Shiny,
Yes, intelligent design is a valid theory, but 'Intelligent Design' is not. You know the difference, right?
So far, the only evidence I've ever seen or heard about of 'intelligent design' in biology is in the manipulated biology we humans have designed.
Intelligent design applies to anything WE design, it is not inherent to either chemistry or astrophysics themselves, nor is it a term used in either field.
No, it's not possible to completely DISPROVE the hypothesis, but you must look for it through religion colored glasses to see even the most tenuous evidence of it, without that filter, it's not visible anywhere. It's also not possible for you to prove that golden monkeys don't fly from my anus when you aren't looking, but masquerade perfectly as turds when looked at directly, but you would not believe me if I said that's what happens, even if I had a book that said so, right?
The laws of physics are not "finely tuned" (already implying an 'unseen hand') to allow for life, it's more like life evolved to exist in the conditions present. There's no 'fine tuning' going on, life that couldn't exist in the conditions found doesn't exist, life that could may or may not.

Because you start from a point of "god exists and designed all" and search for things that even loosely fit that hypothesis by looking through religion tinted glasses, you find it. Because I don't have that filter to see the universe through, and do not accept 'unknown mystery' or coincidence as proof of 'god' and/or his hand, they will always be invisible and indeed un-necessary and so not believed in by me, just like my brothers invisible friend.


As I've said many a time, if god exists, he's certainly going to amazingly great lengths to remain unknown, unseen, unfelt, unheard, and un-needed by me and billions of others, and misunderstood by even more.

Because unbelievable hypothesis require indisputable proof, you must know it's impossible for YOU to convince me. Even if 'god' popped into my living room and took me on a sightseeing tour of the universe, I would still say "he" could be an advanced alien, not a deity, and require proof of divinity rather than technology or simple advanced knowledge or ability. If "He" is omnipotent, he knows that, understands that, and only 'he' is capable of proving that, or even knowing how it might be proven....but has failed to do so to date one tiny whit. I'll wait for him to pop in and prove it to me. Until then, thanks kindly for your 'soul saving' effort just the same, but it's never going to succeed. I do appreciate it's done with good intentions...but you do know what they say about good intentions, don't you?

I'm assuming they threw in a few moments where they could place invisible edits for safety, in case they needed to, but tried their best (and succeeded?) to do it in one unbroken take.

(and thanks for the quality!)

Funny, that felt like the most real aspect of the scene to me. I've obviously never been in a fight like this, but I've certainly felt like this during some of my martial arts gradings.

It doesn't take long to get very tired (especially against more than one opponent), but each time someone attacks, you summon up the energy for one more round until you put them down.... repeat (literally) ad nauseam.

That last drop at 2:28 seemed completely unnecessary though (dude's already on the ground, just walk up and kick him!)

As for the scene itself, it's very cool. My only question is that if it really is one take (and I'm not saying it isn't), it seems like an odd choice to have so many points (0:38, 1:38, 2:18) that feel like they're there for the express purpose of an invisible cut.

Net neutrality is not bureacracy?

It is now, at least in the US. The gov't just decided to regulate it, which means we'll soon have a Dept. of the Internet.

I understand that some bureaucracy is inevitable. Again, bureaucracies are made to grow and grow and grow, which is what we now see in the US. It's large centralized power, which was not the intent of the founders.

Also, I don't see much benefit from socialized medicine. It only feeds the debt, which will be unsustainable. This is a concern since Obama has added at least $8 trillion to the debt in his 6 yr reign.

But I know with socialists...debt is just something invisible, or we'll let our great-grandchildren deal with the collapse.

There is ZERO evidence that anything you claim ..exists...there could be other universes,there could also an invisible magic unicorn under my bed,that only I can see...the evidence that either of those things exist..is the same.......ZERO.
Everything else you said about computers makes no sense and doesn't relate to the original subject in any way...

Your video, Puppy Attacks With Invisible Mind Power, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

That's funny, earlier you made that the main point of your argument, now it doesn't matter (maybe because you were dead wrong in your assumption?).
You can say the 'pendulum swings back and forth' all you like, it doesn't make it true. Most religious people never 'swing' away from their religion, and most atheists never adopt religion. You're just plain wrong again on this assumption.
Sweet Zombie Jesus! Atheists have been around longer than theists. It's not a new concept by any means, Christianity is a new concept comparatively. One more terribly backwards assumption.
How can you explain your experience of no real Easter bunny, you can't do it. (EDIT:As I see it, there's more evidence of the Easter Bunny, I've seen thousands of bunnies, and every year those colored eggs appear, that's more factual evidence than I've seen of a god ;-) There's no god, so there's nothing to experience, so nothing to explain. Simple, and done!
Believing in the invisible, capricious, self centered bully in the sky is NOT common sense, it's a complete suspension of common sense.
I see far more religious people complaining constantly over their lot in life, and that society doesn't all follow their beliefs, miserable that they can't 'please god' and blaming all their problems on things beyond their control or understanding. Atheists don't do that, and are statistically happier, better adjusted, more tolerant of others, less criminal people. Which philosophy sounds better?

PS. You owe me an upvote!

I think the author of this video, and presumably the Christians who have spoken to him, have a fundamental misunderstanding about what the bible says about atheists or those who don't believe. I don't know why messenger seems to think this was my argument for theism; I don't recall saying anything like this to anyone on this site, although I could be wrong.

What I believe is that yes, atheists are not able to see or comprehend the things of God because they are spiritually discerned:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

But that isn't the end of the story:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Romans 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

So, the colorblind person is given glimpses of Gods power and deity, through the creation, and other kinds of revelation such as in their conscience, to know that there is a God who created them and that they are accountable to Him. If it were simply that nonbelievers couldn't see God, they would have an excuse. Yet, that isn't what the bible says. In the end it's not that nonbelievers can't see God, it's that at some point in their lives they have seen God and rejected Him.

Most atheists I've spoken to have had supernatural experiences for which they cannot write off with materialistic explanations. Some will even change from atheism to theism in the course of a conversation because they suddenly realize that they had suppressed the truth of their own experience. God can and does give ample evidence of His existence and everyone at some point in their life will see it clearly and have a clear choice to make. It's when you choose to suppress the truth that you become self-deceived. It's not up to me to prove to someone God exists; it is up to me simply to be a faithful witness and pray they would respond to the revelation they already have.

Reminds me of that too, but the religious person is the student that doesn't understand reality.
For it to be the other way around, Dawkins being the student, you must change the analogy to :
'the teacher prayed over his cold hands asking big daddy to warm them, then prayed over his tea asking big daddy to cool it, and because he's in a room warmer than his hands, but colder than his tea, offers the temperature changes as indisputable proof that big daddy listens and follows directions. The student leaves in disgust, as the teacher and big daddy do nothing, yet the teacher claims a 'proven', invisible, all powerful hand of big daddy does his bidding.' Just because you feel like you understand it, doesn't mean you're feeling is valid or true.

The really sad thing is that some can't fathom any meaning in life beyond their own silly beliefs in magic. That's so incredibly sad for them and damaging for us all.

Isildur wears it while escaping his ambush by orcs, and does indeed turn invisible before it slips off his finger. Unfortunately the argument is available that he, like the hobbits, has every reason to value stealth in that moment. It's notable that both he and Frodo are made aware (in Frodo's case by Galadriel) that the ring's real strength is beyond them.

Bombadil wears it briefly as well, of course, and doesn't vanish. But he's a pain in the ass. Others might say it's because he's an ainu, duh. Or shut up, he's a deliberate anomaly. I'd claim, not with a tremendous amount of canonical justification it has to be said, that it's because he's all physical; a personification of middle-earth and even the ring can't shove him into the shadow world.

Regarding the ring and invisibility, do we ever see/read about anyone except Sauron or the hobbits (incl gollum) wearing it?

I could be wrong, but I don't remember any of the humans or elves wearing it. So it's possible it does grant other wearers different abilities.

I like the idea of what you're saying but as far as the ring goes I would look at it this way. Say you build a super weapon, the problem with a super weapon is if anyone else gets their hands on it they could use it on you, so you build it in such a way that it only really works for you. But you make it nice and shiny and encourage would be thieves to use it (sweet! I'm invisible!) so when they do it will quietly call the cops (or Ringrwraiths in this case) when it's logged on to a network like some stolen iphone from hell. Of course you never want them to have any real power, just the promise or illusion of it to keep them on the hook while security tracks down the stolen item, then you can eat them, "raw and wriggling" if that's your preference.

Invisibility isn't a power of the One Ring so much as a side-effect. It shifts mortal wearers a little into the spirit world, so they fade from view in the physical. Sauron doesn't disappear when he wears the ring because he already exists in both worlds and he can see other wearers for the same reason. It's not widely discussed, but this should also be true of other maiar; Gandalf, Saruman and Durin's Bane; and 'high' elves who've been to Valinor: Galadriel and Glorfindel would all also be unaffected by ringvisibility. It's this walking the threshold between worlds that's also responsible for the extended lifespan of mortal ringbearers and why Frodo can see the ringwraiths and they can see him.

The elemental character of the Three, I think, shouldn't be overstated. All of the rings, the One, the Three, the Seven and the Nine are very much alike. They were all made by or under the tutelage of the same creator to the same basic recipe, with independent elven flourishes rather than fundamental differences in the case of the Three. The One has to resonate (musical metaphors are always appropriate for Tolkien's magic) with the others in order to work on them, and that's Sauron's mistake: he is ultimately trapped and destroyed by his ring just as the dwarves and men were by theirs.

The one thing that I don't like about the One Ring explanation:

It turns you invisible, unless you are the one person for whom it was actually designed (Sauron).

To me, it seems like the rings of power and especially the one ring should grant a more consistent actual power than that. The three elven rings made by Celebrimbor outside the influence of the one are much better examples.

Narya is the "ring of fire", and in the timeline of LoTR it is held by Gandalf. Which makes sense, because he does a lot of fire-related stuff with his magic. Nenya is the "ring of water" held by Galadriel, and Vilya the "ring of air" held by Elrond. These are used less consistently in the books (or movies), but one movie example is the flood that helped save Frodo and get him to Rivendell. In the movie, the flood is shown as being made of water with horse shapes surging through it, which suggest the magical influence of both Nenya and Vilya (water and air) working together. Anyway, those 3 rings have a consistent and fairly well established list of powers associated with their "elemental" attachments, fire, water, and air.

But the one ring lacks that consistency. It is supposed to help Sauron with his urge to dominate, but it doesn't really explain how that works. It doesn't make him invisible; only others who wear it. Also, it helps him to control or at least influence the wearers of the other rings. That is probably the best, most established power of the one ring, but it is also a bit shaky because wearers other than Sauron don't get those abilities. It seems to make other wearers just more susceptible to corruption, greed, and lust for power.

To me, I think it would be more interesting if the one ring actually granted a more specific power, unique to the psychological state of the wearer. The consistently presented thing about the one ring is that it corrupts, and nothing corrupts more than power. So basically, I think that the one ring should be analyzing whoever wears it, and granting them a unique power that is specifically designed to provide them with their greatest source of temptation to abuse that power.

The invisibility power actually makes a lot of sense for hobbits. As presented in the video here, they generally aren't very ambitious. BUT, hobbits are established as being stealthy beings by default, so granting them invisibility is a good source of temptation to turn that stealthiness into more nefarious purpose. So, I don't mind that the three main hobbit (or hobbit-like) wearers (Gollum/Smeagol, Bilbo, Frodo) all consistently get the invisibility power out of the ring.

Human wearers like Isildur would have less consistent powers granted by the rings, because they have more diverse motivations than hobbits. Just as an example, I'd think that Isildur would be motivated by martial prowess and leadership after watching his father killed by Sauron and the human/elven armies decimated at the end of the second age. So, the ring could perceive that about him and grant him physical power and charisma to lead -- both of which would be very easily turned to corruption. Invisibility just doesn't logically provide the same level of temptation for someone like Isildur.

Finally we come to Sauron himself. He is already an exception to the "ring grants invisibility" concept. But for him, the ring should (and arguably does) represent power and control. Sauron had to put on a false face and play the role of deceiver to get Celebrimbor and the other elves to accept him and create the other rings. Having to stoop to that rather than simply crushing them made him despise that sort of approach; after creating the one ring he cast that aside and became all about sheer power and domination, rather than trickery and deception. So, I see the ring's powers granted to Sauron himself as being sort of a conversion of those cunning/deceptive abilities into might, self preservation, and overwhelming mental dominance that allows him to control his orc armies.


Sorry for the length of that -- I have just always felt that the established powers of the one ring would be a bit more interesting if they led to corruption through real power granted to the wearers, rather than "it makes them invisible, but not Sauron, and in general corrupts them, just because".