that is entirely a practical concession to the fact that you can't really afford giant monster insurance considering recent statistics for giant lizard attacks and indeed going through life avoiding Tokyo at all costs is just kinda a bummer - imagine all the fresh sushi you could miss out on.

You can't actually prove that there never was a Godzilla or that there never will be a Godzilla and you can only assume (not demonstrate) that there is not a Godzilla planet orbiting one of the stars a few galaxies down the way.

All you can really say is that Tokyo is still standing and that all the various accounts of Godzilla's antics across the myriad of B-movies and hollywood blockbusters that feature him as a character seem to have no basis in reality for various reasons. You move on with your day, smile a bit and never really bother to duck for cover.

And that's all we're saying about God. To my knowledge, that is the bleeding edge of audacious claims being made by anyone who is even vaguely respected - simply that we can't take religious claims seriously any more, so we are going to move on with our lives, only dealing with religion directly when it decides to be a bit too influential for our tastes.

But fine, based on the secondary predicate principle and a lengthy philosophy 101 essay with no shortage of verbal meandering through Descartes, et al., atheists kinda sorta make a claim of some sort. What's your point.

And if you think that the atheist experience simply trawls the bottom of Christian intellectualism then who would you have them debate, Ray comfort? Matt Slick? Perhaps you?

More than anything, the most disgusting trait of Christianity is that it equates child rapists and children as equally sinful in the eyes of God. There are certainly various arguments saying that different consequences will be felt here on earth, or perhaps that there is an arbitrary age of innocence, etc... But almost universally, Christians agree that the following scenario is at least possible:

Rapist rapes child, we'll start with that.

The child struggles through the resultant torturous anguish across a lifetime, starts a support group, mans a hotline, works in the community to support fellow victims, increases awareness and so on while loving his/her family and friends, making mistakes periodically and occasionally letting loose at a concert or something. The child (now an adult) is unfortunately just a minimally observant Jew and never really gave Jesus any consideration, so when he/she gets hit by a drunk driver at the unfortunate age of 34, he/she is tormented in hell for the rest of eternity.

The rapist, meanwhile, goes on with his (statistically probable) life, perhaps he rapes some more children (also statistically probable) and maybe he then stops at some point, realizing it is wrong and maybe even feels guilty about it. Ridden by guilt, the preaching of a wayward street preacher catch his ears one day. He ventures into church for the first time. He is moved. He proclaims his belief in Jesus and the resurrection. He feels his sins are forgiven and he can feel years of guilt being washed away. Maybe he even admits his history as a rapist to a sympathetic inner circle of confidants, spiritual advisors and friends. He dies of a heart attack, and spends eternity in heaven.

That is disgusting and a god that sets such a system up is disgusting.

Many compassionate people are blinded into thinking this is just and good in an effort to tenaciously preserve their own sense of eternal safety and cosmic worth at all costs. That is less disgusting just because it is an understandable impulse, but it is disgusting nonetheless.

Is that some kind of slick gymnastics move?

I would have stopped as soon as I thought "Hey what if I...".

@00Scud00: Spot on observation and finding the right words, thank you! These were not scary zombie masses, these were particles in a CGI fluid simulation. Way too smooth for humanoid bodies to move and behave. Too slick, too efficient. Too clean. Come on. Clean zombies?

Slick production. Nicely done.

"Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech." Nixon (R - crook) opened China.

Isn't that what liberals want--"dialogue" with our enemies? Nixon also created the EPA. Pobody's nerfect. The 'crook' who had no knowledge of Watergate and never ordered it, but still stepped down, unlike Slick Willie the convicted felon. Nixon is a statesman by comparison to both Bubba AND Obozo.

"Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes." Bush II (R - derp) built the Homeland Security Department which helped the CIA cover up crimes of torture.

You mean the guy with higher test scores than Kerry? By international law tis only a crime to torture recognized enemy soldiers of an actual nation, not IED-laying sh1tbag terrorists. If it saves American lives, I'm for torturing every last one of them.

"Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, 'Suck this or lose your job'" Clarence Thomas (R- Koch Ind.) did.

Hearsay and bullshit, rebuked testimony, no charges filed. Nice try, though! Nothing brings out the racist in a liberal like a Black conservative, who by the way, is an intellectual giant compared to Obozo's recent affirmative action twins. Oh, and Thomas was never accused of rape like bubba.

I know pointing out facts won't deter qm, it's just fun to show him up as an ill informed redneck.

Facts? Where? Oh, was that your version of facts? You've failed in your mission. Utterly. I expected less--much less--from a liberal. And you delivered. Let me know when you want another keyboard beating.










>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech. Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes. Mitt didn't lie under oath, which for you and me would mean serious prison time. Mitt never cheated on his wife. Mitt was never disbarred and disgraced. Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, "Suck this or lose your job", and if Mitt did any of these things, he sure wouldn't have in-the-tank, subservient media shills covering his ass like they did this clown.

"Mitt never let our national security get so lax the red chinese swooped in and stole our missile guidance tech." Nixon (R - crook) opened China.

"Mitt didn't built bureaucratic walls between law enforcement agencies to hide his own crimes." Bush II (R - derp) built the Homeland Security Department which helped the CIA cover up crimes of torture.
"Mitt didn't tell subordinate women, 'Suck this or lose your job'" Clarence Thomas (R- Koch Ind.) did.
I know pointing out facts won't deter qm, it's just fun to show him up as an ill informed redneck.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'tires, deformation, slow motion, sweden' to 'tires, deformation, slow motion, sweden, drag racing, slicks' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^dannym3141:
Please don't be ruined by PG bullshit this time! Last one could have been so much better but for trying to get a good certificate.

Some f-bombs and squibs would have been nice, but their absence was the least of that movie's concerns. It was bad for reasons that ran far deeper than the lack of an R rating.

Respectfully disagree sir, though i accept your opinion. A desire to improve rating doesn't just mean they take away squibs and f-words.

The decision to make the movie PG-13 instead of R was made after production was well underway. There actually is an R rated cut on the DVD. It's the same movie, with CGI blood and more profanity. I don't have time to get into it right now, but that movie sucked because John McClane wasn't the same guy we knew from the first one (and the two sequels, to a lesser extent), the overblown action was generic and unexciting, and because of Len Wiseman's slick, uninspired direction, among other things. Again, the lack of an R rating sucked but it was the least of that movie's concerns.


Hindsight is a wonderful thing though, and it's very easy to watch a "cut" on a dvd (which is probably just money for old rope anyway) and think "hey this stinks too".

I say that the desire to hold back a bit can affect the flow and atmosphere which are quite hard things to quantify. I'll agree to disagree though.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^dannym3141:
Please don't be ruined by PG bullshit this time! Last one could have been so much better but for trying to get a good certificate.

Some f-bombs and squibs would have been nice, but their absence was the least of that movie's concerns. It was bad for reasons that ran far deeper than the lack of an R rating.

Respectfully disagree sir, though i accept your opinion. A desire to improve rating doesn't just mean they take away squibs and f-words.


The decision to make the movie PG-13 instead of R was made after production was well underway. There actually is an R rated cut on the DVD. It's the same movie, with CGI blood and more profanity. I don't have time to get into it right now, but that movie sucked because John McClane wasn't the same guy we knew from the first one (and the two sequels, to a lesser extent), the overblown action was generic and unexciting, and because of Len Wiseman's slick, uninspired direction, among other things. Again, the lack of an R rating sucked but it was the least of that movie's concerns.

It looks very slick, though I hasten to add that I'm not really big on social networking so I don't know how it compares to Google+ or Facebook. Maybe I'm seeing similarities with Windows 8 because that's being featured everywhere lately, good idea to have a UI for MySpace that will be familiar for people who buy Windows 8 desktops and tablets.

He's slick - as always!

4) Should the coating be applied on roads and/or tires, what kind of effect will it have as far as tire-grip on a rainy day? (related: will this increase or decrease hydroplaning?)

Increase aquaplaning dramatically, it'll be worse than driving on ice or water on ice. It's close to oil slick in the rain but as i understand it, it would be even worse than that.

It only repels water, thus the name.. It won't help with oily substances, again i really don't know.

>> ^direpickle:

Pretty slickly performed, but I thought these were all kinda obvious. And I'm generally really easy to fool with sleight of hand tricks.


Really? I have no idea how any of this worked, how many cigarettes he has or how he keeps it/them burning without smoke giving away it's position. Also, why are occasional words in English?

@spawnflagger, that is the coolest thing ever, period. I must get one of those, and I don't smoke.